I agree that Coca Cola does not own the rights to the word Coke in much the same way that Band-Aid and Kleenex are no longer trademarks in this country. However, as the article points out, the word "coke" is not used to mean the beverage in the French speaking world.
At that point, it is possible to trademark. Then there would need to be third party to settle the dispute. There are mitigating factors on either side. However intent and action are not the same thing. While it is possible that the current leasee of coke.ch wanted to make a site about cocaine addiction 2 years ago, he hasn't. Or if he has, he has stopped maintaining it. Since there has been little action or proof of action by the leasee, I would not tend to automatically assume he is not cyber squatting just because he has a good story or honorable sounding intentions.
Remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. As far as I can see, if he does not put up a well researched, well designed site that appears to have taken 2 years to construct, then he is cyber squatting.
And as for why Coke should "bully" someone with the domain out of it: suppose someone were to say use your name at a place of commerce. I think you may see how someone stealing your identity writing bad checks for easily pawnible goods may give you a bad day. Metaphor applies.. Coke is the name and the Internet (unfortunately) has become a place of commerce more so than information repository.
IMHO, the privacy comes in just the sheer volume of data there is. Think about it like this. There are 250M people in the US. To store everyone's address takes about 25GB, though with tuning 10GB should be sufficient. Adding in phone numbers brings that number up to another 2.5G. Adding one hundred bytes of info adds another 25G. So, if someone were to put your habits into 100 bytes, there should be about 52.5GB of info (20GB at the low) to look up. Of course, 100 bytes is a small amount of info. Now, to have actual scarry amounts of data (ie tracking my personality profile, knowing what size condom I buy, etc.) would require probably 1k to maybe 10k or 100k. This pushes the amount of data to 275GB, 2TB, and 20TB respectively. Index this. Knowing that searchs on 20TB can take a few minutes, lot's of indexes would be necessary since this isn't OLTP but a DSS database. Let's allow thrice the room for indexes. 80TB. Now, let's give everyone digital images (10k), DNA profiles (10k-ish, just a wild guess on the low end), retinal scans (10k), and fingerprints (10k). Adding this up gives about 2TB of info necessary to spot you in a crowd. Index this. These are digital images and are not indexed so easily. So, we are dealing with around 100TB of info, just on the people in the US. The number goes to over 2,400 TB (>2,400,000,000,000,000 bytes) of info for everyone in the world. Note this is a _LOW_ estimate. Ever tried to move the Atlantic ocean with a tablespoon? In otherwords, it may be possible to collect all of this data (still if the collection process is linear, then the orders of magnitudes of increase in size turn minutes to hours to days collect). I am not saying that it is entirely possible to collect the data, but it will be no more useful if collected than going door to door and asking questions--which the gov't is required to do every 10 years. While it is possible to do this for several million people with questionable efficiency, the problem just does not scale that way. In the end, bureacracy will rule the day (even before computers entered our private lives, there was McCarthyism, Salem Witch Trials, The Inquisition, and a host of other ways to get into peoples lives all driven by bureacracy). And as long as a bureacracy is at the controls, bad things will happen but it will never organize to really oppress let's not blame their current instrument du jour. Sure it can handle lots more data, but the earth has lots and lots more people. If it is bent by some person to some evil will, it will be similar to some nut case taking pot shots from a bell tower. He isn't aiming at specific people, but only people near him. Further, let's stop blaming machines for the maliciousness willingly inflicted by people. Guns don't kill people, bullets aimed by idiots or the unskilled kill people. Don't blame the gun, blame the person. Finally, a word about redflagging the individual. Let's look at the first sentence in the Declaration of Independence. Further, look at the affect the NAACP boycott of S.C. is doing, to bring closer to this century. Lesson: piss enough people off in the US, they will take you down. So, if enough people get redflagged, they band together and solve the problem (I would hope) rather than whine. Take for example, the Open Source movement. If everyone who bitched about M$ put energy into the Open Source movement (I mean coding not theming) or even just boycott their prods, then there would be more Open Source programmers than M$ programmers and the M$ niche would be for the novitiate and that's it. Then, who'd be on the run? Finally, to prove my point, about five months ago, a man got stuck in an elevator on a Friday after working late. He was there for over 36 hours before being rescued. The punch line: there was a security video camera in the elevator. Unfortunately, there were also many other cameras in the building, more than the security team could patrol. Too much information is sometimes worse than too little. (He probably would have been found on rounds or a periodic check of elevators and stairs a lot sooner) I don't care if someone collects all of my "personal" data. My options are: 1) suck it up and laugh when it gets to big for them to use or 2) sublet Ted Kozinski's beautiful wooded villa.
Is consciousness computable? Is it recursively enumerable? Is it even algorithmic?
Are people speaking of something they know little or nothing about?
A Turing machine is used to determine the answers to these questions--not to model anything. TMs came before computers (which, by the way, are most accurately modelled by LBAs for which there is a solution to the halting problem).
A Turing machine is best used to gauge the theoretical efficency of algorithm as well as give a solid framework to what an algorithm is. The limitations on the TM are not those of the computer but rather the mathematical (ie totally theoretical) limitations and carry the weight of expressions like 1 + 3 = 4. Due to the way these symbols work, it is not valid for 1 + 3 = 5. There is no real reason, only mathematical axioms that hold. Same with a Turing machine. Things proven with a Turing machine hold theoretically.
Computers are not TMs but rather an approximation of a certain small group of TMs (particularly the TM which represents the universal LBA (linear bounded automaton)).
To make broad sweeping statements that intelligence is or is not recursive, recursively-enumerable, or undecidable is a bit premature since we cannot accurately describe the problem nor can we accurately describe the solution in terms that are acceptible for use with the mathematical concept of a TM. My current belief is that it is undecidable (ie, non-algorithmic). This does not mean it cannot be duplicated by man in a lab, just that the TM model of computation cannot represent it. Follow my reasoning:
Intelligence is not an algorithm to enumerate a set of correct solutions. In other words, intelligence does not have a final answer, but rather an evolving set of current "good enough" conditions from which to operate.
There is no accepted "yard stick" for intelligence. Without a way to accurately measure intelligence, without an accepted standard definition of intelligence, and without a method to test solutions to problems for intelligence (as opposed to luck or misapplication of faulty intelligence), there can be no way to mathematically determine whether or not intelligence exists.
There can be no accepted measure of intelligence. I define intelligence here as using intuitive (non-algorithmic?) processes to exercise better judgement. "Better" is subjective and philosophers have been arguing for thousands of years whose judgement is better. As a matter of fact, if a yardstick for intelligence could be developed, it would finally finish what Godel started 80 years ago in that philosophy as a study will be as useful as astrology. Simply take the conclusions of two philosophers, measure the intelligence, and take the more intelligent. Eventually, it would evolve into a more concrete science like astronomy.
The exercise of intelligence often comes with experience. Therefore, there is no agreed upon initial state, since those excersing intelligence have diverse experiences. Therefore, by definition, there is no single state from which intelligence arises. These experiences could be in the womb or genetic factors inherited or any number of things. The fact is, there is no "good" starting point--once again a subjective that cannot be measured.
A TM requires (among lots of other things) two very special states: initial and halt. By the points raised above, these states cannot exist.
Therefore, a TM cannot be constructed to manufacture intelligence.
There are those who would say that birth and death are pretty good initial and halting states. However, no two people are born the same and death is an artificial consequence of being alive not being intelligent (trees also die).
I am not saying that intelligence cannot be duplicated by man. I am just saying that current models of computation cannot do it. Just because a car can move you from point A to point B does not mean that point A and point B can be on two different planets. The mechanics that make up a car cannot accomplish this just as the current models of algorithms cannot model intelligence. A radical change in thinking is required. Whether or not that change will come is still in doubt.
Slashdot Mirror
At that point, it is possible to trademark. Then there would need to be third party to settle the dispute. There are mitigating factors on either side. However intent and action are not the same thing. While it is possible that the current leasee of coke.ch wanted to make a site about cocaine addiction 2 years ago, he hasn't. Or if he has, he has stopped maintaining it. Since there has been little action or proof of action by the leasee, I would not tend to automatically assume he is not cyber squatting just because he has a good story or honorable sounding intentions.
Remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. As far as I can see, if he does not put up a well researched, well designed site that appears to have taken 2 years to construct, then he is cyber squatting.
And as for why Coke should "bully" someone with the domain out of it: suppose someone were to say use your name at a place of commerce. I think you may see how someone stealing your identity writing bad checks for easily pawnible goods may give you a bad day. Metaphor applies.. Coke is the name and the Internet (unfortunately) has become a place of commerce more so than information repository.
IMHO, the privacy comes in just the sheer volume of data there is. Think about it like this. There are 250M people in the US. To store everyone's address takes about 25GB, though with tuning 10GB should be sufficient. Adding in phone numbers brings that number up to another 2.5G. Adding one hundred bytes of info adds another 25G. So, if someone were to put your habits into 100 bytes, there should be about 52.5GB of info (20GB at the low) to look up. Of course, 100 bytes is a small amount of info. Now, to have actual scarry amounts of data (ie tracking my personality profile, knowing what size condom I buy, etc.) would require probably 1k to maybe 10k or 100k. This pushes the amount of data to 275GB, 2TB, and 20TB respectively. Index this. Knowing that searchs on 20TB can take a few minutes, lot's of indexes would be necessary since this isn't OLTP but a DSS database. Let's allow thrice the room for indexes. 80TB. Now, let's give everyone digital images (10k), DNA profiles (10k-ish, just a wild guess on the low end), retinal scans (10k), and fingerprints (10k). Adding this up gives about 2TB of info necessary to spot you in a crowd. Index this. These are digital images and are not indexed so easily. So, we are dealing with around 100TB of info, just on the people in the US. The number goes to over 2,400 TB (>2,400,000,000,000,000 bytes) of info for everyone in the world. Note this is a _LOW_ estimate. Ever tried to move the Atlantic ocean with a tablespoon? In otherwords, it may be possible to collect all of this data (still if the collection process is linear, then the orders of magnitudes of increase in size turn minutes to hours to days collect). I am not saying that it is entirely possible to collect the data, but it will be no more useful if collected than going door to door and asking questions--which the gov't is required to do every 10 years. While it is possible to do this for several million people with questionable efficiency, the problem just does not scale that way. In the end, bureacracy will rule the day (even before computers entered our private lives, there was McCarthyism, Salem Witch Trials, The Inquisition, and a host of other ways to get into peoples lives all driven by bureacracy). And as long as a bureacracy is at the controls, bad things will happen but it will never organize to really oppress let's not blame their current instrument du jour. Sure it can handle lots more data, but the earth has lots and lots more people. If it is bent by some person to some evil will, it will be similar to some nut case taking pot shots from a bell tower. He isn't aiming at specific people, but only people near him. Further, let's stop blaming machines for the maliciousness willingly inflicted by people. Guns don't kill people, bullets aimed by idiots or the unskilled kill people. Don't blame the gun, blame the person. Finally, a word about redflagging the individual. Let's look at the first sentence in the Declaration of Independence. Further, look at the affect the NAACP boycott of S.C. is doing, to bring closer to this century. Lesson: piss enough people off in the US, they will take you down. So, if enough people get redflagged, they band together and solve the problem (I would hope) rather than whine. Take for example, the Open Source movement. If everyone who bitched about M$ put energy into the Open Source movement (I mean coding not theming) or even just boycott their prods, then there would be more Open Source programmers than M$ programmers and the M$ niche would be for the novitiate and that's it. Then, who'd be on the run? Finally, to prove my point, about five months ago, a man got stuck in an elevator on a Friday after working late. He was there for over 36 hours before being rescued. The punch line: there was a security video camera in the elevator. Unfortunately, there were also many other cameras in the building, more than the security team could patrol. Too much information is sometimes worse than too little. (He probably would have been found on rounds or a periodic check of elevators and stairs a lot sooner) I don't care if someone collects all of my "personal" data. My options are: 1) suck it up and laugh when it gets to big for them to use or 2) sublet Ted Kozinski's beautiful wooded villa.
try octave. anything that matlab can do, octave can do
Are people speaking of something they know little or nothing about?
A Turing machine is used to determine the answers to these questions--not to model anything. TMs came before computers (which, by the way, are most accurately modelled by LBAs for which there is a solution to the halting problem).
A Turing machine is best used to gauge the theoretical efficency of algorithm as well as give a solid framework to what an algorithm is. The limitations on the TM are not those of the computer but rather the mathematical (ie totally theoretical) limitations and carry the weight of expressions like 1 + 3 = 4. Due to the way these symbols work, it is not valid for 1 + 3 = 5. There is no real reason, only mathematical axioms that hold. Same with a Turing machine. Things proven with a Turing machine hold theoretically.
Computers are not TMs but rather an approximation of a certain small group of TMs (particularly the TM which represents the universal LBA (linear bounded automaton)).
To make broad sweeping statements that intelligence is or is not recursive, recursively-enumerable, or undecidable is a bit premature since we cannot accurately describe the problem nor can we accurately describe the solution in terms that are acceptible for use with the mathematical concept of a TM. My current belief is that it is undecidable (ie, non-algorithmic). This does not mean it cannot be duplicated by man in a lab, just that the TM model of computation cannot represent it. Follow my reasoning:
There are those who would say that birth and death are pretty good initial and halting states. However, no two people are born the same and death is an artificial consequence of being alive not being intelligent (trees also die).
I am not saying that intelligence cannot be duplicated by man. I am just saying that current models of computation cannot do it. Just because a car can move you from point A to point B does not mean that point A and point B can be on two different planets. The mechanics that make up a car cannot accomplish this just as the current models of algorithms cannot model intelligence. A radical change in thinking is required. Whether or not that change will come is still in doubt.
PerES Encryption