it's exactly the same situation where the blind get no relief from what they have to pay for a license for a TV that they cannot watch.
Actually the do get relief.
They get to pay half price (and since it covers the household there may be people who can watch covered by the license). Also if no one in the household can see then they may as well get a b/w tv and then the license is MUCH cheaper.
So actually these big companies are a lot worse than public organisations like the BBC.
The point is that we don't really know what intelligence is. We set up a problem - only to discover that the problem is susceptible to a brute force approach.
Actually Chess is solvable in principle simply with the rules of the game, a simple tree search algorithm and a sufficiently powerful computer. In the end that was the approach that prevailed. Attempts to play chess the way humans play the game proved to be futile.
Unfortunately good chess playing programs are poor opponents from the entertainment point of view - but the internet solved that problem by making human opponents more available!
RadioLab did a story about machines that learn. An example was that by watching a pendulum, it figured out f=ma. Elementary, sure, but it's something that took people a while to figure out.
However it was set up to figure out pendulum equations so its achievement is no greater than that of the chess playing computers.
There isn't anything that humans can do that machines are naturally incapable of doing, just things that we haven't yet figured out how to make machines do.
Note the "we" in that sentence.
My observation is that everything that we thought required "intelligence", e.g. chess, has turned out in practice to be susceptible to a brute force approach of one kind or another. We are still absolutely no nearer having a machine that is really intelligent - as defined by your own criterion "being able to figure out how to do things it can't yet do."
If someone has a copyrighted work and an administrative agency adopts it as a standard by reference, that doesn't thrust the work into the public domain.
The administrative agency should NEVER do this - because it is clearly an act of favouritism.
So, by preventing such corruption this new law would have an extra benefit!
The thing is Ninja that the public is one of the stakeholders, and they are represented at the table by the politicians they elected or the people those politicians appoint to do the job.
So, according to you, rightsholders and the people that run their organisations like MAFIAA etc don't have a vote. LAst time I looked they still did so I conclude that they are also represented by the politicians and so shouldn't get another voice around the table.
On this, I will agree with you, to an extent. BitCoin suffers from a problem: It is extremely volatile. Its value fluctuates too much, making it terrible for storing value.
No Bitcoin is not volatile. The dollar is volatile - when measured against Bitcoin...
My composer friend makes money ...It's amazing.
Copyright is working great for my brother.... His last book did quite well.
My cameraman buddy ... produce products that are highly valuable and highly sought after.
Seems your family and friends are far more talented and successful than you are!
On the post: Swedish Prosecutor Claims Registrar Of .se Domains An 'Accomplice' In Infringement Because Of Pirate Bay Domain
Re: You may be next, Pirate Mike!
If he was being tried in the UK your post would be in contempt of court.
On the post: Court Finds Fantasy Stories Obscene
Re: Re: Yet again, Mike can't find a lower bound.
On the post: Swedish Prosecutor Claims Registrar Of .se Domains An 'Accomplice' In Infringement Because Of Pirate Bay Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://piratesonline.go.com/
On the post: Your Word Against Ours: How The FBI's 'No Electronic Recording' Policy Rigs The Game... And Destroys Its Credibility
Simple Answer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
Re:
Actually the do get relief.
They get to pay half price (and since it covers the household there may be people who can watch covered by the license). Also if no one in the household can see then they may as well get a b/w tv and then the license is MUCH cheaper.
So actually these big companies are a lot worse than public organisations like the BBC.
On the post: Rice University Professor: SkyNET's Gonna Take Ur Jerbs!
Re:
What this amounts to is that robots will take over the world by coming round and doing our housework for us.
This is only a threat because we haven't figured out how to hand out the pocket money fairly when we aren't doing the chores.
On the post: Rice University Professor: SkyNET's Gonna Take Ur Jerbs!
Re: Fixed for you.
The machine we created solves the optimisation problem - but we still decide what the problem is.
On the post: Rice University Professor: SkyNET's Gonna Take Ur Jerbs!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point is that we don't really know what intelligence is. We set up a problem - only to discover that the problem is susceptible to a brute force approach.
Actually Chess is solvable in principle simply with the rules of the game, a simple tree search algorithm and a sufficiently powerful computer. In the end that was the approach that prevailed. Attempts to play chess the way humans play the game proved to be futile.
Unfortunately good chess playing programs are poor opponents from the entertainment point of view - but the internet solved that problem by making human opponents more available!
On the post: Rice University Professor: SkyNET's Gonna Take Ur Jerbs!
Re: Re: Re:
However it was set up to figure out pendulum equations so its achievement is no greater than that of the chess playing computers.
On the post: Rice University Professor: SkyNET's Gonna Take Ur Jerbs!
Re: Re: Re:
You mean Stringfellow?
On the post: Rice University Professor: SkyNET's Gonna Take Ur Jerbs!
Re:
Note the "we" in that sentence.
My observation is that everything that we thought required "intelligence", e.g. chess, has turned out in practice to be susceptible to a brute force approach of one kind or another. We are still absolutely no nearer having a machine that is really intelligent - as defined by your own criterion "being able to figure out how to do things it can't yet do."
On the post: One Simple Copyright Reform Idea: Government Edicts Should Never Be Subject To Copyright
Re:
The administrative agency should NEVER do this - because it is clearly an act of favouritism.
So, by preventing such corruption this new law would have an extra benefit!
On the post: DailyDirt: New Models For (Not) Funding Science?
Fermi Lab
Q. What does Fermi Lab contribute to the defence of the United States?
A. It makes the United States worth defending!
On the post: Copyright Holders Will Define Details Of UK's Orphan Works Bill, But Not The Public
Re: Re: Re: Shocking
So, according to you, rightsholders and the people that run their organisations like MAFIAA etc don't have a vote. LAst time I looked they still did so I conclude that they are also represented by the politicians and so shouldn't get another voice around the table.
On the post: Copyright Holders Will Define Details Of UK's Orphan Works Bill, But Not The Public
Re:
You forget that - in this proposed law- you still have to PAY for the work so that if the rightsholder turns up later they will get the money.
This is only concerned with preventing the copyright system from blocking the creation of derivative works by default.
On the post: Copyright Holders Will Define Details Of UK's Orphan Works Bill, But Not The Public
Re: Re: But you forget, sir...
On the post: Copyright Holders Will Define Details Of UK's Orphan Works Bill, But Not The Public
Re: But you forget, sir...
And you forget , sir that your argument has been made before on this forum and roundly debunked on amny occasions.
On the post: Homeland Security's ICE Group Cuts Off Dwolla Bitcoin Transfers
Re: Re: Bitcoin is essentially a pyramid scheme.
No Bitcoin is not volatile. The dollar is volatile - when measured against Bitcoin...
On the post: Jaron Lanier And Gobbledygook Economics
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Jaron Lanier And Gobbledygook Economics
Re: Re: Re:
Copyright is working great for my brother.... His last book did quite well.
My cameraman buddy ... produce products that are highly valuable and highly sought after.
Seems your family and friends are far more talented and successful than you are!