The normal economic law of demand requires a transaction of valuables. There is no incentive to create an industry around accidental usage aside from sheer malevolence which, some would claim, falls cleanly into the same category as other malevolent distributors (spammers, virus makers, botnets, and telemarketers), and deserves no more legal backing than those criminals and miscreants.
Computer models composed by incredibly specialized scientists who've got Ph.Ds in the area under study aren't exactly the same as "software" in a general, loosey-goosey way. You wouldn't open source most business applications precisely because their operation relies on very strict sets of assumptions that work (or don't work) because the people who are building and configuring the systems for that business know (or don't know) precisely how the business should work
All you have to do is read the replies to this article to understand why engaging in serious discussion isn't really feasible. Exaggerated claims of falsification and completely tangential theories about motives seem to be the order of the day.
I think the main reason why it's a valid claim is ANNs have been under study for getting close to half a century at this point in various forms and have shown extreme adeptness at pattern matching and not a whole lot of ability in other domains. ANNs are indeed very good pattern matchers, but the research on them has contributed to a theory of mind that although pattern matching is a multi-level and extremely important mental activity, there's significantly more going on than just pattern matching, and ANNs are not a good way to model these other phenomena.
Despite the so-called "rivalry" too many science "news" outlets have played up, Fermilab puts it on the front page. Always nice to recall that in the end everyone benefits from this big boy coming online.
Ignorance of law is not a defense in a court of law, yet people are subject to laws they cannot read in detail. Doesn't seem very nuanced. It seems a very straightforward violation of basic principles of civics.
I don't think everyone here believes you can't steal music, first off. I believe you can steal music, books, printed art, all kinds of artwork. I come from a fairly serious artist background, and I know folks personally who have been scraping by for years on the meagre earnings of an average artist. It's not a fun life.
I believe large record syndicates are creeptastic and digital media is equation-changing, but that doesn't mean there's no evil in stealing non-physical works. Artists, unless they happen to be the pretty-close-to-literally one in a million shot, make almost nothing and they make a huge difference in how livable a society is. That's not changed by the fact that they can deliver media via digital channels; only people's expectations of the cost involved is changed. The number of consumers shrinks, but so does their expected price point. It's one of the reasons why there are still a lot of physical-media artists (the others including nobody's come up with good, cheap 3 dimensional sound, graphics, or texture delivery systems, physical media still work in some contexts, and art is large a physical act).
And if you can steal art, you can certainly steal code. Of course, in this case it's probably going to have no repercussions because you'd have to educate people on the struggle of open source in terms that wouldn't make a lawyer cry before you could really even get into it, but those of us who've self-selected have at least a notion of the violation and its meaning. And, happily, the irony - if MS really is using open source in its first "better" product in a long time, that's a fun little fact to know.
People say this as if the poor company is the major resource that a country wants. A country governed by and for the people wants its people to have work. A union assures those people that they have the power to keep work conditions and compensation at a fair level. Anyone who thinks unions are driving companies into the ground is looking at the wrong axis of success.
He talks in one post about how his best articles are trolls. The gentleman is proud of the fact. He also seems to have a long history with startups (= long work weeks and usually good opportunities to learn tech to begin with). He might as well have flagged the post as a sensationalist attempt to get blog traffic.
I'm just gonna go out on a limb and suggest that they're not trying to compete with a 1977 Fiat. I don't know for sure, maybe they are, but somehow I doubt it. I get about 500km on a full tank in my 1997 corolla, and that is, wonder of wonders, the target they're trying to surpass.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you mean atom reading.
The normal economic law of demand requires a transaction of valuables. There is no incentive to create an industry around accidental usage aside from sheer malevolence which, some would claim, falls cleanly into the same category as other malevolent distributors (spammers, virus makers, botnets, and telemarketers), and deserves no more legal backing than those criminals and miscreants.
Sounds like it's time to get in on the Long Pork market.
Computer models composed by incredibly specialized scientists who've got Ph.Ds in the area under study aren't exactly the same as "software" in a general, loosey-goosey way. You wouldn't open source most business applications precisely because their operation relies on very strict sets of assumptions that work (or don't work) because the people who are building and configuring the systems for that business know (or don't know) precisely how the business should work
All you have to do is read the replies to this article to understand why engaging in serious discussion isn't really feasible. Exaggerated claims of falsification and completely tangential theories about motives seem to be the order of the day.
Seriously. What the heck?
I think the main reason why it's a valid claim is ANNs have been under study for getting close to half a century at this point in various forms and have shown extreme adeptness at pattern matching and not a whole lot of ability in other domains. ANNs are indeed very good pattern matchers, but the research on them has contributed to a theory of mind that although pattern matching is a multi-level and extremely important mental activity, there's significantly more going on than just pattern matching, and ANNs are not a good way to model these other phenomena.
Ain't that the ugly truth.
Despite the so-called "rivalry" too many science "news" outlets have played up, Fermilab puts it on the front page. Always nice to recall that in the end everyone benefits from this big boy coming online.
Ignorance of law is not a defense in a court of law, yet people are subject to laws they cannot read in detail. Doesn't seem very nuanced. It seems a very straightforward violation of basic principles of civics.
I don't think everyone here believes you can't steal music, first off. I believe you can steal music, books, printed art, all kinds of artwork. I come from a fairly serious artist background, and I know folks personally who have been scraping by for years on the meagre earnings of an average artist. It's not a fun life.
I believe large record syndicates are creeptastic and digital media is equation-changing, but that doesn't mean there's no evil in stealing non-physical works. Artists, unless they happen to be the pretty-close-to-literally one in a million shot, make almost nothing and they make a huge difference in how livable a society is. That's not changed by the fact that they can deliver media via digital channels; only people's expectations of the cost involved is changed. The number of consumers shrinks, but so does their expected price point. It's one of the reasons why there are still a lot of physical-media artists (the others including nobody's come up with good, cheap 3 dimensional sound, graphics, or texture delivery systems, physical media still work in some contexts, and art is large a physical act).
And if you can steal art, you can certainly steal code. Of course, in this case it's probably going to have no repercussions because you'd have to educate people on the struggle of open source in terms that wouldn't make a lawyer cry before you could really even get into it, but those of us who've self-selected have at least a notion of the violation and its meaning. And, happily, the irony - if MS really is using open source in its first "better" product in a long time, that's a fun little fact to know.
I'm pretty sure it's a poultry fraction.
My patent pending banging-two-sticks-together throttle system brings the whole thing full circle.
People say this as if the poor company is the major resource that a country wants. A country governed by and for the people wants its people to have work. A union assures those people that they have the power to keep work conditions and compensation at a fair level. Anyone who thinks unions are driving companies into the ground is looking at the wrong axis of success.
Their /. ids are suspiciously similar...
Do you honestly think bycatch is unregulated at the moment?
More like requiring you to obtain a dictionator's license before you explain the meaning of a word to someone else.
Turns out, nature DOES abhor the Cubs. Showed you, mr fancy physicist guy.
He talks in one post about how his best articles are trolls. The gentleman is proud of the fact. He also seems to have a long history with startups (= long work weeks and usually good opportunities to learn tech to begin with). He might as well have flagged the post as a sensationalist attempt to get blog traffic.
Wow. Way to miss the entire phenomenon of social safety nets. Why don't you just murder anyone who doesn't have a job and get it over with?
If you can't infer the principle languages from that context, you can't answer my question, and therefore don't belong in the conversation.
So that's a no.
This is C++-only, right? Cuz I develop .NET code all day in VS2005, and it works very happily on all sorts of messed up machine configurations.
I'm just gonna go out on a limb and suggest that they're not trying to compete with a 1977 Fiat. I don't know for sure, maybe they are, but somehow I doubt it. I get about 500km on a full tank in my 1997 corolla, and that is, wonder of wonders, the target they're trying to surpass.
Do you have any idea what DirectX actually does in its domain?