Happy Birthday
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Sliverlight 4.0 full screen.
Next: new user dialogues
From: James Jolley on 29 Apr 2010 13:43 On 2010-04-29 18:33:37 +0100, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) said: > Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > >>> *cheers* *party poppers* >>> >>> :-) >> >> We can haz cake? > > Only if the box izz closed. And not if Cameron gets in.
From: Woody on 29 Apr 2010 13:49 Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > > On 2010-04-29, Hugh Browton <useneth@**.not.uk> wrote: > > > > > > Dear All > > > > > > zoara* is looking forward to fizzy pop, cake and jelly when he gets > > > home from > > > work today. > > > > Woot! Have a good one, mate! > > > > Jim > > From me too! Last one without offspring as well, so enjoy it :-) Ooh yes, that is special. -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Peter Ceresole on 29 Apr 2010 14:17 James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > >> We can haz cake? > > > > Only if the box izz closed. > > And not if Cameron gets in. But in that case, *he* is inside, the particle decays and the poison gas is released. My plan. -- Peter
From: James Jolley on 29 Apr 2010 14:24 On 2010-04-29 19:17:37 +0100, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) said: > James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > >>>> We can haz cake? >>> >>> Only if the box izz closed. >> >> And not if Cameron gets in. > > But in that case, *he* is inside, the particle decays and the poison gas > is released. > > My plan. Good. Gets what he deserves.
From: Bruce Horrocks on 29 Apr 2010 14:28
On 29/04/2010 15:55, Richard Tobin wrote: > In article<1jhpmt4.1cd3es96d1b5fN%real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk>, > D.M. Procida<real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > >> And what Dijkstra appears to be saying is that definitions of words are >> not very relevant here. > > That's not how I interpret it. But then I have never seen what context > he wrote it in. > >> I presume - not ever having read Dijkstra - he means something like: >> just as the question to be asked of a submarine is not "can it swim?", >> but "are they any good in water?", so we should be asking different >> questions about machine intelligence. > > No-one ever asks if submarines can swim. The fact that they do ask > whether computers can think shows that they don't mean it in a > narrow definitional sense. Dijkstra's comment reads to me as a > pedantic refusal to engage with the question. I've always considered it a dig at the AI people. A submarine is a tool for a job - there is no need to ask whether it can swim because any answer one might come up with will be pretty much irrelevant to a submarine's function. Likewise a computer: a computer plus a suitable program is a tool for a job. No need to trouble yourself wondering whether, in carrying out that job, the computer is thinking or not. At the time, AI programs were pretty primitive and still mired in the "your fancy-schmancy AI program is still machine code at the end of the day" debate so it has aged somewhat. But it's a good sound bite and clearly makes people think still. -- Bruce Horrocks Surrey England (bruce at scorecrow dot com) |