The real question is, why didn't you just buy Tetris for regular gameboy for your gameboy color? You can probably get it for five bucks, plus it has the *real* music!
True, AI as hyped in the 60's, 70's and 80's *has* pretty much imploded. So has the "dot com" hype. Does that mean the internet isn't *really* so important or revolutionary anymore?
Personally, I believe that the direction with the most potential for AI is using nanotech to emulate the human brain, or any brain. I believe that when convincing and effective AI is finally developed, that this AI will be more hardware than software. That it won't involve "programming". It will learn, not be programmed. Of course, it's possible to write a program that "learns" using traditional hardware, but this is just my unsubstantiated hunch.
But on the other hand, anything that has neurons, and is structured like a human brain will likely be called 'intelligence' not 'artificial intelligence'.
NO. The point is we should reduce copyright to the point that it actually provides a means to finance artists. Anything exceeding that is unnecessary. If all art that has been created would've been created anyway had copyright been only 12 years, then there is no reason it should be more than 12 years.
Copyright is *NOT* "incentive". You don't need "incentive" to create art. People who are passionate about art create art because of their love for it. What you need copyright for is to *finance* art. In other words, the scenario we'd like to avoid is where a very creative person who would love to devote his life to art, cannot because he needs to hold a dayjob. The prospect of becoming rich does not motivate anyone to make worthwhile art. Copyright is just to support these people, not to motivate them. Therefore, I feel copyright would be much better if it were only 12 years.
Stop pretending like the US is an efficient, lubricated fair democratic machine. It's not. Granted, it's probably the most democratic nation ever (nation, I said), which is especially important considering it's size, but we've passed the time when the US has resembled anything like a democracy. The US is not a democracy.
I spent about 10 minutes looking at this, then at the link, trying to figure out what this meant. I only now realized that when you read a post the sig is generated on the fly based on the posters current sig, not based on the sig when he wrote the post.
That may be true, in fact I am inclined to believe what you are saying. *But* I was showing that if Xboxes were sold at a loss, you wouldn't be "helping" Microsoft by buying them, just because if you wouldn't buy it they would get zero revenue and if you would buy it they would recoup some of their losses. If Xboxes were sold at a loss, and you bought one or some without games, you wouldn't be helping Microsoft, because they make new Xboxes based on demand, and for every Xbox you buy, another is made to satisfy the demand of those who buy if for games.
But I agree with you, they likely make money on each box, especially because Microsoft has the tendency of underplaying their success and understating their earnings. They don't hype up their stock, so it wouldn't be out of character for them to say, or go along with the idea that they were losing money on each box, even if they weren't.
The consumerism goes beyond that. Consumerist culture says that if you want something you should have to pay for it, and if you're not willing to pay for it, you don't want it. That there is nothing to gain by making things available for free (ever heard of a library?).
I don't even think all of these technological measures enforcing copyright would be so terrible, if after 12 years, all copyrighted works would be available for all.
Our copyright laws are outdated. They were created in a time when there was no such thing as a free book, or a free movie, because there were printing costs, and there was a natural scarcity to these products. So no one was really hurt too much by giving the author exclusive right to sell it. But now we are imposing artificial scarcity onto art, locking it up forever, just to squeeze an extra 10% of revenue out of it, and preventing 99.9% of people who would've seen it if it were free, from seeing it at all.
You make it sound like Microsoft decided exactly how many Xboxes they are going to make throughout it's lifetime. There are people out there who buy Xbox to play games. For every Xbox someone buys for a linux server farm, microsoft has to make another Xbox for the people who play games. Buying Xboxes for purposes other than playing games (without buying any games) hurts microsoft financially, it's as simple as that. Get with it.
You can't possibly think that the MPAA's case against 2600 was better than any hypothetical case microsoft can have against this. 2600 wasn't even serving DeCSS, they just had links to it. Sorry, but you're wrong.
Don't you remember smart tags? I thought smart tags for IE was a pretty legitimate thing and a great idea, and it was turned off by default, but people got pissed off and they ended it.
On the other hand, with palladium there is a lot more money at stake, so you're probably right that it will take a lot to derail this project.
No, it's more like saying the store is 10 minutes away. The PER SECOND part is implied. Besides, "10 gigabit ethernet" is also a title, not just a description of the spec.
No, you are right, the example he gave *was* hedging, but the possible outcomes he listed made it seem like it wasn't. He made it seem like sony electronics would win out in either case, and if something will win out in all possible scenarios, then it is not hedging, just a smart bet. But sony electronics will not win out in all possible scenarios, so you are right, his example was hedging, and I apologize.
Hedging your bet is when there is a negative correlation between the success of the two things being bet on. So if one wins, the other loses. *THAT* is hedging your bet. In your example, Sony makes money either way. I call that betting on a winning idea, not hedging anything:)
No that is not what allows the US to advance faster. The reason the US has advanced so much faster is because it is a single country, with no tariffs between states, no competition scientifically between states (they share information), in other words, France might not tell some scientists in England about their latest projects, in order to keep it a purely French project. The US is one big economy with a lot of resources, and that cooperation is what allows the US to advance. It has nothing to do with their dog eat dog policies.
Which is *exactly* what the cable companies DON'T want. Let me paraphrase a quote i heard from some comcast executive 'We didn't lay down 50 billion dollars worth of cable to have our blood sucked out by streaming video sites.'
Streaming video over the net is *competition* to their TV cable services.
This isn't encryption, this is steganography. Encryption is a way of presenting information that makes it very hard to read the message. Steganography prevents you from finding the message itself.
Both are effective means of communicating covertly, but they are two separate things.
I'm don't disagree with your position, but your logic is flawed. The fact that it helps your friends as effectively as your enemies is precisely why the US government doesn't want it's enemies to get tools like these.
Re:Pork barrel for lawyers for generations to come
on
RIAA to Sue You Now
·
· Score: 1
I sincerely doubt that the Kazaa network has ever had even half of 192 million people connected at once.
I'm running Kazaa-lite right now, and there are 1,851,406 users logged on. The other figures you mentioned seem fairly accurate.
Well, to me, the real problem here is that too many things are copyrighted that shouldn't be. I believe anything older that 12 years should be public domain. That's not just my being cheap, that is my moral position.
Slashdot Mirror
The real question is, why didn't you just buy Tetris for regular gameboy for your gameboy color? You can probably get it for five bucks, plus it has the *real* music!
True, AI as hyped in the 60's, 70's and 80's *has* pretty much imploded. So has the "dot com" hype. Does that mean the internet isn't *really* so important or revolutionary anymore?
Personally, I believe that the direction with the most potential for AI is using nanotech to emulate the human brain, or any brain. I believe that when convincing and effective AI is finally developed, that this AI will be more hardware than software. That it won't involve "programming". It will learn, not be programmed. Of course, it's possible to write a program that "learns" using traditional hardware, but this is just my unsubstantiated hunch.
But on the other hand, anything that has neurons, and is structured like a human brain will likely be called 'intelligence' not 'artificial intelligence'.
How about "Joe"? I like the sound of that one.
NO. The point is we should reduce copyright to the point that it actually provides a means to finance artists. Anything exceeding that is unnecessary. If all art that has been created would've been created anyway had copyright been only 12 years, then there is no reason it should be more than 12 years.
Copyright is *NOT* "incentive". You don't need "incentive" to create art. People who are passionate about art create art because of their love for it. What you need copyright for is to *finance* art. In other words, the scenario we'd like to avoid is where a very creative person who would love to devote his life to art, cannot because he needs to hold a dayjob. The prospect of becoming rich does not motivate anyone to make worthwhile art. Copyright is just to support these people, not to motivate them. Therefore, I feel copyright would be much better if it were only 12 years.
If "clean room" is as I understand it, you *can* get around patents with clean rooms. AMD does it to intel all the time.
I can always come to slashdot for illuminating analogies to help me understand things. Thank You af_robot!
Stop pretending like the US is an efficient, lubricated fair democratic machine. It's not. Granted, it's probably the most democratic nation ever (nation, I said), which is especially important considering it's size, but we've passed the time when the US has resembled anything like a democracy. The US is not a democracy.
I spent about 10 minutes looking at this, then at the link, trying to figure out what this meant. I only now realized that when you read a post the sig is generated on the fly based on the posters current sig, not based on the sig when he wrote the post.
That may be true, in fact I am inclined to believe what you are saying. *But* I was showing that if Xboxes were sold at a loss, you wouldn't be "helping" Microsoft by buying them, just because if you wouldn't buy it they would get zero revenue and if you would buy it they would recoup some of their losses. If Xboxes were sold at a loss, and you bought one or some without games, you wouldn't be helping Microsoft, because they make new Xboxes based on demand, and for every Xbox you buy, another is made to satisfy the demand of those who buy if for games.
But I agree with you, they likely make money on each box, especially because Microsoft has the tendency of underplaying their success and understating their earnings. They don't hype up their stock, so it wouldn't be out of character for them to say, or go along with the idea that they were losing money on each box, even if they weren't.
The consumerism goes beyond that. Consumerist culture says that if you want something you should have to pay for it, and if you're not willing to pay for it, you don't want it. That there is nothing to gain by making things available for free (ever heard of a library?).
I don't even think all of these technological measures enforcing copyright would be so terrible, if after 12 years, all copyrighted works would be available for all.
Our copyright laws are outdated. They were created in a time when there was no such thing as a free book, or a free movie, because there were printing costs, and there was a natural scarcity to these products. So no one was really hurt too much by giving the author exclusive right to sell it. But now we are imposing artificial scarcity onto art, locking it up forever, just to squeeze an extra 10% of revenue out of it, and preventing 99.9% of people who would've seen it if it were free, from seeing it at all.
You make it sound like Microsoft decided exactly how many Xboxes they are going to make throughout it's lifetime. There are people out there who buy Xbox to play games. For every Xbox someone buys for a linux server farm, microsoft has to make another Xbox for the people who play games. Buying Xboxes for purposes other than playing games (without buying any games) hurts microsoft financially, it's as simple as that. Get with it.
You can't possibly think that the MPAA's case against 2600 was better than any hypothetical case microsoft can have against this. 2600 wasn't even serving DeCSS, they just had links to it. Sorry, but you're wrong.
Don't you remember smart tags? I thought smart tags for IE was a pretty legitimate thing and a great idea, and it was turned off by default, but people got pissed off and they ended it.
On the other hand, with palladium there is a lot more money at stake, so you're probably right that it will take a lot to derail this project.
It's not like your MP3s would be gone in under a minute. Offering all my MP3s to someone in under a minute actually sounds very cool.
No, it's more like saying the store is 10 minutes away. The PER SECOND part is implied. Besides, "10 gigabit ethernet" is also a title, not just a description of the spec.
No, you are right, the example he gave *was* hedging, but the possible outcomes he listed made it seem like it wasn't. He made it seem like sony electronics would win out in either case, and if something will win out in all possible scenarios, then it is not hedging, just a smart bet. But sony electronics will not win out in all possible scenarios, so you are right, his example was hedging, and I apologize.
Hedging your bet is when there is a negative correlation between the success of the two things being bet on. So if one wins, the other loses. *THAT* is hedging your bet. In your example, Sony makes money either way. I call that betting on a winning idea, not hedging anything :)
People, let's not forget: Sony *IS* the RIAA.
No that is not what allows the US to advance faster. The reason the US has advanced so much faster is because it is a single country, with no tariffs between states, no competition scientifically between states (they share information), in other words, France might not tell some scientists in England about their latest projects, in order to keep it a purely French project. The US is one big economy with a lot of resources, and that cooperation is what allows the US to advance. It has nothing to do with their dog eat dog policies.
See this post
The study talks about cost, not value.
Which is *exactly* what the cable companies DON'T want. Let me paraphrase a quote i heard from some comcast executive 'We didn't lay down 50 billion dollars worth of cable to have our blood sucked out by streaming video sites.'
Streaming video over the net is *competition* to their TV cable services.
This isn't encryption, this is steganography. Encryption is a way of presenting information that makes it very hard to read the message. Steganography prevents you from finding the message itself.
Both are effective means of communicating covertly, but they are two separate things.
I'm don't disagree with your position, but your logic is flawed. The fact that it helps your friends as effectively as your enemies is precisely why the US government doesn't want it's enemies to get tools like these.
I sincerely doubt that the Kazaa network has ever had even half of 192 million people connected at once.
I'm running Kazaa-lite right now, and there are 1,851,406 users logged on. The other figures you mentioned seem fairly accurate.
Well, to me, the real problem here is that too many things are copyrighted that shouldn't be. I believe anything older that 12 years should be public domain. That's not just my being cheap, that is my moral position.