So obviously skill is a contributing factor, but athleticism is also a good part of it.
I am not disagreeing there, and no amount of doping will bring Jordan back; nor am I convinced it would have given Charles Barkley one of Jordan's rings.
would be better than Kobe Bryant.
Kobe, not unlike Jordan has been fairly consistently at the top of the game from his 20s into his 30s.
Naturally his body is now in decline, I would bet the 2000 champion Kobe could out run the 2010 champion Kobe; but I am not convinced he would beat him in the play-offs.
I am certainly not convinced that any amount of doping would bring one of the millions of kids who cannot even make the 300 cut-off to Kobe's level.
In addition the game of basketball, as seen in college, is won by more than one man's strength.
As players change out, the coach remains a constant, and teams like Duke keep winning fairly consistently.
No amount of doping on Krzyzewski's part is going to make his team better, but he is vital to Duke's performance.
Think about Barry Bonds
It seems juicing was pretty much the norm in baseball, I would expect every 37 year old to 27 year old was doing it.
At best Bonds sustained his physical abilities on into his late 30s, cheating aging a bit with the doping.
But without his experience and skill he would still have fizzled like most the other 37 year old juicers who it did nothing for because they were just never as good as Bonds anyway.
Or look at Jose Canseco, who was always the worse player to his twin brother Ozzie.
Now this one is really fun, twins!
But you seem to be asserting that their twin status makes them entirely equal and only the juicing allowed Jose to excel.
That could be, but I would argue that Jose's martial arts training was the real factor, or that Ozzie was drafted as a pitcher in the MLB.
Plus Ozzie still holds a home run record in the Atlantic League, so he did not do so bad for himself.
Ozzie and Jose sound pretty close, getting in fights together and everything.
I am not convinced that Jose would not have shared some juice with Ozzie, they apparently shared Ozzie's wife.
Really all legalizing steroids would do is mean, every single professional athlete would have to use steroids. This would surely filter down to college athletes and just amateurs who want to get good
I am not exactly saying steroids should be legal, the health side effects are to dangerous.
But if there were no huge negatives to steroids, then I see them as no different then how every athlete, professional or amateur, now has to lift weights or consume whey protein to boost performance and compete.
but I don't think we're at a point that the general population should be using them.
I agree, there needs to be a lot more study.
But I worry this anti-doping sentiment is out of control and is slowing down research and will hinder acceptance by the public.
If I can safely take some myostatin inhibitors and not lose muscle mass so quickly it would be awesome!
I agree strength is important in about every sport i can think of, and sure steroids would assist an athlete in obtaining greater strength; but in most highly skilled sports it would never make or break a winner.
I do not care how strong or fast you are, if you cannot dribble and shoot a basketball doping is going to do nothing to make you an NBA star.
A little doping may make an NBA star faster or jump higher, but then we would expect the younger stronger players to always dominate.
Instead we watched Jordan, well into his thirties past his physical prime, lead the Bulls to multiple championships.
The same with baseball, sure some bigger arms might help you crank the ball a few more feet.
However you have to have the hand eye coordination to make the connection of ball to bat first, and then you need to apply that strength in a smooth coordinated fashion at the right angle to achieve a home run.
On top of that you need to read the pitch, curve ball, fastball, what not.
Pumping up on beta blockers, caffeine, etc...will still not make you a home run king, otherwise we would have seen more than just McGwire, Griffy Jr., Sosa, and Bonds competing for the record.
Beyond that I would say sports like golf or tennis as other examples were skill beats strength in victory by a long shot, the list could go on.
But we do have track records set by steroid pumped woman that cannot be touched today.
100 meter dash, you just run, it takes some skill, but nothing like basketball, golf, baseball, and the like.
I am not convinced doping hurts the real skilled sports.
The ones based purely on feats of strength, it will. But that is the point of those sports, to see how fast a man can run and jump; let them dope.
Also, there's a huge difference between "undetectable" and "no adverse side effects."
Agreed. But the reason new doping techniques are getting harder to detect is because they seem to be more natural and occur safely in nature.
Myostatin inhibitors are very exciting across the board.
The way I understand it is that there are people out there who do not have the ability to break down their own muscles.
So if these people sit on their butts, their muscles do not atrophy like a normal person.
Of course normal humans atrophy their muscles because maintaining muscles is expensive to the body, so we naturally break them down.
But most of us Americans are quite well feeds these days and could use a bit more muscle mass instead of fat.
As far as I know those people who naturally lack mysotatin have lived happy healthy long lives.
Why does doping get such a bad rap?
The anti-doping groups are terrified of new doping methods they cannot detect.
This is great, if the doping has no adverse side effects and is not detectable then I want some!
I want these athletes testing out drugs and the long term affects and me benefiting from watching their performances and some day using safe versions of the drugs
Anti-doping is a waste of money. They should be putting money into making doping safe.
Fairness is pointless, some people are born taller, stronger, faster. Some have more money for better training, coaching, and equipment.
No reason we cannot level the playing field or push it beyond its current limits with chemistry.
Plus if your sport requires such little skill that doping can help you win it, then it is not much of a sport anyway
If the sport is so poorly designed that raw physical prowess out weighs skill then it is probably not worth much anyway. That is why I only watch putt putt golf.
When will I be able to install whatever OS I want on my phone from a flash drive, in the same way I install the OS on my PC?
Now I understand the carriers do not exactly want this and perhaps the manufacturers are not keen on the idea either, but someone stands to benefit from the model and force everyone to follow.
So we have the politics to deal with in some ways, lets talk technical and economic first.
If I can swap a SIM card or forge an ESN then I have a technical solution around the carriers, right?
It seems CDMA may be a bitch, does anyone know if I can technically bring any CDMA phone with the right modem to the likes of Verizon and Sprint without their "help"?
Now we just need a manufacturer willing to make some open hardware, there seems to be a few out there and the Nexus line of phones is not too bad.
But the bootloader and then the driver issues seem like another pain I hear about.
What is the issue there, and what are the solutions?
PCs work with the fabulous x86 BIOS stuff? Just need a Windows or Linux driver then and you are good to go? Can that be possible with the ARM architecture, or is everything wild west and so custom outside of the standards that it will not work that way?
Economics? It will never sell? Everyone expects a $200 on contract phone. These free, as in speech, phones cost to much and no knows they want them except geeks?
Cell phones are a status symbol, they are jewelry?
Oh well, maybe we can get enough of use geeks to buy them. Perhaps people will get fed up with the constant phone upgrading and everything will level out like the PC and notebook PC markets seem to have.
What do these new OSes offer me anyway? Android Froyo sped up my applications with JIT and gave me tethering. After that Gingerbread and the like have just slowed down my Nexus One and offer no new features.
Maybe I do not really need to ability to upgrade the OS on my phone, it is not worth it.
No, no, no. You continue to sell repressive regimes surveillance tech. Then you sell the citizens under the regime circumvention means. Double the sales!
Now if you wanted to look at it from a higher moral standpoint: these regimes will get surveillance tech one way or another, if you do not sell it to them someone else will.
The money from the sale will further surveillance tech development by your immoral competitors.
Not only that but they probably will not provide any means for the citizens to circumvent them.
and every other one sucks (Win 3.0, 95, ME, Vista.)
Huh I always liked Windows 95, no way I was going back to Windows 3.1 from Windows 95.
Never used Windows 3.0, had Windows 2000 when Windows ME was being peddled, and Vista never got much use, nor gave me much trouble.
I am not convinced the Star Trek Movie release sequence can be applied to Windows yet, at least not without blurring some things to make it fit.
But I think your other points stand, enterprise will probably not mess with Windows 8.
Well unless the old UI can be flipped on easily and everything else just fits like Windows 7, then it may at least not be a "downgrade to XP from Vista" situation again and Windows 8 will silently replace Windows 7 as new hardware is installed.
But how likely is that?
It is far too easy to create corporations, compared to real human beings.
I know how to make a real human being, in any state of the union; there are lots of instructional videos on the internet.
Please point me to a video for creating a corporation as easily, and as pleasurably if possible.
I certainly think that children can understand the mechanics and scandal of sex; I had put the basics together by ten. I just do not see the hypocrisy of regulating sexually explicit material tightly versus being lax on violent material. Why are the two grouped together at all? They should not be!
I am all for children seeing more boobies and what not, I think that our up-tight sexual attitude in the US is why we are the biggest consumers of porn.
I am sure exposure to sex and violence can hurt a child's development to a certain degree, but I think they are complete separate issues.
Exactly, what we really need is an open interface that allows competitors to link people across social networks, something Facebook will never do until is defunct like AIM.
"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"
Why would anyone think that sexual images and violent images should fall in the same category?
A child can understand violence, it is not very hard. Everyone has bumped there head or cut themselves, they know it hurts, it is not good. It is easy to extrapolate this to a greater extent, a child can do that. But sexuality, a child by definition has not even hit puberty, sexuality is physically incomprehensible and its consequences are so complex that most adults do not grasp them. Violent and sexual images are two totally different things! Please set me straight otherwise...
It is less about greed and more about control. Property, imaginary or not, we all want to collect and control it all. When it is our creation we get very protective, hypocritically protective, when it is not our creation we loosen the rules so we can gain a tighter grip.
I am curious about your parking meter analogy. What are parking meters for? You will generally only see them in areas with a limited amount of parking, where parking is scarce and therefore much more valuable. Does the city put meters in place to capitalize on this situation or to regulate the situation? If there were no parking meters in place then all those spots in front of the smoothie joint may have been occupied by squatters who grabbed a good spot and are holding on to it. But because the city charges a relatively high minutely rate for the spots have high turn over. A quarter would have been worth your trouble had the alternative for free parking meant you had to walk a few blocks. I am not sure how parking is "imaginary property", I can touch the parking spot, hell even taste if I wanted. The city rents that spot out with a parking meter. Now if the parking meters where in place purely for revenue, then they would run 24/7, most parking meters have an enforcement time on them, generally during busy periods; only the most extremely trafficked spots have 24/7 metering. When you parked for free you used that parking space and no one else could. Did you deny the city revenue? Perhaps, someone else may have paid for that spot, but if there were other spots open around it probably not. You did not seem to violate the spirit of the parking meter which is in place to regulate the best use of the parking spot.
Intellectual property law is in place to promote the release of intellectual creations, the state grants a limited monopoly to the creator to reward them for releasing the creation. Problems arise in two ways: when creation ceases because the incentive is not large enough to create and alternatively when the spread of creative works is inhibited by the monopoly which is intended solely to promote the distribution not gain the creator profit. The term starving artist is a testament to amount of motivation that is needed to promote creation, along with the argument that truly greatest intellectual creations will come out of necessity and/or love for the art. On the other hand distribution of intellectual property is being crippled by the "property" owners, wide spread access, which is the ultimate goal, is being unnecessarily restricted and opposing the spirit of intellectual property law.
Value is found in scarcity, copyright creates an artificial scarcity. Your parking space analogy falls short when we cannot replicate parking spaces at little cost. That simple parking space on the side of the road could be expanded with parking garages and what not, but it comes at a material and an even greater spatial expense. The replication, distribution, and storage of movies, television, software, and books is astoundingly cheap these days and has decreased the value of such commodities to near nothing.
The most interesting area of intellectual property is in pharmaceuticals. Something like the cure to a disease seems near priceless until it is discovered, then it is only as expensive as replicating it once the formula is known. Yet the expense in researching the drug or vaccine may have been very high. If we attempt to distribute the cost of the research across the sale of the cure then there may be some who are denied access. This is easily resolved with up front funding. Those who find the cure valuable will raise money for its research and fund the research. The research only has investors interested in the end cure not the monetary gain from the cure. The same approach should be taken towards all intellectual property. If you enjoy an artist and wish to promote more creation from that artist, then fund the artist. Eventually we will see more movements like kickstarter.com for the creative arts. An established art
Why not just build planes that cannot be hijacked and buildings that can withstand a plane hitting them, and forget all this non-sense?
Lock the cockpit door. See the the Empire State building July 28, 1945 for how to build a proper building in New York.
Has to be cheaper to higher some security guard to sit on ever plane, he can slap anyone around who is looking like they want to cause problems.
No more security theater.
How is Star Trek not a science movie? That deflector dish did not reroute power to itself to extend transporter range at warp 11 while inducing a temporal incursions in order to destroy the Borg with a phase induced warp bubble containing a universe composed purely of earl grey tea. A Star Fleet Engineer did that bitch!
I kid, I kid. Vote with your wallet. $free is a cowardly reason not to cast that vote and say "this software stinks, I'm not using it"
True, true. There are a dozen free and pay Bible apps out there to chose from. Fortunately the LiveChurch version listened and removed the whole location part of the app.
I understand they were well intentioned with a fun feature to tag not only when but where you read a Bible verse that moved you.
But I am more worried about the apps that are not well intentioned, the 50 or so we heard about last week that were sending all kind of info to advertising agencies.
It's AMAZING that people are willing to write good software if you give them some money. If they write bad software, you have a bargaining chip.
Apple & Google's & MS's software markets should have a X$ minimum purchase price. If the author doesn't want any money then Apple/Google donates it to charity.
That way free software feels the effects of market pressures. Combine with trial period where all money is refundable and app uninstalls itself after Y days if you're not satisfied.
That would empower consumers.
Unfortunately it seems that the refund period has been reduced from 24 hours to 15 minutes to appease developers.
15 minutes or even 24 hours may not be long enough to vet an application for security risks, let alone functionality.
Plus I have issues with being at the mercy of DRM for an application I paid for, as well as the risk of discontinued support and updates.
I would really prefer an business plan where the developers do open source, charge for the app in the market place, but I can compile it myself and install it if I want. Also the app can be extended if they drop support or forked.
Now it is a much bigger risk in the face of piracy for the developer and all, but it seems other open source developers have survived without even the market place option to receive revenue.
I would love to reward such practices and use the security auditing features to reveal to other users that they should support more open developers as well
Or.. keep eating the free bait and whine on the Internet for change. Advertisers really care what you think. Not.
Exactly, it is free bait and I want it revealed. But I am not totally opposed to paying for an application with my eye balls and information, as long as I control when and what.
Awesome! I only just skimmed through it so far, but if I understand what you are saying and what I read then it is exactly what I am asking for!
Now I just need Gingerbread for my AT&T Nexus One and an app to collect logs on all my apps and restrict them for me!
Thanks!
Eh, that is easy enough solved with a warning: "If you deny this application GPS, Internet...it may not function properly", "running in restricted mode some features of the application may not work as intended".
It would be worth it, I am not trying to please developers with this functionality, I am trying to fight them and take power away from them.
Developers giving information to advertising agencies is the primary motivation for such controls.
I respect that developers need funds to produce applications, if a user wants it for free they have to pay with their eyes and perhaps personal information.
But that payment should not be taken deceptively behind the scenes.
Developers can simply combat users cutting off their funding source from advertisement by disabling the application if advertising is not coming in.
The user will get a message: "sorry user we depend on advertising revenue to bring you this great app, please enable internet connection to use the app"
The user can then be semi-informed and decide if it is worth it.
Ideally I want developers divulging exactly what info they are sending about the user to the user.
But if I was a naughty developer i would be encrypting or encoding the information I am sending out so the user has no clue.
What would need to happen then is the user would at least be able to say hey what is going on here, looks shady, I am not going to allow it.
But as users we are at war with developers, some developers offer the world, seemingly for free, and users eat it up.
By forcing developers to out right be honest about what the app is doing it improves everything.
Developers who truly make better apps, better not in just accomplishing what the user wants but not doing what the user does not want as well.
A developer who is charging out right for an app that is clean and user friendly will end up hopefully seeing more revenue as a result, because some users will be willing to pay to protect themselves.
Android is the lovely open place where we users should know everything that is going on behind the scenes in order to protect themselves.
If you want to be bled dry and trust someone else, then the iPhone is readily available. Developers can get their shady business there.
Nice. Now all I need is application level control, so I can give say Google Maps my actual location, while still running some other application I want to deny my location.
All applications are required to declare the permissions they use, ensuring the user is in control of the information they share.
I want more than the application to declare what permission it uses.
I want to be able to run an application that say wants access to my GPS coordinates, but I can say no you get fake GPS access.
The same with internet access, phone directory access, and so on.
I do not want to be restricted to all or nothing, and have to forgo an app all together over a potential security issue.
The best example I have is the Bible app from LifeChurch.tv. I love the app, but for awhile it wanted access to my GPS coordinates.
Why? God knows where I am already LifeChurch. But unlike the nagging iPhone version which I could deny location information every time I ran the app it was all or nothing, location information transmitted.
Heck I want everything the damn apps do logged, if I allow them internet access I want to know what pages and logs on the packets sent.
Then we can really avoid these naughty apps that are transmitting things, because the OS says hey this app is transmitting this user, and the user can say hells no.
I do not ever want to install an anti-virus application to my phone. Never ever, I do not need them on my desktop, do not need them on my phone. Die McAfee and Norton, die!
Just my two cents. Perhaps I should download the source and make my own build. But it would be much easier on me if a Google engineer did it.
Hmm, now you have me curious... Matlock Season 1 DVD Rip, but that is all I found. Four seeders so at least it is not a dead torrent. Looks like Matlock ran for nine seasons and the first four seasons are on DVD with the fifth season due in July! Grandma just needs the DVDs and she can rip and seed for all the other grandmas...
Emergency! turned up some promising results.
That Girl only an unaired pilot, but all five seasons are out on DVD at at least providing a good source for a torrent to be ripped from.
Odd Couple turned up all five seasons!
Hopefully torrent search results are not too frowned upon here...
Slashdot Mirror
So obviously skill is a contributing factor, but athleticism is also a good part of it.
I am not disagreeing there, and no amount of doping will bring Jordan back; nor am I convinced it would have given Charles Barkley one of Jordan's rings.
would be better than Kobe Bryant.
Kobe, not unlike Jordan has been fairly consistently at the top of the game from his 20s into his 30s.
Naturally his body is now in decline, I would bet the 2000 champion Kobe could out run the 2010 champion Kobe; but I am not convinced he would beat him in the play-offs.
I am certainly not convinced that any amount of doping would bring one of the millions of kids who cannot even make the 300 cut-off to Kobe's level.
In addition the game of basketball, as seen in college, is won by more than one man's strength.
As players change out, the coach remains a constant, and teams like Duke keep winning fairly consistently.
No amount of doping on Krzyzewski's part is going to make his team better, but he is vital to Duke's performance.
Think about Barry Bonds
It seems juicing was pretty much the norm in baseball, I would expect every 37 year old to 27 year old was doing it.
At best Bonds sustained his physical abilities on into his late 30s, cheating aging a bit with the doping.
But without his experience and skill he would still have fizzled like most the other 37 year old juicers who it did nothing for because they were just never as good as Bonds anyway.
Or look at Jose Canseco, who was always the worse player to his twin brother Ozzie.
Now this one is really fun, twins!
But you seem to be asserting that their twin status makes them entirely equal and only the juicing allowed Jose to excel.
That could be, but I would argue that Jose's martial arts training was the real factor, or that Ozzie was drafted as a pitcher in the MLB.
Plus Ozzie still holds a home run record in the Atlantic League, so he did not do so bad for himself.
Ozzie and Jose sound pretty close, getting in fights together and everything.
I am not convinced that Jose would not have shared some juice with Ozzie, they apparently shared Ozzie's wife.
Really all legalizing steroids would do is mean, every single professional athlete would have to use steroids. This would surely filter down to college athletes and just amateurs who want to get good
I am not exactly saying steroids should be legal, the health side effects are to dangerous.
But if there were no huge negatives to steroids, then I see them as no different then how every athlete, professional or amateur, now has to lift weights or consume whey protein to boost performance and compete.
but I don't think we're at a point that the general population should be using them.
I agree, there needs to be a lot more study.
But I worry this anti-doping sentiment is out of control and is slowing down research and will hinder acceptance by the public.
If I can safely take some myostatin inhibitors and not lose muscle mass so quickly it would be awesome!
I do not care how strong or fast you are, if you cannot dribble and shoot a basketball doping is going to do nothing to make you an NBA star.
A little doping may make an NBA star faster or jump higher, but then we would expect the younger stronger players to always dominate.
Instead we watched Jordan, well into his thirties past his physical prime, lead the Bulls to multiple championships.
The same with baseball, sure some bigger arms might help you crank the ball a few more feet.
However you have to have the hand eye coordination to make the connection of ball to bat first, and then you need to apply that strength in a smooth coordinated fashion at the right angle to achieve a home run.
On top of that you need to read the pitch, curve ball, fastball, what not.
Pumping up on beta blockers, caffeine, etc...will still not make you a home run king, otherwise we would have seen more than just McGwire, Griffy Jr., Sosa, and Bonds competing for the record.
Beyond that I would say sports like golf or tennis as other examples were skill beats strength in victory by a long shot, the list could go on.
But we do have track records set by steroid pumped woman that cannot be touched today.
100 meter dash, you just run, it takes some skill, but nothing like basketball, golf, baseball, and the like.
I am not convinced doping hurts the real skilled sports.
The ones based purely on feats of strength, it will. But that is the point of those sports, to see how fast a man can run and jump; let them dope.
Also, there's a huge difference between "undetectable" and "no adverse side effects."
Agreed. But the reason new doping techniques are getting harder to detect is because they seem to be more natural and occur safely in nature.
Myostatin inhibitors are very exciting across the board.
The way I understand it is that there are people out there who do not have the ability to break down their own muscles.
So if these people sit on their butts, their muscles do not atrophy like a normal person.
Of course normal humans atrophy their muscles because maintaining muscles is expensive to the body, so we naturally break them down.
But most of us Americans are quite well feeds these days and could use a bit more muscle mass instead of fat.
As far as I know those people who naturally lack mysotatin have lived happy healthy long lives.
Why does doping get such a bad rap?
The anti-doping groups are terrified of new doping methods they cannot detect.
This is great, if the doping has no adverse side effects and is not detectable then I want some!
I want these athletes testing out drugs and the long term affects and me benefiting from watching their performances and some day using safe versions of the drugs
Anti-doping is a waste of money. They should be putting money into making doping safe.
Fairness is pointless, some people are born taller, stronger, faster. Some have more money for better training, coaching, and equipment.
No reason we cannot level the playing field or push it beyond its current limits with chemistry.
Plus if your sport requires such little skill that doping can help you win it, then it is not much of a sport anyway
If the sport is so poorly designed that raw physical prowess out weighs skill then it is probably not worth much anyway. That is why I only watch putt putt golf.
And what usage is the Fire intended for?
Answer: selling Amazon wares
Fixed that for you.
When will I be able to install whatever OS I want on my phone from a flash drive, in the same way I install the OS on my PC?
Now I understand the carriers do not exactly want this and perhaps the manufacturers are not keen on the idea either, but someone stands to benefit from the model and force everyone to follow.
So we have the politics to deal with in some ways, lets talk technical and economic first.
If I can swap a SIM card or forge an ESN then I have a technical solution around the carriers, right?
It seems CDMA may be a bitch, does anyone know if I can technically bring any CDMA phone with the right modem to the likes of Verizon and Sprint without their "help"?
Now we just need a manufacturer willing to make some open hardware, there seems to be a few out there and the Nexus line of phones is not too bad.
But the bootloader and then the driver issues seem like another pain I hear about.
What is the issue there, and what are the solutions?
PCs work with the fabulous x86 BIOS stuff? Just need a Windows or Linux driver then and you are good to go? Can that be possible with the ARM architecture, or is everything wild west and so custom outside of the standards that it will not work that way?
Economics? It will never sell? Everyone expects a $200 on contract phone. These free, as in speech, phones cost to much and no knows they want them except geeks?
Cell phones are a status symbol, they are jewelry?
Oh well, maybe we can get enough of use geeks to buy them. Perhaps people will get fed up with the constant phone upgrading and everything will level out like the PC and notebook PC markets seem to have.
What do these new OSes offer me anyway? Android Froyo sped up my applications with JIT and gave me tethering. After that Gingerbread and the like have just slowed down my Nexus One and offer no new features.
Maybe I do not really need to ability to upgrade the OS on my phone, it is not worth it.
No, no, no. You continue to sell repressive regimes surveillance tech. Then you sell the citizens under the regime circumvention means. Double the sales!
Now if you wanted to look at it from a higher moral standpoint: these regimes will get surveillance tech one way or another, if you do not sell it to them someone else will.
The money from the sale will further surveillance tech development by your immoral competitors.
Not only that but they probably will not provide any means for the citizens to circumvent them.
and every other one sucks (Win 3.0, 95, ME, Vista.)
Huh I always liked Windows 95, no way I was going back to Windows 3.1 from Windows 95.
Never used Windows 3.0, had Windows 2000 when Windows ME was being peddled, and Vista never got much use, nor gave me much trouble.
I am not convinced the Star Trek Movie release sequence can be applied to Windows yet, at least not without blurring some things to make it fit.
But I think your other points stand, enterprise will probably not mess with Windows 8.
Well unless the old UI can be flipped on easily and everything else just fits like Windows 7, then it may at least not be a "downgrade to XP from Vista" situation again and Windows 8 will silently replace Windows 7 as new hardware is installed.
But how likely is that?
Step 2. Reveal the security vulnerability anonymously.
Step 3. Profit!
Eh, I do not know, Norway and Sweden are too far north to be phallic; I am dubbing them as two saggy breasts, Europa is a bit old.
It is far too easy to create corporations, compared to real human beings.
I know how to make a real human being, in any state of the union; there are lots of instructional videos on the internet. Please point me to a video for creating a corporation as easily, and as pleasurably if possible.
Thanks for fixing my "their".
I certainly think that children can understand the mechanics and scandal of sex; I had put the basics together by ten. I just do not see the hypocrisy of regulating sexually explicit material tightly versus being lax on violent material. Why are the two grouped together at all? They should not be!
I am all for children seeing more boobies and what not, I think that our up-tight sexual attitude in the US is why we are the biggest consumers of porn.
I am sure exposure to sex and violence can hurt a child's development to a certain degree, but I think they are complete separate issues.
But really if we are worried about are children being violent we should regulate candy distribution.
Exactly, what we really need is an open interface that allows competitors to link people across social networks, something Facebook will never do until is defunct like AIM.
"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"
Why would anyone think that sexual images and violent images should fall in the same category?
A child can understand violence, it is not very hard. Everyone has bumped there head or cut themselves, they know it hurts, it is not good. It is easy to extrapolate this to a greater extent, a child can do that. But sexuality, a child by definition has not even hit puberty, sexuality is physically incomprehensible and its consequences are so complex that most adults do not grasp them. Violent and sexual images are two totally different things! Please set me straight otherwise...
It is less about greed and more about control. Property, imaginary or not, we all want to collect and control it all. When it is our creation we get very protective, hypocritically protective, when it is not our creation we loosen the rules so we can gain a tighter grip.
I am curious about your parking meter analogy. What are parking meters for? You will generally only see them in areas with a limited amount of parking, where parking is scarce and therefore much more valuable. Does the city put meters in place to capitalize on this situation or to regulate the situation? If there were no parking meters in place then all those spots in front of the smoothie joint may have been occupied by squatters who grabbed a good spot and are holding on to it. But because the city charges a relatively high minutely rate for the spots have high turn over. A quarter would have been worth your trouble had the alternative for free parking meant you had to walk a few blocks. I am not sure how parking is "imaginary property", I can touch the parking spot, hell even taste if I wanted. The city rents that spot out with a parking meter. Now if the parking meters where in place purely for revenue, then they would run 24/7, most parking meters have an enforcement time on them, generally during busy periods; only the most extremely trafficked spots have 24/7 metering. When you parked for free you used that parking space and no one else could. Did you deny the city revenue? Perhaps, someone else may have paid for that spot, but if there were other spots open around it probably not. You did not seem to violate the spirit of the parking meter which is in place to regulate the best use of the parking spot.
Intellectual property law is in place to promote the release of intellectual creations, the state grants a limited monopoly to the creator to reward them for releasing the creation. Problems arise in two ways: when creation ceases because the incentive is not large enough to create and alternatively when the spread of creative works is inhibited by the monopoly which is intended solely to promote the distribution not gain the creator profit. The term starving artist is a testament to amount of motivation that is needed to promote creation, along with the argument that truly greatest intellectual creations will come out of necessity and/or love for the art. On the other hand distribution of intellectual property is being crippled by the "property" owners, wide spread access, which is the ultimate goal, is being unnecessarily restricted and opposing the spirit of intellectual property law.
Value is found in scarcity, copyright creates an artificial scarcity. Your parking space analogy falls short when we cannot replicate parking spaces at little cost. That simple parking space on the side of the road could be expanded with parking garages and what not, but it comes at a material and an even greater spatial expense. The replication, distribution, and storage of movies, television, software, and books is astoundingly cheap these days and has decreased the value of such commodities to near nothing.
The most interesting area of intellectual property is in pharmaceuticals. Something like the cure to a disease seems near priceless until it is discovered, then it is only as expensive as replicating it once the formula is known. Yet the expense in researching the drug or vaccine may have been very high. If we attempt to distribute the cost of the research across the sale of the cure then there may be some who are denied access. This is easily resolved with up front funding. Those who find the cure valuable will raise money for its research and fund the research. The research only has investors interested in the end cure not the monetary gain from the cure. The same approach should be taken towards all intellectual property. If you enjoy an artist and wish to promote more creation from that artist, then fund the artist. Eventually we will see more movements like kickstarter.com for the creative arts. An established art
Why not just build planes that cannot be hijacked and buildings that can withstand a plane hitting them, and forget all this non-sense?
Lock the cockpit door. See the the Empire State building July 28, 1945 for how to build a proper building in New York.
Has to be cheaper to higher some security guard to sit on ever plane, he can slap anyone around who is looking like they want to cause problems.
No more security theater.
How is Star Trek not a science movie? That deflector dish did not reroute power to itself to extend transporter range at warp 11 while inducing a temporal incursions in order to destroy the Borg with a phase induced warp bubble containing a universe composed purely of earl grey tea. A Star Fleet Engineer did that bitch!
I kid, I kid. Vote with your wallet. $free is a cowardly reason not to cast that vote and say "this software stinks, I'm not using it"
True, true. There are a dozen free and pay Bible apps out there to chose from. Fortunately the LiveChurch version listened and removed the whole location part of the app.
I understand they were well intentioned with a fun feature to tag not only when but where you read a Bible verse that moved you.
But I am more worried about the apps that are not well intentioned, the 50 or so we heard about last week that were sending all kind of info to advertising agencies.
It's AMAZING that people are willing to write good software if you give them some money. If they write bad software, you have a bargaining chip. Apple & Google's & MS's software markets should have a X$ minimum purchase price. If the author doesn't want any money then Apple/Google donates it to charity. That way free software feels the effects of market pressures. Combine with trial period where all money is refundable and app uninstalls itself after Y days if you're not satisfied.
That would empower consumers.
Unfortunately it seems that the refund period has been reduced from 24 hours to 15 minutes to appease developers.
15 minutes or even 24 hours may not be long enough to vet an application for security risks, let alone functionality.
Plus I have issues with being at the mercy of DRM for an application I paid for, as well as the risk of discontinued support and updates.
I would really prefer an business plan where the developers do open source, charge for the app in the market place, but I can compile it myself and install it if I want. Also the app can be extended if they drop support or forked.
Now it is a much bigger risk in the face of piracy for the developer and all, but it seems other open source developers have survived without even the market place option to receive revenue.
I would love to reward such practices and use the security auditing features to reveal to other users that they should support more open developers as well
Or.. keep eating the free bait and whine on the Internet for change. Advertisers really care what you think. Not.
Exactly, it is free bait and I want it revealed. But I am not totally opposed to paying for an application with my eye balls and information, as long as I control when and what.
Awesome! I only just skimmed through it so far, but if I understand what you are saying and what I read then it is exactly what I am asking for!
Now I just need Gingerbread for my AT&T Nexus One and an app to collect logs on all my apps and restrict them for me!
Thanks!
Eh, that is easy enough solved with a warning: "If you deny this application GPS, Internet...it may not function properly", "running in restricted mode some features of the application may not work as intended".
It would be worth it, I am not trying to please developers with this functionality, I am trying to fight them and take power away from them.
Developers giving information to advertising agencies is the primary motivation for such controls.
I respect that developers need funds to produce applications, if a user wants it for free they have to pay with their eyes and perhaps personal information.
But that payment should not be taken deceptively behind the scenes.
Developers can simply combat users cutting off their funding source from advertisement by disabling the application if advertising is not coming in.
The user will get a message: "sorry user we depend on advertising revenue to bring you this great app, please enable internet connection to use the app"
The user can then be semi-informed and decide if it is worth it.
Ideally I want developers divulging exactly what info they are sending about the user to the user.
But if I was a naughty developer i would be encrypting or encoding the information I am sending out so the user has no clue.
What would need to happen then is the user would at least be able to say hey what is going on here, looks shady, I am not going to allow it.
But as users we are at war with developers, some developers offer the world, seemingly for free, and users eat it up.
By forcing developers to out right be honest about what the app is doing it improves everything.
Developers who truly make better apps, better not in just accomplishing what the user wants but not doing what the user does not want as well.
A developer who is charging out right for an app that is clean and user friendly will end up hopefully seeing more revenue as a result, because some users will be willing to pay to protect themselves.
Android is the lovely open place where we users should know everything that is going on behind the scenes in order to protect themselves.
If you want to be bled dry and trust someone else, then the iPhone is readily available. Developers can get their shady business there.
Nice. Now all I need is application level control, so I can give say Google Maps my actual location, while still running some other application I want to deny my location.
All applications are required to declare the permissions they use, ensuring the user is in control of the information they share.
I want more than the application to declare what permission it uses.
I want to be able to run an application that say wants access to my GPS coordinates, but I can say no you get fake GPS access.
The same with internet access, phone directory access, and so on.
I do not want to be restricted to all or nothing, and have to forgo an app all together over a potential security issue.
The best example I have is the Bible app from LifeChurch.tv. I love the app, but for awhile it wanted access to my GPS coordinates.
Why? God knows where I am already LifeChurch. But unlike the nagging iPhone version which I could deny location information every time I ran the app it was all or nothing, location information transmitted.
Heck I want everything the damn apps do logged, if I allow them internet access I want to know what pages and logs on the packets sent.
Then we can really avoid these naughty apps that are transmitting things, because the OS says hey this app is transmitting this user, and the user can say hells no.
I do not ever want to install an anti-virus application to my phone. Never ever, I do not need them on my desktop, do not need them on my phone. Die McAfee and Norton, die!
Just my two cents. Perhaps I should download the source and make my own build. But it would be much easier on me if a Google engineer did it.
Hmm, now you have me curious...
Matlock Season 1 DVD Rip, but that is all I found. Four seeders so at least it is not a dead torrent. Looks like Matlock ran for nine seasons and the first four seasons are on DVD with the fifth season due in July! Grandma just needs the DVDs and she can rip and seed for all the other grandmas...
Emergency! turned up some promising results.
That Girl only an unaired pilot, but all five seasons are out on DVD at at least providing a good source for a torrent to be ripped from.
Odd Couple turned up all five seasons!
Hopefully torrent search results are not too frowned upon here...
I believe satellite TV was invented just for your situation...
No, all grandma needs is a Matlock torrent.