Nazi propaganda is socially destabilizing content and is forbidded in many western countries.
What? Now talking about western countries? Who cares? Many western countries are oppressive as well (France, for example -- not to imply they are in the same class as China). But in the US, Nazi propaganda has been ruled legal time and time again.
Communism was considered destabilizing content and was forbidded in the USA for many years.
Yeah, what, 50 years ago? And that was during a time when we were inches away from war with the Soviet Union. What's your point (in the present, please)? Nowadays, it's specifically embraced by many of our beloved college professors on many college campuses. I don't see them being thrown in jail for their beliefs.
Well, the Echolon system and the NSA and CIA closely monitor *ALL* electronic traffic in search for buzzwords such as bomb, C4, Bill Clinton
Proof, please. All the paranoia surrounding Echelon is theoretical. The FBI needs a court order to wiretap a specific individual.
Could we get a little less US propaganda in the news and a little more of the ACTUAL facts.
Under US law it is illegal to call for the violent overthrow of the government.
Huh? You can call for anything you want. There are innumerable web sites calling for the violent overthrow of the government. You just can't act on it, or create a public disturbance.
If you are running nutscrape you get lots of Java ads (and yes, they do crash like crazy).
Maybe at one time, but I doubt there are many anymore since Netscape (may it burn in hell forever) is believe the marketshare is down to only 5-10%, if that.
it's hard to find a mainstream site which at some point doesn't use Java-based ads
Huh? Name one site with a Java based ad. Go ahead, post a link. You can't, because there aren't any. No rational company would have a Java-based ad, because Java is too unstable in too many browser versions.
Now, there are quite a number of Flash-based ads, which is what you might be thinking of, which is unrelated to Java.
--
Re:Speculating about AI in this way is ignorant
on
A.I. and the Future
·
· Score: 2
I believe that the soul is sentimental superstition, and that the notion of human consciousness as somehow fundamentally "unique," "indomitable," or "unassailable" is insecure and adolescent.
You don't have to believe in a soul or other superstition to believe machine intelligence will be different from human intelligence.
Once we have a theory of conciousness that stands up, it may be possible to build a concious machine, but it may not be practical to build a machine that mimics human conciousness perfectly. The reason is that humans are not just a computer in a body -- we are an integrated unit of biology, consisting of a brain influenced by innumerable hormones, with primitive impulses honed by millions of years of random evolution.
To put it another way, it's possible to reproduce Windows/2000 in every way, down to bug-for-bug compatibility. But if you we're going to design a "work alike", you would probably not bother to reproduce every bug and wart. You would probably improve things along the way, and streamline other things. It will be the same way with machine intelligence. Human's have a lot of evolutionary warts that will simply be too hard or impractical to reproduce in every possible way.
This is just in time, since I'm currently staying with my mother-in-law while my house is being remodeled, and she has a particularly irritating shower curtain!
Hey, I've been critical of Slashdot's editorial policies in the past, but here is NEWS I CAN USE!!!
Unfortunately, Dreamworks is operating in a self contained Linux bubble. For most end users interested in visual effects or animation, Windows or Mac machines are far better alternatives.
Only idiots think that open source is the answer to all questions about software (hello, RMS?). I think that your point underscores the fact that computers are tools, and tools that help you get your work done are good.
Linux is a great alternative in places where you have very technical people to take advantage of its free-as-in-beer nature. Things like render farms where you have tons of custom software are tailor made for it.
but there's this other little provision in the Constitution that says you can't presume someone's guilty until proven otherwise.
This is a common misperception. That only applies to criminal law. Private citizens and companies can assume your guilty all day long, and burden of proof is much looser in civil cases (which is how they got OJ, although it's a crime that he still walks the streets).
And if he would get down off his soapbox long enough to do the recommended Web search, he would also discover that lots of routes are subsidized at the state and local levels, too.
All right, let's say that these exist. Exactly what is this piece of sophistry supposed to prove? That the only reason I can fly from LA to New York for $300 round trip is because of my benevolent government?
And bring it back to space... are you saying that are only chance for cheap space travel is if the government gives it to us?
Well, OK, granted, but it's the most visible entity in the industry that is heavily subsidized.
get over $130 million a year just in export tax subsidies.
I don't know enough to refute your number, but that's relatively small compared to the size of the company. In any case, I'd want to know more details before I called that a "subsidy".
Countries like Antigua, St. Lucia, and Grenada pay direct subsidies of several million dollars a year to US carriers to get them to fly to those countries.
That's not really a subsidy. That's those other countries in essence paying for private charter service for their citizens.
Considering the ignorance of your signature, I shouldn't be surprised, but in the US at least airlines are not subsidized. Airbus, on the other hand, does get subsidies. And it's taken huge subsidies to get them to be economical with the US.
Subsidized industries almost always collapse. I'm reminded of the Japanese economy, whose industry "partnership" with the government (read: subsidies) was held up by fools in the 80s and 90s as the economical model for the future. Of course, it has decayed into total corruption and mismanagement.
In any case, what are you advocating? That government should be in charge of space forever because they would be so much more efficient than letting private industry into space?
I can only hope that I am still alive, and useful, when other nations get their act together to pick up where we left off.
Or maybe we'll all live to see the nations of the world GET THE HELL OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS and get out of the way of private space launches so we can actually make some progress in space.
Why anybody would want to wait for the government to do anything beyond incompetency is just insane to me.
You're forgetting about the hidden costs of NASA holding back private space launches. Since, oh, around 1975 it can be argued that NASA has done more damage to human exploration than any entity in history.
If you care about humans going to space, as I do, do everything in your power to kill NASA and have it folded into the US military where it belongs.
We don't have cheap airline flight because of the government, my friend.
You know what? You're right. We must stamp out ALL SILLINESS AND ALL FUN.
How will our children get a job and be successful if they are wasting their time on silly cartoons when they could be studying? "Hey Junior, stop wasting time and start practicing your golf swing. How are you going to be the next Tiger Woods if you don't practice? Stop your goddamn crying, you think Tiger crys when he practices? You're three years old, it's high time you learned the 'facts of life'.
I'm not saying that children should be constantly coddled or protected, but you're extreme is just as bad as the other extreme.
There IS time for a child to be just a child, and there IS time for a child to just have silly, meaningless, NON EDUCATIONAL fun.
I'm not necessarily defending the tactics here, but it's gotten fashionable to try and destroy anything related to childhood. I simply don't understand it. Why can't people just let children enjoy a silly, purple dinosaur without feeling the need to "kick over the sand castle"?
The best comment I ever heard about this was one of the producers talking to a TV Guide reporter about barney. The reporter was making the typical disparaging remarks, and the producer simply said "You have to remember, it's not intended for you. Why would you think you would enjoy it?
That was a brilliant response. The next time you feel like disparing Barney or any other popular toddler character (of course, "popular" is the reason many hate it), just repeat to yourself: "it's not intended for me" and back off.
Executing people, even retarted, is against Human Rights.
Oh, barf me. By whose definition is it against human rights? Polls of people in various countries, particularly European countries, consistently show that people are in favor of capital punishment.
People complain all the time about movies that are "mindless entertainment". This was a movie loaded with subtlety and intelligent themes, yet look at the number who knock it as "slow", "boring", "too long", etc.
While clearly not a perfect movie (Spielberg shouldn't have made the transition from the second act to the third act look like an ending, which set people up to think it should have ended there), it was a movie that encouraged thinking. Even the so-called "sappiness" was loaded with hidden meaning, which the average movie goer just dismisses as "tear jerker moments".
By the way, if you're one of these people, see it again. There is a lot more below the surface.
...were really beginning to provide, in a unique way, the kind of additional usability, functionality, and aesthetic appeal that would make linux more attractive to a wider range of potential users. [...] what was so Godawful about Eazel.
You'll note you mentioned nothing about finding a successful wait to make money. No money == no company. That's way they are looked upon with disdain. They just lept aboard the Linux train and hoped to find a way to pay everyone who was producing the software.
This may depend on the bank, but my experience with this is that Wells Fargo has a call-in number that 1) allows you to opt out of their internal sharing (contrary to Michael's assertion), and 2) allow you to do it over the phone ("in writing" no mandatory).
Props to E*Trade, by the way... they sent me an e-mail yesterday with instructions on how to opt-out (just an e-mail to do it).
It seems to me that most of the great artists did it for the art, and not for the public acceptance. Sure, success is nice, but greatness is achieved from the message that the artist tries to convey. Of course, it should be noted that many artists are not appreciated until after they're gone.
Let me turn the question around. What are you trying to convey with your art? Does the computer give you abilities that you wouldn't otherwise have in other mediums, much like using watercolor versus oil paints?
But to answer your question, I think new art mediums are accepted when artists use them to advance the boundaries of art, not just to "make l33t pictures".
You go and try to arrange with the publisher to pencil in tiny 'links' under words in their version of the latest Stephen King novel- see if you don't get your ass handed to you in court.
You've raise a reasonable point, but I don't think it's applicable here.
The browser is not the publisher; it's the viewer. Suppose I hire someone to underline the words in this Stephen King book and mark passages with links. That would be legal, of course. Not close enough? How about this: I have a machine with a transparent screen that I hold over the book. It scans the page, picks out words, and underlines them. Legal? Of course it is.
The key concept is that I have the choice of whether to use the feature or not. In your example of "framing", the user doesn't necessarily even know how to get to the original content, and that hasn't even been ruled illegal, and shouldn't be.
Publishers are not going to get within 1000 miles of being able sue Microsoft over this, particularly when they have given an "opt-out" feature. Mark my words.
Slashdot Mirror
How is that different from the.. say.. US laws?
Right. Talking about US laws...
Nazi propaganda is socially destabilizing content and is forbidded in many western countries.
What? Now talking about western countries? Who cares? Many western countries are oppressive as well (France, for example -- not to imply they are in the same class as China). But in the US, Nazi propaganda has been ruled legal time and time again.
Communism was considered destabilizing content and was forbidded in the USA for many years.
Yeah, what, 50 years ago? And that was during a time when we were inches away from war with the Soviet Union. What's your point (in the present, please)? Nowadays, it's specifically embraced by many of our beloved college professors on many college campuses. I don't see them being thrown in jail for their beliefs.
Well, the Echolon system and the NSA and CIA closely monitor *ALL* electronic traffic in search for buzzwords such as bomb, C4, Bill Clinton
Proof, please. All the paranoia surrounding Echelon is theoretical. The FBI needs a court order to wiretap a specific individual.
Could we get a little less US propaganda in the news and a little more of the ACTUAL facts.
Indeed.
--
Under US law it is illegal to call for the violent overthrow of the government.
Huh? You can call for anything you want. There are innumerable web sites calling for the violent overthrow of the government. You just can't act on it, or create a public disturbance.
--
Only residents of France, eh?
Hank Scorpio (getting ready to target the big laser): "By the way, Homer, what's your least favorite country, Italy or France?"
Homer: "France."
Scorpio: "Hah hah. Nobody ever says Italy."
--
If you are running nutscrape you get lots of Java ads (and yes, they do crash like crazy).
Maybe at one time, but I doubt there are many anymore since Netscape (may it burn in hell forever) is believe the marketshare is down to only 5-10%, if that.
--
it's hard to find a mainstream site which at some point doesn't use Java-based ads
Huh? Name one site with a Java based ad. Go ahead, post a link. You can't, because there aren't any. No rational company would have a Java-based ad, because Java is too unstable in too many browser versions.
Now, there are quite a number of Flash-based ads, which is what you might be thinking of, which is unrelated to Java.
--
I believe that the soul is sentimental superstition, and that the notion of human consciousness as somehow fundamentally "unique," "indomitable," or "unassailable" is insecure and adolescent.
You don't have to believe in a soul or other superstition to believe machine intelligence will be different from human intelligence.
Once we have a theory of conciousness that stands up, it may be possible to build a concious machine, but it may not be practical to build a machine that mimics human conciousness perfectly. The reason is that humans are not just a computer in a body -- we are an integrated unit of biology, consisting of a brain influenced by innumerable hormones, with primitive impulses honed by millions of years of random evolution.
To put it another way, it's possible to reproduce Windows/2000 in every way, down to bug-for-bug compatibility. But if you we're going to design a "work alike", you would probably not bother to reproduce every bug and wart. You would probably improve things along the way, and streamline other things. It will be the same way with machine intelligence. Human's have a lot of evolutionary warts that will simply be too hard or impractical to reproduce in every possible way.
--
This is just in time, since I'm currently staying with my mother-in-law while my house is being remodeled, and she has a particularly irritating shower curtain!
Hey, I've been critical of Slashdot's editorial policies in the past, but here is NEWS I CAN USE!!!
--
Unfortunately, Dreamworks is operating in a self contained Linux bubble. For most end users interested in visual effects or animation, Windows or Mac machines are far better alternatives.
Only idiots think that open source is the answer to all questions about software (hello, RMS?). I think that your point underscores the fact that computers are tools, and tools that help you get your work done are good.
Linux is a great alternative in places where you have very technical people to take advantage of its free-as-in-beer nature. Things like render farms where you have tons of custom software are tailor made for it.
--
but there's this other little provision in the Constitution that says you can't presume someone's guilty until proven otherwise.
This is a common misperception. That only applies to criminal law. Private citizens and companies can assume your guilty all day long, and burden of proof is much looser in civil cases (which is how they got OJ, although it's a crime that he still walks the streets).
--
And if he would get down off his soapbox long enough to do the recommended Web search, he would also discover that lots of routes are subsidized at the state and local levels, too.
All right, let's say that these exist. Exactly what is this piece of sophistry supposed to prove? That the only reason I can fly from LA to New York for $300 round trip is because of my benevolent government?
And bring it back to space... are you saying that are only chance for cheap space travel is if the government gives it to us?
--
Airbus is not an airline.
Well, OK, granted, but it's the most visible entity in the industry that is heavily subsidized.
get over $130 million a year just in export tax subsidies.
I don't know enough to refute your number, but that's relatively small compared to the size of the company. In any case, I'd want to know more details before I called that a "subsidy".
Countries like Antigua, St. Lucia, and Grenada pay direct subsidies of several million dollars a year to US carriers to get them to fly to those countries.
That's not really a subsidy. That's those other countries in essence paying for private charter service for their citizens.
--
Considering the ignorance of your signature, I shouldn't be surprised, but in the US at least airlines are not subsidized. Airbus, on the other hand, does get subsidies. And it's taken huge subsidies to get them to be economical with the US.
Subsidized industries almost always collapse. I'm reminded of the Japanese economy, whose industry "partnership" with the government (read: subsidies) was held up by fools in the 80s and 90s as the economical model for the future. Of course, it has decayed into total corruption and mismanagement.
In any case, what are you advocating? That government should be in charge of space forever because they would be so much more efficient than letting private industry into space?
--
I can only hope that I am still alive, and useful, when other nations get their act together to pick up where we left off.
Or maybe we'll all live to see the nations of the world GET THE HELL OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS and get out of the way of private space launches so we can actually make some progress in space.
Why anybody would want to wait for the government to do anything beyond incompetency is just insane to me.
--
You're forgetting about the hidden costs of NASA holding back private space launches. Since, oh, around 1975 it can be argued that NASA has done more damage to human exploration than any entity in history.
If you care about humans going to space, as I do, do everything in your power to kill NASA and have it folded into the US military where it belongs.
We don't have cheap airline flight because of the government, my friend.
--
Wouldn't it be cheaper to send a whole slew of TV/VCR combo units (what are they, like maybe $50 in quantity?) with some video tapes?
--
You know what? You're right. We must stamp out ALL SILLINESS AND ALL FUN.
How will our children get a job and be successful if they are wasting their time on silly cartoons when they could be studying? "Hey Junior, stop wasting time and start practicing your golf swing. How are you going to be the next Tiger Woods if you don't practice? Stop your goddamn crying, you think Tiger crys when he practices? You're three years old, it's high time you learned the 'facts of life'.
I'm not saying that children should be constantly coddled or protected, but you're extreme is just as bad as the other extreme.
There IS time for a child to be just a child, and there IS time for a child to just have silly, meaningless, NON EDUCATIONAL fun.
--
I'm not necessarily defending the tactics here, but it's gotten fashionable to try and destroy anything related to childhood. I simply don't understand it. Why can't people just let children enjoy a silly, purple dinosaur without feeling the need to "kick over the sand castle"?
The best comment I ever heard about this was one of the producers talking to a TV Guide reporter about barney. The reporter was making the typical disparaging remarks, and the producer simply said "You have to remember, it's not intended for you. Why would you think you would enjoy it?
That was a brilliant response. The next time you feel like disparing Barney or any other popular toddler character (of course, "popular" is the reason many hate it), just repeat to yourself: "it's not intended for me" and back off.
--
Executing people, even retarted, is against Human Rights.
Oh, barf me. By whose definition is it against human rights? Polls of people in various countries, particularly European countries, consistently show that people are in favor of capital punishment.
--
The movie A.I.: Artificial Intelligence.
People complain all the time about movies that are "mindless entertainment". This was a movie loaded with subtlety and intelligent themes, yet look at the number who knock it as "slow", "boring", "too long", etc.
While clearly not a perfect movie (Spielberg shouldn't have made the transition from the second act to the third act look like an ending, which set people up to think it should have ended there), it was a movie that encouraged thinking. Even the so-called "sappiness" was loaded with hidden meaning, which the average movie goer just dismisses as "tear jerker moments".
By the way, if you're one of these people, see it again. There is a lot more below the surface.
--
You'll note you mentioned nothing about finding a successful wait to make money. No money == no company. That's way they are looked upon with disdain. They just lept aboard the Linux train and hoped to find a way to pay everyone who was producing the software.
--
By the way, here's the page at Wells Fargo.
--
This may depend on the bank, but my experience with this is that Wells Fargo has a call-in number that 1) allows you to opt out of their internal sharing (contrary to Michael's assertion), and 2) allow you to do it over the phone ("in writing" no mandatory).
Props to E*Trade, by the way... they sent me an e-mail yesterday with instructions on how to opt-out (just an e-mail to do it).
--
It seems to me that most of the great artists did it for the art, and not for the public acceptance. Sure, success is nice, but greatness is achieved from the message that the artist tries to convey. Of course, it should be noted that many artists are not appreciated until after they're gone.
Let me turn the question around. What are you trying to convey with your art? Does the computer give you abilities that you wouldn't otherwise have in other mediums, much like using watercolor versus oil paints?
But to answer your question, I think new art mediums are accepted when artists use them to advance the boundaries of art, not just to "make l33t pictures".
--
Yeah, it seemed a little slower than normal, but was there a problem?
--
You go and try to arrange with the publisher to pencil in tiny 'links' under words in their version of the latest Stephen King novel- see if you don't get your ass handed to you in court.
You've raise a reasonable point, but I don't think it's applicable here.
The browser is not the publisher; it's the viewer. Suppose I hire someone to underline the words in this Stephen King book and mark passages with links. That would be legal, of course. Not close enough? How about this: I have a machine with a transparent screen that I hold over the book. It scans the page, picks out words, and underlines them. Legal? Of course it is.
The key concept is that I have the choice of whether to use the feature or not. In your example of "framing", the user doesn't necessarily even know how to get to the original content, and that hasn't even been ruled illegal, and shouldn't be.
Publishers are not going to get within 1000 miles of being able sue Microsoft over this, particularly when they have given an "opt-out" feature. Mark my words.
--