Isn't this issue really about the asthetics of power lines strung from pole to pole? Utility poles with all sorts of wires and transformers and such hanging off of them look ugly, which is why cities and some rich towns make the utility companies bury the lines, at least in downtown areas and near parks and such where people want to feel good about their surroundings. This whole economic argument seems a bit silly. It is more expensive, but it looks that much nicer. Besides that, sure there are some benefits, but they seem to be balanced by some dowsides. Overall I would say it is just a matter of how much more expensive it is, but that is likely to vary over the life of the installation considering the varying costs for different materials and types of labor.
But in terms of asthetics, burying utility lines is the obviously better choice.
Had some company gone to the government and said "I want that person's land", and the government tried to seize that land to force that sale, that would have been a Very Very Bad Thing. That would have been Unacceptable. But this really was a case of the government taking the land to itself for a public purpose, without being for the benefit of any identifiable predetermined private party. While the case still makes me uncomfortable, I think that key point makes it an acceptable and correct ruling.
What? You seem to be going through some hoops not to see this for what it was. So as long as the local politicians don't actually say who they are going to give the property to, whether it be some wealthier individual or corporation, until 10 minutes after they take it from you, then it is all well and good as long as the deed is actually held by the town for a moment? The Connecticut case was little more than government forcing a sale. The Supreme court redefined public purpose to mean that the public would benefit (as defined locally) rather than simply that the land would be used by the public.
But as angry as I am about that particular case. I think it does open up interesting possibilities. One of the biggest reasons for the property tax has been to keep land from being aggregated by individuals and families and not put to economic use. But if land can be taken (with compensation still) for the explicit purpose of reselling it for private development, as long as it serves the public purpose of bettering the economy or some other publicly defined purpose, then there is no legitimate fear of a landed class developing. So, the property tax can now be safely eliminated (with eminent domain laws that allow for seizure in the case of disuse) in favor of income and sales taxes which tax actual economic activity rather than an arbitrary perceptions of wealth.
Also, state laws could give renters the right to apply for eminent domain against the owners after a period of time, to support the public purpose of having more people own their own homes. Really the possibilities are intriguing.
Yes, maybe I read more into the previous statement, but it sounded as if the person was saying broadly that definitions are not useful to scientific theory instead of merely as scientific theories. Otherwise why make the point?
A definition is not strictly a scientific theory, but sometimes it can lead to them. Stay with the electron model for a second, if I say an electron has a certain mass and a certain charge, by definition and through observation. And then I go on further to propose a theory that all electrons behaves in a certain way. Then that theory is based upon the common definition of something called an electron and further it would seek to add to the definition of what an electron is. So, I would say that definitions themselves always contain testable theories and that just because you can't observe an infinite set of "things", doesn't mean that science doesn't allow for extrapolations based on the known set.
Even arbitrary definitions provide testable hypothesis. If I say that all electrons are "red", then based upon what we refer to as "red" as in a particular wavelength of light, then I could say that yes some electrons do contribute to the production of red light, but that it is only in association with other particles and only in certain circumstances. So it is useless as a common definition, because electrons can also contribute to the production of other wavelengths, but the assertion is testable. So, we started with a completely arbitrary definition and we are able to provide a theoretical framework to test its usefulness and correctness. I think it is that "usefulness" part of definition which is really where science has to come up with definitions of phenomena that aren't just consistent and accurate, but actually make it easier to decribe phenomena.
Unfortunately, our perceptions are not boundless in time and space, but scientific method has been dealing with extrapolation from the known to the unknown since the beginning.
Just because we can appreciate that something is infinite and therefore ultimately unknowable from our perspective, doesn't mean we have to be cowed by it and doesn't mean we can't make useful definitions.
That's actually an interesting point. If "cats", by definition, always have tails, then the statement "all cats have tails" is simply an arbitrary definition of "cat", rather than a useful scientific theory.
Seems rather useful to me. How else do you know what a cat is unless you can describe it consistently with a set of attributes? The same can be said for an electron having a negative charge or any other named thing having some physical property. Definition is important to describing a theory. And we shouldn't pretend that it isn't arbitrary, but the important thing is that it is consistent and useful.
But if a post states clearly that the author did not RTFA, then he or she deserves to be moderated down.
actually I stated clearly that I hadn't "heard" the arguments. And it wasn't immediately clear from the text of the teaser that there was an actual transcript of the radio show following those links or just some summary.
I just thought it was funny that slashdot was asking us to respond to something we hadn't heard. And I thought the question was easily answered simply based on the summary. Reading the transcript really was just icing on the cake in this cake.
If the carriers think they can get away charging more, let them try it.
Sure let them try charging their customers more. If I want google.com to download faster than the next guy, then charge me more. But going to google and saying that we are going to make it look like it is your company's fault for slow download speeds if you don't pay us a kickback, is not a legitamite business practice.
In fact I really don't see anything supporting this practice in the current law, so the only question I have is why the FTC and attorney generals wouldn't just prohibit it under existing laws.
I mean is it a legitamite practice for blackmailers to DoS attack a web site in order to exact extortion money? Why would the telecoms in effect doing the same thing be considered legitamite?
Did you know Microsoft, Google and Yahoo are lobbying for net neutrality? If they're successful, they'll get a special, low-government-set price for the bandwidth they use, while everyone else -- consumers, businesses and government -- will have to pay a competitive price for bandwidth. [It] doesn't sound very neutral to me.
But seriously does anyone believe that other guy when he says:
So, because google wants to be treated like everyone else, they are actually asking to be treated special?
And the boiler plate argument on the side is now that it is just some "fear" that we all have about the big bad telecoms... of course that fear isn't based on statements by their CEOs that it is their intention to start charging for lower latency as well as more bandwidth. I mean it is just a fear until they actually start doing it... even though they said they are going to do it. I mean how do you know someone is going to pull the trigger, until they actually do. And just because google and other companies have already said that the telecoms have approached them with these threats, I'm sure the telecoms where just kidding around. Those kidders.
Just wait, when the telecoms roll out their new hidden fees, they will just start calling it something else and tell us that all our "fears" where just irrational. And all that lack of choice we are left with is just "the market" and has nothing to do with their legitamite business practices.
Do you think the so called Acid2 test is a useful test for determing browser compliance with standards and if so then why? If it isn't a good test then is there a simple alternate test that could be more useful for browser developers?
Um, chances are that will NOT happen. Housing prices may flatten or even dip for a short while, but the historical trend of seriously rising home values will continue.
Funny thing about historical trends... historically they suck as predictors.
Housing prices can't outgrow incomes any more than they already have. People are stretched farther than they can go already, so to expect buyers to continue to be able to afford increases in housing costs that outpace incomes is not realistic except perhaps in some limited markets. Yes supply is somewhat constrained... except that most cities have a ways to go in terms of increasing density, but demand can only grow as incomes, wealth and population grow. And currently population growth is only being propped up by immigration. And immigration is following the economic growth, which is being propped up by foreign investments.
So heres how it is going to go... as soon as inflows of foreign capital start to dry up, we will see a decrease in economic activity, a decrease in immigration, and a decrease in the buying power of the dollar. All of which will cause a relative decrease in the cost of housing. At least relative to overall inflation, which may increase as the value of the dollar depreciates further. Like has been said we are lucky in that all our debt, personal and public, are denominated in our own currency. So unlike South American economies of the past, our economic fallout will likely be much more contained and most people of working age will derive a relative benefit because wealth will be destroyed, again, in relative terms. So with cost inflation, workers will put pressure on wages to increase, thus relatively speaking housing costs will again rise at a rate which is near inflation or indeed, as you suggest, drop for a time.
I am not preaching doom and gloom. There will be winners and losers, but the economy will continue, because that is life.
Couldn't this have terrible issues of misusage? Government could block off any area they desire... no pictures allowed (we could never uncover conspiracies then).
I prefer the phrase government corruption rather than "conspiracies".
Actually sounds like a good way to block security cameras and thwart the tendency governments seem to have at pervasive survailence. And if the government makes such devices illegal, then it is going to have to come up with some strict criteria which should curtail their "legal" use. After all jamming someone else's electronic device better be restricted to a very limited set of places or else it should not be limited at all.
One thing they point out is that prices for land and housing are 1/2 to 1/3 of what they are in, say, Chicago, and that while wages here aren't THAT much lower, they are lower.
And when housing prices in and near the big cities go back down at least relatively speaking, then you will likely see a reversal of that trend.
Problem with varying prices is that it might theoretically maximise revenues for the distributor, but it is a nightmare at the retail level to manage and it destroys consumer confidence.
Imagine if the price of a movie ticket varied with the length of the line in front of the ticket booth? There would be serious disincentive to getting in line in addition to the wait. Imagine going to the movie theatre and having to check not only the times but the prices? Imagine setting a date on Monday only to find out by Friday that you can't afford dinner and a movie.
Pricing flexibility based on short term demand works in some product areas, but it doesn't work when you are trying to establish a mass market. People need price stability in order to make plans for purchasing something, especially when it is as discretionary as a movie. Jobs realized this with itunes. Now tiered pricing may be possible based on some objective criteria such as new release or something, but if you have arbitrary tiers based on some industry formulation that isn't simple, then customers will be put off by it.
This isn't like gasoline for the car, where the station can piss off its customers all they want because we need to get to work. If prices vary in seemingly arbitrary ways in a discretionary mass market, then you will lose not just market share, but you will risk losing the market.
perhaps 'education' is best served by teaching students the principles of spreadsheets, wordprocessors, and presentations, rather than 'click button X to accomplish task Y'?
Yes, when I left school I could write using nothing other than a "number 2" pencil. It was a tragedy which left me ill prepared for college. If only they had taught me to use any pencil, a mechanical one or even a pen, then my life would have been changed forever.
Ah yes, there are some very good lawyers and some very bad lawyers, most are probably mediocre, just as in any profession.
Asshats that come along and say that non lawyers shouldn't talk about the law at all are very dangerous to society. Sure if someone says something that is incorrect and is unwilling to listen to the truth, then that is a problem and they can spread false information. But even when a person is wrong, we can all be better informed by the discussion, especially when someone who is better informed corrects the misinformed person.
Of course, then you have some people that think they are smart for just telling other people that they are dumb. Those are the ones we should just laugh and shake our heads at.
If you type in one of these terms on the search tool, first you receive an error message. If you then go back to make a new request, even with a neutral key word, yahoo.cn refuses to respond.
I wonder if it is better to let your customers search for things that will get them persecuted? If there is simply an error then Yahoo could probably get away with simply not logging the attempted search. So eventually when they are compelled to hand over search logs to the police then they can claim that it was simply an error and perhaps not log the attempt in any detail. And, except that it is now documented, it is so subtle that police would be none the wiser.
Then again this is precisely the type of thing authoritarian governments count on, that merely the threat of persecution is enough to suppress most challenges to their authority. Leaving the few real challenges to their authority to be dealt with harshly. Authoritarian and totalitarian governments really turn morality on its head and being honest about even the littlest thing might get yourself or someone else hurt or killed.
The OSS community has been calling out all the security vulnerabilities of Windows for quite some time and people now pretty much take it as fact... I wonder if Microsoft's new solution to security will just be a DRM'd closed platform where everything has to be signed by Microsoft in order to run. That would be security, if everything made to run under microsoft had to be approved by microsoft. Wouldn't quite be a computer anymore. But all you wonderful IT geeks out there having been pushing a locked down computer for years as a way to make computers secure... I think this is just going to come back and bite you now. Instead of your company's IT department dictating what you can and cannot put on your computer, it will be Microsoft.
You'll find original coverage that doesn't rely on republishing the same tired wire reports everyone else is cribbing from, and you'll see rather penetrating journalism that should make every other newspaper's Washington bureau filled with syncophants (of both parties) hang their heads in shame.
Nvidia is just better to its customers than ATI. In addition to linux support, nvidia has also supported stereo 3d gaming and simulation with pretty good stereoscopic versions of its drivers. I know the market segment for stereo 3d is relatively small, but it shows nvidia's willingness to respond to its customers needs.
The robot didn't actively kill him; it just wasn't programmed to know whether a person is there or not. It's like stepping into a giant blender without turning it off. There's isn't much morality to worry about.
And having the so called "three laws" built in to a robot without any sensors, is like telling a blind man that he must never step on an ant.
I'm sure the article was meant to be insightful, but are we really that stupid a species that we need to make all of our tools entirely fool proof? Then again most of our laws appear to be written by paranoid drunks, so perhaps they are on to something. If the world simply won't let us hurt ourselves by our own stupidity, then we can start drinking before noon even when we are not sitting by the pool on a sunny holiday.
Re:What's so complicated about this issue.
on
Net Neutrality or Not?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No, think of the pipes and wires that you use to go online as the car you pay for by renting. The question is, should the rental car actively resist the steering wheel when you pass by a burger king and instead redirect you to a McDonalds because McDonalds paid the rental car agency a bribe.
Or how about the metaphor of McDonalds charging you $10 for a big mac in the drive thru when they see you bought a new car or when you seem particularly hungry that day. Or the gas station charging $20 a gallon when there is a hurricane bearing down on your city and you are trying to escape. As long as the metaphor doesn't involve any practice that is considered legitamite in a free market then it is good with me.
Slashdot Mirror
if you want real wearable computing for simulation, then might as well get the real thing:
d itionDI.html
http://www.quantum3d.com/products/Expedition/Expe
Isn't this issue really about the asthetics of power lines strung from pole to pole? Utility poles with all sorts of wires and transformers and such hanging off of them look ugly, which is why cities and some rich towns make the utility companies bury the lines, at least in downtown areas and near parks and such where people want to feel good about their surroundings. This whole economic argument seems a bit silly. It is more expensive, but it looks that much nicer. Besides that, sure there are some benefits, but they seem to be balanced by some dowsides. Overall I would say it is just a matter of how much more expensive it is, but that is likely to vary over the life of the installation considering the varying costs for different materials and types of labor.
But in terms of asthetics, burying utility lines is the obviously better choice.
Had some company gone to the government and said "I want that person's land", and the government tried to seize that land to force that sale, that would have been a Very Very Bad Thing. That would have been Unacceptable. But this really was a case of the government taking the land to itself for a public purpose, without being for the benefit of any identifiable predetermined private party. While the case still makes me uncomfortable, I think that key point makes it an acceptable and correct ruling.
What? You seem to be going through some hoops not to see this for what it was. So as long as the local politicians don't actually say who they are going to give the property to, whether it be some wealthier individual or corporation, until 10 minutes after they take it from you, then it is all well and good as long as the deed is actually held by the town for a moment? The Connecticut case was little more than government forcing a sale. The Supreme court redefined public purpose to mean that the public would benefit (as defined locally) rather than simply that the land would be used by the public.
But as angry as I am about that particular case. I think it does open up interesting possibilities. One of the biggest reasons for the property tax has been to keep land from being aggregated by individuals and families and not put to economic use. But if land can be taken (with compensation still) for the explicit purpose of reselling it for private development, as long as it serves the public purpose of bettering the economy or some other publicly defined purpose, then there is no legitimate fear of a landed class developing. So, the property tax can now be safely eliminated (with eminent domain laws that allow for seizure in the case of disuse) in favor of income and sales taxes which tax actual economic activity rather than an arbitrary perceptions of wealth.
Also, state laws could give renters the right to apply for eminent domain against the owners after a period of time, to support the public purpose of having more people own their own homes. Really the possibilities are intriguing.
"Yes, but it's not a useful scientific theory."
Yes, maybe I read more into the previous statement, but it sounded as if the person was saying broadly that definitions are not useful to scientific theory instead of merely as scientific theories. Otherwise why make the point?
A definition is not strictly a scientific theory, but sometimes it can lead to them. Stay with the electron model for a second, if I say an electron has a certain mass and a certain charge, by definition and through observation. And then I go on further to propose a theory that all electrons behaves in a certain way. Then that theory is based upon the common definition of something called an electron and further it would seek to add to the definition of what an electron is. So, I would say that definitions themselves always contain testable theories and that just because you can't observe an infinite set of "things", doesn't mean that science doesn't allow for extrapolations based on the known set.
Even arbitrary definitions provide testable hypothesis. If I say that all electrons are "red", then based upon what we refer to as "red" as in a particular wavelength of light, then I could say that yes some electrons do contribute to the production of red light, but that it is only in association with other particles and only in certain circumstances. So it is useless as a common definition, because electrons can also contribute to the production of other wavelengths, but the assertion is testable. So, we started with a completely arbitrary definition and we are able to provide a theoretical framework to test its usefulness and correctness. I think it is that "usefulness" part of definition which is really where science has to come up with definitions of phenomena that aren't just consistent and accurate, but actually make it easier to decribe phenomena.
Unfortunately, our perceptions are not boundless in time and space, but scientific method has been dealing with extrapolation from the known to the unknown since the beginning.
Just because we can appreciate that something is infinite and therefore ultimately unknowable from our perspective, doesn't mean we have to be cowed by it and doesn't mean we can't make useful definitions.
That's actually an interesting point. If "cats", by definition, always have tails, then the statement "all cats have tails" is simply an arbitrary definition of "cat", rather than a useful scientific theory.
Seems rather useful to me. How else do you know what a cat is unless you can describe it consistently with a set of attributes? The same can be said for an electron having a negative charge or any other named thing having some physical property. Definition is important to describing a theory. And we shouldn't pretend that it isn't arbitrary, but the important thing is that it is consistent and useful.
But if a post states clearly that the author did not RTFA, then he or she deserves to be moderated down.
actually I stated clearly that I hadn't "heard" the arguments. And it wasn't immediately clear from the text of the teaser that there was an actual transcript of the radio show following those links or just some summary.
I just thought it was funny that slashdot was asking us to respond to something we hadn't heard. And I thought the question was easily answered simply based on the summary. Reading the transcript really was just icing on the cake in this cake.
If the carriers think they can get away charging more, let them try it.
Sure let them try charging their customers more. If I want google.com to download faster than the next guy, then charge me more. But going to google and saying that we are going to make it look like it is your company's fault for slow download speeds if you don't pay us a kickback, is not a legitamite business practice.
In fact I really don't see anything supporting this practice in the current law, so the only question I have is why the FTC and attorney generals wouldn't just prohibit it under existing laws.
I mean is it a legitamite practice for blackmailers to DoS attack a web site in order to exact extortion money? Why would the telecoms in effect doing the same thing be considered legitamite?
missign quote:
Did you know Microsoft, Google and Yahoo are lobbying for net neutrality? If they're successful, they'll get a special, low-government-set price for the bandwidth they use, while everyone else -- consumers, businesses and government -- will have to pay a competitive price for bandwidth. [It] doesn't sound very neutral to me.
I think Craig makes the strongest case.
But seriously does anyone believe that other guy when he says:
So, because google wants to be treated like everyone else, they are actually asking to be treated special?
And the boiler plate argument on the side is now that it is just some "fear" that we all have about the big bad telecoms... of course that fear isn't based on statements by their CEOs that it is their intention to start charging for lower latency as well as more bandwidth. I mean it is just a fear until they actually start doing it... even though they said they are going to do it. I mean how do you know someone is going to pull the trigger, until they actually do. And just because google and other companies have already said that the telecoms have approached them with these threats, I'm sure the telecoms where just kidding around. Those kidders.
Just wait, when the telecoms roll out their new hidden fees, they will just start calling it something else and tell us that all our "fears" where just irrational. And all that lack of choice we are left with is just "the market" and has nothing to do with their legitamite business practices.
...I would have to say Craig made the strongest case.
Do you think the so called Acid2 test is a useful test for determing browser compliance with standards and if so then why? If it isn't a good test then is there a simple alternate test that could be more useful for browser developers?
For your reference: http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html
Um, chances are that will NOT happen. Housing prices may flatten or even dip for a short while, but the historical trend of seriously rising home values will continue.
Funny thing about historical trends... historically they suck as predictors.
Housing prices can't outgrow incomes any more than they already have. People are stretched farther than they can go already, so to expect buyers to continue to be able to afford increases in housing costs that outpace incomes is not realistic except perhaps in some limited markets. Yes supply is somewhat constrained... except that most cities have a ways to go in terms of increasing density, but demand can only grow as incomes, wealth and population grow. And currently population growth is only being propped up by immigration. And immigration is following the economic growth, which is being propped up by foreign investments.
So heres how it is going to go... as soon as inflows of foreign capital start to dry up, we will see a decrease in economic activity, a decrease in immigration, and a decrease in the buying power of the dollar. All of which will cause a relative decrease in the cost of housing. At least relative to overall inflation, which may increase as the value of the dollar depreciates further. Like has been said we are lucky in that all our debt, personal and public, are denominated in our own currency. So unlike South American economies of the past, our economic fallout will likely be much more contained and most people of working age will derive a relative benefit because wealth will be destroyed, again, in relative terms. So with cost inflation, workers will put pressure on wages to increase, thus relatively speaking housing costs will again rise at a rate which is near inflation or indeed, as you suggest, drop for a time.
I am not preaching doom and gloom. There will be winners and losers, but the economy will continue, because that is life.
Couldn't this have terrible issues of misusage? Government could block off any area they desire ... no pictures allowed (we could never uncover conspiracies then).
I prefer the phrase government corruption rather than "conspiracies".
Actually sounds like a good way to block security cameras and thwart the tendency governments seem to have at pervasive survailence. And if the government makes such devices illegal, then it is going to have to come up with some strict criteria which should curtail their "legal" use. After all jamming someone else's electronic device better be restricted to a very limited set of places or else it should not be limited at all.
One thing they point out is that prices for land and housing are 1/2 to 1/3 of what they are in, say, Chicago, and that while wages here aren't THAT much lower, they are lower.
And when housing prices in and near the big cities go back down at least relatively speaking, then you will likely see a reversal of that trend.
Problem with varying prices is that it might theoretically maximise revenues for the distributor, but it is a nightmare at the retail level to manage and it destroys consumer confidence.
Imagine if the price of a movie ticket varied with the length of the line in front of the ticket booth? There would be serious disincentive to getting in line in addition to the wait. Imagine going to the movie theatre and having to check not only the times but the prices? Imagine setting a date on Monday only to find out by Friday that you can't afford dinner and a movie.
Pricing flexibility based on short term demand works in some product areas, but it doesn't work when you are trying to establish a mass market. People need price stability in order to make plans for purchasing something, especially when it is as discretionary as a movie. Jobs realized this with itunes. Now tiered pricing may be possible based on some objective criteria such as new release or something, but if you have arbitrary tiers based on some industry formulation that isn't simple, then customers will be put off by it.
This isn't like gasoline for the car, where the station can piss off its customers all they want because we need to get to work. If prices vary in seemingly arbitrary ways in a discretionary mass market, then you will lose not just market share, but you will risk losing the market.
perhaps 'education' is best served by teaching students the principles of spreadsheets, wordprocessors, and presentations, rather than 'click button X to accomplish task Y'?
Yes, when I left school I could write using nothing other than a "number 2" pencil. It was a tragedy which left me ill prepared for college. If only they had taught me to use any pencil, a mechanical one or even a pen, then my life would have been changed forever.
Ah yes, there are some very good lawyers and some very bad lawyers, most are probably mediocre, just as in any profession.
Asshats that come along and say that non lawyers shouldn't talk about the law at all are very dangerous to society. Sure if someone says something that is incorrect and is unwilling to listen to the truth, then that is a problem and they can spread false information. But even when a person is wrong, we can all be better informed by the discussion, especially when someone who is better informed corrects the misinformed person.
Of course, then you have some people that think they are smart for just telling other people that they are dumb. Those are the ones we should just laugh and shake our heads at.
I swear, Slashdot should stick to technology and leave the legal commentary to people who know better. ....
Tell you what, the techies will stop bitching about the law when the lawyers stop trying to control the tech. Don't hold your breath.
I'd take that a bit further and say that people will stop commenting on the law when it only applies to lawyers.
If you type in one of these terms on the search tool, first you receive an error message. If you then go back to make a new request, even with a neutral key word, yahoo.cn refuses to respond.
I wonder if it is better to let your customers search for things that will get them persecuted? If there is simply an error then Yahoo could probably get away with simply not logging the attempted search. So eventually when they are compelled to hand over search logs to the police then they can claim that it was simply an error and perhaps not log the attempt in any detail. And, except that it is now documented, it is so subtle that police would be none the wiser.
Then again this is precisely the type of thing authoritarian governments count on, that merely the threat of persecution is enough to suppress most challenges to their authority. Leaving the few real challenges to their authority to be dealt with harshly. Authoritarian and totalitarian governments really turn morality on its head and being honest about even the littlest thing might get yourself or someone else hurt or killed.
Oh, wait, there they are knocking on the door now. Guess I don't need the government search site after all.
Well after today's supreme court decision, knocking probably means it isn't the government, because they don't have to knock anymore.
The OSS community has been calling out all the security vulnerabilities of Windows for quite some time and people now pretty much take it as fact... I wonder if Microsoft's new solution to security will just be a DRM'd closed platform where everything has to be signed by Microsoft in order to run. That would be security, if everything made to run under microsoft had to be approved by microsoft. Wouldn't quite be a computer anymore. But all you wonderful IT geeks out there having been pushing a locked down computer for years as a way to make computers secure... I think this is just going to come back and bite you now. Instead of your company's IT department dictating what you can and cannot put on your computer, it will be Microsoft.
You'll find original coverage that doesn't rely on republishing the same tired wire reports everyone else is cribbing from, and you'll see rather penetrating journalism that should make every other newspaper's Washington bureau filled with syncophants (of both parties) hang their heads in shame.
Now that gets you an Amen, brother.
Nvidia is just better to its customers than ATI. In addition to linux support, nvidia has also supported stereo 3d gaming and simulation with pretty good stereoscopic versions of its drivers. I know the market segment for stereo 3d is relatively small, but it shows nvidia's willingness to respond to its customers needs.
The robot didn't actively kill him; it just wasn't programmed to know whether a person is there or not. It's like stepping into a giant blender without turning it off. There's isn't much morality to worry about.
And having the so called "three laws" built in to a robot without any sensors, is like telling a blind man that he must never step on an ant.
I'm sure the article was meant to be insightful, but are we really that stupid a species that we need to make all of our tools entirely fool proof? Then again most of our laws appear to be written by paranoid drunks, so perhaps they are on to something. If the world simply won't let us hurt ourselves by our own stupidity, then we can start drinking before noon even when we are not sitting by the pool on a sunny holiday.
No, think of the pipes and wires that you use to go online as the car you pay for by renting. The question is, should the rental car actively resist the steering wheel when you pass by a burger king and instead redirect you to a McDonalds because McDonalds paid the rental car agency a bribe.
Or how about the metaphor of McDonalds charging you $10 for a big mac in the drive thru when they see you bought a new car or when you seem particularly hungry that day. Or the gas station charging $20 a gallon when there is a hurricane bearing down on your city and you are trying to escape. As long as the metaphor doesn't involve any practice that is considered legitamite in a free market then it is good with me.
God, I hate stupid f*ing metaphors.
oh yes.