I'm not sure who really buys them. They have a legacy of being ugly boxes that are really safe to drive. That's not a market segment I'm familiar with, but as long as they are still ugly and still safe, I guess they'll be okay?
I still kind of get them confused with saabs. Do they have the same stigma? Sabb drivers were upper middle class new englanders, so went the steriotype. Would they buy chinese? I don't know anyof them.
Hard. And by hard, I mean expensive. That had to be custom written by lawyers.
Custom notice: lets call that a days work, including the necissary research of the site to make sure there weren't any bad references to the products or company.
8 hours labor.
Cost ofr high powered lawyering $500 per hour.
total $4500.
Now most of that would be the labor of researching the site. So even if they didn't end up writing a friendly letter, thats nearly $4000. So Ikea can either sepend $4000 research on each infringment it finds, or just send a preapproved scary warning letter.
No, its ambiguous in common usage. It could mean either. I could cite thousands of instances around the web where notable sources use it to mean either.
I'd agree that the current status of chat-bots as turring test winners is wrong headed. However, a sufficiently advanced chat bot is artifically intelligent.
Re: An autist chat simulator duped 100% of people.
on
Turing Test Passed
·
· Score: 1
My counter argument: there isn't a better authority. If you want a better one, please form one. They are the ones that define such terms and administer help to people who have such conditions. My appeal to authority, isn't a a fallacious, illogical appeal to authority. Read up, yo.
I'm essentially arguing that the commonly accepted authority is the commonly accepted authority. AND there is no reason to doubt that they are the authority in this matter.
That doesn't have anything to do with my post. Of course crime and legality are merely human constructs by those in power for their own benefit. Over time, our laws have mostly evolved to those that also do good things like promoting the general peace. And in my humble opinion, thats what should be done in the interpretation of, and application of those laws today. Which is why, I would advise against prosecuting IRA members now that they've disarmed.
Now, I cannot say that what the IRA did was some how noble or understandable. They set off bombs that killed innocent people for political purposes. Nothing heroic in that.
This also. Crimes should be solved. Its not a fiasco. They gave written testimony to a third party that was not their lawyer, that is admissible in court.
However, I think the particulars of this situation are such ( the troubles were a terrible thing that I don't want to see reignited ), that I would not have advised the Brittish/Northern Ireland authorities to have pursued it. They're risking the peace that was very hard fought. The only innocent parties in the conflict were the innocent civilians that were killed by all of the fighting. Certainly none of the combatants, including the British government, were.
This is,of course, the right answer: laws, not encryption. The smartest people are the ones that examine the entire premise, instead of going along with the implied boundaries of a task.
Re: An autist chat simulator duped 100% of people.
on
Turing Test Passed
·
· Score: 1
No, not at all. But they are the ones who define the terms they use, and that is how they define it. If you have a different opinion, by all means become a psychologist infiltrate their ranks and convince them to change their definition. But you can't logically argue that they currently don't define it as such.
Re: An autist chat simulator duped 100% of people.
on
Turing Test Passed
·
· Score: 1
Well, its not generally true that people on the autisim spectrum have super powers any more than getting bit by a spider exposed to radiation will.
Correctly speaking, it is a mental disorder as it is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as such. The DSM is the American Psychiatric Association's current understanding of all things mental disordered.
Keep in mind however, that depression and ADHD is also listed in there.
I would argue that its not irreverent. If we can prove that large groups of intelligent apes who have been so obstinate in believing facts can be persuaded to listen to facts, that would be a great accomplishment indeed. It would also be nice if we could deal with the effects of climate change without having to deal with the stupid arguments against climate change.
Yes, I think the league had a credible argument. There was a lot of talk about boycotts by the players and fans. Sponsors pulled their deals with the clippers. Money was being lost. Reputation was in the clinker. Pro sports has often been described as a modern day plantation by the players ( Super rich white owners with mostly black players whose contracts are bought, sold, and traded). Having an obvious racist as one of them would definitely hurt in the leagues next cba agreement.
He owned a NBA franchise. When he did he signed a franchise agreement stipulating the terms of the relationship. Just like I can't buy a Mc Donalds franchise and then sub rent out part of the building to subway. Or make my Big Mac completely different than the national standard.
ownership of a franchise has a lot more strings attached than a non franchised ownership.
A private association had rules governing the association, and one of those members broke one of the rules*. Hence, he was kicked to the curb. No laws are alleged by any part to have been violated.
*He broke the rule that said he wouldn't do or say anything to harm the league financially. Its very broad rule for a reason. This reason.
There could be a number of reasons why they don't want the info public
1) It doesn't work that well, or there is an obvious defense against it they don't want public.
2) They've been abusing their power some how by collecting info on people not really suspects, and don't want to be hit up by every divorce lawyer in the country. ( not sure if that's really illegal).
3) They're idiotic power tripping jerks that think its an ultra secret thing that will cause all law enforcement to lose its effectiveness if more people know about it.
4) It contains evidence of alien life forms visits to our planet, and their preference for blackberry cell phones.
Well, that would be the logical way to do it. But this is Microsoft. They did release the system with a mandatory accessory that's hardly ever used, and takes away 10% of all processing power automatically. So, logic might not be something they are particularity familiar with.
Mainstream? Care to define "Mainstream"? : What percentage of mac users need to run an app for it to be "Mainstream"? How many "Mainstream" mac apps are there, that are not produced by Apple and included with OS X?
Yeah, I was still in high school when Java was first announced. But, you do have to make languages, even revolutionary great ones accessible to the masses who play with stuff for fun. I mean for myself and my friends, by the time we graduated we essentially had 5 years of experience with the platform. So when large companies were looking at what to use for their large cobol replacement language, well every one knows Java and they don't teach cobol anymore so... Java it is.
But yeah, I agree with you on the whole CS Geeks takeover of the language. That combined with Java fever at sun ( Where everything was Java, and nothing made sense ). JavaScript is nothing like Java. I'm not sure why you'd take credit for that. Its as related to Java as much as Paris, France is to Paris, Missouri.
Well, On one hand $1 isn't much and would have prevented Sun from having such a stupid idea as applets. But I doubt it would have been as widely adpoted. Without the ability to run Java on Linux now, I think Java would be dead.
Slashdot Mirror
How crazy dumb do you have to believe that liberals are communists?
Whoosh!
Man who says crazy things says hes perfectly rational. News at 11.
I'm not sure who really buys them. They have a legacy of being ugly boxes that are really safe to drive. That's not a market segment I'm familiar with, but as long as they are still ugly and still safe, I guess they'll be okay?
I still kind of get them confused with saabs. Do they have the same stigma? Sabb drivers were upper middle class new englanders, so went the steriotype. Would they buy chinese? I don't know anyof them.
Hard. And by hard, I mean expensive. That had to be custom written by lawyers.
Custom notice: lets call that a days work, including the necissary research of the site to make sure there weren't any bad references to the products or company.
8 hours labor.
Cost ofr high powered lawyering $500 per hour.
total $4500.
Now most of that would be the labor of researching the site. So even if they didn't end up writing a friendly letter, thats nearly $4000. So Ikea can either sepend $4000 research on each infringment it finds, or just send a preapproved scary warning letter.
No, its ambiguous in common usage. It could mean either. I could cite thousands of instances around the web where notable sources use it to mean either.
I'd agree that the current status of chat-bots as turring test winners is wrong headed. However, a sufficiently advanced chat bot is artifically intelligent.
Gee, I wonder what could have effected their profitablity since that year.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
My counter argument: there isn't a better authority. If you want a better one, please form one. They are the ones that define such terms and administer help to people who have such conditions. My appeal to authority, isn't a a fallacious, illogical appeal to authority. Read up, yo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
I'm essentially arguing that the commonly accepted authority is the commonly accepted authority. AND there is no reason to doubt that they are the authority in this matter.
That doesn't have anything to do with my post. Of course crime and legality are merely human constructs by those in power for their own benefit. Over time, our laws have mostly evolved to those that also do good things like promoting the general peace. And in my humble opinion, thats what should be done in the interpretation of, and application of those laws today. Which is why, I would advise against prosecuting IRA members now that they've disarmed.
Now, I cannot say that what the IRA did was some how noble or understandable. They set off bombs that killed innocent people for political purposes. Nothing heroic in that.
This also. Crimes should be solved. Its not a fiasco. They gave written testimony to a third party that was not their lawyer, that is admissible in court.
However, I think the particulars of this situation are such ( the troubles were a terrible thing that I don't want to see reignited ), that I would not have advised the Brittish/Northern Ireland authorities to have pursued it. They're risking the peace that was very hard fought. The only innocent parties in the conflict were the innocent civilians that were killed by all of the fighting. Certainly none of the combatants, including the British government, were.
This is ,of course, the right answer: laws, not encryption. The smartest people are the ones that examine the entire premise, instead of going along with the implied boundaries of a task.
No, not at all. But they are the ones who define the terms they use, and that is how they define it. If you have a different opinion, by all means become a psychologist infiltrate their ranks and convince them to change their definition. But you can't logically argue that they currently don't define it as such.
Well, its not generally true that people on the autisim spectrum have super powers any more than getting bit by a spider exposed to radiation will.
Correctly speaking, it is a mental disorder as it is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as such. The DSM is the American Psychiatric Association's current understanding of all things mental disordered.
Keep in mind however, that depression and ADHD is also listed in there.
I would argue that its not irreverent. If we can prove that large groups of intelligent apes who have been so obstinate in believing facts can be persuaded to listen to facts, that would be a great accomplishment indeed. It would also be nice if we could deal with the effects of climate change without having to deal with the stupid arguments against climate change.
Yes, I think the league had a credible argument. There was a lot of talk about boycotts by the players and fans. Sponsors pulled their deals with the clippers. Money was being lost. Reputation was in the clinker. Pro sports has often been described as a modern day plantation by the players ( Super rich white owners with mostly black players whose contracts are bought, sold, and traded). Having an obvious racist as one of them would definitely hurt in the leagues next cba agreement.
He owned a NBA franchise. When he did he signed a franchise agreement stipulating the terms of the relationship. Just like I can't buy a Mc Donalds franchise and then sub rent out part of the building to subway. Or make my Big Mac completely different than the national standard.
ownership of a franchise has a lot more strings attached than a non franchised ownership.
A private association had rules governing the association, and one of those members broke one of the rules*. Hence, he was kicked to the curb. No laws are alleged by any part to have been violated.
*He broke the rule that said he wouldn't do or say anything to harm the league financially. Its very broad rule for a reason. This reason.
There could be a number of reasons why they don't want the info public
1) It doesn't work that well, or there is an obvious defense against it they don't want public.
2) They've been abusing their power some how by collecting info on people not really suspects, and don't want to be hit up by every divorce lawyer in the country. ( not sure if that's really illegal).
3) They're idiotic power tripping jerks that think its an ultra secret thing that will cause all law enforcement to lose its effectiveness if more people know about it.
4) It contains evidence of alien life forms visits to our planet, and their preference for blackberry cell phones.
Well, that would be the logical way to do it. But this is Microsoft. They did release the system with a mandatory accessory that's hardly ever used, and takes away 10% of all processing power automatically. So, logic might not be something they are particularity familiar with.
Mainstream?
Care to define "Mainstream"? : What percentage of mac users need to run an app for it to be "Mainstream"? How many "Mainstream" mac apps are there, that are not produced by Apple and included with OS X?
Yeah, I was still in high school when Java was first announced. But, you do have to make languages, even revolutionary great ones accessible to the masses who play with stuff for fun. I mean for myself and my friends, by the time we graduated we essentially had 5 years of experience with the platform. So when large companies were looking at what to use for their large cobol replacement language, well every one knows Java and they don't teach cobol anymore so... Java it is.
But yeah, I agree with you on the whole CS Geeks takeover of the language. That combined with Java fever at sun ( Where everything was Java, and nothing made sense ). JavaScript is nothing like Java. I'm not sure why you'd take credit for that. Its as related to Java as much as Paris, France is to Paris, Missouri.
Speak for your own universe. In mine, I posted this first.
No, you misunderstood $1.00 wouldn't stop me from paying for a license to Java, if it were widely used and a viable programming language.
But at $1.00, it would prevent me from trying a new language that wasn't very interesting or used by many people.
At $1.00, it never would have been the success it was.
Well, On one hand $1 isn't much and would have prevented Sun from having such a stupid idea as applets. But I doubt it would have been as widely adpoted. Without the ability to run Java on Linux now, I think Java would be dead.