I don't know about you, but when I count the number of wall warts I have sticking out all over the place, most of them are for little things like desk lamps and power chargers (laptop, phone, PSP, etc...). These would all work perfectly well on a standardized low voltage supply as far as I'm aware, and I for one think it's a great idea. Not every cable is powering a motherboard...
First of all I think the 'Vista Capable' suit is ridiculous.
At what point does a computer become so underpowered that it becomes deceptive marketing then? I'd bet there are plenty of computer setups that, while technically capable of "running," vista, would produce such an unpleasant experience that you would agree it would be utterly improper to market them as "Vista Capable." As I understand it, many of these computers sold as being "Vista Capable," were only so in the technical sense that yes, they were "capable" of running Vista. The argument of the suit is that this kind of marketing needs to be held to a higher standard in order to avoid being deceptive, and I'm inclined to agree with it. If Vista is marketed so heavily on the pretty Aero user interface as it was, then it's only sensible to expect that "Vista Capable" computers would be able to take advantage of it, which they weren't. Either make separate stickers that say, "Vista Capable (oh, except for parts A, B, and C, which are incapable)," or don't do it at all.
three frequently misapprehended topics in evolutionary history, the Cambrian explosion, origin of tetrapods, and evolution of human ancestors, as well as the origin of life.
Um, am I seeing something then? (Quoted from the summary)
I could be wrong, but I believe they have actually broken a number of stories that have subsequently run in credible print news sources.
They have ignored court orders.
Yes. Now your argument as to how this hurts their credibility as an organization that takes as its mission the opposition of governmentally enforced censorship (court orders) among other things? It's called civil disobedience and is often a Very Good Thing. Whether you agree it's a good thing in this case is a valid argument, but just stating "They have ignored court orders," does nothing to convince me of their malice.
They publish whatever they like and people seem to automatically assume that everything they say is the absolute truth
That is no fault of wikileaks. That is the fault of whatever gullible mind is willing to accept as gospel that which they have not independently investigated. If you go to their their site, you'll see they make a point of providing at least some analysis of stories for validity.
I think WikiLeaks are manipulative and deliberately courting controversy.
This is just a link right back to exactly what the article we're posting after is about. It was that bank in the article you link that started the proceedings that got their domain "confiscated," which in turn is now according to this article being fought by the groups mentioned above. In fact, I find it somewhat disingenuous of you to claim what you link here as being "deliberately courting controversy," unless you want to argue that the very act of releasing sensitive information is "manipulative and deliberately courting controversy," in which case I will simply have to disagree strongly with you.
Think about it though, really. Being able to talk and having a Voice are altogether different. The internet lets everybody talk. A lot. That doesn't mean it gives anybody a Voice.
Not to say I agree with his world view--my own take is that we are where we are by virtue of an ingenious combination of arrogant shortsightedness and stupendous incompetence.
during times of war or when a threat of national security is imminent. [citation needed] wikileaks poses a threat to national securtiy and should be shut-down [citation needed]
Given the setup of this experiment, I don't see how this reference is even remotely applicable. I would say that the "Clever Hans effect" may be ruled out by default.
That aside, I think his point is right on the money. For somebody with a Western palette, kimchi would not be high on my list of things I would presume they'd find agreeable. In fact, though I can certainly enjoy a lot of Korean food, I honestly can't stand the stuff, and I certainly know a lot of other people who feel the same.
This really seems like a wasted effort. Presumably, it is either the case that the ad that was clicked on was more convincing than the other ads, causing the purchaser to finally cave in, or it was no more convincing and just benefited from the luck of the draw. If it was the case that this individual ad was what convinced the consumer, I see no reason it shouldn't get all the credit. If it was not the case that this individual ad was more convincing, then when you take the total ad revenue on average, none of the ads should be getting more revenue than any of the others.
To put it another way, if one ad is generating a lot more revenue than other ads, there's a reason for this. Whether it be placement, timing, appropriate context, better design, or whatever. If none of these things are the case, then I submit that the ads should all be generating equivalent revenue.
In short, Microsoft is developing a solution in search of a problem. Either that or it's just another attempt at tracking the consumer's every last act, hidden under a patina of equitable distribution of ad revenue.
Longer answer, there are plenty of things we don't allow people to decide to do together. For example, kill each other. Doesn't matter one bit whether it's in private, voluntary, or not, it's simply not allowed. Likewise, things like bribery and collusion are regulated against because the majority find them unacceptable and detrimental to the general public welfare. Until somebody comes up with a consistent, coherent, universal ethical system (and nobody yet has), we're stuck with "mob rules" on a case by case basis when it comes down to it. Either that or barbarism and anarchy. Unfortunately, if the majority find gay marriage unethical (I certainly find no such thing), then we're stuck with that until and unless they become more enlightened.
That is... unless you've got a Philosopher King in mind for us?
P.S. Corporations are not people anyway. Here's the difference: people are assumed to have all rights naturally, and laws are made to restrict those rights. Corporations are assumed to have no rights naturally, and laws are made to grant those rights. Big damn difference.
Translation: "Hi, I'm trying to undermine my parents' parental authority as they raise my sister, please help. I'm probably also one of those people who, after reading a news story about children doing something bad/horrible/inappropriate, am the first to scream 'Its the parents' responsibility to keep track of what their kids are doing, not society's.' I do not see the irony in this."
I have trouble imagining a situation where they would feasibly be able to effectively use a stolen laptop within the few seconds after the theft (assuming it was stolen immediately after being powered off) that this attack would work. It's not like they could steal a cold laptop out of your bag and do this, they need to do it immediately after you have been using it. That means they need to be ready to swipe it straight off the bat and have the necessary software ready to use on the spot.
Honestly, like I said in my previous post, I really don't see many situations where this would a real concern.
If somebody has the kind of access to cut power to your system and then immediately reboot with a malicious thumb drive, they probably have enough access to install something like an inconspicuous hardware keylogger, which I would be much MUCH more worried about than this if you're doing something sensitive enough to warrant it.
And aside from that, couldn't you just encrypt the important parts of your memory and swap as well as your hard drive? Seems like that would defeat this quite handily, and again, if I were doing something so sensitive I'd probably be taking such precautions.
Honestly though, aside from people doing stuff like maybe international or corporate espionage, I can't imagine where any of this would be a problem.
Assuming you're not being completely sarcastic... (honestly have no idea)
Democratic governments are supported by taxation--the theft of income from the individual to support the state. Democratic states are thieves. Capitalism implies mandatory work in order for the individual to provide for him or herself the means to survive under capitalism. Capitalists are slavers.
Slave owning thieves qualify as evil in my book.
I can do it too! When it comes down to it, all states take from the people to some degree. All states require work from the people to some degree. Calling it thievery and slavery is naive. The only important question is what comes of it, and how much it impinges on individual freedom, at least if you're only concerned with the ethical aspects.
Socialism relies on the nationalization of the means of production and the state planning of production.
This statement seems to rest on the unstated assumption that there is a natural right to property ownership. I contend that there is no such natural right, and it exists only insofar as it is enforced by the state, or lacking the state, by individual force.
Straw man. Rephrase your question so that it's remotely meaningful, "Can you explain why more people want to immigrate from poor European countries to the US, rather than to rich European countries," and the simple answer is that the US is much easier to immigrate to for people lacking qualifications than any well off European country. We've built our nation on the notion of immigration, and it continues to be one of our strengths. Then ask yourself the next question: how many people who are able to move from a country like England or France to the US, compared to the other way around. In my experience there's no imbalance on that front, and certainly no particular desire among any well-off Europeans I know (and yes, I know a few) to cross the pond.
Seems to me this is the sort of thing small claims court was created for. It's cheap, and with such a small amount at stake MS would probably just not show up and he'd win a default judgment. Clearly with all the effort he's put into it up until this point, it's something he'd be willing to go through the trouble of a court hearing over.
You call it Harvard arrogance, I call it a noble effort. They have a strong hand, and I think they have every ethical right to attempt to enforce a more open atmosphere of knowledge in the face of academic journals which seem to be working contrary to that end.
Whether anything comes with it is another matter, but I'm glad they're trying.
2. if your legal system isn't complex, it is simple and brutal and you are living in a barbaric society.
That seems to be assuming a lot. To the point, there will always be some complexity to a justice system. Complex to the point where an intelligent person can not defend themselves? I think that's a lot harder to argue as being a necessity for an enlightened society... especially for an enlightened society.
Personally, I blame the Sophists (proto-lawyers). Socrates was right in hating them...
Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say that their accusation is that, while you can perform those tests, your results will be totally useless and not even remotely indicative of real-world performance, as seems to be demonstrated by their Crysis benchmark. And by useless, they mean the benchmarks will lead you to believe one card is faster (ATI here), when in actuality the opposite is the case while actually playing the game.
Crysis sorta breaks your argument though. One thing everybody will agree on is that there currently is NO consumer hardware that will play smoothly it at its highest settings. I've heard that a two (three?) card SLI setup of nVidia's top of the line overclocked monsters can get it to pump out 30fps or so with its settings maxed out, but that's about it. The game of tomorrow--today!
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about you, but when I count the number of wall warts I have sticking out all over the place, most of them are for little things like desk lamps and power chargers (laptop, phone, PSP, etc...). These would all work perfectly well on a standardized low voltage supply as far as I'm aware, and I for one think it's a great idea. Not every cable is powering a motherboard...
Don't unfairly malign the poor term counterfactual! The poor thing's just trying to do its job.
Think about it though, really. Being able to talk and having a Voice are altogether different. The internet lets everybody talk. A lot. That doesn't mean it gives anybody a Voice.
Not to say I agree with his world view--my own take is that we are where we are by virtue of an ingenious combination of arrogant shortsightedness and stupendous incompetence.
Given the setup of this experiment, I don't see how this reference is even remotely applicable. I would say that the "Clever Hans effect" may be ruled out by default.
That aside, I think his point is right on the money. For somebody with a Western palette, kimchi would not be high on my list of things I would presume they'd find agreeable. In fact, though I can certainly enjoy a lot of Korean food, I honestly can't stand the stuff, and I certainly know a lot of other people who feel the same.
This really seems like a wasted effort. Presumably, it is either the case that the ad that was clicked on was more convincing than the other ads, causing the purchaser to finally cave in, or it was no more convincing and just benefited from the luck of the draw. If it was the case that this individual ad was what convinced the consumer, I see no reason it shouldn't get all the credit. If it was not the case that this individual ad was more convincing, then when you take the total ad revenue on average, none of the ads should be getting more revenue than any of the others.
To put it another way, if one ad is generating a lot more revenue than other ads, there's a reason for this. Whether it be placement, timing, appropriate context, better design, or whatever. If none of these things are the case, then I submit that the ads should all be generating equivalent revenue.
In short, Microsoft is developing a solution in search of a problem. Either that or it's just another attempt at tracking the consumer's every last act, hidden under a patina of equitable distribution of ad revenue.
Short answer, yes and no.
Longer answer, there are plenty of things we don't allow people to decide to do together. For example, kill each other. Doesn't matter one bit whether it's in private, voluntary, or not, it's simply not allowed. Likewise, things like bribery and collusion are regulated against because the majority find them unacceptable and detrimental to the general public welfare. Until somebody comes up with a consistent, coherent, universal ethical system (and nobody yet has), we're stuck with "mob rules" on a case by case basis when it comes down to it. Either that or barbarism and anarchy. Unfortunately, if the majority find gay marriage unethical (I certainly find no such thing), then we're stuck with that until and unless they become more enlightened.
That is... unless you've got a Philosopher King in mind for us?
P.S. Corporations are not people anyway. Here's the difference: people are assumed to have all rights naturally, and laws are made to restrict those rights. Corporations are assumed to have no rights naturally, and laws are made to grant those rights. Big damn difference.
Translation: "Hi, I'm trying to undermine my parents' parental authority as they raise my sister, please help. I'm probably also one of those people who, after reading a news story about children doing something bad/horrible/inappropriate, am the first to scream 'Its the parents' responsibility to keep track of what their kids are doing, not society's.' I do not see the irony in this."
I have trouble imagining a situation where they would feasibly be able to effectively use a stolen laptop within the few seconds after the theft (assuming it was stolen immediately after being powered off) that this attack would work. It's not like they could steal a cold laptop out of your bag and do this, they need to do it immediately after you have been using it. That means they need to be ready to swipe it straight off the bat and have the necessary software ready to use on the spot.
Honestly, like I said in my previous post, I really don't see many situations where this would a real concern.
So much for the ol', "I'm just gonna wait until the first service pack irons out all the major bugs," people eh? That sure turned out well :P
If somebody has the kind of access to cut power to your system and then immediately reboot with a malicious thumb drive, they probably have enough access to install something like an inconspicuous hardware keylogger, which I would be much MUCH more worried about than this if you're doing something sensitive enough to warrant it.
And aside from that, couldn't you just encrypt the important parts of your memory and swap as well as your hard drive? Seems like that would defeat this quite handily, and again, if I were doing something so sensitive I'd probably be taking such precautions.
Honestly though, aside from people doing stuff like maybe international or corporate espionage, I can't imagine where any of this would be a problem.
Democratic governments are supported by taxation--the theft of income from the individual to support the state. Democratic states are thieves. Capitalism implies mandatory work in order for the individual to provide for him or herself the means to survive under capitalism. Capitalists are slavers.
Slave owning thieves qualify as evil in my book.
I can do it too! When it comes down to it, all states take from the people to some degree. All states require work from the people to some degree. Calling it thievery and slavery is naive. The only important question is what comes of it, and how much it impinges on individual freedom, at least if you're only concerned with the ethical aspects.
This statement seems to rest on the unstated assumption that there is a natural right to property ownership. I contend that there is no such natural right, and it exists only insofar as it is enforced by the state, or lacking the state, by individual force.
Straw man. Rephrase your question so that it's remotely meaningful, "Can you explain why more people want to immigrate from poor European countries to the US, rather than to rich European countries," and the simple answer is that the US is much easier to immigrate to for people lacking qualifications than any well off European country. We've built our nation on the notion of immigration, and it continues to be one of our strengths. Then ask yourself the next question: how many people who are able to move from a country like England or France to the US, compared to the other way around. In my experience there's no imbalance on that front, and certainly no particular desire among any well-off Europeans I know (and yes, I know a few) to cross the pond.
Seems to me this is the sort of thing small claims court was created for. It's cheap, and with such a small amount at stake MS would probably just not show up and he'd win a default judgment. Clearly with all the effort he's put into it up until this point, it's something he'd be willing to go through the trouble of a court hearing over.
You call it Harvard arrogance, I call it a noble effort. They have a strong hand, and I think they have every ethical right to attempt to enforce a more open atmosphere of knowledge in the face of academic journals which seem to be working contrary to that end.
Whether anything comes with it is another matter, but I'm glad they're trying.
Maybe you should watch the movie before you judge.
I didn't think that one was too hard to figure out either :P
That seems to be assuming a lot. To the point, there will always be some complexity to a justice system. Complex to the point where an intelligent person can not defend themselves? I think that's a lot harder to argue as being a necessity for an enlightened society... especially for an enlightened society.
Personally, I blame the Sophists (proto-lawyers). Socrates was right in hating them...
Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say that their accusation is that, while you can perform those tests, your results will be totally useless and not even remotely indicative of real-world performance, as seems to be demonstrated by their Crysis benchmark. And by useless, they mean the benchmarks will lead you to believe one card is faster (ATI here), when in actuality the opposite is the case while actually playing the game.
Crysis sorta breaks your argument though. One thing everybody will agree on is that there currently is NO consumer hardware that will play smoothly it at its highest settings. I've heard that a two (three?) card SLI setup of nVidia's top of the line overclocked monsters can get it to pump out 30fps or so with its settings maxed out, but that's about it. The game of tomorrow--today!
My best guess is he meant "high water mark."