There have been a lot of leaks lately too; I think its a game that ATI and NVIDIA play well- Allow someone to leak "Official" documents for a few hours to stir up hype and then create a scene by forcing them to take it down and act like they never knew the info was missing. That causes eveybody to wonder whats the big secret. There's no secret because on one website their is a guy taking the card apart but I cant remember where I saw this but I did see this I'll keep looking and when I find I'll post the link
Alan Turing devised most of the theoretical basis for computers in mathematics, but all the modern computers that we use are called Von Neumann machines for a reason.
I worked my way through school as a programmer and chose philosophy on purpose because I found that's where the logic courses were.
(I also took a lot of physics and math which no doubt helps, but the degree is philosophy) I feel the study of various logical abstractions helped widen my perspective. Not to mention you are trained to diagram any set of concept/relationships, which is also quite useful. My diagrams have consistent grammer, and I'm sure this is because I was trained how to create a legend that maps directly to real concepts (e.g. an arrow means something, and is only used for truly identical relationships. Of course, the arrow might mean different things in different diagrams, but within a given diagram: consistency). I'm not sure all Philosophy programs are so rigerous about logic... but it is the one thing, the only thing, that philosophers have any agreement over.
Aside from the fact that I don't know what Nivarna is(I think you mean Nirvana)
Nice job dude. Way to demonstrate your ignorance of history, human nature, and even statistics, in a badly written paragraph full of parentheses and scapegoating. What was that you were saying, about a spelling error?
I probably shouldn't take your lame remark too personally though, since it isn't even my typo.
Just as an interesting aside that your comment reminded me of, I was watching Real TV, or at least a similar show, basically video clips of crazy stuff happening. Anyways, there's one of a teenage ice hockey game going on where a fight breaks out. Big brawl, involving a number of players from both sides. One kid out there thinks that the fighting is stupid and a waste of time, so to protest and stop the fight, he takes his shirt off, and drops his pants, while skating around the rink.
That probably wouldn't have been my first idea had I been in his case, but people started cheering for him, and everyone stopped fighting to see what was going on. So his plan worked. What made it more interesting, however, was that someone in the stands didn't approve, and called the cops. And the cops arrested him for indecent exposure, and took him to jail.
I'm not anti-sport, or even anti-violent sports like hockey and football, but I think that it's amazing that in the midst of all that fighting, the guy that goes to jail is the pacifist who felt like taking his clothes off. It wasn't really lewd or sexual(unlike the infamous superbowl incident). He caused a fight to stop. He stopped people from trying to hurt each other. And someone found that offensive enough to call the cops. That just, to me, says something very strange about our culture.
Back in the "old days" it was the Waltz, then there was the Tango, the Charleston and then...
1950s OH MY GOD THE WORLD IS OVER, Rock and Roll... our children are being corrupted
1960s OH MY GOD, ELVIS is such a good boy, but those BEATLES
1970s TV is KILLING my Children
1980s HORROR MOVIES are KILLING my Children
1990s NIVARNA are forcing Children to top themselves
And of course now its Video Games which are forcing Children into a life of violence.
This is just another great "Aunt Sally" for politicians and "academics" to debate and get money from. If it wasn't this they'd be battering on at Cartoons for glorifying violence (there is nothing in Doom III worse than the violence of Tom and Jerry or Roadrunner). The young are ALWAYS being corrupted in the minds of the elders, and what corrupted them in their youth is now seen as innocent.
And have you noticed... its always the over 40s who start wars... something must be making them do it.... I blame mugs of hot chocolate.
And lets not forget when Marge banned "Itchy and Scratchy"
You know that covert "jacking off" gesture that people make, when some loser is rambling on and on about uninteresting shit? Yeah... I just wanted to chime in and let you know that your story was not interesting at all.
Does Microsoft even realise they're being charged with illegal monopoly practises at the moment? Do they know that the EUC isn't going to let them get away with any illegal bundling while they're charging them? Sheesh...
Perhaps not immediately, but within a few years a system will exist which will allow the streaming of any movie ever made via broadband instantly. Why would you want to bother keeping an anachronistic collection of shiny discs, when you could have anything you want, instantly.
Because, as we've seen, the trend in streaming media is towards temporary ownership. Sure, with DVDs, my ownership options are (supposed to be) limited -- I can't copy it, &c. -- but at least I have it forever (or at least as long as the media lasts). I'm sure still more restrictions will be in place with these new discs, but, judging from the previous market failure of `temporary discs', at least I will still have them forever.
With streaming media, it seems likely that we'd see a `pay-per-view' set-up. Besides that, what about out-of-print movies? If I buy a DVD and the manufacturer stops printing those DVDs, I can still watch it -- but what if I want to stream a DVD no one wants to host? We could lose a lot of important movies this way.
This actually has *nothing to do* with whether bloggers are journalists!
The judge in the case rightly realizes that, and didn't fall victim to the cries that this was a case of "blogger's rights" or any of that other shit. The judge realized that bloggers *can indeed* be "journalists", but not all bloggers *are* journalists.
The cases should be decided on whether there is a clear and significant public interest. In the case of these web sites, there is most definitely not. Therefore, they are not protected.
To me, Apple's defense of its trade secrets is warranted and does not constitute violation of free speech.
Certain business language such as stock trading information, executive orders, are priveleged outside of the realm of free speech. That is, utterances such as someone giving insider trading information can have active results that cause harm to people; it thus qualifies as conduct, since it has a locutionary force that separates it from harmless, mundane speech. Similarly, an executive telling an accountant to shred documents regarding financial figures is a violation of business conduct laws, and a general telling his subordinates to murder innocent civilians violates war crimes laws.
This is no different. Disclosing trade secrets has done and does do appreciable damage to the company for whom they are secrets. Whether or not it is sensible for Apple to go after blogs to protect its trade information is a matter I haven't really decided on. However, to me, it makes sense in the same way as Rudolph Guiliani's policy of going after small-time lawbreakers to deter the bigger offenses - go after jaywalking, so that it looks like you're tough on crime in general. Similarly, Apple is obviously protecting what appears like trivial information about an upcoming product to prevent bloggers from thinking they can get away with disclosing larger trade information.
Apple obviously made the wager that allowing people to disclose trade secrets at all damages them in such a way that all the free advertising in the world can't make up for. I'm not sure I would have made the same wager, but I can respect Apple's decision to make it.
Slashdot Mirror
:)
There have been a lot of leaks lately too; I think its a game that ATI and NVIDIA play well- Allow someone to leak "Official" documents for a few hours to stir up hype and then create a scene by forcing them to take it down and act like they never knew the info was missing. That causes eveybody to wonder whats the big secret. There's no secret because on one website their is a guy taking the card apart but I cant remember where I saw this but I did see this I'll keep looking and when I find I'll post the link
:)
Alan Turing devised most of the theoretical basis for computers in mathematics, but all the modern computers that we use are called Von Neumann machines for a reason.
(I also took a lot of physics and math which no doubt helps, but the degree is philosophy) I feel the study of various logical abstractions helped widen my perspective. Not to mention you are trained to diagram any set of concept/relationships, which is also quite useful. My diagrams have consistent grammer, and I'm sure this is because I was trained how to create a legend that maps directly to real concepts (e.g. an arrow means something, and is only used for truly identical relationships. Of course, the arrow might mean different things in different diagrams, but within a given diagram: consistency). I'm not sure all Philosophy programs are so rigerous about logic... but it is the one thing, the only thing, that philosophers have any agreement over.
how naive. And you forgot to post anonymously.
Nice job dude. Way to demonstrate your ignorance of history, human nature, and even statistics, in a badly written paragraph full of parentheses and scapegoating. What was that you were saying, about a spelling error?
I probably shouldn't take your lame remark too personally though, since it isn't even my typo.
:)
Won't Apple get mad?
That probably wouldn't have been my first idea had I been in his case, but people started cheering for him, and everyone stopped fighting to see what was going on. So his plan worked. What made it more interesting, however, was that someone in the stands didn't approve, and called the cops. And the cops arrested him for indecent exposure, and took him to jail.
I'm not anti-sport, or even anti-violent sports like hockey and football, but I think that it's amazing that in the midst of all that fighting, the guy that goes to jail is the pacifist who felt like taking his clothes off. It wasn't really lewd or sexual(unlike the infamous superbowl incident). He caused a fight to stop. He stopped people from trying to hurt each other. And someone found that offensive enough to call the cops. That just, to me, says something very strange about our culture.
1950s OH MY GOD THE WORLD IS OVER, Rock and Roll... our children are being corrupted
1960s OH MY GOD, ELVIS is such a good boy, but those BEATLES
1970s TV is KILLING my Children
1980s HORROR MOVIES are KILLING my Children
1990s NIVARNA are forcing Children to top themselves
And of course now its Video Games which are forcing Children into a life of violence.
This is just another great "Aunt Sally" for politicians and "academics" to debate and get money from. If it wasn't this they'd be battering on at Cartoons for glorifying violence (there is nothing in Doom III worse than the violence of Tom and Jerry or Roadrunner). The young are ALWAYS being corrupted in the minds of the elders, and what corrupted them in their youth is now seen as innocent.
And have you noticed... its always the over 40s who start wars... something must be making them do it.... I blame mugs of hot chocolate.
And lets not forget when Marge banned "Itchy and Scratchy"
Your signature sums up you're attitude nicely; whatever you don't agree with is automatically 'scary' and 'absurd.'
You're never going to get laid, Pat.
Jesus, 500 paragraphs about a summer job...
Does Microsoft even realise they're being charged with illegal monopoly practises at the moment? Do they know that the EUC isn't going to let them get away with any illegal bundling while they're charging them? Sheesh...
That was not funny at all, but I saw it coming. Whoever modded my previous comment +1 funny is a banal dipshit.
These are the people that would be better off as "boozy gamers" :D
Because, as we've seen, the trend in streaming media is towards temporary ownership. Sure, with DVDs, my ownership options are (supposed to be) limited -- I can't copy it, &c. -- but at least I have it forever (or at least as long as the media lasts). I'm sure still more restrictions will be in place with these new discs, but, judging from the previous market failure of `temporary discs', at least I will still have them forever.
With streaming media, it seems likely that we'd see a `pay-per-view' set-up. Besides that, what about out-of-print movies? If I buy a DVD and the manufacturer stops printing those DVDs, I can still watch it -- but what if I want to stream a DVD no one wants to host? We could lose a lot of important movies this way.
Should have previewed that.
am I still banned?
This actually has *nothing to do* with whether bloggers are journalists! The judge in the case rightly realizes that, and didn't fall victim to the cries that this was a case of "blogger's rights" or any of that other shit. The judge realized that bloggers *can indeed* be "journalists", but not all bloggers *are* journalists. The cases should be decided on whether there is a clear and significant public interest. In the case of these web sites, there is most definitely not. Therefore, they are not protected.
To me, Apple's defense of its trade secrets is warranted and does not constitute violation of free speech.
Certain business language such as stock trading information, executive orders, are priveleged outside of the realm of free speech. That is, utterances such as someone giving insider trading information can have active results that cause harm to people; it thus qualifies as conduct, since it has a locutionary force that separates it from harmless, mundane speech. Similarly, an executive telling an accountant to shred documents regarding financial figures is a violation of business conduct laws, and a general telling his subordinates to murder innocent civilians violates war crimes laws.
This is no different. Disclosing trade secrets has done and does do appreciable damage to the company for whom they are secrets. Whether or not it is sensible for Apple to go after blogs to protect its trade information is a matter I haven't really decided on. However, to me, it makes sense in the same way as Rudolph Guiliani's policy of going after small-time lawbreakers to deter the bigger offenses - go after jaywalking, so that it looks like you're tough on crime in general. Similarly, Apple is obviously protecting what appears like trivial information about an upcoming product to prevent bloggers from thinking they can get away with disclosing larger trade information.
Apple obviously made the wager that allowing people to disclose trade secrets at all damages them in such a way that all the free advertising in the world can't make up for. I'm not sure I would have made the same wager, but I can respect Apple's decision to make it.