There is no "artificial intelligence". All intelligence that is called artificial intelligence is genuine
I have little experience with AI, but I know that something can be artificial, but be, to all effects and purposes, the same as the genuine alternative. Artificial simply means a man-made alternative to something natural.
I also realise that animal's brain is intimately linked with bodily functions, and some lower level "thinking" occurs in the nerves of the body parts they affect. We call these "thoughts" reflexes. Animals can also have emotions, too. These are both things that artificial intelligence do not have or generally need. Both tend to complicate the task at hand. The instinct to survive and the emotion of anger/hate are both things that can produce the kind of holocaust featured in the Terminator movies.
There are differences in most forms of AI to genuine intelligence.
If you don't feel strongly enough about the RIAA's policy to make any sacrifices in order to change them, then it's really not as important as you're making it out to be.
Here, let me clarify. These are my priorities:
1. Music
2. No RIAA "Reign of Terror"
3. Pay artists
It's not everyone's order, but it's not hard to understand. I stand by my statement you so conveniently quoted.
As you know, there are sites like emusic and Magnatune which also distribute DRM-free music. The prices are higher than the Russian sites because they actually pay the artists. Out of curiosity, have you been generous with your hard-earned cash on these sites as well, or does it largely go to allofmp3?
I'll have a look at these sites. But honestly, I can't imagine that they pay the artist without paying the RIAA. Why would they? They'd be already illegal, so why pay the artists a fair amount? Either it pays the copyright holder, or it's no better than allofmp3.com (with higher prices to boot). It sounds like waste of time, but I'll probably check it out.
Lovely. We have a new music label coalition of corporations whose entire purpose (like any corporation) are to make money for shareholders.
The truth of the matter is that music is affected very little by the free market. Have you wondered why the RIAA coalition has survived so effectively, despite all the companies offering equivilent services? It's because we choose music (or hype) over price more often than not. If we like both albums, but we're not sure which to get, we buy both. If we can only afford one, we buy the other later. The RIAA has no intention of internal feuding because no-one is stealing anybody's lunch.
Look out for AWESOME over-charging, manipulating distribution channels, merging with the RIAA, stonewalling the EFF, etc.
If you want to put an end to this, the simple answer is to cease all activities involving consumption of the product. Don't steal it, don't buy it, don't listen to it on the radio
I actually have to disagree there.
If you dissosciate yourself completely from the RIAA's music, you deliver the message loud and clear that it is the music, not the company that you object to. Sure you can "make sure you let everyone know your position and explain why you're taking that position", but that level of detail doesn't reach the sales figures of the RIAA. Show demand for the music (if there is any demand for it), just not the company's "Reign of Terror". So called piracy boycotts the business model thrusted upon us every time we want to listen to music, but still retains the demand for the music. I know everyone has said it, but give me a good-quality, DRM-free system (read: the system allofmp3.com uses), and I will be generous with my hard-earned cash.
Please note also that boycotting music (or movies for that matter) is not easy for everyone. I love my music, and I couldn't imagine my life without it. Right now, the RIAA could boycott me and I'd come crawling back, humble and submissive, within weeks.
The problem is, like it or not, the US of A is a bloody great international power. I read all this stuff because I know that these kinds of stories can cross continents when in the hands of the US. It may not happen immediately, but still, it pays to be vigilant.
For another thing, why did you complain about the relevence of the article if you don't live in the US? How did you even come to the conclusion that the article didn't belong in YRO for US citizens?
Unless "NSA illegal surveillance scandal" referrs to some covert blog, I don't see how this impacts my rights online.
This affects your rights. It affects your rights to privacy, your right to be not spied upon illegally.
If you are bent on interpreting "Your Rights Online" as "Your Online Rights", I would argue that this would affect your right to privacy online, since the NSA doesn't stop at telephones.
I, like many, prefer to think of "Your Rights Online" as my rights being reported online. This is my rights, I am online.
After, a quick look of this site, they use DRM from Windows... So goodbye Linux and Apple.
It can be played on a standard DVD player. Linux and Apple will do fine. Think CD copy protection, and how it only works because of the autorun feature in CDROM drives on Windows machines.
So, yeah I think it could be a rootkit, but I also think this is great news for Linux and Apple users.
I guess it depends on what you want the law to do for you. There effectively is a trade-off between freedom of the law and freedom of the people. The liberals advocate the freedom of the people.
To say that removing these alledged drunks, druggies, or whatever is wrong because no-one had proof is missing the point. The point is that the law was flexible enough to remove these people, simply because most people would object to the behaviour. It's just not something people want in their parks, legal technicalites be damned.
To a liberal, this concept is their idea of hell, because, as most will rightly attest, this has the great potential to be abused.
I disagree with the idea that as soon as the law shows any flexibility, it is being abused. I wouldn't call this case abuse. Don't forget the law is there to satisfy the people, not to be rigid and easy to by-pass.
I am a white male who is largely unconcerned with politics and I certainly know that I visit slashdot for the comments, not the news.
It's not to bask in the public spotlight, not to build an online reputation (I would hate that), it's not even that I think the true insights are in the comments.
I like the comments because I like to know what people think. I think it's far more interesting than most of the news. Opinions tend to cover a far greater field than media do. People's thoughts and opinions ultimately determine the future, not the obscenely powerful as some might think. The obscenely powerful only are obscenely powerful because enough people don't feel strongly enough about bringing their power down.
The news tells me where the puck is, the comments tell me where the puck is going.
it isn't possible to disprove that something doesn't exist
True. However, you can disprove a theory within a certain "scope".
For example, God (or any being that has limitless powers) can be disproved within the logical universe by testing the idea's internal consistency (as you suggested). i.e. If God can do anything and everything, he cannot challenge himself beyond his own powers, and therefore he cannot do anything and everything. Therefore God doesn't exist only in the "scope" of the logical universe.
We can disprove telepathy to all effects and purposes by proving that synapses do not provide more than a very mild electrical (or electromagnetic) disturbance, and by proving that such a disturbance would be overshadowed by much, much larger disturbances. Sure, people might argue that our telepathic signals are transmitted over some unknown or paraphysical method, but simple knowledge of the brain and its composition should be sufficient to disprove for the "scope" we are interested in.
Einstein is the icon for "crank science"! His one most famous theory, Theory of General Relativity [Wikipedia.org] was radical. He simply needed the right evidence to back it up. Several theories began with the observation of phenomena. I personally can't see why telepathy would be any different.
Look, I know that Slashdotters get offended if they don't get their goods at distribution cost price, but there are other costs involved. Costs in paying the artist fairly (ie not just giving them a couple of cents per sale), costs in production, costs in marketing, and then, only then, costs in distribution. This may not justify the price tag, but I don't think they are grossly overcharging for music.
My patience with the RIAA has worn very thin lately, but I still recognise that they do help the music marktet.
Their whole business model is basically to leech as much cash as they can off the works of people who are more creative than they could dream of being
It's not their sole purpose to furfill a deep-seeded psychological need to feel creative (they're a faceless corporation , remember?). They are there to provide a financial leap pad to gain maximum market exposure.
if this involves exploiting those same people and removing their rights to their own creations, they have no problems with that
"Exploiting" is hardly the term I'd use. They help artists. They put a small portion of their assets on the line to help people achieve something that they could not do on their own. It gives them connections to other artists, to big promotions, and helps avoid all the confusion of distributing to a fickle market. That said, they have completely fucked up their attempts at securing their IP. Every time I hear anything about the RIAA, I hate them more and more. Even the public releases (read propoganda) that they produce themselves makes me hate them more and more.
Come on, if they had some shame, they'd couldn't live with themselves...They'd screw their grandmothers for an extra nickle...Their blind, rapacious greed is the overriding impulse in their miserable lives...I literally can't imagine a depth that they wouldn't sink to, given the opportunity
It's these statements that add no benefit to your argument (read flamebait) that should have sunk your post. As disturbing as their war tactics are, they are, in some ways, charitable. Don't forget it
i.e. Liberty when it suits me. Except that isn't really liberty at all. Anyone who is following the dogma of any religion is incapable of understanding what true liberties are.
I really can't see why this guy can't believe in liberties for select issues. I don't know how you choose your ideology, but I sure as hell choose mine to suit me. I mean, I support liberties in a great many things, but I don't support liberties in many more (infant rape, anyone?) Does that make my beliefs inconsistent? Does that make me a hypocrite?
I do not have to be a fanatic zealot to believe in something.
Sure the laws are vague, but doesn't that offer a certain amount of protection? You can simply state that you consent to no searches, and if the other party continues with the search, they are liable (with the help of a good lawyer) for any constitutional breach. In fact, the vagueness benefits you more than the enforcement agents.
At any rate, times do change. Laws change to fit the times. A bit of flexibility can certainly be of benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
I have little experience with AI, but I know that something can be artificial, but be, to all effects and purposes, the same as the genuine alternative. Artificial simply means a man-made alternative to something natural.
I also realise that animal's brain is intimately linked with bodily functions, and some lower level "thinking" occurs in the nerves of the body parts they affect. We call these "thoughts" reflexes. Animals can also have emotions, too. These are both things that artificial intelligence do not have or generally need. Both tend to complicate the task at hand. The instinct to survive and the emotion of anger/hate are both things that can produce the kind of holocaust featured in the Terminator movies.
There are differences in most forms of AI to genuine intelligence.
Here, let me clarify. These are my priorities:
1. Music
2. No RIAA "Reign of Terror"
3. Pay artists
It's not everyone's order, but it's not hard to understand. I stand by my statement you so conveniently quoted.
I'll have a look at these sites. But honestly, I can't imagine that they pay the artist without paying the RIAA. Why would they? They'd be already illegal, so why pay the artists a fair amount? Either it pays the copyright holder, or it's no better than allofmp3.com (with higher prices to boot). It sounds like waste of time, but I'll probably check it out.
Lovely. We have a new music label coalition of corporations whose entire purpose (like any corporation) are to make money for shareholders.
The truth of the matter is that music is affected very little by the free market. Have you wondered why the RIAA coalition has survived so effectively, despite all the companies offering equivilent services? It's because we choose music (or hype) over price more often than not. If we like both albums, but we're not sure which to get, we buy both. If we can only afford one, we buy the other later. The RIAA has no intention of internal feuding because no-one is stealing anybody's lunch.
Look out for AWESOME over-charging, manipulating distribution channels, merging with the RIAA, stonewalling the EFF, etc.
If you dissosciate yourself completely from the RIAA's music, you deliver the message loud and clear that it is the music, not the company that you object to. Sure you can "make sure you let everyone know your position and explain why you're taking that position", but that level of detail doesn't reach the sales figures of the RIAA. Show demand for the music (if there is any demand for it), just not the company's "Reign of Terror". So called piracy boycotts the business model thrusted upon us every time we want to listen to music, but still retains the demand for the music. I know everyone has said it, but give me a good-quality, DRM-free system (read: the system allofmp3.com uses), and I will be generous with my hard-earned cash.
Please note also that boycotting music (or movies for that matter) is not easy for everyone. I love my music, and I couldn't imagine my life without it. Right now, the RIAA could boycott me and I'd come crawling back, humble and submissive, within weeks.
Funny, that. I'm not either.
The problem is, like it or not, the US of A is a bloody great international power. I read all this stuff because I know that these kinds of stories can cross continents when in the hands of the US. It may not happen immediately, but still, it pays to be vigilant.
For another thing, why did you complain about the relevence of the article if you don't live in the US? How did you even come to the conclusion that the article didn't belong in YRO for US citizens?
This affects your rights. It affects your rights to privacy, your right to be not spied upon illegally.
If you are bent on interpreting "Your Rights Online" as "Your Online Rights", I would argue that this would affect your right to privacy online, since the NSA doesn't stop at telephones.
I, like many, prefer to think of "Your Rights Online" as my rights being reported online. This is my rights, I am online.
Yup, it's a -1 Obvious mod for me.
And it was Homer Simpson who answered "I dunno, coastguard?"
Remember this?
It can be played on a standard DVD player. Linux and Apple will do fine. Think CD copy protection, and how it only works because of the autorun feature in CDROM drives on Windows machines.
So, yeah I think it could be a rootkit, but I also think this is great news for Linux and Apple users.
I guess it depends on what you want the law to do for you. There effectively is a trade-off between freedom of the law and freedom of the people. The liberals advocate the freedom of the people.
To say that removing these alledged drunks, druggies, or whatever is wrong because no-one had proof is missing the point. The point is that the law was flexible enough to remove these people, simply because most people would object to the behaviour. It's just not something people want in their parks, legal technicalites be damned.
To a liberal, this concept is their idea of hell, because, as most will rightly attest, this has the great potential to be abused.
I disagree with the idea that as soon as the law shows any flexibility, it is being abused. I wouldn't call this case abuse. Don't forget the law is there to satisfy the people, not to be rigid and easy to by-pass.
RIAA/MPAA (quietly in American Government's ear): You were ment to say "Think of the economy!" Say it, or you won't work in politics again!
This is just another OMG TEH KIDDIES!!!!!111 story isn't it?
Hong Kong kids can do law enforcement in sleazy sites if they want to. They don't need your moral objections.
Jesus.
I am a white male who is largely unconcerned with politics and I certainly know that I visit slashdot for the comments, not the news.
It's not to bask in the public spotlight, not to build an online reputation (I would hate that), it's not even that I think the true insights are in the comments.
I like the comments because I like to know what people think. I think it's far more interesting than most of the news. Opinions tend to cover a far greater field than media do. People's thoughts and opinions ultimately determine the future, not the obscenely powerful as some might think. The obscenely powerful only are obscenely powerful because enough people don't feel strongly enough about bringing their power down.
The news tells me where the puck is, the comments tell me where the puck is going.
True. However, you can disprove a theory within a certain "scope".
For example, God (or any being that has limitless powers) can be disproved within the logical universe by testing the idea's internal consistency (as you suggested). i.e. If God can do anything and everything, he cannot challenge himself beyond his own powers, and therefore he cannot do anything and everything. Therefore God doesn't exist only in the "scope" of the logical universe.
We can disprove telepathy to all effects and purposes by proving that synapses do not provide more than a very mild electrical (or electromagnetic) disturbance, and by proving that such a disturbance would be overshadowed by much, much larger disturbances. Sure, people might argue that our telepathic signals are transmitted over some unknown or paraphysical method, but simple knowledge of the brain and its composition should be sufficient to disprove for the "scope" we are interested in.
Einstein is the icon for "crank science"! His one most famous theory, Theory of General Relativity [Wikipedia.org] was radical. He simply needed the right evidence to back it up. Several theories began with the observation of phenomena. I personally can't see why telepathy would be any different.
Sit the fence. What harm could it do?
Dammit! I wanted that karma whore link!
Look, I know that Slashdotters get offended if they don't get their goods at distribution cost price, but there are other costs involved. Costs in paying the artist fairly (ie not just giving them a couple of cents per sale), costs in production, costs in marketing, and then, only then, costs in distribution. This may not justify the price tag, but I don't think they are grossly overcharging for music.
It's not their sole purpose to furfill a deep-seeded psychological need to feel creative (they're a faceless corporation , remember?). They are there to provide a financial leap pad to gain maximum market exposure.
"Exploiting" is hardly the term I'd use. They help artists. They put a small portion of their assets on the line to help people achieve something that they could not do on their own. It gives them connections to other artists, to big promotions, and helps avoid all the confusion of distributing to a fickle market.
That said, they have completely fucked up their attempts at securing their IP. Every time I hear anything about the RIAA, I hate them more and more. Even the public releases (read propoganda) that they produce themselves makes me hate them more and more.
It's these statements that add no benefit to your argument (read flamebait) that should have sunk your post. As disturbing as their war tactics are, they are, in some ways, charitable. Don't forget it
Don't you mean Hard Disk Killer?
I do not have to be a fanatic zealot to believe in something.
Quite possibly, there might be a little artistic integrity out there. Maybe.
Give me oars any day. You probably couldn't row a freighter to save your life.
Kids have it so easy...
Sure the laws are vague, but doesn't that offer a certain amount of protection? You can simply state that you consent to no searches, and if the other party continues with the search, they are liable (with the help of a good lawyer) for any constitutional breach. In fact, the vagueness benefits you more than the enforcement agents.
At any rate, times do change. Laws change to fit the times. A bit of flexibility can certainly be of benefit.