If you're a bot, you had to have been programmed by the late Patrick Winston. If you haven't heard of him you should really look up his work at MIT/OCW. I don't know if his lecture series is still available, but he was awesome. The syllabus was available for every course and if you looked hard enough you could always find the textbook for free online.
a) Why is it that when I write BOT; ROBOT (Latin roboro; robur) - "strength" that others ignore being programmed with suggested revisionism into ignoring "strength" for "artificial intelligence"?
Why is "bot" now used to dehumanize each other; while beforehand it described each others strength?
b) What if reason (are a bot vs aren't a bot) tempts one to ignore implication (if/then)?
you should really look up his work
Let's go with his bibliography...
Artificial Intelligence...artifice (suggested) tempts one to ignore natural (perceivable).
The Psychology of Computer Vision...logic (reasoning over suggested) tempts one to ignore psyche (being within perceivable).
Lisp...ignoring natural (perceivable) for artificial (suggested) develops articulation issues. See "mumble-rap"...
On to C; C++; Java...consenting to suggested permits those suggesting to program ones language aka spell-craft.
On to Smalltalk...using suggested words within perceivable sound implies smalltalk within bigthink.
Make It Clear: Speak and Write to Persuade and Inform...does nature speak or write to persuade and inform or does nature move sound symmetrically by forcing adaptation through inspiration?
a) Ones consent to suggested words institutes artifice into ones mind/memory.
b) Considering the above...how out there is it for me to notice massachusetts aka CHU (you/jew) SETTS (sets) MASSA (master)?
syllabus was available
No shit. Syllabus aka Abstract (Latin abstraho) - "to draw from or separate". It's perceivable cause which separates into each partial perception, which only then allows perception to draw from perceivable.
Any suggested syllabus distracts one from that.
if you looked hard enough...
...at suggested information; then you still ignore being within perceivable inspiration. Focusing on suggested narrows ones perspective within perceivable.
If you're a bot, you had to have been programmed by the late Patrick Winston. If you haven't heard of him you should really look up his work at MIT/OCW. I don't know if his lecture series is still available, but he was awesome. The syllabus was available for every course and if you looked hard enough you could always find the textbook for free online.
a) Why is it that when I write BOT; ROBOT (Latin roboro; robur) - "strength" that others ignore being programmed with suggested revisionism into ignoring "strength" for "artificial intelligence"?
Why is "bot" now used to dehumanize each other; while beforehand it described each others strength?
b) What if reason (are a bot vs aren't a bot) tempts one to ignore implication (if/then)?
Let's go with his bibliography...
Did I miss anything else?
a) Ones consent to suggested words institutes artifice into ones mind/memory.
b) Considering the above...how out there is it for me to notice massachusetts aka CHU (you/jew) SETTS (sets) MASSA (master)?
No shit. Syllabus aka Abstract (Latin abstraho) - "to draw from or separate". It's perceivable cause which separates into each partial perception, which only then allows perception to draw from perceivable.
Any suggested syllabus distracts one from that.
...at suggested information; then you still ignore being within perceivable inspiration. Focusing on suggested narrows ones perspective within perceivable.
Another well thought post. He was starting to use Python toward the end and I learned a great deal from him. Enjoy your New Year