It was his album.
To print a space elevator?
Perhaps the test itself is obsolete now, since it assumes the types of social communication available at the time.
In another post, I wonder about humans actually flunking the test. I believe this is true in an era where information is so easy to transfer to and from machines and the expectations from human to human interaction have become shallow.
Maybe today's social communication has changed and has been streamlined so much that we don't have to assume or expect human-like intelligence at all anymore when interacting with either people or machines.
I, for one, welcome our Horizontally-Distributed Singularity Overlord.
Now, this makes me wonder: If those annoyingly stupid, non-AI bots in chats and social media have been able to fool real people for years... does that count as humans flunking the Turing Test?
"Just as the liar's punishment is, not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe any one else; so a guilty society can more easily be persuaded that any apparently innocent act is guilty than that any apparently guilty act is innocent." -George Bernard Shaw
Is it really surprising? The world is heading back to Cold War era spy games very fast.
I do not believe there are better Xorg drivers available in Linux, including NVidia.
I do not believe there are better open source Xorg drivers available in Linux, including NVidia.
There, fixed that for ya
VB.Net is not a toy language.
Of course not. Toys are supposed to be fun.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I understand that the user interface could be usable with a multi-touch compatible touchpad. They already have some gestures in place for using two fingers to scroll but Mac OS X has gestures with three or more fingers.
If that's the case, this is not a bad move at all.
I'm fully aware of the difference between 'open' and 'free' and I used the terms accordingly. Open Source gets direct benefit from games as it gets a lot more users, Free Software doesn't.
As for the difficulty of installing proprietary drivers in Debian, Fedora and RHEL, perhaps you haven't had the experience to make games or proprietary software work on those distros (hint: sometimes it's far more than just finding a
Good thing is that the users of those distros are more advanced, but the experience in Ubuntu is much simpler, as Canonical has made the compromise to include (and pay for) non-free software in the distro right from the start. Care to guess which one will be preferred by Steam in the long-term?
I've worked for both TI and the games industry all my professional life. With very limited exceptions I'd say Free Software and video games are not really compatible with each other. In fact, most of the time game companies are allergic to openness out of necessity.
The video game industry is tough and fierce. Much of the competitive advantages of any large studio come directly from the propietary technology they develop for their own games or the engines they license to other studios. Unreal Engine is a very good example of this.
Game companies, from the biggest manufacturer to the smallest studio, are plagued with trade secrets, patents, copyrighted code and tools that can't just be combined easily with their open counterparts. I don't see Valve's culture 'infiltrated' anytime soon because of this.
I think it's great for Linux users to be able to play games without having to boot Windows. But that comes with a compromise: not many advanced users install Ubuntu for their primary computer and I really doubt the software components and drivers needed to run Steam will be well supported in any other distro. Fedora, RHEL and Debian, for instance, have a policy of not including proprietary drivers or patent-encumbered software in the installation disc/image. It may be harder for the users of those distros to make it work.
In conclusion, it's a big win for the Linux user community but not so for the Free Software community.
Goku > Superman.
I get your point, yes. But... Why create PHP?
That's why you write your résumé like this.
Where do they admit that they spent 1 billion? I remember them committing to a warranty plan that somebody worked out could end up being a billion, but when did they say they actually reached that level of spending?
It is *very* difficult to believe that if they truly hit 30%, they wouldn't stop the factories and nip that right away.
Sorry, perhaps it's your favorite console of all time, but that doesn't deny the truth. The first Xbox had to be killed in less than four years, and the second one is a distant 2nd place, with less than 2% bigger worldwide marketshare than the PS3. Spending so much money for a relatively low success rate would be very stupid, but Microsoft has always had a very long term vision and very deep pockets to help realize it.