That is a statement you can only make after the fact. I have yet to see a non RT device that locks the bootloader. Trap indeed, oh woes me.
Well, you were hiding behind the "compatibility requirement", it is gone. In that respect it has already proven to have been a trap as you would have understood if you had read my earlier post properly.
Most BIOS updates are done at runtime now and have been for a long time. The last time I had to flash a new BIOS at boot time or (god forbid) from DOS was in 2009, and even then the preferred method was to flash from windows (but the shitty ASUS software didn't work).
BIOS coming from Microsoft is not such an established precedent, which was what I was talking about. You would have understood it if you had read my earlier post properly. Also that I meant "runtime" as opposed to UEFI spec writing time.
As for being bug prone, MS has the stats on that, you do not
2 different things : 1. Bug proneness. 2. Actual incidence of bugs.
Stats are required for the latter, not for the former. The context was that influence on UEFI requirement provides much less opportunity to hide behind one time bugs as opposed to windows updates including BIOS kind of firmware. This is because Microsoft has worked hard to lower expectations from quality of Windows updates. Whereas UEFI (and other standards) requirements writing, however bad in other ways, doesn't have much of a scope for a "requirements bug" disabling hardware features, misconfiguring chipsets and making things difficult for other, already installed operating systems on the hard disks installed in the system. If the UEFI requirement does so, it will be very difficult to call it a bug. This would also have been clear if you read my earlier post properly.
Around 12 people per thousand kill themselves as opposed to expiring from other causes. There are 60 missing women per man in India. Self preservation is much much stronger a drive than protecting females in society - day 100 times. 5 times ratio is pretty favourable.
If suicide rates don't disprove human premium for life, femalecide in India definitely doesn't disprove Indian society's premium for female lives.
The required compatibility requirement is gone with Windows 10, it was really a trap. And runtime modification is very different, more dangerous and bug prone than influence over some requirements. So Microsoft can do evil and hide behind incompetence.
Humans place a premium on their own life but we aren't talking about suicide here
We are talking about individual action which doesn't disprove the general rule. Individual suicide doesn't disprove human premium on self-life, individual female-icide doesn't disprove society's premium on female life.
Society's disapproval of suicide via religion edicts, and sometimes even laws prohibiting suicide demonstrate society's attitude. Laws/policies/rules from legislators/organizations removing women from dangerous jobs demonstrate society's attitude.
Part 1: Arbitrariness of the insistence in remaining in information publication industry:
The argument in this case would be "no such car exists", with the scope of "such car" defined implicitly by the rest of the paragraph.
Let us assume that "such" is forcefully deduced from context when "such" is not mentioned. Even then, "such" car is not necessary for commuting. It is not described how "such" car is preferable to any other car. Any car would do, so the ensuing much wringing of hands is not justifiable from "such" car not existing.
Part 2: You not even acknowledging that I am making a "not my problem" argument:
1. drastic contraction that you propose 2. Once you need to buy a year's subscription for Google Search, another... 3. ought to switch to subscriptions
I have emphasized multiple times that I do not propose they move to subscriptions. How? 1. By not saying they move to subscriptions 2. By saying I am not proposing ANYTHING for the industry 3. By saying I am not their nanny.
I mention the possibilities of moving to other industries only when representatives of the industry point out the flaws in their own business model.
Even when you set out to address my "not my problem" angle, you still 1. assume I am making it my problem 2. assume I am proposing some solution or the other 3. find fault with my imaginary proposal.
Part 3 : Points in which you address my "not my problem" angle.
Hypothetical situation : If the success of the industry is dependent on my suggesting something to them, and not being their nanny I refuse to suggest anything at all to them, the industry folds. You make some good points in such an imaginary situation:
where do you plan to hang out on the web?
I hung out on the web in 2001-2003. I saw a rise of obnoxious advertising in this period, but the best parts of the web were free of any advertising in this period.
Imagine. "Information" publication industry, holding on to centuries old ways after the "information" technology revolution. And being proud of it - by saying these are the 2 business models being practiced for hundreds of years so obviously we can't do anything.
Context : because society places a premium on girls
You : Depends on which society you're talking about
Me : No for you. "Society" still places a premium on girls by restricting their use in dangerous activities. Individuals sometimes act in antisocial ways to protect dowry expenses etc.
E.g humans place a premium on their own life. There are suicidal people which doesn't disprove the fact that humans place a premium on their own life.
Or to get rid of the analogy... voting Democrat in a solidly red state, or Republican in a solidly blue state, is pointless
Actually, no it makes sense. Because in the interest of the state's citizens, every state must be a swing state - just so that politicians care about being your good books. In currently non-swing states, most likely winner is already known - that is why it is called non-swing. But most of the times, most likely runner up is also known. This most likely runner up is Democrat in a solidly red state, or Republican in a solidly blue state.
Least number of sensible people are required to convert a non-swing state into a "possibly swinger" state. This conversion is already a win, even if you don't get a real political party but just one of the 2 sides of the same coin. If you vote for a third party, the risk of the non-swing state remaining that way is higher.
No. Even in India, it is illegal to employ women for certain identified "dangerous" jobs e.g. mining under the surface. Armed forces employ negligible women, and mostly in non-combat roles.
Unfortunately, if you think butcher shop was an analogy, I haven't been clear enough. Butcher shop is a real counter-argument to the "no business model" argument the article seems to make.
Like if someone said no car exists, and I point out a Toyota Camry "car" going past. Toyota Camry is not an analogy.
Both advertising and subscriptions existed for decades before the Internet. It is possible for a third to be discovered in the remainder of your lifetime, but because it has not already been discovered, I don't see it as likely. Probability matters because a rational investor shuns a business whose revenue source is unlikely to be discovered.
1. New business models with far smaller customer base are discovered every year. 2. Who cares? Not my problem if it doesn't exist. Urban slang - they can suck it. I never assumed the role of godfather for the "information publication" industry, I am not trying to find a business model for them, and if I suggest some in casual conversation which is overheard by passers by, I don't intend to profit by the idea.
This is why I pointed out that I didn't invent the butcher shop business model and I ok with other people's invented business models succeeding. "Find another business model for yourself" is still a valid argument, since they keep finding flaws in their own business model. I am not their nanny.
If an existing business publishing information in exchange for advertising were to switch to such a business model, such as a news site becoming a butcher shop, it would not be able to repurpose a substantial fraction of its existing assets for the new line of business.
1. "News site" need not become a butcher shop. A "news site" has no right to exist. Human members of that organization can be said to have the right - and they can join existing butcher shops, or start new ones. Preferably not all in the same locality, but whatever floats their boat.
2. Who cares? Not my problem. Even if they cannot repurpose their assets for a new business model, it is still a valid argument to say "find a new business model for yourself" when they find flaws in their own business model. Again, I am not their nanny.
1. Having no business model is a legitimate complaint. A person must eat. Having no business model when you have strong reservations about what you are ready to do for a living is not a complaint at all. So not only was it the literate interpretation, but it was the only sensible interpretation for a complaint.
2. The article had many other incorrect/misleading/inapplicable messages which I also pointed out.
No, I'm saying those who fail to find a viable "ethical" business model cannot claim that business model doesn't exist because clearly millions exist e.g. butcher.
Both your statements are addressing straw men. I didn't say anyone should have to purchase anything from any front door. Nor did I talk about any model that I have devised. BTW I didn't devise the butcher's business model, and I don't earn a penny from it.
Obviously there are better business models. One example is to butcher goats "properly" and sell Halal meat.
The entire article is idiotic.
About the "side-door" business:
Why is this important? Because if it is increasingly likely that we have no relationship with the sites we visit, it is also increasingly unlikely that we will voluntarily support these sites.
No one is entering through the side door. When you click on http://xyz.com/articles/1/2/3/... , you reach one of the servers serving pages of XYZ.com. This server is the front door - and will remain whether you visit the "home page", or you visit an article directly.
To suggest that websites âoefind another business modelâ is to either ask media to spontaneously devise a heretofore never invented model, or to walk the âoeotherâ well-trodden path of subscriptions
Every industry devised, at least once, a "heretofore never invented model". Nothing unimaginable about it.
For a blind study, probably spiking drinking water with ethanol/placebo should work. 7ml ethanol in 2litre water a day will be undetectable by taste/flavour right?
Well, of course that's also the problem with non-smart guns. The difference is that with non-smart guns, the failures are mostly Type I (gun fires when it's not supposed to), while with smart guns, Type I failures are decreased at the expense of an increase in Type II failures (gun doesn't fire when it's supposed to.)
Not necessarily. A gun programmed to scan its video feed, recognize the face of a particular Geoffrey Landis, and shoot - will be called a very smart gun indeed. Such a gun can easily be imagined to have more type-I failures than a 50 year old reliable gun.
It is not a personal attack only if it is relevant. In most discussions, the person is completely irrelevant - a particular piece of code is. It may be good, bad, or even have good and bad qualities. First pull request from a person may be very bad, and second might be very good- so code doesn't imply much about the person.
After many pull requests from a person, there might be a pattern and discussion about a person might get somewhat relevant. But yet it is completely optional even at that point.
While discussing code, when the talk about the person is still irrelevant, any mention of the competence of the person is definitely a personal attack. It also contributes nothing to the project , partly because the competence might change over time.
If the " future " is predetermined, there is no choice "whether" to tell him about the prediction. But if only the subject's decision part of future is predetermined , it is a function of other events leading up to the decision. I.e. what is predetermined is a function taking precursors as input and giving the decision as output.
So telling him about the prediction assuming he was not told about the prediction can very well change the future decision and may not match the prediction.
e.g. If I could know what decisions you were making (a notion that is at least theoretically possible, if the universe were truly deterministic), I could analyze it and predict the answer you would give to a particular question, even if I told you truthfully what the answer to that question were going to be.... however, with your so-called illusion of free will, you could utilize the information that I gave you in the present about your alleged future action, and then deliberately contradict it, invalidating the prediction that I made, meaning that my knowledge about the future state was incorrect, which leads one inescapably to the conclusion that even if the universe is deterministic, it is impossible to know it.
Only conclusion from this is that you are a lousy experiment designer.
A proper experimenter wouldn't tell the person about the prediction about his decision, he would escrow the prediction. A crude example is write it in a paper while not showing to the experiment subject, handing it to him in envelope while he makes the decision, and THEN opens the envelope.
Terminal "Application" is not "user interface". The keyboard - could be.
Even if the tablet has a mechanical keyboard, which most don't, the frequent way of usage of a tablet makes it difficult to use the keyboard. E.g. no flat platform on which to keep the keyboard, or just holding on one hand barely supported by another hand or some other pivot, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
That is a statement you can only make after the fact. I have yet to see a non RT device that locks the bootloader. Trap indeed, oh woes me.
Well, you were hiding behind the "compatibility requirement", it is gone. In that respect it has already proven to have been a trap as you would have understood if you had read my earlier post properly.
Most BIOS updates are done at runtime now and have been for a long time. The last time I had to flash a new BIOS at boot time or (god forbid) from DOS was in 2009, and even then the preferred method was to flash from windows (but the shitty ASUS software didn't work).
BIOS coming from Microsoft is not such an established precedent, which was what I was talking about. You would have understood it if you had read my earlier post properly. Also that I meant "runtime" as opposed to UEFI spec writing time.
As for being bug prone, MS has the stats on that, you do not
2 different things :
1. Bug proneness.
2. Actual incidence of bugs.
Stats are required for the latter, not for the former. The context was that influence on UEFI requirement provides much less opportunity to hide behind one time bugs as opposed to windows updates including BIOS kind of firmware. This is because Microsoft has worked hard to lower expectations from quality of Windows updates. Whereas UEFI (and other standards) requirements writing, however bad in other ways, doesn't have much of a scope for a "requirements bug" disabling hardware features, misconfiguring chipsets and making things difficult for other, already installed operating systems on the hard disks installed in the system. If the UEFI requirement does so, it will be very difficult to call it a bug. This would also have been clear if you read my earlier post properly.
Sorry - 60 missing women per 1000 men
Around 12 people per thousand kill themselves as opposed to expiring from other causes. There are 60 missing women per man in India. Self preservation is much much stronger a drive than protecting females in society - day 100 times. 5 times ratio is pretty favourable.
If suicide rates don't disprove human premium for life, femalecide in India definitely doesn't disprove Indian society's premium for female lives.
The required compatibility requirement is gone with Windows 10, it was really a trap. And runtime modification is very different, more dangerous and bug prone than influence over some requirements. So Microsoft can do evil and hide behind incompetence.
Yes, your trust is funny indeed.
Yeah, Microsoft should be able to turn off hardware features, (mis) configure chipsets and make changes to affect other operating systems.
Humans place a premium on their own life but we aren't talking about suicide here
We are talking about individual action which doesn't disprove the general rule. Individual suicide doesn't disprove human premium on self-life, individual female-icide doesn't disprove society's premium on female life.
Society's disapproval of suicide via religion edicts, and sometimes even laws prohibiting suicide demonstrate society's attitude. Laws/policies/rules from legislators/organizations removing women from dangerous jobs demonstrate society's attitude.
Part 1: Arbitrariness of the insistence in remaining in information publication industry:
The argument in this case would be "no such car exists", with the scope of "such car" defined implicitly by the rest of the paragraph.
Let us assume that "such" is forcefully deduced from context when "such" is not mentioned. Even then, "such" car is not necessary for commuting. It is not described how "such" car is preferable to any other car. Any car would do, so the ensuing much wringing of hands is not justifiable from "such" car not existing.
Part 2: You not even acknowledging that I am making a "not my problem" argument :
1. drastic contraction that you propose ...
2. Once you need to buy a year's subscription for Google Search, another
3. ought to switch to subscriptions
I have emphasized multiple times that I do not propose they move to subscriptions. How?
1. By not saying they move to subscriptions
2. By saying I am not proposing ANYTHING for the industry
3. By saying I am not their nanny.
I mention the possibilities of moving to other industries only when representatives of the industry point out the flaws in their own business model.
Even when you set out to address my "not my problem" angle, you still
1. assume I am making it my problem
2. assume I am proposing some solution or the other
3. find fault with my imaginary proposal.
Part 3 : Points in which you address my "not my problem" angle.
Hypothetical situation : If the success of the industry is dependent on my suggesting something to them, and not being their nanny I refuse to suggest anything at all to them, the industry folds. You make some good points in such an imaginary situation:
where do you plan to hang out on the web?
I hung out on the web in 2001-2003. I saw a rise of obnoxious advertising in this period, but the best parts of the web were free of any advertising in this period.
Now that the cost of hosting is 10^5 times lower and direction of innovation has changed, I am having trouble being afraid at all from the death of such an industry.
Imagine. "Information" publication industry, holding on to centuries old ways after the "information" technology revolution. And being proud of it - by saying these are the 2 business models being practiced for hundreds of years so obviously we can't do anything.
Context : because society places a premium on girls
You : Depends on which society you're talking about
Me : No for you. "Society" still places a premium on girls by restricting their use in dangerous activities. Individuals sometimes act in antisocial ways to protect dowry expenses etc.
E.g humans place a premium on their own life. There are suicidal people which doesn't disprove the fact that humans place a premium on their own life.
Or to get rid of the analogy... voting Democrat in a solidly red state, or Republican in a solidly blue state, is pointless
Actually, no it makes sense. Because in the interest of the state's citizens, every state must be a swing state - just so that politicians care about being your good books. In currently non-swing states, most likely winner is already known - that is why it is called non-swing. But most of the times, most likely runner up is also known. This most likely runner up is Democrat in a solidly red state, or Republican in a solidly blue state.
Least number of sensible people are required to convert a non-swing state into a "possibly swinger" state. This conversion is already a win, even if you don't get a real political party but just one of the 2 sides of the same coin. If you vote for a third party, the risk of the non-swing state remaining that way is higher.
No. Even in India, it is illegal to employ women for certain identified "dangerous" jobs e.g. mining under the surface. Armed forces employ negligible women, and mostly in non-combat roles.
Unfortunately, if you think butcher shop was an analogy, I haven't been clear enough. Butcher shop is a real counter-argument to the "no business model" argument the article seems to make.
Like if someone said no car exists, and I point out a Toyota Camry "car" going past. Toyota Camry is not an analogy.
Both advertising and subscriptions existed for decades before the Internet. It is possible for a third to be discovered in the remainder of your lifetime, but because it has not already been discovered, I don't see it as likely. Probability matters because a rational investor shuns a business whose revenue source is unlikely to be discovered.
1. New business models with far smaller customer base are discovered every year.
2. Who cares? Not my problem if it doesn't exist. Urban slang - they can suck it. I never assumed the role of godfather for the "information publication" industry, I am not trying to find a business model for them, and if I suggest some in casual conversation which is overheard by passers by, I don't intend to profit by the idea.
This is why I pointed out that I didn't invent the butcher shop business model and I ok with other people's invented business models succeeding. "Find another business model for yourself" is still a valid argument, since they keep finding flaws in their own business model. I am not their nanny.
If an existing business publishing information in exchange for advertising were to switch to such a business model, such as a news site becoming a butcher shop, it would not be able to repurpose a substantial fraction of its existing assets for the new line of business.
1. "News site" need not become a butcher shop. A "news site" has no right to exist. Human members of that organization can be said to have the right - and they can join existing butcher shops, or start new ones. Preferably not all in the same locality, but whatever floats their boat.
2. Who cares? Not my problem. Even if they cannot repurpose their assets for a new business model, it is still a valid argument to say "find a new business model for yourself" when they find flaws in their own business model. Again, I am not their nanny.
Two points:
1. Having no business model is a legitimate complaint. A person must eat. Having no business model when you have strong reservations about what you are ready to do for a living is not a complaint at all. So not only was it the literate interpretation, but it was the only sensible interpretation for a complaint.
2. The article had many other incorrect/misleading/inapplicable messages which I also pointed out.
Read the article you quoted. Its title is not "Adblockers say, 'Find a better information publication business model.' But can you really?"
No, I'm saying those who fail to find a viable "ethical" business model cannot claim that business model doesn't exist because clearly millions exist e.g. butcher.
Both your statements are addressing straw men. I didn't say anyone should have to purchase anything from any front door. Nor did I talk about any model that I have devised. BTW I didn't devise the butcher's business model, and I don't earn a penny from it.
What if the user opens the images in different tabs?
Obviously there are better business models. One example is to butcher goats "properly" and sell Halal meat.
The entire article is idiotic.
About the "side-door" business :
Why is this important? Because if it is increasingly likely that we have no relationship with the sites we visit, it is also increasingly unlikely that we will voluntarily support these sites.
No one is entering through the side door. When you click on http://xyz.com/articles/1/2/3/... , you reach one of the servers serving pages of XYZ.com. This server is the front door - and will remain whether you visit the "home page", or you visit an article directly.
To suggest that websites âoefind another business modelâ is to either ask media to spontaneously devise a heretofore never invented model, or to walk the âoeotherâ well-trodden path of subscriptions
Every industry devised, at least once, a "heretofore never invented model". Nothing unimaginable about it.
For a blind study, probably spiking drinking water with ethanol/placebo should work. 7ml ethanol in 2litre water a day will be undetectable by taste/flavour right?
My wife and I were lucky, produce not so much
"Produce" - an unusual term for children. But I am sorry for your loss.
Well, of course that's also the problem with non-smart guns. The difference is that with non-smart guns, the failures are mostly Type I (gun fires when it's not supposed to), while with smart guns, Type I failures are decreased at the expense of an increase in Type II failures (gun doesn't fire when it's supposed to.)
Not necessarily. A gun programmed to scan its video feed, recognize the face of a particular Geoffrey Landis, and shoot - will be called a very smart gun indeed. Such a gun can easily be imagined to have more type-I failures than a 50 year old reliable gun.
It is not a personal attack only if it is relevant. In most discussions, the person is completely irrelevant - a particular piece of code is. It may be good, bad, or even have good and bad qualities. First pull request from a person may be very bad, and second might be very good- so code doesn't imply much about the person.
After many pull requests from a person, there might be a pattern and discussion about a person might get somewhat relevant. But yet it is completely optional even at that point.
While discussing code, when the talk about the person is still irrelevant, any mention of the competence of the person is definitely a personal attack. It also contributes nothing to the project , partly because the competence might change over time.
Usable. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
If the " future " is predetermined, there is no choice "whether" to tell him about the prediction. But if only the subject's decision part of future is predetermined , it is a function of other events leading up to the decision. I.e. what is predetermined is a function taking precursors as input and giving the decision as output.
So telling him about the prediction assuming he was not told about the prediction can very well change the future decision and may not match the prediction.
e.g. If I could know what decisions you were making (a notion that is at least theoretically possible, if the universe were truly deterministic), I could analyze it and predict the answer you would give to a particular question, even if I told you truthfully what the answer to that question were going to be.... however, with your so-called illusion of free will, you could utilize the information that I gave you in the present about your alleged future action, and then deliberately contradict it, invalidating the prediction that I made, meaning that my knowledge about the future state was incorrect, which leads one inescapably to the conclusion that even if the universe is deterministic, it is impossible to know it.
Only conclusion from this is that you are a lousy experiment designer.
A proper experimenter wouldn't tell the person about the prediction about his decision, he would escrow the prediction. A crude example is write it in a paper while not showing to the experiment subject, handing it to him in envelope while he makes the decision, and THEN opens the envelope.
Terminal "Application" is not "user interface". The keyboard - could be.
Even if the tablet has a mechanical keyboard, which most don't, the frequent way of usage of a tablet makes it difficult to use the keyboard. E.g. no flat platform on which to keep the keyboard, or just holding on one hand barely supported by another hand or some other pivot, etc.