Prev: I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
Next: |GG| One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin
From: David J. Hennessy on 21 Oct 2009 05:10
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> On 21 Oct 2009 05:43:56 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>> Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>> On 17 Oct 2009 23:17:03 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17 Oct 2009 16:54:15 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Alfred Molon <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer
>>>>>>>>>>> A good reason to avoid Getty like the plague.
>>>>>>>>>> A good reason not to steal images.
>>>>>>>>> When a company uses that as an excuse to extort ridiculous fines from
>>>>>>>>> people to employ lawyers then it's a good reason not to do business
>>>>>>>>> with them.
>>>>>>>> The fines only seem ridiculous to the thief.
>>>>>>> Demanding 10 times the usual fee for a low-res version of the licensable
>>>>>>> photo isn't ridiculous?
>>>>>> Not when the guy tried to steal it for nothing.
>>>>> It must make it very easy for simple people like you to simply assume
>>>>> that other people are guilty.
>>>> In this case, Getty proved his claims in front of a judge.
>>> Which is wholly irrelevant since the judge didn't determine guilt or
>>> innocence and wasn't even concerned with such things, only that the
>>> defendant had used a photo that belonged to Getty ...
>> i.e. he found that the defendant was guilty
>
> Wrong yet again. Civil cases do not determine guilt.


True. Civil cases determine "fault" and "liability," not "guilt."

Thus, the judge found that the defendant was at fault, and determined
his liability.


<snipped remainder>
From: Bob Larter on 21 Oct 2009 11:29
sobriquet wrote:
> On 21 okt, 00:07, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:03:44 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 20 okt, 06:19, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:32:17 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet
>>>> <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 19 okt, 20:24, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>> [..misguided and deluded nonsense snipped..]
>>>>> IPR is a figment of your lively imagination.
>>>>> All people with any understanding of information technology and a
>>>>> tight budget can simply download everything
>>>>> for free and pay taxes in compensation for copyright infringement.
>>>> And how does the creator of the original work survive? Is he employed
>>>> by the state?
>>>> Eric Stevens
>>> The state should provide an unconditional basic income (for food,
>>> clothing, shelter and
>>> internet), so people don't feel forced to waste their time in exchange
>>> for money.
>> From where does the state get the resources for the "unconditional
>> basic income (for food, clothing, shelter and internet)"?
>
> It's simply a matter of coming up with smart technology that can
> create and maintain itself.

Gee, it's that simple?


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: sobriquet on 21 Oct 2009 11:12
On 21 okt, 17:29, Bob Larter <bobbylar...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> sobriquet wrote:
> > On 21 okt, 00:07, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:03:44 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet
>
> >> <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On 20 okt, 06:19, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:32:17 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet
> >>>> <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 19 okt, 20:24, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> [..misguided and deluded nonsense snipped..]
> >>>>> IPR is a figment of your lively imagination.
> >>>>> All people with any understanding of information technology and a
> >>>>> tight budget can simply download everything
> >>>>> for free and pay taxes in compensation for copyright infringement.
> >>>> And how does the creator of the original work survive? Is he employed
> >>>> by the state?
> >>>> Eric Stevens
> >>> The state should provide an unconditional basic income (for food,
> >>> clothing, shelter and
> >>> internet), so people don't feel forced to waste their time in exchange
> >>> for money.
> >> From where does the state get the resources for the "unconditional
> >> basic income (for food, clothing, shelter and internet)"?
>
> > It's simply a matter of coming up with smart technology that can
> > create and maintain itself.
>
> Gee, it's that simple?

Once you have a robot that can build itself from scratch which can be
deployed for arbitrary tasks, it becomes very simple indeed. We're not
talking about something complicated like a robot that can improve upon
it's own design when it builds a new copy of itself.


>
> --
>     W
>   . | ,. w ,   "Some people are alive only because
>    \|/  \|/     it is illegal to kill them."    Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

From: John Navas on 21 Oct 2009 11:21
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:12:57 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet
<dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote in
<72d1d575-a617-481e-9dc9-8725fa80afad(a)f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>:

>On 21 okt, 17:29, Bob Larter <bobbylar...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>> Gee, it's that simple?
>
>Once you have a robot that can build itself from scratch which can be
>deployed for arbitrary tasks, it becomes very simple indeed. We're not
>talking about something complicated like a robot that can improve upon
>it's own design when it builds a new copy of itself.

Non-trivial. See
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machine>

--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: sobriquet on 21 Oct 2009 11:52
On 21 okt, 17:21, John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:12:57 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet
> <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in
> <72d1d575-a617-481e-9dc9-8725fa80a...(a)f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >On 21 okt, 17:29, Bob Larter <bobbylar...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Gee, it's that simple?
>
> >Once you have a robot that can build itself from scratch which can be
> >deployed for arbitrary tasks, it becomes very simple indeed. We're not
> >talking about something complicated like a robot that can improve upon
> >it's own design when it builds a new copy of itself.
>
> Non-trivial.  See
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machine>

Well, it depends how you define 'autonomous' and 'from scratch'.
If a robot can perform all tasks that are required to build a copy of
itself, in a
way that it can keep the process going indefinitely and these robots
can be used
to perform all the tasks that humans normally perform, then the
production of such robots is free. Free in the sense that nobody is
forced to work in the production of such robots, as such robots might
very well be intelligent enough to maintain the complete production
process of that specific model of robots, using machines that have
been designed by humans.
So it might be a matter of some human effort to be required to get the
process going (by ensuring the machines can be operated and maintained
by robots, including the ability of the robots to manufacture machine
parts in case one of the machines breaks down and some part needs to
be replaced.
Such tasks require a different level of intelligence than actually
designing the machines that can be used to produce such robots or
designing the robots themselves.

So I'm not necessarily talking about a robot that is so intelligent
that you can put it with blank memory on a deserted island and expect
it to educate itself and figure out the laws of physics from
observation and employ such knowledge to design and build the
machinery from scratch that can be used to analyze itself and
machinery to create a duplicate or even an improved version of itself
which is better adapted to its environment.

Similarly, humans are intelligent in great numbers as they are able to
record their
ideas and experiences, building upon the conceptual structures of
their predecessors.
You can't expect someone very intelligent like Einstein to be able to
figure out all the laws of physics from scratch if you just provide
him with food, clothing and shelter and a lot of free time to ponder
the nature of reality (so without access to the ideas of other
scientists).

>
> --
> Best regards,
> John
>
> Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
> it makes you a dSLR owner.
> "The single most important component of a camera
> is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Prev: I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
Next: |GG| One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin