I've read articles about software that could learn your response reactions and then create music that you like by trying out diffferent melodies etc. and remembering what you like and putting the elements of what youlike together into songs. A more sophisticated version could weave plot elements and characters that you like (possibly with more sophiticated input from you) to create personalized novels for you.
now here's the question! If you publish a story that was personalized for you, can you be sued by the creator of the software, and how would they be able to prove it was created by their software?!
I've been a musician for 21 years and for some of those years i've made a living of it. Whether i was making a profit or not, I continue to make music and record. It's what i do. it's what any true musician does. If we didn't have this huge industry all we would lose is the machine cramming insincere bullshit at us all the time. Music is more available than ever, which is the ultimate point. Most musicians get screwed over by the machine anyway, some of whom never come back.
In any case musicians realize at this point that the revenue model is changing and the real money is to be made in touring (and merchandise) (where it was for most musicians anyway). Times are changing, go with the flow, get used to it.
My intention was not to describe the purpose of locks, I was saying that by putting locks on a car and selling it that way, the manufacturer is implying that the locks have some proficiency at preventing your car from being stolen.
I realize that this doesn't have really anything to do with the thief's crime of stealing, other than the implicit ability of the product to prevent said crime.
It does nothing to excuse the crime, this is more of a question about the relationship between the manufacturer and purchaser and the resonable expectations of the purchaser.
Yeah:), The quote I liked was at the end: "Believe me, there was nobody more shook up than I was."
Really? Did you immediately cancel the contract with MicroVote? Have you suspended electronic voting until there is an open source option that permits auditing of the code by independent parties? No? Then I don't believe you.
The problem, really, is the value we place on human life. By assuming that saving, or rather, extension, of human lives affected by amenable diseases is paramount, we implicitly assume that a current human life is worth more than a potential future life...
What are you saying here?
this sounds like some of that "but what about the children" hysteria (at best)
like bill hicks says "at what age do i drop off your love list?"
saving, or rather, extension, of human lives IS paramount and i don't see why that has to be mutually exclusive with saving future lives and even if it was, yes, we should be concerned first about the people who are already here. if they die, there won't be any children. Restated, if the parents die before the children are created, then who have you saved?
Also, it sounds like you are saying that it is not important to save (or, pardon me extend) the lives of certain people who are susceptible to certain diseases, because if we let them die, future generations will be bred by people resistent to these diseases. I'm sorry, but that is not an acceptable or prudent strategy.
Believe me, I'm all for nanotechnology, it's inevitable anyway, but human safety has to be of the highest priority or we wont last long enough to enjoy it.
perhaps i've misunderstood you, but you did start that paragraph off with "The problem, really, is the value we place on human life.":))?!?!
I think it's a good idea to put computers in schools, but I see giving some students laptops as opposed to having a compter class with maybe twice as many desktops stations as a real mistake (analogous to the NEA giving 10 artist $1 million instead of 1000 artists $10,000). It just seems like won't really address the fact that ALL students are going to need to have a computer education and if they don't they might as well get a shoe shine kit now and get to work.
Slashdot Mirror
I've read articles about software that could learn your response reactions and then create music that you like by trying out diffferent melodies etc. and remembering what you like and putting the elements of what youlike together into songs. A more sophisticated version could weave plot elements and characters that you like (possibly with more sophiticated input from you) to create personalized novels for you.
now here's the question! If you publish a story that was personalized for you, can you be sued by the creator of the software, and how would they be able to prove it was created by their software?!
Music will continue to get made no matter what.
I've been a musician for 21 years and for some of those years i've made a living of it. Whether i was making a profit or not, I continue to make music and record. It's what i do. it's what any true musician does. If we didn't have this huge industry all we would lose is the machine cramming insincere bullshit at us all the time. Music is more available than ever, which is the ultimate point. Most musicians get screwed over by the machine anyway, some of whom never come back.
In any case musicians realize at this point that the revenue model is changing and the real money is to be made in touring (and merchandise) (where it was for most musicians anyway). Times are changing, go with the flow, get used to it.
My intention was not to describe the purpose of locks, I was saying that by putting locks on a car and selling it that way, the manufacturer is implying that the locks have some proficiency at preventing your car from being stolen.
I realize that this doesn't have really anything to do with the thief's crime of stealing, other than the implicit ability of the product to prevent said crime.
It does nothing to excuse the crime, this is more of a question about the relationship between the manufacturer and purchaser and the resonable expectations of the purchaser.
don't you think that a car with a lock has an implied ability to deter crime?
Yeah :),
The quote I liked was at the end: "Believe me, there was nobody more shook up than I was."
Really? Did you immediately cancel the contract with MicroVote? Have you suspended electronic voting until there is an open source option that permits auditing of the code by independent parties? No? Then I don't believe you.
I had to run out during Matrix Revolutions, luckily there were plenty of opportunities!!!
The problem, really, is the value we place on human life. By assuming that saving, or rather, extension, of human lives affected by amenable diseases is paramount, we implicitly assume that a current human life is worth more than a potential future life...
:))?!?!
What are you saying here?
this sounds like some of that "but what about the children" hysteria (at best)
like bill hicks says "at what age do i drop off your love list?"
saving, or rather, extension, of human lives IS paramount and i don't see why that has to be mutually exclusive with saving future lives and even if it was, yes, we should be concerned first about the people who are already here. if they die, there won't be any children. Restated, if the parents die before the children are created, then who have you saved?
Also, it sounds like you are saying that it is not important to save (or, pardon me extend) the lives of certain people who are susceptible to certain diseases, because if we let them die, future generations will be bred by people resistent to these diseases. I'm sorry, but that is not an acceptable or prudent strategy.
Believe me, I'm all for nanotechnology, it's inevitable anyway, but human safety has to be of the highest priority or we wont last long enough to enjoy it.
perhaps i've misunderstood you, but you did start that paragraph off with "The problem, really, is the value we place on human life."
Parasitic and hard to get rid of
yeah, now we work up to slime molds then spongiforms and on up the evolutionary ladder.
I think it's a good idea to put computers in schools, but I see giving some students laptops as opposed to having a compter class with maybe twice as many desktops stations as a real mistake (analogous to the NEA giving 10 artist $1 million instead of 1000 artists $10,000). It just seems like won't really address the fact that ALL students are going to need to have a computer education and if they don't they might as well get a shoe shine kit now and get to work.