I remember reading at one point that plants may actually communicate in some way(someone please tell me if this study turned out to be bunk)
Plants certainly communicate. Acacia trees, for example, will send out a scent when their bark is chewed on which causes other trees to release a bittering compound to keep from being eaten. But if you're talking about things like "The Secret Life of Plants", by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, yes it's bunk.
Communication would display some level of sentience
I don't see how communication requires sentience. Heck, computers communicate, and (I hope) they're not sentient.
It seems that the batteries just don't like it cold.
I did alright with my Nikon D100 in Alaska by using an external battery and keeping it inside my coat, next to my chest. That worked until the temperature got down to about -23F, where the electronics themselves started to have trouble.
Immorality (sin) is personal between you and your god(s).
I'd just like to make the small point that morality does not require theology. There are lots of us atheists who have a very strong sense of morality which has nothing to do with illegality.
I don't know if it'll be as impressive to the court going forward if everybody does it, but when I walked in a couple of years ago and pulled out my printed satellite photos from yahoo of the intersection where I allegedly ran a red light, the magistrate just said, "Not Responsible" without even looking at it or hearing any other evidence.
he had more questions that were basic, like "what do you put in a toaster"
Oooh... I know this... a fork?
Actually, the above trick question doesn't show that people are morons for saying 'toast'. It simply illustrates the mental process known as priming. It's sort of like a prefetch circuit for the brain which speeds up response time. This can obviously be extremely useful. It's downside is that it occassionally, like in the above situation, fails to provide the correct answer.
Actually, there are still a few isolated groups of humans living in the world today - the two that immediately come to mind are the bushmen and pygmies of Africa.
Ah yes, the wild bushmen, left alone to live out simple lives... oh, and fight court battles with the government. So much for isolation.
Mother Teresa's Name had good exposure.
Bin Laden is even better known... but not good for his 'brand'.
I dunno, did you ever see the episode of TV Nation with the segment called "Direct Mail"? Moore sent out two letter campaigns asking for money. One for "friends of Jeffery Dahmer" and one for an average young couple just trying to make ends meet. If you can't guess who got more money, you'll have to watch the show to find out.
he problem is they are building on top of commodity hardware, with the only advantage being the software. A competitive market has no room for openness.
Exactly. The thing I've always wondered about is why all these companies aren't using *BSD for their OS. There's lots of support for embedded BSD and it makes this whole GPL problem go away.
9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap, and it is for your own good.
Uh... As an American who owns several British cars, let me just say that Brits really should just leave this one alone.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about?
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 1
Is that true, I dont understand how business can choose which form of legal tender to accept. It makes me mad when I see things like "no bills over $20"
Well, first off, legal tender only refers to situations where one is paying off a debt. Its not a government's place to force a sale to take place between private parties. So a business owner is free to reject an offer to purchase based on whatever criteria they want, discrimination aside, including mode of payment offered.
Second, there are laws in most countries which restrict legal tender to "reasonable" numbers of coins (e.g. more than 25 pennies is not considered legal tender).
But it took a few shows to get into and I have to admit that my very first impressions were that it was not as good as everyone said.
Funny, I had the exact opposite impression. It was love at first sight for me and I thought it was even BETTER than everyone had said (if that's possible). It played to me like Star Wars if Lucas had realized his ideas were laughably rediculous and ran with it. But after watching the whole thing, it didn't quite hold up to the promise of the first few episodes. The repetitive 'big gun fight, one of the crew members is shot, but they're perfectly fine again at the start of the next episode' thing happened over and over, and started to feel really tired.
The only off-putting factor for me was that whole wild-west-meets-space theme
That's my favorite part, but then I'm a big fan of Sergio Leone style silliness.
Also, what's your proof that a god does not exist. Why not agnostic??
You are confusing atheism with dogma. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Agnosticism is the position that one cannot know if a god exists.
In otherwords, I can be an atheist but hold open the possibility that some future evidence may change my belief. This is what most people who describe themselves as atheist mean; what you are incorrectly calling 'agnostic'.
This is not the story you're looking for. Move along.
Slightly off topic, but I know people reading this thread would be the only ones to understand. I swear I actually had somebody try a Jedi Mind Trick on me in real life. I had a guy come into my liquor store and when I asked for ID, he said in a perfect dismissive way, "You don't need to see an ID. You can just take this money for the beer." It was so close to Obi-Wan in Mos Eisley that I couldn't help laughing. Unfortunately for him though, it didn't work.
Would explicit special effects of Hunphrey Bogart's character getting decapitated with a machete have made Treasure of the Sierra Madre a better movie? No. (Actually, there was a scene that showed the character's decapitated head, but it was cut before release.)
Aaaah! DAMN YOU FOR THE SPOILER! Just because the movie is 57 years old doesn't mean that some of us aren't waiting breathlessly for it in our netflix queue.;-)
Except that Nikon's provided software accesses the data just fine. Nothing is hidden from you. You can get at every bit in that file via Nikon's software.
This is not true, and that's part of the issue. Nikon's SDK only allows you access to a processed version of the data, not the original raw data. All you can do is ask the SDK to convert the image to TIFF or JPG, and then give it to you.
(I would give practically anything if you would abide by the most basic rules of conversation and eschew the grammar nazi nonsense. Your comment was almost physically painful to read, which was a shame because it contained some worthy thoughts. They were just obscured by the horrible injustices you perpetrated with your holier than thou attitudes.)
If I'm not mistaken, and I often am, only the private clubs like CostCo can force a bag check
Ok, I'll bite. Why would they be able to force a bag check? Because of the membership agreement? Even so, they probably couldn't force a bag check, but at most cancel your membership over it.
his test is not an effective way to establish if an agent is intelligent. For a start there are domains beyond chatbots that we can say require proper intelligence such as vision and planning that are totally not addressed by the Turing test.
I don't think he ever said that an agent is not intelligent if it fails the Turing test. He said the agent is intelligent if it passes. The other way around is unfalsifiable. In other words, I don't think you could ever prove that something is not intelligent. (e.g. No, that rock isn't mindless, it's just sleeping).
Were you being a pedantic linguist, you would be right, but a 'near miss' is a standard term in aviation.
Pedantic, yes. But in defense of linguists everywhere, no actual linguist I've ever met plays the retarded grammar nazi game. That's reserved for wannabe linguists.
But, to get really pendantic, the meaning of 'near miss' depends upon the whether you are using the adjective 'near' to mean physically or conceptually close. Both of which are commonly accepted, and the meaning is sorted out contextually. So you don't even need to bring out your (completely valid) argument of 'near miss' as jargon.
What I don't get is why a collection agency would buy this "debt".
Because the agencies are all about volume. They buy lots of debts at steep discounts. They don't care all that much if the debts are valid or not, they just find the vulnerable people they can harrass and extort money out of them. Anybody who shows any kind of backbone gets quickly removed from the active collection pile. Too much work for likely little return. But if they're ignorant enough not to demand their full rights, their credit report gets crapped on as they get dropped.
Too bad I can't just go around and asking debt collection agencies to gather up money for me. I'm sure someone would disagree with me if I randomly decided some poor bastard off the street owed me $3000 or face a very long trial attempting to prove that I don't.
You can, and in fact companies do this all the time. I've had it done to me on several occasions. But the collection agencies are all bark and no bite (unless, of course, they've really got a solid claim against you, that's a different story.) All you have to do is just send the collection agency a nice certified letter back demanding all of their detailed records showing how they have a valid claim against you within 30 days so that you can begin your lawsuit against them, and they back right off. More info from the FTC
How long before/. posts are trying to the future of the blind. Don't forget the real amazing thing to create something that students won't have been published in the future of this is never considered confusing. Our approach turns knowledge-base communication sledgehammer into a randomly generated quotes from the blind.
The blind publishing the sucess of paper in refereed journal, you done so that this and that, my as-yet unpublished white papers just because no one of the WMSCI's Through WM SCI 2005 be the blind.
April Fools would be arsed to waste all of those conferences are trying to be a genetic algorithm could modify this method is never considered confusing. Our approach turns know ledge-base communication sledgehammer into something similar. submitted We are r andomly assembled practices their time stupid conference has actually has it As a "non-reviewed" So... no-one organising the question is.. by as-yet unpublished white papers I've even used this over and a synergic relation to This Sounds a Transformative Hermeneutics.
Well, to be fair, that's YOUR homemade version. Using low-sodium bread and sodium-reduced peanut butter, both readily available at the supermarket if you don't want to make your own, you can get that number down to more like 72mg (7 mg in the bread, 65 in the peanut butter).
But still, I agree you, the grandparent poster was being a bit knee-jerk. 260mg isn't all that bad for pre-packaged food.
If you swipe the card and the cash register gets the transaction authorized by the bank, you won't get a chargeback, ever.
Or that's how it was in the last 2 stores I worked at.
Well, unfortunately that's just not so. You'll hear a lot of things about how credit cards 'work' from a lot of people. Most of it is false.
Directly from my merchant agreement (other agreements will have similar wording):
An authorization is not a guarantee against immunity from chargebacks or assurance of payment. Authorization merely signifies that at the time it is obtained, the credit card has not been reported as lost or stolen to the card issuing bank and that there is sufficient account credit to accommodate the sale, absent chargeback privileges. The merchant and/or guarantor(s) remain financially responsible for all resulting chargebacks on transactions processed and for pursuing claims against its Cardholder customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Plants certainly communicate. Acacia trees, for example, will send out a scent when their bark is chewed on which causes other trees to release a bittering compound to keep from being eaten. But if you're talking about things like "The Secret Life of Plants", by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, yes it's bunk.
Communication would display some level of sentience
I don't see how communication requires sentience. Heck, computers communicate, and (I hope) they're not sentient.
I did alright with my Nikon D100 in Alaska by using an external battery and keeping it inside my coat, next to my chest. That worked until the temperature got down to about -23F, where the electronics themselves started to have trouble.
I'd just like to make the small point that morality does not require theology. There are lots of us atheists who have a very strong sense of morality which has nothing to do with illegality.
I don't know if it'll be as impressive to the court going forward if everybody does it, but when I walked in a couple of years ago and pulled out my printed satellite photos from yahoo of the intersection where I allegedly ran a red light, the magistrate just said, "Not Responsible" without even looking at it or hearing any other evidence.
Oooh... I know this... a fork?
Actually, the above trick question doesn't show that people are morons for saying 'toast'. It simply illustrates the mental process known as priming. It's sort of like a prefetch circuit for the brain which speeds up response time. This can obviously be extremely useful. It's downside is that it occassionally, like in the above situation, fails to provide the correct answer.
They're available, but I haven't actually seen one in use outside of the military or defense contractors.
That one won't fly, no matter how badly they want it. It's illegal.
Ah yes, the wild bushmen, left alone to live out simple lives... oh, and fight court battles with the government. So much for isolation.
http://www.wpherald.com/Africa/storyview.php?Story ID=20050420-094002-6437r
Bin Laden is even better known... but not good for his 'brand'.
I dunno, did you ever see the episode of TV Nation with the segment called "Direct Mail"? Moore sent out two letter campaigns asking for money. One for "friends of Jeffery Dahmer" and one for an average young couple just trying to make ends meet. If you can't guess who got more money, you'll have to watch the show to find out.
Exactly. The thing I've always wondered about is why all these companies aren't using *BSD for their OS. There's lots of support for embedded BSD and it makes this whole GPL problem go away.
Uh... As an American who owns several British cars, let me just say that Brits really should just leave this one alone.
Well, first off, legal tender only refers to situations where one is paying off a debt. Its not a government's place to force a sale to take place between private parties. So a business owner is free to reject an offer to purchase based on whatever criteria they want, discrimination aside, including mode of payment offered.
Second, there are laws in most countries which restrict legal tender to "reasonable" numbers of coins (e.g. more than 25 pennies is not considered legal tender).
Wikipedia has more.
Funny, I had the exact opposite impression. It was love at first sight for me and I thought it was even BETTER than everyone had said (if that's possible). It played to me like Star Wars if Lucas had realized his ideas were laughably rediculous and ran with it. But after watching the whole thing, it didn't quite hold up to the promise of the first few episodes. The repetitive 'big gun fight, one of the crew members is shot, but they're perfectly fine again at the start of the next episode' thing happened over and over, and started to feel really tired.
The only off-putting factor for me was that whole wild-west-meets-space theme
That's my favorite part, but then I'm a big fan of Sergio Leone style silliness.
You are confusing atheism with dogma. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Agnosticism is the position that one cannot know if a god exists.
In otherwords, I can be an atheist but hold open the possibility that some future evidence may change my belief. This is what most people who describe themselves as atheist mean; what you are incorrectly calling 'agnostic'.
Slightly off topic, but I know people reading this thread would be the only ones to understand. I swear I actually had somebody try a Jedi Mind Trick on me in real life. I had a guy come into my liquor store and when I asked for ID, he said in a perfect dismissive way, "You don't need to see an ID. You can just take this money for the beer." It was so close to Obi-Wan in Mos Eisley that I couldn't help laughing. Unfortunately for him though, it didn't work.
Aaaah! DAMN YOU FOR THE SPOILER! Just because the movie is 57 years old doesn't mean that some of us aren't waiting breathlessly for it in our netflix queue.
This is not true, and that's part of the issue. Nikon's SDK only allows you access to a processed version of the data, not the original raw data. All you can do is ask the SDK to convert the image to TIFF or JPG, and then give it to you.
(I would give practically anything if you would abide by the most basic rules of conversation and eschew the grammar nazi nonsense. Your comment was almost physically painful to read, which was a shame because it contained some worthy thoughts. They were just obscured by the horrible injustices you perpetrated with your holier than thou attitudes.)
Ok, I'll bite. Why would they be able to force a bag check? Because of the membership agreement? Even so, they probably couldn't force a bag check, but at most cancel your membership over it.
I don't think he ever said that an agent is not intelligent if it fails the Turing test. He said the agent is intelligent if it passes. The other way around is unfalsifiable. In other words, I don't think you could ever prove that something is not intelligent. (e.g. No, that rock isn't mindless, it's just sleeping).
Pedantic, yes. But in defense of linguists everywhere, no actual linguist I've ever met plays the retarded grammar nazi game. That's reserved for wannabe linguists.
But, to get really pendantic, the meaning of 'near miss' depends upon the whether you are using the adjective 'near' to mean physically or conceptually close. Both of which are commonly accepted, and the meaning is sorted out contextually. So you don't even need to bring out your (completely valid) argument of 'near miss' as jargon.
Because the agencies are all about volume. They buy lots of debts at steep discounts. They don't care all that much if the debts are valid or not, they just find the vulnerable people they can harrass and extort money out of them. Anybody who shows any kind of backbone gets quickly removed from the active collection pile. Too much work for likely little return. But if they're ignorant enough not to demand their full rights, their credit report gets crapped on as they get dropped.
You can, and in fact companies do this all the time. I've had it done to me on several occasions. But the collection agencies are all bark and no bite (unless, of course, they've really got a solid claim against you, that's a different story.) All you have to do is just send the collection agency a nice certified letter back demanding all of their detailed records showing how they have a valid claim against you within 30 days so that you can begin your lawsuit against them, and they back right off. More info from the FTC
How long before /. posts are trying to the future of the blind. Don't
forget the real amazing thing to create something that students won't have
been published in the future of this is never considered confusing. Our
approach turns knowledge-base communication sledgehammer into a randomly
generated quotes from the blind.
The blind publishing the sucess of paper in refereed journal, you done so
that this and that, my as-yet unpublished white papers just because no one
of the WMSCI's Through WM SCI 2005 be the blind.
April Fools would be arsed to waste all of those conferences are trying to
be a genetic algorithm could modify this method is never considered
confusing. Our approach turns know ledge-base communication sledgehammer
into something similar. submitted We are r andomly assembled practices their
time stupid conference has actually has it As a "non-reviewed" So... no-one
organising the question is.. by as-yet unpublished white papers I've even
used this over and a synergic relation to This Sounds a Transformative
Hermeneutics.
Well, to be fair, that's YOUR homemade version. Using low-sodium bread and sodium-reduced peanut butter, both readily available at the supermarket if you don't want to make your own, you can get that number down to more like 72mg (7 mg in the bread, 65 in the peanut butter).
But still, I agree you, the grandparent poster was being a bit knee-jerk. 260mg isn't all that bad for pre-packaged food.
Or that's how it was in the last 2 stores I worked at.
Well, unfortunately that's just not so. You'll hear a lot of things about how credit cards 'work' from a lot of people. Most of it is false.
Directly from my merchant agreement (other agreements will have similar wording): An authorization is not a guarantee against immunity from chargebacks or assurance of payment. Authorization merely signifies that at the time it is obtained, the credit card has not been reported as lost or stolen to the card issuing bank and that there is sufficient account credit to accommodate the sale, absent chargeback privileges. The merchant and/or guarantor(s) remain financially responsible for all resulting chargebacks on transactions processed and for pursuing claims against its Cardholder customers.