I think it's more like Microsoft got tired of all the Big Boys' AV bloatware making Windows look crappier than it is.
They don't do what you suggest because it would cause them problems, their partners would complain, mutterings of "antitrust", etc.
But putting MSE out there for free will in the long term create a new minimum standard for AV software.
As long as they keep it low key, if the Big Boys shout at Microsoft (behind closed doors), Microsoft can shout back at them and say their products were worse than the average malware in resource hogging and damage to the system.
I'd rather have my PC infected with the average malware than infected with Symantec/McAfee. AV software would slow my PC down all the time and cause all sorts of problems I don't need. Whereas malware will only cause problems when I get infected, and my PC has never been infected with malware (there's stuff like virustotal if you need to check something suspicious).
That said, I have installed AV software on other people's machines for them and MSE is installed on my work machine (required by employer). MSE isn't that great, but it's not bad for free.
"Oh, okay, so let me see if I have this straight: Today, they're too poor to buy fish, but tomorrow, they're magically going to have the money to pay for our fish? Is Jesus handing out coins too?"
I guess the fears of a machine dominated world might not be entirely accurate. It's not that we build machines that become sentient... it's that we become the machines
To me we should NOT build/grow machines/"artificial creatures" that become sentient, because society is not ready for the hard decisions that come with it.
Because at what point do we give that entity all the rights AND responsibilities of a human? Or would we be creating those creatures just to enslave them even if they happen to be sentient? Then we would just be producing more evil in the world. We still have tons of racists in the world, we don't treat animals we enslave that well. This would just add to the problem.
All for what? So that a bunch of rich guys can make themselves even richer?
So human augmentation is a better approach than creating a new type of sentient creatures.
Human replacement on the other hand, I'm not so sure. Complete replacement with memristors might not work.
I believe at least some animals have minds too. Now which configurations of memristors will create a mind? I don't know. How do we tell?
You might actually create replace humans with a whole bunch of machines that just look like they have minds on initial inspection, but turn out to just be very sophisticated ELIZAs.
One might say, what's the difference? But maybe a visiting bunch of aliens might be able to easily tell the difference with their technology. And be disappointed.
p.s. Maybe in the Matrix that's what the Oracle was trying to do, but from a different direction - machine to human: merging humans with machines to augment herself. Smith merging with everything (presumably including humans) including the Oracle and then Neo. She knew something was missing so she played that "very dangerous game"...
First, when an offender kills accidentally or without specific intent to kill in the course of an applicable felony, what might have been manslaughter is escalated to murder. Second, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony.
1) The participants in the felony did not actually do the killing, the homeowner killed a participant. 2) Having a participant killed by the homeowner in self defense is not in furtherance of the felony nor an integral part of the felony.
So it still seems wrong to me to charge the rest of the felony participants for murder just because the homeowner killed a participant in self-defense.
But inefficiency does not automatically and necessarily result from an increase in size. There are efficient large corporations and inefficient small mom-and-pop shops.
Sometimes you need to be big to do certain things efficiently. So obsessing on size is bad.
You're being dense on purpose by assuming that government is self-sizing or that it serves a purpose greater than justification of its own existence.
I've pointed out the main problem and you persist in obsessing on size. Is it not obvious already? Who is being dense on purpose here?
The people are supposed to rein in the Government. But if most people obsess on quantity of government rather than quality of government, they would be less likely to fix the real problem.
A small corrupt government in league with big corrupt corporations will screw the US people just as much as a big corrupt government.
Might even be worse - since the big corporations won't be subject to stuff like "Freedom of Information Act". Lots of people here even say the US "freedom of speech" clause doesn't apply when a private corporation censors its users, and say the users are free to use the services of a different corporation. If they are right then you'd be more screwed, since a weaker smaller government would mean the protections from the US constitution would be weaker and smaller- it would be harder for the courts to help you. You might not even have the right to bear arms in a Corporation's private but very extensive territory.
I can only conclude that your naivety is forced. You've clearly had dealings with your local government by this point, and could easily understand how bloat and bureaucracy are key parts of the issue.
I live in a 3rd world country and I can tell you bloat and bureaucracy doesn't suck as much out of the system as corruption and incompetence does. We're definitely worse than the US, but sometimes the US seems to be racing us to the bottom.
If you think the main problem with the US is bloat and bureaucracy and not corruption/incompetence then you're the one being naive. If you don't, but persist in trying to solve the wrong problem then you are even more responsible for the problem.
I wouldn't really care if the US were some mostly ignorable country like Zimbabwe. But the US is arguably the most powerful country in the world. Can't say "go ahead screw up your own country, who cares".
And here lies the problem. You are considering your uninformed OPINION as equal to the considered law in Florida. The two are not equal.
No. You're ASSUMING that I consider my opinion equal to that stupid interpretation of local law, and I certainly don't. Where have I indicated that I consider my opinion equal?
So you've got the "here lies the problem" part wrong. And it's even irrelevant. You should be saying stuff like "here lies the problem, the kids are responsible for murder because [list of reasons], and your reasoning is wrong because [list of reasons]".
Yes you can say "because Local Law Says So", but you won't be adding much value.
that the Murder charge is "daft" and leave it at just shows your ignorance of local law.
If you're correct about the local law, then the local law is daft, and the murder charge is still daft.
To think that the local law has to be 100% correct is daft too.
Anyway here it is again in hopefully clearer form:
The homeowner had free will and (IMO) his will was not overridden significantly by others. He freely chose to shoot the kid. Unless there was a major screw-up at the hospital etc, the kid died mainly because the homeowner shot him. It was considered self-defense, so it was not murder. Since the death was not a result of murder, nobody can be held responsible for murder. QED.
If your interpretation holds, then a policeman in pursuit of robbers could personally destroy a city ala hollywood, and the robbers be charged for the resulting mass murders. Since if the robbers didn't do the crime, the policeman wouldn't have shot up the city.
But the policeman is still responsible for his actions, and similarly the homeowner is still responsible for what he did. The difference is, though he is responsible for the death of the kid, his actions were considered justified.
Lastly, my understanding is the cops can charge the kids with murder even if it is incorrect to do so by local law (and a court hearing such a case might rule that the kids are innocent of murder).
1 complete cluster crap where real work get's done, that's in the Old server room with the elevated floor and 2 workbenches.
These neat freaks are being silly.
What next, are they going to tell their heart surgeon to make sure all the scalpels and other surgery tools are in their respective drawers during the operation, so that the work environment is totally neat and tidy?
There's a difference between clean and neat. There's a difference between organized and tidy.
The overhead is only in deciding whether to accept _changes_ to the routing table. If your router design isn't broken, that doesn't have to increase overheads of routing each packet at all.
For example, say I give you a piece of paper with a list telling you where to send stuff. So you just follow that.
Later, I could have a long talk with someone about what should be on a new list, but that does not have to affect you at all.
Once I'm done with that, I pass you the resulting list, and you use it.
It's not unfair at all. One of them would not have died if all of them had not decided to commit a crime.
Even if one of them would not have died, had they not decided to commit a crime, still doesn't make it murder.
That's like saying they committed murder if they cross the street after the burglary and a car knocks down one of them and kills him. Or a tree in the garden falls on him. Or if the kid got so excited that he got a heart/asthma attack and died.
Using that sort of logic to justify calling it murder is like blaming a butterfly for a particular typhoon because it flapped its wings. Yes there wouldn't have been that typhoon if it didn't flap its wings sometime earlier, but at a certain level you have to draw a line somewhere.
It's about responsibility,
Yes. In my opinion they were responsible for burglary, but not murder. Nobody in this case was responsible for murder, because it was not murder. Yes someone died but it was not murder.
If the perps shot their own guy by mistake then sure charge them for manslaughter or murder (again it depends). This case doesn't look like murder to me at all. Nor does it even look like they committed manslaughter either.
The homeowner was not a force of nature that would have necessarily killed the kid. The homeowner still had a choice. He chose to shoot, the kid died, but it was self-defense so it's not murder. And the buck stops there.
Otherwise from a legal perspective you could hold the parents, the family, the community, the schools, the Government, etc accountable too. Yes you can still put part of the blame on that them, while not holding them legally accountable for it.
Heck, if all the kids knew the homeowner was likely to kill them, then it's suicide. Then charge the others for assisting a suicide (if it's illegal in Florida). It's still not murder.
Well, Considering that none of them would have been shot had they decided to obey the law and NOT rob a home, then yes, it's fair.
Still seems unfair and ridiculous to me.
That's like saying they committed murder if they cross the street after the burglary and a car knocks down one of them and kills him. Or a tree in the garden falls on him.
Sure someone died. That doesn't mean the rest murdered him - they certainly never intended to.
Pin something else on them if they insist, but not murder.
Under the assumption that most ISP's provide real addresses to their clients (which is, AFAIK, true), I believe I'm correct in saying that NAT has been a decent bridge.
This whole story is about running out of IPv4 addresses, and thus contrary to your assumption. Providing "real IPv6 addresses" to clients doesn't help them if they need to talk to the very many IPv4 only machines out there.
When they run out of IPv4 addresses, ISPs will stop providing "real" IPv4 addresses to clients. The "real" IPv4 addresses will be shared via NAT.
They WILL use IPv4 to IPv4 NAT so that users can talk to IPv4 only servers. Most won't use IPv6 to IPv4 NAT/proxying for that because it isn't as well tested, and doesn't really add much (if you're going to NAT for that reason you might as well use IPv4 to IPv4 NATing).
Big Media will see this as a feature, since P2P becomes harder.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah maybe he should have used "Bud Light" as an example?
I think it's more like Microsoft got tired of all the Big Boys' AV bloatware making Windows look crappier than it is.
They don't do what you suggest because it would cause them problems, their partners would complain, mutterings of "antitrust", etc.
But putting MSE out there for free will in the long term create a new minimum standard for AV software.
As long as they keep it low key, if the Big Boys shout at Microsoft (behind closed doors), Microsoft can shout back at them and say their products were worse than the average malware in resource hogging and damage to the system.
I'd rather have my PC infected with the average malware than infected with Symantec/McAfee. AV software would slow my PC down all the time and cause all sorts of problems I don't need. Whereas malware will only cause problems when I get infected, and my PC has never been infected with malware (there's stuff like virustotal if you need to check something suspicious).
That said, I have installed AV software on other people's machines for them and MSE is installed on my work machine (required by employer). MSE isn't that great, but it's not bad for free.
Who would know more about Windows than Microsoft?
Previously the Sysinternals bunch (but Microsoft bought them :) ).
"Oh, okay, so let me see if I have this straight: Today, they're too poor to buy fish, but tomorrow, they're magically going to have the money to pay for our fish? Is Jesus handing out coins too?"
Not exactly, you have to fish for them: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+17%3A24-27&version=NIV :)
BTW, seems to me Jesus likes "audience participation".
Some kid had to sacrifice his lunch (I think he got kind of got it back though ) for the feeding of the five thousand: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%206:5-6:15&version=NIV
Turning water to wine - people had to fill up the jars first.
I guess the fears of a machine dominated world might not be entirely accurate. It's not that we build machines that become sentient... it's that we become the machines
To me we should NOT build/grow machines/"artificial creatures" that become sentient, because society is not ready for the hard decisions that come with it.
Because at what point do we give that entity all the rights AND responsibilities of a human? Or would we be creating those creatures just to enslave them even if they happen to be sentient? Then we would just be producing more evil in the world. We still have tons of racists in the world, we don't treat animals we enslave that well. This would just add to the problem.
All for what? So that a bunch of rich guys can make themselves even richer?
So human augmentation is a better approach than creating a new type of sentient creatures.
Human replacement on the other hand, I'm not so sure. Complete replacement with memristors might not work.
I believe at least some animals have minds too. Now which configurations of memristors will create a mind? I don't know. How do we tell?
You might actually create replace humans with a whole bunch of machines that just look like they have minds on initial inspection, but turn out to just be very sophisticated ELIZAs.
One might say, what's the difference? But maybe a visiting bunch of aliens might be able to easily tell the difference with their technology. And be disappointed.
p.s. Maybe in the Matrix that's what the Oracle was trying to do, but from a different direction - machine to human: merging humans with machines to augment herself. Smith merging with everything (presumably including humans) including the Oracle and then Neo. She knew something was missing so she played that "very dangerous game"...
After so many centuries scientists still haven't explained the very first observation most (all?) of them make. :).
At least some are, just at a slow rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurogenesis#Adult_neurogenesis
http://preview.tinyurl.com/dxar9m
Also in mice at least, fetal cells can get into the mother's brain and grow neurons etc there: http://brainethics.wordpress.com/2006/07/20/on-a-mothers-mind/
Maybe that's why some couples start looking like each other over time :).
I bet the fishermen and bakers weren't too happy about it either.
Perhaps, but I believe a few fishermen were actually helping to give out the free food.
and placing ads of naked hippies should really come first.
Of course! That's one of the other reasons why I eat tasty animals.
So that PETA will produce more "pictorials" with sexy scantily clad or naked girls.
Sorry that was my clone posting.
Plus, why would I disturb her from her eternal nap? Surely that's any cat's idea of heaven.
The clone would be a different entity. Just like an identical twin is a different person from his/her twin sibling.
That's also why "Dolly the Sheep Alive Again" is wrong. Dolly the Sheep is dead. These are new clones.
I've actually used Youtube to watch some ads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toeN0AZZRVw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRKh4UybXKk
Sure but that says:
First, when an offender kills accidentally or without specific intent to kill in the course of an applicable felony, what might have been manslaughter is escalated to murder. Second, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony.
1) The participants in the felony did not actually do the killing, the homeowner killed a participant.
2) Having a participant killed by the homeowner in self defense is not in furtherance of the felony nor an integral part of the felony.
So it still seems wrong to me to charge the rest of the felony participants for murder just because the homeowner killed a participant in self-defense.
Size is a common cause of inefficiency.
But inefficiency does not automatically and necessarily result from an increase in size. There are efficient large corporations and inefficient small mom-and-pop shops.
Sometimes you need to be big to do certain things efficiently. So obsessing on size is bad.
You're being dense on purpose by assuming that government is self-sizing or that it serves a purpose greater than justification of its own existence.
I've pointed out the main problem and you persist in obsessing on size. Is it not obvious already? Who is being dense on purpose here?
The people are supposed to rein in the Government. But if most people obsess on quantity of government rather than quality of government, they would be less likely to fix the real problem.
A small corrupt government in league with big corrupt corporations will screw the US people just as much as a big corrupt government.
Might even be worse - since the big corporations won't be subject to stuff like "Freedom of Information Act". Lots of people here even say the US "freedom of speech" clause doesn't apply when a private corporation censors its users, and say the users are free to use the services of a different corporation. If they are right then you'd be more screwed, since a weaker smaller government would mean the protections from the US constitution would be weaker and smaller- it would be harder for the courts to help you. You might not even have the right to bear arms in a Corporation's private but very extensive territory.
I can only conclude that your naivety is forced. You've clearly had dealings with your local government by this point, and could easily understand how bloat and bureaucracy are key parts of the issue.
I live in a 3rd world country and I can tell you bloat and bureaucracy doesn't suck as much out of the system as corruption and incompetence does. We're definitely worse than the US, but sometimes the US seems to be racing us to the bottom.
If you think the main problem with the US is bloat and bureaucracy and not corruption/incompetence then you're the one being naive. If you don't, but persist in trying to solve the wrong problem then you are even more responsible for the problem.
I wouldn't really care if the US were some mostly ignorable country like Zimbabwe. But the US is arguably the most powerful country in the world. Can't say "go ahead screw up your own country, who cares".
It's not the size of government that matters so much as the quality of government.
To me the emphasis on quantity and not quality shows how stupid people are.
Making all that effort to solve the wrong problem. What good is it if you have achieved a government of size X, but it's still bad?
Sad really that so many supposedly smart people are that stupid.
And here lies the problem. You are considering your uninformed OPINION as equal to the considered law in Florida. The two are not equal.
No. You're ASSUMING that I consider my opinion equal to that stupid interpretation of local law, and I certainly don't. Where have I indicated that I consider my opinion equal?
So you've got the "here lies the problem" part wrong. And it's even irrelevant. You should be saying stuff like "here lies the problem, the kids are responsible for murder because [list of reasons], and your reasoning is wrong because [list of reasons]".
Yes you can say "because Local Law Says So", but you won't be adding much value.
that the Murder charge is "daft" and leave it at just shows your ignorance of local law.
If you're correct about the local law, then the local law is daft, and the murder charge is still daft.
To think that the local law has to be 100% correct is daft too.
Anyway here it is again in hopefully clearer form:
The homeowner had free will and (IMO) his will was not overridden significantly by others. He freely chose to shoot the kid. Unless there was a major screw-up at the hospital etc, the kid died mainly because the homeowner shot him. It was considered self-defense, so it was not murder. Since the death was not a result of murder, nobody can be held responsible for murder. QED.
If your interpretation holds, then a policeman in pursuit of robbers could personally destroy a city ala hollywood, and the robbers be charged for the resulting mass murders. Since if the robbers didn't do the crime, the policeman wouldn't have shot up the city.
But the policeman is still responsible for his actions, and similarly the homeowner is still responsible for what he did. The difference is, though he is responsible for the death of the kid, his actions were considered justified.
Lastly, my understanding is the cops can charge the kids with murder even if it is incorrect to do so by local law (and a court hearing such a case might rule that the kids are innocent of murder).
1 complete cluster crap where real work get's done, that's in the Old server room with the elevated floor and 2 workbenches.
These neat freaks are being silly.
What next, are they going to tell their heart surgeon to make sure all the scalpels and other surgery tools are in their respective drawers during the operation, so that the work environment is totally neat and tidy?
There's a difference between clean and neat. There's a difference between organized and tidy.
The overhead is only in deciding whether to accept _changes_ to the routing table. If your router design isn't broken, that doesn't have to increase overheads of routing each packet at all.
For example, say I give you a piece of paper with a list telling you where to send stuff. So you just follow that.
Later, I could have a long talk with someone about what should be on a new list, but that does not have to affect you at all.
Once I'm done with that, I pass you the resulting list, and you use it.
It's not unfair at all. One of them would not have died if all of them had not decided to commit a crime.
Even if one of them would not have died, had they not decided to commit a crime, still doesn't make it murder.
That's like saying they committed murder if they cross the street after the burglary and a car knocks down one of them and kills him. Or a tree in the garden falls on him. Or if the kid got so excited that he got a heart/asthma attack and died.
Using that sort of logic to justify calling it murder is like blaming a butterfly for a particular typhoon because it flapped its wings. Yes there wouldn't have been that typhoon if it didn't flap its wings sometime earlier, but at a certain level you have to draw a line somewhere.
It's about responsibility,
Yes. In my opinion they were responsible for burglary, but not murder. Nobody in this case was responsible for murder, because it was not murder. Yes someone died but it was not murder.
If the perps shot their own guy by mistake then sure charge them for manslaughter or murder (again it depends). This case doesn't look like murder to me at all. Nor does it even look like they committed manslaughter either.
The homeowner was not a force of nature that would have necessarily killed the kid. The homeowner still had a choice. He chose to shoot, the kid died, but it was self-defense so it's not murder. And the buck stops there.
Otherwise from a legal perspective you could hold the parents, the family, the community, the schools, the Government, etc accountable too. Yes you can still put part of the blame on that them, while not holding them legally accountable for it.
Heck, if all the kids knew the homeowner was likely to kill them, then it's suicide. Then charge the others for assisting a suicide (if it's illegal in Florida). It's still not murder.
Well, Considering that none of them would have been shot had they decided to obey the law and NOT rob a home, then yes, it's fair.
Still seems unfair and ridiculous to me.
That's like saying they committed murder if they cross the street after the burglary and a car knocks down one of them and kills him. Or a tree in the garden falls on him.
Sure someone died. That doesn't mean the rest murdered him - they certainly never intended to.
Pin something else on them if they insist, but not murder.
So did you keep the phone and agree to the contract?
First thought that came to my mind:
Real Name? You're just writing it wrong...
What I find strange is that the actual burglary culprits were charged with murder when the person who died appears to have been shot by the homeowner: http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=149990&catid=8
Charging them with burglary - fair.
Endangering lives - fair.
Murder? Sounds daft to me.
Is this sort of thing normal in the USA or just Florida?
Clearly your joke injection failed.
Under the assumption that most ISP's provide real addresses to their clients (which is, AFAIK, true), I believe I'm correct in saying that NAT has been a decent bridge.
This whole story is about running out of IPv4 addresses, and thus contrary to your assumption. Providing "real IPv6 addresses" to clients doesn't help them if they need to talk to the very many IPv4 only machines out there.
When they run out of IPv4 addresses, ISPs will stop providing "real" IPv4 addresses to clients. The "real" IPv4 addresses will be shared via NAT.
They WILL use IPv4 to IPv4 NAT so that users can talk to IPv4 only servers. Most won't use IPv6 to IPv4 NAT/proxying for that because it isn't as well tested, and doesn't really add much (if you're going to NAT for that reason you might as well use IPv4 to IPv4 NATing).
Big Media will see this as a feature, since P2P becomes harder.