Alright alright alright, sorry, I got the line wrong:-P One example out of a thousand is erroneous. Replace that one supporting example with:
-Pretty much any other advice in a female song, or -Pretty much any advice given by a woman in a mainstream book -Pretty much any advice given by women you know about how to act.
Girl you know: You have to be polite and respectful of women. You: Okay. *enter guy smart enough to ignore that crap* Guy: Alright, this is where the babes are! Girl you know: tee hee! Guy: Hm, something special about you... your eyes maybe? *stares at chest* Girl you know: Oh, stop *pushes him, bats eyelids* You: *burying face in hands*
Regarding 2: I think you may like this post of mine.
You are correct that "emotionally responsive" is an imprecise term. It's kind of like "genetically fit". What's "genetically fit"? Well, whatever *turns out* to work at passing on genes. You can't know it in advance. Likewise, "emotionally responsive" doesn't necessarily mean wussy -- it means more like, "acting with knowledge of what women will really like, irrespective of claimed desires".
I would absolutely agree with you that what women claim to want and what they really want are far apart -- more than 42 trillion km. It's rather frustrating to see them espouse feminist notions of how men should act, and then boink the first guy who violates them all. The theory that "Women give flawed advice to cull the guys who actually listen to it from the dating pool" fits the data a bit too well. Look at the Spice Girls song: "If you want to be my lover, you gotta first be my friend". What expert seducer doesn't find that advice abhorrently wrong?
Yes, and I'm just saying that you're trivializing the difficulty of that. There's no algorithm I can follow to get it right. Remember, you can't simply e.g. "Satisfy her every want" -- that can make you seem like a submissive wuss and be ultimately unsatisfying to her.
"Oh, but I didn't mean do it like that,..." Yes, hence the problem of algorithmizing emotional interaction.
I know you're half-joking there, but: If it were easy to write a rulebook (algorithm) for how to emotionally connect with others, the Turing Test would already have been passed.
Pleasing women in that way is not (as far as we know) a matter of following simple rules.
Wait, people are going on e-dates through webcams?
As for the Real Doll, my guess is that women will respond with ever more drastic measures to look attractive (just as women respond that way to air-brushed magazine pictures of women that don't represent how even those models look cf. Dove). Now, if robots can be more emotionally responsive than men, will men do something drastic to compete with robots?
No. The referent of copyright is an intangible -- it is a literary, musical, etc, work, like that paragraph I posted earlier.
No, for there to be a copyright violation, that literary (or whatever) work has to be instantiated in something scarce. The copyright is *defined* by rights to instantiation in scarce objects. That's only one dereferencing.
No. Your personal *possessions* are tangible. "Property" refers to a bundle of legal rights and obligations. (This is why I am careful about distinguishing intellectual *works* from intellectual *property*.) My point is, you have to compare apples to apples:
-Compare the *bundle of legal rights* in physical property to the *bundle of legal rights* in intellectual property. Both are intangible! -Compare the *referents* of physical property to the *referents* of intellectual property. Both are tangible!
When you refer to "your property", you are referring to a bundle of rights related to that physical object. Certainly, in casual use, people might refer to a physical object as "property", just as "book" can refer to either the informational content or one physical instantiation.
Unfortunately, you can build a supercomputer simply by having a bunch of regular computers in a Beowulf Cluster. (Ha, ha, let's laugh every time someone mentions that!) If you want Iran not to have the capability to make a supercomputer, you're asking them to either:
-Not have PCs at all, or -Not have the Free software they would need to cluster them.
"If I make a significant scientific breakthrough, I will postpone its announcement, to the best of my ability, until December 20th of that year, so as to screw over moronic publishers who do 'year-in-review' specials before that year is over."
So the tangible things that Paramount's copyright on that paragraph refer to are pretty much everything which can infringe it, from the crudest stylus to the Internet? That doesn't make sense.
Actually, it makes perfect sense.
Just like the right to transmit radio waves along frequency 120kHz refers to pretty much every TANGIBLE transmitter which can broadcast along that frequency.
Just like the right to your "personal property" refers to pretty much every TANGIBLE thing that could infringe on it.
-Being bold decreases fitness, except in peacocks. -Women's claim that they like something that sounds socially acceptable ("sense of humor") should be taken at face value, in preference of who they actually want to quickly mate with. -A rock star's groupies are better explained by his musical talent than other attributes of being a rock star, such as fame and the fact that other women show interest in him. -Lower birth rates are a sign of higher choosiness in women. -Nerds produce more offspring than jocks.
In any case, the "imaginary property" is just a slogan, not an actual argument or principled stand. As I have argued many times before.
IP *rights* and physical property *rights* are both intangible.
The *referents* of both IP and physical property rights are both tangible. (i.e. even IP restricts your use of *tangible* things, even if it is metaphorically phrased as use of an intangible idea)
That's probably going to get deleted. In case you didn't notice from the Yahoo Answers ToS:
(4) You agree not to pose any Gödelian self-referential questions...
approach to ending a shortage of a hot Christmas item. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Desperate parents and other legitimate buyers would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money (*) It is defenseless against huge numbers of scalpers ( ) Users of the product will not put up with it ( ) The product's maker will not put up with it (*) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from distributors ( ) Many classifieds sites cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential customers ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(*) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Asshats ( ) Difficulty of setting up manufacturing processes on the fly ( ) Unpopularity of weird ads ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new vouchers ( ) Huge existing infrastructural investment in market-based economies ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than POS transactions to attack ( ) Willingness of emptors not to caveat ( ) Armies of idiot buyers ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all black markets ( ) Extreme profitability of scalping ( ) Economically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with scalpers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of scalpers themselves ( ) Persistence that is unaffected by false positives
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able sell bizarre items without being censored (*) Countermeasures should not involve bioterrorism (*) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of the postal system ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Posting ads on free sites should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your certifications? ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) I don't want the government telling me what pricing strategies are acceptable ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, asshole! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
-Military doesn't count, countries will sell us or someone else their oil without it. -Roads don't count, they don't discriminate on fuel source. -Tax accounting of oil well doesn't count, it's to accurately reflect book value of oil wells for tax purposes. -Uncompensated environmental externalities do count, but they are already required to spend a lot on pollution control, and it's only a "subsidy" under a broad use of the term.
Yeah, but why do Japanese game companies name their games after the Japanified version of some English? Not just "Fainaru Fantaji;", but also "Suta Oshan" (Star Ocean) and "Buru Doragon" (Blue Dragon).
How much help I got? I gave them the specific error message I got, and then:
-They NEVER gave me anything that addressed that error or even said what it meant, or followed up when I tried a related link. -They repeatedly suggested things I already tried. -They wanted to know which OS I had installed -- you know, the OS that it never gets an option to load. -Every solution assumed I had a CD burner -- you know, the one that I could no longer access thanks to installing Ubuntu while following the instructions I supplied.
If they had just addressed that error message, the problem would have been solved!
Second, there is a REASON I keep bringing it up. It's because people make the exact same criticisms I made of Ubuntu, in other contexts, and get modded to five. It's like single-point-of-failure only counts as acceptable design for stuff that I use.
So, I will GLADLY shut up about this when either a) people stop making those same design criticisms (I'd say for a year), or b) I get my gold-plated apology for crappy design that they expect the masses to use. I don't think that's unreasonable.
In an attempt to prop up my own achievements (I played violin for six years), I agree:-)
But what surprised me about the video was that, while the robot's playing was messy, it appeared to make the same errors and imprecisions that new human violin players make. I don't know if I'd be able to distinguish its playing from a seven-year-old's recital if I had to judge by ear alone.
I suppose this raises another question regarding the increasingly human attributes of robots. Is something that is "handmade" or "handplayed" by a robot any more or less valuable than its human equivalent?
Cynical answer: less, because an elite art community is the one that officially decides these things, and since robots would replace them, they feel threatened, and self-servingly answer "less".
Slashdot Mirror
Alright alright alright, sorry, I got the line wrong :-P One example out of a thousand is erroneous. Replace that one supporting example with:
... your eyes maybe? *stares at chest*
-Pretty much any other advice in a female song, or
-Pretty much any advice given by a woman in a mainstream book
-Pretty much any advice given by women you know about how to act.
Girl you know: You have to be polite and respectful of women.
You: Okay.
*enter guy smart enough to ignore that crap*
Guy: Alright, this is where the babes are!
Girl you know: tee hee!
Guy: Hm, something special about you
Girl you know: Oh, stop *pushes him, bats eyelids*
You: *burying face in hands*
Regarding 2: I think you may like this post of mine.
You are correct that "emotionally responsive" is an imprecise term. It's kind of like "genetically fit". What's "genetically fit"? Well, whatever *turns out* to work at passing on genes. You can't know it in advance. Likewise, "emotionally responsive" doesn't necessarily mean wussy -- it means more like, "acting with knowledge of what women will really like, irrespective of claimed desires".
I would absolutely agree with you that what women claim to want and what they really want are far apart -- more than 42 trillion km. It's rather frustrating to see them espouse feminist notions of how men should act, and then boink the first guy who violates them all. The theory that "Women give flawed advice to cull the guys who actually listen to it from the dating pool" fits the data a bit too well. Look at the Spice Girls song: "If you want to be my lover, you gotta first be my friend". What expert seducer doesn't find that advice abhorrently wrong?
Yes, and I'm just saying that you're trivializing the difficulty of that. There's no algorithm I can follow to get it right. Remember, you can't simply e.g. "Satisfy her every want" -- that can make you seem like a submissive wuss and be ultimately unsatisfying to her.
..." Yes, hence the problem of algorithmizing emotional interaction.
"Oh, but I didn't mean do it like that,
I know you're half-joking there, but: If it were easy to write a rulebook (algorithm) for how to emotionally connect with others, the Turing Test would already have been passed.
Pleasing women in that way is not (as far as we know) a matter of following simple rules.
Wait, people are going on e-dates through webcams?
As for the Real Doll, my guess is that women will respond with ever more drastic measures to look attractive (just as women respond that way to air-brushed magazine pictures of women that don't represent how even those models look cf. Dove). Now, if robots can be more emotionally responsive than men, will men do something drastic to compete with robots?
Very good points, but ironic sig you've got for the same post:
You too could advertise here.
No. The referent of copyright is an intangible -- it is a literary, musical, etc, work, like that paragraph I posted earlier.
No, for there to be a copyright violation, that literary (or whatever) work has to be instantiated in something scarce. The copyright is *defined* by rights to instantiation in scarce objects. That's only one dereferencing.
My personal property is itself tangible: my car,
No. Your personal *possessions* are tangible. "Property" refers to a bundle of legal rights and obligations. (This is why I am careful about distinguishing intellectual *works* from intellectual *property*.) My point is, you have to compare apples to apples:
-Compare the *bundle of legal rights* in physical property to the *bundle of legal rights* in intellectual property. Both are intangible!
-Compare the *referents* of physical property to the *referents* of intellectual property. Both are tangible!
When you refer to "your property", you are referring to a bundle of rights related to that physical object. Certainly, in casual use, people might refer to a physical object as "property", just as "book" can refer to either the informational content or one physical instantiation.
Unfortunately, you can build a supercomputer simply by having a bunch of regular computers in a Beowulf Cluster. (Ha, ha, let's laugh every time someone mentions that!) If you want Iran not to have the capability to make a supercomputer, you're asking them to either:
-Not have PCs at all, or
-Not have the Free software they would need to cluster them.
Neither is realistic.
Then let's all make a pact:
"If I make a significant scientific breakthrough, I will postpone its announcement, to the best of my ability, until December 20th of that year, so as to screw over moronic publishers who do 'year-in-review' specials before that year is over."
So the tangible things that Paramount's copyright on that paragraph refer to are pretty much everything which can infringe it, from the crudest stylus to the Internet? That doesn't make sense.
Actually, it makes perfect sense.
Just like the right to transmit radio waves along frequency 120kHz refers to pretty much every TANGIBLE transmitter which can broadcast along that frequency.
Just like the right to your "personal property" refers to pretty much every TANGIBLE thing that could infringe on it.
What tangible things have those IP rights restricted me from using?
Anything tangible that can instatiate that message.
Yes, I understand there are good arguments against IP. My point was just that it does, undeniably, lay claim to tangible things.
_My_ keyboard? Contrast with real property, which I'd have to actually enter to trespass upon.
In other words, IP is invalid, because it infinges on rights that are valid, and IP isn't one of them. Nice and circular.
I think I see your point:
-Being bold decreases fitness, except in peacocks.
-Women's claim that they like something that sounds socially acceptable ("sense of humor") should be taken at face value, in preference of who they actually want to quickly mate with.
-A rock star's groupies are better explained by his musical talent than other attributes of being a rock star, such as fame and the fact that other women show interest in him.
-Lower birth rates are a sign of higher choosiness in women.
-Nerds produce more offspring than jocks.
In any case, the "imaginary property" is just a slogan, not an actual argument or principled stand. As I have argued many times before.
IP *rights* and physical property *rights* are both intangible.
The *referents* of both IP and physical property rights are both tangible. (i.e. even IP restricts your use of *tangible* things, even if it is metaphorically phrased as use of an intangible idea)
Every now and then when I stop to realize how far we've come it just bakes my noodle! =)
You know, it is a good point about how far computers have come, but why did you have to involve religion in an otherwise interesting post?
Dang, wish I had found this earlier.
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (*) vigilante
approach to ending a shortage of a hot Christmas item. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Desperate parents and other legitimate buyers would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(*) It is defenseless against huge numbers of scalpers
( ) Users of the product will not put up with it
( ) The product's maker will not put up with it
(*) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from distributors
( ) Many classifieds sites cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential customers
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(*) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Asshats
( ) Difficulty of setting up manufacturing processes on the fly
( ) Unpopularity of weird ads
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new vouchers
( ) Huge existing infrastructural investment in market-based economies
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than POS transactions to attack
( ) Willingness of emptors not to caveat
( ) Armies of idiot buyers
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all black markets
( ) Extreme profitability of scalping
( ) Economically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with scalpers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of scalpers themselves
( ) Persistence that is unaffected by false positives
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able sell bizarre items without being censored
(*) Countermeasures should not involve bioterrorism
(*) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of the postal system
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Posting ads on free sites should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your certifications?
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) I don't want the government telling me what pricing strategies are acceptable
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, asshole! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
How was oil subsidized?
-Military doesn't count, countries will sell us or someone else their oil without it.
-Roads don't count, they don't discriminate on fuel source.
-Tax accounting of oil well doesn't count, it's to accurately reflect book value of oil wells for tax purposes.
-Uncompensated environmental externalities do count, but they are already required to spend a lot on pollution control, and it's only a "subsidy" under a broad use of the term.
True, but you have to keep in mind, almost every energy source ultimately comes from the sun. Take fossil fuels:
1. Sun feeds plants.
2. Dinosaurs eat plants.
3. Dinosaurs die.
4. Energy stays as fossil fuel.
I'm downloading it from the last, but it's still really slow. A torrent would be even kinder.
Yeah, but why do Japanese game companies name their games after the Japanified version of some English? Not just "Fainaru Fantaji;", but also "Suta Oshan" (Star Ocean) and "Buru Doragon" (Blue Dragon).
Gee, after 20 years of sequels, it doesn't seem so FINAL, lol mirite? *please mod redundant, please mod redundant*
How much help I got? I gave them the specific error message I got, and then:
-They NEVER gave me anything that addressed that error or even said what it meant, or followed up when I tried a related link.
-They repeatedly suggested things I already tried.
-They wanted to know which OS I had installed -- you know, the OS that it never gets an option to load.
-Every solution assumed I had a CD burner -- you know, the one that I could no longer access thanks to installing Ubuntu while following the instructions I supplied.
If they had just addressed that error message, the problem would have been solved!
Second, there is a REASON I keep bringing it up. It's because people make the exact same criticisms I made of Ubuntu, in other contexts, and get modded to five. It's like single-point-of-failure only counts as acceptable design for stuff that I use.
So, I will GLADLY shut up about this when either a) people stop making those same design criticisms (I'd say for a year), or b) I get my gold-plated apology for crappy design that they expect the masses to use. I don't think that's unreasonable.
In an attempt to prop up my own achievements (I played violin for six years), I agree :-)
But what surprised me about the video was that, while the robot's playing was messy, it appeared to make the same errors and imprecisions that new human violin players make. I don't know if I'd be able to distinguish its playing from a seven-year-old's recital if I had to judge by ear alone.
I suppose this raises another question regarding the increasingly human attributes of robots. Is something that is "handmade" or "handplayed" by a robot any more or less valuable than its human equivalent?
Cynical answer: less, because an elite art community is the one that officially decides these things, and since robots would replace them, they feel threatened, and self-servingly answer "less".