"And the article says that the student didnt want to tell his name; so in my opinion, it means the writer did contact him and made his mind somehow on wether or not he was lying."
Bzzt! RTFA. "He has not spoken to The Standard-Times."
"Frankly, I think you're trying to minimize the whole thing because you find its implications unbearable."
"That wasn't true when companies like the New York Times and ABC had a near monopoly on information dissemination, and it sure isn't any more accurate today."
True, true. That's why NYT and ABC have been sued for libel so many times. See? That's how it works, and Wikipedia shouldn't be above it all just because it's geek.
Don't buy books for someone. It presumes you know what they want to do in the future enough to avoid expensive duplication or uselessness. How about this instead, invite them over for a good dinner and company.
"If you speak out for the assassination of the President, you will likely get a visit to discuss your views."
"Yes, but there shouldn't be.... It should only give him license to adequately setup DEFENSIVE (not preemptive) measures that protect him from any ACTUAL attacks."
Talking to someone who advocates said assination is exactly how you determine if it's an ACTUAL threat. How else, pray tell?
Yes, he would be. You know, that topic that pretends to be science, yet cannot for the life of its promoters seem to come up with any testable hypothesis.
Please tell us how you would feel to find that someone had gotten the entire text from someone like Google, assembled it, and posted it on the web so no one would have to pay you for it?
Apparently, you have missed the numerous posts linking to the Author's Guild suit.
Calling Google a publisher is a stretch.
This conflict (to iterate) is about Google presuming they have the right to abrigate the copyright holder's (typicall the author) right to determine just how their work will be disseminated. Not some for profit corporation like Google.
"But true AI would allow that pilot program to feel "tired," or be allowed to make mistakes. Is this what we want??"
Bzzt! Wrongo. You just conflated having a stressed out organic body with intelligence. As for mistakes, they exist in humans and computers, so that's a push.
People conflate other things all the time too. Like being able to imagine a computer taking over the "world's computers" with the actual possibility. We have that now with viruses and we haven't had 100% infection, much less permanent capture, yet. A computer-based AI would face the same likelyhood of success.
Being pedantic, your parent isn't entirely wrong. Unless there's some work being done on self design and modification in the sense that we ourselves change our behavior patterns. Seems to me that, until then, regardless of how very well you manipulate data, it's still just coding -- veerrry complex coding.
Your list tells me the subject is still in the stage of creating organism level responses to the world's stimuli, which then tells me that we're still at the beginning.
Please explain how this is not a massive pirating effort. Or do you only feel those doing it to make money should be culpable, not someone putting something P2P in order to screw over the author?
Then the argument is self defeating. If the dollar the gov takes from you is spent making housing for the poor, just how does it reduce the housing options for the poor? You'll note that there is virtually no private sector housing for the poor.
Yes, you're missing the entire concept of copyright. You know, where the author has the right to decide when, where and how their work may be copied? You might feel all gushy that Google scanned your book, but someone else might not find the lack of curtesy to even friggin' ask a tad insulting. It is not Google's place to make the decision that they are above copyright law simply because they have a neato search engine. It is the author's. Each individual author has the right to make their individual decisions and not have their rights summarily squshed by some guys with a dream.
Besides, they're hypocrites. I want you to go to their home page - http://www.google.com/.
See that little copyright notice down at the bottom? They want copyright protection.
Slashdot Mirror
"And the article says that the student didnt want to tell his name; so in my opinion, it means the writer did contact him and made his mind somehow on wether or not he was lying."
Bzzt! RTFA. "He has not spoken to The Standard-Times."
"Frankly, I think you're trying to minimize the whole thing because you find its implications unbearable."
Pot, meet kettle.
Yep, and pretty well-written too.
Debug the operating systems FIRST, then add enormous layers of new complexity.
"That wasn't true when companies like the New York Times and ABC had a near monopoly on information dissemination, and it sure isn't any more accurate today."
True, true. That's why NYT and ABC have been sued for libel so many times. See? That's how it works, and Wikipedia shouldn't be above it all just because it's geek.
Don't buy books for someone. It presumes you know what they want to do in the future enough to avoid expensive duplication or uselessness. How about this instead, invite them over for a good dinner and company.
Read some history. It's about celebrating the breaking of winter. A pagan celebration co-opted. Other than that, your last six sentences hold.
Libel is not confined to "official public record"s and people doing something "all the time" does not excuse it.
Really. As if the sarcasm wasn't obvious from the context. In his case, there was no sarcastic context.
"...there is no slander on Wikipedia because it's impossible to prove that it's a reliable source of information..."
Slander is not dependant upon it being true. In fact, slander is dependant upon its not being true.
"If you speak out for the assassination of the President, you will likely get a visit to discuss your views."
... It should only give him license to adequately setup DEFENSIVE (not preemptive) measures that protect him from any ACTUAL attacks."
"Yes, but there shouldn't be.
Talking to someone who advocates said assination is exactly how you determine if it's an ACTUAL threat. How else, pray tell?
Yes, he would be. You know, that topic that pretends to be science, yet cannot for the life of its promoters seem to come up with any testable hypothesis.
Your comment applies to the wholesale copying of printed materials how exactly?
Please tell us how you would feel to find that someone had gotten the entire text from someone like Google, assembled it, and posted it on the web so no one would have to pay you for it?
Apparently, you have missed the numerous posts linking to the Author's Guild suit.
Calling Google a publisher is a stretch.
This conflict (to iterate) is about Google presuming they have the right to abrigate the copyright holder's (typicall the author) right to determine just how their work will be disseminated. Not some for profit corporation like Google.
"But true AI would allow that pilot program to feel "tired," or be allowed to make mistakes. Is this what we want??"
Bzzt! Wrongo. You just conflated having a stressed out organic body with intelligence. As for mistakes, they exist in humans and computers, so that's a push.
People conflate other things all the time too. Like being able to imagine a computer taking over the "world's computers" with the actual possibility. We have that now with viruses and we haven't had 100% infection, much less permanent capture, yet. A computer-based AI would face the same likelyhood of success.
Being pedantic, your parent isn't entirely wrong. Unless there's some work being done on self design and modification in the sense that we ourselves change our behavior patterns. Seems to me that, until then, regardless of how very well you manipulate data, it's still just coding -- veerrry complex coding.
Your list tells me the subject is still in the stage of creating organism level responses to the world's stimuli, which then tells me that we're still at the beginning.
"But not for sharing files over P2P..."
Please explain how this is not a massive pirating effort. Or do you only feel those doing it to make money should be culpable, not someone putting something P2P in order to screw over the author?
No, it's not like saying that at all, and yes, you are exagerating. Simply buy nothing for said week.
Yes. Of course. Just like if the majority wanted inter-racial marriage illegal.
"... that more people are killed each year by excessive speed than by excessive downloading."
Drive through downtown at one hundred miles an hour and see if you don't do time.
Then the argument is self defeating. If the dollar the gov takes from you is spent making housing for the poor, just how does it reduce the housing options for the poor? You'll note that there is virtually no private sector housing for the poor.
"Many people accuse conservative Biblical scholars of oversimplifying when it is their critics who are indeed oversimplifying the issues."
Conservative scholars - "God is source of all of it."
Critics - "It was done by more than one man."
Lessee, which of these two is an oversimplification?
"The US needs to hand over some control of the root servers"
Why?
"shared responsibility can only be a good thing for international relationships"
Why?
You need to do some research and find out about who really holds copyrights, chum. You're raving.
Yes, you're missing the entire concept of copyright. You know, where the author has the right to decide when, where and how their work may be copied? You might feel all gushy that Google scanned your book, but someone else might not find the lack of curtesy to even friggin' ask a tad insulting. It is not Google's place to make the decision that they are above copyright law simply because they have a neato search engine. It is the author's. Each individual author has the right to make their individual decisions and not have their rights summarily squshed by some guys with a dream.
Besides, they're hypocrites. I want you to go to their home page - http://www.google.com/.
See that little copyright notice down at the bottom? They want copyright protection.