It depends on the country you're in. here we have "the management reserves the right to refuse service" Here at least I'm fairly sure there's some requirement that they have to ban you by name(but IANAL) so there might be a loophole where if you don't give them your name and don't cause trouble they're stuck and have to serve you but in general the question of if a business is required to serve you comes down to region specific laws.
have you considered that perhaps it could have saved lives? Someone accused of being an informant in the time that these docs cover might point to the lack of anything even mentioning their provence? It's essentially impossible to prove but then so is the opposite. A murderous warlord dies, he may have been an informant as it was vaguely hinted at in the diaries.
And what about the people who the warlord would have killed since?
It saddens me how little you care about those people and your blind opposition to news organisations like the guardian and new york times who published the war diaries makes it impossible for you to understand.
Exactly!. wasn't there an article a while back about how some really crazy nonsense transactions were probably the bots trying to DDoS each other through the market to get a few precious CPU cycles ahead of their competitors?
Don't run, walk. Don't look down and try not to make eye contact, catch their eye and nod. Don't try to hide a bad under your coat, carry it over one shoulder. Don't sneak around in the shadows, wear a highvis vest and carry a clipboard. Don't try to sneak the loot out stealthily, ask the security guard to help you carry the clunky filing cabinate out the door.
And always, always believe and act like you have every right to be whereever you are.
People are like terriers, they chase anything that runs and the eye is drawn to people who look like they're trying to hide.
but but but but.. someone might create nerve gas if they get their hands on a chemistry kit! Or they might accidentally create an ultra-super poison that will evaporate and kill everyone within 10 miles of their basement!
Machines can learn, these AI traders are in many ways the decendents of AI's which taught themselves to play games well. A programmer doesn't have to know how to play (lets say) backgammon well in order to create an AI which can play well. he just has to know the basic rules and how to create an AI capable of learning from it's mistakes then set it playing against itself for a few million games.
This was actually a case study we covered in an AI module when the lecturer was talking about the gradual move away from the more common old approaches where a few expert players would try to teach the machine how to play well to an approach where you don't try to tell the bot how to play but merely give it the ability to learn and have it teach itself.
As it turned out, in backgammon the machine learned better opening moves than the best human players used.
You can be sure the trading bots are constantly looking for these kinds of weaknesses in each other and when they find them they'll exploit them ruthlessly until the other bot learns. And you can be sure they're trying to manipulate the human traders just as much. If the bots find that a certain set of actions manipulates the human traders into making unwise trades then they'll exploit it ruthlessly until the humans learn.
but of course you can't take a bot to court and the programmer didn't invent the strategy so they're free to manipulate the market and game the system as much as they can.
But if a human does the same back it's illegal. Because money talks, the house always wins and the game is crooked.
Sentient AI's running limited companies gradually get smarter and smarter and better at trading until they out-compete their human creators and push them out.
The *mutate and escape* scenario is far more likely to happen at your local farmyard as regular old viruses cross speciese back and forth mutating as they go. Yet I don't ever see people terrified that a farmer will accidentally kill us all.
I think the point was that he's more likely to infect you with regular old natural diseases due to not washing his hands.
To extend this logic further. Your friend might accidentally produce botulism toxin while home-brewing wine. he might make a mistake in his math and accidentally cause a grey goo outbreak while tinkering with electronics He might trip and accidentally create a virulent botnet while trying to code up a flash game. He might fall, cause some strange mix of spices and surface cleaners to fall into the pot and accidentally create nerve gas while doing some home cooking.
All these scenarios are as likely as him accidentally creating a super-virus which will kill you while doing DIYbio.
it's new, it's unknown. hence it's scary to those who don't understand it. Such predictions to biologists sound about as absurd as people who are afraid of catching computer viruses from their computers do to programmers.
now on the other hand if your roommate is really really bright and sets out to create a really nasty killer virus the odds are different.
How many people do you know who accidentally tripped while coding an application and unintentionally programmed a virulent computer virus? Bio viruses are orders of magnitude more complex, it's exceedingly unlikely to happen by random chance.
When it's a warlord? ya, I don't value those guys lives much.
And condisering that people were being killed weekly for conspiring with the US anyway(accuratly or not) I doubt it made much real difference to the number of people being killed.
I read the claims too and while I'm sure I could build something it would have little or nothing to do with any knowledge gained from the patent and I'm fairly sure I could build *anything* and it would probably still apply just as much. The attached "imagination" venn diagram is hilarious. check it out.
Or... I don't know. Release the full version for anyone interested and a shorter version for people who jsut want the important bits.
I guess every news service anywhere ever also attracts your ire since when showing footage like a clip from a security camera at a robbery they don't show the other 23.9 hours of totaly uninteresting shit that happened that day.
"There is no need to blindly focus on software patents. They aren't special."
They are special in some ways. I can't patent a piece of music... but I can copyright it. I can't copyright a way to build a better mousetrap.... but I can patent it.
the software operating the better mouse trap on the other hand? I can both patent and copyright that.
Plus a lot of stuff about it being math at heart and the patenting of algorithms and mathematics being absurd. And it being an extremely distributed industry rather than a centralized one making patents nothing but a burden to it.
There was some quote along the lines of "if we decide to use it we'll hire 100 patent lawyers to write 100 patents a day and bury you in so much paperwork it'd take the GDP of your entire island to sort it out"
in other words patents don't protect small inventors. If you invent something and patent it and a big company wants it then when you try to extract money from them they'll look at anything else you're doing, patent something vague and close enough to take you to court and cost you your house in years of legal fees unless you make a deal with them to not charge them a fee in exchange for them not charging you a fee.
unless of course your invention is minor enough or your licence fee small enough that the accountants decide just paying it is significantly cheaper(though intimidation factors in as well so it doesn't have to be cheaper in your single case)
I wasn't implying that the patent was invalid for being obvious. I was implying that unless someone reasonably skilled here could read that patent and then use it as a guide to implementing whatever it is describing that the patent is worthless, doesn't describe the invention in a meaningful way and as such shouldn't be valid.
I mean really. Can anyone even translate this? It sounds like something from a round of corporate bullshit bingo crossed with a youtube comment crossed with the scratchings on the wall of an insane asylum,
An interactive information environment for accessing, controlling, and using information. Using a computer, available sources of information are accessed, and components are extracted, labeled, and formed into discrete units called contexts. A user selects and rearranges context labels and their associated contents. Contexts are selected and combined into new information structures called alternates, which are combinable with contexts into preferred situations. The preferred situations in turn are combinable with the foregoing components into meta-situations. All components have labels; labels and their associated contents are interchangeably movable and copyable at the levels of these information structures, whether they are located locally or remotely, and the information structures are combinable. While a label is invoked and manipulated, its contents or description is simultaneously displayed. Each information structure can be rearranged into one or more models which can be displayed by user selection, and models can be displayed at varying levels of detail. With built-in copyright accounting, commercial control remains with information owners, while operational use is centralized in each user.
Companies without the cash to get reams of patents still innovate. they still make profits because big companies are slow and clumsy. Copyright protects them from having their product simply taken and resold openly(a small amount of piracy excepted) and their competitors have to actually spend the time to create their own product and catch up.
20 years is 5-10 generations? 5 years is 5-10 generations for some software.
The software industry is large enough, distributed enough, competitive enough and innovative enough that it needs patents like it needs a car battery attached to the testicles.
I really am curious, I've only heard about one warlord who got killed because possibly he might have been indirectly implicated in the documents. people keep talking about all the names but from reading a lot of random samples I have yet to see any informants named.
If they provide no editorial they get shit on by the right wing nutjobs for being nothing more than a data dump. if they give a brief editorial, no matter how accurate and factual, they get shit on by the right wing nutjobs since reality tends to be biased against the right wing nutjobs.
Provide an hour long video showing everything?
"I'm not going to watch that, they're too lazy to edit it!"
Provide an hour long video plus an edited short version?
You're going to blame whatever the casualties the last year of the war causes(in a few decades at the rate it's going) on wikileaks?
Bullshit.
The "dumb kid" made his own choices. Why aren't you throwing any of the blame towards the New York Times or the guardian? They both mirrored portions of the archive and publicised it(and of course the newspapers who weren't given priority bitched and moaned about it).
you're like the sad pathetic old codgers who blame the anti-war protesters for the US fucking up in viatnam.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on the country you're in.
here we have "the management reserves the right to refuse service"
Here at least I'm fairly sure there's some requirement that they have to ban you by name(but IANAL) so there might be a loophole where if you don't give them your name and don't cause trouble they're stuck and have to serve you but in general the question of if a business is required to serve you comes down to region specific laws.
have you considered that perhaps it could have saved lives?
Someone accused of being an informant in the time that these docs cover might point to the lack of anything even mentioning their provence?
It's essentially impossible to prove but then so is the opposite.
A murderous warlord dies, he may have been an informant as it was vaguely hinted at in the diaries.
And what about the people who the warlord would have killed since?
It saddens me how little you care about those people and your blind opposition to news organisations like the guardian and new york times who published the war diaries makes it impossible for you to understand.
Exactly!.
wasn't there an article a while back about how some really crazy nonsense transactions were probably the bots trying to DDoS each other through the market to get a few precious CPU cycles ahead of their competitors?
Don't run, walk.
Don't look down and try not to make eye contact, catch their eye and nod.
Don't try to hide a bad under your coat, carry it over one shoulder.
Don't sneak around in the shadows, wear a highvis vest and carry a clipboard.
Don't try to sneak the loot out stealthily, ask the security guard to help you carry the clunky filing cabinate out the door.
And always, always believe and act like you have every right to be whereever you are.
People are like terriers, they chase anything that runs and the eye is drawn to people who look like they're trying to hide.
but but but but .. someone might create nerve gas if they get their hands on a chemistry kit!
Or they might accidentally create an ultra-super poison that will evaporate and kill everyone within 10 miles of their basement!
That sounds like the marketing strategy of some of the most expensive and fashionable high street shops.
Machines can learn, these AI traders are in many ways the decendents of AI's which taught themselves to play games well. A programmer doesn't have to know how to play (lets say) backgammon well in order to create an AI which can play well.
he just has to know the basic rules and how to create an AI capable of learning from it's mistakes then set it playing against itself for a few million games.
This was actually a case study we covered in an AI module when the lecturer was talking about the gradual move away from the more common old approaches where a few expert players would try to teach the machine how to play well to an approach where you don't try to tell the bot how to play but merely give it the ability to learn and have it teach itself.
As it turned out, in backgammon the machine learned better opening moves than the best human players used.
You can be sure the trading bots are constantly looking for these kinds of weaknesses in each other and when they find them they'll exploit them ruthlessly until the other bot learns.
And you can be sure they're trying to manipulate the human traders just as much.
If the bots find that a certain set of actions manipulates the human traders into making unwise trades then they'll exploit it ruthlessly until the humans learn.
but of course you can't take a bot to court and the programmer didn't invent the strategy so they're free to manipulate the market and game the system as much as they can.
But if a human does the same back it's illegal.
Because money talks, the house always wins and the game is crooked.
I prefered the scenario in accelerando where
*spoilers*
Sentient AI's running limited companies gradually get smarter and smarter and better at trading until they out-compete their human creators and push them out.
The *mutate and escape* scenario is far more likely to happen at your local farmyard as regular old viruses cross speciese back and forth mutating as they go.
Yet I don't ever see people terrified that a farmer will accidentally kill us all.
Really? They filter against certain combinations being ordered?
this sounds facinating and I'd like to learn more. Any links?
In academic settings, those safeguards *should be* in place
In some guy's basement, they *might not be*.
I think the point was that he's more likely to infect you with regular old natural diseases due to not washing his hands.
To extend this logic further.
Your friend might accidentally produce botulism toxin while home-brewing wine.
he might make a mistake in his math and accidentally cause a grey goo outbreak while tinkering with electronics
He might trip and accidentally create a virulent botnet while trying to code up a flash game.
He might fall, cause some strange mix of spices and surface cleaners to fall into the pot and accidentally create nerve gas while doing some home cooking.
All these scenarios are as likely as him accidentally creating a super-virus which will kill you while doing DIYbio.
it's new, it's unknown. hence it's scary to those who don't understand it.
Such predictions to biologists sound about as absurd as people who are afraid of catching computer viruses from their computers do to programmers.
now on the other hand if your roommate is really really bright and sets out to create a really nasty killer virus the odds are different.
So just don't live with a psycho.
How many people do you know who accidentally tripped while coding an application and unintentionally programmed a virulent computer virus?
Bio viruses are orders of magnitude more complex, it's exceedingly unlikely to happen by random chance.
When it's a warlord?
ya, I don't value those guys lives much.
And condisering that people were being killed weekly for conspiring with the US anyway(accuratly or not) I doubt it made much real difference to the number of people being killed.
I read the claims too and while I'm sure I could build something it would have little or nothing to do with any knowledge gained from the patent and I'm fairly sure I could build *anything* and it would probably still apply just as much.
The attached "imagination" venn diagram is hilarious. check it out.
Or... I don't know. Release the full version for anyone interested and a shorter version for people who jsut want the important bits.
I guess every news service anywhere ever also attracts your ire since when showing footage like a clip from a security camera at a robbery they don't show the other 23.9 hours of totaly uninteresting shit that happened that day.
I have looked at the docs quite a lot and I have yet to see any names of informants.
"There is no need to blindly focus on software patents. They aren't special."
They are special in some ways.
I can't patent a piece of music... but I can copyright it.
I can't copyright a way to build a better mousetrap.... but I can patent it.
the software operating the better mouse trap on the other hand?
I can both patent and copyright that.
Plus a lot of stuff about it being math at heart and the patenting of algorithms and mathematics being absurd.
And it being an extremely distributed industry rather than a centralized one making patents nothing but a burden to it.
nah, everyone thinks of themselves as the good guys so you can be sure they think it's for the greater good or the glory of god or some such.
There was some quote along the lines of "if we decide to use it we'll hire 100 patent lawyers to write 100 patents a day and bury you in so much paperwork it'd take the GDP of your entire island to sort it out"
in other words patents don't protect small inventors.
If you invent something and patent it and a big company wants it then when you try to extract money from them they'll look at anything else you're doing, patent something vague and close enough to take you to court and cost you your house in years of legal fees unless you make a deal with them to not charge them a fee in exchange for them not charging you a fee.
unless of course your invention is minor enough or your licence fee small enough that the accountants decide just paying it is significantly cheaper(though intimidation factors in as well so it doesn't have to be cheaper in your single case)
I wasn't implying that the patent was invalid for being obvious.
I was implying that unless someone reasonably skilled here could read that patent and then use it as a guide to implementing whatever it is describing that the patent is worthless, doesn't describe the invention in a meaningful way and as such shouldn't be valid.
I mean really.
Can anyone even translate this?
It sounds like something from a round of corporate bullshit bingo crossed with a youtube comment crossed with the scratchings on the wall of an insane asylum,
An interactive information environment for accessing, controlling, and using information. Using a computer, available sources of information are accessed, and components are extracted, labeled, and formed into discrete units called contexts. A user selects and rearranges context labels and their associated contents. Contexts are selected and combined into new information structures called alternates, which are combinable with contexts into preferred situations. The preferred situations in turn are combinable with the foregoing components into meta-situations. All components have labels; labels and their associated contents are interchangeably movable and copyable at the levels of these information structures, whether they are located locally or remotely, and the information structures are combinable. While a label is invoked and manipulated, its contents or description is simultaneously displayed. Each information structure can be rearranged into one or more models which can be displayed by user selection, and models can be displayed at varying levels of detail. With built-in copyright accounting, commercial control remains with information owners, while operational use is centralized in each user.
only that's not what happens.
Companies without the cash to get reams of patents still innovate.
they still make profits because big companies are slow and clumsy.
Copyright protects them from having their product simply taken and resold openly(a small amount of piracy excepted) and their competitors have to actually spend the time to create their own product and catch up.
20 years is 5-10 generations?
5 years is 5-10 generations for some software.
The software industry is large enough, distributed enough, competitive enough and innovative enough that it needs patents like it needs a car battery attached to the testicles.
I really am curious, I've only heard about one warlord who got killed because possibly he might have been indirectly implicated in the documents.
people keep talking about all the names but from reading a lot of random samples I have yet to see any informants named.
So my question:
What informants are named and where?
If they provide no editorial they get shit on by the right wing nutjobs for being nothing more than a data dump.
if they give a brief editorial, no matter how accurate and factual, they get shit on by the right wing nutjobs since reality tends to be biased against the right wing nutjobs.
Provide an hour long video showing everything?
"I'm not going to watch that, they're too lazy to edit it!"
Provide an hour long video plus an edited short version?
"BIAS!!!!! THEY EDITED IT!!!! EVIL!!!!!"
You're going to blame whatever the casualties the last year of the war causes(in a few decades at the rate it's going) on wikileaks?
Bullshit.
The "dumb kid" made his own choices.
Why aren't you throwing any of the blame towards the New York Times or the guardian?
They both mirrored portions of the archive and publicised it(and of course the newspapers who weren't given priority bitched and moaned about it).
you're like the sad pathetic old codgers who blame the anti-war protesters for the US fucking up in viatnam.