I totally agree with you. I personally don't see honor in attacking civilians or using civilians as a place to attack. What I meant was this is their current mindset. What they honor is people that go out and actually do something instead of just rolling over and let the oppressor take advantage. But you are absolutely right.
That may be in your eyes, but in the eyes of the rest of the world, the US is quite a dominating force that can even be looked upon as a terrorist nation.
Take for example, the International Crimes Court that 139 countries worldwide have signed the treaties for. This is the new governing body that will try leaders of a country or soldiers in a conflict for crimes against humanity. If a soldier raped a girl while in conflict, they would be tried here. If a leader murders a large population of civilians, this is the court that they would be tried in. Now, you mentioned the "leader in freedom and democracy," who is the ONLY industrialized, democratic nation that has refused to sign, in fact "unsigned" what was previously signed this treat. Yup, the United States. The leader of the free world, the country that believes in "justice for all" (if you are American)
In fact, recently, there's a bill going before Congress that will allow a President to order military force to "rescue" a "criminal" from the ICC. So, if you are an American soldier and you raped a Bosnian girl, don't worry, the US will rescue you. If you kill the POW, don't worry, you won't be convicted.
So, what you are saying is true.."leading force for freedom and democracy" Only if you're an American
Part of the problem is that the US government has had a long practice of suppressing the powers of foreign governments. (When you're at the top, you will do everything you can to stay where you are).
The most recent event was the current administration's attempt at ousting Chavez, the President of Venezuela. He is a democratically elected president supported by the majority of the people in the nation. However, he has the potential to lead to major problems for the US. Unlike prior leaders, he has a strong leaning towards doing what is best for his people rather than for the US. Specifically, he wants to raise oil export prices against the wishes of the Bush administration. He is trying to pull the nation out of poverty. Think about it, the US, the crusader for the spread of democracy trying to oust a democratically elected leader to install a puppet regime.
This isn't the only incident of this type that has happend. If you look at Fidel Castro, he was a puppet regime installed by the US government back in the 60s. Castro currently has a thriving biotech (medicine) industry which they sell cheaply to third world countries. The US sees this as a threat and is calling Castro a terrorist that is developing bio-weapons.
Lastly, the US has criticized China for protectionist strategies and such. Earlier this year, the Bush administration has instituted a huge tariff on the import of steel from foreign nations (including Europe), which will hurt the economies of a number of foreign nations. This has set the entire world in an uproar and Europe has brought this to the World Trade Organization.
Lastly, you mentioned that we should give up some power. Ideally that would be best to equalize the world. But that will NEVER EVER happen. The distance between the US and the third world countries will become ever increasingly larger which will further spawn off hatred towards the us, not out of jealousy, but of the techniques that we are using against the rest of the world.
It doesn't matter whether it is a secular state or not. If you are oppressed and have your back towards the wall, you will do anything to fight for your survival.
Come on, think about it. Why do we give ticker tape parades to the soldier coming back from war? Why do we honor people that kill for the good of the nation? It's the same reason that these 'suicide bombers' are respected. They are giving up their lives for the good of the family/nation. What is more respectable/honorable, carpet bombing a civilian population from afar or going in to fight? We look upon them with disdain because we don't respect that they are giving up themselves for others. We see them as savages. The same way that the English looked upon the American Revolutionists as savages during the American Revolution. The "correct" and "honorable" way of fighting was to march up in 2 lines, the front kneeling and the back standing up and firing into the enemy lines. The American revolutionist decided that was stupid and fought running from behind trees.
As for the cliche about "Christians have shed more blood in God's name than ANY other religeon, ever," I would like to see a number -- especially compared to belief systems like Communism or Naziism.
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
Hmm..Who could have said that? The author of this sentence was Adolf Hitler in Mein Kumpf.
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice....
And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people....
When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited. -Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922
Hitler and the Nazi regime was a major believer in the Christian faith. In fact, the Church at the time was a major supporter of the Nazis. In fact, a number of major businessmen and politicians in the US were supporters of the Nazis.
Secondly, you are comparing apples and oranges. Communism and Naziism are not religions, but rather social/political structure. What you are asking is the same as saying: Who has killed more people, Muslims or Democracy?
To answer your question:
Crusades - estimated at well over 9 million
Inquisition - 1 million
Witch Hunts - 3 million
Holocaust - 6 million
(Source) Note: the source is rather unofficial so take it with a grain of salt
In addition, this doesn't take into consideration the "missionary" work that a number of explorers have taken upon themselves. For example, the Aztec civilization was entirely wiped out by the Spanish explorer Hernan Cortes
As the other responder suggested, this has been the most ignorant thing that people actually modded up. Secondly, just like the article talks about, you are just fueling more biased opinions and pawning them off as truths.
As a disclaimer, I am spiritual, but against all forms of organized religions. I believe that the "message" itself gets distorted as it passes through the people that are trying to spread it. I have read the bibles, quran, and other books and each of these have an inherently good message.
The truth is, Christianity has murdered more people throughout history than any other religion. Look at the crusaders and the Spanish Inquisition. Secondly, the only religion that has practiced forceful conversions of other people through missionaries are the Christians. Lastly, every religion has faced a point in which they have to fight for their own survival. For the Christians, it's the Roman era. For the Jews, it was the crusades and the holocaust. For the Muslims, it was also the crusades and maybe even now.
Now, it is totally unfair to say that because a minority group of people have hijacked the religion and used it towards their extremist purposes, to say that the religion is inherently evil. In every religion, a number of passages can also be analyzed that way. And because a minority views it in that perspective, doesn't mean that the message is corrupt. (Again, rings back to my original belief that the messenger corrupts the inherent good of these religions stated above)
Are we going to say that the abortion clinic bombers are representative of the Christian religion? How about the KKK and the Aryan Nation? They believe that they are the crusaders for the christian cause. Also remember, the Nazis believed they were fighting for their faith. In addition, at the time in the US, many top politicians and business men support the Nazis. In fact, George W Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush has been a long supporter of the Nazis.
Now it comes to another point. Why do people honor those that go out there to fight and die for their country..but we look at the Palestian bombers as uneducated savages? Is it honorable to risk your life for the better future of your family and/or your country? If not, try telling the soldiers that as they head off to Afghanistan. Are human bombs any worse than carpet bombing a large area indiscriminately as they did in Afghanistan?
That brings up another point. Throughout history, the underdogs (or the oppressed) have always needed to find new ways of fighting to take advantage of the opponent's vulnerability. Look at the 1770s. The British felt the same way about the Revolutionary fighters as we now do towards the human bombs. The "standard" way of fighting was to stand up in 2 lines directly in front of the enemy and fire on command. The revolutionists fought from behind trees as individuals and moved to dodge the gunfires. All I'm saying is it is a failure on everyone's part when a group of people feel that they have to turn to bombing to get their point across (ie Palestinian bombers, abortion clinic bombers, unabomber, and the kid that they just arrested the other day for the mailbox bombs).
Now to wrap this up and relate it somewhat to the article. Don't believe everything that you read on the internet (including this). Verify stuff yourself. And if you believe all US news channel are unbiased, you are clearly wrong.
What's the big deal? Come on, lots of companies do stuff like this. Viral marketing works a lot better than full blown ad campaign. Look at Yahoo and Hotmail's mail service. At the bottom of every email they have a "Get your free email account at Yahoo.com" or "Get your free email account at Hotmail.com" Why don't people make a big deal about that? You use their service, you have to deal with those types of things. They could easily not provide a free nntp service to you, but they do as part of your service plan. If you want to use another service, there are plenty on the net.
Interesting thought...I wonder if the Egyptologists used geiger counters when they opened the pyramids? But think about it, an archaeologist is not going to see blocks of ceramics as danger, but more of artwork. They will pick it up and play with it before they realized that they are getting sick.
Troves of old parts that NASA uncovers and buys, officials said, are used not in the shuttles themselves but in flotillas of servicing and support gear.
These chips do not need to be rated for use in space as they are not being used in space. They are being used on testing equipments on the ground.
Troves of old parts that NASA uncovers and buys, officials said, are used not in the shuttles themselves but in flotillas of servicing and support gear.
These chips are not going to be used in the shuttle themselves. But instead, they will be used on ground based testing equipments. So, in effect, it will not be experiencing the problems of space travel. Secondly, as an astronaut, would you be confident in a used chip in a mission critical application?
And I still stand by my argument that it can be done using a pentium chip emulating the 8086 (the emulation is already a part of the Intel design, it's just a matter of setting a bit). The only thing that I can see is that it's probably cheaper to do it this way. If they envision that the shuttle will be phased out in a few years, why not use a temporary patch, rather than redesign the testing hardware.
Again, this goes to show the problem that nasa encounters just because it's being inundated with money and they aren't functioning like a private corporation.
As I posted in my previous post, the article specifically mentioned that these chips will not be used *on* the space shuttle, but rather on testing equipment that will be land based. If this is the case, it will not encounter the problems that you've mentioned.
But from the article, they said that these chips weren't going *on* the shuttle itself, but on testing equipment for the boosters. So if it is only ground based, I'd suspect that they would run a really long extension cord to it.
I can't think of an ARM implementation that is superscaler, speculative, and performs out-of-order execution.
But that's not the point. Not all processors were designed for general PC use. A good majority of the processors out there are embedded processors. The ARM/Thumb spec was designed specifically for this. It's other key feature is low power usage (which is very important for battery operated devices).
The problem isn't really the amount of capital (you can get capital if you have a good business model). The problem is that there is a huge barrier for a new company to enter the market. I mean, just look at Transmeta. They were said to be able to take over Intel's position as the number one processor producers. Where are they now?
The main problem is that the industry has narrowed down to these two giants. They have brand recognition. I mean, if a CompUSA started selling PCs or Laptops with Transmeta chips next to a PC or laptop with a "Pentium" chip, which is the consumer going to pick?
From my computer architecture class we learned that Intel, instead of building processors from scratch, builds new processors on top of existing ones. In other words, you can set a bit on the P3 or P4 to emulate the 8086. Why can't they just do that? I mean, you will need to build an "adaptor" per se to have it set a bit to get the chip into 8086 mode, but after which, it will function exactly like an 8086 chip.
Bandwidth is considered a commodity. Maybe not to you, but that is how it works at the root of the internet. Basically, these companies like Qwest lay out lines and sell the bandwidth, not the connection to the top level ISPs, then they resell it to the lower level ISPs, who then sell it to you. At the top level, bandwidth is sold like a commodity. You pay as much as you use and you can resell the unused portion to another top level one.
So in other words, ISPs have to pay more to support users using more than they are allotted. The rate that top level ISPs pay are variable vs a flat rate that they charge to lower level and to you the user. This is partly why they cap it. Now you might ask, why don't they buy more bandwidth? The ISP market is not that lucrative. When people charge a flat rate (ie ISPs or food buffets) they are banking on people that use less than they are allotted to balance out for the users that use more. Because their costs increase but their income stay the same.
Consider this for a second. Could it be possible that this was an insider job by the MPAA? I mean, they already know the Star Wars is going to get a huge amount of money anyways and that people are going to see it in the theatres regardless of whether they saw it before hand. Now, someone at the MPAA (someone at the top), decides to do this so that they can build a huge amount of publicity about movie piraters to the general public. Think about this, this has been the biggest thing in recent news about movie piraters and how it gets on the internet before a movie is released. All they have to do is take the numbers of estimated downloads to congress and show that... they lost xx billions of dollars because of this thing called the In-ter-net. I mean, lots of movies have been released onto the internet before they come out in theatres, but none have received as much publicity as this...
Just a thought...
Also..to those who think that gnutella and kazaa and all the P2P services are the only way to get movies, you're an idiot!
I agree. Many times I've hit the submit button by mistake and can't go back and edit it. However, think about the logistics of that. It could cause a problem in that if you were allowed to change your posting to 1984 after I posted that..my posting would not make any sense in context. You would need to notify all the people below you regarding your change...
The difference is you can't access the original story. In news print, if the article is changed, you can still get the original print. On TV, if they start reporting something else, you can still get the first report. On the web, if they change the original, it's gone.
The big deal is that when a person or a company is trying to coverup something that they don't wan the public to know. I think it's a major problem. In traditional news outlets (ie magazines, newspapers, tv) once a report is out, it is out. People can refer to it and see things change through history. However, if we can't guarantee that for the internet, how can we make it an legitimate source of reference. The web will become even more so a.. "put up anything as news..we can always change it later"
The article wasn't talking about the computer's limitation in terms of recognizing speech. It was directed towards the human brain's limitation to speak and think at the same time.
I think there are some very good applications of speech technology, but it's not going to replace the keyboard and mouse. Speech technology works best when you need to do one thing while directing the computer to do something else. Like handfree mode on cell phones. My guess is that it will find its way into cars before it reaches desktops (if it reaches desktops at all).
Slashdot Mirror
I totally agree with you. I personally don't see honor in attacking civilians or using civilians as a place to attack. What I meant was this is their current mindset. What they honor is people that go out and actually do something instead of just rolling over and let the oppressor take advantage. But you are absolutely right.
That may be in your eyes, but in the eyes of the rest of the world, the US is quite a dominating force that can even be looked upon as a terrorist nation.
Take for example, the International Crimes Court that 139 countries worldwide have signed the treaties for. This is the new governing body that will try leaders of a country or soldiers in a conflict for crimes against humanity. If a soldier raped a girl while in conflict, they would be tried here. If a leader murders a large population of civilians, this is the court that they would be tried in. Now, you mentioned the "leader in freedom and democracy," who is the ONLY industrialized, democratic nation that has refused to sign, in fact "unsigned" what was previously signed this treat. Yup, the United States. The leader of the free world, the country that believes in "justice for all" (if you are American)
In fact, recently, there's a bill going before Congress that will allow a President to order military force to "rescue" a "criminal" from the ICC. So, if you are an American soldier and you raped a Bosnian girl, don't worry, the US will rescue you. If you kill the POW, don't worry, you won't be convicted.
So, what you are saying is true.."leading force for freedom and democracy" Only if you're an American
Part of the problem is that the US government has had a long practice of suppressing the powers of foreign governments. (When you're at the top, you will do everything you can to stay where you are).
The most recent event was the current administration's attempt at ousting Chavez, the President of Venezuela. He is a democratically elected president supported by the majority of the people in the nation. However, he has the potential to lead to major problems for the US. Unlike prior leaders, he has a strong leaning towards doing what is best for his people rather than for the US. Specifically, he wants to raise oil export prices against the wishes of the Bush administration. He is trying to pull the nation out of poverty. Think about it, the US, the crusader for the spread of democracy trying to oust a democratically elected leader to install a puppet regime.
This isn't the only incident of this type that has happend. If you look at Fidel Castro, he was a puppet regime installed by the US government back in the 60s. Castro currently has a thriving biotech (medicine) industry which they sell cheaply to third world countries. The US sees this as a threat and is calling Castro a terrorist that is developing bio-weapons.
Lastly, the US has criticized China for protectionist strategies and such. Earlier this year, the Bush administration has instituted a huge tariff on the import of steel from foreign nations (including Europe), which will hurt the economies of a number of foreign nations. This has set the entire world in an uproar and Europe has brought this to the World Trade Organization.
Lastly, you mentioned that we should give up some power. Ideally that would be best to equalize the world. But that will NEVER EVER happen. The distance between the US and the third world countries will become ever increasingly larger which will further spawn off hatred towards the us, not out of jealousy, but of the techniques that we are using against the rest of the world.
It doesn't matter whether it is a secular state or not. If you are oppressed and have your back towards the wall, you will do anything to fight for your survival.
Come on, think about it. Why do we give ticker tape parades to the soldier coming back from war? Why do we honor people that kill for the good of the nation? It's the same reason that these 'suicide bombers' are respected. They are giving up their lives for the good of the family/nation. What is more respectable/honorable, carpet bombing a civilian population from afar or going in to fight? We look upon them with disdain because we don't respect that they are giving up themselves for others. We see them as savages. The same way that the English looked upon the American Revolutionists as savages during the American Revolution. The "correct" and "honorable" way of fighting was to march up in 2 lines, the front kneeling and the back standing up and firing into the enemy lines. The American revolutionist decided that was stupid and fought running from behind trees.
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
Hmm..Who could have said that? The author of this sentence was Adolf Hitler in Mein Kumpf.
Read more at: Hitler's Christianity
Hitler and the Nazi regime was a major believer in the Christian faith. In fact, the Church at the time was a major supporter of the Nazis. In fact, a number of major businessmen and politicians in the US were supporters of the Nazis.
Secondly, you are comparing apples and oranges. Communism and Naziism are not religions, but rather social/political structure. What you are asking is the same as saying: Who has killed more people, Muslims or Democracy?
To answer your question:
- Crusades - estimated at well over 9 million
- Inquisition - 1 million
- Witch Hunts - 3 million
- Holocaust - 6 million
(Source) Note: the source is rather unofficial so take it with a grain of saltIn addition, this doesn't take into consideration the "missionary" work that a number of explorers have taken upon themselves. For example, the Aztec civilization was entirely wiped out by the Spanish explorer Hernan Cortes
As the other responder suggested, this has been the most ignorant thing that people actually modded up. Secondly, just like the article talks about, you are just fueling more biased opinions and pawning them off as truths.
As a disclaimer, I am spiritual, but against all forms of organized religions. I believe that the "message" itself gets distorted as it passes through the people that are trying to spread it. I have read the bibles, quran, and other books and each of these have an inherently good message.
The truth is, Christianity has murdered more people throughout history than any other religion. Look at the crusaders and the Spanish Inquisition. Secondly, the only religion that has practiced forceful conversions of other people through missionaries are the Christians. Lastly, every religion has faced a point in which they have to fight for their own survival. For the Christians, it's the Roman era. For the Jews, it was the crusades and the holocaust. For the Muslims, it was also the crusades and maybe even now.
Now, it is totally unfair to say that because a minority group of people have hijacked the religion and used it towards their extremist purposes, to say that the religion is inherently evil. In every religion, a number of passages can also be analyzed that way. And because a minority views it in that perspective, doesn't mean that the message is corrupt. (Again, rings back to my original belief that the messenger corrupts the inherent good of these religions stated above)
Are we going to say that the abortion clinic bombers are representative of the Christian religion? How about the KKK and the Aryan Nation? They believe that they are the crusaders for the christian cause. Also remember, the Nazis believed they were fighting for their faith. In addition, at the time in the US, many top politicians and business men support the Nazis. In fact, George W Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush has been a long supporter of the Nazis.
Now it comes to another point. Why do people honor those that go out there to fight and die for their country..but we look at the Palestian bombers as uneducated savages? Is it honorable to risk your life for the better future of your family and/or your country? If not, try telling the soldiers that as they head off to Afghanistan. Are human bombs any worse than carpet bombing a large area indiscriminately as they did in Afghanistan?
That brings up another point. Throughout history, the underdogs (or the oppressed) have always needed to find new ways of fighting to take advantage of the opponent's vulnerability. Look at the 1770s. The British felt the same way about the Revolutionary fighters as we now do towards the human bombs. The "standard" way of fighting was to stand up in 2 lines directly in front of the enemy and fire on command. The revolutionists fought from behind trees as individuals and moved to dodge the gunfires. All I'm saying is it is a failure on everyone's part when a group of people feel that they have to turn to bombing to get their point across (ie Palestinian bombers, abortion clinic bombers, unabomber, and the kid that they just arrested the other day for the mailbox bombs).
Now to wrap this up and relate it somewhat to the article. Don't believe everything that you read on the internet (including this). Verify stuff yourself. And if you believe all US news channel are unbiased, you are clearly wrong.
Could this be what would happen if there was suddenly 20 different versions of Windows out there?
What's the big deal? Come on, lots of companies do stuff like this. Viral marketing works a lot better than full blown ad campaign. Look at Yahoo and Hotmail's mail service. At the bottom of every email they have a "Get your free email account at Yahoo.com" or "Get your free email account at Hotmail.com" Why don't people make a big deal about that? You use their service, you have to deal with those types of things. They could easily not provide a free nntp service to you, but they do as part of your service plan. If you want to use another service, there are plenty on the net.
Interesting thought...I wonder if the Egyptologists used geiger counters when they opened the pyramids? But think about it, an archaeologist is not going to see blocks of ceramics as danger, but more of artwork. They will pick it up and play with it before they realized that they are getting sick.
Reminds me of the huge monoliths in 2001: A Space Odyssey...
These chips are not going to be used in the shuttle themselves. But instead, they will be used on ground based testing equipments. So, in effect, it will not be experiencing the problems of space travel. Secondly, as an astronaut, would you be confident in a used chip in a mission critical application?
And I still stand by my argument that it can be done using a pentium chip emulating the 8086 (the emulation is already a part of the Intel design, it's just a matter of setting a bit). The only thing that I can see is that it's probably cheaper to do it this way. If they envision that the shuttle will be phased out in a few years, why not use a temporary patch, rather than redesign the testing hardware.
Again, this goes to show the problem that nasa encounters just because it's being inundated with money and they aren't functioning like a private corporation.
As I posted in my previous post, the article specifically mentioned that these chips will not be used *on* the space shuttle, but rather on testing equipment that will be land based. If this is the case, it will not encounter the problems that you've mentioned.
But from the article, they said that these chips weren't going *on* the shuttle itself, but on testing equipment for the boosters. So if it is only ground based, I'd suspect that they would run a really long extension cord to it.
The problem isn't really the amount of capital (you can get capital if you have a good business model). The problem is that there is a huge barrier for a new company to enter the market. I mean, just look at Transmeta. They were said to be able to take over Intel's position as the number one processor producers. Where are they now?
The main problem is that the industry has narrowed down to these two giants. They have brand recognition. I mean, if a CompUSA started selling PCs or Laptops with Transmeta chips next to a PC or laptop with a "Pentium" chip, which is the consumer going to pick?
From my computer architecture class we learned that Intel, instead of building processors from scratch, builds new processors on top of existing ones. In other words, you can set a bit on the P3 or P4 to emulate the 8086. Why can't they just do that? I mean, you will need to build an "adaptor" per se to have it set a bit to get the chip into 8086 mode, but after which, it will function exactly like an 8086 chip.
Bandwidth is considered a commodity. Maybe not to you, but that is how it works at the root of the internet. Basically, these companies like Qwest lay out lines and sell the bandwidth, not the connection to the top level ISPs, then they resell it to the lower level ISPs, who then sell it to you. At the top level, bandwidth is sold like a commodity. You pay as much as you use and you can resell the unused portion to another top level one.
So in other words, ISPs have to pay more to support users using more than they are allotted. The rate that top level ISPs pay are variable vs a flat rate that they charge to lower level and to you the user. This is partly why they cap it. Now you might ask, why don't they buy more bandwidth? The ISP market is not that lucrative. When people charge a flat rate (ie ISPs or food buffets) they are banking on people that use less than they are allotted to balance out for the users that use more. Because their costs increase but their income stay the same.
To read more about it: go here
Consider this for a second. Could it be possible that this was an insider job by the MPAA? I mean, they already know the Star Wars is going to get a huge amount of money anyways and that people are going to see it in the theatres regardless of whether they saw it before hand. Now, someone at the MPAA (someone at the top), decides to do this so that they can build a huge amount of publicity about movie piraters to the general public. Think about this, this has been the biggest thing in recent news about movie piraters and how it gets on the internet before a movie is released. All they have to do is take the numbers of estimated downloads to congress and show that ... they lost xx billions of dollars because of this thing called the In-ter-net. I mean, lots of movies have been released onto the internet before they come out in theatres, but none have received as much publicity as this...
Just a thought...
Also..to those who think that gnutella and kazaa and all the P2P services are the only way to get movies, you're an idiot!
I agree. Many times I've hit the submit button by mistake and can't go back and edit it. However, think about the logistics of that. It could cause a problem in that if you were allowed to change your posting to 1984 after I posted that..my posting would not make any sense in context. You would need to notify all the people below you regarding your change...
The difference is you can't access the original story. In news print, if the article is changed, you can still get the original print. On TV, if they start reporting something else, you can still get the first report. On the web, if they change the original, it's gone.
Don't you mean 1984? I think you're a decade off..
The big deal is that when a person or a company is trying to coverup something that they don't wan the public to know. I think it's a major problem. In traditional news outlets (ie magazines, newspapers, tv) once a report is out, it is out. People can refer to it and see things change through history. However, if we can't guarantee that for the internet, how can we make it an legitimate source of reference. The web will become even more so a.. "put up anything as news..we can always change it later"
Take for example this analysis of the Chavez reporting from the Associate Press. They totally changed the story. [Read that link..it's actually quite damning]
The article wasn't talking about the computer's limitation in terms of recognizing speech. It was directed towards the human brain's limitation to speak and think at the same time.
I think there are some very good applications of speech technology, but it's not going to replace the keyboard and mouse. Speech technology works best when you need to do one thing while directing the computer to do something else. Like handfree mode on cell phones. My guess is that it will find its way into cars before it reaches desktops (if it reaches desktops at all).
Reuters Article
The tariff on steel went up first before the EU decided to retaliate.
I love how allies treat each other this way...