You would first have to convince me that computers "understand" anything.

I'm sure that if you come up with a definition of "understand" that allows computers to "understand" I will be able to come up with a word or words that better fits your description than "understand".

When that happens, the signal to noise ratio on FB will become so bad that even people who own their own profiles won't be believed to be the "real" person.

So there doesn't appear to be a down side to just not playing.

This is very similar to a lot of these types of "games" - your best bet appears to never play.

Rules of war exist when some force or forces have an overpowering superiority, as well as soft spots (whether they be population, infrastructure, resources, or heritage) they would like to be off limits.

The agreement between these Powers become the "Rules" of war.

For forces that do not have an overpowering superiority or do not have the "status quo" soft spots, these "Rules" can make little to no sense.

On the other hand, if the overwhelmingly powerful can have everyone play nicely by the rules they have created, they have already won.

So, there are competing opinions of rules of war. Of course, one opinion that is universally held is that *my* rules of war are morally defensible while *yours* are not.

Well, good!

We on the internet really do appreciate that!

Unfortunately it only takes a tenth of a percent to make reasonable people skittish.

I guess it depends on how closed your enviornment is how many griefers (or is that Reavers?) you run into.

Of course you are. You just want to distort the meaning so that you don't fit.

One can calmly, with a smile, advocate just about anything. That's a "pretend moderate" voice. One *seems* reasonable, affable and moderate - yet if another actually digs into the meat the animal is rabid.

Whether or not this accurately describes your position is left to the readers.

Regards.

I actually have a similar question to the person who you responded to, but on a different level.

As far as utility of expressing ideas of various types, which do you find best? Is it always one or another for certain types of mental activities? Does one or another have a richer set of aphorisms or ability to express types of concepts not available to the others?

I guess I am looking at what affordances one provides over the other.

Regards.

Well, all I know is I'm not fixed precision. :)

Come back to me when we can create such a perfect system...

All the ones here seem to have giant holes, and the more complex, the more holes they seem to have.

If you think normal users are rough on a system, perhaps just a thought on what entirely hostile users would be like might persuade you of the folly of trying to control everyone and everything.

Wrong story, sorry!

Do people feel that this agreement would allow Google to do any of the following:

1) Use a picture you gave them for their own advertising purposes.

2) Sell a picture you gave them for advertising purposes of their business partners.

3) Create a derivative work that uses your uploaded music in a video on YouTube.

4) Publish your content in dead tree form and sell it.

If not, what prevents them?

From a naive reading of the policy, all of these would be acceptable uses.

Yes.

The nerd rage comes in when you are told that you can't, shouldn't or that it is illegal to do so -- and the Masters won't.

As with most closed source proprietary software.

To pretend that the same ethos can even apply to a commercial closed source business is absurd.

Please give me a list of keywords to search for to back up your allegation.

I feel you are probably provably full of shit, so a list of key words or names could prove you right.

I doubt they will be forthcoming.

You can't "get through" to a politician in the US higher than your local city council.

They have become supremely isolated to any individuals issues. They simply don't have to care to get re-elected, so why should they? They have a good thing going, from their perspective. People even still think it's respectable - at least, respectable enough to continue *paying for*.

Since one could define a softness scale for flower petals, this is scientifically testable.

Since we do define ppm's for airborne chemicals, this also appears scientifically testable.

Regards.

Wait, what "international trade laws" are being broken here?

Yes, it seems that for certain business models the global economy is indeed becoming global and they are having a hard time competing.

It's too bad that their model seems to need price discrimination to survive, because if that is true they won't survive.

Hey, I'm only telling you how it is, I'm not endorsing either side.

The corporation does not *deserve* to make money, nor do they *deserve* to stifle the global economy just to they can make more money.

There is no obligation on courts or individuals to support such a failed model.

Your talks about "how it is" are more "how the corporations wish it would be.

And as such, you come off as an apologist for the status quo and the current law set.

Regards.