Slaves? Please people like you need a swift slap in the face.
When the choice is that or starve, it's slavery. Being born an American doesn't mean you're automatically a more deserving person; why not try a little empathy once in a while?
Actually, the network infrastructure in the UK is more than capable of those speeds already, it's just that all the bandwidth is being used for real time CCTV footage:-)
"Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college."
The trouble with pictures is that the algorithm generating the captcha has to also come up with the question, and if it can figure out which animal is in a picture, then it's completely ineffective:). You can't just stick a list of pictures and responses in a list, because that makes the pool too small, and brute-forceable.
that some authority deems "harmful", like pictures of naked female breasts.
I hope you're joking. Have you seen the state of the world today? It's a shambles! The economy is collapsing, and I think we all know the reason. Every single one of our children sees naked female breasts from the very day they're born. This has to stop, and it has to stop now: the children are our future, and if we don't protect them from the naked horrors of pornography, who will?
I think you missed the GP's point. You can probably fix that PSP trojan: you might need a JTAG cable or similar, or maybe you'd need to replace a chip in there, but it's fixable to someone with the right equipment. Personally, i've always used 'brick' to mean 'broken past the point where it's fixable in software'. i.e. if I have to open the case or use extra hardware to fix the problem, it's bricked.
Don't worry! If they try and procreate we'll have them brought up on charges Statutory rape of what-was-once-a-minor.
Think of the people who used to be children!
Meh. Look at most of the comments from Americans on Slashdot (I'm taking moderation to mean 'deletion of posts' or 'censorship' here: in any case, anti-government posts are frequently modded up on/.). You would think that most of the people here would jump at the chance to move to another country, wouldn't you?
Forgive me, but the very definition of freedom is: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints
It's naÃve to say that anarchy isn't equivalent to total personal freedom just because you don't like it. Of course you then go on to say
if you don't like it . go live in woods.
Which is the whole idea behind anarchy: if you don't like the current sociopolitical system you're in, you can go find another one without hindrance, or start your own. In the current system, even if you go live in the woods you're still subject to laws and not "Free" in the truest sense of the term.
The BBC License fee is 'only' £139.50 which is $210 at the current exchange rate. I'm not sure where you got the $400 figure from. We also have broadcast digital TV (freeview), which has (I think) about 30 channels, all of which are available upon payment of the license fee. There are around 8 BBC television channels, too, all of which come without advertising. If I were to choose between paying the license fee and paying for cable or satellite, i'd certainly choose the former, although at the moment one has to pay for the license on top of cable or satellite.
You can own a TV as long as you don't use it to pick up any TV signals. In answer to your questions: yes you can own both of those, britain isn't quite that totalitarian (yet), although the TV licensing people will send you lots of letters telling you that you haven't got a license: I tend to ignore them:-).
The best way forward, in my eyes, is something similar to the BBC. An optional yearly subscription in exchange for a connection, where the supplier is neither a private corporation nor a government department, eliminating both the privacy issue, and the budget issues (the company has to remain profitable, and yet cannot overcharge due to effective control by the people). I really disagree with privatization of infrastructure, since it can't fulfill free market criteria such as low barriers to entry. I include roads, medical care, telecoms in that category: these are things that simply aren't effective in a free-market economy.
Yeah 32000 years from now that is really going to confuse the people trying to work out where the human race came from.
I hate to break it to you, but in 32000 years, nobody is going to care where a bunch of damn dirty apes who barely even made it to their own moon came from.
This could have some potentially interesting implications for the movie industry. Streaming a free copy of the film on the net is likely to leech most of the traffic from BitTorrent and other P2P protocols; One only needs to look at alluc.org and the late tv-links to see that. Combine that with *hundreds* of background adverts that don't even need to break the flow of the film, and they could well be on to a winner.
How much would you pay for prominent product placement in a feature film?
It's not only a matter of control: What about casual gamers? I finished Red Alert 3 in four days (parents basement, etc.;)), so I would only have to pay a month's worth of subscription, but what about those who only play games occasionally, or maybe aren't particularly good at games? When the amount you pay is directly proportional to how good you are, and how much you play, I think they'll end up losing a fair amount of business from first-time and casual gamers. Anyway, I like having copies of my old games to play a few years down the line; with a subscription model, if the publisher goes out of business I might never see my favorite game of old again.
It's impossible to make a blockbuster movie without charging for it. Not because of the reason you think, but because the definition of "blockbuster" is that the film makes more than USD$100 million.
HTH:P
I was wondering if someone would pick up on that, which is why I originally only said "it must be possible to create intelligence" rather than "it must be possible for humans to create intelligence".
My first thought was that it's a simple logical fallacy:
1) A higher intelligence can create intelligence
2) A higher intelligence is intelligent
3) humans are intelligent
Therefore, humans can create intelligence
This seems obviously wrong, at first, but I'm not sure it's quite so simple. Traditional logic doesn't work well when trying to describe things with degrees of truth, such as intelligence. I'm tempted to argue that Mankind's intelligence is the sum of its parts, and the creation of AI should therefore be possible with unlimited population expansion. That's getting into meaningless philosophical territory, and as Kevin Warwick put it, "I feel that we are all philosophers, and that those who describe themselves as a âphilosopherâ(TM) simply do not have a day job to go to".
Slashdot Mirror
When the choice is that or starve, it's slavery. Being born an American doesn't mean you're automatically a more deserving person; why not try a little empathy once in a while?
Definitely, and we won't need to put any money into R&D either! Who cares if we lose a couple whales?
WRONG. I'll bet his birthday party is going to be EPOCH.
What the hell, Slashdot? Stop posting all my passwords!
Actually, the network infrastructure in the UK is more than capable of those speeds already, it's just that all the bandwidth is being used for real time CCTV footage :-)
My servers are hosted in Korea, you insensitive clod!
So yes, you are a fetishist.
Better the Gnupocalypse than the gpocalypse (beta). Worse still is the iPocalypse, but at least it'll be something to look at.
The trouble with pictures is that the algorithm generating the captcha has to also come up with the question, and if it can figure out which animal is in a picture, then it's completely ineffective :). You can't just stick a list of pictures and responses in a list, because that makes the pool too small, and brute-forceable.
It's porn all the way down.
I hope you're joking. Have you seen the state of the world today? It's a shambles! The economy is collapsing, and I think we all know the reason. Every single one of our children sees naked female breasts from the very day they're born. This has to stop, and it has to stop now: the children are our future, and if we don't protect them from the naked horrors of pornography, who will?
I think you missed the GP's point. You can probably fix that PSP trojan: you might need a JTAG cable or similar, or maybe you'd need to replace a chip in there, but it's fixable to someone with the right equipment. Personally, i've always used 'brick' to mean 'broken past the point where it's fixable in software'. i.e. if I have to open the case or use extra hardware to fix the problem, it's bricked.
Don't worry! If they try and procreate we'll have them brought up on charges Statutory rape of what-was-once-a-minor.
Think of the people who used to be children!
how about 'molesting'?
Meh. Look at most of the comments from Americans on Slashdot (I'm taking moderation to mean 'deletion of posts' or 'censorship' here: in any case, anti-government posts are frequently modded up on /.). You would think that most of the people here would jump at the chance to move to another country, wouldn't you?
Which is the whole idea behind anarchy: if you don't like the current sociopolitical system you're in, you can go find another one without hindrance, or start your own. In the current system, even if you go live in the woods you're still subject to laws and not "Free" in the truest sense of the term.
The BBC License fee is 'only' £139.50 which is $210 at the current exchange rate. I'm not sure where you got the $400 figure from. We also have broadcast digital TV (freeview), which has (I think) about 30 channels, all of which are available upon payment of the license fee. There are around 8 BBC television channels, too, all of which come without advertising. If I were to choose between paying the license fee and paying for cable or satellite, i'd certainly choose the former, although at the moment one has to pay for the license on top of cable or satellite.
You can own a TV as long as you don't use it to pick up any TV signals. In answer to your questions: yes you can own both of those, britain isn't quite that totalitarian (yet), although the TV licensing people will send you lots of letters telling you that you haven't got a license: I tend to ignore them :-).
The best way forward, in my eyes, is something similar to the BBC. An optional yearly subscription in exchange for a connection, where the supplier is neither a private corporation nor a government department, eliminating both the privacy issue, and the budget issues (the company has to remain profitable, and yet cannot overcharge due to effective control by the people). I really disagree with privatization of infrastructure, since it can't fulfill free market criteria such as low barriers to entry. I include roads, medical care, telecoms in that category: these are things that simply aren't effective in a free-market economy.
I hate to break it to you, but in 32000 years, nobody is going to care where a bunch of damn dirty apes who barely even made it to their own moon came from.
Doomed, I tell you! DOOOMED!
This could have some potentially interesting implications for the movie industry. Streaming a free copy of the film on the net is likely to leech most of the traffic from BitTorrent and other P2P protocols; One only needs to look at alluc.org and the late tv-links to see that. Combine that with *hundreds* of background adverts that don't even need to break the flow of the film, and they could well be on to a winner. How much would you pay for prominent product placement in a feature film?
It's not only a matter of control: What about casual gamers? I finished Red Alert 3 in four days (parents basement, etc. ;)), so I would only have to pay a month's worth of subscription, but what about those who only play games occasionally, or maybe aren't particularly good at games? When the amount you pay is directly proportional to how good you are, and how much you play, I think they'll end up losing a fair amount of business from first-time and casual gamers. Anyway, I like having copies of my old games to play a few years down the line; with a subscription model, if the publisher goes out of business I might never see my favorite game of old again.
It's impossible to make a blockbuster movie without charging for it. Not because of the reason you think, but because the definition of "blockbuster" is that the film makes more than USD$100 million. :P
HTH
I was wondering if someone would pick up on that, which is why I originally only said "it must be possible to create intelligence" rather than "it must be possible for humans to create intelligence".
My first thought was that it's a simple logical fallacy:
1) A higher intelligence can create intelligence
2) A higher intelligence is intelligent
3) humans are intelligent
Therefore, humans can create intelligence
This seems obviously wrong, at first, but I'm not sure it's quite so simple. Traditional logic doesn't work well when trying to describe things with degrees of truth, such as intelligence. I'm tempted to argue that Mankind's intelligence is the sum of its parts, and the creation of AI should therefore be possible with unlimited population expansion. That's getting into meaningless philosophical territory, and as Kevin Warwick put it, "I feel that we are all philosophers, and that those who describe themselves as a âphilosopherâ(TM) simply do not have a day job to go to".