The lulz here is that Prof. Abelson tells an anecdote about how he was led to his study and career by a chance discussion with one of the Students for a Democratic Society, which he had during a sit-in at the President's office to protest the Vietnam war. He went to the AI Lab the next day, made some connections, and that was that.
But, yeah, I'm sure his career would have unfolded the same way if he'd instead been arrested and threatened with 20 years of prison. Trespassing is trespassing. Copyright violation is merely a civil offense, and should be orthogonal.
Yes, it's clear you're a moron. Linus did exactly the same thing about crypto vulnerabilities in the kernel. He ignored a real (if so far theoretical) vulnerability, did his usual "fuck you" routine, and did so by making false claims about the relevant code (they were based on code comments which were no longer accurate.) Now that sounds exactly like covering his ears and screaming.
Gently corrects people, my ass. That was neither gentle nor, in fact, a correction.
And Steve Jobs' job was to make things pretty, you idiot. And he was very good at it, made stacks of cash for himself and many others, and produced the best laptop in the world. And it runs unix.
survivorship is after the fact. linus is an asshole and commanding great work; jobs was known to be an asshole for years while commanding great work.
also, this isn't survivor bias so much as just being a small, cherry-picked sample. any more data would be welcome. is there a comprehensive study of failures?
Could you show me where it is written that law enforcement has a duty to prevent any particular crime?
I'm not talking about morality here, I just want you to substantiate your "guilty" claim. It's not automatically a "conspiracy" if you merely fail to prevent a crime. (Let alone that you have no solid evidence that the FBI even knew about the March murder before recently.)
Note that "reckless indifference" is a slightly misleading phrase. It's usually argued to establish that an act was malicious, even if unintentionally so, e.g. someone can act with reckless indifference if he turns on the industrial crusher when he knew that the servicemen were working on it and kills them. He didn't mean to kill them per se, but not giving a fuck still counts as malice. Acting with reckless indifference can get you the chair, but that's different from not acting due to indifference. (the hint is in the "reckless" part.)
Again, I don't disagree with you that if they knew and did nothing, it is reprehensible. My objection is only to your use of "guilty" and "conspiracy."
And again, the Christians have to retcon Him into every piece of scripture, thereby fundamentally changing its meaning. (I'm not Jewish, btw, I just find it to be an odd obsession.)
But, back on topic, I agree with your general interpretation.
Something that's perhaps overly interesting to me is that the Christian bible usually has something like this translation ``I returned and saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to men of understanding, nor favor to men of skill; but time and chance happen to them all," while the Hebrew bible usually says something like ``... but time and fate happen to them all."
If you're going to interpret this as betiding the crucifixion, I think `fate' would fit better, but for some reason they do it the other way around. Maybe Jesus was none of these things, so it specifically doesn't apply. I dunno.
my favorite book of the Bible is Ecclesiastes which, being basically an existential musing on the meaninglessness of life by, ostensibly, King Solomon, is considered so out-of-place that scholars have been trying for about two thousand years to figure out why the hell it was included in the Hebrew canon.
1. used Mechanical Turk to get people to report association of words with emotions 2. determine emotion by counting(!) corresponding words with weighting proportional to association, using sliding window in time. 3. generate pretty but almost meaningless plot 4. profit?
hint: Dramatic tension is often created through irony. The audience knows that the doom of character X (e.g. Walter White) comes when he finally comes to trust character Y (e.g. the white nationalist thugs) implicitly. Goddammit, at the very least look for some negative auto- or cross-correlations.
maybe the lenses are actually a very precise notch filter for a color of ink matched close (but not quite) to the color of the design on the card backs? by applying this ink very carefully you could, in principle at least, add what appear to you as dark markings that way. seems pretty tough to pull off, but i have no other idea.
She's not a "Judge," or at least not any more. She's an arbiter/celebrity. The "trials" on that show aren't real trials, they're arbitration with a contractual agreement not to pursue further arbitration elsewhere.
And, yes, she can be extremely biased and unprofessional. It's easy to do when you stack the "docket" with the worst human scum you can find.
When the system is to try and make as much money as possible, how many Fair-Handed Champions of Equality and Justice do you expect? Of course people are only going to complain about the competition. The point is that the competition will do the same. If competition is too brittle to function in this padded jungle gym, then an entire free market would be a complete non-starter.
btw, the chevy site gives only a pricing guideline since they're not selling the vehicle; the dealer is. Tesla is the actual dealer. Whether or not this is a Real Difference to you depends on how much you read between the lines, but legally it is an important distinction.
It's partly because skilled computer tech work is mostly about automation, which puts the less skilled out of work. The analogue with other labor would be if the upper quartile of, say, plumbers earned their paycheck building tiny ad-hoc pipe-laying-and-inspecting robots for their customers. Unionizing with the idiots you're replacing doesn't make a lot of sense.
You said "not labor unions," but what else is there? There are already professional societies with ethical guidelines and such, but they seem pretty irrelevant.
it's a proof-of-concept. yes, turning arbitrary code into a full rootkit would be tricky (though i don't think it would require hard AI), but changing the code to allow a buffer overflow is notably easier.
also, the probability of two different compilers producing the same binary on anything beyond "hello, world" is practically zero.
Assuming you mean full pints of, say, barleywine or imperial stout, that can easily be alcohol-equivalent to ~7 12 oz. cans of standard 5% crap beer (12-packs are usually crap beer). The scotch gets you at least another 6. It works out about the same, apart from taste and price.
Of course, you'd have the same blasé attitude if the bomb had detonated, right? After all, it's the same thing: a ``statistically possible transient event'' which ``skirted the edge." It would be on the other side of the edge.
Isn't this the entire point of capitalism, though? If you want capitalism to work for inventions, I don't see how you could do it without something like patents.
The answer might be to move from this archaic system of absolute state-enforced monopoly to something a bit more flexible. Of course this would require economists and policy-makers to be imaginative and innovative themselves, rather than modeling `innovation' as white noise (wtf?), which seems unlikely.
Not an eeeevil corporation, not even necessarily a formal one. Post on forums (like you've already done here) with a solid proposal about chipping in (unlike you've done here); start a webpage; whatever. I guess you can even do a Kickstarter, unless it's required for the host to actually do the work. Start negotiating with developers, say that the $ is on its way or in hand.
Seems like a lot of work? It is, and you probably won't do it. But unlike waiting for someone to be inspired to passionately solve the problem you care about, it has at least a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening.
It's almost like those evil corporations are actually providing a service which random developers, with no motivation but fun and ego, can't or won't provide.
The point is to make that possibility crystal clear to end-users to influence them to use the legit version. As such, this is basically a humorously self-deprecating form of FUD.
Slashdot Mirror
The lulz here is that Prof. Abelson tells an anecdote about how he was led to his study and career by a chance discussion with one of the Students for a Democratic Society, which he had during a sit-in at the President's office to protest the Vietnam war. He went to the AI Lab the next day, made some connections, and that was that.
But, yeah, I'm sure his career would have unfolded the same way if he'd instead been arrested and threatened with 20 years of prison. Trespassing is trespassing. Copyright violation is merely a civil offense, and should be orthogonal.
not exactly comprehensive, but very good point. :)
Yes, it's clear you're a moron. Linus did exactly the same thing about crypto vulnerabilities in the kernel. He ignored a real (if so far theoretical) vulnerability, did his usual "fuck you" routine, and did so by making false claims about the relevant code (they were based on code comments which were no longer accurate.) Now that sounds exactly like covering his ears and screaming.
Gently corrects people, my ass. That was neither gentle nor, in fact, a correction.
And Steve Jobs' job was to make things pretty, you idiot. And he was very good at it, made stacks of cash for himself and many others, and produced the best laptop in the world. And it runs unix.
survivorship is after the fact. linus is an asshole and commanding great work; jobs was known to be an asshole for years while commanding great work.
also, this isn't survivor bias so much as just being a small, cherry-picked sample. any more data would be welcome. is there a comprehensive study of failures?
When the fuck did I say either of them did or did not know what they're talking about?
Having someone else's chip on your shoulder must be tedious.
don't worry. it's benign.
this one is more on point though: https://www.google.com/search?q=linus+torvalds+fuck+-nvidia+-sex+-meme+lkml
seems to work in general. https://www.google.com/search?q=linus+torvalds+fuck
yeah, it's clearly an oral-ogy.
Could you show me where it is written that law enforcement has a duty to prevent any particular crime?
I'm not talking about morality here, I just want you to substantiate your "guilty" claim. It's not automatically a "conspiracy" if you merely fail to prevent a crime. (Let alone that you have no solid evidence that the FBI even knew about the March murder before recently.)
Note that "reckless indifference" is a slightly misleading phrase. It's usually argued to establish that an act was malicious, even if unintentionally so, e.g. someone can act with reckless indifference if he turns on the industrial crusher when he knew that the servicemen were working on it and kills them. He didn't mean to kill them per se, but not giving a fuck still counts as malice. Acting with reckless indifference can get you the chair, but that's different from not acting due to indifference. (the hint is in the "reckless" part.)
Again, I don't disagree with you that if they knew and did nothing, it is reprehensible. My objection is only to your use of "guilty" and "conspiracy."
And again, the Christians have to retcon Him into every piece of scripture, thereby fundamentally changing its meaning. (I'm not Jewish, btw, I just find it to be an odd obsession.)
But, back on topic, I agree with your general interpretation.
Something that's perhaps overly interesting to me is that the Christian bible usually has something like this translation ``I returned and saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to men of understanding, nor favor to men of skill; but time and chance happen to them all," while the Hebrew bible usually says something like ``... but time and fate happen to them all."
If you're going to interpret this as betiding the crucifixion, I think `fate' would fit better, but for some reason they do it the other way around. Maybe Jesus was none of these things, so it specifically doesn't apply. I dunno.
my favorite book of the Bible is Ecclesiastes which, being basically an existential musing on the meaninglessness of life by, ostensibly, King Solomon, is considered so out-of-place that scholars have been trying for about two thousand years to figure out why the hell it was included in the Hebrew canon.
1. used Mechanical Turk to get people to report association of words with emotions
2. determine emotion by counting(!) corresponding words with weighting proportional to association, using sliding window in time.
3. generate pretty but almost meaningless plot
4. profit?
hint: Dramatic tension is often created through irony. The audience knows that the doom of character X (e.g. Walter White) comes when he finally comes to trust character Y (e.g. the white nationalist thugs) implicitly. Goddammit, at the very least look for some negative auto- or cross-correlations.
maybe the lenses are actually a very precise notch filter for a color of ink matched close (but not quite) to the color of the design on the card backs? by applying this ink very carefully you could, in principle at least, add what appear to you as dark markings that way. seems pretty tough to pull off, but i have no other idea.
She's not a "Judge," or at least not any more. She's an arbiter/celebrity. The "trials" on that show aren't real trials, they're arbitration with a contractual agreement not to pursue further arbitration elsewhere.
And, yes, she can be extremely biased and unprofessional. It's easy to do when you stack the "docket" with the worst human scum you can find.
When the system is to try and make as much money as possible, how many Fair-Handed Champions of Equality and Justice do you expect? Of course people are only going to complain about the competition. The point is that the competition will do the same. If competition is too brittle to function in this padded jungle gym, then an entire free market would be a complete non-starter.
btw, the chevy site gives only a pricing guideline since they're not selling the vehicle; the dealer is. Tesla is the actual dealer. Whether or not this is a Real Difference to you depends on how much you read between the lines, but legally it is an important distinction.
It's partly because skilled computer tech work is mostly about automation, which puts the less skilled out of work. The analogue with other labor would be if the upper quartile of, say, plumbers earned their paycheck building tiny ad-hoc pipe-laying-and-inspecting robots for their customers. Unionizing with the idiots you're replacing doesn't make a lot of sense.
You said "not labor unions," but what else is there? There are already professional societies with ethical guidelines and such, but they seem pretty irrelevant.
it's a proof-of-concept. yes, turning arbitrary code into a full rootkit would be tricky (though i don't think it would require hard AI), but changing the code to allow a buffer overflow is notably easier.
also, the probability of two different compilers producing the same binary on anything beyond "hello, world" is practically zero.
Candida yeast don't generate ethanol.
Assuming you mean full pints of, say, barleywine or imperial stout, that can easily be alcohol-equivalent to ~7 12 oz. cans of standard 5% crap beer (12-packs are usually crap beer). The scotch gets you at least another 6. It works out about the same, apart from taste and price.
Of course, you'd have the same blasé attitude if the bomb had detonated, right? After all, it's the same thing: a ``statistically possible transient event'' which ``skirted the edge." It would be on the other side of the edge.
Isn't this the entire point of capitalism, though? If you want capitalism to work for inventions, I don't see how you could do it without something like patents.
The answer might be to move from this archaic system of absolute state-enforced monopoly to something a bit more flexible. Of course this would require economists and policy-makers to be imaginative and innovative themselves, rather than modeling `innovation' as white noise (wtf?), which seems unlikely.
your testimony might be more compelling if you described why you need 45 workspaces.
Not an eeeevil corporation, not even necessarily a formal one. Post on forums (like you've already done here) with a solid proposal about chipping in (unlike you've done here); start a webpage; whatever. I guess you can even do a Kickstarter, unless it's required for the host to actually do the work. Start negotiating with developers, say that the $ is on its way or in hand.
Seems like a lot of work? It is, and you probably won't do it. But unlike waiting for someone to be inspired to passionately solve the problem you care about, it has at least a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening.
It's almost like those evil corporations are actually providing a service which random developers, with no motivation but fun and ego, can't or won't provide.
Then you should be happy about this, it'll help keep your (and my) rent down. :)
Yes, obviously.
The point is to make that possibility crystal clear to end-users to influence them to use the legit version. As such, this is basically a humorously self-deprecating form of FUD.