richieb writes: "To be able to solve a problem using a computer, you have to know how to solve the problem in the first place. Kurtzweil (and his string AI buddies) are counting on some "emergent miracle" to occur."
Incorrect. You need to know what qualifies as "better" or "worse," but you needent know the solution. All one has to do is look at genetics itself. It doesn't know that the solution is to develop wings or eyes or heat-sensitive organs. These things arise as a function of mutations and if they work, they're kept.
Of course this is oversimplifying in the extreme, but the point is there. The very point of GA's are that you don't know the solution. The tradeoff is that you won't necessarily get an optimum answer, but hopefully one that is 'good enough.'
From the article: Although not referring specifically to the Mallinson case, [Ballmer] added it may be necessary to "weed out" employees who did not live up to Microsoft's code of behaviour.
Uhh. I'd love to know precisely what this so-called "code of behavior" is.
We would then be free, presumably, to hold it to Ballmer et al to these standards every time they lie, cheat and obfuscate the truth about their DRM motives, security holes they claim aren't really security holes, but "features"...you name it.
I'm especially amused that Microsoft is trying to take some ethical high ground on this. Even if you accept that this incident wasn't planned, everything from Dr. DOS to the Halloween docs prove they've got no such mitre to fling around.
Ballmer, in the article, says: "We have told our sales force to really understand that this is kind of job one. People are saying by and large, `It might be easier for me to move my Unix apps to Linux than to Windows,' although we're pretty close to making that untrue.""
Awful nice of Steve to admit that it's true now.
Re:Lost bullshit education, work hard
on
Generation Wrecked
·
· Score: 1
I love the fact that you took the time to write this. =)
Re:Lost bullshit education, work hard
on
Generation Wrecked
·
· Score: 1
msfodder writes: "Ohhhh, jesus f**kin keerist, you make me so ill I feel like puking up my goddam six pack. You have no appreciation of history and are blissfully unconscious. You have no idea of how to construct a better future for everyone but it is your "type" that gets elected. You think that a fucking ford taurus is a "good deal". You are a worthless sack of shit and I hope you are the first against the wall when the revolution comes."
Positively brilliant. The eloquence makes me weep.
Re:Lost bullshit education, work hard
on
Generation Wrecked
·
· Score: 1
msfodder writes: "How would we know harvard man? Is it truth of fiction? How many of us will ever know? Think about it. You are loathed and for good reason."
This must be another of your "well stated" responses.
msfodder writes: "Pussy, you can't even reply to a well stated response to your asinine rebuttal. You suck."
If you think your reply was "well stated," then you're the only one. In fact, in your last 20 replies, there isn't a single person who gave even one of your posts a +1 bump.
So I guess I'm not alone.
People who protest their own relevance are useful, if only for their humor value. Thanks for the laugh.
The minute Microsoft signs off on some agreement that they are accountable and liable for the machine they purport to secure will be about 60 minutes before someone with a very large sense of humor and real talent hears about it, and about three hours before Microsoft eats that contract.
I can't think of a better way for them to put a target on the back of the first client that bites, or themselves, for that matter.
msfodder writes: "Quite a bit of difference between illicit monitoring of unaware individuals and potshots of various habitats as a private individual eh..?"
You are making the argument that my intent is the pivot point on which the legality of the pictures spins.
Back this up.
Also, you refer to it as "illicit," which does not answer the question -- what expectation of privacy do you have in a public place, and from where does this 'right' derive?
AnonC writes: "Actually half of that stuff is illegal. You are allowed to take photos of people on provate property IF you are outdoors on public property. If you are indoors on either public (a museam) or private (movie theater) you must have permission of EVERYONE in order to pubish or enter your photographs in shows. Take a look at the releases movie studios use when they shoot. If they're on private property they must get everyone to sigh. If you subjects are not recognizable, then don't worry about it."
Don't offer conjecture, just cite the law that says I cannot do this.
jokerghost writes: "In a word: bullshit. If I take a shower in a hotel, or I decide to use the toilet, you'd better damn well afford me the privacy and dignity I deserve as a human being. Let me ask you this: where do you get the "right" to monitor anything and everything, just because you can?"
This is a non sequiter. The issue is whether you have the right to not be photographed in a public place.
The right to privacy is provided by our government as a basic one. However, this extends only to places that one could reasonably expect to have it in the first place. For example, your home. It has recenly been asked if aeriel surveilance is legal -- does a personal have a reasonable expectation that they can be observed in their backyard via satellite?
You are trying to equate being photographed in public with being photographed using the toilet in your bathroom. Bringing up the issue of a 5 year-old showering is a rather pathetic attempt to equate my position with that a pedophile, which is an indication of how shaky your argument really is (you can always spot a bad argument when the phrase "for the children" is introduced). These are not equal examples and trying to blur them togoether makes the question harder to answer, not easier.
Are you making the argument that you have an expectation of privacy in a public park?
dargaud writes: "Then you are a very uninformed amateur photographer and whoever modded this up as 'insightfull' is wrong. In most countries (US, Europe...), the law says that you can take pictures in public places, but selling them or broadcasting them is something else entirely..."
Please re-read my original post; I made no mention of the subsequent use of the pictures, but merely that I took them. You later write:
"This means that if you take a picture in a crowd and a dork goes: "Hey you! You can't take my picture, gimme that film !", he has no right to ask you for the film, although all you can do with the pic is look at it at home."
...and wind up countering your own argument, since this is precisely what I do with my pictures.
But the issue of whether I can sell or re-broadcast the pictures is a red herring, a non sequiter. The question is whether you have the right to not be photographed. Introducing issues such as commercial use merely muddies the water.
So my question stands -- from where does this "right" to not be seen derive?
The issue of whether the picture will ever be sold for profit is just muddying the waters and anathema to the argument -- whether I need consent to capture someones image.
I maintain that a person does not have some sort of exclusive right to the photons that they have bounced off of their persons. If you believe they do, I'm interested in knowing the source of this 'right.'
I'm not suggesting that the government has the right to capture our likeness, that places the burden upon me to show up. I am suggesting that if you do appear in a public place, they are not under some sort of obligation to avert their eyes.
After all, what is a camera mounted in a public place but a policeman with a really good memory? Frankly, I'd rather he had a good memory than a bad one.
DBordello writes: "Isn't it just as much your right to be not seen as it is to seen?"
Oh what basis do you have this right? And am I now obligated to avert my eyes? No, I think that if you don't want to be seen, find a way to not absorb part of the spectrum and reflect the rest back.
I think you've got it backward. You don't have a right to not be seen -- that's placing an emcumbrance upon me, and a "right" that you have yet to provide a basis for, I might add. You have a right to not be seen if you can figure out how. That places no encumbrance upon me to provide you this so-called "right."
clark625 writes: "If I swamp out the reds, a smart technician could just look at the other colors to determine what's going on."
You probably should have bothered to read his site. He quite specifically covers this scenario and how military jammers switch between colors to make filtering useless.
SuperDuG writes: "I do believe that it is well within someone's right to not have their picture taken if they don't wish it to be. Or at least have a warning on the entrance of an establishment that you are being videotaped. I think the law that says you don't have to inform someone that you're videotaping them, but that you do for audio is bogus. The law needs to be changed, it's an invasion of privacy no matter how you want to look at it, if someone doesn't want to be videotaped, then they shouldn't be videotaped, there is no grey area. You should be informed before proceeding that you are under video survailence."
I'm an amateur photographer. I have tons of photographs of people who I never asked to be in my pictures. Generally, they're ancilary to my subject, but occasionally not.
For example, I shoot subway pictures in Boston. You'd like to see this made illegal unless I get everyone'ss permission, presumably in writing?
I've taken pictures of the Rocky Horror Picture Show being performed. Are you suggesting I need to get the signatures of the audience first?
I've taken pictures of street intersections. You feel I should be compelled to ask each pedestrian before I do it?
Are these absurd examples? I don't imagine you'll want to argue that only subjects of the photo need to provide their consent, but if you do, how in-focus are they allowed to be? How close to the center of the picture can they be before I am in violation of your ethic?
Besides, what gives you the idea that you are somehow entitled to the exclusive rights of the photons that have bounced off your body?!
I think it's your obligation to stop scattering light!
As part of the training for this unit, it is required that you run 100 miles through the desert over four days. According to Danny's father, who spoke at his wake, he ran it a second time voluntarily.
When 9/11 hit, the first thing I did was wget about two dozen news sites and thousands of blogs immediately. CNN, in particular, got blacked out really, really hard, and was reduced to one image on the front. I wish I had my archives available to post but they're rather deeply gzipped...somewhere. =)
Akamai had their work cut out for them that day, I can tell you. I was lucky. I called out sick.
But none of this really answers the question -- how do you cover your butt and insure that you keep getting a news feed when/if you need it? I noticed that when I go to www.php.com, it's quite slow. So I started using uk.php.net and it zips right along. The moral of this story is that you might want to find 3-5 news sites that you consider good (and a factor in this probably should be how fast news gets to their site), then find some printer-friendly version/low bandwidth links to their front pages. Those are far less likely to be used when things get crazy. Drop some admins an email, perhaps certain versions of their site is located on entirely seperate servers and might go unscathed during a 9/11-ish rerun.
As long as there are humans doing work there will be labor unions. Sure, they might represent the people that program the things, but topologically equivalent, isn't it?
We had a client recently tell us that a previous web hosting company told him that his site was being submitted to "millions of search engines every day." My boss and I nearly gave ourselves both aneuryisms trying not to laugh when he uttered that one. Mostly because he clearly accepted it at face value.
You can imagine how hard it was to convine him that meta-tags were not all that relevant anymore. This was mere months ago, mind you.
Slashdot Mirror
richieb writes:
"To be able to solve a problem using a computer, you have to know how to solve the problem in the first place. Kurtzweil (and his string AI buddies) are counting on some "emergent miracle" to occur."
Incorrect. You need to know what qualifies as "better" or "worse," but you needent know the solution. All one has to do is look at genetics itself. It doesn't know that the solution is to develop wings or eyes or heat-sensitive organs. These things arise as a function of mutations and if they work, they're kept.
Of course this is oversimplifying in the extreme, but the point is there. The very point of GA's are that you don't know the solution. The tradeoff is that you won't necessarily get an optimum answer, but hopefully one that is 'good enough.'
You know the dot-bomb is rebounding when an MIT startups goal is to suck.
From the article:
...you name it.
Although not referring specifically to the Mallinson case, [Ballmer] added it may be necessary to "weed out" employees who did not live up to Microsoft's code of behaviour.
Uhh. I'd love to know precisely what this so-called "code of behavior" is.
We would then be free, presumably, to hold it to Ballmer et al to these standards every time they lie, cheat and obfuscate the truth about their DRM motives, security holes they claim aren't really security holes, but "features"
I'm especially amused that Microsoft is trying to take some ethical high ground on this. Even if you accept that this incident wasn't planned, everything from Dr. DOS to the Halloween docs prove they've got no such mitre to fling around.
Ballmer, in the article, says:
"We have told our sales force to really understand that this is kind of job one. People are saying by and large, `It might be easier for me to move my Unix apps to Linux than to Windows,' although we're pretty close to making that untrue.""
Awful nice of Steve to admit that it's true now.
I love the fact that you took the time to write this. =)
msfodder writes:
"Ohhhh, jesus f**kin keerist, you make me so ill I feel like puking up my goddam six pack. You have no appreciation of history and are blissfully unconscious. You have no idea of how to construct a better future for everyone but it is your "type" that gets elected. You think that a fucking ford taurus is a "good deal". You are a worthless sack of shit and I hope you are the first against the wall when the revolution comes."
Positively brilliant. The eloquence makes me weep.
msfodder writes:
"How would we know harvard man? Is it truth of fiction? How many of us will ever know? Think about it. You are loathed and for good reason."
This must be another of your "well stated" responses.
msfodder writes:
"Pussy, you can't even reply to a well stated response to your asinine rebuttal. You suck."
If you think your reply was "well stated," then you're the only one. In fact, in your last 20 replies, there isn't a single person who gave even one of your posts a +1 bump.
So I guess I'm not alone.
People who protest their own relevance are useful, if only for their humor value. Thanks for the laugh.
"Warpotting"?
The minute Microsoft signs off on some agreement that they are accountable and liable for the machine they purport to secure will be about 60 minutes before someone with a very large sense of humor and real talent hears about it, and about three hours before Microsoft eats that contract.
I can't think of a better way for them to put a target on the back of the first client that bites, or themselves, for that matter.
The heads-up is appreciated.
Ironically, I was stopped at South Station for taking photographs sans permission, and that's when I found out you needed it.
But still, again, thanks for the advice. Nothing was confiscated that time, but I wish I'd known then. I was getting good stuff when I was stopped. =)
onepoint writes:
"Don't know about boston, but in New York City it is illegal to take photographs inside of the subway cars or on subway platforms."
In Boston it is legal if you simply go to the station and ask for permission. They'll issue you a permit.
msfodder writes:
"Quite a bit of difference between illicit monitoring of unaware individuals and potshots of various habitats as a private individual eh..?"
You are making the argument that my intent is the pivot point on which the legality of the pictures spins.
Back this up.
Also, you refer to it as "illicit," which does not answer the question -- what expectation of privacy do you have in a public place, and from where does this 'right' derive?
AnonC writes:
"Actually half of that stuff is illegal. You are allowed to take photos of people on provate property IF you are outdoors on public property. If you are indoors on either public (a museam) or private (movie theater) you must have permission of EVERYONE in order to pubish or enter your photographs in shows. Take a look at the releases movie studios use when they shoot. If they're on private property they must get everyone to sigh. If you subjects are not recognizable, then don't worry about it."
Don't offer conjecture, just cite the law that says I cannot do this.
jokerghost writes:
"In a word: bullshit. If I take a shower in a hotel, or I decide to use the toilet, you'd better damn well afford me the privacy and dignity I deserve as a human being. Let me ask you this: where do you get the "right" to monitor anything and everything, just because you can?"
This is a non sequiter. The issue is whether you have the right to not be photographed in a public place.
The right to privacy is provided by our government as a basic one. However, this extends only to places that one could reasonably expect to have it in the first place. For example, your home. It has recenly been asked if aeriel surveilance is legal -- does a personal have a reasonable expectation that they can be observed in their backyard via satellite?
You are trying to equate being photographed in public with being photographed using the toilet in your bathroom. Bringing up the issue of a 5 year-old showering is a rather pathetic attempt to equate my position with that a pedophile, which is an indication of how shaky your argument really is (you can always spot a bad argument when the phrase "for the children" is introduced). These are not equal examples and trying to blur them togoether makes the question harder to answer, not easier.
Are you making the argument that you have an expectation of privacy in a public park?
"Then you are a very uninformed amateur photographer and whoever modded this up as 'insightfull' is wrong. In most countries (US, Europe...), the law says that you can take pictures in public places, but selling them or broadcasting them is something else entirely..."
Please re-read my original post; I made no mention of the subsequent use of the pictures, but merely that I took them. You later write:
"This means that if you take a picture in a crowd and a dork goes: "Hey you! You can't take my picture, gimme that film !", he has no right to ask you for the film, although all you can do with the pic is look at it at home."
But the issue of whether I can sell or re-broadcast the pictures is a red herring, a non sequiter. The question is whether you have the right to not be photographed. Introducing issues such as commercial use merely muddies the water.
So my question stands -- from where does this "right" to not be seen derive?
The issue of whether the picture will ever be sold for profit is just muddying the waters and anathema to the argument -- whether I need consent to capture someones image.
I maintain that a person does not have some sort of exclusive right to the photons that they have bounced off of their persons. If you believe they do, I'm interested in knowing the source of this 'right.'
I'm not suggesting that the government has the right to capture our likeness, that places the burden upon me to show up. I am suggesting that if you do appear in a public place, they are not under some sort of obligation to avert their eyes.
After all, what is a camera mounted in a public place but a policeman with a really good memory? Frankly, I'd rather he had a good memory than a bad one.
DBordello writes:
"Isn't it just as much your right to be not seen as it is to seen?"
Oh what basis do you have this right? And am I now obligated to avert my eyes? No, I think that if you don't want to be seen, find a way to not absorb part of the spectrum and reflect the rest back.
I think you've got it backward. You don't have a right to not be seen -- that's placing an emcumbrance upon me, and a "right" that you have yet to provide a basis for, I might add. You have a right to not be seen if you can figure out how. That places no encumbrance upon me to provide you this so-called "right."
clark625 writes:
"If I swamp out the reds, a smart technician could just look at the other colors to determine what's going on."
You probably should have bothered to read his site. He quite specifically covers this scenario and how military jammers switch between colors to make filtering useless.
SuperDuG writes:
"I do believe that it is well within someone's right to not have their picture taken if they don't wish it to be. Or at least have a warning on the entrance of an establishment that you are being videotaped. I think the law that says you don't have to inform someone that you're videotaping them, but that you do for audio is bogus. The law needs to be changed, it's an invasion of privacy no matter how you want to look at it, if someone doesn't want to be videotaped, then they shouldn't be videotaped, there is no grey area. You should be informed before proceeding that you are under video survailence."
I'm an amateur photographer. I have tons of photographs of people who I never asked to be in my pictures. Generally, they're ancilary to my subject, but occasionally not.
For example, I shoot subway pictures in Boston. You'd like to see this made illegal unless I get everyone'ss permission, presumably in writing?
I've taken pictures of the Rocky Horror Picture Show being performed. Are you suggesting I need to get the signatures of the audience first?
I've taken pictures of street intersections. You feel I should be compelled to ask each pedestrian before I do it?
Are these absurd examples? I don't imagine you'll want to argue that only subjects of the photo need to provide their consent, but if you do, how in-focus are they allowed to be? How close to the center of the picture can they be before I am in violation of your ethic?
Besides, what gives you the idea that you are somehow entitled to the exclusive rights of the photons that have bounced off your body?!
I think it's your obligation to stop scattering light!
Oh, I'd believe it.
As part of the training for this unit, it is required that you run 100 miles through the desert over four days. According to Danny's father, who spoke at his wake, he ran it a second time voluntarily.
When 9/11 hit, the first thing I did was wget about two dozen news sites and thousands of blogs immediately. CNN, in particular, got blacked out really, really hard, and was reduced to one image on the front. I wish I had my archives available to post but they're rather deeply gzipped ...somewhere. =)
Akamai had their work cut out for them that day, I can tell you. I was lucky. I called out sick.
But none of this really answers the question -- how do you cover your butt and insure that you keep getting a news feed when/if you need it? I noticed that when I go to www.php.com, it's quite slow. So I started using uk.php.net and it zips right along. The moral of this story is that you might want to find 3-5 news sites that you consider good (and a factor in this probably should be how fast news gets to their site), then find some printer-friendly version/low bandwidth links to their front pages. Those are far less likely to be used when things get crazy. Drop some admins an email, perhaps certain versions of their site is located on entirely seperate servers and might go unscathed during a 9/11-ish rerun.
As long as there are humans doing work there will be labor unions. Sure, they might represent the people that program the things, but topologically equivalent, isn't it?
We had a client recently tell us that a previous web hosting company told him that his site was being submitted to "millions of search engines every day." My boss and I nearly gave ourselves both aneuryisms trying not to laugh when he uttered that one. Mostly because he clearly accepted it at face value.
You can imagine how hard it was to convine him that meta-tags were not all that relevant anymore. This was mere months ago, mind you.
tuxedo-steve wrote:
"Just because you're the King of Spain's privateering vessel doesn't mean you don't have a peg-leg and a parrot."
It does if you work at the Pizza Pizza.