Doesn't look very random to me. People who send him letters asking for things, people who live in his apartment building, people he works with, "friends", etc.
Not only do I remember it, I read a thorough account of it and the aftermath some years ago. I amazed to see that just last month (over 25 years later) India finally convicted seven former UC employees for negligence, and that litigation is still ongoing in the US.
I remember, too, being told that a certain chemical smell in the building of the chemistry department where I went to college, was methyl isocyanide. Fortunately you can smell it at much lower than lethal concentrations. It actually had (IMO) a pleasant smell.
" I wonder it we could get some very very slight matte coating to reduce the reflections..."
That makes me wonder why some company doesn't try making glossy LCD screens with an anti-reflective coating such as found on good camera lenses, eyeglasses, binoculars etc. Maybe it would introduce too much tint.
Yes,
but this is/., where if a joke is funny, it'll be just as funny a thousand times later - [hangs head] I'm guilty too.
So, breaking that tradition for XX years...
I saw a biography of her in the library - didn't take it out, but I perused it. A few things I read and the picture on the cover suggest that that might be interesting. Young version that is.
Well, you carefully chose which words to leave out when quoting me too, namely "so much as it is to...".
I obviously realize it does both, just much more predominantly one than the other. Arcaeris says more about this aspect here.
I'm NOT agreeing with them doing this, only explaining it to you: If you can mod your phone however you want, you don't *have* to buy apps from them. They lose revenue. It's not that complicated. It's protecting their revenue stream.
The purpose of advertising isn't to inform you of the existence of new products so much as it is to convince you that you *need* the products - you already know they exist - that they will solve some problem you have (or are expected to have) or most often, that they will make you happy, feel better, etc. And to get the name or brand topmost in your mind, so that when you do go buy a new _____, you will choose *that* name, that brand.
Well, if you dilute it twenty or thirty times by a factor of one hundred each time, like most homeopathic remedies do, then it will have absolutely no effect whatsoever, just like the homeopathic remedies.
if I give an LD50 dose of poison to 6 people, and three of them die, is it valid to argue that I was "leaving it to chance"?
From a strictly probabilistic perspective, it was not really "leaving it to chance" to give six people an LD50 dose - three dead people was exactly the expected value.
As for whether or not intent matters in criminal cases, clearly sometimes yes. e.g. premeditated murder carries a stiffer penalty than manslaughter or even a murder resulting from a suddenly enraged passion (I can't remember the term for such a thing). Should it? That's the sticky question. My gut feeling is yes it should - but THAT is problematic since it requires that we determine what that intent was.
Anyway, I've enjoyed debating this with you but I think our civilized, rational debate has gone too long and we may have violated/.'s TOS by doing so.;-)
I see no reason someone in the position to easily stamp out malaria, but who chooses not to do so purely for reason of profit, is any less responsible for those deaths than if he killed them himself.
But as long as he does not prevent *everyone else* from distributing a drug that does the same thing, he has not *ensured the deaths*, thus has not acted with the same intent. Leaving something to chance is not the same thing as acting to ensure something happens, regardless of moral considerations.
So the threat to Microsoft of being *embarrassed* by Company X having a problem due to Windows is enough to induce Microsoft to help Company financially when they have a problem, without any threat of legal action?
I know our gut tells us that when we act and it results in death it's worse than when we fail to act and it results in death, but I think our gut's wrong.
Such a position is very problematic. For instance, it makes the CEO of a drug company that fails to manufacture and distribute a malaria drug (say for profit-related reasons) worse than Stalin or Hitler, by virtue of more people dying as a result his inaction. And how do you decide who's guilty in a case of non-action, since clearly if someone dies as a result of inaction, everyone in the world didn't act. Are they all guilty? Obviously, you would say "the person who was capable of acting" which may narrow it way down, but again, how would you decide it? What if any number of actions could have prevented the death. How do you ensure you have uncovered them all? You probably didn't mean to frame your assertion so broadly, but you did.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't look very random to me. People who send him letters asking for things, people who live in his apartment building, people he works with, "friends", etc.
Hacking cough takes on a whole new meaning!
Not only do I remember it, I read a thorough account of it and the aftermath some years ago. I amazed to see that just last month (over 25 years later) India finally convicted seven former UC employees for negligence, and that litigation is still ongoing in the US.
I remember, too, being told that a certain chemical smell in the building of the chemistry department where I went to college, was methyl isocyanide. Fortunately you can smell it at much lower than lethal concentrations. It actually had (IMO) a pleasant smell.
" I wonder it we could get some very very slight matte coating to reduce the reflections..."
That makes me wonder why some company doesn't try making glossy LCD screens with an anti-reflective coating such as found on good camera lenses, eyeglasses, binoculars etc. Maybe it would introduce too much tint.
Yes, but this is /., where if a joke is funny, it'll be just as funny a thousand times later - [hangs head] I'm guilty too.
So, breaking that tradition for XX years...
Sometimes an anarchist is an anarchist with a trust fund. That is a good quote though.
I saw a biography of her in the library - didn't take it out, but I perused it. A few things I read and the picture on the cover suggest that that might be interesting. Young version that is.
Really? How did that happen? Poor dog.
Then there must be a deal between Google and Motorola.
Well, you carefully chose which words to leave out when quoting me too, namely "so much as it is to...". I obviously realize it does both, just much more predominantly one than the other. Arcaeris says more about this aspect here.
It's an XKCD joke. You must be new here.
I'm NOT agreeing with them doing this, only explaining it to you: If you can mod your phone however you want, you don't *have* to buy apps from them. They lose revenue. It's not that complicated. It's protecting their revenue stream.
This is modded insightful? What, so he gets the karma points for being funny?
The purpose of advertising isn't to inform you of the existence of new products so much as it is to convince you that you *need* the products - you already know they exist - that they will solve some problem you have (or are expected to have) or most often, that they will make you happy, feel better, etc. And to get the name or brand topmost in your mind, so that when you do go buy a new _____, you will choose *that* name, that brand.
Pffft. Sez Mr. 1561517!
He was talking about taxes. You've gone back to talking about counterfeiting.
Well, if you dilute it twenty or thirty times by a factor of one hundred each time, like most homeopathic remedies do, then it will have absolutely no effect whatsoever, just like the homeopathic remedies.
if I give an LD50 dose of poison to 6 people, and three of them die, is it valid to argue that I was "leaving it to chance"?
From a strictly probabilistic perspective, it was not really "leaving it to chance" to give six people an LD50 dose - three dead people was exactly the expected value.
As for whether or not intent matters in criminal cases, clearly sometimes yes. e.g. premeditated murder carries a stiffer penalty than manslaughter or even a murder resulting from a suddenly enraged passion (I can't remember the term for such a thing). Should it? That's the sticky question. My gut feeling is yes it should - but THAT is problematic since it requires that we determine what that intent was.
Anyway, I've enjoyed debating this with you but I think our civilized, rational debate has gone too long and we may have violated /.'s TOS by doing so. ;-)
Um, because both are UP, if you are a shrimp. "Suicidal" is like a metaphor, or a joke. Maybe this kind of thing is why nerds get beat up!
I see no reason someone in the position to easily stamp out malaria, but who chooses not to do so purely for reason of profit, is any less responsible for those deaths than if he killed them himself.
But as long as he does not prevent *everyone else* from distributing a drug that does the same thing, he has not *ensured the deaths*, thus has not acted with the same intent. Leaving something to chance is not the same thing as acting to ensure something happens, regardless of moral considerations.
So the threat to Microsoft of being *embarrassed* by Company X having a problem due to Windows is enough to induce Microsoft to help Company financially when they have a problem, without any threat of legal action?
I know our gut tells us that when we act and it results in death it's worse than when we fail to act and it results in death, but I think our gut's wrong.
Such a position is very problematic. For instance, it makes the CEO of a drug company that fails to manufacture and distribute a malaria drug (say for profit-related reasons) worse than Stalin or Hitler, by virtue of more people dying as a result his inaction.
And how do you decide who's guilty in a case of non-action, since clearly if someone dies as a result of inaction, everyone in the world didn't act. Are they all guilty? Obviously, you would say "the person who was capable of acting" which may narrow it way down, but again, how would you decide it? What if any number of actions could have prevented the death. How do you ensure you have uncovered them all?
You probably didn't mean to frame your assertion so broadly, but you did.
Begs the question. Who said it was a disease?
If not, EPIC FAIL!
The marketing department?