would you tell that to Einstein when he had problems with where quantum mechanics was going? He had no better theory, but he didn't like it and he said it. Lots of scientists don't believe the conclusions of their own research, maybe it's something like the artist who doesn't like his own paintings. Scientists are people and they have gut feeling, intuition, emotions, beliefs etc... And that hasn't impeded the development of science. On a different realm, many times I've written some code and been in dislike of the technique used or lacked confidence that it would work under big loads and proved wrong.
I'm a christian and I agree with you. In His sovereignty He can do stuff as He wants to and not spoon feed us explanations. Just because He did reveal a good bunch of things doesn't mean He is in any way *required* to do so; see God's answer to Job on the book of Job as an example. "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth" can be applied to the over ambitious christian theologians even more than to atheists (and, in the context of the book, God was saying that to a believer)
This loops back around to #1... maybe your hdmi passthru issue with DDC/CI can be resolved via a configuration option on the reciever? Denon makes good kit after all... although i imagine you've already chased that rabbit down into its rabbit hole as far as you could...
And this is how HDMI and all DRM is a bad thing... because it puts the burden of making HIS expensive equipment on the consumer. The consumer pays for the hardware, for the media, for the DRM development costs... and still he is the one that gets screwed with less functionality than we had in the 80s.
If the claim really is basic logic that's widely known, then why would it be used as a selling point at all?
do you want to forbid basic explanations on product packages then because of those explanations being "basic logic"?
Even if the bottled companies water intent is malicious (I wouldn't have much trouble believing that), that doesn't mean it's ok to forbid a correct statement. Malicious intent is something that has to be proved.
The truth is that anyone supporting this law has failed the turning test, for no-one could believe after that you were human at all... you and others backing this edict are the very definition of a cog in a giant pointless machine.
Turning test? is that the one Derek Zoolander failed?
means to an end huh? So, we don't let manufacturers state the truth because consumers "can't handle the truth" ?? Thinking like that is how you get into a nanny/police state. If consumers fail at basic logic, the state has to invest in education, not into restricting speech.
Historically, the USA has not 'struck first. Especially in the 20th century. They have waited until they or their allies had been attacked.
Veitnam war - the French were fighting there for over a decade before
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The french were long gone from vietnam when the US got into it. Unless you want to consider attacking anyone who ever had a war with an ally not a first strike, in which case, almost any nation would be fair play. Why not invade Spain? They've had wars with England our ally! Why not invade England? They've had wars with France our ally! etc... etc... Besides, you say "allies were attacked" . Where the french attacked in indochina? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say they were resisted?
Iraq war was a continuation of the Gulf War part 1 see above
WTF???? a continuation? what's that? a decade later? in which international accord is that NOT a new war?? btw, the US didn't formally declare war. If any other nation other than the US had done it, their leaders would have been prosecuted as war criminals for "fighting a war of agression", same charge was used against nazi leaders.
what about Grenada 1983? Panama 1989? Dominican Republic 1965? Honduras 1912? Bay of Pigs?
no, that's a property of a failing political system/class. Bail outs are not an automatic thing. They require the complicity of politicians and the complacency of voters.
the idea of putting people in prison prison for "being" a hacker or "criminal" or any "dangerous" label you want to apply to them is morally reprensible.
It's only right to punish people for stuff they DID. Not for accessory stuff such as *being* something.
What if you had the ability to do something like that hack? What if you were targeted by the state for it?
People seem to be forgetting the philosophical foundations behind our civilizations real fast.
It might be true that no ammount of science will ever be complete and that for some people it becomes a religion. But, the problem with all the cell phone, autism/vaccines, etc... scares is not about scientists pushing an agenda. It's about people claiming that science has *proved* cell phones causes cancer.
I have no problem believing that it's possible for cell phones to cause cancer, but it's different to claim one has faith in something than to also assert one has scientfic evidence or even more, proof. I can believe there might be aliens, but how many UFO loving people have you seen that are frank enough to say "we believe it while we have no scientific evidence"? I have not seen anyone in the media say "I'm worried cell phones might cause cancer but there's no evidence to support that". So, in these cases the ones building a very false religion are not scientists, but a bunch of activists, bad journalists, and lawyers. Look at the BioInitiative guys for example, they even mix ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
No I didn't buy it. My problem is that someone is not that somewhere who owns a big share of the market makes their tools as they want. Is that those tools are closed on purpose, and circumventing, developing alternates, etc.. will get you out of the "app store" in the best case, or get you sued at worst.
Nobody is forcing you to use their tools, are they?
And no one was forced to buy oil from Standard Oil either.
As ceoyoyo pointed above, it's not just an Apple & MS thing. It wouldn't be that bad if vendors didn't hunt down people who makes alternate tools, but try creating some iphone dev tool that apple doesn't like and see how you get sued into oblivion.
Slashdot Mirror
then we are already screwed. Sometimes pessimism gains us nothing. Lets consider the possibility of developing a patch and invest in that.
+1. Wish I had mod points today. Not that I would say its impossible, but you gave a very good illustration of why its *hard*, *really hard*.
right, why didn't the romans think of TNT? Besides, as someone else already posted, that wouldn't have done much in the face of mass defection.
would you tell that to Einstein when he had problems with where quantum mechanics was going? He had no better theory, but he didn't like it and he said it. Lots of scientists don't believe the conclusions of their own research, maybe it's something like the artist who doesn't like his own paintings. Scientists are people and they have gut feeling, intuition, emotions, beliefs etc... And that hasn't impeded the development of science. On a different realm, many times I've written some code and been in dislike of the technique used or lacked confidence that it would work under big loads and proved wrong.
I'm a christian and I agree with you. In His sovereignty He can do stuff as He wants to and not spoon feed us explanations. Just because He did reveal a good bunch of things doesn't mean He is in any way *required* to do so; see God's answer to Job on the book of Job as an example. "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth" can be applied to the over ambitious christian theologians even more than to atheists (and, in the context of the book, God was saying that to a believer)
something that likely violates a dozen patents owned by other people.
huh, that's interesting. it would be funny to see a patent troll sued to death for such a thing.
This loops back around to #1... maybe your hdmi passthru issue with DDC/CI can be resolved via a configuration option on the reciever? Denon makes good kit after all... although i imagine you've already chased that rabbit down into its rabbit hole as far as you could...
And this is how HDMI and all DRM is a bad thing... because it puts the burden of making HIS expensive equipment on the consumer. The consumer pays for the hardware, for the media, for the DRM development costs... and still he is the one that gets screwed with less functionality than we had in the 80s.
If the claim really is basic logic that's widely known, then why would it be used as a selling point at all?
do you want to forbid basic explanations on product packages then because of those explanations being "basic logic"? Even if the bottled companies water intent is malicious (I wouldn't have much trouble believing that), that doesn't mean it's ok to forbid a correct statement. Malicious intent is something that has to be proved.
and the part of government is to make sure the statement is true. Not that it's stupid proof.
Which dictionary?
And defined for what purpose?
1984 anyone???
That's no civilization, each citizen is responsable for using their brain and education.
Drinking water helps to avoid dehydration. Yes or no? The rest is BS.
(If we were to prohibit things that mislead people we would have no politicians. And I'm not saying that's a good idea)
Failure to read/parse english text.
The truth is that anyone supporting this law has failed the turning test, for no-one could believe after that you were human at all... you and others backing this edict are the very definition of a cog in a giant pointless machine.
Turning test? is that the one Derek Zoolander failed?
means to an end huh? So, we don't let manufacturers state the truth because consumers "can't handle the truth" ?? Thinking like that is how you get into a nanny/police state. If consumers fail at basic logic, the state has to invest in education, not into restricting speech.
whose lives? or the only lives that count are US ones?
ok, I'll bait. What other things would you use to say the US is or is not an empire?
Historically, the USA has not 'struck first. Especially in the 20th century. They have waited until they or their allies had been attacked. Veitnam war - the French were fighting there for over a decade before
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The french were long gone from vietnam when the US got into it. Unless you want to consider attacking anyone who ever had a war with an ally not a first strike, in which case, almost any nation would be fair play. Why not invade Spain? They've had wars with England our ally! Why not invade England? They've had wars with France our ally! etc... etc... Besides, you say "allies were attacked" . Where the french attacked in indochina? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say they were resisted?
Iraq war was a continuation of the Gulf War part 1 see above
WTF???? a continuation? what's that? a decade later? in which international accord is that NOT a new war?? btw, the US didn't formally declare war. If any other nation other than the US had done it, their leaders would have been prosecuted as war criminals for "fighting a war of agression", same charge was used against nazi leaders. what about Grenada 1983? Panama 1989? Dominican Republic 1965? Honduras 1912? Bay of Pigs?
no, that's a property of a failing political system/class. Bail outs are not an automatic thing. They require the complicity of politicians and the complacency of voters.
+1 . There is such a thing as too much automatization/computerization
the idea of putting people in prison prison for "being" a hacker or "criminal" or any "dangerous" label you want to apply to them is morally reprensible. It's only right to punish people for stuff they DID. Not for accessory stuff such as *being* something. What if you had the ability to do something like that hack? What if you were targeted by the state for it? People seem to be forgetting the philosophical foundations behind our civilizations real fast.
woosh!
It might be true that no ammount of science will ever be complete and that for some people it becomes a religion. But, the problem with all the cell phone, autism/vaccines, etc... scares is not about scientists pushing an agenda. It's about people claiming that science has *proved* cell phones causes cancer. I have no problem believing that it's possible for cell phones to cause cancer, but it's different to claim one has faith in something than to also assert one has scientfic evidence or even more, proof. I can believe there might be aliens, but how many UFO loving people have you seen that are frank enough to say "we believe it while we have no scientific evidence"? I have not seen anyone in the media say "I'm worried cell phones might cause cancer but there's no evidence to support that". So, in these cases the ones building a very false religion are not scientists, but a bunch of activists, bad journalists, and lawyers. Look at the BioInitiative guys for example, they even mix ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
any study with 350 000 people would have found strong correlation between smoking and cancer no matter which decade it was made.
Nice ad hominem. Not enough sugar today?
No I didn't buy it. My problem is that someone is not that somewhere who owns a big share of the market makes their tools as they want. Is that those tools are closed on purpose, and circumventing, developing alternates, etc.. will get you out of the "app store" in the best case, or get you sued at worst.
Nobody is forcing you to use their tools, are they?
And no one was forced to buy oil from Standard Oil either. As ceoyoyo pointed above, it's not just an Apple & MS thing. It wouldn't be that bad if vendors didn't hunt down people who makes alternate tools, but try creating some iphone dev tool that apple doesn't like and see how you get sued into oblivion.