"In 1990 Hugh Loebner agreed with The Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies to underwrite a contest designed to implement the Turing Test. Dr. Loebner pledged a Grand Prize of $100,000 and a Gold Medal for the first computer whose responses were indistinguishable from a human's. Each year an annual prize of $2000 and a bronze medal is awarded to the most human computer. The winner of the annual contest is the best entry relative to other entries that year, irrespective of how good it is in an absolute sense."
Further information on the development of the Loebner Prize and the reasons for its existence is available at Loebner's web site.
Actually it is more than you may think. Microsoft's $56b cash hoard is bigger than most investment funds in the world. Hence, they get the best rates, the best opportunities and the best return.
The whole point seems to be to allow a (excessively large) number of speakers to indulge in pointless navel-gazing, all of which will be rercorded and analyzed ad nauseum by the other speakers in their weblogs.
"I have to wonder just how someone could bother 'querying someones intentions to do something', and then bothering to mention that here...why?"
My interest is primarily investigative, in the scientific sense of the word.
Clearly the original poster sees value in the $90.00 transaction. What then makes the difference between seeing the value and claiming the value by acting? What does it take for this difference to occur?
I am interested because as it happens, more people see the value than claim the value by acting. And yet, clearly the consequences of the former are not the same as the consequences of the latter.
Is this a sign of irrationality (in the economic sense of the word) do you think, or is something else going on here? Uh, or not going on here?
After the government changes in the US and the DOJ is free to investigate monopolism in software again...
How hard would it be to make the case that consumers would be advantaged by gaining access to just a basic o/s?
It mightn't be easy because the courts are legal organs not technical forums, but with a disciplined argument based on metrics derived from the types of performance issues noted in the article... an articulate, intelligent lawyer might get this done.
If their comptitors' terms have more obnoxious, obfuscated and hidden costs, they should stand to gain from it.
Yeah, they might gain, until they become ascendent enough to be able to raise their charges and then... What would they want to do?
Phone pricing is the convection current of capitalism. As with your favorite beer and the Colorado river, transparency can be both elusive and illusory.
Slashdot Mirror
Net effect is zero.
Which makes her even with all of us who didn't row at all.
"In 1990 Hugh Loebner agreed with The Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies to underwrite a contest designed to implement the Turing Test. Dr. Loebner pledged a Grand Prize of $100,000 and a Gold Medal for the first computer whose responses were indistinguishable from a human's. Each year an annual prize of $2000 and a bronze medal is awarded to the most human computer. The winner of the annual contest is the best entry relative to other entries that year, irrespective of how good it is in an absolute sense."
Further information on the development of the Loebner Prize and the reasons for its existence is available at Loebner's web site.
Google has as many Ph.D.'s working for it as Microsoft
If Microsoft would write less software, maybe my wi-fi would stand a chance of working consistently with XP.
But it doesn't. (sigh). Does yours?
Sometimes less is more.
Google has as many Ph.D.'s working for it as Microsoft
That's a good thing?Its not an insignificant amount...
Actually it is more than you may think. Microsoft's $56b cash hoard is bigger than most investment funds in the world. Hence, they get the best rates, the best opportunities and the best return.
And besides, what's so fun about "music flatrates"? It sounds like some kind of disease.
Music flatulence? Now that really can be fun...
You might like it.
The whole point seems to be to allow a (excessively large) number of speakers to indulge in pointless navel-gazing, all of which will be rercorded and analyzed ad nauseum by the other speakers in their weblogs.
Bah! They might have some fun together...
Imagine that!
Looks lke Jim Baen and/or Eric Flint would be someone fitting pretty well in that event.
Perhaps. Or how about Jim Beam and Errol Flynn?
Well, I just paid for SUSE (even though I didn't).
Sorry, what are you saying?Scientific sensibilities aside, PAY FOR YOUR FREE SOFTWARE!
I am investigating why it is necessary for you to shout that out. Why don't some people who see the value actually pay for the software?
Doesn't make sense ... sorry.
How do you mean, "doesn't make sense"? Both those labels came from you.
You labelled my science "clean" and Slashdot "cesspool" (without stating any reason). Then you say the juxtaposition doesn't make sense.
Do you sometimes feel conflicted within yourself?
SOO-suh
As pictured here and detailed here."I have to wonder just how someone could bother 'querying someones intentions to do something', and then bothering to mention that here ...why?"
My interest is primarily investigative, in the scientific sense of the word.
Clearly the original poster sees value in the $90.00 transaction. What then makes the difference between seeing the value and claiming the value by acting? What does it take for this difference to occur?
I am interested because as it happens, more people see the value than claim the value by acting. And yet, clearly the consequences of the former are not the same as the consequences of the latter.
Is this a sign of irrationality (in the economic sense of the word) do you think, or is something else going on here? Uh, or not going on here?
"I haven't gotten around to it yet, but I plan to..."
That sounds like an intention to plan to act.
In a free country you can certainly do that, but why mention it here?
Why not just act?
"the US DOJ recently announced it is going to be taking a closer look at the porn industry"
The Irish banking system has already done that.
Reverse Polish notation was invented by an Australian in response to Polish notation, which was invented (gasp!) by a Pole.
The whole story here is
After the government changes in the US and the DOJ is free to investigate monopolism in software again...
How hard would it be to make the case that consumers would be advantaged by gaining access to just a basic o/s?
It mightn't be easy because the courts are legal organs not technical forums, but with a disciplined argument based on metrics derived from the types of performance issues noted in the article... an articulate, intelligent lawyer might get this done.
Right?
Did anyone else feel like part of the article was more of a resume than an article about Microsoft?
It was a really long article. I didn't read all the way to the end.
Also, I didn't take the time to write a rebuttal to any of the points.
Just kept going with other things, happier to engage in things that have nothing to do with the nominal subject of the article.
"OSI is currently looking for nominations for the Q3 awards to be announced at OSCON."
I nominate these (wide) open sourcers from Washington state.We lived short desparate lives under tyrannical systems supported by the general entrapment due to lack of resources.
Are you sure it was all that bad?"Nothing"?
What you're saying makes sense if we ignore the 4 billion years of greenness prior to WWII.Nuclear power or not, as long as people insist on eating food, living life and having babies it looks like we're stuck with the greenhouse effect.
"'Nuclear power is the only green solution.'"
That's the only solution?
So what did humankind do for greenness before nuclear power was invented?
In Australia voters get a piece of paper and a pen.
Uh.............. that's it.
The counting takes a lot less time than it took the New York Times to organize the Florida recount, and the method supports unlimited error checking.
If their comptitors' terms have more obnoxious, obfuscated and hidden costs, they should stand to gain from it.
Yeah, they might gain, until they become ascendent enough to be able to raise their charges and then... What would they want to do?
Phone pricing is the convection current of capitalism. As with your favorite beer and the Colorado river, transparency can be both elusive and illusory.
This government is not the first of its type, merely the finest in a long tradition of governments that care.