I just wrote a little HelloWorld.cpp to demonstrate the problem to admins of a cluster on our campus. Basically, there was a problem in <ostream>. (Interestingly enough, the problem could be "worked around" by using <iostream>.)
"The department of transportation would be most directly affected by the proposed legislation. And the department estimates frivolous lawsuits will cost the state more than $900,000 dollars over the next two years."
It doesn't mention drunk driving, but surely someone has sued the DOT after getting hit by a drunk driver. (Disclaimer: I only skimmed the article. It is one of many I found after doing a google search on Department Transportation lawsuits, inspired by your statement.)
Note: I'm not saying one should sue the DOT after getting hit by a drunk driver. Nor am I agreeing with your implication that these are similar, since Yahoo didn't just host the pictures - they did not take down the pictures when asked to do so. A closer analogy (but still flawed) would be suing the bartender who continued to serve the drunk driver even after he was noticeable drunk.
It kills me that the post you responded to (1 "gram-force" = 1 Newton) has been marked informative, where your posts (above and below that) has not been modded at all. Hopefully this will be rectified soon enough - I can't stand so much disinformation in the sciences.
This makes two people to say this, and I have NEVER heard any one actually use this in speaking (and I have lived in the south for 30+ years now - more than 20 of those years in Georgia, and the remainder in Virginia). I strongly suspect this is a conspiracy that northerners are engaging in to impugn the good reputation of the excellent word "y'all"!
And every time I've heard it, it's been from a northerner - i.e., not a recognized practioner of the word "y'all". For some bizarre reason, successful usage of this excellent word requires living south of the Mason-Dixon line (btw, this includes, but is not limited to, Australia - they also use this word). Although Southerners generally do like to take their time in talking (I am an exception to this rule, although I'm only a Southerner by exposure and not by birth), they do not make their sentences unnecessarily long. Thus, "all y'all" is a phrase that has been invented by northerners in an attempt to impugn the good repuation of the word "y'all".
Not that I'm advocating the use of "they" in the singular form, but your argument would seem to suggest that "you" is only valid in the plural form as well. Or, do you say "you is cool" when referring to a single person?
[humor]Some people do believe that "you" can also have a plural meaning, but us cultured types know that the plural of "you" is "y'all".[/humor].
Not that I normally condone performing psychology experiments on young kids (e.g., baby Albert), but here is an excellent opportunity to understand whether the children will find these movies better in the order 1-2-3-4-5-6 than others found them in the order 4-5-6-1-2-3. Of course, you might want to use one of your children as the control case. Also, it seems that more than 2 children would be required for this test to have any statistical significance. Perhaps you could adopt another 20-30 kids all in the same age group?
However, it has been a long time since I've done that, so I could be mistaken. One would like to assume that if I am correct, OTOH, there will be an option hidden somewhere in the bowels of Windows Update that would let you turn that option on or off. From my experience with MS products, however, this would not necessarily be a safe assumption.
Not that this nullifies the comparison you've made, but Windows update can also update your MS Office products as well. Naturally, your point is that it does not update non-MS products. Just thought I'd make that distinction a little more clear. Not that I use MS products. Er, that is...
I understand you overall point, I disagree with you with respect to cemetery records. If they were readily available, it would (presumably) be easier for those in charge of voting to prevent the dead from voting than it would be for someone to use that dead person's name to vote.
Additionally, those of us interested in genealogy find our research much easier where cemetery records are available.
Being dead is one state of health that should not be considered private.:)
[nit]In fact, the correlation is 0.883933799, which is an outstandingly strong correlation. However, it does not appear to be a very linear relationship, which is what I assume is bothering you.[/pick];)
Actually, I think this means that both (major) parties try to get as close as possible to the median viewpoint without being identical. (Some argue as to whether they succeed on that last point.) Witness, for example, Kerry's expressed position on gay marriage. One can always divide a line so that half of the people are to the left and the other half to the right, and our political system seems very adept at drawing such a line. (Granted, the terms "left" and "right" are somewhat vague, and in the sense that I'm using them they do not necessarily conform to a strict "liberal"/"conservative" defintion.)
I read the story and was hoping that you were misrepresenting it. You weren't. However, to play devil's advocate, the doctor's never said "harmful to the patient". They merely said "harmful". When referring explicitly to the patient (e.g., "not in the best interests of the patient"), the statements (in the story, at least) were all somewhat neutral. I.e., the statements never said the treatment was actually bad for the patient, just not "best". (Obviously the best treatment would be a cure.) One could argue that providing him nutrition and water would be using resources that would be better used on patients that were not brain dead.
Note that I said "one could argue", not that I would argue that point. I agree with you completely that the doctors in this story seem to have lost their own mental competency.
It took me a while to figure out that you were referring to:
Meanwhile, the APS/AAI statements cite other federal policies and regulations the NIH proposal seemingly violates, including the Freedom of Information Act and an Office of Management and Budget circular that says the NIH must perform a "cost comparison study."
To address your question, I think at least one site lost information in paraphrasing. APS states "While this outcome arguably could be defeated by reliance on FOIA Exemption Four, 5 U.S.C. [section] 552(b)(4)...". And the FOIA shows that this exemption is "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential". However, this does not mean that this information cannot be published (as far as I can tell - IANAL), merely that it doesn't have to be published. However, I think that the previously mentioned link has misrepresented the APS position on this. (I'm not saying I agree with the APS, merely that I don't believe they are using the FOIA to justify blocking the information, merely saying that the FOIA does not forbid blocking the information.)
I believe this story is not too biased. They point out the facts as I remember them - Quayle already had a reputation for not being too bright, and this reinforced it. The important "context" is that the card that was given to him had "potatoe" on it, and he was tired and didn't question it. Whether or not Quayle was less bright than average, once the reputation developed, everyone was watching for him to make blunders. I remember our college newspaper (The Technique) had a weekly column called "Quayle Bits" that ran a list of memorable statements that Quayle had made that week.
The first lunar landing was July 20, 1969, so that will make this almost 50 years after the original (not 70), which is bad enough. No need to exaggerate the problem.;)
First of all, excellent argument. Now, my rebuttal.:)
So, I know when I've seen blue, and I know I'm sentient. However, how do I know you've seen blue, and how do I know you're sentient? More to the point, how will we be confidently able to say that such and such machine is or is not sentient. (I admit that currently this is not much of a leap.)
Additionally, unlike "blue", I'm not sure what sentience is. Are any animals sentient? How do we know they are or are not? Is sentience even a real thing, or is merely a convenient construct? (I admit this last thought is delving into philosophy questions that perhaps are best left unasked (at least in this forum). Is an electric field a "real" thing? Is blue?)
AI-1: The use of computers to solve problems that previously could only be solved by applying human intelligence.
Therefore, once we have completely mastered learning, sentience, etc., it will no longer be considered AI. Perhaps sentience will no longer be considered to be sentience, either.
I know of at least one child who was terrified of a dancing gorilla the first time he saw it. Later on, he was still somewhat afraid of it but eventually he came to enjoy the toy. (Supporting that familiarity idea.) Nevertheless, I imagine more people are afraid of monkeys and apes than there are people who are afraid of clowns and wax figures.
That aside, I still think that there's something some might find especially discomforting about robots that look like us. Whether or not this will change over time, or whether it is hard-wired into our genes is something that only time will tell, IMO. (Of course, it is remotely possible that selection will somehow act against such genes, but that's highly unlikely.)
Slashdot Mirror
Do you want high power consumption (for bragging rights) or low power consumption (to be enviro-friendly, cheap, etc.)?
I just wrote a little HelloWorld.cpp to demonstrate the problem to admins of a cluster on our campus. Basically, there was a problem in <ostream>. (Interestingly enough, the problem could be "worked around" by using <iostream>.)
Here's an excerpt:
It doesn't mention drunk driving, but surely someone has sued the DOT after getting hit by a drunk driver. (Disclaimer: I only skimmed the article. It is one of many I found after doing a google search on Department Transportation lawsuits, inspired by your statement.)
Note: I'm not saying one should sue the DOT after getting hit by a drunk driver. Nor am I agreeing with your implication that these are similar, since Yahoo didn't just host the pictures - they did not take down the pictures when asked to do so. A closer analogy (but still flawed) would be suing the bartender who continued to serve the drunk driver even after he was noticeable drunk.
It kills me that the post you responded to (1 "gram-force" = 1 Newton) has been marked informative, where your posts (above and below that) has not been modded at all. Hopefully this will be rectified soon enough - I can't stand so much disinformation in the sciences.
and that's where I heard it before - from a transplanted northerner!
This makes two people to say this, and I have NEVER heard any one actually use this in speaking (and I have lived in the south for 30+ years now - more than 20 of those years in Georgia, and the remainder in Virginia). I strongly suspect this is a conspiracy that northerners are engaging in to impugn the good reputation of the excellent word "y'all"!
And every time I've heard it, it's been from a northerner - i.e., not a recognized practioner of the word "y'all". For some bizarre reason, successful usage of this excellent word requires living south of the Mason-Dixon line (btw, this includes, but is not limited to, Australia - they also use this word). Although Southerners generally do like to take their time in talking (I am an exception to this rule, although I'm only a Southerner by exposure and not by birth), they do not make their sentences unnecessarily long. Thus, "all y'all" is a phrase that has been invented by northerners in an attempt to impugn the good repuation of the word "y'all".
Not that I'm advocating the use of "they" in the singular form, but your argument would seem to suggest that "you" is only valid in the plural form as well. Or, do you say "you is cool" when referring to a single person?
[humor]Some people do believe that "you" can also have a plural meaning, but us cultured types know that the plural of "you" is "y'all".[/humor].
Not that I normally condone performing psychology experiments on young kids (e.g., baby Albert), but here is an excellent opportunity to understand whether the children will find these movies better in the order 1-2-3-4-5-6 than others found them in the order 4-5-6-1-2-3. Of course, you might want to use one of your children as the control case. Also, it seems that more than 2 children would be required for this test to have any statistical significance. Perhaps you could adopt another 20-30 kids all in the same age group?
Nonsense! My "aardvark on fire" will beat out "Aaron's House of Tacos"!
However, it has been a long time since I've done that, so I could be mistaken. One would like to assume that if I am correct, OTOH, there will be an option hidden somewhere in the bowels of Windows Update that would let you turn that option on or off. From my experience with MS products, however, this would not necessarily be a safe assumption.
Not that this nullifies the comparison you've made, but Windows update can also update your MS Office products as well. Naturally, your point is that it does not update non-MS products. Just thought I'd make that distinction a little more clear. Not that I use MS products. Er, that is...
I understand you overall point, I disagree with you with respect to cemetery records. If they were readily available, it would (presumably) be easier for those in charge of voting to prevent the dead from voting than it would be for someone to use that dead person's name to vote.
Additionally, those of us interested in genealogy find our research much easier where cemetery records are available.
Being dead is one state of health that should not be considered private. :)
[nit]In fact, the correlation is 0.883933799, which is an outstandingly strong correlation. However, it does not appear to be a very linear relationship, which is what I assume is bothering you.[/pick] ;)
Actually, I think this means that both (major) parties try to get as close as possible to the median viewpoint without being identical. (Some argue as to whether they succeed on that last point.) Witness, for example, Kerry's expressed position on gay marriage. One can always divide a line so that half of the people are to the left and the other half to the right, and our political system seems very adept at drawing such a line. (Granted, the terms "left" and "right" are somewhat vague, and in the sense that I'm using them they do not necessarily conform to a strict "liberal"/"conservative" defintion.)
I read the story and was hoping that you were misrepresenting it. You weren't. However, to play devil's advocate, the doctor's never said "harmful to the patient". They merely said "harmful". When referring explicitly to the patient (e.g., "not in the best interests of the patient"), the statements (in the story, at least) were all somewhat neutral. I.e., the statements never said the treatment was actually bad for the patient, just not "best". (Obviously the best treatment would be a cure.) One could argue that providing him nutrition and water would be using resources that would be better used on patients that were not brain dead.
Note that I said "one could argue", not that I would argue that point. I agree with you completely that the doctors in this story seem to have lost their own mental competency.
It took me a while to figure out that you were referring to:
from the evangelized link in the original story.To address your question, I think at least one site lost information in paraphrasing. APS states "While this outcome arguably could be defeated by reliance on FOIA Exemption Four, 5 U.S.C. [section] 552(b)(4)...". And the FOIA shows that this exemption is "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential". However, this does not mean that this information cannot be published (as far as I can tell - IANAL), merely that it doesn't have to be published. However, I think that the previously mentioned link has misrepresented the APS position on this. (I'm not saying I agree with the APS, merely that I don't believe they are using the FOIA to justify blocking the information, merely saying that the FOIA does not forbid blocking the information.)
I think the phrase we're looking for is "controlled flight into terrain". This suggests pilot, AKA user, error instead of hardware error.
I believe this story is not too biased. They point out the facts as I remember them - Quayle already had a reputation for not being too bright, and this reinforced it. The important "context" is that the card that was given to him had "potatoe" on it, and he was tired and didn't question it. Whether or not Quayle was less bright than average, once the reputation developed, everyone was watching for him to make blunders. I remember our college newspaper (The Technique) had a weekly column called "Quayle Bits" that ran a list of memorable statements that Quayle had made that week.
The first lunar landing was July 20, 1969, so that will make this almost 50 years after the original (not 70), which is bad enough. No need to exaggerate the problem. ;)
If you're a libertarian...
First of all, excellent argument. Now, my rebuttal. :)
So, I know when I've seen blue, and I know I'm sentient. However, how do I know you've seen blue, and how do I know you're sentient? More to the point, how will we be confidently able to say that such and such machine is or is not sentient. (I admit that currently this is not much of a leap.)
Additionally, unlike "blue", I'm not sure what sentience is. Are any animals sentient? How do we know they are or are not? Is sentience even a real thing, or is merely a convenient construct? (I admit this last thought is delving into philosophy questions that perhaps are best left unasked (at least in this forum). Is an electric field a "real" thing? Is blue?)
One (of two) definitions Parnas used for AI was
Therefore, once we have completely mastered learning, sentience, etc., it will no longer be considered AI. Perhaps sentience will no longer be considered to be sentience, either.I know of at least one child who was terrified of a dancing gorilla the first time he saw it. Later on, he was still somewhat afraid of it but eventually he came to enjoy the toy. (Supporting that familiarity idea.) Nevertheless, I imagine more people are afraid of monkeys and apes than there are people who are afraid of clowns and wax figures.
That aside, I still think that there's something some might find especially discomforting about robots that look like us. Whether or not this will change over time, or whether it is hard-wired into our genes is something that only time will tell, IMO. (Of course, it is remotely possible that selection will somehow act against such genes, but that's highly unlikely.)