"Alexa, add Beyond Burgers to my Whole Foods pickup box. Alexa, add Fabainaise Classic 32 ounce to my Whole Foods pickup box. Alexa, add Field Roast Herb Chao slices to my Whole Foods pickup box. Alexa, schedule my Whole Foods pickup for Saturday morning."
My top priorities for email service are quality of spam filtering, support for unlimited aliases, search, and rules. I think labels work better than folders for categorization. I have not found any Amazon documentation which addresses these issues.
It would be a significant result if you could prove that I was faking thought; it would be evidence supporting the theory that our universe is a simulation.
It appears you have an answer which you find satisfactory to your original question .
If a Turing contestant emits "Yes.....I can explain everything a computer does. I can't explain everything my mind does," then, by your standards of proof, it is really thinking, and not simply performing a programmer's trick.
You are correct. Your inability to explain everything your mind does does not count as 'thinking.' It it counts as ignorance.
Note that a computer program can type "Yes.....I can explain anything a computer does. I can't explain everything my mind does." etc. If your typed response is proof that you are thinking, then it follows that the computer program which produces an identical response is proved to be thinking.
Prove that you are a human author of your responses, and not a clever subroutine in slashcode.
Laws against littering are not unconstitutional unless the discriminate on the types of litter based on the ideas printed on the litter. "You may dump menues on the street, but you may not dump manifestos on the street" would be unconstitutional.
That argument is a creative misprision of Tanenbaum's teaching to support magical thinking. Abraham Lincoln famously refuted such magical thinking with "How many legs does a dog have if we call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one."
Microsoft argued in court that a browser is an inextricable component of an operating system: did Tanenbaum award an A?
It is preposterous to propose, e.g., that a system's task scheduler can be an application subsumed to advertisement. It is preposterous because it leads to an endless regression: clearly some component of the system must allocate time slices to the next-advertisement-aware-scheduler; and that component must itself be subject to interruption by advertisement, and the advertisement must be subject to interruption by advertisement or the user could trivially subvert the system, etc.
I send my cousin Vito with the book. Vito will let you read it, at one cent per page. If I understand your example correctly, Vito won't pay you anything, and does not read the book himself, so it seems strained to say you are sending your message to Vito. I am the one who you hope will read the book, since only someone who is interested in reading the book will have any motivation to compensate you for producing the book.
To continue with your example, I can, as I read the book while Vito holds it, and as I pay him a cent to turn the page, memorize it, or write it down. If my interest in the book is bibliophilic rather than a desire to learn its contents, then of course I will need to keep Vito around to hold the book; but if my interest is in the content, I can dismiss Vito once I'm done making my copy.
No matter how many henchmen are sent, the enterprise must fail, because the end-user is, indeed, the desired recipient of the message, and is thus destined to get it.
Well, in fact C never gets the content. C gets to see or hear the content, which is a wholly different beast. Please, how does being able to see and hear the content differ from getting the content?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think you can get a forty-year loan from a bank?
"Alexa, add Beyond Burgers to my Whole Foods pickup box. Alexa, add Fabainaise Classic 32 ounce to my Whole Foods pickup box. Alexa, add Field Roast Herb Chao slices to my Whole Foods pickup box. Alexa, schedule my Whole Foods pickup for Saturday morning."
My top priorities for email service are quality of spam filtering, support for unlimited aliases, search, and rules. I think labels work better than folders for categorization. I have not found any Amazon documentation which addresses these issues.
Consider switching carriers to TMobile, where there are no data overage fees.
I have a couple of exercise bands at my desk which I use when my hands are free.
More information about desk-friendly exercise bands, please.
Park your car not at the office park, but in some other office park 15 minutes' walk distant.
Open your curtains?
Hello curtains, is rain forecast for twelve hours from now?
Thanks for this.
What claptrap you post, Anonymous Coward.
Universal medical care is in place in every industrialized country except the U.S., and no infinities have been encountered.
It would be a significant result if you could prove that I was faking thought; it would be evidence supporting the theory that our universe is a simulation.
It appears you have an answer which you find satisfactory to your original question .
If a Turing contestant emits "Yes.....I can explain everything a computer does. I can't explain everything my mind does," then, by your standards of proof, it is really thinking, and not simply performing a programmer's trick.
You are correct. Your inability to explain everything your mind does does not count as 'thinking.' It it counts as ignorance.
Note that a computer program can type "Yes.....I can explain anything a computer does. I can't explain everything my mind does." etc. If your typed response is proof that you are thinking, then it follows that the computer program which produces an identical response is proved to be thinking.
Prove that you are a human author of your responses, and not a clever subroutine in slashcode.
Are you really thinking?
Prove it.
What PalmOS phone has visual voice mail?
You are claiming that Obama is more leftist than Franklin Roosevelt. What a preposterous claim!
Charles Darwin's second voyage was on the HMS Beagle.
Laws against littering are not unconstitutional unless the discriminate on the types of litter based on the ideas printed on the litter. "You may dump menues on the street, but you may not dump manifestos on the street" would be unconstitutional.
Spam is litter.
Yes, you can get a fixed rate IO loan. A typical setup is interest-only for ten years followed by an ordinary twenty year mortgage.
Could it be a few atoms drifting off in the vapor? Well, why wouldn't the copies' atoms be drifting off as well?
That argument is a creative misprision of Tanenbaum's teaching to support magical thinking. Abraham Lincoln famously refuted such magical thinking with "How many legs does a dog have if we call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one."
Microsoft argued in court that a browser is an inextricable component of an operating system: did Tanenbaum award an A?
It is preposterous to propose, e.g., that a system's task scheduler can be an application subsumed to advertisement. It is preposterous because it leads to an endless regression: clearly some component of the system must allocate time slices to the next-advertisement-aware-scheduler; and that component must itself be subject to interruption by advertisement, and the advertisement must be subject to interruption by advertisement or the user could trivially subvert the system, etc.
You do not understand the difference between an application and an operating system. Please stop posting.
Better web browser, better video player.
To continue with your example, I can, as I read the book while Vito holds it, and as I pay him a cent to turn the page, memorize it, or write it down. If my interest in the book is bibliophilic rather than a desire to learn its contents, then of course I will need to keep Vito around to hold the book; but if my interest is in the content, I can dismiss Vito once I'm done making my copy.
No matter how many henchmen are sent, the enterprise must fail, because the end-user is, indeed, the desired recipient of the message, and is thus destined to get it.
Is not the thrust of the article that virtualization obviates hardware keys, thus making "pretty damn obscure" not obscure at all?