Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:It's business (Score 1) 83 83

This attitude reminds me of a quote from Grosse Point Blank. To try to justify his actions, the less (an assassin) defend himself with:

No, a psychopath kills people for no reason, I kill people for money!

The fact that actual people on Verizon are acting badly for money doesn't somehow make it right, neither does the fact it's technically within the law.

Comment: Re: Fails to grasp the core concept (Score 1) 207 207

If you're going to redefine learning, then you can make anything learn. So that avenue is pointless. "My pencil just learned how to delete data it printed!"

You're weaselling: you never defined learning in the first place.

At the moment your argments are no true scotsmen: you always reply along the lines of "that's not true learning".

If you're arguing that something isn't learning it's not unreasonable for me to ask you to actually define what you think learning is.

Before weak AI, that word referred to versatile cognition and self-awareness at least in the order of mammals.

The trouble with defining things in terms of life is it's awfully messy. Opossums and platypus are not renowned for their intelligence. It's likely that the Crophodon was exceptionally dim. Are you referring to them, or do you have something else in mind? With the exceptions of humans, there are tasks which some birds can figure out which are beyond chimps (New Caledonian crows seem to understand hooks and the abstract concept of volume).

Anyway the terms like "self aware" are apinfully ill defined.

Comment: Re: Not surprised (Score 1) 313 313

If insurance isn't mandatory here then why will the police confiscate your car if you don't have it?

Simple: they don't. If, however you have neither insurance nor a bond of a half million pounds posted with the accountant general of what is now the supreme court, then they'll confiscate your car. Since very, very few people have a handy half million (at a minimum, see below) to leave with HM, next to no one actually does this. So the PSAsa are all about driving without insurance, not "driving without insurance or having deposited the sum of 500,000 pounds (this may vary) with the accountant general of the senior courts" because that's not very snappy.

See Part IV, clause 144 if the road traffic act 1988:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

Now enjoy being smug at your friends down the pub with your new-found pedantry next time the topic of conversation arises :)

Comment: Re:No GPL (Score 1) 152 152

So if I disagree that the only valid license to use ever is the GPL, it's simply because I'm ignorant of it. Yes, you're just as insane as the guy I just responded to.

Nope. Dunno how you read that.

But your reasons are based on a completely flawed understanding of the GPL.

Why did you feel compelled to repeat that "pem is ignorant of the GPL"? Does that help your cause? Or maybe that's not what you meant. Does a lack of clarity help your cause?

I don't know what cause you think I have? Why should I be patient of people who make bold and completely incorrect claims about the GPL. You didn't bother to read it and you didn't bother to read the FAQ. The fact that you don't have to agree to the GPL to use the software (the FSF hates EULAs) has been hashed over and covered so thoroughly by now.

So if you go out of your way to make claims about it without bothering to actually verify, then the fault is entirely with the person making the claim.

Repeat after me: repeating something doesn't make it true.

Which is presumably why you keep saying crap about the GPL which is untrue.

Fine. Point out where I said it did.

You came out in support of the guy being called a sociapath for making up lies about the GPL. Someone who goes around spreading lies is a sociopath. If you disagree, I assume either you're fine with the lies or you're labouring under the same misapprehensions as he is. In which case, go and educate yourself.

Comment: Re:No GPL (Score 1) 152 152

Completely unimaginative, naive, binary thinking. Is it just possible that someone might like to contribute back -- might even have significant contributions that they can and will make to whatever package they use -- but that for some reason outside their control, they cannot divulge everything they are working on?

Yeah, rationality and reading comprehension are such binary things. He was talking about "using" not contributing back. I can only go on saying what he means not what someone liek you believes what he means. He made no mention of contributions, only mention of use.

See, this kind of name calling is exactly why GPL proponents are often called "communists."

Er, huh? u mad bro? It's called freeloading because not only does he want something for nothing. That's called freeloading under a capitalist economy too.

You don't call users "freeloaders",

They're not.

you only call people who might be able to contribute back "freeloaders."

No, I call people who want to take the free stuff I've stuck out there and wrap it up inproprietary licenses entirely for free "freeloaders". They want to take, take. take and give nothing back.

From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs, and all that rot.

Can we trade Marx quotes? How about:

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

Except you're not even doing a very good job of following the communist doctrine ... because I'm not a communist?

when somebody tells you that, for reasons outside his control, he cannot utilize GPLed software, instead of trying to help him with his needs

You may have noticed the first option, where he was merely ignorant, I sought to correct. If he takes my advice then he'll be fine. I gave two options. He can pick whichever he wants.

Also with the LGPL3, the linking condition of which you speak is now gone.

Comment: Re:Not surprised (Score 1) 313 313

Why should someone suddenly be *forced* to have insurance to do something?

Because you're doing something where there's a reasonable liklihood you're going to do far more damage than you can afford to compensate someone for. Unfortunately, too many people's attitude would be "ha ha I wrecked you stuff fuck you!" which is why insurance is mandatory.

Actually in the UK, insurance isn't mandatory. But you have to prove you can pay out in the event that you cause damage. And that proof comes in the form of leaving a million pounds in the custody of Her Maj.

Comment: Re:This is not allowed by the GPL. (Score 1) 152 152

Memory fades fast. A lot of people forget the environment and conditions that spawned the GPL and the huge amount of code released under it. Things are on average better than then in no small part to the GPL and the early efforts, so the GPL will wane for now.

It won't stay that way for ever, and when things take a turn for the worse, the FSF will still be there.

Comment: Re:No GPL (Score 1) 152 152

Or in this case, it doens't because you're apparently completely ignorant of the GPL.

I really don't know why I have to repeat this. It'sd been said in this thread numerous time, repeated in the past many times all over the internet and it's even on the FSF's website.

You don't have to agree to the GPL to use the software.

Ergo, there is no possibly way in which the GPL can affect mere use of the software.

Comment: Re:No GPL (Score 1) 152 152

Let me analyse this:

Please do not license it under an L/GPL license. There's a lot of software I would like to use, but am not legally allowed to because it uses a GPL license. It sucks.

This has one of two meanings:

The first (kind) meaning is that the OP is merely astonishingly ignorant and believes that using GPL software like Linux, GCC, LibreOffice and so on somehow "traps" him under the GPL. I'm honestly not sure what he believes, but it's probably something along the lines of everything that touches the GPL software is FORCED to be released as GPL. This is so far from being true it's hilarious. One can trivially see it's true from the number of companies which use GPL software stacks (i.e. most internet servers) and don't release the application layer code.

The second meaning is that by "use" he means that he wants you to write source code for entirely free for him and not only that, he doesn't even want to contribute by sharing with others as you shared with him. If that's the case he's a wretched freeloader.

Comment: Re:Probably GPL, but depends on Apple (Score 1) 152 152

What's viral about that?

It's viral in that there's an awful lot of freeloaders out there who are convinced that somehow they have the right to use the code completely for free and are angry that the the owner of the code insists on "share and share alike". Oddly they don't apply the same logic to commercial software.

Comment: Re:The "glow in the dark" thing (Score 1) 275 275

BUT people remember the "spikes" of accidents such as 3-Mile-Island.

Which just goes to show that people are beyod terrible at estimating risk. It's something like the third worse nuclear powerplant accident ever and no one died and very little leaked and pretty much all trace of that has gone. In the greater scheme of incidents involved in power generation, that's somewhere approching negative.

We probably have to just live with that fact unless somebody invents breakthrough persuasion technology.

Preach it, brother.

Comment: Re:Fails to grasp the core concept (Score 1) 207 207

It's not tautology. One could come up with flawed definitions which preclude computers. If for example you defined learning in terms of physical neurons or chemical changes, for example.

You don't have to avoid the brain as reference, but if your definition of learning is too specific, then it becomes rather circular.

So anyway, do you have a definition of learning?

Comment: Re:Same old silly press (Score 1) 207 207

nor an article about how there are things human consciousness can do which no deterministic process can more than imperfectly mimic.

This implies that the only thing separating humans brains from Turing machines on a fundemental level is some out-right randomness, or, you are asserting that the human brain is a more powerful computing model in that it can solve problems that are formally non computable.

It's very easy to create a computer with genuine randomness. You need a source of noise (as someone who occasionally works in analog circuitry, I can assure you this is not hard to find), such as a reverse biased PN junction or a resistor, and amplifier and something that turns that all into logic levels. Shove that into a convenient input pin and you now have a deterministic machine which can make truly non deterministic decisions by using thr random noise.

Come to think of it if you just read from /dev/random, you'll get truly random noise since that's seeded from random exernal events like network packets and keypresses.

End result: you personally own several otherwise deterministic computers with good access to truly random processes for when you want some genuine nondeterminism.

Is that what you mean?

Comment: Re:Fails to grasp the core concept (Score 2) 207 207

OK, mbeckman.

Here's a challenge for you: define "learning" in such a way that it could hypothetically be performed by a computer. Unless you also state good reason to claim that they are the only possible source of intelligence, you must avoid any reference to terran brain structures.

A commune is where people join together to share their lack of wealth. -- R. Stallman

Working...