Sadly, it was a total karma whore attempt. Obviously it didn't work. I overestimated the bad tastes of the slashdot crowd, which I never thought was possible. I'm not a spelling or grammar Nazi, honest.
But if I was, I'd point out you're still missing an apostrophe. But that would be sad.
But before captchas get that sophisticated, the system will become self-defeating as the number of real humans defeated by captchas exceeds the number of AIs repelled by them.
Or it'll become self-defeating because the AI will be intelligent it'll become suicidal.
What complete nonsense. It's sad that this is even being posted on this topic when the connection is marginal at best, but there you go. The capacity of human beings to proudly flaunt their ignorance and prejudice seems to be without limit.
Some info. Yes, there are sects of ultra-Orthodox Jews who are anti-Zionist, but most are either non-Zionist, living in Israel and studying there, and in a lot of cases even voting and taking welfare money, or actually quite like having a state for the Jews, which they realise is not quite the same as the one they believe the Messiah will grant them, and so don't complain.
As for regular Orthodox Jews, to claim that "a large proportion of Orthodox Jewry believe Zionism is wrong" is disingenuous in the extreme. You know all those settlers that think the occupied territories should be annexed by Israel? Most are religious. Was there a U-turn in opinion in 1948? I don't think so.
Oh, one last thing. Next time you make inflammatory, false remarks about history, politics, or indeed anything at all, why don't you post in a non-anonymous way? That way I might not completely lack any respect for you. Just a thought.
The lawyer for one student said, 'We would never condone music piracy. What we're interested in is the rights of the individual -- privacy rights being protected.'
If even one of the defendant's lawyers calls file-sharing "piracy", you know the intellectual war is nowhere near won...
It's true that people can't be trusted to think of your interests instead of their own, which is why they invoke noble principles to in fact further their own goals. This includes corporations, governments, your ex-wives (apparently), etc.
But it's still valid to be opposed to the government getting involved in providing a service which can be provided by the private sector because it's against the principles of capitalism. The logic is simple: If a company hasn't set up a city-wide WiFi network, it has to be presumed there's no profit in it. If there's no profit in it, why should the government provide it? I'm all in favour of people voluntarily banding together to do this on a non-profit basis, but this is other people's money being used here, and I'm sure they'd know how to spend it better themselves...
1) I was not referring to the attack against Microsoft -- I was referring to the attack against the grandparent poster. You yourself give an excellent example of this phenomenon later on in your post.
2) I agree a public postal service is not a natural monopoly, which is why I wrote that. Microsoft is not a natural monopoly either, r even a monopoly, because there are other operating systems on the market.
3) I meant "leading to" monopoly, rather than "is a monopoly". If you can give me an example of logistics leading to natural monopolies, that would be much appreciated.
4) Just because something can't exist doesn't mean the term shouldn't exist. Nonetheless, it is not "patently ridiculous" to maintain that with certain perspectives there is no such thing as a natural monopoly. It does depend on perspective. For example, it might be the case that because of capital costs, local monopolies of landline telephony sprout up. But no-one is forced to use landline telephony, which is why competitors such as mobile telephony, Voip etc have arisen. Technically, the baby bells might be natural monopolies in their domains, but this is missing the point. Microsoft might be a dominant player in the OS market for PCs, but then people don't have to buy PCs.
Finally, if I have an opinion, and I want to say it, I will, not because I'm absolutely sure it's correct, but to see what others think of it. Being a member of slashot empowers me to post on here, not your approval of my opinions. Perhaps your attitude is boneheaded:)
Good to see ad hominem attacks still get posts modded up around here.
Maybe a public postal service is naturally a monopoly (why would a government fund two?), but as can be seen from the rise of FedEx et al, logistics is certainly not a natural monopoly. Arguably, no industry is a natural monopoly: it all depends on how you define the industry.
Erm.. 1) digital distribution makes sharing "close to free"; and 2) why would something coming from far away reduce the "kudos" for the sharer?
The freer the trade, the freer the sharing.
Sure, theoretically it doesn't affect you. But in practice, it could mean that companies won't develop products because without an American market they won't be profitable.
Slashdot Mirror
So people on the internet are now disagreeing with each other?! Woe is us, the end is nigh.
The arguments the Government is using to try to get this passed are embarrassing. That they seem to be succeeding most of the time is shameful.
Basically, yes! And I don't think Switzerland has suffered too much from it...
Bravo! A new (or maybe old?) convert to direct democracy. Do you know of any online or offline groups advocating it?
Estonia just seems to be the most with-it country in the world at the moment (viz. flat taxes).
Sadly, it was a total karma whore attempt. Obviously it didn't work. I overestimated the bad tastes of the slashdot crowd, which I never thought was possible. I'm not a spelling or grammar Nazi, honest.
But if I was, I'd point out you're still missing an apostrophe. But that would be sad.
I can't stand such obvious typos. It should be "as machines get more powerful (more laws are needed aaaargh)". For goodness' sake.
Or it'll become self-defeating because the AI will be intelligent it'll become suicidal.
(Please leave tips in the hat, not with the dog.)
If it's Wired you can.
[Please, no libel suits or flames. I don't have the time or energy.]
How many Bangalores are there in the world? I demand that President Bush tell us the truth!
How much was your comment in billable time then?
Some info. Yes, there are sects of ultra-Orthodox Jews who are anti-Zionist, but most are either non-Zionist, living in Israel and studying there, and in a lot of cases even voting and taking welfare money, or actually quite like having a state for the Jews, which they realise is not quite the same as the one they believe the Messiah will grant them, and so don't complain.
As for regular Orthodox Jews, to claim that "a large proportion of Orthodox Jewry believe Zionism is wrong" is disingenuous in the extreme. You know all those settlers that think the occupied territories should be annexed by Israel? Most are religious. Was there a U-turn in opinion in 1948? I don't think so.
Oh, one last thing. Next time you make inflammatory, false remarks about history, politics, or indeed anything at all, why don't you post in a non-anonymous way? That way I might not completely lack any respect for you. Just a thought.
Works great here. Fair enough, it only zooms images one at a time, but isn't that enough?
If even one of the defendant's lawyers calls file-sharing "piracy", you know the intellectual war is nowhere near won...
And best of all it's free! If sending text messages is free for you, of course.
That ain't no book!
Or maybe politicians don't care about such niceties?
I can hear Alan Turing turning in his grave.
But it's still valid to be opposed to the government getting involved in providing a service which can be provided by the private sector because it's against the principles of capitalism. The logic is simple: If a company hasn't set up a city-wide WiFi network, it has to be presumed there's no profit in it. If there's no profit in it, why should the government provide it? I'm all in favour of people voluntarily banding together to do this on a non-profit basis, but this is other people's money being used here, and I'm sure they'd know how to spend it better themselves...
1) I was not referring to the attack against Microsoft -- I was referring to the attack against the grandparent poster. You yourself give an excellent example of this phenomenon later on in your post.
:)
2) I agree a public postal service is not a natural monopoly, which is why I wrote that. Microsoft is not a natural monopoly either, r even a monopoly, because there are other operating systems on the market.
3) I meant "leading to" monopoly, rather than "is a monopoly". If you can give me an example of logistics leading to natural monopolies, that would be much appreciated.
4) Just because something can't exist doesn't mean the term shouldn't exist. Nonetheless, it is not "patently ridiculous" to maintain that with certain perspectives there is no such thing as a natural monopoly. It does depend on perspective. For example, it might be the case that because of capital costs, local monopolies of landline telephony sprout up. But no-one is forced to use landline telephony, which is why competitors such as mobile telephony, Voip etc have arisen. Technically, the baby bells might be natural monopolies in their domains, but this is missing the point. Microsoft might be a dominant player in the OS market for PCs, but then people don't have to buy PCs.
Finally, if I have an opinion, and I want to say it, I will, not because I'm absolutely sure it's correct, but to see what others think of it. Being a member of slashot empowers me to post on here, not your approval of my opinions. Perhaps your attitude is boneheaded
Maybe a public postal service is naturally a monopoly (why would a government fund two?), but as can be seen from the rise of FedEx et al, logistics is certainly not a natural monopoly. Arguably, no industry is a natural monopoly: it all depends on how you define the industry.
Erm.. 1) digital distribution makes sharing "close to free"; and 2) why would something coming from far away reduce the "kudos" for the sharer? The freer the trade, the freer the sharing.
Answers.com is free now.
Sure, theoretically it doesn't affect you. But in practice, it could mean that companies won't develop products because without an American market they won't be profitable.
Don't forget you can use http://generic.a9.com/ so they don't keep track of you (or at least don't LOOK as if they're keeping track of you...)