It must be time for this guy to apply for some grants. This is so far from any sort of language "breakthrough" as to be a complete joke. You could probably output random sentences with that 200 word vocabulary and fool "experts". 18 month old children don't exactly have the greatest conversational skills.
Dr. Treister-Goren says that Hal will probably attain adult-level language skills in 10 years.
*cough*bullshit*cough*. Call me when you have any actual *theory* on adult-level language skills, much less an implementation.
I firmly believe we're at least 100 years away from a turing-test level of language processing. And no, Moore's Law does nothing for this problem. We are currently at Aristotle's knowledge trying to work out Relativity.
Or, you could actually learn how to use a GUI and not drag every file, one at a time.
I agree with your point, but you expose your ignorance of what you can do with GUIs.
Re:What are the weakest parts of Linux?
on
IBM Wants Linux
·
· Score: 2
A couple of areas come to mind (I'm sure there are more), but AIX in particular has:
1) "smit", which is a great system management tool. All of the linux config tools (*cough*linuxconf*cough*) are complete garbage. The great thing about smit is that you can do very complex admin tasks, but you can display the command line it will use to do them at any time.
2) Volume management. This rocks under AIX. You can create, destroy and extend filesystems on the fly. You can move them across physical devices -- on the fly. They can span physical devices. Mirroring. Journaling. This is the biggest thing I miss in Linux.
3) sysback. This will automatically create a bootable tape under AIX. System crash? No problem -- just boot off the tape and it automatically restores the whole system, filesystems and all. Want to duplicate a system? Same deal. It has a few limitations (everything has to be under the same volume group), but it's awesome.
This conserves the bandwidth of companies that serve ads that I'm not interested in. Everybody wins.
Many companies are paid by the ad traffic. If you block an ad, regardless of whether you believe you would have been interested or not, the site doesn't get paid.
>>having one, let say, socially challenged guy in charge of a lot of software is a bad idea. [...] Ironic coming from one of slashdot's less popular trolls.
It would only be ironic if I was in charge of most of the Slashdot posts.:)
we all know that he's as big a FSF/GPL zealot as they get.
I'm necessarily defending Taco, but it does say something that he doesn't use the idiotic "GNU/Linux" tag. At the very least, he could be a bigger> FSF/GPL zealot.:)
Just out of curiosity, are there any movements out there to rewrite all the GNU tools? I would think there would be a lot of people in favor of something, with all the pro-BSD license folks, and just people who generally think that having one, let say, socially challenged guy in charge of a lot of software is a bad idea.
It could even be GPL (although I think the BSD license is "freer"), but to tell you the truth, I think there would be a lot of benefit of moving beyond the FSF. To quote the movie Lawrence of Arabia:
Feisal: The world is delighted at the picture of Damascus liberated by the Arab army.
Allenby: Led, may I remind you, sir, by a British-serving officer.
Feisal: Ah yes. But then Aurens [Lawrence] is a sword with two edges. We are equally glad to be rid of him, are we not?
Allenby: I thought I was a hard man, sir.
It's almost always better when revolutionaries die in the revolution.
"Open source," as a term, is *far* more vague than "free software."
Yes it is, but in a good way. It's often better to have a term that has no meaning, but encourages someone to find out what it means, than a term that is almost always going to be misunderstood and no one has any incentive to correct themselves.
There's no getting around the fact that 95% of people hearing "free software" are not going to think of freedom.
He has neatly summarized my problem with Stallman, the FSF and the GPL. The big problem with Stallman is that he believes that users should have power over programmers, which I find absurd. The programmers are the creator of the work, and thus should have the "freedom" (there's that word again) to choose how their work is used.
It seems like the height of tyranny for an ungrateful rabble of users to in essence say, "Thanks for creating this product that we find useful. However, that's not damn good enough. It's not enough for us to have the freedom whether to use your product or not, you should be required to develop your software according to OUR requirements."
I hate to borrow from Libertarian philosophy, but a right is not a right if you require coercion of another person.
I also look forward to hearing Stallman's response to whether they would be in favor of laws enforcing software "freedom" GPL-style.
The ruling against myMP3.com's internet jukebox said that the service was illegal because only the owner of a CD can make a copy. MP3.com could not make a copy, even if specifically requested by the user.
Right. But note that MP3.com would have been legal if every subscriber uploaded their own music.
Similarly, it would be illegal for a digial cable company to implement TiVo-like PVR functionality into the cable subscription, unless they got permission from the copyright holders.
This is actually not similar at all. The reason it would be illegal for the cable company to do it is because the user would have no control. On the other hand, I could freely purchase a box that would sit between my cable box and my television that replaces ads all day long -- or even delete them (VCR, TiVo, etc).
...uses information from an outside server to decide what changes to make, it is a little more ambigious. In the case of smartlinks (not to pick on MS, but it is an example most people are familiar with), it certainly sounds like MS is the one doing the altering.
I think it's irrelevent where the information comes from. I believe the only issue is whether it is the individual using the tool. Are you saying it would be illegal for me to record a program on my VCR and splice different commercials in?
If smartlinks, for instance, puts a link on the FSF homepage that says "Use Windows, we love it", and the web user viewing that believed it represented the FSF...
Well, that's the issue. If the user is "reasonably" fooled into believing that the links were put in by the site, then there is an issue. But that still doesn't mean that I don't have the right to use that software on the FSF, and in fact, use software that inserts Microsoft links all day long.
If you want SmartTags, use a browser that ignores the metatag and inserts them anyway. But don't attempt to coerce me into changing the content of my site.
You obviously can do anything with your site you want. However, you are no better than music publishers who want to encrypt music to prevent fair use rights. Of course, it's their right as well, but that doesn't make it ethical.
By inserting the tag, you are interfering with my fair use rights.
Actually, I think it is indeed copyright violation (or some other illegal act), unless the software makes it completely clear what content was put there by the author, and what content came from a different source.
Nope. Just as I can hire people to come over to my house and modify web pages before I view them, they don't have to mark what is changed and what isn't. The only relevent issue is whether the user makes an active choice as to whether they want to run the software or not.
I don't think it is at all a violation of fair use to request that a web site not be automatically altered.
If you are interfering with my right to use software within my own browser to view a site, then you are interfering with my fair use rights. I can do ANYTHING I want to your web site, as long as I don't redistribute the work.
From what part of the fair-use doctrine do you get the idea that hijackware is in any way legitimate? [...] and editing for personal use (as in doing your own remix) is accepted.
Exactly. I choose whether to install this software into my browser. If you want to argue that this software is not being consented to, then that's a totally separate issue from my right to run software of this nature that modifies your web site.
Even if 99% of everyone did not consent to this software, that still gives the absolute unfettered right for someone who willingly wants to run it modify your web site in any way they choose. The issue is that it's none of your business how I choose to view pages in MY browser.
Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it be easier to simply not visit sites that have ads? Since you are breaking the implicit contract of getting the content in exchange for viewing ads, you are basically stealing content from the site.
I have to admit I find it really offensive when people look for a free ride.
If you really dislike ads that much, and if you have any ethics at all, then don't visit sites with ads rather than block them.
Absolutely false. I can deface your site all day long, as long as it's for my own personal use. That is exactly what fair use is all about. That I choose to use an outside service is irrelevent -- just like I could hire people to come over and modify web pages before I see them, I can use any software any time I want to do anything to your site, including accusing you of being a child molester. The only control you have is redistrubution. I can change anything, but I can't redistribute it without your permission.
To be honest, I really wish people would clue into this simple concept. What I do within my own browser as absolutely, positively none of your business.
If you believe in fair use, then you'll delete that tag. If you don't, and you believe in fair use, then you are a hypocrite.
Anyway, if I see someone else's headlights on in a parking lot, and the car door is unlocked, I'm inclined to go shut them off.
There is no equivalent to a light switch on a computer. The original poster was talking about removing files off of someone's desktop and leaving a file! Let's say your car was as complex as your computer. Would you really want some l33t haxhor going in pressing buttons until the light went off? They would probably blow up your car rather than just turn off the light.
An infected computer is sort of a "public health" issue. It's like having the house next door on fire... I think you should be able to throw water on it.
I agree with this philosophy. But just like you can't take a gun and implement "vigilante justice", people shouldn't be taking measures into their own hands. We need ISPs to take these things more seriously. If your system is attacked, it should just notification to the ISP that something is taking place and they investigate. If the remove computer is infected, then the connection should be pulled until it's fixed. If it looks like some rogue hacker breaking into systems, then the authorities should be called.
But the point is that I don't want someone entering my computer, even with good intentions, because it's extremely possible to mess something up.
A kind dorm-mate played a prank on me which opened my eyes to the problem.
Maybe when you leave your dorm room open, I'll just go in and hide all your stuff so you're aware of the "security hole".
Personally, I would rather just have a friendly e-mail notifying me of the problem than someone going in and playing a "prank" (while probably screwing something up in the process). But hey, that's just me. Maybe you like strangers walking through your home and opening drawers and reading your mail.
God I wised up...He could have had me prosecuted!!!! God I'm so starting to hate the government.
Damn right. And you would deserve to be prosecuted. I'd have no hesitation on throwing your ass into court.
Bottom line, I don't want you or ANYONE regardless of their intentions modifying my computer. Chances are you would fuck something up while trying to "help me".
Just like you wouldn't walk into someone's house just because they forgot to lock the door, there should be zero tolerance for people breaking into computers for whatever motive. The "hacker ethic" that it's OK to break into people's property for "learning purposes" or "curiosity" must be put to cold, hard death.
Re:Lower sales for the monopolist
on
$1200 Cheap!
·
· Score: 2
This is so stupid I'm in awe.
1) Incremental PC performace increases.
Yeah, I know I personally hate it when technology improves. Wouldn't it be a much better world if they had just stopped with the 8086?
2) Expensive S/W and H/W upgrades every two years. 3) Arrogance on the part of S/W and H/W manufacturers along the lines of "...we deserve access to your pocketbook every two years".
Yeah, I know I personally hate that gun to my head every two years. Those bastards!
Families who may have just gotten layoff notices are going to send $1200 to a federally convicted monopolist, who is the richest man in the world?
Guess what... a "family getting laid off" has nothing to do with whether someone is the richest man in the world or not. The pie is not limited.
Not to mention that Bill Gates is personally guilt of nothing, it's Microsoft that has been deemed "a monopoly" by a judge who was judged biased, if not corrupt.
This was probably a troll, but it was moderated up, so there might be someone out there who is buying into this BS.
Dude, prepare yourself that, if it happens, you will not see Nanotech of any complexity in your lifetime. We're talking AT LEAST 100 years, probably more. It's just a matter of making "small parts". The engineering challenges are insane, and probably insurmountable in any practical way.
Slashdot Mirror
It must be time for this guy to apply for some grants. This is so far from any sort of language "breakthrough" as to be a complete joke. You could probably output random sentences with that 200 word vocabulary and fool "experts". 18 month old children don't exactly have the greatest conversational skills.
Dr. Treister-Goren says that Hal will probably attain adult-level language skills in 10 years.
*cough*bullshit*cough*. Call me when you have any actual *theory* on adult-level language skills, much less an implementation.
I firmly believe we're at least 100 years away from a turing-test level of language processing. And no, Moore's Law does nothing for this problem. We are currently at Aristotle's knowledge trying to work out Relativity.
Or, you could actually learn how to use a GUI and not drag every file, one at a time.
I agree with your point, but you expose your ignorance of what you can do with GUIs.
A couple of areas come to mind (I'm sure there are more), but AIX in particular has:
1) "smit", which is a great system management tool. All of the linux config tools (*cough*linuxconf*cough*) are complete garbage. The great thing about smit is that you can do very complex admin tasks, but you can display the command line it will use to do them at any time.
2) Volume management. This rocks under AIX. You can create, destroy and extend filesystems on the fly. You can move them across physical devices -- on the fly. They can span physical devices. Mirroring. Journaling. This is the biggest thing I miss in Linux.
3) sysback. This will automatically create a bootable tape under AIX. System crash? No problem -- just boot off the tape and it automatically restores the whole system, filesystems and all. Want to duplicate a system? Same deal. It has a few limitations (everything has to be under the same volume group), but it's awesome.
This conserves the bandwidth of companies that serve ads that I'm not interested in. Everybody wins.
Many companies are paid by the ad traffic. If you block an ad, regardless of whether you believe you would have been interested or not, the site doesn't get paid.
How is it ethical to *steal* my time/bandwidth waiting for something that I didn't want to see?
Because the ads are paying for the site. If you don't want ads, then don't visit the site.
>>having one, let say, socially challenged guy in charge of a lot of software is a bad idea. [...] Ironic coming from one of slashdot's less popular trolls.
It would only be ironic if I was in charge of most of the Slashdot posts. :)
we all know that he's as big a FSF/GPL zealot as they get.
I'm necessarily defending Taco, but it does say something that he doesn't use the idiotic "GNU/Linux" tag. At the very least, he could be a bigger> FSF/GPL zealot. :)
Just out of curiosity, are there any movements out there to rewrite all the GNU tools? I would think there would be a lot of people in favor of something, with all the pro-BSD license folks, and just people who generally think that having one, let say, socially challenged guy in charge of a lot of software is a bad idea.
It could even be GPL (although I think the BSD license is "freer"), but to tell you the truth, I think there would be a lot of benefit of moving beyond the FSF. To quote the movie Lawrence of Arabia:
Feisal: The world is delighted at the picture of Damascus liberated by the Arab army.
Allenby: Led, may I remind you, sir, by a British-serving officer.
Feisal: Ah yes. But then Aurens [Lawrence] is a sword with two edges. We are equally glad to be rid of him, are we not?
Allenby: I thought I was a hard man, sir.
It's almost always better when revolutionaries die in the revolution.
"Open source," as a term, is *far* more vague than "free software."
Yes it is, but in a good way. It's often better to have a term that has no meaning, but encourages someone to find out what it means, than a term that is almost always going to be misunderstood and no one has any incentive to correct themselves.
There's no getting around the fact that 95% of people hearing "free software" are not going to think of freedom.
He has neatly summarized my problem with Stallman, the FSF and the GPL. The big problem with Stallman is that he believes that users should have power over programmers, which I find absurd. The programmers are the creator of the work, and thus should have the "freedom" (there's that word again) to choose how their work is used.
It seems like the height of tyranny for an ungrateful rabble of users to in essence say, "Thanks for creating this product that we find useful. However, that's not damn good enough. It's not enough for us to have the freedom whether to use your product or not, you should be required to develop your software according to OUR requirements."
I hate to borrow from Libertarian philosophy, but a right is not a right if you require coercion of another person.
I also look forward to hearing Stallman's response to whether they would be in favor of laws enforcing software "freedom" GPL-style.
The ruling against myMP3.com's internet jukebox said that the service was illegal because only the owner of a CD can make a copy. MP3.com could not make a copy, even if specifically requested by the user.
Right. But note that MP3.com would have been legal if every subscriber uploaded their own music.
Similarly, it would be illegal for a digial cable company to implement TiVo-like PVR functionality into the cable subscription, unless they got permission from the copyright holders.
This is actually not similar at all. The reason it would be illegal for the cable company to do it is because the user would have no control. On the other hand, I could freely purchase a box that would sit between my cable box and my television that replaces ads all day long -- or even delete them (VCR, TiVo, etc).
I think it's irrelevent where the information comes from. I believe the only issue is whether it is the individual using the tool. Are you saying it would be illegal for me to record a program on my VCR and splice different commercials in?
If smartlinks, for instance, puts a link on the FSF homepage that says "Use Windows, we love it", and the web user viewing that believed it represented the FSF...
Well, that's the issue. If the user is "reasonably" fooled into believing that the links were put in by the site, then there is an issue. But that still doesn't mean that I don't have the right to use that software on the FSF, and in fact, use software that inserts Microsoft links all day long.
If you want SmartTags, use a browser that ignores the metatag and inserts them anyway. But don't attempt to coerce me into changing the content of my site.
You obviously can do anything with your site you want. However, you are no better than music publishers who want to encrypt music to prevent fair use rights. Of course, it's their right as well, but that doesn't make it ethical.
By inserting the tag, you are interfering with my fair use rights.
Actually, I think it is indeed copyright violation (or some other illegal act), unless the software makes it completely clear what content was put there by the author, and what content came from a different source.
Nope. Just as I can hire people to come over to my house and modify web pages before I view them, they don't have to mark what is changed and what isn't. The only relevent issue is whether the user makes an active choice as to whether they want to run the software or not.
I don't think it is at all a violation of fair use to request that a web site not be automatically altered.
If you are interfering with my right to use software within my own browser to view a site, then you are interfering with my fair use rights. I can do ANYTHING I want to your web site, as long as I don't redistribute the work.
From what part of the fair-use doctrine do you get the idea that hijackware is in any way legitimate? [...] and editing for personal use (as in doing your own remix) is accepted.
Exactly. I choose whether to install this software into my browser. If you want to argue that this software is not being consented to, then that's a totally separate issue from my right to run software of this nature that modifies your web site.
Even if 99% of everyone did not consent to this software, that still gives the absolute unfettered right for someone who willingly wants to run it modify your web site in any way they choose. The issue is that it's none of your business how I choose to view pages in MY browser.
Thanks for the idea for the new sig.
Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it be easier to simply not visit sites that have ads? Since you are breaking the implicit contract of getting the content in exchange for viewing ads, you are basically stealing content from the site.
I have to admit I find it really offensive when people look for a free ride.
If you really dislike ads that much, and if you have any ethics at all, then don't visit sites with ads rather than block them.
Such defacement is a violation of copyright,
Absolutely false. I can deface your site all day long, as long as it's for my own personal use. That is exactly what fair use is all about. That I choose to use an outside service is irrelevent -- just like I could hire people to come over and modify web pages before I see them, I can use any software any time I want to do anything to your site, including accusing you of being a child molester. The only control you have is redistrubution. I can change anything, but I can't redistribute it without your permission.
To be honest, I really wish people would clue into this simple concept. What I do within my own browser as absolutely, positively none of your business.
If you believe in fair use, then you'll delete that tag. If you don't, and you believe in fair use, then you are a hypocrite.
Anyway, if I see someone else's headlights on in a parking lot, and the car door is unlocked, I'm inclined to go shut them off.
There is no equivalent to a light switch on a computer. The original poster was talking about removing files off of someone's desktop and leaving a file! Let's say your car was as complex as your computer. Would you really want some l33t haxhor going in pressing buttons until the light went off? They would probably blow up your car rather than just turn off the light.
An infected computer is sort of a "public health" issue. It's like having the house next door on fire... I think you should be able to throw water on it.
I agree with this philosophy. But just like you can't take a gun and implement "vigilante justice", people shouldn't be taking measures into their own hands. We need ISPs to take these things more seriously. If your system is attacked, it should just notification to the ISP that something is taking place and they investigate. If the remove computer is infected, then the connection should be pulled until it's fixed. If it looks like some rogue hacker breaking into systems, then the authorities should be called.
But the point is that I don't want someone entering my computer, even with good intentions, because it's extremely possible to mess something up.
But you are a majorly ignorant fuck.
Just out of curiosity, exactly what am I ignorant of?
A kind dorm-mate played a prank on me which opened my eyes to the problem.
Maybe when you leave your dorm room open, I'll just go in and hide all your stuff so you're aware of the "security hole".
Personally, I would rather just have a friendly e-mail notifying me of the problem than someone going in and playing a "prank" (while probably screwing something up in the process). But hey, that's just me. Maybe you like strangers walking through your home and opening drawers and reading your mail.
Correction: It's NOT just a matter of making "small parts".
God I wised up...He could have had me prosecuted!!!! God I'm so starting to hate the government.
Damn right. And you would deserve to be prosecuted. I'd have no hesitation on throwing your ass into court.
Bottom line, I don't want you or ANYONE regardless of their intentions modifying my computer. Chances are you would fuck something up while trying to "help me".
Just like you wouldn't walk into someone's house just because they forgot to lock the door, there should be zero tolerance for people breaking into computers for whatever motive. The "hacker ethic" that it's OK to break into people's property for "learning purposes" or "curiosity" must be put to cold, hard death.
This is so stupid I'm in awe.
1) Incremental PC performace increases.
Yeah, I know I personally hate it when technology improves. Wouldn't it be a much better world if they had just stopped with the 8086?
2) Expensive S/W and H/W upgrades every two years. 3) Arrogance on the part of S/W and H/W manufacturers along the lines of "...we deserve access to your pocketbook every two years".
Yeah, I know I personally hate that gun to my head every two years. Those bastards!
Families who may have just gotten layoff notices are going to send $1200 to a federally convicted monopolist, who is the richest man in the world?
Guess what... a "family getting laid off" has nothing to do with whether someone is the richest man in the world or not. The pie is not limited.
Not to mention that Bill Gates is personally guilt of nothing, it's Microsoft that has been deemed "a monopoly" by a judge who was judged biased, if not corrupt.
This was probably a troll, but it was moderated up, so there might be someone out there who is buying into this BS.
Nanotech, in a few years (10 or so),
Dude, prepare yourself that, if it happens, you will not see Nanotech of any complexity in your lifetime. We're talking AT LEAST 100 years, probably more. It's just a matter of making "small parts". The engineering challenges are insane, and probably insurmountable in any practical way.