You lost me at "design defect". Software is often used to overcome limitations or defects in hardware (think about the Pentium FDIV bug as an example).
If you jailbreak a device, for instance, and don't accommodate for a "known" hardware defect that was "corrected" in the original code but not yours, then whose fault is it? It's a slippery slope to claim the company providing you with the device and the original software is somehow at fault.
If they pay to be one of the "more neutral" crowd instead of the "less neutral" crowd, then they win over their competition. It's too early for them to get involved from a theoretical perspective. In time they will all get involved from a business perspective.
You realize that Amazon has a Kindle reader on many platforms, like the PC, Kindle reader, iPad, iPhone, Mac, and Linux... It's not like you have to buy a Kindle device to read the ebooks.
All of this crap explodes soon so we can possibly return to an era of reason. I'm dreaming, I know, but if we can just bottom out we stand a chance of bouncing back. As it stands now we are on full descent with no bottom in sight.
The problem with "programming for multiple cores/CPUs/threads" is that it is done in very different ways between languages, operating systems, and APIs. There is no such thing as a "standard for multi-thread programming". All the variants share some concepts in common but their implementations are mostly very different from each other. No amount of schooling can fully prepare you for this diversity.
My point was about who should be held accountable, not whether anything should be done. Holding an ISP accountable for traffic through their network (not talking about hosting it) is a very dumb idea. You would be, in effect, turning every ISP into law enforcement, which is a terrible idea. Again, if they're hosting the illegal content then that's an entirely different situation.
In order for an ISP to even begin to do the job correctly they would literally have to scan every byte of data going through their network and compare it to an ever growing list of "bad stuff". And what if that list isn't updated in a timely fashion? Who gets the blame then? If someone renames an MP3 to something else or buries it in a ZIP file or any other compression or encryption format, is it still the ISPs fault for not catching it? Where can you draw the line that doesn't leave this whole issue of ISP enforcement completely vague and unmanageable?
Exactly. This is like charging phone companies for any scams done through their lines. Or charging gun dealers for each gun they sell that is used in a crime. Or charging car dealers for each car they sell that is used in some sort of crime. etc. etc. etc.
Failing to explore options DOES make people less in demonstrable ways. It is a clear failure to take advantage of potential, sourced either in ignorance of that potential, or worse, lack of interest in that potential.
How is the example of "failing to pursue the Internet versus other means of enlightenment" any different than the example I describe? The people that came before us and gave us the Internet did so without the Internet. There is nothing magical about it other than it grants access to information. As a kid I used to read everything I could get my hands on including encyclopedias (also an excellent source of information). No Internet at the time at all... it didn't come until much later for me (at college, 1990) and even then it wasn't very accessible for general research like it is today.
You seem to think that the recent past should just disappear and/or be labeled useless (or used less) simply because something more convenient comes along. We all stand on the shoulders of giants and the wise man watches his steps very carefully.
This may surprise you, but it is possible for people to grow up and be intelligent, productive members of society without the Internet. I think it has even happened before, at least once or twice.:p
But in all seriousness, I DO think that your assumption was and continues to be unreasonable. Kids are not stupid simply because they fail to take advantage of any given potential. Some people become doctors, some people become computer programmers, and some people do both (few do both well). You might even be able to argue that any person could become either if they so chose. But not every programmer that fails to learn about being a doctor is stupid nor is every doctor that fails to learn how to program a computer. Exploring one potential takes time away from exploration of another.
I chose to become a computer programmer and know very little about being a doctor. I do not consider my "lack of interest in the potential of becoming a doctor" as any sort of measure of stupidity, laziness, or being less than any doctor I have met.
Limiting your exposure to the Internet does not make you ignorant, nor stagnant, nor does exposure to it make you the opposite. It is just a tool and a repository of information. Because two kids don't skip all around the Internet to explore other options does not make them "less" in any way. They may choose to expand their minds offline with other activities, such as reading books or just going outside and using their imaginations.
That fact that you immediately assume they are "dumb" is a limitation of your character, not theirs or their parents'.
Slashdot Mirror
Arguing with AC is like arguing with yourself. Even when you win, you lose.
You lost me at "design defect". Software is often used to overcome limitations or defects in hardware (think about the Pentium FDIV bug as an example).
If you jailbreak a device, for instance, and don't accommodate for a "known" hardware defect that was "corrected" in the original code but not yours, then whose fault is it? It's a slippery slope to claim the company providing you with the device and the original software is somehow at fault.
Breaking out the criminals. Duh.
Not likely... forcing a company to support (for free) something you willingly broke through modification would be pretty stupid.
If they pay to be one of the "more neutral" crowd instead of the "less neutral" crowd, then they win over their competition. It's too early for them to get involved from a theoretical perspective. In time they will all get involved from a business perspective.
You realize that Amazon has a Kindle reader on many platforms, like the PC, Kindle reader, iPad, iPhone, Mac, and Linux... It's not like you have to buy a Kindle device to read the ebooks.
That "we" may not have included you... :p
All of this crap explodes soon so we can possibly return to an era of reason. I'm dreaming, I know, but if we can just bottom out we stand a chance of bouncing back. As it stands now we are on full descent with no bottom in sight.
The problem with "programming for multiple cores/CPUs/threads" is that it is done in very different ways between languages, operating systems, and APIs. There is no such thing as a "standard for multi-thread programming". All the variants share some concepts in common but their implementations are mostly very different from each other. No amount of schooling can fully prepare you for this diversity.
My point was about who should be held accountable, not whether anything should be done. Holding an ISP accountable for traffic through their network (not talking about hosting it) is a very dumb idea. You would be, in effect, turning every ISP into law enforcement, which is a terrible idea. Again, if they're hosting the illegal content then that's an entirely different situation.
In order for an ISP to even begin to do the job correctly they would literally have to scan every byte of data going through their network and compare it to an ever growing list of "bad stuff". And what if that list isn't updated in a timely fashion? Who gets the blame then? If someone renames an MP3 to something else or buries it in a ZIP file or any other compression or encryption format, is it still the ISPs fault for not catching it? Where can you draw the line that doesn't leave this whole issue of ISP enforcement completely vague and unmanageable?
Not the first, it just has the sleekest design.
Don't worry, many governments are seeking to diminish its abilities...
Exactly. This is like charging phone companies for any scams done through their lines. Or charging gun dealers for each gun they sell that is used in a crime. Or charging car dealers for each car they sell that is used in some sort of crime. etc. etc. etc.
Oracle probably only cares that Oracle software runs on it. Everything else is superfluous.
Don't forget the IBSOD (Improvised Blue Screens Of Death).
Your exact words:
Failing to explore options DOES make people less in demonstrable ways. It is a clear failure to take advantage of potential, sourced either in ignorance of that potential, or worse, lack of interest in that potential.
How is the example of "failing to pursue the Internet versus other means of enlightenment" any different than the example I describe? The people that came before us and gave us the Internet did so without the Internet. There is nothing magical about it other than it grants access to information. As a kid I used to read everything I could get my hands on including encyclopedias (also an excellent source of information). No Internet at the time at all... it didn't come until much later for me (at college, 1990) and even then it wasn't very accessible for general research like it is today.
You seem to think that the recent past should just disappear and/or be labeled useless (or used less) simply because something more convenient comes along. We all stand on the shoulders of giants and the wise man watches his steps very carefully.
This may surprise you, but it is possible for people to grow up and be intelligent, productive members of society without the Internet. I think it has even happened before, at least once or twice. :p
But in all seriousness, I DO think that your assumption was and continues to be unreasonable. Kids are not stupid simply because they fail to take advantage of any given potential. Some people become doctors, some people become computer programmers, and some people do both (few do both well). You might even be able to argue that any person could become either if they so chose. But not every programmer that fails to learn about being a doctor is stupid nor is every doctor that fails to learn how to program a computer. Exploring one potential takes time away from exploration of another.
I chose to become a computer programmer and know very little about being a doctor. I do not consider my "lack of interest in the potential of becoming a doctor" as any sort of measure of stupidity, laziness, or being less than any doctor I have met.
Limiting your exposure to the Internet does not make you ignorant, nor stagnant, nor does exposure to it make you the opposite. It is just a tool and a repository of information. Because two kids don't skip all around the Internet to explore other options does not make them "less" in any way. They may choose to expand their minds offline with other activities, such as reading books or just going outside and using their imaginations.
That fact that you immediately assume they are "dumb" is a limitation of your character, not theirs or their parents'.
Or too often. Everything in moderation... :p
Contentedness is not a disease, contrary to some points of view...
Isn't that "Stature of Limitations"? :p
Rule 34 says there is someone out there that wants exactly that. :p
The desires of society are often in conflict with the desires of its more influential members.
And everything revolves around America. ;)
What's a few nanoseconds among friends? :p