Ah, legalese often confuses non-lawyers, and for good reason...its highly technical and specific.
True. Unfortunately, technical language often confuses lawyers, and for the same reason. I think it's a good part of why the legal system deals so poorly with technical issues.
You can generally get a lot more than that. 640x480 is not uncommon for NTSC sets using composite video, and I have a 27" set that will actually run up to 1024x768. Blurry, but readable.
{sigh} why do people persist in ignoring the actual content of a message, and focus instead on whatever detail they can use to deride the other person? If it matters to you, I'm typing this on a dual monitor software development system, so of course my expectations have risen.
Then again, I live in a country where personal computer ownership is near-ubiquitous, where the only people that don't have a personal computer (or more than one) are those who simply don't want one. But if I were a poor Chinese peasant, who has no expectations greater than what I had back in 1978, that TV-based computer might be considered a Godsend. It's all relative, and that TV display is a one Hell of a lot better than nothing.
At the rate China's industry is expanding, I would venture a guess that the people who are the target market for this system will eventually have the opportunity to raise their expectations as well. But that takes time, and you have to start somewhere.
Horrible is relative, and for someone who doesn't have a computer, and can't afford anything better, a TV is much better than nothing. I started out on an Apple ][ Standard back in 1978-79: 40 column video and we were thrilled to have it, although we eventually upgraded to a monochrome monitor and a Videx 80-column card. Does anyone know the capabilities of China's regular broadcast television standards? I would hope that it would be better than NTSC, something on the order of PAL/SECAM maybe. I just threw my back out and I'm not in the mood to Google it.
Right, because people who don't have the good fortune to be born in America don't deserve to be treated like actual human beings.
Ah, exactly what did I write that would make you think I believe anything resembling that? I can understand that you wish to feel that you're on the moral high ground and I'm not, but you simply don't get to make that inference. Sorry, I'm not letting you get away with it. Do I think people the world over deserve to be treated as civilized human beings? Certainly... as long as they behave like civilized human beings! All of the Arab-Americans I happen to know do just that, but the same cannot be said for what is happening elsewhere (granted, the term "civilized" can be stretched to cover a wide range of societal norms, but mass murder definitely crosses the line.)
The unfortunate truth is that the terrorist and religious leaders in the Arab world today (when you're fortunate enough to be able to draw that distinction) see their followers as weapons first, and people second. They don't perceive anyone outside of their limited round as having any right to exist at all, and that includes their own people. So, you are more than welcome to take a trip there, and do your best to convince them of the "unethicalness" of their behavior. Good luck with that. They won't believe you because they have an agenda that involves the untimely deaths of many of their countrymen, and they're getting away with it because... life is cheap in that part of the world.
And if you manage to make it back alive from that trip, let me know how it turns out.
... instead of suicide bombers they can use robot suicide bombers.
Why would they bother. Human life is much, much cheaper in that part of the world, and a robot would have a hard time sneaking through a security perimeter. Besides, there appears to be no shortage of those willing to immolate themselves on the altar of terrorism.
The real question, in my mind, is this: what would a robot do with all those virgins?
Yes, times change. The Constitution doesn't, unless modified by process contained within itself. It is, after all, the Supreme Law of this Land, and if we don't give it even more importance than any of the various purported "Words of God", we're in for even more grief. The Constitution served us well until we decided to ignore it, and the wisdom of the Founders. The truth of the matter is that you're right, we have changed... and for the worse, but not in any ways that obsolete the Constitution. Quite the opposite, in fact.
We should get back to listening to the Founding Fathers before we end up another failed, corrupt third-world culture like that of our friends south of the border. It is happening, and the pace is quickening. So be damned careful before you dis the Constitution, bro.
Well, that's slowing down too. Remember that it takes time for the courts to become aware of systematic abuse on this scale. Well-informed judges don't much seem to care for what these clowns are doing, any more than the rest of us do.
Maybe you should engage in a little more critical thought before becoming so convinced in the future.
Maybe you should accept what is. The reality of human interaction is that not only do people not need perfect honesty from others, they don't want it. To a certain degree, we want the imperfections of our existence covered up, only intruding when they must. Do you truly believe that when your wife, girlfriend or significant other asks you "does this dress make me look fat?" that she wants an honest answer? If you do, you're an idiot, because you'll hurt her feelings for really no good reason, and I hope you have a comfortable sofa. In any event, a simple lie is not only the best answer in that case, but is fully expected. Indeed, a liberal application of social grease.
Frequently, such minor dissembling helps us avoid more serious situations that would do neither side any good. A true "little white lie" is generally told in order to avoid a conflict, to avoid hurting someone unnecessarily, not to acquire something undeserved. So yes, a certain amount of lying is essential, because people aren't perfect and neither is any social order we've yet invented. No-one with even basic observational skills should require a scientific study to figure this out. Ever lied to your boss because you know that he'll react inappropriately? More social grease, and it happens all the time. Honesty is not always the best policy.
And science most certainly does "prove" things... but only to a particular degree of accuracy. That's probably what confuses a lot of people about science, that a scientific proof is by definition not absolute, although the difference is sometimes moot. However, I agree that the softer sciences have a long way to go.
On the other hand, if we're talking about big corporate influence on law enforcement priorities, the bandwidth cost of spam is pretty damn high. You would think this would encourage the big boys (the telcos and Comcasts of the country) to spread some money around Washington to motivate the Feds appropriately. They've got more money than God, and AT&T knows its way around Washington like nobody else. That would be one of the few cases where I'd be on the lobbyists' side.
I'm sure they've accounted for the possibilities you've raised (excellent points, by the way.) And, if you were to actually ask the FBI about those issues, I'm sure the conversation would go something like this:
Brody: The CIPAV is a source of unspeakable power and it has to be researched!
Eaton: And it will be, I assure you Dr. Brody, Dr. Jones. We have top men working on it right now.
It's not on the Moon since we haven't been back there since the Apollo program ended. It's actually buried in an ice cavern underneath McMurdo Base in the Antarctic.
I think a good part of that can be attributed to their being able to run one more or less standard OS across dozens of disparate systems. The real question is why they picked Linux vs. a proprietary design or some other open source OS.
Yes, well... true enough I suppose. At least I'm on the right Web site for it.
I'd also like to point out that I've never owned a single piece of Star Trek paraphernalia, other than a plastic phaser pistol I got as a kid (wish I still had it, they're worth real money now.)
Microsoft could easily become a huge positive contributor to the FOSS world. Does nobody want that?
Oh for.. no, we don't want that. We don't want them anywhere near the open source movement, don't want them near Linux, don't want them near any major open source project. Have you not heard of "embrace and extend"? Do you not understand the consequences of opening your arms to Microsoft? Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.
Answer me this: how many decades of larceny and deceit does the world have to suffer before we all finally accept that Microsoft sucks? As long as the Gates/Ballmer regime is running the show nothing is ever going to change. That's a fact of life, surer than death -or- taxes. If nothing else, their shareholders will guarantee that.
This is pretty much a deep-pockets lawsuit, one of the very kinds of legal manipulations that are so-often decried here on Slashdot. The guy sees a way to maybe make some money out of Apple, doesn't much matter if he has a legitimate grievance or not. He's taking the gamble that a sympathetic court might see things his way, and force Apple to pay out.
Something needs to be done about the crapshoot approach to justice we have in this country. Aren't judges supposed to weed out the really frivolous ones?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, legalese often confuses non-lawyers, and for good reason...its highly technical and specific.
True. Unfortunately, technical language often confuses lawyers, and for the same reason. I think it's a good part of why the legal system deals so poorly with technical issues.
You can generally get a lot more than that. 640x480 is not uncommon for NTSC sets using composite video, and I have a 27" set that will actually run up to 1024x768. Blurry, but readable.
{sigh} why do people persist in ignoring the actual content of a message, and focus instead on whatever detail they can use to deride the other person? If it matters to you, I'm typing this on a dual monitor software development system, so of course my expectations have risen.
Then again, I live in a country where personal computer ownership is near-ubiquitous, where the only people that don't have a personal computer (or more than one) are those who simply don't want one. But if I were a poor Chinese peasant, who has no expectations greater than what I had back in 1978, that TV-based computer might be considered a Godsend. It's all relative, and that TV display is a one Hell of a lot better than nothing.
At the rate China's industry is expanding, I would venture a guess that the people who are the target market for this system will eventually have the opportunity to raise their expectations as well. But that takes time, and you have to start somewhere.
Horrible is relative, and for someone who doesn't have a computer, and can't afford anything better, a TV is much better than nothing. I started out on an Apple ][ Standard back in 1978-79: 40 column video and we were thrilled to have it, although we eventually upgraded to a monochrome monitor and a Videx 80-column card. Does anyone know the capabilities of China's regular broadcast television standards? I would hope that it would be better than NTSC, something on the order of PAL/SECAM maybe. I just threw my back out and I'm not in the mood to Google it.
Right, because people who don't have the good fortune to be born in America don't deserve to be treated like actual human beings.
... as long as they behave like civilized human beings! All of the Arab-Americans I happen to know do just that, but the same cannot be said for what is happening elsewhere (granted, the term "civilized" can be stretched to cover a wide range of societal norms, but mass murder definitely crosses the line.)
... life is cheap in that part of the world.
Ah, exactly what did I write that would make you think I believe anything resembling that? I can understand that you wish to feel that you're on the moral high ground and I'm not, but you simply don't get to make that inference. Sorry, I'm not letting you get away with it. Do I think people the world over deserve to be treated as civilized human beings? Certainly
The unfortunate truth is that the terrorist and religious leaders in the Arab world today (when you're fortunate enough to be able to draw that distinction) see their followers as weapons first, and people second. They don't perceive anyone outside of their limited round as having any right to exist at all, and that includes their own people. So, you are more than welcome to take a trip there, and do your best to convince them of the "unethicalness" of their behavior. Good luck with that. They won't believe you because they have an agenda that involves the untimely deaths of many of their countrymen, and they're getting away with it because
And if you manage to make it back alive from that trip, let me know how it turns out.
Even calling it an "Off" switch would still confuse the poor robot, as it would immediately try to off any terrorists in the immediate vicinity.
... instead of suicide bombers they can use robot suicide bombers.
Why would they bother. Human life is much, much cheaper in that part of the world, and a robot would have a hard time sneaking through a security perimeter. Besides, there appears to be no shortage of those willing to immolate themselves on the altar of terrorism.
The real question, in my mind, is this: what would a robot do with all those virgins?
Yes, times change. The Constitution doesn't, unless modified by process contained within itself. It is, after all, the Supreme Law of this Land, and if we don't give it even more importance than any of the various purported "Words of God", we're in for even more grief. The Constitution served us well until we decided to ignore it, and the wisdom of the Founders. The truth of the matter is that you're right, we have changed ... and for the worse, but not in any ways that obsolete the Constitution. Quite the opposite, in fact.
We should get back to listening to the Founding Fathers before we end up another failed, corrupt third-world culture like that of our friends south of the border. It is happening, and the pace is quickening. So be damned careful before you dis the Constitution, bro.
Too bad they don't see what a waste of humanity it is for all those people to be listening to Britney Spears.
But that's another issue.
Well, that's slowing down too. Remember that it takes time for the courts to become aware of systematic abuse on this scale. Well-informed judges don't much seem to care for what these clowns are doing, any more than the rest of us do.
Okay, you try explaining that to a small-claims court judge in the thirty seconds or so you get to state your case.
Maybe you should engage in a little more critical thought before becoming so convinced in the future.
... but only to a particular degree of accuracy. That's probably what confuses a lot of people about science, that a scientific proof is by definition not absolute, although the difference is sometimes moot. However, I agree that the softer sciences have a long way to go.
Maybe you should accept what is. The reality of human interaction is that not only do people not need perfect honesty from others, they don't want it. To a certain degree, we want the imperfections of our existence covered up, only intruding when they must. Do you truly believe that when your wife, girlfriend or significant other asks you "does this dress make me look fat?" that she wants an honest answer? If you do, you're an idiot, because you'll hurt her feelings for really no good reason, and I hope you have a comfortable sofa. In any event, a simple lie is not only the best answer in that case, but is fully expected. Indeed, a liberal application of social grease.
Frequently, such minor dissembling helps us avoid more serious situations that would do neither side any good. A true "little white lie" is generally told in order to avoid a conflict, to avoid hurting someone unnecessarily, not to acquire something undeserved. So yes, a certain amount of lying is essential, because people aren't perfect and neither is any social order we've yet invented. No-one with even basic observational skills should require a scientific study to figure this out. Ever lied to your boss because you know that he'll react inappropriately? More social grease, and it happens all the time. Honesty is not always the best policy.
And science most certainly does "prove" things
On the other hand, if we're talking about big corporate influence on law enforcement priorities, the bandwidth cost of spam is pretty damn high. You would think this would encourage the big boys (the telcos and Comcasts of the country) to spread some money around Washington to motivate the Feds appropriately. They've got more money than God, and AT&T knows its way around Washington like nobody else. That would be one of the few cases where I'd be on the lobbyists' side.
CIPAV stands for 'Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier'
No, it stands for "Covert Information Poaching Automated Virus"
I'm sure they've accounted for the possibilities you've raised (excellent points, by the way.) And, if you were to actually ask the FBI about those issues, I'm sure the conversation would go something like this:
Brody: The CIPAV is a source of unspeakable power and it has to be researched!
Eaton: And it will be, I assure you Dr. Brody, Dr. Jones. We have top men working on it right now.
Jones: Who?
Eaton: Top men.
It's not on the Moon since we haven't been back there since the Apollo program ended. It's actually buried in an ice cavern underneath McMurdo Base in the Antarctic.
That's actually one of the most intelligent comments I've heard on this subject.
I think a good part of that can be attributed to their being able to run one more or less standard OS across dozens of disparate systems. The real question is why they picked Linux vs. a proprietary design or some other open source OS.
Nah ... Linux is just the icing on the cake. There's plenty of real mainframe meat underneath.
I'd also like to point out that you are a geek.
... true enough I suppose. At least I'm on the right Web site for it.
Yes, well
I'd also like to point out that I've never owned a single piece of Star Trek paraphernalia, other than a plastic phaser pistol I got as a kid (wish I still had it, they're worth real money now.)
Man, that analysis you're pulling off there is amaaaaazingly deep!
... but it's one particular corporation that most computer professionals have to deal with on a regular basis, especially Slashdotters.
Thank you, I think. I was just stating what is obvious to anyone who's been in the field for more than a few years.
Curiously enough everything you said is true about every single big corporation.
True enough
Oh, you'll understand why ... you just won't know the specifics.
Microsoft could easily become a huge positive contributor to the FOSS world. Does nobody want that?
.. no, we don't want that. We don't want them anywhere near the open source movement, don't want them near Linux, don't want them near any major open source project. Have you not heard of "embrace and extend"? Do you not understand the consequences of opening your arms to Microsoft? Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.
Oh for
Answer me this: how many decades of larceny and deceit does the world have to suffer before we all finally accept that Microsoft sucks? As long as the Gates/Ballmer regime is running the show nothing is ever going to change. That's a fact of life, surer than death -or- taxes. If nothing else, their shareholders will guarantee that.
Hoping to strangle it?
What else do you expect when you invite Satan to the party?
This is pretty much a deep-pockets lawsuit, one of the very kinds of legal manipulations that are so-often decried here on Slashdot. The guy sees a way to maybe make some money out of Apple, doesn't much matter if he has a legitimate grievance or not. He's taking the gamble that a sympathetic court might see things his way, and force Apple to pay out.
Something needs to be done about the crapshoot approach to justice we have in this country. Aren't judges supposed to weed out the really frivolous ones?