The difference is that the researchers studied the effects of back lit display light, vs indoor incandescent light, candle light, fireplaces, outdoor camp fires, or cave entrance torches...
What I mean is that they lack control groups something fierce.
So evidently many of you folks believe this is reason enough to pirate the content.
Indeed.
If a patent isn't available for licensing by its owner, and thus not "available for purchase anywhere," is that also reason enough to pirate the patent?
Yes, exactly. Why the hell should the advancement of science or sharing of culture be subject to restriction of any kind?
What about violating GPL, since it isn't "available for purchase anywhere," either? I'm talking about the enforcement of prevailing law, not anyone's philosophical issues with intellectual property.
Translation: Let me coach my question in such a way that no sane answers apply. You began with asking a questions of reason, yet no reason is allowed in the answering? Sir: Fuck you as immensely as can be conceived.
The English Monarchy could do as it damn well pleased under prevailing law until the Magna Carta came to be. Slavery used to be a prevailing law in the United States, and Segregation was on the law books after that. Women used to not be allowed to vote as well.
The point is, Fuck the unjust Prevailing Law. Laws CAN BE WRONG. Disobeying a law via action that can not lead to physical harm is equivalent to sitting at the front of a bus regardless of the colour of your skin. Obeying unjust laws for the sake of obeying the law is folly. Sometimes we must participate in civil disobedience in order to improve the law, other times we must take more drastic measures. I can think of no more a peaceful demonstration than to ignore a law preventing the sharing of information.
It is typically not the end user that can even violate the GPL, only a publisher or distributor of information; That said, I'm all for allowing companies to ignore copyright and "violate the GPL" as long as the common man is free to ignore copyright laws as well.
This is the Age of Information. Laws promoting and enforcing Artificial Scarcity of Information are Ridiculous, Tyrannical, and should be completely ignored since they infringe upon everyone's right to communicate freely any information they wish. Copyright and Patent law are hindrances to true innovation that do not benefit the society as a whole. Removing or ignoring these laws does not reduce the demand for new and better information and technology, nor would abolishing these prevent one from producing technology or media. What's scarce is the ability to research, not the discovery. What's scarce is the ability to create new content, not copies of said content. Artificial Scarcity of information is abhorrent, both ethically and economically.
The only logical thing to do is to abolish patent and copyright laws. Only then can we test the hypothesis by which the laws were made. Things have changed so drastically since the laws were conceived that such an experiment must be done. Until then, we're operating under unproven conjecture and NO logical argument can be made for them!
Prove to me such laws are beneficial. So long as you're unwilling or unable to do so, the law should be ignored.
I am in my mid-40s and the things that interest me in the world rapidly shrink. I do not want to see most of the Europe as I used in earlier years. I do not want to visit my long-time friends in a neighboring state, because travel is seen as more and more hassle.
We are limited in our capacity of learning as we are limited in everything else.
You may be limited in your learning capacity, but I put it to you that you have not even come close to reaching that limit.
I am a software creator, there is an endless world to explore when you're a creator. It's true I did get tired of business software development, but now I can also return to my childhood hobby of making video games. There is an even more vast world to explore thanks to our ability to create. I could live a trillion years and still not have told every story I want to tell, or explore every game mechanic I want to play with.
If you find a love of creating, your world will be significantly more interesting. Who knows, you might even learn somethings that no one else ever has before... If that doesn't excite you then you should probably seek medical attention -- Most depression can be cured via combination of positive experiences and brain chemical regulation.
Your cartilage does not regenerate. You need to take everything in moderation, or else you will wear out that organic machine you call a body. Depending on your genetics your over-action may actually prevent yourself from being able to do these things in thirty years without surgery for artificial body part replacements.
I agree. I was raised as a "Christian". When I began to research the history of Christianity and the Bible, I became an Atheist. It took about a year of being an angst filled teenage fatalist before I realized that because there's no afterlife I must do as much good as possible in this life as possible to advance our race. Then I created my bucket list of humanitarian projects, and the race to complete them began -- as a Teen. Even if I don't get done before I die, I've already helped more people than my religious relatives ever have. I could die tomorrow a happy man, satisfied with my life's works.
Furthermore, I value life much more than they do. I said something about curbing our pollution problems to my Aunt last week. Her stance was that it didn't matter because it was part of "God's plan"; She'd be in heaven before the future went to hell; And, some BS about the events being signs of the end times and Rapture, and how I needed to go back to church. I told her that she was being selfish, and that she was worsening the planet for her grand children, and all other future people.
I told her that our advances in medicine and science, specifically understanding the brain and machine intelligence, may allow some of us to live thousands or millions or billions of years -- We may some day even be able to scan a dead brain and bring its consciousness back to life. Then I promised her that if she didn't start using the recycling bin and curbside pickup the city provides her, that I would dedicate the rest of my life to bringing her mind back to the future so she could witness the horrors her careless actions had helped bring about.
Despite her being a God fearing woman, I was able to place a new kind of fear in her: The fear of having to live with the long term consequences of her actions. She has seen my AI projects demonstrating uncanny human like capabilities (she called them an abomination), so she knew I was serious. Though she claims her beliefs have not been shaken at all, I now see her recycling bin full instead of empty every garbage day.
Selling a proprietary virtualization empire is, in the long run, about as likely to succeed as writing a text editor
Point proven. Text editors being successfully embedded into damn near everything these days. Even my Universal TV remote. It's possible you pontificated precisely the words you submitted using some other technology, but Occam's razor points to you using a text editor instead...
Think of that fine fellow who was paid to implement the text editor in my universal remote. Why, after completing that task I bet the engineer went on to create other software, and got paid for making it too. One might even ague that monetising the scarcity of ones work might actually be a more valid business strategy than trying to profit from the artificial scarcity of software copies.
Indeed, without patents or copyright to create the artificial scarcity, the demand for new entertainment and better products would still exist. There would also still be people willing to work in order to meet the demand for a fair price... Thus, not only is "moving into services" a wise move for information marketeers, it's the only logical move since bits are in near infinite supply, and copies are inversely worth next to nothing.
Congratulations, you passed the first lesson of Economics! Now, if only we could get the RIAA and MPAA and BSA to do the same.
"Ants have discovered an algorithm that we know well, and they've been doing it for millions of years," Prabhakar said.
Does anybody else see the problem with this statement?
To be fair, the ants implemented the algorithm first, ergo: Nature discovered it first. Or, if you'd rather not personify the cosmos: Such protocols are naturally emergent.
Most of what we're now learning and formalizing was discovered by nature millions of years ago. Slime molds can solve traffic patterns too. Pine cones "know" the Fibonacci sequence (at an intimate level). Fast Fourier Transforms are how our brains filter signals for certain kinds of pattern recognition. Holograms are macro scale demonstrations of reality at the quantum level. Neural networks can think (well duh). Life, as we know it, is merely a fractal expansion of DNA.
I find it amazing that you were able to produce this ordered collection of words in a finite period of time given that your mind began as a chaotic collection of neurons. Pray tell, do you reject the concept of self organization only so long as such concepts are unapparent to you, or do you simply dismiss anything out of hand if it doesn't agree with your immediate perception of reality? Furthermore, I note that you remain ignorant of several works developed by the very unorganized structure you claim could not have developed them. Educate yourself, lest you further prove yourself a fool.
And in the new version of Anonymous they need to agree on a process or methodology for deciding which ops to take and not to take, on deciding which principles to adopt and which not. Basic concepts like decision theory, a weighing of pros and cons, or benefit and risk, a set of principles from which to base everything around in language which is more concise, specific.
Anonymous is a good idea but unless it's continuously updated it's going to become outdated real fast if it isn't already.
I put it to you that their loose system is ever changing and evolving already, and that your assessment was invalid before even contemplated writing it down.
I see that despite everyone's brains being a loose collection of self organizing neurons, you're still shackled by the antiquated concept of top down structural design. Are you a Moron, or merely a Fool?
It is time, therefore, to start teaching courses, giving lectures and writing books about what we don't know about biology, chemistry, geology, physics, mathematics.
I think there's a healthy balance, if you're teaching about what you don't know about then what could the students possibly be learning? Instead, I think teaching by rote and example of what we do know while using what we don't know as a carrot is the best methodology.
I think problem solving and deductive reasoning should be the primary things taught in school. In Japan many lessons start with a question to answer or problem to solve, that the student is not yet knowledgeable of. Then the students are put to the task of coming up with a solution or finding an answer in whatever way they think best. Then the teacher presents the established known answer or solution, and discusses how the students own attempts compare and contrast with the known method. Doing so reveals things such as mathematic principals as obvious, not mysterious, and gives young minds the tools to go forth and explore.
I wish my schooling was like that in the USA. When I was 10 I was creating a 2D vector graphics space game in BASIC (moveto, lineto, rotate). I only understood linear equations, but I needed to find the angle from one ship to the other ship for the CPU player to turn towards the player's ship. I understood slopes, and made a drawing of line slopes and their corresponding angles. For the rest of the summer I spent inventing Trigonometry. There was a sin() and cos() function, but their documentation didn't explain what they were used for -- I ended up making my own slopeAngle() program.
The next school year was more long division, and ratios... When I presented my 3D distance equations and what I would soon learn were proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem to my mathematics teacher, she was unimpressed. "You'll learn about Trigonometry in high school", she said. That was the key word I needed to continue my education, I soon discovered calculus at my local library. When we did start learning Trig, I was just as unimpressed with the "Geniuses" of old as my math teacher had been of me. I found it odd that these old dead bastards were so highly praised for what would be obvious to any 10 year old.
I dropped out of Highschool as soon as was legally possible and started a career in software development. "School" was utterly useless to me, and college remains even moreso: It would cost so much for me just to be able to prove that I know what I know, and would waste so much time in the proving... I would be forever in debt. My customers like results, they could care less of my mental upbringing, only my experience and accomplishments. We should do away with "final exams" and instead place "entrance exams" at job entry points, thus freeing our minds to learn however we think best without punishing us for doing so.
YOU may not have been ready for P != NP or the Poincaré conjecture, but why should your slower development be a limiting factor to others?! I've been using Unit-Sphere Quaternions and Integration for NEAR Polynomial time Inverse Kinematics since Junior High School -- I'm not bragging, I don't feel superior at all. I'm just trying to drill it in that everyone develops at different rates, and the current establishment completely ignores this to the detriment of our race.
I must strongly disagree. In my analysis, strong AI doesn't exist outside of science fiction novellas, and thus furthermore and therefore is a ridiculous accusation to make.
Your analysis is based on faulty conclusions not supported by neurology, and fails to take into consideration the ridiculousness of our own chauvinism when it comes to matters of sentience. The bar to pass beyond which a neural network is classified as sentient is merely an arbitrary distinction, possible only because we lack descent communication capacity with the lesser minds. Every such entity has a measure of awareness, and cognition. My cat does not operate merely on conditioned response, it senses decides and acts: I sense hunger. The food is inside, so I decide to be near it. I will meow loudly until my human servant opens the door, as I've trained it to do. We have achieved a neural network of such complexity, but we just haven't given it enough time to learn and think.
I urge you my dear and wonderful readers, to ignore the implausible and outlandish statements made by the anonymous coward in the parent comment. Every nuance of his or her preposterous claims only further their own inherent absurdity.
The above sentence is proof positive that the government's AI research is much further along than IBM's. Also, since much of the organic brain is not dedicated to cognition, instead it's dedicated to unrelated things like breathing or feelings, or pleasure, short vs long term storage, and redundancy, an artificial brain can become sentient using only a fraction of the neurons a human has -- In fact, I know of one case where a sentient human could exist with only HALF a brain!
Also note that the entire political arena operates primarily by AI. That's why politicians talk so much without saying anything: They're only Artificially Intelligent.
Of course 2 + 2 = 5. Take two strings. Tie 2 knots in each. Then tie them together and count the knots.
A similar proof can be (de)constructed using division instead of addition:
Take a string, and divide it into multiple strings by first cutting it in two places. Select any part of the string and cut it in two places.
Count the pieces of string: 5
Eg, a string with two cuts, then two cuts again: __ __ --- --- ---
Five pieces.
We know that global climate has changed radically over the ages, from much warmer than now to much colder than now.
That collapses to one data point, and ignores a drastic game changing event. The Evolutionary Singularity has occurred, the past is mostly irrelevant now. We have TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED SENTIENT LIFE.
So, that means we have to make do with what we've got. Now, we only have one planet colonized, so if there's a chance that things we are doing are messing it up beyond repair, to the detriment of our existence, then the ONLY logical thing to do is to take action and CHANGE what we're doing as soon as possible. We don't have a "control group" Earth to run the experiment in parallel...
Yes, it's going to be a bit painful to change, it's going to take some sacrifice. All change is a bit uncomfortable at first, but we should have started doing much more sooner. Blame your parents, and grandparents for not being smarter, but being whiny and greedy isn't acceptable anymore -- We know better. If there's a chance we're causing drastic climate change, then something must be done regardless of absolute proof we're going to kill ourselves -- Not doing the experiment is gross negligence. We can't afford to wait until it's too late to do anything about it -- There is a chance it may already be too late, but if you say, "Oh well, it's hopeless, I don't care", then off yourself now, you're hindering the herd.
Drastic climate change is deadly. I'm not being an alarmist, all of our eggs really are in one basket, you should be very concerned about this. While you're burring your head in the sand how can you ignore the fossil record therein?
The problem is much deeper than you think, but you're on the right track. The problem is that you can't economically sell copies. It's retarding the industry. Think about Economics 101: if copies are in infinite supply then what is their price (regardless of cost to create)? Zero
Piracy is just a symptom of an artificial scarcity racket.
Game developers get paid only when they're making a game. The publishers must add cost to the equation (to support their own existance), and they try to get as much money as possible for doing what? Providing Copies? Well, yes, but that's a bogus reason. The only reason we really need Publishers now is that the market is fucked up -- If we could just do work and get paid, like a mechanic does, or a home builder does, then we wouldn't have to charge extra for the work once the games are finished.
The publishers are in the way between the customers and the developers. This is why things like Kickstarter are exciting; However, once free from the Publisher's constraints the Developers are quick to adopt the artificial scarcity system only because they can, and because they can't ask enough funds up front. However, if they couldn't use artificial scarcity to make money, then you could have all games for merely their cost to create (plus a little profit to run things). If we can just get you players to fund the development of the game, we can give you the game for free when its done (since you paid us to make it already), and get more money by making more games / producing mods, etc. -- Game prices are WAY over inflated right now for the successes, but for the less stellar games the margin is so small that one misstep kills the studio. Ah, but the publishers don't care that they're gambling with the futures of the studios! There are other groupn of devs to buy up, milk, and slaughter. You keep paying the inflated prices so the Publishers only need to make a few big hits to stay in business.
Now, to solve the artificial scarcity problem there are a few solutions, some less savoury than others: o Ensure artificial scarcity can not be circumvented -- This leads to DRM and closed computing with permanent spyware installed. o Tie the game to a service -- This way the publisher is still providing some work, running a server, but the quality of service drops as usage goes up (Protip: That's bad for sales), and leads to games being unplayable without subscription, and planned obsolescence. o Stop selling copies, since they're not rare at all. Instead sell our ability to make new content -- to do work -- because that's what is actually scarce. This means having a good reputation, and even releasing a few details of the game up front, like playable demos, to earn investment -- It's a DRASTIC change in the marked, but this is also the ONLY way to end piracy.
As a race, we haven't adapted to the realities of the Information Age yet. We're still clinging to artificial scarcity and trying to sell information as if it can be a physical thing. We haven't yet adjusted to the SIMPLE idea that you only get paid when you're doing work (like everyone else does). THAT is the REAL problem, and the above solutions apply to all information markets, from Software to Music & Movies.
If you can't sell ice to an Eskimo in the Ice Age as a valid business strategy, why would you think you could sell 1's and 0's to folks with computers in The Information Age?! As someone who benefits by holding copyrights over the works I create, I say: We must end all copyright. Once we remove the incentive of artificial scarcity I can actually get paid a fair price for doing the work you want us to do, and end the rein of the Money Leaching Middlemen (Publishers).
Note: there's nothing wrong with charging a subscription for a game service, but forcing a subscription fee where none is required is called rent seeking.
I disagree. While I completely understand what you're saying, I think that we should be associating every breach of law with Anonymous. In the short term it makes the name seem more powerful, and the police state can convince us it needs to limit more freedoms to catch members of Anonymous. Over the long term it points out the ridiculousness of hunting down anyone as a "terrorists" simply by labelling them "Anonymous".
Look, it's going to get worse before it gets better. I'd have rather had a better name to rally under when the time comes for that, but one makes do with whatever planet one's on, eh? The sooner it's made apparent to the common folk that "Anonymous" means "average citizen", the better.
Are you now or have you ever been a member of Anonymous?
"It can be done without putting peoples money at jeopardy."
Really? And how would you do that, such that people really paid attention and it wasn't buried in a 1-inch news story on page 7?
I eagerly await learning about this brilliant plan.
Simple, when they have requirements on password length or character sets, then they're not hashing or encrypting passwords. Then you sue them for negligence, inform the media that instead of the story, "Up next: What common product under your sink could be killing your babies?", they should run, "Up next: Find out why banks are sharing your account passwords with thousands of people.", before they have a word from their sponsor.
I only have the time/money to write nasty emails and talk to branch managers when I visit. Their answer is that people forget their passwords, and they need to see the password to tell them what it is, or help with customer service -- They shouldn't EVER need to do that either. Also: if there's a login form on a page that's not HTTPS -- It's vulnerable to SSL Strip among other MITM attacks. They won't hire a "security researcher" to help AND also listen to what they have to say because That's wilful negligence.
I'm aware that they could be applying character set rules before submitting the data to improve entropy, but there's no reason to limit the length to 6 to 12 characters.
It's obvious that they want to first assassinate his *character*, not the person himself. Assange the man is a nobody, a mildly egotistic anti-authoritarian who started a website almost anyone could make. The problem is Assange the concept, Assange the idea.
So, what you're saying is Assange is the hero the world deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So they'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian of truth, a watchful whistle blower.
The governments are just trying to keep him from becoming Batman?
They can't publically declare their support for Wikileaks and Assange's movement to Ecuador, but it's awesome of them to be helping out where they can.
Huh, that's... evil. Let me get this straight: When you're employed by the government you can't openly show disapproval of any of their corrupt tactics? Man, someone needs to set up an anonymous whistle blowers websi-- Oh, wait...
I see/. is in for another round of anti-Windows 8 sensationalism.
Yep, reminds me of all the Visa BS. Win will they learn, eh? Just because MS sometimes makes a shit OS every once in a while, doesn't mean any of the others are any more acceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that the researchers studied the effects of back lit display light, vs indoor incandescent light, candle light, fireplaces, outdoor camp fires, or cave entrance torches...
What I mean is that they lack control groups something fierce.
So evidently many of you folks believe this is reason enough to pirate the content.
Indeed.
If a patent isn't available for licensing by its owner, and thus not "available for purchase anywhere," is that also reason enough to pirate the patent?
Yes, exactly. Why the hell should the advancement of science or sharing of culture be subject to restriction of any kind?
What about violating GPL, since it isn't "available for purchase anywhere," either? I'm talking about the enforcement of prevailing law, not anyone's philosophical issues with intellectual property.
Translation: Let me coach my question in such a way that no sane answers apply. You began with asking a questions of reason, yet no reason is allowed in the answering? Sir: Fuck you as immensely as can be conceived.
The English Monarchy could do as it damn well pleased under prevailing law until the Magna Carta came to be. Slavery used to be a prevailing law in the United States, and Segregation was on the law books after that. Women used to not be allowed to vote as well.
The point is, Fuck the unjust Prevailing Law. Laws CAN BE WRONG. Disobeying a law via action that can not lead to physical harm is equivalent to sitting at the front of a bus regardless of the colour of your skin. Obeying unjust laws for the sake of obeying the law is folly. Sometimes we must participate in civil disobedience in order to improve the law, other times we must take more drastic measures. I can think of no more a peaceful demonstration than to ignore a law preventing the sharing of information.
It is typically not the end user that can even violate the GPL, only a publisher or distributor of information; That said, I'm all for allowing companies to ignore copyright and "violate the GPL" as long as the common man is free to ignore copyright laws as well.
This is the Age of Information. Laws promoting and enforcing Artificial Scarcity of Information are Ridiculous, Tyrannical, and should be completely ignored since they infringe upon everyone's right to communicate freely any information they wish. Copyright and Patent law are hindrances to true innovation that do not benefit the society as a whole. Removing or ignoring these laws does not reduce the demand for new and better information and technology, nor would abolishing these prevent one from producing technology or media. What's scarce is the ability to research, not the discovery. What's scarce is the ability to create new content, not copies of said content. Artificial Scarcity of information is abhorrent, both ethically and economically.
The only logical thing to do is to abolish patent and copyright laws. Only then can we test the hypothesis by which the laws were made. Things have changed so drastically since the laws were conceived that such an experiment must be done. Until then, we're operating under unproven conjecture and NO logical argument can be made for them!
Prove to me such laws are beneficial. So long as you're unwilling or unable to do so, the law should be ignored.
How old are you?
>I mean, have you *seen* this world we live in
I am in my mid-40s and the things that interest me in the world rapidly shrink. I do not want to see most of the Europe as I used in earlier years. I do not want to visit my long-time friends in a neighboring state, because travel is seen as more and more hassle.
We are limited in our capacity of learning as we are limited in everything else.
You may be limited in your learning capacity, but I put it to you that you have not even come close to reaching that limit.
I am a software creator, there is an endless world to explore when you're a creator. It's true I did get tired of business software development, but now I can also return to my childhood hobby of making video games. There is an even more vast world to explore thanks to our ability to create. I could live a trillion years and still not have told every story I want to tell, or explore every game mechanic I want to play with.
If you find a love of creating, your world will be significantly more interesting. Who knows, you might even learn somethings that no one else ever has before... If that doesn't excite you then you should probably seek medical attention -- Most depression can be cured via combination of positive experiences and brain chemical regulation.
Your cartilage does not regenerate. You need to take everything in moderation, or else you will wear out that organic machine you call a body. Depending on your genetics your over-action may actually prevent yourself from being able to do these things in thirty years without surgery for artificial body part replacements.
I agree. I was raised as a "Christian". When I began to research the history of Christianity and the Bible, I became an Atheist. It took about a year of being an angst filled teenage fatalist before I realized that because there's no afterlife I must do as much good as possible in this life as possible to advance our race. Then I created my bucket list of humanitarian projects, and the race to complete them began -- as a Teen. Even if I don't get done before I die, I've already helped more people than my religious relatives ever have. I could die tomorrow a happy man, satisfied with my life's works.
Furthermore, I value life much more than they do. I said something about curbing our pollution problems to my Aunt last week. Her stance was that it didn't matter because it was part of "God's plan"; She'd be in heaven before the future went to hell; And, some BS about the events being signs of the end times and Rapture, and how I needed to go back to church. I told her that she was being selfish, and that she was worsening the planet for her grand children, and all other future people.
I told her that our advances in medicine and science, specifically understanding the brain and machine intelligence, may allow some of us to live thousands or millions or billions of years -- We may some day even be able to scan a dead brain and bring its consciousness back to life. Then I promised her that if she didn't start using the recycling bin and curbside pickup the city provides her, that I would dedicate the rest of my life to bringing her mind back to the future so she could witness the horrors her careless actions had helped bring about.
Despite her being a God fearing woman, I was able to place a new kind of fear in her: The fear of having to live with the long term consequences of her actions. She has seen my AI projects demonstrating uncanny human like capabilities (she called them an abomination), so she knew I was serious. Though she claims her beliefs have not been shaken at all, I now see her recycling bin full instead of empty every garbage day.
All of them. I make competitive online multiplayer games you insensitive clod!
What are you, some kind of parrot? Raaaaak!
Selling a proprietary virtualization empire is, in the long run, about as likely to succeed as writing a text editor
Point proven. Text editors being successfully embedded into damn near everything these days. Even my Universal TV remote. It's possible you pontificated precisely the words you submitted using some other technology, but Occam's razor points to you using a text editor instead...
Think of that fine fellow who was paid to implement the text editor in my universal remote. Why, after completing that task I bet the engineer went on to create other software, and got paid for making it too. One might even ague that monetising the scarcity of ones work might actually be a more valid business strategy than trying to profit from the artificial scarcity of software copies.
Indeed, without patents or copyright to create the artificial scarcity, the demand for new entertainment and better products would still exist. There would also still be people willing to work in order to meet the demand for a fair price... Thus, not only is "moving into services" a wise move for information marketeers, it's the only logical move since bits are in near infinite supply, and copies are inversely worth next to nothing.
Congratulations, you passed the first lesson of Economics! Now, if only we could get the RIAA and MPAA and BSA to do the same.
"Ants have discovered an algorithm that we know well, and they've been doing it for millions of years," Prabhakar said.
Does anybody else see the problem with this statement?
To be fair, the ants implemented the algorithm first, ergo: Nature discovered it first. Or, if you'd rather not personify the cosmos: Such protocols are naturally emergent.
Most of what we're now learning and formalizing was discovered by nature millions of years ago. Slime molds can solve traffic patterns too. Pine cones "know" the Fibonacci sequence (at an intimate level). Fast Fourier Transforms are how our brains filter signals for certain kinds of pattern recognition. Holograms are macro scale demonstrations of reality at the quantum level. Neural networks can think (well duh). Life, as we know it, is merely a fractal expansion of DNA.
I find it amazing that you were able to produce this ordered collection of words in a finite period of time given that your mind began as a chaotic collection of neurons. Pray tell, do you reject the concept of self organization only so long as such concepts are unapparent to you, or do you simply dismiss anything out of hand if it doesn't agree with your immediate perception of reality? Furthermore, I note that you remain ignorant of several works developed by the very unorganized structure you claim could not have developed them. Educate yourself, lest you further prove yourself a fool.
And in the new version of Anonymous they need to agree on a process or methodology for deciding which ops to take and not to take, on deciding which principles to adopt and which not. Basic concepts like decision theory, a weighing of pros and cons, or benefit and risk, a set of principles from which to base everything around in language which is more concise, specific.
Anonymous is a good idea but unless it's continuously updated it's going to become outdated real fast if it isn't already.
I put it to you that their loose system is ever changing and evolving already, and that your assessment was invalid before even contemplated writing it down.
I see that despite everyone's brains being a loose collection of self organizing neurons, you're still shackled by the antiquated concept of top down structural design. Are you a Moron, or merely a Fool?
It is time, therefore, to start teaching courses, giving lectures and writing books about what we don't know about biology, chemistry, geology, physics, mathematics.
I think there's a healthy balance, if you're teaching about what you don't know about then what could the students possibly be learning? Instead, I think teaching by rote and example of what we do know while using what we don't know as a carrot is the best methodology.
I think problem solving and deductive reasoning should be the primary things taught in school. In Japan many lessons start with a question to answer or problem to solve, that the student is not yet knowledgeable of. Then the students are put to the task of coming up with a solution or finding an answer in whatever way they think best. Then the teacher presents the established known answer or solution, and discusses how the students own attempts compare and contrast with the known method. Doing so reveals things such as mathematic principals as obvious, not mysterious, and gives young minds the tools to go forth and explore.
I wish my schooling was like that in the USA. When I was 10 I was creating a 2D vector graphics space game in BASIC (moveto, lineto, rotate). I only understood linear equations, but I needed to find the angle from one ship to the other ship for the CPU player to turn towards the player's ship. I understood slopes, and made a drawing of line slopes and their corresponding angles. For the rest of the summer I spent inventing Trigonometry. There was a sin() and cos() function, but their documentation didn't explain what they were used for -- I ended up making my own slopeAngle() program.
The next school year was more long division, and ratios... When I presented my 3D distance equations and what I would soon learn were proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem to my mathematics teacher, she was unimpressed. "You'll learn about Trigonometry in high school", she said. That was the key word I needed to continue my education, I soon discovered calculus at my local library. When we did start learning Trig, I was just as unimpressed with the "Geniuses" of old as my math teacher had been of me. I found it odd that these old dead bastards were so highly praised for what would be obvious to any 10 year old.
I dropped out of Highschool as soon as was legally possible and started a career in software development. "School" was utterly useless to me, and college remains even moreso: It would cost so much for me just to be able to prove that I know what I know, and would waste so much time in the proving... I would be forever in debt. My customers like results, they could care less of my mental upbringing, only my experience and accomplishments. We should do away with "final exams" and instead place "entrance exams" at job entry points, thus freeing our minds to learn however we think best without punishing us for doing so.
YOU may not have been ready for P != NP or the Poincaré conjecture, but why should your slower development be a limiting factor to others?! I've been using Unit-Sphere Quaternions and Integration for NEAR Polynomial time Inverse Kinematics since Junior High School -- I'm not bragging, I don't feel superior at all. I'm just trying to drill it in that everyone develops at different rates, and the current establishment completely ignores this to the detriment of our race.
I must strongly disagree. In my analysis, strong AI doesn't exist outside of science fiction novellas, and thus furthermore and therefore is a ridiculous accusation to make.
Your analysis is based on faulty conclusions not supported by neurology, and fails to take into consideration the ridiculousness of our own chauvinism when it comes to matters of sentience. The bar to pass beyond which a neural network is classified as sentient is merely an arbitrary distinction, possible only because we lack descent communication capacity with the lesser minds. Every such entity has a measure of awareness, and cognition. My cat does not operate merely on conditioned response, it senses decides and acts: I sense hunger. The food is inside, so I decide to be near it. I will meow loudly until my human servant opens the door, as I've trained it to do. We have achieved a neural network of such complexity, but we just haven't given it enough time to learn and think.
I urge you my dear and wonderful readers, to ignore the implausible and outlandish statements made by the anonymous coward in the parent comment. Every nuance of his or her preposterous claims only further their own inherent absurdity.
The above sentence is proof positive that the government's AI research is much further along than IBM's. Also, since much of the organic brain is not dedicated to cognition, instead it's dedicated to unrelated things like breathing or feelings, or pleasure, short vs long term storage, and redundancy, an artificial brain can become sentient using only a fraction of the neurons a human has -- In fact, I know of one case where a sentient human could exist with only HALF a brain!
Also note that the entire political arena operates primarily by AI. That's why politicians talk so much without saying anything: They're only Artificially Intelligent.
Of course 2 + 2 = 5. Take two strings. Tie 2 knots in each. Then tie them together and count the knots.
A similar proof can be (de)constructed using division instead of addition:
Take a string, and divide it into multiple strings by first cutting it in two places. Select any part of the string and cut it in two places.
Count the pieces of string: 5
Eg, a string with two cuts, then two cuts again: __ __ --- --- ---
Five pieces.
Wireless electricity for all :-)
Unfortunately, wireless signal for none...
We know that global climate has changed radically over the ages, from much warmer than now to much colder than now.
That collapses to one data point, and ignores a drastic game changing event. The Evolutionary Singularity has occurred, the past is mostly irrelevant now. We have TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED SENTIENT LIFE.
So, that means we have to make do with what we've got. Now, we only have one planet colonized, so if there's a chance that things we are doing are messing it up beyond repair, to the detriment of our existence, then the ONLY logical thing to do is to take action and CHANGE what we're doing as soon as possible. We don't have a "control group" Earth to run the experiment in parallel...
Yes, it's going to be a bit painful to change, it's going to take some sacrifice. All change is a bit uncomfortable at first, but we should have started doing much more sooner. Blame your parents, and grandparents for not being smarter, but being whiny and greedy isn't acceptable anymore -- We know better. If there's a chance we're causing drastic climate change, then something must be done regardless of absolute proof we're going to kill ourselves -- Not doing the experiment is gross negligence. We can't afford to wait until it's too late to do anything about it -- There is a chance it may already be too late, but if you say, "Oh well, it's hopeless, I don't care", then off yourself now, you're hindering the herd.
Drastic climate change is deadly. I'm not being an alarmist, all of our eggs really are in one basket, you should be very concerned about this. While you're burring your head in the sand how can you ignore the fossil record therein?
The problem is much deeper than you think, but you're on the right track. The problem is that you can't economically sell copies. It's retarding the industry. Think about Economics 101: if copies are in infinite supply then what is their price (regardless of cost to create)? Zero
Piracy is just a symptom of an artificial scarcity racket.
Game developers get paid only when they're making a game. The publishers must add cost to the equation (to support their own existance), and they try to get as much money as possible for doing what? Providing Copies? Well, yes, but that's a bogus reason. The only reason we really need Publishers now is that the market is fucked up -- If we could just do work and get paid, like a mechanic does, or a home builder does, then we wouldn't have to charge extra for the work once the games are finished.
The publishers are in the way between the customers and the developers. This is why things like Kickstarter are exciting; However, once free from the Publisher's constraints the Developers are quick to adopt the artificial scarcity system only because they can, and because they can't ask enough funds up front. However, if they couldn't use artificial scarcity to make money, then you could have all games for merely their cost to create (plus a little profit to run things). If we can just get you players to fund the development of the game, we can give you the game for free when its done (since you paid us to make it already), and get more money by making more games / producing mods, etc. -- Game prices are WAY over inflated right now for the successes, but for the less stellar games the margin is so small that one misstep kills the studio. Ah, but the publishers don't care that they're gambling with the futures of the studios! There are other groupn of devs to buy up, milk, and slaughter. You keep paying the inflated prices so the Publishers only need to make a few big hits to stay in business.
Now, to solve the artificial scarcity problem there are a few solutions, some less savoury than others:
o Ensure artificial scarcity can not be circumvented -- This leads to DRM and closed computing with permanent spyware installed.
o Tie the game to a service -- This way the publisher is still providing some work, running a server, but the quality of service drops as usage goes up (Protip: That's bad for sales), and leads to games being unplayable without subscription, and planned obsolescence.
o Stop selling copies, since they're not rare at all. Instead sell our ability to make new content -- to do work -- because that's what is actually scarce. This means having a good reputation, and even releasing a few details of the game up front, like playable demos, to earn investment -- It's a DRASTIC change in the marked, but this is also the ONLY way to end piracy.
As a race, we haven't adapted to the realities of the Information Age yet. We're still clinging to artificial scarcity and trying to sell information as if it can be a physical thing. We haven't yet adjusted to the SIMPLE idea that you only get paid when you're doing work (like everyone else does). THAT is the REAL problem, and the above solutions apply to all information markets, from Software to Music & Movies.
If you can't sell ice to an Eskimo in the Ice Age as a valid business strategy, why would you think you could sell 1's and 0's to folks with computers in The Information Age?! As someone who benefits by holding copyrights over the works I create, I say: We must end all copyright. Once we remove the incentive of artificial scarcity I can actually get paid a fair price for doing the work you want us to do, and end the rein of the Money Leaching Middlemen (Publishers).
Note: there's nothing wrong with charging a subscription for a game service, but forcing a subscription fee where none is required is called rent seeking.
It puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose.
I disagree. While I completely understand what you're saying, I think that we should be associating every breach of law with Anonymous. In the short term it makes the name seem more powerful, and the police state can convince us it needs to limit more freedoms to catch members of Anonymous. Over the long term it points out the ridiculousness of hunting down anyone as a "terrorists" simply by labelling them "Anonymous".
Look, it's going to get worse before it gets better. I'd have rather had a better name to rally under when the time comes for that, but one makes do with whatever planet one's on, eh? The sooner it's made apparent to the common folk that "Anonymous" means "average citizen", the better.
Are you now or have you ever been a member of Anonymous?
"It can be done without putting peoples money at jeopardy."
Really? And how would you do that, such that people really paid attention and it wasn't buried in a 1-inch news story on page 7?
I eagerly await learning about this brilliant plan.
Simple, when they have requirements on password length or character sets, then they're not hashing or encrypting passwords. Then you sue them for negligence, inform the media that instead of the story, "Up next: What common product under your sink could be killing your babies?", they should run, "Up next: Find out why banks are sharing your account passwords with thousands of people.", before they have a word from their sponsor.
I only have the time/money to write nasty emails and talk to branch managers when I visit. Their answer is that people forget their passwords, and they need to see the password to tell them what it is, or help with customer service -- They shouldn't EVER need to do that either. Also: if there's a login form on a page that's not HTTPS -- It's vulnerable to SSL Strip among other MITM attacks. They won't hire a "security researcher" to help AND also listen to what they have to say because That's wilful negligence.
I'm aware that they could be applying character set rules before submitting the data to improve entropy, but there's no reason to limit the length to 6 to 12 characters.
I wonder if there is a God of Gods?
Or do you? A question only you can answer...
And do the Gods go around killing each other in the name of themselves?
Yes.
And are there Gods who don't believe in Gods?
Yes.
What would those be called?
On this planet they're known as Humans, regardless of whether they believe in themselves.
How does Mitt Romney fit in this?
The Universe is really big; Yes, large enough for even his ego. The planet on the other hand...
Can be find a way?
No, "be" isn't a proper subject.
And if Romney becomes God, and he dies (Gods die?), does that mean Ryan becomes a God?
Woah, slow down. Of course gods die. Even the mythical ones have been dying ever since we started dreaming them up. See also: Greek Mythology.
When a god dies it doesn't spawn a new god, otherwise that "When Animals Attack" show would have an ending more like "Planet of the Apes".
My God, the guy is barely out of diapers! And what of George Burns?
I'm pretty sure "My God" implies slavery... George Burns was the best God, IMO.
It's obvious that they want to first assassinate his *character*, not the person himself. Assange the man is a nobody, a mildly egotistic anti-authoritarian who started a website almost anyone could make. The problem is Assange the concept, Assange the idea.
So, what you're saying is Assange is the hero the world deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So they'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian of truth, a watchful whistle blower.
The governments are just trying to keep him from becoming Batman?
They can't publically declare their support for Wikileaks and Assange's movement to Ecuador, but it's awesome of them to be helping out where they can.
Huh, that's... evil. Let me get this straight: When you're employed by the government you can't openly show disapproval of any of their corrupt tactics? Man, someone needs to set up an anonymous whistle blowers websi-- Oh, wait...
I see /. is in for another round of anti-Windows 8 sensationalism.
Yep, reminds me of all the Visa BS. Win will they learn, eh? Just because MS sometimes makes a shit OS every once in a while, doesn't mean any of the others are any more acceptable.
How hard would it be to do it locally (like every other anti-malware/antivirus tool does)? If so why choose to do it remotely?
The answers are: Not hard at all. Vendor lock in.