Seriously has anyone ever had a positive experience with an HTC?
Yes. My first Android phone was the HTC Dream. An excellent little phone (albeit with not quite enough ram), and a much nicer keyboard than any other device I've used. These days I've settled on a Samsung Captivate Glide, but the keyboard isn't as nice, the phone's a little too big and the software support from Samsung is abysmal - I'm still on Gingerbread; they did eventually release an ICS firmware after a very long wait, but it is widely regarded as unusably buggy. The xda-developers community have been reasonably successful at porting CyanogenMod to it, but there are still some serious bugs (notably with bluetooth and GPS) which are holding me back from upgrading.
And what would happen if all the gold being hoarded in vaults were dropped onto the market to be used for *useful* stuff?
Anyway, supply and demand doesn't mean that the price will stay above the production cost - it could easilly be that there is too much being produced at this time - yes, producers of any product have problems if the buyers value the product less than the cost to produce it.
So ok, no one is required to accept the payment, but they are essentially required to write off the debt if you offer payment in cash, whether or not they actually accept it.
Real world currency - A currency that has a value backed by either:
Physical something of real value - Gold, Silver, etc that actually exists in a vault somewhere
But the value of the gold probably bears little relation to what its intrinsically worth. I.e. if gold weren't being used as a currency of sorts, it wouldn't be as valuable since its uses would be relatively minor (jewelery, electronics, etc). In this respect its very much like a fiat currency - it has an inflated value because people believe they can sell it on for a high price.
A Large entity who guarantee to pay, and are trusted enough to do so (Government/Bank/etc)
The "guarantee to pay" is a little bit meaningless here - I can't go to the government and tell them to exchange my bit of paper for something with intrinsic value. What makes a currency have value to me is that I believe that people offering goods and services that I want will be happy for me to pay for those goods/services in that currency. That has little to do with the government.
All real world currencies are usually legal tender
Untrue. For example, in Scotland there is no such thing as legal tender, but the pound sterling still works by virtue of the fact that it is usually worth someone's while to accept it.
It is required that people have to accept legal tender as payment for good and services
Also untrue. Legal tender just means a creditor has to accept it as payment of a debt by the debtor. If you haven't incurred a debt already then the person you're paying can tell you to go take a hike rather than accepting your money. For example, at the point you reach the checkout in a shop, you haven't bought the items so there is no debt - the shop is well within their rights to refuse a legal tender currency. Of course, most people have no problem accepting one of the mainstream currencies so won't refuse, but this may not always be the case with very unstable currencies.
No-one has to accept Bitcoin, if they do they can assign any arbitrary value to it as an exchange rate depending on how much they trust it...
His description of how they access the internet is a bit vague.. sort of sounds like they have some kind of remote-desktop setup for internet access, which seems slightly odd. I guess if this is the case, it does protect them from malware by ensuring that only the remote-desktop server is infected rather than the ISS computers themselves, which might be the whole reason for it.
Does anyone have an idea why they're doing this? IIRC the distance to geostationary orbit is bigger than the omne to ground, so why waste energy for that long distance stuff?
At a guess: the Ku band geostationary satellites are already there commercially, so its cheap to just buy some bandwidth when they need it. Doing high bandwidth communications with the ISS directly would require an extensive network of dedicated ground stations with pointable dishes (and appropriate backhauls between them) - remember the ISS is doing an orbit every 90 minutes, so a single ground station isn't going to be able to keep a connection for long. A geostationary sat is going to be able to keep the ISS within its coverage area for much longer than a ground station.
I may not care for much patriotically these days, but hes really doing canada a service being so media savvy.
He's doing the *world* a service. His regular youtube videos have been excellent; but more than that, his regular facebook posts really bring it home to you that this stuff is happening right now all the time. And he's not just followed by Canadians - no other astronaut from any nation has engaged with the public as much as he has. I'm hoping we see more of this from other astronauts.
The ISS orbits around 330km - 435 km above the earth (around 230 miles on average). That's less than the width of a single province in Canada!
If you look at various communication delays based on distance, and assume that during the performance the ISS was basically roughly over Canada or even the U.S, you can see that the delay would be substantially less than for most international phone calls!
As far as I can tell, the high bandwidth connections they use for media events are done by bouncing a Ku band signal off geostationary satellites(*), and the delay is significant (watch any of his videos taking questions from school kids and you'll see a noticable communications delay).
(* they don't seem to have global coverage with Ku band, only being able to use it when in range of certain satellites. This surprises me because I would've expected there to be enough geostationary sats for one to be visible from anywhere in orbit and it can't be *that* expensive to buy bandwidth on several.)
The "pre-breathing" is required to adapt the human physiology to such an atmosphere.
Just using normal air at very low pressure isn't an option, because the partial pressure
of Oxygen would be too low to breathe (same as very-high-altitude air on Earth).
Thanks - very informative. Further googling indicates that this is to avoid decompression sickness (breathing pure O2 for a while flushes the nitrogen out of the body, preventing it forming bubbles when the astronaut is decompressed). Is there any reason to use an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere on the space station, rather than oxygen/some-other-gas, such as helium? This would presumably avoid the decompression sickness problem, much like deep divers use oxygen/helium mixes.
Making a useable spacesuit is suprisingly hard. One of the challenges for example
is that the suits internal volume should always stay the same, even when bent.
Otherwise the pressure would change (and by quite a bit too) every time it is deformed,
annoying the hell out of or even injuring the astronaut.
Indeed, I hadn't considered that. Having a non-fixed volume would also make movement harder, since the suit would continually try to return to the largest volume / lowest pressure shape.
If the brain is deterministic, it should be resetting to start state every time you wake up.
Ok, sounds like you don't understand what "deterministic" means. Whether something retains state has nothing to do with whether it is deterministic or not.
And for simple tasks, should be able to go into an infinite loop quite nicely without *ever* getting bored.
Determinism says nothing about "bordom". No reason why you can't get deterministically bored....
The question is, can it do the same output with the same input?
My point is that this is an unprovable: We don't have 2 absolutely identical brains which have had absolutely identical life experiences (past inputs). We can't reset the state of a brain between experiments. So if you repeat an experiment 100 times you haven't got "identical inputs" each time because the inputs that have happened in the past are different - the first time you do it, the brain has had its life experiences plus your experiment's inputs; the second time its had its life experiences plus your experiment's inputs, plus your experiment's inputs a second time, etc.
You are making the mistake of only considering your experiment as an "input", but you're disregarding all the inputs that the brain has had in the past, which still count as inputs and still contribute to the output.
If you give the *same* human brain the *same* inputs 100 times in a row, it will make the same decision only 70 out of the 100 times and come up with something completely different the other 30 out of sheer boredom.
That proves that the human brain isn't deterministic, and anybody who claims it to be so needs to have their work checked for bias.
Unless you are resetting the brain to the same state at the start of each experiment then it proves nothing.
What's new about that? In many countries drawn or even written child pornography is treated like the real thing. Even though no child is harmed. In a way legislation based on form, not on function. Grave mistake?
Are you saying that this existing legislation *isn't* a grave mistake?
We won't even be able to create a race of slaves for a while. The "brains" are 100% deterministic, which means that there is a great gap between the smartest robot and the dumbest dog.
Have you considered that the human brain may be 100% deterministic? It doesn't look it, but that's probably because you're not taking all the inputs into account - if you were to give 2 identical human brains *exactly* the same inputs from conception, you may well find that the outputs are identical too. How is this different from a robot brain (which, like a human brain, may well base its output on past inputs as well as the current inputs)?
I could rant too, but I just need to pick up on something.
Current estimates of WHAT WE KNOW NOW, just for Uranium, with current technology and current prices? Gives us about 700 years of nuclear power.
I'm not sure where you got the figures from, but they sound wrong. Current *known reserves* of U235 are expected to be economically viable to mine for around 70-100 years. That ignores undescovered reserves entirely.
We already know how to run reactors on U238 - there's estimated to be several billion years' worth of that.
Thorium is even more plentiful than U238, and there are reactors running on thorium already.
So no, there is no problem with running out of nuclear fuel. We may eventually have trouble getting fuel for *specific types of reactor* if we continue to build reactors that require U235, but indications are that the nuclear industry is starting to move away from U235; not because it might run out, but because alternatives such as thorium are cheaper, easier to handle and present a lower proliferation risk.
Secondly, I'm not sure why nuclear power has even come up in an article about waste generated from *nuclear weapons production*. Its kind of like saying that we shouldn't generate electricity from fossil fuels because the kerosene burning F-1 engine in a Saturn V rocket is just so damned polluting...
Not necessarily. Don't confuse the decision about *what* to cache with the actual structure of the data on the hybrid drive. Firmware on the hybrid drive can easily keep track of which data on the SSD and HDD is correct, even when you are running Linux or some other OS. The Windows drivers could be used to decide where to put the data (SSD or HDD) during Windows operation, but it also implies that the firmware on the hybrid drive knows where the data is (since it actually put it wherever the Windows drivers commanded).
The article suggests there is no "hybrid firmware", just 2 independent drives connected to an SATA multiplexer.
Your fears are probably unfounded. Intel already has something like this that requires two separate drives, and this will almost certainly be just an extension of that technology. The HDD part is formatted like any normal HDD and can be accessed without the SSD. The SSD part uses an undocumented format for caching but works at the block level anyway so would be useless for data recovery.
If the SSD will be used for write caching (which I expect it will be), then you have zero guarantee that the contents of the HDD part is actually up to date. So yes, you can recover your data from the HDD part, but chunks of it are going to be out of date (and that could be a major problem if those chunks happen to be filesystem metadata, etc.)
Also, writing to the HDD part without the necessary drivers to talk to the SSD part is going to leave the cached data on the SSD out of date - rebooting the an OS with the driver and you'll find that the driver doesn't know that the data in the cache is dirty - sounds like a recipe for massive filesystem corruption to me!
But they should have done - have you ever tried to use some of the overpriced shit IBM sell (ClearCase, I'm looking at you... There's so many really excellent free version control systems, I can't begin to understand why anyone pays good money for this turd unless your developers are too productive and you need something to slow them down?)
Assuming there aren't any patents what's to stop windows and Linux from doing the same with two physically separate drives??? Sounds like a better approach to me. I really don't want my movies on my SSD, so having linux store them automatically on the HHD would be nice. Of courss, I already do it through folders anyway.
I would hope that the SSD and platter can be told to copy data directly between them without involving the host. However, I'm certainly not going to put money on this...
Except these disks are more standard. They're basically an SSD and a HDD hooked to a SATA multiplexer (that lets you connect more than one SATA device to a SATA port. NOTE: Note all controllers support MUXes. Also, both drives share the bandwidth of the upstream port).
So plug this into a Windows PC and install the drivers, and two drives become one. Plug it into a Linux PC and you see two drives. Plug it into a Windows PC without drivers and again, you get two drives.
I would be concerned about how accessible my data was without the drivers. So you're using Windows and your data is partly on the platter and partly on the SSD; you reboot to an OS without the driver (i.e. the driver breaks when you upgrade Windows, you boot into Linux, whatever) - can you still get at your data. My guess would be that whilst the contents of the drives will be accessible as two independent drives, they will be in some undocumented format and therefore irrecoverable.
The student who posted it. If you want to get technical, the QR code video on Youtube is not gibberish video data. It's a copy of the movie. It's just a different carrier. Unless you think turning on SSL in bittorrent means you're transmitting gibberish data.
The more interesting question is: Get a movie and a random bitstream; post the random bitstream online (1); XOR the movie with the random bitstream and post the result online (2).
Are (1) or (2) infringing copyright? If so, which one, and why? Remember, independently both (1) and (2) are indistinguishable from random data.
Also, these bitstreams can themselves be used as random input for another XOR operation.
But malaria affects people on other continents. Don't you know ethics only applies when you can see other people suffer personally? And it stops mattering entirely if you put on a business suit first.
I think it would be wrong to suggest that there isn't some selfishness involved in giving to charities a lot of the time. I donate to the RNLI and the MRT partly because I know I might need them myself one day; people donate to cancer charities because they (or their immediate family) might need them some day. Yes, someone in the west donating to a malaria charity is a good thing, but it has a lower chance of helping the donator themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
HTC - Horrible Taiwanese Crap
Seriously has anyone ever had a positive experience with an HTC?
Yes. My first Android phone was the HTC Dream. An excellent little phone (albeit with not quite enough ram), and a much nicer keyboard than any other device I've used. These days I've settled on a Samsung Captivate Glide, but the keyboard isn't as nice, the phone's a little too big and the software support from Samsung is abysmal - I'm still on Gingerbread; they did eventually release an ICS firmware after a very long wait, but it is widely regarded as unusably buggy. The xda-developers community have been reasonably successful at porting CyanogenMod to it, but there are still some serious bugs (notably with bluetooth and GPS) which are holding me back from upgrading.
And what would happen if all the gold being hoarded in vaults were dropped onto the market to be used for *useful* stuff?
Anyway, supply and demand doesn't mean that the price will stay above the production cost - it could easilly be that there is too much being produced at this time - yes, producers of any product have problems if the buyers value the product less than the cost to produce it.
Untrue. Legal tender means it is legal to OFFER payment in cash. However, nobody is required to ACCEPT your cash payment.
"Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender."
http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines
So ok, no one is required to accept the payment, but they are essentially required to write off the debt if you offer payment in cash, whether or not they actually accept it.
Real world currency - A currency that has a value backed by either :
Physical something of real value - Gold, Silver, etc that actually exists in a vault somewhere
But the value of the gold probably bears little relation to what its intrinsically worth. I.e. if gold weren't being used as a currency of sorts, it wouldn't be as valuable since its uses would be relatively minor (jewelery, electronics, etc). In this respect its very much like a fiat currency - it has an inflated value because people believe they can sell it on for a high price.
A Large entity who guarantee to pay, and are trusted enough to do so (Government/Bank/etc)
The "guarantee to pay" is a little bit meaningless here - I can't go to the government and tell them to exchange my bit of paper for something with intrinsic value. What makes a currency have value to me is that I believe that people offering goods and services that I want will be happy for me to pay for those goods/services in that currency. That has little to do with the government.
All real world currencies are usually legal tender
Untrue. For example, in Scotland there is no such thing as legal tender, but the pound sterling still works by virtue of the fact that it is usually worth someone's while to accept it.
It is required that people have to accept legal tender as payment for good and services
Also untrue. Legal tender just means a creditor has to accept it as payment of a debt by the debtor. If you haven't incurred a debt already then the person you're paying can tell you to go take a hike rather than accepting your money. For example, at the point you reach the checkout in a shop, you haven't bought the items so there is no debt - the shop is well within their rights to refuse a legal tender currency. Of course, most people have no problem accepting one of the mainstream currencies so won't refuse, but this may not always be the case with very unstable currencies.
No-one has to accept Bitcoin, if they do they can assign any arbitrary value to it as an exchange rate depending on how much they trust it ...
So, the same as any currency then.
Brief information here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-3NJxzlAGU&t=10m16s
His description of how they access the internet is a bit vague.. sort of sounds like they have some kind of remote-desktop setup for internet access, which seems slightly odd. I guess if this is the case, it does protect them from malware by ensuring that only the remote-desktop server is infected rather than the ISS computers themselves, which might be the whole reason for it.
Does anyone have an idea why they're doing this? IIRC the distance to geostationary orbit is bigger than the omne to ground, so why waste energy for that long distance stuff?
At a guess: the Ku band geostationary satellites are already there commercially, so its cheap to just buy some bandwidth when they need it. Doing high bandwidth communications with the ISS directly would require an extensive network of dedicated ground stations with pointable dishes (and appropriate backhauls between them) - remember the ISS is doing an orbit every 90 minutes, so a single ground station isn't going to be able to keep a connection for long. A geostationary sat is going to be able to keep the ISS within its coverage area for much longer than a ground station.
I may not care for much patriotically these days, but hes really doing canada a service being so media savvy.
He's doing the *world* a service. His regular youtube videos have been excellent; but more than that, his regular facebook posts really bring it home to you that this stuff is happening right now all the time. And he's not just followed by Canadians - no other astronaut from any nation has engaged with the public as much as he has. I'm hoping we see more of this from other astronauts.
Isn't there a lag in communications?
The ISS orbits around 330km - 435 km above the earth (around 230 miles on average). That's less than the width of a single province in Canada!
If you look at various communication delays based on distance, and assume that during the performance the ISS was basically roughly over Canada or even the U.S, you can see that the delay would be substantially less than for most international phone calls!
As far as I can tell, the high bandwidth connections they use for media events are done by bouncing a Ku band signal off geostationary satellites(*), and the delay is significant (watch any of his videos taking questions from school kids and you'll see a noticable communications delay).
(* they don't seem to have global coverage with Ku band, only being able to use it when in range of certain satellites. This surprises me because I would've expected there to be enough geostationary sats for one to be visible from anywhere in orbit and it can't be *that* expensive to buy bandwidth on several.)
The "pre-breathing" is required to adapt the human physiology to such an atmosphere.
Just using normal air at very low pressure isn't an option, because the partial pressure
of Oxygen would be too low to breathe (same as very-high-altitude air on Earth).
Thanks - very informative. Further googling indicates that this is to avoid decompression sickness (breathing pure O2 for a while flushes the nitrogen out of the body, preventing it forming bubbles when the astronaut is decompressed). Is there any reason to use an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere on the space station, rather than oxygen/some-other-gas, such as helium? This would presumably avoid the decompression sickness problem, much like deep divers use oxygen/helium mixes.
Making a useable spacesuit is suprisingly hard. One of the challenges for example
is that the suits internal volume should always stay the same, even when bent.
Otherwise the pressure would change (and by quite a bit too) every time it is deformed,
annoying the hell out of or even injuring the astronaut.
Indeed, I hadn't considered that. Having a non-fixed volume would also make movement harder, since the suit would continually try to return to the largest volume / lowest pressure shape.
If the brain is deterministic, it should be resetting to start state every time you wake up.
Ok, sounds like you don't understand what "deterministic" means. Whether something retains state has nothing to do with whether it is deterministic or not.
And for simple tasks, should be able to go into an infinite loop quite nicely without *ever* getting bored.
Determinism says nothing about "bordom". No reason why you can't get deterministically bored....
The question is, can it do the same output with the same input?
My point is that this is an unprovable: We don't have 2 absolutely identical brains which have had absolutely identical life experiences (past inputs). We can't reset the state of a brain between experiments. So if you repeat an experiment 100 times you haven't got "identical inputs" each time because the inputs that have happened in the past are different - the first time you do it, the brain has had its life experiences plus your experiment's inputs; the second time its had its life experiences plus your experiment's inputs, plus your experiment's inputs a second time, etc.
You are making the mistake of only considering your experiment as an "input", but you're disregarding all the inputs that the brain has had in the past, which still count as inputs and still contribute to the output.
Can you explain why they need to pre-breathe pure O2?
If you give the *same* human brain the *same* inputs 100 times in a row, it will make the same decision only 70 out of the 100 times and come up with something completely different the other 30 out of sheer boredom.
That proves that the human brain isn't deterministic, and anybody who claims it to be so needs to have their work checked for bias.
Unless you are resetting the brain to the same state at the start of each experiment then it proves nothing.
What's new about that? In many countries drawn or even written child pornography is treated like the real thing. Even though no child is harmed. In a way legislation based on form, not on function. Grave mistake?
Are you saying that this existing legislation *isn't* a grave mistake?
We won't even be able to create a race of slaves for a while. The "brains" are 100% deterministic, which means that there is a great gap between the smartest robot and the dumbest dog.
Have you considered that the human brain may be 100% deterministic? It doesn't look it, but that's probably because you're not taking all the inputs into account - if you were to give 2 identical human brains *exactly* the same inputs from conception, you may well find that the outputs are identical too. How is this different from a robot brain (which, like a human brain, may well base its output on past inputs as well as the current inputs)?
I could rant too, but I just need to pick up on something.
Current estimates of WHAT WE KNOW NOW, just for Uranium, with current technology and current prices? Gives us about 700 years of nuclear power.
I'm not sure where you got the figures from, but they sound wrong. Current *known reserves* of U235 are expected to be economically viable to mine for around 70-100 years. That ignores undescovered reserves entirely.
We already know how to run reactors on U238 - there's estimated to be several billion years' worth of that.
Thorium is even more plentiful than U238, and there are reactors running on thorium already.
So no, there is no problem with running out of nuclear fuel. We may eventually have trouble getting fuel for *specific types of reactor* if we continue to build reactors that require U235, but indications are that the nuclear industry is starting to move away from U235; not because it might run out, but because alternatives such as thorium are cheaper, easier to handle and present a lower proliferation risk.
Secondly, I'm not sure why nuclear power has even come up in an article about waste generated from *nuclear weapons production*. Its kind of like saying that we shouldn't generate electricity from fossil fuels because the kerosene burning F-1 engine in a Saturn V rocket is just so damned polluting...
Not necessarily. Don't confuse the decision about *what* to cache with the actual structure of the data on the hybrid drive. Firmware on the hybrid drive can easily keep track of which data on the SSD and HDD is correct, even when you are running Linux or some other OS. The Windows drivers could be used to decide where to put the data (SSD or HDD) during Windows operation, but it also implies that the firmware on the hybrid drive knows where the data is (since it actually put it wherever the Windows drivers commanded).
The article suggests there is no "hybrid firmware", just 2 independent drives connected to an SATA multiplexer.
Your fears are probably unfounded. Intel already has something like this that requires two separate drives, and this will almost certainly be just an extension of that technology. The HDD part is formatted like any normal HDD and can be accessed without the SSD. The SSD part uses an undocumented format for caching but works at the block level anyway so would be useless for data recovery.
If the SSD will be used for write caching (which I expect it will be), then you have zero guarantee that the contents of the HDD part is actually up to date. So yes, you can recover your data from the HDD part, but chunks of it are going to be out of date (and that could be a major problem if those chunks happen to be filesystem metadata, etc.)
Also, writing to the HDD part without the necessary drivers to talk to the SSD part is going to leave the cached data on the SSD out of date - rebooting the an OS with the driver and you'll find that the driver doesn't know that the data in the cache is dirty - sounds like a recipe for massive filesystem corruption to me!
No one ever got fired for buying IBM
But they should have done - have you ever tried to use some of the overpriced shit IBM sell (ClearCase, I'm looking at you... There's so many really excellent free version control systems, I can't begin to understand why anyone pays good money for this turd unless your developers are too productive and you need something to slow them down?)
Assuming there aren't any patents what's to stop windows and Linux from doing the same with two physically separate drives??? Sounds like a better approach to me. I really don't want my movies on my SSD, so having linux store them automatically on the HHD would be nice. Of courss, I already do it through folders anyway.
I would hope that the SSD and platter can be told to copy data directly between them without involving the host. However, I'm certainly not going to put money on this...
Except these disks are more standard. They're basically an SSD and a HDD hooked to a SATA multiplexer (that lets you connect more than one SATA device to a SATA port. NOTE: Note all controllers support MUXes. Also, both drives share the bandwidth of the upstream port).
So plug this into a Windows PC and install the drivers, and two drives become one. Plug it into a Linux PC and you see two drives. Plug it into a Windows PC without drivers and again, you get two drives.
I would be concerned about how accessible my data was without the drivers. So you're using Windows and your data is partly on the platter and partly on the SSD; you reboot to an OS without the driver (i.e. the driver breaks when you upgrade Windows, you boot into Linux, whatever) - can you still get at your data. My guess would be that whilst the contents of the drives will be accessible as two independent drives, they will be in some undocumented format and therefore irrecoverable.
The student who posted it. If you want to get technical, the QR code video on Youtube is not gibberish video data. It's a copy of the movie. It's just a different carrier. Unless you think turning on SSL in bittorrent means you're transmitting gibberish data.
The more interesting question is: Get a movie and a random bitstream; post the random bitstream online (1); XOR the movie with the random bitstream and post the result online (2).
Are (1) or (2) infringing copyright? If so, which one, and why? Remember, independently both (1) and (2) are indistinguishable from random data.
Also, these bitstreams can themselves be used as random input for another XOR operation.
Obviously I don't understand networking all that well. How do you cut off a whole country from the internet?
By severing all the international links (either physically, or by withdrawing all the routes from BGP).
US: Look! Less power cuts!
Rest of the world: Whats a power cut?
Every time I read about US infrastructure it makes it sound like a third world country...
But malaria affects people on other continents. Don't you know ethics only applies when you can see other people suffer personally? And it stops mattering entirely if you put on a business suit first.
I think it would be wrong to suggest that there isn't some selfishness involved in giving to charities a lot of the time. I donate to the RNLI and the MRT partly because I know I might need them myself one day; people donate to cancer charities because they (or their immediate family) might need them some day. Yes, someone in the west donating to a malaria charity is a good thing, but it has a lower chance of helping the donator themselves.
7) The user is too uneducated about how computers work to realise that loading the CPU increases power cunsumption and thus their electricity bill...