The backup architecture required to efficiently and safely protect this kind of environment would cost easily several hundred thousand dollars and several full time employees to manage.
As opposed to, say, the $700,000k they just paid out.
Well... I wouldn't call it lame bigotry. LOLart, maybe. That would make the "I can has cheezburger" art a meta-LOL. A LOL(LOLcat), if you will. Of course, it would have helped if they spelled cheezburger without an h.
Raise pri--- FOUR, there are FOUR choices. Endure lines, create more supply, curtail demand, and raise prices. And increase the money supply. FIVE choices. I'll come in again.
I suggested that he perform a simpler test - fill the cat's bowl with food and set the bowl down. If the cat sees the bowl and comes, we know what the cat can see - its food bowl.
In that case, my cat can't even see me unless I have food or a cat brush.
--Rob
Re:Anthropomorphizing obvious simulation result
on
Robots Learn To Lie
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There seems to be a whole category of stories here at Slashdot where some obvious result of an AI simulation is spun into something sensational by nonsensically anthropomorphizing it. Robots lie! Computers learn "like" babies!
That, or maybe you're upset that things thought to belong exclusively to the animal kingdom are really just computation (with a bit of noncomputation thrown in, thank you Gödel and Turing).
I hope these intermediate steps that they're eliminating include packaging the documents in an.exe file, and requiring MS Office to be installed. I'm looking at you, Word format!
As a civilisation we are facing Peak Everything [amazon.com] a century of resource decline in the face of population expansion. It's not the End of the World, but you can see it from here, and if we're not careful Things Could Go Poorly.
It depends. Was the tram system designed when Poland was firmly behind the Iron Curtain? If so, it's unlikely that "good engineering practices" from the rest of the world were well-known. Perhaps security was a guard with a gun. And after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there may not have been any money or drive to update the system. Even US corporations fall into that trap occasionally.
So, yeah, I'd say it's perfectly understandable that a tram system hackable with a TV remote exists.
Interesting enough: 63.4% of the people I asked (sample size 1000, taken in a city of about 2 million inhabitants) did not agree with the anti-terror laws
Ah, the magic of statistical population skew.
--Rob
PS, I agree with the 63.4%. I just don't agree you have made a valid argument.
I'm taking a wild guess here (a little knowledge is a lot dangerous). Forces are understood by the Standard Model of physics to be implemented via mediating particles. That is, a force between two particles is felt when those two particles exchange a mediating particle. The photon is considered the mediating particle of the electromagnetic force, and the graviton is hypothesized to be the mediating particle of the gravitational force.
However, the mediating particles themselves are not affected by the force they mediate. Otherwise the universe would disappear up its own arse.
I remember about 30 years ago, there was this set with these little clear plastic cubes. Each cube contained a discrete component: a resistor, transistor, wire, whatever. You could fit the cubes together to make a circuit. I don't remember what that was, or whatever happened to it.
Maybe it was German. I remember my dad used to bring me home a lot of Philips electronics kits from his business trips to Europe.
The only thing that would make this cooler is if he made his own Nixie tubes!
I thought there were issues not addressed clearly in the video. First, I thought I learned in college chemistry (now rummaging in decades-old longterm storage media) that one of the big problems was getting a good seal of glass around metal, which wasn't solved until they put together the right glass with the right metal.
Also, aren't the electrodes in a vacuum tube coated with something to prevent early breakdown? And isn't there some chemical you have to put inside the tube to absorb the gas given off when electrons smash into the electrodes? So while this is incredibly neat-looking, I don't think the tubes would last very long...
I don't think the real issue here is specifically CC. I'm reminded of Ze Frank's Anti-Intellectualism song. It's a lot of song and dance pointing attention to one thing to distract you from the real issue.
The real issue is this. We, the unwashed masses, outnumber you, the professionals. For every one of you, there's a thousand of us. We have cheap digital SLR's, digital videocams, music producing software, editing suites... We can generate a hundred thousand times the volume you can, and even if 0.01% of that is pro-quality, we've got you beaten.
We don't make a living at this stuff. We do it for fun. For joy. You do it for money. You are upset if your photography nets you only $1000 this year. We are tickled if anyone thinks our photo is good enough to use.
Now, this isn't a problem with CC per se, but people will often license content under CC without realizing that, technically they may not have all the rights to do what they are doing.
I still don't understand that. The same problem applies to ordinary copyright. People can claim copyright over pictures of kids when a release was not obtained from the parent.
The argument you seem to be making is that users of CC are more stupid than users of plain old copyright. That's not an argument against CC. That's an argument for education.
Now why is this different from using the default copyright license? Because in that case, the areas that tend to get you into trouble are not permitted by default. If you go to my site and take a copyrighted image and use it commercially, you've clearly broken the law. If you go and take my CC licensed image, you're okay with me, but it doesn't mean I was okay in the first place.
That last sentence didn't make much sense, but I still just don't see the difference. I can copyright my photo, put it up on the web, and negotiate any terms with any company I want to it. Just because in the normal, 20th-century model, I require each individual company to come to me to negotiate a license for my copyrighted work, does not mean that there is something wrong with another model which does the negotiation for you, which is what CC is.
...there is a problem with people relicensing copyrighted work under the CC license and having subsequent users of that copyrighted work sued by the original owner
First, how often does that really happen?
Second, why is this a problem with CC? It would be a problem with anyone placing a copyrighted work under any license, or even claiming copyright on a work copyrighted by someone else. It's more a problem with copyright and the legal system.
Slashdot Mirror
As opposed to, say, the $700,000k they just paid out.
--Rob
Some would say Perl is a religion.
--Rob
Well... I wouldn't call it lame bigotry. LOLart, maybe. That would make the "I can has cheezburger" art a meta-LOL. A LOL(LOLcat), if you will. Of course, it would have helped if they spelled cheezburger without an h.
--Rob
Raise pri--- FOUR, there are FOUR choices. Endure lines, create more supply, curtail demand, and raise prices. And increase the money supply. FIVE choices. I'll come in again.
--Rob
In that case, my cat can't even see me unless I have food or a cat brush.
--Rob
That, or maybe you're upset that things thought to belong exclusively to the animal kingdom are really just computation (with a bit of noncomputation thrown in, thank you Gödel and Turing).
I'm just sayin'. :)
--Rob
I hope these intermediate steps that they're eliminating include packaging the documents in an .exe file, and requiring MS Office to be installed. I'm looking at you, Word format!
--Rob
Out of curiosity, how long did it take you to dictate the comment?
--Rob
2045, bay-bee, 2045.
--Rob
Well, now I know where to order my supplies of humidity-saturated bedding ;)
I kid!
--Rob
Was the head doctor's name Herbert West?
(ba-dump-bump. Bump-bump. Bump-bump...)
--Rob
I guess now we know that Ron Paul is going to win the Florida Republican primary!
--Rob
It depends. Was the tram system designed when Poland was firmly behind the Iron Curtain? If so, it's unlikely that "good engineering practices" from the rest of the world were well-known. Perhaps security was a guard with a gun. And after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there may not have been any money or drive to update the system. Even US corporations fall into that trap occasionally.
So, yeah, I'd say it's perfectly understandable that a tram system hackable with a TV remote exists.
--Rob
Whether he used it correctly or not is neither here nor there.
--Rob
So we can only share 13 songs? Heck.
--Rob. I can has go for teh funny?
Ah, the magic of statistical population skew.
--Rob
PS, I agree with the 63.4%. I just don't agree you have made a valid argument.
I'm taking a wild guess here (a little knowledge is a lot dangerous). Forces are understood by the Standard Model of physics to be implemented via mediating particles. That is, a force between two particles is felt when those two particles exchange a mediating particle. The photon is considered the mediating particle of the electromagnetic force, and the graviton is hypothesized to be the mediating particle of the gravitational force.
However, the mediating particles themselves are not affected by the force they mediate. Otherwise the universe would disappear up its own arse.
Hence, gravity is not affected by gravity.
--Rob
And don't forget you can put them in the dishwasher!
--Rob
I agree. The real article is this:
Yeehaw, look at all them funny keyboards invented back before we learned how keyboards should work!
--Rob
As long as your city isn't San Francisco!
--Rob
I remember about 30 years ago, there was this set with these little clear plastic cubes. Each cube contained a discrete component: a resistor, transistor, wire, whatever. You could fit the cubes together to make a circuit. I don't remember what that was, or whatever happened to it.
Maybe it was German. I remember my dad used to bring me home a lot of Philips electronics kits from his business trips to Europe.
--Rob
The only thing that would make this cooler is if he made his own Nixie tubes!
I thought there were issues not addressed clearly in the video. First, I thought I learned in college chemistry (now rummaging in decades-old longterm storage media) that one of the big problems was getting a good seal of glass around metal, which wasn't solved until they put together the right glass with the right metal.
Also, aren't the electrodes in a vacuum tube coated with something to prevent early breakdown? And isn't there some chemical you have to put inside the tube to absorb the gas given off when electrons smash into the electrodes? So while this is incredibly neat-looking, I don't think the tubes would last very long...
--Rob
I don't think the real issue here is specifically CC. I'm reminded of Ze Frank's Anti-Intellectualism song. It's a lot of song and dance pointing attention to one thing to distract you from the real issue.
The real issue is this. We, the unwashed masses, outnumber you, the professionals. For every one of you, there's a thousand of us. We have cheap digital SLR's, digital videocams, music producing software, editing suites... We can generate a hundred thousand times the volume you can, and even if 0.01% of that is pro-quality, we've got you beaten.
We don't make a living at this stuff. We do it for fun. For joy. You do it for money. You are upset if your photography nets you only $1000 this year. We are tickled if anyone thinks our photo is good enough to use.
Damn, I sound like some kind of revolutionary :(
--Rob
I still don't understand that. The same problem applies to ordinary copyright. People can claim copyright over pictures of kids when a release was not obtained from the parent.
The argument you seem to be making is that users of CC are more stupid than users of plain old copyright. That's not an argument against CC. That's an argument for education.
That last sentence didn't make much sense, but I still just don't see the difference. I can copyright my photo, put it up on the web, and negotiate any terms with any company I want to it. Just because in the normal, 20th-century model, I require each individual company to come to me to negotiate a license for my copyrighted work, does not mean that there is something wrong with another model which does the negotiation for you, which is what CC is.
--Rob
First, how often does that really happen?
Second, why is this a problem with CC? It would be a problem with anyone placing a copyrighted work under any license, or even claiming copyright on a work copyrighted by someone else. It's more a problem with copyright and the legal system.
--Rob