That's not a british accent. Its a high-American accent, i.e. its American English with all the pronunciation (really, enunciation) rules maxed-out. Its very common amongst people who have taken professional voice training, such as those actors.
Well that's the attitude! If something's got small, content-unrelated issues, it should be dismissed out of hand!
Re:I have always been curious
on
Decrypting Kryptos
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
As a wonderful sci-fi connection, I suggest reading Cryptonomicron, by Neal Stephenson. Besides providing an excellent story (like all his books), it provides an extensive discussion of how code-breaking works, and how historically it evolved.
I can't really tell if you're serious. If you are, you're just wrong. Being stupid (short of being clinically retarded, and thus legally incompetant to sign contracts) isn't and could never be an excuse for a failed contract. The reason is simple: it amounts to unilateral mistakes (which are categorically not able to void contracts).
I just realized I didn't properly explain that rule. For those who didn't understand why it's true, consider:
The primary obstacle to purchasing anything is its price. The lower the price, the lower the obstacle. This means that the lower the price, the less that factor will contribute to your decision on which amongst competing products you will buy.
There is a simple socio-economic rule here: the cheaper a type of product (either MP3 player or PC here), the more representative their market share will be of their quality (quality here including everything, from ease of use, quality of output, and advertising, e.g. perceived quality).
This means that the iPods, with their cost at only a few hundred dollars, will have a more representative market share than PCs, with their [ave] cost at over $1500 (over $2k, if you look at the Macs).
This isn't to say that the iPod necessarily is actually better than the Creative product (I've never even used it), but rather that the iPod's overall quality, including perceived quality, is higher.
(a) Its funny that on a tech nerd site, you feel the need to criticise people for simply using their device (since the only 'advertising' is the headphones themselves).
(b) I think the actual reason is that no other MP3 player has a distinct identifying feature that can be picked out of a crowd at 10 feet. Apple did a genius branding move and made their headphones easily identifiable by nothing more than their color, and as a result whenever you see those white cables you just assume iPod (incidentally, a few companies make white-cabled headphones now, to compete, incl. Sony).
You're seriously mistaken. Many of the world's religions, while believing in a Creation myth of some kind, do not believe that humans were created as they are today by some deity in the past.
Notably, Hinduism/Buddhism make no specific mention of the human species in creation, nor do Shintoism or Zoroastrianism (still alive, believe it or not, although I may have mispelled that).
Moreover, most protestants actually believe in a non-literal form of biblical interpretation, which could accomodate evolution as the mechanism by which God created Mankind (they would simply either dispute Natural Selection, or argue that the world was shaped so that Natural Selection could only result in the human species).
It is in fact only conservative Christians/Jews/Muslims who really have a problem with evolution in concert with creationism.
The subpoeana of particular emails is radically different from the seizing of those emails as shared property to be divided in the divorce. In the former, relevant emails (e.g. infidelity-related stuff, etc.) are demanded by the court as evidence. In the latter, the emails are taken from the owner and divided. This seems innocuous, but what if you've got business data in there, or information on private accounts which are otherwise not being divided?
To answer your second question first (creating things we hate), the simple answer is that we never fully anticipate the results of our technological advances. I love cars, but I hate CO; I love computers, but I hate spam. Autonomous robots, walking around, etc. are intrinsically more powerful than cars or computers, because the radius of their sphere of influence is so much greater. Thus, it is quite possible if not probable that something robots start to do will be upsetting, if not actually destructive. It may simply be the decay of manners and social behavior caused by servant robots, for example (e.g. the Spaces in Asimov's fiction).
As to your first question (why would we create something that would hate us), the answer is related to the first: we cannot predict their outcome. If they've got an adaptive mind (which will, I believe, be required since they will encounter new circumstances constantly), then it is inevitable that eventually something they "think up" will be in disagreement with some/all humans. It is not inevitable, but is highly unlikely, that eventually some robot will think up "the world will be better without humans", etc.
I was, admittedly, a little too brief. To expand why I think they're counter examples, remember what I was countering: I was countering the claim that this was a lie by yahoo to cover their having deleted the account already, so I was suggesting alternate (and seriously difficult) reasons why Yahoo may be resisting.
More broadly, I think my arguments are reasons not to allow this. Frankly, if you want to protect access to your data, keep your passwords in your safety deposit box. Put them in your will. Whatever. By establishing a service like this (storage of your email) as a property, we're creating a decidedly difficult legal knot.
I don't think so. Suppose you demonstrate that an email account is property, what would happen in a divorce? Can one spouse claim family ownership of it, and demand access to the account even if the other spouse had never explicitly shared the password of the account? Suppose alternately that the email account is property, and the email-provider goes out of business, taking the account down with it, can you sue for damages for loss of property?
Wrong. Only land-owning freemen had rights. Non-whites that (a) weren't slaves and (b) owned land and (c) were working had rights. Violate any of those, and you were free-game. The southern states had, in fact, conscription laws which allowed that if you found a black man who didn't have land and didn't seem to be working, you could legally claim him as a slave.
To expand upon your point, the right to a free press is actually the right to freely print/distribute information, which is at least somewhat distinct from the right to quite literally speak. Together, they allow the free dissemination of ideas, since speach can be written, and the distribution of those written words is press.
You're mistaken about what the nature of corporations is, legally. Corporations are legal entities, but they are not humans. This means that they are neither afforded the full suit of rights nor burdens of a human individual. Specifically, they are afforde the rights and privileges to conduct business, but there will always be a specific human[s] who are to blame for criminal actions.
The important distinction here is that lawsuits aren't about crimes. They're about violation of statute, resulting in civil penalties (in fact, generally economic penalties excluding contracts). Infinium can be sued as a corporation, because the corporate entity engaged in economic behavior which resulted in actionable claims. Infinium cannot be prosecuted for a crime as a corporation, because corporations dont commit crimes: their administrators (or whatever the title is for the specific corporation) does.
Backing up to the question of whether this was the intent of the founding fathers: before your deify them, remember that it was conceptually impossible for them to predict the legal world of today, with the corresponding economic structures. While they had companies then, there was no meaningful analogue to a corporation like this (since companies were Crown-created). Partnerships (which are quite distinct, legally, from companies or corporations) were known, but nothing like these. If you want to limit the legal rights in this country to only those provided for by the Founding Fathers, a lot of women, blacks, etc. are going to get a little pissed.
I can't tell if you're being stupid, or just making a bad attempt at a joke. Apparently at least one mod agrees with me in both directions, since as of right now the post is "Score:1, Funny", which means its both gained and lost at least one mod point.
For those inclined, you don't need to countersue for damages. While you can, its generally more effective to just move for costs. That said, judges are extremely loathe to provide costs to winning defendants, since it discourages lawsuits (you heard me). Since [H] acted in the premptive manner it did, however, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see costs granted (in particular because Inf. didn't provide any evidence worthwhile, and didn't seem to understand the torts it was alleging).
You're getting a direct copy of the file that was originally on the Tivo (mux'd into a single file, though). The file is encrypted based on a key in the actual tivo. This key is unique to each tivo. The 'media access key' essentially allows the PC to decrypt the video on the fly, just like the Tivo does.
Its worth noting that one of the first things you do when your hack your Series 2 Tivo is to disable this encryption (the community has a variety of methods for this, including hex-patching the actual TivoApp) to make this key zero.
Actually, I did make the mistake of not being clear. I was saying "essentially its a 12b6", in that I wasn't sure of the proper criminal reference. My bad.
For those not clear what we're talking about: in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 12, subsection B, subsection 6 allows for a motion that a claim be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which an action can be granted. The criminal analogue is Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 5.1(f), I believe. Both rules essentially say the following: if ALL the claims of the prosecution are entirely true, there still isn't a valid claim.
Apparently, the prosecutors didn't believe they could prove those crimes, since the claim doesn't include charges of those crimes. The judge isn't allowed to create charges: the judge can only determine the validity of charges made by the prosecutors.
It doesn't matter if its deceptive or fradulent, because the charge was specifically done under a particular law: the can-spam act, which has specific requirements. The judge determined that the charge failed to allege an actual violation of that law.
Essentially, the judge instituted a 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing the suit for failure to state a claim upon which action could be based.
A self-improvement seminar is a place where you predict to have profound learning experiences? Maybe your problem is somewhere hidden in that sentence...
If this is half as clever as I think it is, that's damn impressive, Icephreak. If on the otherhand, you're just insulting asian culture and stumbled onto a rather amusing sort of pun, well thats even funnier.
The true turing test, incidentally, isn't that you're able to just have a conversation. It would require being able to shift topics at random, etc. at the whim of the interviewer. In other words, if you suddenly said "Hey, do you think its sexist to grope a woman's boob?" you would have to be able to press them for a reasonable response, not just a "I don't want to talk about that". I.e. the computer has to perform like a witness in a trial, forced to respond to your questions and not just evade them with "I don't know" or "Maybe."
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a british accent. Its a high-American accent, i.e. its American English with all the pronunciation (really, enunciation) rules maxed-out. Its very common amongst people who have taken professional voice training, such as those actors.
Well that's the attitude! If something's got small, content-unrelated issues, it should be dismissed out of hand!
As a wonderful sci-fi connection, I suggest reading Cryptonomicron, by Neal Stephenson. Besides providing an excellent story (like all his books), it provides an extensive discussion of how code-breaking works, and how historically it evolved.
I can't really tell if you're serious. If you are, you're just wrong. Being stupid (short of being clinically retarded, and thus legally incompetant to sign contracts) isn't and could never be an excuse for a failed contract. The reason is simple: it amounts to unilateral mistakes (which are categorically not able to void contracts).
I just realized I didn't properly explain that rule. For those who didn't understand why it's true, consider:
The primary obstacle to purchasing anything is its price. The lower the price, the lower the obstacle. This means that the lower the price, the less that factor will contribute to your decision on which amongst competing products you will buy.
Apples to oranges.
There is a simple socio-economic rule here: the cheaper a type of product (either MP3 player or PC here), the more representative their market share will be of their quality (quality here including everything, from ease of use, quality of output, and advertising, e.g. perceived quality).
This means that the iPods, with their cost at only a few hundred dollars, will have a more representative market share than PCs, with their [ave] cost at over $1500 (over $2k, if you look at the Macs).
This isn't to say that the iPod necessarily is actually better than the Creative product (I've never even used it), but rather that the iPod's overall quality, including perceived quality, is higher.
(a) Its funny that on a tech nerd site, you feel the need to criticise people for simply using their device (since the only 'advertising' is the headphones themselves).
(b) I think the actual reason is that no other MP3 player has a distinct identifying feature that can be picked out of a crowd at 10 feet. Apple did a genius branding move and made their headphones easily identifiable by nothing more than their color, and as a result whenever you see those white cables you just assume iPod (incidentally, a few companies make white-cabled headphones now, to compete, incl. Sony).
You're seriously mistaken. Many of the world's religions, while believing in a Creation myth of some kind, do not believe that humans were created as they are today by some deity in the past.
Notably, Hinduism/Buddhism make no specific mention of the human species in creation, nor do Shintoism or Zoroastrianism (still alive, believe it or not, although I may have mispelled that).
Moreover, most protestants actually believe in a non-literal form of biblical interpretation, which could accomodate evolution as the mechanism by which God created Mankind (they would simply either dispute Natural Selection, or argue that the world was shaped so that Natural Selection could only result in the human species).
It is in fact only conservative Christians/Jews/Muslims who really have a problem with evolution in concert with creationism.
Tron 2.0 was always just the video game (a great game, btw) as I understand it.
The subpoeana of particular emails is radically different from the seizing of those emails as shared property to be divided in the divorce. In the former, relevant emails (e.g. infidelity-related stuff, etc.) are demanded by the court as evidence. In the latter, the emails are taken from the owner and divided. This seems innocuous, but what if you've got business data in there, or information on private accounts which are otherwise not being divided?
Son of a...I meant to type "...It is not inevitable, but is highly LIKELY..." in that last sentence....stupid typos and freudian slips.
To answer your second question first (creating things we hate), the simple answer is that we never fully anticipate the results of our technological advances. I love cars, but I hate CO; I love computers, but I hate spam. Autonomous robots, walking around, etc. are intrinsically more powerful than cars or computers, because the radius of their sphere of influence is so much greater. Thus, it is quite possible if not probable that something robots start to do will be upsetting, if not actually destructive. It may simply be the decay of manners and social behavior caused by servant robots, for example (e.g. the Spaces in Asimov's fiction).
As to your first question (why would we create something that would hate us), the answer is related to the first: we cannot predict their outcome. If they've got an adaptive mind (which will, I believe, be required since they will encounter new circumstances constantly), then it is inevitable that eventually something they "think up" will be in disagreement with some/all humans. It is not inevitable, but is highly unlikely, that eventually some robot will think up "the world will be better without humans", etc.
I was, admittedly, a little too brief. To expand why I think they're counter examples, remember what I was countering: I was countering the claim that this was a lie by yahoo to cover their having deleted the account already, so I was suggesting alternate (and seriously difficult) reasons why Yahoo may be resisting.
More broadly, I think my arguments are reasons not to allow this. Frankly, if you want to protect access to your data, keep your passwords in your safety deposit box. Put them in your will. Whatever. By establishing a service like this (storage of your email) as a property, we're creating a decidedly difficult legal knot.
I don't think so. Suppose you demonstrate that an email account is property, what would happen in a divorce? Can one spouse claim family ownership of it, and demand access to the account even if the other spouse had never explicitly shared the password of the account? Suppose alternately that the email account is property, and the email-provider goes out of business, taking the account down with it, can you sue for damages for loss of property?
Wrong. Only land-owning freemen had rights. Non-whites that (a) weren't slaves and (b) owned land and (c) were working had rights. Violate any of those, and you were free-game. The southern states had, in fact, conscription laws which allowed that if you found a black man who didn't have land and didn't seem to be working, you could legally claim him as a slave.
To expand upon your point, the right to a free press is actually the right to freely print/distribute information, which is at least somewhat distinct from the right to quite literally speak. Together, they allow the free dissemination of ideas, since speach can be written, and the distribution of those written words is press.
You're mistaken about what the nature of corporations is, legally. Corporations are legal entities, but they are not humans. This means that they are neither afforded the full suit of rights nor burdens of a human individual. Specifically, they are afforde the rights and privileges to conduct business, but there will always be a specific human[s] who are to blame for criminal actions.
The important distinction here is that lawsuits aren't about crimes. They're about violation of statute, resulting in civil penalties (in fact, generally economic penalties excluding contracts). Infinium can be sued as a corporation, because the corporate entity engaged in economic behavior which resulted in actionable claims. Infinium cannot be prosecuted for a crime as a corporation, because corporations dont commit crimes: their administrators (or whatever the title is for the specific corporation) does.
Backing up to the question of whether this was the intent of the founding fathers: before your deify them, remember that it was conceptually impossible for them to predict the legal world of today, with the corresponding economic structures. While they had companies then, there was no meaningful analogue to a corporation like this (since companies were Crown-created). Partnerships (which are quite distinct, legally, from companies or corporations) were known, but nothing like these. If you want to limit the legal rights in this country to only those provided for by the Founding Fathers, a lot of women, blacks, etc. are going to get a little pissed.
I can't tell if you're being stupid, or just making a bad attempt at a joke. Apparently at least one mod agrees with me in both directions, since as of right now the post is "Score:1, Funny", which means its both gained and lost at least one mod point.
For those inclined, you don't need to countersue for damages. While you can, its generally more effective to just move for costs. That said, judges are extremely loathe to provide costs to winning defendants, since it discourages lawsuits (you heard me). Since [H] acted in the premptive manner it did, however, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see costs granted (in particular because Inf. didn't provide any evidence worthwhile, and didn't seem to understand the torts it was alleging).
[IANAL]
The parent is right, but I can provide more info:
You're getting a direct copy of the file that was originally on the Tivo (mux'd into a single file, though). The file is encrypted based on a key in the actual tivo. This key is unique to each tivo. The 'media access key' essentially allows the PC to decrypt the video on the fly, just like the Tivo does.
Its worth noting that one of the first things you do when your hack your Series 2 Tivo is to disable this encryption (the community has a variety of methods for this, including hex-patching the actual TivoApp) to make this key zero.
Actually, I did make the mistake of not being clear. I was saying "essentially its a 12b6", in that I wasn't sure of the proper criminal reference. My bad.
For those not clear what we're talking about: in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 12, subsection B, subsection 6 allows for a motion that a claim be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which an action can be granted. The criminal analogue is Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 5.1(f), I believe. Both rules essentially say the following: if ALL the claims of the prosecution are entirely true, there still isn't a valid claim.
Apparently, the prosecutors didn't believe they could prove those crimes, since the claim doesn't include charges of those crimes. The judge isn't allowed to create charges: the judge can only determine the validity of charges made by the prosecutors.
It doesn't matter if its deceptive or fradulent, because the charge was specifically done under a particular law: the can-spam act, which has specific requirements. The judge determined that the charge failed to allege an actual violation of that law.
Essentially, the judge instituted a 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing the suit for failure to state a claim upon which action could be based.
A self-improvement seminar is a place where you predict to have profound learning experiences? Maybe your problem is somewhere hidden in that sentence...
If this is half as clever as I think it is, that's damn impressive, Icephreak. If on the otherhand, you're just insulting asian culture and stumbled onto a rather amusing sort of pun, well thats even funnier.
The true turing test, incidentally, isn't that you're able to just have a conversation. It would require being able to shift topics at random, etc. at the whim of the interviewer. In other words, if you suddenly said "Hey, do you think its sexist to grope a woman's boob?" you would have to be able to press them for a reasonable response, not just a "I don't want to talk about that". I.e. the computer has to perform like a witness in a trial, forced to respond to your questions and not just evade them with "I don't know" or "Maybe."