Yes, that move by Apple was truly anti-feature and anti-competitive. And you know they have zero good reasons for doing it when the best excuse they come up with is "courage". It is hard to imagine a worse non-relevant excuse. As I have said before, the sensible problem analysis would be
What is the problem?
The 3.5mm audio jack limits the minimum thickness of phones.
What is the cause?
Physical properties.
What is the solution?
Standardize a thinner analog audio jack. Possible bonus: Making sure all existing 3.5mm jack "extensions" like additional microphone are included.
However, this being mainly driven by Apple the obviously correct solution above is not what they want. The problem analysed from their point of view looks like the following:
What is the problem?
Apple would like to sell more and expensive audio accessories to people, even though they actually do not need this.
Also Apple would like to do this as exclusively as possible, without bothersome competition.
What is the cause?
People already own a lot of existing audio hardware that works just fine. And there is a lot of competition with a low barrier to entry.
What is the solution?
Remove the option to use the 3.5mm jack (and justify by blaming physical size) and thus force people to just discard all their existing, fully functional audio hardware and buy new (from Apple).
And now before you start objecting that the analogue audio signal is not as good as what a digital signal could be (let's ignore for the moment the relevance of this considering the typical noisy environment a phone is used in), then consider the following: There exists zero technical obstacles to designing a jack that defaults to analogue but can be switched into digital. Any objections to this would be of political nature.
I think you give the grammar too much weight.
I can say "If London lies west of Berlin, then the capital of France is Paris" or "London lies west of Berlin, therefore the capital of France is Paris" which are grammatically different but carries the exact same meaning. Saying "X is a snowflake, therefore..." or "X is a snowflake, and..." also carries the exact same meaning.
Now, paying some attention to the grammar, you correctly object that what was written was not an ad hominem on the form "part 1, therefore part 2" where part 2 depends on part 1. I agree with your analysis "Poptix made an argument, prefaced by a label he applied to the group the argument was discussing." and this can be rephrased as "Poptix made two arguments. First applying a label to the group. Secondly some other argument.". And this first argument is an ad hominem on the form "part 1" with an implied part 2.
And this is my objection. Calling someone snowflake servers no other purpose than to serve as an (often implied) ad hominem attack.
An argument can be invalid even though both the premises and the conclusion are true. Proof: "If London lies west of Berlin, then capital of France is Paris".
So "X is a snowflake, therefore..." is an invalid argument regardless of how true the "therefore..." part is.
Thank you for this post, it is by far the best you have written in this thread. A tactful tone, your opinions presented as plain opinions, a genuine investigatory attempt to understand the other person. Bravo. Excellent. You have gained several points of respect from me. Thank you.
This is not an argument. This is your opinion presented as if it were a fact. You are by all means entitled to have your opinions, but please do not try to present them as facts. It comes across to me as a disguised attempt to appal to authority, with you being the authority.
This is Slashdot, not Twitter.
You have posted this or similar to several of your posts, and it comes across as an attempt to silence the other person and to try to be an authority ("such and such are the rules"). If you want to influence people, telling them to shut up or otherwise address them in a derogatory way is usually never a good idea.
But, to address the very quote (which I interpret to mean "While on twitter you might get away by saying whatever rambling comes out of your head, here on slashdot you have to provide valid arguments for what you write").
You have claimed that the arguments are not equivalent without backing that up with any arguments. So in a eat your own dog food opportunity, please explain exactly what you think the difference(s) between claiming
Since the persons are not formally members of the nazi party, they are not nazis
and Since World War II was the last formally declared war, there have been no wars since then is (are).
I wouldn't call them Nazis because they aren't a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
So your argument is Since the persons are not formally members of the nazi party, they are not nazis. That is as ridiculous as claiming Since World War II was the last formally declared war, there have been no wars since then.
Nazi party is long gone; there are no Nazis. Use the correct terminology or go back to Twitter.
So your argument is Since the formal nazi party ceased to exist many years ago, there have been no nazis since then.
That is as ridiculous as claiming Since World War II was the last formally declared war, there have been no wars since then.
Where the hell did you get individual probabilities from?
Just because the average sick leave at Company X is y days per year, you cannot in any credible way predict that Mr Smith, working for Company X, will have exactly y sick days next year. If you believe that you can extrapolate probabilities for an individual out of said person's group memberships (be it employment, sex or race) you have a serious misunderstanding of how statistics work.
The algorithms themselves are actually the least important aspect. As I have said before, even if the algorithms are 100% open and transparent, that means nothing if the data feed into them is poor. If the bank uses an algorithm to determine if it want to lend money to you, how is the data about you collected? Who decided to classify you as a say medium risk person? What criteria did he/she/they use for that? How thorough were he/she/they in gathering decision material? What did he/she/they miss/ignore/misunderstood?
Unless there is full and complete transparency and accountability for data collection, the transparency for just the algorithms is without value.
But I stand in so far corrected as there were far more than I assumed.
Thank you very much for your post. You are making the world a better place by showing that admitting mistakes is not such a big deal that unfortunately some people make it. Again, thank you.
A man that never admits mistakes is a dishonest man. How willing are you to deny any wrongdoings on USA's behalf regardless of evidence to the contrary?
Do you want to be honest? Or are you willing to look away, ignoring anything that contradicts what you have decided to believe?
killing or wounding a combatant who has surrendered or is otherwise hors de combat;
Watch from 9 minutes into the Collateral Murder video; there is no way the killing of unarmed men picking up a wounded man lying on the street and carrying him into a van to drive him away does not match the above listed war crime.
But don't just take my words for it. Listen to one of the soldiers actually being there on the ground:
Their overall mission that day was to protect us, to provide support for us, so I can see where the initial attack on the group of men was warranted. However, personally I don't feel that the attack on the van was warranted. I think that the people could have been deterred from doing what they were doing in the van by simply firing a few warning shots versus completely obliterating the van and its occupants.
Any country involved in a war will be responsible for committing terrible things. It is impossible to avoid, the soldiers are just humans and the military is an institution that tend to bring out the worstbehaviour.
Anyone that tries to deny this is being dishonest.
And the absolute disgrace with regards to her detention conditions. It is clear that she stuck some nerve and that someone has had an agenda to "take her" for it. Like threatening with indefinite solitary confinement for being in possession of an expired toothpaste.
If you believe Snowden has been allowed to live in Russia all these years without turning over unredacted copies...
I am a bit confused about what the reasons are for claiming this, despite it being being public knowledge that Snowden gave away all documents before leaving Hong Kong, not bringing any with him.
Is it because you see Showden as an evil person whose reputation must be trashed at any cost, disregarding whether arguments are true or not?
Is it because you actually believe this (despite that it would be extremely risky and stupid of him so he obviously did not do that)?
Something else?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that move by Apple was truly anti-feature and anti-competitive. And you know they have zero good reasons for doing it when the best excuse they come up with is "courage". It is hard to imagine a worse non-relevant excuse. As I have said before, the sensible problem analysis would be
What is the problem? The 3.5mm audio jack limits the minimum thickness of phones. What is the cause? Physical properties. What is the solution? Standardize a thinner analog audio jack. Possible bonus: Making sure all existing 3.5mm jack "extensions" like additional microphone are included.However, this being mainly driven by Apple the obviously correct solution above is not what they want. The problem analysed from their point of view looks like the following:
What is the problem? Apple would like to sell more and expensive audio accessories to people, even though they actually do not need this. Also Apple would like to do this as exclusively as possible, without bothersome competition. What is the cause? People already own a lot of existing audio hardware that works just fine. And there is a lot of competition with a low barrier to entry. What is the solution? Remove the option to use the 3.5mm jack (and justify by blaming physical size) and thus force people to just discard all their existing, fully functional audio hardware and buy new (from Apple).And now before you start objecting that the analogue audio signal is not as good as what a digital signal could be (let's ignore for the moment the relevance of this considering the typical noisy environment a phone is used in), then consider the following: There exists zero technical obstacles to designing a jack that defaults to analogue but can be switched into digital. Any objections to this would be of political nature.
I am still waiting for you to explain the difference.
I think you give the grammar too much weight. I can say "If London lies west of Berlin, then the capital of France is Paris" or "London lies west of Berlin, therefore the capital of France is Paris" which are grammatically different but carries the exact same meaning. Saying "X is a snowflake, therefore ..." or "X is a snowflake, and ..." also carries the exact same meaning.
Now, paying some attention to the grammar, you correctly object that what was written was not an ad hominem on the form "part 1, therefore part 2" where part 2 depends on part 1. I agree with your analysis "Poptix made an argument, prefaced by a label he applied to the group the argument was discussing." and this can be rephrased as "Poptix made two arguments. First applying a label to the group. Secondly some other argument.". And this first argument is an ad hominem on the form "part 1" with an implied part 2.
And this is my objection. Calling someone snowflake servers no other purpose than to serve as an (often implied) ad hominem attack.
Ah, thanks. You are probably right, I did not catch that. Communiction is hard and whenever I make mistakes I do appreciate corrections.
I thought I was being obvious, but apparently not obvious enough.
Never underestimate how hard it is to convey meaning in written content.
An argument can be invalid even though both the premises and the conclusion are true. Proof: "If London lies west of Berlin, then capital of France is Paris".
So "X is a snowflake, therefore ..." is an invalid argument regardless of how true the "therefore ..." part is.
Why don't you go back to Twitter
If you want to influence people, telling them to shut up or otherwise address them in a derogatory way is usually never a good idea.
Thank you for this post, it is by far the best you have written in this thread. A tactful tone, your opinions presented as plain opinions, a genuine investigatory attempt to understand the other person. Bravo. Excellent. You have gained several points of respect from me. Thank you.
How is calling people snowflakes different from the logical fallacy ad hominem?
This is Slashdot, use the correct terminology or you will be called out for it
Trying to come up with an exact meaning of a political movement and have everybody agreeing on that is a meaningless exercise.
And your tone of voice again comes across as attempt to establish yourself as an authority establishing the rules, and trying to silence opponents.
little furry.
What purpose does calling someone little furry have other than being a form of ad hominem?
False equivalence.
This is not an argument. This is your opinion presented as if it were a fact. You are by all means entitled to have your opinions, but please do not try to present them as facts. It comes across to me as a disguised attempt to appal to authority, with you being the authority.
This is Slashdot, not Twitter.
You have posted this or similar to several of your posts, and it comes across as an attempt to silence the other person and to try to be an authority ("such and such are the rules"). If you want to influence people, telling them to shut up or otherwise address them in a derogatory way is usually never a good idea.
But, to address the very quote (which I interpret to mean "While on twitter you might get away by saying whatever rambling comes out of your head, here on slashdot you have to provide valid arguments for what you write").
You have claimed that the arguments are not equivalent without backing that up with any arguments. So in a eat your own dog food opportunity, please explain exactly what you think the difference(s) between claiming Since the persons are not formally members of the nazi party, they are not nazis and Since World War II was the last formally declared war, there have been no wars since then is (are).
I wouldn't call them Nazis because they aren't a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
So your argument is Since the persons are not formally members of the nazi party, they are not nazis. That is as ridiculous as claiming Since World War II was the last formally declared war, there have been no wars since then.
Nazi party is long gone; there are no Nazis. Use the correct terminology or go back to Twitter.
So your argument is Since the formal nazi party ceased to exist many years ago, there have been no nazis since then. That is as ridiculous as claiming Since World War II was the last formally declared war, there have been no wars since then.
For those that have not followed EEVBlog over the years, here is a sample of the debunking Dave has done of solar roads:
Also known as congratulations on your white penis.
Where the hell did you get individual probabilities from?
Just because the average sick leave at Company X is y days per year, you cannot in any credible way predict that Mr Smith, working for Company X, will have exactly y sick days next year. If you believe that you can extrapolate probabilities for an individual out of said person's group memberships (be it employment, sex or race) you have a serious misunderstanding of how statistics work.
The Anonymous Cowards will all be r a c i s t s. This much is obvious.
The algorithms themselves are actually the least important aspect. As I have said before, even if the algorithms are 100% open and transparent, that means nothing if the data feed into them is poor. If the bank uses an algorithm to determine if it want to lend money to you, how is the data about you collected? Who decided to classify you as a say medium risk person? What criteria did he/she/they use for that? How thorough were he/she/they in gathering decision material? What did he/she/they miss/ignore/misunderstood?
Unless there is full and complete transparency and accountability for data collection, the transparency for just the algorithms is without value.
In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.
But I stand in so far corrected as there were far more than I assumed.
Thank you very much for your post. You are making the world a better place by showing that admitting mistakes is not such a big deal that unfortunately some people make it. Again, thank you.
A man that never admits mistakes is a dishonest man. How willing are you to deny any wrongdoings on USA's behalf regardless of evidence to the contrary? Do you want to be honest? Or are you willing to look away, ignoring anything that contradicts what you have decided to believe?
War crimes include
Watch from 9 minutes into the Collateral Murder video; there is no way the killing of unarmed men picking up a wounded man lying on the street and carrying him into a van to drive him away does not match the above listed war crime. But don't just take my words for it. Listen to one of the soldiers actually being there on the ground:
Their overall mission that day was to protect us, to provide support for us, so I can see where the initial attack on the group of men was warranted. However, personally I don't feel that the attack on the van was warranted. I think that the people could have been deterred from doing what they were doing in the van by simply firing a few warning shots versus completely obliterating the van and its occupants.
Stockmann, Snowden, Manning. The world needs more enemies of the people.
I think Chelsea is a great hero for exposing war crimes and other wrongdoings committed by USA, and I am always in favour of exposing such things.
Any country involved in a war will be responsible for committing terrible things. It is impossible to avoid, the soldiers are just humans and the military is an institution that tend to bring out the worst behaviour. Anyone that tries to deny this is being dishonest.
And the absolute disgrace with regards to her detention conditions. It is clear that she stuck some nerve and that someone has had an agenda to "take her" for it. Like threatening with indefinite solitary confinement for being in possession of an expired toothpaste.
Why do you have a problem with that some people change gender? Do you feel threaten in some way? What's the deal?
What a disgrace.
.
.
.
But bringing down the discussion to such a low level is not very constructive. So please don't.
If you believe Snowden has been allowed to live in Russia all these years without turning over unredacted copies ...
I am a bit confused about what the reasons are for claiming this, despite it being being public knowledge that Snowden gave away all documents before leaving Hong Kong, not bringing any with him. Is it because you see Showden as an evil person whose reputation must be trashed at any cost, disregarding whether arguments are true or not? Is it because you actually believe this (despite that it would be extremely risky and stupid of him so he obviously did not do that)? Something else?
Could you explain WHY you claim this?