Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

+ - Appeals Judge Calls Prenda an "Ingenuous Crooked Extortionate Operation"

Submitted by ktetch-pirate
ktetch-pirate writes: Today was the long-awaited appeals court hearing in the ongoing Prenda copyright troll saga. Almost exactly two years after Judge Otis Wright went sci-fi on Prenda and its principles, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held an appeals hearing requested by Prenda on the sanctions, and it was not a pretty day for Prenda. Highlights included Senior Judge Pregerson calling Prenda's operation an "Ingenuous Crooked Extortionate Operation" after describing in detail how they operate.

Prenda also astonished the judges by welcoming the idea of a criminal contempt hearing, which Legal blog Popehat thinks is likely to happen, on top of the sanctions being sustained.

Comment: Re:The 30 and 40-somethings wrote the code... (Score 1) 423

by gweihir (#49618073) Attached to: Recruiters Use 'Digital Native' As Code For 'No Old Folks'

What I find when reviewing projects or analyzing problems is that the young engineers often have serious trouble seeing what is under the surface. All those "frameworks" and tools are standing in their way and it becomes very hard to understand what is going on form them. This results in bad performance, huge bloat, insecurity and bad reliability.

What the IT field has really missed and the younger generation is suffering the effects, is that fundamentals are important and if you do not understand them, then your product will suck. Sure, if you want to push out crappy software fast, get some young morons that have high intelligence but no experience and actual insight. But if you want to get the cost of IT down by actually solving problems and having them stay solved, make sure a significant part of your engineers are experienced and knowledgeable. Yes, that means getting older folks into the teams. Don't get me wrong. Many older folks are just as incompetent. But experience can _only_ be gotten among older folks, as it takes time to acquire.

Comment: Re:Take this with a heavy grain of salt (Score 1) 200

by gweihir (#49617947) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

While I did not read the paper, this is rather damning. It means these people do not qualify as scientists or even intelligent human beings, as such a test is very conclusive. Have the dummy and real item perform the same? Then the "real item" is not real at all. There is no other valid conclusion.

Comment: Apparently people cannot even read... (Score 2) 200

by gweihir (#49617921) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

All the proponents of this "device" are just an example of how incompetent and delusional humans can get. From the NASA publication abstract: "Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article)."

Listen up kids, this means that they tested the "true em-drive" and a dummy and _both_ gave them thrust. The dummy is specifically designed so that it _cannot_ do this! This means the "thrust" comes from some other effect, not the "em-drive". That truly and utterly pathetic thing here is that NASA actually did sound science and people are missing the necessary reading comprehension skills to even understand the abstract.

Comment: Re:Stop calling it AI. (Score 1) 66

by gweihir (#49617809) Attached to: AI Experts In High Demand

The formal logic approach is still the only one that has a theoretical possibility of creating some aspects of true intelligence. Unfortunately, in this universe, it fails even at small problems due to limited computing power available. The brute-force approach is good enough to simulate very limited intelligence when an incredible lot of data is available. That has nothing to do with intelligence though, and statistical approaches cannot simulate more complex chains of reasoning. They are always shallow. On the commercial side, even shallow models can work, but calling them AI is just misleading.

The sad fact of the matter is that most people are morons and hence even a shallow, statistics driven system can now be a moron that is just a bit smarter than them (or rather knows more). Hence for many mundane tasks, humans are becoming redundant.

Comment: Re:Stop calling it AI. (Score 1) 66

by gweihir (#49617785) Attached to: AI Experts In High Demand

Excellent explanation. The brain certainly has some automated components that are not intelligent and they are configured by actual intelligence as you describe. What that actual intelligence is, how it works, and why it is only observable together with consciousness is completely unknown at this time.

Unfortunately, this explanation will fly right over the heads of most people here.

No directory.