Do you also beleive that there should be no authority to decide what evidence is admissable in the courtroom? Why shouldn't the jorors be trusted with whatever information each lawyer decides to present? Why shouldn't the jurors be trusted with the opinions of their friends and family who are not on the jury?
Jurors are human. Therefore they are emotional and subject to bias. Part of the court's job is to decide what information they are allowed to have when they make their decision, end of story.
An excellent example of "missing the point theater". FWIW, it's also true that GP is only half right; but you're pretty much completely wrong, so I'll start with explaining why that is:
It doesn't matter that Company XYZ already has your data. GP's assertion is that they're less likely to abuse your data, because they don't want to lose you as a customer. If all the customers leave, then having all of the customers' data is moot because the marketing edge you get from that data means nothing if nobody will do business with you.
And for small-scale businesses that is perfectly true. Now try telling your CC company, bank, utility, telecom, or any local monopoly that they're annoying you and you might leave, and see what concessions they make. Will your TV provider give you a discount rate for a while? Maybe. Will they change fundamental policies like how they handle private data? No. And that is why GP is only half right as well.
GGP was correct; the reason consuemrs are "more ok" with businesses having their data is that businesses can't arrest you.
How you think that means he didn't accept the consequences of his actions is beyond me.
It rather sounds like you're arguing about the exact rationale he might have had for accepting the consequences of his actions; in which case you're arguing with yourself, because I did not (nor do I plan to) get into that topic.
The fact is, if you read his writings, or those of any other movement that utilized "civil disobedience", you will find that part of the deal is accepting that the government is going to enforce the laws you disagree with.
I'm not sure what part of this you are suggesting is new and different from the way the system works.
A bill gets passed (say, health care reform eariler this year) and it interacts with a bunch of other laws (the tax code, as a simple(ish) example). The bill says "Chapter such-and-such of Title whatever of the U.S. code is ammended as follows", and then if/when the bill becomes law (as this one did), the U.S. code itself is modified with in-place additions and deletions. I'm pretty sure the various versions of the law that were in force at any point in time are archived in the Library of Congress.
Of course, archival of the regulations that the Code delegates to various offices within the government may be a separate matter. AFAIK it's up to each office how its regulations are published and archived.
The problem isn't version control. The problem is, just like with badly-designed code, there is nothing enforcing loose coupling or tight cohesion amongst sections of any given version of the U.S. Code. Also, the fact that staet law is a body unto itself rather than a revision of federal law is regarded as a feature, not a bug.
I'm not saying you are or aren't in the group I'm about to argue with, because it's a bit unclear from your comment; but...
I've noticed that a lot of people throw around the "civil disobedience argument" as though they think it should be a legal defense. It isn't. It was never intended to be. The very concept of civil disobedience is that you accept the consequences of your actions, even if they be unfair consequences imposed by a corrupt regime. That's the nature of the play. If you don't like that part of it, then civil disobedience may not be for you.
So, yeah... he might have gotten a more sympathetic judge and/or jury if he'd done as you suggest, but he still would've gotten a criminal record and some sort of sentence out of the deal. Bottom line is having the best of intentions still doesn't make it ok to go outside the system. What crimes Palin did or didn't commit would be a separate matter, but don't expect evidence revealed in this manner to be what brings her down.
Depending on workload and expectations, that solution may not be "easy" at all. Basically it will come down to how reasonable one's supervisor is whether one keeps one's job.
Ethically speaking your analysis is correct; the privacy concerns that lead hospitals down this path are the hospital's responsibility, and while employees play a part in respecting that responsibility the hospital cannot shift it to them personally. A combination of procedures that were too loose for the required level of security (e.g. allowing untrusted machines onto the network in the first place) and unreasonable-but-now-entrenched expectations of employees are going to make it anything but "easy" to get the hospital to bear the proper responsibility.
(Oh, and to be fair to the hospital, it probably has a pretty strapped budget; so it may be wrong to want to shift the costs, but it generally isn't a matter of greed.)
...which is why every plane flown prior to the advent of personal electronic devices crashed.
If you want to sell the idea that this "no distractions" direction is misguided, I'm willing to listen; but if your best argument is that "nobody" can do something that many, many people have done (stay awake without computer games while piloting a jet), forget it.
If a Democratic candidate infringes a liberal-leaning artists copyright, and a Republican tries to "make hay" over it, the determination of which one comes off looking like an ass will be made by who the liberal-leaning artist deicdes to side with. A Republican considering this approach would have to weigh the risk that, knowing the political effect of his/her actions, the artist would choose to side wtih the Democrat even if the original use was copyright infringement.
However, the threat scenario with Club-K missiles (according to TFA) is not a "shooting war between first world powers". The concern is that if a terrorist organization were to get these missiles, they could sneak up on a warship that doesn't know it's at war. Your step 1 is already solved if you have a ship within visual range.
Not sure what you do about step 3, though. Also not sure why it's more likely that terrorists get these than any other Russian weapon.
First of all, that doesn't matter. Even if he was in fact engaged in criminal activity, that doesn't nullify his civil rights. You can argue about how exactly violation of civil rights shuld be treated. You can argue about how exactly a liar covering for someone who violates civil rights should be treated. There is no validity to arguing about the behavior of the person whose rights were violated, however. If he was doing something criminal, then that makes police interferance with his rights even worse - because that would mean he'd likely have been able to walk away from criminal charges.
Second, your portrayal of his behavior does not match the facts presented. They were not "drunkenly smacking people in the face with foam golf balls". They were drunkenly playing with foam golf balls, and a person (which is different from "people") was accidentally hit (by someone who was not amongh those arrested).
Moreover, your claim that they hecked the "people" they hit requires proof. The police report said they were heckling the person that was hit, but it does not clarify what this means. The person who was hit with the ball was "only mad at the one guy" who hit the ball, which doesn't seem like it would be the case if any mass heckling of the sort you're portraying were going on. In fact, the person hit by the ball, based on his quotes, appears to agree that the police response wasn't justified.
If the studies had really revolved around matters related to the tribe's diabetes problem, then I imagine the university would've raised that argument.
TFA does kinda-sorta imply that the type of study you're talking about is possible in the realm of genetic research, which is all well and good; but nowhere do I see any indication that it's what actually happened. In fact, I'd like to know how they'd go about that since they didn't find a genetic link to the diabetes problem in the first place.
If you want to argue that reserachers shouldn't need specific concent to broaden the uses to which DNA is put once collected, then make that argument. It is a legitimately debatable point, though in this instance I believe the cross-cultural issues will tip the balance toward requiring concent. But come on - don't hide behind counter-factual interpretations of what happened; it just makes our culture look that much less worthy of trust.
"The problem seems to be that they didn't like what happened later and realized that they hadn't understood what they signed."
Even among native English-speakers, it is not unheard of for a signature to be considered invalid if it's later determined that the signer didn't really know what he/she was signing. This isn't something you'd want to rely on - it's obviously best to know what you're signing before you sign it. But this sounds like it was far removed from the ideal scenario for truly informed consent.
We don't know how the document was explained to the individuals, because we weren't there. No malice would've been necessary for there to be a miscommunication about what was happening; I'd be thoroughly surprised if it had been fully explained and understood.
Given that we don't know exactly what was said, based on the way each side has framed its argument it sure sounds like the Native Americans only intended one use for their blood, the issue was never explicitely discussed, the researchers didn't understand the donors' expectations or the sensitivity to the matter in their culture, and then you get what we have here. If that's true, then the real fault is a serious lapse of judgement on the researchers' part.
Everyone involved may have acted with good faith and good intentions, but if you want to work with other cultures, and trumpet how well you work with other cultures, then you need to be aware of their point of view.
You're saying two conflicting things as though they were the same thing.
When you say facebook "is" pseudo-contact, you're wrong. Facebook is a tool. Some people use it for pseudo-contact, and if those people didn't have FB to use for pseudo-contact it's hard to predict what they'd do instead. As you yourself note, others use FB in positive ways; so why hate the tool just because some poeple use it wrong?
Also, I find your opinion that FB is only for one-way broadcast communication interesting, because it is completely unsupported by fact. Yes, FB has facilities for that; it also has facilities for person-to-person two-way communiction, which work quite well.
Well, I use FB, and I don't give away ALL of my information. I publish the information I choose to. If there's something that I want to distribute to a limited audience but don't really care if it leaks, I post it with "friends only" security; if there's something I really want to maintain some sort of cnotrol over, it doesn't go on FB.
FB may not be the tool you want it to be, but that doesn't mean it's not a useful tool. You just hvae to know what it is and use it accordingly.
"Actually according to law they do not have that right"
Really? I look forward to your legal citation showing that they (1) cannot legally ship the device with an OS only willing to run their approved apps, or (2) cannot legally decide which apps to approve. They are doing both of those thigns, so if you can provide a legal citation I suggest you get this landmark case into court stat! If you can't (hint: you can't) then you're wrong, they do have the legal right to do exactly as I described.
Oh, perhaps you meant to post this to a discussion about jailbreaking. This isn't a discussion about jailbreaking. This is a discussion about the app approval process and the decisions Apple has made within that process.
If you want to bring jailbreaking into the conversation... well, Apple isn't preventing those who jailbreak their phones from using Flash. Arguably Adobe is, but frankly I don't blame them; if I were a commercial software vendor I probably wouldn't target a sub-platform that by definition has zero support either.
"Perhaps you should stop posting on the topic until you can bring yourself to care enough to make statements that are accurate."
His statement is accurate. You can argue that it's incomplete, but you cannot argue that it's inaccurate. A more complete phrasing would be: Adobe is angry that, in spite of Adobe trying to game the license in a way they thought would cause Apple to start supporting certain apps, Apple still won't start supporting an app that it's never supported on its other portable platforms.
"We're not talking about Flash apps. We're talking about iPhone apps."
WHAT??? Apple won't support iPhone apps anymore? I think you must be mista... Oh, you mean they won't support iPhone apps that were written in Flash. If only we had some term to distinguish those from other... Oh, hey we do! They're called "Flash apps", just like an app written in C but compiled to machine code is a "C app" and an app written in Java, whether compiled to bytecode or pre-compiled to machine code, is a Java app.
Actually, I did get to the links before making my interesting point. And indeed your comment suggests that while you "got to them" in the sense of seeing they were there, you didn't click on them.
From the first link:
"The study finds that older people who regularly read, play cards and solve crossword puzzles can cut their risk of developing dementia by more than 60 percent."
A study about reading, cards, and crosswords doesn't tell us anything about these games.
The second link is about the effect of physical exercise on congitive decline.
I certainly agree - and have argued several times - that Apple has the right to decide what kind of apps they want the iPod and iPad to run. Generally this is my response to OSS philosophers who want to paint any restriction as somehow immoral and inherantly damaging to users' "rights" and "freedom".
But to say "who cares" is a little much. Anyone who wants to understand the current and prospective feature set of the iPad, iPod, or iPhone - because, I don't know, maybe they are deciding whether to buy one - cares.
Whether Apple shapes its terms in a way that suits Adobe's Flash initiatives is a business decision for Apple. Whether they do it, negotiate with Adobe over it, or just say "no" is entirely up to them, and I have no standing in telling them how to make that decision (unless I own stock in Apple, I guess). But I still take an interesting in the topic, I still have an opinion of what I think they should do or what I'd like them to do, and the decision they make may influence my actions. So who cares? Apparently I do.
What I find interesting is that you're questioning this study's negative assertion, when you should be challenging those who make positive assertions about the value of these games to show you a study confirming as much.
"Well you've shown that the game doesn't do X, but I feel that it might provide some other benefit" doesn't mean anything unless it's backed up with a study that shows that the game provides that other benefit.
I find it interesting that they claim this is "legal"; I suspect they mean "we don't know of or haven't thought of the laws that one would be breaking by donig this".
Sure, they point out specific steps of the process that don't break specific laws even though you might think they would; but in the end, a series of actions that would each be legal on its own can add up to a crime. Spying on another individual, tracking their whereabouts and spying on their phone calls, is in and of itself illegal no matter how clever your approach to doing it.
"Why, I'm just driving around and sometimes looking through this telescope. Neither of those things is illegal, is it?" Grow up.
Most of the arguments against prior restraint have to do with the fact that it keeps an idea from being expressed. It seems a bit of a stretch to call copyright infringement "expression" (if an idea is yours to express, I doubt someone else has a copyright on it). In most cases suprression of copyright infringement would not remove the work from the marketplace (they're not keeping you frmo transmitting the information to keep it secret; they're keeping you from transmitting the information in hopes that they can sell it instead), and in those cases where it would (arguably Disney's handling of some material) it is specifically within the copyright holder's rights to do so.
So the idea of an injunction prior to infringement may or may not be a bad thing, but to me it sounds like you're latching on to the wrong argument.
I'd like to know the legal effect they intend this type of injunction to have. Generally to me "injunction" just means "the court is specifically telling you not to do X, so if you do there wlll be additional penalties". Also I'd expect that the injunction's effect would be temporary; if I can prove that you for some reason were able to get an injunction preventing me from sending out copies of my mp3 library, and in the ensuing proceedings I prove that you have no copyrights over anything in said library, then what happens?
"It's only "legitimate" if you accept that their tax on interstate commerce is also legitimate"
Right, and since the Supreme Court of the United States of America - i.e. the authority on such matters - has accepted exactly that premise, I'm not sure what you're complaining about.
Of course, to understand why they've accepted it, you have to strip away certain assumptions you've built into your statement. They've accepted that state use taxes like the one in question are legitimate, but then they don't consider them "taxes on interstate commerce". I understand that's what you think they are, but again you are at odds with the body given the authority to make that call.
"meh, you might MAYBE corrupt some windows stuff not unlike the risk involved in pushing an overclock."
Citation needed.
"In reality if you attempt to enable extra cores they will either work or they won't."
Citation needed.
"I've been running my dual core phenom 2 as an overclocked quad core stable for 2 months now"
Anecdotal; no significance in assessing risk.
As to the rest of your post - I'm not saying that nobody should ever do this; I'm saying that I disagree with bashing OP for wanting to know what the risk is. (And I still haven't seen a credible answer. As you say, you rolled the dice and won; so the fact is you don't know what happens if you lose.)
Yeah, maybe. Then again, GP has a point and you're being an asshat.
TFS makes a comparison to overclocking. It points out that there is no guarantee of a benefit - but doesn't point out that there is a risk. In the case of overclocking, the risk is that you will overheat a chip that was rated at a particular clock speed for good reason. Of course you can combat this risk by improving the cooling system. You can combat the risk because you know exactly what the risk is.
Now in the case of "hidden cores", what's the risk? Do you even know? Do you know what kind of flaw would lead them to legitimately disable a core? Is that one core unable to tolerate the same clock speed as the others? Is it functionaly broken such that it will return incorrect results for some operations? How would you tell the difference between that, vs. a chip that was perfectly fine but sold in a degraded state to balance out supply and demand?
You could shell out for a special motherboard just to test your chip, and if no flaw in the normally-disabled chip causes any damage to the rest of the chip (or do you have some basis on which to rule that possibility out?) you at least won't lose anything. Or, could the defect be intermittant such that your tests might miss it?
And if your computer is for hobbying and you enjoy working with a potentially-unstable system, good for you. A lot of people think that's a fine trade-off for what they're going to do with their systems. None of which invalidates GP's question - which is "what exactly might a disabled-by-default core do if you turn it on when it really was disabled for a reason?"
Slashdot Mirror
Do you also beleive that there should be no authority to decide what evidence is admissable in the courtroom? Why shouldn't the jorors be trusted with whatever information each lawyer decides to present? Why shouldn't the jurors be trusted with the opinions of their friends and family who are not on the jury?
Jurors are human. Therefore they are emotional and subject to bias. Part of the court's job is to decide what information they are allowed to have when they make their decision, end of story.
An excellent example of "missing the point theater". FWIW, it's also true that GP is only half right; but you're pretty much completely wrong, so I'll start with explaining why that is:
It doesn't matter that Company XYZ already has your data. GP's assertion is that they're less likely to abuse your data, because they don't want to lose you as a customer. If all the customers leave, then having all of the customers' data is moot because the marketing edge you get from that data means nothing if nobody will do business with you.
And for small-scale businesses that is perfectly true. Now try telling your CC company, bank, utility, telecom, or any local monopoly that they're annoying you and you might leave, and see what concessions they make. Will your TV provider give you a discount rate for a while? Maybe. Will they change fundamental policies like how they handle private data? No. And that is why GP is only half right as well.
GGP was correct; the reason consuemrs are "more ok" with businesses having their data is that businesses can't arrest you.
How you think that means he didn't accept the consequences of his actions is beyond me.
It rather sounds like you're arguing about the exact rationale he might have had for accepting the consequences of his actions; in which case you're arguing with yourself, because I did not (nor do I plan to) get into that topic.
The fact is, if you read his writings, or those of any other movement that utilized "civil disobedience", you will find that part of the deal is accepting that the government is going to enforce the laws you disagree with.
I'm not sure what part of this you are suggesting is new and different from the way the system works.
A bill gets passed (say, health care reform eariler this year) and it interacts with a bunch of other laws (the tax code, as a simple(ish) example). The bill says "Chapter such-and-such of Title whatever of the U.S. code is ammended as follows", and then if/when the bill becomes law (as this one did), the U.S. code itself is modified with in-place additions and deletions. I'm pretty sure the various versions of the law that were in force at any point in time are archived in the Library of Congress.
Of course, archival of the regulations that the Code delegates to various offices within the government may be a separate matter. AFAIK it's up to each office how its regulations are published and archived.
The problem isn't version control. The problem is, just like with badly-designed code, there is nothing enforcing loose coupling or tight cohesion amongst sections of any given version of the U.S. Code. Also, the fact that staet law is a body unto itself rather than a revision of federal law is regarded as a feature, not a bug.
I'm not saying you are or aren't in the group I'm about to argue with, because it's a bit unclear from your comment; but...
I've noticed that a lot of people throw around the "civil disobedience argument" as though they think it should be a legal defense. It isn't. It was never intended to be. The very concept of civil disobedience is that you accept the consequences of your actions, even if they be unfair consequences imposed by a corrupt regime. That's the nature of the play. If you don't like that part of it, then civil disobedience may not be for you.
So, yeah... he might have gotten a more sympathetic judge and/or jury if he'd done as you suggest, but he still would've gotten a criminal record and some sort of sentence out of the deal. Bottom line is having the best of intentions still doesn't make it ok to go outside the system. What crimes Palin did or didn't commit would be a separate matter, but don't expect evidence revealed in this manner to be what brings her down.
You're confusing "simple" with "easy".
Depending on workload and expectations, that solution may not be "easy" at all. Basically it will come down to how reasonable one's supervisor is whether one keeps one's job.
Ethically speaking your analysis is correct; the privacy concerns that lead hospitals down this path are the hospital's responsibility, and while employees play a part in respecting that responsibility the hospital cannot shift it to them personally. A combination of procedures that were too loose for the required level of security (e.g. allowing untrusted machines onto the network in the first place) and unreasonable-but-now-entrenched expectations of employees are going to make it anything but "easy" to get the hospital to bear the proper responsibility.
(Oh, and to be fair to the hospital, it probably has a pretty strapped budget; so it may be wrong to want to shift the costs, but it generally isn't a matter of greed.)
...which is why every plane flown prior to the advent of personal electronic devices crashed.
If you want to sell the idea that this "no distractions" direction is misguided, I'm willing to listen; but if your best argument is that "nobody" can do something that many, many people have done (stay awake without computer games while piloting a jet), forget it.
LOL
If a Democratic candidate infringes a liberal-leaning artists copyright, and a Republican tries to "make hay" over it, the determination of which one comes off looking like an ass will be made by who the liberal-leaning artist deicdes to side with. A Republican considering this approach would have to weigh the risk that, knowing the political effect of his/her actions, the artist would choose to side wtih the Democrat even if the original use was copyright infringement.
However, the threat scenario with Club-K missiles (according to TFA) is not a "shooting war between first world powers". The concern is that if a terrorist organization were to get these missiles, they could sneak up on a warship that doesn't know it's at war. Your step 1 is already solved if you have a ship within visual range.
Not sure what you do about step 3, though. Also not sure why it's more likely that terrorists get these than any other Russian weapon.
First of all, that doesn't matter. Even if he was in fact engaged in criminal activity, that doesn't nullify his civil rights. You can argue about how exactly violation of civil rights shuld be treated. You can argue about how exactly a liar covering for someone who violates civil rights should be treated. There is no validity to arguing about the behavior of the person whose rights were violated, however. If he was doing something criminal, then that makes police interferance with his rights even worse - because that would mean he'd likely have been able to walk away from criminal charges.
Second, your portrayal of his behavior does not match the facts presented. They were not "drunkenly smacking people in the face with foam golf balls". They were drunkenly playing with foam golf balls, and a person (which is different from "people") was accidentally hit (by someone who was not amongh those arrested).
Moreover, your claim that they hecked the "people" they hit requires proof. The police report said they were heckling the person that was hit, but it does not clarify what this means. The person who was hit with the ball was "only mad at the one guy" who hit the ball, which doesn't seem like it would be the case if any mass heckling of the sort you're portraying were going on. In fact, the person hit by the ball, based on his quotes, appears to agree that the police response wasn't justified.
If the studies had really revolved around matters related to the tribe's diabetes problem, then I imagine the university would've raised that argument.
TFA does kinda-sorta imply that the type of study you're talking about is possible in the realm of genetic research, which is all well and good; but nowhere do I see any indication that it's what actually happened. In fact, I'd like to know how they'd go about that since they didn't find a genetic link to the diabetes problem in the first place.
If you want to argue that reserachers shouldn't need specific concent to broaden the uses to which DNA is put once collected, then make that argument. It is a legitimately debatable point, though in this instance I believe the cross-cultural issues will tip the balance toward requiring concent. But come on - don't hide behind counter-factual interpretations of what happened; it just makes our culture look that much less worthy of trust.
Or alternately
"The problem seems to be that they didn't like what happened later and realized that they hadn't understood what they signed."
Even among native English-speakers, it is not unheard of for a signature to be considered invalid if it's later determined that the signer didn't really know what he/she was signing. This isn't something you'd want to rely on - it's obviously best to know what you're signing before you sign it. But this sounds like it was far removed from the ideal scenario for truly informed consent.
We don't know how the document was explained to the individuals, because we weren't there. No malice would've been necessary for there to be a miscommunication about what was happening; I'd be thoroughly surprised if it had been fully explained and understood.
Given that we don't know exactly what was said, based on the way each side has framed its argument it sure sounds like the Native Americans only intended one use for their blood, the issue was never explicitely discussed, the researchers didn't understand the donors' expectations or the sensitivity to the matter in their culture, and then you get what we have here. If that's true, then the real fault is a serious lapse of judgement on the researchers' part.
Everyone involved may have acted with good faith and good intentions, but if you want to work with other cultures, and trumpet how well you work with other cultures, then you need to be aware of their point of view.
You're saying two conflicting things as though they were the same thing.
When you say facebook "is" pseudo-contact, you're wrong. Facebook is a tool. Some people use it for pseudo-contact, and if those people didn't have FB to use for pseudo-contact it's hard to predict what they'd do instead. As you yourself note, others use FB in positive ways; so why hate the tool just because some poeple use it wrong?
Also, I find your opinion that FB is only for one-way broadcast communication interesting, because it is completely unsupported by fact. Yes, FB has facilities for that; it also has facilities for person-to-person two-way communiction, which work quite well.
Is this sarcasm? Trolling? I really can't tell.
Well, I use FB, and I don't give away ALL of my information. I publish the information I choose to. If there's something that I want to distribute to a limited audience but don't really care if it leaks, I post it with "friends only" security; if there's something I really want to maintain some sort of cnotrol over, it doesn't go on FB.
FB may not be the tool you want it to be, but that doesn't mean it's not a useful tool. You just hvae to know what it is and use it accordingly.
"Actually according to law they do not have that right"
Really? I look forward to your legal citation showing that they (1) cannot legally ship the device with an OS only willing to run their approved apps, or (2) cannot legally decide which apps to approve. They are doing both of those thigns, so if you can provide a legal citation I suggest you get this landmark case into court stat! If you can't (hint: you can't) then you're wrong, they do have the legal right to do exactly as I described.
Oh, perhaps you meant to post this to a discussion about jailbreaking. This isn't a discussion about jailbreaking. This is a discussion about the app approval process and the decisions Apple has made within that process.
If you want to bring jailbreaking into the conversation... well, Apple isn't preventing those who jailbreak their phones from using Flash. Arguably Adobe is, but frankly I don't blame them; if I were a commercial software vendor I probably wouldn't target a sub-platform that by definition has zero support either.
"Perhaps you should stop posting on the topic until you can bring yourself to care enough to make statements that are accurate."
His statement is accurate. You can argue that it's incomplete, but you cannot argue that it's inaccurate. A more complete phrasing would be: Adobe is angry that, in spite of Adobe trying to game the license in a way they thought would cause Apple to start supporting certain apps, Apple still won't start supporting an app that it's never supported on its other portable platforms.
"We're not talking about Flash apps. We're talking about iPhone apps."
WHAT??? Apple won't support iPhone apps anymore? I think you must be mista... Oh, you mean they won't support iPhone apps that were written in Flash. If only we had some term to distinguish those from other... Oh, hey we do! They're called "Flash apps", just like an app written in C but compiled to machine code is a "C app" and an app written in Java, whether compiled to bytecode or pre-compiled to machine code, is a Java app.
Actually, I did get to the links before making my interesting point. And indeed your comment suggests that while you "got to them" in the sense of seeing they were there, you didn't click on them.
From the first link:
"The study finds that older people who regularly read, play cards and solve crossword puzzles can cut their risk of developing dementia by more than 60 percent."
A study about reading, cards, and crosswords doesn't tell us anything about these games.
The second link is about the effect of physical exercise on congitive decline.
"my guess is it won't put much of a dent in app availability, and thus not affect end-users at all."
Were there a way to prove the correctness of that assertion, I'd happily bet you over it.
I certainly agree - and have argued several times - that Apple has the right to decide what kind of apps they want the iPod and iPad to run. Generally this is my response to OSS philosophers who want to paint any restriction as somehow immoral and inherantly damaging to users' "rights" and "freedom".
But to say "who cares" is a little much. Anyone who wants to understand the current and prospective feature set of the iPad, iPod, or iPhone - because, I don't know, maybe they are deciding whether to buy one - cares.
Whether Apple shapes its terms in a way that suits Adobe's Flash initiatives is a business decision for Apple. Whether they do it, negotiate with Adobe over it, or just say "no" is entirely up to them, and I have no standing in telling them how to make that decision (unless I own stock in Apple, I guess). But I still take an interesting in the topic, I still have an opinion of what I think they should do or what I'd like them to do, and the decision they make may influence my actions. So who cares? Apparently I do.
What I find interesting is that you're questioning this study's negative assertion, when you should be challenging those who make positive assertions about the value of these games to show you a study confirming as much.
"Well you've shown that the game doesn't do X, but I feel that it might provide some other benefit" doesn't mean anything unless it's backed up with a study that shows that the game provides that other benefit.
I find it interesting that they claim this is "legal"; I suspect they mean "we don't know of or haven't thought of the laws that one would be breaking by donig this".
Sure, they point out specific steps of the process that don't break specific laws even though you might think they would; but in the end, a series of actions that would each be legal on its own can add up to a crime. Spying on another individual, tracking their whereabouts and spying on their phone calls, is in and of itself illegal no matter how clever your approach to doing it.
"Why, I'm just driving around and sometimes looking through this telescope. Neither of those things is illegal, is it?" Grow up.
Most of the arguments against prior restraint have to do with the fact that it keeps an idea from being expressed. It seems a bit of a stretch to call copyright infringement "expression" (if an idea is yours to express, I doubt someone else has a copyright on it). In most cases suprression of copyright infringement would not remove the work from the marketplace (they're not keeping you frmo transmitting the information to keep it secret; they're keeping you from transmitting the information in hopes that they can sell it instead), and in those cases where it would (arguably Disney's handling of some material) it is specifically within the copyright holder's rights to do so.
So the idea of an injunction prior to infringement may or may not be a bad thing, but to me it sounds like you're latching on to the wrong argument.
I'd like to know the legal effect they intend this type of injunction to have. Generally to me "injunction" just means "the court is specifically telling you not to do X, so if you do there wlll be additional penalties". Also I'd expect that the injunction's effect would be temporary; if I can prove that you for some reason were able to get an injunction preventing me from sending out copies of my mp3 library, and in the ensuing proceedings I prove that you have no copyrights over anything in said library, then what happens?
"It's only "legitimate" if you accept that their tax on interstate commerce is also legitimate"
Right, and since the Supreme Court of the United States of America - i.e. the authority on such matters - has accepted exactly that premise, I'm not sure what you're complaining about.
Of course, to understand why they've accepted it, you have to strip away certain assumptions you've built into your statement. They've accepted that state use taxes like the one in question are legitimate, but then they don't consider them "taxes on interstate commerce". I understand that's what you think they are, but again you are at odds with the body given the authority to make that call.
"meh, you might MAYBE corrupt some windows stuff not unlike the risk involved in pushing an overclock."
Citation needed.
"In reality if you attempt to enable extra cores they will either work or they won't."
Citation needed.
"I've been running my dual core phenom 2 as an overclocked quad core stable for 2 months now"
Anecdotal; no significance in assessing risk.
As to the rest of your post - I'm not saying that nobody should ever do this; I'm saying that I disagree with bashing OP for wanting to know what the risk is. (And I still haven't seen a credible answer. As you say, you rolled the dice and won; so the fact is you don't know what happens if you lose.)
Yeah, maybe. Then again, GP has a point and you're being an asshat.
TFS makes a comparison to overclocking. It points out that there is no guarantee of a benefit - but doesn't point out that there is a risk. In the case of overclocking, the risk is that you will overheat a chip that was rated at a particular clock speed for good reason. Of course you can combat this risk by improving the cooling system. You can combat the risk because you know exactly what the risk is.
Now in the case of "hidden cores", what's the risk? Do you even know? Do you know what kind of flaw would lead them to legitimately disable a core? Is that one core unable to tolerate the same clock speed as the others? Is it functionaly broken such that it will return incorrect results for some operations? How would you tell the difference between that, vs. a chip that was perfectly fine but sold in a degraded state to balance out supply and demand?
You could shell out for a special motherboard just to test your chip, and if no flaw in the normally-disabled chip causes any damage to the rest of the chip (or do you have some basis on which to rule that possibility out?) you at least won't lose anything. Or, could the defect be intermittant such that your tests might miss it?
And if your computer is for hobbying and you enjoy working with a potentially-unstable system, good for you. A lot of people think that's a fine trade-off for what they're going to do with their systems. None of which invalidates GP's question - which is "what exactly might a disabled-by-default core do if you turn it on when it really was disabled for a reason?"