There is literally NO difference between saying "freedom from" or "freedom to" except in the arrangement of the words. They are the same thing: freedom FROM the consequences of some action = freedom TO perform the action without consequence.
You know what the point is: You are free to do as you please, except to impose yourself on others.
Except that *explicitly* WAS NOT the point being made. The point being made was that "freedom FROM" and "freedom TO" are different; except that they are patently NOT, which I pointed out.
If the OP wanted to make a point about "being free to act as you choose, except to impose yourself on others" then that's what they would have said, and they didn't. Don't put your words in someone else's mouth.
when we say "freedom" we don't mean "freedom to", we mean freedom FROM.
Empty rhetoric, this is a meaningless distinction.
For instance, I can easily say rephrase as: it is generally not desirable for people to be free FROM government using force to prevent them from abusing others.
Isn't this issue self-correcting though? I mean gene-therapies are taking their sweet ass time through approval because most of them wind up causing cancer, and they killed the first experimental human subject.
So like, if all the people who want to inject themselves with experimental treatments that're most likely just going to give them run-away cancer are allowed to do so; doesn't the whole issue go away after they all die?
LOL - I bow down to your superior ability to be "technically" correct AND utterly useless at the same time! Impressive, *I* have to try really hard to say useless things in anger! Clearly posting a link in haste is a capital offence! I should be executed! Call the firing squad!
This is from YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK in your other post:
Ha! CAPS *and* profanity for something utterly trivial! What are you? 12? Psychotic?
RETARD!
Well, there's one of us in this convo that *clearly* has mental issues!
Look, if you have nothing interesting to add to this other that little baby-like whining (i.e. "waa waaa your link doesn't match your comment *pefectly*!!!"), then please just go away.
If a person has Dissociative Identity Disorder (Multiple Personality Disorder) we still see him as one person..
That's because DID is just one person with a fully connected but traumatized brain
Cutting a brain in half does not make a difference.
It absolutely does when you are severing the communications between those two halves, but leaving both perfectly functional.
There have been people where they lost half their brain. They do not become half a person. They are just the same person with, in some cases, a complete different mentality.
They have a different mentality because literally half of it has been severed - they really are a half/different person
Expert systems aren't AI, and pattern-matching algorithms aren't AI.
Spoken like someone who's sole understanding of what "AI" is comes from movies and the popular press. Go to an AI conference, ask the people there what AI is, then tell them their life's work isn't AI.
Slashdot Mirror
So can we please stop reporting on every damn stupid thing he does or says like it's actual news?
The man's just an internet crank who happens to like Linux, enough of him already.
You're engaging in dishonest sophistry.
No. I am not.
There is literally NO difference between saying "freedom from" or "freedom to" except in the arrangement of the words. They are the same thing: freedom FROM the consequences of some action = freedom TO perform the action without consequence.
You know what the point is: You are free to do as you please, except to impose yourself on others.
Except that *explicitly* WAS NOT the point being made. The point being made was that "freedom FROM" and "freedom TO" are different; except that they are patently NOT, which I pointed out.
If the OP wanted to make a point about "being free to act as you choose, except to impose yourself on others" then that's what they would have said, and they didn't. Don't put your words in someone else's mouth.
when we say "freedom" we don't mean "freedom to", we mean freedom FROM.
Empty rhetoric, this is a meaningless distinction.
For instance, I can easily say rephrase as: it is generally not desirable for people to be free FROM government using force to prevent them from abusing others.
You're making a "distinction without difference"
Not all "freedom" is desirable.
For instance the "freedom" to abuse others without consequence; is generally NOT considered a "freedom" we should have.
Isn't this issue self-correcting though? I mean gene-therapies are taking their sweet ass time through approval because most of them wind up causing cancer, and they killed the first experimental human subject.
So like, if all the people who want to inject themselves with experimental treatments that're most likely just going to give them run-away cancer are allowed to do so; doesn't the whole issue go away after they all die?
This is how it's *SUPPOSED* to work, no?
Google is going to kill a bunch of disabled people with Androids? What?
Right?
This annoys the crap out of me!
If the article is ABOUT something visual - INCLUDE A DAMN PICTURE!!!
Far, far too often I see an online article *about* something visual, which does NOT include a picture.
If your article is about say "new animal discovered in the Blargh Desert", there is *absolutely* no excuse NOT to include a photo.
Don't have one yet? Wait until you damn well do!
My statement ... is completely correct.
LOL - I bow down to your superior ability to be "technically" correct AND utterly useless at the same time! Impressive, *I* have to try really hard to say useless things in anger! Clearly posting a link in haste is a capital offence! I should be executed! Call the firing squad!
This is from YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK in your other post:
Ha! CAPS *and* profanity for something utterly trivial! What are you? 12? Psychotic?
RETARD!
Well, there's one of us in this convo that *clearly* has mental issues!
Look, if you have nothing interesting to add to this other that little baby-like whining (i.e. "waa waaa your link doesn't match your comment *pefectly*!!!"), then please just go away.
LOL
It's kind of boggling that ALL of these people are wrong, but I guess "sexconker" IS the DDOS expert...
Right. Well clearly, all these are wrong then:
http://map.norsecorp.com/#/
http://attackmap.ddos-protecti...
http://downdetector.com/
https://twitter.com/search?q=d...
There's a big global DDOS attack going on right now.
Our whole shop is down and can't access Azure or TFS
http://www.digitalattackmap.com/#anim=1&color=0&country=ALL&list=0&time=17475&view=map
Wow, full retard.
Good job down voting the most relevant comment, idiot.
... because we were all just SO *confused* about it!
I can sleep easy now, am totally plussed.
... and everyone jumped ship to Linux Mint the instant Ubuntu started using it?
Posting again since the first post was modded down by an Ubuntu shill with mod pts...
Got any more buddy?
Modded *down*??? Are you kidding me?
Apparently there's an Ubuntu shill out there with mod points - lol!
... and everyone jumped ship to Linux Mint the instant Ubuntu started using it?
If a person has Dissociative Identity Disorder (Multiple Personality Disorder) we still see him as one person..
That's because DID is just one person with a fully connected but traumatized brain
Cutting a brain in half does not make a difference.
It absolutely does when you are severing the communications between those two halves, but leaving both perfectly functional.
There have been people where they lost half their brain. They do not become half a person. They are just the same person with, in some cases, a complete different mentality.
They have a different mentality because literally half of it has been severed - they really are a half/different person
Yes
Expert systems aren't AI, and pattern-matching algorithms aren't AI.
Spoken like someone who's sole understanding of what "AI" is comes from movies and the popular press. Go to an AI conference, ask the people there what AI is, then tell them their life's work isn't AI.
See how much traction your views get there...
The AI community needs to be much more cautious and circumspect.
It's not the fault of the AI community. They are always very cautious about the claims they make.
The misconceptions about AI on the part of the laity is all down to the PR and marketing peeps making claims about things they know nothing about.
I am 15% female myself.
... the US would do something about THEIR unemployable engineers!!!