>> ^LadyDeath:

Is not about Apple products and such a thing. This is about a human being who left behind a wife and his children. A person who battled with cancer.RIP Steve ,you made world a better place and you will be truly missed.


Actually, it's not about a man who left behind a wife and kids. I don't know Jobs wife and kids, I don't even think I've even seen a picture of them. Thousands of people with wives and kids die every day, and we don't mourn their passing.

His death means something to people because of the companies and products he helped create. There's nothing wrong with that; if we mourned every random person (regardless of the individual tragedy to their friends and families) we would spend our lives in grief.

Jobs was a visionary and a leader. Whether you liked his vision or not is irrelevant.

And @VoodooV, I don't think he single-handedly did anything. There may have been scores of engineers, designers, etc behind him, but he was the one with balls to risk it on their vision. You say if not him, someone else, well that's true of any great achievement (Crick and Watson with DNA, Newton with pretty much most of science, Hillary with Everest, all had people close behind them). It doesn't matter, what matters is that he did it.

RIP Steve.

>> ^blankfist:

I'd like to booya all over Hermoin... er, she's of age now right?


It's all about being in the right country at the time of the deed blankfist Go to the Vatican: Age of consent is 12 there... And I am quite certain Emma Watson is older than 12...

Thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by dag:
I thought they sounded German. But this is fantastic. Somehow meld this with Watson's breadth - and we're on the road to strong AI. *promote

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I thought they sounded German. But this is fantastic. Somehow meld this with Watson's breadth - and we're on the road to strong AI. *promote

>> ^skinnydaddy1:

>> ^sme4r:
A desk job? That really sucks, he must have saved the British government a cool million dollars or (or like 6 pounds, 7 quid these days) and some shame by landing it on a boat rather then crashing it out at sea.>> ^oritteropo:
One of the comments tells the rest of the story:
"In 2007, Britain’s National Archives released a number of Royal Navy files, and the second inquiry report was finally made public. Noting that Watson had completed only 75 percent of his training before he had been sent to sea, the board blamed Watson’s inexperience, and his commanders for assigning him an airplane “not fully prepared for the sortie,” a reference to radio problems. Nonetheless, Watson was reprimanded and given a desk job.


Well sort of, He saved the plane (Good) he saved his life (Great job) but as for money.
When the Alraigo, with the jet atop the containers, docked at Santa Cruz de Tenerife, a horde of reporters was on hand. The ship’s crew and owners filed a salvage claim and were awarded some £570,000 ($1.14 million at the time) as compensation for the “rescue.” When Watson returned to the Illustrious, a Board of Inquiry essentially did nothing. But when the Illustrious returned to port, Watson underwent a second Board of Inquiry.
It kind of sucks that the Capt of the cargo ship was more interested in the salvage claim than anything else. (This is my personal opinion and it may be that the capt was a good guy but instead of waiting for the royal navy he made damn sure he got to a friendly port to guarantee his money.)


Do you have any idea how much a Harrier costs?

Nonetheless, Watson was reprimanded and given a desk job.

It was even more embarrassing when Watson's desk landed on the same ship a year later.

>> ^sme4r:

A desk job? That really sucks, he must have saved the British government a cool million dollars or (or like 6 pounds, 7 quid these days) and some shame by landing it on a boat rather then crashing it out at sea.>> ^oritteropo:
One of the comments tells the rest of the story:
"In 2007, Britain’s National Archives released a number of Royal Navy files, and the second inquiry report was finally made public. Noting that Watson had completed only 75 percent of his training before he had been sent to sea, the board blamed Watson’s inexperience, and his commanders for assigning him an airplane “not fully prepared for the sortie,” a reference to radio problems. Nonetheless, Watson was reprimanded and given a desk job.



Well sort of, He saved the plane (Good) he saved his life (Great job) but as for money.

When the Alraigo, with the jet atop the containers, docked at Santa Cruz de Tenerife, a horde of reporters was on hand. The ship’s crew and owners filed a salvage claim and were awarded some £570,000 ($1.14 million at the time) as compensation for the “rescue.” When Watson returned to the Illustrious, a Board of Inquiry essentially did nothing. But when the Illustrious returned to port, Watson underwent a second Board of Inquiry.

It kind of sucks that the Capt of the cargo ship was more interested in the salvage claim than anything else. (This is my personal opinion and it may be that the capt was a good guy but instead of waiting for the royal navy he made damn sure he got to a friendly port to guarantee his money.)

A desk job? That really sucks, he must have saved the British government a cool million dollars or (or like 6 pounds, 7 quid these days) and some shame by landing it on a boat rather then crashing it out at sea.>> ^oritteropo:

One of the comments tells the rest of the story:
"In 2007, Britain’s National Archives released a number of Royal Navy files, and the second inquiry report was finally made public. Noting that Watson had completed only 75 percent of his training before he had been sent to sea, the board blamed Watson’s inexperience, and his commanders for assigning him an airplane “not fully prepared for the sortie,” a reference to radio problems. Nonetheless, Watson was reprimanded and given a desk job.

One of the comments tells the rest of the story:

"In 2007, Britain’s National Archives released a number of Royal Navy files, and the second inquiry report was finally made public. Noting that Watson had completed only 75 percent of his training before he had been sent to sea, the board blamed Watson’s inexperience, and his commanders for assigning him an airplane “not fully prepared for the sortie,” a reference to radio problems. Nonetheless, Watson was reprimanded and given a desk job.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'emma, watson, hermione, harry, potter, david, letterman' to 'emma watson, hermione, harry potter, david letterman' - edited by xxovercastxx

I upvoted your comment, because I agree with the sentiment. But I think the angry atheist still has a point, too. His claim to fame is being a loudmouth, which doesn't serve him very well when he tries to make a point on a sensitive issue that not many people are good at considering.

We've had more and more of these kerfluffles lately and I expect they will become even more frequent. Another example is the Dawkins vs Watson nonsense that happened not too long ago.

And if interaction between feminists and non-feminists weren't complex enough, even feminism itself is splintering as new generations of women are entering the fold and the old guard is becoming irrelevant. Such dynamics are extremely complex, especially when people aren't able to objectively look at the world and their role in it.

So, I upvoted both your comment and the video. I think they are both right, to a point, and also wrong, to a point.

>> ^hpqp:

Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.
For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.
Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

>>@bmacs27: marbles
Who flew planes into the WTC on 9/11? By the way, I read "Which Path to Persia".
Have you heard of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion?"



Haha, let me guess. You have a argument to make that the "Which Path to Persia" manual is fraudulent?

So is that 9/11 question troll bait or what? Who made all the abnormal amount of Wall Street put bets on American Airlines and United between Sept 6 and 7. And on American Sept 10 at the Chicago Board of Options Exchange. Better yet, who sent US government made anthrax with hand written notes saying "Allah is great" to Congress men who were likely to oppose the Patriot Act?

Oh the alleged hijackers (courtesy of Paul Joseph Watson/Infowars.com):
Every single shred of evidence concerning the alleged 9/11 hijackers points to the fact that they were patsies controlled by informants working for the US government.
The US Special Operations Command’s Able Danger program identified the hijackers and their accomplices long before 9/11, but when the head of the program, Colonel Anthony Shaffer, tried to pass the information on to the 9/11 Commission, he was gagged and slandered and the vital information his team had passed on was ignored and buried.
Curt Weldon, Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, documented how the US government tracked the hijackers’ movements before 9/11.
Louai al-Sakka, the man who trained six of the hijackers, was a CIA informant. A number of the other alleged hijackers were trained at US air bases. In the months prior to 9/11, alleged hijackers Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi were renting rooms in a house owned and lived in by an FBI informant.
In a 2002 article entitled The Hijackers We Let Escape, Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman documented how, “The CIA tracked two suspected terrorists to a Qaeda summit in Malaysia in January 2000, then looked on as they re-entered America and began preparations for September 11.”
The fact that there were numerous Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists involved in the pre-planning stages of 9/11 is unsurprising given former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds’ testimony that Bin Laden was working for the US right up until the day of 9/11.

On the very morning of 9/11, the money man behind the alleged hijackers, Pakistan’s ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with U.S. government and intelligence officials.
Indeed, even after 9/11, the so-called spiritual leader of the very hijackers who allegedly slammed Flight 77 into the Pentagon, Anwar al-Awlaki, was himself invited to dine with Pentagon top brass mere months after the attack.

<img src="http://www.celebritystomach.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Emma-Watson-Stomach-e1306778221843.jpgg" width="598" height="559" alt="Ten Points to Gryffindor" />

Ten Points to Gryffindor.

>> ^spoco2:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/budzos" title="member since October 30th, 2006" class="profilelink">budzos Why do you say that? Is it not amazing to have a self contained machine being able to listen to, understand, and correctly answer natural language questions better than humans?
Is it not difficult to see that this is a pretty amazing step along the way to creating machines that can converse with us with spoken word like robots in Science Fiction Films?
How is that not exciting?


I agree with the sentiment of the answer! AI has been my sci-fi hope for as long as I can remember. Probably why I thought "The moon is the harsh mistress" is the best book ever. When I was back in college, one of the papers I wrote was on the current state of AI, and the likelihood of the AI we see in TV and movies coming to fruition. It is amazing, and frustratingly slow field of discovery. It has taken 30 years just to begin to start to code machines to interpret language. In pursuit of this, we have come to a better understanding of how complex human speech is, and how powerful the brain is in understanding this very complex arena.

With that said, Watson doesn't "understand" or answer questions better than humans. There are many clips of the respondents just failing to beat Watson to the buzzer, most likely possessing the correct answer. Watson is the same level of impressive as the normal champs, but with mechanical reflexes. Give the humans robotic arms, and I am sure it would be a level playing field. Or, give Watson the questions one word like the humans have to do. He gets his input all in one text file and starts parsing for information before the humans have had the entirety of the question read to them (though, Watson's speed might be as such that this is trivial).

Also, as of yet, computers don't have "understanding". They can answer questions in a way that seems to make them intelligible, but they don't understand. Understanding comes from consciousness. It is still only understands the wold in terms of syntax. It is able to apply this language of syntax to properly answer trivia, but has no understanding of what the question even means. It doesn't have any experiences which are necessary for understanding. It is like if you train a parrot to respond with the correct answers to trivia questions, it doesn't actually know what it is saying.

Watson is the better parts of a parrot, and a repository of human facts. Philosophically, I am convinced that true "AI" is impossible...but I hope I am wrong! None the less, this is still super exciting, and unprecedented...how can you compare it to Sanjaya!

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

Yeah, Watson is a bit of a cheat. Give him average human reflexes if you want to test how good he is at Jeopardy. We all know a computer can beat a human in the reflexes department.


Not just reflexes...give him human humility or doubt. That'll be enough to slow him right down and start Hunting Sarah Conor!