Re: Artificiqal Intelligence

On 1/20/2025 2:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 13:30:14 -0500, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
 

On 1/20/2025 10:55 AM, cyclintom wrote:

On Sun Jan 19 18:39:57 2025 AMuzi  wrote:

On 1/19/2025 5:25 PM, cyclintom wrote:

On Sat Jan 18 20:46:38 2025 Jeff Liebermann  wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:02:07 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>

On Sat Jan 18 14:43:14 2025 AMuzi  wrote:

Or by vector pattern matching:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4350704

>
I would have a real problem using Chinese security measures.

>
I guess "would have" means you're not currently having a problem.  If
it's not a "real problem", what other type of problem might you have?
An un-real problem perhaps?
>
You bought a phone made in Korea.  How about a Korean company with R&D
in Arizona?
<https://integratedbiometrics.com>
They're also FBI certified.
"Certified Products List"
<https://fbibiospecs.fbi.gov/certifications-1/cpl>

>
>
>
>
And yet again - page not found.

>
Both links pop right up for me.

>
>
>
>
Then ask yourself why my BitDefender blocks them. BitDefender is the
best protection on the market.

>
Hey dumbass. If BitDefender was blocking them it would tell you it was
blocking them then give you to option to bypass the block. It wouldn't
say "file not found".

 If BitOffender was looking a web page on the internet, it would say
"404 Site No Found" or something similar.  Web pages and documents are
quite different.

that's nitpicking. Whether his browser displays "file not found", "page not found", "site not found", "page/site/file/ not available" or whatever ever message would indicate the the link doesn't direct to the intended file, website, or page, is completely irrelevant. If BitDefender was blocking them it would tell him it was blocking them then give him to option to bypass the block. It wouldn't say "[whatever] not found".

 

IOW, you're simply fucking up as usual.

 Close.  I think he's lying (as usual).  Somehow, I'm being accused of
posting a link that Tom cannot view, or maybe tampering with the web
site, or maybe even tampering with his computer.  Those are not going
to happen.  For example, if I post:
<https://www.google.com>
Tom would likely claim that he can't find Google.  Anyway, I'm not
worried because I don't think there's anyone reading rec.bicycles.tech
that believes anything that Tom writes.

+1

     

--
Add xx to reply