Is the Turing Test practical? Well perhaps not. Machine intelligence (whatever that means) can be useful without the machine holding a conversation with you. Maybe Turing was trying to solve the question about computers and "intelligence", but having machines that can communicate with humans in the way humans communicate with humans is an ends itself, not just a proof of intelligence.
Liking toads comes to mind. Actually, though licking the right toads CAN get you high, what people generally do it kill the thing and eat the skin (I think it's the skin, anyway). I may have my details wrong, but the point is that it involves toadocide.
They probably hope that pirates will make Vista popular and that a fraction actually will buy Vista in the end;-) Hmm, maybe there should be a "+/-0 Stating the Obvious" mod. I'm surprised this hasn't dawned on more people.
Scientists plan to repeat the experiment using 5th graders against the great apes. I'm having difficulty understanding the reasoning of going from college students to 5th graders. I suppose I could RTFM, but instead I'm going to criticize from the safety of Slashdot.
Don't worry. They'll be gone soon. As of now (well, several minutes ago when I was there), the link that takes you to the player reviews isn't (a link). You can still get there by entering in players.html where it would normally be, but it shows that Gamespot is getting worried.
Yeah, I'm not even exactly sure what the metaphor is for, but I don't think even I'd support it - and I'm somewhere on the "those who fight in Iraq are war criminals" side.
but is there *anyone* that doesn't already have their opinion firmly in place about the Iraq War? Yep, those on the supporting side. They may have HAD it firmly in place, but feelings on that side aren't so strong these days, especially compared to the opposing side (though "opposing" tends to mean something like "get out eventually", especially if you listen to the Democrats).
Well, as I said to the reply before you, "point is, the statement "No license == normal copyright rules apply" evaluates to true or false, and neither "true" nor "false" was the meaning intended." I suppose I should have added from the beginning the point that it doesn't imply whether is IS true or false.
What lost the war for the US/Coalition is the existence of a population that wants us out. How much more clear does it have to be before people come to realize that no army has the capability of controlling such a place?
Doesn't that make your sentence a question?
No. It makes it a boolean expression. Or an integer expression, if you are using C. Well I was trying to make analogies. Point is, the statement "No license == normal copyright rules apply" evaluates to true or false, and neither "true" nor "false" was the meaning intended.
Hopefully overzealous mods won't mod me down as Offtopic (to boost their self-esteem? I don't know) but...
No license == normal copyright rules apply I don't get why everyone here on Slashdot uses the double equal signs in cases like this. Doesn't that make your sentence a question?
if(No license == normal copyright rules apply) {
what goes here? } Now this means what I think you want to mean:
No license = normal copyright rules apply;
Frankly, I'm glad you don't work for us. The fact that you would consider "rewriting" code that works well just because it was written by someone external to your company doesn't speak well for your sense of business priorities or usage of time. Don't be a dick. The guy was asking about a legal matter. Frankly, I'm glad I don't work for you.
Man, all I was responding to was the "lunatic fringe" remark. I didn't weigh into the validity of either side of the argument at all (though I do worry that Slashdotters let technophilia get in the way of balanced consideration).
Not the same program, confusing names, how many libarcs are there? Just a guess: Perhaps Sony got confused too, and that's why they thought they could use it?
You don't think it's fair that someone be punished for slander or libel about the distribution of child pornography? I don't get it. What I very clearly said is that it can't be categorically called incorrect. I'm not POSITIVE about the meanings of slander and libel, so maybe it still counts (which is pretty silly). If I'm wrong, please correct me.
(Also, what sort of asshole modded me down for my comment? I don't even LIKE the guy. Yikes.)
Slashdot Mirror
God, I meant "post-MP3 LOSSY audio codecs". Today is not my day.
By "MP3", do they mean "post-MP3 lossless audio codecs"? Because I'm pretty sure MP3 has been going downhill ever so slightly for a while now.
I for one welcome our new damn dirty ape overlords.
Posting as AC because even I didn't find this joke funny.
:-P
Shit, I meant RTFA.
Yeah, I'm not even exactly sure what the metaphor is for, but I don't think even I'd support it - and I'm somewhere on the "those who fight in Iraq are war criminals" side.
Well, as I said to the reply before you, "point is, the statement "No license == normal copyright rules apply" evaluates to true or false, and neither "true" nor "false" was the meaning intended." I suppose I should have added from the beginning the point that it doesn't imply whether is IS true or false.
What lost the war for the US/Coalition is the existence of a population that wants us out. How much more clear does it have to be before people come to realize that no army has the capability of controlling such a place?
{
what goes here?
} Now this means what I think you want to mean: No license = normal copyright rules apply;
Man, all I was responding to was the "lunatic fringe" remark. I didn't weigh into the validity of either side of the argument at all (though I do worry that Slashdotters let technophilia get in the way of balanced consideration).
Yup, those people. I don't see how that invalidates my point.
(Also, what sort of asshole modded me down for my comment? I don't even LIKE the guy. Yikes.)