If it's fat (not the flavor) that makes prime beef sought after, then McDonalds hamburger beef ought to be considered prime.
And you've sidestepped your own original point ("Exercise adds flavour to the meat"). Exercise reduces marbling. Kobe beef comes from Wagyu cattle which don't exercise at all, to the point that workers have to massage them to keep them from getting sick.
Exercise adds flavour to the meat at the expense of tenderness.
It would have a stronger flavor, yeah, but I'm not so sure it would be better. Usually it's the subtle flavor that makes prime beef sought after.
You can go all the way and put cows on strenuous daily exercise, and you'd get meat that tastes like liver all around. (Which is great if you LIKE liver... but ah well...)
So even if you were even close to right, those would not be tasty burgers.
I didn't say it would be tasty.:) I'm just saying that if all cows exercised, we'd be left with meat so tough that they need to be ground if we were to consume it.
I don't think all fat would be removed with exercise anyway, so we would still be able to get the McDonalds formula burger. But we won't anymore get to eat steaks that are cooked rare or medium rare (my personal favorite).:(
Really? Because a lot of hamburger meat is ground chuck.
Which is still tougher than rib and loin meat. That's STILL why it's ground for hamburgers.
But the biggest problem with your statement is that the treadmill is supposed to help this farmer power his milking machines...
Actually my own statement was that IF cows exercised to produce power and get cows lean, THEN all we get is meat suitable for hamburgers (and not much more) because the rest of the cow will be tougher and the meat will inevitably need to be ground. That was in response to the GG parent post's idea to exercise cows intentionally to get lean meat, which I disagree with. There are ways to get the cow leaner (making the meat healthier) without exercising its muscles (making the meat tougher).
I don't see how that conflicts with your statement "the treadmill is supposed to help this farmer power his milking machines, and exercising his dairy cows". That seems to be a different thought altogether from what I was discussing. Care to clarify how it opposes my statement?
Who really cares about energy when we are dieing from a bad hamburger...
Hamburger meat is most often made from ground beef. The beef is ground because it's tough. The beef is tough precisely because of exercise.
Prime cuts actually come from the type of cows that are restricted from moving so much in the farm. Not sure if they're healthier, as they do have more marbling (fat), but I'm just saying that hamburgers WILL be the only type of beef available if all cows exercised.:P
The way the author wrote the article, it seems like nothing different from an expert system straight from the 70's, e.g. MYCIN. That one also uses probabilities and rules; the only difference is that it diagnoses illnesses, but that can be extended to almost anything.
Probably the only contribution is a new language. Which, I'm guessing, probably doesn't deviate much from, say, CLIPS (and at least THAT language is searchable in Google... I can't seem to find the correct search terms for Noah Goodman's language without getting photos of cathedrals, so I can't even say if I'm correct)
AI at this point has diverged so much from just probabilities and rules that it's not practical to "unify" it as the author claims. Just look up AAAI and its many conferences and subconferences. I just submitted a paper to an AI workshop... in a conference... in a GROUP of co-located conferences... that is recognized by AAAI as one specialization among many. That's FOUR branches removed.
You have to make the distinction between people who distribute CRACKS and people who distribute the SOFTWARE itself (presumably along with the crack). The latter people are usually the sociopathic, immoral, uncaring bastards. That, and they are usually pretty DUMB (they sometimes end up accidentally distributing software with malware on it). So dumb that I highly doubt these people would have skills to crack the software themselves.
The crackers, on the other hand, are usually pretty brilliant people (they reverse-engineer binary software after all) who just didn't have money and didn't (or refused) to make the connection between "illegal" and "immoral".
Many of these guys even claim in their release notes, "If you like this game, buy it!", which points to the likely possibility that they just cracked these things to get their fair-use rights back.
Then you are forgetting that you must PROVE that it is a criminal matter.
In this case it is not. There is no commercial gain whatsoever (provable -- the licensing she used is pretty clear on that) and the copyright "owners" do not have a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution of their work. Ergo under US law this is clearly a civil case.
Yes, authors don't have to claim copyright in order to have it. But for all practical purposes, no person CAN claim copyright on these works. Even taking into account the anonymous works provisions of copyright, it is the burden of the supposed authors to claim that the work is theirs. (And as it stands, it's an uphill battle to prove it.)
And until then, the researchers are NOT in violation until the (proven) rightful owners claim that they are. Presumed innocence.:)
This may be the BEST counterargument ever to "all information should be free". Bravo!
However, while I genuinely want to mod you up, I do believe that CURRENT laws to control information are stupid. Similar to how laws can sometimes be unfairly and maliciously used to allow known murderers to remain innocent and walk freely, many patents and copyrights are unfairly and maliciously used to prevent people from contributing to the greater good of humanity. Patents in particular are a minefield -- something's clearly wrong with a system that encourages trolls to cripple the true innovators.
Back to the topic, I believe what the researcher did, copyrighting her photographs, is all right, regardless of whether she released it under Creative Commons. I don't believe she was copyrighting the actual message on the graffiti anyway, just the expression of it on photograph. (Of course properly the copyright should be attributed to both HER and whoever made the graffiti, but then I would suppose THAT's public domain since the original author didn't stake a claim to it...)
Given: A: Nokia's patents are enforceable. B: Every other manufacturer has been licensing Nokia's patents.
Grandparent post says A implies B.
Parent post says GP post is wrong, because B does not imply A.
So? Grandparent never claimed that B implies A; only that A implies B. Parent doesn't exactly get to say "Try using logic next time" without shooting himself in the mouth.
That is like a calling a Windows tool to install a Linux iso to a usb driver a "Linux tool."
I'd still call that a Linux tool -- the end purpose is for getting Linux to install. What are tools for if not for their intended purpose? A screw driver is FOR installing/removing screws, isn't it?
Besides, the point is that it's STILL correct usage among other correct usages; arguing that it's incorrect (and therefore misleading) is pointless.
"Windows 7 Tool" implies that it's included in Windows 7 or used by Windows 7
I don't see how there's any implication of that sort. By that logic, describing something as a "DVD drive" implies that the drive is "included in a DVD" or "used by a DVD". The former is just absurd, the latter is an incomplete implication because the drive can also be used by CDs.
It's a tool to download Windows 7 into a USB drive, hence it's a tool FOR Windows 7. Shortening it to "Windows 7 Tool" is just common English usage -- that's just like saying a drive for reading CD-ROMs is a CD-ROM drive. Get over it.
Writing code to use 'near' and 'far' pointers was a constant headache, of the same magnitude of C++'s requirement that you be constantly aware of character width when manipulating strings.
How quickly we forget!
It was C that had that problem, not C++. At least not in the language we call C++ today, which has the std::string class specifically for that purpose.
And for that matter, near and far pointers could be handled in much the same way as C++ smart pointer classes. We didn't have that technology in 8086's heyday, which made near and far pointers a headache. But now we do.
The problem with that kind of thinking is that it's completely inadequate for study. There are no metrics that objectively measure the amount of "fun" in a game, because it is inherently a subjective term. Not measurable == not testable == not scientific.
We can argue forever whether games SHOULD be fun (take "serious games" or "persuasive games", for example... they're intentionally purposed for things other than "fun"). Any academic study quickly finds that "fun" is not at all useful for defining whether something is a game. We use other metrics such as level or type of engagement, but never how fun it is; we cannot measure that, and it won't do us any good anyway.
Yes, you heard me, it's no good to have "fun" as a definition for games. Just look at these statements:
Movies are fun. If they aren't, they aren't movies. Books are fun. If they aren't, they aren't books.
It doesn't have to be a full-blown SAT to do the job for this particular experiment.
Brain Age uses 4-letter words exclusively for its word memorization game. If care was taken to ensure that the test given to the pencil-and-paper kids were similar (or, conversely, that the pencil-and-paper kids were given a different memory test at the end altogether than what they were used to for training), then it should be a fair metric.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's fat (not the flavor) that makes prime beef sought after, then McDonalds hamburger beef ought to be considered prime.
And you've sidestepped your own original point ("Exercise adds flavour to the meat"). Exercise reduces marbling. Kobe beef comes from Wagyu cattle which don't exercise at all, to the point that workers have to massage them to keep them from getting sick.
It would have a stronger flavor, yeah, but I'm not so sure it would be better. Usually it's the subtle flavor that makes prime beef sought after.
You can go all the way and put cows on strenuous daily exercise, and you'd get meat that tastes like liver all around. (Which is great if you LIKE liver... but ah well...)
I didn't say it would be tasty. :) I'm just saying that if all cows exercised, we'd be left with meat so tough that they need to be ground if we were to consume it.
I don't think all fat would be removed with exercise anyway, so we would still be able to get the McDonalds formula burger. But we won't anymore get to eat steaks that are cooked rare or medium rare (my personal favorite). :(
Which is still tougher than rib and loin meat. That's STILL why it's ground for hamburgers.
Actually my own statement was that IF cows exercised to produce power and get cows lean, THEN all we get is meat suitable for hamburgers (and not much more) because the rest of the cow will be tougher and the meat will inevitably need to be ground. That was in response to the GG parent post's idea to exercise cows intentionally to get lean meat, which I disagree with. There are ways to get the cow leaner (making the meat healthier) without exercising its muscles (making the meat tougher).
I don't see how that conflicts with your statement "the treadmill is supposed to help this farmer power his milking machines, and exercising his dairy cows". That seems to be a different thought altogether from what I was discussing. Care to clarify how it opposes my statement?
Hamburger meat is most often made from ground beef. The beef is ground because it's tough. The beef is tough precisely because of exercise.
Prime cuts actually come from the type of cows that are restricted from moving so much in the farm. Not sure if they're healthier, as they do have more marbling (fat), but I'm just saying that hamburgers WILL be the only type of beef available if all cows exercised. :P
"Peke" in my native language (filipino) is our rough translation for "fake".
It was hard to keep my face straight when I read the name of that university.
Why, thank you very much!... for illustrating my gripe with Goodman's approach by means of example. :)
That's EXACTLY why so-called "expert" systems such as MYCIN and Church will NEVER deliver on the promise of a grand theory of AI.
The way the author wrote the article, it seems like nothing different from an expert system straight from the 70's, e.g. MYCIN. That one also uses probabilities and rules; the only difference is that it diagnoses illnesses, but that can be extended to almost anything.
Probably the only contribution is a new language. Which, I'm guessing, probably doesn't deviate much from, say, CLIPS (and at least THAT language is searchable in Google... I can't seem to find the correct search terms for Noah Goodman's language without getting photos of cathedrals, so I can't even say if I'm correct)
AI at this point has diverged so much from just probabilities and rules that it's not practical to "unify" it as the author claims. Just look up AAAI and its many conferences and subconferences. I just submitted a paper to an AI workshop... in a conference ... in a GROUP of co-located conferences ... that is recognized by AAAI as one specialization among many. That's FOUR branches removed.
Actually, it might work.
You have to make the distinction between people who distribute CRACKS and people who distribute the SOFTWARE itself (presumably along with the crack). The latter people are usually the sociopathic, immoral, uncaring bastards. That, and they are usually pretty DUMB (they sometimes end up accidentally distributing software with malware on it). So dumb that I highly doubt these people would have skills to crack the software themselves.
The crackers, on the other hand, are usually pretty brilliant people (they reverse-engineer binary software after all) who just didn't have money and didn't (or refused) to make the connection between "illegal" and "immoral".
Many of these guys even claim in their release notes, "If you like this game, buy it!", which points to the likely possibility that they just cracked these things to get their fair-use rights back.
Even better is that Prodeus actually notified them.
What's hilarious is that Microsoft is basically angry with a straw man.
Wow, I honestly didn't realize this. :))
I guess I'm too used to seeing graffiti to even THINK that really ought to be illegal. =))
Then you are forgetting that you must PROVE that it is a criminal matter.
In this case it is not. There is no commercial gain whatsoever (provable -- the licensing she used is pretty clear on that) and the copyright "owners" do not have a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution of their work. Ergo under US law this is clearly a civil case.
I stopped RTFB'ing when I read the word "orientated."
His choice of words betray his place in the hifalutin versus technical continuum.
Oh crap I said "continuum", I'm turning into one of them droids! I'm meltiiiiiiiiiing...
Yes, authors don't have to claim copyright in order to have it. But for all practical purposes, no person CAN claim copyright on these works. Even taking into account the anonymous works provisions of copyright, it is the burden of the supposed authors to claim that the work is theirs. (And as it stands, it's an uphill battle to prove it.)
And until then, the researchers are NOT in violation until the (proven) rightful owners claim that they are. Presumed innocence. :)
This may be the BEST counterargument ever to "all information should be free". Bravo!
However, while I genuinely want to mod you up, I do believe that CURRENT laws to control information are stupid. Similar to how laws can sometimes be unfairly and maliciously used to allow known murderers to remain innocent and walk freely, many patents and copyrights are unfairly and maliciously used to prevent people from contributing to the greater good of humanity. Patents in particular are a minefield -- something's clearly wrong with a system that encourages trolls to cripple the true innovators.
Back to the topic, I believe what the researcher did, copyrighting her photographs, is all right, regardless of whether she released it under Creative Commons. I don't believe she was copyrighting the actual message on the graffiti anyway, just the expression of it on photograph. (Of course properly the copyright should be attributed to both HER and whoever made the graffiti, but then I would suppose THAT's public domain since the original author didn't stake a claim to it...)
'Love to.
Given:
A: Nokia's patents are enforceable.
B: Every other manufacturer has been licensing Nokia's patents.
Grandparent post says A implies B.
Parent post says GP post is wrong, because B does not imply A.
So? Grandparent never claimed that B implies A; only that A implies B. Parent doesn't exactly get to say "Try using logic next time" without shooting himself in the mouth.
I'd still call that a Linux tool -- the end purpose is for getting Linux to install. What are tools for if not for their intended purpose? A screw driver is FOR installing/removing screws, isn't it?
Besides, the point is that it's STILL correct usage among other correct usages; arguing that it's incorrect (and therefore misleading) is pointless.
I don't see how there's any implication of that sort. By that logic, describing something as a "DVD drive" implies that the drive is "included in a DVD" or "used by a DVD". The former is just absurd, the latter is an incomplete implication because the drive can also be used by CDs.
It's a tool to download Windows 7 into a USB drive, hence it's a tool FOR Windows 7. Shortening it to "Windows 7 Tool" is just common English usage -- that's just like saying a drive for reading CD-ROMs is a CD-ROM drive. Get over it.
"Don't let it burn, don't let it fade"
How quickly we forget!
It was C that had that problem, not C++. At least not in the language we call C++ today, which has the std::string class specifically for that purpose.
And for that matter, near and far pointers could be handled in much the same way as C++ smart pointer classes. We didn't have that technology in 8086's heyday, which made near and far pointers a headache. But now we do.
My point exactly. What was your assumption about the original mention of "irony"?
I'm cynical, but I'm not one to resort to name-calling when people tell me I'm wrong.
Irony is when a phrase has an opposite meaning than it's literal meaning or intended meaning.
It's ironic that someone who portrays himself to be an expert on linguistic devices couldn't even get the language itself right.
Also, from your own reference for "irony":
6. the incongruity of this.
Using just one definition and discarding the rest in an attempt to prove a point? Pardon me for being cynical.
The problem with that kind of thinking is that it's completely inadequate for study. There are no metrics that objectively measure the amount of "fun" in a game, because it is inherently a subjective term. Not measurable == not testable == not scientific.
We can argue forever whether games SHOULD be fun (take "serious games" or "persuasive games", for example... they're intentionally purposed for things other than "fun"). Any academic study quickly finds that "fun" is not at all useful for defining whether something is a game. We use other metrics such as level or type of engagement, but never how fun it is; we cannot measure that, and it won't do us any good anyway.
Yes, you heard me, it's no good to have "fun" as a definition for games. Just look at these statements:
Movies are fun. If they aren't, they aren't movies.
Books are fun. If they aren't, they aren't books.
And so on for all other types of entertainment.
It doesn't have to be a full-blown SAT to do the job for this particular experiment.
Brain Age uses 4-letter words exclusively for its word memorization game. If care was taken to ensure that the test given to the pencil-and-paper kids were similar (or, conversely, that the pencil-and-paper kids were given a different memory test at the end altogether than what they were used to for training), then it should be a fair metric.
Oooh. Good one. But not good enough.
Here's where I work: http://www.ai-center.com/games-lab/ We deal DIRECTLY with these kinds of stuff.
But, ah well, slashdot already did the payback for me. Cheers.