On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:01 -0400, comex wrote: > (The reason I'm responding to one of these mass nominations seriously > is that the idea of having Bayes as the recordkeepor for something > intrigues me. It'd be a novelty having such a fast recordkeepor, and > would certainly make scams like the recent RBoA one less painful to > deal with. ehird, though, hates anything vaguely resembling a strict > format for email; I contest that, since people usually post actions > with the same wording anyway, and roborecordkeepors would arguably > obviate most of the need for conditional actions in the first place. > In the case of a scam or something where you would say "If that didn't > work, the following has no effect", well, there are always humans to > fall back to.) It's probably worth pointing out that an argument about the strictness of the format in which actions had to be written is probably what destroyed Canada, which explains why it's a touchy subject for me and ehird (who were on opposite sides of that argument).
Also, way to go in getting that nice diagonal line of whitespace most of the way through your comment. -- ais523
