What the hell does this mean? Sounds like a bunch of buzzwords thrown together about a project nobody wants that solves a problem that doesn't exist.
No kidding. I was stumped at the 'WiFi.Bedouin is a wearable, mobile 802.11b node disconnected from the global Internet. It forms a WiFi "island Internet" challenging conventional assumptions about WiFi
part.
Disconnected from the global internet!? So you can communicate with a computer, say, 20 yards away? If I were in that situation, I would walk the 20 yards and login there.
Seriously, there might be a few applications out there, but none that I can think of off the top of my head. Unless you're a backyard commando. Then you might be able to come up with some use for it.
That is the same retarded logic used in banning non-lethal, although permanent injury causing weapons like laser dazzler's and other high-tech weaponry.
What retarded logic? All I said was this will be used in the current conflict, and that it has both positive and negative potential.
I must not be getting your point, because I agree that it is better to disable a soldier than to kill them... at least it is an option.
On a less human note, it is occasionally more desirable to wound than kill. For instance, in the civil war many generals told their soldiers to inflict non-lethal wounds. It wasn't out of brotherly love, but the fact that a wounded soldier takes one or two good soldiers to drag him off the field to the medic tent. That means you removed three men from the fighting with one shot.
Even if you don't think they're a country with a government, the collective people can still be referred to as Palestine, and everyone will know who you're talking about.
This will most certainly be used in the ongoing struggle between Israel and Palestine. The last thing I want to see is either of those two groups become more efficient killers.
This is a spy plane, however. So maybe it will be used for intelligence to prevent violence. Or perhaps it will be used for intelligence to make waging war more effective.
I think you understand just enough logic to be dangerous, but I entirely disagree with your post.
You can't just say "A therefore B" until you've defined a relationship between the two.
"A therefore B" does define the relationship between the two. It is a short way of saying, "there is a direct causal relationship between A and B. Furthermore, A is true, meaning B is true."
Wrong. Disproving A doesn't tell you anything about the truth-value of B.
You are correct in your argument, but you are arguing the wrong point. I didn't say anything about the truth value of B. To use your example:
A = "lightning hits the transformer"
B = "the power will go out"
To develop a complete logical argument that the power will go out, I need to establish two things. First I have to establish a A -> B relationship. Then I have to establish the truth of A.
To refute, I need only disprove one of those two things. The refutation (and this is where you were confused) does not mean B is false. The refutation means B has not been proven to be true.
The situation you describe brings the power back to little people like me. I can't/won't pay for a high speed connection to my home, so I use dialup. That means if a mother-of-all-destructive-viruses comes out, I've automatically got a fighting chance. I'd be just as likely to win a scatch off lottery ticket as to be caught at just the right time. Furthermore, that means my computers are only connected to an outside network when I'm there watching. I know not all viruses are apparent until after the damage is done. But if I did notice anything, the power switch is just inches away. If such a catastrophic virus event ever occurred, no doubt the last people with functioning computers would be us cheap dialup users.
There are already some programs like this. Tripwire, for instance, will shut down all your network connections if any predermined files are changed inapropriately. That is instantaneous damage control - exactly like you said. And I think it is a GREAT idea.
I guess I always viewed IE as inferior because, as a web designer, I saw all the ugly ways that it doesn't follow standards and has to have pages designed specifically for and "viewed best with" it. And the average user doesn't see that. In fact, the average user may even consider the number of pages "viewed best with" to be an advantage of having IE.
Well, if you start with "Statement A, therefore, Statement B" that is equal to if A then B, A therefore B. The previous is just a more succinct way to put it. You can disprove a rule, like "if A then B" or you can disprove the assumption, like the truth of A.
Wow, so "'If P then Q' therefore 'Q'" is a valid argument form in your universe.
If you would like to look into fallacies and poor argument strategies, then your post has an excellent example in which you put words into someones mouth and then shoot down that idea.
While Netscape was and is better than MIE, the difference between Google and the Microsoft search engine is much larger, and much more apparent to the average user. It's simpler, less invasive, and retrieves better results.
I'm seen many people who couldn't change the default page type google into the address bar rather than use MS's search.
And even though this may seem silly, I'm talked to at least a few people who use Google because of the cute holiday pictures. In other words, Google is beating MS at quality AND user experience (which has always been MS's Ace in the hole.)
You didn't post with your name... but I'll respond anyway.
If you want to play logic hardball, so be it.
In order to assess a statement according to the rules of logic, it should be of the form: Statement A, therefore Statement B.
You have mistaken my sig for an assertion of this type. If you read my sig, however, you will not be able to find a "therefore" because my statment is of the form Statement A - and that's it. If you would like to disagree with my Statment A, by all means do. But don't accuse me of making a fallacious argument just because you read to much into it and misunderstood the logic. My sig is meant as a counter example to those who think that only the weak-minded beleive in God.
If you would like to argue this logic further, I would be more than happy to indulge you.
Why buy an iPod when you can buy a PocketPC, equip it with as much memory as you want (it's cheap these days), and do infinitely more things with it beyond just listening to mp3's, such as watch movies or play games?
Apple has had the same strategy for several years now. While it may be cool to have a PocketPC, it is WAY COOLER to have an iPod. The PocketPC is cold and unfeeling, while the iPod has had exceptional marketing exposure... And it seems to be working.
Well, with a proprietary vendor you can spend hours/weeks with tech support trying to move up through 1st, 2nd, till you get to 3rd level where you might be able to convince someone there is a bug.
That's my least favorite part about calling tech support. I don't even mind waiting so much... at least I can do something else.
But to sit on the phone and try to convince someone that I'm not a moron...
"Is the computer plugged in?"
"Yes, and I know what the problem is..."
"Slow down sir. Is it turned on?"
"Yes, it's turned on, and it made it through the first part of the boot process to..."
"Have you tried restarting? Is there a disk in the floppy drive?"
"That's not the problem. The problem is that..."
"Could you just double check that the power cord is secured into the back of the computer and wall socket?"
"Aaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!" Click
That right there is enough to stop me from calling tech support 3 times out of 5. Maybe that's why they do it.
The main thing Microsoft has going for them now is entrenchment. They prove it themselves in this document as their main argument is OO.org doesn't work well with MS Office, so it can't be used in the business world. And their monopoly remains stable as long as they can keep a strong monopoly status. The problem with such an approach is that once a competitor reaches a certain threshold (as you noted about open source) this won't hold you up anymore... and the incompatibility will start to work against MS.
they point to all the pain you will feel when MS-Office users start sending their "full-featured" documents to people who only have OpenOffice.
I'd like to see a little more discussion on file formats, such as Why non-Microsoft products doen't interface well with the.doc format. The simple fact is that OO.org is a team player application and MS Office is not. OO.org has put in all the effort to be compatible, and MS is dragging their feet. Meanwhile, OO.org opens and writes all kinds of other formats. In the long run this will hurt Microsoft... more and more as their monopoly slips.
Re:Does fair use widely exist anymore?
on
Free Culture
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Much of Fair Use has effectively been outlawed by the DMCA. If you buy a copyrighted work, you have the Fair Use right to make a backup copy, etc. But if the distributor has included any sort of copy protection, it is illegal to bypass the protection scheme - even though you have legal rights to the work!
We will have to start demanding fair use rights more as consumers to win them back.
They did it to themselves
on
Free Culture
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
One thing that amuses me about this whole Media-Corporations-trying-to-reel-in-technology fiasco is how much of it they create themselves. For instance, the mpeg and mpeg2 (DVD) formats were devised by these big companies. So was digital HDTV. It was these media powerhouses that forced the change from analog to digital.
Then, one day, they say "Oh crap!" all of our media is digital and can be easily copied! We need to control it much better. Then they try to implement all sorts of technology to stop sharing that, in many cases, degrades the quality back to the analog level... or worse!
Where do they find these people?
Is that a word?
on
Free Culture
·
· Score: 3, Funny
His prose is improving as he [...] adopts a bloggier style
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell does this mean? Sounds like a bunch of buzzwords thrown together about a project nobody wants that solves a problem that doesn't exist.
No kidding. I was stumped at the
'WiFi.Bedouin is a wearable, mobile 802.11b node disconnected from the global Internet. It forms a WiFi "island Internet" challenging conventional assumptions about WiFi
part.
Disconnected from the global internet!? So you can communicate with a computer, say, 20 yards away? If I were in that situation, I would walk the 20 yards and login there.
Seriously, there might be a few applications out there, but none that I can think of off the top of my head. Unless you're a backyard commando. Then you might be able to come up with some use for it.
Yeah, I've forgotten to make my tags "fake" before so I could slip them through. You have to use & lt ; to and & gt ; for the brackets.
That is the same retarded logic used in banning non-lethal, although permanent injury causing weapons like laser dazzler's and other high-tech weaponry.
What retarded logic? All I said was this will be used in the current conflict, and that it has both positive and negative potential.
I must not be getting your point, because I agree that it is better to disable a soldier than to kill them... at least it is an option.
On a less human note, it is occasionally more desirable to wound than kill. For instance, in the civil war many generals told their soldiers to inflict non-lethal wounds. It wasn't out of brotherly love, but the fact that a wounded soldier takes one or two good soldiers to drag him off the field to the medic tent. That means you removed three men from the fighting with one shot.
Even if you don't think they're a country with a government, the collective people can still be referred to as Palestine, and everyone will know who you're talking about.
You can get one pretty easily.s .html
http://www.rcmodels.com/airplanes-toy-rc-airplane
The one in the picture even looks sort of the same.
This will most certainly be used in the ongoing struggle between Israel and Palestine. The last thing I want to see is either of those two groups become more efficient killers.
This is a spy plane, however. So maybe it will be used for intelligence to prevent violence. Or perhaps it will be used for intelligence to make waging war more effective.
I think you understand just enough logic to be dangerous, but I entirely disagree with your post.
You can't just say "A therefore B" until you've defined a relationship between the two.
"A therefore B" does define the relationship between the two. It is a short way of saying, "there is a direct causal relationship between A and B. Furthermore, A is true, meaning B is true."
Wrong. Disproving A doesn't tell you anything about the truth-value of B.
You are correct in your argument, but you are arguing the wrong point. I didn't say anything about the truth value of B. To use your example:
A = "lightning hits the transformer"
B = "the power will go out"
To develop a complete logical argument that the power will go out, I need to establish two things. First I have to establish a A -> B relationship. Then I have to establish the truth of A.
To refute, I need only disprove one of those two things. The refutation (and this is where you were confused) does not mean B is false. The refutation means B has not been proven to be true.
Thanks.
The situation you describe brings the power back to little people like me. I can't/won't pay for a high speed connection to my home, so I use dialup. That means if a mother-of-all-destructive-viruses comes out, I've automatically got a fighting chance. I'd be just as likely to win a scatch off lottery ticket as to be caught at just the right time. Furthermore, that means my computers are only connected to an outside network when I'm there watching. I know not all viruses are apparent until after the damage is done. But if I did notice anything, the power switch is just inches away. If such a catastrophic virus event ever occurred, no doubt the last people with functioning computers would be us cheap dialup users.
We need things like stack canaries.
There are already some programs like this. Tripwire, for instance, will shut down all your network connections if any predermined files are changed inapropriately. That is instantaneous damage control - exactly like you said. And I think it is a GREAT idea.
Oh yeah... and back up your data.
I guess I always viewed IE as inferior because, as a web designer, I saw all the ugly ways that it doesn't follow standards and has to have pages designed specifically for and "viewed best with" it. And the average user doesn't see that. In fact, the average user may even consider the number of pages "viewed best with" to be an advantage of having IE.
Well, if you start with "Statement A, therefore, Statement B" that is equal to if A then B, A therefore B. The previous is just a more succinct way to put it. You can disprove a rule, like "if A then B" or you can disprove the assumption, like the truth of A.
Wow, so "'If P then Q' therefore 'Q'" is a valid argument form in your universe.
If you would like to look into fallacies and poor argument strategies, then your post has an excellent example in which you put words into someones mouth and then shoot down that idea.
The 'therefore' is implied. Otherwise what's the point of listing all those people in the first place?
The 'therefore' is not implied unless you read that into it. And the reason, as I stated earlier, is a counter example.
While Netscape was and is better than MIE, the difference between Google and the Microsoft search engine is much larger, and much more apparent to the average user. It's simpler, less invasive, and retrieves better results.
I'm seen many people who couldn't change the default page type google into the address bar rather than use MS's search.
And even though this may seem silly, I'm talked to at least a few people who use Google because of the cute holiday pictures. In other words, Google is beating MS at quality AND user experience (which has always been MS's Ace in the hole.)
You didn't post with your name... but I'll respond anyway.
If you want to play logic hardball, so be it.
In order to assess a statement according to the rules of logic, it should be of the form: Statement A, therefore Statement B.
You have mistaken my sig for an assertion of this type. If you read my sig, however, you will not be able to find a "therefore" because my statment is of the form Statement A - and that's it. If you would like to disagree with my Statment A, by all means do. But don't accuse me of making a fallacious argument just because you read to much into it and misunderstood the logic. My sig is meant as a counter example to those who think that only the weak-minded beleive in God.
If you would like to argue this logic further, I would be more than happy to indulge you.
Wait till you see how well the iPod UltraSubMiniature sells...
its even cooler.
Why buy an iPod when you can buy a PocketPC, equip it with as much memory as you want (it's cheap these days), and do infinitely more things with it beyond just listening to mp3's, such as watch movies or play games?
Apple has had the same strategy for several years now. While it may be cool to have a PocketPC, it is WAY COOLER to have an iPod. The PocketPC is cold and unfeeling, while the iPod has had exceptional marketing exposure... And it seems to be working.
Well, with a proprietary vendor you can spend hours/weeks with tech support trying to move up through 1st, 2nd, till you get to 3rd level where you might be able to convince someone there is a bug.
That's my least favorite part about calling tech support. I don't even mind waiting so much... at least I can do something else.
But to sit on the phone and try to convince someone that I'm not a moron...
"Is the computer plugged in?"
"Yes, and I know what the problem is..."
"Slow down sir. Is it turned on?"
"Yes, it's turned on, and it made it through the first part of the boot process to..."
"Have you tried restarting? Is there a disk in the floppy drive?"
"That's not the problem. The problem is that..."
"Could you just double check that the power cord is secured into the back of the computer and wall socket?" "Aaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!" Click
That right there is enough to stop me from calling tech support 3 times out of 5. Maybe that's why they do it.
I'm torn...
I can't decide which is worse:
groping through Knowledge Base documents and being put on hold for hours calling Microsoft
OR
reading outdated man pages then being cussed out by an experience, yet socially inept user, for asking a question on a discussion board
When it all comes down to it (MS or OO), I just end up entering the error message into Google anyway.
That is an advantage of OO.org. I use it at work. I am able to supply and receive documents in just about any format. I routinely have clients say,
"I can only send it in format X, and most businesses say they can't use that."
And I say, "No problem, send what you've got, I'll let you know if there's a problem."
And you know what? 99.9% of the time I can open and use the document and respond with the same format.
That's a service MS Office can't supply, or doesn't now anyway.
The main thing Microsoft has going for them now is entrenchment. They prove it themselves in this document as their main argument is OO.org doesn't work well with MS Office, so it can't be used in the business world. And their monopoly remains stable as long as they can keep a strong monopoly status. The problem with such an approach is that once a competitor reaches a certain threshold (as you noted about open source) this won't hold you up anymore... and the incompatibility will start to work against MS.
they point to all the pain you will feel when MS-Office users start sending their "full-featured" documents to people who only have OpenOffice.
.doc format. The simple fact is that OO.org is a team player application and MS Office is not. OO.org has put in all the effort to be compatible, and MS is dragging their feet. Meanwhile, OO.org opens and writes all kinds of other formats. In the long run this will hurt Microsoft... more and more as their monopoly slips.
I'd like to see a little more discussion on file formats, such as Why non-Microsoft products doen't interface well with the
Much of Fair Use has effectively been outlawed by the DMCA. If you buy a copyrighted work, you have the Fair Use right to make a backup copy, etc. But if the distributor has included any sort of copy protection, it is illegal to bypass the protection scheme - even though you have legal rights to the work!
We will have to start demanding fair use rights more as consumers to win them back.
One thing that amuses me about this whole Media-Corporations-trying-to-reel-in-technology fiasco is how much of it they create themselves. For instance, the mpeg and mpeg2 (DVD) formats were devised by these big companies. So was digital HDTV. It was these media powerhouses that forced the change from analog to digital.
Then, one day, they say "Oh crap!" all of our media is digital and can be easily copied! We need to control it much better. Then they try to implement all sorts of technology to stop sharing that, in many cases, degrades the quality back to the analog level... or worse!
Where do they find these people?
His prose is improving as he [...] adopts a bloggier style
Did I read that correctly?
Did he just say "bloggier" ?