(who was also there doing a speech) beat his ass after his talk...
As I commented on another site about this story, what is it about Sun that makes all their executives loud-mouth "pundits?" An inescapable desire to be Scott McNealy?
First we had Bill Joy running his mouth denouncing every bit of new technology to come down the pike in the next thirty years.
for action and comedy. They were good - if you can stand Martin Lawrence, anyway.
Besides, this is the Transformers. How good can it be? It's a badly conceived, badly animated TV show. So how much worse could it be?
I'm waiting for the live-action GI Joe movie. I like Destro and Storm Shadow and Zartan and of course the wonderful Cobra Commander!
Then I'll wait for the live-action GI Joe-Transformers movie - since that's a comic book now.
It Was Never About "Being a Threat"
on
EZTree Shuts Down
·
· Score: 0, Troll
It's about CONTROL.
It's about the standard primate human attitude: Not only must I succeed - YOU must fail!
To people like that (which is just about all you monkeys), everything and everybody is a "threat".
You deal with people like that by either putting bullets into both kneecaps, or, if they have more resources which would continue to make THEM a threat, straight into their heads.
There really are no other effective options.
Of course, now you have to deal with the same morons who are running your friendly local, state, federal and international governments.
For that, you need appropriate technology. Which WE should have in another two or three decades.
At which time your monkey-ass attitudes will be "adjusted" - one way or the other - permanently.
Yes, saving someone else at the expense of your own life makes you an idiot. RISKING your own life may not be idiotic, but jumping on a grenade is simply stupid. Worse, putting yourself IN that position in the FIRST place makes you an idiot. You may be considered a brave idiot by some people, but they're idiots, too.
In fact, anybody who joins a national army thinking they are doing it to "protect the country" really has no clue how national and international politics (or human behavior in general) works - and therefore again is an idiot.
You want to "protect the country"? Get rid of the state - ALL states.
If you knew that and you stayed a soldier, yes, you're an idiot.
An idiot is someone who is willing to die at someone else's command - especially if he doesn't understand what the war is about (which is just about every soldier since wars are NEVER legitimate.) And I say this as someone who enlisted during Vietnam.
Don't know about the ball bearing trick - unless it's a BIG ball bearing. These things could weight a lot and might just flatten a ball bearing! They also might be built with adequate balance compensation mechanisms a la that gadget people are riding around in these days.
Thin cord would have to be thick cable for a mecha!
And of course you could have detection devices in the mecha for that sort of thing. Or for that matter, just blow up everything in front of you AND behind you (excepting your own troops, of course.)
And that last is another point - you don't drive tanks around without infantry support - too dangerous, especially in urban areas. In a major countryside tank battle, no, but in urban areas, infantry support is critical. In the mecha stories, there are always infantry support.
Might work well in urban environments provided it could walk fast enough and didn't tower over the buildings (which would give warning to those on the other side) and also had the appropriate weapons systems.
Just pop around a corner and cut loose.
Would be hell on tanks and unmounted troops unless they could drive through the buildings and sneak up on it from behind.
Of course, as our idiots in Iraq have discovered, it's not easy to drive around in armored vehicles in an urban environment and stay in one piece.
The much vaunted Stryker vehicle is already being redesigned - it lasted about a year in its present design in a real combat situation - which is exactly what was predicted before the Pentagon idiots sent it over there.
Hell, some years ago I had my wallet stolen and I tried to use my birth certificate to get some new ID. I went down to the INS because everybody was denying me the ability to apply for a job, and I was told that since this birth certificate was not "certified" by the state of Connecticut (it was my birth hospital certificate), I was technically not a US citizen and had not right to work in the United States!
Despite having been born in the US (of parents who themselves were born in the US going back generations), and despite having used that birth certificate to get into the US Army and be sent overseas to shoot people, that birth certificate was not good enough for our friendly Federal government types (or the asshole corporate human resources types who are required to demand ID before they can hire you.)
So don't be surprised if, one of these days, the Feds decide that you aren't a citizen because you slopped coffee on your "certified" birth certificate, or your driver's license, or your implanted RFID, or whatever else these fuckheads come up with to terrorize the citizenry.
And don't be surprised if you end up in some hot place where vicious dogs and more vicious guards are used to keep you "under control" while they decide if you're even human enough to have any so-called "civil rights".
You're in a totalitarian state now, homes, and don't you forget it.
Marketing is more than advertising. Marketing also has to do with determining who needs your product - and in fact what your product should be in the first place. That part is not a problem.
Advertising as I would prefer to see it is simply the concept of bringing the existence and capabilities of your product to the attention of potential customers in a nonintrusive way.
Notice I did not say "bring dancing bears and bullshit" to the attention of anyone who happens to have his eyes and ears open within a light-year of same.
As such, the best "advertising" is a simple brochure (or online equivalent) that says, "Here is the company, here is our product name, here is what it does. If you're interested, here's how you get it, what it will cost you, yada, yada."
Period.
Now, how you get that simple exposition to the attention of people who might be interested in it - without intruding on and offending millions of people who are fucking well NOT interested in it - is obviously a problem.
A problem which I do not see ANYONE in the advertising industry trying to solve rationally.
ANY form of intrusive advertising (with the possible exception of simple mailers - and I realize some people hate physical junk mail as much as they do spam) such as popups, tracking cookies, banner ads, spyware, etc. is an ASSAULT on the consumer and should be technologically eliminated if feasible and banned if not.
I don't approve of governments regulating trade and commerce - but then I don't approve of governments creating legal fictions like corporations in the first place, either. If governments are going to exist, and allow corporations to exist, then they damn sure need to be banning ALL forms of intrusive advertising.
A NON-intrusive ad is one that is not on my property, does not assault my senses unduly, does not cost me anything to become aware of (should I so choose), does not interfere with anything I am doing, and does not require or force a response from me in any way. A billboard by the road might be a reasonable example. A leaflet in my mailbox just barely qualifies (if I don't want it, I have to junk it - but that's not hard to do in a second).
But having to receive and junk useless information is what the Web was supposed to get rid of - by allowing me to BROWSE and SEARCH for things - SEARCH to find things I KNOW I want, BROWSE to find things I DON'T know I want. (And by BROWSE, I do NOT mean wade through Web sites that are ninety percent advertising and ten percent content.)
If I want to look for products I don't know I need, I should merely have to browse company Web sites and Web sites indexing those sites. I should not have to endure every Web site on the planet throwing gigabytes down my line in the vain hope that one percent of the people so assaulted will click through and gain them a revenue of one-tenth of a cent, or whatever, per click.
Virtually everything done by advertisers on line or in the media does not qualify as nonintrusive advertising.
So then, one asks, how do Web sites support themselves?
By other means, obviously. Can't find any? Well, if you have a site that at least X number of people are truly interested in, price your site development and delivery expenses so you can charge the small enough subscription fee so people will pay it.
Stop paying Web developers a hundred dollars an hour to produce crappy sites no one wants to visit because they are overloaded with unnecessary technology (like Flash) developed solely to deliver ads to people who want your content, not your ads.
Pay for the site with the revenue you generate from doing something connected with what the site is about (consulting, or some service.) Use it as a marketing tool, not a revenue generator - that went out with the dot-com boom - unless you can actually deliver a service through the Web site.
Stop trying to make money on the site by being a shill for crap and bullshit.
Your site will be drop-kicked to the curb even faster by the consumer than it is with banner ads.
The basic problem with the advertising industry is you've convinced yourself that you are actually useful and necessary.
You've not only lied to the consumer and the corporations, you've lied to yourself (no doubt to enable yourself to live with yourself - typical human reaction.)
So your point is simply if you don't block ads, deleting cookies doesn't let you stop sending us the same crap we didn't want to see the first time.
Fine, I think everyone here understood you the first time.
What you don't seem to grasp is that we didn't want to see your crap the FIRST time.
Read my lips.
No ads. No cookies. And: No ads = no cookies. (If you don't send us stupid ads in the first place, you don't need to track us with cookies.)
Comprende?
Or read Bill Hicks's lips again.
If you are in advertising or marketing (other than the top management of a specific company making something - who are the ONLY people who should be DOING "marketing" for a product anyway - read "Up the Organization" about that), you are The Enemy.
The only "mooch" around here are the parasite advertisers and marketing people. Advertising is a fucking joke and a corporate money waster and I don't care how many so-called "studies" supposedly prove it works. It would be just as effective to stand there for sixty seconds repeating the product name in a monotone as some of these idiotic commercials - let alone spam.
If in fact the bulk of the population HAS been brainwashed to actually respond to advertising, then that is in fact the best argument for having all advertisers (and preferably the brainwashed population) executed.
Thereby giving them the chance to infect your PC with God knows what...
I have a better idea.
Refuse to see Flash at all.
Put Macromedia out of business.
Or at least, if anybody WANTs to see Flash (and I admit to having chuckled over the funny Linux Flash show Kim Polese showed recently, so it's not ALL bad), force them to make it a downloadable media object, download it and run it in a "sandbox" model.
Face it, Flash is basically a "poor man's video player". It may be cheaper (now) to make Flash animations than a real video, but that's going to go away at some point. Bodes ill for Macromedia's future earnings, I suspect.
In the meantime, unless the writers and artists are really smart, it's chintzy, crappy, lame, and boring to use Flash on a Web site. It's like looking at network television...(which is probably what it will look like once making "real" videos is feasible for these idiots.)
I think Bart's PE can do most of that - except for number 5 (writeback). Maybe not that small a footprint depending on what you build into it.
Windows Ultimate Boot CD is also based on Bart's PE.
The main advantage of Bart is you have native full read/write NTFS access. The only way to get that from Linux is to use the Captive utility which puts a wrapper around the Microsoft NTFS DLL.
My build of Bart's has Ad-Aware, and a couple virus scanners - however, it's not clear how fully effective they are on an NTFS system since they're based on F-Prot DOS. The problem really is you can't "install" a Windows AV/other tools on Bart's per se. You can install some programs to the ram disk, but not everything works that way.
The same problem with writeback. Although you can run Nero and some other burners from Bart's, so I suppose you could do a multisession CD/RW that might work - haven't tried it. It would be nice if you could remove Bart's Cd and insert another CD with current defs, but that doesn't work. It does work with some small Linux distros based on Knoppix.
Basically, you're correct - nobody has the total package yet.
Without a good conceptual processing simulation, no AI is feasible.
The "baby bootstrap" is one level removed from having a good conceptual processing simulation.
Everybody in AI who USED to be working on conceptual processing - such as Roger Schank - moved on to other, more immediately profitable AI applications. (Last I heard, some years ago, Schank was working on case-based reasoning applied to education IIRC.)
Notice the "depraved fictions" being denounced here include essentially "being an American who believes in democracy", as well any sort of science, education, etc. - a nice laundry list!
The Syllabus, along with the introductory Encyclical letter, the various Consistorial Allocutions, Encyclicals and Apostolic Letters on which it is based and to which it constantly refers, plus the doctrinal constitution Paster Aeternus (Eternal Shepherd) promulgated by the First Vatican Council in 1870, are all meant to "reprobate, denounce and condemn generally and particularly the most grievous errors, heresies and depraved fictions of innovators," such as materialism, rationalism, naturalism, panetheism, secularism, communism, socialism, liberalism, latitudinarianism, Americanism, indifferentism, pietism, modernism, democracy, civil society (as a religiously neutral arena), science (under the rubric of scientism), freedom of conscience, the cult of religious tolerance, the principles of civil and religious liberty, the separation of Church and State, civil marriage, secular education, etc. A few of these condemned heresies require brief explanations.
Latitudinarianism refers to the reform movement in the English church which argued that the texts of Holy Scriptures allow for a latitude of interpretation and proof based on reason as opposed to the pure authority of tradition. The debate within the Church over "Americanism" refers to those Bishops and priests in Europe and the United States who showed excessive zeal for constitutionally protected civil and religious liberties, and who pointed to the American Catholic Church as a model for reorganizing the Church's relations in Europe with such novel developments as secular states, democratic governments, rapid scientific progress new critical scholarly methods of dealing with holy scriptures and the history of Christianity, and all the rest. Although the Syllabus did not explicitly condemn Americanism or mention it by name, it did so in substance. It was left to Pope Leo XIII to make the implicit explicit by bringing the Church debates over this tendency to a conclusion by declaring Americanism, in 1899, a heresy which constitutes "a complete synthesis of contemporary errors." Thus the Americanists were accused, by the Catholic fundamentalist reaction, of undermining the faith and subverting the authority of the Church by "this combination of Catholicism and democracy" by supporting "liberals and evolutionists" and by "Talking forever of liberty, respect for the individual's initiative, natural virtues and sympathy for our age."
Indifferentism refers to the view that all religions, sects, confessions and so on are (a)equal before the state, and (b)stand on the same footing as to their validity and truth-claims, except for their own adherents. Pietism refers generally to those who regard religion as a strictly private matter, and more particularly to those who regard its essence as no more than an inward, personal and individual affair of the heart which may or may not have any consequences for the outside world (justification by faith alone versus by works also).
The condemned Modernism is part of what is usually known as "The Modernist Crisis in the Catholic church," spanning the papacies of Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X. It is basically a 19th century phenomen
"The Church ceased to be anti-science ages ago (around the turn of 19th and 20th centuries)"
BWAHAHAHAHAH!!! Yeah, right, bubele...
In the late eighteen hundreds, with the rise of the freethought movement and the rise of archaeology and mythology analysis, etc., the current Pope was concerned about this and called in all the top scholars of all the Catholic universities around the world. He charged them with producing evidence that the doctrine of the Church (Jesus as divinity, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, etc.) was all literally true.
They scurried off and worked like beavers for a couple decades.
They came back and told the Pope, "Not only can we not prove any of this, but as far as we can tell, it's all bullshit lifted from other religions." (Probably not in those words, of course.)
So the Pope had them all declared heretics and excommunicated them.
Then he promulgated the doctrine - which is still in force today - that a Catholic is prohibited from believing anything they read in the media if it conflicts with Catholic dogma.
And for your information, the Office of the Inquisition still exists - it was renamed in the late eighteen hundres, IIRC.
Slashdot Mirror
you're too moronic to ever get it.
"Homeland Security" has NOTHING whatever to do with either the "homeland" or YOUR security.
(who was also there doing a speech) beat his ass after his talk...
As I commented on another site about this story, what is it about Sun that makes all their executives loud-mouth "pundits?" An inescapable desire to be Scott McNealy?
First we had Bill Joy running his mouth denouncing every bit of new technology to come down the pike in the next thirty years.
Now we have this moron.
Hey, Sun! STFU!
for action and comedy. They were good - if you can stand Martin Lawrence, anyway.
Besides, this is the Transformers. How good can it be? It's a badly conceived, badly animated TV show. So how much worse could it be?
I'm waiting for the live-action GI Joe movie. I like Destro and Storm Shadow and Zartan and of course the wonderful Cobra Commander!
Then I'll wait for the live-action GI Joe-Transformers movie - since that's a comic book now.
It's about CONTROL.
It's about the standard primate human attitude:
Not only must I succeed - YOU must fail!
To people like that (which is just about all you monkeys), everything and everybody is a "threat".
You deal with people like that by either putting bullets into both kneecaps, or, if they have more resources which would continue to make THEM a threat, straight into their heads.
There really are no other effective options.
Of course, now you have to deal with the same morons who are running your friendly local, state, federal and international governments.
For that, you need appropriate technology. Which WE should have in another two or three decades.
At which time your monkey-ass attitudes will be "adjusted" - one way or the other - permanently.
Yes, saving someone else at the expense of your own life makes you an idiot. RISKING your own life may not be idiotic, but jumping on a grenade is simply stupid. Worse, putting yourself IN that position in the FIRST place makes you an idiot. You may be considered a brave idiot by some people, but they're idiots, too.
In fact, anybody who joins a national army thinking they are doing it to "protect the country" really has no clue how national and international politics (or human behavior in general) works - and therefore again is an idiot.
You want to "protect the country"? Get rid of the state - ALL states.
If you knew that and you stayed a soldier, yes, you're an idiot.
An idiot is someone who is willing to die at someone else's command - especially if he doesn't understand what the war is about (which is just about every soldier since wars are NEVER legitimate.) And I say this as someone who enlisted during Vietnam.
Don't know about the ball bearing trick - unless it's a BIG ball bearing. These things could weight a lot and might just flatten a ball bearing! They also might be built with adequate balance compensation mechanisms a la that gadget people are riding around in these days.
Thin cord would have to be thick cable for a mecha!
And of course you could have detection devices in the mecha for that sort of thing. Or for that matter, just blow up everything in front of you AND behind you (excepting your own troops, of course.)
And that last is another point - you don't drive tanks around without infantry support - too dangerous, especially in urban areas. In a major countryside tank battle, no, but in urban areas, infantry support is critical. In the mecha stories, there are always infantry support.
Might work well in urban environments provided it could walk fast enough and didn't tower over the buildings (which would give warning to those on the other side) and also had the appropriate weapons systems.
Just pop around a corner and cut loose.
Would be hell on tanks and unmounted troops unless they could drive through the buildings and sneak up on it from behind.
Of course, as our idiots in Iraq have discovered, it's not easy to drive around in armored vehicles in an urban environment and stay in one piece.
The much vaunted Stryker vehicle is already being redesigned - it lasted about a year in its present design in a real combat situation - which is exactly what was predicted before the Pentagon idiots sent it over there.
On another look, I finally found the TINY, TINY printer image next to the heading.
Which does not obviate my complaint in any way.
Nitwits.
Really?
And where do you FIND the "printer-friendly format" on Tom's Networking?
I looked all over the damn page. Not visible. Point it out to me.
They WANT you to page through five fucking pages of their goddamn ADVERTISING to read anything on their site.
Then they wonder why their advertising revenues dry up and the site blows away...
Fucking morons.
Hell, some years ago I had my wallet stolen and I tried to use my birth certificate to get some new ID. I went down to the INS because everybody was denying me the ability to apply for a job, and I was told that since this birth certificate was not "certified" by the state of Connecticut (it was my birth hospital certificate), I was technically not a US citizen and had not right to work in the United States!
Despite having been born in the US (of parents who themselves were born in the US going back generations), and despite having used that birth certificate to get into the US Army and be sent overseas to shoot people, that birth certificate was not good enough for our friendly Federal government types (or the asshole corporate human resources types who are required to demand ID before they can hire you.)
So don't be surprised if, one of these days, the Feds decide that you aren't a citizen because you slopped coffee on your "certified" birth certificate, or your driver's license, or your implanted RFID, or whatever else these fuckheads come up with to terrorize the citizenry.
And don't be surprised if you end up in some hot place where vicious dogs and more vicious guards are used to keep you "under control" while they decide if you're even human enough to have any so-called "civil rights".
You're in a totalitarian state now, homes, and don't you forget it.
Marketing is more than advertising. Marketing also has to do with determining who needs your product - and in fact what your product should be in the first place. That part is not a problem.
Advertising as I would prefer to see it is simply the concept of bringing the existence and capabilities of your product to the attention of potential customers in a nonintrusive way.
Notice I did not say "bring dancing bears and bullshit" to the attention of anyone who happens to have his eyes and ears open within a light-year of same.
As such, the best "advertising" is a simple brochure (or online equivalent) that says, "Here is the company, here is our product name, here is what it does. If you're interested, here's how you get it, what it will cost you, yada, yada."
Period.
Now, how you get that simple exposition to the attention of people who might be interested in it - without intruding on and offending millions of people who are fucking well NOT interested in it - is obviously a problem.
A problem which I do not see ANYONE in the advertising industry trying to solve rationally.
ANY form of intrusive advertising (with the possible exception of simple mailers - and I realize some people hate physical junk mail as much as they do spam) such as popups, tracking cookies, banner ads, spyware, etc. is an ASSAULT on the consumer and should be technologically eliminated if feasible and banned if not.
I don't approve of governments regulating trade and commerce - but then I don't approve of governments creating legal fictions like corporations in the first place, either. If governments are going to exist, and allow corporations to exist, then they damn sure need to be banning ALL forms of intrusive advertising.
A NON-intrusive ad is one that is not on my property, does not assault my senses unduly, does not cost me anything to become aware of (should I so choose), does not interfere with anything I am doing, and does not require or force a response from me in any way. A billboard by the road might be a reasonable example. A leaflet in my mailbox just barely qualifies (if I don't want it, I have to junk it - but that's not hard to do in a second).
But having to receive and junk useless information is what the Web was supposed to get rid of - by allowing me to BROWSE and SEARCH for things - SEARCH to find things I KNOW I want, BROWSE to find things I DON'T know I want. (And by BROWSE, I do NOT mean wade through Web sites that are ninety percent advertising and ten percent content.)
If I want to look for products I don't know I need, I should merely have to browse company Web sites and Web sites indexing those sites. I should not have to endure every Web site on the planet throwing gigabytes down my line in the vain hope that one percent of the people so assaulted will click through and gain them a revenue of one-tenth of a cent, or whatever, per click.
Virtually everything done by advertisers on line or in the media does not qualify as nonintrusive advertising.
So then, one asks, how do Web sites support themselves?
By other means, obviously. Can't find any? Well, if you have a site that at least X number of people are truly interested in, price your site development and delivery expenses so you can charge the small enough subscription fee so people will pay it.
Stop paying Web developers a hundred dollars an hour to produce crappy sites no one wants to visit because they are overloaded with unnecessary technology (like Flash) developed solely to deliver ads to people who want your content, not your ads.
Pay for the site with the revenue you generate from doing something connected with what the site is about (consulting, or some service.) Use it as a marketing tool, not a revenue generator - that went out with the dot-com boom - unless you can actually deliver a service through the Web site.
Stop trying to make money on the site by being a shill for crap and bullshit.
Go ahead - serve up movies and Flash.
Your site will be drop-kicked to the curb even faster by the consumer than it is with banner ads.
The basic problem with the advertising industry is you've convinced yourself that you are actually useful and necessary.
You've not only lied to the consumer and the corporations, you've lied to yourself (no doubt to enable yourself to live with yourself - typical human reaction.)
Wrong premise.
"On ad networks prone to account fraud, you have to set up some hoops to prevent accounts from inflating their own stats."
In other words, your whole industry is not only fraudulent to the customer, it's fraudulent to itself.
Nice.
ALL you guys are on a par with porn sites that just do clickthroughs and actually have no content.
So your point is simply if you don't block ads, deleting cookies doesn't let you stop sending us the same crap we didn't want to see the first time.
Fine, I think everyone here understood you the first time.
What you don't seem to grasp is that we didn't want to see your crap the FIRST time.
Read my lips.
No ads. No cookies. And: No ads = no cookies. (If you don't send us stupid ads in the first place, you don't need to track us with cookies.)
Comprende?
Or read Bill Hicks's lips again.
If you are in advertising or marketing (other than the top management of a specific company making something - who are the ONLY people who should be DOING "marketing" for a product anyway - read "Up the Organization" about that), you are The Enemy.
You have no valid reason to exist.
Go away.
"This aint no freaking charity you mooch."
That's right - and neither am I.
So go be homeless, thank you very much.
Or, do what Bill Hicks (quoted elsewhere) said.
The only "mooch" around here are the parasite advertisers and marketing people. Advertising is a fucking joke and a corporate money waster and I don't care how many so-called "studies" supposedly prove it works. It would be just as effective to stand there for sixty seconds repeating the product name in a monotone as some of these idiotic commercials - let alone spam.
If in fact the bulk of the population HAS been brainwashed to actually respond to advertising, then that is in fact the best argument for having all advertisers (and preferably the brainwashed population) executed.
Thereby giving them the chance to infect your PC with God knows what...
I have a better idea.
Refuse to see Flash at all.
Put Macromedia out of business.
Or at least, if anybody WANTs to see Flash (and I admit to having chuckled over the funny Linux Flash show Kim Polese showed recently, so it's not ALL bad), force them to make it a downloadable media object, download it and run it in a "sandbox" model.
Face it, Flash is basically a "poor man's video player". It may be cheaper (now) to make Flash animations than a real video, but that's going to go away at some point. Bodes ill for Macromedia's future earnings, I suspect.
In the meantime, unless the writers and artists are really smart, it's chintzy, crappy, lame, and boring to use Flash on a Web site. It's like looking at network television...(which is probably what it will look like once making "real" videos is feasible for these idiots.)
I think Bart's PE can do most of that - except for number 5 (writeback). Maybe not that small a footprint depending on what you build into it.
Windows Ultimate Boot CD is also based on Bart's PE.
The main advantage of Bart is you have native full read/write NTFS access. The only way to get that from Linux is to use the Captive utility which puts a wrapper around the Microsoft NTFS DLL.
My build of Bart's has Ad-Aware, and a couple virus scanners - however, it's not clear how fully effective they are on an NTFS system since they're based on F-Prot DOS. The problem really is you can't "install" a Windows AV/other tools on Bart's per se. You can install some programs to the ram disk, but not everything works that way.
The same problem with writeback. Although you can run Nero and some other burners from Bart's, so I suppose you could do a multisession CD/RW that might work - haven't tried it. It would be nice if you could remove Bart's Cd and insert another CD with current defs, but that doesn't work. It does work with some small Linux distros based on Knoppix.
Basically, you're correct - nobody has the total package yet.
Conceptual processing is the key.
Without a good conceptual processing simulation, no AI is feasible.
The "baby bootstrap" is one level removed from having a good conceptual processing simulation.
Everybody in AI who USED to be working on conceptual processing - such as Roger Schank - moved on to other, more immediately profitable AI applications. (Last I heard, some years ago, Schank was working on case-based reasoning applied to education IIRC.)
1. Look at the source.
2. Drop study in trash can.
3. Curse Microsoft.
4. Install Linux.
5. ??????
6. Profit!!!
Like any other good Catholic, ignorance is bliss, eh?
.htm
Two seconds of Google brought http://www.sofn.org.uk/DOCTRINE/catholic_modernism
to light:
written by a Catholic priest, no less!
Or try http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0703almanac. htm
:
Here's a LOVELY quote from another source http://www.mengos.net/books/ourbooks/sadiq/reconsi dered/4errors.htm
Notice the "depraved fictions" being denounced here include essentially "being an American who believes in democracy", as well any sort of science, education, etc. - a nice laundry list!
The Syllabus, along with the introductory Encyclical letter, the various Consistorial Allocutions, Encyclicals and Apostolic Letters on which it is based and to which it constantly refers, plus the doctrinal constitution Paster Aeternus (Eternal Shepherd) promulgated by the First Vatican Council in 1870, are all meant to "reprobate, denounce and condemn generally and particularly the most grievous errors, heresies and depraved fictions of innovators," such as materialism, rationalism, naturalism, panetheism, secularism, communism, socialism, liberalism, latitudinarianism, Americanism, indifferentism, pietism, modernism, democracy, civil society (as a religiously neutral arena), science (under the rubric of scientism), freedom of conscience, the cult of religious tolerance, the principles of civil and religious liberty, the separation of Church and State, civil marriage, secular education, etc. A few of these condemned heresies require brief explanations.
Latitudinarianism refers to the reform movement in the English church which argued that the texts of Holy Scriptures allow for a latitude of interpretation and proof based on reason as opposed to the pure authority of tradition. The debate within the Church over "Americanism" refers to those Bishops and priests in Europe and the United States who showed excessive zeal for constitutionally protected civil and religious liberties, and who pointed to the American Catholic Church as a model for reorganizing the Church's relations in Europe with such novel developments as secular states, democratic governments, rapid scientific progress new critical scholarly methods of dealing with holy scriptures and the history of Christianity, and all the rest. Although the Syllabus did not explicitly condemn Americanism or mention it by name, it did so in substance. It was left to Pope Leo XIII to make the implicit explicit by bringing the Church debates over this tendency to a conclusion by declaring Americanism, in 1899, a heresy which constitutes "a complete synthesis of contemporary errors." Thus the Americanists were accused, by the Catholic fundamentalist reaction, of undermining the faith and subverting the authority of the Church by "this combination of Catholicism and democracy" by supporting "liberals and evolutionists" and by "Talking forever of liberty, respect for the individual's initiative, natural virtues and sympathy for our age."
Indifferentism refers to the view that all religions, sects, confessions and so on are (a)equal before the state, and (b)stand on the same footing as to their validity and truth-claims, except for their own adherents. Pietism refers generally to those who regard religion as a strictly private matter, and more particularly to those who regard its essence as no more than an inward, personal and individual affair of the heart which may or may not have any consequences for the outside world (justification by faith alone versus by works also).
The condemned Modernism is part of what is usually known as "The Modernist Crisis in the Catholic church," spanning the papacies of Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X. It is basically a 19th century phenomen
Google for it yourself. I haven't the time to be your history teacher.
If you buy the bullshit the Catholics put out, you should have no trouble comprehending what I told you when you read it for yourself.
I saw a picture of the Corrs vehicle they used on their North American tour last year.
Sucker looked like a double decker or something, it was so huge.
It was so wide it couldn't get through the gate at one of the Northwest venues and they had to park it in the street.
Some of the fans thought it had to be worth at least a million bucks.
"The Church ceased to be anti-science ages ago (around the turn of 19th and 20th centuries)"
BWAHAHAHAHAH!!! Yeah, right, bubele...
In the late eighteen hundreds, with the rise of the freethought movement and the rise of archaeology and mythology analysis, etc., the current Pope was concerned about this and called in all the top scholars of all the Catholic universities around the world. He charged them with producing evidence that the doctrine of the Church (Jesus as divinity, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, etc.) was all literally true.
They scurried off and worked like beavers for a couple decades.
They came back and told the Pope, "Not only can we not prove any of this, but as far as we can tell, it's all bullshit lifted from other religions." (Probably not in those words, of course.)
So the Pope had them all declared heretics and excommunicated them.
Then he promulgated the doctrine - which is still in force today - that a Catholic is prohibited from believing anything they read in the media if it conflicts with Catholic dogma.
And for your information, the Office of the Inquisition still exists - it was renamed in the late eighteen hundres, IIRC.
Not anti-science, my ass...
Oh, yeah, I remember the "Winnebiko"! A huge recumbent which could even call the cops itself if it was likely being stolen.
And then he went and did the same thing with a trimaran IIRC.