So when your NIC dies and you swap in a new one, you can use the net... even to inform the Powers That Be of the change so they can route traffic properly? Skeptical that could even be viable...
If anyone ever started using it for ecommerce or tracking users, how long until someone here came up with a spoofing program? About 30 minutes? IT'S DATA GOING ACROSS A NETWORK, SOFTWARE CAN CREATE THE PACKET WITH *ANY* NUMBER. For it to be viable for ecommerce, you would have to keep it as secret as your credit card number.
The ideas of ecommerce and user tracking are incompatible. It's the same as tracking users through their supplied credit card numbers, and nobody's having a hissy fit that their credit cards have a unique number.
I was actually looking forward to picking up the ID of anyone who visited my site and using it instead of my own.:-)
While I am an enormous Star Wars fan (yes, even TPM, of which I own the widescreen VHS version) I simply can't understand the rabid hatred over this issue.
You have no more right to demand the release of this movie than you do to demand I show you every story I have written and song I have composed.
It's George's movie - he can do whatever he wants with it.
It's only a movie. Get over it. Obtain a life.
What we're really asking is "Please! Let me give you tons of money now, instead of later!"
So I ask the questions:
If these movies are such a large part of our culture, do we have some right to control them?
If they are such a large part of our definitions of ourselves, do we own them in some way?
Or are we just a bunch of PATHETIC FREAKING IDIOT LUSERS?
What if I'm accused of a crime, the government finds a bunch of garbage data on my computer, and demands that I turn over the key?
Do they even have to prove that the data they are demanding a key to is even data, not random garbage? It should be relatively easy to encrypt data that is impossible to distinguish from noise...
1. Distributing a binary C/C++ interpreter with the source 2. Distributing a binary C/C++ compiler with the source
We aren't communicating a "banned tool" - just the instructions and raw materials to make one. You're no longer "trafficking in" potentially illegal tools, everyone just makes their own.
A technical distinction perhaps, but the response only matches the unreasonable cause. An object should not be inherently illegal. Only the illegal act should be illegal.
To site just the example I'm most familiar with, genetic algorithms and genetic programming have produced results that are unpredictable, surprising, and we would call them "creative" if a human had come up with them.
I can agree with that in the broad sense, although I think the interpretation / anthropomorphism is unfounded. Genetic algorithms are still deterministic - reset the simulation and input the same data, you get the same answer out. It's not that we CAN'T understand the reasons for the results - it was just a very logical sequence of simple computations - but it's much more difficult due to the overall complexity and data interrelation.
Anyone who thinks humans are different must believe that, if you "reset" that person to the exact same state, and fed them exactly the same information, you would get different results. That is, you have to believe that human consciousness is somehow separate from the laws of physics.
The issue is that humans are so complex, and have such a complex web of influences and forces, that the human mind cannot reliably predict what another human may do.
Also... isn't that an infinitely recursive problem? The greatest problem is "finding someone's state" without affecting them in any way (Uncertainty Principle type problem, both at the micro and macro levels). And you also need to remove the simulation itself from having any effect on the world you are simulating...
Something reminding me of Asimov's "Foundation" - basically you need to say, "Yes, I know the future... no, I can't tell you. I figured out what would happen if I only told you I knew... so if I told you what would happen, it might not happen any more..."
As for creativity and inspiration... I can't say if we even CAN "know" that the brain is deterministic, given the above problems, but mistaking complexity for insolvability based on "feelings" about the matter would be foolish (and extremely human:-)
Slashdot Mirror
So when your NIC dies and you swap in a new one, you can use the net... even to inform the Powers That Be of the change so they can route traffic properly? Skeptical that could even be viable...
The ideas of ecommerce and user tracking are incompatible. It's the same as tracking users through their supplied credit card numbers, and nobody's having a hissy fit that their credit cards have a unique number.
I was actually looking forward to picking up the ID of anyone who visited my site and using it instead of my own. :-)
While I am an enormous Star Wars fan (yes, even TPM, of which I own the widescreen VHS version) I simply can't understand the rabid hatred over this issue.
You have no more right to demand the release of this movie than you do to demand I show you every story I have written and song I have composed.
It's George's movie - he can do whatever he wants with it.
It's only a movie. Get over it. Obtain a life.
What we're really asking is "Please! Let me give you tons of money now, instead of later!"
So I ask the questions:
If these movies are such a large part of our culture, do we have some right to control them?
If they are such a large part of our definitions of ourselves, do we own them in some way?
Or are we just a bunch of PATHETIC FREAKING IDIOT LUSERS?
Flame on.
Off topic, but following the thread...
Just curious:
What if I'm accused of a crime, the government finds a bunch of garbage data on my computer, and demands that I turn over the key?
Do they even have to prove that the data they are demanding a key to is even data, not random garbage? It should be relatively easy to encrypt data that is impossible to distinguish from noise...
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
:-)
{
printf(
#include "mymanifsto.h"
);
CrackCSS(argc, argv);
}
That's how much.
A CPU still "interprets" a binary executable.
So, what about the implications of:
1. Distributing a binary C/C++ interpreter with the source
2. Distributing a binary C/C++ compiler with the source
We aren't communicating a "banned tool" - just the instructions and raw materials to make one. You're no longer "trafficking in" potentially illegal tools, everyone just makes their own.
A technical distinction perhaps, but the response only matches the unreasonable cause.
An object should not be inherently illegal. Only the illegal act should be illegal.
To site just the example I'm most familiar with, genetic algorithms and genetic programming have produced results that are unpredictable, surprising, and we would call them "creative" if a human had come up with them.
I can agree with that in the broad sense, although I think the interpretation / anthropomorphism is unfounded. Genetic algorithms are still deterministic - reset the simulation and input the same data, you get the same answer out. It's not that we CAN'T understand the reasons for the results - it was just a very logical sequence of simple computations - but it's much more difficult due to the overall complexity and data interrelation.
Anyone who thinks humans are different must believe that, if you "reset" that person to the exact same state, and fed them exactly the same information, you would get different results. That is, you have to believe that human consciousness is somehow separate from the laws of physics.
The issue is that humans are so complex, and have such a complex web of influences and forces, that the human mind cannot reliably predict what another human may do.
:-)
Also... isn't that an infinitely recursive problem? The greatest problem is "finding someone's state" without affecting them in any way (Uncertainty Principle type problem, both at the micro and macro levels). And you also need to remove the simulation itself from having any effect on the world you are simulating...
Something reminding me of Asimov's "Foundation" - basically you need to say, "Yes, I know the future... no, I can't tell you. I figured out what would happen if I only told you I knew... so if I told you what would happen, it might not happen any more..."
As for creativity and inspiration... I can't say if we even CAN "know" that the brain is deterministic, given the above problems, but mistaking complexity for insolvability based on "feelings" about the matter would be foolish (and extremely human