What's wrong with writing 04/2011 if you want to show that the day is insignificant? Or, better yet, what's wrong with 2011-04 as a shortened form of 2011-04-08?
It doesn't have to be faith. There's always the understanding that we do not know everything. It's not faith that in five seconds what we know about science will still apply, it's trust that insofar as we can tell, the behavior we have documented about our world has been constant for as long as we are able to measure. There could very well be a dramatic change we don't know about, but it's a pain in the ass to say "as of X time," for every single statement we state. It's kind of short hand to not say that, but that doesn't mean science has faith that it will be constant forever.
You do realize that the scientist game you a unscientific answer because science can only answer questions that have measurable and verifiable answers. He can tell you what he think happened during the creation of the universe because he can measure and verify his answers, but he cannot tell you what's outside of the observable, so he turns to unscientific thinking. There's no reason a reasonable human cannot choose science for questions for which it the best tool he has and metaphysics for questions for which it is the best tool he has.
The difference is the person telling you that God created the universe think metaphysics is a better tool than science for answering the questions about the origins of the universe (so far as we can tell what origin might be). The person telling you that the big bang created the universe thinks science is a better tool than metaphysics for answering the questions about the origins of the universe (so far as we can tell what origin might be). One cannot speak to what those people might find a better tool for other questions though.
Even the deeply faithful who thinks science is a terrible tool for answering universe origination questions will probably use science to determine that if he were to drive his car into the building it might crumple.
[quote]I mean...why talk about cars when you're talking about transportation? Who has thousands of dollars to waste on them? Instead we should talk about bikes and buses only. Let's ignore everything else on the road, amirite?[/quote] I misunderstood you, my reading comprehension short-circuited. For some reason I took your sarcasm backwards and thought you meant that only the gold standard should be considered. I apologize.
I think we seem to somewhat agree, that both the "default" option and alternative options should be considered whenever one discusses a field such a photomanipulation, transportation, router management, etc.
I merely meant to give examples when the "default" option was a very poor one (since cost cannot be ignored). It was a bit off-topic to CLI vs. GUI and more towards "default, gold standard, no brainer" choice vs. "right tool for the job given all criteria" choice. I did not mean to imply anything more. Only that one should evaluate the tool for the task at hand given all criteria and just because one choice is best for the majority of cases one should not fall into the trap of automatically transferring that evaluation to a new problem.
I think you missed my point. If the copyright holder does not want to deliver a good product with reasonable terms I will turn to other forms of entertainment. I think the system is horribly insane either due to availability (e.g. vendor lock-in), format (DRM), or other terms (exchange for harvesting my private data) so if the offer presented is insane I pass and go to something sane. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against digital media, but if the offer is terrible enough, I'll wait for digital media to catch up or go to the store the next day and get a better deal on physical media. I do buy digital music sometimes, I do buy e-books sometimes, I do buy digital games, but each time I weigh the pros and cons of that particular transaction.
How about instead we talk about all forms of transportation and pick the right one for the task at hand. The assumption that cars are the gold standard is part of the problem. Same with the assumption that anyone that needs to do a moderately complex task will already have Photoshop purchased and installed.
Just like if I need to resize 400 images one day, I'm not going to spend whatever price Adobe is charging for their tool, I will find something that suits my purposes.
Just like if I live in the city and don't own a car and find myself one day needing to go 100 miles to the burbs I'm not going to buy a car but maybe rent one or hire a cab.
I do a lot of digital photography and have yet to find a need for Photoshop. I am aware it's the gold standard but I'm not going to automatically buy it because I need to do some transforms on some images once in a while.
I work at an office and travel a lot. I don't use a car. I am aware it's the gold standard but I'm not going to automatically buy one because I need to go out of town somewhere I can't reach by rail or foot or plane.
Do not speak for me, if I want to watch a show impromptu and it's not available I will delay that for later. Often times I'll forget about it and not come back to that thought. If it's not available, no biggie, there are a million other options for my entertainment.
If one asked me to read a book that had 100,000 pages with one word per page today or let me wait until tomorrow and get a nicely-bound copy that had a more favorable reading format, I'd wait even if that book was one everyone was raving about. Format matters.
It's more like the people that are interested in petty edit wars contribute because that's what derives them pleasure while the people that think and learn about the issues don't want to get involved in petty edit wars when they can instead think and research about their selected topics. Yes, this is a generalization, there are some well written articles on Wikipedia, but my subjective view is that petty edit wars maybe driving some decent numbers of knowledgeable people away.
joocemann's argument that an environment we can survive in is more important than economic concerns is what you should be addressing. The fact that he or she may or may not make you feel guilty about the car you drive does not weaken his or her argument.
I think the point of using the device is to avoid taxing use outside the US via GPS readings. If it really is just to measure the mileage then yes, it's much simpler to record at time of registration or inspection. (Where I live we register yearly but only inspect every N years where N decreases as the car ages).
For example, I do not think the US should tax me for driving my car in Europe.
I might be in the minority, but I do want a la carte TV channels. In fact they'd be getting infinitely more money from me that way as the only show I care to watch that's not available OTA is on HBO. That show is not worth $70 a month that Comcast would charge me, so no dice, but if I could get that one channel or show I'd gladly pay $10 or so a month for it.
In my dream MMO (such a game already exists in a different setting) if the community didn't agree with that penis, they'd get together a posse and destroy it and kill the guy who made it.
It doesn't, but trusting some CAs is better than trusting none of them and trying to get a Google engineer on the phone, validating his identity with some challenge response system and then having him read the fingerprint over the phone.
It is correct to say you have no security, for there is only calculated risk. DarkOx decided there are some CAs he trusts, and some he does not. He calculated that risk and accepted it. Saying that it's not perfect security does not mean it's not better security.
This started with the statement by walterbyrd was (sic):
Have hyper-litigious, like Microsoft, created an environment where every silly idea must be patented just out of self defence?
If Google did not patent this, Microsoft would have; then Microsoft would have sued Google over it's use.
I would argue that Microsoft has had it's share of stupid lawsuits, but that's not really the point. Yes, like any other company in the United States with the trademark and patent laws there, they are hyper-litigious. I do not think invoking them as an example was meant to imply any sort of hierarchy of hyper-litigiousness. If I were to make a statement saying "Have untrustworthy people, like X, created an environment where..." I do not mean that only X is untrustworthy and no one else, or that X is the most untrustworthy, only that they are a member of the class.
I personally do not care which member of the hyper-litigious one specifies as X, the jist of the comment is that hyper-litigious companies have created this environment where patents become necessary protections and defensive maneuvers almost required in the business. I don't personally agree with that, I think one could also argue the other direction that the way the intellectual property law exists it forces companies to be hyper-litigious and therefore one feeds the other and vice versa.
Is there a culture of Microsoft bashing on Slashdot? Yes, certainly. That's something I've come to expect over the years and have decided to look beyond it. I think in this case, Microsoft served as a convenient example that fit the poster's agenda, but the crux of the post was about intellectual property laws and enforcement thereof and how that contributes to today's environment.
Now sure why you seem to be reading it as Microsoft's fault, it's a systemic problem and yes Microsoft is part of that problem, but certainly not the only or most egregious. It just happens that Slashdot readership tends to bash Microsoft whenever it can so when citing an example, Microsoft (correctly) fit the bill but you are right, there are hundreds of other and maybe better examples. On other sites, the culture would probably lean towards using some other example, but not here.
Patents are only meaningful *because* of others. If I were the only person in the world, I wouldn't patent anything as no one else could beat me to the punch and require me to pay them fees, etc. The fact that another company exists that may patent the idea first and extract payment is quite a logical reason to consider a patent. This of Microsoft as an example of a hyperlitigious company used as an example. As a discussion as to why one might patent an idea such as this, bringing up being first to do so due to hyperlitigious company's is a good point of discussion.
You disagree I see, but bringing up Microsoft is apropos.
When he joined society's discourse on what e-readers mean to the concept of a book, he also joined societies redefinition of concepts that change over time. Society defines words, not rulers of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you be confused? The English do actually use d/m/Y.
I'm not sure how a language specific month code is international. What's wrong with using the ISO format?
What's wrong with writing 04/2011 if you want to show that the day is insignificant? Or, better yet, what's wrong with 2011-04 as a shortened form of 2011-04-08?
It doesn't have to be faith. There's always the understanding that we do not know everything. It's not faith that in five seconds what we know about science will still apply, it's trust that insofar as we can tell, the behavior we have documented about our world has been constant for as long as we are able to measure. There could very well be a dramatic change we don't know about, but it's a pain in the ass to say "as of X time," for every single statement we state. It's kind of short hand to not say that, but that doesn't mean science has faith that it will be constant forever.
You do realize that the scientist game you a unscientific answer because science can only answer questions that have measurable and verifiable answers. He can tell you what he think happened during the creation of the universe because he can measure and verify his answers, but he cannot tell you what's outside of the observable, so he turns to unscientific thinking. There's no reason a reasonable human cannot choose science for questions for which it the best tool he has and metaphysics for questions for which it is the best tool he has.
The difference is the person telling you that God created the universe think metaphysics is a better tool than science for answering the questions about the origins of the universe (so far as we can tell what origin might be). The person telling you that the big bang created the universe thinks science is a better tool than metaphysics for answering the questions about the origins of the universe (so far as we can tell what origin might be). One cannot speak to what those people might find a better tool for other questions though.
Even the deeply faithful who thinks science is a terrible tool for answering universe origination questions will probably use science to determine that if he were to drive his car into the building it might crumple.
[quote]I mean...why talk about cars when you're talking about transportation? Who has thousands of dollars to waste on them? Instead we should talk about bikes and buses only. Let's ignore everything else on the road, amirite?[/quote]
I misunderstood you, my reading comprehension short-circuited. For some reason I took your sarcasm backwards and thought you meant that only the gold standard should be considered. I apologize.
I think we seem to somewhat agree, that both the "default" option and alternative options should be considered whenever one discusses a field such a photomanipulation, transportation, router management, etc.
I merely meant to give examples when the "default" option was a very poor one (since cost cannot be ignored). It was a bit off-topic to CLI vs. GUI and more towards "default, gold standard, no brainer" choice vs. "right tool for the job given all criteria" choice. I did not mean to imply anything more. Only that one should evaluate the tool for the task at hand given all criteria and just because one choice is best for the majority of cases one should not fall into the trap of automatically transferring that evaluation to a new problem.
I think you missed my point. If the copyright holder does not want to deliver a good product with reasonable terms I will turn to other forms of entertainment. I think the system is horribly insane either due to availability (e.g. vendor lock-in), format (DRM), or other terms (exchange for harvesting my private data) so if the offer presented is insane I pass and go to something sane. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against digital media, but if the offer is terrible enough, I'll wait for digital media to catch up or go to the store the next day and get a better deal on physical media. I do buy digital music sometimes, I do buy e-books sometimes, I do buy digital games, but each time I weigh the pros and cons of that particular transaction.
So one doesn't have to say "primes except 1" most of the time and can instead say "primes". It's just more convenient to exclude it.
How about instead we talk about all forms of transportation and pick the right one for the task at hand. The assumption that cars are the gold standard is part of the problem. Same with the assumption that anyone that needs to do a moderately complex task will already have Photoshop purchased and installed.
Just like if I need to resize 400 images one day, I'm not going to spend whatever price Adobe is charging for their tool, I will find something that suits my purposes.
Just like if I live in the city and don't own a car and find myself one day needing to go 100 miles to the burbs I'm not going to buy a car but maybe rent one or hire a cab.
I do a lot of digital photography and have yet to find a need for Photoshop. I am aware it's the gold standard but I'm not going to automatically buy it because I need to do some transforms on some images once in a while.
I work at an office and travel a lot. I don't use a car. I am aware it's the gold standard but I'm not going to automatically buy one because I need to go out of town somewhere I can't reach by rail or foot or plane.
Do not speak for me, if I want to watch a show impromptu and it's not available I will delay that for later. Often times I'll forget about it and not come back to that thought. If it's not available, no biggie, there are a million other options for my entertainment.
If one asked me to read a book that had 100,000 pages with one word per page today or let me wait until tomorrow and get a nicely-bound copy that had a more favorable reading format, I'd wait even if that book was one everyone was raving about. Format matters.
Not only was it cheaper on the DVD, as far as I know Amazon won't go and revoke your license to the DVD while they might to the digital copy.
There is virtually no extra cost for delivering one or one thousand extra copies, and therefore overhead is minimized = profits maximized.
While I agree that it's logistically much easier, bandwidth is not free and using 1000 times more bandwidth does cost more.
It's only creepy if you haven't yet welcomed our self-aware software overlords.
It's more like the people that are interested in petty edit wars contribute because that's what derives them pleasure while the people that think and learn about the issues don't want to get involved in petty edit wars when they can instead think and research about their selected topics. Yes, this is a generalization, there are some well written articles on Wikipedia, but my subjective view is that petty edit wars maybe driving some decent numbers of knowledgeable people away.
For me, I've considered Dragon Age but the DRM shied me away from that purchase.
I've heard great things about Mass Effect. Sadly, I have not been able to find a non-DRMed copy for sale anywhere.
joocemann's argument that an environment we can survive in is more important than economic concerns is what you should be addressing. The fact that he or she may or may not make you feel guilty about the car you drive does not weaken his or her argument.
I think the point of using the device is to avoid taxing use outside the US via GPS readings. If it really is just to measure the mileage then yes, it's much simpler to record at time of registration or inspection. (Where I live we register yearly but only inspect every N years where N decreases as the car ages).
For example, I do not think the US should tax me for driving my car in Europe.
I might be in the minority, but I do want a la carte TV channels. In fact they'd be getting infinitely more money from me that way as the only show I care to watch that's not available OTA is on HBO. That show is not worth $70 a month that Comcast would charge me, so no dice, but if I could get that one channel or show I'd gladly pay $10 or so a month for it.
I agree that 666,000 is not the best way to represent the number, but it's not really wrong. They did buy 666,000 IP addresses.
In my dream MMO (such a game already exists in a different setting) if the community didn't agree with that penis, they'd get together a posse and destroy it and kill the guy who made it.
It doesn't, but trusting some CAs is better than trusting none of them and trying to get a Google engineer on the phone, validating his identity with some challenge response system and then having him read the fingerprint over the phone.
It is correct to say you have no security, for there is only calculated risk. DarkOx decided there are some CAs he trusts, and some he does not. He calculated that risk and accepted it. Saying that it's not perfect security does not mean it's not better security.
This started with the statement by walterbyrd was (sic):
Have hyper-litigious, like Microsoft, created an environment where every silly idea must be patented just out of self defence?
If Google did not patent this, Microsoft would have; then Microsoft would have sued Google over it's use.
I would argue that Microsoft has had it's share of stupid lawsuits, but that's not really the point. Yes, like any other company in the United States with the trademark and patent laws there, they are hyper-litigious. I do not think invoking them as an example was meant to imply any sort of hierarchy of hyper-litigiousness. If I were to make a statement saying "Have untrustworthy people, like X, created an environment where..." I do not mean that only X is untrustworthy and no one else, or that X is the most untrustworthy, only that they are a member of the class.
I personally do not care which member of the hyper-litigious one specifies as X, the jist of the comment is that hyper-litigious companies have created this environment where patents become necessary protections and defensive maneuvers almost required in the business. I don't personally agree with that, I think one could also argue the other direction that the way the intellectual property law exists it forces companies to be hyper-litigious and therefore one feeds the other and vice versa.
Is there a culture of Microsoft bashing on Slashdot? Yes, certainly. That's something I've come to expect over the years and have decided to look beyond it. I think in this case, Microsoft served as a convenient example that fit the poster's agenda, but the crux of the post was about intellectual property laws and enforcement thereof and how that contributes to today's environment.
Now sure why you seem to be reading it as Microsoft's fault, it's a systemic problem and yes Microsoft is part of that problem, but certainly not the only or most egregious. It just happens that Slashdot readership tends to bash Microsoft whenever it can so when citing an example, Microsoft (correctly) fit the bill but you are right, there are hundreds of other and maybe better examples. On other sites, the culture would probably lean towards using some other example, but not here.
Patents are only meaningful *because* of others. If I were the only person in the world, I wouldn't patent anything as no one else could beat me to the punch and require me to pay them fees, etc. The fact that another company exists that may patent the idea first and extract payment is quite a logical reason to consider a patent. This of Microsoft as an example of a hyperlitigious company used as an example. As a discussion as to why one might patent an idea such as this, bringing up being first to do so due to hyperlitigious company's is a good point of discussion.
You disagree I see, but bringing up Microsoft is apropos.
When he joined society's discourse on what e-readers mean to the concept of a book, he also joined societies redefinition of concepts that change over time. Society defines words, not rulers of the world.