And when that happens, I bet there will still be people like greg1104, who'll be saying it's not impressive, because the AI programmers are only doing so after reading up on other software programs (you know, just like human programmers do), and "analysing centuries of human knowledge".
Deep Blue beat Kasparov after being trained on a giant library of Kasparov games.
Just like human chess players then.
If Emmy can be trained to compose like Mozart after being exposed to his music I'm similarly unimpressed.
Yes because obviously all human composers, including Mozart, do so without being exposed to any other music, and write material that has no influences whatsoever.
but even that's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point
If a machine can consume centuries of human knowledge, then that's pretty damn impressive, and itself something that a human can't do. I'm not sure why that means it doesn't count.
And how would you know or test whether something was sentient? Since you couldn't even know, I don't see how it could affect your reaction to a piece of music it creates.
Translation: I have an argument I want to make, so I'll find a straw man to argue against.
He was rebutting the claim that all albums today are just collections of albums. That they're not played on the radio is put forward as the reason the OP might not have heard of them.
Your "right brain" is still doing computation. The fact that it does so better than a computer is because we're a long way from making machines as good as brains. It's nothing to do with some hand wavy "maths versus different way of perceiving reality" nonsense.
That a person can be good at music but bad at maths is because you're confusing what a person's brain does (computation), with that person consciously working through those calculations mentally by hand. E.g., my eyes are doing image processing, but consciously I don't have a clue what those calculations are, and if I did, they'd take vastly longer to work through the computations. But there's nothing mystical about how my eyes work.
Not to mention that one of the titles of the head of state, is to be the head of another set of superstitious beliefs, namely the Church. And that we still have Church leaders entitled to sit in the House of Lords...
The screen on the iPad allows for a much more capable UI (and there are some UI widgets that the iPad has that the iPhone doesn't).
Yes it's bigger than a phone... just like those things everyone else has been using for years, called computers, including laptops, netbooks and tablets.
And the Ipad allows nothing right now. It's still not even released - I might as well say how amazing the new AmigaPad is going to be.
A third-party App Store does not qualify as some form of "general utility" that most people want.
If we are arguing in terms of what "most people want", then most people want phones from companies other than Apple, according to market figures. Indeed, most people still want cheaper but functional (and still "smart") phones, rather than high tech but expensive toys.
As a clue, that's why the iPod... The same goes with the iPad
Ah yes, this classic Apple fallacy: reference the Ipod, the sole area where Apple are market leader, and then apply it to other Apple products, even ones that are vaporware. This is a logical fallacy. It also ignores Apple products that were raved about, and then flopped and forgotten about (Apple TV, the Air) or their many products that sell okay and bring in revenue, but are still niche markets (Macs, Iphones).
I might as well argue how Windows is a success, therefore the Zune will do well too.
That's also why all those other tablets and netbooks are going to have a terrible time competing with the iPad.
More speculation about an unreleased product.
They are crippled by using a full WIMP OS.... Those devices have more functionality, but that functionality actually makes them *less* desirable to most people.
Another classic Apple trick - "not having features actually make it better!" Nevermind an AmigaPad, I wish I thought of these tactics years ago. An Amiga from 20 years ago must beat today's machines hands down, by not having all those extra features.
The App Store isn't a flaw in the iPhone OS ecosystem, for most people.
Agreed, because most people don't have an Iphone.
It's primarily just the geek crowd who makes a fuss
But don't you see? It's only in the geek crowd that Apple are loved and hyped about - most people don't care, but here on Slashdot, Apple are praised all the time. So if they start to criticise, then there's not many left who will like Apple after that.
I don't see any conflict in this case. You can have privacy laws, without criminalising people who are clearly not responsible. The problem here is not that invading someone's privacy is illegal, it's that Google were held criminally liable. The same problem would apply if it was anything else being posted - it doesn't have to be privacy laws.
I think the analogy would be saying that the postal service are criminally liable, even if it's sealed in a package, which would be particularly mad.
I'm not sure what would happen in your scenario - I must admit I'd be worried to report such a thing, out of fear of being done for possession (similar to a recent case in the UK, where an ex-soldier handed in a gun he'd found, and was arrested for possession...) This is the problem with possession laws, even of things we might agree should be illegal (e.g., child pr0n) - if anyone finds them, rather than reporting it to the police so the source can be tracked down, instead they might be more likely to destroy or get rid of it, out of fear of being charged themselves.
Apple have the freedom to do this. We have the freedom to criticise.
Yes, I have no sympathy for developers who decided to develop for a platform knowing that Apple control the software. I have no sympathy for users who bought such a phone. I can sit here and laugh at them, saying how I knew this all along, while I happily continue to use my 5800.
But I can still criticise Apple too - so that people are aware of this issue, and can exercise their choice to buy something else; and so that people realise why this model of computing, where single companies decide the software, is fundamentally broken.
Publicity works both ways. We get Apple slashvertisements when there is so much of a rumour, so you can get Apple stories when they are negative, too.
Call me when their sales start dropping.
Call me when their sales are anything noteworthy, as opposed to the niche they currently have.
Indeed. Or alternatively, do it like every other platform works, and let people install what they want, from where they want. That way they can have a completely child-friendly app store if that's what they want, but people can still download other things from elsewhere.
It's the app-store-only downloading that makes this story such an issue - maybe eventually people will wake up and realise that allowing single companies to decide what software can be released is not a good model for computing.
And this just puts your entire post in doubt. The factual market figures are that Apple's share in the mobile market is just a few per cent. So however "popular" the app store may be, this has to be looked in the correct context, that it's nothing compared to several much bigger companies in the market.
The UK's former Information Commissioner Richard Thomas said the case gave privacy laws a "bad name".
To which I entirely agree. Privacy laws have been used here in the UK (e.g., when the News Of The World posted a video showing Max Mosley in private acts), but the point is that firstly these are civil cases not criminal ones, and secondly, it requires intent, and does not make someone liable for merely "allowing" it, or running a server where users post content.
Even for something that clearly is and should be illegal, this ruling would be worrying - it's making server owners personally and criminally liable, rather than seeing them as common carriers.
But as mad as this is, in some sense this should be no different to say, if China decided to convict a Google exec for linking to pro-democracy pages, for example. Stupid, yes, but Google can and should ignore it. Those convicted do not live in Italy, so I don't see how they would have to comply if they don't visit (of course if they get extradited, then that will be mad). Google doesn't even have to pull out of Italy - they can surely just carry on, and it's up to Italy to try to block them.
The worrying thing though is that this is not some far off country, but a member of the EU.
An example of this would be a hypothetical economy where the value of products and services is determined
Sure, you can fix a price at whatever you like, but that's not the same as how much it's worth. In our own economy, companies can put whatever price they like, but I don't think people would say that therefore the product is worth that much. Otherwise I've got a rotten sandwich that's worth a million dollars.
Where did he say he was an atheist? And even if he was, why is that any more relevant than say his hair colour, or being a Slashdot member, in terms of giving a group of people a bad name?
(Not to mention, your second paragraph is just as bad; as an atheist, I ask you to please stop giving us a bad name;)
I think you're conflating meanings of realism - a dancing penguin may obviously not be real, but it can still look realistic in the sense of being indistinguishable from a real penguin that was dancing, if such a thing could happen.
Otherwise I could just as well say that your photo isn't "realistic", because the characters aren't really who they say they are, they're just actors. The point about "photo realism" isn't to be real, it's to be as realistic as a photograph.
Frankly, I'm very scared that that is what will happen to the US if we go socialized health care (in addition to other problems)...it will just have us paying more in taxes
Taxes don't have to go up, it can be taken from elsewhere - e.g., maybe you could spend slightly less on that socialised military you have.
If college is the problem (and I can understand that being an issue), then that's simply solved by not renting out to people at college (e.g., only renting out to people with a job, and ask for proof of that). An age based system is broken, as it refuses access to a 21 year old who is working full time, but allows someone who is 26, but at college.
without any means to pay for it.
Then ask for the proof that they have the means to pay for it. Given that they need to pay rent, this is a good idea in the first place, anyway. What does age have to do with anything?
When I rented a place straight after University, age 21, I had to show my landlord proof I had a job. I'd have been annoyed if places were refusing me simply on my age. And he'd have lost out too - I was a tenant of almost 10 years, with no problems or late payments.
Indeed. It was sad to see Apple fans moaning about it being insecure because it let you do things without repeatedly asking you. But then when Microsoft implement it - Apple fans take the mickey out of it!
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. But the point is, his view is no better than any other anecdote or personal opinion, whether it's for or against Vista (or any other OS). No one would care if he was here posting on Slashdot, but his opinions were held up as an authoritative source, and published by the media.
My own view is that there were reasons to be wary of Vista when it was first released (the same applied to XP - oh how people here forget how much criticism of XP there was here on its release, with people preferring 2000), and it's not great on only 1GB. But it also seems to me that much of the later criticism, especially when even low end laptops were shipping with 3GB or more, was nothing more than FUD.
Except historically, there was still plenty of risk of being a crossbowman, even from the "safety" of castle walls. Indeed, being under seige in a castle was a very dangerous situation to be in.
Can you cite me an example of where a remote operator in Vegas has been at risk from the enemy? No, thought not.
Body scanner images and webcam images are still more detailed than a cartoon, no matter how "graphic" the cartoon might be.
This is at least according to what various sites were saying when the teen sexting thing was news a while back.
Sexting isn't sexual?
To be clear, I don't think people imagining things and then writing/drawing them is CP
In many countries, drawn images can count as child porn (including the UK now - indeed, the new law criminalising "child" cartoons has come around the same time that the airport scanners are being introduced).
Slashdot Mirror
And when that happens, I bet there will still be people like greg1104, who'll be saying it's not impressive, because the AI programmers are only doing so after reading up on other software programs (you know, just like human programmers do), and "analysing centuries of human knowledge".
Deep Blue beat Kasparov after being trained on a giant library of Kasparov games.
Just like human chess players then.
If Emmy can be trained to compose like Mozart after being exposed to his music I'm similarly unimpressed.
Yes because obviously all human composers, including Mozart, do so without being exposed to any other music, and write material that has no influences whatsoever.
but even that's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point
If a machine can consume centuries of human knowledge, then that's pretty damn impressive, and itself something that a human can't do. I'm not sure why that means it doesn't count.
And how would you know or test whether something was sentient? Since you couldn't even know, I don't see how it could affect your reaction to a piece of music it creates.
Translation: I have an argument I want to make, so I'll find a straw man to argue against.
He was rebutting the claim that all albums today are just collections of albums. That they're not played on the radio is put forward as the reason the OP might not have heard of them.
!!!1111
Your "right brain" is still doing computation. The fact that it does so better than a computer is because we're a long way from making machines as good as brains. It's nothing to do with some hand wavy "maths versus different way of perceiving reality" nonsense.
That a person can be good at music but bad at maths is because you're confusing what a person's brain does (computation), with that person consciously working through those calculations mentally by hand. E.g., my eyes are doing image processing, but consciously I don't have a clue what those calculations are, and if I did, they'd take vastly longer to work through the computations. But there's nothing mystical about how my eyes work.
IE7 was released in October 2006, same time as Firefox 2. It would be equivalent to requiring Firefox 2 or above.
Not to mention that one of the titles of the head of state, is to be the head of another set of superstitious beliefs, namely the Church. And that we still have Church leaders entitled to sit in the House of Lords...
The screen on the iPad allows for a much more capable UI (and there are some UI widgets that the iPad has that the iPhone doesn't).
Yes it's bigger than a phone ... just like those things everyone else has been using for years, called computers, including laptops, netbooks and tablets.
And the Ipad allows nothing right now. It's still not even released - I might as well say how amazing the new AmigaPad is going to be.
A third-party App Store does not qualify as some form of "general utility" that most people want.
If we are arguing in terms of what "most people want", then most people want phones from companies other than Apple, according to market figures. Indeed, most people still want cheaper but functional (and still "smart") phones, rather than high tech but expensive toys.
As a clue, that's why the iPod ... The same goes with the iPad
Ah yes, this classic Apple fallacy: reference the Ipod, the sole area where Apple are market leader, and then apply it to other Apple products, even ones that are vaporware. This is a logical fallacy. It also ignores Apple products that were raved about, and then flopped and forgotten about (Apple TV, the Air) or their many products that sell okay and bring in revenue, but are still niche markets (Macs, Iphones).
I might as well argue how Windows is a success, therefore the Zune will do well too.
That's also why all those other tablets and netbooks are going to have a terrible time competing with the iPad.
More speculation about an unreleased product.
They are crippled by using a full WIMP OS. ... Those devices have more functionality, but that functionality actually makes them *less* desirable to most people.
Another classic Apple trick - "not having features actually make it better!" Nevermind an AmigaPad, I wish I thought of these tactics years ago. An Amiga from 20 years ago must beat today's machines hands down, by not having all those extra features.
The App Store isn't a flaw in the iPhone OS ecosystem, for most people.
Agreed, because most people don't have an Iphone.
It's primarily just the geek crowd who makes a fuss
But don't you see? It's only in the geek crowd that Apple are loved and hyped about - most people don't care, but here on Slashdot, Apple are praised all the time. So if they start to criticise, then there's not many left who will like Apple after that.
So, it should also follow the local laws in places like Iran and China then, in terms of content that can be posted?
The people convicted don't even live in Italy.
I don't see any conflict in this case. You can have privacy laws, without criminalising people who are clearly not responsible. The problem here is not that invading someone's privacy is illegal, it's that Google were held criminally liable. The same problem would apply if it was anything else being posted - it doesn't have to be privacy laws.
I think the analogy would be saying that the postal service are criminally liable, even if it's sealed in a package, which would be particularly mad.
I'm not sure what would happen in your scenario - I must admit I'd be worried to report such a thing, out of fear of being done for possession (similar to a recent case in the UK, where an ex-soldier handed in a gun he'd found, and was arrested for possession...) This is the problem with possession laws, even of things we might agree should be illegal (e.g., child pr0n) - if anyone finds them, rather than reporting it to the police so the source can be tracked down, instead they might be more likely to destroy or get rid of it, out of fear of being charged themselves.
Apple have the freedom to do this. We have the freedom to criticise.
Yes, I have no sympathy for developers who decided to develop for a platform knowing that Apple control the software. I have no sympathy for users who bought such a phone. I can sit here and laugh at them, saying how I knew this all along, while I happily continue to use my 5800.
But I can still criticise Apple too - so that people are aware of this issue, and can exercise their choice to buy something else; and so that people realise why this model of computing, where single companies decide the software, is fundamentally broken.
Publicity works both ways. We get Apple slashvertisements when there is so much of a rumour, so you can get Apple stories when they are negative, too.
Call me when their sales start dropping.
Call me when their sales are anything noteworthy, as opposed to the niche they currently have.
Indeed. Or alternatively, do it like every other platform works, and let people install what they want, from where they want. That way they can have a completely child-friendly app store if that's what they want, but people can still download other things from elsewhere.
It's the app-store-only downloading that makes this story such an issue - maybe eventually people will wake up and realise that allowing single companies to decide what software can be released is not a good model for computing.
Apple's devices are flying off the shelves
And this just puts your entire post in doubt. The factual market figures are that Apple's share in the mobile market is just a few per cent. So however "popular" the app store may be, this has to be looked in the correct context, that it's nothing compared to several much bigger companies in the market.
The UK's former Information Commissioner Richard Thomas said the case gave privacy laws a "bad name".
To which I entirely agree. Privacy laws have been used here in the UK (e.g., when the News Of The World posted a video showing Max Mosley in private acts), but the point is that firstly these are civil cases not criminal ones, and secondly, it requires intent, and does not make someone liable for merely "allowing" it, or running a server where users post content.
Even for something that clearly is and should be illegal, this ruling would be worrying - it's making server owners personally and criminally liable, rather than seeing them as common carriers.
But as mad as this is, in some sense this should be no different to say, if China decided to convict a Google exec for linking to pro-democracy pages, for example. Stupid, yes, but Google can and should ignore it. Those convicted do not live in Italy, so I don't see how they would have to comply if they don't visit (of course if they get extradited, then that will be mad). Google doesn't even have to pull out of Italy - they can surely just carry on, and it's up to Italy to try to block them.
The worrying thing though is that this is not some far off country, but a member of the EU.
An example of this would be a hypothetical economy where the value of products and services is determined
Sure, you can fix a price at whatever you like, but that's not the same as how much it's worth. In our own economy, companies can put whatever price they like, but I don't think people would say that therefore the product is worth that much. Otherwise I've got a rotten sandwich that's worth a million dollars.
Where did he say he was an atheist? And even if he was, why is that any more relevant than say his hair colour, or being a Slashdot member, in terms of giving a group of people a bad name?
(Not to mention, your second paragraph is just as bad; as an atheist, I ask you to please stop giving us a bad name ;)
I think you're conflating meanings of realism - a dancing penguin may obviously not be real, but it can still look realistic in the sense of being indistinguishable from a real penguin that was dancing, if such a thing could happen.
Otherwise I could just as well say that your photo isn't "realistic", because the characters aren't really who they say they are, they're just actors. The point about "photo realism" isn't to be real, it's to be as realistic as a photograph.
Thing is...defense IS one of the few limited enumerated jobs the federal govt is charged to perform.
"Slightly less" doesn't mean not having a socialised military at all.
nor are they charged with managing healthcare
Charged? Charged by who?
otherwise interfering in the citizens' private lives
What interference? I don't see any of that here in the UK.
Frankly, I'm very scared that that is what will happen to the US if we go socialized health care (in addition to other problems)...it will just have us paying more in taxes
Taxes don't have to go up, it can be taken from elsewhere - e.g., maybe you could spend slightly less on that socialised military you have.
25 is college age?
If college is the problem (and I can understand that being an issue), then that's simply solved by not renting out to people at college (e.g., only renting out to people with a job, and ask for proof of that). An age based system is broken, as it refuses access to a 21 year old who is working full time, but allows someone who is 26, but at college.
without any means to pay for it.
Then ask for the proof that they have the means to pay for it. Given that they need to pay rent, this is a good idea in the first place, anyway. What does age have to do with anything?
When I rented a place straight after University, age 21, I had to show my landlord proof I had a job. I'd have been annoyed if places were refusing me simply on my age. And he'd have lost out too - I was a tenant of almost 10 years, with no problems or late payments.
Indeed. It was sad to see Apple fans moaning about it being insecure because it let you do things without repeatedly asking you. But then when Microsoft implement it - Apple fans take the mickey out of it!
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. But the point is, his view is no better than any other anecdote or personal opinion, whether it's for or against Vista (or any other OS). No one would care if he was here posting on Slashdot, but his opinions were held up as an authoritative source, and published by the media.
My own view is that there were reasons to be wary of Vista when it was first released (the same applied to XP - oh how people here forget how much criticism of XP there was here on its release, with people preferring 2000), and it's not great on only 1GB. But it also seems to me that much of the later criticism, especially when even low end laptops were shipping with 3GB or more, was nothing more than FUD.
Except historically, there was still plenty of risk of being a crossbowman, even from the "safety" of castle walls. Indeed, being under seige in a castle was a very dangerous situation to be in.
Can you cite me an example of where a remote operator in Vegas has been at risk from the enemy? No, thought not.
Body scanner images and webcam images are still more detailed than a cartoon, no matter how "graphic" the cartoon might be.
This is at least according to what various sites were saying when the teen sexting thing was news a while back.
Sexting isn't sexual?
To be clear, I don't think people imagining things and then writing/drawing them is CP
In many countries, drawn images can count as child porn (including the UK now - indeed, the new law criminalising "child" cartoons has come around the same time that the airport scanners are being introduced).