"I'm glad that you like the counting crows, especially the old stuff, but some new stuff too how about me, though personally I don't like the counting crows, especially the old stuff, but some new stuff too how about me that much. I'm just not a fan of interesting."
I don't have any real constructive feedback, but the bot definitely does seem to have trouble parsing multi-thought sentences.
Thank you for the feedback, I haven't implemented any algorithm for parsing (splitting sentences between queries), but it's definitely on my to-do list. :)
This seems like a complete homerun for small to medium sized businesses like the one I'm working in now, provided that's a major focus and their specific needs are met (monitoring, backup, security).
Absolutely. If you are a very large company (lets say >500 people) then you can buy some expensive and complicated tools from the big guys to handle this kind of thing. We are trying to wrap the hard parts of administering desktops into a really easy interface so that i.e. redundant and regula backups are no longer a big worry
I read Snow Crash once a year (usually I listen to the audiobook these days) but I'm thinking of switching up to the Baroque Cycle. I'm glad there's finally an unabridged Cryptonomicon audiobook - for a long time there was not.
We have to assume not until/unless a lawyer shows up and says otherwise.
Rumors to the contrary, we do have a right to free speech, so you can say anything you want in a courtroom without being arrested, unless it causes immeidate danger (e.g. yelling "FIRE!").
When jury selection happens, I have heard that you can be rejected from being on the jury if you say (essentially) that you don't agree with the law. Not agreeing with the law is precisely what leads to jury nullification.
Good point. And I'm sure if the court is in session, talking out of turn about anything (including jury nullification) would get you held in contempt of court.
So, saying you'll be arrested for talking about jury nullification in court doesn't really give an accurate picture. Though it is probably technically true.
It's just CC, not "open source," but there are plenty of places (i.e. Flickr) where you can share your assets for others to use. I've had people contact me about using some of my photos in books they're publishing (wasn't necessary, given the CC license, but gave me a warm fuzzy and was appreciated), and I've contacted photographers about using their work for a wedding invitation I was making. But many of the kinds of things that are actually useful have the kind of specific requirements that make them not fun to create and share for free, so Shutterstock makes lots of money.
In that realm, one example I've seen pop up a lot where some kind of video needs to be shown off is "Big Buck Bunny" [1], a project to build an open movie using blender.
Probably from a technical lawyery standpoint that's not enforceably clear, but from the standpoint of someone who uses paid creative assets as part of my regular work, it's certainly clear enough that I could feel fine using them and moving on with my life, and knowing if I was stepping over the line.
Is this effective at stopping attacks (given that it is public knowledge), or is it mostly a measure to annoy users into updating their passwords to something less cumbersome?
Also you don't need an e-mail address to register, and some people don't care about karma, so some people like me just create a new account whenever my saved login info is lost for any reason. Not necessarily using throwaway accounts in the traditional sense, but not overly concerned about maintaining a single account either. I've probably made 6-7 Reddit accounts over a few years [and 2 HN accounts over a longer time frame].
I don't have any real constructive feedback, but the bot definitely does seem to have trouble parsing multi-thought sentences.