While I was there it never did, but that didn't mean that the worry about, say, a patent that we didn't know was there on a method used in open source software that we used in our product getting us sued. Honestly, I'd have to agree that it probably still was a worthwhile policy, economically speaking, given the reasons they had for it, and the potential costs to the company for being wrong just once.
It re-enforces the feeling most people have that Oracle's takeover means Java is ceasing to be an open, free, technology, that was already a gut feeling most had when they started suing Google.
It was the gut feeling I had as soon as I had heard that they bought Sun instead of IBM.
I've worked for software development companies that had policies of not using open source software as well, but it had less to do with being shitty, per se, and more to do with lawyers, and the risk of being sued ourselves if something didn't go right just because we depended on someone else's software to work as described. If software we depend upon was commercial and had an issue, we had a specific party that we could verifiably hold responsible for addressing it.
I seem to recall an issue I had once with javax.crypto stuff not working right with openjdk, and I needed the certs from oracle jdk. to do a secured socket connection.
.,,. did not already know this. When I was a kid, and my uncle was teaching me how to fish, I asked him why the biggest fish were in deeper waster, and as I remember it, he basically told me that was because the fish in shallower water were easier to catch and kept getting caught too quickly, so the fish that live to be oldest and biggest are usually found in deep water. Those weren't his exact words, I don't think, but it was something to that effect that I took from what he was saying. I had no idea that he was basically bullshitting me and making stuff up that just happened to be true.
If that wasn't your intent, then I apologize for misunderstanding your point... I've heard the argument that "we don't understand it therefore it must be because of quantum mechanics" before from other people, and I consider it to be a lazy way to do science.
But my point was that just because we do not fully understand it, does not mean that we cannot do something like it. Heck, the example I gave of the transistor, whose operation is *entirely* dependant upon quantum mechanics, and which we made long before the field of quantum mechanics even existed, is I think a pretty good precedent that even ignoring the quantum effects which may be involved, with intelligent application of the theories that we do understand, we can still be capable of things that previous generations may have well believed to be impossible.
The fact that nature did it means that it's within the realm of physical possibility, so I see no reason why we won't have the AI problem solved as well. I think we are within but a single human generation of having generalised AI that will be able to do anything that a human can do, and I think that its discovery and the ability to analyze its operation as we can with any computer right now may give us some heretofore undiscovered insight into how human consciousness emerges as well.
There's a lot of quantum effects in lots of things... we know that now. Operation of transistors, of example, depends on quantum phenomena. The colors of most objects are dependant on quantum effects. It's entirely reasonable to expect that the brain might depend on quantum mechanics as well. My point is that using "quantum effects" to explain away the parts of the brain that we don't yet understand is just being plain lazy.
Entirely untrue. There are many things that exist in nature that humans have figured out how to do for ourselves, where nature took millions or even of years to evolve it, we did it in only the compartively short time since humans have been making machines.
Oh, and incidentally, the "theories that we know to be true" do not include Quantum Mechanics at this time.
Of course, but we don't even have any reason to conclude that the brain's operation uses quantum mechanics, other than the laziness to assume that the fact that we don't know exactly how it works yet means that it must fit into one particular theory we have which would be compatible with uncertainty. That's right up there with assuming there is a God just because we don't know how everything got here in the first place*.
*Disclaimer: I mean no offense to people who believe in God, but I do think that if the only reason that one has to do so is because they just don't otherwise know how things happen to have come to be a weak one.
Nature managed to produce a brain without knowing anything about how it works.
It follows that some amount of intelligent application of the theories that we know to be true may be able to replicate it many orders of magnitude faster.
Yes... stuff that's not actually that environmentally friendly. It can be recycled, but requires specialized facilities to do so. It cannot be composted, which is the ideal.
In theory, yes... but biodegradable wax coatings on straws can affect the taste of whatever you are drinking, giving it a slight bitter flavour. The types of coatings that are more inert tend to be less environmentally friendly.
You don't have to be a genius to see the obvious accessibility issues with eliminating straws entirely. What might be more reasonable is to not supply a straw unless one is asked for.
The biggest problem I can see with paper straws is that if you take too long to finish your drink, then you can end up with pulp in your soda or juice or what have you from the straw, and putting a coating on the straws to prevent this usually makes the straw not significantly better than plastic from a recycling point of view.
By restricting it to the Apple ecosystem, it has so far remained pretty clear that it is an Apple-only thing.
If they open it up, however, I expect there's going to be lots of confusion about who really controls the technology because of the popularity of Facebook.
Conceptually, yes, I think that it's a good thing. But given the potential for trademark dilution, I don't think it's in Apple's or Facebook's best interest to do this. I think that Apple should consider renaming it before opening it, or not open it at all.
Of course, if one enjoys watching things burn in the aftermath of some chaos, one might think that any difficulties that either encounter as a result of such a move are actually just a bonus.
No, I understand what the judicial system does. The question was rhetorical. My point was what the judicial system has asked for in thei case is technologically impossible without manually vetting every single video uploaded, or else making Youtube virtually useless in Austria by blocking entirely non-infringing content because the software can't tell the difference between it and copyrighted stuff.
Basically, computers aren't smart enough yet... and there's no indication right now of when they ever will be. Rulings like this are made by people that appear to have zero understanding that computers are not actually magic.
The fact that they may develop future AI which might be used for weapons wouldn't invalidate the promise at the time that it is given.
They can even further get around it by not calling any future version of AI that may be weaponizable "their" AI... but AI that they developed for someone else.
When I get a window seat, I really enjoy being able to looking around outside, in all directions, sometimes upwards, sometimes out towards the horizon, sometimes to watch the terrain below, sometimes even to enjoy the patterns I might see in the clouds we may be flying over.. Until they perfect fully 3d holographic displays where the position of my eyes in relation to the "window" determines what I see, I'd have to say no thanks.
This is not about detecting copyright infringement, but the way YouTube chooses content you might want to watch.
And what way is that, exactly, that somehow would enable Youtube magically comply with this court ruling?
I'm betting you don't know the specifics, and I'm also pretty sure that neither did this court.
And near as I can tell, what they are asking for is technologically impossible without effectively blacklisting entirely non-infringing content as well.
I agree that there is a huge risk that pendulum swings too far in the opposite direction, which would result in misuse by the copyright holders...
Sure, except perhaps you have failed to noticed that it is Youtube, not the copyright holder, is being held responsible by this ruling for preventing the infringement from happening in the first place.
Of course, to actually accomplish this without Youtube manually vetting every single video that is uploaded (an untenable solution) is for Youtube to block any and every single video that even *remotely* resembles something that might be copyright infringing from being viewed in Austria.
.... did the court offer any suggestions as to how, technically speaking, Youtube was supposed to achieve this?
The very *best* case scenario here if Austria gets what they are asking for is that this is going to result in entirely legal videos which might contain parody, satire, or commentary on copyrighted works being blocked from being viewed in Austria, as well as any other entirely original works that might happen to have some superficial similarity to a copyrighted work. It only goes downhill from there.
Slashdot Mirror
While I was there it never did, but that didn't mean that the worry about, say, a patent that we didn't know was there on a method used in open source software that we used in our product getting us sued. Honestly, I'd have to agree that it probably still was a worthwhile policy, economically speaking, given the reasons they had for it, and the potential costs to the company for being wrong just once.
It was the gut feeling I had as soon as I had heard that they bought Sun instead of IBM.
I've worked for software development companies that had policies of not using open source software as well, but it had less to do with being shitty, per se, and more to do with lawyers, and the risk of being sued ourselves if something didn't go right just because we depended on someone else's software to work as described. If software we depend upon was commercial and had an issue, we had a specific party that we could verifiably hold responsible for addressing it.
I seem to recall an issue I had once with javax.crypto stuff not working right with openjdk, and I needed the certs from oracle jdk. to do a secured socket connection.
I thought that the entire operation of an NP junction, whether it be part of a diode or a transistor, was dependant on quantum tunnelling.
.,,. did not already know this. When I was a kid, and my uncle was teaching me how to fish, I asked him why the biggest fish were in deeper waster, and as I remember it, he basically told me that was because the fish in shallower water were easier to catch and kept getting caught too quickly, so the fish that live to be oldest and biggest are usually found in deep water. Those weren't his exact words, I don't think, but it was something to that effect that I took from what he was saying. I had no idea that he was basically bullshitting me and making stuff up that just happened to be true.
But my point was that just because we do not fully understand it, does not mean that we cannot do something like it. Heck, the example I gave of the transistor, whose operation is *entirely* dependant upon quantum mechanics, and which we made long before the field of quantum mechanics even existed, is I think a pretty good precedent that even ignoring the quantum effects which may be involved, with intelligent application of the theories that we do understand, we can still be capable of things that previous generations may have well believed to be impossible.
The fact that nature did it means that it's within the realm of physical possibility, so I see no reason why we won't have the AI problem solved as well. I think we are within but a single human generation of having generalised AI that will be able to do anything that a human can do, and I think that its discovery and the ability to analyze its operation as we can with any computer right now may give us some heretofore undiscovered insight into how human consciousness emerges as well.
There's a lot of quantum effects in lots of things... we know that now. Operation of transistors, of example, depends on quantum phenomena. The colors of most objects are dependant on quantum effects. It's entirely reasonable to expect that the brain might depend on quantum mechanics as well. My point is that using "quantum effects" to explain away the parts of the brain that we don't yet understand is just being plain lazy.
I overspoke.... I meant that it was not any more dependant on quantum mechanics than anything else in the physical world.
Entirely untrue. There are many things that exist in nature that humans have figured out how to do for ourselves, where nature took millions or even of years to evolve it, we did it in only the compartively short time since humans have been making machines.
Of course, but we don't even have any reason to conclude that the brain's operation uses quantum mechanics, other than the laziness to assume that the fact that we don't know exactly how it works yet means that it must fit into one particular theory we have which would be compatible with uncertainty. That's right up there with assuming there is a God just because we don't know how everything got here in the first place*.
*Disclaimer: I mean no offense to people who believe in God, but I do think that if the only reason that one has to do so is because they just don't otherwise know how things happen to have come to be a weak one.
Nature managed to produce a brain without knowing anything about how it works.
It follows that some amount of intelligent application of the theories that we know to be true may be able to replicate it many orders of magnitude faster.
Yes... stuff that's not actually that environmentally friendly. It can be recycled, but requires specialized facilities to do so. It cannot be composted, which is the ideal.
In theory, yes... but biodegradable wax coatings on straws can affect the taste of whatever you are drinking, giving it a slight bitter flavour. The types of coatings that are more inert tend to be less environmentally friendly.
One could plausibly make the same assertion about humans. There is nothing magic about the brain, after all.
You don't have to be a genius to see the obvious accessibility issues with eliminating straws entirely. What might be more reasonable is to not supply a straw unless one is asked for.
The biggest problem I can see with paper straws is that if you take too long to finish your drink, then you can end up with pulp in your soda or juice or what have you from the straw, and putting a coating on the straws to prevent this usually makes the straw not significantly better than plastic from a recycling point of view.
(File this comment under T for Tasteless jokes that you don't want to repeat if you want to be well liked, for future reference)
Saying that the malware is from NK does not mean that NK's government had anything to do with it.
I'm sure that there have been more than a few instances of malware that started their life in the USA as well.
By restricting it to the Apple ecosystem, it has so far remained pretty clear that it is an Apple-only thing.
If they open it up, however, I expect there's going to be lots of confusion about who really controls the technology because of the popularity of Facebook.
Conceptually, yes, I think that it's a good thing. But given the potential for trademark dilution, I don't think it's in Apple's or Facebook's best interest to do this. I think that Apple should consider renaming it before opening it, or not open it at all.
Of course, if one enjoys watching things burn in the aftermath of some chaos, one might think that any difficulties that either encounter as a result of such a move are actually just a bonus.
Coincidence? You decide
Yeah, I'm a cynic.
Basically, computers aren't smart enough yet... and there's no indication right now of when they ever will be. Rulings like this are made by people that appear to have zero understanding that computers are not actually magic.
The fact that they may develop future AI which might be used for weapons wouldn't invalidate the promise at the time that it is given.
They can even further get around it by not calling any future version of AI that may be weaponizable "their" AI... but AI that they developed for someone else.
When I get a window seat, I really enjoy being able to looking around outside, in all directions, sometimes upwards, sometimes out towards the horizon, sometimes to watch the terrain below, sometimes even to enjoy the patterns I might see in the clouds we may be flying over.. Until they perfect fully 3d holographic displays where the position of my eyes in relation to the "window" determines what I see, I'd have to say no thanks.
And what way is that, exactly, that somehow would enable Youtube magically comply with this court ruling?
I'm betting you don't know the specifics, and I'm also pretty sure that neither did this court.
And near as I can tell, what they are asking for is technologically impossible without effectively blacklisting entirely non-infringing content as well.
Sure, except perhaps you have failed to noticed that it is Youtube, not the copyright holder, is being held responsible by this ruling for preventing the infringement from happening in the first place.
Of course, to actually accomplish this without Youtube manually vetting every single video that is uploaded (an untenable solution) is for Youtube to block any and every single video that even *remotely* resembles something that might be copyright infringing from being viewed in Austria.
The very *best* case scenario here if Austria gets what they are asking for is that this is going to result in entirely legal videos which might contain parody, satire, or commentary on copyrighted works being blocked from being viewed in Austria, as well as any other entirely original works that might happen to have some superficial similarity to a copyrighted work. It only goes downhill from there.