Keep in mind that the road is littered with the bloodied corpses of alleged "iPod killers",
The Ipod is dominant in the market. The Iphone isn't. So chances are both may exist in a market much larger than both of them; and Google are probably more interested in getting their products onto other phones.
By the end of 2008, Slashdotters may find that they have 10 million so-called "pretentious hipsters" to deal with while they're still bitching about how bad the iPhone is.
I must be reading a different Slashdot to you. All I see is people on Slashdot always mentioning the Iphone as being some kind of special phone, whilst out in the real world people are happily using (including listening to music, browsing the web etc) on all sorts of ordinary phones.
Sorry, you don't get to play the "help we're such a minority nobody likes this product" for a product that gets as widespread coverage and support (both in terms of number of stories posted, and comments) as the Iphone! Maybe if you were plugging something like poor old BeOS, you might have a point.
99% of iPhone users aren't going to care less that software isn't GPLv3'd
Who said anything about that? The criticisms I've seen are things that ordinary users want - MMS, video, copy/paste, running standard apps (i.e., Java).
And my phone works too. But I can say more positive things about it than that it simply works!
One does wonder why the/. crowd lost interest in that phone in favor of another that doesn't exist yet.
They have? How does having an article on a product under development mean the "crowd" has lost interest? We have articles on all sorts of unreleased products - including above all others, Apple's.
This is an article on Google, but everyone keeps bringing up the Iphone - that doesn't sound like lost interest to me. I have a Motorola phone, shall I bring that up instead?
Using my many years of reading Slashdot as a gauge, the enthusiasm for the Android handsets, and lack thereof for the iPhone,
Interestingly, I see the complete opposite. I'm seeing far more support for the Iphone, and far less criticism for it - and just consider how we get millions of Iphone stories, but rarely on any other phone model. And even though this is a story about Google, we still get all the people claiming how the Iphone is better, and criticising that Google haven't released their product (what about when the Iphone hadn't been released?).
I've noted that it isn't quite so extreme with the Iphone as with other Apple products (where anything critical to Apple gets modded down - with the Iphone, a few critical comments can get modded up). But overall, the slant is towards praising the Iphone above and beyond every other phone out there.
So if market trends defy the common wisdom on this site, I would expect the Iphone to flop.
You misunderstand the iPHone if you think it's just a nice, expensive, phone. It's really a small, portable computer that can make phone calls. As a computer, it can also browse the web, take notes, watch videos, listen to music, check your stocks, check the weather, take pictures, and email.
You've just described practically every phone on the market (with only the exception of the very cheap basic ones).
Note, I said every phone, not just every "smart" phone - the things you list have long stopped being in the realms of "smart" phones. So I think you proved the OP's point - it is just yet another phone.
Sometimes it seems like we've slipped back to 2002 when I see people getting wooed over what they can do with an iphone, completely oblivious to the fact that that's what the rest of us have been doing for years on normal phones. How could you miss the camera-phone craze?
(I might also point out that you can take pictures but not video; it's a computer that doesn't support Java yet; I even hear you can take notes but not copy and paste - all things that are standard on any normal phone... Sure people will point out it has some nice things too, but it's just another phone, that just happens to be priced in the high end of the market.)
Yes, Apple have released 1 phone, Google haven't released any. I'm not sure what the point is here - not too long ago, it was the case that Apple hadn't released any phones, whilst plenty of other companies had released many phones. That didn't stop us from being bombarded with advert stories about it before it's release, and I don't recall you dismissing the iphone on those grounds.
How? This is an honest question. The market is saturated with other phones too.
Well, they're ahead of the curve to Google of course in that they have a phone, but then you might as well say that for Motorola, Nokia and everyone else too.
It's quite clear that this article and the comments here are talking about the first definition, a computer that has real inteligence. A computer that is as 'real' as you or I, who can converse, understand, and interact with others as well as any normal person can.
It's still not clear how we separate "real intelligence" from "fake intelligence". Sure, a chess computer works by following an algorithm - but so will presumably Rascals. I'm not sure that deterministic matters - Rascals may also behave 100% deterministically (or if they throw random behaviour in there, you could do that with a chess program also).
And that a chess AI is easier to write is not a qualitative difference.
Why has the AC been modded down? He explained (with direct quotes) what the Loebner Prize that the researchers are going for is.
I don't think he has been modified down - currently I'm only seeing +4 at 100% informative, with no negative mods. But the starting score is listed at -1.
This is something I've noticed recently with many - but not all - Anonymous posts. Anyone know what's up? It's very annoying (at least if all AC posts were starting at -1, I could give them an extra +1 in my prefs...)
..."The TV License" isn't a tax. You are free to buy (and use) a TV without presenting a license, provided you don't connect it to any means to receive free to air terrestrial BBC broadcasts (i.e. just to a DVD or VHS player). And don't you forget it.
It's a licence. That doesn't mean it can't also be considered a tax. Yes, it's a tax on watching TV rather than buying a TV, but I don't see how that stops it being a tax.
It still leaves one wondering how the steaming pile of garbage that is Netscape worked for him. I mean, it was OK in the 90s but it's terrible compared to other modern browsers.
I believe the later versions of Netscape were based on the same rendering engine as Firefox, so it's not really relevant to compare to how it was in the 90s.
people in office (that we should be able to trust) shouldn't be doing illegal things.
Depends - not everything that is illegal is unethical, and not everyone agrees on what should be illegal. If the politician's stance is that that thing shouldn't be illegal, I don't see it as a problem.
The problem is that some things are such a taboo that it's impossible to have any kind of rational debate about them.
Evidence for astrology should be statistically significant so anecdotal evidence is not good enough. Evidence for the existence of something is rather different: it depends on the credibility of the witnesses.
Well many if not most theists believe in an intervenionist God, so for those, you could test the effects of things like prayer just like astrology.
How can you experience astrology? I cannot imagine someone saying that they saw or felt astrology...
They could claim they are feeling affected by planetary positions. Just as unfalsifiable as saying you feel affected by God.
Sure it's annoying for the guy that he missed his flight, but I always wonder why people need to complain over and over about some 'side-effects' that are there for their own safety.
For his safety? Yes, missing his flight certainly will mean 0% of dying in a terrorist attack on the plane!
But I think that kind of misses the point. You already have the choice not to fly if you are worried about safety that much, but it defeats the point if we force that upon people.
But believers in astrology would claim that there is large amounts of anecdotal evidence from people who say it worked, or even personal experience that it worked for them! I don't see how this is different to religious or any other kind of supernatural belief.
Clearly there haven't been millions or billions of eye witnesses for seeing God - perhaps you mean billions of people who say they've experience God, but the same goes for astrology and so on too.
see i love wikipedia but i must say i get a little pissed even when reading about hitler and very touchy subjects when i see someone added "and he was a complete douche" at the end of it... so the current problem is we dont need deletionists or freedom of speech we need place snugly in the middle that will allow for freedom of expression and general knowledge, maybe a comment system however i could see that quickly getting out of control full of trolls and such
Or, we could just revert the vandalism. I don't see the need for complicated moderation/comment systems when we can already directly edit and revert the articles.
Perhaps a relevance/trust worthiness flag or rating on articles
Note there are many ratings systems already on Wikipedia, most notable "Good Article" and "Featured Article", though they are not automated into a simple voting system. I think that's probably for the best though.
One of Joe Blogg's friends from school, of course.
Such an article could be easily deleted on the grounds of original research, or not based on a reliable source. There's no need to drag in the question of how notable his nose is.
Well there are certainly other valid reasons for deleting pages, such as lack of references, unverifiable, original research, advertising. I presume the debate here is whether an article that has verifiable references should be deleted purely on the grounds of not notable?
Of course, there is the possibility that many people here complaining "my article was deleted" are actually referring to articles deleted on grounds other than non-notable.
Don't forget that copyright is ridiculous when it applies to the RIAA and MPAA, but it's incredibly important when it applies to flash games and the GPL.
Right, because you can point me to a story where:
* The FSF has lobbied for laws tightening copyright laws or introducing new ones like the DMCA.
* A GPL copyright holder has sued individuals for distributing a GPL piece of software without source code over p2p (preferably for billions of dollars) (as opposed to a commercial company violating the GPL).
* A link to comments where the same person has claimed that copyright shouldn't exist when talking about the RIAA or MPAA, but also claimed that copyright should exist when talking about the GPL.
And see my other post - there's also the hypocrisy of the IOC to consider. Grandmothers sued by the RIAA usually haven't spent their time suing everyone else left right and centre about usages of words.
Correction - I think making a clone of this game would be fine, but the allegation is that code has been copied, which if true means it isn't anywhere near the same thing anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I rather have a Cristian neighbor, friend or boss than a scientologist any day.
;)
Christianity - not as bad as Scientology. Not exactly a ringing endorsement is it
Keep in mind that the road is littered with the bloodied corpses of alleged "iPod killers",
The Ipod is dominant in the market. The Iphone isn't. So chances are both may exist in a market much larger than both of them; and Google are probably more interested in getting their products onto other phones.
By the end of 2008, Slashdotters may find that they have 10 million so-called "pretentious hipsters" to deal with while they're still bitching about how bad the iPhone is.
I must be reading a different Slashdot to you. All I see is people on Slashdot always mentioning the Iphone as being some kind of special phone, whilst out in the real world people are happily using (including listening to music, browsing the web etc) on all sorts of ordinary phones.
Sorry, you don't get to play the "help we're such a minority nobody likes this product" for a product that gets as widespread coverage and support (both in terms of number of stories posted, and comments) as the Iphone! Maybe if you were plugging something like poor old BeOS, you might have a point.
99% of iPhone users aren't going to care less that software isn't GPLv3'd
Who said anything about that? The criticisms I've seen are things that ordinary users want - MMS, video, copy/paste, running standard apps (i.e., Java).
And my phone works too. But I can say more positive things about it than that it simply works!
One does wonder why the /. crowd lost interest in that phone in favor of another that doesn't exist yet.
They have? How does having an article on a product under development mean the "crowd" has lost interest? We have articles on all sorts of unreleased products - including above all others, Apple's.
This is an article on Google, but everyone keeps bringing up the Iphone - that doesn't sound like lost interest to me. I have a Motorola phone, shall I bring that up instead?
Using my many years of reading Slashdot as a gauge, the enthusiasm for the Android handsets, and lack thereof for the iPhone,
Interestingly, I see the complete opposite. I'm seeing far more support for the Iphone, and far less criticism for it - and just consider how we get millions of Iphone stories, but rarely on any other phone model. And even though this is a story about Google, we still get all the people claiming how the Iphone is better, and criticising that Google haven't released their product (what about when the Iphone hadn't been released?).
I've noted that it isn't quite so extreme with the Iphone as with other Apple products (where anything critical to Apple gets modded down - with the Iphone, a few critical comments can get modded up). But overall, the slant is towards praising the Iphone above and beyond every other phone out there.
So if market trends defy the common wisdom on this site, I would expect the Iphone to flop.
I see adverts for other phones all the time. In fact, I've yet to see one for the iphone, now that you mention it.
Apple are good at getting places like Slashdot to give them free advertising though...
You misunderstand the iPHone if you think it's just a nice, expensive, phone. It's really a small, portable computer that can make phone calls. As a computer, it can also browse the web, take notes, watch videos, listen to music, check your stocks, check the weather, take pictures, and email.
You've just described practically every phone on the market (with only the exception of the very cheap basic ones).
Note, I said every phone, not just every "smart" phone - the things you list have long stopped being in the realms of "smart" phones. So I think you proved the OP's point - it is just yet another phone.
Sometimes it seems like we've slipped back to 2002 when I see people getting wooed over what they can do with an iphone, completely oblivious to the fact that that's what the rest of us have been doing for years on normal phones. How could you miss the camera-phone craze?
(I might also point out that you can take pictures but not video; it's a computer that doesn't support Java yet; I even hear you can take notes but not copy and paste - all things that are standard on any normal phone... Sure people will point out it has some nice things too, but it's just another phone, that just happens to be priced in the high end of the market.)
Yes, Apple have released 1 phone, Google haven't released any. I'm not sure what the point is here - not too long ago, it was the case that Apple hadn't released any phones, whilst plenty of other companies had released many phones. That didn't stop us from being bombarded with advert stories about it before it's release, and I don't recall you dismissing the iphone on those grounds.
How? This is an honest question. The market is saturated with other phones too.
Well, they're ahead of the curve to Google of course in that they have a phone, but then you might as well say that for Motorola, Nokia and everyone else too.
It's quite clear that this article and the comments here are talking about the first definition, a computer that has real inteligence. A computer that is as 'real' as you or I, who can converse, understand, and interact with others as well as any normal person can.
It's still not clear how we separate "real intelligence" from "fake intelligence". Sure, a chess computer works by following an algorithm - but so will presumably Rascals. I'm not sure that deterministic matters - Rascals may also behave 100% deterministically (or if they throw random behaviour in there, you could do that with a chess program also).
And that a chess AI is easier to write is not a qualitative difference.
Why has the AC been modded down? He explained (with direct quotes) what the Loebner Prize that the researchers are going for is.
I don't think he has been modified down - currently I'm only seeing +4 at 100% informative, with no negative mods. But the starting score is listed at -1.
This is something I've noticed recently with many - but not all - Anonymous posts. Anyone know what's up? It's very annoying (at least if all AC posts were starting at -1, I could give them an extra +1 in my prefs...)
..."The TV License" isn't a tax. You are free to buy (and use) a TV without presenting a license, provided you don't connect it to any means to receive free to air terrestrial BBC broadcasts (i.e. just to a DVD or VHS player). And don't you forget it.
It's a licence. That doesn't mean it can't also be considered a tax. Yes, it's a tax on watching TV rather than buying a TV, but I don't see how that stops it being a tax.
It still leaves one wondering how the steaming pile of garbage that is Netscape worked for him. I mean, it was OK in the 90s but it's terrible compared to other modern browsers.
I believe the later versions of Netscape were based on the same rendering engine as Firefox, so it's not really relevant to compare to how it was in the 90s.
people in office (that we should be able to trust) shouldn't be doing illegal things.
Depends - not everything that is illegal is unethical, and not everyone agrees on what should be illegal. If the politician's stance is that that thing shouldn't be illegal, I don't see it as a problem.
The problem is that some things are such a taboo that it's impossible to have any kind of rational debate about them.
Evidence for astrology should be statistically significant so anecdotal evidence is not good enough. Evidence for the existence of something is rather different: it depends on the credibility of the witnesses.
Well many if not most theists believe in an intervenionist God, so for those, you could test the effects of things like prayer just like astrology.
How can you experience astrology? I cannot imagine someone saying that they saw or felt astrology...
They could claim they are feeling affected by planetary positions. Just as unfalsifiable as saying you feel affected by God.
Sure it's annoying for the guy that he missed his flight, but I always wonder why people need to complain over and over about some 'side-effects' that are there for their own safety.
For his safety? Yes, missing his flight certainly will mean 0% of dying in a terrorist attack on the plane!
But I think that kind of misses the point. You already have the choice not to fly if you are worried about safety that much, but it defeats the point if we force that upon people.
But believers in astrology would claim that there is large amounts of anecdotal evidence from people who say it worked, or even personal experience that it worked for them! I don't see how this is different to religious or any other kind of supernatural belief.
Clearly there haven't been millions or billions of eye witnesses for seeing God - perhaps you mean billions of people who say they've experience God, but the same goes for astrology and so on too.
Wikipedia already has categories for every article.
see i love wikipedia but i must say i get a little pissed even when reading about hitler and very touchy subjects when i see someone added "and he was a complete douche" at the end of it ... so the current problem is we dont need deletionists or freedom of speech we need place snugly in the middle that will allow for freedom of expression and general knowledge, maybe a comment system however i could see that quickly getting out of control full of trolls and such
Or, we could just revert the vandalism. I don't see the need for complicated moderation/comment systems when we can already directly edit and revert the articles.
Perhaps a relevance/trust worthiness flag or rating on articles
Note there are many ratings systems already on Wikipedia, most notable "Good Article" and "Featured Article", though they are not automated into a simple voting system. I think that's probably for the best though.
One of Joe Blogg's friends from school, of course.
Such an article could be easily deleted on the grounds of original research, or not based on a reliable source. There's no need to drag in the question of how notable his nose is.
The problem if you don't delete some pages is :
Well there are certainly other valid reasons for deleting pages, such as lack of references, unverifiable, original research, advertising. I presume the debate here is whether an article that has verifiable references should be deleted purely on the grounds of not notable?
Of course, there is the possibility that many people here complaining "my article was deleted" are actually referring to articles deleted on grounds other than non-notable.
I presume this was sarcasm/humour, but it's very hard to tell the difference between that and genuine posts these days...
Don't forget that copyright is ridiculous when it applies to the RIAA and MPAA, but it's incredibly important when it applies to flash games and the GPL.
Right, because you can point me to a story where:
* The FSF has lobbied for laws tightening copyright laws or introducing new ones like the DMCA.
* A GPL copyright holder has sued individuals for distributing a GPL piece of software without source code over p2p (preferably for billions of dollars) (as opposed to a commercial company violating the GPL).
* A link to comments where the same person has claimed that copyright shouldn't exist when talking about the RIAA or MPAA, but also claimed that copyright should exist when talking about the GPL.
And see my other post - there's also the hypocrisy of the IOC to consider. Grandmothers sued by the RIAA usually haven't spent their time suing everyone else left right and centre about usages of words.
Correction - I think making a clone of this game would be fine, but the allegation is that code has been copied, which if true means it isn't anywhere near the same thing anyway.