Software is too complicated to be labelled "defective" just becuase it has bugs.
Just about everything is "too complicated" to be labeled "defective" if you're going to take that approach.
But "defective" is simply as defective does.
If your car engine tears itself apart after 10k miles because a piston was made out of tolerance that is a defect because the part is a piston, not due any actual property of the object itself. It's role is to play a part in a system, and it is the system that defines the defect.
Perhaps you are laboring under the misapprehension that that warranty guaruntees function. This is obvious nonsense as just about everything can only be guarunteed to not function under certain circumstances. Perfection does not exist if only because perfection is defined by the environment.
A warranty simply states that the producing takes responsibility for certain failures.
Nope. Born in Manhatten to a Son of the American Revolution and a third gen Russian.
Adenbrot makes a lot of sense though, although I follow this variation, a large breakfast followed by a lot of smaller meals, "snacks" if you will, throughout the day as I bloody well feel I need 'em. The whole three meals a day thing is a "tradition" that comes out of factory work; and I'm not a factory worker.
This fridge/oven thing really does sound like a very expensive TV dinner cooker to me and I really don't get it. Americans have some of the most peculiar ideas about eating.
Well, yes, actually. Pretty much.Maybe sometime next week. Maybe as early as tomorrow.
This is the Gates/Ballmer/et al who constantly show their unlimited arrogance by claiming that what they want trumps law. Essentially they deny the sovreignity of nations outright.
And yet here is this defense of Google complying with Chinese law.
To the casual observer this may appear to be hypocritical, even insane, behavior, but it isn't. It's following a set of simple ethical rules with perfect consistency.
How does Microsoft decide when it wants to defend/comply with law and when it wishes to throw a chair at it?
Follow the money into Microsoft's pocket. It's that simple.
As he/it know no other ethics you can be assured that any "ethical" stance Gates seems to be taking is merely a defense of the company's profits. Which it does with perfect consistency.
Tell me about it. As I posted elsewhere just today I am a celiac, and it is in those "natural and artificial flavors" I can find distress. Perhaps even death under the right (or wrong, as it were) circumstances.
But despite my answer being a bit flip the essential point remains, that the government already regulates and has the authority to inspect all food ingredients.
This is not at all the same thing as publicly violating their trade secrets without cause. With cause the public welfare tends to trump trade secrets, which is why the ingredients list exists in the first place.
I really can't believe how anyone could sympathize with government sponsored censorship.
The author clearly felt bad enough about what Google has done to stop using it.
But then he felt bad about not being able to use Google.
So he has concocted a rationalization that allows him to use Google without feeling bad about it and even extended it to the point where he can feel proud of himself for it.
The problem is that people have lost sight of the essential function of a warrant:
To have third party look at the evidence and render a judgement on whether or not the "suspicion" is legally justifiable in the first place.
Otherwise the only difference between an "ordinary American citizen" and somone "the government is suspicious of" is the level of paranoia of the government, not any actual action on the part of the citizen.
KFG
Re:Michael Faraday and electricity
on
The New Boom
·
· Score: 1
How much money did Faraday invest in the business side of his discoveries before he had an idea how to turn a profit on them?
Wait a minute, I read the article and didnt find what law Google is breaking here.
Nobody said they were breaking any laws. They have been supeonaed to provide supporting evidence for a case in which they are not directly involved. They have refused to provide that evidence and the hearing is to have a judge decide whether they can be forced to or not.
It's SOP shit.
The only thing that makes it of any general interest is that the outcome of the case could affect us all.
I have CF and Celiac. Trust me, it's the Old World, brother. You're just about to emigrate is all. Being stripped and deloused is just part of the deal.
KFG
Re:Infrastructure not old business model
on
The New Boom
·
· Score: 1
Google shares are possibly over-hyped, but they reflect a very interesting perception: that the Internet is now good for something, but that we don't know where it is going.
Ah, well, when you put it that way it's obviously totally different from the bubble.
Not many people are interested in donating a lot of their time outside of whatever they do to make money, in order to provide people with free software.
However, the very existence of free software is evidence that a sufficient number of people are, even discounting the fact that many people are actually paid to produce free software.
Also, bear in mind that most of the cost of the Ford is for the physical object, not the design, whereas for software the cost of the physical object may well be nil and it is only the design phase that requires labor/money.
What would a Ford sell for if there were Star Trek type duplicators?
Well, actually, quite possibly a lot because Ford would at least attempt to buy legislation to make their use restricted/illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Software is too complicated to be labelled "defective" just becuase it has bugs.
Just about everything is "too complicated" to be labeled "defective" if you're going to take that approach.
But "defective" is simply as defective does.
If your car engine tears itself apart after 10k miles because a piston was made out of tolerance that is a defect because the part is a piston, not due any actual property of the object itself. It's role is to play a part in a system, and it is the system that defines the defect.
Perhaps you are laboring under the misapprehension that that warranty guaruntees function. This is obvious nonsense as just about everything can only be guarunteed to not function under certain circumstances. Perfection does not exist if only because perfection is defined by the environment.
A warranty simply states that the producing takes responsibility for certain failures.
KFG
Nope. Born in Manhatten to a Son of the American Revolution and a third gen Russian.
Adenbrot makes a lot of sense though, although I follow this variation, a large breakfast followed by a lot of smaller meals, "snacks" if you will, throughout the day as I bloody well feel I need 'em. The whole three meals a day thing is a "tradition" that comes out of factory work; and I'm not a factory worker.
This fridge/oven thing really does sound like a very expensive TV dinner cooker to me and I really don't get it. Americans have some of the most peculiar ideas about eating.
KFG
I was thinking Rover, myself.
KFG
. . .if I needed to cook a prime rib. . .
Be honest now, when was the last time you needed to cook a prime rib? From work?
Isn't it sometimes better just to make a more reasonbable choice? Maybe a nice bread and cheese or something?
KFG
I read the story and find out it's not really a GIANT Octopus
Well, ok, what would you call a 1 pound ameoba?
KFG
Well, yes, actually. Pretty much.Maybe sometime next week. Maybe as early as tomorrow.
This is the Gates/Ballmer/et al who constantly show their unlimited arrogance by claiming that what they want trumps law. Essentially they deny the sovreignity of nations outright.
And yet here is this defense of Google complying with Chinese law.
To the casual observer this may appear to be hypocritical, even insane, behavior, but it isn't. It's following a set of simple ethical rules with perfect consistency.
How does Microsoft decide when it wants to defend/comply with law and when it wishes to throw a chair at it?
Follow the money into Microsoft's pocket. It's that simple.
As he/it know no other ethics you can be assured that any "ethical" stance Gates seems to be taking is merely a defense of the company's profits. Which it does with perfect consistency.
KFG
And build a Dyson Sphere.
KFG
People can rationalize anything, sadly.
In the 60s we had a phrase for this particular rationalization.
We called it, "Fucking for Chastity."
KFG
ingredients: natural and artificial flavors.
Tell me about it. As I posted elsewhere just today I am a celiac, and it is in those "natural and artificial flavors" I can find distress. Perhaps even death under the right (or wrong, as it were) circumstances.
But despite my answer being a bit flip the essential point remains, that the government already regulates and has the authority to inspect all food ingredients.
This is not at all the same thing as publicly violating their trade secrets without cause. With cause the public welfare tends to trump trade secrets, which is why the ingredients list exists in the first place.
Which saves my life, thank you very much.
KFG
I really can't believe how anyone could sympathize with government sponsored censorship.
The author clearly felt bad enough about what Google has done to stop using it.
But then he felt bad about not being able to use Google.
So he has concocted a rationalization that allows him to use Google without feeling bad about it and even extended it to the point where he can feel proud of himself for it.
SOP.
KFG
what if Europe demanded to know the secret ingredients to certain food products
They could just read the required by law ingredients label, just like everyone else.
KFG
All of the examples you give have one thing in common though, they are crimes.
i.e. they are prosecutable by complaint of the state and punishable by incarceration, leaving one with a permanent criminal record.
What we are discussing here are civil violations prosecutable only by the party claiming injury which leaves one with nothing but a debt.
KFG
The problem is that people have lost sight of the essential function of a warrant:
To have third party look at the evidence and render a judgement on whether or not the "suspicion" is legally justifiable in the first place.
Otherwise the only difference between an "ordinary American citizen" and somone "the government is suspicious of" is the level of paranoia of the government, not any actual action on the part of the citizen.
KFG
How much money did Faraday invest in the business side of his discoveries before he had an idea how to turn a profit on them?
KFG
Wait a minute, I read the article and didnt find what law Google is breaking here.
Nobody said they were breaking any laws. They have been supeonaed to provide supporting evidence for a case in which they are not directly involved. They have refused to provide that evidence and the hearing is to have a judge decide whether they can be forced to or not.
It's SOP shit.
The only thing that makes it of any general interest is that the outcome of the case could affect us all.
KFG
Brave new world, indeed.
I have CF and Celiac. Trust me, it's the Old World, brother. You're just about to emigrate is all. Being stripped and deloused is just part of the deal.
KFG
Google shares are possibly over-hyped, but they reflect a very interesting perception: that the Internet is now good for something, but that we don't know where it is going.
Ah, well, when you put it that way it's obviously totally different from the bubble.
KFG
Finally? They likely didn't run it to avoid a dupe. We've been here before.
KFG
i'm completley convinced that for using email, web browser, iPhoto, etc.. that the new iiMacs wipe the floor with comparably priced PPC macs.
Yeah, the PPCs are faster than human perception, and the Intels are faster than that.
KFG
Not many people are interested in donating a lot of their time outside of whatever they do to make money, in order to provide people with free software.
However, the very existence of free software is evidence that a sufficient number of people are, even discounting the fact that many people are actually paid to produce free software.
Also, bear in mind that most of the cost of the Ford is for the physical object, not the design, whereas for software the cost of the physical object may well be nil and it is only the design phase that requires labor/money.
What would a Ford sell for if there were Star Trek type duplicators?
Well, actually, quite possibly a lot because Ford would at least attempt to buy legislation to make their use restricted/illegal.
See Microsoft, et al.
KFG
The problem is that you give a bill to only one person. Most disease is not like that.
.wait for it, wait for it. . .
Because you give more than one bill to more than one person. Doorknobs and money are the most common way to transmit contact diseases.
If you wish to follow the flu virus. .
Follow the money.
KFG
Are human beings nothing more than complicated animals working through complex, predictable behavior?
The motion of a molecule within a gas is random. The gas follows the ideal gas law as the aggregate average of all the randomly moving molecules.
You yourself are no more predictable as a physical object than the average of the probability functions of all your subatomic particles.
Predictable macro behavior does not imply predictable micro behavior.
Am I just a statistic?
What happens if you remove the word "just" from this sentence?
KFG
If you need to cut a foot long piece of thread off the spool and you have a micrometer, why not use it?
KFG
Ok, show of hands:
How many people here have bought SCO lately?
KFG
Yes, but the difference between market valuation and tangible assets is unrelated to the goodwill in Google's balance sheets.
What on earth do the balance sheets have to do with it?
Go buy and sell a few companies.
KFG