If that wasn't enough, they could just start moderating every comment. It would be a little bit of problem in that some reviewers would be put out that their feedback wasn't instantly posted and some new products would take a bit to have comments, but for most existing products, the comments they had Nov 1st would be plenty enough for Christmas.
It's worse than apples and oranges, it is humans and computers.
Of course, unless IBM is advertising that the machine has an actual intellect (rather than having some sort of advanced language parsing capability and such), that isn't a particularly interesting criticism.
Mod points aren't worth much. Someone will come along and mod most threads. So the idea is that you shouldn't get to influence the display of threads that you choose to participate in.
I guess you must think that scoring a few comments is an extremely valuable contribution or it wouldn't bother you to post a comment. Really, I think scoring a few comments is merely useful.
What's wrong with a "coordinated effort to deliberately try to influence public opinion and US policy."?
Sounds like advertising and lobbying to me. Hell, you could construe voting as a deliberate effort to influence public opinion and U.S. policy (and if two people discuss politics, they might end up coordinating!!!!).
Or is your point more that you think U.S. citizens should be more skeptical about the motivations of a foreigner?
He's saying that presented with the possibility of a questionable situation (that is, I haven't seen enough to rule out Assange acting questionably) involving a potentially vindictive woman (she did post a revenge strategy to the internet), he instead chooses to believe that pressure from a foreign government must be involved.
Does the book specifically mention the maleness of the mitochondria being the problem, or is it more that the cell it came from just completed a rather long race?
It's only a trap if it costs the same, if it costs 1/20 as much (an argument that could probably be made for Netflix), it doesn't have to provide the same value as the physical good in order to be worth it for many people.
If you mean that you think streaming leads to a world where people have no other choices, I don't think the demand for entertainments is really that inelastic (that is, at some point people really would start reading books or playing stickball rather than forking over for streamed video).
Slashdot Mirror
If that wasn't enough, they could just start moderating every comment. It would be a little bit of problem in that some reviewers would be put out that their feedback wasn't instantly posted and some new products would take a bit to have comments, but for most existing products, the comments they had Nov 1st would be plenty enough for Christmas.
Or maybe they just want me to think that they want you to think that is the case.
It's worse than apples and oranges, it is humans and computers.
Of course, unless IBM is advertising that the machine has an actual intellect (rather than having some sort of advanced language parsing capability and such), that isn't a particularly interesting criticism.
So your co-workers heard a gentle pop and now you appear a little more glassy-eyed than usual?
Mod points aren't worth much. Someone will come along and mod most threads. So the idea is that you shouldn't get to influence the display of threads that you choose to participate in.
I guess you must think that scoring a few comments is an extremely valuable contribution or it wouldn't bother you to post a comment. Really, I think scoring a few comments is merely useful.
They should look to the auto industry for a warning about the dangers of automation.
What's wrong with a "coordinated effort to deliberately try to influence public opinion and US policy."?
Sounds like advertising and lobbying to me. Hell, you could construe voting as a deliberate effort to influence public opinion and U.S. policy (and if two people discuss politics, they might end up coordinating!!!!).
Or is your point more that you think U.S. citizens should be more skeptical about the motivations of a foreigner?
He's saying that presented with the possibility of a questionable situation (that is, I haven't seen enough to rule out Assange acting questionably) involving a potentially vindictive woman (she did post a revenge strategy to the internet), he instead chooses to believe that pressure from a foreign government must be involved.
You really think they are that stupid?
I would guess that western aid has resulted in millions and millions of people that would otherwise not have survived or even been born.
I'm not sure that counts as diddly squat.
Gates stated goal is to disperse the money out of the foundation prior to his death.
Buffett sees the logic in that but is too old to do it himself.
Does the book specifically mention the maleness of the mitochondria being the problem, or is it more that the cell it came from just completed a rather long race?
It's only a trap if it costs the same, if it costs 1/20 as much (an argument that could probably be made for Netflix), it doesn't have to provide the same value as the physical good in order to be worth it for many people.
If you mean that you think streaming leads to a world where people have no other choices, I don't think the demand for entertainments is really that inelastic (that is, at some point people really would start reading books or playing stickball rather than forking over for streamed video).
Most private companies are corporations.
The Archos 101 has all that stuff.
If you aren't real picky, the smaller Archos 70 gets you everything but the standard USB (and a Micro-A to A cable turns it into a USB host).
I would want people to realize that there is likely a diversity of opinions about many different issues.
It's expensive, but the Nokia N900 seems to fit your bill.
There are less than 4,000 people in total on death row. So there must be less than 4,000 innocent people there.
And personally, I'd be fine with just making them all serve life sentences.
The point is more that spending $1 fixing miscarriages of medicine is going to save a lot more lives than spending $1 fixing miscarriages of justice.
There are restrictions on the possession of radioactive materials.
The proposition in your second paragraph is insane.
I'm pretty sure that the group of serious hacker stoppers excludes purveyors of DRM simply by definition.
A charitable definition of hotline includes some assurance as to the party it is connecting you to.
So are deadly medical errors. And they happen something like 10,000 times as often.
There are less than 4,000 innocent people on death row. Something like that many people die from medical mistakes each month.
So it seems like a pretty ridiculous example of a society gone hopelessly wrong.
It's still good for the glazier.