I'm curious, hypothetically asking, if you'd never met a lumberjack, would you conclude that it's absurd that they exist? Because people fill glasses like those. You just don't know them.
A dishwasher isn't a robot in the sense clearly intended.
And it doesn't wipe dishes, including difficult to clean pots and pants, or other non-dishwasher safe dish wear, which is really where the demand is coming from.
If you want to get pedantic, what people want is a dishwasher that can wash every type of dish you'd ever need to wash, at every level of dirtiness. Now that we're approaching something that would have to have the ability to manipulate dishes and make decisions on what to use and how to clean those dishes, you have something a lot more like a robot than a dishwasher.
The medium makes it different. Anybody can read that magazine and see those ads. In Facebook's case, the technology is such that just anybody CANNOT see those ads. You might have a decent argument if the publisher of that magazine had a reliable way of ensuring that young women who wanted to read that magazine were physically obstructed from doing so.
Facebook anonymizes the targeting parameters for advertising, but on the serving end, they're not showing ads when older men are *likely* to be reading, they're serving ads to people they actually know are only older men (to a reliable enough degree that it's true for all intents and purposes.)
I wonder what kind of hilarious moron thinks Fortune plays any kind of role, Hitler quotes or not, in society at large remembering or forgetting the terrible things that Hitler did? *reads eneville's post* Oh look, I found one. Christ what a sanctimoniously stupid argument.
What on earth are you saying? That software that was available 13 years ago doesn't exist today, having been developed, released and maintained during that time? That's an awfully stupid argument to make on/. of all places.
Yeah, per capita is dumb when comparing pollution rates between countries. Per country independent of population is much smarter. *rolls eyes* Do me a favour and punch yourself in the face.
It's not that complicated. The cost he cited above is measured in lives, and science permits as to determine a fairly accurate number of how many people die from pollution. Without even trying to attach an economic cost to that, that's just a specific number of people dying. I mean, your question amounts to, "Yeah but, how do we knowwwww mannnn? How to we really knowwww?" *rolls eyes*
Same old dumb argument. Are you saying that nobody obeys any laws? Are you saying that laws are useless? Are you saying that we don't measure things before and after laws are made to determine their effectiveness?
Surprisingly, the majority of humans start with a baseline agreement that we would like to preserve humanity.Of course, somebody has to point out that humans are capable of bad things (tm), and don't sound far off from a made for TV movie villain. "Humans are the worst, which neatly explains away my incapacity for empathy but not my disinterest in making sacrifices for the greater good!"
Manipulating results? They made the results, invented out of whole cloth. Are you under the impression there is some kind of laws of physics in web searches?
Conspiracy theorists are guessing a number between 1 and 500 trillion. So no, they never get it right before they die, and they don't co-ordinate to make sure they never pick the same number twice.
You're dumb. The FBI said, "We don't think we can prosecute her because we don't think we can show that she broke the law as the law is written."
But even then, even IF the FBI had said, "We found nothing" you'd still say evaded prosecution, and even real investigating, because she's rich, famous, and Obama was running the show, because it's clear that your mind is made up before it processes information available to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody would ever fill them
I'm curious, hypothetically asking, if you'd never met a lumberjack, would you conclude that it's absurd that they exist? Because people fill glasses like those. You just don't know them.
Don't you have people in the real world who will listen to you talk about yourself?
Why yes, thanks for pointing out that minorities are heavily underrepresented in executive positions at tech companies.
I think it's adorable that you think Apple wouldn't have any way of getting anyone other than the people that work there for testing their devices.
And then resumed a day or two after.
That's significantly more expensive.
A dishwasher isn't a robot in the sense clearly intended.
And it doesn't wipe dishes, including difficult to clean pots and pants, or other non-dishwasher safe dish wear, which is really where the demand is coming from.
If you want to get pedantic, what people want is a dishwasher that can wash every type of dish you'd ever need to wash, at every level of dirtiness. Now that we're approaching something that would have to have the ability to manipulate dishes and make decisions on what to use and how to clean those dishes, you have something a lot more like a robot than a dishwasher.
The medium makes it different. Anybody can read that magazine and see those ads. In Facebook's case, the technology is such that just anybody CANNOT see those ads. You might have a decent argument if the publisher of that magazine had a reliable way of ensuring that young women who wanted to read that magazine were physically obstructed from doing so.
Facebook anonymizes the targeting parameters for advertising, but on the serving end, they're not showing ads when older men are *likely* to be reading, they're serving ads to people they actually know are only older men (to a reliable enough degree that it's true for all intents and purposes.)
I suppose you vote Democratic party then, right? It's right in their name. Or are you just disingenuously stupid when it's convenient?
I wonder what kind of hilarious moron thinks Fortune plays any kind of role, Hitler quotes or not, in society at large remembering or forgetting the terrible things that Hitler did? *reads eneville's post* Oh look, I found one. Christ what a sanctimoniously stupid argument.
What on earth are you saying? That software that was available 13 years ago doesn't exist today, having been developed, released and maintained during that time? That's an awfully stupid argument to make on /. of all places.
I have heard that second one straight from the mouth of an Associate Dean in a large US university's CS department.
Good old anecdata.
Yeah, per capita is dumb when comparing pollution rates between countries. Per country independent of population is much smarter. *rolls eyes* Do me a favour and punch yourself in the face.
Nothing ever changes, by which I'm actually only referring to people who believe that.
It's not that complicated. The cost he cited above is measured in lives, and science permits as to determine a fairly accurate number of how many people die from pollution. Without even trying to attach an economic cost to that, that's just a specific number of people dying. I mean, your question amounts to, "Yeah but, how do we knowwwww mannnn? How to we really knowwww?" *rolls eyes*
What you're saying is that you're not smart enough to recognize what you don't know.
Same old dumb argument. Are you saying that nobody obeys any laws? Are you saying that laws are useless? Are you saying that we don't measure things before and after laws are made to determine their effectiveness?
Surprisingly, the majority of humans start with a baseline agreement that we would like to preserve humanity.Of course, somebody has to point out that humans are capable of bad things (tm), and don't sound far off from a made for TV movie villain. "Humans are the worst, which neatly explains away my incapacity for empathy but not my disinterest in making sacrifices for the greater good!"
Why yes, that is an emotionally and ideologically grounded statement, thank you for the example.
Manipulating results? They made the results, invented out of whole cloth. Are you under the impression there is some kind of laws of physics in web searches?
Conspiracy theorists are guessing a number between 1 and 500 trillion. So no, they never get it right before they die, and they don't co-ordinate to make sure they never pick the same number twice.
Sheesh, what a terrible argument.
The funny this is, I bet you think you're intelligent.
Net neutrality and terms of service don't have anything to do with each other. Thank you for playing, "Who is a stupid head?" You win.
You're dumb. The FBI said, "We don't think we can prosecute her because we don't think we can show that she broke the law as the law is written."
But even then, even IF the FBI had said, "We found nothing" you'd still say evaded prosecution, and even real investigating, because she's rich, famous, and Obama was running the show, because it's clear that your mind is made up before it processes information available to you.
lol