Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Time to create a distinction? (Score 1) 80

I think you misunderstand me. I am not arguing against AI here in any way. And yes, yes, pattern recognition belongs to the spontaneity of the understanding, which means that the understanding imposes its patterns according to its categories (see Kant's first critique).

Comment Re:Many believe that we live in a computer simulat (Score 1) 1042

And they're nuts. Humanity has a solid evolutionary record on this planet. ...

You're essentially saying that the world is not an illusion because it's not an illusion. That's not an argument.

Like it or not, the simulation thesis, or the malicious demon thesis, or the veil of Maya, or the various theses of the various Gnostics, etc. basically hold that sensation itself is an illusion, so when you point to evolution (etc.), you demonstrate nothing. You need to demonstrate somehow that sensation is veridical, and that proof has eluded consensus for quite sometime.

Comment Re:Stupid comments aside... (Score 3, Interesting) 70

Viruses. In English, at least. In Latin, it would be vira. Third declination, not second.

And while I can at least understand that people who don't understand Latin but somehow learned that -us becomes -i in plural (yes, if it's 2nd and masculine instead of neuter), where the fuck does that second "i" come from?

Your answer is confusing, even though the result is correct.

Morphologically speaking, "vira" would be the proper plural precisely because "virus" is a second (not third) declension neuter noun.

Yet, it "virus" like "water" is uncountable so this plural is unattested.

But why do we always end up in this same Latin grammar and philology lesson?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Aww, if you make me cry anymore, you'll fog up my helmet." -- "Visionaries" cartoon