You're failing to differentiate between copyright and trademark.

Lets say I take a Free Software Foundation software product. Totally Libre, right? Now I want to fork it. Guess what? I can't use any of their trademarks. I can't claim it is made by the Free Software Foundation. I can't use their name in any way that makes it sound like I'm affiliated with them, or an official licensed source of their software. I can say I forked it from their thing, sure.

Source code is not a trade name. And even when the source is Free (as in libre) there is still huge value in knowing who you got it from. In fact, that sort of knowledge helps protect Freedom, and helps me make use of that Freedom.

I use some arduino tools in making my own products. But I don't need to lie and plaster their name all over it, I can put my own name on it. And when people look at the project history, they can see any open parts I forked or included, and who I got them from. For example, all my AVR based boards, I copy from arduino design when needed, and I always use their arduino.cc-branded programmer board. There is no limit to what I can copy, just a limit on when I can claim my device "is an adruino."

That said, on the hardware side arduino mostly just copies what the AVR data sheet tells you do with the chips. ;) But notice how AVR used their own trademarks to describe the boards, instead of AVR's?

It is the not-open thing that these fake-arduino "arduino.org" guys (the real one is arduino.cc) are pushing. That is why you didn't hear about it. Those of us that buy this stuff have been seeing it and having to look it up and find out is crap for awhile now.

You're conflating two things, copyright and trademark.

The source should be open, that is why the open it. So then if you want to create a MyCoolEmbeddedBoard product, you can! No problem. They're not complaining about that.

What they're complaining about is not people using their designs, but advertising it with Arduino trade name. That is reasonable. Just like, if I create some software I should make my own name, and not try to tell people is the Free Software Foundation Whatthewhat. They have a right to their own name, even after they've given away the source. Indeed, having the correct name is part of knowing where your source is from.

What they want is that when people buy a piece of Open Source Hardware that has the Arduino trademark, it is drop-in compatible and the name is properly licensed. And if you want to copy their license and not their name, then you don't need a trademark license, and you can be compatible or not. You can, for example, say on the box that it is compatible with their brand, and that you're not licensed or affiliated, as long as it is clear that you're not official. That is fair use. But you can't put their logo on your product to advertise that compatibility, or use their name in a way that makes it sound like you're licensed.

This should be obvious to anybody that has ever written software. If you have, and it isn't, please learn this shit finally. That includes anybody who would buy this stuff and call themselves a "maker."

arduino.org sounds right, but it is the wrong one. That is the company that is trying to steal the name from arduino.cc the actually originators.

I know dice doesn't care about nerd shit, but please learn this one. It is a big deal right now, and will provide lots and lots of stories with links to MSM over the next couple years as it plays out.

If dice wants their bait to attract clicks, they should figure this one out and get on the OSS side.

There is a big hole there, though

1. not actual intelligence
2. man-made
3. ...
4. man-made _intelligence_

Being man-made doesn't make it intelligence, or insulate it from being a man-made tool that appears clever because the builder was intelligent. If we don't have a good definition of intelligence, it is basically impossible to make an objective claim that the intelligence is "in" the system, and not just something that had to be present externally to design the system.

Luckily, none of that impacts the attempts of natural philosophers, and later scientists, to encode human intelligence into machines in order to better complete human tasks.

Because they don't know most people write it LoRD for clarity.

I'm using a small dumb-phone for emergencies and a wifi tablet for modern apps. My dumb phone is just a $20 Samsung, and it holds a charge for over a week.

The thing is, if you wait that long every time, the battery has memory effects. You still need to charge every 2 or 3 days.

Those smart phone batteries may last a few days, but if you're not charging every day the battery won't last. That's just the deal with these newer battery technologies.

If you want one with long life and little battery memory, I recommend a Motorola from the early 90s. Under 10 lb, and comes with a car adapter!

A good argument has been made that the metal shells of satellites will orbit for a long time, but no reasonable case has been made that their very sensitive, short-life electronics will survive longer than things on Earth that are isolated and have decent power generation, like remote solar powered scientific sensors.

There is either corrosion or an analogue, depending how you define it.

There isn't Earth weather, but there is space weather. Much of the electronics on a space craft are susceptible to damage from that weather. Just as the stuff in space doesn't have much Earth weather to worry about, the stuff on Earth doesn't have the space weather to worry about. I'm not sure why an IC on Earth would be expected to have a shorter lifespan than the ones in space. The ones in space have to be specially constructed just to keep them from failing rapidly. And there is still a high failure rate. Satellites don't last long and have to be replaced frequently.

I was assuming it was a nuclear(5) as in http://dictionary.reference.co... with "nuke" being nuclear(1).

Maybe I'm giving credit too freely, but I thought it was a mildly clever word play that was also awkward and unfunny.

Who said it?! That talking head on the TV. What are yousaying, that she didn't talk to real AI researchers for the descriptions of the field?! That she sat down with her editor and they made up whichever words sounded interesting?! Shocking, truly shocking.

Maybe when AI gets good enough, I can get an expert system that turns on a red warning light whenever there is media drivel on the TV. Oh, wait, that's just called a closed circuit, not AI.

It is not so simple that the intelligence would then be artificial; the device is artificial, but the intelligence is still human intelligence, translated into a complex tool.

Don't think just because you solve the real problems that the arguments over definitions go away. Defining intelligence is harder than that. There are already lots of competing definitions. Arguing over definitions is for philosophy and English majors, not AI majors. It probably won't be seriously attempted, even while it remains the major focus of journalists. (English and pol-sci majors)

Animals can indeed speak, that is recycled propaganda that was refuted long, long ago.

As a tournament chess player I can tell you, most of the humans aren't any good at chess either. As far as chess ratings go, many monkeys would have a similar rating to the average human, e.g. unable to win a single game against the lowest rated player at a tournament. If we had a "chess in the zoos" program to teach chess to baby primates, I'll bet we'd have some good orangutan players. Adult humans can barely learn the moves, but even if they study for decades few are capable of reaching the level of play than an 8 year old reaches in a couple months, if you can get them to put a couple months of focus in.

Human self-awareness isn't a goal of the real research. Better tools for humans is the goal, and the successes can be understood in that light also.

Don't confuse what some pure academic says or wants or speculates with being what the whole "field" is doing, because the people doing experimental work are the ones actually doing anything. And that is driven largely by money from toolmakers, for example IBM.

Research of flight didn't stop at any of the early mileposts, either. The idea that reaching a milepost somehow results in "oh we're there, we need to invent a new name and pretend we're a new field so we can research the next step" is just insane. A common idea, to be sure. Some sort of video-game thinking, where the goals are confused with the checkpoints.

"I haven't heard of anything new, therefore there is nothing."

What a maroon. I expect more learned intelligence than that, even from an anonymous cowherd.

You might be interested to learn what Watson is, since you claim to be in the field but never read even a basic technical description of the project.

Search, interestingly, is the hardest part of human intelligence too. Almost everything gets stored up there somewhere, but a difference in recall can be the difference between 65 and 150.

As long as you can give up on the "artificial" and "intelligence" parts, the rest of it there are solid working academic definitions for.

As to the Question, my prediction is that the LED status panel on a remote solar power installation somewhere will still be functioning hundreds of years after everything else.