I'd show you formally, but you likely won't understand it, you just you'll disagree anyway, and slashdot will make it impossible to use standard symbols.
Atheism is an absence of belief, not a belief in absence.
You know that those are logically identical, right?
A simplified example: "John doesn't believe God exists" is identical to "John believes God does not exist" as they both expresses, unambiguously, John's beliefs about the existence of God. That is, to the question "Does John believe God exists" both statements evaluate the same way: "no".
I understand why you want to say ridiculous things like that. It may even be effective if your opponent is a moron. But it's complete nonsense. If you care, at all, about reason and logic (as many internet Atheists claim) you shouldn't abandon it so readily, regardless of your motivation.
Now that that's out of the way, this is what you *actually* want to do is differentiate between gnostic and agnostic atheism. Take a look around here, or (if you can stomach it) JREF and you'll find quite a few gnostic atheists -- those that believe, with impressive conviction, that no gods exist and assert knowledge to that effect. The more sensible agnostic atheist, while lacking a belief in god, claims no knowledge of that fact, they merely don't believe in the existence of any god.
The crux of that is 'belief' Belief is an interesting thing, as belief is not subject to the will. That is, you can't simply choose to believe or not believe in God or anything else. For example, you can't, no matter how hard you try, force yourself to disbelieve in the existence of Tom Cruise. Equally, it's impossible for you, through an act of will, to believe in Santa Clause.
We're particularly interested in research that either won't work or, if it does work, won't work for a long time. And I've been reading some of your papers.
The bit about the score is key here. It's essentially no different than any other learning algorithm as it does not discover on its own that the goal is to achieve a high score. The computer vision part is neat, but nothing new, and ultimately does nothing to differentiate this from the zillion other similar projects as it is only used to find the score! Countless hobbyists and researchers have made ANN's and Genetic algorithms which produce similar results, both the computer vision part and the game-playing part.
The program does not, in any way, "study a problem and gain expertise all on its own". It's pure click-bait. I'm ashamed to have fallen for that particular trap.
The same can be said about any and all values including "a child should be taught is to always think for him or her self".
Once you realize that, you'll be well on your way to being able to understand moral reasoning, and far less likely to spout silly "relijuns is the bad" comments at inappropriate times.
I'm sorry that it didn't work out for you. It didn't work out for me either, which is frustrating. Still, that doesn't mean it didn't benefit an overwhelming majority. The simple fact remains that far more people are better off than they were before. Just a handful (relatively speaking) are negatively affected.
I'm among that handful, which sucks. I get it. There is now opportunity, however, to improve on the system.
Only if you don't count 20 years worth of java, flash, etc. apps that previously enabled that kind of rich content in the browser. Like it or not, the web has been an application platform for at least the past 20 years. It's about time you got over it, and accepted the fact that the web simply isn't what you personally want it to be, and hasn't been for nearly it's entire existence.
Anyone who thinks those belong in a browser is a fucking idiot.
Or people who have had to deal with complex deployments and cross-platform development. A set of simple standards that significantly reduces the demand for shaky third-party plugins is a great thing.
I'm curious now: what browser technologies do you find acceptable? What does " should display webpages- period" mean to you?
If your beef is with media types, what would be allowed in your world? Text, presumably, but what about images? If images are okay, would you also be opposed to the audio tag? Is video right out, or is YouTube okay with you?
If it's not the media type that bugs you, but interactivity, do you disapprove of forms and form controls? How about CSS as it allows for some pretty fancy interactivity? What about hyperlinks? They could presumably be used to add a level of interactivity that you might find uncomfortable.
You're a long-time user of a site that does far more than mere "display" so you presumably draw a line somewhere. Where is that line?
Well, they aren't all that great. They're in the 'let you do it' category, which is decidedly different from 'let you do well it'. I like this analogy: I can tap out a message on a telegraph key, or I could use a keyboard. They both let you do the same thing, but one does the job significantly better than the other.
The same thing is true for the e-reader vs the hard-copy, though in the case of the e-reader, you're dramatically more limited as there are fewer memory cues and navigation options of which you can take advantage. For example, you may not have placed a bookmark at a specific section, but you might remember "reading something about that", "close to the middle", "a few pages after that orangish picture near the bottom". With the e-reader, it's a guessing game: "what page was that on?" or "what section was that in" followed by a tedious one-page-at-a-time search. With the hard-copy, it's a couple quick flips along the edge.
We're a long-way from replicating that. I love my kindle, sure, but I always buy a hard-copy of anything I find that's worth-while.
Yes, yes, very funny. Humor is a great way to cope when reality challenges your preconceptions. Just don't forget that it's merely a coping mechanism and that you'll need to accept the world for how it is eventually.
It doesn't have to be that way. Get web developers to stop competing with one another on how many frameworks and general-purpose libraries they can cram on a single page to do something better handled with CSS. It's like a plague.
You can have a fancy site with lots of "dynamic" elements than is efficient and performant. It actually takes significantly less effort than forcing a bunch of buggy and bloated "time saving" libraries to work together.
I can't believe how slow a modern browser can get on a decent machine. I shouldn't need 8 cores at 4.5ghz with 16gb of DDR4 or something ridiculous like that.
I have several older computers in a public lab (P4, 1-2gb) that run FireFox exceptionally well. (Chrome, oddly enough, barely runs at all. The reverse used to be true.) You don't need 8 cores at 4.5ghz and 16gb of DDR4 or "something ridiculous like that" A nearly 10-year-old computer with FireFox seems to cope well enough with the modern web.
Blame the W3C if you don't like the direction the web has been moving.
Though I'm curious, would you rather Mozilla ignore standards? Strict adherence is what is saving us from the nightmare that is a fragmented web, after all. I don't pine for the days of "Best viewed in ______"
You are serious? Your reading comprehension is that contemptible? Show me the wonderful set of JS apps for mobile.
There are tons of 'em. You've just never noticed that they were written in JS! I've seen everything from fast-paced 3D games to utilities -- not just on mobile, but on low-end mobile phones running FirefoxOS.
On BlackBerry and other platforms, you'll find quite a few as well, they're just incredibly difficult to spot, being indistinguishable from native apps.
See, you're confused by the problems phonegap users encountered by using jquery. Once they learned that lesson, and dropped that awful library, things improved dramatically.
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh... Well, I tried.
I'd show you formally, but you likely won't understand it, you just you'll disagree anyway, and slashdot will make it impossible to use standard symbols.
Are you an autodidact, by chance?
Atheism is an absence of belief, not a belief in absence.
You know that those are logically identical, right?
A simplified example: "John doesn't believe God exists" is identical to "John believes God does not exist" as they both expresses, unambiguously, John's beliefs about the existence of God. That is, to the question "Does John believe God exists" both statements evaluate the same way: "no".
I understand why you want to say ridiculous things like that. It may even be effective if your opponent is a moron. But it's complete nonsense. If you care, at all, about reason and logic (as many internet Atheists claim) you shouldn't abandon it so readily, regardless of your motivation.
Now that that's out of the way, this is what you *actually* want to do is differentiate between gnostic and agnostic atheism. Take a look around here, or (if you can stomach it) JREF and you'll find quite a few gnostic atheists -- those that believe, with impressive conviction, that no gods exist and assert knowledge to that effect. The more sensible agnostic atheist, while lacking a belief in god, claims no knowledge of that fact, they merely don't believe in the existence of any god.
The crux of that is 'belief' Belief is an interesting thing, as belief is not subject to the will. That is, you can't simply choose to believe or not believe in God or anything else. For example, you can't, no matter how hard you try, force yourself to disbelieve in the existence of Tom Cruise. Equally, it's impossible for you, through an act of will, to believe in Santa Clause.
Why?
If they are, why can't they show us the evidence?
I don't even know where to begin. The scope of scientific inquiry? The limits of empiricism?
Off the top of my head, Whitehead's Science and the Modern World isn't a bad place to start. Give that one a try.
but it WILL happen.
Is this what they mean about religion and AI?
Because that sounds pretty religious...
You must have an exceptionally talented 6-year-old nephew.
Criticize the icons all you want, but they're certainly better than the work of 6-year-old children; your nephew excepted, of course.
Obamacare doesn't benefit an overwhelming majority. It screws over the overwhelming majority.
The data suggest otherwise.
Improve on the system? How?
I don't know if you'll like it...
the whole system is rushing to a single payer inevitability.
That would be it.
We're particularly interested in research that either won't work or, if it does work, won't work for a long time. And I've been reading some of your papers.
Sounds like a pretty damning indictment.
You've missed the joke.
Whenever a computer defeats a human easily, of course it isn't true AI.
You're confused. I'm not sure how, exactly, but you might want to google "hard problem" and "strong AI" to net (ha!) yourself a better grounding.
The bit about the score is key here. It's essentially no different than any other learning algorithm as it does not discover on its own that the goal is to achieve a high score. The computer vision part is neat, but nothing new, and ultimately does nothing to differentiate this from the zillion other similar projects as it is only used to find the score! Countless hobbyists and researchers have made ANN's and Genetic algorithms which produce similar results, both the computer vision part and the game-playing part.
The program does not, in any way, "study a problem and gain expertise all on its own". It's pure click-bait. I'm ashamed to have fallen for that particular trap.
Damn, dude, you must be deaf, dumb, and blind.
The same can be said about any and all values including "a child should be taught is to always think for him or her self".
Once you realize that, you'll be well on your way to being able to understand moral reasoning, and far less likely to spout silly "relijuns is the bad" comments at inappropriate times.
I'm sorry that it didn't work out for you. It didn't work out for me either, which is frustrating. Still, that doesn't mean it didn't benefit an overwhelming majority. The simple fact remains that far more people are better off than they were before. Just a handful (relatively speaking) are negatively affected.
I'm among that handful, which sucks. I get it. There is now opportunity, however, to improve on the system.
Those applications are all *drumroll* web pages
Only if you don't count 20 years worth of java, flash, etc. apps that previously enabled that kind of rich content in the browser. Like it or not, the web has been an application platform for at least the past 20 years. It's about time you got over it, and accepted the fact that the web simply isn't what you personally want it to be, and hasn't been for nearly it's entire existence.
Anyone who thinks those belong in a browser is a fucking idiot.
Or people who have had to deal with complex deployments and cross-platform development. A set of simple standards that significantly reduces the demand for shaky third-party plugins is a great thing.
I'm curious now: what browser technologies do you find acceptable? What does " should display webpages- period" mean to you?
If your beef is with media types, what would be allowed in your world? Text, presumably, but what about images? If images are okay, would you also be opposed to the audio tag? Is video right out, or is YouTube okay with you?
If it's not the media type that bugs you, but interactivity, do you disapprove of forms and form controls? How about CSS as it allows for some pretty fancy interactivity? What about hyperlinks? They could presumably be used to add a level of interactivity that you might find uncomfortable.
You're a long-time user of a site that does far more than mere "display" so you presumably draw a line somewhere. Where is that line?
Well, they aren't all that great. They're in the 'let you do it' category, which is decidedly different from 'let you do well it'. I like this analogy: I can tap out a message on a telegraph key, or I could use a keyboard. They both let you do the same thing, but one does the job significantly better than the other.
The same thing is true for the e-reader vs the hard-copy, though in the case of the e-reader, you're dramatically more limited as there are fewer memory cues and navigation options of which you can take advantage. For example, you may not have placed a bookmark at a specific section, but you might remember "reading something about that", "close to the middle", "a few pages after that orangish picture near the bottom". With the e-reader, it's a guessing game: "what page was that on?" or "what section was that in" followed by a tedious one-page-at-a-time search. With the hard-copy, it's a couple quick flips along the edge.
We're a long-way from replicating that. I love my kindle, sure, but I always buy a hard-copy of anything I find that's worth-while.
Yes, yes, very funny. Humor is a great way to cope when reality challenges your preconceptions. Just don't forget that it's merely a coping mechanism and that you'll need to accept the world for how it is eventually.
It doesn't have to be that way. Get web developers to stop competing with one another on how many frameworks and general-purpose libraries they can cram on a single page to do something better handled with CSS. It's like a plague.
You can have a fancy site with lots of "dynamic" elements than is efficient and performant. It actually takes significantly less effort than forcing a bunch of buggy and bloated "time saving" libraries to work together.
I can't believe how slow a modern browser can get on a decent machine. I shouldn't need 8 cores at 4.5ghz with 16gb of DDR4 or something ridiculous like that.
I have several older computers in a public lab (P4, 1-2gb) that run FireFox exceptionally well. (Chrome, oddly enough, barely runs at all. The reverse used to be true.) You don't need 8 cores at 4.5ghz and 16gb of DDR4 or "something ridiculous like that" A nearly 10-year-old computer with FireFox seems to cope well enough with the modern web.
Google WebRTC, then hang your head in shame.
A browser should display webpages- period.
The rest of the world disagrees with you. The web has been billed as an application platform since at least 1995.
Blame the W3C if you don't like the direction the web has been moving.
Though I'm curious, would you rather Mozilla ignore standards? Strict adherence is what is saving us from the nightmare that is a fragmented web, after all. I don't pine for the days of "Best viewed in ______"
I can dig it. I'm a big fan of eInk as well.
I'll keep an eye out for any head-to-head comparison post iWatch launch -- the crown bit has piqued my curiosity.
I had you pegged as Apple iWatch all the way. With the release less than two months away, what is it about the Pebble that's got you wavering?
They really should have come up with something other than the infinitely dense point at the center of a black hole.
It seems okay to me. Singularity nuts, after all, are infinitely dense.
You are serious? Your reading comprehension is that contemptible? Show me the wonderful set of JS apps for mobile.
There are tons of 'em. You've just never noticed that they were written in JS! I've seen everything from fast-paced 3D games to utilities -- not just on mobile, but on low-end mobile phones running FirefoxOS.
On BlackBerry and other platforms, you'll find quite a few as well, they're just incredibly difficult to spot, being indistinguishable from native apps.
See, you're confused by the problems phonegap users encountered by using jquery. Once they learned that lesson, and dropped that awful library, things improved dramatically.