That'd be similar to trying to privately build the portion of the road system to get to your front door, then driving a subsidized car over them to help defray the costs.
it'd be similar to having a *3rd party* build a road to my home, then paying that party to use the road. isn't that called a toll road? yes i understand that 3rd parties don't compete to build roads, but it was your analogy.
how about subsidizing the service, once it's implemented? in other words, let them build it themselves with their own money, and once it's built, subsidize the customer's payment +X%. that way they have an incentive to build it, and it build it well in a way customers will want it.
Witness MS trying to make it sound like Linux is stealing trillions of dollars from them, or the religious majority of the country claiming there's a "War on Christmas."
"... under 12 parsecs.." an artificial moon that they decided to name "death star" ewoks that cheesy scene where obi-wan and vader showed up as force-ghosts muppet yoda hammil's terrible acting the most stereotypical villian ever (deep scary voice, a black helmet and cap... and so on) the piles, and piles of action figures and ships that have ended up in land fills
THAT crap was awful.
the problem is, as it keeps getting stated is that when we watched Star Wars 4-6, we were kids so all that stuff didn't bother us. when we watch 1-3, we were adults and it did. 1-3 are not great movies, but let's face it, 1-3 are essentially the same style and quality as 4-6. they have a larger special effects budgets, and more marketing. that's it.
i think it's naive to assume that the people developing and deploying DRM actually think it can't be broken. they probably know a hell of a lot more about the various technologies than we do.
Oh. I completely agree. There's no reason to have DRM on Netflix now that the DRM has been broken on BluRay.
netflix HAS to include DRM. it's contractually bound to do so in it's content licenses.
the point of DRM is not to make it absolutely impossible to copy. the point is to make it non-obvious for the average user (something more than File->Save as...). DRM will always be broken and everyone with 1/2 a brain knows this.
Democrats traditionally favor large government and using government assistance programs to buy votes of immigrants
republicans are traditionally staunch supporters of military spending. it doesn't get any bigger government than that.
the large v. small government is rhetoric. both parties favor large government when it serves their needs. public healthcare wasn't opposed because ideologically it's a step toward "big government", it was opposed because it might upset a very lucrative business investments of upper-class support of many politicians (insurance industry and healthcare).
buy votes of immigrants who in effect become their clients
the votes are a (welcome) side effect, but the real goal is to supply big business with never ending supply of cheap workers.
It's a crazy idea. I don't think it's going to fly particularly well, but hey, if they want to try something unique and crazy, I'm not going to stop them.
it's not a question of stopping them. it's a question of whether you are going to give them money. will you?
Instead of moaning how bad of an idea this is, YOU make something that you think would work.
it already has been made. USB stick computers. plug it into the HDMI slot where it doesn't move. bluetooth mouse, keyboard. done. http://www.amazon.com/Hossen-M...
A restaurant filming me does not bother me at all. Why? Because they don't do anything with it other than in the case of a crime.
seriously? how do you think all of the celebrity footage gets released? sort of like the film of Jay Z getting punched by his sister in law (or whatever it was) in the elevator?
the reason why nothing gets done with security footage of you is that nobody gives a crap about you. google glass won't change that.
the difference is that w/ glass, you know you (may) be recorded. without glass, you have no idea. covert recording devices are numerous and powerful. if someone *wants* to record you, they will.
You think is OK for some Glasshole to walk into a restaurant where you are enjoying a public yet private dinner with a friend, record it and put it up on the Intertubes? You are OK with that. I mean, it is a "public" place, right?
i'd be flattered if someone cared enough about me to do so. anyone that uses the term "glasshole" is utterly naive about the technology and has serious misconceptions about what privacy they have while in public places. if you aren't getting recorded and blasted on youtube today, it's not because it can't be done, it's because nobody cares. if someone wants to record you in public, they will... and every month a new product comes out that's smaller, faster, has more memory, better frame rate, higher resolution, better zoom. there's no law against it, it's legal. it happens and will continue to happen.
Hollywood has set the bar so low you'd need trenching equipment not to clear it.
the bar as always been low.
old farts (like me) do this thing where they remember only the good movies from their childhood. across a lifetime there are many memorable movies. movies were better when i was young! what they don't remember are the thousands of duds, of course, because they weren't memorable movies.
The doom and gloom scenarios all hinge on this idea that the AI is going to be so much smarter and more powerful than we are. That's where it's dipping way into just crazy speculation. Based on what we know about intelligent beings, the system is full of flaws that slow everything down.
it's not like we have to build AI from the ground up. we have a prototype already. it's called the brain. your brain is just a meat processor. it's a system of cells, interconnections, chemicals, and electric pulses. all of that can be modeled in software, and run a million times faster, run itself in parallel, interface with other electronic systems in vastly superior ways, nearly limitless, perfect storage, and so on.
For all we know...
think about what humanity knew 100 years ago, and what they know now. no one is saying absolutely AI will threaten humanity. people are suggesting it might, and considering the stakes, we should be proceed with caution.
I'd wager the first truly sentient AI's will be quite a bit duller
one idea is that once software can improve itself things will go from 0-60 very quickly. that's why people suggest we need a plan before even the dullest AIs are developed.
did you mean "made to do harm"? people do and will continue to make machines that do harm, and if giving them some semblance of "AI" makes them more effective, they will do it. people are "evil", and we build machines to help us do our bidding. i hope that humans aren't in conflict with other humans in 200 years, but i doubt it.
where i come from, discussing and addressing problems before they are a threat is a good idea.
did we learn anything from global warming? we denied that up to the point where it's essentially too late. would have been good to be talking about global warming a hundred years ago wouldn't it have? humans need to get accustomed to looking at the big picture if we are to survive.
yes, worrying about AI that might be a threat in 500 years is like worrying about the Sun burning out in 5 billion years. good point. we should also stop talking about global warming while we are at it.
We cannot build a computer that can model a bug's brain activity, let alone something a million times more complicated like a human brain
Slashdot Mirror
as opposed to giving them a bunch of money for nothing? yes, i'd prefer that.
thank god, a car analogy to save the day.
That'd be similar to trying to privately build the portion of the road system to get to your front door, then driving a subsidized car over them to help defray the costs.
it'd be similar to having a *3rd party* build a road to my home, then paying that party to use the road. isn't that called a toll road? yes i understand that 3rd parties don't compete to build roads, but it was your analogy.
how about subsidizing the service, once it's implemented? in other words, let them build it themselves with their own money, and once it's built, subsidize the customer's payment +X%. that way they have an incentive to build it, and it build it well in a way customers will want it.
but anyway, too late for that.
Witness MS trying to make it sound like Linux is stealing trillions of dollars from them, or the religious majority of the country claiming there's a "War on Christmas."
um, what?
Droids controlled from a single point of failure
"... under 12 parsecs .." ... and so on)
an artificial moon that they decided to name "death star"
ewoks
that cheesy scene where obi-wan and vader showed up as force-ghosts
muppet yoda
hammil's terrible acting
the most stereotypical villian ever (deep scary voice, a black helmet and cap
the piles, and piles of action figures and ships that have ended up in land fills
THAT crap was awful.
the problem is, as it keeps getting stated is that when we watched Star Wars 4-6, we were kids so all that stuff didn't bother us. when we watch 1-3, we were adults and it did. 1-3 are not great movies, but let's face it, 1-3 are essentially the same style and quality as 4-6. they have a larger special effects budgets, and more marketing. that's it.
I would consider this as consent, dot period.
i think the argument is that she couldn't refuse since the professor was in a position of power.
i think it's naive to assume that the people developing and deploying DRM actually think it can't be broken. they probably know a hell of a lot more about the various technologies than we do.
Oh. I completely agree. There's no reason to have DRM on Netflix now that the DRM has been broken on BluRay.
netflix HAS to include DRM. it's contractually bound to do so in it's content licenses.
the point of DRM is not to make it absolutely impossible to copy. the point is to make it non-obvious for the average user (something more than File->Save as ...). DRM will always be broken and everyone with 1/2 a brain knows this.
I've been trying to hire a Senior-level EE for over a year. I have interviewed 2 candidates every week during that time, so basically 100 people.
that's a meaningless statement without knowing the wage / benefits / incentives you are offering.
Democrats traditionally favor large government and using government assistance programs to buy votes of immigrants
republicans are traditionally staunch supporters of military spending. it doesn't get any bigger government than that.
the large v. small government is rhetoric. both parties favor large government when it serves their needs. public healthcare wasn't opposed because ideologically it's a step toward "big government", it was opposed because it might upset a very lucrative business investments of upper-class support of many politicians (insurance industry and healthcare).
buy votes of immigrants who in effect become their clients
the votes are a (welcome) side effect, but the real goal is to supply big business with never ending supply of cheap workers.
It's a crazy idea. I don't think it's going to fly particularly well, but hey, if they want to try something unique and crazy, I'm not going to stop them.
it's not a question of stopping them. it's a question of whether you are going to give them money. will you?
Instead of moaning how bad of an idea this is, YOU make something that you think would work.
it already has been made. USB stick computers. plug it into the HDMI slot where it doesn't move. bluetooth mouse, keyboard. done.
http://www.amazon.com/Hossen-M...
A restaurant filming me does not bother me at all. Why? Because they don't do anything with it other than in the case of a crime.
seriously? how do you think all of the celebrity footage gets released? sort of like the film of Jay Z getting punched by his sister in law (or whatever it was) in the elevator?
the reason why nothing gets done with security footage of you is that nobody gives a crap about you. google glass won't change that.
you need to go check out the latest google translate. point your camera at any text and instantly translate it into 8+ languages in real time.
but don't ever expect me to be OK with people walking around with those on their faces.
personally, i don't expect anything other than for you to mind your own business.
There are subtle but important differences.
the difference is that w/ glass, you know you (may) be recorded. without glass, you have no idea. covert recording devices are numerous and powerful. if someone *wants* to record you, they will.
You think is OK for some Glasshole to walk into a restaurant where you are enjoying a public yet private dinner with a friend, record it and put it up on the Intertubes? You are OK with that. I mean, it is a "public" place, right?
i'd be flattered if someone cared enough about me to do so. anyone that uses the term "glasshole" is utterly naive about the technology and has serious misconceptions about what privacy they have while in public places. if you aren't getting recorded and blasted on youtube today, it's not because it can't be done, it's because nobody cares. if someone wants to record you in public, they will ... and every month a new product comes out that's smaller, faster, has more memory, better frame rate, higher resolution, better zoom. there's no law against it, it's legal. it happens and will continue to happen.
If Tizen development speeds up a bit, the OS could become a stand-in for Android
wrong, samsung will make both. they made 52 different smartphone models last year. samsung has enough money to do everything 10x, and they do.
Hollywood has set the bar so low you'd need trenching equipment not to clear it.
the bar as always been low.
old farts (like me) do this thing where they remember only the good movies from their childhood. across a lifetime there are many memorable movies. movies were better when i was young! what they don't remember are the thousands of duds, of course, because they weren't memorable movies.
The doom and gloom scenarios all hinge on this idea that the AI is going to be so much smarter and more powerful than we are. That's where it's dipping way into just crazy speculation. Based on what we know about intelligent beings, the system is full of flaws that slow everything down.
it's not like we have to build AI from the ground up. we have a prototype already. it's called the brain. your brain is just a meat processor. it's a system of cells, interconnections, chemicals, and electric pulses. all of that can be modeled in software, and run a million times faster, run itself in parallel, interface with other electronic systems in vastly superior ways, nearly limitless, perfect storage, and so on.
For all we know ...
think about what humanity knew 100 years ago, and what they know now. no one is saying absolutely AI will threaten humanity. people are suggesting it might, and considering the stakes, we should be proceed with caution.
I'd wager the first truly sentient AI's will be quite a bit duller
one idea is that once software can improve itself things will go from 0-60 very quickly. that's why people suggest we need a plan before even the dullest AIs are developed.
unless you actually fucking MADE it evil.
did you mean "made to do harm"? people do and will continue to make machines that do harm, and if giving them some semblance of "AI" makes them more effective, they will do it. people are "evil", and we build machines to help us do our bidding. i hope that humans aren't in conflict with other humans in 200 years, but i doubt it.
where i come from, discussing and addressing problems before they are a threat is a good idea.
did we learn anything from global warming? we denied that up to the point where it's essentially too late. would have been good to be talking about global warming a hundred years ago wouldn't it have? humans need to get accustomed to looking at the big picture if we are to survive.
malice
malice isn't a requirement to do harm. in fact, indifference is more dangerous.
yes, worrying about AI that might be a threat in 500 years is like worrying about the Sun burning out in 5 billion years. good point. we should also stop talking about global warming while we are at it.
We cannot build a computer that can model a bug's brain activity, let alone something a million times more complicated like a human brain
http://www.futurity.org/why-ar...
rather, once we are able to model any nervous system we are well one the way,
AI do not exists
thanks, we know that, but we are concerned about what could happen when they do.
you think it's absolutely impossible that could be achieved in say the next 500 years, considering what humans have accomplished in the last 100?