Clinton's impeachment was a result of a 3 year witchhunt
It happened during the witchhunt, but it was a result of him perjuring himself. If he hadn't done that, there would not have been any impeachment, witchhunt or no.
Try reading my post again. I was commenting on a previous post that claimed that, since we know sentience/intelligence is possible, then we can be 100% sure that we can replicate it mechanically. My point was that the logic does not extend to a different kind of system, i.e., just because we know intelligence is possible with one type of system (biological) it does not necessarily follow that it is possible with a mechanical system.
I specifically said that I thought machined-based AI would be possible; all I was trying to do was point out what I saw as a logical fallacy in the parent post, not rate the relative merits of biological over machine-based AI systems. I don't know enough about either to make that comparison, but I do know language and logic. If there is absolutely no difference between how biological organisms and machines 'think,' then my point fails. I admit I don't know biology well enough to say -- but it is my understanding that nobody currently understands how the brain works.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with your logic. Yes, physics as we know it would be violated by faster than light travel, so we certainly don't know if it can be done at all. Your argument for AI is flawed, though: simply because we know sentience is possible, it does not follow that we know sentience can be created artificially. We know sentience is possible in biological organism, but we do not know if it can be recreated in a machine. Even if your definition of AI includes creating an organism that has sentience, as opposed to the current understanding of AI (machine/software-based), your statement that "it's 100% solvable" does not necessarily follow.
I think it's somewhat more likely than not that we will eventually develop true AI, but I don't think you can jump from the mere fact that sentience exists to saying that artificially duplicating it is a given.
Being famous does matter: the owner of a famous mark can sue for 'dilution' of that mark. A mark that isn't famous, you have to prove actual confusion (and therefore some sort of overlap in business).
Only problem with your theory is that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. There would be an amazing number of regulatory hurdles it would have to jump through even to think about buying a company that makes a competing OS.
As an example of what's already happening, there have been stories about this the last couple days: apparently someone sent a 'spoofed' email, claiming to be from a Huckabee campaign functionary in Iowa, stating that he was going to ditch Huckabee for Romney. One of many stories.
'Jury nullification' is completely pointless unless it's a close case, which this one wasn't. If the jury hadn't found for the RIAA here, the RIAA would have moved for JNOV or a new trial, and it would have been granted -- if not by the trial court then on appeal. The jury has a 'right' to do whatever they want, but the legal system has safeguards to protect against verdicts that aren't supported by the evidence or law. In a close case, the courts will defer to the jury even if the jury appears wrong; in a cut-and-dry situation, as this one is characterized, the verdict will be tossed out, giving the RIAA the win or at least another trial.
Technical merits aside, it is accepted practice to cite to internet materials (usually by url + date last visited, which is at least a nod to the fact that the medium isn't fixed). In general, if it's a document only you or the other party has, you attach it as an exhibit; if it's publicly available -- book, journal, website, etc -- you cite to it but don't attach it.
One exception just came to mind, although I'm sure I'll think of others as soon as I hit 'submit': Robin Hobb's Farseer books. Nine books, written as three trilogies (the first two of which, at least, could stand alone). Excellent books, with the ninth just as hard to put down as the first. She is currently in the middle of a new trilogy, I believe, completely unrelated to the previous series -- so there is at least one author that knows when to leave well enough alone.
Its hard to think of anybody who has done a good job at "carrying on" a series once the primary author has died.
I certainly don't disagree with you, but in all fairness there aren't all that many 'primary' authors that have done a good job carrying on a series. The obsession with never-ending series of books in scifi & fantasy almost guarantees that you will lose interest and/or be disappointed by the quality long before the series is finished. A standard trilogy may not be enough, but if there are more than 6 or so books, my advice to the author is to stop trying to milk it, give it a rest, and move on to something fresh.
There are exceptions to this, but frankly I can't think of any offhand.
I'm not familiar with the dates/timeline here, but in most if not all jurisdictions -- and definitely in federal court -- you have only 30 days from the entry of an order or judgment to file a notice of appeal (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)). The order was apparently filed on July 16. Today is August 16, which is the 31st day. BUT Foster is just now asking the court to enter judgment for this amount, which means that Capitol will probably have 30 days from the day that judgment is entered.
As someone that has had to read and try to interpret many, many statutes, all I can say is: "If only!" You would be amazed (well, actually you might not) at how badly written statutes are.
Just as a nitpick, the Whigs weren't replaced by a true third party. This is an oversimplification, but basically the Whigs split on regional boundaries (North v. South) over the slavery question, with the majority of the Northern Whigs becoming the Republican Party and the Southern arm of the party dying.
The Whig party had disintegrated before Lincoln won the presidency (as a Republican); that is not analogous to what the situation would be if a third-party candidate (Independent, Green, etc.) won today. The Republicans and Democrats are far too entrenched, and would likely join forces (at least behind the scenes) to keep that third party from becoming more than a one-hit-wonder. But whatever else might happen, I can't imagine one of the two big parties simply dissolving -- there simply aren't any issues today as big and divisive as those that killed the Whigs, and the parties today don't have any true ideology beyond trying to sell themselves to voters. One (lor both) of the big two would simply try to co-opt the message of that third party and claim that's what they had always believed.
No, no - he's talking about breaded humans, which can be quite tasty if cooked properly. I'm not quite sure, though, if the breading, the humans, or both is genetically modified.
I'll try not to hyperventilate if you work on your reading comprehension skills. Even the limited facts in the blog that this story links to, steaming pile of tripe that it is, indicate only that the FBI is offering to give information to universities, and is asking for universities to report suspicious behavior.
Or, if it wouldn't offend you to seek out facts that may not flatter your opinions quite as much as the blog does, you might take a look at the original article. But then you might realize that the FBI is only asking that university safeguard their sensitive research, and that the guidelines the blogger found somewhere don't come into this at all. The blogger just pulled the whole 'the FBI is out to get you' angle out of his or her ass, and from what I'm seeing here got exactly the reaction he or she hoped for from people so eager to see evil everywhere that they can't be bothered to think for themselves.
You certainly are 'usual' for Slashdot: misreading, either deliberately or through ignorance, anything that may not support your opinion. Perhaps, just perhaps, someone could consider what is 'usual' or 'unusual' in context. Crazy, I know, but it could happen. Especially since it isn't the evil government that will be applying these guidelines. (In fact, as another poster has pointed out, these guidelines have nothing to do with what this pathetic excuse for a story claims - they are for government employees, and have not been supplied and/or suggested to universities.)
Slashdot Mirror
It happened during the witchhunt, but it was a result of him perjuring himself. If he hadn't done that, there would not have been any impeachment, witchhunt or no.
Just FYI, he was quoting from the skit.
Try reading my post again. I was commenting on a previous post that claimed that, since we know sentience/intelligence is possible, then we can be 100% sure that we can replicate it mechanically. My point was that the logic does not extend to a different kind of system, i.e., just because we know intelligence is possible with one type of system (biological) it does not necessarily follow that it is possible with a mechanical system.
I specifically said that I thought machined-based AI would be possible; all I was trying to do was point out what I saw as a logical fallacy in the parent post, not rate the relative merits of biological over machine-based AI systems. I don't know enough about either to make that comparison, but I do know language and logic. If there is absolutely no difference between how biological organisms and machines 'think,' then my point fails. I admit I don't know biology well enough to say -- but it is my understanding that nobody currently understands how the brain works.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with your logic. Yes, physics as we know it would be violated by faster than light travel, so we certainly don't know if it can be done at all. Your argument for AI is flawed, though: simply because we know sentience is possible, it does not follow that we know sentience can be created artificially. We know sentience is possible in biological organism, but we do not know if it can be recreated in a machine. Even if your definition of AI includes creating an organism that has sentience, as opposed to the current understanding of AI (machine/software-based), your statement that "it's 100% solvable" does not necessarily follow.
I think it's somewhat more likely than not that we will eventually develop true AI, but I don't think you can jump from the mere fact that sentience exists to saying that artificially duplicating it is a given.
Being famous does matter: the owner of a famous mark can sue for 'dilution' of that mark. A mark that isn't famous, you have to prove actual confusion (and therefore some sort of overlap in business).
Only problem with your theory is that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. There would be an amazing number of regulatory hurdles it would have to jump through even to think about buying a company that makes a competing OS.
As an example of what's already happening, there have been stories about this the last couple days: apparently someone sent a 'spoofed' email, claiming to be from a Huckabee campaign functionary in Iowa, stating that he was going to ditch Huckabee for Romney. One of many stories.
'Jury nullification' is completely pointless unless it's a close case, which this one wasn't. If the jury hadn't found for the RIAA here, the RIAA would have moved for JNOV or a new trial, and it would have been granted -- if not by the trial court then on appeal. The jury has a 'right' to do whatever they want, but the legal system has safeguards to protect against verdicts that aren't supported by the evidence or law. In a close case, the courts will defer to the jury even if the jury appears wrong; in a cut-and-dry situation, as this one is characterized, the verdict will be tossed out, giving the RIAA the win or at least another trial.
Technical merits aside, it is accepted practice to cite to internet materials (usually by url + date last visited, which is at least a nod to the fact that the medium isn't fixed). In general, if it's a document only you or the other party has, you attach it as an exhibit; if it's publicly available -- book, journal, website, etc -- you cite to it but don't attach it.
There you go - I knew there were other obvious examples I was missing.
One exception just came to mind, although I'm sure I'll think of others as soon as I hit 'submit': Robin Hobb's Farseer books. Nine books, written as three trilogies (the first two of which, at least, could stand alone). Excellent books, with the ninth just as hard to put down as the first. She is currently in the middle of a new trilogy, I believe, completely unrelated to the previous series -- so there is at least one author that knows when to leave well enough alone.
I certainly don't disagree with you, but in all fairness there aren't all that many 'primary' authors that have done a good job carrying on a series. The obsession with never-ending series of books in scifi & fantasy almost guarantees that you will lose interest and/or be disappointed by the quality long before the series is finished. A standard trilogy may not be enough, but if there are more than 6 or so books, my advice to the author is to stop trying to milk it, give it a rest, and move on to something fresh.
There are exceptions to this, but frankly I can't think of any offhand.
Make that $30,000,005.63!!
Uh, right . . .
Thanks for that little gem, which helps prove there's not much danger of that ever happening.
The problem with the last is that it's a constant, not random at all.
I'm not familiar with the dates/timeline here, but in most if not all jurisdictions -- and definitely in federal court -- you have only 30 days from the entry of an order or judgment to file a notice of appeal (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)). The order was apparently filed on July 16. Today is August 16, which is the 31st day. BUT Foster is just now asking the court to enter judgment for this amount, which means that Capitol will probably have 30 days from the day that judgment is entered.
Is that a cross between drivel and drool? Maybe some gruel thrown in for flavor?
There are at least two of us.
Firebug is a plugin for Firefox; Yslow is an extension to Firebug.
As someone that has had to read and try to interpret many, many statutes, all I can say is: "If only!" You would be amazed (well, actually you might not) at how badly written statutes are.
Just as a nitpick, the Whigs weren't replaced by a true third party. This is an oversimplification, but basically the Whigs split on regional boundaries (North v. South) over the slavery question, with the majority of the Northern Whigs becoming the Republican Party and the Southern arm of the party dying.
The Whig party had disintegrated before Lincoln won the presidency (as a Republican); that is not analogous to what the situation would be if a third-party candidate (Independent, Green, etc.) won today. The Republicans and Democrats are far too entrenched, and would likely join forces (at least behind the scenes) to keep that third party from becoming more than a one-hit-wonder. But whatever else might happen, I can't imagine one of the two big parties simply dissolving -- there simply aren't any issues today as big and divisive as those that killed the Whigs, and the parties today don't have any true ideology beyond trying to sell themselves to voters. One (lor both) of the big two would simply try to co-opt the message of that third party and claim that's what they had always believed.
No, no - he's talking about breaded humans, which can be quite tasty if cooked properly. I'm not quite sure, though, if the breading, the humans, or both is genetically modified.
I'll try not to hyperventilate if you work on your reading comprehension skills. Even the limited facts in the blog that this story links to, steaming pile of tripe that it is, indicate only that the FBI is offering to give information to universities, and is asking for universities to report suspicious behavior.
Or, if it wouldn't offend you to seek out facts that may not flatter your opinions quite as much as the blog does, you might take a look at the original article. But then you might realize that the FBI is only asking that university safeguard their sensitive research, and that the guidelines the blogger found somewhere don't come into this at all. The blogger just pulled the whole 'the FBI is out to get you' angle out of his or her ass, and from what I'm seeing here got exactly the reaction he or she hoped for from people so eager to see evil everywhere that they can't be bothered to think for themselves.
You certainly are 'usual' for Slashdot: misreading, either deliberately or through ignorance, anything that may not support your opinion. Perhaps, just perhaps, someone could consider what is 'usual' or 'unusual' in context. Crazy, I know, but it could happen. Especially since it isn't the evil government that will be applying these guidelines. (In fact, as another poster has pointed out, these guidelines have nothing to do with what this pathetic excuse for a story claims - they are for government employees, and have not been supplied and/or suggested to universities.)
Perhaps you missed the word 'unusual.' If it is something that everyone in academia does, it wouldn't be unusual, now would it?