Helianthus16

And I'm sure it would be an interesting read. However, I feel I should also point out that what makes this article interesting isn't that this technology is out of date, it is that it is a glimpse into a time when we didn't have computing technology and the solutions people found for Very Important Communication.

You missed the point. You're comfortable enough with your equal status to openly deflate their status, _because_ you both know it doesn't mean anything. Fair trade/permission giving: later they can tease you and lower your status.

Then real dicks use that sort of friendship to only lower the status of their friends, which is why we call them dicks.

The fact that _he_ believes it is important which shoulder he touches produces enough an effect that one can be fooled into thinking the touches have the power instead of the belief.

The problem is that sort of video doesn't show the failures, so we have no idea how real the success rate is.

It's that "as if" that is a little bit hand-wavy. Fitting/overfitting is insidious in that it corrupts both the procedure and the data.

I'm not saying that's exactly what happened here, but I am saying that it's a _hunch_ that human brains are following the same steps. It might be a good hunch, but it's still _not_ a scientific statement with the weight of statistical backing.

On the other hand, it's a little flaky that they set a parameter to try to get human-like response times. Statistical fitting.

We built it to hit this number, we're surprised when it does!

Cool calculation process, though.

I don't know why my instinct is to anthropomorphize them, but somehow they're goddamned _cute_. Look! Robots playing ping pong!

A robot dog might be in my future :/

You just 'sucked the life' out of this thread and proved forensic's point about 'chronically negative people.' :(

Also, in a topic like this where we're examining differences between cultures, it's pretty implicit that we're speaking generally. If that's racist, any cultural examination is racist.

No offense, thinking about it is fun, but we're not exactly accountants; and we're definitely not accountants with access to Groupon's numbers. It "seems crazy" isn't exactly a critical argument.

"Techcrunch speculates on revenue numbers, gets caught."

Am I reading this right?

There is no sense in my mind that a cook is not an engineer of the kitchen.

Engineering is just using quantities, directions, and properties to effect a result.

Yes, but (so the argument goes) they were a legal violation, sanctioned by the U.N. or whatever prototype of the U.N. existed at the time.

>I sort of wonder how atheists process someone like him believing in God.

Cognitive dissonance.

I kid, I kid: but I see too many atheists happy to deride a viewpoint with that pop-psychology term as a means of writing it off. Qualifying a behavior as inherently rational or irrational runs the risk of functioning rather like a dogma.

If a country's honor as a concept is ludicrous, why should a country bother to be moral?

Surely you can see that honor and morality are closely tied concepts, such that a country's moral actions define its honor. In what respect can someone deny the validity of honor and still evaluate the quality of a country's actions?

In other words, did America 'do wrong' by Iraq?

My point is that you must treat intrusions as an inevitability when trying to counteract intrusion. And anyone who builds a sandcastle should be aware of the ocean. The kid's breaking into this account is embarrassing.

Just because we can hold individual humans accountable (and should) doesn't mean we shouldn't have the perspective of "CONSTANT VIGILANCE."