I would only emphasize the points made in this post. Daubert analysis and these kinds of evidentiary hearings are enormously complicated. Daubert itself is part of a triology of cases, the other two being Kumho Tire and Joiner. To get a real sense of what is going on, you need to also post the opinions of these two cases. Additionally, it seems to make little sense to post the opinion or discuss its holding on this forum without a discussion of the Federal Rules of Evidence and other issues of procedure. "relevant and reliable" might mean one thing in this forum and stripped out of the legal context but in this case "relevant and reliable" cannot be understood without understading legal relevance, materiality, causation, burdens, presumptions, etc. While this discussion is interesting, it bears little concerete relevance to important legal issues of mass tort, medical malpractice, criminal proof, etc. These issues are far more complex and legal than scientific. As a lawyer, I can't help but feel that these discussions are glossing over the enormously complex issues of legal procedure and torts to devolve into mere shallowing ranting about torts, class actions and uninformed opinions about the function, nature and role of the American judiciary and legal system.
I thought this was a very interesting perspective. The point of harm reduction is not to focus on individual behavior or particular tools to be used. There is a larger issue, harm reduction recognizes that tools exist to stop certain behaviors or effects but that individuals don't often implement those tools or alter their behavior. Harm reduction, as applied here, would seem to suggest viewing computer security in terms of populations and would be willing to live with a certain persistent level of security problems in the population. Harm reduction seeks not to alter all behavior but to reduce the incidence of the behavior for the population. Harm reduction has been very effective in HIV prevention and drug use. By focusing on population-level interventions, one can avoid restrictions on the particular individual. If I can alter the infrastructure or intervene on a population level, without affecting people's ability to perform their desired tasks, and can get a reduction in the number of security problems, then I can avoid draconian criminal penalties that seek to control individual behavior.
I don't get the need for tabs. If you use the dock to handle your documents and apps, doesn't it provide the same benefit that tabs are supposed to provide. I just don't see how tabs integrate into the greater design philosophy behind the Aqua interface. Looking at Safari as part of a greater integrated UI, the idea of tabs seems remarkably out of place.
I think the "boat-anchor" terminology comes from a Sixth Circuit case on contracts of adhesion and EULA's. J. Posner, in his opinion, quiped that without software and the license for the software a piece of hardware's only purpose is "as a boat-anchor." The phrase is often repeated in law when dealing with technology.
Just a little off-topic trivia.
I would agree that the commodification of capacity is part of the failure of telecomm industry (plus collapse in demand for capacity). However, if my bandwith is turned from service to commodity I want it to be truly a commodity and priced per unit, not capped. You could still have volume pricing but if I were in a category with lets say a 5GB cap on capacity then I want the cash back on the capacity I don't use if I am under the 5GB, or whatever amount. If you want to switch capacity to commodity, then treat my capacity purchases as a commodity and charge me for only what I use. When I pay my electric bill I don't pay for a cap of "X" KWh. I only pay for the exact KWh that I use. (I have this same gripe with cellular phone minute plans).
All in all, my point is that there are complex legal, accounting and business problems with a switch like this and it seems capacity is an inherently difficult thing to commodify.
Leave well enough alone.
Being a resident of Boston (JP to be exact), worries over the Big Dig are too exaggerated. Even if the Big Dig is incomplete, I doubt this will matter much. As long as you aren't driving, which you would be crazy to do with or without the Dig, the T is easy to use and convenient. Additionally, most hotels in Boston are near the proposed convention center or within walking distance. Boston is easy to walk and is relatively small in terms of surface area. Even if you get lost or confused, the Big Dig and Boston's inherent quirky layout make it interesting and Bostonians love to talk about their city and are more than happy to guide the lost Mac user through the Big Dig.
Granted, there may not be the penetration of Apple in Boston in the graphics community as was suggeted of NYC. However, Boston is an educational and research center, another large segment of Apple's user base.
I think Boston is a great choice.
Agreed. In the end, what does it matter in regards to the length, content, style or presentation of the license. In effect, licenses on hardware and software are contracts of adhesion. What user would be in a position to modify a license or negotiate for change. I would suggest that the real problem lies in American jurisprudence surrounding contracts of adhesion and contract law in general...
Slashdot Mirror
I would only emphasize the points made in this post. Daubert analysis and these kinds of evidentiary hearings are enormously complicated. Daubert itself is part of a triology of cases, the other two being Kumho Tire and Joiner. To get a real sense of what is going on, you need to also post the opinions of these two cases. Additionally, it seems to make little sense to post the opinion or discuss its holding on this forum without a discussion of the Federal Rules of Evidence and other issues of procedure. "relevant and reliable" might mean one thing in this forum and stripped out of the legal context but in this case "relevant and reliable" cannot be understood without understading legal relevance, materiality, causation, burdens, presumptions, etc. While this discussion is interesting, it bears little concerete relevance to important legal issues of mass tort, medical malpractice, criminal proof, etc. These issues are far more complex and legal than scientific. As a lawyer, I can't help but feel that these discussions are glossing over the enormously complex issues of legal procedure and torts to devolve into mere shallowing ranting about torts, class actions and uninformed opinions about the function, nature and role of the American judiciary and legal system.
I thought this was a very interesting perspective. The point of harm reduction is not to focus on individual behavior or particular tools to be used. There is a larger issue, harm reduction recognizes that tools exist to stop certain behaviors or effects but that individuals don't often implement those tools or alter their behavior. Harm reduction, as applied here, would seem to suggest viewing computer security in terms of populations and would be willing to live with a certain persistent level of security problems in the population. Harm reduction seeks not to alter all behavior but to reduce the incidence of the behavior for the population. Harm reduction has been very effective in HIV prevention and drug use. By focusing on population-level interventions, one can avoid restrictions on the particular individual. If I can alter the infrastructure or intervene on a population level, without affecting people's ability to perform their desired tasks, and can get a reduction in the number of security problems, then I can avoid draconian criminal penalties that seek to control individual behavior.
I don't get the need for tabs. If you use the dock to handle your documents and apps, doesn't it provide the same benefit that tabs are supposed to provide. I just don't see how tabs integrate into the greater design philosophy behind the Aqua interface. Looking at Safari as part of a greater integrated UI, the idea of tabs seems remarkably out of place.
I think the "boat-anchor" terminology comes from a Sixth Circuit case on contracts of adhesion and EULA's. J. Posner, in his opinion, quiped that without software and the license for the software a piece of hardware's only purpose is "as a boat-anchor." The phrase is often repeated in law when dealing with technology. Just a little off-topic trivia.
I would agree that the commodification of capacity is part of the failure of telecomm industry (plus collapse in demand for capacity). However, if my bandwith is turned from service to commodity I want it to be truly a commodity and priced per unit, not capped. You could still have volume pricing but if I were in a category with lets say a 5GB cap on capacity then I want the cash back on the capacity I don't use if I am under the 5GB, or whatever amount. If you want to switch capacity to commodity, then treat my capacity purchases as a commodity and charge me for only what I use. When I pay my electric bill I don't pay for a cap of "X" KWh. I only pay for the exact KWh that I use. (I have this same gripe with cellular phone minute plans). All in all, my point is that there are complex legal, accounting and business problems with a switch like this and it seems capacity is an inherently difficult thing to commodify. Leave well enough alone.
Being a resident of Boston (JP to be exact), worries over the Big Dig are too exaggerated. Even if the Big Dig is incomplete, I doubt this will matter much. As long as you aren't driving, which you would be crazy to do with or without the Dig, the T is easy to use and convenient. Additionally, most hotels in Boston are near the proposed convention center or within walking distance. Boston is easy to walk and is relatively small in terms of surface area. Even if you get lost or confused, the Big Dig and Boston's inherent quirky layout make it interesting and Bostonians love to talk about their city and are more than happy to guide the lost Mac user through the Big Dig. Granted, there may not be the penetration of Apple in Boston in the graphics community as was suggeted of NYC. However, Boston is an educational and research center, another large segment of Apple's user base. I think Boston is a great choice.
Agreed. In the end, what does it matter in regards to the length, content, style or presentation of the license. In effect, licenses on hardware and software are contracts of adhesion. What user would be in a position to modify a license or negotiate for change. I would suggest that the real problem lies in American jurisprudence surrounding contracts of adhesion and contract law in general...