However, the majority of people shopping for a video card aren't geeks but rather Little Johnny's out with some of Mom's cash wanting to get a high-performance card for his "this will help him with his homework, now he can write book reports at home" P4 3.0 4gb box.
. ..in which case they're not going to know or care what kind of video card is in it; in other words, that type of customer isn't in the market for a high-end card, doesn't read benchmarks, and won't be affected anyway. The people who do research benchmarks will see--actually, have seen--through the legalspeak and understand that nothing about FutureMark's original announcement has really changed.
This is politics at its worst, and I'm calling bullshit.
You know, maybe that was the idea? Imagine the scenario: "Okay, folks, we need to rephrase the statement that 'NVidia cheated' so that they won't sue our pants off our asses. What can we come up with?"
'I know! Let's call it an application-specific enhancement! Their lawyers will stare blankly, but any geek shopping for a video card will read right through it!'
"Application-specific optimization". . . In other words, "We're not cheating, we're just adding code to our driver to make sure our card works really well with benchmarking software." Of course, if it works better with benchmarking software than it does with real-world applications, that is cheating, isn't it?
It actually reminded me of the axiom, "That's not a bug, it's a feature!"
How does one who is in the military deal with an issue where they are under orders to do things that they consider anti-Constitutional? Do you defy your orders or defend the Constitution - which will it be? I'll bet I know the answer! In the case of the Iraq war (and plenty of others before it) the Constitution was circumvented by the fact that we fought a war without Constitutionally-required Congressional Declaration of War. I didn't see too many among the military with the guts to stand up for the Constitution.
I've answered this question already elsewhere in this thread, but I'll answer it again for your benefit: If Congress didn't approve of the war, they shouldn't have:
Authorized use of force against Iraq in October 2002
Allocated money to fighting the war.
The Constitution gives the President the job, as Commander-in-Chief, to command the United States Military. The Congress can check that power by refusing to fund proposed military operations. If they choose to give up their power and allow the President to prosecute a war their constituents believe is unjust, then whose problem is that?
But then, really, the Constitution was doing its job - after all, a majority of the US population wanted war. It is not the job of our governing document to mandate pacifism--only to ensure a stable system of government that remains under the control of its people.
I see. So the Supreme Court, appointed by politicians, gets to decide what's unconstitutional, right?
Mostly right, but only insofar as it may interpret laws which have been passed.
And you feel your oath only counts when the (relevant) courts say so? Which, by the chain of power, means when the politicians say so? Oh dear, sounds like you've just made your own oath impossible to uphold as it applies to politicians.
Actually, as far as I know, politicians make an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution as well. If you feel they're not upholding their oaths, maybe you need to talk to them about it. Regardless, you seem to be avoiding the question of what exactly was unconstitutional about the Iraq war. And as far as Ashcroft's actions are concerned, try to remember that the rights granted within the Constitution do not apply to people who are in this nation illegally.
False dichotomy. Many Western nations deploy the military on a temporary basis in times of emergency and are politically as free and safe, if not more so, than the United States.
That's fine, but you're talking about military personnel arresting government officials. The term for that isn't "time of emergency," it's martial law--and that doesn't fly in any Western nation I'm aware of.
Someone mod this post back up! It has been labelled as "flamebait" and "troll" when it makes a perfectly valid point. ..
And you don't think the following qualifies as flamebait/troll material?
(All you "just war" fetishists can demonstrate your confidence in US methods by promising to live in the city of the next target of attack, during and for the months after its "liberation"; if you're still here, you're just hot air, and we can ignore your viewpoint.)
Yes, the Florida election was dirty. That wasn't really my point, though - my point was, Florida is only one state and only about 27 Electoral votes. If Gore had carried one more state than he did, he would have had enough Electoral votes to win, and Florida would have been a non-sequitur.
While it is indeed the politicians' fault, the US leadership has a history of such things--Iraq is not a shot in the dark, but the worst and most recent example of misuse of the military. I will never join the military simply because I can not trust the leadership of this country not to order me to do something unethical/unconstitutional.
I understand that - and it's a big part of why I didn't join right out of high school. In fact, I was 24 when I signed the enlistment papers. Fact is, though, you're eventually going to face that dilemma no matter where you work.:) But I'll grant that it's easier to walk away from a job in the civilian sector than it is to walk away from the military, given such a quagmire.
I'd like to think that most military members would have the fortitude to say "no" to something which they honestly believed was unethical, or at least to find out the reasoning behind an order. Maybe this is because I went into the Air Force rather than a branch of service where free thought is a bit less encouraged, though.
Then why, pray tell, aren't the military (since I'm guessing they have the might) arresting Mr Ashcroft and several other members of the US Government elite? Why also are they not refusing to fight in Iraq?
Because it's not our job to arrest Mr. Ashcroft for exercising the duties of his office - and because it would be a violation of the worst sort for the military to actively remove politicians from office just because what they're doing might not be constitutional. Interpretation of what is or is not constitutional is not up to us, it's up to the courts.
As for Iraq - what was actually iillegal about the invasion? Congress authorized use of force in October 2002 and gave the President the money he asked for to fight the war in the 2003 budget. If Congress didn't want the war, all they had to do was refuse to pay for it.
Oh that's right, it's an oath you don't take "lightly", but when the alternative is court martial, you were just following orders.
If the President ordered the military to arrest members of Congress or the Supreme Court, you can bet that oath would come into play. But the military does not act based on what some Anonymous Coward thinks is unconstitutional. Hell, the US Military isn't even allowed to participate in domestic peacekeeping--Google for "Posse Comitatus Act," and contrast it with the military's active involvement in such nations as Pakistan and Turkey. Where would you rather live?
Is that the DoD, the DoJ, dictator-of-the-week, and any other offensive military/rights-quashing group, can use your code, and you have no control over it.
Bullshit. Or can you actually think of cases where the "military/rights-quashing group" uses a developer's code without their permission? I personally don't see a need for the military to jackboot someone else's code, since there're about 1500 military programmers in the US Air Force alone. That doesn't count civil service or contracted personnel working with or for the Air Force.
And frankly, if you think people join the US Armed Forces because they want to "quash people's rights," you are sadly out-of-touch with reality. Military members swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States--it's an oath we don't take lightly. If you're not happy with the Iraq war, that's fine. . . neither am I. But blame the politicians you elected into office, who sent the troops in the first place.
To the best of my knowledge as a US Military employee: No, and no. If Microsoft software breaks, it's up to the people in our Network Operations Centers to fix it. I'd imagine the government gets a good discount in support costs, though. . . and probably has more than a couple Microsoft employees on contract to boot.
It's done so that, even if someone cracks into the server where the PDF document is stored, the document itself won't be altered. Deleted, maybe, but not altered. Think of the havoc someone could wreak if they actually could alter the digital copies of these paper documents?
No, no, that would be a violation of their privacy. Let the hot chick know you're videotaping. . . if she's worth keeping, it'll only turn her on more.:)
Where in the Constitution is your right to privacy codified, and what are the precise words? Contrast this with precise and clear
unequivocal grant of the right to speech, and
then explain how this ruling will stand up to judicial review.
Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Privacy rights, as protected by the Ninth Amendment, do trump First Amendment rights under some circumstances. For instance, I'm not allowed to publish your Social Security number in the local newspaper just because I happen to know it. If you don't believe me, take a look at the Privacy Act or, more recently, HIPAA.
I agree - and that's why Microsoft would be best off, for their long-term interests, with a team of software engineers who would redesign the Windows codebase from scratch. I'd bet a lot of the "millions of lines" of code in Windows XP is legacy Windows NT code--in which case MS should take a fresh look at what the code does, if it could be designed more efficiently and securely, and (more importantly) if any other parts of the Windows code actually use it. Of course, such measures would take years and wouldn't reflect on quarterly profit reports, so I'm not holding my breath.
A little cynicism is a good thing, but I don't think you need to worry about spyware. This is advertising for the full game, if you think about it, is it not?
It doesn't, truthfully; but those novice users are still responsible for their actions. More importantly, this will help future novice users from falling for the same spiel. Sometimes, that's all you can do.
Re:Ads are easily blocked
on
Gator Examined
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I've come up with an innovative alternative to Gator. I just memorize my passwords. Fortunately, companies haven't yet figured out how to advertise on the inside of my eyelids. ..
Slashdot Mirror
However, the majority of people shopping for a video card aren't geeks but rather Little Johnny's out with some of Mom's cash wanting to get a high-performance card for his "this will help him with his homework, now he can write book reports at home" P4 3.0 4gb box.
. . .in which case they're not going to know or care what kind of video card is in it; in other words, that type of customer isn't in the market for a high-end card, doesn't read benchmarks, and won't be affected anyway. The people who do research benchmarks will see--actually, have seen--through the legalspeak and understand that nothing about FutureMark's original announcement has really changed.
In 2101, this joke will probably still get modded Funny. . . :)
This is politics at its worst, and I'm calling bullshit.
You know, maybe that was the idea? Imagine the scenario: "Okay, folks, we need to rephrase the statement that 'NVidia cheated' so that they won't sue our pants off our asses. What can we come up with?"
'I know! Let's call it an application-specific enhancement! Their lawyers will stare blankly, but any geek shopping for a video card will read right through it!'
Who knows? Coulda happened that way. :)
That is the way it sounds, isn't it?
"Application-specific optimization". . . In other words, "We're not cheating, we're just adding code to our driver to make sure our card works really well with benchmarking software." Of course, if it works better with benchmarking software than it does with real-world applications, that is cheating, isn't it?
It actually reminded me of the axiom, "That's not a bug, it's a feature!"
How does one who is in the military deal with an issue where they are under orders to do things that they consider anti-Constitutional? Do you defy your orders or defend the Constitution - which will it be? I'll bet I know the answer! In the case of the Iraq war (and plenty of others before it) the Constitution was circumvented by the fact that we fought a war without Constitutionally-required Congressional Declaration of War. I didn't see too many among the military with the guts to stand up for the Constitution.
I've answered this question already elsewhere in this thread, but I'll answer it again for your benefit: If Congress didn't approve of the war, they shouldn't have:
The Constitution gives the President the job, as Commander-in-Chief, to command the United States Military. The Congress can check that power by refusing to fund proposed military operations. If they choose to give up their power and allow the President to prosecute a war their constituents believe is unjust, then whose problem is that?
But then, really, the Constitution was doing its job - after all, a majority of the US population wanted war. It is not the job of our governing document to mandate pacifism--only to ensure a stable system of government that remains under the control of its people.
I see. So the Supreme Court, appointed by politicians, gets to decide what's unconstitutional, right?
Mostly right, but only insofar as it may interpret laws which have been passed.
And you feel your oath only counts when the (relevant) courts say so? Which, by the chain of power, means when the politicians say so? Oh dear, sounds like you've just made your own oath impossible to uphold as it applies to politicians.
Actually, as far as I know, politicians make an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution as well. If you feel they're not upholding their oaths, maybe you need to talk to them about it. Regardless, you seem to be avoiding the question of what exactly was unconstitutional about the Iraq war. And as far as Ashcroft's actions are concerned, try to remember that the rights granted within the Constitution do not apply to people who are in this nation illegally.
False dichotomy. Many Western nations deploy the military on a temporary basis in times of emergency and are politically as free and safe, if not more so, than the United States.
That's fine, but you're talking about military personnel arresting government officials. The term for that isn't "time of emergency," it's martial law--and that doesn't fly in any Western nation I'm aware of.
Someone mod this post back up! It has been labelled as "flamebait" and "troll" when it makes a perfectly valid point. . .
And you don't think the following qualifies as flamebait/troll material?Yes, the Florida election was dirty. That wasn't really my point, though - my point was, Florida is only one state and only about 27 Electoral votes. If Gore had carried one more state than he did, he would have had enough Electoral votes to win, and Florida would have been a non-sequitur.
While it is indeed the politicians' fault, the US leadership has a history of such things--Iraq is not a shot in the dark, but the worst and most recent example of misuse of the military. I will never join the military simply because I can not trust the leadership of this country not to order me to do something unethical/unconstitutional.
I understand that - and it's a big part of why I didn't join right out of high school. In fact, I was 24 when I signed the enlistment papers. Fact is, though, you're eventually going to face that dilemma no matter where you work. :) But I'll grant that it's easier to walk away from a job in the civilian sector than it is to walk away from the military, given such a quagmire.
I'd like to think that most military members would have the fortitude to say "no" to something which they honestly believed was unethical, or at least to find out the reasoning behind an order. Maybe this is because I went into the Air Force rather than a branch of service where free thought is a bit less encouraged, though.
Then why, pray tell, aren't the military (since I'm guessing they have the might) arresting Mr Ashcroft and several other members of the US Government elite? Why also are they not refusing to fight in Iraq?
Because it's not our job to arrest Mr. Ashcroft for exercising the duties of his office - and because it would be a violation of the worst sort for the military to actively remove politicians from office just because what they're doing might not be constitutional. Interpretation of what is or is not constitutional is not up to us, it's up to the courts.
As for Iraq - what was actually iillegal about the invasion? Congress authorized use of force in October 2002 and gave the President the money he asked for to fight the war in the 2003 budget. If Congress didn't want the war, all they had to do was refuse to pay for it.
Oh that's right, it's an oath you don't take "lightly", but when the alternative is court martial, you were just following orders.
If the President ordered the military to arrest members of Congress or the Supreme Court, you can bet that oath would come into play. But the military does not act based on what some Anonymous Coward thinks is unconstitutional. Hell, the US Military isn't even allowed to participate in domestic peacekeeping--Google for "Posse Comitatus Act," and contrast it with the military's active involvement in such nations as Pakistan and Turkey. Where would you rather live?
Sorry, but this doesn't hold water. If Gore had carried his home state, Florida wouldn't have been an issue.
Is that the DoD, the DoJ, dictator-of-the-week, and any other offensive military/rights-quashing group, can use your code, and you have no control over it.
Bullshit. Or can you actually think of cases where the "military/rights-quashing group" uses a developer's code without their permission? I personally don't see a need for the military to jackboot someone else's code, since there're about 1500 military programmers in the US Air Force alone. That doesn't count civil service or contracted personnel working with or for the Air Force.
And frankly, if you think people join the US Armed Forces because they want to "quash people's rights," you are sadly out-of-touch with reality. Military members swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States--it's an oath we don't take lightly. If you're not happy with the Iraq war, that's fine. . . neither am I. But blame the politicians you elected into office, who sent the troops in the first place.
To the best of my knowledge as a US Military employee: No, and no. If Microsoft software breaks, it's up to the people in our Network Operations Centers to fix it. I'd imagine the government gets a good discount in support costs, though. . . and probably has more than a couple Microsoft employees on contract to boot.
It's done so that, even if someone cracks into the server where the PDF document is stored, the document itself won't be altered. Deleted, maybe, but not altered. Think of the havoc someone could wreak if they actually could alter the digital copies of these paper documents?
No, no, that would be a violation of their privacy. Let the hot chick know you're videotaping. . . if she's worth keeping, it'll only turn her on more. :)
Where in the Constitution is your right to privacy codified, and what are the precise words? Contrast this with precise and clear unequivocal grant of the right to speech, and then explain how this ruling will stand up to judicial review.
Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Privacy rights, as protected by the Ninth Amendment, do trump First Amendment rights under some circumstances. For instance, I'm not allowed to publish your Social Security number in the local newspaper just because I happen to know it. If you don't believe me, take a look at the Privacy Act or, more recently, HIPAA.
I posted this to Usenet a while back. . .
Let me guess, alt.tinfoil.hat.conspiracies?
On the other hand, most servers on the 'Net run Apache; but most servers that are compromised via software bugs are Microsoft IIS servers. Go figure.
I agree - and that's why Microsoft would be best off, for their long-term interests, with a team of software engineers who would redesign the Windows codebase from scratch. I'd bet a lot of the "millions of lines" of code in Windows XP is legacy Windows NT code--in which case MS should take a fresh look at what the code does, if it could be designed more efficiently and securely, and (more importantly) if any other parts of the Windows code actually use it. Of course, such measures would take years and wouldn't reflect on quarterly profit reports, so I'm not holding my breath.
A little cynicism is a good thing, but I don't think you need to worry about spyware. This is advertising for the full game, if you think about it, is it not?
Soon followed by a not-so-little thing called SlashDot.
It doesn't, truthfully; but those novice users are still responsible for their actions. More importantly, this will help future novice users from falling for the same spiel. Sometimes, that's all you can do.
Eunuchs?
I've come up with an innovative alternative to Gator. I just memorize my passwords. Fortunately, companies haven't yet figured out how to advertise on the inside of my eyelids. . .