unless all of your IP is kept as a trade secret such that third party disclosure completely fucks you
I think that would be my primary concern with having an outside party maintain my data storage services: trade secret is the term for IP you haven't yet valued and protected with copyrights, patents, design patents and trade marks.
Wrong. Trade secrets are for methods that might not be patentable, or that would be useful after the patent term is over. For example, a slightly different technique that gives your products (all of them, for the forseeable future) a 2% performance increase. Why tell your competitors how to get that boost for when the patent expires? Or, more importantly, what if it's difficult to determine infringement? Patenting would then be the worst thing you could possibly do, since you wouldn't know if your competitors infringed without seeing their schematic.
Besides, there's plenty of proprietary information to be lost in a breech, such as source code, schematics, organizational charts, block diagrams, research notes, meeting minutes, strategic plans, product roadmaps, and so on. These are what trade secrets are meant to protect, and their loss could be devastating.
If it is cited, the legitimacy of the citation can be challenged, and tracked down to verify that the entry correctly interprets the cited source.
In theory, yes.
In at least my personal Wikipedia experience, I've not seen it once that a deletionist actually tracked down a source. On the contrary, as I said in another comment already, I've seen whole articles disappear even though that had listed citations. But apparently, not being on the bookshelf of one of the core editors is enough to not count as a source.
Agreed, but at least it has the chance of making the article better (so long as nobody flexes their e-peen). The deletionist power-mongers and the poor form are two different problems. Might as well at least try to make the article worth reading.
In the same way, one could say that Wikipedia is where an anonymous blog posting (which can be linked to) is the more trustworthy authority on spacetime than a direct edit by Stephen Hawking himself.
Say Steven Hawking makes an edit on the page. He can't sign it, because the edit could be lost or reworded. He could quote himself, but the quote should be recorded somewhere else, not simply on Wikipedia. If he just edits it, there's no easy way (later down the line) to know that Stephen Hawking made that particular edit 6 months ago, rather than jizzmaster7 reciting his flawed understanding. If it is cited, the legitimacy of the citation can be challenged, and tracked down to verify that the entry correctly interprets the cited source.
In this case, I would be very surprised if the information could not be found in one of Hawkings many lectures, papers, or books. He could just cite that and be done with it, end of story. This doesn't fix the problem of abuse, but it's the way the following the method correctly gets a better result than editing without any verifiability.
I don't like the idea of BUYING something and then having my use of it monitored. That's no different than spyware.
Generally I think of spyware having on huge differentiating factor from this. Personally identifying information. If the information can't be tracked back to you individually, it's not spyware. If all they know is that user #174823 likes playing stealthily, but cannot correlate user #174823 to any other information (screen name, CC number, IP address, etc) then there's no problem. They aren't tracking YOU, they're tracking generic usage information.
There is no such thing as 100% proof or certainty.
Isn't that what I just said? Nothing's certain, so your most certain things require minimal faith, while incertain things require significant faith.
Trusting that a corporation will strive to at the very least safeguard
a 200 million dollar hunk of metal requires no faith. It just requires
a minimal amount of intelligence.
Just use that brain that happens to be in your head.
I don't think we're communicating on the same level on this analogy. I give up.
If I'm 'pushing' it, I'm sorry. I only wanted to dispute that "making sense" and "faith" were mutually exclusive terms.
Of course, this is/. so everything went way off topic and took every tiny piece of the conversation off on its own tangent. Didn't mean to get into this type of tangent here, it's obviously not the best format for a reasonable discussion.
Just because it's easy to believe, trust, and have faith in an airplane (or any of a number of other mundane things throughout your day) doesn't make it a different thing from those that are hard to believe, trust and have faith in.
There is a small measure of faith in flying in an airplane, whether you like it or not. You must trust that the certifications are up to date, and believe that the certifications make the plane more safe. It's certainly not on the same magnitude of faith as that in religion (that would be silly), but it's the same thing. You're still putting your faith in something you don't have 100% proof of, based on what you have seen and your past experiences.
This is not the same as faith, because the people who sell faith specifically tell you that there is no risk, and that the entire topic is incalculable... beyond reason, beyond mortal understanding, and beyond questioning.
I'm sorry to hear that was your experience. While that's certainly a common type of evangelism, I've never agreed with it. Anyone who claims faith has no risk forgets that those who are persecuted for their beliefs are blessed. While God himself is beyond human understanding, theology should not be beyond questioning. Questioning theology is how we ensure that those who claim to know the Truth are not working for their own means.
I hope you can have a better experience and find that many of those who claim what you have above are working along different lines from what they should be.
Since religion has exactly zero proven episodes, it's blind faith.. or rather Stupid Blind Faith.
Tell Richard Dawkins I say 'hi'.
And keep QM out of your fanciful fairy tails.
You think I meant something more than what I intended to say. I just mean that, at first glance, neither concept makes sense. Eternal life on account of a man 2000 years ago dying and rising from the dead 3 days later makes about as much sense at first glance as superposition or the uncertainty principle. However, by studying the source material, the pattern and reasoning behind the phenomenon makes sense.
I in no way meant to infer that because QM is true, then Christianity must also be true. Obviously, QM is well reasoned science, while Christianity is religion. Being science, QM can be proven, whereas religion, by its very nature, cannot. I understand this. Again, not trying to make some deeper link between the two, just saying that both seem confusing to those who haven't studied the subject.
Faith is something stronger than the belief that a plane can fly, it is belief in the face of zero evidence.
It's both the plane and the pilot you must have faith in. Do you believe that the plane is structurally sound, up to date on inspections, and fully capable of making your flight? Do you believe the pilot will take you safely to your destination? As for flight deniers (atheists), of course they don't affect the plane's flight, but they generally aren't on the plane. They're on the ground chiding people for trusting in planes.
I admit it's not a great analogy, I just wanted to point out that faith is not mutually exclusive with evidence or how understandable a concept is. If you trust in something that's not 100%, that's faith.
Religon making sense, doesn't that destroy the need for faith?
Not necessarily. An airplane's principle of flight makes sense (air pressure difference provides lift), but you still need to have faith that it your specific plane will be fine and that the pilot is good. It also doesn't prevent people from not putting their faith in airplanes, regardless of them being an incredibly safe form of travel.
I'd liken religious faith to quantum mechanics. Quantum makes sense, but not according to our normal methods of understanding. It has different rules very different from classical mechanics (secular worldviews), but taken as a whole is consistent.
I want an easily configurable messaging utility that only allows trusted contacts, and some photo upload and publishing ability (with comments) that piggybacks on the trusted communication.
Publish your status (tweets) as RSS, upload your photos to flickr, and post your rants on blogspot. That's what we did in the olden days. (Two years ago.)
RSS doesn't have privacy features.
Basically, in the last two years, the services have come under one roof. It's a walled garden vs an open platform. Sure, a platform would probably be nicer, but who would develop it? Who would agree on the standards? How frequently would it get updated?
Honestly, it feels like the walled garden approach wins for flexibility and simplicity.
True, but it's possible for a sufficiently advanced algorithm to guess which movies might have shared tags (without naming them), between yourself and others, and make them recommendations. It could even be better than letting humans fill out the tags (which results in tag-bombing, such as on Amazon), assuming a sufficiently large data set.
Think like this, you like Cerebral Lovestories such as ESOTSM. ESOTM is rated highly by yourself and 49 other people and low or not at all by everyone else. If 25 of those people like another, similar movie (let's call it My Gray Matter) that is not liked by the general population, the algorithm can assume that they are somehow related. Say you've all also liked 5 other Cerebral Lovestories; there is now a significant link. There is a large correlation between people who like Cerebral Lovestories, and a correlation to liking My Gray Matter where none exists elsewhere. Therefor, there's a high probability that My Gray Matter is a Cerebral Lovestory, without the need for tagging and much more protected from abuse.
and how you would implement a garbage collected language? somewhere between the language and the hardware, there will be some pointer juggling.
Exactly. Someone, somewhere will be responsible for preventing this kind of stuff. Of course, with using JAVA or other similar language, you then must trust that the language developers do not have this kind of bug, that you then don't have the ability to patch out.
So are the ISPs blocking because they have their own cultural objection to the content, or is the government requesting it? It says national ISP, so the question is how much oversight the government has, and if there are alternative ISPs.
I may pick Movie X to watch because the wife and I each had a hard week, but Movie X may be something that we'd never view under any other circumstance. A discrete system has a very hard time categorizing something as fluid as mood and could easily be led to make very inaccurate recommendations on the whole.
If it has a hard time categorizing it, it's because you gave it bad data with your ratings. If the movie's a one-off thing, either don't rate it, or rate it down.
That said, a sophisticated rating system should be able to recognize multi-modal distributions. I like some dumb comedies, some cerebral Science Fiction, and some action thrillers. A good system should pick out my trends amongst each of these to make suggestions within each genre, some crossovers, and really wouldn't be affected by the one oddball movie I'll never watch again.
It doesn't seem too out of line to assume that if you watch enough "mood movies", a good system will make several suggestions for the next time your wife is in a mood for a similar movie, as well as suggestions for your movie watching other times. They aren't mutually exclusive. It's just up to you to look at the appropriate "Because you liked Romantic Comedies/Foreign Films/Summer Blockbusters/Erotic Thrillers" suggestion box for the mood you're in. The system isn't just telling you "Watch this one movie now, I know more than you", but it can give you a much refined set of choices.
How, exactly, is dropping union contracts (screwing workers) the right thing?
It's not dropping union contracts that's needed, it's getting rid of the UAW. They're just as corrupt as the leaders of the big three. There's a reason an entry-level GM worker gets paid 50%-2x more than the equivalent Toyota worker, and you don't see them complaining. If the big three are going to continue to have this extra financial burden on EVERY SINGLE laborer, then the foreign automakers will continue to pay a meager wage to their workers and take over the industry. Go union?
I have several friends who are engineers in the auto industry for a parts supplier. At their plant, two UAW workers were fired for clocking each other in (working 20 hours, getting paid for 40). Six months later, and UAW had gotten them their jobs back, AND their six months of lost pay.
UAW wasn't the only problem GM and Chrysler had, but it's certainly one of them.
I think that's part of the problem, though I find it hard to blame them entirely. It used to be that our politicians were the intellectuals of the day. In that time, a politician used to be a nice job for an intellectual.
Now, if you're well educated (in technology in particular) there is little incentive to become a politician, rather than a high paid Engineer/CEO. Politicians are paid less, scrutinized more, and it's a lot of work to do well. Besides, if you are really interested in technology, you work with technology rather than become a politician and deal with drab things like health care, road work, etc. So all of our people smart enough to be politicians are smart enough to get better jobs.
Maybe we need to make the job of running out country more appealing to those who are smart enough to do it. Right now, it's not nearly as cushy of a job as a well-compensated engineer/banker/executive.
...unless you're corrupt, but that's another issue.
If I would start moaning "but I was not accused by law of anything" they would just show me the AUP I agreed with. The same should be happening with anybodies provider. You spam? We disallow you to do that over our network.
Exactly. Network Neutrality shouldn't (IMO) preclude ISPs from banning harmful acts over their networks through their contracts. You should be allowed to prohibit illegal activities and those whose primary purpose is to disrupt the service of others.
Network Neutrality should simply say that you should be treated the same, no matter who you are and who you're talking to. It doesn't matter if you interrupt your neighbor's connection or a foreign connection, both are blocked. If they limit high-bandwidth applications, they do so for all customers evenly, regardless of whether the remote client is owned by themselves or a competitor, and enumerate it in their contract.
That said, we also need the ability to choose amongst more than 2-3 (or fewer) broadband ISPs so that we can choose to avoid usage agreements we don't agree with, but that's separate from Net Neutrality.
Is it still your right to kick them off TV, even if you did pay for the set?
It's your right to kick them off the set, sure, especially if they violated any contract with you.
Regardless of how 'important' or 'useful' they may be, you have no obligation to provide them TV time if they're going to break your shit. They can look for another TV studio who will allow their actors breaking shit on stage, but good luck finding it.
Re:Can humans even do this reasonably?
on
Mario AI Competition
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Can humans even do this reasonably?
No, but shouldn't a computer be able to do it better? Perfect concentration, perfect timing, the ability to make split-second decisions, no visual limitations of how much of the screen can be seen; computers have the potential to do far better. Isn't that the idea?
You imply that failing the trial study and being told they are imagining their symptoms is the treatment. To prove that such a treatment technique would work (and not cause an all new, worse psychological condition) would require its own trial and verification.
Perhaps this is already a treatment method (IANAD), but it seems that such a treatment would need to be used carefully to prevent causing depression. And, if it doesn't solve the problem, the patient will just have an even worse psychosomatic reaction in your office when you tell them about the 100 routers on them right now, possibly opening yourself up to a malpractice charge.
Let's leave the treatment ideas to the specialists.
It doesn't need to block illegal P2P with 100% accuracy, it simply needs to allow 100% of legal P2P traffic. Most likely, this would result in a diminishing returns wild-goose-chase, but as long as it doesn't return false-positives, they're free to try.
Sounds like a reasonable and rational treatment. I'm sure that the medical community is glad that you mentioned this, as they never thought of it. Let's skip the trials, as nothing could possibly go wrong with technique./sarcasm
A film that's enjoyable with prior knowledge is a rare and fantastic thing. Films like that are also usually more enjoyable that first time round, when everything is a surprise.
Yet even those films which are enjoyable on repeat viewings have an additional joy the first time you watch them. No matter how good a movie is on repeat viewings, I still want to be surprised the first time.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that would be my primary concern with having an outside party maintain my data storage services: trade secret is the term for IP you haven't yet valued and protected with copyrights, patents, design patents and trade marks.
Wrong. Trade secrets are for methods that might not be patentable, or that would be useful after the patent term is over. For example, a slightly different technique that gives your products (all of them, for the forseeable future) a 2% performance increase. Why tell your competitors how to get that boost for when the patent expires? Or, more importantly, what if it's difficult to determine infringement? Patenting would then be the worst thing you could possibly do, since you wouldn't know if your competitors infringed without seeing their schematic.
Besides, there's plenty of proprietary information to be lost in a breech, such as source code, schematics, organizational charts, block diagrams, research notes, meeting minutes, strategic plans, product roadmaps, and so on. These are what trade secrets are meant to protect, and their loss could be devastating.
If it is cited, the legitimacy of the citation can be challenged, and tracked down to verify that the entry correctly interprets the cited source.
In theory, yes. In at least my personal Wikipedia experience, I've not seen it once that a deletionist actually tracked down a source. On the contrary, as I said in another comment already, I've seen whole articles disappear even though that had listed citations. But apparently, not being on the bookshelf of one of the core editors is enough to not count as a source.
Agreed, but at least it has the chance of making the article better (so long as nobody flexes their e-peen). The deletionist power-mongers and the poor form are two different problems. Might as well at least try to make the article worth reading.
In the same way, one could say that Wikipedia is where an anonymous blog posting (which can be linked to) is the more trustworthy authority on spacetime than a direct edit by Stephen Hawking himself.
Say Steven Hawking makes an edit on the page. He can't sign it, because the edit could be lost or reworded. He could quote himself, but the quote should be recorded somewhere else, not simply on Wikipedia. If he just edits it, there's no easy way (later down the line) to know that Stephen Hawking made that particular edit 6 months ago, rather than jizzmaster7 reciting his flawed understanding. If it is cited, the legitimacy of the citation can be challenged, and tracked down to verify that the entry correctly interprets the cited source.
In this case, I would be very surprised if the information could not be found in one of Hawkings many lectures, papers, or books. He could just cite that and be done with it, end of story. This doesn't fix the problem of abuse, but it's the way the following the method correctly gets a better result than editing without any verifiability.
I don't like the idea of BUYING something and then having my use of it monitored. That's no different than spyware.
Generally I think of spyware having on huge differentiating factor from this. Personally identifying information. If the information can't be tracked back to you individually, it's not spyware. If all they know is that user #174823 likes playing stealthily, but cannot correlate user #174823 to any other information (screen name, CC number, IP address, etc) then there's no problem. They aren't tracking YOU, they're tracking generic usage information.
There is no such thing as 100% proof or certainty.
Isn't that what I just said? Nothing's certain, so your most certain things require minimal faith, while incertain things require significant faith.
Trusting that a corporation will strive to at the very least safeguard a 200 million dollar hunk of metal requires no faith. It just requires a minimal amount of intelligence.
Just use that brain that happens to be in your head.
I don't think we're communicating on the same level on this analogy. I give up.
If I'm 'pushing' it, I'm sorry. I only wanted to dispute that "making sense" and "faith" were mutually exclusive terms.
Of course, this is /. so everything went way off topic and took every tiny piece of the conversation off on its own tangent. Didn't mean to get into this type of tangent here, it's obviously not the best format for a reasonable discussion.
You're confusing faith with trust.
Trust is part of faith. Belief is the other half.
Just because it's easy to believe, trust, and have faith in an airplane (or any of a number of other mundane things throughout your day) doesn't make it a different thing from those that are hard to believe, trust and have faith in.
There is a small measure of faith in flying in an airplane, whether you like it or not. You must trust that the certifications are up to date, and believe that the certifications make the plane more safe. It's certainly not on the same magnitude of faith as that in religion (that would be silly), but it's the same thing. You're still putting your faith in something you don't have 100% proof of, based on what you have seen and your past experiences.
This is not the same as faith, because the people who sell faith specifically tell you that there is no risk, and that the entire topic is incalculable ... beyond reason, beyond mortal understanding, and beyond questioning.
I'm sorry to hear that was your experience. While that's certainly a common type of evangelism, I've never agreed with it. Anyone who claims faith has no risk forgets that those who are persecuted for their beliefs are blessed. While God himself is beyond human understanding, theology should not be beyond questioning. Questioning theology is how we ensure that those who claim to know the Truth are not working for their own means.
I hope you can have a better experience and find that many of those who claim what you have above are working along different lines from what they should be.
Since religion has exactly zero proven episodes, it's blind faith.. or rather Stupid Blind Faith.
Tell Richard Dawkins I say 'hi'.
And keep QM out of your fanciful fairy tails.
You think I meant something more than what I intended to say. I just mean that, at first glance, neither concept makes sense. Eternal life on account of a man 2000 years ago dying and rising from the dead 3 days later makes about as much sense at first glance as superposition or the uncertainty principle. However, by studying the source material, the pattern and reasoning behind the phenomenon makes sense.
I in no way meant to infer that because QM is true, then Christianity must also be true. Obviously, QM is well reasoned science, while Christianity is religion. Being science, QM can be proven, whereas religion, by its very nature, cannot. I understand this. Again, not trying to make some deeper link between the two, just saying that both seem confusing to those who haven't studied the subject.
Faith is something stronger than the belief that a plane can fly, it is belief in the face of zero evidence.
It's both the plane and the pilot you must have faith in. Do you believe that the plane is structurally sound, up to date on inspections, and fully capable of making your flight? Do you believe the pilot will take you safely to your destination? As for flight deniers (atheists), of course they don't affect the plane's flight, but they generally aren't on the plane. They're on the ground chiding people for trusting in planes.
I admit it's not a great analogy, I just wanted to point out that faith is not mutually exclusive with evidence or how understandable a concept is. If you trust in something that's not 100%, that's faith.
Religon making sense, doesn't that destroy the need for faith?
Not necessarily. An airplane's principle of flight makes sense (air pressure difference provides lift), but you still need to have faith that it your specific plane will be fine and that the pilot is good. It also doesn't prevent people from not putting their faith in airplanes, regardless of them being an incredibly safe form of travel.
I'd liken religious faith to quantum mechanics. Quantum makes sense, but not according to our normal methods of understanding. It has different rules very different from classical mechanics (secular worldviews), but taken as a whole is consistent.
Publish your status (tweets) as RSS, upload your photos to flickr, and post your rants on blogspot. That's what we did in the olden days. (Two years ago.)
RSS doesn't have privacy features.
Basically, in the last two years, the services have come under one roof. It's a walled garden vs an open platform. Sure, a platform would probably be nicer, but who would develop it? Who would agree on the standards? How frequently would it get updated?
Honestly, it feels like the walled garden approach wins for flexibility and simplicity.
True, but it's possible for a sufficiently advanced algorithm to guess which movies might have shared tags (without naming them), between yourself and others, and make them recommendations. It could even be better than letting humans fill out the tags (which results in tag-bombing, such as on Amazon), assuming a sufficiently large data set.
Think like this, you like Cerebral Lovestories such as ESOTSM. ESOTM is rated highly by yourself and 49 other people and low or not at all by everyone else. If 25 of those people like another, similar movie (let's call it My Gray Matter) that is not liked by the general population, the algorithm can assume that they are somehow related. Say you've all also liked 5 other Cerebral Lovestories; there is now a significant link. There is a large correlation between people who like Cerebral Lovestories, and a correlation to liking My Gray Matter where none exists elsewhere. Therefor, there's a high probability that My Gray Matter is a Cerebral Lovestory, without the need for tagging and much more protected from abuse.
and how you would implement a garbage collected language? somewhere between the language and the hardware, there will be some pointer juggling.
Exactly. Someone, somewhere will be responsible for preventing this kind of stuff. Of course, with using JAVA or other similar language, you then must trust that the language developers do not have this kind of bug, that you then don't have the ability to patch out.
So are the ISPs blocking because they have their own cultural objection to the content, or is the government requesting it? It says national ISP, so the question is how much oversight the government has, and if there are alternative ISPs.
More information, please.
I may pick Movie X to watch because the wife and I each had a hard week, but Movie X may be something that we'd never view under any other circumstance. A discrete system has a very hard time categorizing something as fluid as mood and could easily be led to make very inaccurate recommendations on the whole.
If it has a hard time categorizing it, it's because you gave it bad data with your ratings. If the movie's a one-off thing, either don't rate it, or rate it down.
That said, a sophisticated rating system should be able to recognize multi-modal distributions. I like some dumb comedies, some cerebral Science Fiction, and some action thrillers. A good system should pick out my trends amongst each of these to make suggestions within each genre, some crossovers, and really wouldn't be affected by the one oddball movie I'll never watch again.
It doesn't seem too out of line to assume that if you watch enough "mood movies", a good system will make several suggestions for the next time your wife is in a mood for a similar movie, as well as suggestions for your movie watching other times. They aren't mutually exclusive. It's just up to you to look at the appropriate "Because you liked Romantic Comedies/Foreign Films/Summer Blockbusters/Erotic Thrillers" suggestion box for the mood you're in. The system isn't just telling you "Watch this one movie now, I know more than you", but it can give you a much refined set of choices.
How, exactly, is dropping union contracts (screwing workers) the right thing?
It's not dropping union contracts that's needed, it's getting rid of the UAW. They're just as corrupt as the leaders of the big three. There's a reason an entry-level GM worker gets paid 50%-2x more than the equivalent Toyota worker, and you don't see them complaining. If the big three are going to continue to have this extra financial burden on EVERY SINGLE laborer, then the foreign automakers will continue to pay a meager wage to their workers and take over the industry. Go union?
I have several friends who are engineers in the auto industry for a parts supplier. At their plant, two UAW workers were fired for clocking each other in (working 20 hours, getting paid for 40). Six months later, and UAW had gotten them their jobs back, AND their six months of lost pay.
UAW wasn't the only problem GM and Chrysler had, but it's certainly one of them.
The politicians don't understand technology.
I think that's part of the problem, though I find it hard to blame them entirely. It used to be that our politicians were the intellectuals of the day. In that time, a politician used to be a nice job for an intellectual.
Now, if you're well educated (in technology in particular) there is little incentive to become a politician, rather than a high paid Engineer/CEO. Politicians are paid less, scrutinized more, and it's a lot of work to do well. Besides, if you are really interested in technology, you work with technology rather than become a politician and deal with drab things like health care, road work, etc. So all of our people smart enough to be politicians are smart enough to get better jobs.
Maybe we need to make the job of running out country more appealing to those who are smart enough to do it. Right now, it's not nearly as cushy of a job as a well-compensated engineer/banker/executive.
...unless you're corrupt, but that's another issue.
If I would start moaning "but I was not accused by law of anything" they would just show me the AUP I agreed with. The same should be happening with anybodies provider. You spam? We disallow you to do that over our network.
Exactly. Network Neutrality shouldn't (IMO) preclude ISPs from banning harmful acts over their networks through their contracts. You should be allowed to prohibit illegal activities and those whose primary purpose is to disrupt the service of others.
Network Neutrality should simply say that you should be treated the same, no matter who you are and who you're talking to. It doesn't matter if you interrupt your neighbor's connection or a foreign connection, both are blocked. If they limit high-bandwidth applications, they do so for all customers evenly, regardless of whether the remote client is owned by themselves or a competitor, and enumerate it in their contract.
That said, we also need the ability to choose amongst more than 2-3 (or fewer) broadband ISPs so that we can choose to avoid usage agreements we don't agree with, but that's separate from Net Neutrality.
Is it still your right to kick them off TV, even if you did pay for the set?
It's your right to kick them off the set, sure, especially if they violated any contract with you.
Regardless of how 'important' or 'useful' they may be, you have no obligation to provide them TV time if they're going to break your shit. They can look for another TV studio who will allow their actors breaking shit on stage, but good luck finding it.
Can humans even do this reasonably?
No, but shouldn't a computer be able to do it better? Perfect concentration, perfect timing, the ability to make split-second decisions, no visual limitations of how much of the screen can be seen; computers have the potential to do far better. Isn't that the idea?
You imply that failing the trial study and being told they are imagining their symptoms is the treatment. To prove that such a treatment technique would work (and not cause an all new, worse psychological condition) would require its own trial and verification.
Perhaps this is already a treatment method (IANAD), but it seems that such a treatment would need to be used carefully to prevent causing depression. And, if it doesn't solve the problem, the patient will just have an even worse psychosomatic reaction in your office when you tell them about the 100 routers on them right now, possibly opening yourself up to a malpractice charge.
Let's leave the treatment ideas to the specialists.
It doesn't need to block illegal P2P with 100% accuracy, it simply needs to allow 100% of legal P2P traffic. Most likely, this would result in a diminishing returns wild-goose-chase, but as long as it doesn't return false-positives, they're free to try.
Sounds like a reasonable and rational treatment. I'm sure that the medical community is glad that you mentioned this, as they never thought of it. Let's skip the trials, as nothing could possibly go wrong with technique. /sarcasm
A film that's enjoyable with prior knowledge is a rare and fantastic thing. Films like that are also usually more enjoyable that first time round, when everything is a surprise.
Yet even those films which are enjoyable on repeat viewings have an additional joy the first time you watch them. No matter how good a movie is on repeat viewings, I still want to be surprised the first time.