Do you really picture some bank executive walking away sobbing and destitute when the bank crumbles? Even without further employment these people will be wealthy their entire lives. Even with the ability to 'raid their trust funds' or other monetary penalties, do you really believe that the wealthy don't know how to hide their money?
Don't let the criminals walk away: throw them into jail for gambling with other peoples money.
Yes, they have to comply if he asks a reasonable amount for a picture in a weekly with a circulation like Elsevier.
That doesn't mean that suing them will be profitable.
On the other hand, being the defender in a copyright infringement case would be bad publicity for Elsevier, which has much more to lose.
Your friend has given permission to use the picture with proper attribution, Elsevier doesn't give proper attribution. Your friend still has the copyright for the picture, he can offer Elsevier to give them permission for use in their weekly paper for, say, $100,-, if they immediately start giving proper attribution on the website. Elsevier may not distribute their weekly if they don't pay (that what copyright means).
With the net someone from anywhere has just as much access to all the information you'd need to learn how to do this.
there's nothing special about the chinese, the russians or the americans, hackers come from everywhere.
There is something special about "the americans", a lot of them are rather monolingual. It is harder for a monolingual non-X speaker to crack an X computer system than for a multilingual non-X speaker. Someone who speaks/understands some X has an even bigger advantage.
Most people from Malaysia know Malay, Lin Mun Poo probably knew Chinese, selling data in "a diner" probably requires some fluency in English.
How will that work if, say, a European citizen complains that Facebook (based in the U.S.) has been mis-using their personal data?
Facebook removes the personal data: problem solved.
If they don't remove, they will probably be sued for damages. They will lose, because they are breaking the law. The compensation will be high, because the damages of loss of privacy are high and Facebook was knowingly breaking the law. If they pay, more people will ask them to remove personal data. If they do remove: the problem is solved. If they don't, they can't keep paying.
If they don't pay, Facebook will, in Europa, be treated like a criminal organization. Not the end of the world, but it does restrict the choice of holiday destinations.
Not the whole page, but Lenin wasn't exactly known for giving only sound bites, he spoke quite some time. Trotsky and Kamensky didn't just stand there like statues during the whole speech. Using photographs without Trotsky and/or Kamensky is not the same thing as altering photos to remove Trotsky and/or Kamensky.
Comments like In this file the viewing direction of trotzki has been altered. In the original image he is viewing directly to the camera. kind of show my point: not only the viewing direction of Trotsky has been altered, almost everyone has moved their heads.;-)
[...] the people that care about how having their data abused will stop using that company.
Perhaps your time is almost free, but most people don't want to check the entire chain of production for every cup of coffee or sandwich they buy. That's why they want some reasonable lower limits for hygiene.
Having to read a "privacy policy", which the company can abuse anyway, raises the transaction costs too much.
Quite a large part of this is how you define "intelligence".
Yep.
So for a chatbot not to have the ability to factorise large numbers (or in fact do any intense mathematical calculations) quickly doesn't necessarily mean it would be dumbed down.
It would, artificially removing a mental ability is dumbing down. You are a wetware, aren't you?
The whole idea behind the chatbot is to pretend to be human. Teaching it to factorise quickly would be counterproductive.
The Turing test was designed to see if computers are intelligent. If chatbots have to act dumber than they are (acting as if they are as slow as wetware) to succeed, the test is flawed.
Valid. That would depend largely on the software, though.
But humans can't be programmed to factorize well, in fact they are so bad at factorization that "intelligent human" is an oxymoron. A chatbot can be trained to factorize in a few minutes, most humans don't understand it at all and those few humans who do understand it, are awfully slow.
That said, that number wasn't too big, so a conventional computer should handle just fine.
My point is that it is trivial to ask a question which weeds out the humans. The Turing test is terribly carbocentric. If the judge were a computer and had to tell which is the computer and which is the human, the judge would be ready almost instantly.
And frankly, I consider being able to factorize 12010258260 a bit more a sign of intelligence than knowing the name of a candidate in some elections.
I have to agree. I know a former State Department official who was relatively far up the chain and he's told me the same thing: People tend to vastly overestimate the capabilities of the US, particularly on the intelligence and global influence fronts.
I know a Secretary of State who told the UN Security Council that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
No, it is not just "a" ReadByte snippet. It is a ReadByte snippet which (modulo: variable-names; bracketing of if-clauses; expansion of macros; and whitespace) is equal to the ImageMaster code, with one possible exception (MaxExtents doesn't look like a macro, if it is an element of an enum, it isn't an exception).
Code which does the same, will look the same. But there will often be differences at details, even differences which compilers don't wipe away. And that is why I am surprised by the disassembled code, "index + 2 > 2048" is equal to "index > 2046" (and "index + 6 > 2048" is equal to "index > 2042") if one ignores overflow. Bug-to-bug compatibility is relevant, but I am at a loss why creating map/mp would be important (unreachable memory is only useful if other buggy code looks at that memory, and it is initialized if 2042 <= index < 2046)
This is bla-bla; I wrote it, but didn't check it.
You are right, I should have said "You would be quite happy".
What I would be upset about was if I lost connectivity (in or out) because my IP was in a published block.
I still don't understand that. You are not paying for connectivity outside the Autonomous System of your provider and the transit routes your provider has acquired (by hiring an upstream or by peering).
Your expectations don't create an obligation for others to fulfill them.
A service mark of MAPS, originally a blackhole for all traffic
(technically a BGP feed, used to null-route, if I remember correctly).
Later also published through DNS (to see if 10.11.12.13 is listed, one would lookup 13.12.11.10.blackholes.mail-abuse.org) and RBL started to be used for the DNS zone blackholes.mail-abuse.org.
Even later all DNS zones which can be used to block (or allow) traffic became known as RBLs; since it is a service mark, using DNSBL (Domain Name System Block/Black List) might be more correct.
figure I should mention an older YRO Article from 2000 that indicts MAPS as censorware. If I had remembered the URL before this story went to press-time, it would have included it.
Now, 5 years later, it looks like the indictment still holds.
Five years ago, people explained that some providers chose to use MAPS. Some providers still choose to use MAPS, others chose to stop using them and yet others chose to start using them. Some providers offer their users the choice whether to use MAPS to filter their email.
Just like providers/users may heed the advice of Cliff (don't use this DNSbl), they may heed the advice of MAPS (don't accept email from this IP). As long as people are free to ignore either advice, there is no censorship.
I wasn't aware I had any obligation to offer the use of my hard disks to you. You may have a contract with your provider, but all your provider can guarantee is the transport of your packets over its network; noone interfered with that.
Unfair and deceptive business practices / unfair competition;
I don't have to accept to email from spam supporting providers.
Your attempt to silence an organization which gives me valuable information would be a blatant attempt at SLAPP.
Defamation (falsely accusing my domain / IP subblock of harboring spammers)
The list only tells your provider is harbouring spammers. By your own admission, you are quite happy with a provider which harbours spammers. Why are you upset if someone states that your providers harbours?
I choose my ISP for a variaty of reasons, if they sell to spammers is NOT a consideration I check. I don't care what they do with their bandwidth.
If you don't like it, you can block the/32's that send you spam. Any more, and you'll catch someone innocent. Which is way worse than receiving spam.
Ehmm, no. I would catch someone who chose to do business with a spam supporter.
If you want to use my bandwidth, diskspace and (most importantly) time, you should choose your provider more carefully.
If your provider sells to spammers, most of the email from their ranges will be spam because spammers tend to send a lot of email. If your provider won't spend the time to disconnect the spammers, I won't spend the time to find on which/32's they host the spammers this minute (only to get the spam from other/32's after your provider has given them fresh IP's.
yeah, and that sucks when people insist you have relaying open because their script assumes it just because you didnt drop them.yeah, and that sucks when people insist you have relaying open because their script assumes it just because you didnt drop them.
And what does your server do when the user doesn't exist?
Drop the e-mail on the floor?
That's a problem if the sender didn't remember the exact username. Other mailservers will send a bounce message, so the sender knows (almost) immediately something went wrong and (s)he can resend the message to the right e-mail address.
Send a bounce message? (qmail's default)?
That's a problem when the message was spam, you will help mailbombing the poor sod whose e-mail address was forged as the sender.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really picture some bank executive walking away sobbing and destitute when the bank crumbles? Even without further employment these people will be wealthy their entire lives. Even with the ability to 'raid their trust funds' or other monetary penalties, do you really believe that the wealthy don't know how to hide their money?
Don't let the criminals walk away: throw them into jail for gambling with other peoples money.
What is unreasonable is bidding and retracting that bid, when it is accepted.
Yes, they have to comply if he asks a reasonable amount for a picture in a weekly with a circulation like Elsevier. That doesn't mean that suing them will be profitable. On the other hand, being the defender in a copyright infringement case would be bad publicity for Elsevier, which has much more to lose.
The US has joined the Berne conventiom in 1989 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_Implementation_Act_of_1988. No copyright notice is needed.
Your friend has given permission to use the picture with proper attribution, Elsevier doesn't give proper attribution. Your friend still has the copyright for the picture, he can offer Elsevier to give them permission for use in their weekly paper for, say, $100,-, if they immediately start giving proper attribution on the website. Elsevier may not distribute their weekly if they don't pay (that what copyright means).
With the net someone from anywhere has just as much access to all the information you'd need to learn how to do this. there's nothing special about the chinese, the russians or the americans, hackers come from everywhere.
There is something special about "the americans", a lot of them are rather monolingual. It is harder for a monolingual non-X speaker to crack an X computer system than for a multilingual non-X speaker. Someone who speaks/understands some X has an even bigger advantage. Most people from Malaysia know Malay, Lin Mun Poo probably knew Chinese, selling data in "a diner" probably requires some fluency in English.
How will that work if, say, a European citizen complains that Facebook (based in the U.S.) has been mis-using their personal data?
Facebook removes the personal data: problem solved.
If they don't remove, they will probably be sued for damages. They will lose, because they are breaking the law. The compensation will be high, because the damages of loss of privacy are high and Facebook was knowingly breaking the law. If they pay, more people will ask them to remove personal data. If they do remove: the problem is solved. If they don't, they can't keep paying.
If they don't pay, Facebook will, in Europa, be treated like a criminal organization. Not the end of the world, but it does restrict the choice of holiday destinations.
That whole page untrue?
Not the whole page, but Lenin wasn't exactly known for giving only sound bites, he spoke quite some time. Trotsky and Kamensky didn't just stand there like statues during the whole speech. Using photographs without Trotsky and/or Kamensky is not the same thing as altering photos to remove Trotsky and/or Kamensky. Comments like In this file the viewing direction of trotzki has been altered. In the original image he is viewing directly to the camera. kind of show my point: not only the viewing direction of Trotsky has been altered, almost everyone has moved their heads. ;-)
[...] the people that care about how having their data abused will stop using that company.
Perhaps your time is almost free, but most people don't want to check the entire chain of production for every cup of coffee or sandwich they buy. That's why they want some reasonable lower limits for hygiene. Having to read a "privacy policy", which the company can abuse anyway, raises the transaction costs too much.
Maybe the next step: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union
That's US black propaganda. See for example http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archives/User_problems_14#User:Erik_Warmelink, The person noting some obvious holes in the story of newseum.org (full disclosure: that would be yours truly) is now blocked indefinitely from commons.
Quite a large part of this is how you define "intelligence".
Yep.
So for a chatbot not to have the ability to factorise large numbers (or in fact do any intense mathematical calculations) quickly doesn't necessarily mean it would be dumbed down.
It would, artificially removing a mental ability is dumbing down. You are a wetware, aren't you?
The whole idea behind the chatbot is to pretend to be human. Teaching it to factorise quickly would be counterproductive.
The Turing test was designed to see if computers are intelligent. If chatbots have to act dumber than they are (acting as if they are as slow as wetware) to succeed, the test is flawed.
Valid. That would depend largely on the software, though.
But humans can't be programmed to factorize well, in fact they are so bad at factorization that "intelligent human" is an oxymoron. A chatbot can be trained to factorize in a few minutes, most humans don't understand it at all and those few humans who do understand it, are awfully slow.
That said, that number wasn't too big, so a conventional computer should handle just fine.
My point is that it is trivial to ask a question which weeds out the humans. The Turing test is terribly carbocentric. If the judge were a computer and had to tell which is the computer and which is the human, the judge would be ready almost instantly.
And frankly, I consider being able to factorize 12010258260 a bit more a sign of intelligence than knowing the name of a candidate in some elections.
lolol ok, let me restate my claim: a computer can easily copy a computer that is programmed to copy a human. Better?
Don't you mean, a human can easily copy a computer that is programmed to copy a human? Yes, that's somewhat true.
Computers are rather good in copying the behaviour of computers.
A computer can't copy a human well, but a human can copy a computer well.
Factorize 12010258260, if you're slow, you're the human.
I have to agree. I know a former State Department official who was relatively far up the chain and he's told me the same thing: People tend to vastly overestimate the capabilities of the US, particularly on the intelligence and global influence fronts.
I know a Secretary of State who told the UN Security Council that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
He lied.
It would give the theory that sword-wielding skeletons were involved in the Peloponnesian War a fair chance.
No, it is not just "a" ReadByte snippet. It is a ReadByte snippet which (modulo: variable-names; bracketing of if-clauses; expansion of macros; and whitespace) is equal to the ImageMaster code, with one possible exception (MaxExtents doesn't look like a macro, if it is an element of an enum, it isn't an exception).
Code which does the same, will look the same. But there will often be differences at details, even differences which compilers don't wipe away. And that is why I am surprised by the disassembled code, "index + 2 > 2048" is equal to "index > 2046" (and "index + 6 > 2048" is equal to "index > 2042") if one ignores overflow. Bug-to-bug compatibility is relevant, but I am at a loss why creating map/mp would be important (unreachable memory is only useful if other buggy code looks at that memory, and it is initialized if 2042 <= index < 2046)
This is bla-bla; I wrote it, but didn't check it.
You are right, I should have said "You would be quite happy".
What I would be upset about was if I lost connectivity (in or out) because my IP was in a published block.
I still don't understand that. You are not paying for connectivity outside the Autonomous System of your provider and the transit routes your provider has acquired (by hiring an upstream or by peering).
Your expectations don't create an obligation for others to fulfill them.
Now purchased by Kelkea, see www.mail-abuse.com.
RBL Realtime Blackhole ListA service mark of MAPS, originally a blackhole for all traffic (technically a BGP feed, used to null-route, if I remember correctly).
Later also published through DNS (to see if 10.11.12.13 is listed, one would lookup 13.12.11.10.blackholes.mail-abuse.org) and RBL started to be used for the DNS zone blackholes.mail-abuse.org.
Even later all DNS zones which can be used to block (or allow) traffic became known as RBLs; since it is a service mark, using DNSBL (Domain Name System Block/Black List) might be more correct.
Just like providers/users may heed the advice of Cliff (don't use this DNSbl), they may heed the advice of MAPS (don't accept email from this IP). As long as people are free to ignore either advice, there is no censorship.
If your provider sells to spammers, most of the email from their ranges will be spam because spammers tend to send a lot of email. If your provider won't spend the time to disconnect the spammers, I won't spend the time to find on which
And what does your server do when the user doesn't exist?
That's a problem if the sender didn't remember the exact username. Other mailservers will send a bounce message, so the sender knows (almost) immediately something went wrong and (s)he can resend the message to the right e-mail address.
That's a problem when the message was spam, you will help mailbombing the poor sod whose e-mail address was forged as the sender.