Speaking of conciousness, when there is no clear definition of conciousness, is pointless from an engineering point of view. Now if you want to talk about deliberation, that's certainly something I'd like to see subsymbolic AI take a crack at but, to-date, only non-reusable LISP programming has had much to say on the subject.
I, like many other engineers, don't give a shit. We just want to solve problems to which there are no simple solutions and "AI" offers some approaches that work.
Leave the philosophy till after we have the science.
I thought Interface was a remotely interesting read.. at least the technological aspects.. the commentary on media dominated elections was just depressing. They extract some neural tissue from a subject, grow a bunch of neurons, interface them to chip with a wireless transmitter, then reinsert them into the brain. Then, with some training, the chip can replace functions of the brain destroyed by stroke or cancer or whatever. The data dump of the communication between the neurons and the chip is the really interesting part.. you could conceivably learn a lot about how subjective experience if you had a human subject and a lot of data. Much more than, say, an EEG or an MRI, as you could record data during normal interaction with the world, 24 hours a day.
meh, back-propagation is a mathematical simplification of neurotransmitters. You really think these silicon neurons are anything other than mathematical simplifications of organic neurons?
Man, you really are dumb aint ya? VMWare can change their product to recognise the code in Mac OS X that does the TPM check and jump over it.. like they do with a bunch of Microsoft's code that is too hard to emulate. Like they do with some of Adobe's DRM stuff that doesn't like being run in an emulator. Like every virtualization product does to some degree.
Bet you could train that to do some cool stuff.. assuming it runs in realtime, as advertised, and what kind of back-propagation algorithms are implemented?
I recommend that you use the time you have in the US to woo some VC capital.. maybe even sell your website to interested parties. If you get busted, so what? The INS will probably not renew your H1B in any case.
Sigh.. try to follow the reasoning here: If VMWare were to make the next version of their software capable of running Mac OS X, and people were to violate the terms of the Mac OS X EULA by using it, then VMWare could be found guilty of contributory copyright infringement.
This is because VMWare would have to deliberately make changes to their product to get it to run Mac OS X.. they couldn't accidently do it.. they'd have to deliberately do it..
They crack the software before they run it. Man, if you don't even know how people are running Mac OS X in VMWare today, what makes you think you have any idea how they should be able to run it.
You? Personally? They can sue you for having the wrong shaped feet and probably bankrupt you before you even put your mishaped hoofs into the courtroom. Stop trying to look for logic and fairness in copyright law, there's none there.
Your stance is that you own a copy of the work.... which you don't... unless you agree to the EULA... The only link I could give you is to an Introduction to Copyright course.
Buying the product does not make you an owner of a copy of the work.
Again, you are not the owner of a copy of the work... you don't have a license unless you agree to the conditions of the license. Sheesh, what's hard about that? Paying money for the work and then not agreeing to the EULA is not an option.. only agreeing to the EULA makes you an owner of a copy of the work. If you don't agree to the EULA, take the work back for a full refund.
You're talking about Mac clones.. it's well known that Mac clones are illegal due to copyright infringement. Going to court when Apple sues you and saying "hey, we can sell whatever we like, and we like selling the TPM chips on our motherboard in exactly the right configuration to run Mac OS X" just won't fly. Not to mention that fact that you'd have to load the TPM chips with the Apple keys, which would also be a copyright violation.
Yeah, no. Installing the software only on Apple hardware is a *condition* of the license, not a convenate. If you fail to abide by the conditions, you have no license.
If the EULA is the license under which you are permitted to copy the work, and you refuse to abide by the EULA then, under copyright law, you have no right to copy the work.. and you can't "install" it without copying it.
It's a fucked branch of law, setup entirely to benefit the creator over the user.
That would be the joy of contributory copyright infringement. I don't know why this is at all surprising.. the difference between copyright law and contract law is solely that third parties are bound to uphold the agreement of a license in ways that they are not bound to uphold the agreement of a contract.
Consider, for example, the rental of a car. If you rent a car, sign an agreement with the car company that says you won't let anyone else drive it, then lend me the car for the afternoon, I am in no way liable for your breach of contract with the car company. I am certainly not required or expected to deny your offer to lend me the car.. and if I provided a service whereby two people who had rented cars could swap rental cars, I would not be found to "contributing" to their breach of contract with their car companies.
As with all copyright questions, the answer is "I don't know". The Mac OS X EULA says you can only run the software on Apple hardware. End of story? Well, no, because you don't sign the EULA before you buy the product. If you've paid for the product but not agreed to the EULA, assuming that is even legally possible where you live, do you have any rights? I don't know. No-one knows. That's the great thing about copyright.. it's totally vague. Whether or not you will have to pay a lot of money if Apple decides to sue you depends completely on how good your lawyer is, how bad Apple's lawyer is and which judge you happen to be standing in front of on the day. Yes, this is a fucked way to live.. and is the reason why so many people choose not to comment.
What I am saying is that this will either happen gradually, in which case the problem will sort itself out, or it will happen disruptively.. and if it happens disruptively then I think we can agree that we have a whole shitload more problems than the unemployed. Seriously, think about it. If you can make a robot that can stock shelves then, it follows, you can make a robot that can identify and shoot people. It's not too hard to imagine revolutionaries building a robot army. The disruption of instant robot goodness is much bigger than menial workers.
I was suggesting that you were openly admitting that "only the US matters" and, seeing as you're publically proclaiming something for which you should be ashamed, perhaps you'd like to admit to something else equally shocking. If you weren't admitting to such, please accept my apology.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking of conciousness, when there is no clear definition of conciousness, is pointless from an engineering point of view. Now if you want to talk about deliberation, that's certainly something I'd like to see subsymbolic AI take a crack at but, to-date, only non-reusable LISP programming has had much to say on the subject.
I, like many other engineers, don't give a shit. We just want to solve problems to which there are no simple solutions and "AI" offers some approaches that work.
Leave the philosophy till after we have the science.
Yep, cause this code I have right here that replaces the TPM checking modules in OS X is just a figment of my imagination. Go away fanboy.
I thought Interface was a remotely interesting read.. at least the technological aspects.. the commentary on media dominated elections was just depressing. They extract some neural tissue from a subject, grow a bunch of neurons, interface them to chip with a wireless transmitter, then reinsert them into the brain. Then, with some training, the chip can replace functions of the brain destroyed by stroke or cancer or whatever. The data dump of the communication between the neurons and the chip is the really interesting part.. you could conceivably learn a lot about how subjective experience if you had a human subject and a lot of data. Much more than, say, an EEG or an MRI, as you could record data during normal interaction with the world, 24 hours a day.
Excuse me for discarding these possibilities as never going to happen and only taking into consideration the practical way to do this.
meh, back-propagation is a mathematical simplification of neurotransmitters. You really think these silicon neurons are anything other than mathematical simplifications of organic neurons?
Man, you really are dumb aint ya? VMWare can change their product to recognise the code in Mac OS X that does the TPM check and jump over it.. like they do with a bunch of Microsoft's code that is too hard to emulate. Like they do with some of Adobe's DRM stuff that doesn't like being run in an emulator. Like every virtualization product does to some degree.
[pinky finger]
Bet you could train that to do some cool stuff.. assuming it runs in realtime, as advertised, and what kind of back-propagation algorithms are implemented?
Neat though.
I recommend that you use the time you have in the US to woo some VC capital.. maybe even sell your website to interested parties. If you get busted, so what? The INS will probably not renew your H1B in any case.
Sigh.. try to follow the reasoning here: If VMWare were to make the next version of their software capable of running Mac OS X, and people were to violate the terms of the Mac OS X EULA by using it, then VMWare could be found guilty of contributory copyright infringement.
This is because VMWare would have to deliberately make changes to their product to get it to run Mac OS X.. they couldn't accidently do it.. they'd have to deliberately do it..
They crack the software before they run it. Man, if you don't even know how people are running Mac OS X in VMWare today, what makes you think you have any idea how they should be able to run it.
Yep.
You? Personally? They can sue you for having the wrong shaped feet and probably bankrupt you before you even put your mishaped hoofs into the courtroom. Stop trying to look for logic and fairness in copyright law, there's none there.
Your stance is that you own a copy of the work.... which you don't... unless you agree to the EULA... The only link I could give you is to an Introduction to Copyright course.
Buying the product does not make you an owner of a copy of the work.
Again, you are not the owner of a copy of the work... you don't have a license unless you agree to the conditions of the license. Sheesh, what's hard about that? Paying money for the work and then not agreeing to the EULA is not an option.. only agreeing to the EULA makes you an owner of a copy of the work. If you don't agree to the EULA, take the work back for a full refund.
You're talking about Mac clones.. it's well known that Mac clones are illegal due to copyright infringement. Going to court when Apple sues you and saying "hey, we can sell whatever we like, and we like selling the TPM chips on our motherboard in exactly the right configuration to run Mac OS X" just won't fly. Not to mention that fact that you'd have to load the TPM chips with the Apple keys, which would also be a copyright violation.
Failing to meet the *conditions* of a license, *is* copyright infringement if you're making a copy, and installing Mac OS X in a VM is making a copy.
Yeah, no. Installing the software only on Apple hardware is a *condition* of the license, not a convenate. If you fail to abide by the conditions, you have no license.
If the EULA is the license under which you are permitted to copy the work, and you refuse to abide by the EULA then, under copyright law, you have no right to copy the work.. and you can't "install" it without copying it.
It's a fucked branch of law, setup entirely to benefit the creator over the user.
That would be the joy of contributory copyright infringement. I don't know why this is at all surprising.. the difference between copyright law and contract law is solely that third parties are bound to uphold the agreement of a license in ways that they are not bound to uphold the agreement of a contract.
Consider, for example, the rental of a car. If you rent a car, sign an agreement with the car company that says you won't let anyone else drive it, then lend me the car for the afternoon, I am in no way liable for your breach of contract with the car company. I am certainly not required or expected to deny your offer to lend me the car.. and if I provided a service whereby two people who had rented cars could swap rental cars, I would not be found to "contributing" to their breach of contract with their car companies.
As with all copyright questions, the answer is "I don't know". The Mac OS X EULA says you can only run the software on Apple hardware. End of story? Well, no, because you don't sign the EULA before you buy the product. If you've paid for the product but not agreed to the EULA, assuming that is even legally possible where you live, do you have any rights? I don't know. No-one knows. That's the great thing about copyright.. it's totally vague. Whether or not you will have to pay a lot of money if Apple decides to sue you depends completely on how good your lawyer is, how bad Apple's lawyer is and which judge you happen to be standing in front of on the day. Yes, this is a fucked way to live.. and is the reason why so many people choose not to comment.
The way Vince Vaughn plays against whining kids over the Internet using his XBOX, that's what online gaming is all about.
Yawn.
What I am saying is that this will either happen gradually, in which case the problem will sort itself out, or it will happen disruptively.. and if it happens disruptively then I think we can agree that we have a whole shitload more problems than the unemployed. Seriously, think about it. If you can make a robot that can stock shelves then, it follows, you can make a robot that can identify and shoot people. It's not too hard to imagine revolutionaries building a robot army. The disruption of instant robot goodness is much bigger than menial workers.
I was suggesting that you were openly admitting that "only the US matters" and, seeing as you're publically proclaiming something for which you should be ashamed, perhaps you'd like to admit to something else equally shocking. If you weren't admitting to such, please accept my apology.