As the old saying goes, "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice - in practice, there is."
Still, if more members of "the vast left-wing conspiracy" would find fit to use the states rights mantra at least when it benefited them, perhaps more moderates would see the value in the argument. (I'm personally somewhere between moderate and part of "the vast left-wing conspiracy".)
A lot of people have talked about easing people into Linux via Wine, etc. I've often thought that the reverse process might actually be easier. That is, install OpenOffice on their Windows machine and let them get used to that. It's really just as easy to use as MS Office, IMO. Once they've gotten used to that, find other open source alternatives that they can use without leaving Windows. Then, once Windows is the only non-open source thing they're using - they're ready to switch to Linux. I'm not claiming this is the "only path", but I think for many people it might be an easier path.
I find the similarities between belief in extraterrestrial life and God to be... interesting, and I say this as an atheist who does believe that extraterrestrial life probably exists out there.
I.e., problem exists between fish and brain. You must have had the babel fish inserted the wrong way, because Gore never said that. I realize that's supposed to be a joke, but to me, it's about as funny as "super serial" or "manbearpig".
Part of the beauty of the US is that each state can experiment with different ideas. Ideally, in turn, each state can learn from the successes and mistakes of others. If all states were doing the same thing, then you would potentially miss out on way to do it even better. In general, the less that the federal government imposes on the states, the better. Similarly, in general, the less that the state government imposes on the local governments, the better. Sure, there are places where it's appropriate, but unless there's a strong overriding reason to get involved, larger governments should allow smaller governments to make their own decisions.
I'm glad that in America we get the chance to petition for a vote on controversial issues.
Depending, of course, on which state you live in. In some states, the only items that get on to the ballot are decided on by the very people you don't trust to make those decisions. I suspect that some states don't even have initiatives on the ballot at all. Really, I do think that's one of our strengths - 50+ experiments, running in parallel...
I've actually spoofed a "from" header myself.:) However, I assume that there are easily accessible systems that allow you to easily spoof the original IP address. All your PC has to do (in theory, I've never tried it) is pretend like it's passing along an e-mail from the IP address you want to spoof. That does mean your IP address will show up in the stream, but it will still look like the "sender" IP address is the one you want it to look like.
I (perhaps obviously) know nothing about "source IP filters". Do they somehow detect that it makes no sense for IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx to be forwarding e-mail from IP yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy?
First off, a disclaimer: I don't own a gun, I don't hunt, and I'm even a vegetarian.
Guns kill people, they don't create democracies. One should think you people (Americans) had learned that by now...
One thing you need to understand about Americans is that our democracy was largely created by guns. We wouldn't have had a democracy in the 18th century if it hadn't been for our guns.
If the government has to be removed with guns you already live in a dictatorship.
Absolutely. But if you're not allowed to have guns when living in a democracy, then how are you going to get the guns to overthrow that dictatorship if/when it comes?
I'm not saying the gun argument is completely valid (we would need the support of at least some of the military as well if it came to overthrowing the government) - I'm just pointing out that it's not as invalid as you seem to think.
As you mention, SPF, DomainKeys, or a similar scheme is the only way to verify header information. The "article" seems to not realize that IP addresses can be spoofed just as easily as e-mail addresses.
As for IP law: it is meant *both* to foster innovation and to protect the rights of the inventor.
Yes. However, where those two goals conflict, the intention (at least per the US Constitution) is to show preference to fostering innovation. From the Constitution:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Note that in the Constitution they stated two things: (1) the goal is to promote progress, and (2) these exclusive rights are "for limited times".
Ripping off a product as soon as it is invented will not protect the rights of the inventor, nor foster innovation in the long run.
Whether you look at it positively or negatively is your wish, and "monopoly" has negative connotations. I look at it positively.
Well, I choose to look at monopolies positively. Have a monopoly allows a company to deliver the highest quality goods to its customer by removing inefficiencies inherent in competition.:)
This even extends to non-patentable, tangible property. If I have a beautiful tract of land near a river, I don't think it would be possible for you to have a tract of land "just like it".
That's a valid point. However, I think I would be able to (legally) have a tract of land a lot more like it than I would an egg-beater like your new invention. Another major difference between IP and other property is that if I were to copy your egg-beater design, you would still have your original design. To the extent that I cannot have a tract of land "just like yours", it's only because doing so would deprive you of it.
IP laws should be designed to foster invention, and not hamper it. The point of IP law is not to "protect" the inventor; it is to encourage invention. Although the details about how to best encourage invention are arguable, I presume that we agree on the what the goal of IP law historically has been and what the goal should be again in the future. Correct?
The difference with IP as property is that, within the bounds of patent law, no one can even have property "like" it. If you have own a car, I'm free to buy a car just like it. If there were no patents on it, then I could build my own car just like it. (Maybe I could anyway, IANAL.) The analogy to it being a monopoly is not a bad analogy.
That said, I'm not against IP in theory, although I think your 30/60 numbers are a bit extreme. Unfortunately, the numbers that make sense depend on the field. In CS, 1 year/2 years might make sense. With drugs, maybe 4/8. There's a trade off between how long it would take one to make a reasonable (i.e., motivating) profit, and how long something is actually useful for. Patents were designed to encourage invention, not guarantee virtual monopolies.
Let's take the simplest kind of NN, where literally every packet has to be treated the same.
OK, at this point I'm going to have to object. As someone who works with neural networks, I feel compelled to say that this has got to stop. It was bad enough that "neutral networks" has only one letter different from "neural networks". You are not allowed to call them NN. No, not yours.:)
I don't know about you, but frequently when I do a Google search, I open up individual results in their own tab. I imagine that I would show up as spending a lot of time on Google in those cases.
I guess you could get a person to monitor the robotic tutoring, but you'd end up with a human watching a robot teach a human. Which would be a waste.
Or, you could have a human watching ten robots teach ten humans. Each of those humans get semi-individualized instruction with the benefit of a human instructor if one is needed. In my wife's school, most of the children with autism get a teacher all to themselves for most of the day. The exceptions to this are the more advanced children who work two to a teacher.
Also, many of these children work better with computers than they do with humans. That doesn't mean that humans should be taken out of the picture, but that the computer/robot can do what it's best suited for, and the human instructor can do what he or she is best suited for.
OTOH, it should be noted that, more than likely, most people with autism at this convention were at the higher-functioning end of autism. For them, the autistic tendencies can confer real benefits. Most of those with autism are not necessarily so lucky.
I believe current theory is that most people with autism have interconnection problems, actually. I.e., the various regions of the brain are not communicating well with each other. However, the label "autism" is often about as specific as the label "cancer". That is, I'm quite certain there are several different development disorders that have been lumped under the same label. If you go to a school for children with autism (my wife works in one), you'll notice that these children are more different from each other than the "typical" child with autism is different from a "typical" child without autism. The only things they all have in common are the conditions that were necessary for them to be labelled as having autism in the first place. Some of them have severe mental deficiencies. Others are capable of earning a Ph.D.Most of them, however, at least appear to have lower mental functioning than the typically developing child. (By "appear", I mean by an impartial observer using the tools they have available to them. Unfortunately, the impartial observer cannot always understand the way to communicate to a particular child with autism or the way to interpret such a child's actions. OTOH, a "partial" observer is subject to the typical problems associated with being partial - including a desire to believe that a child has more potential than he or she might actually have.)
Slashdot Mirror
As the old saying goes, "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice - in practice, there is."
Still, if more members of "the vast left-wing conspiracy" would find fit to use the states rights mantra at least when it benefited them, perhaps more moderates would see the value in the argument. (I'm personally somewhere between moderate and part of "the vast left-wing conspiracy".)
A lot of people have talked about easing people into Linux via Wine, etc. I've often thought that the reverse process might actually be easier. That is, install OpenOffice on their Windows machine and let them get used to that. It's really just as easy to use as MS Office, IMO. Once they've gotten used to that, find other open source alternatives that they can use without leaving Windows. Then, once Windows is the only non-open source thing they're using - they're ready to switch to Linux. I'm not claiming this is the "only path", but I think for many people it might be an easier path.
I don't really need such a tool. :)
Then I could get rid of everything that's not open source. :)
Most of the megafauna are also those that didn't co-evolve with humans.
Back in my day, we had to type words into Google and then wade through dozens, possibly hundreds of web-sites to get the answer we wanted!
I find the similarities between belief in extraterrestrial life and God to be ... interesting, and I say this as an atheist who does believe that extraterrestrial life probably exists out there.
Your two critical. Its not everyone who can get they're grammar write.
I.e., problem exists between fish and brain. You must have had the babel fish inserted the wrong way, because Gore never said that. I realize that's supposed to be a joke, but to me, it's about as funny as "super serial" or "manbearpig".
Part of the beauty of the US is that each state can experiment with different ideas. Ideally, in turn, each state can learn from the successes and mistakes of others. If all states were doing the same thing, then you would potentially miss out on way to do it even better. In general, the less that the federal government imposes on the states, the better. Similarly, in general, the less that the state government imposes on the local governments, the better. Sure, there are places where it's appropriate, but unless there's a strong overriding reason to get involved, larger governments should allow smaller governments to make their own decisions.
I've actually spoofed a "from" header myself. :) However, I assume that there are easily accessible systems that allow you to easily spoof the original IP address. All your PC has to do (in theory, I've never tried it) is pretend like it's passing along an e-mail from the IP address you want to spoof. That does mean your IP address will show up in the stream, but it will still look like the "sender" IP address is the one you want it to look like.
I (perhaps obviously) know nothing about "source IP filters". Do they somehow detect that it makes no sense for IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx to be forwarding e-mail from IP yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy?
First off, a disclaimer: I don't own a gun, I don't hunt, and I'm even a vegetarian.
One thing you need to understand about Americans is that our democracy was largely created by guns. We wouldn't have had a democracy in the 18th century if it hadn't been for our guns.
Absolutely. But if you're not allowed to have guns when living in a democracy, then how are you going to get the guns to overthrow that dictatorship if/when it comes?
I'm not saying the gun argument is completely valid (we would need the support of at least some of the military as well if it came to overthrowing the government) - I'm just pointing out that it's not as invalid as you seem to think.
As you mention, SPF, DomainKeys, or a similar scheme is the only way to verify header information. The "article" seems to not realize that IP addresses can be spoofed just as easily as e-mail addresses.
Well, I choose to look at monopolies positively. Have a monopoly allows a company to deliver the highest quality goods to its customer by removing inefficiencies inherent in competition. :)
That's a valid point. However, I think I would be able to (legally) have a tract of land a lot more like it than I would an egg-beater like your new invention. Another major difference between IP and other property is that if I were to copy your egg-beater design, you would still have your original design. To the extent that I cannot have a tract of land "just like yours", it's only because doing so would deprive you of it.
IP laws should be designed to foster invention, and not hamper it. The point of IP law is not to "protect" the inventor; it is to encourage invention. Although the details about how to best encourage invention are arguable, I presume that we agree on the what the goal of IP law historically has been and what the goal should be again in the future. Correct?
The difference with IP as property is that, within the bounds of patent law, no one can even have property "like" it. If you have own a car, I'm free to buy a car just like it. If there were no patents on it, then I could build my own car just like it. (Maybe I could anyway, IANAL.) The analogy to it being a monopoly is not a bad analogy.
That said, I'm not against IP in theory, although I think your 30/60 numbers are a bit extreme. Unfortunately, the numbers that make sense depend on the field. In CS, 1 year/2 years might make sense. With drugs, maybe 4/8. There's a trade off between how long it would take one to make a reasonable (i.e., motivating) profit, and how long something is actually useful for. Patents were designed to encourage invention, not guarantee virtual monopolies.
I don't know about you, but frequently when I do a Google search, I open up individual results in their own tab. I imagine that I would show up as spending a lot of time on Google in those cases.
It wouldn't be a /. poll without missing options!
So far on this thread 3 dates have been suggested: 10 days, 2 weeks, and 10 weeks. This sounds like the beginning of a /. poll...
How long do you think it will take for Blu-Ray DRM to be cracked?Or, you could have a human watching ten robots teach ten humans. Each of those humans get semi-individualized instruction with the benefit of a human instructor if one is needed. In my wife's school, most of the children with autism get a teacher all to themselves for most of the day. The exceptions to this are the more advanced children who work two to a teacher.
Also, many of these children work better with computers than they do with humans. That doesn't mean that humans should be taken out of the picture, but that the computer/robot can do what it's best suited for, and the human instructor can do what he or she is best suited for.
OTOH, it should be noted that, more than likely, most people with autism at this convention were at the higher-functioning end of autism. For them, the autistic tendencies can confer real benefits. Most of those with autism are not necessarily so lucky.
I believe current theory is that most people with autism have interconnection problems, actually. I.e., the various regions of the brain are not communicating well with each other. However, the label "autism" is often about as specific as the label "cancer". That is, I'm quite certain there are several different development disorders that have been lumped under the same label. If you go to a school for children with autism (my wife works in one), you'll notice that these children are more different from each other than the "typical" child with autism is different from a "typical" child without autism. The only things they all have in common are the conditions that were necessary for them to be labelled as having autism in the first place. Some of them have severe mental deficiencies. Others are capable of earning a Ph.D. Most of them, however, at least appear to have lower mental functioning than the typically developing child. (By "appear", I mean by an impartial observer using the tools they have available to them. Unfortunately, the impartial observer cannot always understand the way to communicate to a particular child with autism or the way to interpret such a child's actions. OTOH, a "partial" observer is subject to the typical problems associated with being partial - including a desire to believe that a child has more potential than he or she might actually have.)