Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment I've asked RMS about Android (Score 2) 247

He kindly told me that he thought about it, and this is not a case of violation.
However, he did not tell me anything about header files, so I suppose
we must assume he still thinks the same on this since 2003.

From what I gather in his 2003 e-mail, I believe their lawyer must have
thought of the "fair use" exceptions in copyright law, and indeed
simply quoting a few typedefs would fall under fair use (since it is not a
substantial portion). On the other hand, I have a hard time believing
that this goes for anything in "header files", in general. I think you
would have to ask him about the opinion of the FSF on header files,
and interface definitions in general in any language. Note that he did
not mention "function declarations". Read what he says carefully:

> Someone recently made the claim that including a header file always
> makes a derivative work.
> That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure
> definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple
> bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take
> a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros
> with substantial bodies) to do that.

He explicitly says that for there to be a derivative work, it would take
a substantial amount of code. So, you can't just take a substantial
portion of a GPL'd program's (either an application of a library) *interface*
and release it under an arbitrary license. That is simply not permitted by the license.

I think there are trolls from some companies here that are trying to make it seem as
if you can use GPL'd libraries in any proprietary program. I am beginning to
suspect they already do that in other ways.


Comment Church is just a PL (Score 1) 301

It is indeed one component of such an AGI, but it hardly qualifies as a "grand theory" of AI.

I think people at MIT are kind of jealous of AGI theorists, looking at the way they assert their claims of a "unified theory", as if they invented something wholly new and wonderful while making their uber-theoretical brains work on this grand problem that noone else ever thought about.

That is, after decades of dabbling with all sorts of nonsense like those stupid "gesture making" robots and whatnot, they come to realize that probabilistic inference is the key *now*? Like 50 years late?

And they needed the cognitive science department to figure that out? Is it because the AI lab is still infested by behaviorists?

Why didn't they just ask the theorists or make a survey of mathematical AI theories that have been in existence for several decades?????

Is it really surprising that a general purpose AI needs a) probabilistic inference b) a universal computer with probabilistic primitives?

In fact, those turn out to be _some_ of the axioms of a general purpose AI, discovered by Ray Solomonoff in the second half of 20th century.

I am laughing now.

Comment Re:Is this necessary? (Score 1) 321

As someone else pointed out, Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment was a paradox meant to illustrate the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation. (Much like the antinomies in set theory that were meant to show basic flaws in the theory)

That is to say, only an idiot would take it seriously. Including these idiots of scientists who are trying to apply the said paradox and the people who comment on it as if the Copenhagen interpretation was correct.

And let's not forget hordes of moronic professors who teach the Copenhagen interpretation as if it were some kind of received wisdom. That's how smart the average population is. Not much.

The slightly smarter person would reckon that, the Copenhagen interpretation does not make any sense, and there is no such magical event as a wave-collapse. That is why, people are trying to find more scientifically plausible interpretations of QM.

Comment Qvirus (Score 1) 321

I just hope they don't call it the qvirus. Please. Don't do it!

Next you'll have is biologists who will invent the field of quantum biology (which already exists, but forget about it for the fun of the moment), and claim that it is about harnessing the biological variety of parallel universes.

And then presumably, head back to the church of scientology.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is now proved was once only imagin'd. -- William Blake