No, it wasn't food for thought, there was no thought there. It was a fact, tangentially related to the story, with no thought other than "just sayin'." The thinking should pre-empt the posting. The posting should be an explanation of the thoughts.
No matter how you romanticize what you're doing, it's nothing a machine couldn't, and with similar results: not even being relevant much of the time. You're adding nothing to the discussion of the article, and the root of what I'm getting at has nothing to do with the article. I guess by the phrase Socratic arguments, you're getting at the Socratic method? I don't see it. You aren't arguing anything here. Facts are not debatable. At most, you implied something by the fact, but neglected to name it, nor any reason for it.
The Socratic method cannot reasonably be applied to every situation, because infinite situations may arise or be hypothesized, and trying to debate them through this method is impractically time-consuming. It also demands the time of others to debate with you, when they could often reasonably come to a conclusion without your involvement.
In other words, most of the time, what you have to post isn't worth posting unless you have some reason (reason as in logic, not as in cause) to substantiate it.
But, for the first time ever, I'm going to figure out how to ignore/block someone on slashdot. Why? Your comments are inane and useless, and because as is obvious from your FWIW about AOSP, you don't even read the discussions you try to start.
Light transistors? Not exactly as you describe, that I'm aware... But things that fit a more general description of "light transistor" do exist. They're basically optical ring resonators, but add some standard silicon doping and bias it, you can change the refractive index to stop the resonance. I'm not exactly up on my photonics, but I think in theory you could couple the ring resonator to another pathway which would ultimately go to the display, with the applied voltage controlling whether or not the source signal is coupled through to the display.
Not exactly what you have in mind, probably not efficient or manufacturable.
Firstly, your statement that my name is "annoyingly" l33t-speak is an expression of opinion, not fact.
Haha, I suppose.
Secondly, you don't think that the main contributor to a custom ROM package being an employee of one of the companies involved in this story is at least interesting, at worst a conflict of interest?
No, not if you understand what that person's involvement is and how Cyanogenmod works. Cyanogen was hired to improve the compatibility of Cyanogenmod on Samsung phones. Cyanogenmod's source is open, and is built from AOSP, which contains nothing from CIQ. The level of awareness of this issue among the people most likely to develop for Android and Cyanogenmod means it is very unlikely that CIQ could be slipped in, and even if it did, that it would not be quickly caught.
It's at most a conspiracy theory, and you'd have to do some mental contortions to convince yourself that the data collected by CIQ matters to Samsung (it seems to be something the carriers demand, not something the manufacturers care about), that Samsung is worried that the uptake in Cyanogenmod users is enough to damage their data gathering abilities (given the relatively small number of devices Cyanogenmod supports and the tiny number of people who use it relative to the population, this just isn't the case), that Samsung would be willing to risk its name and reputation to appease the carriers, that Samsung's response would be to try to infiltrate Cyanogenmod rather than just locking down their devices more, and that Cyanogen would throw his reputation and community under the bus for Samsung (especially since he's being employed to further Cyanogenmod on Samsung devices - if it was found that CIQ was being baked into Cyanogenmod, users would leave, Samsung would have no reason to pay him to get a ROM no one has any interest in using to work on their phones, and would eliminate his position).
So no, there's little interesting about your point, beyond the first glance. In fact, there's an awful lot against it.
This was the reason I replied to your post; any post I see that says "random fact tangentially related to story, just sayin'" irks me to no end. Just sayin'? Just pointing out facts? Why? What's interesting about them? How are they related? What purpose did you have in posting? Was there any idea that you were trying to explain, some connection you thought maybe others didn't see? Did you think about it at all beyond first appearances? It's lazy, it's a waste of space, there's no apparent thought, and it's fodder for conspiracy theorists and fanboys.
Thirdly, and this is related to the second point, Cyanogenmod 7.1 on the Desire HD does not have any of the CarrierIQ components. To check your own ROM, go to this xda-developers post [xda-developers.com] and download the Logging Test App. Requires root permissions to check for CIQ logging, amongst others (Google, HTC).
Good info about the logging test app... but I don't see how it relates to the second point (not your presentation of it anyway) but it does help my argument as to why Samsung wouldn't try to do what you're implying they might be.
The stats are strictly opt-in (at least they were the last time I used it) and the security vulnerability was fixed at the time the article you linked to was published... your hyperbolic description of the vulnerability aside.
No, I'm not claiming third party/Cyanogenmod are perfect. But most are at least open and try.
Maybe if you could REFRAIN FROM SHOUTING and use fewer profanities, you'd have more credibility. And if you wouldn't treat it as a black and white, this or that issue, it would also help your case. But no, you fall exactly into the flamewar stereotype.
As an aside - what exactly is the "currently accepted model?"
Why not just judge the context of his post? Why do you care if you can pin a pseudonym on him that's easily created and more easily discarded?
His comment contains nothing of substance whatsoever. It doesn't deserve your 'serious consideration' regardless. Would you give it more worth just because instead of 'Anonymous Coward' at the top it's 'lol_bieber_is_teh_coolest'?
Yes they were. The vast majority of those kinds of signs that showed up at the rallies were clearly labeled as being from the LaRouchians, who, having little in common with the TPers, sought to capitalize on the exposure the rallies were getting for their own goals.
As for what you linked to - yeah, that person screwed up. Though personally I was not aware that chimpanzee/monkey could be considered a racial insult; more of a general insult about competency or perhaps being a show trick controlled by someone else.
Y'know, like all those signs that had Bush morphed into a chimp.
I wouldn't trust in all that so much. Have you dealt with automated systems much?
If two self-driving cars are involved in an accident, there is a clear failure in the programming or systems of sensors and driving. Depending on the hardware or software fault, it may not be at all clear from the logs where the fault was.
Everything can appear fine from the software perspective, but there are times when the hardware is doing or not doing something the software thinks it is.
Just out of curiousity, since I tried not to make any specific claim about either, to treat the general case - in your mind, what definitions did I use or imply?
That would be nice in theory, but in practice, I think you're wrong.
When the LaRouchians invaded the tea party movements, do you think that people just ignored the LaRouchians and didn't associate the anti-semitism and ridiculous claims to the tea party? Do you think that the militant anarchists and kids asking for someone to pay for their college loans because they don't want to pay themselves showed up at the OWS movements, do you think most people ignored them or do you think they associated them with a core contingency and the goals of the movement?
Well, I never said copyrights are property rights. I must not have been clear, you're the second person to claim I said this.
This was the claim of the OP - that democracy must come before property rights, therefore acknowledging that copyrights are property rights, because copyrights are what are in question in the story. I merely said that no, in general, I think that property rights are required for a democracy. I didn't define what a property right was, or mean to imply it should include copyright.
As to the meat of your post... I find it self-defeating. By claiming that copyrights are anti-property rights - therefore an infringement of property rights - your argument logically has to consider the material that copyrights cover as property.
You think that people not being able to replicate that property is an infringement of property rights. But if it is property, the only ones who would seem to be able to claim any right to it are the ones that created it; and therefore the replication of it (against the creators' will) would be a violation of the creators' property rights. The only way you can get around this is to claim that creating something does not give you any particular right to it, or to consider works that are copyrightable as not being property.
The latter case seems to be the more oft-chosen track. But as I said to another poster - should one not have the right to one's creations? What gives you the right to claim them as your own or as the public's? Are the consequences of your claim - both in the decision of those who create works to continue to create them, and of the precedent your claim makes - are the consequences desirable or constitute a net benefit?
Yikes. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to reply to you, seeing as how you're obviously just trolling, because nothing I said implies or logically has the consequence of what you claim.
But hey, 10 second epithets seem to pass as intellectual debate anymore. Yay politics.
But your stance is easily debatable. Should one not have the right to one's creations? What gives you the right to claim them as your own or as the public's? Are the consequences of your claim - both in the decision of those who create works to continue to create them, and of the precedent your claim makes - are the consequences desirable or constitute a net benefit?
Eh, you're just being dishonest. I didn't say property rights imply democracy, I said that a democracy needs property rights. So no, saying that because $nation1 has more property rights than $nation2 does not say anything about the relative levels of democracy in each.
And it's not ideological rhetoric at all. At any rate, I'd say it's not rhetoric. Sure it's ideological, in that it represents an idea or school of thought. And it's easy to argue against. Socialism is often democratic and yet it has much looser expectations for property rights, as there is more emphasis on wealth redistribution and welfare.
Apparently on this subject I've hit a nerve with you, and you disagree. But you're post is ridiculous. Apparently everything is nebulous and undefined for you, and nothing is debatable or worth the time to examine?
The only thing you said that even approaches being interesting is to ask how exactly one defines property and democracy and functioning. Yet you offer nothing to it yourself. And it doesn't begin to deconstruct what I said, without making some far-fetched assumptions... The only restriction I've placed on how one defines a democracy is that it deals with majority/minority opinion, and my post requires no specific definition of property, because I said one must have a "rightful" claim, the validity of which would be determined by the society in question. Sure, the definition of these things is debatable to some extent. But as my post does not relying on any specific definition... what'e your point?
The functioning part is better. For these purposes, I think functioning must describe more than the present, but future viability, including resistance to external forces of economics and politics.
How is this at all akin to slavery? That is a terrible analogy, and it seems like you just wanted to liken it to something that society sees as reprehensible to make it look bad.
It is bad, but at least call it out for being what it is. People who make outrageous claims simply discredit their own movement.
No, I think you're wrong. Property rights are a requisite to a functioning democracy.
This has nothing to do with property rights. It has to do with the legislation that basically assumes guilt and requires payment lest you be able to fully prove yourself innocent, and that the system allowed such a law to get on the books.
These things, they are not "privileges," they are fundamental rights. Seems to be a pretty basic right that one should not be punished for a crime unproven. A democracy which fails to protect this is a failing democracy.
Your path to declaring this undemocratic is troublesome, though. Simply because a minority has the rights to something the majority does not, does not imply a failing of democracy. That would be more akin to communism. That the minority can maintain their (rightful) claim to their rights despite the tyranny of the majority trying to take it away, that is a functioning democracy. Simply saying a minority appears to have "more" "rights" than the majority is therefore not necessarily a failing of democracy.
This has nothing to do with minorities and majorities. It is a law that violates fundamental rights. It would not matter if it was a majority impressing this same law on a minority, it would be just as offensive. It is only a failing of democracy insofar as that democracies are, in general, supposed to protect these rights, something not true of all other governments. It is a failing of any legitimate government, which claims to protect the rights of the governed.
Really? When did Apple start making graphics cards, expansions cards, motherboards, etc.? As far as I'm aware they don't make any of the affected components, nor do they design or make the logic responsible for negotiating power.
Re:Intel's 3g gate transistors stop all current
on
The Transistor Wars
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
That part of the summary was probably meant to address traditional planar transistor designs, where it is roughly accurate. It is one of the reasons why Intel has been pursuing 3D transistors - more gate control over the channel and no bulk leakage.
Another approach is to use a buried oxide layer, so that the transistors simply don't have a bulk substrate, and the channel is thin enough to allow better gate control. This approach will help the leakage, but 3D gets you faster transistors, too, because there is more area the gate directly controls to form an inversion layer to conduct current. The upside of this method is that if we can fabricate the wafers, the rest of the processing is mostly the same (though those wafers will be expensive). 3D requires a lot more work, but apparently Intel has that figured out.
Google hasn't bought Motorola. Merely states its intentions to do so, and filed some of the paperwork. Whether or not Google will acquire Motorola is still to be decided by regulatory bodies worldwide.
Slashdot Mirror
shred -n# -v /dev/sdx where # is the number of passes to make.
No, it wasn't food for thought, there was no thought there. It was a fact, tangentially related to the story, with no thought other than "just sayin'." The thinking should pre-empt the posting. The posting should be an explanation of the thoughts.
No matter how you romanticize what you're doing, it's nothing a machine couldn't, and with similar results: not even being relevant much of the time. You're adding nothing to the discussion of the article, and the root of what I'm getting at has nothing to do with the article. I guess by the phrase Socratic arguments, you're getting at the Socratic method? I don't see it. You aren't arguing anything here. Facts are not debatable. At most, you implied something by the fact, but neglected to name it, nor any reason for it.
The Socratic method cannot reasonably be applied to every situation, because infinite situations may arise or be hypothesized, and trying to debate them through this method is impractically time-consuming. It also demands the time of others to debate with you, when they could often reasonably come to a conclusion without your involvement.
In other words, most of the time, what you have to post isn't worth posting unless you have some reason (reason as in logic, not as in cause) to substantiate it.
But, for the first time ever, I'm going to figure out how to ignore/block someone on slashdot. Why? Your comments are inane and useless, and because as is obvious from your FWIW about AOSP, you don't even read the discussions you try to start.
Light transistors? Not exactly as you describe, that I'm aware... But things that fit a more general description of "light transistor" do exist. They're basically optical ring resonators, but add some standard silicon doping and bias it, you can change the refractive index to stop the resonance. I'm not exactly up on my photonics, but I think in theory you could couple the ring resonator to another pathway which would ultimately go to the display, with the applied voltage controlling whether or not the source signal is coupled through to the display.
Not exactly what you have in mind, probably not efficient or manufacturable.
Firstly, your statement that my name is "annoyingly" l33t-speak is an expression of opinion, not fact.
Haha, I suppose.
Secondly, you don't think that the main contributor to a custom ROM package being an employee of one of the companies involved in this story is at least interesting, at worst a conflict of interest?
No, not if you understand what that person's involvement is and how Cyanogenmod works. Cyanogen was hired to improve the compatibility of Cyanogenmod on Samsung phones. Cyanogenmod's source is open, and is built from AOSP, which contains nothing from CIQ. The level of awareness of this issue among the people most likely to develop for Android and Cyanogenmod means it is very unlikely that CIQ could be slipped in, and even if it did, that it would not be quickly caught.
It's at most a conspiracy theory, and you'd have to do some mental contortions to convince yourself that the data collected by CIQ matters to Samsung (it seems to be something the carriers demand, not something the manufacturers care about), that Samsung is worried that the uptake in Cyanogenmod users is enough to damage their data gathering abilities (given the relatively small number of devices Cyanogenmod supports and the tiny number of people who use it relative to the population, this just isn't the case), that Samsung would be willing to risk its name and reputation to appease the carriers, that Samsung's response would be to try to infiltrate Cyanogenmod rather than just locking down their devices more, and that Cyanogen would throw his reputation and community under the bus for Samsung (especially since he's being employed to further Cyanogenmod on Samsung devices - if it was found that CIQ was being baked into Cyanogenmod, users would leave, Samsung would have no reason to pay him to get a ROM no one has any interest in using to work on their phones, and would eliminate his position).
So no, there's little interesting about your point, beyond the first glance. In fact, there's an awful lot against it.
This was the reason I replied to your post; any post I see that says "random fact tangentially related to story, just sayin'" irks me to no end. Just sayin'? Just pointing out facts? Why? What's interesting about them? How are they related? What purpose did you have in posting? Was there any idea that you were trying to explain, some connection you thought maybe others didn't see? Did you think about it at all beyond first appearances? It's lazy, it's a waste of space, there's no apparent thought, and it's fodder for conspiracy theorists and fanboys.
Thirdly, and this is related to the second point, Cyanogenmod 7.1 on the Desire HD does not have any of the CarrierIQ components. To check your own ROM, go to this xda-developers post [xda-developers.com] and download the Logging Test App. Requires root permissions to check for CIQ logging, amongst others (Google, HTC).
Good info about the logging test app... but I don't see how it relates to the second point (not your presentation of it anyway) but it does help my argument as to why Samsung wouldn't try to do what you're implying they might be.
Your username is annoyingly l33t-speak. I'm not saying your post adds nothing to the discussion, just pointing out facts.
The stats are strictly opt-in (at least they were the last time I used it) and the security vulnerability was fixed at the time the article you linked to was published... your hyperbolic description of the vulnerability aside.
No, I'm not claiming third party/Cyanogenmod are perfect. But most are at least open and try.
Congratulations on proving his point.
Maybe if you could REFRAIN FROM SHOUTING and use fewer profanities, you'd have more credibility. And if you wouldn't treat it as a black and white, this or that issue, it would also help your case. But no, you fall exactly into the flamewar stereotype.
As an aside - what exactly is the "currently accepted model?"
Why not just judge the context of his post? Why do you care if you can pin a pseudonym on him that's easily created and more easily discarded?
His comment contains nothing of substance whatsoever. It doesn't deserve your 'serious consideration' regardless. Would you give it more worth just because instead of 'Anonymous Coward' at the top it's 'lol_bieber_is_teh_coolest'?
Are you here to discuss ideas or to judge people?
Yes they were. The vast majority of those kinds of signs that showed up at the rallies were clearly labeled as being from the LaRouchians, who, having little in common with the TPers, sought to capitalize on the exposure the rallies were getting for their own goals.
As for what you linked to - yeah, that person screwed up. Though personally I was not aware that chimpanzee/monkey could be considered a racial insult; more of a general insult about competency or perhaps being a show trick controlled by someone else.
Y'know, like all those signs that had Bush morphed into a chimp.
Exactly, and as you pointed out, the damage from the accident makes it so much harder.
It's easy to troubleshoot an intact system to find the fault, much harder when the relevant pieces have been crushed.
...or not switch gears, in this case. :)
I wouldn't trust in all that so much. Have you dealt with automated systems much?
If two self-driving cars are involved in an accident, there is a clear failure in the programming or systems of sensors and driving. Depending on the hardware or software fault, it may not be at all clear from the logs where the fault was.
Everything can appear fine from the software perspective, but there are times when the hardware is doing or not doing something the software thinks it is.
Just out of curiousity, since I tried not to make any specific claim about either, to treat the general case - in your mind, what definitions did I use or imply?
That would be nice in theory, but in practice, I think you're wrong.
When the LaRouchians invaded the tea party movements, do you think that people just ignored the LaRouchians and didn't associate the anti-semitism and ridiculous claims to the tea party? Do you think that the militant anarchists and kids asking for someone to pay for their college loans because they don't want to pay themselves showed up at the OWS movements, do you think most people ignored them or do you think they associated them with a core contingency and the goals of the movement?
Well, I never said copyrights are property rights. I must not have been clear, you're the second person to claim I said this.
This was the claim of the OP - that democracy must come before property rights, therefore acknowledging that copyrights are property rights, because copyrights are what are in question in the story. I merely said that no, in general, I think that property rights are required for a democracy. I didn't define what a property right was, or mean to imply it should include copyright.
As to the meat of your post... I find it self-defeating. By claiming that copyrights are anti-property rights - therefore an infringement of property rights - your argument logically has to consider the material that copyrights cover as property.
You think that people not being able to replicate that property is an infringement of property rights. But if it is property, the only ones who would seem to be able to claim any right to it are the ones that created it; and therefore the replication of it (against the creators' will) would be a violation of the creators' property rights. The only way you can get around this is to claim that creating something does not give you any particular right to it, or to consider works that are copyrightable as not being property.
The latter case seems to be the more oft-chosen track. But as I said to another poster - should one not have the right to one's creations? What gives you the right to claim them as your own or as the public's? Are the consequences of your claim - both in the decision of those who create works to continue to create them, and of the precedent your claim makes - are the consequences desirable or constitute a net benefit?
Yikes. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to reply to you, seeing as how you're obviously just trolling, because nothing I said implies or logically has the consequence of what you claim.
But hey, 10 second epithets seem to pass as intellectual debate anymore. Yay politics.
I made no claims at all about what copyright is.
But your stance is easily debatable. Should one not have the right to one's creations? What gives you the right to claim them as your own or as the public's? Are the consequences of your claim - both in the decision of those who create works to continue to create them, and of the precedent your claim makes - are the consequences desirable or constitute a net benefit?
Eh, you're just being dishonest. I didn't say property rights imply democracy, I said that a democracy needs property rights. So no, saying that because $nation1 has more property rights than $nation2 does not say anything about the relative levels of democracy in each.
And it's not ideological rhetoric at all. At any rate, I'd say it's not rhetoric. Sure it's ideological, in that it represents an idea or school of thought. And it's easy to argue against. Socialism is often democratic and yet it has much looser expectations for property rights, as there is more emphasis on wealth redistribution and welfare.
Apparently on this subject I've hit a nerve with you, and you disagree. But you're post is ridiculous. Apparently everything is nebulous and undefined for you, and nothing is debatable or worth the time to examine?
The only thing you said that even approaches being interesting is to ask how exactly one defines property and democracy and functioning. Yet you offer nothing to it yourself. And it doesn't begin to deconstruct what I said, without making some far-fetched assumptions... The only restriction I've placed on how one defines a democracy is that it deals with majority/minority opinion, and my post requires no specific definition of property, because I said one must have a "rightful" claim, the validity of which would be determined by the society in question. Sure, the definition of these things is debatable to some extent. But as my post does not relying on any specific definition... what'e your point?
The functioning part is better. For these purposes, I think functioning must describe more than the present, but future viability, including resistance to external forces of economics and politics.
How is this at all akin to slavery? That is a terrible analogy, and it seems like you just wanted to liken it to something that society sees as reprehensible to make it look bad.
It is bad, but at least call it out for being what it is. People who make outrageous claims simply discredit their own movement.
No, I think you're wrong. Property rights are a requisite to a functioning democracy.
This has nothing to do with property rights. It has to do with the legislation that basically assumes guilt and requires payment lest you be able to fully prove yourself innocent, and that the system allowed such a law to get on the books.
These things, they are not "privileges," they are fundamental rights. Seems to be a pretty basic right that one should not be punished for a crime unproven. A democracy which fails to protect this is a failing democracy.
Your path to declaring this undemocratic is troublesome, though. Simply because a minority has the rights to something the majority does not, does not imply a failing of democracy. That would be more akin to communism. That the minority can maintain their (rightful) claim to their rights despite the tyranny of the majority trying to take it away, that is a functioning democracy. Simply saying a minority appears to have "more" "rights" than the majority is therefore not necessarily a failing of democracy.
This has nothing to do with minorities and majorities. It is a law that violates fundamental rights. It would not matter if it was a majority impressing this same law on a minority, it would be just as offensive. It is only a failing of democracy insofar as that democracies are, in general, supposed to protect these rights, something not true of all other governments. It is a failing of any legitimate government, which claims to protect the rights of the governed.
I know a few people who have done LCD/glass swaps, that's really the biggest thing you can easily do. And it certainly beats buying a new phone...
Exactly, but more detail than I decided to go into :)
I'd probably just link to the Ars or TechReport article instead, though those may go over the head of people that have no education in this stuff.
Really? When did Apple start making graphics cards, expansions cards, motherboards, etc.? As far as I'm aware they don't make any of the affected components, nor do they design or make the logic responsible for negotiating power.
That part of the summary was probably meant to address traditional planar transistor designs, where it is roughly accurate. It is one of the reasons why Intel has been pursuing 3D transistors - more gate control over the channel and no bulk leakage.
Another approach is to use a buried oxide layer, so that the transistors simply don't have a bulk substrate, and the channel is thin enough to allow better gate control. This approach will help the leakage, but 3D gets you faster transistors, too, because there is more area the gate directly controls to form an inversion layer to conduct current. The upside of this method is that if we can fabricate the wafers, the rest of the processing is mostly the same (though those wafers will be expensive). 3D requires a lot more work, but apparently Intel has that figured out.
Google hasn't bought Motorola. Merely states its intentions to do so, and filed some of the paperwork. Whether or not Google will acquire Motorola is still to be decided by regulatory bodies worldwide.