I hate to defend Trump on anything, but why are we blaming or crediting him at all, when he didn't make the list? The list was the list of "countries or areas of concern" created by the legislature in 2015 and signed by president Obama years before Trump took office. It simply has nothing to do with him.
The "ban" wasn't bad because the country list made no sense, and it wasn't bad because it targeted Muslims. The ban was bad because it provided no due-process of law, and prevented people from re-entering the country when they already had travel visas and booked flights to return home to the US. Some people found out about the ban only when they landed and were turned away. It was stupidly written, and even his own cabinet admitted it.
I agree. I expect that we will find there is a spectrum for intelligence. On one end of the spectrum there are brains that are deterministic, efficient, logical, unerring, and unselfish. On the other end of the spectrum there are brains that are adaptive, creative, insightful, error-prone, and emotional.
For evidence, look at what happens when we try to impart some of that fuzzy intelligence onto computers. They start to make the same kind of mistakes that the squishy brains do. They mistake a rifle for a helicopter or get totally confused by random static.
The soft squishy animal brains rely on fuzzy logic, statistics, and probably quantum mechanics. They are terrible at multiplying large numbers together, or following a completely logical problem to it's end. They tend to skip steps, or make intuitive leaps to avoid executing each line of reasoning. They sometimes think someone has a gun when they don't. We evolved a brain like this because the world we operate in isn't binary. Does that person have a gun? Well, it's dark, and far away, and they are against a black background, and there are things that look like guns but aren't guns... it's a soft squishy world we live in, and we have to make decisions with partial information. intelligent robots will have to live in this same world.
Quantum computers also don't find the same solution every time. They use statistical randomness to come to a "most likely" solution. We have to run the algorithm over and over until it converges on what a right answer. The trade-off is that they are very fast, and they can make leaps that simply cannot be done with a pure Turing machine.
So our current evidence shows that it may not be possible to create a machine that combines the benefits of both types of brains into one.
"we'll probably recognize that we're just not that hard to fool"/quote. I think you misunderstood his quote. I took it to mean that if someone hard-codes a robot to wipe it's brow, blink, fart, or some other such "human" gesture - that it makes humans feel more comfortable around the robot, even if the robot doesn't actually *need* to do that gesture. Even if therei s no meaning or feeling behind it. We do have evidence to show that works in real life.
Yes, but their dark skin offers them significant protection. That's the whole reason we have different colors of skin: white people produce more vitamin D, but are more susceptible to skin cancer. Black people need more sunlight to produce vitamin D, but are less likely to get skin cancer. Skin Cancer Rates by Race and Ethnicity
Very interesting. One note of caution about such statements though:
...more common since the 1960s...
Any statement about "Disease X has become more common since year Y" should be taken with a grain of salt, because often times the apparent "rise" is really that we didn't know about the disease before then, or didn't have a test for it, or the definition of the disease changed. Autism is the #1 example of this: its rise coincides with us first deciding that it is a thing, then doctors really looking for it, then us changing the definition.
Wow, and you still use that mechanic? I prefer mechanics how diagnose the problem, then charge me only for the fix. And lots of them will waive their labor prices if they fail to fix it.
Basically, as soon as someone said "FCC regulation" investors started to pull out. There was actually nothing specific in the regulation that was causing a problem. Investors were afraid that the FCC would apply price fixing, or use some vague clause to punish small ISPs. Now that was back in April 2017, and a few months later ISPs are suddenly switching their story, asking for the regulations to be put back in place. Interestingly, they seem to be in favor of neutrality itself, saying:
WISPA agrees that ISPs should clearly disclose their terms of service, disclose their network management practices, and protect their customers’ private information; and our members do. All of this will continue under the FCC framework adopted today,
This whole thing seems silly and confusing. All parties signed an agreement to this fact in 1953. The only reason the US would invade North Korea is if NK they started firing on someone, which they constantly keep threatening to do. They are the aggressors here. Why are they asking us for what we have alrwady given? Why is the aggressor asking us for peace? How about take away the artillery you have pointed at your neighbor?
I'll treat this as a serious question worth answering.
They may not have known, at the time of conception, that child #1 had the condition. I have some friends who conceived their second child shortly before realizing child #1 was severely autistic. They only tested the fetus after child #1 was diagnosed.
Is there a gene that makes some people get angry about mismatched fonts, and not other people? It just seems really weird to me.
I logically understand all the stuff about fonts - why Comic Sans shouldn't be used in business presentations, and why not to mix two typefaces within a document. It makes perfect sense. But if someone actually violates these things, someone has to point it out to me or I don't notice it. But to actually write an article about it seems like... wow, really? It matters THAT much?
Agreed. They are using copyright to control the means of distribution, which I don't think was the original intent. We've gone too far, so far that even loading the data from disk to memory is considered a "copy" for the purpose of copyright.
Like everyone else here, I'm wracking my brain trying to figure out what the crime was and why the court upheld it. The clue is in these two points:
...in what seems to have been a huge mistake, the disks had “labels nearly identical to the discs provided by Dell for its computers and had the Windows and Dell logos,”
If I had just written ‘Eric’s Restore Disc’ on there, it would have been fine.”
Yeah, he "accidentally" *wink wink, nudge nudge* labeled them just like full-blown licensed copies of Windows. The reality is that It seems like he was trying to pawn these off as actual Windows installs.
Technically, it was the customer's responsibility to understand the EULA and only use this disk on a computer that already has a valid license. But he had no intention of letting people know that. It didn't come with literature explaining that they needed their original license key to install it. He labeled them to look like Dell Windows CDs, and people would think "Score! I got an actual licensed copy of Windows for only 25 cents!"
This is kinda gray in my opinion - is the customer who installs it without a license the one in violation of copyright, or is it the one who makes the CD? In practice, there's no way to go after the person installing it. Instead, they chose to go after the distributor.
The punishment seems too harsh, since he made no profit and this probably ruins his entire life. No normal person will every be able to pay-off that kind of a fine. But I recommend against betting your fortune and freedom on a gray area hole in the law.
Anyone have a link to the court ruling? It should contain the reasoning.
I betcha that nobody would be willing to take the grants. Here's why: The grants don't pay 100% for the research. The IP pays for the rest.
Universities often pool multiple grants together to pay for research. Some of those grants are public, some are private. The research school may then license or sell the IP to a corporation. So the research universities would not be willing to take a grant if it required the IP to be made public. Perhaps they would, but only if the grant paid a lot lot more. The grants I am familiar with are small - on order of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, rather than the millions it may actually take. So it isn't just the corporations who benefit from the patent system, it's the research schools too.
Then of course, if the grant required the IP to be public, then corporations might not give grants. Because the corporation may have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get the drug to market, even after the research phase is done. Unless the government pays for that too, the corporation needs the IP.
It's much more complicated than "government grant pays for research then corporation snipes research and makes money." Personally, I don't think the US Federal Government is the right place to be deciding what research is likely to result in a successful drug or not. That's essentially nationalizing science. What we have now is a compromise: a system where they incentivize research that is in the public interest, until such point that a company is willing to take on the risk, which seems like a reasonable balance.
And this is why the primary election process needs to be changed to a run-off. Candidate A: 25% like, 65% maybe, and 10% hate Candidate B: 30% like, 60% maybe, 10% hate Candidate C: 33% like, 66% hate
Clearly candidate C should not win. Yet that is what the primary election process picks. But too few Americans have enough attention span to make change like this. 2 days after the election they are already embroiled in some other issue, rather than fixing the root cause.
So I actually want to try out deep fakes - I can think of a billion hilarious uses for this. Unfortunately, every search result for it is centered on pron. There was even a reddit where people were posting instructions and helpful information - but I think between 99% and 101% of it was pron, and reddit shut it down. Anyone have any legit links to information on how to get started on it that DON'T involve pron?
Patents enable a free market. That's why patents are written into the US Constitution. If the company couldn't get patents, then they would have no reason to develop the drugs. This is why countries like China have such little medical R&D: there's no point in doing the R&D if the company across town just takes your formulation and manufactures it, but bears none of the R&D costs.
I'm confused here. If the doctors found that a 1/4 of the dose was just as effective as a full dose, that means the pharmaceutical company would be selling 1/4 of the drug, and making 1/4 of the sales. That might mean that they can no longer afford to manufacture the drug. So are they not forced to raise the prices to compensate? (Hmmm, supposing that 25% of the cost was manufacturing and 75% was payback of R&D, then maybe they only need to raise the price 3x to break even again.) In the end, everyone wins here: The manufacturer makes the same amount of money, the patients can use a lower dosage which is usually safer and more free of side-effects, and the patients pay the same amount.
...smaller doses would for most patients work as well as the large ones...
On second thought, if it only worked for "most patients" then "most patients" would reap the benefits, but the rest would have to pay a higher cost. That does sound unfair. Maybe they should charge the same amount regardless of the dosage? Would that compromise keep the company in business, while not screwing those people who need the high dosage?
You may have just found a very interesting form of pirate file distribution. Can I file a patent with the entire GOT series embedded as one of the claims? Or maybe I could file a FOIA request containing the DeCSS source code? Or a public comment to an FCC proposal!
I wonder if this lawsuit is intended to force Special Council Robert Mueller in some way. Perhaps they want to force him to speed things up because the Democratic party needs the investigation resolved one way or another before they plan their next race. The worst-case scenario for them would be to run Hillary on a platform of Trump-is-a-Russian-spy, then the investigation drops the case 48 hours before the election and the Democrats lose with egg all over their faces. Better to know the result, either way ASAP. Alternatively, maybe Mueller will be forced to step-in and ask the judge to stay the case until the investigation is completed, which would indirectly reveal some of what he has discovered (or not discovered). Or maybe they think they can leak something from the investigation early?
Slashdot Mirror
Because the European version titled "John Madden Handegg" didn't sell nearly as well.
I hate to defend Trump on anything, but why are we blaming or crediting him at all, when he didn't make the list? The list was the list of "countries or areas of concern" created by the legislature in 2015 and signed by president Obama years before Trump took office. It simply has nothing to do with him.
The "ban" wasn't bad because the country list made no sense, and it wasn't bad because it targeted Muslims. The ban was bad because it provided no due-process of law, and prevented people from re-entering the country when they already had travel visas and booked flights to return home to the US. Some people found out about the ban only when they landed and were turned away. It was stupidly written, and even his own cabinet admitted it.
P.S. I had to confirm that before daring to post it, so here are my sources:
http://www.politifact.com/wisc...
and
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...
I agree. I expect that we will find there is a spectrum for intelligence. On one end of the spectrum there are brains that are deterministic, efficient, logical, unerring, and unselfish. On the other end of the spectrum there are brains that are adaptive, creative, insightful, error-prone, and emotional.
For evidence, look at what happens when we try to impart some of that fuzzy intelligence onto computers. They start to make the same kind of mistakes that the squishy brains do. They mistake a rifle for a helicopter or get totally confused by random static.
The soft squishy animal brains rely on fuzzy logic, statistics, and probably quantum mechanics. They are terrible at multiplying large numbers together, or following a completely logical problem to it's end. They tend to skip steps, or make intuitive leaps to avoid executing each line of reasoning. They sometimes think someone has a gun when they don't. We evolved a brain like this because the world we operate in isn't binary. Does that person have a gun? Well, it's dark, and far away, and they are against a black background, and there are things that look like guns but aren't guns... it's a soft squishy world we live in, and we have to make decisions with partial information. intelligent robots will have to live in this same world.
Quantum computers also don't find the same solution every time. They use statistical randomness to come to a "most likely" solution. We have to run the algorithm over and over until it converges on what a right answer. The trade-off is that they are very fast, and they can make leaps that simply cannot be done with a pure Turing machine.
So our current evidence shows that it may not be possible to create a machine that combines the benefits of both types of brains into one.
"we'll probably recognize that we're just not that hard to fool"/quote.
I think you misunderstood his quote. I took it to mean that if someone hard-codes a robot to wipe it's brow, blink, fart, or some other such "human" gesture - that it makes humans feel more comfortable around the robot, even if the robot doesn't actually *need* to do that gesture. Even if therei s no meaning or feeling behind it. We do have evidence to show that works in real life.
Yes, but their dark skin offers them significant protection. That's the whole reason we have different colors of skin: white people produce more vitamin D, but are more susceptible to skin cancer. Black people need more sunlight to produce vitamin D, but are less likely to get skin cancer.
Skin Cancer Rates by Race and Ethnicity
Very interesting. One note of caution about such statements though:
...more common since the 1960s...
Any statement about "Disease X has become more common since year Y" should be taken with a grain of salt, because often times the apparent "rise" is really that we didn't know about the disease before then, or didn't have a test for it, or the definition of the disease changed. Autism is the #1 example of this: its rise coincides with us first deciding that it is a thing, then doctors really looking for it, then us changing the definition.
Wow, and you still use that mechanic? I prefer mechanics how diagnose the problem, then charge me only for the fix. And lots of them will waive their labor prices if they fail to fix it.
I was curious why they would say that, since it should really help them. Here's what I found:
https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/smaller-isps-ask-pai-dispel-cloud-title-ii-165261
Basically, as soon as someone said "FCC regulation" investors started to pull out. There was actually nothing specific in the regulation that was causing a problem. Investors were afraid that the FCC would apply price fixing, or use some vague clause to punish small ISPs. Now that was back in April 2017, and a few months later ISPs are suddenly switching their story, asking for the regulations to be put back in place. Interestingly, they seem to be in favor of neutrality itself, saying:
WISPA agrees that ISPs should clearly disclose their terms of service, disclose their network management practices, and protect their customers’ private information; and our members do. All of this will continue under the FCC framework adopted today,
This whole thing seems silly and confusing. All parties signed an agreement to this fact in 1953. The only reason the US would invade North Korea is if NK they started firing on someone, which they constantly keep threatening to do. They are the aggressors here. Why are they asking us for what we have alrwady given? Why is the aggressor asking us for peace? How about take away the artillery you have pointed at your neighbor?
Something is afoot here...
I'll treat this as a serious question worth answering.
They may not have known, at the time of conception, that child #1 had the condition. I have some friends who conceived their second child shortly before realizing child #1 was severely autistic. They only tested the fetus after child #1 was diagnosed.
Those fantastic costs you see? Most of it is the marketing campaign
No it is not.
Is there a gene that makes some people get angry about mismatched fonts, and not other people? It just seems really weird to me.
I logically understand all the stuff about fonts - why Comic Sans shouldn't be used in business presentations, and why not to mix two typefaces within a document. It makes perfect sense. But if someone actually violates these things, someone has to point it out to me or I don't notice it. But to actually write an article about it seems like... wow, really? It matters THAT much?
Agreed. They are using copyright to control the means of distribution, which I don't think was the original intent. We've gone too far, so far that even loading the data from disk to memory is considered a "copy" for the purpose of copyright.
Like everyone else here, I'm wracking my brain trying to figure out what the crime was and why the court upheld it. The clue is in these two points:
...in what seems to have been a huge mistake, the disks had “labels nearly identical to the discs provided by Dell for its computers and had the Windows and Dell logos,”
If I had just written ‘Eric’s Restore Disc’ on there, it would have been fine.”
Yeah, he "accidentally" *wink wink, nudge nudge* labeled them just like full-blown licensed copies of Windows. The reality is that It seems like he was trying to pawn these off as actual Windows installs.
Technically, it was the customer's responsibility to understand the EULA and only use this disk on a computer that already has a valid license. But he had no intention of letting people know that. It didn't come with literature explaining that they needed their original license key to install it. He labeled them to look like Dell Windows CDs, and people would think "Score! I got an actual licensed copy of Windows for only 25 cents!"
This is kinda gray in my opinion - is the customer who installs it without a license the one in violation of copyright, or is it the one who makes the CD? In practice, there's no way to go after the person installing it. Instead, they chose to go after the distributor.
The punishment seems too harsh, since he made no profit and this probably ruins his entire life. No normal person will every be able to pay-off that kind of a fine. But I recommend against betting your fortune and freedom on a gray area hole in the law.
Anyone have a link to the court ruling? It should contain the reasoning.
I'll look that up, thanks.
I betcha that nobody would be willing to take the grants. Here's why: The grants don't pay 100% for the research. The IP pays for the rest.
Universities often pool multiple grants together to pay for research. Some of those grants are public, some are private. The research school may then license or sell the IP to a corporation. So the research universities would not be willing to take a grant if it required the IP to be made public. Perhaps they would, but only if the grant paid a lot lot more. The grants I am familiar with are small - on order of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, rather than the millions it may actually take. So it isn't just the corporations who benefit from the patent system, it's the research schools too.
Then of course, if the grant required the IP to be public, then corporations might not give grants. Because the corporation may have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get the drug to market, even after the research phase is done. Unless the government pays for that too, the corporation needs the IP.
It's much more complicated than "government grant pays for research then corporation snipes research and makes money." Personally, I don't think the US Federal Government is the right place to be deciding what research is likely to result in a successful drug or not. That's essentially nationalizing science. What we have now is a compromise: a system where they incentivize research that is in the public interest, until such point that a company is willing to take on the risk, which seems like a reasonable balance.
And who they censor.
And this is why the primary election process needs to be changed to a run-off.
Candidate A: 25% like, 65% maybe, and 10% hate
Candidate B: 30% like, 60% maybe, 10% hate
Candidate C: 33% like, 66% hate
Clearly candidate C should not win. Yet that is what the primary election process picks. But too few Americans have enough attention span to make change like this. 2 days after the election they are already embroiled in some other issue, rather than fixing the root cause.
So why don't the grants stipulate that the IP become public?
So I actually want to try out deep fakes - I can think of a billion hilarious uses for this. Unfortunately, every search result for it is centered on pron. There was even a reddit where people were posting instructions and helpful information - but I think between 99% and 101% of it was pron, and reddit shut it down. Anyone have any legit links to information on how to get started on it that DON'T involve pron?
Patents enable a free market. That's why patents are written into the US Constitution. If the company couldn't get patents, then they would have no reason to develop the drugs. This is why countries like China have such little medical R&D: there's no point in doing the R&D if the company across town just takes your formulation and manufactures it, but bears none of the R&D costs.
I'm confused here. If the doctors found that a 1/4 of the dose was just as effective as a full dose, that means the pharmaceutical company would be selling 1/4 of the drug, and making 1/4 of the sales. That might mean that they can no longer afford to manufacture the drug. So are they not forced to raise the prices to compensate? (Hmmm, supposing that 25% of the cost was manufacturing and 75% was payback of R&D, then maybe they only need to raise the price 3x to break even again.) In the end, everyone wins here: The manufacturer makes the same amount of money, the patients can use a lower dosage which is usually safer and more free of side-effects, and the patients pay the same amount.
...smaller doses would for most patients work as well as the large ones...
On second thought, if it only worked for "most patients" then "most patients" would reap the benefits, but the rest would have to pay a higher cost. That does sound unfair. Maybe they should charge the same amount regardless of the dosage? Would that compromise keep the company in business, while not screwing those people who need the high dosage?
You may have just found a very interesting form of pirate file distribution. Can I file a patent with the entire GOT series embedded as one of the claims? Or maybe I could file a FOIA request containing the DeCSS source code? Or a public comment to an FCC proposal!
I wonder if this lawsuit is intended to force Special Council Robert Mueller in some way. Perhaps they want to force him to speed things up because the Democratic party needs the investigation resolved one way or another before they plan their next race. The worst-case scenario for them would be to run Hillary on a platform of Trump-is-a-Russian-spy, then the investigation drops the case 48 hours before the election and the Democrats lose with egg all over their faces. Better to know the result, either way ASAP. Alternatively, maybe Mueller will be forced to step-in and ask the judge to stay the case until the investigation is completed, which would indirectly reveal some of what he has discovered (or not discovered). Or maybe they think they can leak something from the investigation early?
Touché, I see the irony. I suppose that is what happens when you make a framework that caters to the least common denominator between platforms. :-(