This may be a little off-topic, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think Obama is a lock for reelection. The Republicans were able to take so many congressional seats in 2010 because less people voted. When Obama's name is on the ticket hordes of people will make it to the polls who didn't bother with the midterm elections. Republicans just make it to the polls more consistently.
Trust me, these guys are almost as embarrassing to most Democrats as the Tea Party is to most Republicans. They're probably the same jackasses that want to ban dodgeball and give every team, win or lose, a trophy.
I'm not surprised they're Democrats either, but that doesn't make me want to vote Republican.
Being bullied and being raped aren't comparable. They may both be negative things that happen to a person, but one can't expect the government to shelter them from all negative things. Not only is it unreasonable to mandate being nice, it's probably unethical.
I think this attitude of putting the founding fathers on a pedestal is silly. The morons today aren't the problem, the problem is the system the founding fathers put in place that rewards morons with political power. The system was designed to govern 13 states 200 years ago, not 50 from coast to coast in modern times.
Our best hope for the future is to completely scrap the Constitution in favor of a document that accounts for modern realities.
Also, the founding fathers, with the exception of maybe Jefferson (who wasn't a primary architect of the Constitution, although he had influence, especially concerning the Bill of Rights), sought to create a system to poor-person proof the system. It's designed to keep the power in what was then the bourgeoisie - a class of Americans who often had serious European aristocracy envy. Considering this, should anyone be surprised by the wealth disparity in this country?
Republicans voted for every civil rights act? What about The Civil Rights Act of 1964? Although the 'solid south' Dems were the ones who tried to filibuster it, ones like Strom Thurmond changed parties after the bill's passage. Racists never forgave Kennedy/LBJ for the bill, which resulted in the solidly Democratic south turning solidly Republican. Furthermore, Byrd often sided with Republicans, especially late in his career, but he was too much of a moderate to be a true example of either party's values. It is notable that he later said that his top regrets in life were his association with the KKK and his filibuster of The Civil Rights Act.
One thing to note about The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is that voting was most strictly divided by region rather than party. More Republicans voted for it than Democrats, but every southern Republican voted against the bill. More northern Democratic voted for the bill than northern Republicans (both in number and %, at the time the Democrats had a large majority in congress - hence more southern Democrats voted against the bill, but less as a %)
The fact of the matter is that LBJ knew that passing the bill would likely result in losing the solid Democratic south but he did it anyway. He threw away political advantage to do what's right (had it not been for Vietnam LBJ would have been a damn good president overall).
Not to mention that common Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater voted against the bill, saying, "You can't legislate morality."
So there's your citation. Passage of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 by a Democratic president turned the south against the Democratic party. If you want a second citation I present The Tea Party.
Not all Republicans are racist, but it's a definite trend in the south. Not all Democrats are paternalistic, but it's a definite trend in New York and California.
btw - being the 'south' during the Civil War didn't make them on the wrong side. Lincoln was on the wrong side. If legislation without representation is a true justification for the Revolutionary War, then the same must apply to the Civil War. The south didn't have a large enough population to represent it's vastly larger geography in the United States government. The system was rigged against them and that's what the war was about. It wasn't Lincoln's abolitionist crusade as everyone likes to believe (it's just another good example of history written by the winners).
How ironic, considering that film glorifies the life of a gangster who abused his position as a union leader to steal goods from ships in Cleveland. Not to mention that he killed dozens of people and used his status as an FBI informant to further his criminal agenda.
in fact, the average person is just as qualified to judge issues of 'right and wrong' as any judge or laywer. its not hard. if its hard, you're doing it wrong
I have to disagree with you there. Ethics is extremely difficult because often times a logically sound argument can be made for either side of an issue. Oftentimes it requires a lot of nuance that a lot of people just don't understand. Only extremely basic moral issues have intrinsic answers that require little to no nuanced deliberation.
Think about it this way: the most common degree for a politician is law. Politicians are the ones who write (well, at least pass into law) these dumbass immoral pieces of legislation. While I believe some Ethics classes are required for a degree in law, every lawyer I've met seemed to know much more about gaming the legal system than normative theories.
So while your statement may have a bit of truth - that the everyman knows about as much as judges, lawyers, and politicians about right and wrong - I disagree with the 'it's not hard or you're doing it wrong' part. It is hard and very few people do it right. To make matters worse, a comprehensive understanding of morality is most likely to repel one to a job in the legal system because it's so hopelessly corrupt. At some point those careers - providing legal counsel, lobbying, prosecuting, judging, etc. - they will conflict with morality if you wish to make money from them (unless you just love writing contracts and aiding divorces).
This Robert M. Pirsig quote is kind of backwards from the topic at hand but I think it applies nicely:
You have as much chance convincing a psychiatrist that the intellectual order he enforces is rotten as you have of convincing a cop that the social order he supports is rotten. If they ever believed you they'd have to quit their jobs.
Actually, this happens, especially in private hospitals. Where I live, the two hospitals in our town merged to form one mega-hospital. One was a 'community' hospital whereas the other was owned by some Catholic corporation. The Catholic hospital basically took over the community one. I remember immediately after the business deals were completed, some nurses were complaining about how they had to turn down all these patients because they weren't 'emergencies' according to new guidelines implemented by the Catholic corporation. Oftentimes people would suffer from something, get turned down, and then they'd have to return a week or so later when their condition worsened to emergency status. Of course, this is detrimental to the patient and also can end up costing the hospital more to treat them.
People go to the emergency room for non-emergencies because they don't have health care, and if they do, it's shitty to the point where they still can't afford to make an appointment with a doctor. If everyone was just taxed for full-coverage health care then there would be less emergencies because more people would go to the doctor for check-ups rather than waiting until a condition becomes unbearable enough to warrant going to the emergency room.
They were dumb enough to name it "Diaspora." Cornering the vast Jewish market, a surefire strategy for success. The analogy is actually a pretty good one, but you can't market a product with such an odd-ball, non-catchy name. Other product names that make me shudder from their ineptitude: LibreOffice, Gimp, and duckduckgo.
I don't think you get it. Colonel Korn is saying that the criticism can be valid, whether Spotify has the right to make this decision or not. He's not suggesting that those who criticize Spotify for this decision should continue using the service begrudgingly - in fact, I'm sure many who are criticizing Spotify on this forum have never used it and don't intend to - but that doesn't invalidate their criticisms.
To me, "Don't like it? Use another service" seems to say, "don't make an issue of that which you disagree with unless it is forced upon you." While following this maxim may result in less whiners throughout the world, it would also result in turning a blind eye to that which is deserving of criticism. To which I have to say: "Don't like trivial criticisms? Don't visit Slashdot."
FB is an actual forum. Just because you're privacy-conscious and/or anti-social does not make FB a bad thing.
Yes, because being privacy-conscious and/or anti-social are obviously bad things. And those are the choices one has if they don't like FB. They're privacy-conscious and/or anti-social.
Nice false dichotomy. Here's a better one: A person uses FB either because they lack individuality and can't think for themselves or because they have such low self-esteem they need to participate in a grand social network to develop a phony sense of worth.
Also, you're right that being privacy-conscious and/or anti-social doesn't make FB a bad thing. What makes FB a bad thing is their lack of morals as a business, most often related to their unconcern for privacy. I would also argue that they're working to mold society into something detrimental to society itself: it prioritizes social status over intellectual status, which is a devolution that has been occurring in American schools since the 50s. It encourages groupthink and ostracizes those who refuse to participate from the greater society.
So you'll probably end up buying products from companies just as or more corrupt. I'm not saying you shouldn't take morality into account when making your buying decisions, just don't fool yourself into thinking these two companies are exceptional in their corruption. The sad truth is that it's probably impossible to actually know whether you buy things from an ethical business.
I mean, you buy food, right? The evil of the food industry is like Bernie Madoff compared to the carnival-like shenanigans of EA/Sony. And then look at EA/Sony's main competitors: Activision/Microsoft respectively.
Perhaps if the U.S. gov't could actually put business on a leash like the E.U. does, we wouldn't encounter these problems. Writing to your congressman will do much more than boycotting EA and Sony products.
You're the second person I've seen refer to Samsung products as 'quality.' They make cheap shit.
Car analogy: A Maserati owner is more likely to be proud of their car (I mean, suffer an 'inferiority complex and see the brand as a religion') than a Chevy Aveo owner. And Chevy Aveo owners are more likely to spite those with nice cars and assume that having good taste is elitist snobbery.
Quality. I don't think that word means what you think it means. It doesn't mean functional. It means better than functional.
If it was so obvious, then how come pre-iPhone every smartphone was either a Blackberry or a Blackberry wannabe? Post-iPhone practically every phone on the market looks like an iPhone, works like an iPhone, and RIM is a financial mess and also utilizing the 'copy-Apple' playbook.
I guess that's the problem with Apple's minimalist designs. It's always 'obvious' after they come out.
Really, this is Samsung's fault. All they had to do is use icons that differentiated the phone from the iPhone but instead they wanted their product to be mistaken for an iPhone, right down the the icons and the little spinny-loading thing. At least when Windows came out, they called the trash can the 'recycling bin' and moved the desktop icons from the right side of the screen to the left and used an hourglass loading icon. At least they were semi-conscious of copying.
What's bad for one part of the economy may be good for another part. What's 'good' for the economy is a matter of debate. I know it's a tiredly overused example, but if you owned stock in Halliburton in 2000 and hung onto it I'm sure you'd think that these pointless wars are pretty good for the economy.
Overall, I agree with your comments, but I don't think the pointless wars were a major drag on our economy. If anything, they probably helped. Lowering taxes during wartime - now that's a classic economic no-no which deserves more blame for this economic mess than the wars themselves. You don't do it b/c 1) wars cost money 2) lowering taxes just increases the rate of inflation and 3) it's good practice to lower taxes after the troops come home and get settled down (economic drag - increased supply of workers so the laborer's value is reduced). It's a historic pattern with a major exception being the 50s (the Great Depression and post-Vietnam are great examples of this).
Even if he did ruin it, which is debatable, how is it not his right? If Da Vinci had decided to burn the Mona Lisa before his death, or perhaps just whimsically add a comic mustache, would the act be immoral? Would he have no right to do so? Would he deserve to eat garbage and die?
Furthermore, if he's such an idiot, then how did he make three movies that were good enough that they could be ruined somehow?
And when that wears out, become a pirate? It's that or accept the revisionist history.
Or you can copy the VHS onto another VHS. Or you can copy the VHS onto your computer digitally, and burn a DVD (or just watch it straight off your HDD or copy it to a flash drive or any other medium).
As long as you don't start selling your copies for profit or start giving them away in massive quantities to undermine sales of George Lucas' current offerings, then it's perfectly legal to make a copy.
I think it's ironic that you can complain about 'edging towards the Big Brother approved message' in a day and age when anyone, of any age, can watch pornography on the internet. When a judge has ruled that children have a constitutional right to purchase videogames where heads are ripped off and necks shitted down. When PG-13 movies contain content that would actually be censored in the 1940s. There is no Big Brother here. Imagine if the Grapes of Wrath movie would have stayed true to the book - nudity and socialism (oh no!). The government didn't force Lucas' or Spielberg's hand regarding their revisions.
Speaking of Spielberg, I haven't heard many complaints about his revisions of Close Encounters after it's release (twice). You pointed out E.T. He also revised his first film, Duel, going so far as to film some extra scenes months after the original airing on TV.
I think this strategy will hurt them. Basically, it sounds like they're merging their mobile and desktop OSes. How do you focus on things like energy efficiency that mobile devices demand while also keeping backwards compatibility and Windows under the hood? It's an OS with two GUIs.
I can see how the idea would appeal to Microsoft execs - they probably see it as finally expanding Windows to whatever device, a long term goal of theirs. But just like the previous MS tablets and the previous MS mobile OSes, it tries to do too much rather than do select things very well. One would think that Apple's success over the past decade would have taught these guys some lessons. Tablet purchases don't care about Windows compatibility. Windows compatibility matters for businesses who have implemented MS technologies in a way that makes them dependent on them. Mostly in the form of MS Office formats. If you need a computer for work you get a computer. Tablets are much better suited for reading and browsing the internet, two things nobody needs MS-specific technologies for, and business people will not use them as their primary work device anytime soon. Sure, there may be some bleed over, but it's foolish to think that MS's dominance in the business world will bleed over to the mobile space in any way that's significant. It hasn't worked with cell phones, which many use primarily for business, so why would it work for tablets?
They should have copied Apple. Make a mobile OS and make a desktop OS, not this strange combination of the two. Windows 8 just looks like a big fat juicy target for the malware coders. Limiting features enhances security, efficiency, and oftentimes usability.
I think that by chance a precise 50.0000000000% success rate would be more strange than a 66% one.
If I flip a coin thirty times and get twenty heads, would you presume that the coin is unfair? Would that really be so statistically bizarre? No. A precise 15 out of 30 would be much more bizarre, despite that there is a 50% chance of receiving a head on each flip.
I'm not saying that this device isn't measuring real physical reactions in some way, I'm just saying that they seem to correlate with truth/lies no better than chance guesses would. Basically, it's useless.
Slashdot Mirror
This may be a little off-topic, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think Obama is a lock for reelection. The Republicans were able to take so many congressional seats in 2010 because less people voted. When Obama's name is on the ticket hordes of people will make it to the polls who didn't bother with the midterm elections. Republicans just make it to the polls more consistently.
Trust me, these guys are almost as embarrassing to most Democrats as the Tea Party is to most Republicans. They're probably the same jackasses that want to ban dodgeball and give every team, win or lose, a trophy.
I'm not surprised they're Democrats either, but that doesn't make me want to vote Republican.
mod this up!
Being bullied and being raped aren't comparable. They may both be negative things that happen to a person, but one can't expect the government to shelter them from all negative things. Not only is it unreasonable to mandate being nice, it's probably unethical.
I think this attitude of putting the founding fathers on a pedestal is silly. The morons today aren't the problem, the problem is the system the founding fathers put in place that rewards morons with political power. The system was designed to govern 13 states 200 years ago, not 50 from coast to coast in modern times.
Our best hope for the future is to completely scrap the Constitution in favor of a document that accounts for modern realities.
Also, the founding fathers, with the exception of maybe Jefferson (who wasn't a primary architect of the Constitution, although he had influence, especially concerning the Bill of Rights), sought to create a system to poor-person proof the system. It's designed to keep the power in what was then the bourgeoisie - a class of Americans who often had serious European aristocracy envy. Considering this, should anyone be surprised by the wealth disparity in this country?
That's the most racist shit I've ever heard.
Republicans voted for every civil rights act? What about The Civil Rights Act of 1964? Although the 'solid south' Dems were the ones who tried to filibuster it, ones like Strom Thurmond changed parties after the bill's passage. Racists never forgave Kennedy/LBJ for the bill, which resulted in the solidly Democratic south turning solidly Republican. Furthermore, Byrd often sided with Republicans, especially late in his career, but he was too much of a moderate to be a true example of either party's values. It is notable that he later said that his top regrets in life were his association with the KKK and his filibuster of The Civil Rights Act.
One thing to note about The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is that voting was most strictly divided by region rather than party. More Republicans voted for it than Democrats, but every southern Republican voted against the bill. More northern Democratic voted for the bill than northern Republicans (both in number and %, at the time the Democrats had a large majority in congress - hence more southern Democrats voted against the bill, but less as a %)
The fact of the matter is that LBJ knew that passing the bill would likely result in losing the solid Democratic south but he did it anyway. He threw away political advantage to do what's right (had it not been for Vietnam LBJ would have been a damn good president overall).
Not to mention that common Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater voted against the bill, saying, "You can't legislate morality."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
So there's your citation. Passage of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 by a Democratic president turned the south against the Democratic party. If you want a second citation I present The Tea Party.
Not all Republicans are racist, but it's a definite trend in the south. Not all Democrats are paternalistic, but it's a definite trend in New York and California.
btw - being the 'south' during the Civil War didn't make them on the wrong side. Lincoln was on the wrong side. If legislation without representation is a true justification for the Revolutionary War, then the same must apply to the Civil War. The south didn't have a large enough population to represent it's vastly larger geography in the United States government. The system was rigged against them and that's what the war was about. It wasn't Lincoln's abolitionist crusade as everyone likes to believe (it's just another good example of history written by the winners).
How ironic, considering that film glorifies the life of a gangster who abused his position as a union leader to steal goods from ships in Cleveland. Not to mention that he killed dozens of people and used his status as an FBI informant to further his criminal agenda.
in fact, the average person is just as qualified to judge issues of 'right and wrong' as any judge or laywer. its not hard. if its hard, you're doing it wrong
I have to disagree with you there. Ethics is extremely difficult because often times a logically sound argument can be made for either side of an issue. Oftentimes it requires a lot of nuance that a lot of people just don't understand. Only extremely basic moral issues have intrinsic answers that require little to no nuanced deliberation.
Think about it this way: the most common degree for a politician is law. Politicians are the ones who write (well, at least pass into law) these dumbass immoral pieces of legislation. While I believe some Ethics classes are required for a degree in law, every lawyer I've met seemed to know much more about gaming the legal system than normative theories.
So while your statement may have a bit of truth - that the everyman knows about as much as judges, lawyers, and politicians about right and wrong - I disagree with the 'it's not hard or you're doing it wrong' part. It is hard and very few people do it right. To make matters worse, a comprehensive understanding of morality is most likely to repel one to a job in the legal system because it's so hopelessly corrupt. At some point those careers - providing legal counsel, lobbying, prosecuting, judging, etc. - they will conflict with morality if you wish to make money from them (unless you just love writing contracts and aiding divorces).
This Robert M. Pirsig quote is kind of backwards from the topic at hand but I think it applies nicely:
You have as much chance convincing a psychiatrist that the intellectual order he enforces is rotten as you have of convincing a cop that the social order he supports is rotten. If they ever believed you they'd have to quit their jobs.
In our system legality trumps justice every time.
Actually, this happens, especially in private hospitals. Where I live, the two hospitals in our town merged to form one mega-hospital. One was a 'community' hospital whereas the other was owned by some Catholic corporation. The Catholic hospital basically took over the community one. I remember immediately after the business deals were completed, some nurses were complaining about how they had to turn down all these patients because they weren't 'emergencies' according to new guidelines implemented by the Catholic corporation. Oftentimes people would suffer from something, get turned down, and then they'd have to return a week or so later when their condition worsened to emergency status. Of course, this is detrimental to the patient and also can end up costing the hospital more to treat them.
People go to the emergency room for non-emergencies because they don't have health care, and if they do, it's shitty to the point where they still can't afford to make an appointment with a doctor. If everyone was just taxed for full-coverage health care then there would be less emergencies because more people would go to the doctor for check-ups rather than waiting until a condition becomes unbearable enough to warrant going to the emergency room.
they don't realise what it would be like if huge swathes of society was deprived of adequate education - society would grind to a halt.
Kind of like what has happened to the U.S. over the past decade?
Exactly. Taking sides doesn't do any good. Sending letters to your congressman does.
And whatever happened to Diaspora?
They were dumb enough to name it "Diaspora." Cornering the vast Jewish market, a surefire strategy for success. The analogy is actually a pretty good one, but you can't market a product with such an odd-ball, non-catchy name. Other product names that make me shudder from their ineptitude: LibreOffice, Gimp, and duckduckgo.
I don't think you get it. Colonel Korn is saying that the criticism can be valid, whether Spotify has the right to make this decision or not. He's not suggesting that those who criticize Spotify for this decision should continue using the service begrudgingly - in fact, I'm sure many who are criticizing Spotify on this forum have never used it and don't intend to - but that doesn't invalidate their criticisms.
To me, "Don't like it? Use another service" seems to say, "don't make an issue of that which you disagree with unless it is forced upon you." While following this maxim may result in less whiners throughout the world, it would also result in turning a blind eye to that which is deserving of criticism. To which I have to say: "Don't like trivial criticisms? Don't visit Slashdot."
FB is an actual forum. Just because you're privacy-conscious and/or anti-social does not make FB a bad thing.
Yes, because being privacy-conscious and/or anti-social are obviously bad things. And those are the choices one has if they don't like FB. They're privacy-conscious and/or anti-social.
Nice false dichotomy. Here's a better one: A person uses FB either because they lack individuality and can't think for themselves or because they have such low self-esteem they need to participate in a grand social network to develop a phony sense of worth.
Also, you're right that being privacy-conscious and/or anti-social doesn't make FB a bad thing. What makes FB a bad thing is their lack of morals as a business, most often related to their unconcern for privacy. I would also argue that they're working to mold society into something detrimental to society itself: it prioritizes social status over intellectual status, which is a devolution that has been occurring in American schools since the 50s. It encourages groupthink and ostracizes those who refuse to participate from the greater society.
So, yes, Facebook is a bad thing.
So you'll probably end up buying products from companies just as or more corrupt. I'm not saying you shouldn't take morality into account when making your buying decisions, just don't fool yourself into thinking these two companies are exceptional in their corruption. The sad truth is that it's probably impossible to actually know whether you buy things from an ethical business.
I mean, you buy food, right? The evil of the food industry is like Bernie Madoff compared to the carnival-like shenanigans of EA/Sony. And then look at EA/Sony's main competitors: Activision/Microsoft respectively.
Perhaps if the U.S. gov't could actually put business on a leash like the E.U. does, we wouldn't encounter these problems. Writing to your congressman will do much more than boycotting EA and Sony products.
You're the second person I've seen refer to Samsung products as 'quality.' They make cheap shit.
Car analogy: A Maserati owner is more likely to be proud of their car (I mean, suffer an 'inferiority complex and see the brand as a religion') than a Chevy Aveo owner. And Chevy Aveo owners are more likely to spite those with nice cars and assume that having good taste is elitist snobbery.
Quality. I don't think that word means what you think it means. It doesn't mean functional. It means better than functional.
If it was so obvious, then how come pre-iPhone every smartphone was either a Blackberry or a Blackberry wannabe? Post-iPhone practically every phone on the market looks like an iPhone, works like an iPhone, and RIM is a financial mess and also utilizing the 'copy-Apple' playbook.
I guess that's the problem with Apple's minimalist designs. It's always 'obvious' after they come out.
Really, this is Samsung's fault. All they had to do is use icons that differentiated the phone from the iPhone but instead they wanted their product to be mistaken for an iPhone, right down the the icons and the little spinny-loading thing. At least when Windows came out, they called the trash can the 'recycling bin' and moved the desktop icons from the right side of the screen to the left and used an hourglass loading icon. At least they were semi-conscious of copying.
What's bad for one part of the economy may be good for another part. What's 'good' for the economy is a matter of debate. I know it's a tiredly overused example, but if you owned stock in Halliburton in 2000 and hung onto it I'm sure you'd think that these pointless wars are pretty good for the economy.
Overall, I agree with your comments, but I don't think the pointless wars were a major drag on our economy. If anything, they probably helped. Lowering taxes during wartime - now that's a classic economic no-no which deserves more blame for this economic mess than the wars themselves. You don't do it b/c 1) wars cost money 2) lowering taxes just increases the rate of inflation and 3) it's good practice to lower taxes after the troops come home and get settled down (economic drag - increased supply of workers so the laborer's value is reduced). It's a historic pattern with a major exception being the 50s (the Great Depression and post-Vietnam are great examples of this).
At least, that's how I understand it as a layman.
Even if he did ruin it, which is debatable, how is it not his right? If Da Vinci had decided to burn the Mona Lisa before his death, or perhaps just whimsically add a comic mustache, would the act be immoral? Would he have no right to do so? Would he deserve to eat garbage and die?
Furthermore, if he's such an idiot, then how did he make three movies that were good enough that they could be ruined somehow?
Fan fiction. What more is there to say?
And when that wears out, become a pirate? It's that or accept the revisionist history.
Or you can copy the VHS onto another VHS. Or you can copy the VHS onto your computer digitally, and burn a DVD (or just watch it straight off your HDD or copy it to a flash drive or any other medium).
As long as you don't start selling your copies for profit or start giving them away in massive quantities to undermine sales of George Lucas' current offerings, then it's perfectly legal to make a copy.
I think it's ironic that you can complain about 'edging towards the Big Brother approved message' in a day and age when anyone, of any age, can watch pornography on the internet. When a judge has ruled that children have a constitutional right to purchase videogames where heads are ripped off and necks shitted down. When PG-13 movies contain content that would actually be censored in the 1940s. There is no Big Brother here. Imagine if the Grapes of Wrath movie would have stayed true to the book - nudity and socialism (oh no!). The government didn't force Lucas' or Spielberg's hand regarding their revisions.
Speaking of Spielberg, I haven't heard many complaints about his revisions of Close Encounters after it's release (twice). You pointed out E.T. He also revised his first film, Duel, going so far as to film some extra scenes months after the original airing on TV.
I think this strategy will hurt them. Basically, it sounds like they're merging their mobile and desktop OSes. How do you focus on things like energy efficiency that mobile devices demand while also keeping backwards compatibility and Windows under the hood? It's an OS with two GUIs.
I can see how the idea would appeal to Microsoft execs - they probably see it as finally expanding Windows to whatever device, a long term goal of theirs. But just like the previous MS tablets and the previous MS mobile OSes, it tries to do too much rather than do select things very well. One would think that Apple's success over the past decade would have taught these guys some lessons. Tablet purchases don't care about Windows compatibility. Windows compatibility matters for businesses who have implemented MS technologies in a way that makes them dependent on them. Mostly in the form of MS Office formats. If you need a computer for work you get a computer. Tablets are much better suited for reading and browsing the internet, two things nobody needs MS-specific technologies for, and business people will not use them as their primary work device anytime soon. Sure, there may be some bleed over, but it's foolish to think that MS's dominance in the business world will bleed over to the mobile space in any way that's significant. It hasn't worked with cell phones, which many use primarily for business, so why would it work for tablets?
They should have copied Apple. Make a mobile OS and make a desktop OS, not this strange combination of the two. Windows 8 just looks like a big fat juicy target for the malware coders. Limiting features enhances security, efficiency, and oftentimes usability.
I think that by chance a precise 50.0000000000% success rate would be more strange than a 66% one.
If I flip a coin thirty times and get twenty heads, would you presume that the coin is unfair? Would that really be so statistically bizarre? No. A precise 15 out of 30 would be much more bizarre, despite that there is a 50% chance of receiving a head on each flip.
I'm not saying that this device isn't measuring real physical reactions in some way, I'm just saying that they seem to correlate with truth/lies no better than chance guesses would. Basically, it's useless.
Even if we were able to create a 100% accurate lie detector, would using it be moral?
I'm not sure, but I have doubts.