Mice are pretty smart, I'd argue that the current AIs are at insect level of "intelligence".
Maybe.....this just looks like a probabilistic classifier, insects are capable of more than that.
Basically, what we have now are the neural nets we already had 50 years ago,
That's going a little too far: 50 years ago people were experimenting with perceptrons. The networks we use now are more advanced than that in capabilities.
The courts have already ruled that there was infringement. So as much as you disagree, your opinion doesn't matter much (unless you can convince many other people like you to change the laws).
In Google vs Oracle, it has been decided that Google was infringing. Now the trial has continued onward, and they are trying to determine if Google has a fair use defense.
The essence of Oracle's argument is that they want to hold declarative structures as "copyrightable",
No, they already won that argument. APIs have been ruled copyrightable. The End. (A supreme court ruling could change that in the future, though).
If Oracle were to win this case, it would hand ***far too much power*** to any first-to-file player in the copyright space.
You don't file copyrights, man. For example, the comment you just wrote is copyrighted, even though you didn't file anywhere.
Make no mistake, an Oracle win could be a DISASTER for the software community, most especially the FOSS community.
No, if Oracle wins, then the world will say, "Oh, Google should have done a better job making sure their copying was 'fair use.' Fortunately, copying for interoperability purposes has already been ruled fair use in many cases, so only Google is screwed here."
Google recently switched to openJDK, so there's no longer any legal reason for them to switch. They are now protected by the GPL (they weren't before).
Additionally, that whole 'dress color' kerfuffle shows that image recognition can be a difficult task even for the human brain...which has been specifically designed and built over thousands of years to do that very thing.
I think it shows that some colors display differently on different monitors.
IBM - Watson, a computer that can win at Jeopardy
Google - AlphaGo, a computer that wins at Go
Microsoft - Tay, a racist chatbot
Is there really a comparison? Even if Microsoft has some decent technology, they're definitely losing on the marketing front, they are making themselves look like dancing monkey cousins.
Your website claims a bunch of things are the effect of AGW. The papers I linked to showed we can't determine that with any certainty. This is another example of confusion happening when translating from science papers to the non-scientific media sources.
No joke, that's my experience with homeless people, they have poor money management skills. A lot of them actually have skills and can make plenty of money (I know one guy who can pull in $2000 a week), but when they get money it burns a hole in their pocket.
If you know homeless people who aren't like that, I would love to meet them.
Also worth adding that not all mentally ill people are homeless (most aren't)......and to some degree most of us probably have weirdnesses going on in our heads. We've just learned to deal well enough with them to manage life.
The ones who are homeless almost all are homeless because they also have poor money management skills.
Java is GPL'd, and Google didn't use Oracles/Sun Java machine anyway. So YES Google can use Oracles code because it's GPLd and Oracle agreed to that in the GPL. Do you mean "can Oracle back out of the GPL contract?" because no they can't.
This is a horrible misunderstanding of the case: it has nothing to do with the GPL because Google didn't follow the terms of the GPL (if they had, this case would have been done with long ago, as the FSF pointed out in their brief to the supreme court).
The question is, can Google use a piece of software that implements the same API as Oracle's/Sun Java. As if the API can be separated from the software somehow you can GPL the software without GPL'ing the API it implements. Fat fooking chance.
That's the question right now. The appeals court decided that yes, Oracle can own the copyright on the API. The question is whether Google has a fair use defense (and it will be an interesting case, worth following closely); but again, it has nothing to do with the GPL.
It covers transportation too, e.g. Brazil's switch to ethanol fueled cars, but it's talking about market transitions, switching new sales to non-fossil-fuel equipment, not eliminating old equipment.
Unless there was an unused nuke plant just sitting around doing nothing (or a new plant was brought online), where did that replacement capacity come from?
Wow, if only there were a global search engine brimming with information, waiting for you to type in a query. I'll bet you could find the answer to that, if such a thing existed.
For example, Ontario completed a shift away from coal between 2003 and 2014;... and France's nuclear power programme saw supply rocket from four per cent of the electricity supply market in 1970 to 40 per cent in 1982.
So with a little political will, large changes can be made to our electricity generation system rather quickly. It would mean embracing nuclear, though.
You try building something as complex as a modern web browser, and snap your fingers and make it secure. If it's that easy.
It's a matter of priorities. If they spent more time clearing out their bug list, and less time building new features that no one wants (like pocket, or weird UI changes), the browser would be much more secure. In fact, if I were in charge at Mozilla, that would be the first thing I would do: allocate several months to fixing the most serious bugs, and then allocate enough time each month thereafter that bug count is reduced each month, instead of going up.
At some point, we will have to find a reasonable solution to the problem of something which is strong enough for us, but in some way allows the government (with an appropriate warrant) to access data
The solution is here: Apple can no longer decrypt random iphones. That's it. There are bills that have been written to change that, but none are expected to even show up on the floor of the house of congress or the senate.
Slashdot Mirror
Until you ask it whether time flies like an arrow, and what color are the flies.
Mice are pretty smart, I'd argue that the current AIs are at insect level of "intelligence".
Maybe.....this just looks like a probabilistic classifier, insects are capable of more than that.
Basically, what we have now are the neural nets we already had 50 years ago,
That's going a little too far: 50 years ago people were experimenting with perceptrons. The networks we use now are more advanced than that in capabilities.
The courts have already ruled that there was infringement. So as much as you disagree, your opinion doesn't matter much (unless you can convince many other people like you to change the laws).
In Google vs Oracle, it has been decided that Google was infringing. Now the trial has continued onward, and they are trying to determine if Google has a fair use defense.
The essence of Oracle's argument is that they want to hold declarative structures as "copyrightable",
No, they already won that argument. APIs have been ruled copyrightable. The End. (A supreme court ruling could change that in the future, though).
If Oracle were to win this case, it would hand ***far too much power*** to any first-to-file player in the copyright space.
You don't file copyrights, man. For example, the comment you just wrote is copyrighted, even though you didn't file anywhere.
Make no mistake, an Oracle win could be a DISASTER for the software community, most especially the FOSS community.
No, if Oracle wins, then the world will say, "Oh, Google should have done a better job making sure their copying was 'fair use.' Fortunately, copying for interoperability purposes has already been ruled fair use in many cases, so only Google is screwed here."
The quote comes from testimony in the first trial.....I think Google lawyers know about it.
Google recently switched to openJDK, so they are good now, that is they are no longer infringing.
Google recently switched to openJDK, so there's no longer any legal reason for them to switch. They are now protected by the GPL (they weren't before).
Additionally, that whole 'dress color' kerfuffle shows that image recognition can be a difficult task even for the human brain...which has been specifically designed and built over thousands of years to do that very thing.
I think it shows that some colors display differently on different monitors.
As an online discussion grows longer, doesn't the probability of every topic coming up approach 1? This isn't systemd or anything.
IBM - Watson, a computer that can win at Jeopardy
Google - AlphaGo, a computer that wins at Go
Microsoft - Tay, a racist chatbot
Is there really a comparison? Even if Microsoft has some decent technology, they're definitely losing on the marketing front, they are making themselves look like dancing monkey cousins.
Your website claims a bunch of things are the effect of AGW. The papers I linked to showed we can't determine that with any certainty. This is another example of confusion happening when translating from science papers to the non-scientific media sources.
No joke, that's my experience with homeless people, they have poor money management skills. A lot of them actually have skills and can make plenty of money (I know one guy who can pull in $2000 a week), but when they get money it burns a hole in their pocket.
If you know homeless people who aren't like that, I would love to meet them.
Also worth adding that not all mentally ill people are homeless (most aren't)......and to some degree most of us probably have weirdnesses going on in our heads. We've just learned to deal well enough with them to manage life.
The ones who are homeless almost all are homeless because they also have poor money management skills.
You kind of have to wonder what they talked about for six hours.
Java is GPL'd, and Google didn't use Oracles/Sun Java machine anyway. So YES Google can use Oracles code because it's GPLd and Oracle agreed to that in the GPL. Do you mean "can Oracle back out of the GPL contract?" because no they can't.
This is a horrible misunderstanding of the case: it has nothing to do with the GPL because Google didn't follow the terms of the GPL (if they had, this case would have been done with long ago, as the FSF pointed out in their brief to the supreme court).
The question is, can Google use a piece of software that implements the same API as Oracle's/Sun Java. As if the API can be separated from the software somehow you can GPL the software without GPL'ing the API it implements. Fat fooking chance.
That's the question right now. The appeals court decided that yes, Oracle can own the copyright on the API. The question is whether Google has a fair use defense (and it will be an interesting case, worth following closely); but again, it has nothing to do with the GPL.
It covers transportation too, e.g. Brazil's switch to ethanol fueled cars, but it's talking about market transitions, switching new sales to non-fossil-fuel equipment, not eliminating old equipment.
Yeah, you're right, I misread the links.
You can always try this browser.
Unless there was an unused nuke plant just sitting around doing nothing (or a new plant was brought online), where did that replacement capacity come from?
Wow, if only there were a global search engine brimming with information, waiting for you to type in a query. I'll bet you could find the answer to that, if such a thing existed.
Renewable don't do that.
That's true, but the article isn't saying we have to shift to renewables.
What did Ontario shift to between 2003 and 2014? I'm betting some other form of fossil fuel.
From what I understand, they're mostly nuclear. (Seriously, it took me five minutes to find that on Google, you could have done it).
That's true, but Firefox has reached next-level on the insecurity metrics.
Yes, we'll just replace EVERY car, truck, bus, motorcycle, and every other existing conveyance that uses an internal combustion engine. No PROBLEM!
That's what I thought at first too, but the paper is talking about generating electricity, not transportation.
For example, Ontario completed a shift away from coal between 2003 and 2014; ... and France's nuclear power programme saw supply rocket from four per cent of the electricity supply market in 1970 to 40 per cent in 1982.
So with a little political will, large changes can be made to our electricity generation system rather quickly. It would mean embracing nuclear, though.
You try building something as complex as a modern web browser, and snap your fingers and make it secure. If it's that easy.
It's a matter of priorities. If they spent more time clearing out their bug list, and less time building new features that no one wants (like pocket, or weird UI changes), the browser would be much more secure. In fact, if I were in charge at Mozilla, that would be the first thing I would do: allocate several months to fixing the most serious bugs, and then allocate enough time each month thereafter that bug count is reduced each month, instead of going up.
Given that it's Firefox, they probably have as many zero-days as they want. Firefox doesn't seem to take security seriously, for whatever reason.
At some point, we will have to find a reasonable solution to the problem of something which is strong enough for us, but in some way allows the government (with an appropriate warrant) to access data
The solution is here: Apple can no longer decrypt random iphones. That's it. There are bills that have been written to change that, but none are expected to even show up on the floor of the house of congress or the senate.