If copyright isn't essential for commercial production of such works, then the government shouldn't be wasting resources doing policing for it. It wasn't necessary for *this* work. It would exist with or without copyright. Copyright was, however, necessary for many other life-enriching works.
I also don't like the "wasting resources policing". Ideally, rights enforcement should be self-funding. Offenders should pay enforcement costs. To the extent that they don't, that's a criticism of the quality of rights enforcement, not the validity of the rights.
Except the fundamental distinction that a piece of physical property can only be used by a limited number of people at a time (whether an apple, piece of land, or house), whereas imaginary property can be used by the whole world at once, without any strain on the original "owner". It's senseless to try to make the latter behave like the former, when its limitless nature is a prime asset. The problem with that argument is that you can say, just the same, that the electromagnetic spectrum can be "used" by the entire world, limitlessly, at once. That is, everyone can simultaneously transmit along frequency X. No information will be transmitted, but hey, they're blasting waves, right?
I've seen this exact debate with IP opponents before, and the rest of the argument goes something like this:
"But that's not *really* using the spectrum because it doesn't transmit information, and information transmission is the relevant aspect of EM frequency use." "So why isn't 'exclusive publishing' the relevant aspect of intellectual property use? My production of an intellectual work may very well be useless to me unless I can have exclusion rights for it. You may dislike the existence of these rights, but they meet the same 'scarcity' threshold you required of the EM spectrum."
A well-deserved +4, and sufficient by itself to make you an UbuntuDupe friend.
In the general case: "People often falsely assume that Person A is evil/inconsiderate/stupid for using means B to achieve goal C, when in reality, they simply weren't aware of the existence of means D."
What you've said also has implications for intelligence tests. While I don't ridicule them like others, it's easy to write bad ones. Someone smarter than the test writer may see something the writer didn't. For example, one time in 2nd grade, the class was given an example problem for a test. The question was: which of these does not belong? with 4 pictures:
-fireman, with a hat -cowboy, with a hat -security guard, without a hat -baseball player, with a hat
Correct answer: security guard, because, DUH, he doesn't have a hat.
My answer (before learning the "right" one): cowboy, because that's not a real job, while the others are. What makes that difference (*given* my existing knowledge) more revealing of intelligence than not noticing the hat?
Or, for example, let's say a test requires you to know or guess the meaning of "sanguine" (a word I hate). Let's say I'm smart. Let's say further that I have even been exposed to a lot of non-English works. Let's go one step further and say I make the connection to the Italian "sanga", blood. How does that imply that I should know "sanguine" means "happy"? Blood doesn't sound very happy until you know of some obscure medieval theory about the body.
Could you or someone else just briefly remind me what about copyright law makes his business model impossible, and therefore enables this event to be an argument for eliminating or reducing copyright terms?
Btw, given all the hatred of biased terminology, (Don't call it "Digital Rights Management"!!!!) I see you're not above the tactic when you refer to "imaginary property".
Intellectual property is exactly as imaginary as physical property. Both refer to "rights". Rights are inherently intangible. And contrary to their names, they both have physical ("real") referents.
Maybe I'm a bit harsh, but there is simply no excuse for someone to promise deliverables without a plan to deliver them. Did they not expect so many orders?
I guess not, kinda like with the Xbox Live Christmas new account surge.
Probably would be a good idea to keep Microsoft away from the OPLC. Oh, wait.
Still haven't made the improved video (even though we all know you're going to pretend not to see anything in that one too). You're still wrong.
Adding additional steps to a process is just a tactic to refuse
No. The goal *this whole time* is to get the stills in a folder I want, with the names I want. That was the problem description from the very first post. Again, here is the ENTIRE process I have to go through, just to do that for *one* clip:
-Right click, ADD clip that I DON'T WANT -FALSIFY modification status of the clip (hm, a lot of silence from you on this one, I guess the fact that the information about when the movie was last modified is completely useless doesn't really bother you) because it's now "been modified" even though I don't want to modify it -Right click to find the still in finder. -Right click and rename the still. -Right click to cut. -Navigate through finder and paste where I want. -Delete still from movie. -Make mental note to self that project really hasn't been modified since last upload, even though iMovie says it has.
(How many clicks was that again?)
Most of that has to be repeated each time, by the way.
If you merely want to extract stills (instead of actually editing movies) and are unhappy about how long it takes, you should be using Quicktime or another application, not iMovie. With the pro version of Quicktime
Whoa whoa whoa, I'm supposed to buy a professional-oriented program when all I want to is export a few stills? How much sense does that make? And, of course, use its crappier frame-navigating functionality. Heaven forbid I want to take stills out of a movie PROJECT. Who the fuck would ever want to extract stills from a PROJECT? Why would you EVER do that in the course of making a movie?
You seem to be failing to state what should be in Leopard that isn't there.
Oh, you mean Tiger, the OS rev that everyone was suppposed to be using and enjoying the BRILLIANT INTERFACE DESIGN of not but a few months ago? Well, most of this applies to Leopard so I guess it doesn't matter:
Ability to save stills where I want instead of having to add them to a movie just to delete them again. Mail subject lines that aren't darkened. Mail subject lines for which there's some reason why they're darkened. Windows in Mail.app that don't spill onto the dock. Ability to upload photos from an iPhoto album using a website's given interface that wasn't designed specifically for mac users, without having to navigate deep into bizarre directories that I'm not supposd to know exist. Ability to find photos I just cropped through right-clicking.
You also seem to want to shift the debate from just how you're wrong to semantics.
Where?
You failed to give an example of what would prevent your hypothetical grandmother from being able to "undarken" the subject line. Stick with the program,
Yes, I did give an example. The fact that the name of that "feature" (bug) is non-obvious and not discoverable in help. I can guarantee you no Grandma new-to-mac user would know how to change that.
In my video, if she does not know how to use the close button to close a window in Mac OS X,
She does know how to close windows. But look at the top bar of that window: nothing there will close it! And what about the OK and cancel that Grandma knows about? Where are they? ON TOP OF THE DOCK where they're useless! You're not very good at this, are you?
Oh, and for extra fun, see if Grandma can email me pictures in her little don't-access-this-any-other-way iPhoto albums. And let's hope and pray pray pray that she doesn't drag pictures into the body of the email thinking I'll see the pictures inside the text body, when really Mail.app doesn't endorse the concept of WYSIWIG for emails.
IMHO: You "really believe" something iff you predicate actions on it. "A belief you do not act on, is not a belief you hold."
Does a Scientologist "really believe" that crap? Well, do they do what it tells them to?
Does a Christian fundamentalists "really believe" the earth is 6000 years old? Well, what implications does it have for their actions in everyday life? Do they do those things?
Do biologists "really believe" in all of the knowledge contained in the theory of evolution? Well, do they predicate their survival/mating actions based its insights?
The government builds a highway, and then opens a rest area. They sell restaurant/gas/convenience store space to the highest bidder. Then the company that leases the space charges more for a Big Mac or a gallon of gas than in the city. Everybody's a winner - except the consumer.
Yes and no. The desires of drivers determine the demand curve for restaurants/gas at that area. The fact that the sellers can get higher prices there is just the manifestation of this. Yes, you could try to circumvent this and heroically deliver the lower prices, but it will just mean that the goods are allocated in a more haphazard, corruption-driven manner. The lease will be awarded to the person with the best connections rather than ability to make use of the land; or the stores will be forever packed and "rationed" by long queues, since the prices are artificially low.
What should be done in cases like that is not "fight the demand curve" and make prices lower there, but accept that the equilibrium prices will be higher, auction the leases to the highest bidder, and then use that money (driven higher by the demand curve for goods at that location) to replace other taxes, effectively rebating the value created by the highway, to the general public (who paid for it in the first place).
That is, of course, also what should be done in auctioning airwaves. Chance of politicians genuinely using the money to cut other taxes, rather than seeing it as extra free money: ZERO:-(
(Note my meticulous avoidance of the word "consumer".)
A major telco, or a coalition of the major telcos, will go deep into dept to bid an extremely high price that no one can match, then win, then use their effective monopoly to continue the USA's crappy position in telecommunication quality, and thereby charge high enough prices to pay back the debt from their bid.
I want to be wrong, but I want credit if I'm right.
I hope Google can get enough money to outbid. Maybe sell "Gbonds" so they can pay absurdly low yields on borrowed money:-P
Yes, carpool. Or take a bus. Or work different hours. Or live closer. Or take a chopper.
The point of a congestion tax is (hopefully!) not to prod people into doing some politician's little fantasy of what people should do, but to make sure they see the cost of their actions *in monetary terms*, and then do *whatever* is best for them, *given* proper pricing of an overused "commons". Right now, people already feel the cost of congestion, but then it gets allocated in a haphazard manner that makes the roads near useless.
That's like saying, "Set up a nationwide network of gas stations before you sell the first car."
If prices are set really high, it will become profitable for private buses to eat the high cost and then charge people for riding a much lower rate than if they drove. The buses, in turn, will actually be efficient because they will be driving on uncongested roads.
(I talk a lot about this in my first journal entry.)
Remember: everyone already is paying a toll: the opportunity cost and aggravation of dealing with congestion. By pricing the roads at market-clearing levels, you allow more efficient organization to emerge.
Die Regeln in Mail.app? Keine Ahnung, ich verwende nicht Mail.app:-) Aber bei mir ist das Fenster für die Regeln scheinbar nicht sehr gross... Siehe meinen Film. Er ist nicht perfekt, aber du sollst sehen koennen, dass das Fenster sehr gross ist, und ueber das Dock steht. (spillt?)
Ich verwende Flickr, da gibts verschiedene Plug-ins. Scheinbar ist aber Flock gut, und PictureSync sollte auch funktionieren. Du meinst, als MacBookbenutzer darf ich nur zu Mac-freundlichen Seiten gehen? Jede Seite erlaubt, durch Direktoriesuche zu uploaden, aber wenige erlauben diese Plug-ins. Die Direktoriesuche ist leichter.
Das verstehe ich nicht. Um spezifische Fotos zu exportieren, kannst du sie einfach auswählen, bevor du "Export" wählst.
Ich meinte fuer iMovie. iMovie hat meine Filmprojekte. Ich will einige Stills exportieren. Es gibt keine solche einfache Option. Ich muss zuerst ein *neues Clip* machen, mit dem gewollten Still. Einem Still, vergiss nicht, das ich spaeter wieder entfernen muss. Und ich bekomme eine Warnung, dass mein Filmproject modifizert wurde. iMovie glaubt (falsch), dass mein Film geaendert wurde. Aber ich will den Film nicht aendern, sondern ein paar Stills exportieren. Das ist mein Schimpf!
Ja, ich dachte mir, wenn sich jemand schon die Mühe macht und auf Deutsch schreibt, kann er nicht so schlimm sein:-) Wo hast du so gut Deutsch gelernt?
Ich lernte Deutsch in der Oberschule ("High School") und spaeter bei der Universitaet. Ich bin auch waehrend High School sieben Wochen in Deutschland geblieben. Das war zwei Besuche nebeneinander. Eine war wegen ich eine Bewerb gewonnen hat. Die Paedagogische Austauchdienst (PAD) (sp?) hat mir die Reise gegeben wegen meiner Note auf einem Test und spaeter meines Redens mit einem Professor. (viellecht schlimmer Satz) Es hilft, wenn man viele native Deutschspraecher hoert.
(Viele empfehlen, dass ich mein Deutsch ueben muss, oder ich werde alle vergessen. Aber nach dir haben sie nicht recht...)
Vielleicht sollen wir irgendwo anderes reden. Aber vergiss nicht, ich must mich verstecken, weil viele mich hassen, wegen meiner Ubuntuschimpfen. Siehe mein Sig und Ubuntuforum Links. Allermindestens wisst du jetzt, das ich nicht nur Apple kritiziere!
1) einen Grund, warum das Window fuer die Mailregeln zu gross ist. 2) eine Erklaerung darueber, wie meine Bilder leicht zu Photobucket zu uploaden, wenn sie in einem iPhoto Album steht. (Jedes gegebene Method dauert sehr lang!) 3) einen Grund, warum ich keine Stills direkt abspeichern kann, sondern ein neues Clip machen muss (das ich dann entfernen muss).
Es gibt viel gutes ueber das MacBook, aber die obenerwaehnten sind unakzeptabel (sp).
Ich danke dir fuer die guten Woerten ueber mein Deutsch, aber mein Wortschatz ist echt klein, und ich spreche Deutsch nicht regelmaessig. Hat mein Deutschkentnisse dich verursacht, mich zu ent"foe"en?
Ah, okay. Earlier you were drawing some pretty wildly over-reaching inferences, but I think now, with those caveats you mentioned, I'd have to agree.
I'd watch out on sending copyrighted material like that though. With all this monitoring going on, even a short excerpt like that could get you in trouble. Good move encrypting.
Well, you have to be careful in distinguishing the kinds of solvency problems. If it was merely a matter of "We can give you your money, but only after our loans are paid back with interest", that's what central banks are for: to lend when the bank has trouble selling its (good quality) loans because of temporary market kinks. (i.e. liquitiy crisis) So it wouldn't be that bad for the government to do it also. It's just making it a loan that will be paid back with the stream of income from the bank's loans come in.
HOWEVER, if it was a case of "We're lending you the money, even though we know your loans are bad and you can't actually pay us back but we're going to prop you up anyway", THEN you have good reason to object to it, and it would be an unfair taxpayer bailout.
The problem with the "emergent intelligence" from lots of "neural networks" approach is even if it works you often don't really know why it works (or whether it's really working the way you want) - it's more a probability thing.
The idea that a neural network given a "large enough corpus" can resemble a human being might be true. But a "long enough dead end" could look like a highway. Then again we are probably dead ends too, and so it's more a matter of which one goes on for longer;). That was kind of my thought too. I saw
huge fact databases from which AI agents could feed, hoping to eventually have something that could reason at a human level or better
and said, insensitively, "Okay, so he thought of an idea that sounds like crap to begin with, hasn't produced any AI-level results beyond 'neat', and probably won't ever produce any results."
I don't want to trivialize their deaths, but let's not equate respect for the dead, with merit of their ideas.
Agreed. I *really* have to take my hat off to that guy, assuming he was trolling. I mean, yeah, trolls suck, but at the same time I can appreciate the skill involved, just like I can admire good graffiti while hating graffitists.
Look at this: there are well over a hundred replies ultimately stemming from his original post. And it's gotta be the oldest line ever. I mean, what did he do differently? Was it the folksy tone? The phrasing "pretty much just a theory at this point" or whatever? The reference to the pastor? The smug "Think about it"? The "also a theory"? It's such a short post that it's gotta have a lot of trollishness per word, requiring a clever mind.
To use another analogy: it's like if someone orchestrated a armed invasion of a toothpick factory and then built a full-sized model of the Eiffel Tower with them. Obviously a brilliant mind, but you gotta wonder what would be possible if he worked for good instead of evil...
The cute part about the plot of the video game Deus Ex was how
SPOILERS
it involves the government trying to develop a human-like AI capable of analyzing trillions of intercepted communications and identifying subversive activity as well as a human analyst, but a problem arose: once successful, it started identifying the government as a terrorist organization.
Slashdot Mirror
I also don't like the "wasting resources policing". Ideally, rights enforcement should be self-funding. Offenders should pay enforcement costs. To the extent that they don't, that's a criticism of the quality of rights enforcement, not the validity of the rights. Except the fundamental distinction that a piece of physical property can only be used by a limited number of people at a time (whether an apple, piece of land, or house), whereas imaginary property can be used by the whole world at once, without any strain on the original "owner". It's senseless to try to make the latter behave like the former, when its limitless nature is a prime asset. The problem with that argument is that you can say, just the same, that the electromagnetic spectrum can be "used" by the entire world, limitlessly, at once. That is, everyone can simultaneously transmit along frequency X. No information will be transmitted, but hey, they're blasting waves, right?
I've seen this exact debate with IP opponents before, and the rest of the argument goes something like this:
"But that's not *really* using the spectrum because it doesn't transmit information, and information transmission is the relevant aspect of EM frequency use."
"So why isn't 'exclusive publishing' the relevant aspect of intellectual property use? My production of an intellectual work may very well be useless to me unless I can have exclusion rights for it. You may dislike the existence of these rights, but they meet the same 'scarcity' threshold you required of the EM spectrum."
A well-deserved +4, and sufficient by itself to make you an UbuntuDupe friend.
In the general case: "People often falsely assume that Person A is evil/inconsiderate/stupid for using means B to achieve goal C, when in reality, they simply weren't aware of the existence of means D."
What you've said also has implications for intelligence tests. While I don't ridicule them like others, it's easy to write bad ones. Someone smarter than the test writer may see something the writer didn't. For example, one time in 2nd grade, the class was given an example problem for a test. The question was: which of these does not belong? with 4 pictures:
-fireman, with a hat
-cowboy, with a hat
-security guard, without a hat
-baseball player, with a hat
Correct answer: security guard, because, DUH, he doesn't have a hat.
My answer (before learning the "right" one): cowboy, because that's not a real job, while the others are. What makes that difference (*given* my existing knowledge) more revealing of intelligence than not noticing the hat?
Or, for example, let's say a test requires you to know or guess the meaning of "sanguine" (a word I hate). Let's say I'm smart. Let's say further that I have even been exposed to a lot of non-English works. Let's go one step further and say I make the connection to the Italian "sanga", blood. How does that imply that I should know "sanguine" means "happy"? Blood doesn't sound very happy until you know of some obscure medieval theory about the body.
Sorry,[/rant]
Could you or someone else just briefly remind me what about copyright law makes his business model impossible, and therefore enables this event to be an argument for eliminating or reducing copyright terms?
Btw, given all the hatred of biased terminology, (Don't call it "Digital Rights Management"!!!!) I see you're not above the tactic when you refer to "imaginary property".
Intellectual property is exactly as imaginary as physical property. Both refer to "rights". Rights are inherently intangible. And contrary to their names, they both have physical ("real") referents.
Maybe I'm a bit harsh, but there is simply no excuse for someone to promise deliverables without a plan to deliver them. Did they not expect so many orders?
I guess not, kinda like with the Xbox Live Christmas new account surge.
Probably would be a good idea to keep Microsoft away from the OPLC. Oh, wait.
Still haven't made the improved video (even though we all know you're going to pretend not to see anything in that one too). You're still wrong.
Adding additional steps to a process is just a tactic to refuse
No. The goal *this whole time* is to get the stills in a folder I want, with the names I want. That was the problem description from the very first post. Again, here is the ENTIRE process I have to go through, just to do that for *one* clip:
-Right click, ADD clip that I DON'T WANT
-FALSIFY modification status of the clip (hm, a lot of silence from you on this one, I guess the fact that the information about when the movie was last modified is completely useless doesn't really bother you) because it's now "been modified" even though I don't want to modify it
-Right click to find the still in finder.
-Right click and rename the still.
-Right click to cut.
-Navigate through finder and paste where I want.
-Delete still from movie.
-Make mental note to self that project really hasn't been modified since last upload, even though iMovie says it has.
(How many clicks was that again?)
Most of that has to be repeated each time, by the way.
If you merely want to extract stills (instead of actually editing movies) and are unhappy about how long it takes, you should be using Quicktime or another application, not iMovie. With the pro version of Quicktime
Whoa whoa whoa, I'm supposed to buy a professional-oriented program when all I want to is export a few stills? How much sense does that make? And, of course, use its crappier frame-navigating functionality. Heaven forbid I want to take stills out of a movie PROJECT. Who the fuck would ever want to extract stills from a PROJECT? Why would you EVER do that in the course of making a movie?
You seem to be failing to state what should be in Leopard that isn't there.
Oh, you mean Tiger, the OS rev that everyone was suppposed to be using and enjoying the BRILLIANT INTERFACE DESIGN of not but a few months ago? Well, most of this applies to Leopard so I guess it doesn't matter:
Ability to save stills where I want instead of having to add them to a movie just to delete them again. Mail subject lines that aren't darkened. Mail subject lines for which there's some reason why they're darkened. Windows in Mail.app that don't spill onto the dock. Ability to upload photos from an iPhoto album using a website's given interface that wasn't designed specifically for mac users, without having to navigate deep into bizarre directories that I'm not supposd to know exist. Ability to find photos I just cropped through right-clicking.
You also seem to want to shift the debate from just how you're wrong to semantics.
Where?
You failed to give an example of what would prevent your hypothetical grandmother from being able to "undarken" the subject line. Stick with the program,
Yes, I did give an example. The fact that the name of that "feature" (bug) is non-obvious and not discoverable in help. I can guarantee you no Grandma new-to-mac user would know how to change that.
In my video, if she does not know how to use the close button to close a window in Mac OS X,
She does know how to close windows. But look at the top bar of that window: nothing there will close it! And what about the OK and cancel that Grandma knows about? Where are they? ON TOP OF THE DOCK where they're useless! You're not very good at this, are you?
Oh, and for extra fun, see if Grandma can email me pictures in her little don't-access-this-any-other-way iPhoto albums. And let's hope and pray pray pray that she doesn't drag pictures into the body of the email thinking I'll see the pictures inside the text body, when really Mail.app doesn't endorse the concept of WYSIWIG for emails.
Wow, didn't know that feature existed. Here's something even more depressing.
IMHO: You "really believe" something iff you predicate actions on it. "A belief you do not act on, is not a belief you hold."
Does a Scientologist "really believe" that crap? Well, do they do what it tells them to?
Does a Christian fundamentalists "really believe" the earth is 6000 years old? Well, what implications does it have for their actions in everyday life? Do they do those things?
Do biologists "really believe" in all of the knowledge contained in the theory of evolution? Well, do they predicate their survival/mating actions based its insights?
Verizon only has 11.5 billion in cash on hand
11.5 billion dollars, or 11.5 billion cents? Or is there a difference?
So, in other words, go with the "perpetually crowded rest stops" option. And, abolish the Return key on keyboards.
The government builds a highway, and then opens a rest area. They sell restaurant/gas/convenience store space to the highest bidder. Then the company that leases the space charges more for a Big Mac or a gallon of gas than in the city. Everybody's a winner - except the consumer.
:-(
Yes and no. The desires of drivers determine the demand curve for restaurants/gas at that area. The fact that the sellers can get higher prices there is just the manifestation of this. Yes, you could try to circumvent this and heroically deliver the lower prices, but it will just mean that the goods are allocated in a more haphazard, corruption-driven manner. The lease will be awarded to the person with the best connections rather than ability to make use of the land; or the stores will be forever packed and "rationed" by long queues, since the prices are artificially low.
What should be done in cases like that is not "fight the demand curve" and make prices lower there, but accept that the equilibrium prices will be higher, auction the leases to the highest bidder, and then use that money (driven higher by the demand curve for goods at that location) to replace other taxes, effectively rebating the value created by the highway, to the general public (who paid for it in the first place).
That is, of course, also what should be done in auctioning airwaves. Chance of politicians genuinely using the money to cut other taxes, rather than seeing it as extra free money: ZERO
(Note my meticulous avoidance of the word "consumer".)
A major telco, or a coalition of the major telcos, will go deep into dept to bid an extremely high price that no one can match, then win, then use their effective monopoly to continue the USA's crappy position in telecommunication quality, and thereby charge high enough prices to pay back the debt from their bid.
:-P
I want to be wrong, but I want credit if I'm right.
I hope Google can get enough money to outbid. Maybe sell "Gbonds" so they can pay absurdly low yields on borrowed money
Yes, carpool. Or take a bus. Or work different hours. Or live closer. Or take a chopper.
The point of a congestion tax is (hopefully!) not to prod people into doing some politician's little fantasy of what people should do, but to make sure they see the cost of their actions *in monetary terms*, and then do *whatever* is best for them, *given* proper pricing of an overused "commons". Right now, people already feel the cost of congestion, but then it gets allocated in a haphazard manner that makes the roads near useless.
See my first journal entry.
That's like saying, "Set up a nationwide network of gas stations before you sell the first car."
If prices are set really high, it will become profitable for private buses to eat the high cost and then charge people for riding a much lower rate than if they drove. The buses, in turn, will actually be efficient because they will be driving on uncongested roads.
(I talk a lot about this in my first journal entry.)
Remember: everyone already is paying a toll: the opportunity cost and aggravation of dealing with congestion. By pricing the roads at market-clearing levels, you allow more efficient organization to emerge.
I'll pay my fair share for data transfer, when one-email-a-month granny pays her fair share for health care. [/grumpy]
Das verstehe ich nicht. Um spezifische Fotos zu exportieren, kannst du sie einfach auswählen, bevor du "Export" wählst.
Ich meinte fuer iMovie. iMovie hat meine Filmprojekte. Ich will einige Stills exportieren. Es gibt keine solche einfache Option. Ich muss zuerst ein *neues Clip* machen, mit dem gewollten Still. Einem Still, vergiss nicht, das ich spaeter wieder entfernen muss. Und ich bekomme eine Warnung, dass mein Filmproject modifizert wurde. iMovie glaubt (falsch), dass mein Film geaendert wurde. Aber ich will den Film nicht aendern, sondern ein paar Stills exportieren. Das ist mein Schimpf!
Ja, ich dachte mir, wenn sich jemand schon die Mühe macht und auf Deutsch schreibt, kann er nicht so schlimm sein
Ich lernte Deutsch in der Oberschule ("High School") und spaeter bei der Universitaet. Ich bin auch waehrend High School sieben Wochen in Deutschland geblieben. Das war zwei Besuche nebeneinander. Eine war wegen ich eine Bewerb gewonnen hat. Die Paedagogische Austauchdienst (PAD) (sp?) hat mir die Reise gegeben wegen meiner Note auf einem Test und spaeter meines Redens mit einem Professor. (viellecht schlimmer Satz) Es hilft, wenn man viele native Deutschspraecher hoert.
(Viele empfehlen, dass ich mein Deutsch ueben muss, oder ich werde alle vergessen. Aber nach dir haben sie nicht recht...)
Vielleicht sollen wir irgendwo anderes reden. Aber vergiss nicht, ich must mich verstecken, weil viele mich hassen, wegen meiner Ubuntuschimpfen. Siehe mein Sig und Ubuntuforum Links. Allermindestens wisst du jetzt, das ich nicht nur Apple kritiziere!
Is it a good or a bad sign that I got the same feeling from reading that exchange, that I do when I read the solution to a difficult puzzle?
Ich brauch nur:
1) einen Grund, warum das Window fuer die Mailregeln zu gross ist.
2) eine Erklaerung darueber, wie meine Bilder leicht zu Photobucket zu uploaden, wenn sie in einem iPhoto Album steht. (Jedes gegebene Method dauert sehr lang!)
3) einen Grund, warum ich keine Stills direkt abspeichern kann, sondern ein neues Clip machen muss (das ich dann entfernen muss).
Es gibt viel gutes ueber das MacBook, aber die obenerwaehnten sind unakzeptabel (sp).
Ich danke dir fuer die guten Woerten ueber mein Deutsch, aber mein Wortschatz ist echt klein, und ich spreche Deutsch nicht regelmaessig. Hat mein Deutschkentnisse dich verursacht, mich zu ent"foe"en?
Ah, okay. Earlier you were drawing some pretty wildly over-reaching inferences, but I think now, with those caveats you mentioned, I'd have to agree.
I'd watch out on sending copyrighted material like that though. With all this monitoring going on, even a short excerpt like that could get you in trouble. Good move encrypting.
You make a valid point, but aren't you overstating the strength of your evidence?
Well, you have to be careful in distinguishing the kinds of solvency problems. If it was merely a matter of "We can give you your money, but only after our loans are paid back with interest", that's what central banks are for: to lend when the bank has trouble selling its (good quality) loans because of temporary market kinks. (i.e. liquitiy crisis) So it wouldn't be that bad for the government to do it also. It's just making it a loan that will be paid back with the stream of income from the bank's loans come in.
HOWEVER, if it was a case of "We're lending you the money, even though we know your loans are bad and you can't actually pay us back but we're going to prop you up anyway", THEN you have good reason to object to it, and it would be an unfair taxpayer bailout.
The idea that a neural network given a "large enough corpus" can resemble a human being might be true. But a "long enough dead end" could look like a highway. Then again we are probably dead ends too, and so it's more a matter of which one goes on for longer
huge fact databases from which AI agents could feed, hoping to eventually have something that could reason at a human level or better
and said, insensitively, "Okay, so he thought of an idea that sounds like crap to begin with, hasn't produced any AI-level results beyond 'neat', and probably won't ever produce any results."
I don't want to trivialize their deaths, but let's not equate respect for the dead, with merit of their ideas.
We already found out: there was no "no".
Agreed. I *really* have to take my hat off to that guy, assuming he was trolling. I mean, yeah, trolls suck, but at the same time I can appreciate the skill involved, just like I can admire good graffiti while hating graffitists.
Look at this: there are well over a hundred replies ultimately stemming from his original post. And it's gotta be the oldest line ever. I mean, what did he do differently? Was it the folksy tone? The phrasing "pretty much just a theory at this point" or whatever? The reference to the pastor? The smug "Think about it"? The "also a theory"? It's such a short post that it's gotta have a lot of trollishness per word, requiring a clever mind.
To use another analogy: it's like if someone orchestrated a armed invasion of a toothpick factory and then built a full-sized model of the Eiffel Tower with them. Obviously a brilliant mind, but you gotta wonder what would be possible if he worked for good instead of evil...
The cute part about the plot of the video game Deus Ex was how
SPOILERS
it involves the government trying to develop a human-like AI capable of analyzing trillions of intercepted communications and identifying subversive activity as well as a human analyst, but a problem arose: once successful, it started identifying the government as a terrorist organization.