When the instruments are gone (somehow), the pilot would certainly rather have windows than not. It provides a very good chance of survivability where no windows means practically no chance.
I'm not getting on a plane that has no backup plan.
There are numerous ways a view screen could be disabled (object smashed it, software error, etc.) even though the plane is perfectly fit for flying otherwise.
I was under the impression that anesthesia doesn't work like a painkiller. It only reduces consciousness. The patient receives painkillers prior to the anesthesia wearing off in order to manage pain after becoming conscious. Since this would only take place of anesthesia, it would still be reasonable to provide painkillers before waking the patient up.
You're right, it probably isn't the ultimate solution. Perhaps someone should also be in charge of such a mailing list and double-check anything that comes through.
True, but at least there are corporate policies in place at most companies to manage such a situation.
Want to keep your job and not be subject to criminal prosecution? Don't share any emails with trade secrets or other private info.
Besides, since we are talking about better systems, let's go ahead and make it more difficult to accidentally send mail to mailing lists. "This message will be sent to 'GS Employees', a mailing list with 32,912 users. Are you sure?"
But it would be nice to have something like "google circles" for corporate email, and have them enforced on the client -- that is, you cannot send an email to an individual without having first classified their address as having a specific relationship to you, and then you must click through a "send this to everyone with that relationship?" dialog before being able to send to the individual.
Of course, then you get into the issue of list cleaning, but this could also have the benefit of being able to encrypt the message against "group keys" -- something that would be transparent for internal mail, and would involve a one-time setup for external mail. Anything not at least doing key *signing* would be flagged for review prior to release; this would fix a large swathe of data leakage issues currently experienced by pretty much every company with an intranet out there.
All of this was good and I highly agree that this kind of thing would be beneficial to all kinds of messaging protocols including email.
Email clients don't send messages to unknown addresses; the address was obviously known to the sender and had been the recipient of emails from them in the past.
What? This doesn't make sense one bit. I can email practically any email address on the planet.
*facepalm* I'm not talking about me.
I'm talking about the billions of other email users around the globe who don't understand what PGP means or TLS or SMTP or anything that isn't the Send button. I'm talking about users who, like this guy, make very simple and understandable mistakes that could put many people and their possessions at risk.
In this case you are correct, and modern versions of Outlook and Exchange help warn users when sending outside the domain.
My complaint is more general, including personal mail. Email security in general use is little better than 20 years ago.
I don't see how that would help this situation. The "testing" was an internal business process, not an email system test. The email was a report related to testing.
Not that I care a hoot about bad things happening to GS... not that I believe this should have been emailed...
But I wish it weren't so easy to send a message to an unknown address, particularly one on a different server. I'd almost rather have a separate protocol for sending to known/safe addresses than for unknown addresses.
Because of greed.
Why do we still have these antiquated data caps?
Because we still have antiquated data lines and switches and whatnot that can only handle so much total bandwidth.
I don't care for caps either, but if they protect my paid-for bandwidth from abusers like Mr. Hayes (yes I know, it's not his fault, whatever it's still keeping me from streaming) then I'm ok with it to a degree.
I'm finding it hard to understand why you have trouble with determinism vs non-determinism.
Not at all. I just believe you're using it wrong.
For the input "fruit flies like a banana", the computer must always EITHER ask for clarification OR assume what the sentence means. It cannot do ask for clarification some of the time and not others as a human will do.
Why? Both the human and computer can be made to understand context, in order to interpret the likelihood that one interpretation is correct. They both can understand whether knowing the correct interpretation is worthwhile.
The human does have an emotional element, such as being embarrassed to ask the question. But typically the embarrassment lies with whether the human correctly understands the likelihood one interpretation is correct, which is handled deterministically with a computer and thus has no true merit to such situations.
The human can be random. But what good does this do a computer? What good does it even do the human? I'd call this a weakness if people responded differently to what I say, without reason. Besides, the computer certainly can simulate randomness even though there's no practical use for it here.
So no, a computer would certainly not always have to ask for clarification or always not ask for clarification. An example is using "echo Hello World!". The computer could ask, "Where do you want me to echo this input?" But it doesn't because, according to its programming (a form of context) and options (another form of context), it knows where to echo by default.
1) Why does the ability to understand natural language have anything to do with intelligence in other areas? A natural language parser won't necessarily have a clue how to track moving objects or how to play chess.
2) What does intelligence have to do with ethics? Saying "Humans are intelligent beings and humans should not be enslaved, thus intelligent beings should not be enslaved", is like saying "Mario is a plumber and Mario is a game, therefore plumbers are games."
Put differently - the human assumes that the other human will understand him or ask for clarification. Sometimes they are wrong in this assumption but no harm is done. With a computer: if the human takes the chance that the computer understands him OR will ask for clarification and the computer assumes a different meaning then there will be hell to pay.
Why? Why does the human get to slide but the computer doesn't?
"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein
