In most cases I have encountered it was used in the "it was printed on paper" sense, it didn't matter if the source was trustworthy, a press release or any other incorrect crap, as long as it was paper.
Amen to that. I have encountered this very problem. If I wished to make something citeable, and (therefore true?), all i need to do is cough up the cost of a vanity press print run. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
I tried to contribute an article about a local person of note, and I had to fight with an editor for a week who kept deleting the article. Not flagging it, not posting messages about how it could be altered to improve content, but outright deleting it. After a few experiences like that, I gave up on contributing to Wikipedia at all.
No we're not. We're talking about pure fundementalist Christianity trying to
pose as something that it's not in order to gain "legitimacy" and to allow it
better able to be disruptive and invasive.
No, ID is an established fact, the Bible says it is so, and it was written by GOD. OTOH, this unsupported ad-homin (ad-godinim?) attack on GOD is just the sort of typical hysterical propaganda that is spewed in the name of heathen 'science'. Where are your facts? Hmmm? HMMMM? Furthermore, the author's credentials are highly suspect, as he is clearly destined to burn in hell for eternity for being a heathen. Would you really accept arguments from someone who's soul is dammed? QED
the ability to smell tyrannosaur breath. (Pedants: Look, its a joke, please don't bother pointing out the time line here, Ok?).
Actually, you were correct without the disclaimer. Just because humans didn't exist at the same time as t-rex, doesn't mean that we didn't retain genetic traits from the creatures that we evolved from. So it is entirely possible that we might have broken genes that might be good for detecting t-rex breath.
I for one, sure hope we do. I mean, we have all seen 'Jurassic Park'...
Moreover, he said that it won't be only the newspaper sites that adopt this change; foxnews.com, he said, will also start charging for content. "It has a huge and loyal and profitable [web] audience already," he said.
Now hes CHARGING us for his bullshit propaganda? Jeeeeeeeeez.......
So the complexity of the problem is probably an order of magnitude beyond...
I agree with you and the prior posters that the problems that one must overcome to model a human brain or 'trigger' a singularity event are vast and challenging.
In Kurzweil's defense, I think that his predictions are based off of observations of the rate of change of technology to date. Consider where humanity was three hundred years ago, and the rate of change in the field of computer science in the past fifty years. Things aren't slowing down.
I cannot speak to his personal motivation for evangelizing the singularity, but I have to say that without someone saying, 'wouldn't it be cool to..', it wouldn't happen at all or as quickly. I'm sure that some people would have told Charles Babbage that he was nuts if he predicted Diffrence Engines that operate at petaflop speed.
so the matter of checking my request against that content is covered by this groundbreaking algorithm.
LOL, so you want them to do a full text search of, what, the Internet? The library of congress? Suppose they hook up some Google servers, and search the net for the phrase you are buying. How are they to interpret hits? It could just be a blogger plagiarizing the story in question. You going to have a person monitor the search results? That was the whole point of automating it in the first place.
Basically it seems like they're going for a lowest-common-denominator approach that's not going to make anyone happy. UIs that are tailored to take advantage of a platform's strengths are much better, and exceptions (like crazy people who want to manage their servers from a tablet on a regular basis) can be dealt with as such instead of making everyone else pay the price.
I think you are correct in the statement about standardizing across platforms, but there is something you are overlooking. By standardizing things, it is setting up developers to be able to write something once, and deploy it to a whole slew of platforms just by changing a few compiler flags (check out the Windows Presentation Foundation stuff.). Then, it becomes easier to get apps for whatever platform you want to use, and everybody wins. Devs sell more software and customers have more choices.
Having an app with a slightly sub optimized UI is better than no app at all, right?
However, they also employ people and generally give a lot of people a sense of belonging that they don't want to give up. So, once the goal they were created for is reached, they don't disband like they should. Instead, they just set new, generally more extreme goals, until they eventually degenerate into a fringe group of wackos.
This description seems to apply equally well to government agencies. I always thought people should be proud of how small their groups/agencies are as opposed to how large they are, as this would reflect on the the status of the problem. (small group == small problem)
This is just like when you get up an go to the zoo, and buy an ice cream cone with vanilla and strawberry ice cream, and you go into the penguin house and when you are in there a polar bear breaks out if its cage and you are trapped in the penguin house with you ice cream cone, and you notice that Natalie Portman is sitting next to to you covered in hot grits, and then, like, the polar bear breaks down the door and as he comes in...
Wait a second. Its NOTHING like that.
Its more like the AP hired some developer to write a tool license out its twenty three kajillion words of content automatically and told them they wanted it done by Tuesday. Do you really expect someone to write code that would contextually differentiate public IP content from private on the fly? Really?
While we are wishing for silly shit, I wish I was really the one in the penguin house in the story with my best grits spoon.
Ok, what could possibly be the reason for this? I can only think of one,
Or perhaps they did some vigilante hacking to destroy the system controlling the botnet. While such an activity would be for the greater good of Internet users, it would also just as illegal as mundane data theft or destruction.
Hacking laws on the books make it illegal to add, modify, or delete data on another person's computer without their consent. I believe it carries a pretty stiff sentence too, because it is a federal statute.
I am pretty sure that Amazon has no consent from anyone when they used their DRM to kill the book, so they could be in some deep water.
Also, since it was an an actual person that punched the enter key when it came time to revoke the DRM license, I wonder if they could be hit with the criminal hacking charge. The fact that invoking DRM controls could land you in the federal pen for 20 years might be a great way get corps to knock that shit off.
One of the reasons why we might not see the galaxy as teeming with life is beacuse all the life out there might not be capable of generating advanced technology. One of the assumptions in the equations is that all live will evolve to the point of sentience and begin building transistors. Why would this be the case?
The dinosuars were doing pretty well as the dominant species for 100 million years without advanced technology, and if it were not for the KT event, they might have been the dominant species for another 100 million years. Evolution doesn't 'try' to evolve life to be smarter, just to be better. Big brains were a good move for us, but that may not be the case for every other life form.
is that I will agree with anyone who says that it is possible that God exists. It IS possible! It's just unlikely,
Then you aren't an Atheist.
Dictionary.com: Atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Sounds to me like you are just Agnostic if you are willing to accept that there could be a god. I think your primary complaint is dogma, not faith. Personally, I think that religion is great for people, and organized religion is the worst idea ever. Its only when it gets organized that it gets ugly.
I know people who play this game, making many trades on tiny margins. Its educated gambling at best. More to the point it takes time and effort to be knowledgeable enough to have a good feel for what a stock is generally doing at any given time. To me this sort of behavior is idiotic. Why not just devote effort to creating something of value to sell to the marketplace, rather than try to leach money out of the system.
Half the people involved in the financial system are just that, leeches trying to get a free lunch without doing anything of real value. What does this sort of activity really do to create wealth in the global sense?
Like most things in life, the Environment is neither in danger as the radicals would have you believe or as healthy as the conservatives would have you believe. But I digress.
Are game consoles really worth talking about in the grand scheme of things? I would think that figuring out how to transport people and heating homes without emitting carbon would be SLIGHTLY more relevant.
Well, your unicorns and leprechauns aren't like any I have read about in folklore, but lest suppose they have all the qualities of the christian god that make him/her/it so impossible to prove or disprove. In that case, I have absolutely no problem saying they could exist. I am a 'odd unicorn agnostic'.
See, I am not trying to use it as a dodge to leave some chance for their existence in the argument. I am simply trying to be honest and scientific as possible. What can I say about invisible, intangible creatures? Absolutely nothing. They could exist, work out a good rigorous test and we will talk. The most accurate and honest thing to say is that you cannot say anything about said beings. A conventional unicorn was supposedly a living tangible thing. They didn't exist. They would have left traces and been detectable in some fashion, as most tangible creatures are. Lack of physical evidence for such a creature is pretty convincing. But God? Untouchable, unknowable, unmeasurable. Pretty hard to dream up a test that would confirm or deny existence of such a creature.
I keep trying to tell you that you are operating on faith because you have nothing to prove that god doesn't exist. That what religious faith is, a belief in something absent of fact or proof. You are willing to take a side in a debate that requires faith on way or another to participate.
Oh, for fuck's sake...we go to the trouble to build a super slick rover to explore the surface of another planet, and they want to waste time visiting the.0001% that we already have explored? If there isn't something better to be exploring on the moon, why the hell are we going again?
I knew we were a glorified pack of narcissistic monkeys but this just take it.
"Lets go look and see where we landed LAST time we were here, that seems like a good idea."
No, not really. This is a tiresome strawman argument against Atheism. Are you keeping an open mind about the possible existence of Unicorns? Leprechauns? The end of the world in 2012 as predicted by the Mayan calendar?
The claims about unicorns and leprechauns are far easier to test and negate than claims about god, and there lies the problem with your examples.
I am just saying that an Atheist's claim is as untestable and as much of an article of faith as as those of a believer's.
I believe that accepting a personal state of functional atheism requires more up-front intellectual honesty
I can say that there is no evidence I have witnessed that there is a god. I can also say that there is no evidence I have witnessed that tells me there isn't a god.
Just because a position has poor evidence to support it, does not automatically make the opposite position a correct one.
I think that Athiesim is just as shaky as religion's claims. How is that personal honesty? Either side 's claims rely on faith.
I'll keep an open mind until I see proof provided by one side or the other.
More to the point, if the produce a number that is less than the value of the settlement that they are requesting, it might make it difficult to justify the damages that they are claiming.
Developers aren't the problem. People keep saying 'developers' in this thread when they mean 'publishers'. Developers write code and debug physics engines, they don't set prices or worry about second tier markets.
You are thinking of CEOs, who are whiny bitches regardless of the industry they are in...
Slashdot Mirror
...showing that these languages are more fun to use.
...And in other news, older people seem to die more often than younger people, showing that being dead is much more fun as you get older.
Who is Pete Townshend?
Yes.
Who is Pete Townshend?
Yes.
Pete Townshend is Yes?
No, Jon Anderson.
Who is Jon Anderson?
No, that's Pete Townshend.
Who?
Yes.
Ah-ha, I have it now..
No thats Morten Harket.
In most cases I have encountered it was used in the "it was printed on paper" sense, it didn't matter if the source was trustworthy, a press release or any other incorrect crap, as long as it was paper.
Amen to that. I have encountered this very problem. If I wished to make something citeable, and (therefore true?), all i need to do is cough up the cost of a vanity press print run. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
I tried to contribute an article about a local person of note, and I had to fight with an editor for a week who kept deleting the article. Not flagging it, not posting messages about how it could be altered to improve content, but outright deleting it. After a few experiences like that, I gave up on contributing to Wikipedia at all.
No we're not. We're talking about pure fundementalist Christianity trying to pose as something that it's not in order to gain "legitimacy" and to allow it better able to be disruptive and invasive.
No, ID is an established fact, the Bible says it is so, and it was written by GOD. OTOH, this unsupported ad-homin (ad-godinim?) attack on GOD is just the sort of typical hysterical propaganda that is spewed in the name of heathen 'science'. Where are your facts? Hmmm? HMMMM? Furthermore, the author's credentials are highly suspect, as he is clearly destined to burn in hell for eternity for being a heathen. Would you really accept arguments from someone who's soul is dammed? QED
1/10th of my way to a degree...
the ability to smell tyrannosaur breath. (Pedants: Look, its a joke, please don't bother pointing out the time line here, Ok?).
Actually, you were correct without the disclaimer. Just because humans didn't exist at the same time as t-rex, doesn't mean that we didn't retain genetic traits from the creatures that we evolved from. So it is entirely possible that we might have broken genes that might be good for detecting t-rex breath.
I for one, sure hope we do. I mean, we have all seen 'Jurassic Park'...
Moreover, he said that it won't be only the newspaper sites that adopt this change; foxnews.com, he said, will also start charging for content. "It has a huge and loyal and profitable [web] audience already," he said.
Now hes CHARGING us for his bullshit propaganda? Jeeeeeeeeez.......
So the complexity of the problem is probably an order of magnitude beyond...
I agree with you and the prior posters that the problems that one must overcome to model a human brain or 'trigger' a singularity event are vast and challenging.
In Kurzweil's defense, I think that his predictions are based off of observations of the rate of change of technology to date. Consider where humanity was three hundred years ago, and the rate of change in the field of computer science in the past fifty years. Things aren't slowing down.
I cannot speak to his personal motivation for evangelizing the singularity, but I have to say that without someone saying, 'wouldn't it be cool to..', it wouldn't happen at all or as quickly. I'm sure that some people would have told Charles Babbage that he was nuts if he predicted Diffrence Engines that operate at petaflop speed.
so the matter of checking my request against that content is covered by this groundbreaking algorithm.
LOL, so you want them to do a full text search of, what, the Internet? The library of congress? Suppose they hook up some Google servers, and search the net for the phrase you are buying. How are they to interpret hits? It could just be a blogger plagiarizing the story in question. You going to have a person monitor the search results? That was the whole point of automating it in the first place.
Basically it seems like they're going for a lowest-common-denominator approach that's not going to make anyone happy. UIs that are tailored to take advantage of a platform's strengths are much better, and exceptions (like crazy people who want to manage their servers from a tablet on a regular basis) can be dealt with as such instead of making everyone else pay the price.
I think you are correct in the statement about standardizing across platforms, but there is something you are overlooking. By standardizing things, it is setting up developers to be able to write something once, and deploy it to a whole slew of platforms just by changing a few compiler flags (check out the Windows Presentation Foundation stuff.). Then, it becomes easier to get apps for whatever platform you want to use, and everybody wins. Devs sell more software and customers have more choices.
Having an app with a slightly sub optimized UI is better than no app at all, right?
However, they also employ people and generally give a lot of people a sense of belonging that they don't want to give up. So, once the goal they were created for is reached, they don't disband like they should. Instead, they just set new, generally more extreme goals, until they eventually degenerate into a fringe group of wackos.
This description seems to apply equally well to government agencies. I always thought people should be proud of how small their groups/agencies are as opposed to how large they are, as this would reflect on the the status of the problem. (small group == small problem)
This is just like when you get up an go to the zoo, and buy an ice cream cone with vanilla and strawberry ice cream, and you go into the penguin house and when you are in there a polar bear breaks out if its cage and you are trapped in the penguin house with you ice cream cone, and you notice that Natalie Portman is sitting next to to you covered in hot grits, and then, like, the polar bear breaks down the door and as he comes in...
Wait a second. Its NOTHING like that.
Its more like the AP hired some developer to write a tool license out its twenty three kajillion words of content automatically and told them they wanted it done by Tuesday. Do you really expect someone to write code that would contextually differentiate public IP content from private on the fly? Really?
While we are wishing for silly shit, I wish I was really the one in the penguin house in the story with my best grits spoon.
Ok, what could possibly be the reason for this? I can only think of one,
Or perhaps they did some vigilante hacking to destroy the system controlling the botnet. While such an activity would be for the greater good of Internet users, it would also just as illegal as mundane data theft or destruction.
the 1986 'aliens' is what made my heart thump and want to be a space marine.
funny, it made me want to be an alien...
Hacking laws on the books make it illegal to add, modify, or delete data on another person's computer without their consent. I believe it carries a pretty stiff sentence too, because it is a federal statute. I am pretty sure that Amazon has no consent from anyone when they used their DRM to kill the book, so they could be in some deep water.
Also, since it was an an actual person that punched the enter key when it came time to revoke the DRM license, I wonder if they could be hit with the criminal hacking charge. The fact that invoking DRM controls could land you in the federal pen for 20 years might be a great way get corps to knock that shit off.
One of the reasons why we might not see the galaxy as teeming with life is beacuse all the life out there might not be capable of generating advanced technology. One of the assumptions in the equations is that all live will evolve to the point of sentience and begin building transistors. Why would this be the case?
The dinosuars were doing pretty well as the dominant species for 100 million years without advanced technology, and if it were not for the KT event, they might have been the dominant species for another 100 million years. Evolution doesn't 'try' to evolve life to be smarter, just to be better. Big brains were a good move for us, but that may not be the case for every other life form.
is that I will agree with anyone who says that it is possible that God exists. It IS possible! It's just unlikely,
Then you aren't an Atheist. Dictionary.com: Atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Sounds to me like you are just Agnostic if you are willing to accept that there could be a god. I think your primary complaint is dogma, not faith. Personally, I think that religion is great for people, and organized religion is the worst idea ever. Its only when it gets organized that it gets ugly.
I know people who play this game, making many trades on tiny margins. Its educated gambling at best. More to the point it takes time and effort to be knowledgeable enough to have a good feel for what a stock is generally doing at any given time. To me this sort of behavior is idiotic. Why not just devote effort to creating something of value to sell to the marketplace, rather than try to leach money out of the system.
Half the people involved in the financial system are just that, leeches trying to get a free lunch without doing anything of real value. What does this sort of activity really do to create wealth in the global sense?
Like most things in life, the Environment is neither in danger as the radicals would have you believe or as healthy as the conservatives would have you believe. But I digress. Are game consoles really worth talking about in the grand scheme of things? I would think that figuring out how to transport people and heating homes without emitting carbon would be SLIGHTLY more relevant.
Well, your unicorns and leprechauns aren't like any I have read about in folklore, but lest suppose they have all the qualities of the christian god that make him/her/it so impossible to prove or disprove. In that case, I have absolutely no problem saying they could exist. I am a 'odd unicorn agnostic'.
See, I am not trying to use it as a dodge to leave some chance for their existence in the argument. I am simply trying to be honest and scientific as possible. What can I say about invisible, intangible creatures? Absolutely nothing. They could exist, work out a good rigorous test and we will talk. The most accurate and honest thing to say is that you cannot say anything about said beings. A conventional unicorn was supposedly a living tangible thing. They didn't exist. They would have left traces and been detectable in some fashion, as most tangible creatures are. Lack of physical evidence for such a creature is pretty convincing. But God? Untouchable, unknowable, unmeasurable. Pretty hard to dream up a test that would confirm or deny existence of such a creature.
I keep trying to tell you that you are operating on faith because you have nothing to prove that god doesn't exist. That what religious faith is, a belief in something absent of fact or proof. You are willing to take a side in a debate that requires faith on way or another to participate.
Oh, for fuck's sake...we go to the trouble to build a super slick rover to explore the surface of another planet, and they want to waste time visiting the .0001% that we already have explored? If there isn't something better to be exploring on the moon, why the hell are we going again?
I knew we were a glorified pack of narcissistic monkeys but this just take it.
"Lets go look and see where we landed LAST time we were here, that seems like a good idea."
No, not really. This is a tiresome strawman argument against Atheism. Are you keeping an open mind about the possible existence of Unicorns? Leprechauns? The end of the world in 2012 as predicted by the Mayan calendar?
The claims about unicorns and leprechauns are far easier to test and negate than claims about god, and there lies the problem with your examples.
I am just saying that an Atheist's claim is as untestable and as much of an article of faith as as those of a believer's.
I believe that accepting a personal state of functional atheism requires more up-front intellectual honesty
I can say that there is no evidence I have witnessed that there is a god. I can also say that there is no evidence I have witnessed that tells me there isn't a god. Just because a position has poor evidence to support it, does not automatically make the opposite position a correct one.
I think that Athiesim is just as shaky as religion's claims. How is that personal honesty? Either side 's claims rely on faith.
I'll keep an open mind until I see proof provided by one side or the other.
More to the point, if the produce a number that is less than the value of the settlement that they are requesting, it might make it difficult to justify the damages that they are claiming.
Developers aren't the problem. People keep saying 'developers' in this thread when they mean 'publishers'. Developers write code and debug physics engines, they don't set prices or worry about second tier markets.
You are thinking of CEOs, who are whiny bitches regardless of the industry they are in...