All that, and not a single reference to Minsky "admitting" it. I think you obviously have some deep seated personality problems, I wish you luck with coping with them. However I think you should ponder why you feel it important to tell strangers that Minsky "spiked" your Ph.D, or lie about him "admitting" stuff, or who you slept with, maybe you are tlaking to yourself rather than the stranger. Good luck.
This sounds like blatant false advertising then, something that should be brought up with the attorney general in your state. Unless people call them on it they'll keep on screwing people.
This is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Its also one of my favorites because its not really very dishonest (I've done sales, but I never liked being dishonest).
Not dishonest my ass. Unless there's a big, fat "internet price only" then the store price should match the advertised price. Having to ask for the advertised price is complete bullshit. Maybe some customers are fooled (like the original poster), but not all of them.
The vast majority of email is sent cleartext too. So you would have no problems with your ISP publishing that? How about every web site you visit? Every form you fill out in cleartext? Your phone traffic isn't encrypted either. Should the phone companies publish that as well?
If a company collects vast amounts of sensitive data I would hope for some discretion in releasing that data.
It's not uncommon for people to attach smilies at the end of bitter, insulting, or whatever kind of posts, to make themselves appear the opposite.
After the Ph.D demise I [blah blah, bragging elided]
It doesn't matter how eventually things ended up. If I felt personally screwed over by somebody, I'd still hold a grudge years later, even if I succeeded otherwise.
Here's some info
I asked you for a reference where Minsky "admitted it a few years ago attempt to kill research into Neural Networks". The quote you gave me (unreferenced, very sloppy for somebody who was a PhD candidate) is from this paper. The whole point of that paper is to completely dispute what you said!
For example:
"The standard version of this history also suggests that certain episodes (such as the publication and circulation of Perceptrons) were marked by a certain guile and personal crusading on the part of the anti-connectionist camp. Connectionism is usually portrayed as a field of research which was unfairly retarded early on, but which, due to the publication of The PDP Volumes and the empirical inadequacies of the alternative, has only comparatively recently begun to bloom. [..] Unfortunately, this version of history is highly selective, partial and in certain respects, down right misleading."
And:
"These facts are perhaps somewhat surprising, given the malevolent role ascribed to Minsky in the standard histories of connectionism. Perhaps, it might be conjectured, the adversarial relationship between the approaches derives from Minsky and Papert's critique of networks in Perceptrons. If this is the case for some though, this adversarial perspective does not seem to be shared by Minsky himself."
I don't see any admission of guilt by Minsky -- quite the opposite. You are full of shit.
It was a calculated attempt (he admitted it a few years ago attempt to kill research into Neural Networks which worked.
Where is your reference for this "admission"? I'd like to see it in context.
Marvin wanted his grants to continue so he spiked the opposition.
There's nothing wrong with academic debate about what directions research should take. There are lots of physicists who complain about all the resources being spent on string theory. As long as the debate is intellectually honest there is no problem. Disagreement != dishonesty.
He kinda spiked my Ph.D in the process
So, you are biased, bitter, and looking for a scapegoat for your personal failures?
PC's have traditionally been hot, noisy battleships. So there is some value to a machine that was built with the living room in mind.
Do you actually own a 360? Unless they have drastically improved them since when I bought mine, the 360 is a hot, noisy battleship, louder than most PCs. I have two commodity PCs off Ebay that are much quieter than my 360. I invite anybody who disputes this to Google around or listen to a friend's.
360 fanboys can't stand the truth from an actual 360 owner, so I'll repeat it:
The 360 is not quiet. The whine is much louder than my PC. And that's just the CPU fans -- the DVD drive when playing a game is like a jet engine. As for small and not-ugly, I just don't care. It's a box that sits there and performs a function. A pc case isn't that much bigger.
Then why did Nintendo sue Lik Sang? And there are plenty of PSP-homebrew sites. Sorry, it is not a case of Nintendo good, Sony bad. If Nintendo could put a 100% stop to illegal copying and that meant locking out homebrewers, they would do so in an instant.
I know people love to think Nintendo is a nice, friendly company that encourages homebrew, but it just isn't true. They don't care at all about people buying a DS to hack on it. Why would they? That market is incredibly small compared to the very real losses they face over illegal copying.
Don't get me wrong. I bought a DS because it was cheap, hackable, and had a stylus, but I don't kid myself about Nintendo as a company.
Still, I have to wonder why Microsoft bothered if it wasn't for protectionist reasons.
It was definitely for protectionist reasons. Throw up a bunch of shit and see what sticks. It's just something else they can harass you in court over, even though they know courts have ruled against it in the past. The DMCA is the real kicker, though. Can they make illegal any Linux solution that gives you full access to the hardware, because it allows you to play copied games?
The 360 is not quiet. The whine is much louder than my PC. And that's just the CPU fans -- the DVD drive when playing a game is like a jet engine. As for small and not-ugly, I just don't care. It's a box that sits there and performs a function. A pc case isn't that much bigger.
Why do people think they can do anything they want with something just because they buy it?
Because they bought it and they own it? Do you want your car manufacturer making it illegal for you to modify your own car? How about your PC? "Trusted" computing is on the way, built into the hardware. You'll no longer have full control over your own box.
I doubt Nintendo makes them hackable intentionally. The amount of sales they'd get from homebrewers would be very, very tiny vs the loss due to copying. If Nintendo really wanted to be a friend to the home developer they would open source all their specs and dev tools.
The whole thing [proliferating licenses] is so crazy and short-sighted.
I agree.
We only need three licenses, and they are completely compatible in one direction:
1. a public domain license, saying that you can do whatever you want with it;
Agree. I like this version, as it's short and sweet.
2. the BSD (a.k.a. MIT) license, which requires attribution to the original authors, but is otherwise free;
I disagree. BSD can go away. Use a public domain license. If you want credit, just make sure you can prove that you wrote it first; you'd need this proof anyways if you wanted to enforce BSD.
For a #2 license, I'd say LGPL is more meaningful than BSD. It lets you use code in commercial projects without becoming GPL, but you have to release your changes to any LGPL code (what's yours is yours, but if you change *my* work, share alike). It's a nice middle ground between public domain and GPL.
3. and the GPL
Err, disagree. I don't like its sticky/viral nature. I think the LGPL offers all the advantages of the GPL without trying to take over the world.
The parent's comment deserved consideration, but somebody modded it down instead of replying with a counter-argument:
[..]
Rather than releasing people from moral rights to the greatest extent possible, CC decided to impose these moral rights restrictions on the entire world. Worse, the terminology is hamfisted and more restrictive than the moral rights laws almost anywhere. As a result you must comply with this vague term as well as the applicable moral rights laws.
If you do care about your work being shared with others, then public domain is not really an option. Because quite simply, anyone can come and take that open work and close it again.
Public domain is a valid option. Sure somebody can close a derivation of it, but then the open version still remains. There's lots of BSD-style software that succeeds in the open even though closed versions exist. It's up to each author to decide the issues for themselves. LGPL is another option, which can serve as a nice middle ground between GPL and BSD/public domain.
Personally, if I am happy with others using my work, I release it under a simple licence that says something like: Use as you like, but then if you do use, it make sure any copies or derivatives are, 1, under this same licence, and 2 that everybody else gets the same rights that I give you.
Err, then why not just use the GPL or LGPL? By creating your "simple" license you have now made your code incompatible with other free software.
I am glad to see the have included public domain as a prominent choice.
I like the public domain choice too, but I find their version way too wordy. Forget the lawyer-ese, I want a license that I can glance and nod my head to. I like this version (originating from Wikipedia?).
Though by linking Quigo to Ebay you are probably raising the credibility of Quigo, not hurting it. Having a link to a successful, big name player can only help them, not hurt.
Slashdot Mirror
All that, and not a single reference to Minsky "admitting" it. I think you obviously have some deep seated personality problems, I wish you luck with coping with them. However I think you should ponder why you feel it important to tell strangers that Minsky "spiked" your Ph.D, or lie about him "admitting" stuff, or who you slept with, maybe you are tlaking to yourself rather than the stranger. Good luck.
This sounds like blatant false advertising then, something that should be brought up with the attorney general in your state. Unless people call them on it they'll keep on screwing people.
Not dishonest my ass. Unless there's a big, fat "internet price only" then the store price should match the advertised price. Having to ask for the advertised price is complete bullshit. Maybe some customers are fooled (like the original poster), but not all of them.
The vast majority of email is sent cleartext too. So you would have no problems with your ISP publishing that? How about every web site you visit? Every form you fill out in cleartext? Your phone traffic isn't encrypted either. Should the phone companies publish that as well?
If a company collects vast amounts of sensitive data I would hope for some discretion in releasing that data.
It's not uncommon for people to attach smilies at the end of bitter, insulting, or whatever kind of posts, to make themselves appear the opposite.
It doesn't matter how eventually things ended up. If I felt personally screwed over by somebody, I'd still hold a grudge years later, even if I succeeded otherwise.
I asked you for a reference where Minsky "admitted it a few years ago attempt to kill research into Neural Networks". The quote you gave me (unreferenced, very sloppy for somebody who was a PhD candidate) is from this paper. The whole point of that paper is to completely dispute what you said!
For example:
"The standard version of this history also suggests that certain episodes (such as the publication and circulation of Perceptrons) were marked by a certain guile and personal crusading on the part of the anti-connectionist camp. Connectionism is usually portrayed as a field of research which was unfairly retarded early on, but which, due to the publication of The PDP Volumes and the empirical inadequacies of the alternative, has only comparatively recently begun to bloom. [..] Unfortunately, this version of history is highly selective, partial and in certain respects, down right misleading."
And:
"These facts are perhaps somewhat surprising, given the malevolent role ascribed to Minsky in the standard histories of connectionism. Perhaps, it might be conjectured, the adversarial relationship between the approaches derives from Minsky and Papert's critique of networks in Perceptrons. If this is the case for some though, this adversarial perspective does not seem to be shared by Minsky himself."
I don't see any admission of guilt by Minsky -- quite the opposite. You are full of shit.
Where is your reference for this "admission"? I'd like to see it in context.
There's nothing wrong with academic debate about what directions research should take. There are lots of physicists who complain about all the resources being spent on string theory. As long as the debate is intellectually honest there is no problem. Disagreement != dishonesty.
So, you are biased, bitter, and looking for a scapegoat for your personal failures?
Indeed.
Agreed. Jimbo really needs to be clue-smacked.
Do you actually own a 360? Unless they have drastically improved them since when I bought mine, the 360 is a hot, noisy battleship, louder than most PCs. I have two commodity PCs off Ebay that are much quieter than my 360. I invite anybody who disputes this to Google around or listen to a friend's.
360 fanboys can't stand the truth from an actual 360 owner, so I'll repeat it:
Then why did Nintendo sue Lik Sang? And there are plenty of PSP-homebrew sites. Sorry, it is not a case of Nintendo good, Sony bad. If Nintendo could put a 100% stop to illegal copying and that meant locking out homebrewers, they would do so in an instant.
I know people love to think Nintendo is a nice, friendly company that encourages homebrew, but it just isn't true. They don't care at all about people buying a DS to hack on it. Why would they? That market is incredibly small compared to the very real losses they face over illegal copying.
Don't get me wrong. I bought a DS because it was cheap, hackable, and had a stylus, but I don't kid myself about Nintendo as a company.
It was definitely for protectionist reasons. Throw up a bunch of shit and see what sticks. It's just something else they can harass you in court over, even though they know courts have ruled against it in the past. The DMCA is the real kicker, though. Can they make illegal any Linux solution that gives you full access to the hardware, because it allows you to play copied games?
The 360 is not quiet. The whine is much louder than my PC. And that's just the CPU fans -- the DVD drive when playing a game is like a jet engine. As for small and not-ugly, I just don't care. It's a box that sits there and performs a function. A pc case isn't that much bigger.
Because they bought it and they own it? Do you want your car manufacturer making it illegal for you to modify your own car? How about your PC? "Trusted" computing is on the way, built into the hardware. You'll no longer have full control over your own box.
I doubt Nintendo makes them hackable intentionally. The amount of sales they'd get from homebrewers would be very, very tiny vs the loss due to copying. If Nintendo really wanted to be a friend to the home developer they would open source all their specs and dev tools.
When did that feature get coded? Was it when Google agreed to pay Mozilla all sorts of money for toolbar searches?
I agree.
Agree. I like this version, as it's short and sweet.
I disagree. BSD can go away. Use a public domain license. If you want credit, just make sure you can prove that you wrote it first; you'd need this proof anyways if you wanted to enforce BSD.
For a #2 license, I'd say LGPL is more meaningful than BSD. It lets you use code in commercial projects without becoming GPL, but you have to release your changes to any LGPL code (what's yours is yours, but if you change *my* work, share alike). It's a nice middle ground between public domain and GPL.
Err, disagree. I don't like its sticky/viral nature. I think the LGPL offers all the advantages of the GPL without trying to take over the world.Public domain is a valid option. Sure somebody can close a derivation of it, but then the open version still remains. There's lots of BSD-style software that succeeds in the open even though closed versions exist. It's up to each author to decide the issues for themselves. LGPL is another option, which can serve as a nice middle ground between GPL and BSD/public domain.
Err, then why not just use the GPL or LGPL? By creating your "simple" license you have now made your code incompatible with other free software.
I like the public domain choice too, but I find their version way too wordy. Forget the lawyer-ese, I want a license that I can glance and nod my head to. I like this version (originating from Wikipedia?).
Though by linking Quigo to Ebay you are probably raising the credibility of Quigo, not hurting it. Having a link to a successful, big name player can only help them, not hurt.
So is all this advertising and referral link crap working out for you, or are you doing stuff like this for $5 a month?
Allegedly?
What do you recommend then?