Here, it took MORE work for AT&T to detect phone devices, and interpret they are capable of data, and then charge for it. So less work analogy is completely incorrect.
Maybe they are general purpose computing devices, but gaseous that follows you on command? Dialing? I tell it whom to dial. Screen? It just covers my eyes when I want it to.
Why do I have to keep track of where I keep my phone, and to protect them from thieves? What ? I need a stupid "app" to keep track of my phone, using some other stupid device if original phone is lost? Dumb phone, if ever there was one. A smart phone would keep track of me, not the other way round!
What? I have to "charge" a phone? Are you insane? There is "enough" (for future definitions of enough) light energy going around in the world, go use it, dump yesteryear "smart"phone!
Yep complaining is one. Selecting the vendor closest to your ideal, in spite of some hardships, is another. Funding, supporting and investing in companies providing the desired upward mobility could work.
Take the US cellular telephony market. The people don't care about the freedom to choose the handset and service provider separately. So they get that freedom. They care about gun freedom - so they get that.
We are too close to these events and they loom large in our field of vision. Over the long run things will change
If 1965-2012 in computer technology represents millions of years of civilization, the decades that you are asking for for the problem to solve itself cannot be said to be an optimal solution. If it takes millions of years to solve a problem that could have been solved in years, you can't say in the end that it all worked out "fine".
Let us chill out,. Things will work out fine
Things don't work out fine when people chill out. Things work out when people die for a cause. I know people who spend a lifetime complaining about their plight, not ready to struggle to improve the situation. Things don't "work out" for them.
Very interesting, thanks for the insight. Just found out prohibition was your 18th amendment, and women's suffrage was 19th. So it seems the other way round - a newly sober legislature waking up to women's individuality. (I know no one went sober through "prohibition")
Of course I am not an American, so please feel free to correct and further educate me.
They could simply have made a proper democracy which has institutionalized revolutions using something close to free-and-fair elections. Many countries undergo bloodless revolutions regularly. Opportunities of this are presented every 4/5/6 years, and even mid-term in case of legally defined crises. The "government" even pays for such revolutions.
Ok, so what can be said about import of labour can be said about export of goods and services. Are you making a case for other countries setting up import duty walls for goods and services from the US, including subsidized American agricultural goods ? The US has historically fought this tooth and nail, it has no moral standing being "protective" now about labour.
The question is clearly illogical. BTW when did you stop beating the child ruthlessly?
As for tedious, you are repeating that precedent has anything to do with probability but come up with no evidence. I have given multiple examples of unprecedented events happening, and asserted without contest that many keep happening all the time, as is true. You could have started giving logical arguments instead of trying a proof by repeated assertion if you are so worried about a tedious thread.
Correcting you on multiple different ways of misinterpreting my original two posts is tedious
There is no misinterpreting, your original post was just illogical. Not having happened earlier is no evidence to probability of happening or not happening in the future, period. Whether it be birth rates, total population, or atomic bomb.
Coupled with common knowledge about the preconditions for changes in these phenomena, it is beyond stupid to even suggest any evidence value in history.
You didn't understand my point. Unprecedented events happen every day. 7-8 billion population. Wide availability of contraceptives + advances in medical sciences allaying fears of child mortality. These are just few of unprecedented phenomena.
He doesn't have to access another student's data, he can access his own data. Also, for further testing, he could get permission from a few other students to access their data. Don't be so sure the access is unauthorized.
Other students may not know the ID under which the software stores their data. Note that this ID could easily be different from their student ID / SSA number etc. and in many instances is a globally unique generated number.
Vulnerability may be that all IDs are visible, and their corresponding data might be accessed. But associating the ID with the particular student it is about may not be possible without accessing the data.
Exact same arguments work for the atomic bomb in 1945. There are new phenomena all the time. Unprecedented events happen every moment. World has never before been at similar human population levels as it is at present. Requiring historical examples for new phenomena, be they demographical, or physical, is equally stupid.
If you insist on historical precendence to admit the possibility of something happening, it obviously stupidly mandates things happen for the second time before the first.
So those who don't have horses as pets should have no problem eating horse meat. Note that more than 99.999% of human population does not pet horses, it is expensive, time consuming and useless. Or are you saying other people's pets should not be eaten?
Cows are nearly the national pet of India. Fish are so common as pets that there is a name for the glass house filled with water to keep them as pets. Fish are also extremely commonly eaten.
Slashdot Mirror
If selection of a service provider is based on a rational balance of probabilities, it is not loyalty. If not, it is idiotic.
Here, it took MORE work for AT&T to detect phone devices, and interpret they are capable of data, and then charge for it. So less work analogy is completely incorrect.
Hope your internet service provider does some market research ; find most people don't post on slashdot and disable your slashdot posting.
Loyalty to a corporation is quite idiotic if you think about it.
But this isn't about crime
but to break such an agreement is not and should not be criminal
The post you responded to was about crime.
Maybe they are general purpose computing devices, but gaseous that follows you on command? Dialing? I tell it whom to dial. Screen? It just covers my eyes when I want it to.
Why do I have to keep track of where I keep my phone, and to protect them from thieves? What ? I need a stupid "app" to keep track of my phone, using some other stupid device if original phone is lost? Dumb phone, if ever there was one. A smart phone would keep track of me, not the other way round!
What? I have to "charge" a phone? Are you insane? There is "enough" (for future definitions of enough) light energy going around in the world, go use it, dump yesteryear "smart"phone!
Possibility of crime is not crime. If it were, this wouldn't be a joke but part of Law101 books.
I meant "So they don't get that freedom" in case of cellular telephony market.
Yep complaining is one. Selecting the vendor closest to your ideal, in spite of some hardships, is another. Funding, supporting and investing in companies providing the desired upward mobility could work.
Take the US cellular telephony market. The people don't care about the freedom to choose the handset and service provider separately. So they get that freedom. They care about gun freedom - so they get that.
Exact opposite is India.
We are too close to these events and they loom large in our field of vision. Over the long run things will change
If 1965-2012 in computer technology represents millions of years of civilization, the decades that you are asking for for the problem to solve itself cannot be said to be an optimal solution. If it takes millions of years to solve a problem that could have been solved in years, you can't say in the end that it all worked out "fine".
Let us chill out,. Things will work out fine
Things don't work out fine when people chill out. Things work out when people die for a cause. I know people who spend a lifetime complaining about their plight, not ready to struggle to improve the situation. Things don't "work out" for them.
Very interesting, thanks for the insight. Just found out prohibition was your 18th amendment, and women's suffrage was 19th. So it seems the other way round - a newly sober legislature waking up to women's individuality. (I know no one went sober through "prohibition")
Of course I am not an American, so please feel free to correct and further educate me.
could not opt out of that suffrage
While I agree, I see what you did there. Freudian-slipped the counter-argument in your argument.
They could simply have made a proper democracy which has institutionalized revolutions using something close to free-and-fair elections. Many countries undergo bloodless revolutions regularly. Opportunities of this are presented every 4/5/6 years, and even mid-term in case of legally defined crises. The "government" even pays for such revolutions.
Ok, so what can be said about import of labour can be said about export of goods and services. Are you making a case for other countries setting up import duty walls for goods and services from the US, including subsidized American agricultural goods ? The US has historically fought this tooth and nail, it has no moral standing being "protective" now about labour.
The question is clearly illogical. BTW when did you stop beating the child ruthlessly?
As for tedious, you are repeating that precedent has anything to do with probability but come up with no evidence. I have given multiple examples of unprecedented events happening, and asserted without contest that many keep happening all the time, as is true. You could have started giving logical arguments instead of trying a proof by repeated assertion if you are so worried about a tedious thread.
Correcting you on multiple different ways of misinterpreting my original two posts is tedious
There is no misinterpreting, your original post was just illogical. Not having happened earlier is no evidence to probability of happening or not happening in the future, period. Whether it be birth rates, total population, or atomic bomb.
Coupled with common knowledge about the preconditions for changes in these phenomena, it is beyond stupid to even suggest any evidence value in history.
You didn't understand my point. Unprecedented events happen every day. 7-8 billion population. Wide availability of contraceptives + advances in medical sciences allaying fears of child mortality. These are just few of unprecedented phenomena.
He doesn't have to access another student's data, he can access his own data. Also, for further testing, he could get permission from a few other students to access their data. Don't be so sure the access is unauthorized.
Other students may not know the ID under which the software stores their data. Note that this ID could easily be different from their student ID / SSA number etc. and in many instances is a globally unique generated number.
Vulnerability may be that all IDs are visible, and their corresponding data might be accessed. But associating the ID with the particular student it is about may not be possible without accessing the data.
Precedent of 7, or 8 billion world human population? 2 countries with more than a billion human population?
Exact same arguments work for the atomic bomb in 1945. There are new phenomena all the time. Unprecedented events happen every moment. World has never before been at similar human population levels as it is at present. Requiring historical examples for new phenomena, be they demographical, or physical, is equally stupid.
Using the below statement as any evidence against an event happening is stupid :
Right, so it's never happened in all of history
As happenings happen first for the first time and only then for the second time.
If you insist on historical precendence to admit the possibility of something happening, it obviously stupidly mandates things happen for the second time before the first.
But you didn't understand the idiocy of insisting on a historical example, which ignores the inevitable - there has to be a first time.
So those who don't have horses as pets should have no problem eating horse meat. Note that more than 99.999% of human population does not pet horses, it is expensive, time consuming and useless. Or are you saying other people's pets should not be eaten?
Cows are nearly the national pet of India. Fish are so common as pets that there is a name for the glass house filled with water to keep them as pets. Fish are also extremely commonly eaten.
Yup, horses all the way down.