So let's say she was walking down the street and tripped. She feels humiliated. The press took a photo and published it. She should be able to supress the press photo because she felt humiliated? That's absurd.
I'd rather the press retain the freedom to document what's happening. Even if their motives aren't altruistic.
When it comes to technical issues most people assume, "Eh, those who know about it will figure it out." Actually that's probably true for most topics. It's simply assumed that those who are knowledgeable will be involved and make the right decisions. Too bad they're often wrong.
1. Possible, but I think Google is perceived to be so influential that the RIAA/MPAA will actually want to work with them (while still threatening to sue). 2. They already gather IPs and sue. No need for a cloaked company. 3. My bet would be Jobs made sure to stay clean. The problems are mostly with past execs, not himself. 4. Sesame Street doesn't feature products. 5. This one is probable. Yahoo is definitely concerned with becoming stale and is constantly looking to buy things ups. They'll make some uber-purchases, pick up headlines, and hope their stock goes up.
More and more people are trying second life. But the retention rate is extremely low. A fair percentage of daily users are only trying to make money. The vast majority of people check it out, don't see anything very interesting, and leave.
I gave it a fair shot. I logged on just about every day for three weeks. I explored and explored and explored. I found no reason to stick around.
I don't see this as too big a deal. What's far worse is bloggers who don't disclose the fact they got the gift in any related blog posts. Bloggers aren't expected to have any standards, but those that disclose this important information when blogging about Vista gain credibility.
I drive a civic that gets 33 MPG. I can drive 4 people and a trunk full of stuff around NYC with no problems at all. I'm bobbing and weaving with the taxis. The hybrid version of my car gets 40 MPG, costs $10,000 more, and wouldn't perform much (if any) better.
If the hybrid got double the mileage then there might be a reason to get it. But you don't have to ride a lawnmower to get similar mileage.
I don't have a DVR for a very simple reason: there's barely anything worth watching on TV. The only show I watch regularly is on at a good time (The Daily Show at 11pm). Most of the people I talk to about it find that almost everything broadcast today is crap. And there's no point in timeshifting crap.
Or he believes that a deal between Microsoft and a linux provider adds "legitimacy" to linux in the eyes of other corporations and governments, helping the linux market overall.
Your point is quite right. I certainly don't think my idea is great solution. I'm wondering what sort of compromises need to be made. Ideally the public would simply frown upon anyone running for office being a member of any organization. People wouldn't vote for any member of a political party. But we all know that will never happen.
Many people sign employment contracts where they voluntarily give up freedoms to join a company. A politician can be required to give up certain liberties if they volunteer to be in office. No one is forcing them into public office.
One thought that I've had is to not allow elected officials to be members of any organization (during their time in office). The problem is they could still be supported by an organization to which they are not officially members. I think we really need to come up with some radical new ideas.
I didn't see the movie, but in the book Andrew spends his "life" being considered inferior by humans. Yet he proves he's as capable as any human. Basically he "feels" sad he's treated this way. It's analogous to racism. So he raises the case to the highest court in order to prove to society that robots should be treated as equals. And to prove his case he chooses to be made mortal to show just how much like a human he can be. In the book I feel it's well done.
That assumes the current human brain is at the maximum possible learning capacity. Give us thousands of more years and we may evolve more intelligence. Build a robot now that can grow faster than we can and it could achieve the same higher intelligence sooner.
Of course I'm speaking totally hypothetical and you may be completely right. But I prefer to think more is possible.
Aside from the story, consider that productive AI will most likely not be born from simple functional programming. It's unlikely we'll ever program a complete robot "mind" without the possiblity of growth. We will program them similar to a human mind: fundamentals built in with the capacity to learn on its own.
The question then becomes: at what point is a machine alive? If we were to build a human from a pile of atoms could it be considered alive? There may be a point where we find it impossible to tell the difference between a robot and a human. Then it's not as simple as trying to grant rights to your front right tire. You will find people who sympathize with a machine that seems to contain real emotion.
If you want a machine to be truely intelligent you need them to be open-ended. Intelligence beyond what we can manually program will only come from exploration. If that exploration includes the concepts of free will then so be it. We will never have real AI if we cripple the programming to not allow "wants". One of the real benefits of AI will be when a machine can be more intelligent than any human, and therefore contribute more knowledge back to us then we convey to it. "Closed" or overly controlled systems will simply never gain as much intelligence and we would therefore be stifling our own innovation.
I've heard of many developers who tried it and hated it, then soon dropped it. They're probably counted as well. When one of my coworkers explained the headaches he was going through trying to get things working well I knew I'd never even bother looking at it.
If the person who started this whole Month of Bugs is trying to remain anonymous then how can it be for self-promotion? If they're trying to spread fear it's to make the public put pressure on the vendors to fix flaws.
When China's tech industry was just starting to grow, they had a few options. Purchase commercial OSes, make illegal copies of those OSes, or create their own. They went with the cheapest, quickest, and safest route. Microsoft wasn't trying to persuade the Chinese. They simply let the obvious choice take its course. Had they worked with the governments to end illegal copying China would have probably produced their own OS or illegally copied a less popular choice.
China is trying to be a big player in the world economy. And so they have to at least pretend to play by the rules. I believe their membership in the WTO requires they combat international copyright infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
So let's say she was walking down the street and tripped. She feels humiliated. The press took a photo and published it. She should be able to supress the press photo because she felt humiliated? That's absurd.
I'd rather the press retain the freedom to document what's happening. Even if their motives aren't altruistic.
When it comes to technical issues most people assume, "Eh, those who know about it will figure it out." Actually that's probably true for most topics. It's simply assumed that those who are knowledgeable will be involved and make the right decisions. Too bad they're often wrong.
87: programmatic programmers propose protocol redesign
87: excel expertise fact fixing
87: foolish formulated graphical guiding
95: maintenance march messy
95: studying super tracking users
98: undermine unintentional unix users
1. Possible, but I think Google is perceived to be so influential that the RIAA/MPAA will actually want to work with them (while still threatening to sue).
2. They already gather IPs and sue. No need for a cloaked company.
3. My bet would be Jobs made sure to stay clean. The problems are mostly with past execs, not himself.
4. Sesame Street doesn't feature products.
5. This one is probable. Yahoo is definitely concerned with becoming stale and is constantly looking to buy things ups. They'll make some uber-purchases, pick up headlines, and hope their stock goes up.
No offense, but you need to find new friends.
More and more people are trying second life. But the retention rate is extremely low. A fair percentage of daily users are only trying to make money. The vast majority of people check it out, don't see anything very interesting, and leave.
I gave it a fair shot. I logged on just about every day for three weeks. I explored and explored and explored. I found no reason to stick around.
I don't see this as too big a deal. What's far worse is bloggers who don't disclose the fact they got the gift in any related blog posts. Bloggers aren't expected to have any standards, but those that disclose this important information when blogging about Vista gain credibility.
I drive a civic that gets 33 MPG. I can drive 4 people and a trunk full of stuff around NYC with no problems at all. I'm bobbing and weaving with the taxis. The hybrid version of my car gets 40 MPG, costs $10,000 more, and wouldn't perform much (if any) better.
If the hybrid got double the mileage then there might be a reason to get it. But you don't have to ride a lawnmower to get similar mileage.
I don't have a DVR for a very simple reason: there's barely anything worth watching on TV. The only show I watch regularly is on at a good time (The Daily Show at 11pm). Most of the people I talk to about it find that almost everything broadcast today is crap. And there's no point in timeshifting crap.
Or he believes that a deal between Microsoft and a linux provider adds "legitimacy" to linux in the eyes of other corporations and governments, helping the linux market overall.
Your point is quite right. I certainly don't think my idea is great solution. I'm wondering what sort of compromises need to be made. Ideally the public would simply frown upon anyone running for office being a member of any organization. People wouldn't vote for any member of a political party. But we all know that will never happen.
Many people sign employment contracts where they voluntarily give up freedoms to join a company. A politician can be required to give up certain liberties if they volunteer to be in office. No one is forcing them into public office.
One thought that I've had is to not allow elected officials to be members of any organization (during their time in office). The problem is they could still be supported by an organization to which they are not officially members. I think we really need to come up with some radical new ideas.
I didn't see the movie, but in the book Andrew spends his "life" being considered inferior by humans. Yet he proves he's as capable as any human. Basically he "feels" sad he's treated this way. It's analogous to racism. So he raises the case to the highest court in order to prove to society that robots should be treated as equals. And to prove his case he chooses to be made mortal to show just how much like a human he can be. In the book I feel it's well done.
That assumes the current human brain is at the maximum possible learning capacity. Give us thousands of more years and we may evolve more intelligence. Build a robot now that can grow faster than we can and it could achieve the same higher intelligence sooner.
Of course I'm speaking totally hypothetical and you may be completely right. But I prefer to think more is possible.
I could not disagree more. Please read The Bicentennial Man .
Aside from the story, consider that productive AI will most likely not be born from simple functional programming. It's unlikely we'll ever program a complete robot "mind" without the possiblity of growth. We will program them similar to a human mind: fundamentals built in with the capacity to learn on its own.
The question then becomes: at what point is a machine alive? If we were to build a human from a pile of atoms could it be considered alive? There may be a point where we find it impossible to tell the difference between a robot and a human. Then it's not as simple as trying to grant rights to your front right tire. You will find people who sympathize with a machine that seems to contain real emotion.
If you want a machine to be truely intelligent you need them to be open-ended. Intelligence beyond what we can manually program will only come from exploration. If that exploration includes the concepts of free will then so be it. We will never have real AI if we cripple the programming to not allow "wants". One of the real benefits of AI will be when a machine can be more intelligent than any human, and therefore contribute more knowledge back to us then we convey to it. "Closed" or overly controlled systems will simply never gain as much intelligence and we would therefore be stifling our own innovation.
I've heard of many developers who tried it and hated it, then soon dropped it. They're probably counted as well. When one of my coworkers explained the headaches he was going through trying to get things working well I knew I'd never even bother looking at it.
It's funny that someone named Fox_1 knows this information yet didn't make it onto the geekiest animals list.
I'm not sure which is funnier: your comment or the fact it was moderated insightful.
And why should we put up so much money for a machine that won't be used to its potential? He's explaining why we shouldn't by a PS3.
If the person who started this whole Month of Bugs is trying to remain anonymous then how can it be for self-promotion? If they're trying to spread fear it's to make the public put pressure on the vendors to fix flaws.
How can a blimp with a propeller ever leave the atmosphere?
When China's tech industry was just starting to grow, they had a few options. Purchase commercial OSes, make illegal copies of those OSes, or create their own. They went with the cheapest, quickest, and safest route. Microsoft wasn't trying to persuade the Chinese. They simply let the obvious choice take its course. Had they worked with the governments to end illegal copying China would have probably produced their own OS or illegally copied a less popular choice.
China is trying to be a big player in the world economy. And so they have to at least pretend to play by the rules. I believe their membership in the WTO requires they combat international copyright infringement.