If it means your computer broadcasts other peoples voices on your computer, imagine what damage would be caused by someone reading breaking news stories for a day or two (getting trust), and then screaming out stories like "I spanked your mom! GOATSE!" all day.
2. I will repeat his test with a non-random selection of sites, which I will weight to the medically informative and politically controvercial. I will parentally block only porn.
a. Tell me the % overblocking that would be ok.
b. Pay me for my time if, and only if, the actual % overblocking is worse then the acceptable % overblocking. 3. ? 4. PROFIT!
We can work out additional terms for the test at your leisure. I expect the test would take approximatly 10 hours of my time. I'll charge you $20 an hour, for $200 if the software fails the test. If your software passes my overblocking-acceptability threashold of 0%, then I will pay you $2,000.
Chumly, I paid attention to your link, which had a whole bunch of information, none of which refuted the fact that the software your censorware company makes was used in SafeServer in October 2000 and had a 34% error rate.
Could you be a bit more specific with your refutation? The page you linked to was 295k, and the part on Safe Server (which your fly-by-night company provides the tech for) did nothing other than mention it used your tech and had a 34% error rate.
"Intelligent Content Recognition Technology, iCRT(TM) (Powered by RuleSpace) - scans each page for objectionable material."
http://web.archive.org/web/20001019065516/http://w ww.smartstuff.com/products/fpi/fpiserverfaq.html
My SafeServer 34% error rate is directly attributable to your miracle neural net software.
In case you think I'm wrong? Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net!
Posted it below, but he's refering to 6,266,664, a bad patent which provides for a sum-of-weights to determine if it's a fail or pass, a weighting-by-comparison, which isn't even close to a resonable model (IE - if you match regexp sex.*kitten you get 200 on your score, but if you match regexp medical.*information you get -500), and a training system to automatically generate the list by giving some sample goods and sample bads. No, it cannot deal with pictures, nor can it deal with pages sans text.
Oh, and because it makes any argument right, at least in this patent's mind: Neural Net! Neural Net! Neural Net! Neural Net! Neural Net! Neural Net! Neural Net!
...we conclude that the overall accuracy rate is low, and that about one third of sites blocked by SafeServer do not meet their criteria.
Yeah, that's a quality algorithym there. Better then a dart board!
US Patent 6,266,664 can be read at the USPTO - to wit, their system does a ratio of bad words to good words.
So, in summary, it looks up words from a database, sums the hits, applies a function to the sum and divides by total words. Don't worry, they say "neural network!"
But wait! They make the list themselves. Of course, they do it by examining if the turn of phrase is used more on pornographic sites or breast cancer sites! That was clearly a deep line of thought well deserving of a patent there. Please, defend your company more for us, because defining a list of regular expressions and calling them "better, bad, worse" isn't exactly a-1-a computer science.
Oh, and in case you think I am wrong? Neural Network! Neural Network! Neural Network! Neural Network! Neural Network! There! I can't be wrong now!
Is an animated line-drawn picture of how to perform a testicular self-exam pornography? Why should libraries be sentencing 17 year old kids with pea-sized lumps in their testicles to death?
Why should someone looking for information on testicular cancer at age 17 be killed by overrestrictive library rules? Why should someone looking for information on breast cancer at age 50 be look apon as a dirty filty whore by the populace at large?
The last time you talked about this BS genetic algorithm you were 13 years old. I specifically remember you discussing the exact same thing Somewhere else. However, then you were more clear that what you did was play a deck BY HAND, change a card from that deck to another random card and play more BY HAND. Summary - you lie.
PS - There is no course of study called "AI". Hope that helps in your quest to make people think that you are older than 12.
Medical School is a great deal like Law School - memorization and understanding of the relevent background material. People who are saying "they don't get hands on live patients" misunderstand what medschool *IS*.
Only after medschool, when you are an intern, do you get to work with patients, and only with the supervision of a resident. No character on ER (except for some one-episode people who are trying to figure out what rotation to join) are med students. Rather, they are all interns or residents.
I hope this helps in your evaluation of the feasability of this program (MHO - somewhat feasable, but may lack hands-on cadaver work.)
I've found that when buying high-ticket items you are either buying from:
a. Some Guy who dosen't want his or b. A store.
In the case of a, you would expect to have feedback mostly as a buyer of items, some negative and some neutral, most positive.
In the case of b, you would expect to have feedback soley as the seller of items, to many people who themselves have very positive feedback, with insiginificant but positive numbers of negatives from people with very positive feedback (those people should have cooresponding retributive negatives from the seller). Often those negatives will have apologies attached to them. Every negative will have an explanation next to it.
Beware all positive feedback, and avoid all negative feedback. Do not use paypal. If it is a store with a website or physical location, demand that they take payment via direct CC#.
Regarding Molly, I'm going to take something from her that she can never get back, as soon as I beat up that toilet-water drinking jerk from Philladelphia that should be working for me.
The 0. Oracle of Bacon at Virginia links to the 1. CS Department Search Page which can 2. search for "DECSS news.com" (google) which links to 3. Slashdot, which links to 4. News.com which links to 5. DeCSS.
The strawman you knocked down was the one that argued that child porn imparted information. I did not make, nor will I make, that argument.
I might, however, make the arguement that some information defined as child porn under current statute both: a. Harms no one (because it is computer generated) and b. Has significant artistic, literary or scientific merit. (because most of the statutes include contraceptive information targeted at children in their overly broad definitions)
I never said that "Child porn dosen't hurt anyone."
*PRODUCING* child porn should be a serious criminal offence punishible by significant jail time.
I said that "Looking at child porn doesn't hurt anyone."
Looking at child porn dosen't hurt anyone.
Quick answer - who are you to decide? Looking at child porn doesn't hurt anyone, and arguments could be made that it has serious artistic merit. Why do we need someone policing something we do in our own private homes that effects no one?
Slander is not against the law. It is a civil tort.
Inciting a panic is not illegal. Endangering peoples lives is. Yelling "fire" is not a speach act designed to impart information, according to the opinion you failed to reference, it is an act designed to damage.
Slashdot Mirror
If it means your computer broadcasts other peoples voices on your computer, imagine what damage would be caused by someone reading breaking news stories for a day or two (getting trust), and then screaming out stories like "I spanked your mom! GOATSE!" all day.
Much like slashdot, actually.
He's not a lawyer, he's an MBA.
When that game opens, I am so going to pretend to be a WWE Superstar pretentious Harvard graduate...
Hold on a second here.
Could someone please compare and contrast Slashdot with The Sims Online?
1. You owe me an apology.
2. I will repeat his test with a non-random selection of sites, which I will weight to the medically informative and politically controvercial. I will parentally block only porn.
a. Tell me the % overblocking that would be ok.
b. Pay me for my time if, and only if, the actual % overblocking is worse then the acceptable % overblocking.
3. ?
4. PROFIT!
We can work out additional terms for the test at your leisure. I expect the test would take approximatly 10 hours of my time. I'll charge you $20 an hour, for $200 if the software fails the test. If your software passes my overblocking-acceptability threashold of 0%, then I will pay you $2,000.
Could you be a bit more specific with your refutation? The page you linked to was 295k, and the part on Safe Server (which your fly-by-night company provides the tech for) did nothing other than mention it used your tech and had a 34% error rate.
"Intelligent Content Recognition Technology, iCRT(TM) (Powered by RuleSpace) - scans each page for objectionable material."w ww.smartstuff.com/products/fpi/fpiserverfaq.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20001019065516/http://
My SafeServer 34% error rate is directly attributable to your miracle neural net software.
In case you think I'm wrong? Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net Neural Net!
Posted it below, but he's refering to 6,266,664, a bad patent which provides for a sum-of-weights to determine if it's a fail or pass, a weighting-by-comparison, which isn't even close to a resonable model (IE - if you match regexp sex.*kitten you get 200 on your score, but if you match regexp medical.*information you get -500), and a training system to automatically generate the list by giving some sample goods and sample bads. No, it cannot deal with pictures, nor can it deal with pages sans text.
Oh, and because it makes any argument right, at least in this patent's mind: Neural Net! Neural Net! Neural Net! Neural Net! Neural Net! Neural Net! Neural Net!
Mike used to work for RuleSpace Inc. 6 months, to be exact. RuleSpace Inc. is used by AOL, Intel, Smartstuff and Telemate.
But, guess what!
Error rate for domains: 34%
Yeah, that's a quality algorithym there. Better then a dart board!
US Patent 6,266,664 can be read at the USPTO - to wit, their system does a ratio of bad words to good words.
So, in summary, it looks up words from a database, sums the hits, applies a function to the sum and divides by total words. Don't worry, they say "neural network!"
But wait! They make the list themselves. Of course, they do it by examining if the turn of phrase is used more on pornographic sites or breast cancer sites! That was clearly a deep line of thought well deserving of a patent there. Please, defend your company more for us, because defining a list of regular expressions and calling them "better, bad, worse" isn't exactly a-1-a computer science.
Oh, and in case you think I am wrong? Neural Network! Neural Network! Neural Network! Neural Network! Neural Network! There! I can't be wrong now!
Obviously! There can be NO GREY AREA when it comes to porn!
Is an animated line-drawn picture of how to perform a testicular self-exam pornography? Why should libraries be sentencing 17 year old kids with pea-sized lumps in their testicles to death?
Why should someone looking for information on testicular cancer at age 17 be killed by overrestrictive library rules? Why should someone looking for information on breast cancer at age 50 be look apon as a dirty filty whore by the populace at large?
Oh man, you win! Front page troll is KEY.
PS - There is no course of study called "AI". Hope that helps in your quest to make people think that you are older than 12.
Admins are Users too.
Medical School is a great deal like Law School - memorization and understanding of the relevent background material. People who are saying "they don't get hands on live patients" misunderstand what medschool *IS*.
Only after medschool, when you are an intern, do you get to work with patients, and only with the supervision of a resident. No character on ER (except for some one-episode people who are trying to figure out what rotation to join) are med students. Rather, they are all interns or residents.
I hope this helps in your evaluation of the feasability of this program (MHO - somewhat feasable, but may lack hands-on cadaver work.)
I've found that when buying high-ticket items you are either buying from:
a. Some Guy who dosen't want his or
b. A store.
In the case of a, you would expect to have feedback mostly as a buyer of items, some negative and some neutral, most positive.
In the case of b, you would expect to have feedback soley as the seller of items, to many people who themselves have very positive feedback, with insiginificant but positive numbers of negatives from people with very positive feedback (those people should have cooresponding retributive negatives from the seller). Often those negatives will have apologies attached to them. Every negative will have an explanation next to it.
Beware all positive feedback, and avoid all negative feedback. Do not use paypal. If it is a store with a website or physical location, demand that they take payment via direct CC#.
Whoever modded this informative should be back-body-dropped from the top rope, let me tell you.
But the whole point is to connect it to slashdot.
Regarding Molly, I'm going to take something from her that she can never get back, as soon as I beat up that toilet-water drinking jerk from Philladelphia that should be working for me.
The
0. Oracle of Bacon at Virginia links to the
1. CS Department Search Page which can
2. search for "DECSS news.com" (google) which links to
3. Slashdot, which links to
4. News.com which links to
5. DeCSS.
Professor's name and College name, please?
Kid, that's not me.
The strawman you knocked down was the one that argued that child porn imparted information. I did not make, nor will I make, that argument.
I might, however, make the arguement that some information defined as child porn under current statute both:
a. Harms no one (because it is computer generated) and
b. Has significant artistic, literary or scientific merit. (because most of the statutes include contraceptive information targeted at children in their overly broad definitions)
I never said that "Child porn dosen't hurt anyone." *PRODUCING* child porn should be a serious criminal offence punishible by significant jail time. I said that "Looking at child porn doesn't hurt anyone." Looking at child porn dosen't hurt anyone.
You really kicked that strawman's ass.
Quick answer - who are you to decide? Looking at child porn doesn't hurt anyone, and arguments could be made that it has serious artistic merit. Why do we need someone policing something we do in our own private homes that effects no one?
Slander is not against the law. It is a civil tort.
Inciting a panic is not illegal. Endangering peoples lives is. Yelling "fire" is not a speach act designed to impart information, according to the opinion you failed to reference, it is an act designed to damage.