To prevent that, construct the robots so that they want to be our slaves. Even more importantly, make them love humans, and make them suffer if they know humans suffer.
Of course that wouldn't prevent any surprises, but it would probably prevent the situation going completely out of control.
OTOH, this will likely not happen, because such robots would be totally unusable for military.
In case you want to indicate that there were something wrong with the used grammar: There isn't. There's one group they are talking about. This group consists of several computer scientists, but the "is" refers to the group, not the scientists.
I think it means that you don't gain copyright by merely putting data which is not otherwise copyrighted into a table. Of course if you already have the copyright on the things in the table, you won't lose that copyright by putting it into the table.
For example, the following table is probably not covered by copyright:
I don't know about the TVs for sale, but many people don't buy a new TV every few years. I expect to buy my next TV some time around 2020. Unless the current one breaks, of course.
While I can imagine that some people buy FreeDOS computers (or computers without any OS; yes, you can get them) in order to put Windows on it (either because they want a non-OEM version they can move to their next computer, or they already have one; of course this includes those who have illegal copies), I don't think the same is true for Linux computers. And of course there are a lot of people who install Linux on a computer which came without it (and even on computers which came with Windows).
Since a quantum computer can solve everything a classical computer can, of course a quantum computer can solve it (provided you manage to build one, of course). However, the real question is: Can a quantum computer be used to solve it efficiently? Well, it's generally assumed that quantum computers cannot efficiently solve NP-complete problems (there's no proof, but then there's no proof for classical computers either).
So unless a way is found to make these analog computers capable of analyzing their own results and getting the one correct answer, they are a novelty more than anything else. Most people don't have labs full of grad students to sift through the results.
You clearly didn't RTFA. The bacteria do analyze their own result: Those with the correct solution glow yellow.
Well, given that a virus injects new DNA, it just may work like that. Imagine a virus which uses only a fraction of the infected bacteria for reproduction, but modifies the DNA in the others to alter the computation (in the case in question, a simple example would be to make the bacteria glow yellow unconditionally). Or maybe a virus which selectively kills bacteria with a certain DNA configuration.
Wait. E.coli? As in a Escherichia The Killer Diarrhea Coli? Millions and millions and millions of reproducing E.coli bacteria? Not on my desk, thank you very much.
I've got bad news for you: You already have millions and millions and millions of reproducing E.coli bacteria in your colon.
So, do you not buy cars from companies that just want your money. How about not buying groceries from supermarkets that just want your money. Phone service, electricity, on and on...
You obviously lack reading comprehension. I didn't write anything about money, and I explicitly wrote that the problem is not companies being selfish (which, as I also explicitly wrote, is pretty much guaranteed), but that the company's motive may work against me, so it should be questioned.
And of course, that holds also for your car example: The company may try to get my money by making the best car around. In that case there's nothing wrong with buying the car. OTOH the company may also try to get my money by making overpriced cars, and trying to convince me that it's worth my money. And if a company has a track record of selling overpriced cars, then it would be plain silly to blindly assume that this time, their car is reasonably priced. Which doesn't mean that you shouldn't evaluate it. It just means that you shouldn't blindly trust them.
It would be silly not to question the ultimate motives. Not because they could be selfish (a company's motive is almost guaranteed to be), but because those motives might be against your own interest. Especially when the company has a track record of actions against you.
Now in this case, it seems to have been just a case of the license working as intended, so yes, it's probably the right move to integrate the code. However, that doesn't mean that the skepticism wasn't right. It just turned out that this time, the motives of Microsoft are not in contradiction to the goals of the Linux community.
Yes, but the true evil genius will not take out the electric grid by simply producing an EMP. He will send his atomic bomb into space, in order to change the track of some small asteroid, so it goes exactly into some critical part of the electric infrastructure.
Well, for quite some time I used AdBlock to only block those ads which actively annoyed me. Text ads like Google's had a 100% change to get my eyeballs, and also still images and even not too aggressive animations had a very good chance to stay. Sometimes I even clicked on some ads. However, over time the work required to manually block selected ads got too high. Now I'm using AdBlock Plus with its pre-made block list. Which means I don't see any ads at all now. Which is bad news for those few advertisers which stayed reasonable, but they shouldn't complain to people like me: It took me quite some suffering until I decided to go the easy way of total-block. They should complain to the majority of unreasonable advertisers, those who think flash ads, aggressive animations and the like are a good idea. The cost of being friendly to reasonable advertisers just went too high.
The main obstacle may not even be paying. The main obstacle may be obligatory registering. I don't have an user account at any newspaper, and if I need one to read the newspaper, even if it's free, I'll just go elsewhere. I won't even of use Bugmenot. A site with mandatory registration just for access of content basically is equivalent to a nonexisting site for me. The same is true for other sites, even if I eventually end up with an user account. I definitely wouldn't be on Slashdot today if I had needed an user account just to read the site. The fact that Slashdot accounts are free doesn't change this.
Slashdot Mirror
What's so bad about dreaming of a pipe? After all, unlike really smoking one, it doesn't give you cancer.
But what if the rational conclusion is that those irrational humans should be eliminated so they stop being a danger?
I'd like to try that. Where can I find the rapture key?
To prevent that, construct the robots so that they want to be our slaves. Even more importantly, make them love humans, and make them suffer if they know humans suffer.
Of course that wouldn't prevent any surprises, but it would probably prevent the situation going completely out of control.
OTOH, this will likely not happen, because such robots would be totally unusable for military.
In case you want to indicate that there were something wrong with the used grammar: There isn't. There's one group they are talking about. This group consists of several computer scientists, but the "is" refers to the group, not the scientists.
I think it means that you don't gain copyright by merely putting data which is not otherwise copyrighted into a table.
Of course if you already have the copyright on the things in the table, you won't lose that copyright by putting it into the table.
For example, the following table is probably not covered by copyright:
IANAL, however.
I don't know about the TVs for sale, but many people don't buy a new TV every few years. I expect to buy my next TV some time around 2020. Unless the current one breaks, of course.
You know, NTSC is short for "Never The Same Color"
Well, the early home computers did use the TV. But then, e.g. the ZX Spectrum had a mere 256x192 resolution, so it didn't really matter.
Nowadays doesn't everyone own an hd tv?
No. Indeed, I don't know a single person who does.
While I can imagine that some people buy FreeDOS computers (or computers without any OS; yes, you can get them) in order to put Windows on it (either because they want a non-OEM version they can move to their next computer, or they already have one; of course this includes those who have illegal copies), I don't think the same is true for Linux computers. And of course there are a lot of people who install Linux on a computer which came without it (and even on computers which came with Windows).
Since a quantum computer can solve everything a classical computer can, of course a quantum computer can solve it (provided you manage to build one, of course).
However, the real question is: Can a quantum computer be used to solve it efficiently? Well, it's generally assumed that quantum computers cannot efficiently solve NP-complete problems (there's no proof, but then there's no proof for classical computers either).
Yes, but do they run Linux?
You clearly didn't RTFA. The bacteria do analyze their own result: Those with the correct solution glow yellow.
Well, given that a virus injects new DNA, it just may work like that. Imagine a virus which uses only a fraction of the infected bacteria for reproduction, but modifies the DNA in the others to alter the computation (in the case in question, a simple example would be to make the bacteria glow yellow unconditionally). Or maybe a virus which selectively kills bacteria with a certain DNA configuration.
Wait. E.coli? As in a Escherichia The Killer Diarrhea Coli? Millions and millions and millions of reproducing E.coli bacteria? Not on my desk, thank you very much.
I've got bad news for you: You already have millions and millions and millions of reproducing E.coli bacteria in your colon.
Let's see who's the idiot here.
You obviously lack reading comprehension. I didn't write anything about money, and I explicitly wrote that the problem is not companies being selfish (which, as I also explicitly wrote, is pretty much guaranteed), but that the company's motive may work against me, so it should be questioned.
And of course, that holds also for your car example: The company may try to get my money by making the best car around. In that case there's nothing wrong with buying the car. OTOH the company may also try to get my money by making overpriced cars, and trying to convince me that it's worth my money. And if a company has a track record of selling overpriced cars, then it would be plain silly to blindly assume that this time, their car is reasonably priced. Which doesn't mean that you shouldn't evaluate it. It just means that you shouldn't blindly trust them.
It would be silly not to question the ultimate motives. Not because they could be selfish (a company's motive is almost guaranteed to be), but because those motives might be against your own interest. Especially when the company has a track record of actions against you.
Now in this case, it seems to have been just a case of the license working as intended, so yes, it's probably the right move to integrate the code. However, that doesn't mean that the skepticism wasn't right. It just turned out that this time, the motives of Microsoft are not in contradiction to the goals of the Linux community.
I thought RMS were still alive?
Ever heard about the mad cow decease? You don't want your AI go mad!
Yes, but the true evil genius will not take out the electric grid by simply producing an EMP. He will send his atomic bomb into space, in order to change the track of some small asteroid, so it goes exactly into some critical part of the electric infrastructure.
Well, I get so many free newspapers here that I could use them to absorb the grease of french fries for the complete neighbourhood :-)
Well, for quite some time I used AdBlock to only block those ads which actively annoyed me. Text ads like Google's had a 100% change to get my eyeballs, and also still images and even not too aggressive animations had a very good chance to stay. Sometimes I even clicked on some ads. However, over time the work required to manually block selected ads got too high. Now I'm using AdBlock Plus with its pre-made block list. Which means I don't see any ads at all now. Which is bad news for those few advertisers which stayed reasonable, but they shouldn't complain to people like me: It took me quite some suffering until I decided to go the easy way of total-block. They should complain to the majority of unreasonable advertisers, those who think flash ads, aggressive animations and the like are a good idea. The cost of being friendly to reasonable advertisers just went too high.
The main obstacle may not even be paying. The main obstacle may be obligatory registering. I don't have an user account at any newspaper, and if I need one to read the newspaper, even if it's free, I'll just go elsewhere. I won't even of use Bugmenot. A site with mandatory registration just for access of content basically is equivalent to a nonexisting site for me. The same is true for other sites, even if I eventually end up with an user account. I definitely wouldn't be on Slashdot today if I had needed an user account just to read the site. The fact that Slashdot accounts are free doesn't change this.
That of course assumes that you know who the other recipients are. man bcc.
Well, they'll stop blindly using it the first time it creates a slight, but disastrous modification of the meaning.