true capitalists understand that intellectual property is a figment that has near zero value. true capitalists understand the concept of 'scarcity.' scarcity gives goods and services value in the market. intellectual property is the antithesis of scarce: infinitely reproduceable at a vanishing marginal cost.
left or right, what big media are doing should make everyone nervous.
One of the most articulate posts capturing the spirit of consumer-drive music distribution--it may be "copyright infringement" by the letter of the law, but in practice it's a form of intelligent auditioning and even homage paying. When we become fans, the artists always more than recoup their (paper) losses.
I just saw a fascinating special on the shroud on the Discovery Channel. First, simuluations showed that exposure to the type of fiery conditions endured by the shroud did not affect the amount of C-14 present in known samples and therefore this was largely dismissed as a source of error for the radiodating (which contrary to what you claim is quite accurate for determining when very old dead things once lived...given that the shroud is made of linen, which comes from flax, this is an appropriate technique for dating the shroud). Second, some physician whose name I can't remember discovered tiny microbes (fungi and bacteria) living in the fibers of the shroud. Since they're alive, this may have skewed the radiodating..perhaps giving a date that is the average of the microbes age (present) and the shrouds age. But the shroud would have had to been composed of 50% microbes to move the shroud's date all the way back to Jesus's time! Since the microbes' mass is in fact a tiny fraction of the shroud's composition, the error these critters produce in the analysis is probably negligible. One demonstration that really was compelling was one in which they (various shroud researchers) simulated the markings that would be left on cloth if a human body was wrapped in linen. The face would leave a very wide, distorted, moon-faced impression on the cloth rather that the very natural, human one seen on the shroud. This is due to the depth of curvature of the face...a face would produce a 'projection' onto the flat cloth quite unlike the face itself. Think of the impression left after wrapping a piece of paper around an inked sphere. The impression seen on the shroud, however, is very consistent with wrapping linen around a properly dyed bas relief sculpture of a face which has much less depth than an actual face. It's most likely the work of a medieval hoax.
Newe insights suggest that synapses and even cells are sometimes created in addition to biochemical learning(in rat hippocampus).
Yes, I know about that work. Most of it comes from Liz Gould's lab at Princeton. Her group has discovered neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus in adult rats, shrews, and even monkeys. However, while there may be some primitive derivatives of learning that rely on neurogenesis in adults (e.g. the resistance of the dentate gyrus to deterioration in the face of Alzheimer's), it's computationally infeasible that any significant post-developmental learning relies on neurogenesis (post-developmental as oppposed from pre- and neo-natal developmental experience that may in fact impact neurogenesis or neural connectivity).
That's not saying that neurogenesis in adult animals doesn't have a behavioral impact. Indeed, some of her work indicates that neurogenesis may be inversely related to the expression of certain defensive behaviors.
Neurogenesis and synaptogenesis persist in adulthood, to be sure. But it's fairly unlikely they're dominant or even significant mechanisms for what we commonly call learning (acquisition of new semantic, procedural, spatial, etc. memories).
Planerians regenerate, yes. The other animals you mention (annelids like earthworms and leeches) do not. This is a myth. If you cut a worm in two, you end up with two worm halfs, not two worms. Regeneration has nothing to do with their use of leeches.
Neural nets are still very useful. They're not as hot in technological applications because there are still fundamental limitations in the learning algorithms that train nets. They do, nevertheless learn. However, I use neural nets in my work to model psychological mechanisms. They are "brain-like" in their computation and thus, help us elucidate how cognitive functions may actually be implemented in brains.
Most neural nets do not make connections on as-needed basis. This actually confuses me about the Ditto/Calabrese work. Perhaps they are using neurotropic factors for axonal guidance. Artifical neural nets generally have set connections and only the weights vary over the course of learning. Even in "real" neural networks learning is not thought to occur by creating new neuronal interconnections, but rather by biochemically strengthening existing ones.
I too nursed on the sweet teets of the BASIC language. My digital alma mater was the TI-99/4A. Great, great computer.
I think the driving force that pushed most geeks of our generation into programming was games. Specifically the fantasy that one could master the machine and forge one's own kick-butt arcade creation was a huge motivator as a child.
But for us, we grew up in a time when the standard for great games was Combat on the 2600, not 3-D shooters like Quake. Today's software is so rich it just seems it would be frustrating to be a kid trying to strike out on his/her own. Gee, I made a happy face that flits around a maze eating dots. That's great. We had tools like sprites and PAINT commands. Today, you have your Open GL and malloc()'s. Woo hoo.
While I acknowledge all the potential good that can come out of chip IDs, there is far more potential for personal injury than personal protection.
Like any scheme that systematizes, quantifies, and collates identity, it invites mountains of abuse. Identity fraud is already a pervasive problem in our modern society (e.g. credit card fraud, fake IDs, IP swiping, etc.) Intertwining identity with computer hardware, in which there is already too much complacent faith, will bring new efficiency and detriment to misusing identity information.
On reflection, there are dozens of ways this instantly available personal information can be used to hard. Here's just a few that jump to mind. It invites malicious folks to victimize users by capturing their chip ID and having their CPU 'blacklisted' from the net by falsely reporting it stolen, or very effectively impersonating another user on the net. It won't be long before some hacker develops a hardware or software interception mechanism to fake the ID of the CPU, completely undermining this scheme and opening new opportunities for misrepresentation. And because the misused identity is associated with the computer, this form of fraud will be far more nefarious than plain old IP swiping or email faking.
And while Intel claims they are not keeping a database of users associated with chips, it is inevitable that such a database will easily come into existence. All it takes is for some website to obtain your name and read the chip ID and voila. In the wrong hands, this is a spammer or unscrupulous marketers dream. With a mere visit to a website, without relaying any information, the site automatically has your address, phone number, email, etc. If the information is associated anywhere, it will be available everywhere. That's the nature of the modern age. Intel is just making that insult to our privacy one step easier.
Slashdot Mirror
true capitalists understand that intellectual property is a figment that has near zero value. true capitalists understand the concept of 'scarcity.' scarcity gives goods and services value in the market. intellectual property is the antithesis of scarce: infinitely reproduceable at a vanishing marginal cost.
left or right, what big media are doing should make everyone nervous.
One of the most articulate posts capturing the spirit of consumer-drive music distribution--it may be "copyright infringement" by the letter of the law, but in practice it's a form of intelligent auditioning and even homage paying. When we become fans, the artists always more than recoup their (paper) losses.
I just saw a fascinating special on the shroud on the Discovery Channel. First, simuluations showed that exposure to the type of fiery conditions endured by the shroud did not affect the amount of C-14 present in known samples and therefore this was largely dismissed as a source of error for the radiodating (which contrary to what you claim is quite accurate for determining when very old dead things once lived...given that the shroud is made of linen, which comes from flax, this is an appropriate technique for dating the shroud). Second, some physician whose name I can't remember discovered tiny microbes (fungi and bacteria) living in the fibers of the shroud. Since they're alive, this may have skewed the radiodating..perhaps giving a date that is the average of the microbes age (present) and the shrouds age. But the shroud would have had to been composed of 50% microbes to move the shroud's date all the way back to Jesus's time! Since the microbes' mass is in fact a tiny fraction of the shroud's composition, the error these critters produce in the analysis is probably negligible. One demonstration that really was compelling was one in which they (various shroud researchers) simulated the markings that would be left on cloth if a human body was wrapped in linen. The face would leave a very wide, distorted, moon-faced impression on the cloth rather that the very natural, human one seen on the shroud. This is due to the depth of curvature of the face...a face would produce a 'projection' onto the flat cloth quite unlike the face itself. Think of the impression left after wrapping a piece of paper around an inked sphere. The impression seen on the shroud, however, is very consistent with wrapping linen around a properly dyed bas relief sculpture of a face which has much less depth than an actual face. It's most likely the work of a medieval hoax.
Yes, I know about that work. Most of it comes from Liz Gould's lab at Princeton. Her group has discovered neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus in adult rats, shrews, and even monkeys. However, while there may be some primitive derivatives of learning that rely on neurogenesis in adults (e.g. the resistance of the dentate gyrus to deterioration in the face of Alzheimer's), it's computationally infeasible that any significant post-developmental learning relies on neurogenesis (post-developmental as oppposed from pre- and neo-natal developmental experience that may in fact impact neurogenesis or neural connectivity).
That's not saying that neurogenesis in adult animals doesn't have a behavioral impact. Indeed, some of her work indicates that neurogenesis may be inversely related to the expression of certain defensive behaviors.
Neurogenesis and synaptogenesis persist in adulthood, to be sure. But it's fairly unlikely they're dominant or even significant mechanisms for what we commonly call learning (acquisition of new semantic, procedural, spatial, etc. memories).
-NoData
Planerians regenerate, yes. The other animals you mention (annelids like earthworms and leeches) do not. This is a myth. If you cut a worm in two, you end up with two worm halfs, not two worms. Regeneration has nothing to do with their use of leeches.
-NoData
Neural nets are still very useful. They're not as hot in technological applications because there are still fundamental limitations in the learning algorithms that train nets. They do, nevertheless learn. However, I use neural nets in my work to model psychological mechanisms. They are "brain-like" in their computation and thus, help us elucidate how cognitive functions may actually be implemented in brains.
Most neural nets do not make connections on as-needed basis. This actually confuses me about the Ditto/Calabrese work. Perhaps they are using neurotropic factors for axonal guidance. Artifical neural nets generally have set connections and only the weights vary over the course of learning. Even in "real" neural networks learning is not thought to occur by creating new neuronal interconnections, but rather by biochemically strengthening existing ones.
-NoData
I too nursed on the sweet teets of the BASIC language. My digital alma mater was the TI-99/4A. Great, great computer.
I think the driving force that pushed most geeks of our generation into programming was games. Specifically the fantasy that one could master the machine and forge one's own kick-butt arcade creation was a huge motivator as a child.
But for us, we grew up in a time when the standard for great games was Combat on the 2600, not 3-D shooters like Quake. Today's software is so rich it just seems it would be frustrating to be a kid trying to strike out on his/her own. Gee, I made a happy face that flits around a maze eating dots. That's great. We had tools like sprites and PAINT commands. Today, you have your Open GL and malloc()'s. Woo hoo.
Ahh for those simpler times...
While I acknowledge all the potential good that can come out of chip IDs, there is far more potential for personal injury than personal protection.
Like any scheme that systematizes, quantifies, and collates identity, it invites mountains of abuse. Identity fraud is already a pervasive problem in our modern society (e.g. credit card fraud, fake IDs, IP swiping, etc.) Intertwining identity with computer hardware, in which there is already too much complacent faith, will bring new efficiency and detriment to misusing identity information.
On reflection, there are dozens of ways this instantly available personal information can be used to hard. Here's just a few that jump to mind. It invites malicious folks to victimize users by capturing their chip ID and having their CPU 'blacklisted' from the net by falsely reporting it stolen, or very effectively impersonating another user on the net. It won't be long before some hacker develops a hardware or software interception mechanism to fake the ID of the CPU, completely undermining this scheme and opening new opportunities for misrepresentation.
And because the misused identity is associated with the computer, this form of fraud will be far more nefarious than plain old IP swiping or email faking.
And while Intel claims they are not keeping a database of users associated with chips, it is inevitable that such a database will easily come into existence. All it takes is for some website to obtain your name and read the chip ID and voila. In the wrong hands, this is a spammer or unscrupulous marketers dream. With a mere visit to a website, without relaying any information, the site automatically has your address, phone number, email, etc. If the information is associated anywhere, it will be available everywhere. That's the nature of the modern age.
Intel is just making that insult to our privacy one step easier.