By "reducing the value of bandwidth", do they mean "cutting into our profit margins by actually using the bandwidth that we only promise because we are sure you won't use it"?
PS: Never mind, that's rather stupid. Really you only need to register the next couple (5 or 10 to be safe) and issue a self-destruct command from those. If you simply register the domains without using them, then you run out of resources before the virus runs out of possibility space. 26^x gets big fast.
Or any organization with a non-negligible budget can do a bulk registration of all 1,000 of them. There is an economy of scale in this; it gets cheaper when you're a registrar yourself.
Should be able to, yes. The key that generates the sequence has to be in the virus, after all, so it must in principle be possible to reverse-engineer from any infection.
Actually doing that would be a matter for a wizard, though.
A 25% increase in human lifespan would be pretty amazing. If this actually does turn out to be practical, we get that much closer to the tipping point where lifespan increases more than one year of life per year of research.
I don't expect them to fix the tissue regeneration vs. cancer dilemma any time soon, though. You can't just keep on dividing cells without some mutation, and cells don't live forever.
Not really. Many people on/b/ maybe. Would that be bad? The concept of free speech derives from the idea that anything is allowed unless it harms people. The ancient "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" analogy is exactly on the spot. Sure, *you* didn't hang the suicidal girl, but then *you* didn't trample all those people who died in the stampede. Free speech should protect us when we criticize powerful people. It shouldn't mean we get to be assholes.
I can understand you are torn between civil liberty and justice, but re-introducing lynch-mobs is not the solution. The only difference between mobs and fascist governments is that mobs are less predictable.
The rationale for the existence of patents is to promote innovation by guaranteeing the inventor of a new technology the opportunity to profit from it.
The patent system has degenerated into a game that awards profits and damages to the person that can most aggressively or audaciously prevent other people from innovating. I don't just prior art; I mean patents that are extremely obvious and can be easily thought of.
This in turn causes a bottleneck as innovations are covered by blanket patents that prevent more than one company from even *researching* the field (and providing more innovation).
Yeah, yeah, "anything is obvious when it's been thought of" and "first-come first-served" and "intellectual property". That's not the point. Lose the preconceptions of the patent system as it is now and tell me: What is the point of protecting ideas in the first place? As above, to encourage people to have them. This does the opposite.
Instead of promoting innovation, the patent system stifles it. It was invented in a time when technology progressed more slowly and innovation did not pay as much as it now does. We have overtaken the patent system, and it slows us down. Let the inventors freely crib and copy each other. This will accelerate innovation because in the fast-moving world of today, second-hand inventions are worthless unless you improve on them.
So if you goad a young girl into killing herself, you end up doing jail time? Unbelievable.
This isn't your average anonymous posting incident, this is a direct abuse of the medium in order to harm somebody. Ethically, this should have resulted in homicide charges; establishing once and for all that psychological violence is still violence. How can Lori Drew claim she told a clinically depressive person to kill herself without intending her death?
This strikes close to home, because on the communities I moderate I have seen insecure and potentially suicidal people tormented on several occasions for fun (and I don't mean "learn to spell, moron"). This/b/tard behavior of "get a thicker skin" is disgusting; it's like walking up behind heart-failure patients and saying "BOO".
I'll shed my cynicism for a second and ask "can we just stop being assholes"?
I sure am. I had to clear a few cookies to avoid getting redirected to the ccTLD domain, but I was seeing English on all domains.
I'm on google.com now, but nothing seems to be there either (although at least I get personalized search and suggestions again, which didn't work for a while).
The internets have been full of this topic in the past few days, but I don't see anything different on Google. I've been logged in all this time, *and* I opted for the experimental "Searchwiki with Sounds" stuff.
Doesn't seem to be on the official services list either, and http://google.com/searchwiki doesn't work at all. Where is it?
big corporates supporting open source... benefited from the open source community
To take the devil's advocate side, Google does get quite concrete favors from Mozilla that go beyond the vague "benefiting from OS" via the default settings. IIRC, even the malware warnings in Firefox use a Google webservice.
Not that I have a problem with either product, I would use Firefox and Google together anyway, because they're superior products.
Yes, maybe "consciousness" would have been a better word.
Consider that various religions have at times denied souls to people with different skin colors and women. Yet even they would have had difficulty arguing that these were unable of conscious thought.
A "soul" is a mystical idea that is vaguely defined by religious dogma, intelligent creation etc.
Rather than determining whether machines can have a soul, this whole argument revolves around the question whether souls exist at all. Because if we can build a conscious computer, we drive home a point that the biologists and astronomers have been trying to make for centuries: There is nothing special about being human or living on Earth, and soon there won't be anything magical about being conscious, either.
---
The next question is: If a machine can be aware of its own existence, and therefore gain an implicit drive to protect and prolong that existence, will it be awarded the same right to keep it as we are?
How exactly do they own the copyright to images of their product? I thought that kind of logic applied only to pictures of persons.
For a simple analogy, let's say you build cars, and someone takes a picture of them. How exactly is his reproduction of those pictures a damage to your ability to market your product? Do you sell pictures? Can people drive his pictures instead of buying your cars? I know it's just an analogy but...
Slashdot Mirror
What about locking the front door to your home?
Heck yes - being born infects you with original sin.
No shit?
The software that the government hamfistedly forces its citizens to use is controlled by an entity affiliated with the government?
What next - will Baidu block search queries for "Tiananmen" and "Falun Gong"? ;)
By "reducing the value of bandwidth", do they mean "cutting into our profit margins by actually using the bandwidth that we only promise because we are sure you won't use it"?
Because screw that.
[abusing an oft-quoted joke]
Some people, having a terrible disease, say: "I know! I'll look it up using Live Search!"
Now they have two terrible diseases.
This domain name generation mechanism takes some competence, so it's indeed likely they use signed commands as well.
At least for now the command servers can still be located. I fear this will become much more difficult if commands are issued via the Tor network.
PS: Never mind, that's rather stupid. Really you only need to register the next couple (5 or 10 to be safe) and issue a self-destruct command from those. If you simply register the domains without using them, then you run out of resources before the virus runs out of possibility space. 26^x gets big fast.
Or any organization with a non-negligible budget can do a bulk registration of all 1,000 of them. There is an economy of scale in this; it gets cheaper when you're a registrar yourself.
Should be able to, yes. The key that generates the sequence has to be in the virus, after all, so it must in principle be possible to reverse-engineer from any infection.
Actually doing that would be a matter for a wizard, though.
A 25% increase in human lifespan would be pretty amazing. If this actually does turn out to be practical, we get that much closer to the tipping point where lifespan increases more than one year of life per year of research.
I don't expect them to fix the tissue regeneration vs. cancer dilemma any time soon, though. You can't just keep on dividing cells without some mutation, and cells don't live forever.
Not if they have sharks with lasers and battle-robots to fight for them.
Hey, interesting; I live in Frankfurt. I wonder if it's anywhere close to me.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Also, has there been any time when criminals have not been more efficiently organized than the right side of law?
Yeah, should have put % marks after those numbers.
By the way, the ratio is 97% good v. 3% spam for me (I get nearly 60 mails per day).
I use Gmail.
Not really. Many people on /b/ maybe. Would that be bad? The concept of free speech derives from the idea that anything is allowed unless it harms people. The ancient "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" analogy is exactly on the spot. Sure, *you* didn't hang the suicidal girl, but then *you* didn't trample all those people who died in the stampede. Free speech should protect us when we criticize powerful people. It shouldn't mean we get to be assholes.
I can understand you are torn between civil liberty and justice, but re-introducing lynch-mobs is not the solution. The only difference between mobs and fascist governments is that mobs are less predictable.
This can be solved by courts, really.
The rationale for the existence of patents is to promote innovation by guaranteeing the inventor of a new technology the opportunity to profit from it.
The patent system has degenerated into a game that awards profits and damages to the person that can most aggressively or audaciously prevent other people from innovating. I don't just prior art; I mean patents that are extremely obvious and can be easily thought of.
This in turn causes a bottleneck as innovations are covered by blanket patents that prevent more than one company from even *researching* the field (and providing more innovation).
Yeah, yeah, "anything is obvious when it's been thought of" and "first-come first-served" and "intellectual property". That's not the point. Lose the preconceptions of the patent system as it is now and tell me: What is the point of protecting ideas in the first place? As above, to encourage people to have them. This does the opposite.
Instead of promoting innovation, the patent system stifles it. It was invented in a time when technology progressed more slowly and innovation did not pay as much as it now does. We have overtaken the patent system, and it slows us down. Let the inventors freely crib and copy each other. This will accelerate innovation because in the fast-moving world of today, second-hand inventions are worthless unless you improve on them.
So if you goad a young girl into killing herself, you end up doing jail time? Unbelievable.
This isn't your average anonymous posting incident, this is a direct abuse of the medium in order to harm somebody. Ethically, this should have resulted in homicide charges; establishing once and for all that psychological violence is still violence. How can Lori Drew claim she told a clinically depressive person to kill herself without intending her death?
This strikes close to home, because on the communities I moderate I have seen insecure and potentially suicidal people tormented on several occasions for fun (and I don't mean "learn to spell, moron"). This /b/tard behavior of "get a thicker skin" is disgusting; it's like walking up behind heart-failure patients and saying "BOO".
I'll shed my cynicism for a second and ask "can we just stop being assholes"?
I sure am. I had to clear a few cookies to avoid getting redirected to the ccTLD domain, but I was seeing English on all domains.
I'm on google.com now, but nothing seems to be there either (although at least I get personalized search and suggestions again, which didn't work for a while).
The internets have been full of this topic in the past few days, but I don't see anything different on Google. I've been logged in all this time, *and* I opted for the experimental "Searchwiki with Sounds" stuff.
Doesn't seem to be on the official services list either, and http://google.com/searchwiki doesn't work at all. Where is it?
Why is this summary illustrated by George W. Bush with a telephone?
To take the devil's advocate side, Google does get quite concrete favors from Mozilla that go beyond the vague "benefiting from OS" via the default settings. IIRC, even the malware warnings in Firefox use a Google webservice.
Not that I have a problem with either product, I would use Firefox and Google together anyway, because they're superior products.
Exactly. The Google Toolbar is totally distinct from Firefox; it is an addon that is not even hosted by Mozilla.
Google offers (and heavily pushes, via $1 referral awards) a version of Firefox that is bundled with the toolbar, though.
Then we are all in agreement! :)
Yes, maybe "consciousness" would have been a better word.
Consider that various religions have at times denied souls to people with different skin colors and women. Yet even they would have had difficulty arguing that these were unable of conscious thought.
A "soul" is a mystical idea that is vaguely defined by religious dogma, intelligent creation etc.
Rather than determining whether machines can have a soul, this whole argument revolves around the question whether souls exist at all. Because if we can build a conscious computer, we drive home a point that the biologists and astronomers have been trying to make for centuries: There is nothing special about being human or living on Earth, and soon there won't be anything magical about being conscious, either.
---
The next question is: If a machine can be aware of its own existence, and therefore gain an implicit drive to protect and prolong that existence, will it be awarded the same right to keep it as we are?
How exactly do they own the copyright to images of their product? I thought that kind of logic applied only to pictures of persons.
For a simple analogy, let's say you build cars, and someone takes a picture of them. How exactly is his reproduction of those pictures a damage to your ability to market your product? Do you sell pictures? Can people drive his pictures instead of buying your cars? I know it's just an analogy but...
OH WAIT