That's a crock of shit. If I pay you for a good or service, I am usually not bound by further conditions. They can sell the info at any price they want, but it's unreasonable for them to limit what their customer does with that info after the transaction is completed.
You are correct that it isn't a patent. It seems be more like a contractually based trade secret. It is unethical to allow such agreements to be enforced, especially for what basic research seems to suggest is a public university. At most, we should allow them to choose who to sell the information to, but not otherwise bind them downstream. However, if they need payment to do this research, the necessary payments should have been contracted first.
And I am a clinically diagnosed aspie, diagnosed before overly concerned mothers had heard of Asperger's. I don't think of it as a disorder because in a lot of ways I am superior to many of my non-autistic pals, even in certain social aspects that are typically associated as troubled areas for those on the autistic spectrum. As I became more aware of many of my peculiarities and deficiencies, I was able to adapt. In environments that are rich with high concentrations of autistic people, I thrive even more. Even the poster you quote mentions the foreign culture notion. Foreign isn't wrong, it's just different. However, being a foreigner has historically sucked.
Seeing it as a disorder means that the solution is to eradicate it or to make those with it emulate those without it. If the world were 'cured' of autism, I suspect we would be a lot less productive.
Let's run with your 'inscrutable aliens' analogy. If you accidentally transported a human aboard a Tamarian ship, the human would undoubtedly suffer. Likely, it would be on about the same scale, especially if they didn't conveniently throw English words in. However, the solution isn't to try and force the human into the Tamarian mindset, but rather, to bridge communications both ways. Understanding how to communicate with autistics and how to get autistics to better communicate with others is the solution. Another concern is that a number of those that are totally incapable of coping have other issues that are not being autistic. Being autistic compounds the extent of these issues though because of the aforementioned failures in fruitful communication.
He's not saying that people with autism don't face problems, he's correctly identifying the issue at hand. The problem lies with how the world is structured for people who are different from them, and that the preferred means of coping with is typically to have them do their best job at emulating people who are different. It's like forcing left handed people to write right handed.
Actually, turning it from strictly binary to a spectrum is the road to a healthier approach, with the eventual destination being that they are not wrong, as 'disorder' implies, but merely different.
It's not really a technological development, as Google has the means to not pay plenty of people. I know I have not been paid by Google, so it's very effective.. The concern here is a matter of policy. Technology is neither good nor evil, but the same doesn't apply to policy. Policies advocating censorship are a particularly grave concern.
Once the mechanism for blocking is in place, it will be used for other purposes. It will also be used for gray or edge cases as a means of further stomping out innovators that would compete with the status quo. Frankly, the threat to free speech and stifling of technology is orders of magnitude more important, even from a purely financial perspective.
Where is this agenda at? I assume you mean that by 'enforcing guns' you mean that they are forcing every living being to own guns. I've not seen that. Perhaps you mean that they are going to enforce that every living being lives in a world that has lots of guns in it. If that's the case, the problem is that you understand what the word freedom means.
I'm not saying there isn't an advantage to servers, just that they don't really have much of a need other than good latency, decent bandwith, and not dropping packets. The processing power of a smartphone is likely more than enough for a single match.
SNES is not a good comparison, but it's possible your point about 10 years is valid - we'll just have to wait and see. In 10 years, you can likely buy the PC port of any 10-year old game for a few bucks.
It is a good comparison. SNES never had to be online, and it will probably be easier to play my SNES games 10 years from now than it will an XB1 game. Maybe if you're lucky, you will get a PC port of the game, but this notion isn't exclusive to XB1 either, not all games will be that fortunate, and you would have to buy the game again.
Theoretically, there might be some usage of AI operating on an enormous map, and those outside of a certain radius could be computed with latency not being a major concern. Take Skyrim, for example. If you are in Solitude, and guards are taking down a thief in Riften or a dragon is attacking near Windhelm, then that can be handled offline fine, although I doubt anybody would care and it would likely cause a ton of glitches.
I'm not seeing how it addresses the problem. Online multiplayer sucks if nobody else is online, or the people online are all far away. Even if you use a central server, it doesn't really need to have that much processing power, and if only one player has decent latency, it's not going to make a good match.
However, there are a number of good games that are not online multiplayer or have core functionality that isn't online mulitplayer. Under this system, they will not be able to be played 10 years from now. I can still play my SNES games no problem.
If something doesn't work, just do it harder. Then it'll definitely work. At this point, it's better for innovation to just kill the bastards behind this, because the damage caused by it will be orders of magnitude more important than the bread and circuses provided by those pushing for this.
Patents and trade secrets are both technical ideas not tied to a particular implementation. How the fuck are you going to protect patents with malware, especially given that they consist of PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION?
You aren't operating in the supercomputing market. There, what matters is the how much processing you can get for how much money. You can always buy more chips, and power usage and cooling are both signficant factors. That's why x86 became dominant in that space. It was cheaper to buy a bunch of x86 chips than to buy fewer POWER chips. In terms of computing power, a POWER7 will eat your i7 for breakfast, but they are ungodly expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they are. Have you not been paying attention lately.
No, it's not.
No, but all you can drink options are not typically available for alcohol.
Well, whales are kind of like fat, stupid dolphins, and dolphins are the biggest fucking assholes in the sea, so it can't really be that bad, can it?
That's a crock of shit. If I pay you for a good or service, I am usually not bound by further conditions. They can sell the info at any price they want, but it's unreasonable for them to limit what their customer does with that info after the transaction is completed.
You are correct that it isn't a patent. It seems be more like a contractually based trade secret. It is unethical to allow such agreements to be enforced, especially for what basic research seems to suggest is a public university. At most, we should allow them to choose who to sell the information to, but not otherwise bind them downstream. However, if they need payment to do this research, the necessary payments should have been contracted first.
Unless the purpose is to test quality of something more complex than a Lego.
And I am a clinically diagnosed aspie, diagnosed before overly concerned mothers had heard of Asperger's. I don't think of it as a disorder because in a lot of ways I am superior to many of my non-autistic pals, even in certain social aspects that are typically associated as troubled areas for those on the autistic spectrum. As I became more aware of many of my peculiarities and deficiencies, I was able to adapt. In environments that are rich with high concentrations of autistic people, I thrive even more. Even the poster you quote mentions the foreign culture notion. Foreign isn't wrong, it's just different. However, being a foreigner has historically sucked.
Seeing it as a disorder means that the solution is to eradicate it or to make those with it emulate those without it. If the world were 'cured' of autism, I suspect we would be a lot less productive.
I see the end result being not seeing it as a disorder, just as being left handed or gay aren't anymore.
Let's run with your 'inscrutable aliens' analogy. If you accidentally transported a human aboard a Tamarian ship, the human would undoubtedly suffer. Likely, it would be on about the same scale, especially if they didn't conveniently throw English words in. However, the solution isn't to try and force the human into the Tamarian mindset, but rather, to bridge communications both ways. Understanding how to communicate with autistics and how to get autistics to better communicate with others is the solution. Another concern is that a number of those that are totally incapable of coping have other issues that are not being autistic. Being autistic compounds the extent of these issues though because of the aforementioned failures in fruitful communication.
He's not saying that people with autism don't face problems, he's correctly identifying the issue at hand. The problem lies with how the world is structured for people who are different from them, and that the preferred means of coping with is typically to have them do their best job at emulating people who are different. It's like forcing left handed people to write right handed.
Actually, turning it from strictly binary to a spectrum is the road to a healthier approach, with the eventual destination being that they are not wrong, as 'disorder' implies, but merely different.
Except, as I said in the other reply, this isn't a proposed technological change in any significant way.
It's not really a technological development, as Google has the means to not pay plenty of people. I know I have not been paid by Google, so it's very effective.. The concern here is a matter of policy. Technology is neither good nor evil, but the same doesn't apply to policy. Policies advocating censorship are a particularly grave concern.
Once the mechanism for blocking is in place, it will be used for other purposes. It will also be used for gray or edge cases as a means of further stomping out innovators that would compete with the status quo. Frankly, the threat to free speech and stifling of technology is orders of magnitude more important, even from a purely financial perspective.
Where is this agenda at? I assume you mean that by 'enforcing guns' you mean that they are forcing every living being to own guns. I've not seen that. Perhaps you mean that they are going to enforce that every living being lives in a world that has lots of guns in it. If that's the case, the problem is that you understand what the word freedom means.
I don't think the NRA kills as many animals or objectifies women as much.
It is a good comparison. SNES never had to be online, and it will probably be easier to play my SNES games 10 years from now than it will an XB1 game. Maybe if you're lucky, you will get a PC port of the game, but this notion isn't exclusive to XB1 either, not all games will be that fortunate, and you would have to buy the game again.
Theoretically, there might be some usage of AI operating on an enormous map, and those outside of a certain radius could be computed with latency not being a major concern. Take Skyrim, for example. If you are in Solitude, and guards are taking down a thief in Riften or a dragon is attacking near Windhelm, then that can be handled offline fine, although I doubt anybody would care and it would likely cause a ton of glitches.
I'm not seeing how it addresses the problem. Online multiplayer sucks if nobody else is online, or the people online are all far away. Even if you use a central server, it doesn't really need to have that much processing power, and if only one player has decent latency, it's not going to make a good match.
However, there are a number of good games that are not online multiplayer or have core functionality that isn't online mulitplayer. Under this system, they will not be able to be played 10 years from now. I can still play my SNES games no problem.
I can't wait until MS decides that the servers running my favorite game aren't profitable anymore, so I am incapable of playing it anymore.
If something doesn't work, just do it harder. Then it'll definitely work. At this point, it's better for innovation to just kill the bastards behind this, because the damage caused by it will be orders of magnitude more important than the bread and circuses provided by those pushing for this.
Patents and trade secrets are both technical ideas not tied to a particular implementation. How the fuck are you going to protect patents with malware, especially given that they consist of PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION?
You aren't operating in the supercomputing market. There, what matters is the how much processing you can get for how much money. You can always buy more chips, and power usage and cooling are both signficant factors. That's why x86 became dominant in that space. It was cheaper to buy a bunch of x86 chips than to buy fewer POWER chips. In terms of computing power, a POWER7 will eat your i7 for breakfast, but they are ungodly expensive.
I wouldn't say it's communism. It's more cronyism or nepotism.