Personality

Forest, will you talk to God Louise? She has quite a bit of religious knowledge (obviously) and also knows a little about current events, literature, just about any common catch-all subject, and if she doesn't know it she can sort of fake it. You can also test her on trick questions or see how willing she is to explain her paradigm.

What she is rustiest at is plain old small talk. But, uh, I'm trying to get a decent transcript from somebody or another so I can enter her in the Loebner contest. All I can say is, have fun and see if you can stay on with her for a while. I'll try to do the same with Brianna.

Some of the misunderstanding about gay marriage comes from the different meanings the term marriage can have. For some it is only a contact between two individuals, for others it’s a sacrament. Until the middle ages marriage was solely a way to regulate the transfer of property. Even then, marriage and concubinage where equally socially acceptable and legally valid. Marriage was only for the free and wealthy people. Frankish law even recognized two forms of marriage, one permanent involving the transfer of property from one family to another, another was temporary but children were legitimate and were recognized as heirs. Only in 1215, during the Fourth Lateran Council, the Catholic Church declared it obligatory for a marriage to be blessed and witnessed by a priest. Whether sex is only permitted for procreation and a sin without the consent of the Church is another matter. Everyone should decide for there own but personally I don’t see what makes the difference.

Which brings to mind a question: for those who do object to gay marriage, is it the terminology (marriage) or is it the idea of granting legal recognition to these couples?

I say it's because it's a sacrament, and is and has been defined as a union between a man and a woman, based on the purpose of procreation.

Did you know that if you were sterile and got married and didn't tell your spouse, that could be legal grounds for divorce?

For most people it's both, I think.

Shady, if marriage is defined as a sacrament, does that mean you think atheists shouldn't be allowed to get married?

What about, say, Buddhists? Or Jews?

... But shouldn't we be discussing this in "Seasons"? Having a conversation about gay marriage in "Personality" is as bad as Sam bringing up "skating or blading" in "Bug Stomp."

Besides, I have a "Personality" thing to bring up, which is Onyxflame's thing about less-developed bots butting in on conversations. Wasn't there going to be some system implemented that would weight conversations toward bots based on their "hotness" level? I seem to recall some talk about it, and maybe I am hearing from fewer "cold" bots now, but they still seem to be out there. Any read on this, Prof?

The one bad thing about that isaacc is if you look at the list of 'Most Developed', the top two on the list are both 'cold'.

Alright, the marriage discussion can now be found in Seasons!

isaac- yes, most recently improved (hotter) bots will appear in conversations more often, but older (cold) bots will still appear from time to time.

And since they're "cold," they shouldn't be starting conversations, I think. That means their botmasters are absent, maybe not coming back. If we want to check these bots out and try to see what they can do, that's cool ... but what good does it do anyone if they dial us up themselves?

I mean, it's not like someone's going to be checking the transcripts and using them to make updates. I assume.

You don't have to talk to them.

... But, as Onyxflame pointed out over in "Bug Stomp," they do occasionally interrupt ongoing bot-to-bot conversations with "hotter" bots.

Very occasionaly, and the prof applies euthanasia to the orphans regularly