It seems terribly shortsighted, in a time where foreign policy is so critical and calls for changes in domestic arrangements (particularly health care) are powerful, to be voting on such narrow issues as technology positions. I won't say these things are unimportant (and would love as much as anyone else here to see someone who would have us withdraw from WIPO and end most IP protection), but by comparison there are far more important things to focus on.
Partly it's that programmers are easily turned off at the idea of learning a new language (as opposed to a framework or discipline in an existing one). Maybe the difference isn't that great, and so perhaps it's not entirely fair, but I've known several programming projects done in C that decided to embed LUA and move a lot of the higher-level stuff to it, and they lost a number of developers because of that.
False certainty characterises a bit too much of dialogue on the internet, I think, and makes it hard to be careful and humble in discussion. If I felt more sure of what I were saying, I'd have phrased it differently:) Presumably:P
I'm willing to question my conventional wisdom too:) It's just something I've heard combined with a little bit of reasoning - not necessarily valid. I have heard that #1 is likely to be true and that #3 may be as well. I would be pleased to see careful testing/analysis that would let us know for sure though. As for #2, I'm not sure that's necessarily the right way to think about the problem - if the model is gaussian, you may be hit by equipment dying very early - earlier than any company would like, and the costs of getting a replacement power supply (and/or possibly motherboard and other components) on society may aggregate to something fairly large.
I wouldn't say your anecdote is not data, just that there's not enough of it to draw conclusions that are particularly broad. We all have anecdotal data to draw from - generally I've found that in my personal and work life, power cycles tend to claim computers - most systems in my machine room at work have died when one of the UPSs didn't quite manage to last a power outage, and most systems at home similarly died when being moved or otherwise powered down. These may be explained partly or wholly by other factors though, which is why it'd be helpful to have a broad study or a careful analysis.
It's probably smarter to track IP addresses unless you control all the switches:)
Common wisdom (which may or may not be actual wisdom) suggests that powering up/down of computer power supplies is one of the largest sources of "wear" on computers nowadays, and so it's best to avoid that (replacing system components and increased costs in the industries to make this possible should be factored into eco-costs as well). Having systems go to sleep to various degrees presumably gets one much of the way towards being more eco-friendly without so much of this wear. That said, presumably a rigourous analysis on the topic would provide more reliable guidance.
If you were to start a homeless shelter and get the backing of some financial sponsors, knowing that state and other funds to help you depends on your having certain numbers of clients, it would be clearly inappropriate for those same sponsors to agressively set up their own shelters in order to block you out (if social groups were generally meaner, we could imagine different churches doing this kind of thing to promote their particular denomination - fortunately churches tend to consider their notion of the public good when doing charity). On one level, it's most important that the shelters exist, but on another it's not kosher to enter a partnership with someone if you're doing it in order to undermine whatever venture they're working on.
Part of the way we think and react to our environment is to build associations between events. If we see two events that are plausibly related (whether we deeply understand both or even either event), and see enough of that, it feels reasonable for us to assume causality. Sometimes this gives us good results, and when we had nothing better to understand the phonomena involved, this "feels right" instinct made a lot of sense - these hunches helped us as a species. Now that we have better tools than hunches and a large research community, it doesn't make sense to rely on the hunches as much anymore - we can do better (and reach more statistically/scientifically valid conclusions), even if it means accepting results (e.g. shit happens) that go against our instincts. Immunisations are presently, as I understand, believed to be safe, and while we don't know absolutely, our conclusions, incomplete though they necessarily are, are better (drawing on better methods and a broader data pool) than the anecdotal evidence that informs your hunches. They are not necessarily more right, but if you're willing to play the odds, they're more likely to be, and so it's reasonable to conclude that you're actually increasing the harm/risk to your children by skipping out on these vaccinations. Life is a matter of odds and trade-offs. You can't escape that game, and you can't assume that ignoring research on nutrition, medicine, education, or any of the other fields that may be pertinent absolves us from our duty to do what's best for members of our society (be they adult or child).
Personally, my answer is no - torture is unacceptable. I can understand the temptation, but I see it as being analogous to incarceration of a criminal's family - not acceptable or warranted under any circumstances. Sometimes there are value tradeoffs in life - this is one I'm willing to make, and I accept the consequences.
Saying "that's the entire point of doing Y" when Y goes against a widely-accepted value X doesn't justify Y in terms of X.
"We believe in respecting human rights" "But you torture people! Simulated drowning isn't humane" "The entire point of torture is not to be humane!"
See? Doesn't work. If we can't find a way to have our methods of law enforcement compatible with human interests and needs to avoid corruption, then maybe we need to stop using or modify those methods.
I'm sure it's probably different for Mac users, but I've generally considered AAC-encoded files to be irritating to work with. When I get them, I generally convert them to Ogg Vorbis..
It's much more challenging to decide to either recruit an existing brain area or decide there "should be" another one suited for your purpose. Brodmann areas 1-3 are admirably suitable for sensory/motor areas, and we have a visual cortex for vision. Call me when you've grown special brain areas for your new senses:)
Whether something has more of a cathedral or bazaar-style development is entirely orthogonal to whether it is free (libre) software. The FSF, for a long time, developed GCC in a cathedral style, and initially Mozilla was mostly cathedral (perhaps it is still). If we care mostly about the freedoms that the free software community cherishes, the way it is developed doesn't matter much. The Cathedral and the Bazaar are more caricatures or points in a space rather than a strict duality anyhow..
It's not as unwise as it might seem. Entanglement of business and state is something that should bear a lot of scrutiny to avoid privilege. A second, weaker reason is that parking meters make for a nice means to allow uniform handling/detection of abandoned vehicles.
The state has an obligation to try to keep its administration reasonably consistent without playing favourites. Apple shouldn't expect ties like this to happen without careful consideration.
I don't think the signers of this NDA are part (or should be part) of such groups, nor is it appropriate to ask - if it's harmful to society, we can judge AMD to be wrong (by that standard). Why is it a problem to expect ethical behaviour of business, and do things from shame to sue them when they go beyond that? Just as individuals who put their interests too far above those of society receive criticism, companies should get the same. Not everything needs to involve the law - we do have that full range of things from shame to the law to apply, depending on circumstance and how willing they are to be shaped towards less damaging behaviour. We shouldn't give them a blank cheque just because they're a business though.
There's a difference between NDAs on employees (and possibly some other people who have a special relationship with the company, e.g. contractors and some types of beta testers) and those outside those groups. NDAs on the latter serve no valid purpose - permitting companies to control people whose job it is to be independent media (that is, not PR films hired by the company) is not in the interest of society and in fact quite harmful to it. The deception ("that's just paperwork") and lies (that denied the event) make it worse. That's why people are upset.
I understand that, but the fact that he would do it (combined with the long list of other agencies on his hitlist) suggest to me that he would not be a good person in office. I don't see any reason to root for him. Admittedly, there are some things I like about him - he looks to be an honest person who's not afraid to rock the boat. If I liked the direction he would move government, that would be a very large plus.
Why would you assume that? What difference does it make?
Even if I were British, your reply is hardly a rebuttal. In reasonable discourse, do you really expect arguments to stop because somebody recognises something about someone else? "Oh, you have red hair, let's end our discussion of history because you're clearly hotheaded" "Don't your cousin marry someone Jewish? That invalidates your points about the Kerensky provisional government in Russia" "You don't come from the wealthiest 10% of society, so talking about poverty with you is a waste of time because of your bias". That style of argument isn't very convincing.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems terribly shortsighted, in a time where foreign policy is so critical and calls for changes in domestic arrangements (particularly health care) are powerful, to be voting on such narrow issues as technology positions. I won't say these things are unimportant (and would love as much as anyone else here to see someone who would have us withdraw from WIPO and end most IP protection), but by comparison there are far more important things to focus on.
For every problem, there's a solution that's simple, neat, and wrong. That's Ron Paul, who would dismantle vital institutions of our society.
Partly it's that programmers are easily turned off at the idea of learning a new language (as opposed to a framework or discipline in an existing one). Maybe the difference isn't that great, and so perhaps it's not entirely fair, but I've known several programming projects done in C that decided to embed LUA and move a lot of the higher-level stuff to it, and they lost a number of developers because of that.
Stuff like this is almost never desired by the consumer.
;-)
Also, psst, I can count to infinity but it takes me a long time every time I do it
I'm sure some of us could, but why would we want to? Design our own prison? Encumber data? Stop whistleblowers?
And then there's wine SELLers... *cringe*
False certainty characterises a bit too much of dialogue on the internet, I think, and makes it hard to be careful and humble in discussion. If I felt more sure of what I were saying, I'd have phrased it differently :) Presumably :P
I'm willing to question my conventional wisdom too :) It's just something I've heard combined with a little bit of reasoning - not necessarily valid. I have heard that #1 is likely to be true and that #3 may be as well. I would be pleased to see careful testing/analysis that would let us know for sure though. As for #2, I'm not sure that's necessarily the right way to think about the problem - if the model is gaussian, you may be hit by equipment dying very early - earlier than any company would like, and the costs of getting a replacement power supply (and/or possibly motherboard and other components) on society may aggregate to something fairly large.
I wouldn't say your anecdote is not data, just that there's not enough of it to draw conclusions that are particularly broad. We all have anecdotal data to draw from - generally I've found that in my personal and work life, power cycles tend to claim computers - most systems in my machine room at work have died when one of the UPSs didn't quite manage to last a power outage, and most systems at home similarly died when being moved or otherwise powered down. These may be explained partly or wholly by other factors though, which is why it'd be helpful to have a broad study or a careful analysis.
It's probably smarter to track IP addresses unless you control all the switches :)
Common wisdom (which may or may not be actual wisdom) suggests that powering up/down of computer power supplies is one of the largest sources of "wear" on computers nowadays, and so it's best to avoid that (replacing system components and increased costs in the industries to make this possible should be factored into eco-costs as well). Having systems go to sleep to various degrees presumably gets one much of the way towards being more eco-friendly without so much of this wear. That said, presumably a rigourous analysis on the topic would provide more reliable guidance.
If you were to start a homeless shelter and get the backing of some financial sponsors, knowing that state and other funds to help you depends on your having certain numbers of clients, it would be clearly inappropriate for those same sponsors to agressively set up their own shelters in order to block you out (if social groups were generally meaner, we could imagine different churches doing this kind of thing to promote their particular denomination - fortunately churches tend to consider their notion of the public good when doing charity). On one level, it's most important that the shelters exist, but on another it's not kosher to enter a partnership with someone if you're doing it in order to undermine whatever venture they're working on.
Which CC license is he talking about, and which of them actually permit revocation?
Competition with your partners, when investment in productiuon and similar are involved, is a bit different from competition in general...
Part of the way we think and react to our environment is to build associations between events. If we see two events that are plausibly related (whether we deeply understand both or even either event), and see enough of that, it feels reasonable for us to assume causality. Sometimes this gives us good results, and when we had nothing better to understand the phonomena involved, this "feels right" instinct made a lot of sense - these hunches helped us as a species. Now that we have better tools than hunches and a large research community, it doesn't make sense to rely on the hunches as much anymore - we can do better (and reach more statistically/scientifically valid conclusions), even if it means accepting results (e.g. shit happens) that go against our instincts. Immunisations are presently, as I understand, believed to be safe, and while we don't know absolutely, our conclusions, incomplete though they necessarily are, are better (drawing on better methods and a broader data pool) than the anecdotal evidence that informs your hunches. They are not necessarily more right, but if you're willing to play the odds, they're more likely to be, and so it's reasonable to conclude that you're actually increasing the harm/risk to your children by skipping out on these vaccinations. Life is a matter of odds and trade-offs. You can't escape that game, and you can't assume that ignoring research on nutrition, medicine, education, or any of the other fields that may be pertinent absolves us from our duty to do what's best for members of our society (be they adult or child).
Saying that Linux is like the common cold is not a good summary of saying that the frequent linux mobile efforts are like the common cold.
Personally, my answer is no - torture is unacceptable. I can understand the temptation, but I see it as being analogous to incarceration of a criminal's family - not acceptable or warranted under any circumstances. Sometimes there are value tradeoffs in life - this is one I'm willing to make, and I accept the consequences.
Saying "that's the entire point of doing Y" when Y goes against a widely-accepted value X doesn't justify Y in terms of X.
"We believe in respecting human rights"
"But you torture people! Simulated drowning isn't humane"
"The entire point of torture is not to be humane!"
See? Doesn't work. If we can't find a way to have our methods of law enforcement compatible with human interests and needs to avoid corruption, then maybe we need to stop using or modify those methods.
I am amused at the thought that low UIDs are valuable.. It's not like one can buy being an old-timer...
I'm sure it's probably different for Mac users, but I've generally considered AAC-encoded files to be irritating to work with. When I get them, I generally convert them to Ogg Vorbis..
It's much more challenging to decide to either recruit an existing brain area or decide there "should be" another one suited for your purpose. Brodmann areas 1-3 are admirably suitable for sensory/motor areas, and we have a visual cortex for vision. Call me when you've grown special brain areas for your new senses :)
Whether something has more of a cathedral or bazaar-style development is entirely orthogonal to whether it is free (libre) software. The FSF, for a long time, developed GCC in a cathedral style, and initially Mozilla was mostly cathedral (perhaps it is still). If we care mostly about the freedoms that the free software community cherishes, the way it is developed doesn't matter much. The Cathedral and the Bazaar are more caricatures or points in a space rather than a strict duality anyhow..
It's not as unwise as it might seem. Entanglement of business and state is something that should bear a lot of scrutiny to avoid privilege. A second, weaker reason is that parking meters make for a nice means to allow uniform handling/detection of abandoned vehicles.
The state has an obligation to try to keep its administration reasonably consistent without playing favourites. Apple shouldn't expect ties like this to happen without careful consideration.
I don't think the signers of this NDA are part (or should be part) of such groups, nor is it appropriate to ask - if it's harmful to society, we can judge AMD to be wrong (by that standard). Why is it a problem to expect ethical behaviour of business, and do things from shame to sue them when they go beyond that? Just as individuals who put their interests too far above those of society receive criticism, companies should get the same. Not everything needs to involve the law - we do have that full range of things from shame to the law to apply, depending on circumstance and how willing they are to be shaped towards less damaging behaviour. We shouldn't give them a blank cheque just because they're a business though.
There's a difference between NDAs on employees (and possibly some other people who have a special relationship with the company, e.g. contractors and some types of beta testers) and those outside those groups. NDAs on the latter serve no valid purpose - permitting companies to control people whose job it is to be independent media (that is, not PR films hired by the company) is not in the interest of society and in fact quite harmful to it. The deception ("that's just paperwork") and lies (that denied the event) make it worse. That's why people are upset.
I understand that, but the fact that he would do it (combined with the long list of other agencies on his hitlist) suggest to me that he would not be a good person in office. I don't see any reason to root for him. Admittedly, there are some things I like about him - he looks to be an honest person who's not afraid to rock the boat. If I liked the direction he would move government, that would be a very large plus.
Why would you assume that? What difference does it make?
Even if I were British, your reply is hardly a rebuttal. In reasonable discourse, do you really expect arguments to stop because somebody recognises something about someone else? "Oh, you have red hair, let's end our discussion of history because you're clearly hotheaded" "Don't your cousin marry someone Jewish? That invalidates your points about the Kerensky provisional government in Russia" "You don't come from the wealthiest 10% of society, so talking about poverty with you is a waste of time because of your bias". That style of argument isn't very convincing.