By the same shaky reasoning you could ask why we have a constitution to protect us. The constitution is the first level of regulation. Who needs the first amendment? Get the government out of the business of regulating speech. Let the market decide. Why have anti-monopoly legislation. Who needs OSHA anyway.
I have libertarian tendencies. I don't think the government does a great job at proactively running things. I believe that the market does best at most things except ensure fair competition in the market. Let the government be negative and merely prevent the things that restrict fair and open competition. I see net neutrality as an extension of free speech needing the same protections.
Read the article before posting nonsense. It clearly states how to use this to log into the iphone using ssh. If the ssh server can access the port it is in/dev somewhere. The only mystery is why this article gets posted to slashdot as a great revelation. People have been using the iPhone serial port for years. It was entertaining reading about someone debugging an rs232 connection after all these years, making the same mistakes I made 25 years ago, but I couldn't find anything new in the post.
This article unfortunately distorted the question by misquoting Natalie Angier. The question was not by Natalie as Hugh stated.but was instead a quote from Dr. Newman which he asked rhetorically only to answer it. Nothing in the article criticized alchemy. Doesn't anyone read sources. It is amazing how much hot air slashdot can generate over a simple misquote, taken out of context..
It is the scientists job to give us facts. It is the politicians job to give us solutions. It is your job to vote for politicians willing to honestly address the problem. If you are not happy stop whining on slashdot. That's useless. Instead consider writing to your congressman, after of course figuring out who he is.
>Science isn't an exact science, people are >involved and people make mistakes. >Scientist need to remember that they are human >too and they will make mistakes.
I assure you that scientists don't need you to remind them of that. They get reminded every time they publish.
>But still the Scientists don't like saying >to people Hey I could be wrong
WRONG! Scientists know that being wrong is more likely than being right, especially with leading edge data. The very stylistic wording of technical writing starts with different ways of saying "I could be wrong but..."
If you only knew... science publication has distinct resemblance to children bickering. Publishing a paper is a lot like saying "take that" and underneath the politeness a responding paper will likely say "Oh yeah!! Well take that." Contention, disagreement and occasionally being wrong are at the foundation of scientific methodology. The miracle of the scientific method is that it allows truth to win through over time even though scientists are human and thus narrow minded, egotistical people just like the rest of us. It isn't the non-existent godliness of scientists that makes us trust them. It is the gauntlet that they must run as they try to prove their conclusions. The claims of right wing fruitloops are nothing compared with the attacks from a scientists own peers. They are just worded more politely.
The "smart-arses" did publish, that's why you know about them. Posting on slashdot is a method of publication. They just didn't do so in a peer reviewed journal. Criticism is good for science. In fact criticism is at the foundations of scientific methodology.
Attacking the critics right to be critics is attacking both free speech and the foundations of scientific methodology. Science methodology is strong enough to weather it and come successively closer to truth over time in spite of right wing fruitloop denialists. Science grinds slowly but inevitably. The more important the issue, and there aren't many as important as climate change, the more important that the science be challenged and scientists be forced to justify their results with ever improved data and analysis. You'll never make money in the long run betting against scientists but short term they make lots of mistakes. It is part of the process.
You should never believe unquestionably any single scientific study. The first paper to draw a conclusion is merely throwing down a glove in the sand. Wait for the idea to be battle tested (in the journals) before you believe it. Unlike the popular image of science and scientists science is a world of viscous and continuous contention. That's why it can be trusted in the long run.
Of course you have the free speech right to attack the weather denialists just like they have the right to be fruitloops; so go ahead if it makes you happy. The fact that reasonable people will group you with them shouldn't slow you down.
This study was based on massive amounts of data, not "one piece of data" as you suggest. You are confused by the strange pluralization of the word data. A single piece of "data" is a datum. Data is the plural form of the word.
You show a lack of understanding of science methodology just like 90% of the public. Basically you are assuming that the issue is black and white, that the old methodology is totally wrong and therefor useless. Basically what we have is a lot of data analyzed the old way and a small amount the new way. So:
1) The value of consistency is that you can compare old results with new and see trends. Even though the detailed values reported may be inaccurate the trend may be. You move forward with the caveot that the flaw must be considered before accepting results. In this case they did not consider the possible impact of the flawed methodology before publishing. It was a mistake but mistakes happen a lot in science. That is the point of publishing. Every one else gets to check your methodology. Published papers in science are basically instruction manuals showing how to repeat the experiment and data analysis. This is the purpose of peer review. Science is an iterative process that hopefully converges on better predictions. Einstein did not just publish a single paper in isolation that revealed something that no one else had any hints about. What he actually did is conduct an extensive dialog with peers, some in the form of papers. This is typical science. Many people participated in the development of his ideas. He gets the credit because he presented the correct form first and it withstood the test of time.
2) All methodologies are faulty to some degree because they are approximations. It is the magnitude of errors that count. In this case the new methodology is more accurate but the old was still good enough to be useful. We mustn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
In a case like this a plan must be in place to keep old (valuable) research moving forward but gradually shift to new methodology. In the ideal case it may be possible to convert old results to be equivalent to new at which point the conversion accelerates.
Bigjim is talking through his hat on this one. This issue was opened in 2002. Complaining after 6 years is not exactly being impatient. It is hard to imagine that this is so hard that it could not have been addressed in 6 years.
It is obvious that there is NOT agreement and that in fact the core developers have never made this a priority. They may very well be be justified in this position. I have no idea what percentage of users need this. I need it but I suspect that I am in the minority. The advocates are certainly vocal but that doesn't prove anything number wise. However pretending that this is now and has ever been high priority for the core team is disingenuous.
The key problem is that outlining is a structural function that really needed better support in the document structure itself. True outlining should be represented in the data structure. Outlining is not a markup attribute. Outlining means hierarchical (tree structured) data. It is being glued on top by using style tags that are not inherently hierarchical in nature. (Word does it that way but they obviously have tighter control over style tags in their code and even so their implementation is far from perfect.) Even when the document looks right it is easy for successive edits to break a structure when it is only implicit. This means that it really requires a change in the core functionality of the editor and the developers are justifiably unwilling to make changes there without careful thought. However 6 years should have given enough time to plan and implement this if the core team had cared enough. Instead various people have been assigned to make "patches" without having the authority to address the core problems blocking implementation.
Outlining will not be solved until it gets promoted to a core team issue which means that it will probably never happen. Seeing no progress in 3.0 was certainly discouraging.
MBA's understand cost. The problem is that most programmers have no idea how to estimate the cost of code maintenance based on concepts like adequate documentation. The inarticulate engineer who said "just throw it all out" is typical. He has a gut feel but no cost basis to back it up. Documentation has value in terms of reduced maintenance cost. Measure it! Research it! That value is in the debit column if it doesn't exist. The cost of moving forward without documentation needs to be compared with the cost of starting over. The quality of the code is itself a big factor in the cost equation. High quality code is often its own best documentation if it exhibits well chosen variable/function/class etc. names and has a clean architecture that reflects the problem it solves. Programming is not a religion based on received wisdom. It is a tool to solve a particular class of problems. Good programming practice is not defined by arbitrary rules like "you must do documentation." It is defined by rules that have been shown (with hard data) to solve this class of problems effectively.
You would be surprised at how intelligently the MBA's react if the issue is articulated in terms of the cost estimates of various strategies and back the estimates up with good data.
Isn't anyone monitoring these posts? Did you get sucked into reading this because of the "90 times" number in the headline. This repair will NOT generate a 90 times improvement. It will improve the Hubble by 60% over its previous condition. That is the only number relevant to the new science made possible by this repair. The 90 times number is not related to this repair. Most of that 90 times came from the first repair mission that repaired the original design flaw in the mirror and basically got it back close to the original spec. But "90 times" sucked you in didn't it? This is the kind of dishonest headlining that gives honest journalists a bad name.
I am traditionally down on all ads but one day Amazon recommended a book I had never heard of that was interesting. That caused me to totally rethink my position. Basically the issue to me is I welcome useful information. Most traditional media ads are at least a waste of time and at worst are misleading. I have shifted my lifestyle to avoid ads. I don't watch television and listen only to public radio mostly to protect myself from being inundated with junk ads.
Most internet ads still seem poorly targeted. My local newspaper seems to not target at all. Everyone gets the same popups. However when they are targeted properly they can make my life easier. What could be wrong with that. I'm not against advertisors winning as long as it doesn't mean I have to lose. Properly targeted ads come a lot closer to win/win.
Yes if they are targeted to something I have interest in. Google ads are often valuable because can directly relate to my search If I am searching for things to buy.
Well actually google was the first place I went but I didn't learn anything. I found no "official" definition that you might be referring to and all informal definitions that I found were more or less consistent with the usage in this article. It appears to be a slang word and different people use it different ways but all refer to making hardware unusable for its original purpose and thus equivalent to a brick. This seems similar to an older expression referring to something as being or becoming a "boat anchor" an expression which seems to be drifting out of common usage but also meant "useless for its original purpose." No where did I find a definition of bricking so inconsistent with the usage in this article to deserve your apparently intense rancor.
Did you mean the definition of bricking in its original context of laying bricks. Surely you are not so narrow minded as to object to making new slang words out of other words. Linguists will point out that that is exactly how language changes, usually by kids. Kids create slang and as they become adults part of their slang becomes the language of adults and thus becomes common usage and part of the culture, becoming fodder for the next generation of dictionaries. The older reactionary generation vociferously complains that it is improper usage but that problem gets resolved as they get older and then finally die off. I hope you are not putting yourself in that category.
I guess I have to give up on you. I thought you might have some real insight into a fracturing of the meaning of the term brick or bricking that the usage in this article might be revealing. I'm always a sucker for language issues. I first tried google and couldn't find what you meant. Then I tried to taunt it out of you. I tries to tease it out of you. I tries to argue it out of you. Your persistent refusal to clarify your original point finally makes me suspect that you actually made a mistake and are embarrassed to admit it, that the usage was quite correct even by your standards but you somehow misread it and "jumped to conclusions." That by the way is a common reason people reply to arguments with with insult, going "ad hominem" in an attempt to mask the weakness in their own argument. Is that why you did it?
So one last attempt before I completely give up on you. My final request is basically that you "put up or shut up." Either clarify your objection or give up on the conversation. Anything short of clarification I will consider an admission that you have nothing to clarify and that your original post was a mistake. So far you tried "ad hominem" and you tried to sluff it off on google which didn't clarify your point at all. This time either reply with facts or stop wasting the time and bit storage of the slashdot community.
To be explicit please explain the reasoning behind your subject "This is NOT bricking." So that we can keep this thread (or get it back) on point I hope that the un-anteceded pronoun "this" in your subject refers to the usage of the slang word "bricking" in the original article or at least to usage in comments added about that article.
I remain hopeful that you will finally contribute something of value to this thread.
Hmm.. You started off topic and get further and further, plus using invective instead of any attempt at reasonable argument. So far your contribution to the original topic is negative. Of course I am not helping any by following you down this merry path. I should stop but you provide such a delightfully ludicrous target.
To reply to your text:
Outside of the fact that I have never knowingly used brick as a verb or gerund, if I did I would probably use it incorrectly by your standard. Like most people I pick up definitions of most words I learn through observing usage. I have no clue what you think bricking means and since you didn't post any references I'm not likely to learn. I'm not sure this really qualifies me for the label "idiot" but if it does I am in plenty of good company. Fortunately since I like the usage you object to so much I'm not likely to find this a big loss.
So... do always swear at and insult people that disagree with you. It seems like such a conversation stopper. I would have thought that a useful reference to what you think bricking means would be much more likely to accomplish your objectives; assuming of course that your actual objective was not merely to demonstrate your maturity level by using unimpressive vulgarity in public. I suppose that's informative in its own limited way.
By the way the fallacy in your argument is that while you correctly point out that creating chickens takes more than applying a few feathers in seemingly appropriate places words can and invariably do change their meanings with time. There seems to be few if any useful parallels between the two concepts and therefor not much be learned by comparing them. There is a fascinating subject called linguistics which studies shifts in definitions and many other related phenomena. Perhaps you have heard of it?
I think you miss the point. This is an attempt to estimate damage. The legislature is saying that profit is a useful metric to estimate damage. The idea is to not let a spammer off because damages are hard to measure. The legislature decided to prevent this with an alternative metric. It is quite reasonable to believe that the profit of a spammer is related to the damage they cause, more profit => suggests more spam => suggests more damage. Basically the legislature, based on evidence presented to them, decided in general that all spam has cost to society and then designed a scale that tries to punish big spammers more than small ones. Profit is an indirect way to estimate damage. This is not only well withing normal practice in designing legislation it seems obviously reasonable to me.
I think language means what speakers and listeners think it does. I fear YOU will need to adjust to the shift in meaning of a word you seem excessively attached to, either that or up your blood pressure meds.
It is good to know that youTube is no less trustworthy than other sources. It would have been more honest if the authors of this article placed it in context with other public media information sources. This way they are as bad as the sites they mention as far as distorting information is concerned.
I just checked. My four year old had no trouble parsing this sentance. He didn't know any of the nouns but that didn't seem to trouble him. So are you trying to say my four year old isn't a normal human being?
Please stick with responding to content and generally stop wasting our time.
The original post seems to suggest that knowledge of details like dithering made the complaint suspicious. In fact most people in the graphics arts world know what dithering is. Dithering itself isn't bad. Almost all printers dither including ones that print high quality glossy magazines. However good quality color from dithering requires higher pixel resolution (more pixels per inch) or it degrades the sharpness of details. Dithered Dithering is a trick that gets more apparent color at the cost of degrading apparent resolution. If you sell the benefits without mentioning the downside you are practicing deceitful marketing. On the other hand so much advertising is equally sleazy so I'm not sure there is a legal cause for action.
One thing GE will not do is reduce profits with this introduction. GE and their competitors carefully set prices on competing products so that they make the same profit per consumer. If a bulb lasts ten times longer their margin needs to be ten times greater. They have been overpricing fluorescents for years because although they aren't that much more expensive to build the consumer needs fewer of them per year. They don't care which you buy. They make the same off you per year. If they had priced fluorescents based on their costs fluorescents would have overtaken incandescents years ago and we would be buying much less oil today.
Regardless of the benefits of the new technology GE is not one of the good guys.
Dantz retrospect is overkill for the post that started the trhead and doesn't solve his problem. It is easy to use once setup but the software is hard to understand because it is so feature rich. If its out of the box copnfigurations work for you you are in luck. Otherwise you may never figure out how to get it to do what you want.
Slashdot Mirror
By the same shaky reasoning you could ask why we have a constitution to protect us. The constitution is the first level of regulation. Who needs the first amendment? Get the government out of the business of regulating speech. Let the market decide. Why have anti-monopoly legislation. Who needs OSHA anyway.
I have libertarian tendencies. I don't think the government does a great job at proactively running things. I believe that the market does best at most things except ensure fair competition in the market. Let the government be negative and merely prevent the things that restrict fair and open competition. I see net neutrality as an extension of free speech needing the same protections.
Read the article before posting nonsense. It clearly states how to use this to log into the iphone using ssh. If the ssh server can access the port it is in /dev somewhere. The only mystery is why this article gets posted to slashdot as a great revelation. People have been using the iPhone serial port for years. It was entertaining reading about someone debugging an rs232 connection after all these years, making the same mistakes I made 25 years ago, but I couldn't find anything new in the post.
This article unfortunately distorted the question by misquoting Natalie Angier. The question was not by Natalie as Hugh stated.but was instead a quote from Dr. Newman which he asked rhetorically only to answer it. Nothing in the article criticized alchemy. Doesn't anyone read sources. It is amazing how much hot air slashdot can generate over a simple misquote, taken out of context..
It is the scientists job to give us facts. It is the politicians job to give us solutions. It is your job to vote for politicians willing to honestly address the problem. If you are not happy stop whining on slashdot. That's useless. Instead consider writing to your congressman, after of course figuring out who he is.
>Science isn't an exact science, people are
>involved and people make mistakes.
>Scientist need to remember that they are human
>too and they will make mistakes.
I assure you that scientists don't need you to remind them of that. They get reminded every time they publish.
>But still the Scientists don't like saying
>to people Hey I could be wrong
WRONG! Scientists know that being wrong is more likely than being right, especially with leading edge data. The very stylistic wording of technical writing starts with different ways of saying "I could be wrong but..."
If you only knew... science publication has distinct resemblance to children bickering. Publishing a paper is a lot like saying "take that" and underneath the politeness a responding paper will likely say "Oh yeah!! Well take that." Contention, disagreement and occasionally being wrong are at the foundation of scientific methodology. The miracle of the scientific method is that it allows truth to win through over time even though scientists are human and thus narrow minded, egotistical people just like the rest of us. It isn't the non-existent godliness of scientists that makes us trust them. It is the gauntlet that they must run as they try to prove their conclusions. The claims of right wing fruitloops are nothing compared with the attacks from a scientists own peers. They are just worded more politely.
The "smart-arses" did publish, that's why you know about them. Posting on slashdot is a method of publication. They just didn't do so in a peer reviewed journal. Criticism is good for science. In fact criticism is at the foundations of scientific methodology.
Attacking the critics right to be critics is attacking both free speech and the foundations of scientific methodology. Science methodology is strong enough to weather it and come successively closer to truth over time in spite of right wing fruitloop denialists. Science grinds slowly but inevitably. The more important the issue, and there aren't many as important as climate change, the more important that the science be challenged and scientists be forced to justify their results with ever improved data and analysis. You'll never make money in the long run betting against scientists but short term they make lots of mistakes. It is part of the process.
You should never believe unquestionably any single scientific study. The first paper to draw a conclusion is merely throwing down a glove in the sand. Wait for the idea to be battle tested (in the journals) before you believe it. Unlike the popular image of science and scientists science is a world of viscous and continuous contention. That's why it can be trusted in the long run.
Of course you have the free speech right to attack the weather denialists just like they have the right to be fruitloops; so go ahead if it makes you happy. The fact that reasonable people will group you with them shouldn't slow you down.
This study was based on massive amounts of data, not "one piece of data" as you suggest. You are confused by the strange pluralization of the word data. A single piece of "data" is a datum. Data is the plural form of the word.
You show a lack of understanding of science methodology just like 90% of the public. Basically you are assuming that the issue is black and white, that the old methodology is totally wrong and therefor useless. Basically what we have is a lot of data analyzed the old way and a small amount the new way. So:
1) The value of consistency is that you can compare old results with new and see trends. Even though the detailed values reported may be inaccurate the trend may be. You move forward with the caveot that the flaw must be considered before accepting results. In this case they did not consider the possible impact of the flawed methodology before publishing. It was a mistake but mistakes happen a lot in science. That is the point of publishing. Every one else gets to check your methodology. Published papers in science are basically instruction manuals showing how to repeat the experiment and data analysis. This is the purpose of peer review. Science is an iterative process that hopefully converges on better predictions. Einstein did not just publish a single paper in isolation that revealed something that no one else had any hints about. What he actually did is conduct an extensive dialog with peers, some in the form of papers. This is typical science. Many people participated in the development of his ideas. He gets the credit because he presented the correct form first and it withstood the test of time.
2) All methodologies are faulty to some degree because they are approximations. It is the magnitude of errors that count. In this case the new methodology is more accurate but the old was still good enough to be useful. We mustn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
In a case like this a plan must be in place to keep old (valuable) research moving forward but gradually shift to new methodology. In the ideal case it may be possible to convert old results to be equivalent to new at which point the conversion accelerates.
Bigjim is talking through his hat on this one. This issue was opened in 2002. Complaining after 6 years is not exactly being impatient. It is hard to imagine that this is so hard that it could not have been addressed in 6 years. It is obvious that there is NOT agreement and that in fact the core developers have never made this a priority. They may very well be be justified in this position. I have no idea what percentage of users need this. I need it but I suspect that I am in the minority. The advocates are certainly vocal but that doesn't prove anything number wise. However pretending that this is now and has ever been high priority for the core team is disingenuous. The key problem is that outlining is a structural function that really needed better support in the document structure itself. True outlining should be represented in the data structure. Outlining is not a markup attribute. Outlining means hierarchical (tree structured) data. It is being glued on top by using style tags that are not inherently hierarchical in nature. (Word does it that way but they obviously have tighter control over style tags in their code and even so their implementation is far from perfect.) Even when the document looks right it is easy for successive edits to break a structure when it is only implicit. This means that it really requires a change in the core functionality of the editor and the developers are justifiably unwilling to make changes there without careful thought. However 6 years should have given enough time to plan and implement this if the core team had cared enough. Instead various people have been assigned to make "patches" without having the authority to address the core problems blocking implementation. Outlining will not be solved until it gets promoted to a core team issue which means that it will probably never happen. Seeing no progress in 3.0 was certainly discouraging.
MBA's understand cost. The problem is that most programmers have no idea how to estimate the cost of code maintenance based on concepts like adequate documentation. The inarticulate engineer who said "just throw it all out" is typical. He has a gut feel but no cost basis to back it up. Documentation has value in terms of reduced maintenance cost. Measure it! Research it! That value is in the debit column if it doesn't exist. The cost of moving forward without documentation needs to be compared with the cost of starting over. The quality of the code is itself a big factor in the cost equation. High quality code is often its own best documentation if it exhibits well chosen variable/function/class etc. names and has a clean architecture that reflects the problem it solves. Programming is not a religion based on received wisdom. It is a tool to solve a particular class of problems. Good programming practice is not defined by arbitrary rules like "you must do documentation." It is defined by rules that have been shown (with hard data) to solve this class of problems effectively. You would be surprised at how intelligently the MBA's react if the issue is articulated in terms of the cost estimates of various strategies and back the estimates up with good data.
Isn't anyone monitoring these posts? Did you get sucked into reading this because of the "90 times" number in the headline. This repair will NOT generate a 90 times improvement. It will improve the Hubble by 60% over its previous condition. That is the only number relevant to the new science made possible by this repair. The 90 times number is not related to this repair. Most of that 90 times came from the first repair mission that repaired the original design flaw in the mirror and basically got it back close to the original spec. But "90 times" sucked you in didn't it? This is the kind of dishonest headlining that gives honest journalists a bad name.
I am traditionally down on all ads but one day Amazon recommended a book I had never heard of that was interesting. That caused me to totally rethink my position. Basically the issue to me is I welcome useful information. Most traditional media ads are at least a waste of time and at worst are misleading. I have shifted my lifestyle to avoid ads. I don't watch television and listen only to public radio mostly to protect myself from being inundated with junk ads. Most internet ads still seem poorly targeted. My local newspaper seems to not target at all. Everyone gets the same popups. However when they are targeted properly they can make my life easier. What could be wrong with that. I'm not against advertisors winning as long as it doesn't mean I have to lose. Properly targeted ads come a lot closer to win/win.
Yes if they are targeted to something I have interest in. Google ads are often valuable because can directly relate to my search If I am searching for things to buy.
Did you mean the definition of bricking in its original context of laying bricks. Surely you are not so narrow minded as to object to making new slang words out of other words. Linguists will point out that that is exactly how language changes, usually by kids. Kids create slang and as they become adults part of their slang becomes the language of adults and thus becomes common usage and part of the culture, becoming fodder for the next generation of dictionaries. The older reactionary generation vociferously complains that it is improper usage but that problem gets resolved as they get older and then finally die off. I hope you are not putting yourself in that category.
I guess I have to give up on you. I thought you might have some real insight into a fracturing of the meaning of the term brick or bricking that the usage in this article might be revealing. I'm always a sucker for language issues. I first tried google and couldn't find what you meant. Then I tried to taunt it out of you. I tries to tease it out of you. I tries to argue it out of you. Your persistent refusal to clarify your original point finally makes me suspect that you actually made a mistake and are embarrassed to admit it, that the usage was quite correct even by your standards but you somehow misread it and "jumped to conclusions." That by the way is a common reason people reply to arguments with with insult, going "ad hominem" in an attempt to mask the weakness in their own argument. Is that why you did it?
So one last attempt before I completely give up on you. My final request is basically that you "put up or shut up." Either clarify your objection or give up on the conversation. Anything short of clarification I will consider an admission that you have nothing to clarify and that your original post was a mistake. So far you tried "ad hominem" and you tried to sluff it off on google which didn't clarify your point at all. This time either reply with facts or stop wasting the time and bit storage of the slashdot community.
To be explicit please explain the reasoning behind your subject "This is NOT bricking." So that we can keep this thread (or get it back) on point I hope that the un-anteceded pronoun "this" in your subject refers to the usage of the slang word "bricking" in the original article or at least to usage in comments added about that article.
I remain hopeful that you will finally contribute something of value to this thread.
To reply to your text:
Outside of the fact that I have never knowingly used brick as a verb or gerund, if I did I would probably use it incorrectly by your standard. Like most people I pick up definitions of most words I learn through observing usage. I have no clue what you think bricking means and since you didn't post any references I'm not likely to learn. I'm not sure this really qualifies me for the label "idiot" but if it does I am in plenty of good company. Fortunately since I like the usage you object to so much I'm not likely to find this a big loss.
So... do always swear at and insult people that disagree with you. It seems like such a conversation stopper. I would have thought that a useful reference to what you think bricking means would be much more likely to accomplish your objectives; assuming of course that your actual objective was not merely to demonstrate your maturity level by using unimpressive vulgarity in public. I suppose that's informative in its own limited way.
By the way the fallacy in your argument is that while you correctly point out that creating chickens takes more than applying a few feathers in seemingly appropriate places words can and invariably do change their meanings with time. There seems to be few if any useful parallels between the two concepts and therefor not much be learned by comparing them. There is a fascinating subject called linguistics which studies shifts in definitions and many other related phenomena. Perhaps you have heard of it?
I think you miss the point. This is an attempt to estimate damage. The legislature is saying that profit is a useful metric to estimate damage. The idea is to not let a spammer off because damages are hard to measure. The legislature decided to prevent this with an alternative metric. It is quite reasonable to believe that the profit of a spammer is related to the damage they cause, more profit => suggests more spam => suggests more damage. Basically the legislature, based on evidence presented to them, decided in general that all spam has cost to society and then designed a scale that tries to punish big spammers more than small ones. Profit is an indirect way to estimate damage. This is not only well withing normal practice in designing legislation it seems obviously reasonable to me.
I think language means what speakers and listeners think it does. I fear YOU will need to adjust to the shift in meaning of a word you seem excessively attached to, either that or up your blood pressure meds.
Your most obedient,
Montressor
I suppose it should have. On the other hand I had no trouble figuring out what they meant. This is no sloppier than most of what we read.
It is good to know that youTube is no less trustworthy than other sources. It would have been more honest if the authors of this article placed it in context with other public media information sources. This way they are as bad as the sites they mention as far as distorting information is concerned.
Yo grammar Nazis,
I just checked. My four year old had no trouble parsing this sentance. He didn't know any of the nouns but that didn't seem to trouble him. So are you trying to say my four year old isn't a normal human being?
Please stick with responding to content and generally stop wasting our time.
ZC
The original post seems to suggest that knowledge of details like dithering made the complaint suspicious. In fact most people in the graphics arts world know what dithering is. Dithering itself isn't bad. Almost all printers dither including ones that print high quality glossy magazines. However good quality color from dithering requires higher pixel resolution (more pixels per inch) or it degrades the sharpness of details. Dithered Dithering is a trick that gets more apparent color at the cost of degrading apparent resolution. If you sell the benefits without mentioning the downside you are practicing deceitful marketing. On the other hand so much advertising is equally sleazy so I'm not sure there is a legal cause for action.
One thing GE will not do is reduce profits with this introduction. GE and their competitors carefully set prices on competing products so that they make the same profit per consumer. If a bulb lasts ten times longer their margin needs to be ten times greater. They have been overpricing fluorescents for years because although they aren't that much more expensive to build the consumer needs fewer of them per year. They don't care which you buy. They make the same off you per year. If they had priced fluorescents based on their costs fluorescents would have overtaken incandescents years ago and we would be buying much less oil today. Regardless of the benefits of the new technology GE is not one of the good guys.
Dantz retrospect is overkill for the post that started the trhead and doesn't solve his problem. It is easy to use once setup but the software is hard to understand because it is so feature rich. If its out of the box copnfigurations work for you you are in luck. Otherwise you may never figure out how to get it to do what you want.