We need to remember that people who do unusual things with unusual browsers are an incredibly small fraction of all internet users.
Actually what the grandparent post described - identifying as IE - happens by default (it's people who identify as Opera who are the unusual small fraction). The question is whether these stats pick up the "Opera" bit at the end, or whether it's just lumped in with IE.
The message of the article is that there's very rougly a 8/1/1 split between IE, firefox and 'other'. That message is not affected in the slightest by Opera, lynx or any other niche browser.
Except we don't know whether it's a niche browser or not, if we don't know what it's being counted as. That's circular logic: "The accuracy of the stats for Opera don't matter as it's a niche browser, therefore we can conclude that Opera is a niche browser".
(Preparing for the flamebait label from people who think that sharing your bookmarks, posting about your depressing emo life and sharing crappy photos substitutes for having a real social life... and think phone party lines are a great place to meet sexy singles for a night out on the town).
Says the Anonymous Coward who thinks that posting on Slashdot is a substitute for having a real social life...
Only to find out some nobody rolled back all the changes a few hours after, asking me to back everything up with references
So why didn't you back it up?
You're saying that Wikipedia is bad, because they won't allow people to put in information that they can't back up, other than saying "trust me, I'm an expert"?
This is what makes Wikipedia good. Unlike a closed encyclopedia or other book where someone can get away with writing a one-sided point of view without being challenged, here people are required to discuss and back up their changes with evidence. Yes, the downside of sharing an encyclopedia with the rest of the Internet is that you don't get to have your say all the time, and actually have to try talking to the other people editing there. If you don't like that, and don't like backing up your changes, Wikipedia probably isn't for you.
Most of it was pretty obvious to anyone remotely involved
If this is true, why not get them to reinstate the changes? If one person is repeatedly removes changes several people are in favour of, then he should be considered a vandal.
It's not hard if you look. Don't sweat finding one in your area.
I'm aware of the list, but I agree with poster, it can be hard finding a server. A big list doesn't help if the first five you try don't seem to work (eventually I found one which seems to work for now, but to be honest I prefer using a client that supports the protocols directly such as GAIM).
Apparently you forgot about Google.
GoogleTalk is not (currently at least) part of the Jabber network. You need a GMail login to talk to people on the GoogleTalk network, so it's yet another network which needs yet another separate login, just like the "big three".
if you change computers and install it on a new system, you get to resort all your contacts again.
Can I ask what you mean by this? Contacts should be stored on the server; I recently switched from Trillian to GAIM, and kept all my contacts no problem. Although I may be misunderstand what you mean by "sort".
You don't have these problems on Jabber, and it lets you talk to the Obsolete Three (AIM/ICQ/Microsoft-Yahoo Messenger) networks just fine.
Yes you do; you still need to have separate logins for those networks.
Don't get me wrong; the Jabber network (which Trillian can do also in the Pro version btw - don't confuse networks with the clients) is a far better thing that the closed networks, and it's worth pointing out that Jabber has its own way of connecting with the other networks, but you still face the same problems, and I don't see it as necessarily better than using a client which supports multiple protocols such as Trillian and GAIM.
I sometimes have dreams where I'm aware that I'm able to manipulate the environment, perhaps subconsciously knowing that I'm in a dream. For example, if I'm dreaming I'm late for something, I'll just teleport myself to where I want to go. As you say, I only realise the contradictions and implausibility of all this when I wake up.
Lucid dreaming is much more than that, however. It means I'm fully aware I'm dreaming, and I know that everything around me isn't real life, but I can still control my actions. I am able to fully access my real world memories, and know everything about my life, what day it is and so on (although having said that, I do have some partially lucid dreams where I seem to be aware I'm dreaming, but I have incorrect memories about my actual real life).
Of course, the sceptics will still say "How do you know you just weren't dreaming you were lucid?", but this is no different to me asking how do you know you had free will yesterday - perhaps that was just an illusion?
Certainly it is true that I can tell dream from reality in a lucid dream, unlike normal dreams - whether I genuinely have free will in a lucid dream is no more an unknown than whether we have free will at all.
No one is claiming that a crime shouldn't be investigated; the issue is in policing and trying to prevent crime. Do you think it would make sense to have most of the police based in and always focused on your small town, and not in the big city which is full of crime?
You're only missing what they've been saying on their website about this for weeks now.
Do you have a link?
All I've found is http://www.google.co.uk/talk/developer.html , which suggests that whilst they will choose to connect to some other servers, they won't be connecting to all Jabber servers. So it will still be their separate network, albeit with some overlap with the Jabber network. An open network means we shouldn't need to have Google's permission to join the IM network.
The 80 gajillion Google fanboys are suddenly able to access the rest of the IM landscape that isn't stuck in the last millennium with their Google Talk JID. Google users and the rest of the Jabber network rejoice
Except I didn't think that GoogleTalk was on the Jabber network?
And then there was one. MSN Messenger fights to the bitter death, losing mindshare bit by bit until 10 years from now, Microsoft's holding an empty bag and wondering how the hell they missed the boat on IM. Everybody loves Google, and many will switch to Google Talk on basis of name recognition alone. Thank God that they don't abuse that power.
Google may seem a nice company, and it may be convenient not to have several different networks, but a single network controlled by one company is not a good thing. The better solution by far is an open network that anyone can add their servers (ie, exactly what the Jabber network is, but it's not clear whether GoogleTalk will be part of this).
The GoogleTalk and Jabber networks are not the same - you are confusing protocols with the networks.
As far as I know, it is not possible to communicate between GoogleTalk and Jabber users on other servers. It's just that GoogleTalk happens to use the same protocol (it's a bit like running a closed NNTP server, and claiming you're part of Usenet). Yes, it's good that they're using an open protocol, but GoogleTalk is yet another closed network. The open network of Jabber is at least as good a thing as the open protocol, but Google have created confusion between GoogleTalk and Jabber, which may make it harder to promote Jabber (as both a protocol and a network), and therefore is not such a good thing.
( http://www.google.com/talk/developer.html#service says "We plan to partner with other willing service providers to enable federation of our services. This means that a user on one service can communicate with users on another service without needing to sign up for, or sign in with, each service." which suggests that the GoogleTalk will be expanded, possibly crossing over with some parts of the Jabber network, but there is no guarantee that they will merge fully with the Jabber network).
As things stand, GoogleTalk is not an end to segregated IM networks, and has just made things worse in my opinion (both by adding another network, and creating confusion about Jabber).
Yes, just like companies in the US aren't allowed to force drug tests, and aren't allowed to fire employees for any reason (a practice which would make it easy to get away with discrimination)...
I'd like to think you were right, but unless there's big changes in the way it's considered acceptable to treat employees in the US, it's going to be easy to get away with genetic discrimination. At least here in the UK, there is more hope (where drug tests are a lot less common, and you can't fire someone unless there is good reason or their job is made redundant).
Analogy: picture the auto industry in the 70s. American cars weren't terrible, but the quality control was bad enough that the cars were totally inconsistent. The big three would tell you that making defect-free cars would raise the prices to the point that nobody could afford a car. People accepted this, because they didn't know better. Then the Japanese showed up. They delievered cars that, while not perfect, blew away the big three in terms of quality, and at very reasonable prices. It can be done.
The most important point here is that it was not done by the Japanese moaning at the Americans, it was done by the Japanese doing it themselves.
Sure, perhaps it can be done. If you think it can, then please go ahead and do so. If you're right, then there's great profits and market share awaiting the person who does this.
This was the point of the post earlier up in the thread - if you think it can be done, stop moaning and go ahead and do it.
If there is a clear flaw in a product that you buy and it causes you harm you can sue the retailer.
But only if you're using the product in the manner it was designed for.
If I buy a car and drive it into the sea, I most certainly cannot sue them for any harm which comes to me. If someone built a car but clearly labelled that it was not fit to be driven (eg, it was intended as a model), then again I do not see how I could sue them if I chose to drive it nonetheless.
I'll be the first person to agree that EULAs are not enforceable contracts, however, it is perfectly valid to describe for what purpose a product is fit for, and to exempt themselves from liability. The main problem I would say is commercial software where the EULA isn't visible until after you've brought it - I would agree that EULAs should be presented before a sale (or at the least, a full refund given if the person doesn't like the EULA).
The problem is that consumers are happy to accept buggy software with limits on liability. If they were willing to pay enough money, there'd surely be a software company willing to provide what they want.
If you mean "The neutrality of this article is disputed", even without it, I fail to see what's so wrong with the article; they are not claiming that Remote Viewing actually exists. If Wikipedia are honest about articles where there might be biased, then surely that is more honest than a closed encyclopedia where they do not admit to bias.
The very fact that Wikipedia has to include every moonbat and wingnut theory biases the entire article.
There's an important difference between "x people believe such and such" and "such and such is true".
I don't believe that what you describe here, whether or not it is a problem, is anything to do with NPOV. NPOV is about avoiding bias, not including every point of view. It's the NPOV which means that words like "allegedly" get sprinkled all over the place in articles such as these - would you prefer an article without NPOV where these claims were stated as fact?
Whilst I would rather that people spent time on more useful articles than documenting conspiracy theories, that does not mean that they should not be there at all. The theories may be rubbish, but that they exist and people believe in them is a fact. If controversies exist, why shouldn't they be mentioned?
The reason I don't trust Wikipedia is because the edits of these social dropouts are given equal status as those by university professors.
That's an invalid comparison. Sure, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia as much as a University professor who is publishing some research in the relevant field he has carried out. The question is, how much would you trust any other encyclopedia, where they have collected facts but not carried out primary research themselves, and where you don't necessarily know who all the authors contributing are, and whether they are experts in the field?
- There's a big sign warning me of the neutrality of the article. - The article is clearly phrased in terms of what people believe ("Remote Viewing allegedly allows a viewer...") rather than stating it as fact. - The rest of the article covers facts on studies that have happened, and what people have claimed.
Where's the problem? Are you suggesting that such articles should not even be allowed? Clearly, even if Remove Viewing is nonsense, it is a fact that people believe in it, and that people have tried to study it, and all of this belongs in an encyclopedia. Such facts may be useful to people who disbelieve in remote viewing, if they want to see what studies have been carried out, and attempt to discredit them.
For "loony opinions" to be represented, the page would have to be claiming that Remote Viewing actually existed. NPOV does not mean that their point of view should be presented as equally valid, it means that articles should be presented without bias, which is something I wish more authors would strive for.
I would be wary of using an encyclopedia to back something up - you should really be going to the sources of the evidence, whether that's people who have carried out research, or primary evidence.
The purpose of an encyclopedia is to be a collection of facts, with references to the sources to back those facts up, and not to be an independent source for of providing evidence. Wikipedia does this job well.
I agree that customers should be fully entitled to a refund if their Firefox browser is buggy...
Seriously, the difference is not in what the law allows, but in what the software companies tend to do. It is perfectly legal to say that a hardware product is only fit for a certain purpose - for example, if I drive a car into the sea, then clearly, I cannot sue the manufacturer if it sinks. If I drive a toy car on the road, I cannot sue the manufacturer if I crash.
It just so happens that, rightly or wrongly, software companies tend distance themselves from saying that their software is fit for any purpose. If consumers took notice of that, maybe things would change.
the people that are recieving these laptops are already recieving food.
And if they had enough food, why should we assume they'd be selling laptops for more food?
it is the whole concept of teach a man to fish...aka they become educated and suddenly their country gets better as a whole and starvation is pretty much gone.
I have no problem with teaching people to fish. I do have a problem with spending money on biometric fishing rods, especially when that money could be better spent on helping the poor (either by giving them more fishing rods, or giving them the food and clothing that they also need).
And it is you who is short sighted. What happens when the child receives or is able to buy a better laptop a few years later - the old laptop may still be useful to someone poor without any laptop, but thanks to the OP's short sighted scheme, it is useless to anyone else.
OK... umm... we're not talking about how the moon orbits Earth.
But you learn about that sort of thing in school - shouldn't alternative "theories" such as these be taught in physics lessons?
We're talking something that there's at MOST three theories, one of which is a combination of the other two. Creationism, evolution, and a hybrid (in which creationism was the start, but evolution finished the job, or vice versa) are the only three possible theories. Come up with another one, and we can talk again.
Okay, here are some made up "theories":
- Life as we see it today arose by magic. There was no intelligence, no design, but also, things did not evolve according to natural selection.
- Life is too complex to have evolved by chance, but all living things are surrounded by a supernatural field. Here, the laws of logic do not apply, so complex life appears despite the normally small probabilities (just like theists claim that their God is immune to the laws of logic and nature).
- There are an infinite number of parallel universes, where life randomly appeared a few thousand years ago. Most of these universes are filled with non-complex forms, and there are therefore no sentient beings in them to question it. But we are one of the rare universes where complex life evolves.
I could go on, but it's getting boring. All of these ideas off the top of my head are neither ID nor evolution, but are just as "valid" as ID. Should we teach them all in science lessons?
My first concern is that once given away, a very poor family might look towards selling the laptop on the black market for food, clothing, etc. How much expense would be added if biometrics were incorporated into the design so that once a laptop is "mated" to a child, only that child can operate it, thus rendering its worth on the black market so much less?
If a family is so poor that they can't even afford food or clothing, shouldn't we be spending money to provide them with this, rather than spending money on biometrics to prevent them from acquiring these basic needs?
If everyone sells off these laptops in order to buy food, the conclusion to draw is that they need food more than they need laptops.
As for the hand crank, I wouldn't mind on of those for my phone...
Okay, you hate George Bush. Wow. That's unique. Great, you hate pinko commie liberal hippies. Good for you. What a unique perspective. You're said about Brad and Jennifer breaking up. Oh, dear - I'm so glad you took the time to communicate that with the world.
Oh, you hate blogs. Thanks for sharing.
"You're nobody and you're not unique or interesting." So why bother posting?
The Slashdot articles might be comparable to a news site, but the comments posted fit every criticism you make of "blogs".
Also I should add: I do have these people who care about what I do or write. They're called friends.
Slashdot Mirror
We need to remember that people who do unusual things with unusual browsers are an incredibly small fraction of all internet users.
Actually what the grandparent post described - identifying as IE - happens by default (it's people who identify as Opera who are the unusual small fraction). The question is whether these stats pick up the "Opera" bit at the end, or whether it's just lumped in with IE.
The message of the article is that there's very rougly a 8/1/1 split between IE, firefox and 'other'. That message is not affected in the slightest by Opera, lynx or any other niche browser.
Except we don't know whether it's a niche browser or not, if we don't know what it's being counted as. That's circular logic: "The accuracy of the stats for Opera don't matter as it's a niche browser, therefore we can conclude that Opera is a niche browser".
(Preparing for the flamebait label from people who think that sharing your bookmarks, posting about your depressing emo life and sharing crappy photos substitutes for having a real social life... and think phone party lines are a great place to meet sexy singles for a night out on the town).
Says the Anonymous Coward who thinks that posting on Slashdot is a substitute for having a real social life...
Only to find out some nobody rolled back all the changes a few hours after, asking me to back everything up with references
So why didn't you back it up?
You're saying that Wikipedia is bad, because they won't allow people to put in information that they can't back up, other than saying "trust me, I'm an expert"?
This is what makes Wikipedia good. Unlike a closed encyclopedia or other book where someone can get away with writing a one-sided point of view without being challenged, here people are required to discuss and back up their changes with evidence. Yes, the downside of sharing an encyclopedia with the rest of the Internet is that you don't get to have your say all the time, and actually have to try talking to the other people editing there. If you don't like that, and don't like backing up your changes, Wikipedia probably isn't for you.
Most of it was pretty obvious to anyone remotely involved
If this is true, why not get them to reinstate the changes? If one person is repeatedly removes changes several people are in favour of, then he should be considered a vandal.
It's not hard if you look. Don't sweat finding one in your area.
I'm aware of the list, but I agree with poster, it can be hard finding a server. A big list doesn't help if the first five you try don't seem to work (eventually I found one which seems to work for now, but to be honest I prefer using a client that supports the protocols directly such as GAIM).
Apparently you forgot about Google.
GoogleTalk is not (currently at least) part of the Jabber network. You need a GMail login to talk to people on the GoogleTalk network, so it's yet another network which needs yet another separate login, just like the "big three".
if you change computers and install it on a new system, you get to resort all your contacts again.
Can I ask what you mean by this? Contacts should be stored on the server; I recently switched from Trillian to GAIM, and kept all my contacts no problem. Although I may be misunderstand what you mean by "sort".
You don't have these problems on Jabber, and it lets you talk to the Obsolete Three (AIM/ICQ/Microsoft-Yahoo Messenger) networks just fine.
Yes you do; you still need to have separate logins for those networks.
Don't get me wrong; the Jabber network (which Trillian can do also in the Pro version btw - don't confuse networks with the clients) is a far better thing that the closed networks, and it's worth pointing out that Jabber has its own way of connecting with the other networks, but you still face the same problems, and I don't see it as necessarily better than using a client which supports multiple protocols such as Trillian and GAIM.
I sometimes have dreams where I'm aware that I'm able to manipulate the environment, perhaps subconsciously knowing that I'm in a dream. For example, if I'm dreaming I'm late for something, I'll just teleport myself to where I want to go. As you say, I only realise the contradictions and implausibility of all this when I wake up.
Lucid dreaming is much more than that, however. It means I'm fully aware I'm dreaming, and I know that everything around me isn't real life, but I can still control my actions. I am able to fully access my real world memories, and know everything about my life, what day it is and so on (although having said that, I do have some partially lucid dreams where I seem to be aware I'm dreaming, but I have incorrect memories about my actual real life).
Of course, the sceptics will still say "How do you know you just weren't dreaming you were lucid?", but this is no different to me asking how do you know you had free will yesterday - perhaps that was just an illusion?
Certainly it is true that I can tell dream from reality in a lucid dream, unlike normal dreams - whether I genuinely have free will in a lucid dream is no more an unknown than whether we have free will at all.
But would you rather than Slashdot articles were displayed oldest first?
Perhaps the grandparent post was just making a joke, but pretty much all news sites will put newer or more important articles first too.
No one is claiming that a crime shouldn't be investigated; the issue is in policing and trying to prevent crime. Do you think it would make sense to have most of the police based in and always focused on your small town, and not in the big city which is full of crime?
You're only missing what they've been saying on their website about this for weeks now.
Do you have a link?
All I've found is http://www.google.co.uk/talk/developer.html , which suggests that whilst they will choose to connect to some other servers, they won't be connecting to all Jabber servers. So it will still be their separate network, albeit with some overlap with the Jabber network. An open network means we shouldn't need to have Google's permission to join the IM network.
A GoogleTalk Jabber transport so they can talk to other Jabber users would be a good thing also...
The 80 gajillion Google fanboys are suddenly able to access the rest of the IM landscape that isn't stuck in the last millennium with their Google Talk JID. Google users and the rest of the Jabber network rejoice
Except I didn't think that GoogleTalk was on the Jabber network?
And then there was one. MSN Messenger fights to the bitter death, losing mindshare bit by bit until 10 years from now, Microsoft's holding an empty bag and wondering how the hell they missed the boat on IM. Everybody loves Google, and many will switch to Google Talk on basis of name recognition alone. Thank God that they don't abuse that power.
Google may seem a nice company, and it may be convenient not to have several different networks, but a single network controlled by one company is not a good thing. The better solution by far is an open network that anyone can add their servers (ie, exactly what the Jabber network is, but it's not clear whether GoogleTalk will be part of this).
The GoogleTalk and Jabber networks are not the same - you are confusing protocols with the networks.
As far as I know, it is not possible to communicate between GoogleTalk and Jabber users on other servers. It's just that GoogleTalk happens to use the same protocol (it's a bit like running a closed NNTP server, and claiming you're part of Usenet). Yes, it's good that they're using an open protocol, but GoogleTalk is yet another closed network. The open network of Jabber is at least as good a thing as the open protocol, but Google have created confusion between GoogleTalk and Jabber, which may make it harder to promote Jabber (as both a protocol and a network), and therefore is not such a good thing.
( http://www.google.com/talk/developer.html#service says "We plan to partner with other willing service providers to enable federation of our services. This means that a user on one service can communicate with users on another service without needing to sign up for, or sign in with, each service." which suggests that the GoogleTalk will be expanded, possibly crossing over with some parts of the Jabber network, but there is no guarantee that they will merge fully with the Jabber network).
As things stand, GoogleTalk is not an end to segregated IM networks, and has just made things worse in my opinion (both by adding another network, and creating confusion about Jabber).
Yes, just like companies in the US aren't allowed to force drug tests, and aren't allowed to fire employees for any reason (a practice which would make it easy to get away with discrimination)...
I'd like to think you were right, but unless there's big changes in the way it's considered acceptable to treat employees in the US, it's going to be easy to get away with genetic discrimination. At least here in the UK, there is more hope (where drug tests are a lot less common, and you can't fire someone unless there is good reason or their job is made redundant).
Analogy: picture the auto industry in the 70s. American cars weren't terrible, but the quality control was bad enough that the cars were totally inconsistent. The big three would tell you that making defect-free cars would raise the prices to the point that nobody could afford a car. People accepted this, because they didn't know better. Then the Japanese showed up. They delievered cars that, while not perfect, blew away the big three in terms of quality, and at very reasonable prices. It can be done.
The most important point here is that it was not done by the Japanese moaning at the Americans, it was done by the Japanese doing it themselves.
Sure, perhaps it can be done. If you think it can, then please go ahead and do so. If you're right, then there's great profits and market share awaiting the person who does this.
This was the point of the post earlier up in the thread - if you think it can be done, stop moaning and go ahead and do it.
If there is a clear flaw in a product that you buy and it causes you harm you can sue the retailer.
But only if you're using the product in the manner it was designed for.
If I buy a car and drive it into the sea, I most certainly cannot sue them for any harm which comes to me. If someone built a car but clearly labelled that it was not fit to be driven (eg, it was intended as a model), then again I do not see how I could sue them if I chose to drive it nonetheless.
I'll be the first person to agree that EULAs are not enforceable contracts, however, it is perfectly valid to describe for what purpose a product is fit for, and to exempt themselves from liability. The main problem I would say is commercial software where the EULA isn't visible until after you've brought it - I would agree that EULAs should be presented before a sale (or at the least, a full refund given if the person doesn't like the EULA).
The problem is that consumers are happy to accept buggy software with limits on liability. If they were willing to pay enough money, there'd surely be a software company willing to provide what they want.
If you mean "The neutrality of this article is disputed", even without it, I fail to see what's so wrong with the article; they are not claiming that Remote Viewing actually exists. If Wikipedia are honest about articles where there might be biased, then surely that is more honest than a closed encyclopedia where they do not admit to bias.
The very fact that Wikipedia has to include every moonbat and wingnut theory biases the entire article.
There's an important difference between "x people believe such and such" and "such and such is true".
I don't believe that what you describe here, whether or not it is a problem, is anything to do with NPOV. NPOV is about avoiding bias, not including every point of view. It's the NPOV which means that words like "allegedly" get sprinkled all over the place in articles such as these - would you prefer an article without NPOV where these claims were stated as fact?
Whilst I would rather that people spent time on more useful articles than documenting conspiracy theories, that does not mean that they should not be there at all. The theories may be rubbish, but that they exist and people believe in them is a fact. If controversies exist, why shouldn't they be mentioned?
The reason I don't trust Wikipedia is because the edits of these social dropouts are given equal status as those by university professors.
That's an invalid comparison. Sure, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia as much as a University professor who is publishing some research in the relevant field he has carried out. The question is, how much would you trust any other encyclopedia, where they have collected facts but not carried out primary research themselves, and where you don't necessarily know who all the authors contributing are, and whether they are experts in the field?
- There's a big sign warning me of the neutrality of the article.
- The article is clearly phrased in terms of what people believe ("Remote Viewing allegedly allows a viewer...") rather than stating it as fact.
- The rest of the article covers facts on studies that have happened, and what people have claimed.
Where's the problem? Are you suggesting that such articles should not even be allowed? Clearly, even if Remove Viewing is nonsense, it is a fact that people believe in it, and that people have tried to study it, and all of this belongs in an encyclopedia. Such facts may be useful to people who disbelieve in remote viewing, if they want to see what studies have been carried out, and attempt to discredit them.
For "loony opinions" to be represented, the page would have to be claiming that Remote Viewing actually existed. NPOV does not mean that their point of view should be presented as equally valid, it means that articles should be presented without bias, which is something I wish more authors would strive for.
Isn't this just the same as any encyclopedia?
I would be wary of using an encyclopedia to back something up - you should really be going to the sources of the evidence, whether that's people who have carried out research, or primary evidence.
The purpose of an encyclopedia is to be a collection of facts, with references to the sources to back those facts up, and not to be an independent source for of providing evidence. Wikipedia does this job well.
I agree that customers should be fully entitled to a refund if their Firefox browser is buggy...
Seriously, the difference is not in what the law allows, but in what the software companies tend to do. It is perfectly legal to say that a hardware product is only fit for a certain purpose - for example, if I drive a car into the sea, then clearly, I cannot sue the manufacturer if it sinks. If I drive a toy car on the road, I cannot sue the manufacturer if I crash.
It just so happens that, rightly or wrongly, software companies tend distance themselves from saying that their software is fit for any purpose. If consumers took notice of that, maybe things would change.
the people that are recieving these laptops are already recieving food.
And if they had enough food, why should we assume they'd be selling laptops for more food?
it is the whole concept of teach a man to fish...aka they become educated and suddenly their country gets better as a whole and starvation is pretty much gone.
I have no problem with teaching people to fish. I do have a problem with spending money on biometric fishing rods, especially when that money could be better spent on helping the poor (either by giving them more fishing rods, or giving them the food and clothing that they also need).
And it is you who is short sighted. What happens when the child receives or is able to buy a better laptop a few years later - the old laptop may still be useful to someone poor without any laptop, but thanks to the OP's short sighted scheme, it is useless to anyone else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
OK... umm... we're not talking about how the moon orbits Earth.
But you learn about that sort of thing in school - shouldn't alternative "theories" such as these be taught in physics lessons?
We're talking something that there's at MOST three theories, one of which is a combination of the other two. Creationism, evolution, and a hybrid (in which creationism was the start, but evolution finished the job, or vice versa) are the only three possible theories. Come up with another one, and we can talk again.
Okay, here are some made up "theories":
- Life as we see it today arose by magic. There was no intelligence, no design, but also, things did not evolve according to natural selection.
- Life is too complex to have evolved by chance, but all living things are surrounded by a supernatural field. Here, the laws of logic do not apply, so complex life appears despite the normally small probabilities (just like theists claim that their God is immune to the laws of logic and nature).
- There are an infinite number of parallel universes, where life randomly appeared a few thousand years ago. Most of these universes are filled with non-complex forms, and there are therefore no sentient beings in them to question it. But we are one of the rare universes where complex life evolves.
I could go on, but it's getting boring. All of these ideas off the top of my head are neither ID nor evolution, but are just as "valid" as ID. Should we teach them all in science lessons?
My first concern is that once given away, a very poor family might look towards selling the laptop on the black market for food, clothing, etc. How much expense would be added if biometrics were incorporated into the design so that once a laptop is "mated" to a child, only that child can operate it, thus rendering its worth on the black market so much less?
If a family is so poor that they can't even afford food or clothing, shouldn't we be spending money to provide them with this, rather than spending money on biometrics to prevent them from acquiring these basic needs?
If everyone sells off these laptops in order to buy food, the conclusion to draw is that they need food more than they need laptops.
As for the hand crank, I wouldn't mind on of those for my phone...
Hmm, seems like the off-topic mods are being given out at random in this entirely off-topic thread...
Oh, the irony.
Okay, you hate George Bush. Wow. That's unique. Great, you hate pinko commie liberal hippies. Good for you. What a unique perspective. You're said about Brad and Jennifer breaking up. Oh, dear - I'm so glad you took the time to communicate that with the world.
Oh, you hate blogs. Thanks for sharing.
"You're nobody and you're not unique or interesting." So why bother posting?
The Slashdot articles might be comparable to a news site, but the comments posted fit every criticism you make of "blogs".
Also I should add: I do have these people who care about what I do or write. They're called friends.