This is no fair comparison. You get to learn the rules, so should the computer learn the basic rules (which means some kind of chess program). The difference should be that there is no extra information other than the basic rules available at the beginning. And no specific algorithm to learn the game, it has to be something the computer can do on it's own. But even then i doubt that we'll have intelligent computers. Everytime we define some goal which will indicate real AI when reached we see how it's just not AI when we reach it.
"Nuclear weapons, as illogical as it may sound, save lives."
It not only does sound illogical, it is. Your argument only stands if nuclear weapons will never be used on a great scale. I hope you're right but i doubt it
"As horrific the destruction caused by the 2 atomic bombs, those bombs saved American and Japanese lives."
Why was it not possible to use those horrific weapons against less populated areas and threaten to use it against citys if they would not surrender? Would have saved more lives than eradicating two big citys.
"If we found a cure for AIDS, there's no doubt in my mind that we'd share it."
Well, think again. There are combinations of medication which almost stops aids. You can't cure it but we're quite good at controlling it for a whole lifespan. The problem is that the medicaments are way to expensive for almost everyone in africa and so we'll see millions dying in the next years while people infected here (US, Europe) will live quite a normal life with aids.
It's not like we keep it secret but we keep the price up so they can't buy them
"- We were promised Virtual Reality with VR Helmets more than 10 years ago - is this _just_ a matter of hardware?"
yes, the vr helmets are too expensive and uncomfortable. I agree with your other points but with this it's just the hardware (gamers would jump on this if it was not that expensive)
"If this guy is getting 25% of the people he deals with like he says then I have a hard time beliving that there isn't some heavy pressure here"
Those people come to him because they have a problem which is solved by a reinstalation of windows (yeah, there might be another way but sometimes it's the easiest way). Why so hard to believe that those people aren't too fond of windows? 25% doesn't seem too much
>I will agree that losing Britney Spears isn't a bad thing but what about the Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Aerosmith, hell, even Guns N Roses? There is a lot of music already out there and a lot of people like them.
Well, i didn't say that this wouldn't involve some sort of sacrifice. Making a choice doesn't guarantee you that you don't have to sacrifice. So maybe you won't be able to listen to the Beatles for some years because the peoples who "own" the Beatles offer you contracts you can't accept. So you have three joices: 1, Accept and live with that 2, Try to push them to offer different contracts 3, Think about the way we percieve ownership and change the society you're living in accordingly
I would opt for number 3. Boycott is 2. Circumventing DRM or just bitching about it but purchasing songs from Itunes is 1.
>You may say "well, I won't buy product X if it comes with an unacceptable license" but that's kind of a moot point when product X is for all intents and purposes only available under an unacceptable license.
Well, than you'll have the choice of not buying product X at all. I don't see a problem as long as product X is really needed to support your life. As long as we talk about trivial things as music you just have to live with the consequences (i actually don't think that you'll really have to live with the consequences most of the time because the companies will give up their idiotic standpoint. But that won't happen as long as you aren't really willing to accept the consequences if needed)
you're right, it goes much further. But it is not a problem with basic principle of accepting a contract and having to live with its consequences but the problem of unjust laws which enforce bullshit onto us. I never accepted a contract which said "you're not allowed to seed a corn with this and this dna". So resist against those laws. What boycott is to companies is resistance against your goverment.
>Take childeren's factories in third world countries. You could say "hey, they didn't have to work there you know," but it shows that you don't get it
no, this argument shows that you don't get it. Their situation: I have to work as a small child so that i don't starve Your sitation: I just want to listen to artist XY because.
The big difference is that their problem poses a moral problem for me. I'll boycott every company which exploits children. I wouldn't boycott a company just because you didn't get the enjoyment you think that you're entitled to even you willingly and without any (real) pressure accepted their contract. It's your problem.
>In doing this, it's not possible to do business which are unfair to the customer, and as such those business pratices simply disappear
yeah, that's really something we need legislation. Because there is really no way in a market how people could punish offerings which are unfair to them
> What's left? Business that treats the customer fairly.
no. Business which knows how to influence politicians how to create laws which don't inflict them too much. Bussiness which treats the costumer fairly is created by costumers choosing the company which produces the best product for them
>It is a complex problem which does not have a simple solution
You're right with that. But there is a simple solution for everyone who really thought about DRM. Boycott it. So 80% of people will accept it and major corporations will continue to use DRM to screw those 80%. SO WHAT? They'll have to live with it. Maybe the other 20% can make up a new market where you don't have to accept those terms (and probably we'll have much, much better music. I don't see losing the opportunity to listen to Britney Spears as a real loss.)
But you're not stuck with them. You chose to accept them. If DRM on music is so bad then boycott it. If you think that IP on seeds is bad then boycott the companies which use IP to protect their seeds.
It's just the illusion that we need a perfect boycott to hurt companies that much that they'll give in that makes people passive. You don't have to be a supermoral person on every decision you make. Buy dvds and boycott companies which use IP to protect "their" seeds. Boycott dvds and buy from imoral food companies. At least you're doing *something*. There are enough of us so that will show up as real lost money for the companies so they'll change their tactics.
Remember companies especially corporations are only keen on profits. So either we change this basic system or we play by their rules and defeat them within them.
no, it's not. It is not a critical sector to substain your life and we just choose to accept the limitations those firms impose on us.
>Because the companies who make movies are the same companies who control the "electronics" market, consumers didn't have a choice
We did have a choice. It's really a sign of the weakness of our society (or our race) if the outlook of not being able to consume videos leaves most with the impression that they don't have a choice.
Just don't buy dvds. Just for one year. What do you think who will be hurt more by that. You or the media industry?
I didn't say that they would stop there. I think it's a good idea to resist now to show them that we won't accept even that so they don't even consider expanding it onto other, more important areas.
I said that you don't have a *right* to first accept the terms and then complain about them. Start fighting now by just refusing their contracts. Not by discussing the terms afterwards.
>Believe it or not there are limits to what a contract can do
i know but i don't think that this is a good idea
>They do not have the right to restrict my fair use of their product no matter what their license agreement is
if you feel this way you shouldn't accepted their contract. It's not like you didn't know
>The solution to the problem would be pretty simple if everyone would just stop purchasing content that is DRM protected.
I agree
> This is not a realistic goal however so please, find another method
Why should i? There is a perfectly simple solution, why should i be forced to show another solution just because of the ignorance of other people?
>Why should I pay for music in digital format when I already have a cd with music stored in a digital format? It doesn't make sense
I didn't contest that. I think you're right in this point so why would you accept a contract which states that you're not allowed what you think is right?
yes i meant that, english is not my first language so i (sometimes|usually) mess it up.
If it's a problem for you than act on it. I didn't say that i think that it's a good idea to accept it just that you don't have a *right* to accept those contracts and then bitch about it (not you personally)
Music just isn't the same. It's not that important. And if it's as important to you than make you're decision by voting with your money (which would be a good idea IMHO)
Many here on slashdot will attack them for their viewpoint but basically they're right. So what do i mean with "basically"? You, the consumers, should have no obligation to go into contract with anyone if you don't like the conditions. But the people offering stuff have exactly the same right. So if they choose to use terms like "we have the right to fuck you in the ass if you purchase this music file" then they have every right to do so and if you accept those contracts you gonna have to put up with something you most probably don't like. But this is your CHOICE.
This hole topic is just not a problem. If you don't like big corporations using DRM to violate your rights (the way you percive them) then don't use their services. It's not like we're talking food or other essential stuff, just ignore their offering and they'll learn by themself. Any other behaviour either encourages them or weakens your standpoint.
I can't give a you a URL to the specific case. The source is a friend of mine who's with the police. He was directly involved in the investigation.
But if you can read german: http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/184b.html I can't translate it all (as you can guess english is not my first language and the formulations in german law texts are quite complicated) but the headline "Verbreitung, Erwerb und Besitz kinderpornographischer Schriften" translates to "distribution, acquisition and posession of child pornography" so posession is clearly a crime which can be punished with up to two years prison
The crime is posession. I know a case where police raided several homes because one picture of a cdrom full of porn pictures which you could order via internet was child porn. Most people didn't even notice it (several thousand pictures on one cd) but still got prosecuted for posessing child porn.
Slashdot Mirror
somehow i can't help but be sceptical of a scientist named Farnsworth
colbert, you post on slashdot?
Nice quote. Btw. it's "Arbeit macht frei"
I remember reading something about sex on a russian space mission but it probably was a hoax (couldn't google anything to support it)
But i found something else: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_in_space
This is no fair comparison. You get to learn the rules, so should the computer learn the basic rules (which means some kind of chess program). The difference should be that there is no extra information other than the basic rules available at the beginning. And no specific algorithm to learn the game, it has to be something the computer can do on it's own. But even then i doubt that we'll have intelligent computers. Everytime we define some goal which will indicate real AI when reached we see how it's just not AI when we reach it.
"Nuclear weapons, as illogical as it may sound, save lives."
It not only does sound illogical, it is. Your argument only stands if nuclear weapons will never be used on a great scale. I hope you're right but i doubt it
"As horrific the destruction caused by the 2 atomic bombs, those bombs saved American and Japanese lives."
Why was it not possible to use those horrific weapons against less populated areas and threaten to use it against citys if they would not surrender? Would have saved more lives than eradicating two big citys.
"If we found a cure for AIDS, there's no doubt in my mind that we'd share it."
Well, think again. There are combinations of medication which almost stops aids. You can't cure it but we're quite good at controlling it for a whole lifespan.
The problem is that the medicaments are way to expensive for almost everyone in africa and so we'll see millions dying in the next years while people infected here (US, Europe) will live quite a normal life with aids.
It's not like we keep it secret but we keep the price up so they can't buy them
"- We were promised Virtual Reality with VR Helmets more than 10 years ago - is this _just_ a matter of hardware?"
yes, the vr helmets are too expensive and uncomfortable. I agree with your other points but with this it's just the hardware (gamers would jump on this if it was not that expensive)
"If this guy is getting 25% of the people he deals with like he says then I have a hard time beliving that there isn't some heavy pressure here" Those people come to him because they have a problem which is solved by a reinstalation of windows (yeah, there might be another way but sometimes it's the easiest way). Why so hard to believe that those people aren't too fond of windows? 25% doesn't seem too much
common sense. Try not to eat for one week. Tell me how this compares to not being able to listen to music for one week.
>I will agree that losing Britney Spears isn't a bad thing but what about the Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Aerosmith, hell, even Guns N Roses? There is a lot of music already out there and a lot of people like them.
Well, i didn't say that this wouldn't involve some sort of sacrifice. Making a choice doesn't guarantee you that you don't have to sacrifice. So maybe you won't be able to listen to the Beatles for some years because the peoples who "own" the Beatles offer you contracts you can't accept. So you have three joices:
1, Accept and live with that
2, Try to push them to offer different contracts
3, Think about the way we percieve ownership and change the society you're living in accordingly
I would opt for number 3. Boycott is 2. Circumventing DRM or just bitching about it but purchasing songs from Itunes is 1.
>You may say "well, I won't buy product X if it comes with an unacceptable license" but that's kind of a moot point when product X is for all intents and purposes only available under an unacceptable license.
Well, than you'll have the choice of not buying product X at all. I don't see a problem as long as product X is really needed to support your life. As long as we talk about trivial things as music you just have to live with the consequences (i actually don't think that you'll really have to live with the consequences most of the time because the companies will give up their idiotic standpoint. But that won't happen as long as you aren't really willing to accept the consequences if needed)
you're right, it goes much further. But it is not a problem with basic principle of accepting a contract and having to live with its consequences but the problem of unjust laws which enforce bullshit onto us. I never accepted a contract which said "you're not allowed to seed a corn with this and this dna". So resist against those laws. What boycott is to companies is resistance against your goverment.
>Take childeren's factories in third world countries. You could say "hey, they didn't have to work there you know," but it shows that you don't get it
no, this argument shows that you don't get it.
Their situation: I have to work as a small child so that i don't starve
Your sitation: I just want to listen to artist XY because.
The big difference is that their problem poses a moral problem for me. I'll boycott every company which exploits children. I wouldn't boycott a company just because you didn't get the enjoyment you think that you're entitled to even you willingly and without any (real) pressure accepted their contract. It's your problem.
>In doing this, it's not possible to do business which are unfair to the customer, and as such those business pratices simply disappear
yeah, that's really something we need legislation. Because there is really no way in a market how people could punish offerings which are unfair to them
> What's left? Business that treats the customer fairly.
no. Business which knows how to influence politicians how to create laws which don't inflict them too much.
Bussiness which treats the costumer fairly is created by costumers choosing the company which produces the best product for them
>It is a complex problem which does not have a simple solution
You're right with that. But there is a simple solution for everyone who really thought about DRM. Boycott it. So 80% of people will accept it and major corporations will continue to use DRM to screw those 80%. SO WHAT? They'll have to live with it. Maybe the other 20% can make up a new market where you don't have to accept those terms (and probably we'll have much, much better music. I don't see losing the opportunity to listen to Britney Spears as a real loss.)
But you're not stuck with them. You chose to accept them. If DRM on music is so bad then boycott it. If you think that IP on seeds is bad then boycott the companies which use IP to protect their seeds.
It's just the illusion that we need a perfect boycott to hurt companies that much that they'll give in that makes people passive. You don't have to be a supermoral person on every decision you make. Buy dvds and boycott companies which use IP to protect "their" seeds. Boycott dvds and buy from imoral food companies. At least you're doing *something*. There are enough of us so that will show up as real lost money for the companies so they'll change their tactics.
Remember companies especially corporations are only keen on profits. So either we change this basic system or we play by their rules and defeat them within them.
>It's very different in the case of DVD, though
no, it's not. It is not a critical sector to substain your life and we just choose to accept the limitations those firms impose on us.
>Because the companies who make movies are the same companies who control the "electronics" market, consumers didn't have a choice
We did have a choice. It's really a sign of the weakness of our society (or our race) if the outlook of not being able to consume videos leaves most with the impression that they don't have a choice.
Just don't buy dvds. Just for one year. What do you think who will be hurt more by that. You or the media industry?
I didn't say that they would stop there. I think it's a good idea to resist now to show them that we won't accept even that so they don't even consider expanding it onto other, more important areas.
I said that you don't have a *right* to first accept the terms and then complain about them. Start fighting now by just refusing their contracts. Not by discussing the terms afterwards.
>Believe it or not there are limits to what a contract can do
i know but i don't think that this is a good idea
>They do not have the right to restrict my fair use of their product no matter what their license agreement is
if you feel this way you shouldn't accepted their contract. It's not like you didn't know
>The solution to the problem would be pretty simple if everyone would just stop purchasing content that is DRM protected.
I agree
> This is not a realistic goal however so please, find another method
Why should i? There is a perfectly simple solution, why should i be forced to show another solution just because of the ignorance of other people?
>Why should I pay for music in digital format when I already have a cd with music stored in a digital format? It doesn't make sense
I didn't contest that. I think you're right in this point so why would you accept a contract which states that you're not allowed what you think is right?
yes i meant that, english is not my first language so i (sometimes|usually) mess it up.
If it's a problem for you than act on it. I didn't say that i think that it's a good idea to accept it just that you don't have a *right* to accept those contracts and then bitch about it (not you personally)
I can see a reason. IT'S FOOD!
Music just isn't the same. It's not that important. And if it's as important to you than make you're decision by voting with your money (which would be a good idea IMHO)
Many here on slashdot will attack them for their viewpoint but basically they're right. So what do i mean with "basically"?
You, the consumers, should have no obligation to go into contract with anyone if you don't like the conditions. But the people offering stuff have exactly the same right. So if they choose to use terms like "we have the right to fuck you in the ass if you purchase this music file" then they have every right to do so and if you accept those contracts you gonna have to put up with something you most probably don't like. But this is your CHOICE.
This hole topic is just not a problem. If you don't like big corporations using DRM to violate your rights (the way you percive them) then don't use their services. It's not like we're talking food or other essential stuff, just ignore their offering and they'll learn by themself. Any other behaviour either encourages them or weakens your standpoint.
I can't give a you a URL to the specific case. The source is a friend of mine who's with the police. He was directly involved in the investigation.
But if you can read german: http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/184b.html
I can't translate it all (as you can guess english is not my first language and the formulations in german law texts are quite complicated) but the headline "Verbreitung, Erwerb und Besitz kinderpornographischer Schriften" translates to "distribution, acquisition and posession of child pornography" so posession is clearly a crime which can be punished with up to two years prison
The crime is posession. I know a case where police raided several homes because one picture of a cdrom full of porn pictures which you could order via internet was child porn. Most people didn't even notice it (several thousand pictures on one cd) but still got prosecuted for posessing child porn.
don't be sorry, i think it's very fascinating too. Thank you for your explanation