They should, but the problem is that trying is fraught with perils that the chances of pulling it off is so slim and the personal consequences so great that it seems best to a "reasonable" person not to try and if the FBI did recommend doing so the responsible person would be persecuted. My dad is a lawyer and unreasonable, so if called he would have no qualms doing it, but he's not that good of a lawyer.
The reason I want multiple cores is due to all the other processes that go on in the background. I know there are programs that shut down background tasks, but who knows?
Remind me never to DuckDuckGo... How does that Star Wars quote about wretched hive of villainy and scum go again? None of the top results gave that answer to the question, the first result was Australian but had a link to an American site page behind a paywall and the other results read like ad copy.
It sounded like what he meant by lost is knowing when, even though there will be several moves to go before checkmate, checkmate is inevitable, yet you seemed to accept knowing that you are actually in checkmate (admittedly for the very young) as knowing you've lost. I thought the examples of the computer not knowing it lost was about the former.
You haven't described what humans do in such a way to rule out that they aren't actually using what amounts to a compressed look up table, no matter how they perceive what they are doing.
I know you said check and not mate, but that implies he has to move his king in order to prevent it from being taken by one of your pieces and while you have now made clear what all your other moves were for, maybe you have taken his queen, but I hardly see what amounts to him having to move his king. Admittedly I am not the greatest at chess metaphors and hope to get better and that is in part why I've piped up in this very interesting exchange, but most of the other part is my curiosity is why you think your position so strong. Or is capturing the queen actually a stronger position than having a king in check. I suppose if you have his ki... I just remembered, the other way to get a king out of check is to use any piece including the king itself to capture a piece... so maybe having a king in check isn't that great a feat, especially when compared to actually capturing a piece. Unfortunately I have mostly lived in flyover country and in rural areas, so I have never been in an area where I heard of a chess tournament in the vicinity. I was in Virginia Beach my senior year of high school and was on a QBASIC regional programming tournament team and got first place, but there was no higher level tournament to advance to. There was no mention of a chess club at that school that I heard of, bout you'd think there would be. My junior year was spent in rural Oklahoma and oddly enough there was a class that had delivering skits and having debates at regional tournaments and I lost my first debate despite my opponent talking so fast as to be barely understood and using every turn to declare himself the victor instead of advancing the topic. Stupid rural areas!
I don't play chess very much and was never very good from a winning standpoint because I played to see what would happen. I have no definite idea how my personally favored opening (one of the knights towards the center) fared against others, and I tried backing each move of a more powerful piece with having a pawn or otherwise least powerful piece in position to capture any piece that attempted to capture the powerful piece. I'm not sure what other rules there are like that which can be made, but neither of you actually seemed to be talking about following rules set out like that.
I don't see how he's in the equivalent of check in your debate. I think I had the same misunderstanding of what you were arguing as he did and I'm not sure what various bystanders of various backgrounds might understand. You've finally made your point clear enough, but I don't see if the endgame is in sight.
If you have fuel that is already in space, you can build a smaller rocket that holds less fuel and stop in low Earth orbit refuel and then move to a higher orbit.
You must be new to this universe. You can't go around saying things are either a few years or decades away and expect to be taken seriously. Things that were a few decades away have happened quickly and things that were supposed to happen quickly have been decades away.
And if the gun is cheap because it is out of spec for one reason or another, she's likely to maim or kill herself attempting to use it, which if I remember correctly was part of the rationale for banning them.
That's not what token means. Token in this case means that in a big group largely consisting of one group of people, there is little representation of other groups of people so when there are a few, they have a token presence. When you look at the bridge crew none of them are a token presence, the population is too small and the representation of people of one type is about the same as people of any other type. But when you look at the population of the Enterprise as a whole, that's where the impression that they are token members of their population comes in.
That reminds me of how little training Starfleet officers must have gotten in the original series. Between red shirts dying due to things that training would have prevented (one got killed because he acted hostile to a Klingon on a planet that was entertaining offers from the Federation and Klingon), people having to explain things to each other that they should know, (for the audience's benefit, but still), McCoy not knowing how to medicine (Spock asks McCoy for something to alieve his sensitivity to the cold; McCoy says that he is not a magician and doesn't prescribe an appropriate pain medicine).
But the context of the thread wasn't whole human intelligence, but being able to ever "outsmart" a human. Chess was given as an example of where a computer could outsmart a human. The counter was essentially if you gave the computer the equivalent of brain damage, it wouldn't be able to play properly except the person didn't see it as the equivalent of brain damage. The response was a bit vague, but what I got was that if you caused the human to malfunction, the human wouldn't be a good chess player either. Thus, your statement is irrelevant to the context of the thread. And I interpreted the reason the original poster chose "outsmart" is because computer driving can be considered a situation where the computer could outsmart human drivers.
I doubt you are actually conceding that your venting is actually a bad thing, but perhaps you think it's a neutral thing? I'm curious, because when it comes to people not doing things they think are good in one form or another, at least for them, I'm a bit ignorant. I'm not putting words in your mouth, just that you not thinking your ranting is good runs counter to my understanding of every human being ever.
...because I don't want emails on the subject, since it would be a pointless waste of my time.
Yes, that would be the potential negative outcome.
If somebody did come to them and actually beg them to shut public access down, they would laugh it off. What makes Aaron Swartz's actions the same, yet different? What I'm saying is that I don't see what makes shutting down public access a reasonable response to the actions of an individual, not even something on the level of a stand-alone complex, that would make Aaron Swartz's actions constitute begging to shut it down.
It is late, but your notions of the world are a bit of a novelty to me, so even though I have to go to bed, I'd like more dialogue in the future. I am saying this now so that you will be aware that even if my responses are not immediately forthcoming, I am still interested in what you have to say.
Below is the post I almost made that conceded the likely possibility of your post.It still makes some valid points But back up a bit! We're talking about a petty-tyrannical law that was allowed to be made because even though what he did wasn't so wrong, the reason the law got passed was because everybody didn't do the thing that he did or were even that technically literate in many cases. When bad behavior that is prevalent isn't pointed out, nobody develops any expectations when petty-tyrannical laws come around that punish marginal behavior. So, no, more petty-tyrannical laws get passed not fewer. When you don't police yourselves, that's what happens.
The original post:
And more petty-tyrannical leaders. One of the main selling points of rule by law was that it avoided the whole petty-tyrannical leader thing which overall was worse than having petty-tyrannical laws. When you have petty-tyrannical laws and learn them or even merely of them, you are much less likely to run afoul of people who enforce them for petty-tyrannical reasons like the ones that contributed to the death of Aaron Swartz, even if you decide your freedom/rights/treatment of others is best served by breaking them. Meanwhile, tyrannical people just break down your door, and while that's been on the increase of late- SWATting anyone?- can also be averted by your own ability to take advantage of the laws that those who are prone to pettiness don't bother to learn, as well as principles underpinning current society regarding rights.
Makes me glad I live in Indiana, part of flyover country, just south of Indianapolis where Google maps actually can direct you to less congested routes, and we have Gas Buddy. I forget what the gas prices I saw today were, but most of them were under $2 Goodwill Stores have their half-off first Saturday of the month deals and there are quite a few in reach. I pigged out on buying books. Bought 3 DVDs too. Scrooge, the best version of A Christmas Carol I've seen, the director's cut of Daredevil, and a Jackie Chan movie. My home library is nearly "complete". I need to buy more bookshelves. I just replaced the 720p 20-something (24 I think) inch screen TV I was using as a monitor with the 32 inch. 1080p screen TV I thought was all we needed as the main TV in the same room as my computer until I couldn't see some details I wanted to see, so I replaced it with a 40 inch. Got it from Walmart. Don't know what I'd do with 4K resolution. Got this great glass top computer desk at Goodwill. Maybe that life's not for you. But traffic? Not ever that bad, if you let Google Maps advise you.
Amazon obviously doesn't think so. More importantly, it seems Amazon doesn't think it can get the quality of employee it wants by locating elsewhere. I don't see why they see it that way, since as far as I know Microsoft and Nintendo of America seem to think Redmond is fine and dandy.
you'd not object to Amazon setting up cloning labs to produce the perfect worker.
However Microsoft and Nintendo of America have had and I think still do have campuses in Redmond, Washington across the street from each other, and I think its their main campuses to boot.
I was going to go on about how their voting records differ, but voting records are a red herring like a lot of other things I can't recall right now on other issues, and I'll tell you why: If you can't use your vote as a bargaining chip for addressing other issues, you won't be very effective. There are a lot of things I remain silent about that I think are wrong so that I will be listened to when it comes to the root problems that need to be talked about for any lasting change. "Personality" isn't the key indicator, either. What topics you bring to the stage, is. My family has a somewhat conservative background. Historically, since Democrats used to be the party of labor, my ancestors used to vote for them. Now my relatives vote Republican. I don't interact with my father much, but I'd wager he's a DINO. The abortion issue is big with both sides. So much so, that it alone is enough to make my dad a DINO even though he probably is more liberal on personal traits than my mom. He is less forgiving when it comes to performance though.
I watched Glenn Beck. Without him, I would have never heard of Cloward and Piven. From what I learned from him about them is actually pretty useful stuff, even though he doesn't agree with such tactics and tried to demonize them. I would haven't have heard of Che Guevara, not that great of a guy, I gather, but some of the things that Glenn Beck might have liked about the guy is bad. I listen to Tim Minchin and wish he could write a song that opened conservatives eyes, but he targets mainly liberals that also have bad ideas. I watch The Bible Reloaded and they make valid criticisms of the Bible, but my mom won't look past their conduct. The Armoured Skeptic I can at least get her down to watch because he doesn't cuss as much and otherwise conducts himself better. I hope you can see what kind of people I see in America and the kind of hurdles faced with getting good information to people who will listen at least a little bit. Certain kinds of conduct don't matter, personality doesn't matter to the people I see as the most information needy. Gamers are vocal about Samus in Other M about how she doesn't have the personality they want her to have, but she has the conduct of someone who the Americans I want to reach will accept and is on message, so I will promote her to them and defend her in face of critics because people who conduct themselves like her are people the demographic I want to reach will listen to. I find little to criticize in Samus's conduct when it comes to presenting her to that demo. The conduct of her critics, on the other hand, can be used as a reason why Samus is the good person here... for the demographic that has the flaws I can address. Trump and Bernie both conduct themselves better than Hillary in those areas, but some of the very things that Samus has that turns off gamers can appeal to the people I need to reach. Samus has military training. The gamers don't get military decorum. They see deference as weakness in Samus. I've run out of ideas and its getting kind of late where I'm at, so I feel like I'm not wrapping up properly and I feel sorry about that. But it is Slashdot. But you've conducted yourself decent. And now I've gone all Gollum.
There's no one in politics that isn't a con man. I don't want the GOP to heal itself, I want it to go away. No matter what happens, Trump is just the figure that can result in that happening. The people who don't critique things the way I do and hate Trump will lump him in with the GOP and not vote for them and by my estimate be more likely to stay not voting for the GOP, while if Hillary gets elected, she'll keep making embarrassments like her Benghazi testimony and the server problem. I'm not sure of the situation around the actual Benghazi incident, but what I and other people do remember is the testimony. That is not someone I want as President. She is liable to turn off people lukewarm to the Democratic party, and while the Democrats aren't much better than the Republicans... Hmm, I really don't like the chances for the dissatisfied turning to other political parties, which is the state I want, no matter who gets elected. Hopefully they move to prosecute Hillary and Bernie becomes the political candidate. Not that great for turnover either, but at least important topics will come to the forefront. A Bernie presidency could show that ideas championed by other political parties might work. I want the Democrat party to go away, too, but not as much as I want the Republican party to go away. They are both a scourge to people being comfortable inside their own skin no matter their circumstances. The Republicans because they want to hurt people with differences they disapprove of, and the Democrats because their solutions for such people make them dependent on others to accommodate them in order to have a sense of well-being. In an ideal world there wouldn't be separate male and female bathrooms, but you don't need an Ideal world to be satisfied that you are you. If somebody came to me and said from now on I have to go to a bathroom that doesn't match who I see myself as, but everyone else continues as usual, that doesn't affect me much as a person and until everyone has that strength of self-identity, it is what I believe we should be striving for.
Comcast has a starting rate of $19.99 for 25Mbps for one year and if you threaten to cancel when they raise rates they'll put it back down. My MetroPCS $40 plan I have no idea what the speeds are, but there is 3GB of usage before it goes to around 56k and includes tethering, and the $60 plan is uncapped.
I have found that 25Mbps is sufficient for our current usage and has held true for quite some time. However 4GB of main memory for a PC has held for a long time, but I would not recommend Windows 10 for anyone with that much memory and I don't know if I would recommend it for anyone with 6GB. I made sure my mom's computer had 8 and upgraded my memory from 4 to 12 and my Windows 10 performance issues disappeared.
Slashdot Mirror
The law changed after they left office.
They should, but the problem is that trying is fraught with perils that the chances of pulling it off is so slim and the personal consequences so great that it seems best to a "reasonable" person not to try and if the FBI did recommend doing so the responsible person would be persecuted. My dad is a lawyer and unreasonable, so if called he would have no qualms doing it, but he's not that good of a lawyer.
The reason I want multiple cores is due to all the other processes that go on in the background. I know there are programs that shut down background tasks, but who knows?
Remind me never to DuckDuckGo... How does that Star Wars quote about wretched hive of villainy and scum go again? None of the top results gave that answer to the question, the first result was Australian but had a link to an American site page behind a paywall and the other results read like ad copy.
It sounded like what he meant by lost is knowing when, even though there will be several moves to go before checkmate, checkmate is inevitable, yet you seemed to accept knowing that you are actually in checkmate (admittedly for the very young) as knowing you've lost. I thought the examples of the computer not knowing it lost was about the former.
You haven't described what humans do in such a way to rule out that they aren't actually using what amounts to a compressed look up table, no matter how they perceive what they are doing.
I know you said check and not mate, but that implies he has to move his king in order to prevent it from being taken by one of your pieces and while you have now made clear what all your other moves were for, maybe you have taken his queen, but I hardly see what amounts to him having to move his king. Admittedly I am not the greatest at chess metaphors and hope to get better and that is in part why I've piped up in this very interesting exchange, but most of the other part is my curiosity is why you think your position so strong. Or is capturing the queen actually a stronger position than having a king in check. I suppose if you have his ki... I just remembered, the other way to get a king out of check is to use any piece including the king itself to capture a piece... so maybe having a king in check isn't that great a feat, especially when compared to actually capturing a piece. Unfortunately I have mostly lived in flyover country and in rural areas, so I have never been in an area where I heard of a chess tournament in the vicinity. I was in Virginia Beach my senior year of high school and was on a QBASIC regional programming tournament team and got first place, but there was no higher level tournament to advance to. There was no mention of a chess club at that school that I heard of, bout you'd think there would be. My junior year was spent in rural Oklahoma and oddly enough there was a class that had delivering skits and having debates at regional tournaments and I lost my first debate despite my opponent talking so fast as to be barely understood and using every turn to declare himself the victor instead of advancing the topic. Stupid rural areas!
I don't play chess very much and was never very good from a winning standpoint because I played to see what would happen. I have no definite idea how my personally favored opening (one of the knights towards the center) fared against others, and I tried backing each move of a more powerful piece with having a pawn or otherwise least powerful piece in position to capture any piece that attempted to capture the powerful piece. I'm not sure what other rules there are like that which can be made, but neither of you actually seemed to be talking about following rules set out like that.
I don't see how he's in the equivalent of check in your debate. I think I had the same misunderstanding of what you were arguing as he did and I'm not sure what various bystanders of various backgrounds might understand. You've finally made your point clear enough, but I don't see if the endgame is in sight.
If you have fuel that is already in space, you can build a smaller rocket that holds less fuel and stop in low Earth orbit refuel and then move to a higher orbit.
You must be new to this universe. You can't go around saying things are either a few years or decades away and expect to be taken seriously. Things that were a few decades away have happened quickly and things that were supposed to happen quickly have been decades away.
Trump will mess you up to his benefit. Hillary will mess you up to her party's benefit. Who do you think has more to mess you up about.
But then dictionary writers intend to be descriptive not prescriptive.
And if the gun is cheap because it is out of spec for one reason or another, she's likely to maim or kill herself attempting to use it, which if I remember correctly was part of the rationale for banning them.
That's not what token means. Token in this case means that in a big group largely consisting of one group of people, there is little representation of other groups of people so when there are a few, they have a token presence. When you look at the bridge crew none of them are a token presence, the population is too small and the representation of people of one type is about the same as people of any other type. But when you look at the population of the Enterprise as a whole, that's where the impression that they are token members of their population comes in.
That reminds me of how little training Starfleet officers must have gotten in the original series. Between red shirts dying due to things that training would have prevented (one got killed because he acted hostile to a Klingon on a planet that was entertaining offers from the Federation and Klingon), people having to explain things to each other that they should know, (for the audience's benefit, but still), McCoy not knowing how to medicine (Spock asks McCoy for something to alieve his sensitivity to the cold; McCoy says that he is not a magician and doesn't prescribe an appropriate pain medicine).
But the context of the thread wasn't whole human intelligence, but being able to ever "outsmart" a human. Chess was given as an example of where a computer could outsmart a human. The counter was essentially if you gave the computer the equivalent of brain damage, it wouldn't be able to play properly except the person didn't see it as the equivalent of brain damage. The response was a bit vague, but what I got was that if you caused the human to malfunction, the human wouldn't be a good chess player either. Thus, your statement is irrelevant to the context of the thread. And I interpreted the reason the original poster chose "outsmart" is because computer driving can be considered a situation where the computer could outsmart human drivers.
Yes, that would be the potential negative outcome.
If somebody did come to them and actually beg them to shut public access down, they would laugh it off. What makes Aaron Swartz's actions the same, yet different? What I'm saying is that I don't see what makes shutting down public access a reasonable response to the actions of an individual, not even something on the level of a stand-alone complex, that would make Aaron Swartz's actions constitute begging to shut it down.
It is late, but your notions of the world are a bit of a novelty to me, so even though I have to go to bed, I'd like more dialogue in the future. I am saying this now so that you will be aware that even if my responses are not immediately forthcoming, I am still interested in what you have to say.
Below is the post I almost made that conceded the likely possibility of your post.It still makes some valid points But back up a bit! We're talking about a petty-tyrannical law that was allowed to be made because even though what he did wasn't so wrong, the reason the law got passed was because everybody didn't do the thing that he did or were even that technically literate in many cases. When bad behavior that is prevalent isn't pointed out, nobody develops any expectations when petty-tyrannical laws come around that punish marginal behavior. So, no, more petty-tyrannical laws get passed not fewer. When you don't police yourselves, that's what happens.
The original post:
And more petty-tyrannical leaders. One of the main selling points of rule by law was that it avoided the whole petty-tyrannical leader thing which overall was worse than having petty-tyrannical laws. When you have petty-tyrannical laws and learn them or even merely of them, you are much less likely to run afoul of people who enforce them for petty-tyrannical reasons like the ones that contributed to the death of Aaron Swartz, even if you decide your freedom/rights/treatment of others is best served by breaking them. Meanwhile, tyrannical people just break down your door, and while that's been on the increase of late- SWATting anyone?- can also be averted by your own ability to take advantage of the laws that those who are prone to pettiness don't bother to learn, as well as principles underpinning current society regarding rights.
Makes me glad I live in Indiana, part of flyover country, just south of Indianapolis where Google maps actually can direct you to less congested routes, and we have Gas Buddy. I forget what the gas prices I saw today were, but most of them were under $2 Goodwill Stores have their half-off first Saturday of the month deals and there are quite a few in reach. I pigged out on buying books. Bought 3 DVDs too. Scrooge, the best version of A Christmas Carol I've seen, the director's cut of Daredevil, and a Jackie Chan movie. My home library is nearly "complete". I need to buy more bookshelves. I just replaced the 720p 20-something (24 I think) inch screen TV I was using as a monitor with the 32 inch. 1080p screen TV I thought was all we needed as the main TV in the same room as my computer until I couldn't see some details I wanted to see, so I replaced it with a 40 inch. Got it from Walmart. Don't know what I'd do with 4K resolution. Got this great glass top computer desk at Goodwill. Maybe that life's not for you. But traffic? Not ever that bad, if you let Google Maps advise you.
However Microsoft and Nintendo of America have had and I think still do have campuses in Redmond, Washington across the street from each other, and I think its their main campuses to boot.
I was going to go on about how their voting records differ, but voting records are a red herring like a lot of other things I can't recall right now on other issues, and I'll tell you why: If you can't use your vote as a bargaining chip for addressing other issues, you won't be very effective. There are a lot of things I remain silent about that I think are wrong so that I will be listened to when it comes to the root problems that need to be talked about for any lasting change. "Personality" isn't the key indicator, either. What topics you bring to the stage, is. My family has a somewhat conservative background. Historically, since Democrats used to be the party of labor, my ancestors used to vote for them. Now my relatives vote Republican. I don't interact with my father much, but I'd wager he's a DINO. The abortion issue is big with both sides. So much so, that it alone is enough to make my dad a DINO even though he probably is more liberal on personal traits than my mom. He is less forgiving when it comes to performance though.
I watched Glenn Beck. Without him, I would have never heard of Cloward and Piven. From what I learned from him about them is actually pretty useful stuff, even though he doesn't agree with such tactics and tried to demonize them. I would haven't have heard of Che Guevara, not that great of a guy, I gather, but some of the things that Glenn Beck might have liked about the guy is bad. I listen to Tim Minchin and wish he could write a song that opened conservatives eyes, but he targets mainly liberals that also have bad ideas. I watch The Bible Reloaded and they make valid criticisms of the Bible, but my mom won't look past their conduct. The Armoured Skeptic I can at least get her down to watch because he doesn't cuss as much and otherwise conducts himself better. I hope you can see what kind of people I see in America and the kind of hurdles faced with getting good information to people who will listen at least a little bit. Certain kinds of conduct don't matter, personality doesn't matter to the people I see as the most information needy. Gamers are vocal about Samus in Other M about how she doesn't have the personality they want her to have, but she has the conduct of someone who the Americans I want to reach will accept and is on message, so I will promote her to them and defend her in face of critics because people who conduct themselves like her are people the demographic I want to reach will listen to. I find little to criticize in Samus's conduct when it comes to presenting her to that demo. The conduct of her critics, on the other hand, can be used as a reason why Samus is the good person here... for the demographic that has the flaws I can address. Trump and Bernie both conduct themselves better than Hillary in those areas, but some of the very things that Samus has that turns off gamers can appeal to the people I need to reach. Samus has military training. The gamers don't get military decorum. They see deference as weakness in Samus. I've run out of ideas and its getting kind of late where I'm at, so I feel like I'm not wrapping up properly and I feel sorry about that. But it is Slashdot. But you've conducted yourself decent. And now I've gone all Gollum.
There's no one in politics that isn't a con man. I don't want the GOP to heal itself, I want it to go away. No matter what happens, Trump is just the figure that can result in that happening. The people who don't critique things the way I do and hate Trump will lump him in with the GOP and not vote for them and by my estimate be more likely to stay not voting for the GOP, while if Hillary gets elected, she'll keep making embarrassments like her Benghazi testimony and the server problem. I'm not sure of the situation around the actual Benghazi incident, but what I and other people do remember is the testimony. That is not someone I want as President. She is liable to turn off people lukewarm to the Democratic party, and while the Democrats aren't much better than the Republicans... Hmm, I really don't like the chances for the dissatisfied turning to other political parties, which is the state I want, no matter who gets elected. Hopefully they move to prosecute Hillary and Bernie becomes the political candidate. Not that great for turnover either, but at least important topics will come to the forefront. A Bernie presidency could show that ideas championed by other political parties might work. I want the Democrat party to go away, too, but not as much as I want the Republican party to go away. They are both a scourge to people being comfortable inside their own skin no matter their circumstances. The Republicans because they want to hurt people with differences they disapprove of, and the Democrats because their solutions for such people make them dependent on others to accommodate them in order to have a sense of well-being. In an ideal world there wouldn't be separate male and female bathrooms, but you don't need an Ideal world to be satisfied that you are you. If somebody came to me and said from now on I have to go to a bathroom that doesn't match who I see myself as, but everyone else continues as usual, that doesn't affect me much as a person and until everyone has that strength of self-identity, it is what I believe we should be striving for.
Comcast has a starting rate of $19.99 for 25Mbps for one year and if you threaten to cancel when they raise rates they'll put it back down. My MetroPCS $40 plan I have no idea what the speeds are, but there is 3GB of usage before it goes to around 56k and includes tethering, and the $60 plan is uncapped.
I have found that 25Mbps is sufficient for our current usage and has held true for quite some time. However 4GB of main memory for a PC has held for a long time, but I would not recommend Windows 10 for anyone with that much memory and I don't know if I would recommend it for anyone with 6GB. I made sure my mom's computer had 8 and upgraded my memory from 4 to 12 and my Windows 10 performance issues disappeared.