Goodbye user controlled computer. Welcome Palladium controlled user.
Fine. Goodbye American locked-down computer. Welcome Chinese non-TCPA alternative.
Seriously, the far East is rapidly catching up with technology, and I can think of few things that will spurn the Chinese into producing a viable PC alternative than the risk of being locked down to American corporate rule.
Of course the performance will never be bleeding edge, but for most tasks a 3 GHz processor (or whatever they are up to by the time TCPA becomes standard) will be overspecified, and I know where I will be placing my money.
By the time it becomes technically viable to mandate lockdown technology in Western PC hardware, it will certainly not be economically wise.
Who says it's your god-given right to watch DVDs on Linux?
The natural right that says that, providing I don't release or distribute the results to anybody else, I can rearrange, process, munge or demunge data on my own computer in whichever way I choose.
IP law is an artificial right granted by the government in order to serve an economic purpose. There is no reason why it should take precedence over the natural right to do what you want with stuff you have legally purchased in the privacy of your own home.
People will start suing works that are OpenSource all over the place citing some vague-o patents that they may not even have claims to, and kill such projects.
This would in fact be a complete and utter waste of money. They would gain nothing in damages (since these are opensource projects with no revenue stream), and the projects would just be offshored to a regime that did not favour information-territorialism the way the US (and soon the EU) do.
These companies have absolutely nothing to gain by attacking these opensource projects unless they have some personal grudge against the particular project.
There is no such thing as "insanity". It is simply a legal term used with the defence of diminished responsibility to excuse certain crimes, and is not recognised by the medical profession except as a colloquialism.
I presume by your reference to self-deception you are referring to some form of Schizophrenia, which is a neurochemical disorder that bears no relevance to the type of electronic hardware that would (presumably) be used in a robot.
Other specific mental disorders would be of dubious relevance to a robot as well - Obsessive-Compulsive behaviour, for example, is unusual for a human but might be a standard part of a specialised and totally focussed machine, while disorders such as Autism might be very similar to the level of emotional interactivity achievable by a man-made machine.
So in answer to your question I think that insanity in a functional AI would not be unlikely so much as undefined and a moot point.
So what if there have been exploits using HTML or PDF? They are still far less common than exploits using Word and Excel macros, so a security policy that prohibits these formats still has some validity.
More likely the recipient who does know about computers will realise that you hate Microsoft-specific attachments and are using the security excuse to persuade the general public.
And when in hell are you going to give her some grandkids?
Hmm. Last time I checked, having some grandkids* was an important prerequisite for being defined as a "grandma"
K
* Yes I know that one of your siblings might have already provided the required offspring but this gets in the way of the joke and was not obvious from the emphasis of the original statement.
These labels just don't "get it". Maybe people will abandon pirated downloads if they can get the legitimate version for a reasonable price, but not if the price is just stupid ($2.49 for a 3-minute song?).
The RIAA obviously has a severely inflated view of its own importance. Reality is going to catch up with them, whether they like it or not.
If FFII had their choice, then my freedom for (a) would be removed, for some "specious" allegation that software patents are hindering innovation, when, in fact, the swathe of open source software and internet protocols/technology are evidence that software patents have not done anything to hinder innovation.
You make it sound as though there is some "natural right" to hold a monopoly on an idea simply because you published it first. There is no such natural right. The right is artificially granted by the government and can be artificially removed just as easily (and should be, if its existence cannot be justified by rational ethics or economic policy).
Remember, in contrast to physical property (which even small furry mammals understand and make use of), intellectual property cannot be found in nature.
Arguing about "essentiality" is missing the point. If a consenting male adult decides to remove part(s) of his body to express his religious beliefs that is his decision, but to do it on an unconsenting infant (possibly without anaesthetic) in order to express your religious beliefs - beliefs which the infant may grow up to reject - seems very difficult to justify under the doctrine of human rights and freedom of (and freedom from) religion.
What I find actually quite amusing is that people were modding my comment "flamebait". I agree it is "offtopic", but it is a serious indictment to society if criticising its dogma is considered trolling.
This is pure logical fallacy, the exact same fallacy that the record companies would like you to fall for. The reasons for the figures you quote (assuming they are correct) could include:
File sharing is hurting music sales.
Music quality is declining, and people don't want to buy it any more.
People already have such large CD collections that they simply don't need any more.
People's lifestyles are changing so that they have less time to listen to recorded music.
The behaviour of the record companies, their litigation against children and OAPs and their perceived (and probably real) exploitation of artists is dissuading consumers from giving them money.
The increase in digital music services (digital radio, satellite etc) is allowing people a wider choice of music and they don't need to by CDs any more.
People are attending more live gigs rather than buying pre-recorded music.
The statistics are massaged in some way, such as they only include singles or ignore music on other formats like DVD.
The rate of increase in CD sales is in fact constant, but the expansion of the record industry is accelerating so the relative growth appears to be declining.
The legal online download services are taking market share from the physical CD market.
I am sure you can think of many more if you open your mind and disembark from the recording industry's bandwagon.
It's a side effect of society. When you have male architects, doctors, civil engineers, politicians, and transportation engineers, things are by *default* designed for men.
This presupposes that "designed for men" has any meaning outside basic physical characteristics, which is a notion I reject without strong evidence (and some overgeneralisations based on a few specific minor cognitive tendencies is not strong evidence as far as I am concerned).
Are countertops designed around a woman's height?
The average man/woman height difference is around 10 per cent. I would imagine that countertops can vary in height by more than this depending on manufacturer or consumer choice.
Are doors built to accomodate pregnant women?
Oh, do people walk sideways through doors these days? I had not noticed. I think there are probably more fat men than pregnant women so if this was a problem it would have been solved by now.
Are computers designed to accomodate women's cultural thought processes?
No, because there is no such thing. Computers, unlike social stereotypes, actually have a specific function to perform, and their operation does not depend on a few preconceived and mindlessly-propagated artificial social roles.
When are people going to learn that solving problems with attidudes towards women (for example in computer shops, car mechanics etc) are not going to be improved by having special "female" versions of things?
You don't make equal by making different. This sort of thing does not benefit women any more than apartheid benefits ethnic minorities.
Now here's a suggestion: why not make it easy for everyone to use? Or is that just too logical?
This may sound like a stupid question, but why hire your girlfriend/brother etc? Presumably you are going to pay them market rates, otherwise you are hardly getting off to a good start relationship-wise, in which case why not just hire from the market like any other company?
Hiring family is just asking for problems, and holds no advantage that I can see.
If you read some of Bill Thompson's back catalogue, it seems that the man is obsessed with regulation as a cure-all solution (see here, here, or here).
Yes indeed, this is the same man who thinks that we should place the entire internet under government control and just trust them to keep it democratic.
He is so clearly out of touch with any realistic view of how governments and other powerful organistions actually behave that his writings deserve very little attention IMHO, whether they support open source or not.
First rule of freedom: you don't give anybody an inch more power than they absolutely require to do the job entrusted to them.
Since you read the article, you'd know the car was designed by woman.
Yeah, "designed by women", as in
"Hey darlin', how'd you like some replaceable seat mats to match your pretty dress?"
"Oooh yes, how thoughtful of you, Brad!"
Just because somebody is a member of a group (in this case, females) does not mean their suggestions or opinions are representative of the group as a whole. In fact, the very notion of "what women want" is overgeneral and absurd.
I really think that no one should be arguing with this guy unless they have been making a sustainable living writing and supporting Free/Open Source software.
You mean, people should not offer rational arguments or views unless they have direct personal experience with the subject in question, notwithstanding the existence of third-party experiences or logical analysis.
I guess when your doctor tells you that you have cancer and suggest ways in which other people have dealt with it, you will summarily discard his advice on the grounds that he does not have the disease himself and therefore has nothing to offer.
Attack people's arguments, not their background. This is merely ad hominem and is invalid.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, the far East is rapidly catching up with technology, and I can think of few things that will spurn the Chinese into producing a viable PC alternative than the risk of being locked down to American corporate rule.
Of course the performance will never be bleeding edge, but for most tasks a 3 GHz processor (or whatever they are up to by the time TCPA becomes standard) will be overspecified, and I know where I will be placing my money.
By the time it becomes technically viable to mandate lockdown technology in Western PC hardware, it will certainly not be economically wise.
K
For better or for worse, DRM is a battle that content providers will lose.
K
IP law is an artificial right granted by the government in order to serve an economic purpose. There is no reason why it should take precedence over the natural right to do what you want with stuff you have legally purchased in the privacy of your own home.
K
These companies have absolutely nothing to gain by attacking these opensource projects unless they have some personal grudge against the particular project.
K
K
They're smart enough to realise that they don't have to.
K
K
I presume by your reference to self-deception you are referring to some form of Schizophrenia, which is a neurochemical disorder that bears no relevance to the type of electronic hardware that would (presumably) be used in a robot.
Other specific mental disorders would be of dubious relevance to a robot as well - Obsessive-Compulsive behaviour, for example, is unusual for a human but might be a standard part of a specialised and totally focussed machine, while disorders such as Autism might be very similar to the level of emotional interactivity achievable by a man-made machine.
So in answer to your question I think that insanity in a functional AI would not be unlikely so much as undefined and a moot point.
K
More likely the recipient who does know about computers will realise that you hate Microsoft-specific attachments and are using the security excuse to persuade the general public.
K
K
* Yes I know that one of your siblings might have already provided the required offspring but this gets in the way of the joke and was not obvious from the emphasis of the original statement.
These labels just don't "get it". Maybe people will abandon pirated downloads if they can get the legitimate version for a reasonable price, but not if the price is just stupid ($2.49 for a 3-minute song?).
The RIAA obviously has a severely inflated view of its own importance. Reality is going to catch up with them, whether they like it or not.
K
Remember, in contrast to physical property (which even small furry mammals understand and make use of), intellectual property cannot be found in nature.
K
What I find actually quite amusing is that people were modding my comment "flamebait". I agree it is "offtopic", but it is a serious indictment to society if criticising its dogma is considered trolling.
K
Oh yes, it's part of accepted Western culture. Silly me.
K
I am sure you can think of many more if you open your mind and disembark from the recording industry's bandwagon.
K
K
K
You don't make equal by making different. This sort of thing does not benefit women any more than apartheid benefits ethnic minorities.
Now here's a suggestion: why not make it easy for everyone to use? Or is that just too logical?
K
Hiring family is just asking for problems, and holds no advantage that I can see.
K
K
K
He is so clearly out of touch with any realistic view of how governments and other powerful organistions actually behave that his writings deserve very little attention IMHO, whether they support open source or not.
First rule of freedom: you don't give anybody an inch more power than they absolutely require to do the job entrusted to them.
K
Isn't the central idea of solitaire that it is played by oneself?
K
"Hey darlin', how'd you like some replaceable seat mats to match your pretty dress?"
"Oooh yes, how thoughtful of you, Brad!"
Just because somebody is a member of a group (in this case, females) does not mean their suggestions or opinions are representative of the group as a whole. In fact, the very notion of "what women want" is overgeneral and absurd.
K
I guess when your doctor tells you that you have cancer and suggest ways in which other people have dealt with it, you will summarily discard his advice on the grounds that he does not have the disease himself and therefore has nothing to offer.
Attack people's arguments, not their background. This is merely ad hominem and is invalid.
K