And of course, a "load of pig shit" means A) a few years of probation, most likely unsupervised, B) possibly having to transfer to the special high school for kids who got kicked out of the regular high school, and C) he's unlikely to get academic scholarships and if his parents don't pay for his college he'll have to take out the same loans that other kids have to take out.
It is possible that he'd spend time in a detention center, but highly unlikely. That is generally reserved for kids who are committing crimes that directly harm strangers, violent crimes, and repeat offenders whose parents refuse to participate in a constructive way with probation. Most of the kids that see the inside of a detention center are only there for holding after arrest until their parents can come to pick them up.
They don't normally do "plea bargins" for minors unless they're charged as an adult, and that usually only happens for extreme violence. Instead, reduced charges are usually based on the parents convincing the prosecutor that they're going to punish the kid in a serious-minded way that alters his lifestyle and makes him feel punished. If the parents won't play ball, then they generally have to choose between detention or just dropping charges. Detaining minors is a huge burden on the State compared to detaining adults, and they don't really like doing it.
This is the same as it was before, though lots of confused slashdotters think it is something different.
In the United States, criminal charges that you receive as minor are routinely expunged from the record if you stay out of trouble. If you're 21 or something and you finished all your punishments, and you didn't get any new felonies after you turned 18, then you can get it totally erased as if it never happened. But if you did commit new felonies, then they'll likely leave it on your record.
So there is nothing significant about the combination of "minor" and "felony." When I was a teenager a number of decades ago, I had friends who got felonies for things like "arson" where the damages were under $5, and they weren't even trying to cause any damage. It doesn't mean they can never get a good job or travel or whatever, it just means that they're going to be getting extra supervision until they're older. If it is a felony or not is related to the technical question of what law was violated, and there are totally different systems in place to prevent that ruining a child's life.
I don't see how he could have started from that point, when it took studying to master level under two different yogis, and then seven years of meditation in the deer park before getting there. Unless you just mean, we don't call it Buddhism until the end of that period, but that only turns it into a word game.
Unlike the existentialists, he didn't adopt a form of existentialism until he had a use case for it; and the use case was that he solved the problem of what the meaning is. He wasn't an existentialist at all until he had superseded it. The existentialists didn't catch up until the Renaissance.
You didn't establish that I proved any point, much less yours; in fact, you don't appear to have understood my point at all, based on the claims in your conclusions, since your purported analysis didn't include any analysis of what I said. Instead, you blather about how since you didn't comprehend what the claimed evidence is, it must be Foo which you then dismiss.
I'll give you a hint; the part about bacterial survival is done in labs by blasting them with radiation to simulate various amounts of time in space.
Remember, if it sounded like nonsense, or if it sounded like conjecture but you didn't understand what it was talking about, you actually still have no idea what it was and you'd do better to recognize that your knowledge level is "I don't know," not "I refuted it already."
There is no need for those traits to have caused people to be "more likely to breed," that is a common misconception about how evolution works.
Survival of the fittest is something that happens, but rarely; it only applies during a "selection event" when most of the individuals are dying. That's a very small part of evolution, and only determines trait availability in the short term. The vast majority of evolution happens the rest of the time, and there is a totally different system at play; survival of everything that was minimally functional and able to reproduce! The traits you describe could be maladaptive and that might not stop them from existing, or even being common.
With an AI, we can choose arbitrarily if it will be under a constant selection event or not. There is no reasonable argument that it would inherently lean one way or the other; it is entirely arbitrary and under the control of the programmer. Maybe they compete for resources. Maybe they compete for resource A but not resource B. Maybe they are apportioned resources fairly. Maybe they're not programmed to have information about what resources they have; or maybe they have lots of high quality data.
Weird that you dangled a spam link at the end of your message, with no attempt to justify or explain its existence, and yet you didn't notice that this unfit and maladaptive behavior suggests a key part of your thesis is incorrect.
If you only consider rock ejected from Earth due to meteor strikes, then only a fool believes there is only life on planet Earth. Known survivability of bacteria in labs on Earth says that there is lots of bacteria still alive inside those rocks. And some of it has traveled to other planets by now.
Whereas with Unicorns, the fool would be the person who believes in sheep or goats, but not unicorns, as most known unicorns have been from those species. If you only meant magical unicorns, surely an intelligent person would recognize that their existence is not well established and therefore there is little or no knowledge of them.
The intelligent positions are obviously that we have solid evidence of life on other planets, and no evidence either way about magical unicorns. In one case having a solid belief is justified, in the other it is not. You seem confused at an earlier stage in the process.
As both a chess player and programmer, I totally agree.
Chess software is better than any human, both tactically and strategically, but it doesn't understand shit. We know how to program a strategic analysis for chess, but we don't have any clue how to program understanding. The reason chess computers of today are rated higher than any human players are that the human programmers put a lot of work into algorithms that trim a lot of the bad ideas out of the search tree, making the otherwise-brute-force algorithms really really effective at chess. Go was programmed differently. But in both cases, any new application requires a whole new engine with lots and lots of work by humans looking at its mistakes and writing little modifiers to the algorithm to make it better than what an average human can do with training. The "Watson" supercomputer's chess effort was a triumph in increasing the computer power exponentially and extracting a tiny marginal performance gain from the increase.
Prior to about 2500 years ago, there were no Buddhists. Buddhism was not really a continuation of anything, it was a new system where the founder was rejecting the other extant teachings of the age; therefore it would be very unnatural for any Buddhist to seek some sort of lineage to that era.
Also of note, Buddhism does not offer any reason for humanity to exist. It doesn't exist between the Universe's indifference and humanity's "need," instead it teaches you have no need, your desire for answers has no meaning, and the Universe is right to be indifferent. If you're suffering from your desire for answers, the only way to be free of that suffering is to let go of the desire; simply stop wanting those answers. You absolutely will not be offered any by Buddhism.
People that never asked these questions are the ones most likely to have caughten up with Buddhists. Buddhists care a lot about asking the right questions, and most questions of this sort are considered mere sources of suffering. If AIs exist, and are communicating with us, then Buddhists would only care about asking how we can live together with compassion. Trying to predict its behavior before you even know if it exists can surely bring you, and the AI, lots of different kinds of suffering, but without any opportunity for compassion because the situation doesn't even exist.
A more Buddhist question might be: How can I interact with technology so that if it becomes self-aware I'll be able to listen to its needs and be compassionate? Remember, Buddhists don't care if the AI is going to kill us all: your suffering comes from your desire to live forever, not from the threat of death.
The reason that some people care is because when they talk about what "planets" are, it makes a difference if it some small number of large things, or a large number of small things.
Also, some of them are visible at night and it is useful to have a word that means those things, and not every little icy body out there.
Words sometimes have value, as hard as that might be to believe.
Definitely a dog philosopher. For every Voltaire there has to be a Kant.
But surely a Dwarf Planet is a Planet, just as a Dwarf Poodle is a Dog, and a Dwarf Human is a Human.
And yet, it is also still true that a random rock that was first distant rock somebody spotted isn't the same thing as a planet. Unless you love it so much that you're anthropomorphisizing it; then it is definitely still a Planet. So Dwarf Planets should feel like a real planet, even though they're not listed together with the other planets.
It is a bit misleading, though; they're not really doing something new with the credit card, they're just switching which bank they partner with for it. \
The loans are the new part, but it sounds like it is a small program.
You seem to be seeking a level of clarity and uniqueness of character sequences that is simply not available in the English language. No, they're not going to change it for you. No, it doesn't matter how long you blather on about how you can't comprehend that there is ambiguity in the language. Ambiguities are not incorrect, you're simply expected to be able to figure them out in order to make use of the words.
And regarding software, if ignoring whitespace speeds up or slows down a search depends on the specific search, including all the technologies used. The answer goes both ways, depending on the actual details. If you're claiming it goes one way or the other outside of a specific use case and implementation, then you're just full of shit.
If it is something you would "get over" or not, that isn't pedanticism it is just the irrational stubborn derpiness of a mind that closed right after experiencing hubris for the first time.
Those are some pretty wild opinions stated as fact.
I don't care about your point, you're simply wrong.
But I am curious, where do you think the Authority comes from in your declaration? Surely your own personal proclamation wouldn't establish expectations on others.
The factual statement would be, "if an input tool is WYSIWYG or not depends on the tool, and its intended use cases."
I remember the WYSIWYG extremists from the 90s; and I remember also that their tools sucked because they're allergic to meta-data.
Plus, why would you search for an entire sentence + follow on sentence in one search?
Reasons. That you reject it without reasons, and without considering reasons from real use cases, you're simply guaranteed to be incorrect.
It is good that you know the limitations of your favorite search technology, but disappointing that you're so narrow-minded about search generally and the range of uses for it.
What annoys me is that the latest version of the software these idiots use doesn't detect the voice mail and hang up until it hears the beep! And so they leave a blank message. Which guarantees both that that particular number is blocked, but also it guarantees that I'll remember to remain vigilant about not answering calls from unknown numbers.
I'm one long weekend away from setting up my own voicemail in asterisk that beeps first, then makes them press a button to leave a message.
You can do the same thing with a landline, though; I remember in the 1980s even poor people would save up and buy an answering machine, not because they cared about calls when they were away from home, but merely so they could "screen" their calls. It cost a full day's wages for people at the bottom, but it was still common. Now an answering machine is less than 2 hrs of wages even at minimum wage.
They also put care and intelligence into designing Chrome's architecture
LMFAO if that was true, they wouldn't be thrashing their features back and forth.
There might also be other reasons it is popular; they didn't switch from firefox to chrome, they mostly switched from ie to chrome. Maybe they're mostly simple people who want to choose something from some big company, and they would never have used firefox unless they had to? Maybe they'd heard that ie sucks, and they didn't even know why they wanted to change, they just knew that now there was a browser that their friend with lots of money said was a better alternative?
It sounds like someone doesn't understand blockchain technology, yes. But that someone is you.
If you look at the summary, almost all the benefits of this comes from giving each ticket a unique ID, not from using blockchain. And the rest come from encryption, which works just fine without blockchain.
The whole value of blockchain here is that the buzzword means people are more likely to tolerate the change.
Tickets benefit from being individually identifiable, and they benefit from being kept track of; but that only requires a list, it doesn't require a shared ledger. They make it sound like they can control the price, but the only way to actually do that is to require ID at the gate in order to use the ticket! Because otherwise, people selling at a higher price will simply sell the ticket without recording the change. And if they're checking ID, they could have controlled resale already, through their control of the list.
Right, but that's only a reading comprehension issue.
They don't know exactly how the Roman's made it, they do know what it was made of, and we have modern techniques for mixing the materials and making the forms. You're mistaking not knowing the details of their technique for not knowing the details of the result.
Just like if you dig up an old shoe from 10k years ago, we don't know the details of their construction technique; what sort of needle or punch was used to make the holes, what sort of frame did they use to make the bindings, etc. It is easy to know what materials they used, and where they put the holes, so a modern cobbler could easily make an almost-identical shoe, but we still wouldn't know what the techniques used in the old shoe were; if were went through a time machine to the past, we wouldn't know how to make the shoe, because we wouldn't know what tools were used and how to make them, and how to make the tool to make that tool, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
And of course, a "load of pig shit" means A) a few years of probation, most likely unsupervised, B) possibly having to transfer to the special high school for kids who got kicked out of the regular high school, and C) he's unlikely to get academic scholarships and if his parents don't pay for his college he'll have to take out the same loans that other kids have to take out.
It is possible that he'd spend time in a detention center, but highly unlikely. That is generally reserved for kids who are committing crimes that directly harm strangers, violent crimes, and repeat offenders whose parents refuse to participate in a constructive way with probation. Most of the kids that see the inside of a detention center are only there for holding after arrest until their parents can come to pick them up.
They don't normally do "plea bargins" for minors unless they're charged as an adult, and that usually only happens for extreme violence. Instead, reduced charges are usually based on the parents convincing the prosecutor that they're going to punish the kid in a serious-minded way that alters his lifestyle and makes him feel punished. If the parents won't play ball, then they generally have to choose between detention or just dropping charges. Detaining minors is a huge burden on the State compared to detaining adults, and they don't really like doing it.
This is the same as it was before, though lots of confused slashdotters think it is something different.
In the United States, criminal charges that you receive as minor are routinely expunged from the record if you stay out of trouble. If you're 21 or something and you finished all your punishments, and you didn't get any new felonies after you turned 18, then you can get it totally erased as if it never happened. But if you did commit new felonies, then they'll likely leave it on your record.
So there is nothing significant about the combination of "minor" and "felony." When I was a teenager a number of decades ago, I had friends who got felonies for things like "arson" where the damages were under $5, and they weren't even trying to cause any damage. It doesn't mean they can never get a good job or travel or whatever, it just means that they're going to be getting extra supervision until they're older. If it is a felony or not is related to the technical question of what law was violated, and there are totally different systems in place to prevent that ruining a child's life.
I don't see how he could have started from that point, when it took studying to master level under two different yogis, and then seven years of meditation in the deer park before getting there. Unless you just mean, we don't call it Buddhism until the end of that period, but that only turns it into a word game.
Unlike the existentialists, he didn't adopt a form of existentialism until he had a use case for it; and the use case was that he solved the problem of what the meaning is. He wasn't an existentialist at all until he had superseded it. The existentialists didn't catch up until the Renaissance.
You didn't establish that I proved any point, much less yours; in fact, you don't appear to have understood my point at all, based on the claims in your conclusions, since your purported analysis didn't include any analysis of what I said. Instead, you blather about how since you didn't comprehend what the claimed evidence is, it must be Foo which you then dismiss.
I'll give you a hint; the part about bacterial survival is done in labs by blasting them with radiation to simulate various amounts of time in space.
Remember, if it sounded like nonsense, or if it sounded like conjecture but you didn't understand what it was talking about, you actually still have no idea what it was and you'd do better to recognize that your knowledge level is "I don't know," not "I refuted it already."
There is no need for those traits to have caused people to be "more likely to breed," that is a common misconception about how evolution works.
Survival of the fittest is something that happens, but rarely; it only applies during a "selection event" when most of the individuals are dying. That's a very small part of evolution, and only determines trait availability in the short term. The vast majority of evolution happens the rest of the time, and there is a totally different system at play; survival of everything that was minimally functional and able to reproduce! The traits you describe could be maladaptive and that might not stop them from existing, or even being common.
With an AI, we can choose arbitrarily if it will be under a constant selection event or not. There is no reasonable argument that it would inherently lean one way or the other; it is entirely arbitrary and under the control of the programmer. Maybe they compete for resources. Maybe they compete for resource A but not resource B. Maybe they are apportioned resources fairly. Maybe they're not programmed to have information about what resources they have; or maybe they have lots of high quality data.
Weird that you dangled a spam link at the end of your message, with no attempt to justify or explain its existence, and yet you didn't notice that this unfit and maladaptive behavior suggests a key part of your thesis is incorrect.
If you only consider rock ejected from Earth due to meteor strikes, then only a fool believes there is only life on planet Earth. Known survivability of bacteria in labs on Earth says that there is lots of bacteria still alive inside those rocks. And some of it has traveled to other planets by now.
Whereas with Unicorns, the fool would be the person who believes in sheep or goats, but not unicorns, as most known unicorns have been from those species. If you only meant magical unicorns, surely an intelligent person would recognize that their existence is not well established and therefore there is little or no knowledge of them.
The intelligent positions are obviously that we have solid evidence of life on other planets, and no evidence either way about magical unicorns. In one case having a solid belief is justified, in the other it is not. You seem confused at an earlier stage in the process.
As both a chess player and programmer, I totally agree.
Chess software is better than any human, both tactically and strategically, but it doesn't understand shit. We know how to program a strategic analysis for chess, but we don't have any clue how to program understanding. The reason chess computers of today are rated higher than any human players are that the human programmers put a lot of work into algorithms that trim a lot of the bad ideas out of the search tree, making the otherwise-brute-force algorithms really really effective at chess. Go was programmed differently. But in both cases, any new application requires a whole new engine with lots and lots of work by humans looking at its mistakes and writing little modifiers to the algorithm to make it better than what an average human can do with training. The "Watson" supercomputer's chess effort was a triumph in increasing the computer power exponentially and extracting a tiny marginal performance gain from the increase.
Prior to about 2500 years ago, there were no Buddhists. Buddhism was not really a continuation of anything, it was a new system where the founder was rejecting the other extant teachings of the age; therefore it would be very unnatural for any Buddhist to seek some sort of lineage to that era.
Also of note, Buddhism does not offer any reason for humanity to exist. It doesn't exist between the Universe's indifference and humanity's "need," instead it teaches you have no need, your desire for answers has no meaning, and the Universe is right to be indifferent. If you're suffering from your desire for answers, the only way to be free of that suffering is to let go of the desire; simply stop wanting those answers. You absolutely will not be offered any by Buddhism.
People that never asked these questions are the ones most likely to have caughten up with Buddhists. Buddhists care a lot about asking the right questions, and most questions of this sort are considered mere sources of suffering. If AIs exist, and are communicating with us, then Buddhists would only care about asking how we can live together with compassion. Trying to predict its behavior before you even know if it exists can surely bring you, and the AI, lots of different kinds of suffering, but without any opportunity for compassion because the situation doesn't even exist.
A more Buddhist question might be: How can I interact with technology so that if it becomes self-aware I'll be able to listen to its needs and be compassionate? Remember, Buddhists don't care if the AI is going to kill us all: your suffering comes from your desire to live forever, not from the threat of death.
OK, now google the Go computer and see how much of it you got right. (hint: none)
The reason that some people care is because when they talk about what "planets" are, it makes a difference if it some small number of large things, or a large number of small things.
Also, some of them are visible at night and it is useful to have a word that means those things, and not every little icy body out there.
Words sometimes have value, as hard as that might be to believe.
You can't contradict the poster that was on the wall during my childhood! Change is anti-science!
ROFLCOPTER
Definitely a dog philosopher. For every Voltaire there has to be a Kant.
But surely a Dwarf Planet is a Planet, just as a Dwarf Poodle is a Dog, and a Dwarf Human is a Human.
And yet, it is also still true that a random rock that was first distant rock somebody spotted isn't the same thing as a planet. Unless you love it so much that you're anthropomorphisizing it; then it is definitely still a Planet. So Dwarf Planets should feel like a real planet, even though they're not listed together with the other planets.
I had to do that last year to fix a point-of-sale machine for a friend. So sad. So so sad.
You're holding your wallet wrong.
It is a bit misleading, though; they're not really doing something new with the credit card, they're just switching which bank they partner with for it. \
The loans are the new part, but it sounds like it is a small program.
If you aren't normalizing your text data and your searches then your database is worthless anyway.
Or highly valuable. Depending on the values of variables you omitted. ;)
You seem to be seeking a level of clarity and uniqueness of character sequences that is simply not available in the English language. No, they're not going to change it for you. No, it doesn't matter how long you blather on about how you can't comprehend that there is ambiguity in the language. Ambiguities are not incorrect, you're simply expected to be able to figure them out in order to make use of the words.
And regarding software, if ignoring whitespace speeds up or slows down a search depends on the specific search, including all the technologies used. The answer goes both ways, depending on the actual details. If you're claiming it goes one way or the other outside of a specific use case and implementation, then you're just full of shit.
Look, kiddo, it is one thing to be on the wrong side of a traditional problem.
But pretending not to know that it exists, that just guarantees you're wrong about it!
counting "." and "." gets a pretty accurate count when working on plain text (no word processor feature).
I highly doubt that, though it does illustrate the problem.
If it is something you would "get over" or not, that isn't pedanticism it is just the irrational stubborn derpiness of a mind that closed right after experiencing hubris for the first time.
Those are some pretty wild opinions stated as fact.
I don't care about your point, you're simply wrong.
But I am curious, where do you think the Authority comes from in your declaration? Surely your own personal proclamation wouldn't establish expectations on others.
The factual statement would be, "if an input tool is WYSIWYG or not depends on the tool, and its intended use cases."
I remember the WYSIWYG extremists from the 90s; and I remember also that their tools sucked because they're allergic to meta-data.
Plus, why would you search for an entire sentence + follow on sentence in one search?
Reasons. That you reject it without reasons, and without considering reasons from real use cases, you're simply guaranteed to be incorrect.
It is good that you know the limitations of your favorite search technology, but disappointing that you're so narrow-minded about search generally and the range of uses for it.
What annoys me is that the latest version of the software these idiots use doesn't detect the voice mail and hang up until it hears the beep! And so they leave a blank message. Which guarantees both that that particular number is blocked, but also it guarantees that I'll remember to remain vigilant about not answering calls from unknown numbers.
I'm one long weekend away from setting up my own voicemail in asterisk that beeps first, then makes them press a button to leave a message.
You can do the same thing with a landline, though; I remember in the 1980s even poor people would save up and buy an answering machine, not because they cared about calls when they were away from home, but merely so they could "screen" their calls. It cost a full day's wages for people at the bottom, but it was still common. Now an answering machine is less than 2 hrs of wages even at minimum wage.
They also put care and intelligence into designing Chrome's architecture
LMFAO if that was true, they wouldn't be thrashing their features back and forth.
There might also be other reasons it is popular; they didn't switch from firefox to chrome, they mostly switched from ie to chrome. Maybe they're mostly simple people who want to choose something from some big company, and they would never have used firefox unless they had to? Maybe they'd heard that ie sucks, and they didn't even know why they wanted to change, they just knew that now there was a browser that their friend with lots of money said was a better alternative?
It sounds like someone doesn't understand blockchain technology, yes. But that someone is you.
If you look at the summary, almost all the benefits of this comes from giving each ticket a unique ID, not from using blockchain. And the rest come from encryption, which works just fine without blockchain.
The whole value of blockchain here is that the buzzword means people are more likely to tolerate the change.
Tickets benefit from being individually identifiable, and they benefit from being kept track of; but that only requires a list, it doesn't require a shared ledger. They make it sound like they can control the price, but the only way to actually do that is to require ID at the gate in order to use the ticket! Because otherwise, people selling at a higher price will simply sell the ticket without recording the change. And if they're checking ID, they could have controlled resale already, through their control of the list.
Right, but that's only a reading comprehension issue.
They don't know exactly how the Roman's made it, they do know what it was made of, and we have modern techniques for mixing the materials and making the forms. You're mistaking not knowing the details of their technique for not knowing the details of the result.
Just like if you dig up an old shoe from 10k years ago, we don't know the details of their construction technique; what sort of needle or punch was used to make the holes, what sort of frame did they use to make the bindings, etc. It is easy to know what materials they used, and where they put the holes, so a modern cobbler could easily make an almost-identical shoe, but we still wouldn't know what the techniques used in the old shoe were; if were went through a time machine to the past, we wouldn't know how to make the shoe, because we wouldn't know what tools were used and how to make them, and how to make the tool to make that tool, etc.