Guided bombs in orbit could hit anywhere on Earth too and I don't hear anybody worrying about that. This laser technology isn't anywhere close to being used in a weapon, unlike guided bombs.
While I totally agree that the neutrality of routing on Internet has been one of the essential principles behind its success, I don't think it's clear what the best way is to ensure it stays that way. It's entirely possible that the FCC would make things worse rather than better. However, I don't think that's the concern of the lawmakers in this case. I'm sure you're right that they're just parroting their corporate masters.
If Microsoft would go to the trouble of writing legalese because they don't have enough hard drive space, they're in much bigger trouble than I'd imagined.
It does seem that Microsoft is trying to prevent any copyleft software. This includes that under such popular licenses as the Mozilla Public License and Eclipse Public License. It would also include anything released under Microsoft's own Microsoft Public License and Microsoft Reciprocal License.
I haven't studied it carefully, but my understanding is that Apple's terms don't explicitly ban certain types of licenses but do have requirements that are incompatible with the GPL. It seems that MS is being more explicit than Apple, though the effect is quite similar.
Reading the actual terms (which were not in the article), it seems that what MS is specifically trying to do is to disallow any copyleft software in their marketplace, including that released under their own copyleft licenses. This isn't really surprising, since they've benefited from permissively-licensed Free Software for decades. It's only licenses that require them to share alike that they don't like.
According to the article, the ban specifically mentions GPLv3 and LGPLv3 while not specifically mentioning earlier versions of those same licenses. I'm not sure what you mean by "licenses which propagate themselves" but I don't see how GPLv2 would differ from GPLv3 in that respect.
If by "licenses which propagate themselves" you mean Copyleft then this prohibition clearly has nothing to do with that. All versions of the GNU GPL are copyleft, as are at least two of Microsoft's own and Share-alike creative commons ones.
As they also pointed out in the documentary, training the system is far more efficient (in human effort) than trying to come up with rules. The fact that it's specialized for Jeopardy is only because that's the source of data used to train it. If more general input were used, it could understand language more generally.
Machine learning is much more similar to how we learn, so it seems like a logical way to make machines think more like us. Did you learn formal rules from birth that enabled you to understand speech?
But it's not speech recognition. Watson is getting its input via text, it's not doing any speech recognition. And lest you think this gives the computer an unfair advantage, it's nominally the same advantage championship Jeopardy players can pull: they can read the text off the monitor screen faster than Alex Trebek drones it out.
Then why doesn't Watson read the text off the screen? That would be very easy compared with the challenges associated with understanding the question.
There's not consensus on what artificial intelligence is because there's not a consensus on a precise definition of intelligence. One thing that designing computers and software to do such things as play tic-tac-toe and chess has shown us is that the ability to do such complex logical tasks is very different from human intelligence. It also shows how little we understand of the human brain and mind.
Yeah, it's funny that the Jeopardy people wanted Watson to be able to physically push the button and didn't require that it read and listen like a human.
In typical Slashdot fashion, the headline is very misleading. Only new top level domains (TLDs) would be affected by this. It's never been possible for just anyone to create a new TLD anyway. However, this veto power would be stupid. The original purposes of the existing TLDs have been mostly ignored, so they're generally meaningless. There does need to be a more open system rather than planners trying to determine what each TLD will be for up front.
It's a very appropriate name, though I don't know why the people who did this would want to identify themselves with Saruman, one of the major villains of The Lord of the Rings. Either they didn't read it or thought he was actually a hero.
It's certainly possible for Yahweh to use any device he desires to communicate with people, whether burning bush, telegram, iPhone or anything else. He doesn't need a human priest, but the Catholic Church likes to think it's more important than it is.
I'd put this in with a giant list of "apps" the function of which is easily implementable by a web site. Would anyone be discussing this if it were a website that "doesn't replace 'traditional,' in-person confession, but walks one through the process, even suggesting sins you may wish to confess."? It's expected that services that have traditionally presented information in written form, whether on signs, pamphlets, or something else now use websites for the same purpose.
I think this is good ammunition against the FUD-mongers who claim that the only way to be safe from codec patent infringement suits is to kowtow to the MPEG-LA. The reality is that no company is ever safe from patent trolls, no matter how big or small and regardless of how many patents they've licensed. What value is a standard if one can be sued at any time by fellow collaborators or some previously-unknown patent holder?
The video (did you even watch/listen to it?) is not FUD and thoughtless fanboyism is no more constructive than FUD. The presentation doesn't make any overall comparisons about the relative (in)security of one OS vs. any others. It simply presents and explains real risks about the way desktops systems are configured by default.
The presenter explains how it is quite possible to gain control of a default configuration of Ubuntu (though the same techniques would probably work with other distributions of GNOME on GNU/Linux) by constructing the right file system structure on a USB mass storage device and causing it to be plugged into a running machine. The attacker need not be present if he can get someone to plug in a USB device that he provides.
It doesn't seem that anyone is using this approach to do anything malicious right now, but that's only because Ubuntu and GNOME on GNU/Linux are not yet big enough targets, especially compared with Windows. These weaknesses in security need to be dealt with now, before Free desktop systems become big enough targets. We can learn from Microsoft's mistakes.
The presenter in TFV says that because autorun always prompts the user, it's not a big security risk. He spends much more time talking about exploiting bugs in various software layers, including kernel, root-running userspace, and normal user processes.
I'm not sure that I agree that always asking permission to autorun something is safe enough, but it is far less onerous than how Windows used to work.
Even if that's what she's trying to do, I don't think it'll succeed. Holding a trademark doesn't mean that all mentions of the mark must get permission. For example, I can say that I don't like the Oprah Winfrey show with no fear of a lawsuit (actually, I haven't seen it and don't care about it).
The DMCA has no relevance, since it's about copyright, not trademark. Don't believe the lies of proponents of "Intellectual Property": copyrights, trademarks and patents have always been distinct in US law.
I think it's most likely that, as TFA says, Palin is trying to protect her business interests, since she's not much of a politician any more.
GPS is a much more accurate tool to locate your current position than any people have previously used. However, knowing where you are is only valuable if you know where other things are, and particularly where you're going.
Yes, "Death by lack of judgement" would be more accurate. Why don't we blame SUVs for this trend? It's not as if most of the deaths are people on foot.
It sounds like you mean that MS will actively disallow most codecs for video elements. Even if WebM is on this blessed list of allowed codecs, I challenge you to point to anything indicating that MS will support WebM. Supporting means making it work with IE out of the box, not simply allowing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Guided bombs in orbit could hit anywhere on Earth too and I don't hear anybody worrying about that. This laser technology isn't anywhere close to being used in a weapon, unlike guided bombs.
While I totally agree that the neutrality of routing on Internet has been one of the essential principles behind its success, I don't think it's clear what the best way is to ensure it stays that way. It's entirely possible that the FCC would make things worse rather than better. However, I don't think that's the concern of the lawmakers in this case. I'm sure you're right that they're just parroting their corporate masters.
If Microsoft would go to the trouble of writing legalese because they don't have enough hard drive space, they're in much bigger trouble than I'd imagined.
It does seem that Microsoft is trying to prevent any copyleft software. This includes that under such popular licenses as the Mozilla Public License and Eclipse Public License. It would also include anything released under Microsoft's own Microsoft Public License and Microsoft Reciprocal License.
I haven't studied it carefully, but my understanding is that Apple's terms don't explicitly ban certain types of licenses but do have requirements that are incompatible with the GPL. It seems that MS is being more explicit than Apple, though the effect is quite similar.
Reading the actual terms (which were not in the article), it seems that what MS is specifically trying to do is to disallow any copyleft software in their marketplace, including that released under their own copyleft licenses. This isn't really surprising, since they've benefited from permissively-licensed Free Software for decades. It's only licenses that require them to share alike that they don't like.
According to the article, the ban specifically mentions GPLv3 and LGPLv3 while not specifically mentioning earlier versions of those same licenses. I'm not sure what you mean by "licenses which propagate themselves" but I don't see how GPLv2 would differ from GPLv3 in that respect.
If by "licenses which propagate themselves" you mean Copyleft then this prohibition clearly has nothing to do with that. All versions of the GNU GPL are copyleft, as are at least two of Microsoft's own and Share-alike creative commons ones.
Yes, it's reasonable that Watson push a mechanical button. But why shouldn't it have to read or hear the question as well?
As they also pointed out in the documentary, training the system is far more efficient (in human effort) than trying to come up with rules. The fact that it's specialized for Jeopardy is only because that's the source of data used to train it. If more general input were used, it could understand language more generally.
Machine learning is much more similar to how we learn, so it seems like a logical way to make machines think more like us. Did you learn formal rules from birth that enabled you to understand speech?
But it's not speech recognition. Watson is getting its input via text, it's not doing any speech recognition. And lest you think this gives the computer an unfair advantage, it's nominally the same advantage championship Jeopardy players can pull: they can read the text off the monitor screen faster than Alex Trebek drones it out.
Then why doesn't Watson read the text off the screen? That would be very easy compared with the challenges associated with understanding the question.
There's not consensus on what artificial intelligence is because there's not a consensus on a precise definition of intelligence. One thing that designing computers and software to do such things as play tic-tac-toe and chess has shown us is that the ability to do such complex logical tasks is very different from human intelligence. It also shows how little we understand of the human brain and mind.
Maybe it's just limitations of TV network programming. Has any episode of Jeopardy ever been broadcast live?
Yeah, it's funny that the Jeopardy people wanted Watson to be able to physically push the button and didn't require that it read and listen like a human.
I didn't say or mean to imply that Saruman made a palantir.
Things can be made by good folk and used by bad.
Saruman used his palantir to transmit disinformation and FUD to Denethor, which is a lot like what these people seem to be doing.
In typical Slashdot fashion, the headline is very misleading. Only new top level domains (TLDs) would be affected by this. It's never been possible for just anyone to create a new TLD anyway. However, this veto power would be stupid. The original purposes of the existing TLDs have been mostly ignored, so they're generally meaningless. There does need to be a more open system rather than planners trying to determine what each TLD will be for up front.
It's a very appropriate name, though I don't know why the people who did this would want to identify themselves with Saruman, one of the major villains of The Lord of the Rings. Either they didn't read it or thought he was actually a hero.
It's certainly possible for Yahweh to use any device he desires to communicate with people, whether burning bush, telegram, iPhone or anything else. He doesn't need a human priest, but the Catholic Church likes to think it's more important than it is.
I'd put this in with a giant list of "apps" the function of which is easily implementable by a web site. Would anyone be discussing this if it were a website that "doesn't replace 'traditional,' in-person confession, but walks one through the process, even suggesting sins you may wish to confess."? It's expected that services that have traditionally presented information in written form, whether on signs, pamphlets, or something else now use websites for the same purpose.
I think this is good ammunition against the FUD-mongers who claim that the only way to be safe from codec patent infringement suits is to kowtow to the MPEG-LA. The reality is that no company is ever safe from patent trolls, no matter how big or small and regardless of how many patents they've licensed. What value is a standard if one can be sued at any time by fellow collaborators or some previously-unknown patent holder?
The video (did you even watch/listen to it?) is not FUD and thoughtless fanboyism is no more constructive than FUD. The presentation doesn't make any overall comparisons about the relative (in)security of one OS vs. any others. It simply presents and explains real risks about the way desktops systems are configured by default.
The presenter explains how it is quite possible to gain control of a default configuration of Ubuntu (though the same techniques would probably work with other distributions of GNOME on GNU/Linux) by constructing the right file system structure on a USB mass storage device and causing it to be plugged into a running machine. The attacker need not be present if he can get someone to plug in a USB device that he provides.
It doesn't seem that anyone is using this approach to do anything malicious right now, but that's only because Ubuntu and GNOME on GNU/Linux are not yet big enough targets, especially compared with Windows. These weaknesses in security need to be dealt with now, before Free desktop systems become big enough targets. We can learn from Microsoft's mistakes.
Yeah, who needs communication anyway? Email's just a fad.
The presenter in TFV says that because autorun always prompts the user, it's not a big security risk. He spends much more time talking about exploiting bugs in various software layers, including kernel, root-running userspace, and normal user processes.
I'm not sure that I agree that always asking permission to autorun something is safe enough, but it is far less onerous than how Windows used to work.
Even if that's what she's trying to do, I don't think it'll succeed. Holding a trademark doesn't mean that all mentions of the mark must get permission. For example, I can say that I don't like the Oprah Winfrey show with no fear of a lawsuit (actually, I haven't seen it and don't care about it).
The DMCA has no relevance, since it's about copyright, not trademark. Don't believe the lies of proponents of "Intellectual Property": copyrights, trademarks and patents have always been distinct in US law.
I think it's most likely that, as TFA says, Palin is trying to protect her business interests, since she's not much of a politician any more.
GPS is a much more accurate tool to locate your current position than any people have previously used. However, knowing where you are is only valuable if you know where other things are, and particularly where you're going.
Yes, "Death by lack of judgement" would be more accurate. Why don't we blame SUVs for this trend? It's not as if most of the deaths are people on foot.
It sounds like you mean that MS will actively disallow most codecs for video elements. Even if WebM is on this blessed list of allowed codecs, I challenge you to point to anything indicating that MS will support WebM. Supporting means making it work with IE out of the box, not simply allowing it.