Not true. Despite what your lit teacher may have lead you to believe, it is not uniformly correct to always put a period inside quotation marks, it does not apply where you are using quotation marks to denote a word in reference to itself.
And "the number seven should be spelled out" is just blatantly false. This is only true of formal writing, in which case "Write much?" would also be incorrect because there is no explicit subject. Not to mention using a "vague" antecedent.
For example, you realize under formal writing the sentence "That is a good idea" is incorrect, right? But hey, who needs to be consistent when you're just trying to be a dick over the internet?
Uh, you're right, if you mean they're all much worse. Other animals eat their goddamned young in order to clean up the gene pool. If you're going to take the position that we should be nature's police force, looking out for all the other species, that's fine, but don't try to bullshit us with your ignorant view that we are the only species that doesn't act this way already. In fact, many species kill themselves just to perserve their genes over anybody else's. At least we've come together (for the most part) to act in unison as a unified human race.
The viewpoint that we should be less anthropocentric is legitimate enough in my book, but espousing stupid idioms like "no animal is as egocentric as man" is simply false and amounts to nothing more than propoganda.
Oversexualized images in games have an effect on society's preception of women? As if society's perception of women was different before videogames became popular? If anything, I think a reactionary attitude towards "sexist" imagery has more of an effect on society's attitude than the actual imagery. Some people are going to portray women as objects, some people are going to think of them in a more complex way, I.E. as actual people. But characterising the entire industry as exploitative only serves to re-entrench a black-and-white dichotomy of women vs. men.
Living things are classified by genetics for the most part. There is also a lot of other evidence too; basically genetics are part of a wide spectrum of things used to corroborate the taxonomy of organisms that we hypothesize. However, for the most part it's not completely confirmed. For most everything below chordate I think we have a good level of accuracy, but I believe a lot of other groups are mostly speculation. As I understand it, Protista basically serves as a taxonomical miscellaneous category.
I think the problem is contributable to general laziness. More eyes may mean more errors get detected, but presumably, only a very small percentage will actually fix them. Even if it's as simple as clicking a link and changing a word. I can think of countless errors I've noticed but was just too freaking lazy to correct.
"But true AI would allow that pilot program to feel "tired," or be allowed to make mistakes."
Uh... no? Where in the definition of intelligence does it say something is required to get tired? We are trying to replicate intelligence, not create robotic humans. Being fallible has nothing to do with being intelligent, it has to do with being human.
The question of whether AI can be truly self-aware is pretty debatable. For one thing, I can't be certain you're even actually self-aware. Intelligence also has nothing to do with being self-aware. Most of you arguments about AI really have nothing to do with actual AI.
"WTF? The stupid article is more fortune-telling than anything else. There's nothing technical or logical about the article."
Jesus Christ, how does this shit get modded up? The first part of the article is obviously a joke, considering "The article also goes on to mention why the 360 will not fail miserably like the Dreamcast." You didn't even need to RTFA; you just needed to finish the summary, you fucking failure.
The reason he never had a girlfriend and never had sex was because he willfully comitted himself to cellibacy. Which could obviously be considered contrary to normal social development, but not nearly in the way you're portraying it to be. His life wasn't as much of a failure as you make it out to be.
While he obviously didn't go on to fully utilize his talent, I severely doub it's because his gift was nutured. His reclusiveness was inspired mostly because of sever criticism from the media who constantly belittled him; equating his gifts to rote memorization and obsessive cramming, something that his parents had set out to discourage in their child.
Even with all that in mind, I wouldn't necessarily call him a failure. For the most part it was a combination of being too ahead of his time and society in general not being receptive enough to him. He postulated the existence of black holes before anyone else, pioneered the establishment of modern libertarianism, and developed methods of improving public transportation that are only now gaining acceptance. In relation to how incredibly gifted it was it's obviously a huge waste, but not for the reason you're implying. Not because he had an "abnormal social development," but because of distrust and hostility in society.
The notion of the tortured child prodigy is, in my opinion, just a cliche. I don't doubt there are severe problems that are typical in the lives of these people, but it's society in general that's responsible.
It's not that they have a monopoly on the phrase, it's that they, or "we" rather, seeing as I am not a Christian (although I do not personally use this phrase) seem to use it nonstop in this context. I mean, the concept is just that we have to face aspects of a religion that we don't follow in everyday life, I can easily see how the metaphor is warranted, but it's getting so trite now it's starting to piss me off. It's becoming the sort of thing people say because they can't actually think of something by themselves. It's like when all those goth kids started using the phrase "don't judge me" ad nauseam. It's getting obnoxious. Can't we all agree to start saying other things?
When will the non-Christian community find another metaphor besides having things "crammed/rammed down" their "throats." It's not witty after the 6000th time I've heard it. Either get a new mantra or face the fact that you're an unoriginal tool.
Slashdot Mirror
And "the number seven should be spelled out" is just blatantly false. This is only true of formal writing, in which case "Write much?" would also be incorrect because there is no explicit subject. Not to mention using a "vague" antecedent.
For example, you realize under formal writing the sentence "That is a good idea" is incorrect, right? But hey, who needs to be consistent when you're just trying to be a dick over the internet?
Really? And yet, this story has been up for 7 hours and no one has pointed out the irony and this:
"It needs to be not to long, not to short. Links should be clear. Spelling and Grammar are secondary issues."
The word is freaking "too". I can't stand this error.
Although, all that proves is that they are the exception to the rule.
It figures that a bunch of nerds would hate a site dedicated to collectin friends.
US Draw Up Rules for Subject/Verb Agreement
Chocolate's good, but too bad there's no Go element. Actinium and Selenium are already there.
Tsk tsk. So typical of today's media. Always ready to play the blame-game.
Uh, you're right, if you mean they're all much worse. Other animals eat their goddamned young in order to clean up the gene pool. If you're going to take the position that we should be nature's police force, looking out for all the other species, that's fine, but don't try to bullshit us with your ignorant view that we are the only species that doesn't act this way already. In fact, many species kill themselves just to perserve their genes over anybody else's. At least we've come together (for the most part) to act in unison as a unified human race.
The viewpoint that we should be less anthropocentric is legitimate enough in my book, but espousing stupid idioms like "no animal is as egocentric as man" is simply false and amounts to nothing more than propoganda.
Whoa, that's freaky. I'm using IE and I often have to refresh to get Slashdot to display properly. The internet's really come full circle I guess.
Awesome! So if you do use Opera there's already like a one in twenty chance your face will get picked.
Oversexualized images in games have an effect on society's preception of women? As if society's perception of women was different before videogames became popular? If anything, I think a reactionary attitude towards "sexist" imagery has more of an effect on society's attitude than the actual imagery. Some people are going to portray women as objects, some people are going to think of them in a more complex way, I.E. as actual people. But characterising the entire industry as exploitative only serves to re-entrench a black-and-white dichotomy of women vs. men.
You can get modded funny by reposting a joke from the article? All hail being unoriginal!
Living things are classified by genetics for the most part. There is also a lot of other evidence too; basically genetics are part of a wide spectrum of things used to corroborate the taxonomy of organisms that we hypothesize. However, for the most part it's not completely confirmed. For most everything below chordate I think we have a good level of accuracy, but I believe a lot of other groups are mostly speculation. As I understand it, Protista basically serves as a taxonomical miscellaneous category.
I think the problem is contributable to general laziness. More eyes may mean more errors get detected, but presumably, only a very small percentage will actually fix them. Even if it's as simple as clicking a link and changing a word. I can think of countless errors I've noticed but was just too freaking lazy to correct.
Uh... no? Where in the definition of intelligence does it say something is required to get tired? We are trying to replicate intelligence, not create robotic humans. Being fallible has nothing to do with being intelligent, it has to do with being human.
The question of whether AI can be truly self-aware is pretty debatable. For one thing, I can't be certain you're even actually self-aware. Intelligence also has nothing to do with being self-aware. Most of you arguments about AI really have nothing to do with actual AI.
Spelling tip: "grammar" has no 'e's in it.
Awesome. That's 40 cm less I have to drive to get to the beach.
How much did Match.com pay you to say that?
Yes, I've heard of gaim. As a matter of fact I was using it today when I got the message that these bots had been added to my buddy list.
Jesus Christ, how does this shit get modded up? The first part of the article is obviously a joke, considering "The article also goes on to mention why the 360 will not fail miserably like the Dreamcast." You didn't even need to RTFA; you just needed to finish the summary, you fucking failure.
While he obviously didn't go on to fully utilize his talent, I severely doub it's because his gift was nutured. His reclusiveness was inspired mostly because of sever criticism from the media who constantly belittled him; equating his gifts to rote memorization and obsessive cramming, something that his parents had set out to discourage in their child.
Even with all that in mind, I wouldn't necessarily call him a failure. For the most part it was a combination of being too ahead of his time and society in general not being receptive enough to him. He postulated the existence of black holes before anyone else, pioneered the establishment of modern libertarianism, and developed methods of improving public transportation that are only now gaining acceptance. In relation to how incredibly gifted it was it's obviously a huge waste, but not for the reason you're implying. Not because he had an "abnormal social development," but because of distrust and hostility in society.
The notion of the tortured child prodigy is, in my opinion, just a cliche. I don't doubt there are severe problems that are typical in the lives of these people, but it's society in general that's responsible.
It's not that they have a monopoly on the phrase, it's that they, or "we" rather, seeing as I am not a Christian (although I do not personally use this phrase) seem to use it nonstop in this context. I mean, the concept is just that we have to face aspects of a religion that we don't follow in everyday life, I can easily see how the metaphor is warranted, but it's getting so trite now it's starting to piss me off. It's becoming the sort of thing people say because they can't actually think of something by themselves. It's like when all those goth kids started using the phrase "don't judge me" ad nauseam. It's getting obnoxious. Can't we all agree to start saying other things?
That is all.
"If this was a Marvel Comic, our superhero Objectivity would by now be ensared in the evil coils of Subjectivity. There appears to be no escape."
And if this were funny, I'd be laughing right now...
No I don't. How about you go fuck yourself?