the people issuing these idiotic patents need to be held accountable as well. No where in the real world could you exhibit such low performance and keep your job.
I think the problem is the patent office thinks it's a business. They want to increase revenue. Granting patents becomes a means of increasing revenue for the department.
So, low performance in the eyes of the country is not the same thing as low performance on the job...
A solution requiring less miraculous technology would be to slice up the brain and map out the synapse connection patterns and strengths to load into a computer-emulated brain.
Or (in the meantime), how about an ai that reads through someone's diary entries for example then spits it back out using a markov generator (or something)...so you could have conversations with it.
I think his bitter rant about politics should certainly suggest this theme to anyone. It seems fairly obvious that he holds the beliefs that he holds because he personally at some point was screwed over by some such politics, rather than by objective observations of the system.
Yes, but I've been treated unfairly by the system too, so I can relate; even if it does only happen a certain percentage of the time, it is still a horrible life-changing experience for those undergoing it, and it's understandable if they resort to some exaggeration when telling their story.
He's simply trying to play politics in a different way, to influence thousands of slashdot readers who have no contact with the real system.
Yes, of course. Would the world be a better place if politics were de-emphasized in academe (even if politics does not play such an all-encompassing role as Wallace describes)?
Yeah but a reasonable person might also reconsider his assessment of the threat. Shutting off all communication and seeking legal recourse seems extreme.
and follows up up with an interminable rant about his legal hassles with this Goldberg and UC-Berkeley, apparently set off by the fact that Searle is on the faculty there. He rants and rants (no, it's other people who are obsessed)
I for one found the rant worthwhile. But you are probably one of those people who moderate posts down as Off-Topic even when they bring up interesting tangents.
We all have professional setbacks along our ardous life journey. Aside from the young, there are no victims in this life. Learn and live that, and you'll find yourself stronger and better for it.
That's a very nice one-size-fits-all philosophy. Would you have told slaves that? Or homosexuals or women discriminated against in the workplace?
I say, construct "suicide centers" where those of us who want to voluntarily take ourselves out of the gene pool may do so comfortably, on our own terms.
Second, academic politics. Dr. Wallace seems to believe in a golden age (that occurred, not coincidentally, just before his professional career) where professors were promoted and supported on the basis of merit.
I think he was referring specifically to the field of AI; it is possible that a smaller, younger discipline such as AI could have avoided some of the more egregious afflictions of the "political game", at least for some time...
As far as LSD and politics, it was the professors involved in those experiments (ie Tim Leary) who engaged in politics. And they were bad at it. And they lost. And the substances ended up scheduled. And their academic careers were ruined.
The point, I think, is: is this a good thing? Can we prevent it from happening in the future (if you think it's a bad thing)? Or should we just say "you can't change reality" and make fun of anyone who tries?
Slashdot Mirror
the people issuing these idiotic patents need to be held accountable as well. No where in the real world could you exhibit such low performance and keep your job.
I think the problem is the patent office thinks it's a business. They want to increase revenue. Granting patents becomes a means of increasing revenue for the department.
So, low performance in the eyes of the country is not the same thing as low performance on the job...
They think they're a business and have to turn a profit; their revenue consists of selling patents.
You didn't even mention that he used "it's" instead of "its". That one always makes my hair stand on end!
When we speak, there is no difference. Why maintain the spelling rule?
"That" can function as the subject of a clause. It is not restricted to the objective case. Your test is irrelevant.
Only idiots use "that" to refer to people.
What is the point in enforcing this rule if the meaning is clear?
With friends like you, the concepts of OS, Free-software and technology rights needs no enemies.
All that energy you spend insulting and humiliating others on your side, seems like it could be directed better.
A solution requiring less miraculous technology would be to slice up the brain and map out the synapse connection patterns and strengths to load into a computer-emulated brain.
Or (in the meantime), how about an ai that reads through someone's diary entries for example then spits it back out using a markov generator (or something)...so you could have conversations with it.
I wonder if crack would do well in India...
No text.
1. About the size of a Nokia 3390. This is big enough to be usuable, but small enough so it doesn't feel like you're carrying a sidearm
How long till they make cell phones with built-in guns.
That's why you've never done anything worth interviewing you about.
I think his bitter rant about politics should certainly suggest this theme to anyone. It seems fairly obvious that he holds the beliefs that he holds because he personally at some point was screwed over by some such politics, rather than by objective observations of the system.
Yes, but I've been treated unfairly by the system too, so I can relate; even if it does only happen a certain percentage of the time, it is still a horrible life-changing experience for those undergoing it, and it's understandable if they resort to some exaggeration when telling their story.
He's simply trying to play politics in a different way, to influence thousands of slashdot readers who have no contact with the real system.
Yes, of course. Would the world be a better place if politics were de-emphasized in academe (even if politics does not play such an all-encompassing role as Wallace describes)?
Yeah but a reasonable person might also reconsider his assessment of the threat. Shutting off all communication and seeking legal recourse seems extreme.
So what's the solution? Make laws against it and hope that it will go away? Or find out why people crack, and trying to prevent it?
I toke to you, sir.
When are people gonna start taking some responsibility for themselves and their actions? Honestly. Stop whining and get ON with your life.
Solution for whiners: suicide centers where we can kill ourselves peacefully, on our own terms.
and follows up up with an interminable rant about his legal hassles with this Goldberg and UC-Berkeley, apparently set off by the fact that Searle is on the faculty there. He rants and rants (no, it's other people who are obsessed)
I for one found the rant worthwhile. But you are probably one of those people who moderate posts down as Off-Topic even when they bring up interesting tangents.
We all have professional setbacks along our ardous life journey. Aside from the young, there are no victims in this life. Learn and live that, and you'll find yourself stronger and better for it.
That's a very nice one-size-fits-all philosophy. Would you have told slaves that? Or homosexuals or women discriminated against in the workplace?
Maybe a wee bit to much LSD&Cannabis under the bridge.
If you're doing it under the bridge, you're probably self-medicating.
I say, construct "suicide centers" where those of us who want to voluntarily take ourselves out of the gene pool may do so comfortably, on our own terms.
How about idiot savants?
Second, academic politics. Dr. Wallace seems to believe in a golden age (that occurred, not coincidentally, just before his professional career) where professors were promoted and supported on the basis of merit.
I think he was referring specifically to the field of AI; it is possible that a smaller, younger discipline such as AI could have avoided some of the more egregious afflictions of the "political game", at least for some time...
As far as LSD and politics, it was the professors involved in those experiments (ie Tim Leary) who engaged in politics. And they were bad at it. And they lost. And the substances ended up scheduled. And their academic careers were ruined.
The point, I think, is: is this a good thing? Can we prevent it from happening in the future (if you think it's a bad thing)? Or should we just say "you can't change reality" and make fun of anyone who tries?
If we're building it, perhaps we can include both in a hybrid system, so that our robot can do math and natural language processing/image recognition.
The more people he reaches with his complaints, the greater the chance that things will change.
One day they will look back on the way our society treats drug addicts the way we look at slavery or discrimination against homosexuals or women...
Stop complaining about an injustice...the next step on that road is resignation, then active support and enforcement of the injustice...
So, if a freeloader is not a contributor, how are they not taking away resources?
They are not necessarily taking away resources because not every freeloader is necessarily a contributor.
To each according to his need, from each according to his ability!