Re:am i the only one who misread it as al-Pacman?
on
AI Takes On Pac-Man
·
· Score: 2
i read the title as A.I. Pacman, as in artificial intelligence and then when i clicked on the article i was like YEAAAAAAAAH!!!! IM RIGHT! WHOOOOOOO!!! IN YOUR FACE!
Sounds like instead of turning the cameras off they should better manage how the money is used and who is in control of the cameras. It would be nice to see the money accumulated from the LA traffic system used to get some of those other not profitable cameras in place where the real crime is happening.
another amazing, wonderful, world changing, society fixing, all or our problems are solved, idea i heard about this week that ill be wondering what the hell ever happened to.... ten years from now when gas is $50/gallon to power a car that still doesnt fly and my cell phone charge still wont last more then an hour and all my friends are still obese and dying from cancer, lack of health care, with an upside down mortgage and no jobs and a microwave dinner that still fucking frozen in the middle.
someday you should print an article when one of these brilliant mit/scientists/researchers/whoever people does something that actually makes it to market and changes the world.
And I think it is unproductive to extend the definition of trolling to the more legitimate activities you describe. If I made a post about something I believed in and someone responded back with "are you real or just trolling?" i would say "not trolling" because I AM trying to make a valid point, not just cause trouble. Valid points do often involve insulting language. It doesn't mean you are trolling either, you just really feel that way.
If you literally believe they are wrong and you want to challenge people on their belief and post discussion topics or interject topics into existing discussions you may at times be hijacking, but you are not trolling. You literally believe in what you are posting, and therefor you are not trolling.
If you simply go into a forum looking to post material that you know will cause havoc, regardless of your point of view on the matter, then you are trolling. Trolling does not mean you are trying to make a point, it means you are posting material that will cause trouble for the forum.
Picture an atheist getting some kicks on/b/ posting material about how god is awesome and how evolution fails and all sinners will go to hell. If you respond with heated debate YHBT
because everyone involved here has NO idea what a troll actually is.
it's not troll, like some sort of tolkien monster, you idiot.
it's troll as in baiting people into reacting to idiotic posts designed to spark fighting and stupid behavior, often to get conversations off topic and kill a thread. you know how you troll up and down the river dangling bait and hoping that something bites. that is trolling. the above article treats the topic like we are fighting monsters here. the key difference is that debate is useless.
And an assessment on the value of those people conducting the studies. Exactly what do they contribute by constantly posting argument/counter-argument studies that x is good/bad for you in quarterly cycles. At what point should we tell them to go get real jobs?
uh.. it sounds like something to do with love but I was lead to believe this is the basis for the legal arrangement and related laws and it provides a lot more to the benefit of the court system in dealing with these types of scenarios when they get before a judge.
WHAT?? this has nothing to do with religious extremism.
"What is yours is now mine and what is mine is now yours." If this isn't how you feel about your significant other then you should not be getting married and should just stay single and live it up. Until you meet someone who feels this way about you and you that way about them, the fundamental basis of marriage does not exist. The more you introduce the concepts of 'privacy' in a marriage the more you are compromising your dedication and creating exceptions to your vows.
This is also my take on it. "two become one". But I am starting to wonder if either I was mislead somewhere about what marriage was, or if marriage is quickly being redefined into something completely meaningless.
The media has been doing this with politicians for years now. Reagan being the test run. That guy died somewhere back in the 70s and he still managed to hold office in this country for two terms. A movie actor as a president???? of course they just needed rights to his movies and poof! another public leader is born. So you never notice half his speeches mysteriously flickered black and white depending on the angle of his head and the vowels in the sentence??
Fast forward to 2010 and what he got now? inside the senate and house its just a big blue screen and fat noisy cgi puppets. by comparison lucas is just... doing it for entertainment
Just kidding but, have you been watching jay leno with the fake bits of obama throwing a tantrum during his speeches. Did anyone feel the hair raise on the back of their neck when they did that? Theres just something about this type of editing of our political representatives that should be illegal. Is anyone concerned about this for more important reasons then just preserving the movie classics? George Lucas is perfecting the technologies of something far more sinister.
There are factories full of robots that do a million different things more interesting and useful then this. Make something that isnt plugged in and runs by itself and get back to us. We have all been waiting here bored for years now...
ooh its a snake at the end of a hundred feet of a lawn mower orange electric cord, glad i made it to 2010
And also, I could very well be one of those leftist on here, but my feelings on the moderation failing are still the same.
If I am arguing against the conservative view, nothing makes my argument fail harder then to have my opponents viewpoints suddenly vanish under bad moderation so that nobody can read them later.
There is nothing in the world more important to me then to have my oppositions faulty failed arguments put up in plain view for all to read.
Moderation is for keeping the discussion on track, for promoting good ideas, and eliminating spam and profanity.
The moderation above accomplishes none of this. It simply operates as a way to signify political affiliation. You could just as well have posted a poll and vote your party and skip the discussion.
The moderation on this entire discussion is a complete failure. It reflects not the content of the posters but the political slant of the readership. And based on which way the slant goes half the discussion gets buried or lost.
At some point there should just be a button to either agree or disagree and leave it up to votes. Not that the votes have any value whatsoever at this point, except to make the readers somehow feel better about themselves.
I just want to see what both sides are saying on the topic without moderation destroying half the discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
the whole reason i clicked it too
fucking math fags
also tomorrow is kroot day, cannibal feast!
i read the title as A.I. Pacman, as in artificial intelligence and then when i clicked on the article i was like YEAAAAAAAAH!!!! IM RIGHT! WHOOOOOOO!!! IN YOUR FACE!
nah really i didnt even read it
heh exactly
but then i was sad
Sounds like instead of turning the cameras off they should better manage how the money is used and who is in control of the cameras. It would be nice to see the money accumulated from the LA traffic system used to get some of those other not profitable cameras in place where the real crime is happening.
yeah i came off critical of mit or something, i was really bugging more about tech journalism and OMG THE FUTURE!!! eeehhh .
another amazing, wonderful, world changing, society fixing, all or our problems are solved, idea i heard about this week that ill be wondering what the hell ever happened to.... ten years from now when gas is $50/gallon to power a car that still doesnt fly and my cell phone charge still wont last more then an hour and all my friends are still obese and dying from cancer, lack of health care, with an upside down mortgage and no jobs and a microwave dinner that still fucking frozen in the middle.
someday you should print an article when one of these brilliant mit/scientists/researchers/whoever people does something that actually makes it to market and changes the world.
And I think it is unproductive to extend the definition of trolling to the more legitimate activities you describe. If I made a post about something I believed in and someone responded back with "are you real or just trolling?" i would say "not trolling" because I AM trying to make a valid point, not just cause trouble. Valid points do often involve insulting language. It doesn't mean you are trolling either, you just really feel that way.
.
THIS IS NOT TROLLING
Here is the difference.
If you literally believe they are wrong and you want to challenge people on their belief and post discussion topics or interject topics into existing discussions you may at times be hijacking, but you are not trolling. You literally believe in what you are posting, and therefor you are not trolling.
If you simply go into a forum looking to post material that you know will cause havoc, regardless of your point of view on the matter, then you are trolling. Trolling does not mean you are trying to make a point, it means you are posting material that will cause trouble for the forum.
Picture an atheist getting some kicks on /b/ posting material about how god is awesome and how evolution fails and all sinners will go to hell. If you respond with heated debate YHBT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
when you respond, you did exactly what the troll wanted you to do.
and are now posting in a troll thread.
because everyone involved here has NO idea what a troll actually is.
it's not troll, like some sort of tolkien monster, you idiot.
it's troll as in baiting people into reacting to idiotic posts designed to spark fighting and stupid behavior, often to get conversations off topic and kill a thread. you know how you troll up and down the river dangling bait and hoping that something bites. that is trolling. the above article treats the topic like we are fighting monsters here. the key difference is that debate is useless.
if you debate, you took the bait, end of story.
the correct response is no response.
quit posting in troll threads.
And an assessment on the value of those people conducting the studies. Exactly what do they contribute by constantly posting argument/counter-argument studies that x is good/bad for you in quarterly cycles. At what point should we tell them to go get real jobs?
I haven't come to the realization yet but give it time
F5F5F5F5F5F5
uh.. it sounds like something to do with love but I was lead to believe this is the basis for the legal arrangement and related laws and it provides a lot more to the benefit of the court system in dealing with these types of scenarios when they get before a judge.
WHAT?? this has nothing to do with religious extremism.
"What is yours is now mine and what is mine is now yours." If this isn't how you feel about your significant other then you should not be getting married and should just stay single and live it up. Until you meet someone who feels this way about you and you that way about them, the fundamental basis of marriage does not exist. The more you introduce the concepts of 'privacy' in a marriage the more you are compromising your dedication and creating exceptions to your vows.
This is also my take on it. "two become one". But I am starting to wonder if either I was mislead somewhere about what marriage was, or if marriage is quickly being redefined into something completely meaningless.
Seriously anyone at anytime can post anything they want about anything, are you going to fill idle up with a mirror of it all?
The media has been doing this with politicians for years now. Reagan being the test run. That guy died somewhere back in the 70s and he still managed to hold office in this country for two terms. A movie actor as a president???? of course they just needed rights to his movies and poof! another public leader is born. So you never notice half his speeches mysteriously flickered black and white depending on the angle of his head and the vowels in the sentence??
Fast forward to 2010 and what he got now? inside the senate and house its just a big blue screen and fat noisy cgi puppets. by comparison lucas is just... doing it for entertainment
Just kidding but, have you been watching jay leno with the fake bits of obama throwing a tantrum during his speeches. Did anyone feel the hair raise on the back of their neck when they did that? Theres just something about this type of editing of our political representatives that should be illegal. Is anyone concerned about this for more important reasons then just preserving the movie classics? George Lucas is perfecting the technologies of something far more sinister.
thats exactly the point i was trying to make
1200 ad
they used sunlight and a chemical agent
dont you watch history channel
They have moods just the same as human animals.
and i mean ALOT of pets....
so are your clams also sad when you leave??? you have alot of pets
There are factories full of robots that do a million different things more interesting and useful then this.
Make something that isnt plugged in and runs by itself and get back to us. We have all been waiting here bored for years now...
ooh its a snake at the end of a hundred feet of a lawn mower orange electric cord, glad i made it to 2010
than you can imagine.
+1 funny. Aww mods have no sense of humor.
And also, I could very well be one of those leftist on here, but my feelings on the moderation failing are still the same.
If I am arguing against the conservative view, nothing makes my argument fail harder then to have my opponents viewpoints suddenly vanish under bad moderation so that nobody can read them later.
There is nothing in the world more important to me then to have my oppositions faulty failed arguments put up in plain view for all to read.
Moderation is for keeping the discussion on track, for promoting good ideas, and eliminating spam and profanity.
The moderation above accomplishes none of this. It simply operates as a way to signify political affiliation. You could just as well have posted a poll and vote your party and skip the discussion.
The moderation on this entire discussion is a complete failure. It reflects not the content of the posters but the political slant of the readership. And based on which way the slant goes half the discussion gets buried or lost.
At some point there should just be a button to either agree or disagree and leave it up to votes. Not that the votes have any value whatsoever at this point, except to make the readers somehow feel better about themselves.
I just want to see what both sides are saying on the topic without moderation destroying half the discussion.
A leak is something that happens when previously hidden information is then made publicly available by someone on the inside.
The information here is available to anyone that wants it, someone just spent some time compiling the data, who had no affiliation with facebook.