Here's the thing... this is a geek site. Geeks have different criteria for evaluating technology than regular people do. And as for the iPad -- no matter how popular/unpopular it proves to be... the general consensus on slashdot will hold true. The iPad is a sub-standard device compared to what else is out there at that price.
If it were "sub-standard" "at that price" the market would sort it out and nobody would buy one. What you're missing is that the geeks around here have a different set of criteria for evaluating technology than regular people do. Geeks make up 1 or 2% of the population. If I'm evaluating the marketability of a product, I'm going to look at the other 98-99% and see what their evaluation criteria are.
Novell has a couple billion in cash, so a suit like this is nothing to it. SCO, on the other hand, is beyond bankrupt at this point so a bill for $10 isn't going to be paid.
Let me make this simple: what obligation does facebook have to "promote freedom"? What other companies have such an obligation?
As for "constant monitoring", obviously they collect statistics and serve ads based on data that is collected. But the wording suggests that they have some secret police organization that monitors users' usage of the site for some nefarious purposes.
Here's a problem for free software: most social networks are built using it, yet through their constant monitoring of users they do little to promote freedom.
So, the people at facebook "constantly monitor users" and "do little to promote freedom"? And we wonder why the FSF is written off as a fringe organization?
browse private information such as postings, personal photographs, and video clips.
No. What you're referring to is *public information* if they can get to it through the normal user interface. Now, if they call up facebook and say "I want to see so and so's non-public photos", fine, it's a problem, they need a warrant.
But I'm tired of this nonsense where someone posts all kinds of crap on their facebook account, make it public (or allow "friends" to see it), and then act like it's not supposed to be viewed by law enforcement.
If you don't want the cops to see it, don't post it to facebook. Why is this so hard?
although there is no scientific consensus to that effect.
It has nothing to do with "concensus", there's no belief that the Himalayas are going to melt in the next 25 years. It was a misquote by someone which ended up being quoted as fact through an obnoxious game of "telephone".
That tells you how much credibility to give to the rest of it.
Um, so those are the only two errors or just a couple that were really obvious? I think we both know the answer to that question.
Given that the entire thing is based on bad data (if it weren't it would have been released), I'm not even sure why we're still discussing this. It's a sham.
There are no "independent" climate scientists and haven't been for decades, if ever.
That's a pretty bold claim. Do you also think it is the same with sciences? Are there no independant botanists either? Are they all involved with some big conspiracy to hide the fact that all the leaders of the world are actually vegetables?
Hmm, maybe not. I does sound a tad silly. Perhaps the conspiracy just involves those scientists who claim something that you don't want to believe.
There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point.
Read about the history of air warfare during WWI, with the rise of airplanes. The situation is analogous to drones. Ultimately, drones will have defenses and counter-attacks. It's not been a big deal yet because we're fighting people who don't have access to the technology, but that will change.
They hold an IP right to the use of Olympian, so the phrase Olympian Lindsay Vonn is a use of a trademark.
So? I drank a bottle of Coca Cola for lunch. Coca Cola is a registered trademark of The Coca-Cola Company.
So, um, is Coke going to sue me for using those words?
No, they cannot. That's not a protection that a trademark provides. I simply cannot create a similar product and name it "Coca Cola".
I can use the words "Olympics", "Olympic Games", and I can call Lindsay Vonn and Olympian. None of that is an issue.
I suspect that the lawyer for the Olympics knows this, but they're relying on people not wanting to go to court and deal with it. That doesn't make it right.
I knew this and am not even American. Every piece of coverage I've seen on this issue has explained how wide reaching the ramifications are. How can anyone have missed it?
Courts have ruled, yes, but they still have no Consitutional authority to do anything of the sort that you've highlighted above. It's an abomination that we've allowed our government to so wildly overstep its authority.
I used to spend a lot of time thinking about consciousness, and ended up having a great conversation with a friend one evening about this topic. Here's the problem: it takes about 20 years for a human brain to learn enough to get to a baseline level of knowledge to start learning something specialized. Even if we have an AI in 20 years that has the capability of the human brain, we're years from there at being able to exploit it.
There's another strange issue with this sort of problem. Let's say Moore's Law continues at that point. If I start something today that'll take 20 years, but in 18 months it'll take 10 years, why bother?
That's not even getting into the scary issues of attempting to control something that's smarter than all humans.
Slashdot Mirror
If it were "sub-standard" "at that price" the market would sort it out and nobody would buy one. What you're missing is that the geeks around here have a different set of criteria for evaluating technology than regular people do. Geeks make up 1 or 2% of the population. If I'm evaluating the marketability of a product, I'm going to look at the other 98-99% and see what their evaluation criteria are.
Novell has a couple billion in cash, so a suit like this is nothing to it. SCO, on the other hand, is beyond bankrupt at this point so a bill for $10 isn't going to be paid.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=scoxq.pk
Ouch! from .46 down to .10. While 36 cents might not sound like much, it's an 80% drop in value.
"Useful idiot" is an idiom, please look it up on wikipedia and get back with us.
Snakes bite, buddy, that's why we don't play with them.
I don't know why you keep thinking that Microsoft wants some sort of "ecosystem". They want control, but they're always willing to use a useful idiot.
Seriously. What's the worst that it's going to do to a person? Kill him?
Well, guess what? They have cancer.
Geeze, get this in everybody who has cancer right now.
Let me make this simple: what obligation does facebook have to "promote freedom"? What other companies have such an obligation?
As for "constant monitoring", obviously they collect statistics and serve ads based on data that is collected. But the wording suggests that they have some secret police organization that monitors users' usage of the site for some nefarious purposes.
Sorry, this is just silliness.
It'll be far easier than typing with one hand.
By his own logic, seems he should also be liable for not buying a saw using the "Saw Stop" technology. I hope the jury sees that.
So, the people at facebook "constantly monitor users" and "do little to promote freedom"? And we wonder why the FSF is written off as a fringe organization?
No. What you're referring to is *public information* if they can get to it through the normal user interface. Now, if they call up facebook and say "I want to see so and so's non-public photos", fine, it's a problem, they need a warrant.
But I'm tired of this nonsense where someone posts all kinds of crap on their facebook account, make it public (or allow "friends" to see it), and then act like it's not supposed to be viewed by law enforcement.
If you don't want the cops to see it, don't post it to facebook. Why is this so hard?
To the original poster: googlesmith is fooling you - no need for the "K".
Right, and Windows accounts for 90% of desktop computers. Does that make it "good"?
Read the CRU papers, please. There was political bias on both sides.
It has nothing to do with "concensus", there's no belief that the Himalayas are going to melt in the next 25 years. It was a misquote by someone which ended up being quoted as fact through an obnoxious game of "telephone".
That tells you how much credibility to give to the rest of it.
Um, so those are the only two errors or just a couple that were really obvious? I think we both know the answer to that question.
Given that the entire thing is based on bad data (if it weren't it would have been released), I'm not even sure why we're still discussing this. It's a sham.
There are no "independent" climate scientists and haven't been for decades, if ever.
That's a pretty bold claim. Do you also think it is the same with sciences? Are there no independant botanists either? Are they all involved with some big conspiracy to hide the fact that all the leaders of the world are actually vegetables?
Hmm, maybe not. I does sound a tad silly. Perhaps the conspiracy just involves those scientists who claim something that you don't want to believe.
There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point.
Read about the history of air warfare during WWI, with the rise of airplanes. The situation is analogous to drones. Ultimately, drones will have defenses and counter-attacks. It's not been a big deal yet because we're fighting people who don't have access to the technology, but that will change.
Took me 2 minutes with Google to find other sites that are apparently using the same crappy code with the same vulnerabilities. "inurl:" does wonders.
So? I drank a bottle of Coca Cola for lunch. Coca Cola is a registered trademark of The Coca-Cola Company.
So, um, is Coke going to sue me for using those words?
No, they cannot. That's not a protection that a trademark provides. I simply cannot create a similar product and name it "Coca Cola".
I can use the words "Olympics", "Olympic Games", and I can call Lindsay Vonn and Olympian. None of that is an issue.
I suspect that the lawyer for the Olympics knows this, but they're relying on people not wanting to go to court and deal with it. That doesn't make it right.
It's kdawson.
Can't get too much fibre.
Courts have ruled, yes, but they still have no Consitutional authority to do anything of the sort that you've highlighted above. It's an abomination that we've allowed our government to so wildly overstep its authority.
I used to spend a lot of time thinking about consciousness, and ended up having a great conversation with a friend one evening about this topic. Here's the problem: it takes about 20 years for a human brain to learn enough to get to a baseline level of knowledge to start learning something specialized. Even if we have an AI in 20 years that has the capability of the human brain, we're years from there at being able to exploit it.
There's another strange issue with this sort of problem. Let's say Moore's Law continues at that point. If I start something today that'll take 20 years, but in 18 months it'll take 10 years, why bother?
That's not even getting into the scary issues of attempting to control something that's smarter than all humans.
Actually, it's likely the whole thing is a dog whistle that's targeting the Chinese government.