No, that's the purpose of cognitive science. Artificial intelligence is the name that we give to the study of technology that is between commonplace and (to borrow Arthur C. Clarke's terminology) magic.
Someone mentioned the DMCA earlier. Wouldn't the DMCA make decryption illegal for ISPs?
That was me, and that's what I am hoping, but then again, IANAAL either.
That said, I think my ISP (Virgin Media UK) starves my connection when I run BitTorrent not by inspection of the contents, but by the traffic profile (i.e. many small uploads to many different IPs).
It already exists. The problem is that it's illegal to sell, trade, or give away any program or information which helps the end user circumvent the protection for any purpose, including fair use.
How can an exemption for fair use "already exist" if it's illegal to do those things "for any purpose, including fair use"?
Traction control and ABS brakes are for people who want to feel safe without being safe. ABS won't let you lock your brakes up at all, which can get you mangled up in rush hour traffic if you're not used to it. If you have to make a panic stop, for instance, the semi in front of you with the defective brake lights stops dead on the highway, ABS brakes will put you under the trailer.
You what?! If you're driving on sand, maybe. If you're driving on tarmac, there's absolutely no way locking your brakes will decrease your stopping distance.
But it's still just a lump of star stuff with mass like what the star had
Is there any theoretical limit to the formation of new elements? Might there exist, in large black holes, ones with atomic numbers in the thousands? Are we sure that they will continue to behave according to the laws of physics as we know them?
These are not rhetorical questions -- I'm genuinely interested.
I suppose you think that hot dogs have always been called hot dogs - there was no intervening period while the phrase gained acceptance, it was literally just a mental switch-flip and everyone was calling them hotdogs.
Not at all. I'm sure there was an intervening period. However, just as with the term "open source", that time has long passed.
...creating an application to automatically modify a phone's settings depending on its location, which they say "wouldn't even be possible on an iPhone."
What about creating a trojan which automatically modifies a phone's settings depending on the whim of its creator?
A bazaar-style marketplace sounds all well and good, but the open approach of YouTube doesn't necessarily fly with potentially malicious code.
"Apple has discovered that many of the unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs available on the Internet cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software, which will likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed"
It's really not Apple's job to be writing workarounds for jailbroken phones (and exhaustively testing them -- what if the workarounds adversely affected unjailbroken iPhones?)
However, I would argue it is Apple's job to design the iPhone such that no changes (other than physically invasive ones) can ever cause the phone to be "permanently inoperable". And if they can't provide information to the user on how to reset the iPhone to factory defaults, they should bear the burden of repairing it.
Respectfully, I disagree. They wouldn't care if people were executed for it. The responsbility for that would be on the people making the purchase, it would be up to them to avoid being caught. Really, they don't even care now if they ruin somebody's life by transferring all their money out of their account. "Better you than me!"
Yes, but the people being executed would care. I agree that you can't appeal to spammers or their sponsors with moral arguments, but people are largely self-interested when it comes to preserving their own lives!
Ha. Yeah, that's why some states in the USA don't have people commiting murder anymore.
Point taken, but I think the risk-benefit tradeoff weighs more favourably for murderers. And it's hard to believe that people would be off buying fake rolexes as a crime of passion;)
Like I said, it's info that is difficult to dig up.
We're talking about a hypothetical situation in which people are executed for buying products through spam. You're claiming that in such a world, information about whether or not people buy products as a result of spam is difficult to dig up.
I don't think so. Even if it were, the thought process would run something like: "Hmm, will anyone actually buy this as a result of me employing someone to send out spam? Well, if they do, they'll be executed for it. I guess not, then."
Do you think out of 6 billion people on this planet, 0 would say yes to that?
On the planet as it is, you'd probably get a few takers. On a planet in which they would also lose their lives, you wouldn't. Or at least if you were trying to work out whether asking 6 billion people (which carries some associated cost) would net you enough $20s to make it worthwhile, you'd quickly come to the conclusion that it wouldn't.
Slashdot Mirror
and routinely fail self awareness tests
How often do they do these tests?! Is there a class of scientists getting paranoid that hamsters might take over the world if we let our guard down?!
Here's a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Room
No, that's the purpose of cognitive science. Artificial intelligence is the name that we give to the study of technology that is between commonplace and (to borrow Arthur C. Clarke's terminology) magic.
So is it currently illegal for anyone to sell the means to circumvent DRM for those 6 cases listed in the article?
Someone mentioned the DMCA earlier. Wouldn't the DMCA make decryption illegal for ISPs?
That was me, and that's what I am hoping, but then again, IANAAL either.
That said, I think my ISP (Virgin Media UK) starves my connection when I run BitTorrent not by inspection of the contents, but by the traffic profile (i.e. many small uploads to many different IPs).
That might be the case if it were at labs.google.com, but this is code.google.com...
It already exists. The problem is that it's illegal to sell, trade, or give away any program or information which helps the end user circumvent the protection for any purpose, including fair use.
How can an exemption for fair use "already exist" if it's illegal to do those things "for any purpose, including fair use"?
let the copyright be valid only 5 years after the death of that person to let it be able to cover for funeral costs
Could even be shorter than that... corpses start to smell after a while...
Video available here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8MDNFaGfT4
Realizing that large corporations consist of many separate interests might help alleviate your confusion :-)
Adopting British grammar in which Google are linguistically recognised as such might be a useful first step :)
You might be protecting your traffic from the wardriving kid next door, but not from your ISP
Quite. But let's wait until they've rolled out Obfuscated TCP to all their equipment before sending them a DMCA takedown notice :)
Everyone at Google gets to work on their own project one day out of five.
Traction control and ABS brakes are for people who want to feel safe without being safe. ABS won't let you lock your brakes up at all, which can get you mangled up in rush hour traffic if you're not used to it. If you have to make a panic stop, for instance, the semi in front of you with the defective brake lights stops dead on the highway, ABS brakes will put you under the trailer.
You what?! If you're driving on sand, maybe. If you're driving on tarmac, there's absolutely no way locking your brakes will decrease your stopping distance.
How well can you remember the experiences of your previous lifetimes, though?
But can you make a bathroom out of them?
But it's still just a lump of star stuff with mass like what the star had
Is there any theoretical limit to the formation of new elements? Might there exist, in large black holes, ones with atomic numbers in the thousands? Are we sure that they will continue to behave according to the laws of physics as we know them?
These are not rhetorical questions -- I'm genuinely interested.
As long as your bathroom is two-dimensional, yes.
I suppose you think that hot dogs have always been called hot dogs - there was no intervening period while the phrase gained acceptance, it was literally just a mental switch-flip and everyone was calling them hotdogs.
Not at all. I'm sure there was an intervening period. However, just as with the term "open source", that time has long passed.
As far as I'm concerned, open source means exactly that - the source is open.
Good for you. I suppose you think that a hot dog is a canine at a higher than normal temperature too.
Language does not work the way you claim it does.
...creating an application to automatically modify a phone's settings depending on its location, which they say "wouldn't even be possible on an iPhone."
What about creating a trojan which automatically modifies a phone's settings depending on the whim of its creator?
A bazaar-style marketplace sounds all well and good, but the open approach of YouTube doesn't necessarily fly with potentially malicious code.
"Apple has discovered that many of the unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs available on the Internet cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software, which will likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed"
(From http://www.google.com/search?btnI=I'm%20Feeling%20Lucky&q=iphone+apple+statement+firmware+modified)
It's really not Apple's job to be writing workarounds for jailbroken phones (and exhaustively testing them -- what if the workarounds adversely affected unjailbroken iPhones?)
However, I would argue it is Apple's job to design the iPhone such that no changes (other than physically invasive ones) can ever cause the phone to be "permanently inoperable". And if they can't provide information to the user on how to reset the iPhone to factory defaults, they should bear the burden of repairing it.
Respectfully, I disagree. They wouldn't care if people were executed for it. The responsbility for that would be on the people making the purchase, it would be up to them to avoid being caught. Really, they don't even care now if they ruin somebody's life by transferring all their money out of their account. "Better you than me!"
Yes, but the people being executed would care. I agree that you can't appeal to spammers or their sponsors with moral arguments, but people are largely self-interested when it comes to preserving their own lives!
Ha. Yeah, that's why some states in the USA don't have people commiting murder anymore.
Point taken, but I think the risk-benefit tradeoff weighs more favourably for murderers. And it's hard to believe that people would be off buying fake rolexes as a crime of passion ;)
And if Google made cars, they'd sell the ones with dodgy suspension and ecu to the public by the million!
And they'd still be better than everyone else's v1.0 cars...
Like I said, it's info that is difficult to dig up.
We're talking about a hypothetical situation in which people are executed for buying products through spam. You're claiming that in such a world, information about whether or not people buy products as a result of spam is difficult to dig up.
I don't think so. Even if it were, the thought process would run something like: "Hmm, will anyone actually buy this as a result of me employing someone to send out spam? Well, if they do, they'll be executed for it. I guess not, then."
Do you think out of 6 billion people on this planet, 0 would say yes to that?
On the planet as it is, you'd probably get a few takers. On a planet in which they would also lose their lives, you wouldn't. Or at least if you were trying to work out whether asking 6 billion people (which carries some associated cost) would net you enough $20s to make it worthwhile, you'd quickly come to the conclusion that it wouldn't.
Could you please elaborate with specific references?
How about the constitution?
http://www.answers.com/topic/specific