No we weren't, that's a myth. Since the british collected no tax from us, it wasn't really unjust. Oh, they wanted to add a tiny tax to tea to pay for getting it here safely.
John Hancock started a smear campaign about the small tax on tea. Why? becasue he was a smuggler and it would have put him out of business because the Tea, with the tax was higher quality and cheaper then his smuggled tea.
Just for the record:
Yes, without the French, we wouldn't have won. A lot of us where appalled at the freedom fries bull crap.
The French are are first allies. The fact that they get left out of almost every money, including the appalling PoS 'the Patriot' is practically criminal.
They saved are ass with about 300,000 soldiers, and superior weapons.
But hey, even if the door says "open", it's a private house. The "normal" thing to do is knock, go "hey is anyone home?", enter, say hi and state your business.
If the door says "open" then it is a home based business that has invited you in.
Else why the heck are you entering that door?
Because they invited me in. I was curious why.
Street View cars were accessing email, web history and other data
Web history is stored on a computer. If they actually accessed web history, rather than monitoring the broadcast web requests, then they were rifling through locked cabinets after being invited in. If they just captured sites that were accessed while they could see them, then it's no different than driving down the street with a camera pointed to the side, recording the colors of the clothes of anyone they could see in a window (100% legal under all laws that don't involve "on a computer").
I see no way where Google was wrong with this. They didn't "enter" the house. They did the equivalent of looking through a window with a "regular" (not specialized) device from public property. That's explicitly legal until someone says "on a computer".
In their defense, the collect almost no tax, and where told everything was fine right up until the war started.
Read the letters and papers at the time, and it was two things the where really behind the war.
1) Fear of Catholic, seriously.
2) The founding fathers had carved out some land to the west, and England decided it was useless to them so they where going to sell it to the french. Well, when rich men are about to loose out on money and land, they whip up the masses about taxes the English where collecting. So it's not really taxation without representation when they where bothering to collect. I mean, you could go to the tax man and give him what you owed..but who really does that?
Ba amazed..no more!
It's something almost everyone can relate to, and it almost always changes depending on region.
I'm killing amazement with facts, yeah me.
Art in some countries can tell a copyright holder to STFU legally. IF Canada protects art then do it anyways.
I hate to get in the way of a good rant, but the players in this little drama are all Canadian.
As you may know, Canadians are notorious for ignoring the US Constitution.
No, without trademark protection, anyone could write Superman comics and sell them as such. I think you're thinking of copyright protection.
I'm pretty sure he was thinking of the sixty four year long legal battle between S-Cape Artists Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel and DC Comics over just who owned Superman, without which DC comics could write Superman comics and sell them as such without paying a dime to the original creators.
It's called moving the goalposts.
The only goalpost moving I see is from the computer scientists. They originally thought AI would be a human analogue. Now, AI is anything that an average human can't do as fast. My 40 year old calculator is AI, according to most of the definitions people are throwing around here to show how far we've come.
Watson, on the other hand, comes remarkably close.
Watson is more like a fancy interface for Wikipedia than AI. Being fast doesn't make one "smart"
70% accuracy quite easily (between romance languages, anyway. It really sucks for Japanese or Russian, for example
When translating into a native toungue, it's better than 70% accuracy, when minor human filtering is used. It's not perfect, and there are lots of idioms it will miss, but, amazingly, the global world has fixed much of that. A green joke (Spanish) is an off-color joke (English), and someone "should" be able to figure out the meaning from context. A "dark horse" in a contest is a "black horse" in Chinese. Someone should be able to figure that out as well, right?
Translation will always work best into one's native language. The translations fail at making it sound natural. Often because things are untranslatable. Like from between Chinese and English. You don't say "no" in Chinese. You say "Yes, but I can't". But saying that in English would not be direct enough, and would imply some lack of conviction that isn't there. But "no" indicates a lack of politeness. I would love to see translations translate and transliterate. So it says:
"Portugal is the dark horse" (translation)
"Portugal is (the) black horse" (transliteration)
Conferring both the meaning and the tone requires a re-write, not a simple translation. But giving the literal translation and the meaningful one helps with that. At least with more than tourist words. "Where's the toilet?" loses little in translation in any language.
It is completely impossible to say whether any entity, living or not, possesses that kind of introspective intelligence.
No, it's not. It's just impossible to demonstrate it. The chatbot lies. I don't. That's the difference.
"An organization dries up if you don't challenge it with growth." -- Mark Shepherd, former President and CEO of Texas Instruments
