What are you talking about? AMD aside, Intel and Microsoft have long had a "special" relationship. Whether that's proper or not is another issue.
Indeed -- at WinHEC this year, Intel and Seagate (along with another manufacturer I can't remember) comprised the "first class" sponsors, meaning they helped pay a huge chunk for the event. And Microsoft and Intel were obviously shmoozing throughout the conference. I wasn't surprised by it at all. What surprises me is that others are surprised.
They should shoot out the tires, and if they can't do that, shoot out the driver. To go 120 mph to catch up to someone going 80 in a 70 to give them a ticket is absurd. If it's safe for them to go that fast, how can it be unsafe for the person only going 10 over the limit?
People (such as cops) can be trained to drive fast, as safely as possible. People can also be trained to perform open heart surgery. That doesn't mean we allow just any freak to do it. The road devolves to the lowest common denominator. As far shooting out tires/drivers, are you completely nuts? That's something from the movies. I personally don't want bullets flying around my city and bouncing into my house unless there is an obvious and immediate threat to life or limb. Nor do I want cars being driven by dead drivers careening across highway barriers at 80 miles per hour.
And anyway, the police give chase not for the speeding but because the individual is fleeing from the police. The moment you refuse to pull over you're already committing a completely different crime than speeding.
Why is the sun's surface temperature held up as some standard of "hot?" The coronosphere is about 1 million C (or Kelvin, by that point they're basically the same). The core of the sun is ~15 million C. 5600 C is pretty cold.
So, three corporations getting together and secretly agreeing to set prices at a certain point is wrong. But what if these three corporations instead merged their corresponding divisions into a single entity, beholden to the original corporations through stock? Now it's one company, and surely it can set prices how it sees fit without being accused of collusion. So why is one of these scenarios accepted while the other is anathema? In both cases there is a reduction of competition.
If I were a Microsoft investor I might be a little bit annoyed by high ranking employees contributing valuable IP to another company.
I wouldn't be, necessarily. More likely, this is attempt by MS to shmooze around with IV to try to get special consideration. Further down the road, when MS wants to license IP from IV, they might get a better deal since they've been cooperating up-front. So it's a gamble but I wouldn't say a direct violation of the investor's trust, or fiduciary responsibility.
Yes, due process protects the innocent. And under US law, everyone is (or perhaps "should be" is more accurate nowadays) innocent until a judge decides they have been proven guilty. It doesn't matter how sure the cops are that you're guilty; there must be due process until the end of the trial.
You are either guilty or you are not. Before judgement this is not known, but it doesn't change. Due process exists to protect the defendent in case he is innocent, and guilt can't be determined without that due process. But the point is not to provide protection for those who are ultimately found guilty. It ensures that a system is in place which attempts to prevent the innocent from being punished.
I think it's weird that people have to be woken up by something. As if you didn't have the noise, you'd just keep on sleeping... forever. Van Winkle style.
I wake up at the same time every morning. Whether I stayed up an hour past usual, whether I drank a few beers before bed, anything. If I need to wake up earlier on a particular day, I tell myself this as I fall asleep, and I wake up earlier. Does this not happen to other people?
I would imagine it's painful for the very first event of each day to be a sudden jolt into consciousness with an annoying sound. Not that I blame anyone for not doing it like I do, it just seems like it would suck.
I hate how cell phones immediately "demand" to be picked up. If you don't pick up you've got to listen to some damn message - and you're sitting wondering about the content of the message until you listen to it.
It's not in the public interest to know how much public money MSFT is getting and for what?
That's not what is being claimed. The information IS in the public interest -- the argument is that Microsoft's commercial interest is MORE IMPORTANT than the public interest. Which I think is even worse-sounding that what you said.
You see how it works? Due process is needed for everyone, no matter how vile.
Due process isn't meant to protect the guilty, who, after all, will be incarcerated for their crimes. The guilty are protected only by the edict against cruel and unusual punishment. Due process is meant to protect the INNOCENT. Criminals are only granted "due process" because due process is the only legitimate way to determine IF they are guilty.
That would completely suck. Suppose you're an international traveller. You want to meet some clients at lunchtime. What time do you set the appointment for? You shouldn't have to calculate the precise number of miles you've travelled from your home in order to figure out the adjustment that "17" is noon at your place and "3" is noon at theirs. That's just awful.
Not to mention, how do you specify exact times anyway without also simultaneously specifying the precise longitude of the event? Your plan would eliminate timezones, essentially dividing the earth into an infinite number of zones. It's not really that hard to keep track of only 24 of them -- you can assume that somebody living 50 miles west of you is, on average, in the same timezone as you. But with your system nobody has a freaking clue what time you are talking about without doing mathematics. If the longitude of the location is not precisely known, then the time of the event isn't precisely known either.
There is no difference dimensionally between a lb-ft and a ft-lb. It's a conventional distinction only to clarify whether you mean work or torque. The reason the two quantities have the same unit is because one of them incorporates an angular term, which is dimensionless. From a dimensional standpoint there is no difference between a ft-lb and a lb-ft. Thus the danger of trying to equate dimensional units with physical variables.
What is this thing with Guinness? The only difference between Guinness and yellow American beer is the color. If you want a good stout there are plenty to choose from. Instead people seem to treat Guinness as some kind of stand-out because it's the only dark-colored beer available in many places. That doesn't make it unique or even particularly good.
If you believe that, then you are effectively appointing yourself (or whoever runs the elections) to be the de facto King, and that's not a democracy anymore.
Voting intelligently doesn't mean voting for the "right candidate." It means having some rational basis for your vote. Suppose somebody votes by flipping a coin. This is not a meaningful contribution to the system. Votes should express real opinions hopefully based on real facts. Instead we have people who vote based on emotional impressions or single issues. They have the right to do this, but it's not helping to make the government a better representation of what people really need from their leaders.
Are we really so arrogant that we'd attempt something on so large a scale with so little hard fact to back up such a plan?
Of course we are. We've pumped hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere without apparently considering what that might do. If you're going to claim that we humans are too small and insignificant for such things to affect global climate, you certainly shouldn't expect anything else we do to have an effect, either.
That's nice in a science fiction story but in the real world hurricane modification research was curtailed because of the fear that unsuspected interactions would result in more damage not less.
That's just a sound bite. What actually happened was that researchers observed an eye-wall replacement cycle shortly after seeding clouds in a hurricane accompanied by significant weakening. Thing is, nobody had seen an eye-wall replacement cycle before and they didn't realize that this was just a natural phenomenon. Once we figured out that these things happen in the normal course of a hurricane's life it became obvious that the manipulations were probably not doing anything at all.
The idea that we could send hurricanes crashing into unsuspecting people through our manipulations was just an idea put forward by wackos and paranoids. We can't influence hurricanes, PERIOD, much less to that degree. It would be like blaming the butterfly in the butterfly effect.
Does this guy really thinks everyone has a website/blog/whatever only to make money?
When that person isn't currently making enough money to meet their basic needs? You bet. It would be sort of funny to watch someone slowly starve to death because they feel it's more important to provide free services to the world than to actually feed themselves. Thankfully we aren't quite there yet.
Everybody may not be greedy, but pretty much everybody wants to continue living.
You aren't distinguishing between real cost and opportunity cost. This isn't about greed, it's about the NEED to have income right now. A lower-middle class mother of three who used to maintain a blog for two hours every night simply doesn't have time any more. Those two hours are better spent making money so that her children don't have to starve to death next week. It's not about greed, or what you "want." You obviously make a lot of money.
This would be a great precedent. And the next time Microsoft is charged with something, part of the punishment would be losing "Windows" or maybe even the copyright on Office 2003 or something.
But that's not what is going on here. To continue your analogy, this would be equivalent of arresting people who USE Windows, because the trademark has somehow been tainted. Taking away the rights to a trademark is NOT the same thing as harassing people who happen to possess some object which contains that trademark.
Also, email is so easy to delete (as we've seen in the Bush Presidency). We should force all public officials to communicate on paper. Because using paper magically solves the problem of people being untrustworthy. In fact, this is a general solution to all political evil. Remove the electronics and do it on paper. It's PROVABLY SECURE!
Anything else means you have to trust the voting machine, or the people who verified the voting machine.
Because the people counting the paper ballot are implicitly trustworthy? For that matter, can you trust people to vote intelligently? The technology is just a piece of equipment. Trust is something we place in people, or not. The machine has nothing to do with it.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? AMD aside, Intel and Microsoft have long had a "special" relationship. Whether that's proper or not is another issue.
Indeed -- at WinHEC this year, Intel and Seagate (along with another manufacturer I can't remember) comprised the "first class" sponsors, meaning they helped pay a huge chunk for the event. And Microsoft and Intel were obviously shmoozing throughout the conference. I wasn't surprised by it at all. What surprises me is that others are surprised.
one of the David Cole-type holocaust deniers that is sincere and not motivated by anti-Semitism.
Why would an anti-Semite deny the holocaust? I would think they'd point at it and say "Hey, see this shit here? We need more of it."
They should shoot out the tires, and if they can't do that, shoot out the driver. To go 120 mph to catch up to someone going 80 in a 70 to give them a ticket is absurd. If it's safe for them to go that fast, how can it be unsafe for the person only going 10 over the limit?
People (such as cops) can be trained to drive fast, as safely as possible. People can also be trained to perform open heart surgery. That doesn't mean we allow just any freak to do it. The road devolves to the lowest common denominator. As far shooting out tires/drivers, are you completely nuts? That's something from the movies. I personally don't want bullets flying around my city and bouncing into my house unless there is an obvious and immediate threat to life or limb. Nor do I want cars being driven by dead drivers careening across highway barriers at 80 miles per hour.
And anyway, the police give chase not for the speeding but because the individual is fleeing from the police. The moment you refuse to pull over you're already committing a completely different crime than speeding.
Why is the sun's surface temperature held up as some standard of "hot?" The coronosphere is about 1 million C (or Kelvin, by that point they're basically the same). The core of the sun is ~15 million C. 5600 C is pretty cold.
So, three corporations getting together and secretly agreeing to set prices at a certain point is wrong. But what if these three corporations instead merged their corresponding divisions into a single entity, beholden to the original corporations through stock? Now it's one company, and surely it can set prices how it sees fit without being accused of collusion. So why is one of these scenarios accepted while the other is anathema? In both cases there is a reduction of competition.
If I were a Microsoft investor I might be a little bit annoyed by high ranking employees contributing valuable IP to another company.
I wouldn't be, necessarily. More likely, this is attempt by MS to shmooze around with IV to try to get special consideration. Further down the road, when MS wants to license IP from IV, they might get a better deal since they've been cooperating up-front. So it's a gamble but I wouldn't say a direct violation of the investor's trust, or fiduciary responsibility.
Yes, due process protects the innocent. And under US law, everyone is (or perhaps "should be" is more accurate nowadays) innocent until a judge decides they have been proven guilty. It doesn't matter how sure the cops are that you're guilty; there must be due process until the end of the trial.
You are either guilty or you are not. Before judgement this is not known, but it doesn't change. Due process exists to protect the defendent in case he is innocent, and guilt can't be determined without that due process. But the point is not to provide protection for those who are ultimately found guilty. It ensures that a system is in place which attempts to prevent the innocent from being punished.
I think it's weird that people have to be woken up by something. As if you didn't have the noise, you'd just keep on sleeping... forever. Van Winkle style.
I wake up at the same time every morning. Whether I stayed up an hour past usual, whether I drank a few beers before bed, anything. If I need to wake up earlier on a particular day, I tell myself this as I fall asleep, and I wake up earlier. Does this not happen to other people?
I would imagine it's painful for the very first event of each day to be a sudden jolt into consciousness with an annoying sound. Not that I blame anyone for not doing it like I do, it just seems like it would suck.
I hate how cell phones immediately "demand" to be picked up. If you don't pick up you've got to listen to some damn message - and you're sitting wondering about the content of the message until you listen to it.
Let me introduce the "off" button to you...
It's not in the public interest to know how much public money MSFT is getting and for what?
That's not what is being claimed. The information IS in the public interest -- the argument is that Microsoft's commercial interest is MORE IMPORTANT than the public interest. Which I think is even worse-sounding that what you said.
You see how it works? Due process is needed for everyone, no matter how vile.
Due process isn't meant to protect the guilty, who, after all, will be incarcerated for their crimes. The guilty are protected only by the edict against cruel and unusual punishment. Due process is meant to protect the INNOCENT. Criminals are only granted "due process" because due process is the only legitimate way to determine IF they are guilty.
I just want to tell you how AWESOME that idea is.
That would completely suck. Suppose you're an international traveller. You want to meet some clients at lunchtime. What time do you set the appointment for? You shouldn't have to calculate the precise number of miles you've travelled from your home in order to figure out the adjustment that "17" is noon at your place and "3" is noon at theirs. That's just awful.
Not to mention, how do you specify exact times anyway without also simultaneously specifying the precise longitude of the event? Your plan would eliminate timezones, essentially dividing the earth into an infinite number of zones. It's not really that hard to keep track of only 24 of them -- you can assume that somebody living 50 miles west of you is, on average, in the same timezone as you. But with your system nobody has a freaking clue what time you are talking about without doing mathematics. If the longitude of the location is not precisely known, then the time of the event isn't precisely known either.
It gives me a headache even thinking about it.
As an added benefit, the concentration of mass near the equator would increase the earth's moment of inertia and make the day longer...
There is no difference dimensionally between a lb-ft and a ft-lb. It's a conventional distinction only to clarify whether you mean work or torque. The reason the two quantities have the same unit is because one of them incorporates an angular term, which is dimensionless. From a dimensional standpoint there is no difference between a ft-lb and a lb-ft. Thus the danger of trying to equate dimensional units with physical variables.
What is this thing with Guinness? The only difference between Guinness and yellow American beer is the color. If you want a good stout there are plenty to choose from. Instead people seem to treat Guinness as some kind of stand-out because it's the only dark-colored beer available in many places. That doesn't make it unique or even particularly good.
If you believe that, then you are effectively appointing yourself (or whoever runs the elections) to be the de facto King, and that's not a democracy anymore.
Voting intelligently doesn't mean voting for the "right candidate." It means having some rational basis for your vote. Suppose somebody votes by flipping a coin. This is not a meaningful contribution to the system. Votes should express real opinions hopefully based on real facts. Instead we have people who vote based on emotional impressions or single issues. They have the right to do this, but it's not helping to make the government a better representation of what people really need from their leaders.
Are we really so arrogant that we'd attempt something on so large a scale with so little hard fact to back up such a plan?
Of course we are. We've pumped hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere without apparently considering what that might do. If you're going to claim that we humans are too small and insignificant for such things to affect global climate, you certainly shouldn't expect anything else we do to have an effect, either.
You're calling this person's explicit memory of what was taught in school a "myth?" Weird. I think your third birthday was a myth...
That's nice in a science fiction story but in the real world hurricane modification research was curtailed because of the fear that unsuspected interactions would result in more damage not less.
That's just a sound bite. What actually happened was that researchers observed an eye-wall replacement cycle shortly after seeding clouds in a hurricane accompanied by significant weakening. Thing is, nobody had seen an eye-wall replacement cycle before and they didn't realize that this was just a natural phenomenon. Once we figured out that these things happen in the normal course of a hurricane's life it became obvious that the manipulations were probably not doing anything at all.
The idea that we could send hurricanes crashing into unsuspecting people through our manipulations was just an idea put forward by wackos and paranoids. We can't influence hurricanes, PERIOD, much less to that degree. It would be like blaming the butterfly in the butterfly effect.
Does this guy really thinks everyone has a website/blog/whatever only to make money?
When that person isn't currently making enough money to meet their basic needs? You bet. It would be sort of funny to watch someone slowly starve to death because they feel it's more important to provide free services to the world than to actually feed themselves. Thankfully we aren't quite there yet.
Everybody may not be greedy, but pretty much everybody wants to continue living.
You aren't distinguishing between real cost and opportunity cost. This isn't about greed, it's about the NEED to have income right now. A lower-middle class mother of three who used to maintain a blog for two hours every night simply doesn't have time any more. Those two hours are better spent making money so that her children don't have to starve to death next week. It's not about greed, or what you "want." You obviously make a lot of money.
This would be a great precedent. And the next time Microsoft is charged with something, part of the punishment would be losing "Windows" or maybe even the copyright on Office 2003 or something.
But that's not what is going on here. To continue your analogy, this would be equivalent of arresting people who USE Windows, because the trademark has somehow been tainted. Taking away the rights to a trademark is NOT the same thing as harassing people who happen to possess some object which contains that trademark.
Also, email is so easy to delete (as we've seen in the Bush Presidency). We should force all public officials to communicate on paper. Because using paper magically solves the problem of people being untrustworthy. In fact, this is a general solution to all political evil. Remove the electronics and do it on paper. It's PROVABLY SECURE!
Anything else means you have to trust the voting machine, or the people who verified the voting machine.
Because the people counting the paper ballot are implicitly trustworthy? For that matter, can you trust people to vote intelligently? The technology is just a piece of equipment. Trust is something we place in people, or not. The machine has nothing to do with it.