Also, Warner Bros should loose their rights under the DMCA to issue takedown requests at all, since they clearly cannot be trusted to issue valid requests.
I'm pretty sure that Warner Bros is a bigger company than Hotfile, so the spirit of DMCA has not been violated.
He defaced a memorial to a dead person. Now he gets some time to think whether it is any more acceptable behaviour on the Internet than it is in meatspace.
Thats not exactly a crime AFAIK.
The British court seems to think it is.
Maybe people will learn to keep things private online. If you open everything up to the wider internet, thats going to come with the good and the bad.
Maybe trolls should learn to keep their shit to themselves, rather than go "Wahhhh!!! I'm being oppressed" when they get what's coming to them. If you insist on being a jerk, that's going to have consequences, and you have no one but yourself to blame.
My response: Deal with it, or make it a private page.
It was dealt with. All this whining is because people insist that they have rights without duty to think how using those rights affects other people, and that weird delusion just ran headfirst into the rock wall of reality.
Now all we need to do is extend this to economic rights, specifically to realize that the right to private property in no way implies unelected individuals or organizations should be allowed to wield economic power on the scale of elected governments, and we can start getting our economy and society back on track.
A common refrain is that government regulation, particularly at the federal level, makes it particularly difficult to hire people. For example, businesses which grow past 50 employees trip a lot of new regulation on health care benefits.
The obvious solution would seem to be to completely socialize healthcare, yet a tiny step in that direction rose a huge storm of cries "Obamacare! Socialism! Wahhh!!!" from presumably pro-business people.
Similarly, the uncertain regulatory climate allegedly means that new investment is unnaturally risky.
Would you care to specify what potential regulations are making what potential investments risky, exactly speaking?
So we have businesses with lots of cash and claims that government regulation inhibit hiring people and making investments.
Yet they don't - or at you didn't - point out what regulations are the problem. I wonder why that might be. Are these perhaps those regulations that eat into profits but are necessary for the society: minimum wage, worker safety, enviromental protection?
Nah, couldn't be; our overlords wouldn't stoop so low as to try and squeeze more from desperate people while the country collapses around them all the faster for that squeezing.
Putting a human in a cage because he hurt somebody's feelings is the real outrage, here.
Why is it that people keep on talking about feelings like they were nonexistent? Is this somehow related to the "hardness is good" -meme and its ideal of humans as emotionless robots? Or the related ideas in ideological capitalism where nothing has value besides the financial?
In any case, how can a few weeks in jail be an "outrage" if hurt feelings don't matter? Because that's all it's likely to result in.
You are sick and wrong to defend it.
You are sick and wrong to defend a sick person's right to act his sickness out on others without consequences.
Freedom of expression has to include the freedom to offend people, or it's no freedom at all.
Freedom of expression is not absolute; for example slander and libel are forbidden. Why would someone intentionally abusing his freedoms to hurt others not be punished? Surely the purpose of law is not to give cover to psychopaths as they prey on the weak?
Yes, because anyone who disagrees with the "scientific consensus" is anti-science.
Anyone who thinks their personal prejudices trump evidence is anti-science (and functionally insane). This group includes climate change "sceptics" and evolution deniers both.
The Constitution did not have to be trashed to go after OBL.
But you did anyway.
For instance the terrorists were neither protected by the Geneva Convention, nor the Constitution.
The former is true, the latter is not. For example, why wouldn't someone accused of terrorism have a right to a speedy trial? I'm referring to Guantanamo Bay, of course.
I just can't understand why nobody has come up with a bot that can remember what it said 2 lines earlier!
Because that would do no good if the bot doesn't actually understand what what it said means.
Imagine if you were chatting in a languages you don't know, copy-pasting snippets of text you don't understand in response to other snippets of text you don't understand. Even if you remember what you've copypasted previously, you would still come accross as a lunatic.
In order to converse intelligently, an AI must have a model of the world, so it can put what's being said in some kind of context (understand it). It must be able to update this context based on conversations and observation - if at all possible, it should be able to browse the Web and learn from this. At the very least, it must be able to get updates on current news items. And finally, it must be able to use the model to simulate likely outcomes of various actions it or humans might take - in other words, it must be able to think. The generalizations of the results of this thinking should also be stored in the model, so that they can be reused quickly.
So in short, a chatbot that maintains a context for a conversation must really be a "real" AI, since it would need to understand the meaning of what it and others have said.
Firefox runs like a dog, downloading off the Apache server at a meager 25MB/s. Meanwhile wget pulls some 90MB/s off that same server. Even Windows file sharing managing transfers around 70-75MB/s.
Oh come on. Even Firefox with its single-threaded blocking-at-every-excuse implementation can't possibly botch a simple select-read-write -loop to this extent.
The guy being quoted (Jasper) has a pretty weak argument. It's based on there only being a single computer accessing the network. Add in multiple channels of streaming HD video, multiple computers/users in a household, etc., and you can easily fill that pipe that his cheap laptop could only use half of.
And of course there is the argument that even his cheap laptop did use half of it, which is 5 times as much as the next-slowest approach offers.
The problem is, the Religious Right also wants to destroy the world. Go see Rapture Ready forums: every time something bad happens somewhere, the news is met with jubilence; because, after all, it hastens the day when Lord Jesus returns and drowns the world in fire while the righteous - meaning people who'll enjoy watching everyone else burn - watch. And if Lord Jesus might seem to be taking his time in returning... Well, one could always help God's plan along by causing some bad news, right?
Basically, we have two bunches of omnicidal maniacs, one with nuclear weapons, and both are trying to goad each other to get on with it.
Showing weakness (by inaction) to OBL will be interpreted as a sign of weakness by everyone else.
No, but wasting over a trillion dollars and ten years to find and kill him and turning your precious Constitution into toilet paper in the process certainly was.
Why shouldn't stock prices rise when a company fires people? Costs just went down - to a first-order analysis it's the right stock move. Of course, the details always matter, and everything judged is always gamed, but it's not an absurd market reaction.
Yes, costs went down. On the other hand, it always takes time to get new recruits up to speed, so if a company fires people it's a clear sign that it doesn't expect to have use for them any time soon - in other words, it's not going to expand its business, and is in fact likely fighting to keep profits up.
We have facilities for communication and self-identity largely as a result of being hunters -- being able to "run a model" of our prey in our minds was massively useful. This structure then got applied to the self, and so the ego was born. (This is one of the currently en vogue evolutionary explanations for the rise of consciousness -- obviously not a subject you can create causal experiments to test easily).
What evolutionary pressures are there for creating self-awareness in algorithmic trading applications (given that it would necessarily be less efficient, and likely introduce errors)?
What are other trading applications (and the odd human) but prey to one? Wouldn't predicting their actions be useful?
And what do you think the speculators use to determine prices? That's right, they make a judgement as to the long-term prospects of the company.
And they also try to guess what other speculators will guess yet other speculators will guess yet other speculators and so on will do. As the number of speculators and thus their influence on the stock price grows, you get to the point where stock values live in their own fantasyland where they rise when a company fires people.
If we're not dealing with transistors, it's also the end of Moore's law, which is pretty explicitly about transistor density.
Hard drives are usually considered to fall under Moore's law as well, despite the growth of their capacity having little to do with increasing transistor density. Also, the increasing density of maim memory is because - or at least requires - increasing density of capacitors. And finally, Moore's law is generally used in the context of increasing device capacity, not transistor density.
So, it does seem a bit like pointless pedantry to say that Moore's law is broken if we move away from transistors.
I'm currently profiting around $100 a day, depending on that days exchange rate.
Getting paid for being actively harmful (using electricity) is precisely why Bitcoin will never amount to anything.
I don't have electricity costs as I take it from the hallway.
Ah, so you're a thieve too.
I had to buy UPS and set up an alarm system tho, as sometimes neighbors are just being dicks and take it off, but it's enough to keep it running for ~5 mins and that's enough time for me to put it back in.
I wouldn't take it off, I would call the cops and the landlord.
So overall I think Bitcoin is great. I make nice cash that I turn pure profit soon, I got good amount of awesome computers and it's an interesting thing to follow. It also made me more interested about Forex and stock trading and other financial stuff, which I think I will move onto when Bitcoin mining gets too hard.
Yes, I guess someone with your talents would be perfectly suited for the financing world.
I took C++ classes in college and I have played around with some scripting languages. We learned the basics of how to make C++ work with small programs, but when I see large open source projects, I never know where to even start to try and figure out how their code works. I'm wondering if any of you have suggestions for some nice open source projects to look at to get an idea for how programming works in the real world,
I think you already do.
This is the difference between C and C++: in C, whatever the code of a function says it does, it does; in C++, whatever the code of a function says it does is subject to be changed by templates, operator redefinitions, etc. Because of this it is impossible to make small changes without reading and understanding the entire codebase first.
Basically, if you want to get involved in a large C++ project, you either have a tour guide or very good documentation or make the huge investment of learning the entire superstructure of the program before making any changes to any part of it. It's kinda interesting how C++ encourages this kind of greater dependency between different parts of a program than C.
Moore's law is ending in most of our lifetimes. When, exactly, is somewhat unclear, but the horizon is less than 40 years, at which point our single-atom transistors will be so numerous they will occupy the volume of our houses.
You are assuming that we keep on building computers from transistors. But there are alternatives; for example, consider a mechanical adder made using benzene rings as gears. An adder made from molecular transistors would likely be far bigger.
Also, you are thinking of transistor-analogues as transistors-equivalents. But consider an optical transistor-analogue where the transparency or opaqueness can be controlled on a per-frequency basis. For all intents and purposes such a device would function like several separate transistors "stacked" together.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure that Warner Bros is a bigger company than Hotfile, so the spirit of DMCA has not been violated.
He defaced a memorial to a dead person. Now he gets some time to think whether it is any more acceptable behaviour on the Internet than it is in meatspace.
The British court seems to think it is.
Maybe trolls should learn to keep their shit to themselves, rather than go "Wahhhh!!! I'm being oppressed" when they get what's coming to them. If you insist on being a jerk, that's going to have consequences, and you have no one but yourself to blame.
It was dealt with. All this whining is because people insist that they have rights without duty to think how using those rights affects other people, and that weird delusion just ran headfirst into the rock wall of reality.
Now all we need to do is extend this to economic rights, specifically to realize that the right to private property in no way implies unelected individuals or organizations should be allowed to wield economic power on the scale of elected governments, and we can start getting our economy and society back on track.
The obvious solution would seem to be to completely socialize healthcare, yet a tiny step in that direction rose a huge storm of cries "Obamacare! Socialism! Wahhh!!!" from presumably pro-business people.
Would you care to specify what potential regulations are making what potential investments risky, exactly speaking?
Yet they don't - or at you didn't - point out what regulations are the problem. I wonder why that might be. Are these perhaps those regulations that eat into profits but are necessary for the society: minimum wage, worker safety, enviromental protection?
Nah, couldn't be; our overlords wouldn't stoop so low as to try and squeeze more from desperate people while the country collapses around them all the faster for that squeezing.
Why is it that people keep on talking about feelings like they were nonexistent? Is this somehow related to the "hardness is good" -meme and its ideal of humans as emotionless robots? Or the related ideas in ideological capitalism where nothing has value besides the financial?
In any case, how can a few weeks in jail be an "outrage" if hurt feelings don't matter? Because that's all it's likely to result in.
You are sick and wrong to defend a sick person's right to act his sickness out on others without consequences.
Anything that replaces Javascript will also be a security concern, because it must include at least as much functionality.
But strangely, naming himself "North Korea" seems to be pretty honest about his dishonesty.
Freedom of expression is not absolute; for example slander and libel are forbidden. Why would someone intentionally abusing his freedoms to hurt others not be punished? Surely the purpose of law is not to give cover to psychopaths as they prey on the weak?
Anyone who thinks their personal prejudices trump evidence is anti-science (and functionally insane). This group includes climate change "sceptics" and evolution deniers both.
Well, at least the rest of your message was consistent with that statement.
But you did anyway.
The former is true, the latter is not. For example, why wouldn't someone accused of terrorism have a right to a speedy trial? I'm referring to Guantanamo Bay, of course.
Because that would do no good if the bot doesn't actually understand what what it said means.
Imagine if you were chatting in a languages you don't know, copy-pasting snippets of text you don't understand in response to other snippets of text you don't understand. Even if you remember what you've copypasted previously, you would still come accross as a lunatic.
In order to converse intelligently, an AI must have a model of the world, so it can put what's being said in some kind of context (understand it). It must be able to update this context based on conversations and observation - if at all possible, it should be able to browse the Web and learn from this. At the very least, it must be able to get updates on current news items. And finally, it must be able to use the model to simulate likely outcomes of various actions it or humans might take - in other words, it must be able to think. The generalizations of the results of this thinking should also be stored in the model, so that they can be reused quickly.
So in short, a chatbot that maintains a context for a conversation must really be a "real" AI, since it would need to understand the meaning of what it and others have said.
Try using the Comfy Chair, it'll confess in no time.
Oh come on. Even Firefox with its single-threaded blocking-at-every-excuse implementation can't possibly botch a simple select-read-write -loop to this extent.
And of course there is the argument that even his cheap laptop did use half of it, which is 5 times as much as the next-slowest approach offers.
The problem is, the Religious Right also wants to destroy the world. Go see Rapture Ready forums: every time something bad happens somewhere, the news is met with jubilence; because, after all, it hastens the day when Lord Jesus returns and drowns the world in fire while the righteous - meaning people who'll enjoy watching everyone else burn - watch. And if Lord Jesus might seem to be taking his time in returning... Well, one could always help God's plan along by causing some bad news, right?
Basically, we have two bunches of omnicidal maniacs, one with nuclear weapons, and both are trying to goad each other to get on with it.
No, but wasting over a trillion dollars and ten years to find and kill him and turning your precious Constitution into toilet paper in the process certainly was.
Yes, costs went down. On the other hand, it always takes time to get new recruits up to speed, so if a company fires people it's a clear sign that it doesn't expect to have use for them any time soon - in other words, it's not going to expand its business, and is in fact likely fighting to keep profits up.
What are other trading applications (and the odd human) but prey to one? Wouldn't predicting their actions be useful?
And they also try to guess what other speculators will guess yet other speculators will guess yet other speculators and so on will do. As the number of speculators and thus their influence on the stock price grows, you get to the point where stock values live in their own fantasyland where they rise when a company fires people.
Hard drives are usually considered to fall under Moore's law as well, despite the growth of their capacity having little to do with increasing transistor density. Also, the increasing density of maim memory is because - or at least requires - increasing density of capacitors. And finally, Moore's law is generally used in the context of increasing device capacity, not transistor density.
So, it does seem a bit like pointless pedantry to say that Moore's law is broken if we move away from transistors.
Getting paid for being actively harmful (using electricity) is precisely why Bitcoin will never amount to anything.
Ah, so you're a thieve too.
I wouldn't take it off, I would call the cops and the landlord.
Yes, I guess someone with your talents would be perfectly suited for the financing world.
Why wouldn't you? The current presumably goes through the resistive coil in your oven; why would it not go through the ground as well?
I think you already do.
This is the difference between C and C++: in C, whatever the code of a function says it does, it does; in C++, whatever the code of a function says it does is subject to be changed by templates, operator redefinitions, etc. Because of this it is impossible to make small changes without reading and understanding the entire codebase first.
Basically, if you want to get involved in a large C++ project, you either have a tour guide or very good documentation or make the huge investment of learning the entire superstructure of the program before making any changes to any part of it. It's kinda interesting how C++ encourages this kind of greater dependency between different parts of a program than C.
You are assuming that we keep on building computers from transistors. But there are alternatives; for example, consider a mechanical adder made using benzene rings as gears. An adder made from molecular transistors would likely be far bigger.
Also, you are thinking of transistor-analogues as transistors-equivalents. But consider an optical transistor-analogue where the transparency or opaqueness can be controlled on a per-frequency basis. For all intents and purposes such a device would function like several separate transistors "stacked" together.
Maybe the stack could simply include channels for cooling liquid?