Humans will be responsible for how correct the data is. Humans will be responsible for using the data responsibly. Humans will be responsible for using the data honestly.
I don't think it's possible to work around that. With the amount of power the database represents, and the already mentioned downsides, I don't trust ANY humans with that job.
It's not about being invisible, it's about human nature.
The database will be -
1. Imperfect 2. Abused by government employees 3. Illegally accessed and sold on for profit
1 means you'd get your name dragged through the muck anyway and have LESS chance of getting off, even if you didn't commit the crime.
2 that some people will get stalked by crazy ex spouses/lovers/stalkers/whatever. There will also be cases of it facilitating some petty authoritarian's revenge schemes
If an electronic engineer screws up a piece of electronics stops working.
And they do all the time. By your measure, electronic engineers aren't engineers either. Likewise anyone working on unmanned flight. Or satellites.
Your "if they screw up people die" thing is nonsense. Does that make software engineers on weapons systems real engineers, but those in banking systems not engineers?
"If I were applying for a programming job, and the interviewer told me that my title was going to be "software engineer," you know what I'd do? I'd laugh at him"
And he'd throw you out, good job. Come back when you have a degree in Software Engineering and a few years commercial experience.
Dear god no! javascript already infects too many webpages. It's unnecessary and a blight on what should be the simplest UI going, the search engine. One box, one button, a page of results.
Their search sounds interesting. Shame I'll not be using it now.
They should. It teaches them the foundations of things.
On our course we used a turing machine simulator for a couple of weeks. You can't get much more historical/fundamental than that. It was useful to look at the nucleus of the science and the mathematical foundations. It gave us insight into the basis of all computers, and how/where things were likely not to change in future.
Same can be said of life. Looking at our origins and our species' history helps us explain things like the coccyx.
I've been playing the Orange Box (Half life 2, TF2 Portal) quite happily on ubuntu with Wine.
Sure, you probably want to check online and see if anyone else has had success and/or failure getting it to work before you go out and drop your cash on the game, but when all is well, all is well.
The games look identical on both OS's (Vista/Ubuntu) too, I have tested this.
It's inconsistent because the post I responded to first throws mud at linux users for advocacy, slams linux by saying they need a "stripped down OS" in order to make use of a slow laptop (by his implication, linux is a stripped down OS with little real functionality)... and then goes on to say that the product he appears to be advocating runs like a turd on a dual core machine.
It's inconsistent to slam linux fir running well on old hardware and then admit that vista runs badly even on modern hardware.
You first say that you need a stripped down OS to make an old laptop work properly, then you admit that your Sister's Dual core laptop runs like a dog with Vista.
Linux DOES run better than Vista. Old laptop or new. Now go and learn about consistency of thought.
Really? Seems to me it's walking a fine line between extortion, and making sure workers get a living wage.
Plenty of people are willing to work at below reasonable wages when they're desoperate and/or the employers have colluded to keep wages down. There need to be forces on both sides of this argument and unions are one way the little guys can step to the tabl;e and actually have a serious chance at negotiation.
Please show me how it fits any of those definitions -
"1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully"
To take or appropriate, both of which imply doing so without the owner's permission. If I own a CD and share a copy with a friend, he has my permission. The word "keep" implies the depriving of the original party of the property.
"b: to take away by force or unjust means"
Key word here is "away".
"c: to take surreptitiously or without permission"
Again, the person who owns the CD has given permission.
"d: to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share"
Appropriateing implies force and the exclusive use of something, neither of which are appropriate here.
They are different phenomena. Accept that. Just because they are different doesn't mean that one is acceptable and the other is not, but it does mean we get to look at them differently and it's childish to equate them.
"Weasel words. This is hiding behind a technicality and is only smart if you're immature or a lawyer. Its theft whatever the exact legal definition. The alternative to downloading illegally is to purchase by chosing to do this you deprive the nominal owner of a sale. There is no moral difference to lifting a CD from a record store."
Strange. I would have said It's not theft unless you're -
a) trying to scare 9 year olds who have a simple view of the world b) are an idiot with a simple view of the world
The world isn't black and white, realty is nuanced. Unless you're a retard.
we have different laws surrounding these phenomenon because they are fundamentally different. Stealing a car takes it away from the original owner. copying his car does not. It MAY take money away from ford/GM/whoever, but there's nothing to say that had you been prevented from copying that you would have bought on anyway.
This is not to say that copyright infringement is a good thing or in any way permissable, but you have to be a SERIOUS FUCKING RETARD to not see the difference. Either that or someone who is deliberately trying to muddy the waters and that has a specific, legislative agenda.
No, you can't steal an idea. you can steal a document containing an idea. You can copy an idea but the end of the process the original "owner" of said idea still has it.
Of course that could mean depriving them of money, beating them to the market, ripping them off in any number of ways, but it's not stealing, it's not theft, it's a different phenomenon which is why we have different laws to deal with it. RTeality is not blasck and white. Just because something is a little bit like something else, doesn't mean they're the same.
Was thinking along the same lines myself. It's scary stuff though. Take the PATRIOT act. It contains a lot of nasty, freedom stealing measures, extensions of government power etc etc.
But it got through. Why? Because in a time of national panic (9/11) you wouldn't vote against an act called the Patriot act would you? You are a patriot aren't you?
1. True. And not all work under wine, YMMV as they say. 2. Photoshop has been run under wine and crossover office for years. The CS2 version has the highest possible rating for wine compatibility. 3. Nope, some things running under wine run faster and better. The aforementioned Orange Box, Portal in particular, seems to run slightly better in some ways (load times). And some people, like me, just prefer Ubuntu to Vista.
Look, I'm not saying "You have to run Linux", because that's not useful and I'm not a zealot. Use what you like and what you're good with. I'm just trying to point out that most of the inadequacies you see when you look at Linux are either historical, incorrect, or if they are there (games) they may not be as absolute as people say.
Anyway, whilst I'm no gentoo fan, I love debian and ubuntu. You can run openoffice.org on either and I challenge you to tell me what it is you use on MS Office that OO.o doesn't provide. You can probably run MSOffice under Wine anyway.
And as for games... Well the Orange box works as well under Ubuntu as it does on Vista. Load times are slightly quicker too.
What Adobe software were you talking about? Adobe make a lot of software.
You have to accept that in order to use the code of a particular library, that is under the GPL and you have been given permission to copy under the terms of the GPL, you must open your code. As soon as you link your program to it, you don't have permission to have your copy of the library any more.
It's very well established that the GPL applies to runtime linking as well as static linking. Maybe you ought to read it.
Right, on further investigation (I've downloaded atscap and had a look at the build system) he doesn't seem to use much of other people's code - never believe what you read on slashdot!
What he does is link to libmpeg2, a library under the full (not L) GPL. This qualifies him as a derivative work of libmpeg2 just as much as if he had borrowed the whole lot. So it's true, he is obliged to keep his code open unless, in future versions, he does some sort of rewrite to use a non GPL lib.
Slashdot Mirror
Not government, humans. The problem is humans.
Humans will be responsible for how correct the data is.
Humans will be responsible for using the data responsibly.
Humans will be responsible for using the data honestly.
I don't think it's possible to work around that.
With the amount of power the database represents, and the already mentioned downsides, I don't trust ANY humans with that job.
It's not about being invisible, it's about human nature.
The database will be -
1. Imperfect
2. Abused by government employees
3. Illegally accessed and sold on for profit
1 means you'd get your name dragged through the muck anyway and have LESS chance of getting off, even if you didn't commit the crime.
2 that some people will get stalked by crazy ex spouses/lovers/stalkers/whatever. There will also be cases of it facilitating some petty authoritarian's revenge schemes
3 is a big hello to massive identity theft.
"I would like to have as much confidence in a piece of software as I do in a bridge"
hope you don't get in a plane then. Or need complex surgery. Or drive a car.
If an electronic engineer screws up a piece of electronics stops working.
And they do all the time. By your measure, electronic engineers aren't engineers either.
Likewise anyone working on unmanned flight.
Or satellites.
Your "if they screw up people die" thing is nonsense. Does that make software engineers on weapons systems real engineers, but those in banking systems not engineers?
"If I were applying for a programming job, and the interviewer told me that my title was going to be "software engineer," you know what I'd do? I'd laugh at him"
And he'd throw you out, good job. Come back when you have a degree in Software Engineering and a few years commercial experience.
Come work in real software engineering where that's not acceptable.
On a search engine?
Dear god no! javascript already infects too many webpages. It's unnecessary and a blight on what should be the simplest UI going, the search engine. One box, one button, a page of results.
Their search sounds interesting. Shame I'll not be using it now.
They should. It teaches them the foundations of things.
On our course we used a turing machine simulator for a couple of weeks. You can't get much more historical/fundamental than that. It was useful to look at the nucleus of the science and the mathematical foundations. It gave us insight into the basis of all computers, and how/where things were likely not to change in future.
Same can be said of life. Looking at our origins and our species' history helps us explain things like the coccyx.
I've been playing the Orange Box (Half life 2, TF2 Portal) quite happily on ubuntu with Wine.
Sure, you probably want to check online and see if anyone else has had success and/or failure getting it to work before you go out and drop your cash on the game, but when all is well, all is well.
The games look identical on both OS's (Vista/Ubuntu) too, I have tested this.
Yes.
If we want to look for life on other planets then this research may help us, if it can be shown life is possible or even likely on frozen planets.
"We're here so let's make the most of it."
Yeah, let's not study ourselves, our origins, or science at all. Why bother with history? We're here, lets make the most of it.
Genius.
It's inconsistent because the post I responded to first throws mud at linux users for advocacy, slams linux by saying they need a "stripped down OS" in order to make use of a slow laptop (by his implication, linux is a stripped down OS with little real functionality)... and then goes on to say that the product he appears to be advocating runs like a turd on a dual core machine.
It's inconsistent to slam linux fir running well on old hardware and then admit that vista runs badly even on modern hardware.
Hold on, your post is utter nonsense -
You first say that you need a stripped down OS to make an old laptop work properly, then you admit that your Sister's Dual core laptop runs like a dog with Vista.
Linux DOES run better than Vista. Old laptop or new. Now go and learn about consistency of thought.
Really? Seems to me it's walking a fine line between extortion, and making sure workers get a living wage.
Plenty of people are willing to work at below reasonable wages when they're desoperate and/or the employers have colluded to keep wages down. There need to be forces on both sides of this argument and unions are one way the little guys can step to the tabl;e and actually have a serious chance at negotiation.
Can't argue with that.
Please show me how it fits any of those definitions -
"1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully"
To take or appropriate, both of which imply doing so without the owner's permission. If I own a CD and share a copy with a friend, he has my permission. The word "keep" implies the depriving of the original party of the property.
"b: to take away by force or unjust means"
Key word here is "away".
"c: to take surreptitiously or without permission"
Again, the person who owns the CD has given permission.
"d: to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share"
Appropriateing implies force and the exclusive use of something, neither of which are appropriate here.
They are different phenomena. Accept that. Just because they are different doesn't mean that one is acceptable and the other is not, but it does mean we get to look at them differently and it's childish to equate them.
"Weasel words. This is hiding behind a technicality and is only smart if you're immature or a lawyer. Its theft whatever the exact legal definition. The alternative to downloading illegally is to purchase by chosing to do this you deprive the nominal owner of a sale. There is no moral difference to lifting a CD from a record store."
Strange. I would have said It's not theft unless you're -
a) trying to scare 9 year olds who have a simple view of the world
b) are an idiot with a simple view of the world
The world isn't black and white, realty is nuanced. Unless you're a retard.
we have different laws surrounding these phenomenon because they are fundamentally different. Stealing a car takes it away from the original owner. copying his car does not. It MAY take money away from ford/GM/whoever, but there's nothing to say that had you been prevented from copying that you would have bought on anyway.
This is not to say that copyright infringement is a good thing or in any way permissable, but you have to be a SERIOUS FUCKING RETARD to not see the difference. Either that or someone who is deliberately trying to muddy the waters and that has a specific, legislative agenda.
Which are you?
No, you can't steal an idea. you can steal a document containing an idea. You can copy an idea but the end of the process the original "owner" of said idea still has it.
Of course that could mean depriving them of money, beating them to the market, ripping them off in any number of ways, but it's not stealing, it's not theft, it's a different phenomenon which is why we have different laws to deal with it. RTeality is not blasck and white. Just because something is a little bit like something else, doesn't mean they're the same.
Was thinking along the same lines myself. It's scary stuff though. Take the PATRIOT act. It contains a lot of nasty, freedom stealing measures, extensions of government power etc etc.
But it got through. Why? Because in a time of national panic (9/11) you wouldn't vote against an act called the Patriot act would you? You are a patriot aren't you?
Jingoism and marketing need to die.
1. True. And not all work under wine, YMMV as they say.
2. Photoshop has been run under wine and crossover office for years. The CS2 version has the highest possible rating for wine compatibility.
3. Nope, some things running under wine run faster and better. The aforementioned Orange Box, Portal in particular, seems to run slightly better in some ways (load times). And some people, like me, just prefer Ubuntu to Vista.
Look, I'm not saying "You have to run Linux", because that's not useful and I'm not a zealot. Use what you like and what you're good with. I'm just trying to point out that most of the inadequacies you see when you look at Linux are either historical, incorrect, or if they are there (games) they may not be as absolute as people say.
"creating a class of robots that not only conform to International Law but outperform human soldiers in their ethical capacity"
Sounds easy to me.
Rule 1 - Don't abuse prisoners.
There, we already have a machine that outperforms humans.
Does that include the ordering and delivery process, plus the time spent earning the money it cost?
What uses that?
Anyway, whilst I'm no gentoo fan, I love debian and ubuntu. You can run openoffice.org on either and I challenge you to tell me what it is you use on MS Office that OO.o doesn't provide. You can probably run MSOffice under Wine anyway.
And as for games... Well the Orange box works as well under Ubuntu as it does on Vista. Load times are slightly quicker too.
What Adobe software were you talking about?
Adobe make a lot of software.
Read my comment again numbnuts.
He's not the only copyright holder. He has created a derivative work based on other GPL code, he cannot do what he is doing.
As for your other assertions - he's free to distribute patent encumbered code? Which orifice did you pul that from?
You have to accept that in order to use the code of a particular library, that is under the GPL and you have been given permission to copy under the terms of the GPL, you must open your code. As soon as you link your program to it, you don't have permission to have your copy of the library any more.
It's very well established that the GPL applies to runtime linking as well as static linking. Maybe you ought to read it.
Right, on further investigation (I've downloaded atscap and had a look at the build system) he doesn't seem to use much of other people's code - never believe what you read on slashdot!
What he does is link to libmpeg2, a library under the full (not L) GPL. This qualifies him as a derivative work of libmpeg2 just as much as if he had borrowed the whole lot. So it's true, he is obliged to keep his code open unless, in future versions, he does some sort of rewrite to use a non GPL lib.
His program links against libmpeg2, a library that is under the full GPL license.
He benefited from GPL code and others hard work, he doesn't have much in the way of rights here.