Look, pal, you better believe yourself into getting a lawyer, because you could get into some serious legal trouble doing that. Whether or not you believe there's any legal trouble doesn't mean you won't end up in jail, kid.
A few years ago, during the big push for a "smart army", millions of dollars were poared into having individual tanks recognize enemy tanks on the battlefield. Well, it turns out they did it with a neural network, and after quite a bit of training they got it to reliably recognize enemy tanks as such.
Then, the eventual day when the general shows up arrived, and they had to give the demo. As you can probably predict, it crashed and burned. Why? Well, the system was trained on bright, sunny days in the middle of the desert (real sun!), and the demo was on the first overcast day in a year, and the neural net had trained itself to recognize the *shadow* of a tank, not the tank itself.
I can't believe the amount of FUD eminating from inside our community and directed at Microsoft. Are we supposed to be better than them? If so, then act it! We're certainly not claiming the moral high ground on the Mono issue when resorting to FUD tactics.
Program must be primitive recursive. All non-deterministic programs to generate a specific sequence can be written out step by step, so this doesn't really remove anything from the bounds. Now, it does remove some *faster* programs, but certainly not any hope of compression.
I suppose this gets less and less useful as I add more and more constraints.
Wacko thought: I suppose there is one number theory statement X whose interpretation is that there are no general recursive algorithms shorter than X (using Godel numbering, smaller) that output X.
Here's a neat (albeit *extremely* slow) idea: whip up a small (lisp? scheme?) program to generate all correctly-formed C programs without any string constants and exactly one function putc(), smallest to larger, and compile them all, and see exactly which ones output your file.
I could write a C program in those constraints to generate 256MB of PI digits that's a heckofalot smaller than 256MB. In fact, this little bit would find the *smallest* such program to do so.
Slow as hell, though;-) Maybe if you had a quantumn computer and only a 720KB floppy to transfer files with...
In other words, all strings of random numbers have entropy of 1? Nope. Explain to me why I can get this out of a "perfect" random number generator:
000000000000000000000000....
Now, granted, the probability of that is *low*, but it's there just the same.
Now, your statement would work just fine if you were talking about the *complete* digits of PI. In fact, if you give me a stack of disks with a complete listing of all of the digits of PI, I'd be happy to compress it for you.
The full Desktop Developer version is $99 educationally, and allows you to license your products under a non-GPL license, in addition to getting hardcopy documentation and a CD you can touch.
I believe Borland is planning to sell an "open edition" box set for $99. College students, profs, whoever, just get the desktop version and enjoy your freedom of license!
He didn't make the *detailed* information behind exactly how to decrypt a PDF (e.g. an algorithm) public. He said that he did it, and offered to sell you his product.
While I don't believe his offence warrants a stay in jail, why are defending him as if he was acting in the public interest? This isn't even DeCSS, folks. The source is *not* in your hands. You still have to purchase his product. Personally, I believe that this is open ground for a civil lawsuit between Adobe and Elcomsoft, and Adobe would be in the right: Elcomsoft has no right to *sell* products whose purpose is to disable Adobe's encryption, esp. when such knowledge was gained through reverse-engineering.
I meant screen *readiblity*. Most of those LCD's used on the Pocket PC's still aren't as crisp as a good 'ole B&W LCD. Sure, it's a bit of a skewed attitude, but when I'm reading text on my display my Visor rocks the Pocket PC.
Price? $400? I'm not talking about a Prism, folks. If you're paying that much you've got other motives than price in choosing a PDA.
The battery life is important to me. I take notes on my Visor continuously during class, and I don't feel like popping new batteries in the thing continuously. I guess that's a non-issue if you have a rechargeable unit.
Not to mention I do have a bit of an issue with supporting a Microsoft device, but I'm not going to bring that up as others may not share my viewpoint.
This marks the end of the PalmOS reign...... and the DOS/Windows market ended as soon as Macs could emulate PC's.
Nice try. I still have a dozen reasons why I prefer my Handspring, not the least of which is cost (and battery life, and screen quality...)
I would, but my local used music shop's concept of a techno selection is 'DJ Hick's Am3r1can Dance Collection 36", which I'm not touching with a ten-foot pole.
Agreed - there are definitely some smaller (not even "indie", depending on your definition) that don't want to futz with it. I buy most of my music from the Boxed label (of Global Underground fame) and haven't had a problem.
Then again, who would want to ruin two continuous 70-minute sets by ripping them as individual tracks and distributing them that way? Listining to sets like that is the ultamite defence against copy protection.
They may not be more polite, but at least they don't have the "I'm entitled to absolutely anything I want, for free!" attitude that prevails among a lot of Linux users and hangers-on.
No, but BeOS users are a lot like that. You'll see 1% saying that they'll pay $99999 for X piece of software, but when any commercial software comes out nobody buys it.
Good point. The documentation for most MP3 encoders doesn't really make it clear to people that when you enter a bitrate on a VBR encoder, you're getting an *average* bitrate, not an exact bitrate, and if your audio file is funky enough it won't even average out to 128 or 192 anyway, because it's only a target.
OK, Jon, you *obviously* didn't read Kurzwiel
on
A.I. and the Future
·
· Score: 5
Kurzwiel's Age of Spiritual Machines was not a dark vision, nor was it intended to be. It was intended to be an inspiring vision of what we can do with technology if we choose to do so. This alone damages your credibility when speaking on the topic.
May I suggest a few things? Read Kurzwiel. Read Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach. Perhaps you'll come to understand the mindset of those who are developing this A.I. technology that every one else fears will run amok and distroy humanity. (I also thought I was supposed to be chained to a machine 24 hours a day working for the machines by now, too.)
Slashdot Mirror
Look, pal, you better believe yourself into getting a lawyer, because you could get into some serious legal trouble doing that. Whether or not you believe there's any legal trouble doesn't mean you won't end up in jail, kid.
Thanks for the warning. I've been meaining to try it but neither the machines here at work or the machines at school carry it. I'll stay away.
A few years ago, during the big push for a "smart army", millions of dollars were poared into having individual tanks recognize enemy tanks on the battlefield. Well, it turns out they did it with a neural network, and after quite a bit of training they got it to reliably recognize enemy tanks as such.
Then, the eventual day when the general shows up arrived, and they had to give the demo. As you can probably predict, it crashed and burned. Why? Well, the system was trained on bright, sunny days in the middle of the desert (real sun!), and the demo was on the first overcast day in a year, and the neural net had trained itself to recognize the *shadow* of a tank, not the tank itself.
Caveat neural-net-user.
I can't believe the amount of FUD eminating from inside our community and directed at Microsoft. Are we supposed to be better than them? If so, then act it! We're certainly not claiming the moral high ground on the Mono issue when resorting to FUD tactics.
Program must be primitive recursive. All non-deterministic programs to generate a specific sequence can be written out step by step, so this doesn't really remove anything from the bounds. Now, it does remove some *faster* programs, but certainly not any hope of compression.
I suppose this gets less and less useful as I add more and more constraints.
Wacko thought: I suppose there is one number theory statement X whose interpretation is that there are no general recursive algorithms shorter than X (using Godel numbering, smaller) that output X.
Maybe it's because you don't list your email addy on your account?
I could write a C program in those constraints to generate 256MB of PI digits that's a heckofalot smaller than 256MB. In fact, this little bit would find the *smallest* such program to do so.
Slow as hell, though ;-) Maybe if you had a quantumn computer and only a 720KB floppy to transfer files with...
In other words, all strings of random numbers have entropy of 1? Nope. Explain to me why I can get this out of a "perfect" random number generator:
000000000000000000000000....
Now, granted, the probability of that is *low*, but it's there just the same.
Now, your statement would work just fine if you were talking about the *complete* digits of PI. In fact, if you give me a stack of disks with a complete listing of all of the digits of PI, I'd be happy to compress it for you.
Aah, but what do you do if he's using your account? Should the ISP turn over the number he's calling from? Will that help?
I believe Borland is planning to sell an "open edition" box set for $99. College students, profs, whoever, just get the desktop version and enjoy your freedom of license!
The reason nobody posts at 1 when they have the bonus is that the abuse is already too widespread and it's just too much effort to hit the little box.
While I don't believe his offence warrants a stay in jail, why are defending him as if he was acting in the public interest? This isn't even DeCSS, folks. The source is *not* in your hands. You still have to purchase his product. Personally, I believe that this is open ground for a civil lawsuit between Adobe and Elcomsoft, and Adobe would be in the right: Elcomsoft has no right to *sell* products whose purpose is to disable Adobe's encryption, esp. when such knowledge was gained through reverse-engineering.
OT: Fuck you, slashcode. It didn't take me more than 8 seconds to write that, and I sure as hell ain't gonna wait two minutes to post it either.
Price? $400? I'm not talking about a Prism, folks. If you're paying that much you've got other motives than price in choosing a PDA.
The battery life is important to me. I take notes on my Visor continuously during class, and I don't feel like popping new batteries in the thing continuously. I guess that's a non-issue if you have a rechargeable unit.
Not to mention I do have a bit of an issue with supporting a Microsoft device, but I'm not going to bring that up as others may not share my viewpoint.
This marks the end of the PalmOS reign... ... and the DOS/Windows market ended as soon as Macs could emulate PC's.
Nice try. I still have a dozen reasons why I prefer my Handspring, not the least of which is cost (and battery life, and screen quality...)
I would, but my local used music shop's concept of a techno selection is 'DJ Hick's Am3r1can Dance Collection 36", which I'm not touching with a ten-foot pole.
Then why is there a real, licensed DVD player for QNX?
Then again, who would want to ruin two continuous 70-minute sets by ripping them as individual tracks and distributing them that way? Listining to sets like that is the ultamite defence against copy protection.
I guess you're not always right. ;-)
Well, since Samba is open source, it works just fine on OS X as it is now. Apple will just make it more easy to use for you.
No, but BeOS users are a lot like that. You'll see 1% saying that they'll pay $99999 for X piece of software, but when any commercial software comes out nobody buys it.
Good point. The documentation for most MP3 encoders doesn't really make it clear to people that when you enter a bitrate on a VBR encoder, you're getting an *average* bitrate, not an exact bitrate, and if your audio file is funky enough it won't even average out to 128 or 192 anyway, because it's only a target.
May I suggest a few things? Read Kurzwiel. Read Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach. Perhaps you'll come to understand the mindset of those who are developing this A.I. technology that every one else fears will run amok and distroy humanity. (I also thought I was supposed to be chained to a machine 24 hours a day working for the machines by now, too.)
Please reread Foundation and the Robot novels. (As if the laws of robotics haven't been quoted enough for you already...)
trhurler? Is that you?