...it turns out that y don't really need to make a machine look like human. Even today, people are talking to their computers ("run dammit"). Reeves and Nass published a famous book on this called something like "The Media Equation: How people treat computers like other people and places". This is an aspect of what has been called the CASA paradigm (Computers Are Social Actors)
grtn!
Erik
This may sound a bit like communism to conservative sensibilities, unless it is made clear that the Net belongs to that class of things (gravity, the core of the Earth, the stars, atmosphere, ideas) that cannot be owned and even thinking about owning it is ludicrous.
Ludicrous? Tell that to those guys who'll sell you plots on the moon and the planets in our solar system.
Apparently they just said 'all of that is ours' and it now actually is because no one complained (check the FAQ).
Finally, a note from the company's self-proclaimed Head Cheese:
At the time if the writing of this news letter I need to let all of you know I have been presented a wonderful acknowledgment from the Congress of the United States. I have been named co-chairman of the Republican Congressional Business Advisory Council. I have also been given the National Republican Leadership Award and most recently I have been issued the highest honor the National Republican Congressional Committee has, the prestigious Republican Gold Medal.
'How much money does Microsoft spend on each minister'
In the case of the US, check out opensecrets.org
There are no conspiracies, it's all pretty obvious. Of course, some people are actually more productive on a non-linux os, but I think a lot of that has to do with their training, which may have been focussed on M$ (and wonder why)
sounds great, but someone please inform the LAPD of this new invention; they once shot a guy to absolute pieces (i saw it on a rather gory video) when he pointed his phone at them...
I've often wondered where individual responsability ends and collective (governmental) responsability begins. In this respect, the more dangerous passtimes (scuba, skydiving, bungee, etc) are an especially difficult case. And any scuba- or skydiver will all admit they're accepting a certain risk inherent to their sport. They're simply doing stuff our bodies were never meant to do (deep diving, flying).
On the other hand, one does tend to take for granted, for example, supervised or standardized testing procedures / quality control to be in place regarding such products as airbags in cars, and as was mentioned in earlier posts, medicinal equipment. And a lot of this goes for guns, too, though i don't mean to start an NRA/regulation flamewar here.
Manufacturers of gear in the more critical fields are definitely aware that consumers expect them to adopt adequate safety measures. Does this make the cover-up worse? In principle, I'd say yes. But legally, I dunno (IANAFL)... Of course, once you plunge in, that's your own decision. And my diving instructor did in fact tell us, even with all these fancy computers around these days, know your dive tables and multilevel wheel. Plan the dive and dive the plan.
But one does wonder, who should start initiatives to protect such specific consumers? Organisations of peers (PADI, in this case)? Government? Or is it, in the end, as simple as: every man for himself? Seems to me that these scattered, fragmented suits that the article mentions, are bound to be less effective than a collective effort could be.
Slashdot Mirror
...it turns out that y don't really need to make a machine look like human. Even today, people are talking to their computers ("run dammit"). Reeves and Nass published a famous book on this called something like "The Media Equation: How people treat computers like other people and places". This is an aspect of what has been called the CASA paradigm (Computers Are Social Actors) grtn! Erik
how would they get an idea of hacker 'targets' when they set the goals themselves?
Ludicrous? Tell that to those guys who'll sell you plots on the moon and the planets in our solar system.
Apparently they just said 'all of that is ours' and it now actually is because no one complained (check the FAQ).
Finally, a note from the company's self-proclaimed Head Cheese: At the time if the writing of this news letter I need to let all of you know I have been presented a wonderful acknowledgment from the Congress of the United States. I have been named co-chairman of the Republican Congressional Business Advisory Council. I have also been given the National Republican Leadership Award and most recently I have been issued the highest honor the National Republican Congressional Committee has, the prestigious Republican Gold Medal.
'How much money does Microsoft spend on each minister' In the case of the US, check out opensecrets.org There are no conspiracies, it's all pretty obvious. Of course, some people are actually more productive on a non-linux os, but I think a lot of that has to do with their training, which may have been focussed on M$ (and wonder why)
sounds great, but someone please inform the LAPD of this new invention; they once shot a guy to absolute pieces (i saw it on a rather gory video) when he pointed his phone at them...
On the other hand, one does tend to take for granted, for example, supervised or standardized testing procedures / quality control to be in place regarding such products as airbags in cars, and as was mentioned in earlier posts, medicinal equipment. And a lot of this goes for guns, too, though i don't mean to start an NRA/regulation flamewar here.
Manufacturers of gear in the more critical fields are definitely aware that consumers expect them to adopt adequate safety measures. Does this make the cover-up worse? In principle, I'd say yes. But legally, I dunno (IANAFL) ... Of course, once you plunge in, that's your own decision. And my diving instructor did in fact tell us, even with all these fancy computers around these days, know your dive tables and multilevel wheel. Plan the dive and dive the plan.
But one does wonder, who should start initiatives to protect such specific consumers? Organisations of peers (PADI, in this case)? Government? Or is it, in the end, as simple as: every man for himself? Seems to me that these scattered, fragmented suits that the article mentions, are bound to be less effective than a collective effort could be.