To say there is algorithmic predictability but to also allow 1,3 and 4 is splitting hairs. We can agree there is more than one possible definition for 'algorithmic predictability' here, labeling them is just semantics. The stronger definition which explicitly rules out 1,3 and 4 is to me much more interesting.
Point 2 is just the nature of the example. You can extend the idea to any kind of predicting computer.
Algorithmic predictability leads to contradictions without involving QM or philosophy ('free will'). If some computer where capable of prediction it would be possible to create a simple Russel's Paradox. e.g. create a machine that turns on a light when the computer answers 'no' and turns off a light when the computer answers 'yes'. Then ask the computer to predict "will the light be on at time t?".
It's an argument that involves neither human beings/philosophy or QM theory, we are conflating things by even dragging those things into the conversation.
With all do respect, the people claiming this undermines the notion of choice are stupid. It is still your brain making rational decisions. At best this undermines the assumed notion that consciousness is the source of rational choice and is not an echoing chamber of the subconscious.
However, I would not even concede that much at this point. The fact that these findings are always so closely tied to undermining rational choice makes me suspect of the research in the first place.
It is not a problem if the dealer can pack up his table and go home.
Hypothetically, insurance companies would just have to draft policies under the assumption that most people will get genetic testing and use that information. The downside is they will not offer coverage for a disease for which there is a test to determine if one will contract it. They would still offer coverage for diseases which can only be tested to show an increased likelihood of contraction. The cost of such insurance would be higher, but the value to the payer is higher too. It is a self correcting system.
>>Even so trying to reason why something is a bad idea isn't going to change the facts of the real world.
But presumably we care about the real world. There are some things to which you can't assign 'generative value', and yet people did work hard dammit to create and sell them to you. What I was saying is that there is problem in the real world, and you should think about it. Saying that "the real world is the real world" is avoiding them problems we face.
Consider for a moment digital books, movies and games. The only value of such things is the copy. If you can't charge for a copy then very few people will create these things as an individual. These leaves just two options: 1) people can create digital works as a service to a media company or 2) people can create digital works as a hobby and give them away freely. There is no 3) where people create digital works and sell them themselves. And in case 1) the company won't be selling us the digital work as a product, they either charge us for a password or they won't be selling it digitally at all.
The ugly truth is people care about what is normal and what is not normal.
Imagine a future somewhat like Ghost in the Shell where having an entire artificial body is not uncommon for average everyday people. In such a scenario "completely natural" competitions would only exist as a special category. If we imagine a future in which completely natural bodies are rare (say less than 1% of the population), interest in completely natural competition would be nonexistent.
I'm not sure if I would ban this guy. But I wouldn't ban artificial hearts if they were better than normal hearts.
$40 for a big box of cards for constructed would be nice. It's never going to happen sadly. I'd also like to see limited-esque play where you don't have to buy the damn boosters, i.e. you just don't get to keep the cards afterwards or some such.
There are lots of people who obviously want a CCG without that the first 'C'. In fact, I'd wager 90% of people who quit CCGs do so because of the terrible cost. The market is there, but no one is bothering to target it.
It has a weird concept of playlists though. Or maybe _no_ concept, I'm not sure. If you open a foobar playlist file it actually takes all those songs and places them in whatever playlist was open the last time you ran foobar.
2 seconds seems like a really long time. The player isn't reacting here, they are timing. If one makes a very quick reaction, which happens in less than one second, then your fingers can't possibly know 2 seconds in advance.
Circumvention itself is a crime under the DMCA. Not just using it to actually infringe. This particular case involved actual infringement but won't it define a precedent that deletion = circumvention?
Power plants band together to force GE into paying a surcharge on their light bulbs. Spokesperson for the electricity industry said "These bulbs will suck up a sizable portion of our power generation."
Anonymous sources that are never revealed might as well be fictional. If the source won't reveal himself then I have no reason to believe he even exists. The absence of a shield law does not prevent reporters from bringing us important information, it only forces them to divulge the source in certain circumstances.
Either the government doesn't have the right to force you to divulge something or they do. Who I am should make no difference. The casual blogger vs non casual blogger distinction is stupid.
Re:Bad arguments and bad reasoning
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
And the DMCA turned these little fences in illegal borders.
Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
Doesn't take into account that copy protection also dissuades people from buying it in the first place. Every such occurrence is a lost sale. For every casual copy that is prevented, how many represent a lost sale?
This is exactly the kind of scary shit that keeps me from upgrading to Vista, I don't want to pay a premium just to get a crippled computer. It is ironic since I just recently started taking an interest in directX programming (on an XP box) and I'm having lots of fun doing it, but if I had upgraded a few months ago I would probably be up to my ears in headaches right now.
Can you provide some sources to verify the claims and give more information?
Slashdot Mirror
What is the name of your bank?
To say there is algorithmic predictability but to also allow 1,3 and 4 is splitting hairs. We can agree there is more than one possible definition for 'algorithmic predictability' here, labeling them is just semantics. The stronger definition which explicitly rules out 1,3 and 4 is to me much more interesting.
Point 2 is just the nature of the example. You can extend the idea to any kind of predicting computer.
Algorithmic predictability leads to contradictions without involving QM or philosophy ('free will'). If some computer where capable of prediction it would be possible to create a simple Russel's Paradox. e.g. create a machine that turns on a light when the computer answers 'no' and turns off a light when the computer answers 'yes'. Then ask the computer to predict "will the light be on at time t?".
It's an argument that involves neither human beings/philosophy or QM theory, we are conflating things by even dragging those things into the conversation.
With all do respect, the people claiming this undermines the notion of choice are stupid. It is still your brain making rational decisions. At best this undermines the assumed notion that consciousness is the source of rational choice and is not an echoing chamber of the subconscious.
However, I would not even concede that much at this point. The fact that these findings are always so closely tied to undermining rational choice makes me suspect of the research in the first place.
It is not a problem if the dealer can pack up his table and go home.
Hypothetically, insurance companies would just have to draft policies under the assumption that most people will get genetic testing and use that information. The downside is they will not offer coverage for a disease for which there is a test to determine if one will contract it. They would still offer coverage for diseases which can only be tested to show an increased likelihood of contraction. The cost of such insurance would be higher, but the value to the payer is higher too. It is a self correcting system.
It is hardly a 'full pipe' being sold to the BBC if the other end of the pipe can't use it.
Happen to know the MTTF for typical drives?
Well, I did read the article.
>>Even so trying to reason why something is a bad idea isn't going to change the facts of the real world.
But presumably we care about the real world. There are some things to which you can't assign 'generative value', and yet people did work hard dammit to create and sell them to you. What I was saying is that there is problem in the real world, and you should think about it. Saying that "the real world is the real world" is avoiding them problems we face.
Consider for a moment digital books, movies and games. The only value of such things is the copy. If you can't charge for a copy then very few people will create these things as an individual. These leaves just two options: 1) people can create digital works as a service to a media company or 2) people can create digital works as a hobby and give them away freely. There is no 3) where people create digital works and sell them themselves. And in case 1) the company won't be selling us the digital work as a product, they either charge us for a password or they won't be selling it digitally at all.
Now we replace 'meat' with 'wikipedia'. Zing!
The ugly truth is people care about what is normal and what is not normal.
Imagine a future somewhat like Ghost in the Shell where having an entire artificial body is not uncommon for average everyday people. In such a scenario "completely natural" competitions would only exist as a special category. If we imagine a future in which completely natural bodies are rare (say less than 1% of the population), interest in completely natural competition would be nonexistent.
I'm not sure if I would ban this guy. But I wouldn't ban artificial hearts if they were better than normal hearts.
$40 for a big box of cards for constructed would be nice. It's never going to happen sadly. I'd also like to see limited-esque play where you don't have to buy the damn boosters, i.e. you just don't get to keep the cards afterwards or some such. There are lots of people who obviously want a CCG without that the first 'C'. In fact, I'd wager 90% of people who quit CCGs do so because of the terrible cost. The market is there, but no one is bothering to target it.
For future reference, you are coming off like a jerk even if that is not your intention.
It has a weird concept of playlists though. Or maybe _no_ concept, I'm not sure. If you open a foobar playlist file it actually takes all those songs and places them in whatever playlist was open the last time you ran foobar.
2 seconds seems like a really long time. The player isn't reacting here, they are timing. If one makes a very quick reaction, which happens in less than one second, then your fingers can't possibly know 2 seconds in advance.
Circumvention itself is a crime under the DMCA. Not just using it to actually infringe. This particular case involved actual infringement but won't it define a precedent that deletion = circumvention?
Power plants band together to force GE into paying a surcharge on their light bulbs. Spokesperson for the electricity industry said "These bulbs will suck up a sizable portion of our power generation."
Anonymous sources that are never revealed might as well be fictional. If the source won't reveal himself then I have no reason to believe he even exists. The absence of a shield law does not prevent reporters from bringing us important information, it only forces them to divulge the source in certain circumstances.
Either the government doesn't have the right to force you to divulge something or they do. Who I am should make no difference. The casual blogger vs non casual blogger distinction is stupid.
And the DMCA turned these little fences in illegal borders.
Doesn't take into account that copy protection also dissuades people from buying it in the first place. Every such occurrence is a lost sale. For every casual copy that is prevented, how many represent a lost sale?
Canada and the US adhere to the Berne Convention, which covers this sort of thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_par ty_to_the_Berne_Convention
I'm fine with paying for a demo. Just give me a sampling of what the demo is like, and then let me decide whether or not it is worth $2.50.
Fear is different from rationality. A normal day would be completely unaffected without fear.
This is exactly the kind of scary shit that keeps me from upgrading to Vista, I don't want to pay a premium just to get a crippled computer. It is ironic since I just recently started taking an interest in directX programming (on an XP box) and I'm having lots of fun doing it, but if I had upgraded a few months ago I would probably be up to my ears in headaches right now.
Can you provide some sources to verify the claims and give more information?