Having said that, the contract was a "Contract of Adhesion", where basically one party has no choice, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracts_of_adhesion . Add to that the fact that some say that EULAs are contracts of adhesion, and we're (well, the yanks are, I'm not) in a murky middle ground here.
Which is great, as it will keep the lawyers in jobs.
Your link refers to a contract. At least where I live, an EULA is not a contract. So that precedent isn't necessarily relevant. We may have to wait until something actually hits the courts. And the appeals court. And the SCOTUS.
Persians aren't noble savages. They're just rug makers.
> How about the Vietnamese language?
Vietnamese aren't noble savages. They're just fast-food makers.
> How about the Tahitian language?
Tahitians aren't noble savages. They're just dancers.
The only way way we can prove how global and non-racist we are is by using a word from those lovely noble darkies down in Africa. Their customs go back over 10000 years, you know!
(I normally receive approval from my anthropologist g/f for posts like these, she didn't give it to this one, so I suspect I've overstepped some line. I know the above will be misinterpreted, but I have to post it just in case *one* person gets the payload behind the presentation.)
Thanks for the lengthy reply. You again rease some interesting points. As you say, Both JB and DB have rightly earnt deep respect from generations, but that doesn't make them infallable.
I think the anthropogenic-GW scaremongerers are throwing around sensationalistic, and typically unbeliavable, statistics (predicted loss of one of the polar ice sheets - some time next month, IIRC), and JB is 100% right to counter bollocks like that. I'd counter bollocks like that.
However, DB (who forever will be immortalised for me by the Lenny Henry parodies) clearly dropped the baton in several places. He went armed with a bun into a gunfight at times. Hopefully he's learnt that he needs to be better prepared and needs to more critically assess the data that comes from and via those on the same side of the fence as him.
Skepticism is good. Were I to want to apply an untarnished label to myself, it would be 'skeptic', but alas that label is now tainted. I suspect that we have had some influence of the climate, but I don't think we have proof that discounts the possibility that we're just seeing some swing that's nothing to do with us. Look at all of the extrapolations that go back in time - there are some huge bulges and troughs - we didn't cause those, why should we be causing the one now? I know it's hackneyed, but correlation is not causation. At least there's a putative mechanism, so causation is believable, but I don't think we have hard enough proof.
Perhaps seeing the hockey-stick begin to level off again after a few decades of more responsible behaviour could be considered proving, in the sense of testing, the model? I don't see that happening, in the same way that I don't see the foretold imminent disasters happening either.
All I predict is that I will be annoyed by many parties, and will eventually die.
If you're the shopkeeper selling (or offering for sale) the paraphernalia, you're bang to rights under 21USC863. No matter how unused it it, if you're burning incense sticks in your shop and there are tie dyes and Janis Joplin posters on the wall, you're goin' dahn. ("Matters considered in determination of what constitutes drug paraphernalia: [...] (4) the manner in which the item is displayed for sale; ".)
So FB will tank. And all the social network addicts will run off to Google+. And all the advertisers will run off to Google AdSense (or whatever it's called).
So explain how google aren't suspects? You seem to like conspiracy theories, have fun with that one.
If you don't know what postulates are, then there's no point continuing this exchange. If you can't see how my suggested postulates would validate their argument, then you are not sufficiently skilled in logic to be criticising their presumed error.
Wow. Thank you. I sometimes feel that there's almost nowhere to expand my music listening habits without jumping so far outside my comfort zone that I don't want to go there again. However, I've just spent half an hour on youtube with my chin on the floor. The speed, the precision, the power, the delicacy, the musicianship, and just the plain balls he's got - stunning.
Not wishing to disagree, I'd add that they are also complicit in *making* the musically uneducated consumer.
Much as I'm glad that I'm a rampant atheist nowadays, I'm incredibly glad that I have a background in English choral (church) music - that's where much of the best music of the time was, as that's where all the money was. (The rest being at/for royal courts, and when you have an Established religion, the two often overlap (Zadok The Priest, anyone?).) Likewise that my music teacher when I was 10 over the space of a term played us Pictures at an Exhibition by The Philip Jones Brass Ensemble, Tomita, an unknown solo pianist, and some full classical orchestra in order to help us understand the different feelings that could be expressed from the same sequence of notes. Which led to me discovering ELP's version in a 2nd-hand record shops, which led to the messed up state I'm now in!
I suspect the above simply isn't happening for the vast majority of the current youth, and they're certainly not getting it from the airwaves either. They really have to go out of their way in order to broaden their musical horizons beyond those modern classics like doof-doof and oh-baby-baby-yeah-yeah.
I can't find them anywhere explicitly, but I do see how the 10 chords are being used in the conclusion "In the 1950s many of the less common chords would chime close to one another in the melodic progression. More recently, they have tended to be separated by the more pedestrian chords, leading to a loss of some of the more unusual transitions." (from the 1st link) If you look in the supplimentary data (from the 2nd link), they mention the removal of the 10 most connected nodes. The more you're left with, the more unusual->unusual transitions there.
Anyway, I'm guessing one of the 10 is D minor, which I think is the saddest of chords.
If the RIAA and MPAA had a dollar for every nonexistent Yorkshire Terrier that pirates had illegally downloaded from the internet, they'd be large and rich enough to be dangerously influential.
How do you do geometry without algebra? I can't believe the mesopotamians weren't calculating the number of workers needed to plough a field with certain dimensions? (Even if they were using the wrong formulae and constants.) Solving Rate.n = Area for n is algebra requiring parameters.
Oooooh - were Pons and Fleischmann really humanities tricksters in disguise?
Anyway - dear mods - upmod parent interesting! (Hmm,, half an hour ago I had 10 mod points, but alas they disappeared even more quickly than P&F's findings did under scrutiny.)
However, on the assumptions that in the absense of any reasons to justify shooting, there is no justification for shooting, and that all the evidence had been presented, their conclusion was correct. Their "error" was perhaps nothing but the lack of mentioning what they considered to be accepted postulates. You didn't mention the postulate that there is no omnipotent being who occasionally touches gun wielders with his noodly appendage, and gives them carte blanche to shoot anyone at will, for example.
Of course, one of those postulates may not have been acceptable, depending on the situation (in particular the "all evidence" one), in which case, indeed they had applied flawed logic.
An O Level with calculus would be a *long* way back, I'm sure. I didn't do calculus until I studied for an AO level in maths. (However, I did do my O level a year early, perhaps I'd have learnt it as part of the O level course in that final year. But the question then would be why my AO class retaught the 6-th form guys a year above me calculus if they'd done it the prior year?)
Your "+ 2.5 kids" is almost certainly pulled from your arse. The US had < 1.0 child per family and <2.0 children per family with children in the 2000 stats, at least which is the most recently available data. http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/states.html
Damn, I've got a bunch of +1 mods for a range of people lined up, including your post, but I have to dive in instead.
Whilst your (+1 interesting) correlation link is amusing, it too strongly has implications containing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Kooks are more likely to deny GW, but that doesn't mean necessarily that denying GW makes you/a priori/ more likely to be a kook. (So given A->B and B, you can't deduce A.)
And diving deeper into the paper, which I've not read in full yet, but their data set is one which tends to force you to throw all proven statistical principles out of the window - "Visitors to climate blogs voluntarily completed...". "Visitors to climate blogs" = self-selecting sample. "voluntarily completed" = self-selecting sub sample. They've almost certainly got outlying points only. Their regression line needn't even pass anywhere near the majority of unbiased samples (which haven't been collected yet).
I'm also perturbed by their lack of a neutral answer, you could only weakly agree or weakly disagree. True skeptics who don't presume that correlation implies causation are left unable to answer. And what about CFCs? I have absolutely no freaking clue whether the ozone layer's still under serious threat. It's fallen out of fashion as an environmental news story recently, thats all I know. I cannot honestly answer their question with anything apart from "I don't know, but have no reason to suspect either that it is or it isn't". And that's not an option they gave. They are forcing people to pin their colours to the mast, and that will cause the truly neutral to flip to the side that they think makes them look less weird. That's questioner-imposed bias, which again taints their data set.
I don't have the stats smarts to actually tear their paper apart, but I get a very uneasy feeling about its validity as a well-done study. (Even though I am unsurprised by the outcome, and believe that there are the correlations they claim. But a correct conclusion can be arrived at via invalid methods. Occasionally chicken entrails would predict natural disasters that did actually happen.)
But it was a conscious decision to permit software to over-ride a user's setting. That decision didn't have to be made.
I'd like to know who made that decision in Nokia. I wish I'd had access to a RFID tag writer while I worked there, as my plan would have been to turn the useful tags that had helpfully been scattered around (things such as pulling up a bus timetable/route-planner as you went through the exit that led to the station) with goatse, or worse. Who knows, I may have discovered this exploit first if that had been the case. I would have enjoyed filing a bug like that against middleware. I can just imagine the "works as designed - INVALID", "security threat - REOPEN", "works as designed - INVALID", "security threat - REOPEN", "no exploit known - WONTFIX", "because you're too stupid - REOPEN",... loops ad nauseam.
Nokia can't fix this now. They've got rid of all the people who can do anything about it. Harmattan is in maintenance phase and outsourced to a team who I've heard are in general severely under-skilled. They'll just try to downplay its severity.
As someone who was in The Sussex Arms in Covent Garden in early october 1992, I think you should be more concerned about terroristic activities in pubs than on websites where almost everyone talks bollocks all the time. (And also underground trains, thanks to a 1991 event.)
The Forbes and arstechnica write-ups are worth a read, and it appears that the bluetooth "off" switch is the problem. It's just plain ignored. You turn it off, NFC turns it back on without asking you. Braindead.
Then again, Nokia's maemo devices have a long history of ignoring user preferences or choices because of braindead diktats made by people who were incapable of thinking through the consequences of their demands. (Yes, I'm ex-Nokia, and could write a book full of the horror-stories I've seen.)
Let me introduce you to the concept of a "switch" with settings we like to call "on" and "off". With said feature, you can have the NFC functionality enabled (or "on") when you specifically want it, and disabled ("off") the rest of the time. And the N9 has that.
If you want to connect to any wireless network you're not in control of, then you are just as vulnerable from most facets of this attack as you are from using NFC. More so, as with NFC you actually have to be physically close to Malory.
Slashdot Mirror
Having said that, the contract was a "Contract of Adhesion", where basically one party has no choice, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracts_of_adhesion
. Add to that the fact that some say that EULAs are contracts of adhesion, and we're (well, the yanks are, I'm not) in a murky middle ground here.
Which is great, as it will keep the lawyers in jobs.
Your link refers to a contract. At least where I live, an EULA is not a contract.
So that precedent isn't necessarily relevant. We may have to wait until something actually hits the courts. And the appeals court. And the SCOTUS.
> How about the Persian language?
Persians aren't noble savages. They're just rug makers.
> How about the Vietnamese language?
Vietnamese aren't noble savages. They're just fast-food makers.
> How about the Tahitian language?
Tahitians aren't noble savages. They're just dancers.
The only way way we can prove how global and non-racist we are is by using a word from those lovely noble darkies down in Africa. Their customs go back over 10000 years, you know!
(I normally receive approval from my anthropologist g/f for posts like these, she didn't give it to this one, so I suspect I've overstepped some line. I know the above will be misinterpreted, but I have to post it just in case *one* person gets the payload behind the presentation.)
Thanks for the lengthy reply. You again rease some interesting points. As you say, Both JB and DB have rightly earnt deep respect from generations, but that doesn't make them infallable.
I think the anthropogenic-GW scaremongerers are throwing around sensationalistic, and typically unbeliavable, statistics (predicted loss of one of the polar ice sheets - some time next month, IIRC), and JB is 100% right to counter bollocks like that. I'd counter bollocks like that.
However, DB (who forever will be immortalised for me by the Lenny Henry parodies) clearly dropped the baton in several places. He went armed with a bun into a gunfight at times. Hopefully he's learnt that he needs to be better prepared and needs to more critically assess the data that comes from and via those on the same side of the fence as him.
Skepticism is good. Were I to want to apply an untarnished label to myself, it would be 'skeptic', but alas that label is now tainted. I suspect that we have had some influence of the climate, but I don't think we have proof that discounts the possibility that we're just seeing some swing that's nothing to do with us. Look at all of the extrapolations that go back in time - there are some huge bulges and troughs - we didn't cause those, why should we be causing the one now? I know it's hackneyed, but correlation is not causation. At least there's a putative mechanism, so causation is believable, but I don't think we have hard enough proof.
Perhaps seeing the hockey-stick begin to level off again after a few decades of more responsible behaviour could be considered proving, in the sense of testing, the model? I don't see that happening, in the same way that I don't see the foretold imminent disasters happening either.
All I predict is that I will be annoyed by many parties, and will eventually die.
If you're the shopkeeper selling (or offering for sale) the paraphernalia, you're bang to rights under 21USC863. No matter how unused it it, if you're burning incense sticks in your shop and there are tie dyes and Janis Joplin posters on the wall, you're goin' dahn. ("Matters considered in determination of what constitutes drug paraphernalia: [...] (4) the manner in which the item is displayed for sale; ".)
You can own one, though, you're right there.
So FB will tank.
And all the social network addicts will run off to Google+.
And all the advertisers will run off to Google AdSense (or whatever it's called).
So explain how google aren't suspects? You seem to like conspiracy theories, have fun with that one.
If you don't know what postulates are, then there's no point continuing this exchange. If you can't see how my suggested postulates would validate their argument, then you are not sufficiently skilled in logic to be criticising their presumed error.
> Buddy Rich
Wow. Thank you. I sometimes feel that there's almost nowhere to expand my music listening habits without jumping so far outside my comfort zone that I don't want to go there again. However, I've just spent half an hour on youtube with my chin on the floor. The speed, the precision, the power, the delicacy, the musicianship, and just the plain balls he's got - stunning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53cxGeeGFAU&feature=fvwrel
EAT DRUMS!!!!!
(but what a shitty place to cut it off, like freaking coitus interruptus)
At least if you put back in the silent "c"s, then the punishement for talking about [c]rap is 30 [c]lashes!
London Calling!
I'm sure I saw them say that they normalised (transposed) them to one key.
However, quite why GPP can't imagine 4095 different chords, I don't know, but that's his loss, not mine.
Iron Horse do Zep, Metallica, and Sabbath/Ozzy covers. (At least the 3 CDs I have cover that, they may have done more.)
"No, Skrillex, Mac is not an instrument"?
(I've deduced that's recently been a modish joke, I've had the "misfortune" of never hearing anything by the geezer.)
Not wishing to disagree, I'd add that they are also complicit in *making* the musically uneducated consumer.
Much as I'm glad that I'm a rampant atheist nowadays, I'm incredibly glad that I have a background in English choral (church) music - that's where much of the best music of the time was, as that's where all the money was. (The rest being at/for royal courts, and when you have an Established religion, the two often overlap (Zadok The Priest, anyone?).) Likewise that my music teacher when I was 10 over the space of a term played us Pictures at an Exhibition by The Philip Jones Brass Ensemble, Tomita, an unknown solo pianist, and some full classical orchestra in order to help us understand the different feelings that could be expressed from the same sequence of notes. Which led to me discovering ELP's version in a 2nd-hand record shops, which led to the messed up state I'm now in!
I suspect the above simply isn't happening for the vast majority of the current youth, and they're certainly not getting it from the airwaves either. They really have to go out of their way in order to broaden their musical horizons beyond those modern classics like doof-doof and oh-baby-baby-yeah-yeah.
I can't find them anywhere explicitly, but I do see how the 10 chords are being used in the conclusion "In the 1950s many of the less common chords would chime close to one another in the melodic progression. More recently, they have tended to be separated by the more pedestrian chords, leading to a loss of some of the more unusual transitions." (from the 1st link)
If you look in the supplimentary data (from the 2nd link), they mention the removal of the 10 most connected nodes. The more you're left with, the more unusual->unusual transitions there.
Anyway, I'm guessing one of the 10 is D minor, which I think is the saddest of chords.
If the RIAA and MPAA had a dollar for every nonexistent Yorkshire Terrier that pirates had illegally downloaded from the internet, they'd be large and rich enough to be dangerously influential.
How do you do geometry without algebra? I can't believe the mesopotamians weren't calculating the number of workers needed to plough a field with certain dimensions? (Even if they were using the wrong formulae and constants.) Solving Rate.n = Area for n is algebra requiring parameters.
Oooooh - were Pons and Fleischmann really humanities tricksters in disguise?
Anyway - dear mods - upmod parent interesting!
(Hmm,, half an hour ago I had 10 mod points, but alas they disappeared even more quickly than P&F's findings did under scrutiny.)
However, on the assumptions that in the absense of any reasons to justify shooting, there is no justification for shooting, and that all the evidence had been presented, their conclusion was correct. Their "error" was perhaps nothing but the lack of mentioning what they considered to be accepted postulates. You didn't mention the postulate that there is no omnipotent being who occasionally touches gun wielders with his noodly appendage, and gives them carte blanche to shoot anyone at will, for example.
Of course, one of those postulates may not have been acceptable, depending on the situation (in particular the "all evidence" one), in which case, indeed they had applied flawed logic.
An O Level with calculus would be a *long* way back, I'm sure. I didn't do calculus until I studied for an AO level in maths. (However, I did do my O level a year early, perhaps I'd have learnt it as part of the O level course in that final year. But the question then would be why my AO class retaught the 6-th form guys a year above me calculus if they'd done it the prior year?)
Your "+ 2.5 kids" is almost certainly pulled from your arse.
The US had < 1.0 child per family and <2.0 children per family with children in the 2000 stats, at least which is the most recently available data.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/states.html
Damn, I've got a bunch of +1 mods for a range of people lined up, including your post, but I have to dive in instead.
/a priori/ more likely to be a kook. (So given A->B and B, you can't deduce A.)
...". "Visitors to climate blogs" = self-selecting sample. "voluntarily completed" = self-selecting sub sample. They've almost certainly got outlying points only. Their regression line needn't even pass anywhere near the majority of unbiased samples (which haven't been collected yet).
Whilst your (+1 interesting) correlation link is amusing, it too strongly has implications containing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Kooks are more likely to deny GW, but that doesn't mean necessarily that denying GW makes you
And diving deeper into the paper, which I've not read in full yet, but their data set is one which tends to force you to throw all proven statistical principles out of the window - "Visitors to climate blogs voluntarily completed
I'm also perturbed by their lack of a neutral answer, you could only weakly agree or weakly disagree. True skeptics who don't presume that correlation implies causation are left unable to answer. And what about CFCs? I have absolutely no freaking clue whether the ozone layer's still under serious threat. It's fallen out of fashion as an environmental news story recently, thats all I know. I cannot honestly answer their question with anything apart from "I don't know, but have no reason to suspect either that it is or it isn't". And that's not an option they gave. They are forcing people to pin their colours to the mast, and that will cause the truly neutral to flip to the side that they think makes them look less weird. That's questioner-imposed bias, which again taints their data set.
I don't have the stats smarts to actually tear their paper apart, but I get a very uneasy feeling about its validity as a well-done study. (Even though I am unsurprised by the outcome, and believe that there are the correlations they claim. But a correct conclusion can be arrived at via invalid methods. Occasionally chicken entrails would predict natural disasters that did actually happen.)
But it was a conscious decision to permit software to over-ride a user's setting. That decision didn't have to be made.
... loops ad nauseam.
I'd like to know who made that decision in Nokia. I wish I'd had access to a RFID tag writer while I worked there, as my plan would have been to turn the useful tags that had helpfully been scattered around (things such as pulling up a bus timetable/route-planner as you went through the exit that led to the station) with goatse, or worse. Who knows, I may have discovered this exploit first if that had been the case. I would have enjoyed filing a bug like that against middleware. I can just imagine the "works as designed - INVALID", "security threat - REOPEN", "works as designed - INVALID", "security threat - REOPEN", "no exploit known - WONTFIX", "because you're too stupid - REOPEN",
Nokia can't fix this now. They've got rid of all the people who can do anything about it. Harmattan is in maintenance phase and outsourced to a team who I've heard are in general severely under-skilled. They'll just try to downplay its severity.
As someone who was in The Sussex Arms in Covent Garden in early october 1992, I think you should be more concerned about terroristic activities in pubs than on websites where almost everyone talks bollocks all the time. (And also underground trains, thanks to a 1991 event.)
The Forbes and arstechnica write-ups are worth a read, and it appears that the bluetooth "off" switch is the problem. It's just plain ignored. You turn it off, NFC turns it back on without asking you. Braindead.
Then again, Nokia's maemo devices have a long history of ignoring user preferences or choices because of braindead diktats made by people who were incapable of thinking through the consequences of their demands. (Yes, I'm ex-Nokia, and could write a book full of the horror-stories I've seen.)
Let me introduce you to the concept of a "switch" with settings we like to call "on" and "off". With said feature, you can have the NFC functionality enabled (or "on") when you specifically want it, and disabled ("off") the rest of the time. And the N9 has that.
If you want to connect to any wireless network you're not in control of, then you are just as vulnerable from most facets of this attack as you are from using NFC. More so, as with NFC you actually have to be physically close to Malory.