I'm not sure I am a 'small government conservative' in the sense you think.
I think it's small government is a good abstract principle, but big government is not going to go away. I'll decide each law on its merits, not whether it shrinks the government or not.
And right to work laws don't grow the government as far as I can tell. If anyone gets fired for refusing to join a union, they can sue the company. No government involvement apart from some legal aid. In the long run companies will get the message and stop firing people for that reason so it doesn't cost the government anything.
The fact that today you can run GNU/Linux on practically any computer in existence is a direct result of it's unix-like design. Now take a look at KDE4.1 though, and compare it to VISTA - then tell me OSS isn't being innovative on every level. Right now KDE4.1 is a better desktop for Vista than Vista's OWN desktop !
Umm, I just got call from RMS. Apparently everyone is going to move to his compound in Guyana.
It's a misnomer and you know it, regardless of anyone's feelings about labor relations. It was certainly misleading enough to confuse GGP.
Shouldn't it be the employer's decision to run an all-union shop? I don't think government should get involved;). Big bad government.
Just to make sure I'm not confused, when you say this:
How is not forcing people to join a union "anti Union"?
What you really mean is that government should get involved and forbid an independent business owner from making union membership a condition of employment. Right?;)
I will be totally amused if you oppose the EEOC at the same time you are defending so-called "right-to-work" laws.
Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Under the "open shop" rule, an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union, nor can the employee be fired if he or she joins the union. In other words, the employee has the right to work, regardless of whether he or she is a member or financial contributor to such a union.
This is ok. A closed shop is a monopoly of the union concerned, and busting monopolies is a legitimate thing for the government to do. The act allows people to join a union of their choice or none at all, which allows competition.
If people had no choice of what union to join, why should it care about their interests?
I've been burned by scratched DVD+Rs too many times. I'd be interested if there were a way to do this kind of thing in Windows..
Actually Reed Solomon error correction doesn't always help with scratched CDs - they still skip. The problem there is a that the laser can't track a scratched media. If it could track, RS would get the data back though.
What if Microsoft, or Apple, came out with a public statement that "FOSS products have extremely poor usability, because their developers refuse to accept usability input." It would be hard to defend against such an accusation, since we have almost no cases of devs accepting input from non-devs.
Well, I'm a Microsoft shill so I could do it "FOSS products have extremely poor usability, because their developers refuse to accept usability input."
Additionally I'll add that Linux has extremely poor support for modern hardware because the developers refuse to provide a stable API which would allow binary drivers.
People ride cars because they are convenient - they go from point to point as desired and they don't make the user bend to their schedule. They are private. They are comfortable, they don't have the smelly guy in the next seat.
People use Windows because it is convenient. It comes preinstalled on the machine and runs all their applications and most hardware comes with a driver for it. You don't need to take special steps to use evil "closed source binary blob drivers" or wait for reverse engineers to write an open source driver. If closed source drivers don't work, you can take the product back and get a refund or download a fix rather than listen to people lecture you how it is not Linux's fault that things don't work right.
Hardware vendors like it because it doesn't them release all their specifications to the public and they can test their driver once on a small number of supported Windows versions and know it will work on them - how do you test a binary driver on 'Linux'? It is convenient and you don't have to listen to open source community leaders ranting about conspiracies against the 'movement', or kernel maintainers making changes that break hardware support for ideological reasons.
This email is dated 2002. What's happened since then? Maybe Microsoft's strategy has changed, or more likely they were bluffing about suing "open source", especially as it is too decentralised to make that a viable option.
And won't Gary Campbell be pissed that you've posted his email and email address on slashdot? Maybe your employee NDA with HP has expired, but I personally wouldn't post work emails here even for an ex employer.
'$unknownInternetDude. He probably knows a thing or two, but then, so do the people who wrote this software, so that isn't really a factor.'
Except the vendor has an innate bias, unknowninternetdude does not. Further, unknowninternetdude will be corroborated by multiple other unknowninternetdudes who also have no relation to the first and have no bias. In fact, the first unknowninternetdude publishing will almost surely result in some of these other unknowninternetdudes checking his work.
Its how published scientific journals work as well and while not perfect, it is clearly a superior system to the closed door policy.
Horseshit. Here's how it really works.
$unknownInternetDude posts a story to a forum. Most people who respond have absolutely no idea how to check his facts. This is a big difference from peer review. All they do is to see if his story (conspiracy by company X) fits their prejudices (company X is evil). If it does they will mod him up and agree with him, and if it doesn't they will mod him down, call him a shill for company Y and nitpick his language. Of course most of the time $unknowInternetDude will pick a forum where he agrees with the prejudices.
It's nothing like peer review, more like the penis panics in Africa.
Yeah, but those mice were buff and hyperintelligent
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083658/quotes "The light that burns twice as bright burns for half as long - and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy. Look at you, you're the prodigal son; you're quite a prize." Dr. Eldon Tyrell Blade Runner
If we all took drugs to increase muscle mass and intelligence and decrease body fat it could work. The drugs would be voluntary. The media would find out about possibly risky drugs of course, and people would be free to stop taking them.
There's a worst case scenario where a drug seems to work for a while and then kills 100% of its users through untreatable cancer. To avoid that you could tag the drugs to social security number but still give people a choice. So I could choose drug A and drug B but not the others. The test groups would gradually be expanded once there was no sign of problems. They'd contract naturally based on rumours of problems because people in the group would stop taking the drugs if they read they were risky. The idea of the test group is to make sure that the worst case scenario doesn't happen with a drug everyone was taking.
If you can avoid that, in the long run we would turn into a race of Nietzschean Übermenschen.
Native americans have abused anti-discrimination laws to double-cross and interfere with scientific organizations and kept potentially ground breaking archaeological finds tied up in murderous litigation for decades.
I dunno about this. If people don't want scientists digging up graves on their land and litigate against them, isn't that fair a use of the system?
The deeper point is that the system is philosphy neutral. I and the scientists believe that graves contain just bones. Religious people believe that they have in some way sacred. If you start digging up graves and ignoring other peoples beliefs then there is a conflict which the system should resolve peacefully. But in the US that means litigation.
While the theft of the term "liberal" by leftist anti-liberals did take place many decades ago, it is still a term that does not apply to them and should not be used to describe them.
A liberal is someone who believes in liberty and who pursues policies that create, expand, and protect liberty. A leftist is someone who believes in tyranny, and who pursues policies that create, expand and entrench tyranny.
When you allow the left to choose the terminology by which they will be described, you are hand them a victory. You don't call a child molester a "boy lover." You don't call a rapist a "persistent suitor." You don't call a terrorist a "freedom fighter." And you sure as hell don't call a leftist a "liberal." To do so tarnishes the good name of the men and women who have fought and died to bring the light of freedom into the world.
Thats really all i can tell, by looking at his face. Also, how does the NYT get off on calling people "trolls" by explaining that "He is said to have jammed the cellphones of daughters of C.E.O.â(TM)s and demanded ransom from their fathers; he is also said to have trashed his enemiesâ(TM) credit ratings." Isn't that called phreaking/identity fraud - and usually associated with "hackers"?
People are assholes. Anonymity just lets them get away with it.
(To get geekier, I'd reference Frank Herbert's idea that perhaps not all people are human and ask if it is only civilization's arbitrary training mechanisms that create the quality of humanity in people.)
Maybe anonymous is the Gom Jabbar and the Livejournallers are the Beasts. I did like the section on Weev
Weev, the troll who thought hacking the epilepsy site was immoral, is legendary among trolls. He is said to have jammed the cellphones of daughters of C.E.O.'s and demanded ransom from their fathers; he is also said to have trashed his enemies' credit ratings. Better documented are his repeated assaults on LiveJournal, an online diary site where he himself maintains a personal blog. Working with a group of fellow hackers and trolls, he once obtained access to thousands of user accounts.
I first met Weev in an online chat room that I visited while staying at Fortunyâ(TM)s house. "I hack, I ruin, I make piles of money," he boasted. "I make people afraid for their lives." On the phone that night, Weev displayed a misanthropy far harsher than Fortuny's. "Trolling is basically Internet eugenics," he said, his voice pitching up like a jet engine on the runway. "I want everyone off the Internet. Bloggers are filth. They need to be destroyed. Blogging gives the illusion of participation to a bunch of retards. . . . We need to put these people in the oven!"
I listened for a few more minutes as Weev held forth on the Federal Reserve and about Jews. Unlike Fortuny, he made no attempt to reconcile his trolling with conventional social norms. Two days later, I flew to Los Angeles and met Weev at a train station in Fullerton, a sleepy bungalow town folded into the vast Orange County grid. He is in his early 20s with full lips, darting eyes and a nest of hair falling back from his temples. He has a way of leaning in as he makes a point, inviting you to share what might or might not be a joke.
As we walked through Fullertonâ(TM)s downtown, Weev told me about his day â" he'd lost $10,000 on the commodities market, he claimed â" and summarized his philosophy of "global ruin." "We are headed for a Malthusian crisis," he said, with professorial confidence. "Plankton levels are dropping. Bees are dying. There are tortilla riots in Mexico, the highest wheat prices in 30-odd years." He paused. "The question we have to answer is: How do we kill four of the worldâ(TM)s six billion people in the most just way possible?" He seemed excited to have said this aloud.
Ideas like these bring trouble. Almost a year ago, while in the midst of an LSD-and-methamphetamine bender, a longer-haired, wilder-eyed Weev gave a talk called "Internet Crime" at a San Diego hacker convention. He expounded on diverse topics like hacking the Firefox browser, online trade in illegal weaponry and assassination markets â" untraceable online betting pools that pay whoever predicts the exact date of a political leader's demise. The talk led to two uncomfortable interviews with federal agents and the decision to shed his legal identity altogether. Weev now espouses "the ruin lifestyle" â" moving from condo to condo, living out of three bags, no name, no possessions, all assets held offshore. As a member of a group of hackers called "the organization," which, he says, bring in upward of $10 million annually, he says he can wreak ruin from anywhere.
We arrived at a strip mall. Out of the darkness, the coffinlike snout of a new Rolls Royce Phantom materialized. A flying lady winked on the hood. "Your bag, sir?" said the driver, a blond kid in a suit and tie.
"This is my car," Weev said. "Get in."
And it was, for that night and the next, at least. The car's plush chamber accentuated the boyishness of Weev, who wore sneakers and jeans and hun
If you ask Nvidia officially, you will get no reason why this happened, and no list of parts affected, we tried. Unofficially, they will blame everyone under the sun, and trash their suppliers in very colourful language.
When the process engineers pinged by the INQ picked themselves off the floor from laughing, they politely said that there is about zero chance that NV would change the assembly process or material set for a batch, much less an EOL part.
This isn't true. I actually know that NVidia are not granting interviews to Charlie because they think he hates them. So they didn't say this, not even unofficially. Actually, I can sort of see their point - pretty much everything he writes about them is incredibly hostile and given that they won't speak to him, probably completely baseless.
I'm not saying that there aren't issues, just that I'd wait until someone other than Charlie was reporting them.
Assuming the Chinese missiles are on the more reliable end of the estimates, 10% (or 47 missiles) are still lost to mechanical malfunctions. That leaves 420 missiles headed for Taiwan
I personally would guess that the [Taiwanese] Patriots [missile defense] would have a 50% kill rate, but to be honest I have no data to back that estimate up. Based on my estimates, Taiwan could kill 100 missiles before they reach their targets (with their current Patriot capabilities), bringing the number that would cause damage down to 320
CSS-6s have a circular error probability (CEP) of 280 meters. CSS-7s have a CEP of 200 meters. With this limited degree of accuracy, it would take 44 CSS-6s or 23 CSS-7s to destroy a target with 75% certainty.* Thus, if China's missile batteries are composed equally of CSS-6s and CSS-7s, China could expect to destroy ten buildings with 75% certainty using all of its missiles (except the 233 it has held in reserve). If no missiles were held in reserve and thus 530 missiles reach their targets, 15 buildings could be destroyed with the same degree of certainty.
Though it actually seems like Taiwan should develop its own missile defense system in parallel with trying to buy PAC3 batteries and missiles from the US.
I actually don't believe that 'positive rights' - the right to have clean water, food etc should be legally protected. Negative rights - freedom from torture, detention without trial etc should. The justification is that negative rights shrink the government. Positive rights tend to make it grow.
And extreme case is in the Cold War when Communist countries used the argument that they may provide less negative rights, but they provided more positive ones. Actually that was never true - more people died of famine in Communist countries that actual government repression - despite the fact that these countries theoretically guaranteed the right to food/jobs/houses etc.
At the end of the day I guess Apple will pull the old IBM trick of printing some stuff (for IBM it was the BIOS source) in the manual and relying on copyright to at least temporarily hose cloners...
Temporarily is right. Soon after that people start to work on "clean room" Bios clones that implemented all the functions from a specification and were written by people who hadn't seen the published source code. I think they'd be better off using public key cryptography to tie the OS to their hardware somehow.
They publish the EULA on the web somewhere. I think someone pretending not to know the terms, buying a copy, returning it in a non saleable state and demanding a refund is not going to be looked at too kindly by the courts. It's one thing to dislike Apple's business model, quite another to try to harass them by playing disingenuous games like this.
I hate Apple users with a fiery passion, but get a grip here. Going after skin developers and DVD authoring software patchers is much more obnoxious than using DRM. DRM was the price the people that own the music extracted from Apple in return for allowing iTunes to distribute their music.
I suspect most Dark Ages kings would be impressed by the vast quantities of government cheese and Super Extra Large fast food portions available to poor Americans.
Plus you can go and pick that shit up, you don't need to organize an army to pillage Albania.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure I am a 'small government conservative' in the sense you think.
I think it's small government is a good abstract principle, but big government is not going to go away. I'll decide each law on its merits, not whether it shrinks the government or not.
And right to work laws don't grow the government as far as I can tell. If anyone gets fired for refusing to join a union, they can sue the company. No government involvement apart from some legal aid. In the long run companies will get the message and stop firing people for that reason so it doesn't cost the government anything.
The fact that today you can run GNU/Linux on practically any computer in existence is a direct result of it's unix-like design. Now take a look at KDE4.1 though, and compare it to VISTA - then tell me OSS isn't being innovative on every level. Right now KDE4.1 is a better desktop for Vista than Vista's OWN desktop !
Umm, I just got call from RMS. Apparently everyone is going to move to his compound in Guyana.
It's a misnomer and you know it, regardless of anyone's feelings about labor relations. It was certainly misleading enough to confuse GGP.
Shouldn't it be the employer's decision to run an all-union shop? I don't think government should get involved ;). Big bad government.
Just to make sure I'm not confused, when you say this:
What you really mean is that government should get involved and forbid an independent business owner from making union membership a condition of employment. Right? ;)
I will be totally amused if you oppose the EEOC at the same time you are defending so-called "right-to-work" laws.
Actually from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law#The_Taft-Hartley_Act
Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Under the "open shop" rule, an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union, nor can the employee be fired if he or she joins the union. In other words, the employee has the right to work, regardless of whether he or she is a member or financial contributor to such a union.
This is ok. A closed shop is a monopoly of the union concerned, and busting monopolies is a legitimate thing for the government to do. The act allows people to join a union of their choice or none at all, which allows competition.
If people had no choice of what union to join, why should it care about their interests?
How is not forcing people to join a union "anti Union"?
I've been burned by scratched DVD+Rs too many times. I'd be interested if there were a way to do this kind of thing in Windows..
Actually Reed Solomon error correction doesn't always help with scratched CDs - they still skip. The problem there is a that the laser can't track a scratched media. If it could track, RS would get the data back though.
What if Microsoft, or Apple, came out with a public statement that "FOSS products have extremely poor usability, because their developers refuse to accept usability input." It would be hard to defend against such an accusation, since we have almost no cases of devs accepting input from non-devs.
Well, I'm a Microsoft shill so I could do it "FOSS products have extremely poor usability, because their developers refuse to accept usability input."
Additionally I'll add that Linux has extremely poor support for modern hardware because the developers refuse to provide a stable API which would allow binary drivers.
You're welcome.
People ride cars because they are convenient - they go from point to point as desired and they don't make the user bend to their schedule. They are private. They are comfortable, they don't have the smelly guy in the next seat.
People use Windows because it is convenient. It comes preinstalled on the machine and runs all their applications and most hardware comes with a driver for it. You don't need to take special steps to use evil "closed source binary blob drivers" or wait for reverse engineers to write an open source driver. If closed source drivers don't work, you can take the product back and get a refund or download a fix rather than listen to people lecture you how it is not Linux's fault that things don't work right.
Hardware vendors like it because it doesn't them release all their specifications to the public and they can test their driver once on a small number of supported Windows versions and know it will work on them - how do you test a binary driver on 'Linux'? It is convenient and you don't have to listen to open source community leaders ranting about conspiracies against the 'movement', or kernel maintainers making changes that break hardware support for ideological reasons.
This email is dated 2002. What's happened since then? Maybe Microsoft's strategy has changed, or more likely they were bluffing about suing "open source", especially as it is too decentralised to make that a viable option.
And won't Gary Campbell be pissed that you've posted his email and email address on slashdot? Maybe your employee NDA with HP has expired, but I personally wouldn't post work emails here even for an ex employer.
Oh I see. I thought it was digging up human remains from an Indian burial ground. You're right, this seems more like opportunist scumbaggery.
'$unknownInternetDude. He probably knows a thing or two, but then, so do the people who wrote this software, so that isn't really a factor.'
Except the vendor has an innate bias, unknowninternetdude does not. Further, unknowninternetdude will be corroborated by multiple other unknowninternetdudes who also have no relation to the first and have no bias. In fact, the first unknowninternetdude publishing will almost surely result in some of these other unknowninternetdudes checking his work.
Its how published scientific journals work as well and while not perfect, it is clearly a superior system to the closed door policy.
Horseshit. Here's how it really works.
$unknownInternetDude posts a story to a forum. Most people who respond have absolutely no idea how to check his facts. This is a big difference from peer review. All they do is to see if his story (conspiracy by company X) fits their prejudices (company X is evil). If it does they will mod him up and agree with him, and if it doesn't they will mod him down, call him a shill for company Y and nitpick his language. Of course most of the time $unknowInternetDude will pick a forum where he agrees with the prejudices.
It's nothing like peer review, more like the penis panics in Africa.
Yeah, but those mice were buff and hyperintelligent
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083658/quotes
"The light that burns twice as bright burns for half as long - and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy. Look at you, you're the prodigal son; you're quite a prize."
Dr. Eldon Tyrell
Blade Runner
If we all took drugs to increase muscle mass and intelligence and decrease body fat it could work. The drugs would be voluntary. The media would find out about possibly risky drugs of course, and people would be free to stop taking them.
There's a worst case scenario where a drug seems to work for a while and then kills 100% of its users through untreatable cancer. To avoid that you could tag the drugs to social security number but still give people a choice. So I could choose drug A and drug B but not the others. The test groups would gradually be expanded once there was no sign of problems. They'd contract naturally based on rumours of problems because people in the group would stop taking the drugs if they read they were risky. The idea of the test group is to make sure that the worst case scenario doesn't happen with a drug everyone was taking.
If you can avoid that, in the long run we would turn into a race of Nietzschean Übermenschen.
the racism cuts both ways.
Native americans have abused anti-discrimination laws to double-cross and interfere with scientific organizations and kept potentially ground breaking archaeological finds tied up in murderous litigation for decades.
I dunno about this. If people don't want scientists digging up graves on their land and litigate against them, isn't that fair a use of the system?
The deeper point is that the system is philosphy neutral. I and the scientists believe that graves contain just bones. Religious people believe that they have in some way sacred. If you start digging up graves and ignoring other peoples beliefs then there is a conflict which the system should resolve peacefully. But in the US that means litigation.
That was your buddha moment.
What is this website and what have you done with slashdot?
While the theft of the term "liberal" by leftist anti-liberals did take place many decades ago, it is still a term that does not apply to them and should not be used to describe them.
A liberal is someone who believes in liberty and who pursues policies that create, expand, and protect liberty. A leftist is someone who believes in tyranny, and who pursues policies that create, expand and entrench tyranny.
When you allow the left to choose the terminology by which they will be described, you are hand them a victory. You don't call a child molester a "boy lover." You don't call a rapist a "persistent suitor." You don't call a terrorist a "freedom fighter." And you sure as hell don't call a leftist a "liberal." To do so tarnishes the good name of the men and women who have fought and died to bring the light of freedom into the world.
Excellent post. Mod it up!
Thats really all i can tell, by looking at his face. Also, how does the NYT get off on calling people "trolls" by explaining that "He is said to have jammed the cellphones of daughters of C.E.O.â(TM)s and demanded ransom from their fathers; he is also said to have trashed his enemiesâ(TM) credit ratings." Isn't that called phreaking/identity fraud - and usually associated with "hackers"?
Or maybe he made it up to troll the NYT.
Kill yourself BTW.
... the dehumanizing effect of anonymity.
People are assholes. Anonymity just lets them get away with it.
(To get geekier, I'd reference Frank Herbert's idea that perhaps not all people are human and ask if it is only civilization's arbitrary training mechanisms that create the quality of humanity in people.)
Maybe anonymous is the Gom Jabbar and the Livejournallers are the Beasts. I did like the section on Weev
Weev, the troll who thought hacking the epilepsy site was immoral, is legendary among trolls. He is said to have jammed the cellphones of daughters of C.E.O.'s and demanded ransom from their fathers; he is also said to have trashed his enemies' credit ratings. Better documented are his repeated assaults on LiveJournal, an online diary site where he himself maintains a personal blog. Working with a group of fellow hackers and trolls, he once obtained access to thousands of user accounts.
I first met Weev in an online chat room that I visited while staying at Fortunyâ(TM)s house. "I hack, I ruin, I make piles of money," he boasted. "I make people afraid for their lives." On the phone that night, Weev displayed a misanthropy far harsher than Fortuny's. "Trolling is basically Internet eugenics," he said, his voice pitching up like a jet engine on the runway. "I want everyone off the Internet. Bloggers are filth. They need to be destroyed. Blogging gives the illusion of participation to a bunch of retards. . . . We need to put these people in the oven!"
I listened for a few more minutes as Weev held forth on the Federal Reserve and about Jews. Unlike Fortuny, he made no attempt to reconcile his trolling with conventional social norms. Two days later, I flew to Los Angeles and met Weev at a train station in Fullerton, a sleepy bungalow town folded into the vast Orange County grid. He is in his early 20s with full lips, darting eyes and a nest of hair falling back from his temples. He has a way of leaning in as he makes a point, inviting you to share what might or might not be a joke.
As we walked through Fullertonâ(TM)s downtown, Weev told me about his day â" he'd lost $10,000 on the commodities market, he claimed â" and summarized his philosophy of "global ruin." "We are headed for a Malthusian crisis," he said, with professorial confidence. "Plankton levels are dropping. Bees are dying. There are tortilla riots in Mexico, the highest wheat prices in 30-odd years." He paused. "The question we have to answer is: How do we kill four of the worldâ(TM)s six billion people in the most just way possible?" He seemed excited to have said this aloud.
Ideas like these bring trouble. Almost a year ago, while in the midst of an LSD-and-methamphetamine bender, a longer-haired, wilder-eyed Weev gave a talk called "Internet Crime" at a San Diego hacker convention. He expounded on diverse topics like hacking the Firefox browser, online trade in illegal weaponry and assassination markets â" untraceable online betting pools that pay whoever predicts the exact date of a political leader's demise. The talk led to two uncomfortable interviews with federal agents and the decision to shed his legal identity altogether. Weev now espouses "the ruin lifestyle" â" moving from condo to condo, living out of three bags, no name, no possessions, all assets held offshore. As a member of a group of hackers called "the organization," which, he says, bring in upward of $10 million annually, he says he can wreak ruin from anywhere.
We arrived at a strip mall. Out of the darkness, the coffinlike snout of a new Rolls Royce Phantom materialized. A flying lady winked on the hood. "Your bag, sir?" said the driver, a blond kid in a suit and tie.
"This is my car," Weev said. "Get in."
And it was, for that night and the next, at least. The car's plush chamber accentuated the boyishness of Weev, who wore sneakers and jeans and hun
All Nvidia G84 and G86s are bad
If you ask Nvidia officially, you will get no reason why this happened, and no list of parts affected, we tried. Unofficially, they will blame everyone under the sun, and trash their suppliers in very colourful language.
When the process engineers pinged by the INQ picked themselves off the floor from laughing, they politely said that there is about zero chance that NV would change the assembly process or material set for a batch, much less an EOL part.
This isn't true. I actually know that NVidia are not granting interviews to Charlie because they think he hates them. So they didn't say this, not even unofficially. Actually, I can sort of see their point - pretty much everything he writes about them is incredibly hostile and given that they won't speak to him, probably completely baseless.
I'm not saying that there aren't issues, just that I'd wait until someone other than Charlie was reporting them.
I wonder if the US could use lasers to shoot down Chinese missiles fired at Taiwan?
Actually from what I've read Chinese missiles are not a mortal threat to Taiwan now
http://meizhongtai.blogspot.com/2005/11/chinas-ballistic-missiles.html
Assuming the Chinese missiles are on the more reliable end of the estimates, 10% (or 47 missiles) are still lost to mechanical malfunctions. That leaves 420 missiles headed for Taiwan
I personally would guess that the [Taiwanese] Patriots [missile defense] would have a 50% kill rate, but to be honest I have no data to back that estimate up. Based on my estimates, Taiwan could kill 100 missiles before they reach their targets (with their current Patriot capabilities), bringing the number that would cause damage down to 320
CSS-6s have a circular error probability (CEP) of 280 meters. CSS-7s have a CEP of 200 meters. With this limited degree of accuracy, it would take 44 CSS-6s or 23 CSS-7s to destroy a target with 75% certainty.* Thus, if China's missile batteries are composed equally of CSS-6s and CSS-7s, China could expect to destroy ten buildings with 75% certainty using all of its missiles (except the 233 it has held in reserve). If no missiles were held in reserve and thus 530 missiles reach their targets, 15 buildings could be destroyed with the same degree of certainty.
Though it actually seems like Taiwan should develop its own missile defense system in parallel with trying to buy PAC3 batteries and missiles from the US.
The only place you could get close to equating food and internet access is Article 19 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Food makes an appearance in Article 25).
We could discuss the difference between rights and necessities if you like.
*water != access to clean water, though many people would consider cleanliness a basic .
Read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_rights
I actually don't believe that 'positive rights' - the right to have clean water, food etc should be legally protected. Negative rights - freedom from torture, detention without trial etc should. The justification is that negative rights shrink the government. Positive rights tend to make it grow.
And extreme case is in the Cold War when Communist countries used the argument that they may provide less negative rights, but they provided more positive ones. Actually that was never true - more people died of famine in Communist countries that actual government repression - despite the fact that these countries theoretically guaranteed the right to food/jobs/houses etc.
At the end of the day I guess Apple will pull the old IBM trick of printing some stuff (for IBM it was the BIOS source) in the manual and relying on copyright to at least temporarily hose cloners...
Temporarily is right. Soon after that people start to work on "clean room" Bios clones that implemented all the functions from a specification and were written by people who hadn't seen the published source code. I think they'd be better off using public key cryptography to tie the OS to their hardware somehow.
They publish the EULA on the web somewhere. I think someone pretending not to know the terms, buying a copy, returning it in a non saleable state and demanding a refund is not going to be looked at too kindly by the courts. It's one thing to dislike Apple's business model, quite another to try to harass them by playing disingenuous games like this.
I hate Apple users with a fiery passion, but get a grip here. Going after skin developers and DVD authoring software patchers is much more obnoxious than using DRM. DRM was the price the people that own the music extracted from Apple in return for allowing iTunes to distribute their music.
Morgan Freeman is God right?
No, but God played Morgan Freeman in a movie once.
I suspect most Dark Ages kings would be impressed by the vast quantities of government cheese and Super Extra Large fast food portions available to poor Americans.
Plus you can go and pick that shit up, you don't need to organize an army to pillage Albania.