Very true. Generally there are more things that the government should be made to tell than not tell. However, since there are some things that must legitimately and justly be kept secret a blanket rule of non-secrecy is not possible.
Tax information about specific persons. Operation strategies and plans during warfare Certain security procedures The exact location and strength of military assets Procedures for arming/deploying certain weapons Just to name a few.
The key phrase is for now. Things change over time and I have a feeling html5 has enough momentum to go long.
It is difficult if not downright foolish to judge a new technology only by its starting features when you first encounter it. You have to look at its development cycle, and barring that (if it is too new to have a cycle) its developers too.
Indeed. Like any good charlatan fortuneteller the man keeps to the vague and puts many things in the form of questions which he can claim to have predicted either way they turn out.
Some of the "Predictions" are really just calls for what he wants in the computing world. One Internet interface? Cloud computing ruling all? He strikes me as the type who can't see the computer world beyond windows or purely business needs. He even sorta looks like Dilbert's pointy hair boss to go along with the spew.
B. It only works IF AND ONLY IF you are able to rule out all possibilities except one.
To rule out possibilities you have to know what the rules are and what the possibilities are. For the universe and most real world problems this is not the case. In many real world problems you are often lucky to know most of the possibility let alone know them all, let alone being able to rule out all but one.
Therefore to solve a problem in the real world you have to fall back on a system of judging relative possibilities based on evidence. And here just as much evidence has been given to me for the Buddah, Odin, Zeus, and Jehovah. Slightly more evidence is given in fact for Odin and Buddah as their pantheons better take into account the suffering and randomness of the world.
Finally there is the problem that if God does exist is it a being worth worshiping? If you look at many of his followers and what they say about him the answer is no.
Finally, these claims hardly constitute a bomb threat. The threat of Hell only works if you believe in hell. I could threaten you to stop believing or someday the Flying Spaghetti Monster will wallop you with his noodelly appendages of love and have just as much threat behind my claim as you do yours.
"Magnitude of the claims"...so you mean because they make really big claims that may or may not be true then they are more likely to be true?
The size or magnitude of a claim has no effect on the probability of its being true at least inherently.
If you really want a more one to one comparison the God of Christianity could be lumped in with Thor, Zeus, Odin, Hera, or Marduk.
It is a mythology. One that may or may not be real. Just because one or even many people believe it is real doesn't make it any more real. If that were the case then the Christianity would be a false religion as most people in the world are not Christian. A high end estimate puts Christianity (lumping all forms in to one) at 33 percent.
Most people in the world used to believe that the Earth was flat, women should be subservient and not allowed to work, and that the sun rotates around the earth.
It is explained by the fairly well substantiated fact that humans are poor judges of exact time and memory is often faulty. You remember knowing before hand, but did you actually know it or do you just think you knew? It is easy to misjudge a few seconds.
If you don't believe me that humans are poor at keeping time then I ask you, why do we have so many clocks around? Far more clocks than say thermometers or even distance. We don't need an alarm thermometer to tell us it is getting hot outside, but we often do need alarm clocks to tell us it is time for an appointment or if enough time has elapsed for an egg to boil or how long the microwave has run.
But your method doesn't take into account the time it takes an M&M to rest and get into full fighting form between bouts. Thus if the first M&M you come across is the strongest it is still likely to lose simply because it has to face fresh competitor after competitor. Even your fingers raise the core temperature of the competitor high enough after a few bouts to induce softening leaving the M&M weaker against its rested cooler-cored foe.
Solution: Set up a randomized tournament system where you take two M&Ms at random from the rested pack, test them, and put the winner in a separate pile to rest until the pack is empty. Then repeat tournament again between the now rested victors of the first round. Repeat until there is only one.
He is right even if he is "selling" Linux. Gnome has far more gui options available in gui control panels than Windows even offers. The same goes for KDE and XFCE.
Not true the AI has not surpassed the abilities of a drunken man as the drunk is doing it with considerably fewer legs, usually 2 to 4, 5 if they are lucky.
The AI has commeth but it wasn't what we thought it was going to be.
We don't have a very good grasp on exactly what it is to be "human" or what "intelligent" truly is. We take intelligence as being more than sheer number-crunching capacity to have creativity and some form of reasoning, which is more than just logic.
Technically the Rights outlined in the constitution are a non-exhaustive list meaning they are only some rights amount many that citizens possess. Thus a right does not have to be explicitly in the constitution to be a valid legal right.
It is also a good law to invoke whenever you want to arrest someone.
Want to put a new party into power and replace the old Washington regime? That sounds like overthrowing to me. What about putting in place a new Jerusalem? Or Kingdom of God?
It is not a straw man as I am arguing that the actualized baby life is worth more than the sum of all the potential life in the embryo freezer. Also while many do die a freezer could easily hold more than enough embryos to have a very good chance of forming 24 babies if carried by a healthy mother.
Slashdot Mirror
Very true. Generally there are more things that the government should be made to tell than not tell. However, since there are some things that must legitimately and justly be kept secret a blanket rule of non-secrecy is not possible.
Tax information about specific persons.
Operation strategies and plans during warfare
Certain security procedures
The exact location and strength of military assets
Procedures for arming/deploying certain weapons
Just to name a few.
The key phrase is for now. Things change over time and I have a feeling html5 has enough momentum to go long.
It is difficult if not downright foolish to judge a new technology only by its starting features when you first encounter it. You have to look at its development cycle, and barring that (if it is too new to have a cycle) its developers too.
You should be. If you are a US citizen then you damn well should be in the business of government as it is YOUR government.
Indeed. Like any good charlatan fortuneteller the man keeps to the vague and puts many things in the form of questions which he can claim to have predicted either way they turn out.
Some of the "Predictions" are really just calls for what he wants in the computing world. One Internet interface? Cloud computing ruling all? He strikes me as the type who can't see the computer world beyond windows or purely business needs. He even sorta looks like Dilbert's pointy hair boss to go along with the spew.
I don't use facebook. I am up late a lot nd a bit of an insomniac
Still I have classes in the am.
need to gotol bed, but duno if I will
A. Ruling out the impossible is Sherlock Holmes.
B. It only works IF AND ONLY IF you are able to rule out all possibilities except one.
To rule out possibilities you have to know what the rules are and what the possibilities are. For the universe and most real world problems this is not the case. In many real world problems you are often lucky to know most of the possibility let alone know them all, let alone being able to rule out all but one.
Therefore to solve a problem in the real world you have to fall back on a system of judging relative possibilities based on evidence. And here just as much evidence has been given to me for the Buddah, Odin, Zeus, and Jehovah. Slightly more evidence is given in fact for Odin and Buddah as their pantheons better take into account the suffering and randomness of the world.
Finally there is the problem that if God does exist is it a being worth worshiping? If you look at many of his followers and what they say about him the answer is no.
Finally, these claims hardly constitute a bomb threat. The threat of Hell only works if you believe in hell. I could threaten you to stop believing or someday the Flying Spaghetti Monster will wallop you with his noodelly appendages of love and have just as much threat behind my claim as you do yours.
The same way Tom Sawyer and Thor are proper nouns.
"Magnitude of the claims" ...so you mean because they make really big claims that may or may not be true then they are more likely to be true?
The size or magnitude of a claim has no effect on the probability of its being true at least inherently.
If you really want a more one to one comparison the God of Christianity could be lumped in with Thor, Zeus, Odin, Hera, or Marduk.
It is a mythology. One that may or may not be real. Just because one or even many people believe it is real doesn't make it any more real. If that were the case then the Christianity would be a false religion as most people in the world are not Christian. A high end estimate puts Christianity (lumping all forms in to one) at 33 percent.
Most people in the world used to believe that the Earth was flat, women should be subservient and not allowed to work, and that the sun rotates around the earth.
It is explained by the fairly well substantiated fact that humans are poor judges of exact time and memory is often faulty. You remember knowing before hand, but did you actually know it or do you just think you knew? It is easy to misjudge a few seconds.
If you don't believe me that humans are poor at keeping time then I ask you, why do we have so many clocks around? Far more clocks than say thermometers or even distance. We don't need an alarm thermometer to tell us it is getting hot outside, but we often do need alarm clocks to tell us it is time for an appointment or if enough time has elapsed for an egg to boil or how long the microwave has run.
No random does not necessarily correspond to entropy, although it usually does.
But your method doesn't take into account the time it takes an M&M to rest and get into full fighting form between bouts. Thus if the first M&M you come across is the strongest it is still likely to lose simply because it has to face fresh competitor after competitor. Even your fingers raise the core temperature of the competitor high enough after a few bouts to induce softening leaving the M&M weaker against its rested cooler-cored foe.
Solution: Set up a randomized tournament system where you take two M&Ms at random from the rested pack, test them, and put the winner in a separate pile to rest until the pack is empty. Then repeat tournament again between the now rested victors of the first round. Repeat until there is only one.
Seems like it will give MS more time to develop Bing by padding its' market share with Yahoo traffic.
One thing I'd really like to see is how many people who have switched from mostly using Google to mostly using Bing.
He is right even if he is "selling" Linux. Gnome has far more gui options available in gui control panels than Windows even offers. The same goes for KDE and XFCE.
Yeah but many uses require functioning w/o maintenance for more than just a few years where battery life does become important.
Not true the AI has not surpassed the abilities of a drunken man as the drunk is doing it with considerably fewer legs, usually 2 to 4, 5 if they are lucky.
The AI has commeth but it wasn't what we thought it was going to be.
We don't have a very good grasp on exactly what it is to be "human" or what "intelligent" truly is. We take intelligence as being more than sheer number-crunching capacity to have creativity and some form of reasoning, which is more than just logic.
Didn't they say something like this uhm like 20 years ago?
Technically the Rights outlined in the constitution are a non-exhaustive list meaning they are only some rights amount many that citizens possess. Thus a right does not have to be explicitly in the constitution to be a valid legal right.
We did? I did not know that.
It is also a good law to invoke whenever you want to arrest someone.
Want to put a new party into power and replace the old Washington regime? That sounds like overthrowing to me. What about putting in place a new Jerusalem? Or Kingdom of God?
Fairy dust! IBM has captured several pixies and uses them to craft its magical chips.
This one case of linux and it is being subsidized ie it is costing the customer LESS than free.
It is not a straw man as I am arguing that the actualized baby life is worth more than the sum of all the potential life in the embryo freezer. Also while many do die a freezer could easily hold more than enough embryos to have a very good chance of forming 24 babies if carried by a healthy mother.
"for limited times"
Author's life is NOT a limited time it is an indefinite time which while it nearly certainly will end it is not certain to end.