|
|
 |
Babooshka |
+ |
Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at 11:55 PM Adam just ranted on how we should adopt lie detector tests instead of juries. However, lie detector tests can EASILY be cheated. During the calibration period at the beginning of the polygraph test, the blood pressure can increased by some physical maneuvers, and therefor throwing off the whole test as a whole. Nice try Adam. Adam's passionate. He's entertaining. He's artistic. But once again he's wrong. Where's drew on this one?? It's almost Thanksgiving, cranberry sauce rants are genius though. —Babooshka |
|
|
|
|
HazeTrooper |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 12:09 AM Actually he was saying that we should invest some serious coin in a better and more accurate version of the polygraph. That said, I agree that it can be dissed. I actually lied a ton during the one and only time I was given a poly - And passed. Although this wasn't a six hour 'You killed your wife and unborn kid and we know it' poly, just a lame condition-of-employment test where the test-examiner-dude wanted to go to lunch about a thousand times more than he wanted to waste time talking to me. As far as the current poly goes, more than truth versus untruth it is more a matter of when to tell the untruth versus the truth... —HazeTrooper |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 1:07 AM Although i love Adam and his rants, some of them are nonesense and won't hold up in the real world. I wonder how he would hold up in a real debate about issues w/ someone like O'reilly. (sorry, but despite the bad press about him lately, he's the only one iI can think of that debates well)
He'll probably do what most comics do when their opinions are challenged, veer off to a completely illogical but comedic tangent that, while funny, does not answer the challenge but dodges it.(for example, "but still..." lol)
—crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
Colin |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 1:10 AM Adam is not a "debater". He rants. Sheesh. —Colin |
|
|
|
|
greymatters |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 1:21 AM You guys need to calm down, Adam got the idea for the lie detector with the retinas and all that shit from the movie The Recruit with Colin Farrell and Al Pacino. Let Adam be Adam, and let's all be the simpleton sploozers that we are. —greymatters |
|
|
|
|
HazeTrooper |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 1:38 AM Yep - Probably. Or maybe he would reach out and give that asshole-bigot elitist Nazi a nice Southpaw smack in the mandible. Then maybe he would beat 'Billy' down with Ron Jeremy's latex cock... On camera. But Christmas is coming soon - And all we can do is hope...
—HazeTrooper |
|
|
|
|
smwalker |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 4:25 AM They are coming up with a new way of lie detecting, Saw a piece on it on 60 Minutes, here is the guys site detailing it: http://www.brainwavescience.com/
—smwalker |
|
|
|
|
Erlog |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 5:12 AM
Edited Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 5:19 AM All you guys stop conceding to the original poster. Adam's rant was fine. Adam wasn't saying we should use existing lie detector tests. He said that we should invest all the cash that goes in to maintaining our sucky, at best, jury system and put it in to inventing a lie detector that's accurate more than 99%. Our jury system is probably not 99% accurate, and anything better would be a step up. And it's not like you can argue logic on his key point of, "If we had a good lie detector we wouldn't need juries." We wouldn't need them, plain and simple. The key to his statement, that you missed, is that the current lie detector is junk and that he says we need to invest in a proper one. Don't fly off the handle and go OMG OMG IMPOSSIBLE. All of Adam's rants make sense for the most part and I can easily see society heading this direction if a good lie detector was invented. —Erlog |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 10:08 AM Adam is pretty insightful at times, but not always right. This is one of those topics I think he has a very valid point. If there was a way to ascertain truth without needing a jury, why not try and develop it? " I wonder how he would hold up in a real debate about issues w/ someone like O'reilly. (sorry, but despite the bad press about him lately, he's the only one iI can think of that debates well)" I've watched O'Reilly debate. He mostly resorts to authoritarian bullying whenever he's on the ropes. I'd actually enjoy "debating" him because I'd bet with my stoicism and confidence I could set him off in just a few minutes. I don't know how Adam would fair against him, but I'd wager good money an informed Dr. Drew could run circles around O'Reilly any day of the week. —clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
JB82 |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 2:09 PM Another thing Adam forgets in his jury vs. lie detector rant was that the 6th amendment is the right to be tried by a jury. Anything in the Constitution is very hard to near impossible to change. —JB82 |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 2:12 PM You could always use the argument that, if the founding fathers knew what kind of retards could get jury duty... Well, you're right nevertheless. —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
j4k3 |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 5:28 PM As much as I hate to say this but the GREAT Adam would be no much for someone like O'Reilly. His views would be squashed! But it would be fun though. I'm thinking Adam would debate his way through below-the-belt jokes and cocky comebacks. —j4k3 |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 7:18 PM The Sixth Amendment basically states that a jury trial must be offered, but it need not be accepted. In many cases, a motion can be made to have the verdict decided by the judge instead. I'd imagine, naturally, that any person who opted for a jury instead of the propose lie detector would basically be admitting they can't pass the test. A jury would take note of that, I'm sure. —clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 9:16 PM clodhopper, you are one of those "letter of the law" types. Oreilly comes from the "spirit of the law" corner, that's why he seems frustrated a lot on his show and dislikes lawyers much. Adam and O'reilly's views are actually kinda similar as they both try to push common sense. —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 10:34 PM Religion-bashing is fun, but when you look at history, Christian values and morals were the Founding Father's guide in making our Constitution, the same Constitution that allows us to make fun of religion. SHWEET, isn't it? —savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 12:15 PM "clodhopper, you are one of those "letter of the law" types. Oreilly comes from the "spirit of the law" corner, that's why he seems frustrated a lot on his show and dislikes lawyers much. Adam and O'reilly's views are actually kinda similar as they both try to push common sense." Actually, I'm not a "letter of the law" person. I merely pointed out that fact because it was relevant to the discussion; I wasn't endorsing it. In fact, I generally loathe lawyers as well. I also fundementally disagree with many laws currently on the books in both literal wording AND spirit. The United States has been crushed by a mountain of unnecessary legislation which makes us neither safer nor stronger. And I cringe whenever I hear "common sense". What the hell is "common sense"? It seems that it's a crutch for people to avoid being able to substantiate their views with evidence. If just kinda makes sense, it's true according to common sense. Common sense tends to fail though--and what's considered "common sense" isn't universal anyway. So I say, to hell with this ambiguous "common sense" notion.
—clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
anona |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 12:26 PM "the U.S. Constitution is in no way based on the Christian religion." -george washington but i dont think anyone in this thread was bashing religion anyways —anona |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 1:14 PM
Edited Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 1:15 PM At this point, Adam's rant is a bit irrelevant. He's technically right, that if we did have an infallible lie detector test, we could get rid of juries. But, that's far off from reality now. Sure, we could invest a shitload of money in developing a lie detector test, but I think that's much farther off than people realize.
Lie detector tests have come a long ways since their origins, but it has a lot more to do with the training involved in the person who conducts the tests, as well as what sort of questions are asked, and understanding what certain signs mean. Without an expert conducting the lie detector test, the results become more or less worthless. The problem is human now, and it would take a new design from the ground up to eliminate or minimize that human element. So, maybe far far off in the future, but I just get the feeling Adam thinks were a lot closer to that point than we are technologically. —piesore |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 1:49 PM
Edited Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 1:49 PM Religion-bashing is fun, but when you look at history, Christian values and morals were the Founding Father's guide in making our Constitution, the same Constitution that allows us to make fun of religion. SHWEET, isn't it? "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." -Thomas Jefferson Greatest quote EVER. —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
luna_mica |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 2:11 PM
Edited Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 2:13 PM You just sit here and bash religion, why don't you go out there and do something? Are you closet religion-haters? What's going on here? And another thing; the founding fathers wrote the Constitution to protect your right to think what you want because they valued freedom over imposing their beliefs on those to come. Think about that for a second. —luna_mica |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 6:40 PM And I cringe whenever I hear "common sense". What the hell is "common sense"?
-clodhopper If you have to ask, trust me, you don't have it. —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 6:56 PM You just sit here and bash religion, why don't you go out there and do something? Are you closet religion-haters? What's going on here? And another thing; the founding fathers wrote the Constitution to protect your right to think what you want because they valued freedom over imposing their beliefs on those to come. Think about that for a second. -luna_mica The leftist intolerant assholes here are just sore that the election was decided by morality and values, things that are like poison to them. —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
goodtimes3 |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 7:01 PM
Edited Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 7:02 PM go to hell dumbshit. either that or quit talking out your ass. you know nothing —goodtimes3 |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 7:03 PM "And I cringe whenever I hear "common sense". What the hell is "common sense"?
-clodhopper If you have to ask, trust me, you don't have it." Good. I embrace logic and rational thought which is vastly superior to any sort of intuitive knowledge. That is why you are so far behind intellectually. "The leftist intolerant assholes here are just sore that the election was decided by morality and values, things that are like poison to them." Not everyone here is leftist. I know you can't grasp politics beyond a two-ended spectrum, but your limitation is not mine. The "morals and values" that decided this election (I loathe the fact such irrational people claim a monopoly on something as important as morals and values) are depraved and destructive values that go against the very foundation of individual liberty that has allowed the United States to flourish. —clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 7:06 PM "You just sit here and bash religion, why don't you go out there and do something?" Do what? "Are you closet religion-haters?" No, I openly hate it and for good reason. It's a profoundly harmful force that handicaps the very resource humans need to survive: their minds. It's completely reasonable to hate something that attacks the very essence of what it is to be human. "And another thing; the founding fathers wrote the Constitution to protect your right to think what you want because they valued freedom over imposing their beliefs on those to come. Think about that for a second." I think about it every day. My opponents in the Republican and Democratic party are the ones who have not.
—clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
daveman |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 7:39 PM I'm an atheist, but I don't hate religion. The truth is that even though religion causes all sorts of problems, it also brings about a great deal of good--even though it is based on the ridiculous idea that there is this thing called "God"--by giving people positive moral codes to live by, by bringing people together into communities, by getting people together for charity work etc... you can list all the bad things that religion has caused, of course, from religious wars to the retarded rejection of new ideas, but if you think that religion is the only human institution that causes problems then speaking of retarded you'd better walk yourself down the hall to the special ed classroom and try finger-painting instead of philosophy. The Nazis weren't particularly religious, and look at all the shit that they pulled. People will always find a way to do bad and/or stupid things, and will justify those things with whatever is handy, whether it be religion or politics or science or whatever. There's only one aspect of religion (or at least Christianity) that may predispose religious people to act more badly or stupidly than a non-religious person, and that's the whole thing where most Christians are 100% sure that their take on the world is completely right, and that people who don't believe it are going to burn for eternity--sounds like a recipie for intolerance and close-mindedness to me. BUT--there are also elements of Christianity that stress loving everyone, not judging (leaving judgement to god)... the problem is the evil morons who only pay attention to certain parts of their religion--the ones that allow them to look down on other people and close their minds to the world--while ignoring the parts that tell them to love and not judge. In other words the people are flawed more than the religion is flawed, and if those fucktards didn't have their religion to justify their asshole-ishness then they'd find something else that would let them heap their shit on the world. But just so i don't loose any of my atheist street cred let me hasten to add that God is a silly idea that everyone would laugh at if they hadn't had it drilled into their heads since they were two years old. But like i said i don't have a problem with it at all, as long as believers act like decent, open-minded human beings (as opposed to tying gay guys to fences and beating them to death "cuz gawd says homer-sexualitee is a sin durf durf") —daveman |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 9:19 PM "Are you closet religion-haters?"
No, I openly hate it and for good reason. It's a profoundly harmful force that handicaps the very resource humans need to survive: their minds. It's completely reasonable to hate something that attacks the very essence of what it is to be human. - clodhopper Now the thin mask is slipping on clodhopper. He's the type of guy who thinks he's smarter than everyone but can't get laid so he blames whatever is available.
He also probably thinks that because he is so advanced intellectually, he's entitled to disrespect everyone else and does not answer to societies moral codes, kinda like a serial killer (can you fuck and kill Colin for me?). What an arrogant asshole. —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 9:50 PM "Now the thin mask is slipping on clodhopper. He's the type of guy who thinks he's smarter than everyone but can't get laid so he blames whatever is available." Holy shit! I mean...wow...no one has ever understood me so clearly. You know, what you said, it's made me think... Maybe I should turn to Christ and opt for salvation... He'll help me get laid! . . . . . HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh wait, you're completely wrong and couldn't compose an accurate profile of a person if your life depended on it. I'm not so pretentious to pretend I have any understanding of a person when I could very easily be manipulating you to react exactly how I want you to. I can just let you fill in the gaps and destroy your own credibility. "He also probably thinks that because he is so advanced intellectually, he's entitled to disrespect everyone else and does not answer to societies moral codes, kinda like a serial killer (can you fuck and kill Colin for me?). What an arrogant asshole." Society's moral codes are a joke. Society attempts to impose non-existant duties on me through all sorts of means (taxes, selective service, etc.) I simply would like to be left alone to my own aims and I'd be about as peaceful of a person as a person can be. That being said, I'll never happen and I may never be able to live in simple peace. I know that the average follower of Judeo-Christian morality can't comprehend the ability of a person to see murder as objectively wrong without the threat of divine force, but again, it's not my fault billions of people worldwide have turned off their minds in favor of a more comforting authoritarian morality that openly contradicts itself. I also don't care that you think I'm arrogant or an asshole. I KNOW people like me aren't driving society into the ground. I also know people like you are. When it crashes and burns chances are you'll be still be clueless as to why. Hopefully by then I'll be able to distance myself from the self-destruction —clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 9:56 PM
Edited Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 10:00 PM "The truth is that even though religion causes all sorts of problems, it also brings about a great deal of good--even though it is based on the ridiculous idea that there is this thing called "God"--by giving people positive moral codes to live by, by bringing people together into communities, by getting people together for charity work etc..." Dr. Drew alluded to this as being a good aspect of religion during Adam's rant, but I have to disagree with him. A moral code with a foundation in selflessness and altruism isn't a good moral code. The fact it may bring about good in people has more to do with the natural benevolence people have and not the moral code it espouses. The fact an institution like religion needs to dictate morality and that people can't derive it on their own is a frightening though. Religion doesn't really promote good moral values, it just imposes them. Moral Christians act morally because they believe they have to, not because they've reasoned the actions that are immoral are in fact immoral. I don't like what religion has done in the field of ethics and I don't care much for the ethics they support, even if they manage to get a few things right. They're still bad. "but if you think that religion is the only human institution that causes problems then speaking of retarded you'd better walk yourself down the hall to the special ed classroom and try finger-painting instead of philosophy. The Nazis weren't particularly religious, and look at all the shit that they pulled. People will always find a way to do bad and/or stupid things, and will justify those things with whatever is handy, whether it be religion or politics or science or whatever." You're missing the key connection between the Nazis and the various oppressive religions. What did they have in common? Collectivism. Both perpetrated their evils by subjugating the individual to the desires of the collective, whether it be the Fatherland or the Church and the Almighty. The greatest evils occur when people embrace collectivism and reject individualism. I hate both religion and the Nazis because of this common element. "the problem is the evil morons who only pay attention to certain parts of their religion--the ones that allow them to look down on other people and close their minds to the world--while ignoring the parts that tell them to love and not judge." But those certain aspects are the core aspects. To a Christian, knowledge is something independant of evidence, proof, or logic. What is right and true is right and true BECAUSE IT IS SAID TO BE. This is a foundation of Christianity and it's not the flaw of its followers that created that. The fact some Christians have an "open-mind" is because they've partially rejected Christian epitomology and Christianity's authoritarian ethics. I must disagree with you: it's much more the flaw of the religion than the followers. —clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 10:01 PM yep, now i'm sure. clodhopper is an ARROGANT ASSHOLE. We get it now. If you read between the line in clodhoppers post, you can see that he is a closet HOMO, mad at religion and society for not accepting his FAG-ness. Is that the right word clod? Calling you an ASSHOLE may be more accurate than I intended... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!! ( i type-laugh better too) —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 12:28 AM "I know that the average follower of Judeo-Christian morality can't comprehend the ability of a person to see murder as objectively wrong without the threat of divine force" - clodhopper Can you believe the CONCIET of this douchebag?! He's saying that Christians think MURDER is OK, but won't do it because of FEAR of HELL. What a DICK. In the end, clodhopper is just a HATER... —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
HazeTrooper |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 12:40 AM ...Can you believe the CONCIET of this douchebag?! He's saying that Christians think MURDER is OK, but won't do it because of FEAR of HELL. What a DICK. Unless of course - It's the brutal murder of a sexually confused 17 year old male in Missouri... Then they're are absolutely sure that not only will the murderer (I mean, God fearing young man) get no jail time - But also become a local celebrity! They will get to ride in the back-seat of the giant American-made convertible, complete with bull horns mounted on the hood, during the town's annual parade - And folks like 'Bubba', 'Little Pete' and 'Stinky' will argue about who's daughter that muderous (I mean civic-minded young man) get to impregnate first!!! No fear of hell at all...
—HazeTrooper |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 12:46 AM Unless of course - It's the brutal murder of a sexually confused 17 year old male in Missouri... -HazeTrooper sexually confused - You mean FAG? —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
HazeTrooper |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 12:52 AM I guess maybe I do. It is wonderful to note that your are so amazingly intolerant, that anybody who follows a different path than what you deem to be correct and moral is a deviant. —HazeTrooper |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 3:53 PM "Can you believe the CONCIET of this douchebag?! He's saying that Christians think MURDER is OK, but won't do it because of FEAR of HELL. What a DICK." No, I never said Christians thought murder is okay, only that they couldn't defend their position (which is correct) without making some reference to the divine. It's really amazing how wrong you can be with your assumptions and how consistently you go back to them. It's pretty funny actually. Toying with you is a joy. "In the end, clodhopper is just a HATER..." Just of you and your other lemming friends.
—clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 5:40 PM clodhopper, only a fag can say "toying with you is a joy"... —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:15 PM
Edited Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:15 PM yep, i wanna blow you away with a shotgun. —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:21 PM crumple is pregnant. —ZT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:32 PM great!! clod has turned into a mini-ZT. i like you better this way rather than the pompous asshole you were/are? lol —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:33 PM crumple1 masturbates to wads of dog hair from his butthole. —ZT |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:36 PM ZT clod thinks i'm a Micheal Moore fan. shouldn't you be nice to me now? lol
—crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:41 PM alright i'm getting bored. see you later. haze,zt,clod, i KNOW you will miss me when i go.
until next time.... —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:45 PM Crumple is an excellent example of what happens when an individual rejects reason. Unable to comprehend ideas beyond the terms which he/she has defined reality, he/she must resort to a variety of fallcies including but not limited to: Argumentum Ad Verecundiam, arguments from intimidation, begging the question, pigeonholing, attacking straw men, introducing spurious superficialities, and--the most degrading of them all--homily ad hominem. I blame government's fascist control the public school system and the inability of the system to properly educate and foster the tools needed for rational thought. That and some people are just douchebags.
—clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Saturday, November 13, 2004 at 3:23 PM Well, it's the internet too, most people don't pull this kind of shit in person. —piesore |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Monday, November 15, 2004 at 3:03 AM true. you guys yap like this in person, i'd kick your nerd asses... —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Monday, November 15, 2004 at 9:38 AM Ha. It's easy to say you could kick such and such's ass until you realize you haven't actually SEEN any of us and have no idea what self-defense skills we may have. —clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
Johnny |
+ |
Monday, November 15, 2004 at 5:06 PM Myself, I have extremely effective nunchuck skills. —Johnny |
|
|
|
|
mahoney |
+ |
Monday, November 15, 2004 at 10:50 PM He's totally Right. How Dare you lol He is saying that we should focus on that technology because in 5 years we could perfect it. —mahoney |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TortillaFactory |
+ |
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 2:52 PM ........just to get BoT, if that's possible... Yes, lie detector tests can be easily cheated. Most notably, psychopaths can pass easily because they don't believe they are lying. (At least, that's what I've heard. Unless I'm mistaken, polygraph tests can only pick up your reaction to your own lie...what the hell else are they going to do, read your mind?) I've been told I'm a good liar. I've also been told I'm a good actress. This is because I can convince myself that what I'm saying is true. It's not really a "talent" per se, although I suppose some people just can't do it. (ie, some of the stupider bogus callers... "how old are you?" "uhhhhhh...") But I imagine you can learn, at least to an extent, how to control your physiological reaction to what you are saying. While I don't necessarily agree with what Adam is saying, I agree in principle. Polygraph tests should not be used as definitive evidence, necessarily, but it might be nice to have the information regardless. It's possible that the data will merely muddy the waters, but...what are you gonna do? Yeah, but still. - TortillaFactory, still posting from a junior college comp lab, dammit. —TortillaFactory |
|
|
|
|
piesore |
+ |
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 6:17 PM That was my point, that it takes huge amounts of trained human interpetation to make these machines work, and even then there is still a reasonable chance of fallibility. We are much farther off from obtaining the techonology Adam suggests than we think. —piesore |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Wednesday, November 24, 2004 at 9:51 AM Yeah, Adam has this idea that if we just work at it hard enough and want it hard enough, we can invent it. Not all problems work that way. —Dark Laith |
|