ZoeTick

Sorry, I should not make fun if English is not your first language. Google birds in the white tower.

fool? Or perhaps just raven mad...

Madelaine McMasters wrote: t to make this seem all the more sinister to those who'd worry, imagine these algorithms were written by women to mimic our abilities... http://www.forbes.com/sites/crossingborders/2012/09/30/why-the-best-spies-in-mossad-and-the-cia-are-women/ I had to laugh at this. It appears that the Head of Mossad hasn't heard that the old saw about women being better multi-taskers than men has been busted wide open, the truth being that men are better multi-taskers when they think it necessary, but are much better decision makers when it comes to prioritising tasks and completing them, whereas the female of the species tends to prevaricate and thus juggles lots of activities, unnecessarily and inefficiently. Oh, and women aren't better liars than men, it's just that men don't particularly listen to what women say, and thus aren't really worried about whether they might be telling the truth or not.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Google and Amazon have been profiling me for years Me too. And they don't have a clue about anything but the public facts. Maybe it's because I deliberately confuse them. Pretty much the same as here, I use multiple identities linked to a range of bank accounts, switch credit cards frequently, run my darknet access through Tor, and lie a lot. You don't HAVE to let Big Brother get a handle on you if you don't want. As long as you understand the way Big Brother works. And since I helped design some of it, I think I have an inkling.

Erm, you're ALL missing the point. The assessment of posts (we'll ignore the non-definition of "worse") in the study was carried out by a LWL Watch Committee Mechanical Turds Turks as I have already highlighted. In case readers don't understand what this is, I would explain it as an internet mechanism whereby desperate anonymous busybodies (probably mainly ESLers) offered opinions for minimal compensation. I can see no explanation of definitive criteria by which they judged the posts. Since there seems to be no prescriptive criteria by which software could assess posts, there is no way that moderators could be replaced by AI (artificially idiotic) software. The algorithm is only potentially of use AFTER assessment of posts is done by a "human". All the study is saying is that a moronic moderator who deletes one post is likely to delete more of that person's posts until the number of deletions reaches the point at which the moderator is required to ban the person.

Don't believe everything you read on the 'net.

kayla Mekanic wrote: It wouldnt hurt to improve and create a new engine. I'm just trying to imagine that line appearing as the mission statement in a business plan. NO

kayla Mekanic wrote: Thats why I said "SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS" Not just about SL2, but features that could make our current SL better if it were ever possible. The current SL is dead. As in buggy and pair dead after the motorcar was invented.

kayla Mekanic wrote: The point of this thread was to talk about thoughts and cool ideas for SL and you people have to go and ruin it. Sorry Ebbe, it's no good making an alt and coming to the forums anonymously expecting us to do your work for you free.

1. There wasn't any point to this thread in the first place. 2. It's not up to you to decide what to do with it.

Shaade Fallen wrote: I feel pretty silly now, but hopefully this'll help someone else in future That's doubtful.

Where did you hear that it is compatible?

NO

NO This is not the right place. Unless you are a masochist who desperately wants to display naivety publicly to seek derision.

Maybe check with VirWox. Or anywhere but here.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: My father routinely wore open toe sandals. He even let me paint his toenails It runs in the family then.

Vulpinus wrote: Nice car! It's a girly car. Whatever colour it is painted.

Vulpinus wrote: In fact, you are clearly more confused then ever because, prior to this statement of yours, I had concluded that you were female, and therefore not a man, imaginary or otherwise. Your conclusion, and overt confusion, has been evident to several of the more aware and informed readers of this thread for its duration, and has been the cause of giggling and guffaws (gender dependent responses) particularly since your incorrect interpretation of names (look up zoetic for illumination and perhaps further contradictory ambiguity) might indicate that arguments you have presented regarding character classification (it is possible to be a real man regardless of sex or sexual orientation) are based on sandy foundations. I, on the other hand, am sure of what I am, and am just as sure of what others are not.

Canoro Philipp wrote: love and sex are not the same, altought it can be combined in some romantic cases. You really don't want to know what I do with bacon sandwiches.

Vulpinus wrote: ZoeTick wrote: Vulpinus wrote: Real men wear what they want, beach or not. Perhaps you are only familiar with imaginary men :smileywink: On the contrary, I have yet to meet any other real men. You seem confused... it sounds like you are disagreeing with me, yet making my point, simultaneously. Please consider: 1. You have yet to meet any other (than whom?) real men; therefore you meet only imaginary men. Ergo my suggestion is correct. Also, you don't get outside much. 2. You consider men who wear open-toed sandals away from the beach to be imaginary men, and the only men you meet wear open toed sandals and are not on a beach. Ergo my suggestion is correct, if only in you own mind. Also, you live in a hot place where sandals are cheap and real men are real men, and have comfortable feet. 3. You are a hobbit, and thus find the very thought of sandals confusing. As an imaginary character, you consider yourself to be real and men (assuming you mean Homo sapiens; are hobbit males called 'men'?) to be imaginary, regardless of their sandal status. Also, you are a figment of you own imagination and thus I should not be talking to you. Get out of my mind! 4. All of the above. I await clarification without wearing my sandals (I am not at the beach) in order not to increase your confusion. The confusion is entirely yours, in considering that real men and imaginary men are non-intersecting sets which comprise the whole universe of men. In fact, I am suggesting that the set of real men has only one member, myself, that imaginary men are the null set, and that the wearing of open-toe sandals is confined to a subset of men who are not real men, which is also a subset of men who are not real men who believe they are real men and can therefore wear whatever they like, including open-toed sandals while not on the beach. Does this clarify the matter?

What's wrong with an airbed? Get a double one, with poseballs.

Syo Emerald wrote: Minority Report for forums? That would be the LWL Watch Committee.

Have I submitted enough posts to this thread yet to determine whether I am likely to be banned in the near future? Or does the title of the thread apply, and make any and all of my efforts superfluous. PS That last word should get the mods and most readers running to their dictionaries, I bet. Inclusive? No! Elitist? Yes!

Vulpinus wrote: ZoeTick wrote: And open-toed sandals? Ewww, no real man would wear them except on a beach. Real men wear what they want, beach or not. Perhaps you are only familiar with imaginary men :smileywink: On the contrary, I have yet to meet any other real men.

Coby Foden wrote: Vulpinus wrote: Real men wear what they want, beach or not. Shouldn't there be an Asian lesbian in that picture - for inclusiveness purposes?