Well as soon as a computer has to walk by itself to the chess table, move the pieces itself, and shake the hand of its opponent, I will start considering chess computers to be a match for us...
sure computers will get better than us at chess. but we're multi-purpose machines, not chess computers.
ummm. not so sure dude. Tell me what you mean by the world being non-deterministic. What could that possibly mean? Really? And don't tell me any silly repeat of the Indeterminancy Theory of Quantum Mechanics.
Well, we all admire Newton for his physics and his mathematics. But you don't hear too many people praising his alchemy, his astrology, or his religous/apocalyptic histories. I imagine that his work in these latter three fields would tend to push him to the sidelines of academia. But, that doesn't mean he wouldn't get a position somewhere.
So, everyone is worried about privacy. I am too. But maybe, just maybe the real solution is not to secure privacy, but to completely eliminate privacy from the top to the bottom. No privacy for me. No privacy for you. And no privacy for Bush either. No privacy for CEO's, secretaries, geeks, diplomats, even private detectives. Not for the cops, certainly, and not for the FBI either. Its all there for everyone to see, anytime. So, if they can track my reading habits, I sure as hell should be able to track theirs. Just maybe it would work. Sounds crazy, but maybe. What scares me about privacy violations is not so much that my privacy is violated, but that the footing between me and the snoop are not equal...that they have power and authority to spy on me, but I do not have the power and authority to spy on them.
The whole "we had it first" is a circular argument - of course there is no such thing as a "pure jew" anymore in the same way that there is no person who is completely any race.
Race has almost zero biological reality. It has social and cultural reality. What the hell is a pure Jew anyway? Analogously, who is a pure Christian?
You've got a point. If any people was to be dispossessed to right the wrong done by the Nazis to the Jews, it should have been the Germans.
well actually, it perhaps it would have been better to just give Rome and its surrounding territories to the Jews, since the Romans were the ones who kicked them out of Israel in the first place.
you know, Tolkien expressed one complaint about his book: it was too short. Well I think the movies are too short-six films would have been much better. Too many good things are left out. Still I'm happy. my childhood dream fulfilled, without too much dissapointment. Not like that A$$hole Lucas. (:
Well based off of my own experience, I'll make a bet that the outcome of such a plan will be that government agencies and departmens, especially local goverment, will end up paying a lot of fines. sounds fine to me.
hey that was a pun! ha ha ha I didn't know it at the time. ha ha ha i'm punny
When you're known for publishing shoddy research, people don't tend to trust what you publish after that.
Perhaps, but in this case the research wasn't shoddy, it is just that the amount of gravity waves that were detected were considered to be higher than was expected given the believed sensitivity of the device. The researcher then went on to show that the sensitivity of the measuring device was greater than believed and showed why.
I downloaded the mp3 of the distorted Chili Peppers Song on their website. I wasn't impressed. As far as I could tell, I would get the same effect by lightly scraping sandpaper over my cd.
I read an ethnography about scientists and the detection of gravity waves. It described how scientists, after having decided that something was wrong, persisted in simply ignoring papers that continued the research despite the productivity and interesting results of the further research. It was interesting, too bad I don't have a reference.
You're completely right. The species concept, as far as I am concerned, is at best an approximation of what actually is going on. sometime's it works, sometime's it doesn't. any massively complex system such as this isn't going to be captured perfectly by so simple a concept. in any case, it doesn't matter.
I found a paper by Dennet called "Meaning Error and Evolution" I can't pretend to really understand the argument. but imagine a soda machine which is designed to recognize quarters vs. slugs. if the machine recognizes a quarter then it is in state 1 and if it doesn't recognize a quarter it is in state 2. so, we would say that if the machine was a fed a slug but it thought it was a quarter, i.e. it is in state 1, then it has made an error. right? keep in mind that the machine was designed to produce quarters.well, it turns out that there is a coin in Guatemala that they have coins that are indistinguishable by these machines from quarters. imagine that i took one of these soda machines to Guatemala and sold sodas. now everytime someone puts this Guat. coin in, the machine identifies it as a quarter, and spits out a soda (i.e. it was in state 1). but did it make an error? dennet goes on to say that we don't like to say that machines (artifacts) have original meaning/purpose, but that we humans do. then he goes on to say that we are artifacts too, artifacts of evolution.
Lets say I take a program that transcribes my speech to text. I say, "I could've stolen that car", and it spits out, "I could of stolen that car", then the problem lies in the program thinking I said something that I didn't. The fact remains that the sentence that the computer spit out is grammatically incorrect.
But if the stenographer was thinking of have and not 'of'then it would be orthographic. I actually agree with you, mostly. The idea i'm mainly tring to express (by now) is that from the point of view of someone mechanically reading the text, there is a grammatical mistake, but because 'of' in that sentence has the same function as 'have' (in that sentence!) it isn't quite a grammatical mistake in the same way as use the wrong tense or aspect or conjugation is a grammatical mistake. Its kind of like this: for a computer which mechanically reads through a text, it can encounter two kinds of errors: grammatical and spelling. now, most spelling mistakes are simply minor mistakes, such as 'conscous' for 'conscious'. but imagine if a spelling mistake was such that the result is a series of letters that constitutes another known word (bowl (verb) for bowel). Now in this case, the mistake is that the sentence is either
meaningless, or ungrammatical (depending on the case). but it was a spelling mistake! so this is what i meant that it was both only a spelling mistake, and also a grammar mistake, depending on the point of view you want to take.
i enjoyed this conversation with you. i'll add you to my friends if its ok with you.
If I was a court stenographer, and you said, "He could've stolen my car." and the stenographer wrote "He could of stolen my car", who made the mistake? the stenographer, of course. but did the stenographer make a grammatical error?
In reality he did not make a completely grammatically correct sentence.
Actually that is very interesting. From his point of view, I don't think it was a grammatical mistake. But it might equally be a grammatical mistake from the other. kind of reminds me of Dennet's argument regarding meaning and error.
>>"would of" is not a grammar mistake, its an orthographic mistake, ie a spelling mistake. shit, you don't even know what grammar is.
>So, if you take the sentence, "I is good", that merely a spelling mistake? I really meant to say, "I am good" but i just mispelled am. No, I dont think so..
if you said that you mispelled "am" by writing "is" then that is just what you did (as unbelievable as it might be). But if you in fact did intend to write "is" when you wrote "I is good", then you've made a grammatical error (assuming you speak the standard dialect of English). Because the original error had a homophonic aspect to it, I think that we can fairly intuit that it was a spelling error, and not a grammar error. Now, I'll get back to writing my grammar quiz for my students tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
sure computers will get better than us at chess. but we're multi-purpose machines, not chess computers.
ummm. not so sure dude. Tell me what you mean by the world being non-deterministic. What could that possibly mean? Really? And don't tell me any silly repeat of the Indeterminancy Theory of Quantum Mechanics.
Well, we all admire Newton for his physics and his mathematics. But you don't hear too many people praising his alchemy, his astrology, or his religous/apocalyptic histories. I imagine that his work in these latter three fields would tend to push him to the sidelines of academia. But, that doesn't mean he wouldn't get a position somewhere.
So, everyone is worried about privacy. I am too. But maybe, just maybe the real solution is not to secure privacy, but to completely eliminate privacy from the top to the bottom. No privacy for me. No privacy for you. And no privacy for Bush either. No privacy for CEO's, secretaries, geeks, diplomats, even private detectives. Not for the cops, certainly, and not for the FBI either. Its all there for everyone to see, anytime. So, if they can track my reading habits, I sure as hell should be able to track theirs. Just maybe it would work. Sounds crazy, but maybe. What scares me about privacy violations is not so much that my privacy is violated, but that the footing between me and the snoop are not equal...that they have power and authority to spy on me, but I do not have the power and authority to spy on them.
Race has almost zero biological reality. It has social and cultural reality. What the hell is a pure Jew anyway? Analogously, who is a pure Christian?
well actually, it perhaps it would have been better to just give Rome and its surrounding territories to the Jews, since the Romans were the ones who kicked them out of Israel in the first place.
you know, Tolkien expressed one complaint about his book: it was too short. Well I think the movies are too short-six films would have been much better. Too many good things are left out. Still I'm happy. my childhood dream fulfilled, without too much dissapointment. Not like that A$$hole Lucas. ( :
hey that was a pun! ha ha ha I didn't know it at the time. ha ha ha i'm punny
Watch them start using them to haul garbage away from the planet. I'll call it the end of spaceflight.
Perhaps, but in this case the research wasn't shoddy, it is just that the amount of gravity waves that were detected were considered to be higher than was expected given the believed sensitivity of the device. The researcher then went on to show that the sensitivity of the measuring device was greater than believed and showed why.
I read an ethnography about scientists and the detection of gravity waves. It described how scientists, after having decided that something was wrong, persisted in simply ignoring papers that continued the research despite the productivity and interesting results of the further research. It was interesting, too bad I don't have a reference.
You're completely right. The species concept, as far as I am concerned, is at best an approximation of what actually is going on. sometime's it works, sometime's it doesn't. any massively complex system such as this isn't going to be captured perfectly by so simple a concept. in any case, it doesn't matter.
Here I am browsing the threads about how not to waste time, when I'm SUPPOSED to be studying right now! Arggghhh!!!
I am good at playing tennis. Not I am well at playing tennis.
Turing Test?
I found a paper by Dennet called "Meaning Error and Evolution" I can't pretend to really understand the argument. but imagine a soda machine which is designed to recognize quarters vs. slugs. if the machine recognizes a quarter then it is in state 1 and if it doesn't recognize a quarter it is in state 2. so, we would say that if the machine was a fed a slug but it thought it was a quarter, i.e. it is in state 1, then it has made an error. right? keep in mind that the machine was designed to produce quarters.well, it turns out that there is a coin in Guatemala that they have coins that are indistinguishable by these machines from quarters. imagine that i took one of these soda machines to Guatemala and sold sodas. now everytime someone puts this Guat. coin in, the machine identifies it as a quarter, and spits out a soda (i.e. it was in state 1). but did it make an error? dennet goes on to say that we don't like to say that machines (artifacts) have original meaning/purpose, but that we humans do. then he goes on to say that we are artifacts too, artifacts of evolution.
But if the stenographer was thinking of have and not 'of'then it would be orthographic. I actually agree with you, mostly. The idea i'm mainly tring to express (by now) is that from the point of view of someone mechanically reading the text, there is a grammatical mistake, but because 'of' in that sentence has the same function as 'have' (in that sentence!) it isn't quite a grammatical mistake in the same way as use the wrong tense or aspect or conjugation is a grammatical mistake. Its kind of like this: for a computer which mechanically reads through a text, it can encounter two kinds of errors: grammatical and spelling. now, most spelling mistakes are simply minor mistakes, such as 'conscous' for 'conscious'. but imagine if a spelling mistake was such that the result is a series of letters that constitutes another known word (bowl (verb) for bowel). Now in this case, the mistake is that the sentence is either meaningless, or ungrammatical (depending on the case). but it was a spelling mistake! so this is what i meant that it was both only a spelling mistake, and also a grammar mistake, depending on the point of view you want to take.
i enjoyed this conversation with you. i'll add you to my friends if its ok with you.
If I was a court stenographer, and you said, "He could've stolen my car." and the stenographer wrote "He could of stolen my car", who made the mistake? the stenographer, of course. but did the stenographer make a grammatical error?
Actually that is very interesting. From his point of view, I don't think it was a grammatical mistake. But it might equally be a grammatical mistake from the other. kind of reminds me of Dennet's argument regarding meaning and error.
>So, if you take the sentence, "I is good", that merely a spelling mistake? I really meant to say, "I am good" but i just mispelled am. No, I dont think so..
if you said that you mispelled "am" by writing "is" then that is just what you did (as unbelievable as it might be). But if you in fact did intend to write "is" when you wrote "I is good", then you've made a grammatical error (assuming you speak the standard dialect of English). Because the original error had a homophonic aspect to it, I think that we can fairly intuit that it was a spelling error, and not a grammar error. Now, I'll get back to writing my grammar quiz for my students tomorrow.
Thank you for backing me up on this.
"would of" is not a grammar mistake, its an orthographic mistake, ie a spelling mistake. shit, you don't even know what grammar is.
1) Legend
The most underrated fantasy film ever. Great RPG opps.
2) @))!, I mean 2001...maybe. maybe better make it the next one Dave. 3) Ran, by Kurosawa
Everybody loves Samurai. and its Shakespeare too. Lots of political intrigue.
Now the good stuff: books and radio plays:
4) Ruby the Galactic Gumshoe.
A radio play that doesn't suck. at www.zbs.org Listen to Ruby 1. Its a cyberpunkish radio play.
5)Snow Crash
6) Neuromancer
7)Memory,Sorrow, Thorn
8)and of course, the Foundation series.