Suck it! . . . . Seriously. do any of these people see any other future where this "enabling" software isn't hated and despised to the point where we chear that it's been broken and can use our paid for media how we wish?
Simple answer to a very ignorant question: Because that's her choice.
Long answer:
If she doesn't want a straight man to live with her that's her specific preference and her right to control her environment.
If someone is a homophobic do they have to accept a homosexual roommate?
Your statement "So why would a straight male "certainly" not be an option?" completely ignores that some people don't like straight males and have every right not to want to live with them.
You even state "Or heaven forbid that time I had a gay roommate." as evidence that you are mocking peoples right to choose. Just because you were fine with this situation doesn't mean that everybody would be. And because you state it as a joke where your point is to make a statement about how things should be means that you understand that they aren't that way now, otherwise the example would be meaningless.
Then there's "But let's not go pretending your discrimination is somehow acceptable because you're doing it for some moral cause of "compatibility"."
What extent do you carry the "discrimination is unacceptable" mentality? What's your favorite flavor of icecream? Is there a flavor that you wouldn't order? What's your favorite color? Is there a color that you wouldn't paint your bedroom? Discrimination is a preference and bias tword ones likes and away from ones dislikes. You do it every day.
Only when it hurts others more than it would hurt yourself to acquiesce, is there anything wrong with it.
Her preference to live with a gay man is a basic right in her "pursuit of happiness" just like yours.
It goes all the way through our lives. Would you choose to live with a member of another religion, an advocate of pro life/choice, a member of an alternate political party, a fan of a rival sports team? When does it become your decision based off your preferences to live with them or not? Why would you force someone to accept these things if they can find a more compatable person that they can really get along with? If these decisions were made in an interview for a roommate, why can't they be part of the screening process for such a personal decision?
The easiest way out of all of this would have been to not let landloards access to the site. They should not have been trying to fill empty rooms in their commercial appartments with this resource in the first place. It's for the renters themselves. The personal homeowners renting out rooms in their homes would have been making these same decisions anyway the first time they saw a prospective renter anyway and the tension from having to rent to someone not compatable would have resulted in a worse situation that if they were allowed to say no. Since they're not a commercial entitity I think that their personal views are valid. It's their home.
Once you start a business you have certain laws to abide by to provide a service to the community. Health laws for restaurants, safety laws for shopping malls, emergency lighting in theaters... all these laws for equal housing are there for a reason so that people not in the majority are able to get the same opportunities as others, not force others to live with them and make them suffer. The law isn't for just making one person suffer instead of the other, it's for making things better for all of us.
So unless you have no opinion, you discriminate all the time, which is your right, but don't hide it behind some moral superiority BS, attacking others for stating their preference out loud and admitting it openly, only a coward hides his attacks by pretending they aren't the evidence of his own fears.
What do you think we're doing if not enjoying content in ways we haven't before?
That's the whole part of DRM that is the problem: it limits what we can do with the content. It doesn't enable anything since the only effect it has on consumers it telling them what they can't do. No where have I ever heard someone say: "Oh cool, the DRM made it easier for me to watch something!"
The whole restriction based technology is at odds with the fundamental power of the internet since the smart people online outnumber the paid people at the RIAA and MPAA by a pretty large factor. And as soon as you try and restrict something that people want, you are doing the exact opposite of what consumer demand and basic economics are trying to do. Give the people something that they want and you will sell your product, give them something that they can't use how they want and they will hate you and get it somewhere else and you won't see a dime!
Knock this DRM crap off before you regret it! Changing the name does nothing but let us know how dumb you think we are. We know what results DRM has had on our lives and we have associated that acronym to difficult pain in the ass BS that keeps things we paid for from being enjoyed.
The DMCA takedown notice couldn't have been filed in good faith without the admission of creating a fake ID to which the individual is claiming the rights due her by creation of this document. Also attempting to use a fake document to gain entrance to the establishment would be a crime in itself. Seperate from making the ID. To issue a DMCA takedown requires at least the admission of attempting to use a forged document and even if someone else created it, she would have to name that person or accept the responsibility of creating it herself. Which would be admission to committing a second crime.
If the ID was real and illegally confiscated, the notice would have been delivered by law enforcement officials and would not have been a DMCA takedown notice, it would have been a search warrant based on the account given by the victim and the supporting admission on the theifs website. Stealing someones ID is a crime and someone on the right side of the law can use the police to get justice especially if the theif freely admits it in their blog.
I'm not sure it works that way. Just because something is not a private organization, doesn't mean that it has no rights to restrict its brand or logo. Public property is sticky that way. Like the ways public land is used is restricted by the operators and can have restrictions like "no motorbikes" and "no 2 stroke engines in watercraft" The use of the public property is limited.
In this case I think you're right about the way he used it but I don't think it's a blanket law that allows the use of govt resources or brands or logos as public property in the way you may have meant (as in completely free use). It's more likely the same rights anyone has to use a corporate name, brand, or logo. They can't restrict discussion or reference.
You can say any comparison you want in your marketing materials, just so long as you have the fine print at the bottom saying that their logis if used are the property of their respective owners.
Now talking about the repository of information for the United States is forbidden?!?!!
Re:09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
on
Censoring a Number
·
· Score: 1
Holy shit!!
Someone mod that up. I had two co-workers come in wanting to know what was so funny I was laughing so hard! they read it and one had to run to the bathroom, she was laughing so hard!
So what part of this argument doesn't negate all of the patants that Microsoft has on their software? If you can't be sued because your software isn't a component that was included in a computer, and claim that because the software was copied onto the system and therefore was not included with it, it doesn't constitute a component of the patentable item.
Where does software stand then with so many battles over 1-click, table/database, tab and software download patents? All still not defining software as a patentable area so that this case was decided as such?
Copyright and patent laws need so much reform it's just getting rediculous! People should look back on this age as we do to when they thought the earth was flat. "Those bumbasses just needed to look around and get a clue"
Totally agree. Regardless of what his intentions were, he did make the entire network less safe against the specific will of the administrators. By bypassing the security check he opened up a door that they were trying to keep closed. He states no gain from bypassing these checks that would offset the risk created by using his code. So there was no benifit other than making the network less secure.
Now imagine that a virus got in through this hole and deleted all their e-mails on campus. What would the opinion be then? Even if he had contacted Cisco I think that they would have told him in the second line to not run the code because it would cause a vulnerability. IE:
Thanks for contacting Cisco. Do not run that code on any network that you do not own.
Proof of concept is a totally different thing than what happened here. He is trying to cover his ass.
"So all the great new about the Clinton economy was crap eh? They were using the same numbers and dolts like you thought it ws the best thing since free hookers"
made without knowledge or understanding only lead to the political wheel spinning that is causing these problems to get worse. We have been heading down this dark road for a very long time and until people can rise above comments like yours, we will continue to blindly dig our own graves.
Save your suggestions for people who are not trying to fix the problems of this age, people who consume without a second thought of the consequences to their future. People who try and make this a two party issue instead of a human one.
You may live in a socal circle that continues to play Pollitical Idol and seeks ways to only look better or sound better to the public, but that is a far cry from actually fixing something and making this a better country.
Gas prices are around $3.20/Gal here and have been going up. It is getting to the point that it is no longer news worthy to report on the astronomic gas prices because they are becomming a standard. With the major gas companies all reporting record profits and bonuses for the upper management, there is a disconnect between the welfare of the people and the inherrant corporate goals of making a profit for such a vital infrastructure as gasoline. I hope I'm not alone in thinking that some services should be regulated by the government. If only to limit the maximum percentage of personal profit from sales of a vital infrastructure.
If we don't need to push alternative fuel souorces right now with aggressive legislation, then we should have the resources to keep our country running without sending additional billions overseas for oil. Paying the areas of the world that supposedly harbor terrorists. They have an economy just like ours, if there is an influx of money in a region then they prosper. "Trickle down" to the enemy is a bad way to support our troops. This government has reversed and hobbled legislation that could have kept us in the front running technology to become independant. No specific technology will help us now. It must be a multifacited environmental/political/economic push to be better at providing and distributing what we consume. Trash, electricity, and commuting fuel all need to be addressed a whole lot better than they are now. The political grandstanding and photo ops don't cut it. Real action and real commitment from the people in charge (automakers and elected officials) will keep this country a world power, or let it fall into mockery on the world stage, their actions will lead us, and we are responsible for our complicity.
Since the dinosaurs were wiped out around the end of the Cretaceous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous period and that was about the right time (65M Years ago)
The observation was about governments that also have the resources to implement this sort of thing.
There will always be cults and small time dictators, but they usually have a detrimental effect on their people so that the technological achievements that would allow them to do such a massive surveillance initiative would be either out of their reach or not accepted by their people.
This seems to be OK with the people. That just surprises me since it doesn't really add that much to the safety and has the very likely possibility of being abused.
I'll use my other comment example:
Like a highway patrol car going down the road. Through a ghetto, do you think that the people committing crimes see it and continue, or stop and wait till it's past? When you're driving and see one stopped on the side of the road, do you slow down until it's out of sight and speed back up? I think most measures like this offer a slight prevention by threat of being caught.
And how does this stop any of the crime that happens under a roof or overhang. Do these people think that the criminals will just hang around while the things take pictures of them? Isn't most crime committed in a place where the criminal has some sort of cover/disguise/privacy from view?
I know that I haven't seen mention of that many crimes where the person didn't avoid some obvious camera or wittiness. Unless the criminals are really really dumb, this thing is just another officer with a camera patrolling along and I think the exact same reaction will take place as does now when a highway patrol vehicle is seen by the drivers on the road.
You forget that Alexa is malware and installed without most peoples permission. So a random number of average computer users browsing for porn, downloading screensavers, and playing online texas holdem games will get the "tool" and contribute to the data pool.
People don't realize that they are losing something until they try and do it and can't.
To say that you haven't been effected yet is the most ignorant defense of the stripping of rights but sadly the most common. Imagine that a law was passed that stated you couldn't leave the country. Since you don't anyway, you say "so what" and go on. Then a law that says you can't practice a satanic religion, you say the same "so what, I don't do that anyway". And then a law comes along that does effect you. And you try and voice your opinion and find that your right to do that was taken away quite a bit ago.
This is the path that leads to that extreme. Where you only concern youorself with the rights that effect you. America was founded by people that had a little more empathy and consideration because they had been the minority in their beliefs and had to fight for the independance to live their lives the way they wanted to. Without the rights that are being taken away right now, you wouldn't be able to voice an opinion contrary to the government without fearing reprisal.
It's not the issue that your opinion happens to be with the majority on this topic, the issue is when it doesn't. You have rights, you don't have to use them, but you should retain them for your future, your children, and the once great legacy of America. Land of the free.
You're talking about two different types of measurements for solar cells.
The statement "60x the current" has almost no relation to the maximum theoretical conversion of sunlight efficiency. It completely leaves out the voltage problems inherrant in these 3d designs. The total output measured in watts or VA would be somehwat more comparable to your "20 percent efficient".
Imagine the checks they will have to pay out now that people can set up their roof as a money farm for 1/10 the cost!
That was the big problem with getting people to install solar. The initial cost was too much. We'll still have to pay for the breaker box upgrade so we can feed power back to the electric company, but at least it won't take 20 years to pay off the solar collectors now.
Quote: I think in the long run people would develop proper protocol and act appropriately...
Seriously?
Do you even read the slashdot comments? Or just try to drive to the store and have people cut you off, walk out in front of you, or park their cars on the painted lines at an angle?
There is a small percentage of people on Earth that can actually understand their effect on others AND have consideration enough to act appropriately.
I think that the majority of the people out there care just enough about others to not piss people off so much that they'll get beaten, but not by much. And these same people are so oblivious of their surroundings that they don't notice that the people that they honk at and yell at are doing the exact same things that they just did.
That's why we have to have laws that wouldn't be there if people would just take it upon themselves to act appropriately.
The most human AI would see patterns and adapt. The learning also plays a role, since just randomly playing out pre-programmed moves till one works leads to repetitive gameplay. The AI must have a very low level of options to piece together so it can make larger combinations that turn into tactics. The smaller each action is and the more actions it has to work with will let it find the best action. But that still doesn't mean that it has learned anything if it starts over with each situation. It has to have some sort of loose pattern recognition to see similar situations and apply the most likely solution.
Add all these things to an ability to totally screw up and you'd have a good AI.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Just had to say, Nice reference. If I could mod you over 5 I would.
Suck it!
.
.
.
.
Seriously. do any of these people see any other future where this "enabling" software isn't hated and despised to the point where we chear that it's been broken and can use our paid for media how we wish?
Simple answer to a very ignorant question: Because that's her choice.
Long answer:
If she doesn't want a straight man to live with her that's her specific preference and her right to control her environment.
If someone is a homophobic do they have to accept a homosexual roommate?
Your statement "So why would a straight male "certainly" not be an option?" completely ignores that some people don't like straight males and have every right not to want to live with them.
You even state "Or heaven forbid that time I had a gay roommate." as evidence that you are mocking peoples right to choose. Just because you were fine with this situation doesn't mean that everybody would be. And because you state it as a joke where your point is to make a statement about how things should be means that you understand that they aren't that way now, otherwise the example would be meaningless.
Then there's "But let's not go pretending your discrimination is somehow acceptable because you're doing it for some moral cause of "compatibility"."
What extent do you carry the "discrimination is unacceptable" mentality?
What's your favorite flavor of icecream? Is there a flavor that you wouldn't order?
What's your favorite color? Is there a color that you wouldn't paint your bedroom?
Discrimination is a preference and bias tword ones likes and away from ones dislikes. You do it every day.
Only when it hurts others more than it would hurt yourself to acquiesce, is there anything wrong with it.
Her preference to live with a gay man is a basic right in her "pursuit of happiness" just like yours.
It goes all the way through our lives. Would you choose to live with a member of another religion, an advocate of pro life/choice, a member of an alternate political party, a fan of a rival sports team? When does it become your decision based off your preferences to live with them or not? Why would you force someone to accept these things if they can find a more compatable person that they can really get along with? If these decisions were made in an interview for a roommate, why can't they be part of the screening process for such a personal decision?
The easiest way out of all of this would have been to not let landloards access to the site. They should not have been trying to fill empty rooms in their commercial appartments with this resource in the first place. It's for the renters themselves. The personal homeowners renting out rooms in their homes would have been making these same decisions anyway the first time they saw a prospective renter anyway and the tension from having to rent to someone not compatable would have resulted in a worse situation that if they were allowed to say no. Since they're not a commercial entitity I think that their personal views are valid. It's their home.
Once you start a business you have certain laws to abide by to provide a service to the community. Health laws for restaurants, safety laws for shopping malls, emergency lighting in theaters... all these laws for equal housing are there for a reason so that people not in the majority are able to get the same opportunities as others, not force others to live with them and make them suffer. The law isn't for just making one person suffer instead of the other, it's for making things better for all of us.
So unless you have no opinion, you discriminate all the time, which is your right, but don't hide it behind some moral superiority BS, attacking others for stating their preference out loud and admitting it openly, only a coward hides his attacks by pretending they aren't the evidence of his own fears.
So here we go:
Someone hacks a tivo to get the content... Tivo gets mad and sues...
Tivo loses because the person says they couldn't have broken the tivo code because the code is unbreakable, if they did, then Tivo loses the patent.
What do you think we're doing if not enjoying content in ways we haven't before?
That's the whole part of DRM that is the problem: it limits what we can do with the content.
It doesn't enable anything since the only effect it has on consumers it telling them what they can't do.
No where have I ever heard someone say: "Oh cool, the DRM made it easier for me to watch something!"
The whole restriction based technology is at odds with the fundamental power of the internet since the smart people online outnumber the paid people at the RIAA and MPAA by a pretty large factor. And as soon as you try and restrict something that people want, you are doing the exact opposite of what consumer demand and basic economics are trying to do. Give the people something that they want and you will sell your product, give them something that they can't use how they want and they will hate you and get it somewhere else and you won't see a dime!
Knock this DRM crap off before you regret it!
Changing the name does nothing but let us know how dumb you think we are. We know what results DRM has had on our lives and we have associated that acronym to difficult pain in the ass BS that keeps things we paid for from being enjoyed.
Two points.
The DMCA takedown notice couldn't have been filed in good faith without the admission of creating a fake ID to which the individual is claiming the rights due her by creation of this document. Also attempting to use a fake document to gain entrance to the establishment would be a crime in itself. Seperate from making the ID. To issue a DMCA takedown requires at least the admission of attempting to use a forged document and even if someone else created it, she would have to name that person or accept the responsibility of creating it herself. Which would be admission to committing a second crime.
If the ID was real and illegally confiscated, the notice would have been delivered by law enforcement officials and would not have been a DMCA takedown notice, it would have been a search warrant based on the account given by the victim and the supporting admission on the theifs website. Stealing someones ID is a crime and someone on the right side of the law can use the police to get justice especially if the theif freely admits it in their blog.
I'm not sure it works that way. Just because something is not a private organization, doesn't mean that it has no rights to restrict its brand or logo. Public property is sticky that way. Like the ways public land is used is restricted by the operators and can have restrictions like "no motorbikes" and "no 2 stroke engines in watercraft" The use of the public property is limited.
In this case I think you're right about the way he used it but I don't think it's a blanket law that allows the use of govt resources or brands or logos as public property in the way you may have meant (as in completely free use). It's more likely the same rights anyone has to use a corporate name, brand, or logo. They can't restrict discussion or reference.
You can say any comparison you want in your marketing materials, just so long as you have the fine print at the bottom saying that their logis if used are the property of their respective owners.
Especially the library of congress!!
Now talking about the repository of information for the United States is forbidden?!?!!
Holy shit!!
Someone mod that up. I had two co-workers come in wanting to know what was so funny I was laughing so hard! they read it and one had to run to the bathroom, she was laughing so hard!
Mod it UP!!
So what part of this argument doesn't negate all of the patants that Microsoft has on their software? If you can't be sued because your software isn't a component that was included in a computer, and claim that because the software was copied onto the system and therefore was not included with it, it doesn't constitute a component of the patentable item.
Where does software stand then with so many battles over 1-click, table/database, tab and software download patents? All still not defining software as a patentable area so that this case was decided as such?
Copyright and patent laws need so much reform it's just getting rediculous!
People should look back on this age as we do to when they thought the earth was flat.
"Those bumbasses just needed to look around and get a clue"
Totally agree. Regardless of what his intentions were, he did make the entire network less safe against the specific will of the administrators. By bypassing the security check he opened up a door that they were trying to keep closed. He states no gain from bypassing these checks that would offset the risk created by using his code. So there was no benifit other than making the network less secure.
Now imagine that a virus got in through this hole and deleted all their e-mails on campus. What would the opinion be then? Even if he had contacted Cisco I think that they would have told him in the second line to not run the code because it would cause a vulnerability. IE:
Thanks for contacting Cisco. Do not run that code on any network that you do not own.
Proof of concept is a totally different thing than what happened here. He is trying to cover his ass.
Ignorant comments like these...
"So all the great new about the Clinton economy was crap eh?
They were using the same numbers and dolts like you thought it ws the best thing since free hookers"
made without knowledge or understanding only lead to the political wheel spinning that is causing these problems to get worse.
We have been heading down this dark road for a very long time and until people can rise above comments like yours, we will continue to blindly dig our own graves.
Save your suggestions for people who are not trying to fix the problems of this age, people who consume without a second thought of the consequences to their future. People who try and make this a two party issue instead of a human one.
You may live in a socal circle that continues to play Pollitical Idol and seeks ways to only look better or sound better to the public, but that is a far cry from actually fixing something and making this a better country.
The unemployment rate itself means nothing if the income is not stated for the employment.- 02-23-fed-incomes_x.htm
n g-and-investing-what-is-a-stock-market-index/
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2006
The statements about the stock market are meaningless without knowing where the indexes come from, how they are derived, and most importantly: using multiple specific indexes centered around economic health stock indicators.
http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2007/04/13/savi
Gas prices are around $3.20/Gal here and have been going up. It is getting to the point that it is no longer news worthy to report on the astronomic gas prices because they are becomming a standard. With the major gas companies all reporting record profits and bonuses for the upper management, there is a disconnect between the welfare of the people and the inherrant corporate goals of making a profit for such a vital infrastructure as gasoline. I hope I'm not alone in thinking that some services should be regulated by the government. If only to limit the maximum percentage of personal profit from sales of a vital infrastructure.
If we don't need to push alternative fuel souorces right now with aggressive legislation, then we should have the resources to keep our country running without sending additional billions overseas for oil. Paying the areas of the world that supposedly harbor terrorists. They have an economy just like ours, if there is an influx of money in a region then they prosper. "Trickle down" to the enemy is a bad way to support our troops. This government has reversed and hobbled legislation that could have kept us in the front running technology to become independant. No specific technology will help us now. It must be a multifacited environmental/political/economic push to be better at providing and distributing what we consume. Trash, electricity, and commuting fuel all need to be addressed a whole lot better than they are now. The political grandstanding and photo ops don't cut it. Real action and real commitment from the people in charge (automakers and elected officials) will keep this country a world power, or let it fall into mockery on the world stage, their actions will lead us, and we are responsible for our complicity.
Since the dinosaurs were wiped out around the end of the Cretaceous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous period and that was about the right time (65M Years ago)
How far into the cycle are we now?
The observation was about governments that also have the resources to implement this sort of thing.
There will always be cults and small time dictators, but they usually have a detrimental effect on their people so that the technological achievements that would allow them to do such a massive surveillance initiative would be either out of their reach or not accepted by their people.
This seems to be OK with the people. That just surprises me since it doesn't really add that much to the safety and has the very likely possibility of being abused.
I'll use my other comment example:
Like a highway patrol car going down the road.
Through a ghetto, do you think that the people committing crimes see it and continue, or stop and wait till it's past?
When you're driving and see one stopped on the side of the road, do you slow down until it's out of sight and speed back up? I think most measures like this offer a slight prevention by threat of being caught.
And how does this stop any of the crime that happens under a roof or overhang. Do these people think that the criminals will just hang around while the things take pictures of them? Isn't most crime committed in a place where the criminal has some sort of cover/disguise/privacy from view?
I know that I haven't seen mention of that many crimes where the person didn't avoid some obvious camera or wittiness.
Unless the criminals are really really dumb, this thing is just another officer with a camera patrolling along and I think the exact same reaction will take place as does now when a highway patrol vehicle is seen by the drivers on the road.
They'll act good until it passes.
And I thought that I was in a rational century without totalitarian governments that have the capabilities to do things like this.
Isn't this out of some SCI-Fi movie?
You forget that Alexa is malware and installed without most peoples permission. So a random number of average computer users browsing for porn, downloading screensavers, and playing online texas holdem games will get the "tool" and contribute to the data pool.
This is specifically the point.
People don't realize that they are losing something until they try and do it and can't.
To say that you haven't been effected yet is the most ignorant defense of the stripping of rights but sadly the most common. Imagine that a law was passed that stated you couldn't leave the country. Since you don't anyway, you say "so what" and go on. Then a law that says you can't practice a satanic religion, you say the same "so what, I don't do that anyway". And then a law comes along that does effect you. And you try and voice your opinion and find that your right to do that was taken away quite a bit ago.
This is the path that leads to that extreme. Where you only concern youorself with the rights that effect you. America was founded by people that had a little more empathy and consideration because they had been the minority in their beliefs and had to fight for the independance to live their lives the way they wanted to. Without the rights that are being taken away right now, you wouldn't be able to voice an opinion contrary to the government without fearing reprisal.
It's not the issue that your opinion happens to be with the majority on this topic, the issue is when it doesn't. You have rights, you don't have to use them, but you should retain them for your future, your children, and the once great legacy of America. Land of the free.
You're talking about two different types of measurements for solar cells.
The statement "60x the current" has almost no relation to the maximum theoretical conversion of sunlight efficiency. It completely leaves out the voltage problems inherrant in these 3d designs. The total output measured in watts or VA would be somehwat more comparable to your "20 percent efficient".
Learn some math before you post.
Hell yeah!
Imagine the checks they will have to pay out now that people can set up their roof as a money farm for 1/10 the cost!
That was the big problem with getting people to install solar. The initial cost was too much. We'll still have to pay for the breaker box upgrade so we can feed power back to the electric company, but at least it won't take 20 years to pay off the solar collectors now.
Quote: I think in the long run people would develop proper protocol and act appropriately...
Seriously?
Do you even read the slashdot comments? Or just try to drive to the store and have people cut you off, walk out in front of you, or park their cars on the painted lines at an angle?
There is a small percentage of people on Earth that can actually understand their effect on others AND have consideration enough to act appropriately.
I think that the majority of the people out there care just enough about others to not piss people off so much that they'll get beaten, but not by much. And these same people are so oblivious of their surroundings that they don't notice that the people that they honk at and yell at are doing the exact same things that they just did.
That's why we have to have laws that wouldn't be there if people would just take it upon themselves to act appropriately.
Exactly.
:)
The most human AI would see patterns and adapt. The learning also plays a role, since just randomly playing out pre-programmed moves till one works leads to repetitive gameplay. The AI must have a very low level of options to piece together so it can make larger combinations that turn into tactics. The smaller each action is and the more actions it has to work with will let it find the best action. But that still doesn't mean that it has learned anything if it starts over with each situation. It has to have some sort of loose pattern recognition to see similar situations and apply the most likely solution.
Add all these things to an ability to totally screw up and you'd have a good AI.