What makes you think the money issued by the various governments of the world is any more real than that in a virtual world? Money is an imaginary construct, we all agree that it has value so it does regardless of whether is green an printed by the treasury department or belongs in a game.
It is just a game. You have no rights to sell a virtual entity which is owned by Mythic without their permission.
I can't believe this community is so outraged in NO having Intelectual property over the characters and items that they creat.. Ironic, you bet.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong wrong. You might as well say I can't sell my bopy of "Programming Perl" without O'Reilley's permission. Of course you'd still be wrong, you have the right of re-sale of anything you purchase. It's that simple. In fact the whole matter is fairly simple. You can sell whatever you want Mythic's EULA notwithstanding. They cannot stop you, at least directly. What they can do is deny you access to their servers for any reason. Legally, they may have to refund your money and possibly the price of the game pro-rated of course but they do have that right. There is absolutely nothing wrong with them stating up front that any items or characters that are sold to another person will be blocked.
Don't stop with Java. Some of us prefer not to use it unless forced. Programming challenges on various languages would be great. Or even better a single book with general challenges with solutions in various languages. Good way to contrast what language should be applied to a particular solution and definitely will help newbies understand the concept of "the right tool for the right job". I enjoyed both editions of "Programming Pearls", more of that type of book would be wonderful.
The notes part can easily be handled by providing a Wiki version of the book on cd. Copy it to a hard drive and go wild. But as I said earlier I like both versions. Each is appropriate in it's own way. I'll eat at my computer, but I certainly don't relieve my self there, unless I buy a web pad and set it up as a remote terminal hmmm good idea;).
I prefer to have both, it would be great if all books came with an accompyaning cdrom for later reference. My first read through a book is better in the dead tree, but books on cd like the Perl CD Bookshelf are great for quick reference, plus I don't have to drag my dead tree copies to work with me, just a cd case. Even if they didn't come standard, I would happily pay $10-15 dollars for cd versions of a good portion of my library.
You whole argument is based on the false premise that you have to choose to psych someone out. You've still oversimplified the situation. Not everything that anyone or anything does has to be the result of a decision. Big Blue (let's assume it acted autonomously even though another poster mentioned that they were tweaking as it played which is cheating in my book), was playing the game on it's own, it made the choices at each juncture on what move to make, and as a result psyched out Kasparov, not through any single choice that it made but through the plays that it made.
If we were to play each other in chess, my moves may well psych you out through no intention of mine. It's your weakness of confidence that causes that phenomena. By Kasparov's own admission the computer was playing at the same level as an expert human, simply through his accusation that a human was calling the shots, the game could have been ended right there, no matter who won the match Big Blue was the winner.
Well send me a beta, I guarantee you that any idea I have even remotely related the the game will still be my IP. I don't begrudge you the right to attempt to protect your product, but lawyers routinely try to create agreements that have more power than they are allowed. Believe it or not just signing an agreement does not make you 100% liable for every last term in it. There are many things that signed or not there are things that are just not legally binding in a contract.
They can, and do on a regular basis. However, the demands of the industry are such that it's easier, and more cost effective to implement something someone has allready done succesfully to cash in on it's value. Most original concepts are squashed as a result of cost, and what the decision makers think the public should see, do, taste, touch, or hear.
In a sense yes. The mine what killed the person who stepped on it. But that's also where the division between AI and a tool comes in. A mine's decision process is a single step: "have I been triggered or not", while chess playing is a multi-tiered process where decisions are made between thousands of choices of gray.
I think your analogy is an over simplification of the matter at hand. Is a murder responsible for his actions when the decision was made by a subset of the neurons in his brain, when it's possible that one and only one triggering neuron pushed him over the edge? Or are his parents, since they are the ones who created him and "set" the mine?
Re:The hardware is the software
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 2
Of course, that's the point, theoretical considerations are the primary concern right now. Not what hardware it's going to run on to make it the most efficient.
What's more accurately said is that the programmers used Big Blue to psyched Kasparov out. I doubt there was a routine in Big Blue called
No that's less accurate. Big Blue psyched out Kasparov. The programmers did nothing once play began, they taught it to play, however once it was playing it's actions and choices were it's own, the programmers no longer had any role whatsoever.
Re:Intelligent Systems
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 2
Intelligent systems are not overhyped, but emulating human behaviour is hardly something benificial (or feasible) to teach them.
You had better back a statement like that up. It may be completely possible to teach a machine to emulate human behavior, there's no ay you or anyone else, for that matter can prove that it isn't "feasible" to teach them. All we can say at this point is that it may or may not be possible and that as research progresses we will get a better idea of how practical the goal is.
Re:The hardware is the software
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 2
That is patently untrue. The AI debate has absolutely nothing to do with hardware. A general purpose computer based on silicon is used because it is a general purpose computer and can be used to model any computational task.
I'm not sure I agree. How can you contrast a "security through obscurity" system like Windows to an open one like Linux. It's natural that more bugs are found and reported in Linux, but that says nothing about the number of existing bugs. In addition, having the bug known isn't always the sole indicator either, how long does the bug exists once it is known about . I'd like to see some sort of measurement based on "bug-hours" that measures not only the number of bugs but the summation of the time the bugs were exploitable.
I'll take my chances. Number one click-through EULA's are not made legally binding by the DMCA, they are "legal" through UCITA. Which only has been passed in two states. Number two, your rights end where mine begin. It is my property once it's housed on my hard drive. I can and will do with it what I want. I'll take it, I'll crack it, and I'll use it however I want. If you can't handle that, don't distribute shareware.
Worth is an relative term. What is worth $10 to may be worth 10 cents to me. If worth is all that matters then you have just legitimized piracy to an extent, at least for cripple ware type products. You may be willing to pay for the enhanced version of a particular piece of shareware because you want some of th additional features. I may be satisfied with the free version because I'm willing to invest the time to make or find a way to make available those features by other means. Once I have a piece of software in my possession you have given up the right to tell me how to use it. I can change it in anyway I wish, up to and including cracking it so that I can gain access to crippled features. If you don't like it DON'T RELEASE IT AS CRIPPLED SHAREWARE.
I see nothing wrong with the concept of shareware as a whole, but when if I were to distribute software as shareware I would certainly not release the full version that is crippled, I'd release a version with the features I want disabled completed missing, or at least the driving code for crippled menu items stubbed out. But I'd still be taking the risk that someone could reverse engineer my code and add the features in themselves if they wished and I have no right to complain about this, I chose this method of distribution fully knowing that possiblility exists.
As a software user I am in no way obligated to use the program in the exact way in which you, as the author, intended.
Yeah, I have two monitors at work, one linux one Win2K, I do all my work in Linux, but read email, surf, other extra type things on the windows box with VNC switching the keyboard and mouse between them. It's easier to get things done at work because I can have an html reference up on one monitor while I actually work in terminals on the other. Very convenient. At home I usually have to switch between windows to do this.
Besides marketshare isn't indicative of quality. MS holds the market in business desktops but it's certainly not the best quality. Personally I can't stand Oracle, you can take your ridiculously expensive memory and your 8 processors elsewhere, I'm sick of the downtime and horrible performance.
Yes, and as long as you can have a weapon the governemt is within the bouncds of the constitution to prevent you from having certain types of weapons. They're certainly not going to allow you to own a nuclear weapon, so quit whining before your right to bear arms is limited to a penknife.
Customers do, right. Otherwise they wouldn't be customers. But nitpicking aside, the system works, and that is the anti-spammers greatest opponent. The business model works and companies make money doing it, even companies that don't send opt in mailings have costs associated with sending bulk email and if they weren't getting conversions they wouldn't do it.
I'm not s spam fan but bear in mind that the fact that you even have the amount of information on the internet that you do today is subsidized by advertising. Yeah they net was great 15 years ago, and while I wouldn't necessarily say that it's better now it is nice to have such a loarge number of connected people and businesses.
Slashdot Mirror
Time spent in DAOC or EQ is utterly unproductive, besides the intangible "fun factor."
A productive activity being what? Productivity is relative. What's the fixation on being able to measure tangible results from an activity?
What makes you think the money issued by the various governments of the world is any more real than that in a virtual world? Money is an imaginary construct, we all agree that it has value so it does regardless of whether is green an printed by the treasury department or belongs in a game.
I can't believe this community is so outraged in NO having Intelectual property over the characters and items that they creat.. Ironic, you bet.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong wrong. You might as well say I can't sell my bopy of "Programming Perl" without O'Reilley's permission. Of course you'd still be wrong, you have the right of re-sale of anything you purchase. It's that simple. In fact the whole matter is fairly simple. You can sell whatever you want Mythic's EULA notwithstanding. They cannot stop you, at least directly. What they can do is deny you access to their servers for any reason. Legally, they may have to refund your money and possibly the price of the game pro-rated of course but they do have that right. There is absolutely nothing wrong with them stating up front that any items or characters that are sold to another person will be blocked.
Don't stop with Java. Some of us prefer not to use it unless forced. Programming challenges on various languages would be great. Or even better a single book with general challenges with solutions in various languages. Good way to contrast what language should be applied to a particular solution and definitely will help newbies understand the concept of "the right tool for the right job". I enjoyed both editions of "Programming Pearls", more of that type of book would be wonderful.
The notes part can easily be handled by providing a Wiki version of the book on cd. Copy it to a hard drive and go wild. But as I said earlier I like both versions. Each is appropriate in it's own way. I'll eat at my computer, but I certainly don't relieve my self there, unless I buy a web pad and set it up as a remote terminal hmmm good idea ;).
I prefer to have both, it would be great if all books came with an accompyaning cdrom for later reference. My first read through a book is better in the dead tree, but books on cd like the Perl CD Bookshelf are great for quick reference, plus I don't have to drag my dead tree copies to work with me, just a cd case. Even if they didn't come standard, I would happily pay $10-15 dollars for cd versions of a good portion of my library.
Not to mention the tool they call "graphic card tongs"... channel locks. All in all a pretty funny site.
With jokes like that, somehow I doubt you're getting women to your real pad. jk ;)
You whole argument is based on the false premise that you have to choose to psych someone out. You've still oversimplified the situation. Not everything that anyone or anything does has to be the result of a decision. Big Blue (let's assume it acted autonomously even though another poster mentioned that they were tweaking as it played which is cheating in my book), was playing the game on it's own, it made the choices at each juncture on what move to make, and as a result psyched out Kasparov, not through any single choice that it made but through the plays that it made.
If we were to play each other in chess, my moves may well psych you out through no intention of mine. It's your weakness of confidence that causes that phenomena. By Kasparov's own admission the computer was playing at the same level as an expert human, simply through his accusation that a human was calling the shots, the game could have been ended right there, no matter who won the match Big Blue was the winner.
Well send me a beta, I guarantee you that any idea I have even remotely related the the game will still be my IP. I don't begrudge you the right to attempt to protect your product, but lawyers routinely try to create agreements that have more power than they are allowed. Believe it or not just signing an agreement does not make you 100% liable for every last term in it. There are many things that signed or not there are things that are just not legally binding in a contract.
They can, and do on a regular basis. However, the demands of the industry are such that it's easier, and more cost effective to implement something someone has allready done succesfully to cash in on it's value. Most original concepts are squashed as a result of cost, and what the decision makers think the public should see, do, taste, touch, or hear.
In a sense yes. The mine what killed the person who stepped on it. But that's also where the division between AI and a tool comes in. A mine's decision process is a single step: "have I been triggered or not", while chess playing is a multi-tiered process where decisions are made between thousands of choices of gray.
I think your analogy is an over simplification of the matter at hand. Is a murder responsible for his actions when the decision was made by a subset of the neurons in his brain, when it's possible that one and only one triggering neuron pushed him over the edge? Or are his parents, since they are the ones who created him and "set" the mine?
Of course, that's the point, theoretical considerations are the primary concern right now. Not what hardware it's going to run on to make it the most efficient.
What's more accurately said is that the programmers used Big Blue to psyched Kasparov out. I doubt there was a routine in Big Blue called
No that's less accurate. Big Blue psyched out Kasparov. The programmers did nothing once play began, they taught it to play, however once it was playing it's actions and choices were it's own, the programmers no longer had any role whatsoever.
You had better back a statement like that up. It may be completely possible to teach a machine to emulate human behavior, there's no ay you or anyone else, for that matter can prove that it isn't "feasible" to teach them. All we can say at this point is that it may or may not be possible and that as research progresses we will get a better idea of how practical the goal is.
That is patently untrue. The AI debate has absolutely nothing to do with hardware. A general purpose computer based on silicon is used because it is a general purpose computer and can be used to model any computational task.
I'm not sure I agree. How can you contrast a "security through obscurity" system like Windows to an open one like Linux. It's natural that more bugs are found and reported in Linux, but that says nothing about the number of existing bugs. In addition, having the bug known isn't always the sole indicator either, how long does the bug exists once it is known about . I'd like to see some sort of measurement based on "bug-hours" that measures not only the number of bugs but the summation of the time the bugs were exploitable.
I'll take my chances. Number one click-through EULA's are not made legally binding by the DMCA, they are "legal" through UCITA. Which only has been passed in two states. Number two, your rights end where mine begin. It is my property once it's housed on my hard drive. I can and will do with it what I want. I'll take it, I'll crack it, and I'll use it however I want. If you can't handle that, don't distribute shareware.
Worth is an relative term. What is worth $10 to may be worth 10 cents to me. If worth is all that matters then you have just legitimized piracy to an extent, at least for cripple ware type products. You may be willing to pay for the enhanced version of a particular piece of shareware because you want some of th additional features. I may be satisfied with the free version because I'm willing to invest the time to make or find a way to make available those features by other means. Once I have a piece of software in my possession you have given up the right to tell me how to use it. I can change it in anyway I wish, up to and including cracking it so that I can gain access to crippled features. If you don't like it DON'T RELEASE IT AS CRIPPLED SHAREWARE.
I see nothing wrong with the concept of shareware as a whole, but when if I were to distribute software as shareware I would certainly not release the full version that is crippled, I'd release a version with the features I want disabled completed missing, or at least the driving code for crippled menu items stubbed out. But I'd still be taking the risk that someone could reverse engineer my code and add the features in themselves if they wished and I have no right to complain about this, I chose this method of distribution fully knowing that possiblility exists.
As a software user I am in no way obligated to use the program in the exact way in which you, as the author, intended.
Same difference, one keyboard, one mouse, two monitors, cases.
Yeah, I have two monitors at work, one linux one Win2K, I do all my work in Linux, but read email, surf, other extra type things on the windows box with VNC switching the keyboard and mouse between them. It's easier to get things done at work because I can have an html reference up on one monitor while I actually work in terminals on the other. Very convenient. At home I usually have to switch between windows to do this.
As long as they leave him there who cares. Send E.T. home I say.
Besides marketshare isn't indicative of quality. MS holds the market in business desktops but it's certainly not the best quality. Personally I can't stand Oracle, you can take your ridiculously expensive memory and your 8 processors elsewhere, I'm sick of the downtime and horrible performance.
Yes, and as long as you can have a weapon the governemt is within the bouncds of the constitution to prevent you from having certain types of weapons. They're certainly not going to allow you to own a nuclear weapon, so quit whining before your right to bear arms is limited to a penknife.
Customers do, right. Otherwise they wouldn't be customers. But nitpicking aside, the system works, and that is the anti-spammers greatest opponent. The business model works and companies make money doing it, even companies that don't send opt in mailings have costs associated with sending bulk email and if they weren't getting conversions they wouldn't do it.
I'm not s spam fan but bear in mind that the fact that you even have the amount of information on the internet that you do today is subsidized by advertising. Yeah they net was great 15 years ago, and while I wouldn't necessarily say that it's better now it is nice to have such a loarge number of connected people and businesses.