A few of them were on the blacklists; mostly the open relays and smaller ones (well, when blacklists were free I noticed this). I'm pretty sure the warantee card for a ceramic knife put me on the list, and the incredible volume of spam didn't stop until I simply added tons of domains and a bunch of/24 and/16 to my access rejection... There are a lot of 163.net, 263.net in there as well as the large freemail services. They are really the most persistent spammers I've seen.
But the logic is similar; you can't provide retroactive incentive on the one hand, and on the other you can't provide incentive to people who are dead, but you definitely can't provide a retroactive incentive to people who are fucking dead.
Unless they are in Florida, in which case you can buy their votes.
They could also consider a lower court's opinion that perpetual extension of copyright is fine even though perpetual copyrights are not. The judge who came up with that one must have suffered some severe head trauma.
No kidding. It's like watching someone get kneecapped by gangsters and concluding that the local economy must have lots of healthy competition. The reality, of course, is that having bent the rules to within an inch of their lives in order to better kneecap the competition, the bells have basically been told they can use a gun instead.
I can't believe that Powell knows ANYTHING about the state of broadband in the US; this basically grants the commercial monopoly to the Bells, and the residential monopoly to the cable co's. This will make broadband more expensive and slow its expansion into new areas. He better be following this up with something else (like feds mandating coverage areas) or this is a prescription for failure.
The band, however, has the right to decide how to distribute its music, not the fan.
That's not really true. They don't have the right to say "the distributor can't sell it to record stores owned by non-whites." They can't say "This CD cannot be transferred. Opening this CD signifies agreement to the following license stipulation; this CD may not be resold."
Clearly you don't understand copyright. It is a limited right that means "You are encouraged to create music by being given the exclusive opportunity to make money off your creation by granting you the exclusive right to make new copies; you may assign that right to others in any way you wish. But once you sell a copy, it is not yours; you abandon all rights to that particular copy."
What Barlow properly laments is that the public has willingly abandoned their freedom in exchange for nothing, all because their feeble understanding of "intellectual property" equates a limited set of rights designed to encourage useful commerce in ideas and expressions with some kind of ownership of a thing. Frankly, it means to me that most people are now incapable of reason and willingly abandon their love of freedom for their love of property and defend their claims of property with arguments that the average fourth-grader sees as spurious, greedy, and stupid, such as when the relatives of a dead victim of terrorism attempt to COPYRIGHT the phrase "Let's roll!", an act that has approximately the same meaning to the defense of freedom that the guillotine had to the promulgation of fraternité, that is, a sad and cynical mockery of human ideals.
Barlow succinctly says that it's sad how these tendencies have wormed their rotten way into our legal system without any public pause, and with the majority of the public nodding their heads in addle-pated consent. But the way I say it is a lot more fun, because if the sensless iceberg is winning the battle, I'd rather be making farting noises on the tuba than rearranging the deck chairs.
Sneaking in to a concert is a weak analogy; if you are in, then you are occupying the room that someone else would have taken. Unless, of course, you advocate ignoring fire safety rules. You don't, do you? And no, you can't touch my monkey.
NO, he's not a hypocrite, and you are a fucking idiot. It's not "gee if my front door were open blah blah blah". It's like this; I can stand outside blockbusters and photograph the store. I can't do it from inside. The exterior of the store is in a public space. If they don't want to be visible from a public space, put up a fucking fence. Awnings are part of the store identity and supposed to be public. If you don't like sitting in a public space (for example, because of cost concerns due to that evil linking technology), get out of it.
Spamming is not the same unless it's a publically listed e-mail address.
True about the login requirements, but recent versions of rsync use ssh by default. The server setup isn't more widely used because most people aren't using it for source code trees. 22.
Nope, nothing to do with the way rsync works. Check for version mismatches on the ends; I've seen slow connections and weird stuff happen ONLY when certain versions interact with certain other versions, though SSH versions seemed to be implicated as well. I've been using rsync on a variety of machines for 3 years.
Of course they can. But the fact is, that Windows users were shit out of luck for a long time. Not because MS didn't have the programming muscle, but because they refused to do anything about TCP/IP until it was clear that they were going to lose the network protocol battle. Two words: Trumpet Winsock, motherfucker.
You're right, you don't have to go looking for trouble that doesn't exist, because the facts are that Microsoft was already years behind in developing a TCP/IP stack, thus the use of BSD code. The only reason they were "behind" is that TCP/IP became the de facto network protocol, and the only reason it did so is that it was a freely available university by-product.
I don't know what dumb fuck moderator gave you +1 Insightful, except one saying to himself "See, I'm not biased against Microsoft!". I'm not against them, either, but there's no point in trying to shine a turd.
Rsync works (nowadays, I believe, by default) over an SSH connection, but unlike FTP or scp, it doesn't have to transmit the whole file... only the parts that change. So it could be part of an effective version control system.
Exactly. And when the small devices grow up to be powerful ones that are good as general-purpose computers, what OS will they be running? Will you have to provide DNA samples to get your license for the software you bought "activated"? Or will you be able to run mutt if you like?
The only question is whether Microsoft will get themselves in there. They aren't doing so great if it's the handhelds that grow into the killer devices, but they don't seem to be doing so bad with Xbox. Be very worried.
By the way, the author of this article is a liar and crazy if he thinks I'll believe his wife liked the car analogy. Who would marry him?
Re:We (probably) won't ever actually ACHIEVE AI
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 2
So if they are so damn smart why will they be unable to speak coherently in human languages? I speak in ways that are unfathomable to a toddler, but I still know how to communicate to a toddler.
I think you misunderstand the Turing test; it's not supposed to be a *measure* of the machine's innate intelligence, or a guideline for how the machines are supposed to talk to each other. It's supposed to signify that a machine that can be regarded as intelligent must have something more than just a collection of specialized tricks, like playing chess. Those things are nice, and clever, and maybe even useful, but seem to a human intellect like so much gimmickry. An intelligent machine needs to have some sense of its own agency.
The point you are really trying to make, that we should avoid an anthropocentric view of machine intelligence, is true, but it's really only true when a human would generally recognize that the machines are already intelligent. The Turing test is, in that respect, far less culture-bound than, say, SETI.
Forget conversation, I'll regard machines as crossing the border into intelligent behavior when I can verbally say "Who was the first governor of Alaska" and it can say "One moment, please... The first governor of Alaska was [blah blah blah]. Would you like me to turn on the coffee pot? You sound tired.". In other words, a smart personal agent may be the avenue to intelligent machines. I kind of agree with Kurzweil on that one. The tasks we would want them to do and the interface challenges make it more likely than, say, a database mining program saying "I'm bored, can we look at something else?"
Not that I disagree with you, but... The original South Park was a Santa Claus/Jesus battle over Christmas and it was widely circulated around as a 100MB video file. Allegedly they made it as a "Christmas card" and sent it to the "right people" and that's how they got the show.
I have no sources for this except that I remember seeing it months before South Park aired.
Anyway, as long as they keep airing it on TV I'll keep watching it, no matter how many episodes I have on video, so there's not much much danger of their profits being obliterated. They are much more likely to be squashed by a 900ft tall Barbara Streisand robot. No, really, you wouldn't believe Babs when she's mad.
Of course in the grand closed source scheme, to avoid actual competition or production of useful goods and services, the IP fanatics will, rather than, say, write the best compression scheme, lay broad patent and IP claims all over the place and claim that the entire area of video compression schemes is their god-given territory and that it is their manifest destiny to rape and exploit it to the detriment of all others . Of course, it totally refutes the capitalist foundations that their whole little pigopoly is built on, but ignore that...
Why would I wait on HURD? Linux and the *BSDs work now, and they've been created by nothing more than enlightened self-interest on the part of the producers.
Frankly, intellectual property - particularly when its restrictions never lift, as in the cases of binary-distributed software and of ever-lengthening copyright - is monarchist, both as a matter of historical heritage and as a matter of political philosophy. Real capitalism regards it as a necessary evil.
Rid yourself of moral posturing until you can get those monarchist tendencies out of your system.
Something that not everyone knows about scientists: they stink at handling data. They are careful only insofar as they need to understand it for their own research, but they flat out stink at preserving it for future use or keeping it in formats suitable for exchanging with others. I don't doubt that they are being sincere in claiming that it's just too much trouble; it wouldn't be trouble if they gave a thought to data management in the first place, but that's more computer science than they want to deal with.
There's a couple stories on this note I've had a hard time tracking down; both the original moon landing and the Viking mission were supposed to have "lost" most of their data because it was kept in some undocumented binary format on tapes that no one knew how to read. In the case of the Viking tapes, someone was found who remembered how the data was stored, but in the case of the moon landings, the relevant engineers were dead.
It's also the lack of open standards than has prevented innovations like streaming media from really taking off. To really reach people you have to cobble together a multitude of formats and streaming mechanisms, nearly all of which are proprietary. OTOH, since I can listen to an MP3 stream of WFMU I have enough bread and circus to keep me from rioting.
Despite the staggering amount of hype everyone has had to endure (and some of us have contributed to),
...*ahem* I'll take that as a mea culpa, at least. Of course, becoming so ubiquitous as to be unworthy of special attention is a victory, tho Jon makes it sound like a defeat.
Sure, the early 90s cybperbole was std issue West Coast utopianism.. THAT kind of cyber-BS is over. Maybe in a few years when Katz gets over the BS of 1996-1999 - when the vision of utopia was cashing out on an IPO - he'll forget about movie reservations and understand how profoundly the 'net is changing things as it seeps into ubiquity.
I had a boss who once observed that younger people view the Net as a place to do stuff, and older people see it as a place to buy stuff. Don't trust anyone older than ($JonKatz_age - 1).
Tuition rates are sky-high in the US. However, schools like Harvard and MIT have enough cash that financial aid is available if you get in. No one will drop out of school on account of lowering these wages. Students from less well-off families will, however, eat in the dining hall more, drink even cheaper beer, and pirate more software than previously. (kidding on that last one, honest)
Funny that you mention double-blind tests. According to the article, Firstenburg rambles around with a carload of equipment to detect the things that are causing him such pain and discomfort. You'd think he wouldn't need elaborate sensors to detect that he has a headache. You don't see people with carpal tunnel problems checking levels taped to their forearms before deciding their wrists hurt.
Geez, mod that up. It does make ya wonder why the firewall was allowing connects from outside. It really makes me wonder what password they were using... "msce1"? "cloud10"? While there may have really been a DoS, the story does reek of being a cover for either substantial incompetence or financial difficulties.
If so many would second-guess their judgements on what sites to ban, then it's a pretty good sign that they don't have much legitimacy in banning them in the first place. Your argument works well for totalitarian states, but for democracies it only shows that something is very, very rotten.
Slashdot Mirror
No, see, cause it's wet, and vapor is only moist, so you are getting more than the vapor, you are getting soaked.
A few of them were on the blacklists; mostly the open relays and smaller ones (well, when blacklists were free I noticed this). I'm pretty sure the warantee card for a ceramic knife put me on the list, and the incredible volume of spam didn't stop until I simply added tons of domains and a bunch of /24 and /16 to my access rejection... There are a lot of 163.net, 263.net in there as well as the large freemail services. They are really the most persistent spammers I've seen.
Unless they are in Florida, in which case you can buy their votes.
They could also consider a lower court's opinion that perpetual extension of copyright is fine even though perpetual copyrights are not. The judge who came up with that one must have suffered some severe head trauma.
I can't believe that Powell knows ANYTHING about the state of broadband in the US; this basically grants the commercial monopoly to the Bells, and the residential monopoly to the cable co's. This will make broadband more expensive and slow its expansion into new areas. He better be following this up with something else (like feds mandating coverage areas) or this is a prescription for failure.
That's not really true. They don't have the right to say "the distributor can't sell it to record stores owned by non-whites." They can't say "This CD cannot be transferred. Opening this CD signifies agreement to the following license stipulation; this CD may not be resold."
Clearly you don't understand copyright. It is a limited right that means "You are encouraged to create music by being given the exclusive opportunity to make money off your creation by granting you the exclusive right to make new copies; you may assign that right to others in any way you wish. But once you sell a copy, it is not yours; you abandon all rights to that particular copy."
What Barlow properly laments is that the public has willingly abandoned their freedom in exchange for nothing, all because their feeble understanding of "intellectual property" equates a limited set of rights designed to encourage useful commerce in ideas and expressions with some kind of ownership of a thing. Frankly, it means to me that most people are now incapable of reason and willingly abandon their love of freedom for their love of property and defend their claims of property with arguments that the average fourth-grader sees as spurious, greedy, and stupid, such as when the relatives of a dead victim of terrorism attempt to COPYRIGHT the phrase "Let's roll!", an act that has approximately the same meaning to the defense of freedom that the guillotine had to the promulgation of fraternité, that is, a sad and cynical mockery of human ideals.
Barlow succinctly says that it's sad how these tendencies have wormed their rotten way into our legal system without any public pause, and with the majority of the public nodding their heads in addle-pated consent. But the way I say it is a lot more fun, because if the sensless iceberg is winning the battle, I'd rather be making farting noises on the tuba than rearranging the deck chairs.
Sneaking in to a concert is a weak analogy; if you are in, then you are occupying the room that someone else would have taken. Unless, of course, you advocate ignoring fire safety rules. You don't, do you? And no, you can't touch my monkey.
Spamming is not the same unless it's a publically listed e-mail address.
True about the login requirements, but recent versions of rsync use ssh by default. The server setup isn't more widely used because most people aren't using it for source code trees. 22.
Nope, nothing to do with the way rsync works. Check for version mismatches on the ends; I've seen slow connections and weird stuff happen ONLY when certain versions interact with certain other versions, though SSH versions seemed to be implicated as well. I've been using rsync on a variety of machines for 3 years.
You're right, you don't have to go looking for trouble that doesn't exist, because the facts are that Microsoft was already years behind in developing a TCP/IP stack, thus the use of BSD code. The only reason they were "behind" is that TCP/IP became the de facto network protocol, and the only reason it did so is that it was a freely available university by-product.
I don't know what dumb fuck moderator gave you +1 Insightful, except one saying to himself "See, I'm not biased against Microsoft!". I'm not against them, either, but there's no point in trying to shine a turd.
Rsync works (nowadays, I believe, by default) over an SSH connection, but unlike FTP or scp, it doesn't have to transmit the whole file... only the parts that change. So it could be part of an effective version control system.
The only question is whether Microsoft will get themselves in there. They aren't doing so great if it's the handhelds that grow into the killer devices, but they don't seem to be doing so bad with Xbox. Be very worried.
By the way, the author of this article is a liar and crazy if he thinks I'll believe his wife liked the car analogy. Who would marry him?
I think you misunderstand the Turing test; it's not supposed to be a *measure* of the machine's innate intelligence, or a guideline for how the machines are supposed to talk to each other. It's supposed to signify that a machine that can be regarded as intelligent must have something more than just a collection of specialized tricks, like playing chess. Those things are nice, and clever, and maybe even useful, but seem to a human intellect like so much gimmickry. An intelligent machine needs to have some sense of its own agency.
The point you are really trying to make, that we should avoid an anthropocentric view of machine intelligence, is true, but it's really only true when a human would generally recognize that the machines are already intelligent. The Turing test is, in that respect, far less culture-bound than, say, SETI.
Forget conversation, I'll regard machines as crossing the border into intelligent behavior when I can verbally say "Who was the first governor of Alaska" and it can say "One moment, please... The first governor of Alaska was [blah blah blah]. Would you like me to turn on the coffee pot? You sound tired.". In other words, a smart personal agent may be the avenue to intelligent machines. I kind of agree with Kurzweil on that one. The tasks we would want them to do and the interface challenges make it more likely than, say, a database mining program saying "I'm bored, can we look at something else?"
I have no sources for this except that I remember seeing it months before South Park aired.
Anyway, as long as they keep airing it on TV I'll keep watching it, no matter how many episodes I have on video, so there's not much much danger of their profits being obliterated. They are much more likely to be squashed by a 900ft tall Barbara Streisand robot. No, really, you wouldn't believe Babs when she's mad.
And Balmer is not a monkey, he is a baboon.
Of course in the grand closed source scheme, to avoid actual competition or production of useful goods and services, the IP fanatics will, rather than, say, write the best compression scheme, lay broad patent and IP claims all over the place and claim that the entire area of video compression schemes is their god-given territory and that it is their manifest destiny to rape and exploit it to the detriment of all others . Of course, it totally refutes the capitalist foundations that their whole little pigopoly is built on, but ignore that...
Frankly, intellectual property - particularly when its restrictions never lift, as in the cases of binary-distributed software and of ever-lengthening copyright - is monarchist, both as a matter of historical heritage and as a matter of political philosophy. Real capitalism regards it as a necessary evil.
Rid yourself of moral posturing until you can get those monarchist tendencies out of your system.
Good point. If it's negative, they'd have to sell a lot before they get profitable.
There's a couple stories on this note I've had a hard time tracking down; both the original moon landing and the Viking mission were supposed to have "lost" most of their data because it was kept in some undocumented binary format on tapes that no one knew how to read. In the case of the Viking tapes, someone was found who remembered how the data was stored, but in the case of the moon landings, the relevant engineers were dead.
It's also the lack of open standards than has prevented innovations like streaming media from really taking off. To really reach people you have to cobble together a multitude of formats and streaming mechanisms, nearly all of which are proprietary. OTOH, since I can listen to an MP3 stream of WFMU I have enough bread and circus to keep me from rioting.
Sure, the early 90s cybperbole was std issue West Coast utopianism.. THAT kind of cyber-BS is over. Maybe in a few years when Katz gets over the BS of 1996-1999 - when the vision of utopia was cashing out on an IPO - he'll forget about movie reservations and understand how profoundly the 'net is changing things as it seeps into ubiquity.
I had a boss who once observed that younger people view the Net as a place to do stuff, and older people see it as a place to buy stuff. Don't trust anyone older than ($JonKatz_age - 1).
If the Jasker men really are onto something, it could be the most important Irish invention since Guinness.
There's a certain dry humor in the closing comment that almost amounts to a wink. Reuters:1, ./: 0.
Tuition rates are sky-high in the US. However, schools like Harvard and MIT have enough cash that financial aid is available if you get in. No one will drop out of school on account of lowering these wages. Students from less well-off families will, however, eat in the dining hall more, drink even cheaper beer, and pirate more software than previously. (kidding on that last one, honest)
Funny that you mention double-blind tests. According to the article, Firstenburg rambles around with a carload of equipment to detect the things that are causing him such pain and discomfort. You'd think he wouldn't need elaborate sensors to detect that he has a headache. You don't see people with carpal tunnel problems checking levels taped to their forearms before deciding their wrists hurt.
Geez, mod that up. It does make ya wonder why the firewall was allowing connects from outside. It really makes me wonder what password they were using... "msce1"? "cloud10"? While there may have really been a DoS, the story does reek of being a cover for either substantial incompetence or financial difficulties.
If so many would second-guess their judgements on what sites to ban, then it's a pretty good sign that they don't have much legitimacy in banning them in the first place. Your argument works well for totalitarian states, but for democracies it only shows that something is very, very rotten.