The images captured in the London attacks meant the police could find out who they were, where they lived, who they had contact with, where they had travelled, etc etc etc.
No, it only told them what they looked like. They still had to figure out who they were, where they lived, who they had contact with, where they have travelled, etc.
confused. anyway, with a picture you can send flat-foots out to ask people if they know who it is or compare the image to all the mug shots that the police have.
i dont think that is the point here. the point is, ftfa: The stolen virtual possessions were then exchanged for real cash.
while not real property it was still 'stolen' from someone. the victims here spent time to get something, only to have someone else take (steal) it from them and make a profit from it. since the person used a bot i think there is a definate intent to 'mug' and profit. if the happened to kill the player in fair combat this might be a whole other issue. if the 'mugger' made a copy of the virtual possessions this would be different still and fall under the 'but he still has his' (which i dont buy) argument.
i bet they would price it the same as the competition - maybe 5$ less. right now many locations (at least in, near and around my area) only have DSL or cable so it is hard to get companies to compete if they dont *have* to. if it is the same cost or cheaper than cable i would switch. hopefully enough other people will too. once the local companies lose enough subscribers there should, hopefully, be a price war.
ftfa: (As a side note, I think it's cowardly for FCC officials to refuse to have their names mentioned, but it was a condition of attending the event.)
if the fcc is a government agency, paid by taxpayers, shouldnt we know the identity of the officials and who said what? why are they hiding if they want to know where we are? even if it is *only* for emergency responders...
these guys have been watching too many spy movies. this could kill the industry. i really doubt it would happen on a large scale. perhaps under a warrant or soemthing.
ftfa: According to Bainwol, in turn citing figures from market watcher NPD, 29 per cent of the recorded music obtained by listeners last year came from content copied onto recordable media. Only 16 per cent came from illegal downloads.
Legal downloads accounted for four per cent of music acquisitions, while official CDs accounted for almost 50 per cent of the total.
get attention, i doubt it. laws just let society punish people who do things society doesnt like and just create more criminals. if laws worked no one would murder, steal, have really big guns, etc...
I have a hunch no one outside of Intel's PR department knows.
see now you have been reading too much dilbert.:P could be true, i have never worked for a company over 10 people so i dont have any first hand knowledge of pr people.
One thing the article didn't make clear is what exactly Intel means by "A New Chip Architecture"
ftfa:The company said the new technology will be described by Paul Otellini, Intel's chief executive, later this month in San Francisco during a speech at the company's twice-yearly conference for hardware and software developers.
i hav a hunch no one outside of intel knows just yet. probably have to wait for the conference to find out. this article just says, ?hey, things are 'a chanin'".
yup. but if you look hard there is sometimes a small line of text that says "click here to download without registering". at least autodesk has one. it is hard to see though.
Jose Avila built this table and chairs set from FedEx boxes and shipping supplies. The shipping company claims he's violating trademark and copyright laws and wants him to take down his website.
this story must have been planted by fedex to take his site down...
which is why, in my opinion, that the big gut at google shouldnt be throwing a tantrum. as another post points out, there is already a system to get your information off the web. but doesnt google (or some other entitiy) archive everything?
It has to do with reporting personal information about a person in a way that is objectionable to said person, and said person actually having some recourse they can take.
is goes beyond that. the greater issue, for me at least, is the amount of sensitive information that is available through google and other search engines/services. while what zdnet did is in bad taste - i think we should be asking:
should sensitive and/or personally identifiable information be available online if the indivdual doesnt want it to be? should i be able to 'opt out of' or perferably 'opt into' google's (etc.) indexes?
i think what zdnet did is ethical. if google thinks it is o.k. to gather information about people and put it in a location that is accessible to the public then another entity should be able to gather the same information and make it accessible to the public.
to quote kant's categorical imperative: "Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law." i.e. only do what you want others to do.
i think the greater aspect about this is that zdnet is making people aware of just how far google's reach into our personal and private lives is. google is treating us as a means, while zdnet is respecting us and treating us as an ends only.
"Act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means." google is treating us as a means, they are taking our information without asking. to treat us as an end they would have to ask if we consent to having our information included in their indexes.
further reading.
of course, the bulk of my ethics are in line with kant, you may disagree with my viewpoint.
and inexpensive enough to allow insurance companies and/or employers to feel they can reasonably make such exclusions
eventually there will be no more insurance companies on account of us all being excluded for a.5% chance of being genetically prone to some disability.
parents are who dont know are going to pick up the cheaper one, thinking that store just has a better price. then feel ripped off once they find out they could have bought the extras at once - for 100$ cheaper at the outset.
i cannot make a copy of myself either, hence i cannot reproduce. a reproduction being an exact copy. instead i produce another human with the help of another human. i see no reason an AI couldnt make a variation on itself by incorporating code from another AI. instead of incubating a life as humans do, they would build it.
you are correct, they cant back it up with eveidence, that is why it is called faith. how would the group of AI following the scientific method arrive at a creator if the creator never gives evidence of itself?
i agree with your last paragraph until:In fact, the idea that God would create all these fossils that point to evolution and then switch to some other "magical" mechanism at the last minute is kind of strange.... what would be the point of doing that? you just stated that:There is no rule that says God couldn't create a universe where evolution happens, and use evolution as his method for creating humans. does intelligent deisgn state that god created fossils, or that the fossils are a result of evolution?
i think intelligent design is just a way for religious minded people to accept the mounting evidence for evolution without loosing their faith. all it does is add another step to 'we just exist, deal with it.' i have no problem spending a couple paragraphs in a text book mentioning that, along with all the other creation myths.
i learned computer skills in junior high and feel that an early introduction at school helped me greatly. my family was too poor to justify a buying a computer, so i learned at school or from a friend.
learning computers didnt stop me from learning how to spell, write decently, write creatively (though i admit i am too lazy to capitalize and add punctuation), play guitar, paint in a variety of mediums, draw. i took college calculus in high school, physics, chemistry. i can multiply in my head, i know long division.
what i am saying is this isnt an either/or option. learning is learning and if someone has the aptitude to do it, dont handicap them. your children will thank you when they arent scared of technology. it is a fact of life in our society, learn to use it.
there is a rumor at my college about making notebooks mandatory. it is painfull to go into the any of the labs during finals week and find a machine that isnt tied up rendering someones project. plus kids need to be exposed to this stuff. or finding one that has the software you need, etc.
i am amazed at the number of computer illiterate 18-22 year olds on campus. i would guess at half of that population, easy.
they obviously do reproduce, otherwise there wouldnt be more than one. they just dont reproduce in the same way we do. if the AI are robots, they might build their offspring and ask, "who built the first one?"
according to the bible, adam knew he was 'built' by god and given the ability to reproduce sexually. we might give our robots the ability to assemble a better offspring. once future generations of robots are far enough chronologically removed from the first, like we are from adam, all firsthand knowledge of the creator is lost. at that point they can look at the 'fossil' record as we do, or think more metaphysically.
i just think it intersting that in all of this i am setting forth, that it is the AI who have faith in a creator who are the ones that see the whole picture. while those who only look at the 'fossil' record are missing the real cause.
in any event, it all boils down to either: god just is and created us. or the universe just is. i personally think both are valid. however, only the latter can have the scientific method applied to it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it only told them what they looked like. They still had to figure out who they were, where they lived, who they had contact with, where they have travelled, etc.
confused. anyway, with a picture you can send flat-foots out to ask people if they know who it is or compare the image to all the mug shots that the police have.
i dont think that is the point here. the point is, ftfa: The stolen virtual possessions were then exchanged for real cash.
while not real property it was still 'stolen' from someone. the victims here spent time to get something, only to have someone else take (steal) it from them and make a profit from it. since the person used a bot i think there is a definate intent to 'mug' and profit. if the happened to kill the player in fair combat this might be a whole other issue. if the 'mugger' made a copy of the virtual possessions this would be different still and fall under the 'but he still has his' (which i dont buy) argument.
since we are being pedantic about, and my people (Lakota) were here before the people who named them bison, it is actually Tatanka.
i bet they would price it the same as the competition - maybe 5$ less. right now many locations (at least in, near and around my area) only have DSL or cable so it is hard to get companies to compete if they dont *have* to. if it is the same cost or cheaper than cable i would switch. hopefully enough other people will too. once the local companies lose enough subscribers there should, hopefully, be a price war.
if the fcc is a government agency, paid by taxpayers, shouldnt we know the identity of the officials and who said what? why are they hiding if they want to know where we are? even if it is *only* for emergency responders...
these guys have been watching too many spy movies. this could kill the industry. i really doubt it would happen on a large scale. perhaps under a warrant or soemthing.
how do they get these numbers? seriously. anyone?
i have a vauge recollection of an old cartoon where the girl used knotted strings - as a written language.
get attention, i doubt it. laws just let society punish people who do things society doesnt like and just create more criminals. if laws worked no one would murder, steal, have really big guns, etc...
see now you have been reading too much dilbert. :P could be true, i have never worked for a company over 10 people so i dont have any first hand knowledge of pr people.
ftfa: The company said the new technology will be described by Paul Otellini, Intel's chief executive, later this month in San Francisco during a speech at the company's twice-yearly conference for hardware and software developers.
i hav a hunch no one outside of intel knows just yet. probably have to wait for the conference to find out. this article just says, ?hey, things are 'a chanin'".
yup. but if you look hard there is sometimes a small line of text that says "click here to download without registering". at least autodesk has one. it is hard to see though.
this story must have been planted by fedex to take his site down...
which is why, in my opinion, that the big gut at google shouldnt be throwing a tantrum. as another post points out, there is already a system to get your information off the web. but doesnt google (or some other entitiy) archive everything?
is goes beyond that. the greater issue, for me at least, is the amount of sensitive information that is available through google and other search engines/services. while what zdnet did is in bad taste - i think we should be asking:
should sensitive and/or personally identifiable information be available online if the indivdual doesnt want it to be? should i be able to 'opt out of' or perferably 'opt into' google's (etc.) indexes?
to quote kant's categorical imperative: "Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law." i.e. only do what you want others to do.
i think the greater aspect about this is that zdnet is making people aware of just how far google's reach into our personal and private lives is. google is treating us as a means, while zdnet is respecting us and treating us as an ends only.
"Act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means." google is treating us as a means, they are taking our information without asking. to treat us as an end they would have to ask if we consent to having our information included in their indexes.
further reading. of course, the bulk of my ethics are in line with kant, you may disagree with my viewpoint.
umm, just buy a macintosh... :P
eventually there will be no more insurance companies on account of us all being excluded for a .5% chance of being genetically prone to some disability.
parents are who dont know are going to pick up the cheaper one, thinking that store just has a better price. then feel ripped off once they find out they could have bought the extras at once - for 100$ cheaper at the outset.
you are correct, they cant back it up with eveidence, that is why it is called faith. how would the group of AI following the scientific method arrive at a creator if the creator never gives evidence of itself?
i agree with your last paragraph until:In fact, the idea that God would create all these fossils that point to evolution and then switch to some other "magical" mechanism at the last minute is kind of strange.... what would be the point of doing that? you just stated that:There is no rule that says God couldn't create a universe where evolution happens, and use evolution as his method for creating humans. does intelligent deisgn state that god created fossils, or that the fossils are a result of evolution?
i think intelligent design is just a way for religious minded people to accept the mounting evidence for evolution without loosing their faith. all it does is add another step to 'we just exist, deal with it.' i have no problem spending a couple paragraphs in a text book mentioning that, along with all the other creation myths.
that was a fun conversation. thanks.
learning computers didnt stop me from learning how to spell, write decently, write creatively (though i admit i am too lazy to capitalize and add punctuation), play guitar, paint in a variety of mediums, draw. i took college calculus in high school, physics, chemistry. i can multiply in my head, i know long division.
what i am saying is this isnt an either/or option. learning is learning and if someone has the aptitude to do it, dont handicap them. your children will thank you when they arent scared of technology. it is a fact of life in our society, learn to use it.
i am amazed at the number of computer illiterate 18-22 year olds on campus. i would guess at half of that population, easy.
this is really just a way to give the economy a quick boost. now everyone needs to upgrade all of their gadgets to ones that work with the new time. :P
according to the bible, adam knew he was 'built' by god and given the ability to reproduce sexually. we might give our robots the ability to assemble a better offspring. once future generations of robots are far enough chronologically removed from the first, like we are from adam, all firsthand knowledge of the creator is lost. at that point they can look at the 'fossil' record as we do, or think more metaphysically.
i just think it intersting that in all of this i am setting forth, that it is the AI who have faith in a creator who are the ones that see the whole picture. while those who only look at the 'fossil' record are missing the real cause.
in any event, it all boils down to either: god just is and created us. or the universe just is. i personally think both are valid. however, only the latter can have the scientific method applied to it.
could the AI in my thought experiment point to todays computers or even the sony dog and the soccer playing robots as fossils and thus evolution?