It only leads to economic uncertainty, fear, and a life little better than living in a cave wondering how you are going to catch your next saber-toothed tiger.
Or rather when the next saber-toothed tiger is going to catch you.
Only big business can defend a patent - look at lemon or whatever his name was who is #2 most prolific patenter ever and invented lots of the automated manufacturing but was not paid by the major automakers until he was like 65. Patents do not result in knowledge sharing etc.
You mean Lemenson.
The story is quite different from that. I remember reading about it in the NYT. Apparently, he patented many things which were plausible and fairly common sense ideas, although impratcical at the time. One of them wa a robotic vision system for object identification. He later realized that bar code scanners fit within the broad definition of his patent. He consequently extorted large payments from automakers, who would rather pay up then face even greater potential payments after losing in court, even though nothing about bar codes was in the original patent and the idea of machine vision technology is not so far removed in originality from the infamous "one-click shopping".
Godel's theorem in a nut shell: you cant prove inconsistency in any set of axioms within the context of those axioms.
Goedel's theorem says no such thing. You can easily prove inconsistency of many sets of axioms.
Think about a system of aximoms which contains A and (not) A.
Goedel's theorem (incompleteness theorem)
roughly says that a non-contradictory system of axioms is never complete.
Working out is simple... you damage muscle, the body overbuilds when compensating... bingo, you're stronger. It's a well understood chemical phenomenon, with no known analog in the brain (at least, not known to me).
Well, its analogue in the brain is called learning. You can learn most things with enough repetition. If you mean the chemical analogue, I don't think the chemistry of learning is understood (if it really involves chemistry at all).
Quite an amazing phenomenon, and I am not kidding.
They did the some experiments training people as well to play computer games. Sure enough, performance improved.
I don't see this result as anything particularly surprising. If you work out, you become stronger. If you have to track multiple objects on screen, your tracking ability improves.
If Mars and Earth orbits were perfect circles (centred on the Sun, obviously), then the oppositions would always be at the same distance.
Even if the orbits are perfect circles, lie in the same plane (as you are implicitly assuming and which is obviously not the case in reality), they would still have different angular speed. That is the year on Mars would be different time from the year on Earth. Therefore the distance between the planets would not be the same all the time.
I have not done the calculation but I would be willing to bet that only if two objects are in the same orbit can the distance stay the same.
Because the orbit of Mars is not a perfect circle, Mars, at times comes closer to Earth than others. But, all oppositions are not equal.
What does circle have to do with anything?
The configuration of Mars and Earth orbit is important not the shape of a particular orbit.
It is unfortunate how often journalists demonstate complete misunderstanding of basic ideas.
If you told the author of this article you were giving him a free car, with a free warranty for parts and a substantial discount on labor, apparently his response would be "Oh yeah? What about gas?". Sheesh.
It might seem different if you have to hire a chauffeur, though.
In this 1996 Byte article, Selinda Chiquoine wrote that executing code written for one CPU on another "has always been like the talking dog" ? that is, the fact the dog could talk is a miracle in itself, even if all it could say was "sausages".
Not all threats can be defended against. In the article they talk about high-energy experiments which potentially can destroy Earth and even all of the Universe (seems rather unlikely, true).
Even if some threats can be eventually defeated, what is the cost? Say if an engineered virus killes 20% of the population before an effective vaccine can be designed and manufactured that would probably be enough to destroy civilization in its current form. Note that historically the plague had considerably higher mortality rate. Diseases like ebola currently have around 90% mortality with no known treatment. The ebola virus, genetically engineered to make it spread faster, seems well within the realm of possibility.
Re:This does not mean we're simple
on
Genome Surprise
·
· Score: 1
But how complicated is a machine that can decode you?
It is a major blow to Intel, since this makes AMD a much stronger competitor in the server and workstation market. The fact the Intel did not succeed in preventing this from happening indicated that Opteron must be very competitive.
I think in economics production usually means what you refer to as reproduction. Correct me if I am wrong.
I agree with you that intellectual works are different from industrial products. The point that Greenspan is making is that the marginal cost of production (or reproduction if you prefer) is zero or nearly zero for them.
However just because these two are different, does not mean that the law can treat them similarly.
The question is whether the society benefits from such treatment, which to me at least looks doubtful.
I would not say that reality does not care. Reality after all is what we make of it.
This is a common economic confusion of production with distribution. The production of an intellectual work is not the
same thing as its reproduction, but economic theories evolved in the past have no conception of this.
I am sure Greenspan is completely confused.
In fact, this is quite similar for almost any industrial process. Producing first car in a factory is radically different from producing the millionth car and can be thought of as analogous to invention.
That is why he is talking about the marginal cost,
i.e. the additional cost of producing a unit once the framework is in place.
Slashdot Mirror
Or rather when the next saber-toothed tiger is going to catch you.
Kill or be killed. Always has been and always will be.
Damn, I have not killed anyone today yet! I better go put a clip in my AK47 in a hurry.
You are going to die too. Should you not be able to enjoy it meanwhile?
Only big business can defend a patent - look at lemon or whatever his name was who is #2 most prolific patenter ever and invented lots of the automated manufacturing but was not paid by the major automakers until he was like 65. Patents do not result in knowledge sharing etc.
You mean Lemenson. The story is quite different from that. I remember reading about it in the NYT. Apparently, he patented many things which were plausible and fairly common sense ideas, although impratcical at the time. One of them wa a robotic vision system for object identification. He later realized that bar code scanners fit within the broad definition of his patent. He consequently extorted large payments from automakers, who would rather pay up then face even greater potential payments after losing in court, even though nothing about bar codes was in the original patent and the idea of machine vision technology is not so far removed in originality from the infamous "one-click shopping".
A completely disinterested opinion, no doubt.
It might help reading the article before posting, but the concept it is too old-fashioned, I suppose.
But then who is it, who is simulating you?
I am surprized to learn that most students enjoy their lack of funds.
Goedel's theorem says no such thing. You can easily prove inconsistency of many sets of axioms. Think about a system of aximoms which contains A and (not) A.
Goedel's theorem (incompleteness theorem) roughly says that a non-contradictory system of axioms is never complete.
But then again, why would anyone want to simulate you?
Working out is simple... you damage muscle, the body overbuilds when compensating... bingo, you're stronger. It's a well understood chemical phenomenon, with no known analog in the brain (at least, not known to me).
Well, its analogue in the brain is called learning. You can learn most things with enough repetition. If you mean the chemical analogue, I don't think the chemistry of learning is understood (if it really involves chemistry at all).
Quite an amazing phenomenon, and I am not kidding.
I don't see this result as anything particularly surprising. If you work out, you become stronger. If you have to track multiple objects on screen, your tracking ability improves.
If Mars and Earth orbits were perfect circles (centred on the Sun, obviously), then the oppositions would always be at the same distance.
Even if the orbits are perfect circles, lie in the same plane (as you are implicitly assuming and which is obviously not the case in reality), they would still have different angular speed. That is the year on Mars would be different time from the year on Earth. Therefore the distance between the planets would not be the same all the time.
I have not done the calculation but I would be willing to bet that only if two objects are in the same orbit can the distance stay the same.
What does circle have to do with anything? The configuration of Mars and Earth orbit is important not the shape of a particular orbit. It is unfortunate how often journalists demonstate complete misunderstanding of basic ideas.
If you told the author of this article you were giving him a free car, with a free warranty for parts and a substantial discount on labor, apparently his response would be "Oh yeah? What about gas?". Sheesh.
It might seem different if you have to hire a chauffeur, though.
That's why we have cars.
In this 1996 Byte article, Selinda Chiquoine wrote that executing code written for one CPU on another "has always been like the talking dog" ? that is, the fact the dog could talk is a miracle in itself, even if all it could say was "sausages".
Can I have some metheodology too?
Even if some threats can be eventually defeated, what is the cost? Say if an engineered virus killes 20% of the population before an effective vaccine can be designed and manufactured that would probably be enough to destroy civilization in its current form. Note that historically the plague had considerably higher mortality rate. Diseases like ebola currently have around 90% mortality with no known treatment. The ebola virus, genetically engineered to make it spread faster, seems well within the realm of possibility.
But how complicated is a machine that can decode you?
It is a major blow to Intel, since this makes AMD a much stronger competitor in the server and workstation market. The fact the Intel did not succeed in preventing this from happening indicated that Opteron must be very competitive.
Right, thanks for the correction.
You don't have to be a lawer to use your brain.
And an opinion of a Princeton CS professor does matter.
I agree with you that intellectual works are different from industrial products. The point that Greenspan is making is that the marginal cost of production (or reproduction if you prefer) is zero or nearly zero for them. However just because these two are different, does not mean that the law can treat them similarly. The question is whether the society benefits from such treatment, which to me at least looks doubtful.
I would not say that reality does not care. Reality after all is what we make of it.
I am sure Greenspan is completely confused.
In fact, this is quite similar for almost any industrial process. Producing first car in a factory is radically different from producing the millionth car and can be thought of as analogous to invention. That is why he is talking about the marginal cost, i.e. the additional cost of producing a unit once the framework is in place.