The Living Daylights Internet Archive

[Frauke Vilandre]

JamesBond: *Stuff* my orders! I only kill professionals. That girl didn't know one end of her rifle from the other. Go ahead. Tell M what you want. If he fires me, I'll thank him for it. Whoever she was, it must have scared the living daylights out of her.

Information released online from June 2012 to September 2017.

Note: Content in this archive site is NOT UPDATED, and external links may not function. External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

Access to reliable electricity, water and sanitation, roads and other infrastructure is critical to growing businesses, creating jobs and improving living conditions. Yet, for so many people in the developing world, the availability of dependable infrastructure services is limited or non-existent.

The availability of power brings with it the creation of new businesses that rely on it, such as construction, medical clinics, food processing facilities, vehicle repair shops and manufacturing, with accompanying income-earning opportunities. Increased reliability of power means greater profits as businesses do not have to shut down due to outages or resort to more costly diesel generators. It also means that businesses can use more productive power-driven equipment, can stay open beyond daylight hours, and will enjoy better access to modern communications networks.

To make its scarce resources more effective, USAID is employing its new development model: one that partners with the private sector to use innovation, science and technology to better achieve impact and scale.

We are working to pool the resources of other U.S. Government agencies, other donors and the private sector to address infrastructure needs. Engaging the private sector as a partner in infrastructure development activities is absolutely critical given the amount of resources required. And it represents a more strategic and smarter approach that engages capital markets to support long-term, sustainable solutions to infrastructure needs.

We are also looking at ways to expand access to high-speed broadband Internet services and to use the Internet to make infrastructure services more efficient. In the Dadaab refugee camp in Somalia, for example, USAID is working with others to provide access to high-speed Internet. This new Internet network is not only providing refugees with access to educational opportunities and hope for a better life, but also increasing the efficiency of aid agencies working in the camp. And in countries like Mongolia, USAID has helped local power authorities use the Internet to make it easier and less costly for families and businesses to gain access to electricity.

In our search to find solutions to energy and other infrastructure challenges in the developing world, we will continue to place emphasis on innovation and partnerships. By leveraging the ideas, experience and assets of the private sector, we will be able to achieve more effective and sustainable development impact.

Nah, we've seen the same thing with MP3 and movie downloads. People are willing to pay a reasonable amount, but copyright law and markets lag behind technology.

When the iPod was released in 2001, "1000 songs in your pocket for $399", but who was going to pay thousands of dollars to fill it?

Here in Australia, there was not even a legal way to do so at any price. Only in 2003 did iTunes launch, and Spotify many years later.

Australians were among the wolds most prolific pirate movie downloaders, until 2015 when Netflix launched.

Terra Nullus does not mean uninhabited, but unowned. Practically, it means there were no chiefs to sign a treaty with, or to buy land, as they had done elsewhere. The tribal social structures that existed in the Americas or Pacific islands simply did not exist. But the people all became full British subjects when we took the land. Did they thank us?

You turning a joke into a serious matter aside, it's a distinction without a difference. The world (or at least many in Australia) have recognised traditional ownership of the land, even if the colonisers didn't.

Shit I just had this discussion yesterday how I was standing at Perth airport looking for my gate to Brisbane without being able to find it and critically without being able to recognise any of the place names on the board. Turns out Perth Airport was writing the traditional owners above the gate so

That just leads to a silly semantic argument over the word "ownership".

Stone-age territory was simply whatever you could hold by force, and that ebbed and flowed. If their land was taken, they lost it, be it the next tribe or foreign settlers. The idea of a higher authority, a state, recording and enforcing agreed boundaries and rights was utterly unknown to pre-civilisation cultures.

In most cases the writer provided some value back to "the others" in the process. A direct book sale is the most straightforward way. But local taxes or tuition dollars that supports a legit library are another. The ads embedded in this or that website. Subscription fees to magazines or online services. Even intangibles, like a shoutout, recommendation, or citation. The list goes on.

And writers in turn hope for some payment or value back when people use

When the iPod was released in 2001, "1000 songs in your pocket for $399", but who was going to pay thousands of dollars to fill it?

Here in Australia, there was not even a legal way to do so at any price.

You were expected to rip your CDs. That's why it launched with iTunes and its built in CD ripper. You weren't expected to spend thousands of dollars filling it as you probably already have over the years with your CD collection.

On one hand, distribution of copyrighted works openly on the internet violates US law. On the other hand, learning from another person's copyrighted material has never required permission. For a very good reason.

All human creativity comes from learning from works of those that came before. Making learning from knowledge wouldn't just be a massive expansion of copyright that requires legislative changes. It would be a change that would destroy all future creativity. Because most of the creative people aren't rich, while authors have every incentive to maximally rent seek on that which they created by learning from those that came before them for free.

So does learning from libraries that violate copyright law distributing books actually against the law? I don't think anyone knows, and precedent will need to be set. And that's going to be a hell of a dangerous one, because if it's even slightly too broad, the court will risk just destroying the main source of creativity in US, ability to learn from those that came before. Completely.

This is one case where public good is just so clear and massive, while private harm is so miniscule and massively accepted that this should be a clear cut case. But this is a court of US law, so it's not that simple.

What is the great public good here when private trillion dollar companies taking the works of thousands of people without compensation?

If it was your life's work being taken without compensation, you might feel the harm wasn't miniscule.

Notably unlike your scenario, mine isn't a hypothetical. Entire school and university book publishing model is built on trying to get as close to the scenario described above as possible, best the ultimate rent seeking is rent seeking on learning f

And neither did you. And there's nothing hypothetical about my scenario. I literally listed an example of scenario I described happening for several decades at this point that still is going on. That is widely known, documented, complained about, and one of the main reasons people are pushed into massive debt in places like US when they go to a school/university.

The obviously hilarious part here is that you're projecting. You didn't in fact read what I said. And you are in fact shilling for Big Corp. Not hypothetically as you claim myself to do. Practically, for a specific form of rent seeking that has been a central complaint of everyone studying for decades.

Notably the answer has been given above and hasn't changed since. You just can't accept it. That's why you're babbling about "little guy getting hypothetically screwed", and ignoring the actual travesty that is current publishing model of school books.

He has a point. At best you are making a semantic argument about the word "learning", and a childish retort. Actually, to call it an argument would be too kind - you merely made an unsupported assertion. I'm sure a smart guy like you can come up with a definition of learning that excludes machines, but what would be the point?

Can you not say that learning for humans is not simply transforming data and storing it in your brain? I see no difference apart from the assumptions that living things learn, and computers can't. Just because we don't know how it is stored (it clearly is since you can recall it), doesn't make it learning.

No, because we know from fMRI and a large body of psychological testing of how humans learn that it in fact is just that. That's what we modelled AI on. That's likely why OpenAI folks are so certain that if they can get enough compute, they can get to AGI without figuring it out properly as evolution did with humans. On the most fundamental level, hardware is vastly different but general principle of le

I think that is what I was saying, I am not sure we are disagreeing, but in a sense we are transforming data, its not a lossless transform, but somehow its stored, you learn something. It adjust the way your neurons fire, and the connections between them. As you said like a neural net is modeled on in AI.

As for self awareness I am not sure what even self aware is, is it just a learned behavior, genetically not as a survival trait. There are still many animals that we can't prove they are self aware that we

Essentially, it's awareness of self, and calibration of the world in relation to itself. This allows for incredible amount of shortcuts in abstract thinking, but also generates quite a few errors typical to humans (and to which human societies always struggle to adapt).

3a8082e126