I always wondered why they didn't do this. It would have had the effect they wanted surly, and would have been within the agreement with sun.
Or perhaps the idea that someone could come up with something that didn't lock them into MS world (even if its didn't look hot) was just too abhorrent to them.
Well all my code i have released as BSD (my preference), I have assumed that folks can change it with a derivative work to GPL providing that my name still show up somewhere. Since many still need to use GPLv2, I guess I will make dual licensing explicit.
It was an odd interpretation at any rate. A derivative work can have a new copyright notice. Its not changing a legal document etc. Anyway, I think these days its pretty clear, yes?
Why did you post this? There is no mention of religious fanatics in the summary (and i bet in the article as well).
This will now hijack the thread, and it will be a big long discussion of religious folk and probably decent into a flame war every now and then.
Instead we could be talking about the topic at hand and discuss the science.
If i wanted discussion about modern religious groups, I would go to a web site that catered for that. Or read the/. stories that are bent that way. You could do this too since the science and or political aspects of science seem uninteresting to you.
For me it puts the fun in. Really, I like hard scifi.
Speculative future is fine, i just wish they wouldn't do things that basically deny what we already know. If there is faster than light travel/communication then it won't be via quantum teleportation. We know how that works and we have it working in the lab, its not spooky and its not magic.
Quantum entanglement-based teleportation *must* have a classic channel and does not give you faster than light communication, *and* destroys the quantum state of the "object" getting teleported.
Just because you don't ask the question doesn't mean its not relevant. If sentience can be run on a *deterministic* computer that doesn't have free will, then the question is their.
Natural systems make the most use out of the available matter and energy.
This is quite false. Photosynthesis for example is not as good at light harvesting as a triple junction solar cell. Thats just one example. What competition does is let you find a niche or just be a little better than the other guy. It has nothing to do with optimal.
As for explosion of machines... how many computers have been made? When did we make the first electric computer? Food for thought.
There is plenty of question in fact. A lot. its simply not a given that it can be done. Yes nothing we know says it can't be done. But until you know the details, its not a given.
A good example is the simulation of say a moderately complex system. Say fluid dynamics. A fluid is made of lots of small particles undergoing random motion with various quite complicated forces between them . Fortunately I can in fact *approximate* this system with the so called governing equations of fluid dynamics. Fluid dynamics doesn't need to simulate every single particle (6e23 of them per mole), but approximates the system as a homogeneous system (ie assumes particles don't exist). But it wasn't a given that this would work, and because it takes more than one "atom" of computer to simulate a singe atom --if the dynamics are such that you had to simulate every atom--then it *could* have been impossible to simulate any decent size fluid problem even with computers the size of stars.
Clearly this is a very contrived example. But you get the idea. Computation power is bounded in our universe. Perhaps that bound is too low. Of course its equally probable that various approximations work well and a "good enough" and that machine sentience is pretty easy to do once you know how.
I just hope that the new minds are as eccentric as the ships from the culture universe. With names like "I Blame My Mother", "I Blame Your Mother" and "Funny, It Worked Last Time..."
Make no mistake about it : people who talk about unspeakable quantum phenomenon to explain thoughts are just people who are uncomfortable about the idea that we don't need any soul-thingie to explain sentience and consciousness.
Ironically you do need quantum physics to explain the modern transistor. Just because its quantum doesn't mean its "unspeakable quantum phenomenon" or anything. And if you can't duplicate sentience or don't have a decent model for sentience, then perhaps its too early to claim what is involved.
And lets not forget the inherent question of free will in all this.
Its doesn't have to be impossible. But then again it not a given that its possible either. Then there is even the point that if sentience is simulated so well that i cannot tell the difference... is their really a difference? Since i can't in fact know that anyone but me is self aware etc.... Philosophy has been dealing with these questions for some time. They may not be scientific questions in that they often don't produce testable hypothesis, but they are interesting questions.
Its like intelligent life outside earth. Every sci-fi writer pretty much has aliens as par for the course. But its not a given. Of course life could be common, but not intelligent life perhaps--The great silence doesn't bode well for ubiquitous intelligent life however. We really could be it for this galaxy. Iain Banks kind of explored something in that direction kind of... with Against a Dark Background.
A really really good fusor gets you perhaps 10^8 reactions per second (IIRC). To get just 1 mole (4 grams) of He, you would need to run it for about 190 *million* years.
In NZ they had to start impounded cars for repeat offenders and unlicensed drivers. Otherwise they kept borrowing friends cars all the time. So first time you get to keep the car, second its impounded for a month. 3rd time, well I in fact don't recall. Note that even if its not *your* car you are driving its impounded. As the owner you are responsible who you lend it out too.
You mean like the fact that they have already been *convicted* of DUI? Thats the proof. They shouldn't be allowed to drive *at all*. You don't have a right to drive drink. The general public *do* have a right to drive on *public* roads without drunks or anyone under the influence.
Yes, its completely irresponsible to have such a unit in car. However even worse is having a driver that has already demonstrated to be worse. Why the frack should they be on the road at all. Other people, sober people have a right to drive on the roads without incompetent morons that can't even stay sober when using dangerous heavy machinery with others around.
Drink driving not something you do only on your own or in the privacy of your own home. Other people have a right to drive without drunks on the road.
Personally it would be better just to take the license for extended periods of time. Even permanently. Thats what happens to pilots that don't follow the rules. No first offense BS (at least in the countries I have flown)
Slashdot Mirror
I always wondered why they didn't do this. It would have had the effect they wanted surly, and would have been within the agreement with sun.
Or perhaps the idea that someone could come up with something that didn't lock them into MS world (even if its didn't look hot) was just too abhorrent to them.
Microsoft doesn't claim patents against it..
..yet.
good to know.
Well all my code i have released as BSD (my preference), I have assumed that folks can change it with a derivative work to GPL providing that my name still show up somewhere. Since many still need to use GPLv2, I guess I will make dual licensing explicit.
It was an odd interpretation at any rate. A derivative work can have a new copyright notice. Its not changing a legal document etc. Anyway, I think these days its pretty clear, yes?
Why did you post this? There is no mention of religious fanatics in the summary (and i bet in the article as well).
/. stories that are bent that way. You could do this too since the science and or political aspects of science seem uninteresting to you.
This will now hijack the thread, and it will be a big long discussion of religious folk and probably decent into a flame war every now and then.
Instead we could be talking about the topic at hand and discuss the science.
If i wanted discussion about modern religious groups, I would go to a web site that catered for that. Or read the
WTF? BSD is 100% GPL compatible. Thats why lots of BSD (under a BSD license) stuff gets taken over to the Linux kernel but not the other way round.
Its trivial to see how its GPL compatible. GPL add *restrictions* to BSD for redistribution. More rules if you like.
For me it puts the fun in. Really, I like hard scifi.
Speculative future is fine, i just wish they wouldn't do things that basically deny what we already know. If there is faster than light travel/communication then it won't be via quantum teleportation. We know how that works and we have it working in the lab, its not spooky and its not magic.
Quantum entanglement-based teleportation *must* have a classic channel and does not give you faster than light communication, *and* destroys the quantum state of the "object" getting teleported.
Or are you being funny?
There is no such inherent question.
Just because you don't ask the question doesn't mean its not relevant. If sentience can be run on a *deterministic* computer that doesn't have free will, then the question is their.
Natural systems make the most use out of the available matter and energy.
This is quite false. Photosynthesis for example is not as good at light harvesting as a triple junction solar cell. Thats just one example. What competition does is let you find a niche or just be a little better than the other guy. It has nothing to do with optimal.
As for explosion of machines... how many computers have been made? When did we make the first electric computer? Food for thought.
There is no question that it is possible.
There is plenty of question in fact. A lot. its simply not a given that it can be done. Yes nothing we know says it can't be done. But until you know the details, its not a given.
A good example is the simulation of say a moderately complex system. Say fluid dynamics. A fluid is made of lots of small particles undergoing random motion with various quite complicated forces between them . Fortunately I can in fact *approximate* this system with the so called governing equations of fluid dynamics. Fluid dynamics doesn't need to simulate every single particle (6e23 of them per mole), but approximates the system as a homogeneous system (ie assumes particles don't exist). But it wasn't a given that this would work, and because it takes more than one "atom" of computer to simulate a singe atom --if the dynamics are such that you had to simulate every atom--then it *could* have been impossible to simulate any decent size fluid problem even with computers the size of stars.
Clearly this is a very contrived example. But you get the idea. Computation power is bounded in our universe. Perhaps that bound is too low. Of course its equally probable that various approximations work well and a "good enough" and that machine sentience is pretty easy to do once you know how.
I just hope that the new minds are as eccentric as the ships from the culture universe. With names like "I Blame My Mother", "I Blame Your Mother" and "Funny, It Worked Last Time..."
Make no mistake about it : people who talk about unspeakable quantum phenomenon to explain thoughts are just people who are uncomfortable about the idea that we don't need any soul-thingie to explain sentience and consciousness.
Ironically you do need quantum physics to explain the modern transistor. Just because its quantum doesn't mean its "unspeakable quantum phenomenon" or anything. And if you can't duplicate sentience or don't have a decent model for sentience, then perhaps its too early to claim what is involved.
And lets not forget the inherent question of free will in all this.
Its doesn't have to be impossible. But then again it not a given that its possible either. Then there is even the point that if sentience is simulated so well that i cannot tell the difference... is their really a difference? Since i can't in fact know that anyone but me is self aware etc.... Philosophy has been dealing with these questions for some time. They may not be scientific questions in that they often don't produce testable hypothesis, but they are interesting questions.
Its like intelligent life outside earth. Every sci-fi writer pretty much has aliens as par for the course. But its not a given. Of course life could be common, but not intelligent life perhaps--The great silence doesn't bode well for ubiquitous intelligent life however. We really could be it for this galaxy. Iain Banks kind of explored something in that direction kind of... with Against a Dark Background.
Fusor efficiencies have increased by almost two orders of magnitude in the last decade or so.
No they haven't.
A really really good fusor gets you perhaps 10^8 reactions per second (IIRC). To get just 1 mole (4 grams) of He, you would need to run it for about 190 *million* years.
What about fining the person who applied for the invalid patent and then tried to enforce it? Or the patent attorney who didn't do his/her job?
You don't need much lift to reduce the ballistic deceleration from about 10g to 3g.
This is pretty much par for the course for fatal air accidents. One thing going wrong is almost never enough.
In NZ they had to start impounded cars for repeat offenders and unlicensed drivers. Otherwise they kept borrowing friends cars all the time. So first time you get to keep the car, second its impounded for a month. 3rd time, well I in fact don't recall. Note that even if its not *your* car you are driving its impounded. As the owner you are responsible who you lend it out too.
WTF? What part of moderation requires driving?
You mean like the fact that they have already been *convicted* of DUI? Thats the proof. They shouldn't be allowed to drive *at all*. You don't have a right to drive drink. The general public *do* have a right to drive on *public* roads without drunks or anyone under the influence.
Yes, its completely irresponsible to have such a unit in car. However even worse is having a driver that has already demonstrated to be worse. Why the frack should they be on the road at all. Other people, sober people have a right to drive on the roads without incompetent morons that can't even stay sober when using dangerous heavy machinery with others around.
You right. Why let them drive at all? Take their license already.
Drink driving not something you do only on your own or in the privacy of your own home. Other people have a right to drive without drunks on the road.
Personally it would be better just to take the license for extended periods of time. Even permanently. Thats what happens to pilots that don't follow the rules. No first offense BS (at least in the countries I have flown)
The easiest way to avoid the problems is not drive over the limit. How hard is that?