A computer program is only as good as the way it's been written.
I am not trying to argue that it's a trivial problem that some fresh-from-the-womb teenage programmer with VB could solve. Then again, you seem to believe that the interpretation of geometric symbols is something achieved by only those imbued with the power of God.
Don't get me wrong, but if your brain isn't executing some form of mathematical logic to solve these problems... then what is it doing? Magic? Is that how you're going to support your argument?
As I stated in the beginning, if the human mind is capable of doing it, so should a computer...
We're not talking about astronomically difficult calculations beyond the grasp of any mathematical deduction... and we can infer this with relative confidence, given that your brain is doing these calculations even now, as you read this text.
I'll admit I was simply being humorous in implying that I, myself, if not burdened by exams, could slap something together. It would require a great deal of work to get this operate properly... but it is by no means an unreasonable goal. Science has tackled far more difficult problems than this.
True, or you could just come up with an authentication method that doesn't involve visually identifying numbers and letters... like, showing a picture of an apple, and having people type in the name of the fruit.
Then again, that becomes less reliable and more ambiguous. You could keep on pushing for more difficult to interpret puzzles, and the technology to interpret it can just push back. People will just end up getting annoyed by it.
Sooner or later that idea runs out of gas... it's only a temporary solution.
Yeah, true... I didn't really provide proof... but proof would require me to go out and program something fairly complicated, and I'm in the middle of midterm exams.
The point I was making is that, while noone has done it yet, there's no theoretical reason why it shouldn't be possible.
It's like saying "Oh, that mountain's to big, no one will ever climb it." -- If people are motivated enough, they can accomplish just about anything... and spammers seem clearly motivated.
What is so wrong with doing something because you want to? Isn't that reason enough? You don't have to dedicate your entire life to an open source project.
It's only in recent years that 5 year olds can see midgets pissing and shitting on women being unwillingly double-penetrated by a men with leather masks, and a dildo up her nose.
The same could be said for most adults... unless you're really into that kind of thing.
Seems pretty simple to solve, the ones who brought the case will have to pay for it, and their lawyers should at the very least get reprimanded for helping with bringing in a frivilous case, and when there are too many reprimands, lose his/her abbility to work as a lawyer.
That makes so much sense, one has to wonder why it isn't already the case.
...Then we stop to think about how many things make sense in the US legal system.
I don't know that I particularly blame the lawyers, but I don't feel that it's wrong to say that lawyers are the ones who ultimately win with all this legal bullcrap.
I mean even if it were possible for the average person to affordably, and conveniently resolve a frivilous lawsuit against them, someone still has to pay the lawyers for it. Not many lawyers are going to work for free, even if the cases are total bullshit.
The problem is that the failures of the patenting system are not come upon accidentally. People make a habit of abusing them, and unless the USPTO grows a brain, then it's going to become a financial burden to try and create anything.
What should be obvious in this instance, and in many others, is that patents are proving to be an ever increasing barrier to creation and productivity. What's worse, is that the creativity that patents are shutting out is the creativity of the individual inventor, who is not able to afford million dollar lawyers to push his case. That is the exact opposite effect that patents should be having.
... This is what that stupid "elegant universe" thing that Nova put online a while ago was. It was a decline in quality in favor of pointless special effects and lots of people talking about how cool something is without really explaining it.
The answer should be obvious. Making your show stupid to appeal to stupid people is not a valid approach at educating anyone.
The SciFi Channel makes me want to vomit. It's the worst, most asinine programming anyone has ever constructed. A lot of it is just as stupid, or worse, than the crap they have on other channels.
I'd be tempted to disagree with you about calling it the channel for nerds... but lets face it, most 'nerds' are incredibly stupid.
The problem is that this is not a night club. It isn't different, it's stupid, and it's a big fat birthday invitation for potential abuse.
None of this would be a problem if the people making these decisions were in any way whatsoever educated in computer science. They're not, however, and considering their complete and utter incompetence regarding everything else they do... why should their involvement here be any better?
Slashdot Mirror
I am not trying to argue that it's a trivial problem that some fresh-from-the-womb teenage programmer with VB could solve. Then again, you seem to believe that the interpretation of geometric symbols is something achieved by only those imbued with the power of God.
Don't get me wrong, but if your brain isn't executing some form of mathematical logic to solve these problems... then what is it doing? Magic? Is that how you're going to support your argument?
We're not talking about astronomically difficult calculations beyond the grasp of any mathematical deduction... and we can infer this with relative confidence, given that your brain is doing these calculations even now, as you read this text.
I'll admit I was simply being humorous in implying that I, myself, if not burdened by exams, could slap something together. It would require a great deal of work to get this operate properly... but it is by no means an unreasonable goal. Science has tackled far more difficult problems than this.
Then again, that becomes less reliable and more ambiguous. You could keep on pushing for more difficult to interpret puzzles, and the technology to interpret it can just push back. People will just end up getting annoyed by it.
Sooner or later that idea runs out of gas... it's only a temporary solution.
The point I was making is that, while noone has done it yet, there's no theoretical reason why it shouldn't be possible.
It's like saying "Oh, that mountain's to big, no one will ever climb it." -- If people are motivated enough, they can accomplish just about anything... and spammers seem clearly motivated.
If a human can interpret an image and type in some dumb pieces of text, there's little reason to believe a computer program cannot do the same.
What is so wrong with doing something because you want to? Isn't that reason enough? You don't have to dedicate your entire life to an open source project.
boku wa amerikajin desu... baka no
We get junk faxes at work... it's miserable. The fax machine is exactly like a mailbox, only it's slow, and murders trees.
I suppose it makes up for the noticeable lack of flying cars...
The same could be said for most adults... unless you're really into that kind of thing.
I guess I can't support America's paranoia about its own sexuality.
Sorry... but it had to be done.
It seems almost redundant, if not for the fact that so many stupid believe are oblivious to it.
That makes so much sense, one has to wonder why it isn't already the case.
I mean even if it were possible for the average person to affordably, and conveniently resolve a frivilous lawsuit against them, someone still has to pay the lawyers for it. Not many lawyers are going to work for free, even if the cases are total bullshit.
What should be obvious in this instance, and in many others, is that patents are proving to be an ever increasing barrier to creation and productivity. What's worse, is that the creativity that patents are shutting out is the creativity of the individual inventor, who is not able to afford million dollar lawyers to push his case. That is the exact opposite effect that patents should be having.
They did it for the recent Lost in Space adaptation. Albeit the movie sucked, but it's possible to do.
Seriously, what's with the hair on this 'kate rose' character? And why does she look like a prostitute?
Captain Nemo was black too, but he died, when he blew up Noah's Ark.
I mean why would they voluntarily add this feature? It makes you wonder if anyone was pushing their buttons about it...
The answer should be obvious. Making your show stupid to appeal to stupid people is not a valid approach at educating anyone.
I'd be tempted to disagree with you about calling it the channel for nerds... but lets face it, most 'nerds' are incredibly stupid.
None of this would be a problem if the people making these decisions were in any way whatsoever educated in computer science. They're not, however, and considering their complete and utter incompetence regarding everything else they do... why should their involvement here be any better?
Like Forest Gump, only with political clout.
You see, if we had trusted computing, this wouldn't be an issue!