Wouldn't this be better represented by calling it an Artificial Ethics Simulator?
To include the phrase "Artificial Intelligence" is to convey the concept that this is a subset of a clearly define and working AI system.
Until you have a clearly defined and working AI then this title is nonsensical and the patent should be revoked.
The patent office is SOOOOOO far behind the times and in their own little world!
I have MANY patentable ideas but I am 'ethical' and will not patent until I have a working prototype.
This type of patent should be reviewed by a open panel of experts in the 'AI' and computer fields. The patent process cannot be allowed to continue this way or innovation will cease for the mainstream and only be available via an un-ethical 'blackmarket'.
Sig:
Afraid for my children and my childrens children.... etc.
Exactly... the original text should have read: "This could be a big money-making operation for me, if someone wants to develop it for ME!,"
Makes sense to me... let me get working on that right now.
The problem is NOT the employers. The problem is that WE allow employers to cross too many questionable boundries. Whether it's because of personal desperation or because we are flattered or enamored by the salary/company/prospects, the fact remains that WE make bad descisions which set precedents.
The bottom line is that it is a two way privledge. It's a privledge to be working for a company and at the same time it is a privledge that the company has that person working for it. A two way street. Employers need to ALWAYS remember that and maybe have an enforcing agency remind them constantly!
Yep, bottom line is that if you can play the media on SOME device then you can copy it too!
That means that these attempts by the RIAA to protect 'their' music are futile and are only meant to achieve one goal; get the 'eyeballs' of our law makers thereby getting their sympathy as well... or so they think and hope.
It will never work... they may try... there will probably be many more laws passed by 'sympathetic' (interpret that as IGNORANT and/or well funded by the RIAA) law makers. But the bottom line is that it will never work.
The record companies will either DIE or will CHANGE the way they do business. They know this completely but they KNOW that this will affect their profits because they can no longer RAPE the consumer by forcing us to buy MULTIPLE copies of the same damn song!!! (How stupid do they think we are???? I'm absolutely insulted by those jerks!)
Say it with me: PARADIGM SHIFT... mark my words, 5, 10 15 years from now it will be VERY different.
Slashdot Mirror
To include the phrase "Artificial Intelligence" is to convey the concept that this is a subset of a clearly define and working AI system.
Until you have a clearly defined and working AI then this title is nonsensical and the patent should be revoked.
The patent office is SOOOOOO far behind the times and in their own little world!
I have MANY patentable ideas but I am 'ethical' and will not patent until I have a working prototype.
This type of patent should be reviewed by a open panel of experts in the 'AI' and computer fields. The patent process cannot be allowed to continue this way or innovation will cease for the mainstream and only be available via an un-ethical 'blackmarket'.
Sig: Afraid for my children and my childrens children.... etc.
Exactly... the original text should have read: "This could be a big money-making operation for me, if someone wants to develop it for ME!,"
Makes sense to me... let me get working on that right now.
The problem is NOT the employers. The problem is that WE allow employers to cross too many questionable boundries. Whether it's because of personal desperation or because we are flattered or enamored by the salary/company/prospects, the fact remains that WE make bad descisions which set precedents.
The bottom line is that it is a two way privledge. It's a privledge to be working for a company and at the same time it is a privledge that the company has that person working for it. A two way street. Employers need to ALWAYS remember that and maybe have an enforcing agency remind them constantly!
Yep, bottom line is that if you can play the media on SOME device then you can copy it too!
That means that these attempts by the RIAA to protect 'their' music are futile and are only meant to achieve one goal; get the 'eyeballs' of our law makers thereby getting their sympathy as well... or so they think and hope.
It will never work... they may try... there will probably be many more laws passed by 'sympathetic' (interpret that as IGNORANT and/or well funded by the RIAA) law makers. But the bottom line is that it will never work.
The record companies will either DIE or will CHANGE the way they do business. They know this completely but they KNOW that this will affect their profits because they can no longer RAPE the consumer by forcing us to buy MULTIPLE copies of the same damn song!!! (How stupid do they think we are???? I'm absolutely insulted by those jerks!)
Say it with me: PARADIGM SHIFT... mark my words, 5, 10 15 years from now it will be VERY different.
Tony Sak