can you provide your source of facts that proves your statement to be true?
Don't have to: Microsoft's own reputation preceeds it in this case. As someone who has spent the better part of thirty years dealing with that company and its shenanigans, I will say that you should treat them like Congress. That is, you take a default position assuming that they are lying through their teeth, you don't give them the benefit of the doubt, and you force them to provide proof of their claims.
In this case, the tester tested two products and rated one "99%" and one "3%" against some standard.
The key difference is that UL tests against a pre-existing standard. Not a standard that they made after looking at the product. UL can't customize their test to make one product look better or worse.
The methodology might have been totally bogus (no idea), but the act of paying for the test isn't automatically so.
The act of paying for a test to be designed for you, or a test you designed ahead of time to make your product look good, is bogus. Paying to have a test executed for you is not bogus. One is independent, the other is not.
From an ethical perspective, this is no better than when a certain 3D graphics chip maker had their Windows drivers detect running benchmark programs, and run specific code to fool the benchmark and make the chip appear to be faster than it really was.
So its results are unquestionably incorrect and/or irrelevant?
Yes. Sometimes you have to consider the source. And if even said results are correct and/or relevant, the truth is that having Microsoft pay them means exactly what you would expect. They paid for those results, they didn't pay for independent, unbiased testing and reporting of their products.
Thanks for explaining, but honestly, didn't all that give anyone a headache?
Yes, it did, but then again the same could probably be said for someone explaining the intricacies of Intaglio printing and pretty much every other part of our financial system. As you say, it's all very complex under the hood... but that doesn't mean that it would be hard to use.
Yes, that is the first result on Google for the search 'tomcat.'
Only because Google probably knows you. If you were a nine year old, you'd probably have gotten something like this, or if you're a military pilot, you might have gotten this.
But Google must know me too, because I got the same link you did.
Which still doesn't explain how diesel managed to explode like gasoline.
True, but I give him points for trying. After the number of TV shows and movies where cars and other vehicles drive off a cliff and explode in midair for no apparent reason... well, I appreciate the attempt at a justification.
(On a side note, I've been in the vehicle, or within a 100' of around 40 or 50 car wrecks, and not even once has one of them caught fire or exploded. So yeah, Hollywood sucks on the realism score.)
Except for James Cameron. Some years ago I received, as a gift, a hardbound copy of the annotated script of Terminator II. It was very interesting, because you could see how Cameron justified many of the destructive effects. At ont point, the script was describing the scene where the liquid-metal man is driving a truck, chasing Arnie and John Connor on the motorcycle. When the truck crashes, there's a quick cut scene where you see a battery and some sparking wires, just before the truck explodes. Cameron's reason for that shot was "contrary to popular belief, vehicles do not just explode on contact with things."
Did you just make a transformers analogy? I know this place has a reputation to maintain, but seriously?
Is your complaint that you don't like transformer analogies (although, in this case, it was strangely appropriate) or that it wasn't a more traditional caranalogy?
Would you allow me to decide what the limits of punishment should be if someone deprives you of your rights? And you don't get to decide which rights are under consideration, just because this conversation happens to be about copyright in particular.
Is copyright a right in the same sense as freedom of speech or religion? In the US, Congress merely has the power to establish (or abolish) copyright laws. One could argue that even if it is a right, then it exists in a balance with the others. Why does your copyright trump my freedom of speech?
More to the point, copyright, in its current incarnation, is an abomination that is being used in wholly inappropriate and (I presume) unintended ways. Human lives are being destroyed for... what? Profit? Not even that. There has been no significant legal redress in these cases: by most accounts the RIAA is losing money (or maybe making some, depending upon who you talk to) but no additional funds are being distributed to the creators of the music, nor are the rightsholders gaining any remuneration. Matter of fact, the media companies themselves are losing millions of dollars on this stupid, destructive, downright inept abuse of our copyright system, and that's in addition to whatever losses (real or imaginary) they have sustained through copyright infringment via P2P. Anyone who thinks what the RIAA is doing is appropriate is whacked in the head, or on somebody's payroll. The RIAA is doing this solely for the benefit of the RIAA: they're the only ones getting anything out of this. Presumably they still bill by the hour.
Yeah - I lol'd at that too. However essentially what her defence came down to is "Ignorance" - which is not a defence here in Oz and probably isn't accepted as a defence in the US too.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Ignorance of facts can very much be a defense, depending on the situation. Like in this case, where it actually makes a difference whether you know that something is under copyright or whether you mistakenly believe that it isn't. This is a case where the law actually says that ignorance is a defense.
In this case, what might really be relevant is this: was she ignorant of how the file sharing software worked? If may be that she really didn't know that she was sharing files. In fact that's been an issue in RIAA cases before, people that honestly did not know that the stupid P2P program was sharing all their downloads by default. It's also telling that (according to Ray Beckerman) pretty much all of those suits have been about people sharing files, not downloading them. Downloading doesn't constitute distribution: making files available for upload does (apparently it doesn't matter if anyone actually downloads said files from you, or if it can even be proven that anyone did.)
I don't know what particular app she was using (not having RTFA) but most, if not all, of the programs in use at the time did automatically enable sharing of downloads. Some early Gnutella clients even shared the entire hard drive without informing the user. The intent, I presume, was to make the network more valuable and useful, because there would be more files available.
One thing you ignore is that those customers require multiple source and Apple has no intention of offering anything that can be sourced by anyone else. If they did, they'd HAVE to compete on price. That's the point.
Well, I didn't ignore your point, exactly, I just hadn't thought of it.
Slashdot Mirror
In what way is more government regulation more democratic?
Notice he said, "small d intentional here".
can you provide your source of facts that proves your statement to be true?
Don't have to: Microsoft's own reputation preceeds it in this case. As someone who has spent the better part of thirty years dealing with that company and its shenanigans, I will say that you should treat them like Congress. That is, you take a default position assuming that they are lying through their teeth, you don't give them the benefit of the doubt, and you force them to provide proof of their claims.
This is totally different.
In this case, the tester tested two products and rated one "99%" and one "3%" against some standard.
The key difference is that UL tests against a pre-existing standard. Not a standard that they made after looking at the product. UL can't customize their test to make one product look better or worse.
The methodology might have been totally bogus (no idea), but the act of paying for the test isn't automatically so.
The act of paying for a test to be designed for you, or a test you designed ahead of time to make your product look good, is bogus. Paying to have a test executed for you is not bogus. One is independent, the other is not.
From an ethical perspective, this is no better than when a certain 3D graphics chip maker had their Windows drivers detect running benchmark programs, and run specific code to fool the benchmark and make the chip appear to be faster than it really was.
So its results are unquestionably incorrect and/or irrelevant?
Yes. Sometimes you have to consider the source. And if even said results are correct and/or relevant, the truth is that having Microsoft pay them means exactly what you would expect. They paid for those results, they didn't pay for independent, unbiased testing and reporting of their products.
Does anyone know of a good ABP for Chromium based browsers?
How about Ad Block
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. - Benito Mussolini
Thanks for explaining, but honestly, didn't all that give anyone a headache?
Yes, it did, but then again the same could probably be said for someone explaining the intricacies of Intaglio printing and pretty much every other part of our financial system. As you say, it's all very complex under the hood ... but that doesn't mean that it would be hard to use.
Look at this way, Balmer is Dooku and google is clone army.
Yes, but Count Dooku got his hands chopped off and died.
Which is perfectly legal.
Yes. My understanding is that Oracle is suing over trademark issues, but then again, what little I know of the case comes from Slashdot.
or is there a mandate from the top to regress?
Considering who's at the top, I'm going to go with "Yes".
http://tomcat.apache.org/
Yes, that is the first result on Google for the search 'tomcat.'
Only because Google probably knows you. If you were a nine year old, you'd probably have gotten something like this, or if you're a military pilot, you might have gotten this.
But Google must know me too, because I got the same link you did.
Which still doesn't explain how diesel managed to explode like gasoline.
True, but I give him points for trying. After the number of TV shows and movies where cars and other vehicles drive off a cliff and explode in midair for no apparent reason ... well, I appreciate the attempt at a justification.
Well, replying a bit late to this, but I was correcting AC, not you. As a matter of fact, I was actually supporting you...
My apologies. I was typing on a small screen at the time.
(On a side note, I've been in the vehicle, or within a 100' of around 40 or 50 car wrecks, and not even once has one of them caught fire or exploded. So yeah, Hollywood sucks on the realism score.)
Except for James Cameron. Some years ago I received, as a gift, a hardbound copy of the annotated script of Terminator II. It was very interesting, because you could see how Cameron justified many of the destructive effects. At ont point, the script was describing the scene where the liquid-metal man is driving a truck, chasing Arnie and John Connor on the motorcycle. When the truck crashes, there's a quick cut scene where you see a battery and some sparking wires, just before the truck explodes. Cameron's reason for that shot was "contrary to popular belief, vehicles do not just explode on contact with things."
I'd like to see this in Toy Story 4.
Now that would be funny. Mr. Potatohead in a standoff with the local bomb squad. "Leave me alone or I'll explode! I swear I will!"
The terrorists have won.
Why should they get the credit? It's our idiocy and our tax money that brought us to this state.
Saying "The terrorists have won", is shirking responsibility. This is our fault. We did this.
How about "the terrorists successfully pushed us over the edge."
Did you just make a transformers analogy? I know this place has a reputation to maintain, but seriously?
Is your complaint that you don't like transformer analogies (although, in this case, it was strangely appropriate) or that it wasn't a more traditional caranalogy?
Is copyright a right in the same sense as freedom of speech or religion? In the US, Congress merely has the power to establish (or abolish) copyright laws. One could argue that even if it is a right, then it exists in a balance with the others. Why does your copyright trump my freedom of speech?
More to the point, copyright, in its current incarnation, is an abomination that is being used in wholly inappropriate and (I presume) unintended ways. Human lives are being destroyed for ... what? Profit? Not even that. There has been no significant legal redress in these cases: by most accounts the RIAA is losing money (or maybe making some, depending upon who you talk to) but no additional funds are being distributed to the creators of the music, nor are the rightsholders gaining any remuneration. Matter of fact, the media companies themselves are losing millions of dollars on this stupid, destructive, downright inept abuse of our copyright system, and that's in addition to whatever losses (real or imaginary) they have sustained through copyright infringment via P2P. Anyone who thinks what the RIAA is doing is appropriate is whacked in the head, or on somebody's payroll. The RIAA is doing this solely for the benefit of the RIAA: they're the only ones getting anything out of this. Presumably they still bill by the hour.
Yeah - I lol'd at that too. However essentially what her defence came down to is "Ignorance" - which is not a defence here in Oz and probably isn't accepted as a defence in the US too.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Ignorance of facts can very much be a defense, depending on the situation. Like in this case, where it actually makes a difference whether you know that something is under copyright or whether you mistakenly believe that it isn't. This is a case where the law actually says that ignorance is a defense.
In this case, what might really be relevant is this: was she ignorant of how the file sharing software worked? If may be that she really didn't know that she was sharing files. In fact that's been an issue in RIAA cases before, people that honestly did not know that the stupid P2P program was sharing all their downloads by default. It's also telling that (according to Ray Beckerman) pretty much all of those suits have been about people sharing files, not downloading them. Downloading doesn't constitute distribution: making files available for upload does (apparently it doesn't matter if anyone actually downloads said files from you, or if it can even be proven that anyone did.)
I don't know what particular app she was using (not having RTFA) but most, if not all, of the programs in use at the time did automatically enable sharing of downloads. Some early Gnutella clients even shared the entire hard drive without informing the user. The intent, I presume, was to make the network more valuable and useful, because there would be more files available.
Yea, and the TSA is doing the right thing in its screenings because terrorists and other criminals don't like it.
Look, now we've both made incredibly ignorant and short sighted statements.
Its fucking retarded to say 'my enemy doesn't like them so they MUST BE GOOD'.
On the other hand, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
You are somewhat correct sir!
Story of my life.
If you know what I mean.
Not really, but then again I'm American so it's probably over my head anyway.
One thing you ignore is that those customers require multiple source and Apple has no intention of offering anything that can be sourced by anyone else. If they did, they'd HAVE to compete on price. That's the point.
Well, I didn't ignore your point, exactly, I just hadn't thought of it.
And I think you meant cojones...oh, and btw, "having huevos" it's also used in many Latinamerican countries the same way you use "having guts"...
Correct, which if you'll re-read my post was the exact context in which I used it.
huevos are eggs ... ?are you saying he's gay?
I think you meant cajones, gringo.
Nope