You've never had a Motorola Razr, have you:) Really, I'm not rough on my phones. My third Razr is just starting to act up but the original battery still works (these were all warranty body replacements).
I realize that batteries will sometimes be the first to go. But not always. So I find it strange that it is the only component people demand to be user replaceable.
Anyways, hope you continue to have good luck with phone electronics...
Why are so many people up in arms about just the battery? Why not make every component user serviceable? Every IC, every wire, the screen, mic, and speaker...
I've never had a cell phone battery die out before the electronics or casing. The battery is just another component, and as far as I can tell it's not the least reliable. While your milage may vary, it's not completely insane to solder the battery in place like the other components, any of which might fail and require a trip to the manufacturer.
Is all this whining really just residual notions from when we used alkaline batteries?
And your point is that people buy cars they like? Okay, point taken:)
Now if we agree that SUV's have some environmental, road safety, and political downsides as compared to hybrids why would anyone complain that fashion is currently going in a direction that has some larger social benefits?
Thanks for the reply. You mention morals apart from "god". It's something I've been thinking about, and it made me question of what morals actually are. My current best guess is this:
You know how we have facial recognition abilities, and though we've yet to describe how that feature of the human mind works, it definitely works and it processes a huge amount of ambiguous information quickly and suddenly we "just know" that the person is someone we recognize.
I think that morals are similar. Even if we just assume that "what is best" means "what is best for ourself", it is generally true that causing others pain and suffering is bad for ourselves. It inspires revenge and distrust and in extreme cases social breakdown. Even small negative actions towards others can ultimately have a negative effect on us even if we don't see how. And that's the key: I think our brain has the ability to recognize (similar to facial recognition) complex situations where something _might_ seem like the best thing in the moment isn't really the best thing. And when that happens, our "moral recognition center" sends us a cue that something is wrong and we "just know" that it feels wrong. I think this is a very useful feature of the human mind, and I choose to heed it with about the same certainty as my facial recognition system. So far it has served me very well.
I think the problem people have in discussing morals is that they think they should be able to break them down to clear logic. And that is very, very difficult, if not impossible, much like writing a purely logical description of a face. But because they can't describe morals, they then assume that our natural inborn moral sensitivity is some useless vestigial trait. Then they start ignoring it or assuming it is god who is telling them.
Others have made some good mention of the environmental advantage (both immediate and long-term) and the political reasons regarding foreign oil usage. But one of the reasons I bought my Prius, even though the Echo was cheaper and probably better for those in the immediate sense, was to vote with my dollars for new technology.
What I mean is, I want to show the market that as a customer I am willing to pay for research and development in this area. I'm not scared of a new technology and it doesn't have to be perfect. I just want to see things move forward.
Yes... to draw on my programmer's way of thinking I believe the idea is to abstract energy acquisition from energy transport. Electricity provides good encapsulation:)
You know, not everyone is as much of a tool as you think. It doesn't sound like you've thought much about the relative merits of various energy sources or transport systems if you're just lumping them all together like that. There are many motivations for using different approaches; political, environmental, economical, and yes, even fashion. Everyone buys cars for an assortment of logical and illogical reasons, too. Even you.
I can't reduce my environmental impact or foreign fuel usage to zero, but I try to lessen it, and I buy products like the Prius to vote with my dollars for technology that can lead in that direction. I don't expect anyone else to follow suit unless they want to.
Could it be that some people just like to insult other people's actions without understanding them?
I saw the South Park episode, by the way, and it's great. It even recognizes, unlike you, that hybrids can be a good thing if people aren't assholes about it. The show wasn't about hybrids, it was about people thinking their better than others without cause, kind of like you're doing with your post here.
And this may be obvious to others but it just occurred to me. Hasn't most trouble, pain, and suffering in the world been caused by movements which "have vowed to purge"?
I'm an athiest, and I used to think that it was religion that caused most of the trouble, pain, and suffering. But I have to admit that athiest regimes have just as much blood on their hands. Then I started chalking it up to human nature (which it may be) but that's not a very useful distinction, what with not being a distinction at all. Recently I've started thinking that it is the idea that we must "cleanse" or "fix" things that is the cause of most evil. The idea that if we could only rid the world of a certain type of person or activity then we'd be much better off. I think that is the flag that indicates trouble. And people of all beliefs and political positions can get into this mindset.
Of course, I have to watch myself as it becomes easy to want to rid the world of people who "vow to purge", which makes me another monster. Instead I try to remind myself I can stand up in opposition to such a thing without trying to purge it. I don't want to kill or dethrone the leader of Kazakhstan, I just don't want him to go after people or their expression in attempt to cleanse things. All things have muddy gray edges, and there are cases where I'm sure this yardstick won't work perfectly. But whenever I find myself saying "the world would be a better place if we could only rid the world of these people..." I stop and check myself.
Anyways, just thought I'd mention it. I think that the ideal world is achieved by not worrying so much about trying to make the ideal world, and just doing your best and enjoying life and letting others do the same.
I'm not a fan of patents, but isn't this the exact supposed point of patents? That if a company puts in the time and money to come up with a new invention they should get a little monopoly on it? Ironic that one of the few things that seems like it was innovative recently didn't get the protection it needed to survive.
If anything it's just another nail in the zombie coffin of patents: they stifle innovation and they don't even protect legitimate inventions.
I hear what you're saying, but I think it's more than a sliver of truth. Sure, with genetics you can predict with relatively high accuracy a person's smoking behavior. But there are some people who overcome that genetic tendency anyways. This is true with many genetic and social tendencies. And isn't that ability to exercise one's will what makes us human?
In general I agree with you that people have very different strengths and weaknesses and stronger tendencies than we sometimes like to admit. But I also believe that a person can stop, take a look at themselves, and work on changing something. They may even succeed. It's rare, but it's possible. And to me, that's a more important fact than just pointing out that we are what we are.
This depends where you live and what you're doing. In San Francisco the majority of people walking around the city (most of the people I see) are not fat. But I've seen what you're talking about in other places.
Probably should read the article. Though it's not airtight, they acknowledge the difference between correlation and causation and claim the way they are using the data implies causation. It wasn't a quick study, it looked at 30 years of data in a number of ways and how people changed over time as connections were made and broken. It's actually pretty interesting.
And it isn't terribly surprising either: people tend to eat with and share activities (or lack of) with friends. These factors have huge influence on weight. So a causal relationship, while not proved by this logic, is certainly plausible.
But read the article -- the correlation/causation confusion is a pet peeve of mine, too, but they seem to be seeing beyond that in this case.
When Britney Spears wants to cover your 45 year old rock n' roll masterpiece, you want to have a say, don't you?
Sure. I'd like to have a say in a lot of things. But I don't necessarily get one. Particularly in the cases you mention, copyright doesn't protect you anyway.
I've made music and though it is precious to me, I have to admit that it isn't magic and I don't get to dictate the future of everything that might sound like the ideas in my songs. Having not invented the instruments, scales, or chords, I ripped them off to some degree from all those who came before me anyways. I wonder if the inventor of the microphone would want Britney Spears to use his hallowed invention to annoy our eardrums.
But do you really think that having copyright extend for 95 years is a significantly different incentive than 50 years? Do you think that Paul McCartney's life is going to change in any meaningful way if the copyright on his songs expire now? Do you think that any musician would give up their career over this? What is the purpose of copyright again?
I see your point -- and a fully open ended improv story has perhaps yet to be done in a compelling way. But I'll still maintain that puzzle solving along a track has been done well by Infocom.
When an author sits down to write a story is it a one-way street?
Yes, with regards to the audience, and I take your point.
Somewhat unrelated I'd still say that even sitting down to write a story is just another episode in the back-and-forth between an artist and the world, who is, ultimately, the audience.
Does anyone stop to realize why CYOA books never rose above 5th grade reading level?
More or less the same genre, yet some of Infocom's titles surpassed this by a long shot. Try "Trinity" or "A Mind Forever Voyaging".
And in general I strongly disagree that storytelling is a one way street. The effort of the audience matters. Absolutely every story ever told, regardless of medium, can have someone in the audience who tunes out and says at the conclusion "that sucked". Art is communication. In communication you need a sender and a receiver. Without both it's not communication and it's not art.
And if you were in charge, your bias would not be apparent? Your post here gives a balanced view of Wikipedia to be sure. Is your view of balance is the One True View of Balance.
Here's what I don't get: Sure, Wikipedia sucks in some ways. But despite that it's still at least as good a resource as almost anything else. Really. Try learning about something in an unbiased way without Wikipedia. If you manage, tell me how you selected your unbiased sources and prove within reason that they couldn't have misrepresented anything.
The underlying problem of Wikipedia is the underlying problem of truth itself: it is hard to ascertain and harder to maintain. If you can think of a way to do it that is better, I beg you to implement it. Just don't forget that all the problems you see in Wikipedia are to some degree manifest in all record keeping; it's just that they're more obvious in Wikipedia. Which I think is somewhat of an advantage.
All or nothing. Winner take all. There can be only one.
Is it okay if Linux and Windows and Mac (and the rest) just go along and play their part in the big picture? And over time they'll shuffle around a bit, too? Can we get over worrying about who is the top dog?
I do. And you should to, regardless how you feel about the outcome. It's not good that our country makes erroneous decisions based on lies and misrepresentation. That's just a painfully stupid way to run things, even if you like what happened in this case.
Saddam gone is good for the world dudes.
I shed no tear for Saddam, but what a glorious and wonderful world we've been able to realize in Iraq without him. Thank God, eh?
I am just sick of hearing about WMD's, when we all thought they were there.
We did not all think they were there. Where did you get that idea? UN inspectors told us they were not there. There were a large number of people in the US (not a majority) who did not think there were WMD in Iraq. I didn't think there were any WMD after the UN report. Same goes for a lot of people I talked with at the time. Just because you and the people you were listening to at the time thought there were WMDs doesn't mean everyone did.
Your leaders were wrong and so were you. It's okay, I can forgive you. All you have to do is admit that this is probably the most fucked up thing America has done since Vietnam and that next time you'll listen a little more carefully to the dissenting voices, like the UN, the majority of the rest of the world, and maybe me and my friends... those people who did not believe there were WMD in Iraq.
It's no different, really, than stating that populations who do not vote self-select against being represented in government.
Don't some (healthy civilized) countries require by law that you vote? I think that's actually a very good idea. We should also declare election day a national holiday. Of course one could make the argument that if a person doesn't want to vote we don't care about their opinion. I offer that philosophically such an argument goes against the very basis of democracy (read read "Wisdom of Crowds") and I can further use our current messed up government (which everyone seems to agree on) as an example that we certainly haven't achieved greatness by excluding those who are apathetic, busy, disenfranchised, etc.
Yeah, but that's only a benefit in a world where patents exist -- I think the bigger question they're getting at is should patents exist at all? Assuming I'm understanding your point, if patents didn't exist at all then this "advantage" would disappear.
I've been involved in real patent discussions and yes, the value of patents at this point is mainly as a form of arms -- you have them so that people are afraid to threaten you with their patents, because then you can threaten them with yours. But overall I don't see how that improves the business over not letting anyone have patents.
If Spiderman had already fallen into the public domain, those films might not have been made
Why in the world not? Many highly successful movies have been made based on public domain characters and stories.
If Spiderman was in the public domain, the only change would be that more companies could try to tell Spiderman stories of their own. But even that ignores the fact that the Spiderman character is protected by trademark, not copyright, so he wouldn't be in the public domain even if the old movies and comics featuring him were. Trademark has no expiration (and shouldn't) -- copyright is a wholly different issue, and it should expire.
No wonder there can't be any meaningful discussion of copyright; most people don't understand it or care to.
Slashdot Mirror
You've never had a Motorola Razr, have you :) Really, I'm not rough on my phones. My third Razr is just starting to act up but the original battery still works (these were all warranty body replacements).
I realize that batteries will sometimes be the first to go. But not always. So I find it strange that it is the only component people demand to be user replaceable.
Anyways, hope you continue to have good luck with phone electronics...
Why are so many people up in arms about just the battery? Why not make every component user serviceable? Every IC, every wire, the screen, mic, and speaker...
I've never had a cell phone battery die out before the electronics or casing. The battery is just another component, and as far as I can tell it's not the least reliable. While your milage may vary, it's not completely insane to solder the battery in place like the other components, any of which might fail and require a trip to the manufacturer.
Is all this whining really just residual notions from when we used alkaline batteries?
they are more concerned with how things look, than how they really work.
And in general I certainly agree with you.
Beautiful photos, by the way.
Thanks; they are actually taken by my wife.
And your point is that people buy cars they like? Okay, point taken :)
Now if we agree that SUV's have some environmental, road safety, and political downsides as compared to hybrids why would anyone complain that fashion is currently going in a direction that has some larger social benefits?
Cheers.
Thanks for the reply. You mention morals apart from "god". It's something I've been thinking about, and it made me question of what morals actually are. My current best guess is this:
You know how we have facial recognition abilities, and though we've yet to describe how that feature of the human mind works, it definitely works and it processes a huge amount of ambiguous information quickly and suddenly we "just know" that the person is someone we recognize.
I think that morals are similar. Even if we just assume that "what is best" means "what is best for ourself", it is generally true that causing others pain and suffering is bad for ourselves. It inspires revenge and distrust and in extreme cases social breakdown. Even small negative actions towards others can ultimately have a negative effect on us even if we don't see how. And that's the key: I think our brain has the ability to recognize (similar to facial recognition) complex situations where something _might_ seem like the best thing in the moment isn't really the best thing. And when that happens, our "moral recognition center" sends us a cue that something is wrong and we "just know" that it feels wrong. I think this is a very useful feature of the human mind, and I choose to heed it with about the same certainty as my facial recognition system. So far it has served me very well.
I think the problem people have in discussing morals is that they think they should be able to break them down to clear logic. And that is very, very difficult, if not impossible, much like writing a purely logical description of a face. But because they can't describe morals, they then assume that our natural inborn moral sensitivity is some useless vestigial trait. Then they start ignoring it or assuming it is god who is telling them.
Anyways, food for thought, perhaps...
Others have made some good mention of the environmental advantage (both immediate and long-term) and the political reasons regarding foreign oil usage. But one of the reasons I bought my Prius, even though the Echo was cheaper and probably better for those in the immediate sense, was to vote with my dollars for new technology.
:)
What I mean is, I want to show the market that as a customer I am willing to pay for research and development in this area. I'm not scared of a new technology and it doesn't have to be perfect. I just want to see things move forward.
And lucky for me, it's a very nice car as well
Yes... to draw on my programmer's way of thinking I believe the idea is to abstract energy acquisition from energy transport. Electricity provides good encapsulation :)
You know, not everyone is as much of a tool as you think. It doesn't sound like you've thought much about the relative merits of various energy sources or transport systems if you're just lumping them all together like that. There are many motivations for using different approaches; political, environmental, economical, and yes, even fashion. Everyone buys cars for an assortment of logical and illogical reasons, too. Even you.
I can't reduce my environmental impact or foreign fuel usage to zero, but I try to lessen it, and I buy products like the Prius to vote with my dollars for technology that can lead in that direction. I don't expect anyone else to follow suit unless they want to.
Could it be that some people just like to insult other people's actions without understanding them?
I saw the South Park episode, by the way, and it's great. It even recognizes, unlike you, that hybrids can be a good thing if people aren't assholes about it. The show wasn't about hybrids, it was about people thinking their better than others without cause, kind of like you're doing with your post here.
Cheers.
And this may be obvious to others but it just occurred to me. Hasn't most trouble, pain, and suffering in the world been caused by movements which "have vowed to purge"?
I'm an athiest, and I used to think that it was religion that caused most of the trouble, pain, and suffering. But I have to admit that athiest regimes have just as much blood on their hands. Then I started chalking it up to human nature (which it may be) but that's not a very useful distinction, what with not being a distinction at all. Recently I've started thinking that it is the idea that we must "cleanse" or "fix" things that is the cause of most evil. The idea that if we could only rid the world of a certain type of person or activity then we'd be much better off. I think that is the flag that indicates trouble. And people of all beliefs and political positions can get into this mindset.
Of course, I have to watch myself as it becomes easy to want to rid the world of people who "vow to purge", which makes me another monster. Instead I try to remind myself I can stand up in opposition to such a thing without trying to purge it. I don't want to kill or dethrone the leader of Kazakhstan, I just don't want him to go after people or their expression in attempt to cleanse things. All things have muddy gray edges, and there are cases where I'm sure this yardstick won't work perfectly. But whenever I find myself saying "the world would be a better place if we could only rid the world of these people..." I stop and check myself.
Anyways, just thought I'd mention it. I think that the ideal world is achieved by not worrying so much about trying to make the ideal world, and just doing your best and enjoying life and letting others do the same.
Cheers.
I'm not a fan of patents, but isn't this the exact supposed point of patents? That if a company puts in the time and money to come up with a new invention they should get a little monopoly on it? Ironic that one of the few things that seems like it was innovative recently didn't get the protection it needed to survive.
If anything it's just another nail in the zombie coffin of patents: they stifle innovation and they don't even protect legitimate inventions.
I hear what you're saying, but I think it's more than a sliver of truth. Sure, with genetics you can predict with relatively high accuracy a person's smoking behavior. But there are some people who overcome that genetic tendency anyways. This is true with many genetic and social tendencies. And isn't that ability to exercise one's will what makes us human?
In general I agree with you that people have very different strengths and weaknesses and stronger tendencies than we sometimes like to admit. But I also believe that a person can stop, take a look at themselves, and work on changing something. They may even succeed. It's rare, but it's possible. And to me, that's a more important fact than just pointing out that we are what we are.
Cheers.
This depends where you live and what you're doing. In San Francisco the majority of people walking around the city (most of the people I see) are not fat. But I've seen what you're talking about in other places.
Probably should read the article. Though it's not airtight, they acknowledge the difference between correlation and causation and claim the way they are using the data implies causation. It wasn't a quick study, it looked at 30 years of data in a number of ways and how people changed over time as connections were made and broken. It's actually pretty interesting.
And it isn't terribly surprising either: people tend to eat with and share activities (or lack of) with friends. These factors have huge influence on weight. So a causal relationship, while not proved by this logic, is certainly plausible.
But read the article -- the correlation/causation confusion is a pet peeve of mine, too, but they seem to be seeing beyond that in this case.
When Britney Spears wants to cover your 45 year old rock n' roll masterpiece, you want to have a say, don't you?
Sure. I'd like to have a say in a lot of things. But I don't necessarily get one. Particularly in the cases you mention, copyright doesn't protect you anyway.
I've made music and though it is precious to me, I have to admit that it isn't magic and I don't get to dictate the future of everything that might sound like the ideas in my songs. Having not invented the instruments, scales, or chords, I ripped them off to some degree from all those who came before me anyways. I wonder if the inventor of the microphone would want Britney Spears to use his hallowed invention to annoy our eardrums.
Cheers.
I won't disagree with anything you've said.
But do you really think that having copyright extend for 95 years is a significantly different incentive than 50 years? Do you think that Paul McCartney's life is going to change in any meaningful way if the copyright on his songs expire now? Do you think that any musician would give up their career over this? What is the purpose of copyright again?
-- just another musician
I see your point -- and a fully open ended improv story has perhaps yet to be done in a compelling way. But I'll still maintain that puzzle solving along a track has been done well by Infocom.
:)
When an author sits down to write a story is it a one-way street?
Yes, with regards to the audience, and I take your point.
Somewhat unrelated I'd still say that even sitting down to write a story is just another episode in the back-and-forth between an artist and the world, who is, ultimately, the audience.
But again, I do see what you're saying
Does anyone stop to realize why CYOA books never rose above 5th grade reading level?
More or less the same genre, yet some of Infocom's titles surpassed this by a long shot. Try "Trinity" or "A Mind Forever Voyaging".
And in general I strongly disagree that storytelling is a one way street. The effort of the audience matters. Absolutely every story ever told, regardless of medium, can have someone in the audience who tunes out and says at the conclusion "that sucked". Art is communication. In communication you need a sender and a receiver. Without both it's not communication and it's not art.
Cheers.
And if you were in charge, your bias would not be apparent? Your post here gives a balanced view of Wikipedia to be sure. Is your view of balance is the One True View of Balance.
Here's what I don't get: Sure, Wikipedia sucks in some ways. But despite that it's still at least as good a resource as almost anything else. Really. Try learning about something in an unbiased way without Wikipedia. If you manage, tell me how you selected your unbiased sources and prove within reason that they couldn't have misrepresented anything.
The underlying problem of Wikipedia is the underlying problem of truth itself: it is hard to ascertain and harder to maintain. If you can think of a way to do it that is better, I beg you to implement it. Just don't forget that all the problems you see in Wikipedia are to some degree manifest in all record keeping; it's just that they're more obvious in Wikipedia. Which I think is somewhat of an advantage.
Cheers.
All or nothing. Winner take all. There can be only one.
Is it okay if Linux and Windows and Mac (and the rest) just go along and play their part in the big picture? And over time they'll shuffle around a bit, too? Can we get over worrying about who is the top dog?
Iraq did 9/11? Who cares.
I do. And you should to, regardless how you feel about the outcome. It's not good that our country makes erroneous decisions based on lies and misrepresentation. That's just a painfully stupid way to run things, even if you like what happened in this case.
Saddam gone is good for the world dudes.
I shed no tear for Saddam, but what a glorious and wonderful world we've been able to realize in Iraq without him. Thank God, eh?
I am just sick of hearing about WMD's, when we all thought they were there.
We did not all think they were there. Where did you get that idea? UN inspectors told us they were not there. There were a large number of people in the US (not a majority) who did not think there were WMD in Iraq. I didn't think there were any WMD after the UN report. Same goes for a lot of people I talked with at the time. Just because you and the people you were listening to at the time thought there were WMDs doesn't mean everyone did.
Your leaders were wrong and so were you. It's okay, I can forgive you. All you have to do is admit that this is probably the most fucked up thing America has done since Vietnam and that next time you'll listen a little more carefully to the dissenting voices, like the UN, the majority of the rest of the world, and maybe me and my friends... those people who did not believe there were WMD in Iraq.
Cheers.
It's no different, really, than stating that populations who do not vote self-select against being represented in government.
Don't some (healthy civilized) countries require by law that you vote? I think that's actually a very good idea. We should also declare election day a national holiday. Of course one could make the argument that if a person doesn't want to vote we don't care about their opinion. I offer that philosophically such an argument goes against the very basis of democracy (read read "Wisdom of Crowds") and I can further use our current messed up government (which everyone seems to agree on) as an example that we certainly haven't achieved greatness by excluding those who are apathetic, busy, disenfranchised, etc.
Anyways, just some thoughts.
Yeah, but that's only a benefit in a world where patents exist -- I think the bigger question they're getting at is should patents exist at all? Assuming I'm understanding your point, if patents didn't exist at all then this "advantage" would disappear.
I've been involved in real patent discussions and yes, the value of patents at this point is mainly as a form of arms -- you have them so that people are afraid to threaten you with their patents, because then you can threaten them with yours. But overall I don't see how that improves the business over not letting anyone have patents.
Cheers.
If Spiderman had already fallen into the public domain, those films might not have been made
Why in the world not? Many highly successful movies have been made based on public domain characters and stories.
If Spiderman was in the public domain, the only change would be that more companies could try to tell Spiderman stories of their own. But even that ignores the fact that the Spiderman character is protected by trademark, not copyright, so he wouldn't be in the public domain even if the old movies and comics featuring him were. Trademark has no expiration (and shouldn't) -- copyright is a wholly different issue, and it should expire.
No wonder there can't be any meaningful discussion of copyright; most people don't understand it or care to.
Lack of radio waves is the major one, for me, and no one has explained this so far.
Since we're pretty much undetectable from all but the most exceedingly tiny distances, why should we expect any other civilization to be different?