But a randomly shifting subject is still something that could hypothetically be accounted for with a large enough lookup table. If it's big enough, then you'll simply be having a conversation with the person who created the lookup table, who we already assume is intelligent. A computer would only fail if the programmer failed to guess what questions could be asked.
I think most of the arguments are down to a simple belief people have in some sort of soul and/or free will. A computer is totally deterministic.
If you assume that there's more to how we work than a machine (i.e. a brain) making decisions for us then the only logical concusion is that computers will never be able to do this because they are totally controlled by their software. The argument that we do have a soul is something I'm a little unsure about, but I do have a sense of self. A self awareness that I'm not sure I see an evolutionary need for in a totally autonomous machine.
I've never been all that taken with the Turing test.
It was a nice thought experiment, and certainly something to consider, but I just see a few problems. Computers do remarkably well with just a simple lookup table. Human beings are actually quite deterministic. A conversation might go "hello". "How are you?" "What's your name?". There are a few questions that a lot of people will ask. AI bots like Alice and Eliza use pretty much this method, and some people do think they're talking to a human.
At the otehr end of the spectrum, we're only testing for a human type of intelligence. Skynet in the Terminator movies (I'll have to use a sci-fi example because there are no real world strong AIs) is intelligent. But it would probably not pass the Turing test. It just doesn't think in a remotely human way.
So, we have a test that offers both false positives and false negatives. As I said, it's a nice idea, and is a good starting point when we want to consider what makes a machine intelligent, but I think we need a stronger test for actual intelligence.
It would be a strange thing for the MPAA to demand though. And, assuming at least one of these sites is in the US, rather foolish of them to agree since the DMCA safe harbor provisions actually offer them some protection.
The NY Times article isn't exactly free from bias. The comment about buying a new computer was taken from an off the cuff comment by a specific employee. who didn't even say that. It should not be taken as official microsoft policy.
I don't think the NYT was trying to be particularly balanced. It's simply an opinion piece. If they wanted to be fair to MS, then they would have pointed out that there are many ways to make IE reasonably secure (a popup blocker would be a good start) that there are still a handful of issues with Firefox.
People seem remarkably tolrent of computers not doing what they want them to do. Sadly most people aren't aware that computers can be made to do things that they don't do out of the box.
It makes no mention of "how" they plan to do this. The mechanism could easily be simply to contact the EU, and, if neccesary present evidence that there will be a terrorist attack.
The EU and US may not get on with each other that well, but they're not going to be so churlish as to allow people to be killed by terrorists.
There are techniques. Diffie Hellman key exchange will provide a disposable key that is - by design - secure against eavesdropping, and there is absolutely no need to keep a record of the key after the session, which should be adequate proof that you no longer have the key.
I don't think anybody is seriously expecting to ban P2P anyway. Bittorrent is genuinely used to distribute Linux distros, foe example, and I wouldn't be surprised if there have been a number of legitimate CDs made available legitimately by amateur bands and movie makers
I'm sure they have the resources to do this. The question is whether they would choose to.
They have a retainer from the various 'AA's. They'll probably be able to ask for the same amount whether they account for PG or not. All things being equal, presumably they'll look for the easy (i.e. cheap) targets unless there's some positive incentive to go after the harder targets.
It's a good choice of line to quote. I'll just add the observation that the applications people want are already avaialable for Windows. Just not always at the price they want.
Many of the cool KDE apps already have an equivalent for windows. The main reason people have switched so far is that they prefer the underlying OS.
Well, do they? It's technically possible, but are they willing to spend that much on that many consumer accounts?
They're a business. Motivated by profit. They're more likely to do it the cheap way and ignore people with PG, because they don't feel they're losing money from it. If more people atart to use it then perhaps they will do it this way.
Dracionian EULAs are based in contract law, not in copyright.
No. They're based in copyright law.
"GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following rights provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of this EULA:".
See the wording. They are granting you the rights. This is where its a contract. You have the right to copy the product as long as you agree to the terms. But the only rights they actually give you are those that would be otherwise restricted by copyright. If there was no copyright, they would be granting you trights that you already have in exchange for you agreeing to the contract, which would mean it was not a valid contract.
No. EULAs are not licences, they are not based on copyright, they are contracts.
They are not contracts. They are licences. This is why it says "Licence agreement". They give you permission to copy the software within certain limitations. Without copyright they would have no enforcability.
SCO has nothing to do with copyright, which is just as well because they don't have any relevant ones. The case with IBM is entirely based on contract (actually a misinterpretation by SCO of a contract clause).
I mean where they're demanding licencing fees for their IP. this is certainly because they believe they own the copyright on the code.
Well, I dunno... The DMCA is part of copyright law. And draconian EULAs are based on copyright. So is the whole mess with SCO (although that appears to be more of a contract dispute).
I can sort of see the guys point, but the argument leads to a need for copyright reform rather than replacing copyright with patents.
Doh! I was sure I corrected that. I even remember looking it up to see if I got them in the right place.
Re:Gamespot says 90 minutes in real life tests
on
PSP Battery Journal
·
· Score: 1
Ah yes. I worked at a 3D chip company. We always paid special attention to our competitors' small print. 1 zillion triangles per second. If they were unlit untextured and assuming quite a lot of overdraw. All hardware has a theoretical maximum, and it's usually possible to get it to hit that, but not if you want to do anything useful.
Apparently it was a serious technical challenge back when 999 was introduced (in the 1930's I think). 0 would have connected to the operator before the other 2 digits were dialed. They probably could have used 111 instead. Other three digit codes were used as the first three digits of other numbers.
Apparently the choice of 000 for Australia has caused problems in the past. Some automatic systems default to dialling 000000. I've also known someone who was upset to find that some modem software defaulted to 999888777, thus connecting him to the emergency services when he ran it.
Slashdot Mirror
But a randomly shifting subject is still something that could hypothetically be accounted for with a large enough lookup table. If it's big enough, then you'll simply be having a conversation with the person who created the lookup table, who we already assume is intelligent. A computer would only fail if the programmer failed to guess what questions could be asked.
"I can file 6 megamotions per second!"
Finally the RIAA has a hope on dealing with every file sharer on the planet.
Often demand goes up with an increased capacity to supply a service. I wonder if the amount of crime would go up with a Lawyerbot.
I think most of the arguments are down to a simple belief people have in some sort of soul and/or free will. A computer is totally deterministic.
If you assume that there's more to how we work than a machine (i.e. a brain) making decisions for us then the only logical concusion is that computers will never be able to do this because they are totally controlled by their software. The argument that we do have a soul is something I'm a little unsure about, but I do have a sense of self. A self awareness that I'm not sure I see an evolutionary need for in a totally autonomous machine.
I've never been all that taken with the Turing test.
It was a nice thought experiment, and certainly something to consider, but I just see a few problems. Computers do remarkably well with just a simple lookup table. Human beings are actually quite deterministic. A conversation might go "hello". "How are you?" "What's your name?". There are a few questions that a lot of people will ask. AI bots like Alice and Eliza use pretty much this method, and some people do think they're talking to a human.
At the otehr end of the spectrum, we're only testing for a human type of intelligence. Skynet in the Terminator movies (I'll have to use a sci-fi example because there are no real world strong AIs) is intelligent. But it would probably not pass the Turing test. It just doesn't think in a remotely human way.
So, we have a test that offers both false positives and false negatives. As I said, it's a nice idea, and is a good starting point when we want to consider what makes a machine intelligent, but I think we need a stronger test for actual intelligence.
It would be a strange thing for the MPAA to demand though. And, assuming at least one of these sites is in the US, rather foolish of them to agree since the DMCA safe harbor provisions actually offer them some protection.
The NY Times article isn't exactly free from bias. The comment about buying a new computer was taken from an off the cuff comment by a specific employee. who didn't even say that. It should not be taken as official microsoft policy.
I don't think the NYT was trying to be particularly balanced. It's simply an opinion piece. If they wanted to be fair to MS, then they would have pointed out that there are many ways to make IE reasonably secure (a popup blocker would be a good start) that there are still a handful of issues with Firefox.
People seem remarkably tolrent of computers not doing what they want them to do. Sadly most people aren't aware that computers can be made to do things that they don't do out of the box.
It makes no mention of "how" they plan to do this. The mechanism could easily be simply to contact the EU, and, if neccesary present evidence that there will be a terrorist attack.
The EU and US may not get on with each other that well, but they're not going to be so churlish as to allow people to be killed by terrorists.
There are techniques. Diffie Hellman key exchange will provide a disposable key that is - by design - secure against eavesdropping, and there is absolutely no need to keep a record of the key after the session, which should be adequate proof that you no longer have the key.
I don't think anybody is seriously expecting to ban P2P anyway. Bittorrent is genuinely used to distribute Linux distros, foe example, and I wouldn't be surprised if there have been a number of legitimate CDs made available legitimately by amateur bands and movie makers
I'm sure they have the resources to do this. The question is whether they would choose to.
They have a retainer from the various 'AA's. They'll probably be able to ask for the same amount whether they account for PG or not. All things being equal, presumably they'll look for the easy (i.e. cheap) targets unless there's some positive incentive to go after the harder targets.
It's a good choice of line to quote. I'll just add the observation that the applications people want are already avaialable for Windows. Just not always at the price they want.
Many of the cool KDE apps already have an equivalent for windows. The main reason people have switched so far is that they prefer the underlying OS.
Slashdot headlines are often phrased as a simple question.
The answer to this one is: No!
So what are the rest of you commenting for?
Well, do they? It's technically possible, but are they willing to spend that much on that many consumer accounts?
They're a business. Motivated by profit. They're more likely to do it the cheap way and ignore people with PG, because they don't feel they're losing money from it. If more people atart to use it then perhaps they will do it this way.
No.
Because nobody is harmed it makes it alright to break the law. It's a bit of an anarchists argument, but not unreasonable.
Dracionian EULAs are based in contract law, not in copyright.
No. They're based in copyright law.
"GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following rights provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of this EULA:".
See the wording. They are granting you the rights. This is where its a contract. You have the right to copy the product as long as you agree to the terms. But the only rights they actually give you are those that would be otherwise restricted by copyright. If there was no copyright, they would be granting you trights that you already have in exchange for you agreeing to the contract, which would mean it was not a valid contract.
No. EULAs are not licences, they are not based on copyright, they are contracts.
They are not contracts. They are licences. This is why it says "Licence agreement". They give you permission to copy the software within certain limitations. Without copyright they would have no enforcability.
SCO has nothing to do with copyright, which is just as well because they don't have any relevant ones. The case with IBM is entirely based on contract (actually a misinterpretation by SCO of a contract clause).
I mean where they're demanding licencing fees for their IP. this is certainly because they believe they own the copyright on the code.
Well, I dunno... The DMCA is part of copyright law. And draconian EULAs are based on copyright. So is the whole mess with SCO (although that appears to be more of a contract dispute).
I can sort of see the guys point, but the argument leads to a need for copyright reform rather than replacing copyright with patents.
Doh! I was sure I corrected that. I even remember looking it up to see if I got them in the right place.
Ah yes. I worked at a 3D chip company. We always paid special attention to our competitors' small print. 1 zillion triangles per second. If they were unlit untextured and assuming quite a lot of overdraw. All hardware has a theoretical maximum, and it's usually possible to get it to hit that, but not if you want to do anything useful.
Yes.
People are too polite.
It's actually a teraFLOPS. Tera meaning 1 000 000 000 000, and FLOPS meaning "FLOating-Point Operations per Second".
For some reason I find people talking loudly on a phone to be a lot more irritating than talking loudly to other people.
Same amount that the Linux zealots get paid for promoting open source software.
Apparently it was a serious technical challenge back when 999 was introduced (in the 1930's I think). 0 would have connected to the operator before the other 2 digits were dialed. They probably could have used 111 instead. Other three digit codes were used as the first three digits of other numbers.
Apparently the choice of 000 for Australia has caused problems in the past. Some automatic systems default to dialling 000000. I've also known someone who was upset to find that some modem software defaulted to 999888777, thus connecting him to the emergency services when he ran it.