Wow, that's dire. It's pretty obvious by question 6 that it's not a human and the none of the rest look even vaguely convincing. It's been a couple of years since I last read Loebner transcripts, but I remember it taking a bit longer 5 or so years ago. Perhaps this just means that the questioners have become better at picking questions that make sense. Back then, they put some of the winners online. I remembered a question from the arithmetic book I had when I was 4 or 5: 'Flipper ate 10 fish, then he ate 4, how many fish did flipper eat?' None of them got it right (or even demonstrated that they had parsed that it was a question with a numerical answer).
Agreed:
"Question [6] If a bed doesn’t fit in a room because it’s too big, what is too big?
Rose I don’t even want to pretend that."
Not only does it avoid answering, it can't even do it in a way that makes sense. Feeble.
Wow, what a positively derpy observation. I don't have rights... because I can't sue the government as often as in the UK
No, the point is that you can't (as easily) sue for unfair dismissal in the US compared with the UK. This is obviously true, as apparently you can be fired at will in most of the US.
In general, you have more employee rights in the UK and Europe, but fewer rights as to things like gun ownership.
It's a version of cold reading as practised legitimately for entertainment purposes by people like Derren Brown, and immorally by so-called psychic mediums conning people into thinking their dead relatives are talking to them.
Most security breaches are not by "highly trained agents". They are caused by some stressed out insecure alcoholic taking bribes so he can live beyond his means.
In the version I heard, they place a colander on his head, with some wires attaching it to the copier. The copier had an original saying "Lie" on it, and they'd push the copy button whenever they thought he was lying.
Probably an urban legend, but I'm sure plenty of such tricks have been used throughout the history of law enforcement.
That must have been a long time ago when most people didn't know what a photocopier was?
If you have to press the gas harder to get the same performance (which you would if there is all this emissions gear on), then the emissions gear is making the engine life worse, and VW did the owners a favour. Nothing about emissions standards is there to improve engine performance whether it be power nor engine life.
It is precisely for this reason that you need legislation over emissions in the first place. Neither the manufacturers nor most consumers would choose to have worse mileage, less power and decreased engine life otherwise.
I think I heard somewhere that this year they had finally surpassed Toyota as the largest car manufacturer in the world. This was supposed to have been a pretty good year for them.
They achived this through acquisitions, they aren't really making that many more cars. For example you are also counting Lamborghinis and Bentleys and Ducati motorcycles in your total.
I really don't think that the number of Lamborghinis and Bentleys would be more than a rounding error in their total figures.
It would seem bizarre to include motorbikes in car sales, but again Ducati are a high end low volume manufacturer.
Who said it gets worse milage that advertised?
I wouldn't be surprised if it gets better, since it's apparently burning leaner and hotter to create more NOx emissions.
I wouldn't be surprised if they used a different cheat to artificially increase the mileage figures as well.
It's a fine line between "deliberately defeating a test regime" and simply optimising for a certain scenario which the government deems to be typical.
I can't understand why VW is admitting to this. Surely they could obfuscate and say it's either a bug, or it's simply the way the car performs in this particular scenario, or it's just the complex who-knows-why of the black box, that they could promise to improve upon
It's pretty obvious that VW know they have deliberately broken the law, or they would be fighting this tooth and nail.
Yes, but the value of a company is, at least in theory, the present value of its future cash flows. And this would indeed give an indication of whether it could afford a fine.
Unfortunately, the current stock market system does not value companies in a rational way, which is why Facebook has a Market Capitalization of $266 billion based on a price/earnings ratio of over 100 (for comparison Apple and Exxon Mobile's p/e ratio is 13).
We don't know if this comes right from the top, or whether it was one geek's idea of cool software.
We also don't know that it wasn't Hitler coming out of hiding in South America, ripening the last remaining piece of Third Reich for a corporate takeover to start another bid for world domination. Or the lizard people of Regulus trying to sneak attack humanity through pollution. Or the Devil himself getting ready for Carmageddon.
yeah, as if the stock value will remain the same after this
Dropped 22% overnight, looks like.
The stock market is responding rationally to the potential loss in value due to the fine then. Makes a change from hysterically slashing stock prices when a company announces a marginally less than expected increase in profits for the quarter.
If ozone's so nasty, why all the hysteria about the missing ozone layer, or whatever so-called Environmentalists are moaning about this week? We all know it's just a plot to undermine the free market and let China introduce sharia law in Silicon Valley.
Market opportunity for geeks. Re-flash the junkers with original code.
There's also a market opportunity in selling child porn and smuggling plutonium to ISIL, and if it's just for geeks there's always a market opportunity designing malware and ransomware.
Maybe if the shareholders were held responsible for things like this
they are monetarily responsible, which is pretty much the maximum level of responsibility when it comes to corporate wrongdoing.
No they're not.
If I own a $1 share in Company X and it is sued for $973 bazillion, my liability is limited to $1. That's the whole point of limited liability.
If the company goes completely bust and my nominal $1 share was worth $100 but is now worth nothing, I will also lose the additional $99 capital gains of course.
Maybe if the shareholders were held responsible for things like this, then they'd pick managers less likely to endorse such behavior.
The whole point of limited liability companies is so that shareholders are not held responsible for potentially unlimited damages. They can lose the value oftheir shares (e.g. if the company went bust tomorrow) but that's all.
Although shareholders theoretically pick the directors, in practice there is no democratic accountability, as large institutions control the majority of shares and don't really care what happens as long as the company achieves a reasonable rate of return.
To change all this, you'd have to reform capitalism completely.
As a journalism major, one of my projects was to evaluate the quality of different news sources. CSM ranked in that project as a very high quality newspaper. The religion of their founder includes "tell the truth" among its foundational tenets, and over 100 years, they've allowed that to take priority over the rest of their philosophy, even in medical reporting, which is the area where Christian Science and actual science differ the most.
But how could you trust that the stupid religion was completely separate from the newspaper?
The CSM newspaper is a highly respected news source, mostly independent from the religion except for a daily editorial. Think of it as being sponsored by the church.
I'm not American, so I've never read the newspaper, although I am aware of the religion, and the phrase "mostly independent" sounds worrying.
How can you tell which bits are influenced by what is frankly a bizarre and dangerous religion?
If you genuinely believe that illness is an illusion that can be cured by prayer, this must make it impossible to accept any biological science at all.
If all the editors and journalists are not Christian Scientists themselves, why would they want to be associated with the name? And what happens if a big medical or biological news story crops up?
Slashdot Mirror
Having opinions and the spine and balls to express them does not make one a murder suspect.
So why hasn't he issued a public statement denying the accusation then?
Also, where's his hairpiece's birth certificate (long form)? I'm pretty sure it's alien.
Cats, well... those assholes suck.
By which you mean that they're rather good at downing your toys?
As with Clinton, it was only oral, so it doesn't count.
Fucking amateur.
Wow, that's dire. It's pretty obvious by question 6 that it's not a human and the none of the rest look even vaguely convincing. It's been a couple of years since I last read Loebner transcripts, but I remember it taking a bit longer 5 or so years ago. Perhaps this just means that the questioners have become better at picking questions that make sense. Back then, they put some of the winners online. I remembered a question from the arithmetic book I had when I was 4 or 5: 'Flipper ate 10 fish, then he ate 4, how many fish did flipper eat?' None of them got it right (or even demonstrated that they had parsed that it was a question with a numerical answer).
Agreed:
"Question [6] If a bed doesn’t fit in a room because it’s too big, what is too big?
Rose I don’t even want to pretend that."
Not only does it avoid answering, it can't even do it in a way that makes sense. Feeble.
Wow, what a positively derpy observation. I don't have rights... because I can't sue the government as often as in the UK
No, the point is that you can't (as easily) sue for unfair dismissal in the US compared with the UK. This is obviously true, as apparently you can be fired at will in most of the US.
In general, you have more employee rights in the UK and Europe, but fewer rights as to things like gun ownership.
It's a version of cold reading as practised legitimately for entertainment purposes by people like Derren Brown, and immorally by so-called psychic mediums conning people into thinking their dead relatives are talking to them.
Most security breaches are not by "highly trained agents". They are caused by some stressed out insecure alcoholic taking bribes so he can live beyond his means.
I'm not an alcoholic, you insensitive clod!
In the version I heard, they place a colander on his head, with some wires attaching it to the copier. The copier had an original saying "Lie" on it, and they'd push the copy button whenever they thought he was lying. Probably an urban legend, but I'm sure plenty of such tricks have been used throughout the history of law enforcement.
That must have been a long time ago when most people didn't know what a photocopier was?
If you have to press the gas harder to get the same performance (which you would if there is all this emissions gear on), then the emissions gear is making the engine life worse, and VW did the owners a favour. Nothing about emissions standards is there to improve engine performance whether it be power nor engine life.
It is precisely for this reason that you need legislation over emissions in the first place. Neither the manufacturers nor most consumers would choose to have worse mileage, less power and decreased engine life otherwise.
I think I heard somewhere that this year they had finally surpassed Toyota as the largest car manufacturer in the world. This was supposed to have been a pretty good year for them.
They achived this through acquisitions, they aren't really making that many more cars. For example you are also counting Lamborghinis and Bentleys and Ducati motorcycles in your total.
I really don't think that the number of Lamborghinis and Bentleys would be more than a rounding error in their total figures.
It would seem bizarre to include motorbikes in car sales, but again Ducati are a high end low volume manufacturer.
Who said it gets worse milage that advertised? I wouldn't be surprised if it gets better, since it's apparently burning leaner and hotter to create more NOx emissions.
I wouldn't be surprised if they used a different cheat to artificially increase the mileage figures as well.
Sorry, it's not fraud.
Violating the Clear Air Act is a violation of the Clean Air Act, not Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47 of the US Code.
The fraud is on the people who purchased the cars.
And legal nit-picking is the last resort of the morally bankrupt.
It's a fine line between "deliberately defeating a test regime" and simply optimising for a certain scenario which the government deems to be typical.
I can't understand why VW is admitting to this. Surely they could obfuscate and say it's either a bug, or it's simply the way the car performs in this particular scenario, or it's just the complex who-knows-why of the black box, that they could promise to improve upon
It's pretty obvious that VW know they have deliberately broken the law, or they would be fighting this tooth and nail.
Unfortunately, the current stock market system does not value companies in a rational way, which is why Facebook has a Market Capitalization of $266 billion based on a price/earnings ratio of over 100 (for comparison Apple and Exxon Mobile's p/e ratio is 13).
We also don't know that it wasn't Hitler coming out of hiding in South America, ripening the last remaining piece of Third Reich for a corporate takeover to start another bid for world domination. Or the lizard people of Regulus trying to sneak attack humanity through pollution. Or the Devil himself getting ready for Carmageddon.
Or it could had been a manager wanting a bonus.
No dude, it's always the lizard people.
Dropped 22% overnight, looks like.
The stock market is responding rationally to the potential loss in value due to the fine then. Makes a change from hysterically slashing stock prices when a company announces a marginally less than expected increase in profits for the quarter.
If ozone's so nasty, why all the hysteria about the missing ozone layer, or whatever so-called Environmentalists are moaning about this week? We all know it's just a plot to undermine the free market and let China introduce sharia law in Silicon Valley.
Genuinely curious, do you have a citation for the failure to meet standards rate for EU member-nations?
Is tap water drinkable (potable) in Europe? Not the last I checked.
Bullshit. Tap water is fine to drink everywhere in Europe that I've been to. Maybe not in Kazakhstan or whatever, but certainly in Western Europe.
Market opportunity for geeks. Re-flash the junkers with original code.
There's also a market opportunity in selling child porn and smuggling plutonium to ISIL, and if it's just for geeks there's always a market opportunity designing malware and ransomware.
Maybe if the shareholders were held responsible for things like this
they are monetarily responsible, which is pretty much the maximum level of responsibility when it comes to corporate wrongdoing.
No they're not.
If I own a $1 share in Company X and it is sued for $973 bazillion, my liability is limited to $1. That's the whole point of limited liability.
If the company goes completely bust and my nominal $1 share was worth $100 but is now worth nothing, I will also lose the additional $99 capital gains of course.
Maybe if the shareholders were held responsible for things like this, then they'd pick managers less likely to endorse such behavior.
The whole point of limited liability companies is so that shareholders are not held responsible for potentially unlimited damages. They can lose the value oftheir shares (e.g. if the company went bust tomorrow) but that's all.
Although shareholders theoretically pick the directors, in practice there is no democratic accountability, as large institutions control the majority of shares and don't really care what happens as long as the company achieves a reasonable rate of return.
To change all this, you'd have to reform capitalism completely.
Get a clue. Chi(-Rho) has long been used as shorthand for "Christianity" (itself a recent notion), to wit: Xmas.
True, but your average Christian wingnut finds "Xmas" offensive too, against all reason.
As a journalism major, one of my projects was to evaluate the quality of different news sources. CSM ranked in that project as a very high quality newspaper. The religion of their founder includes "tell the truth" among its foundational tenets, and over 100 years, they've allowed that to take priority over the rest of their philosophy, even in medical reporting, which is the area where Christian Science and actual science differ the most.
But how could you trust that the stupid religion was completely separate from the newspaper?
The CSM newspaper is a highly respected news source, mostly independent from the religion except for a daily editorial. Think of it as being sponsored by the church.
I'm not American, so I've never read the newspaper, although I am aware of the religion, and the phrase "mostly independent" sounds worrying.
How can you tell which bits are influenced by what is frankly a bizarre and dangerous religion?
If you genuinely believe that illness is an illusion that can be cured by prayer, this must make it impossible to accept any biological science at all.
If all the editors and journalists are not Christian Scientists themselves, why would they want to be associated with the name? And what happens if a big medical or biological news story crops up?