If the problem is Dell's drivers, does this exist on their Ubuntu boxes? With the source available it should be relatively easy to prove exactly how Dell purposefully and unnecessarily harmed their own product, as well as easy to find exactly what needs to be done to get it working.
I think he's railing on using such a complicated device in the first place. Apparently they used mechanical switches before that, and I'm guessing it worked. It's a wonder computers work at all.
There's quite a few people who argue that patents should expire after fourteen years, often even less in regards to technology. Consider: If a technology-based company still relies on a fourteen+ year old software to the degree that open-sourcing it would be harmful, something's not right. If open-sourcing fourteen year old software is a security concern, there's been a security hole for fourteen years. If the company's new stuff still relies on keeping fundamental work they did fourteen years ago a secret, they're not exactly innovating. Capitalism works a little better when people have to, ya'know, keep competing.
A blackberry is, more than anything else, a sweet ass tech toy. Some employers may try to use them to help with efficiency or some such. Don't let them ruin your fun.
Is it seriously so hard to ignore your blackberry that you won't take it with you on vacation? Vacation is probably the time when I'd want my blackberry the most. Considering that this is slashdot I may not be the only one here with an obsessive need for internet access 24/7, but even for the normies it's still damn useful. Especially if you're out of town, like if you were on a vacation. Don't know what model you have but the built-in GPS can be quite handy when going out of town, like if you were on a vacation. The cameras on them are decent quality and can come in handy when you wouldn't otherwise have one on you, like maybe a surprise super fun time moment with family on a vacation.
If people from work try to contact me (regarding work)when I'm off duty sufficiently that it does become a problem I just make it clear at that point that I'm off duty and if they continue to bother me so unnecessarily I may demand overtime pay (if they can offer it) or I'll just ignore them. I've had to do so twice thus far (one a computer gig, one a part-time teacher), both times the individual said "sure, if it's not important it can wait" and I haven't had any problems since.
There's times I do wish it wouldn't ring, though. Like at movie theaters. They should put a movie-theater mode that you could just leave on when you don't want to be bothered by it.
I think I'm safe from twitter's journal, but yeah every once in a while I accidentally say something logical. I'll try not to let it happen again, but no promises. P.S. if we end up being twitter-journal-buddies I call top bunk.
Why are you assuming that we're assuming? Vista got a lot more heat than it really deserved, often by people who know better. However, much of the public at large believed the complaints. Most non-technies I know, when the subject comes up, cite something along the lines of "I heard Vista sucks." No explanation why (often because they don't think they'd understand, they just don't care). Similar here: plenty of people will purposefully make stupid anti-MS statements, irrelevant of if they believe it or not or even care whose fault it is, in the hopes that if done sufficiently, it'll sink into the public mindset. Maybe they feel justified in giving MS back what it deserves after all the bad stuff they've gotten away with. Now mod me -1 Insightful so Joe Sixpack doesn't see this and we can continue our conspi^H^H^H^H^H^H vigilante fight for software freedom!
If you're joking it's not funny, and if you're serious you're mistaken. MS has a history of doing stupid/evil things, but they're smart enough to know where the line is. MS can only dance around the law so much. Consider: As the usefulness of the exploit fades, a sneaky "Data mining" company could make even more money selling/abusing the knowledge of what MS did. Best MS could do is claim it was a (number of) rogue employee(s), but even so it's an unnecessary loss and risk. It won't bring in enough cash to even be noticeable compared to their OS or office software incomes, and it won't somehow stop their sliding market share in either market. But it could potentially cause them to bleed millions or even billions if they fail in delegating the blame to a couple of pawns.
...you just said that I am a normal person. You've completely lost any credibility for the rest of your point. Also the fat comment was a uncalled for. Insensitive clod ):
Thank you! I was worried I'd have to go back Linux after having just recently flaunted my elitist superiority as a BSD user over my Linux-using friends. Err... I also prefer FreeBSD for other reasons, too, of course >.> But yeah, thanks.
I again disagree: logic can most definitely be used to find the truth. It is true that logical analysis of the real world is inherently flawed by the magnitude of the complexity of the real world - we can rarely bring everything to the table. Should a discussion come to a point where a logical conclusion cannot be made with the information any involved parties are able to bring, then yes - it stalls. However I've found the majority of my discussions can in fact be modeled sufficiently to make a logical conclusion - the "truth." One could, for instance, frame the question at hand with the phrase "given everything we know...", but I've found that this is only occasionally necessary. If the goal is to find the truth - not "win" - the problems such as nuances in language are often easily remedied when discovered. If the goal is to "win," irrelevant of what the actual truth of the matter is, then nuances of language are a fine example of "misinformation" or perhaps better fit as a new example of how someone, with out breaking the bounds of logic, could "win" an argument with someone who, knowing everything, would disagree. If someone wants to win more than find the truth, then yes - it is within their power to avoid using logic to find the truth. This does not mean, however, that - should all parties actually care about the truth of the matter more than having their arbitrary previous understanding end up being considered correct by the other party - logic can not be used to find the truth. If you show a contradiction in another person's assumptions - and the goal is to find the truth - the other person will should not act as you have described. Such action is done in order to "win" - or rather here it is in order to avoid "losing" - and should not be done should the individual wish to find the truth of the matter. Rather, the individual should try to find if this contradiction was caused by a misunderstanding or misstep in a logical analysis on either end and, if able, clarify the matter. Only if they are truly unable to, with your help, clarify the matter should the individual insist that you are misinterpreting something without fixing the situation. This would be an example of a stalled discussion. It is perfectly feasible for most discussions to actually come to a conclusion - find the truth - rather than stall like that. I also have an issue with your axiom that most persistent debates of our day can be boiled down to how good and bad are measured. If the discussion is persistent then yes, as in all previous situations the discussion will likely again stall. It's been stalled persistently. If you want to limit using logic to find truths that have been already rigorously discussed fruitlessly, then yes - all future attempts will likely be fruitless, unless a sufficient amount of new information is brought to the table. So what? Due to this very fact I don't engage in such discussions quite as often as those which have a much higher chance of having the truth be discovered. Without limiting us to only considering persistently stalled discussions, most can easily go beyond measuring good and bad. The last three discussions I can recall (which were worked to conclusion): "Should I get a Mac or PC?" "Where should I go to college?" and "What move should I make in a board game?" I also hold that even more abstract questions, such as whether or not abortion should be legalized, can in fact be discussed without necessarily discussing how good and bad are measured. Good and bad measurements in such a discussion can often be set up as agreed axioms - in an abortion discussion I've yet to encounter anyone who did not agree that baseless murder is wrong. I also hold that it is possible (for many people, perhaps not everyone) to discuss the measurement of good and bad objectively, without having their personal feelings come into play. It is possible to define good and bad several ways without feelings. e.g.: Good things are things which ultimately help the survival of a society/civilization, while b
You'll never win an argument using logic unless the other person already agrees with you and just doesn't realize it yet.
I disagree. If both parties are willing and able to properly use logic in an argument with the explicit goal of finding the truth rather than "winning" or anything along those lines, the "winner" is simply the individual whose initial understand of the situation matched (or was closer too than his/her opponent's) the final agreed understanding. In this case you would be correct; however I consider this a discussion rather than an argument because, given the axioms, the notion of a "winner" is entirely pointless - the goal was not to win. If we drop that condition and substitute the goal of "winning" the argument while remaining in the confines of logic - irrelevant of what the actual truth is - it is possible to "win" against someone who would, if s/he knew every relevant piece of information, ultimately disagree. This can be accomplished by means of misinformation, withholding information, et al.
Not necessarily rationally; if anything spending too much time with machines (and consequently less with humans) will deaden you to completely relevant inter-human interaction skills. The rational course of action here is for people like me to socialize more to smooth over any future human interaction. There may be arguments for increasing the amount of time/knowledge/experience people have with machines, but I do not believe any can be derived properly from my previous post.
Oh, oh wait... that was a joke. Ha ha! *takes notes*
Right, the vast majority of us know what happened as well as you do. Kids are in a tough spot. Murder is a creepy thing for nearly everyone (directly involved or not), and most people can't just store it away for future reference machine-like and be done with it. People have different ways of coping with it - some through discussion ("argument") and others through jokes. We're not trivializing it by doing this; we're just trying to deal with it in our own ways. I can't undo murder, but if I can make someone in a bummed mood smile I feel that much better myself.
No worries, mate: most non-technies won't hear of this, or if they do it'll go in one ear and out the other. Additionally, most women are non-technies. Therefore, it most likely won't hinder your women-search. QED. If a women wants a nice guy she'll most likely not know about this. However, she wants a bad boy...
You make it sound as though wishing the murder didn't happen is something we should be embarrassed about. If Hans was caught using NTFS embarrassment may be appropriate; here the tech community is just saddened.
Why? I can understand (but still disagree with) someone being hesitant to use medical research found by amoral means: you know in the back of your mind that you're directly benefiting from someone loss. I disagree because refraining from using it doesn't help the victims or anyone else - may as well make their loss mean something. (Especially if the research can save lives!) Just don't condone it happen again. In this situation, though, I can't comprehend at all the hesitation for using his FS. It wasn't built on Nina's body - if Nina and Hans made up and lived happily ever after we'd still have his FS. It's just related loosely-ish to a wrongdoing - it wasn't the cause or result. If his file system fits your needs (say, you have lots of small files that need to be moved around quickly) go ahead and use it. Using his FS does not mean you support murder.
No, they definitely meant mean Olymics. The idea of media covering the Olympics is just obvious and completely un-newsworthy. Slashdot would never do that. I haven't RTFA yet, so I don't know what Olymics is, but considering neither of us have heard of it it probably needs news coverage, right?
Slashdot Mirror
They ask some things. I was never asked to have my gameplay in HL2:Ep2 monitored, for example.
What steam is doing should be opt-in. It may be useful, sure, but it should not be a requisite in addition to cost.
If the problem is Dell's drivers, does this exist on their Ubuntu boxes? With the source available it should be relatively easy to prove exactly how Dell purposefully and unnecessarily harmed their own product, as well as easy to find exactly what needs to be done to get it working.
I think he's railing on using such a complicated device in the first place. Apparently they used mechanical switches before that, and I'm guessing it worked. It's a wonder computers work at all.
There's quite a few people who argue that patents should expire after fourteen years, often even less in regards to technology. Consider: If a technology-based company still relies on a fourteen+ year old software to the degree that open-sourcing it would be harmful, something's not right. If open-sourcing fourteen year old software is a security concern, there's been a security hole for fourteen years. If the company's new stuff still relies on keeping fundamental work they did fourteen years ago a secret, they're not exactly innovating. Capitalism works a little better when people have to, ya'know, keep competing.
Oh-oh. Just make sure to save a comfy spot for me on the list, 'cuz I look like I'd fit right in if I keep accidentally making sense.
A blackberry is, more than anything else, a sweet ass tech toy. Some employers may try to use them to help with efficiency or some such. Don't let them ruin your fun.
Silent mode works too. 'Twas a joke, hombre.
If people from work try to contact me (regarding work)when I'm off duty sufficiently that it does become a problem I just make it clear at that point that I'm off duty and if they continue to bother me so unnecessarily I may demand overtime pay (if they can offer it) or I'll just ignore them. I've had to do so twice thus far (one a computer gig, one a part-time teacher), both times the individual said "sure, if it's not important it can wait" and I haven't had any problems since.
There's times I do wish it wouldn't ring, though. Like at movie theaters. They should put a movie-theater mode that you could just leave on when you don't want to be bothered by it.
I think I'm safe from twitter's journal, but yeah every once in a while I accidentally say something logical. I'll try not to let it happen again, but no promises. P.S. if we end up being twitter-journal-buddies I call top bunk.
Why are you assuming that we're assuming? Vista got a lot more heat than it really deserved, often by people who know better. However, much of the public at large believed the complaints. Most non-technies I know, when the subject comes up, cite something along the lines of "I heard Vista sucks." No explanation why (often because they don't think they'd understand, they just don't care). Similar here: plenty of people will purposefully make stupid anti-MS statements, irrelevant of if they believe it or not or even care whose fault it is, in the hopes that if done sufficiently, it'll sink into the public mindset. Maybe they feel justified in giving MS back what it deserves after all the bad stuff they've gotten away with. Now mod me -1 Insightful so Joe Sixpack doesn't see this and we can continue our conspi^H^H^H^H^H^H vigilante fight for software freedom!
If you're joking it's not funny, and if you're serious you're mistaken. MS has a history of doing stupid/evil things, but they're smart enough to know where the line is. MS can only dance around the law so much. Consider: As the usefulness of the exploit fades, a sneaky "Data mining" company could make even more money selling/abusing the knowledge of what MS did. Best MS could do is claim it was a (number of) rogue employee(s), but even so it's an unnecessary loss and risk. It won't bring in enough cash to even be noticeable compared to their OS or office software incomes, and it won't somehow stop their sliding market share in either market. But it could potentially cause them to bleed millions or even billions if they fail in delegating the blame to a couple of pawns.
"large" is a euphemism for one-who-needs-to-move-more. Or is it the other way around... hmm...
large normal people, like you and me
...you just said that I am a normal person. You've completely lost any credibility for the rest of your point. Also the fat comment was a uncalled for. Insensitive clod ):
Thank you! I was worried I'd have to go back Linux after having just recently flaunted my elitist superiority as a BSD user over my Linux-using friends. Err... I also prefer FreeBSD for other reasons, too, of course >.> But yeah, thanks.
I again disagree: logic can most definitely be used to find the truth. It is true that logical analysis of the real world is inherently flawed by the magnitude of the complexity of the real world - we can rarely bring everything to the table. Should a discussion come to a point where a logical conclusion cannot be made with the information any involved parties are able to bring, then yes - it stalls. However I've found the majority of my discussions can in fact be modeled sufficiently to make a logical conclusion - the "truth." One could, for instance, frame the question at hand with the phrase "given everything we know...", but I've found that this is only occasionally necessary. If the goal is to find the truth - not "win" - the problems such as nuances in language are often easily remedied when discovered. If the goal is to "win," irrelevant of what the actual truth of the matter is, then nuances of language are a fine example of "misinformation" or perhaps better fit as a new example of how someone, with out breaking the bounds of logic, could "win" an argument with someone who, knowing everything, would disagree. If someone wants to win more than find the truth, then yes - it is within their power to avoid using logic to find the truth. This does not mean, however, that - should all parties actually care about the truth of the matter more than having their arbitrary previous understanding end up being considered correct by the other party - logic can not be used to find the truth. If you show a contradiction in another person's assumptions - and the goal is to find the truth - the other person will should not act as you have described. Such action is done in order to "win" - or rather here it is in order to avoid "losing" - and should not be done should the individual wish to find the truth of the matter. Rather, the individual should try to find if this contradiction was caused by a misunderstanding or misstep in a logical analysis on either end and, if able, clarify the matter. Only if they are truly unable to, with your help, clarify the matter should the individual insist that you are misinterpreting something without fixing the situation. This would be an example of a stalled discussion. It is perfectly feasible for most discussions to actually come to a conclusion - find the truth - rather than stall like that. I also have an issue with your axiom that most persistent debates of our day can be boiled down to how good and bad are measured. If the discussion is persistent then yes, as in all previous situations the discussion will likely again stall. It's been stalled persistently. If you want to limit using logic to find truths that have been already rigorously discussed fruitlessly, then yes - all future attempts will likely be fruitless, unless a sufficient amount of new information is brought to the table. So what? Due to this very fact I don't engage in such discussions quite as often as those which have a much higher chance of having the truth be discovered. Without limiting us to only considering persistently stalled discussions, most can easily go beyond measuring good and bad. The last three discussions I can recall (which were worked to conclusion): "Should I get a Mac or PC?" "Where should I go to college?" and "What move should I make in a board game?" I also hold that even more abstract questions, such as whether or not abortion should be legalized, can in fact be discussed without necessarily discussing how good and bad are measured. Good and bad measurements in such a discussion can often be set up as agreed axioms - in an abortion discussion I've yet to encounter anyone who did not agree that baseless murder is wrong. I also hold that it is possible (for many people, perhaps not everyone) to discuss the measurement of good and bad objectively, without having their personal feelings come into play. It is possible to define good and bad several ways without feelings. e.g.: Good things are things which ultimately help the survival of a society/civilization, while b
You'll never win an argument using logic unless the other person already agrees with you and just doesn't realize it yet.
I disagree. If both parties are willing and able to properly use logic in an argument with the explicit goal of finding the truth rather than "winning" or anything along those lines, the "winner" is simply the individual whose initial understand of the situation matched (or was closer too than his/her opponent's) the final agreed understanding. In this case you would be correct; however I consider this a discussion rather than an argument because, given the axioms, the notion of a "winner" is entirely pointless - the goal was not to win. If we drop that condition and substitute the goal of "winning" the argument while remaining in the confines of logic - irrelevant of what the actual truth is - it is possible to "win" against someone who would, if s/he knew every relevant piece of information, ultimately disagree. This can be accomplished by means of misinformation, withholding information, et al.
Oh, oh wait... that was a joke. Ha ha! *takes notes*
Right, the vast majority of us know what happened as well as you do. Kids are in a tough spot. Murder is a creepy thing for nearly everyone (directly involved or not), and most people can't just store it away for future reference machine-like and be done with it. People have different ways of coping with it - some through discussion ("argument") and others through jokes. We're not trivializing it by doing this; we're just trying to deal with it in our own ways. I can't undo murder, but if I can make someone in a bummed mood smile I feel that much better myself.
No worries, mate: most non-technies won't hear of this, or if they do it'll go in one ear and out the other. Additionally, most women are non-technies. Therefore, it most likely won't hinder your women-search. QED. If a women wants a nice guy she'll most likely not know about this. However, she wants a bad boy...
Ah, gotcha. Emotions. Maybe I've been spending too much time with machines - I'm starting to think like one.
You make it sound as though wishing the murder didn't happen is something we should be embarrassed about. If Hans was caught using NTFS embarrassment may be appropriate; here the tech community is just saddened.
Why? I can understand (but still disagree with) someone being hesitant to use medical research found by amoral means: you know in the back of your mind that you're directly benefiting from someone loss. I disagree because refraining from using it doesn't help the victims or anyone else - may as well make their loss mean something. (Especially if the research can save lives!) Just don't condone it happen again. In this situation, though, I can't comprehend at all the hesitation for using his FS. It wasn't built on Nina's body - if Nina and Hans made up and lived happily ever after we'd still have his FS. It's just related loosely-ish to a wrongdoing - it wasn't the cause or result. If his file system fits your needs (say, you have lots of small files that need to be moved around quickly) go ahead and use it. Using his FS does not mean you support murder.
My daughter! You stay away from her! She deserves better than some nerd on slashdot. It's for your own good, anyways - she's really, really clingy.
No, they definitely meant mean Olymics. The idea of media covering the Olympics is just obvious and completely un-newsworthy. Slashdot would never do that. I haven't RTFA yet, so I don't know what Olymics is, but considering neither of us have heard of it it probably needs news coverage, right?