That's an argument by analogy.
When the 6-year-old neighbor boy says there are alligators in the basement and they are going to eat the whole neighborhood, do you laugh, or do you call the police just to be safe?
For an argument by analogy to work, you need to not only state the analogy, but also explain why the crucial pieces fit the current situation. Otherwise we can make up a million different analogies that all go different ways.
Uh, yeah. The first world war was started over less.
A little off topic, but the first world war was started because the heir to the throne of the Empire was murdered. He was an archduke, but people don't realize that he was also about to become emperor.
Evidence. I understand computer security well enough to evaluate it for myself.
BTW given how often the CIA has lied publicly, you'd have to be a moron to trust them. Or ignorant. One of those.
C. At some point, you have to chose to trust somebody. I'm going to choose to trust an organization that communicates in complete sentences over a compulsive liar that does not.
You don't have to trust either of them. Don't: the FBI has a long history of lying as does Trump.
The only thing that matters is evidence.
No, it's not, I've read that report several times. It doesn't give any convincing evidence to support its conclusions.
If you disagree, please point me to the paragraph or section you find most convincing.
Why do you false dichotomy guys always show up in these threads?
The reason is because there is an actual dichotomy contained in the term "AI." Some people use it to refer to strong AI, others use it to refer to weak AI. People who don't realize there are two different meanings to the word "AI" end up confused.
And it will be appealed and should be. The law should not favor a little guy suing a big guy any more than the reverse.
This is a statement of preference. While I largely agree with your preference, it is not a statement based on the law.
The judge however did make a decision based on law, which is why you should be worried.
Here is a good example, where a parody was found not to be a valid parody, but instead a satire. If that case seems to be some satire you'd read in Kafka making the case a parody of itself, you are correct.
The judge already ruled in this case, the answer is, "Yes." Sucks, but here's the quote from the article:
The jokes written by Kaseberg and O'Brien's staff, the judge ruled, are "sufficiently objectively virtually identical" in those three instances. To win, Kaseberg's lawyers will need to show that the defendants "willfully infringed Plaintiff's copyrights."
It's unfair but tbh I have trouble working up much outrage about it.
You can add politicians to that pile. A lot of the stupidity in the legislative response to the 2007 crisis was a direct result of confusing the stock market with the economy.
Yeah that's good theory but in practice we both know that companies use H1Bs even when they are able to find someone locally. It's a good skill to have, to be able to discount fifty applicants while applying for the visa.
If that's the goal then decentralized messaging is possible (theoretically). But then you're looking at a sparsesness of nodes problem because most people won't care about that internet enough to join.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an argument by analogy.
When the 6-year-old neighbor boy says there are alligators in the basement and they are going to eat the whole neighborhood, do you laugh, or do you call the police just to be safe?
For an argument by analogy to work, you need to not only state the analogy, but also explain why the crucial pieces fit the current situation. Otherwise we can make up a million different analogies that all go different ways.
That's some really great info. Do you mind if I ask where you got it?
Uh, yeah. The first world war was started over less.
A little off topic, but the first world war was started because the heir to the throne of the Empire was murdered. He was an archduke, but people don't realize that he was also about to become emperor.
Evidence. I understand computer security well enough to evaluate it for myself.
BTW given how often the CIA has lied publicly, you'd have to be a moron to trust them. Or ignorant. One of those.
C. At some point, you have to chose to trust somebody. I'm going to choose to trust an organization that communicates in complete sentences over a compulsive liar that does not.
You don't have to trust either of them. Don't: the FBI has a long history of lying as does Trump.
The only thing that matters is evidence.
Trump represents America.
No, it's not, I've read that report several times. It doesn't give any convincing evidence to support its conclusions.
If you disagree, please point me to the paragraph or section you find most convincing.
I don't trust the CIA.
Which piece of evidence from that Wikipedia page do you think is the strongest? It seems mainly filled with unsupported statements from TLA agencies.
How do you think every other country in the world would react to this idea?
Basically the same, actually. GSM licenses used to be as expensive or more than CDMA.
Why do you false dichotomy guys always show up in these threads?
The reason is because there is an actual dichotomy contained in the term "AI." Some people use it to refer to strong AI, others use it to refer to weak AI. People who don't realize there are two different meanings to the word "AI" end up confused.
Slashdot is the only place I know of that has such a ridiculously restrictive, illogical definition of "AI."
It's called strong AI, and it's what the media typically means when they refer to AI.
And it will be appealed and should be. The law should not favor a little guy suing a big guy any more than the reverse.
This is a statement of preference. While I largely agree with your preference, it is not a statement based on the law.
The judge however did make a decision based on law, which is why you should be worried.
Here is a good example, where a parody was found not to be a valid parody, but instead a satire. If that case seems to be some satire you'd read in Kafka making the case a parody of itself, you are correct.
Wouldn't a joke inherently fall under the parody exclusion?
Weirdly, no......it has to be a valid parody. Whether or not something is a valid parody is of course a fuzzy line.
The jokes written by Kaseberg and O'Brien's staff, the judge ruled, are "sufficiently objectively virtually identical" in those three instances. To win, Kaseberg's lawyers will need to show that the defendants "willfully infringed Plaintiff's copyrights."
It's unfair but tbh I have trouble working up much outrage about it.
You like abusing people, don't you?
Not really, sometimes it's hard to get your tone right in a text-only forum. I've been working on improving it but still haven't got it right.
Fifth, how much time and money were "wasted" on this? From NIH reporter, it looks like $300,000 [nih.gov] was spent specifically on this project.
Best investment this year.
You can add politicians to that pile. A lot of the stupidity in the legislative response to the 2007 crisis was a direct result of confusing the stock market with the economy.
FWIW renting at the airport is probably the most expensive place to rent a car, there are local car rental stations around that are cheaper.
Rumors are this kind of thing is more common in the video game industry.
I've never seen anything close to this any place I've worked, though.
Yeah that's good theory but in practice we both know that companies use H1Bs even when they are able to find someone locally. It's a good skill to have, to be able to discount fifty applicants while applying for the visa.
If that's the goal then decentralized messaging is possible (theoretically). But then you're looking at a sparsesness of nodes problem because most people won't care about that internet enough to join.
Ugh, learn logic.
Ad hominem: <INSULT> therefore <CONCLUSION>
Abuse: <INSULT>
Teaching: Pointing someone in the right direction, though they never listen.
To answer your question, no, I do not like ad hominems. At worst that was abuse.
I have a stronger urge to see this film in the theater,
It's tough to build desire to see this movie that even the cast and writers don't seem to be taking seriously. The first one was good.