That's what laws are for, though. Even things like murder; without a law, not everybody will agree it is bad. Most will, and so it is easy to pass laws banning murder and establishing consequences. But a few people would say, well, it depends on your reason. I'm not talking about self defense, just the set of situations that are currently considered "murder."
Dogs barking for extended periods is such a common problem that the laws banning it exist almost everywhere, and yet it is very easy to pass the law. The vast majority of pet owners agree that the dog is basically feral if it is doing that, and is being abused by neglect or worse. But you don't have to go far to find somebody that disagrees. 5% of people believe really wild and crazy hateful stuff. That's 1 in 20. Even in places without a history of slavery, you can usually get 5% to support it. Any hateful teaching that is seen as locally fairly mainstream or historical is going to draw 20-25% support. Without laws against murder... there is a 5%-er on every block. Their fear of retaliation would keep the murder rate low in many cases, but without laws against it it would be common for there to be murders of people with their backs turned. The vast majority of people can be good, and yet there is still a need for laws. Indeed, that might actually be the cause of the need!
LOL where you're from do they teach something different? The Universe where I'm from she's spot on; shadows really do block photosynthesis!
From the local paper that reported her comments:
She said she has observed areas near solar panels where vegetation is brown and dead because it did not receive enough sunlight.
She went on to point out that "I don’t see the profit for the town," something repeated again and again by the townspeople.
Some of the concerns are reasonable; would young people stay in a place that used to be a small town, but now most of the land is bought for solar farms which don't provide many jobs? That is their concern; land is scarce. The guy with that quote is comparing it to the building of the interstate. If you see an interstate freeway as a negative thing because now jobs (and therefore young people) migrate to the centralized locations, then it should be natural to also oppose zoning for new technologies that don't create jobs but take up land.
Hicks where I'm from love photovoltaic, because nothing is more anti-establishment, anti-city, than being off-grid.
Road adopting conflict is hilarious. You can almost always get rid of the "controversial" applicants by instituting trash cleanup standards and just checking if they did it. The only people who actually go out and pick up track are the people who signed up... to get recognition for picking up trash. And there seems to be very little overlap between that, and "wants to make a political statement to offend their neighbors."
Only in Am'ruca would these hillbillies say something reasonable, like that solar farms include vertical structures that block light if built too closely to property lines and that local zoning rules don't account for that on agricultural land, and going far enough to point out that it isn't just recreational light we're talking about, but it could block light from the Sun, block photosynthesis and kill affected plants...
And have self-proclaimed, "ultra-sciency" nerds point out that photovoltaics doesn't vacuum up sunlight from neighboring farms. Sometimes our educated idiots are dumber than the ignorant ones, especially if they stumble into an echo chamber.
Some of the people said funny stuff; it has already been reported that the local electric company has informed these people that solar is bad for the company, so there is a bit of a contest to say silly things at the meetings about this. If there is no tax produced, the people don't want it inside their town. That was the take-away from the meeting; they repeated, again and again, that these solar farms aren't going to do anything for the town; they won't change the local price of electricity, they won't produce tax revenue, they won't produce significant jobs, they won't need to buy products from the local community, etc., etc. These all sound like reasonable concerns to me; why embrace local changes in land use if you're not convinced of the usefulness, and all the claimed benefits go to somebody else? If they want to be a small town and not a big city, and have local support for their zoning rules, why is it bad? It seems they are doing the right thing to me, even if it is vapid, because the people of the town have vapid, romantic, colloquial regional culture that they want to protect. That is their prerogative.
The retired science teacher was literally saying that shadows block photosynthesis, and armchair internet scientists decided he must be an idiot because PV doesn't vacuum sunlight. Fuck an A, people. Fuck an A.
Science is based on fundamental philosophical axioms. Agreed, philosophy is definitely the parent and science the child.
ROFL I don't know if this was an intentional Russell's paradox puzzle, but I laughed pretty good. I won't give away the answer, but just a hint: metadata
If someone feels happy because he/she believes one plus one is three, who are you to say it's wrong?
Oh, it's not me that says its wrong. It's the universe that says it's wrong.
No, this is falsity pushed by various math religionists. The universe doesn't use human math at all. Math is entirely 100% arbitrary. It is a constructed human tool. The problem with "one plus one equals three" is entirely that you'll get different answers than other humans, and so won't be able to fully participate in the use of math as a language form.
Math is designed to be self-consistent, and the universe is (presumably) self-consistent. The self-consistency of math is what makes it useful. One plus one equals three is not self-consistent in the context of the known rules of math. But you could construct a different set of math rules where it would be consistent, and then it would be just as "correct" from a universal perspective. All you would have done is change the units. Makes it non-communicative, though.
If we were using the Universe's math, counting numbers would all be multiples of Planke's Constant, and all the "natural constants" would be whole numbers. Those are the proportions that are objectively real in the actual Universe, and we can't even represent them precisely in our hackneyed math system. But that is OK, we can get "close enough for human scale." Arbitrary, but contextual.
He said that science is very good at answering the types of questions it asks. And if science and religion disagree about the answer to a question, science is usually right because science really is good at answering those questions. But science doesn't ask questions like, "How do we get along in the world in a moral and ethical way that we can agree on?" I would go on to observe that science doesn't have an imaginary universe to simulate these things, and the human experience is not easily reversible. Even if you engineered a great way to get along, you wouldn't know if it is optimal because you can't both maintain a moral and ethical consensus, and also test alternate systems. So you can't even build the experiment to test it if you tried. You would have no way to quantify the results in comparison to other possible results, because the test wouldn't have any isolation from worldly events.
You've identified problems not with religion, but with individuals who practice it in an illogical way. But not all religious people would endorse those practices. A majority of lay Christians believe in evolution, for example. They believe that God could simply create the Earth in such a way that evolution would later happen. They might not even be asking questions about "why," or about Santa.
Just as the questions that philosophy (and its retarded offspring, religion) likes to say "science can't answer" (as opposed to science hasn't answered yet) are.
This here is just horseshit, because the "philosophers" who claim science can't answer certain types of questions include the majority of scientists, who generally have views compatible with Logical Positivism. It is the basic epistemology of science. Once you start to consider epistemological questions, you can't retain a belief in science without adopting some sort of theory of the nature of knowledge. And that is called a "philosophy."
It is a basic part of science that science only asks answerable questions. If it isn't an answerable question, then science isn't waiting to answer it later. It is incorrect to claim that science has not yet answered questions like, "what is the meaning of life?" Science is explicitly not considering those types of questions. They are believed not to have answers. And if our understanding of the nature of consciousness advances so we can answer questions in that direction, those intermediate advances would change the questions and make it specific and answerable. The original general question would still be unanswerable.
You're trying to invent an understanding for something that is already well explored philosophically. That the philosophers in question would mostly be regarded in modern times as "scientists" might be getting in the way of your understanding of their work, and indeed, of the philosophy of science. Because that is primarily what science is; a philosophy about epistemology, and a set of established practices designed to provide information on that basis. New ideas are great, but they can't easily supersede ideas they don't know about and didn't consider.
You can't separate a question lacking meaning from science being unable to answer questions that lack meaning. Other systems, as you dismissively observe, do in fact answer those types of questions. Also, you not believing in their answers don't stop them from having answers. How can you disagree without first conceding that nobody has a truly objective perspective? Throwing insults next to words like philosophy is not a convincing philosophical argument. And no claim about science can be made without philosophy, because that is what science is.
Forgive me for not pointing out the contradictory parts, I preferred instead to argue against both sides in isolation.
Sorry kid, you didn't read your history so you didn't understand. Stop trying to explain the past to people who read about it already.
For example, Newton was not a scientist. He was a natural philosopher.
The system of "peer review" was created by Natural Philosophers such as Newton publishing open letters in the journals (like a blog) of the different Philosophical Societies that they were all members of. This was an alternative to letting publishers decide which studies and reports to publish. (!)
The underpinnings of all of science were created by Natural Philosophers. Science is a superset of Natural Philosophy that formalizes a bunch of best practices into a consensus system; but those same practices are and were Natural Philosophy when done simply because they're good ideas, and not because they're the consensus requirement of established experts.
There are other types of philosophy you also don't know about, as proven by your definition at the end.
It isn't about lock-in, the use case is basically a modular business dongle set. You're not locked in, because the role this device fills is that of a portable dumb-terminal to display your presentations at random times/locations.
It wouldn't make sense as a standard, because the use case is really narrow. There wouldn't be enough devices sold that fit the port for it to be worth all that effort.
If there should be a standard, the first question is, what use case has broader appeal? If there is one, then once that is identified it might make sense to make an open standard for the thing that solves that problem, instead of this one.
Everything important that this is doing is already standard; wifi, routing, bluetooth speakers, external disks. The proprietary parts are just the physical plugging. There is no lock-in at all.
IME this is only on machines that don't have an advertised internal port, but they implemented their optional add-ons using some Mini-PCI variant. Generally the "workstation replacement" class of laptops will have an advertised expansion port that is to standard, and the others wont.
This is a valuable security feature for people who want secure business laptops for travel use. The PCI card could be replaced surreptitiously during various stages of transport, leading to data theft or much worse, infiltration of your intranet when you return to the office. This removes the risk from non-State actors, and even most State actors. Only the highest profile targets would have a defeat device that carefully and narrowly targeted.
Obviously on a personal computer, or for a small or non-secret business, this is an anti-feature. But on a business laptop? Feature. Plus, the days of needing that port for non-wireless expansions are long past; everything else uses either USB or bluetooth.
I just bought a desktop motherboard with a mini-PCIe port housing a wifi/bt dual radio card. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it doesn't support replacing that card with something else, because that isn't designed as a usable port; if you buy it without the radios, you don't even get the slot. And of course it also has real PCI slots for actual expansion. The only reason they use the mini-PCI is that designing a custom interface would be a waste of lots of money, and make the feature unsaleable.
USB 3 is for data storage, which benefits from faster speeds. Network speeds faster than 100mbps are unlikely to be useful during a business presentation. You'd have a different device if you needed that, this one is for being able to give presentations on a whim by the client. The sort of thing that usually stays in the trunk of the rental car.
If you wanted a toy, you'd buy a cheap consumer toy like the Raspberry Pi. This is a business tool and would really suck as a toy. Almost any $20 toy is going to be more fun. Don't buy this for a gift.
Yeah, you are reading it wrong, you're comparing it to general purpose devices when it is a special purpose business tool that doesn't benefit from internet connections faster than 100mbps. This is not a backup router for your subnet, this is a portable device that only has a router so that it can connect to VPNs from different places without having to be mucking around reconfiguring your laptop for each site you visit.
$400 is practically free, for a business tool. What does a portable projector cost? If it isn't worth buying for a presentation, it isn't worth doing a site visit to give a presentation.;)
802.11ac is important because want to support current expected protocols, and this also increases range. 100mbps ethernet is the same format and fully compatible with 1gbps ethernet, and the 100 will be more reliable with ad-hoc wiring or in an electrically noisy environment. If it had 10mbps ethernet it wouldn't actually impact the likely use cases at all. The network is for powerpoint, youtube-quality video, or database access for demo software. Probably the reason it is 100mbps is that they stopped making chips that only do 10mbps.
But what's the point of adding speakers to a router?
The point is that you're in the office of a client business, and don't have access to your own VPN. You need your own router to connect to the local site's guest access, connect to your own stuff, and then you need a speaker to play that content. The presentation material might be on the HD in the device, it might be remote, or you might actually be running demo software that connects to your VPN.
If you're a consumer, you would never need this as a package; you'd want discrete components and you'd leave your router at home.
Sure, but OTOH if the purpose of the device is to hold data for use in presentations, then slightly lowering the life of the drive is meaningless. There would never be unique data on the drive. You don't even need a backup, because you're just delivering documents to the field for use in the presentation, but those documents are already primarily located in another place, and backed up normally.
As a consumer device I would agree with the concern, but as a business device it sounds like a small detail relating to TCO that should be considered. In most cases tech businesses will want to put together their own setup with better drives, but this looks reasonable for something that an average PHB or SOHO worker can throw in the trunk, and whip for presentations whenever put on the spot or when a potential sale is detected.
Or indeed speakers near an electrically noisy thing like a router.
The speakers are bluetooth, so we know it is a digital input. If they used a metal enclosure and placed the DAC and amp near each other, then no problem. And if for some reason you want them farther apart, or you want to design a device like this with analog inputs, you just use balanced audio. It uses 2 wires, either in opposite phase (real balanced) or with a common line of known resistance (pseudo balanced). Then you put the amplifier outputs really close to the speaker inputs, and shield the wires. No problems.
If you think a router is electrically noisy... try a pro audio room! There is noise and interference everywhere! If you don't know how to make it go away by using balanced IO, shielding, and filtering, you're screwed. Most of the older analog effects pedals and stuff that big name musicians show up with, because they've been using it their whole life and it is part of their sound, that shit all spews massive noise back into the AC.
For example, old Morley Volume-Wah pedals. http://www.morleypedals.com/wv... That's the circuit diagram, that's why I chose that example because they publish their old docs. Notice that it has a power transformer with a center-tapped secondary. Now, because of their rectification tricks, they get three voltages off that, +55V, +25V and also +40V which isn't labeled on the circuit but I've measured it when modifying these guys to use some newer parts. Depending on which parts of the circuit draw more or less power, it is preferentially pulling current from one side of the secondary. The result is a bunch of noise on the AC that is multi-phase, and worse, the phase rotates according to the amount of wah effect.
But nobody cares, because all the inputs on the mixer board have bandpass filters. And it is the same for radio interference, except that the reason nobody cares is they're using balanced lines for everything if they're also using any kind of radio equipment.
The problems you describe are legitimate concerns if you're grabbing random consumer-grade devices and stacking them, but they're not likely to be a concern in products professionally engineered to be operating near each other. Especially as in this case where they're made to stack, and the interference can be managed entirely with well-placed metal chassis parts. It isn't like they would otherwise be allowed to sell radio equipment without measuring interference.;)
As for how they deal with a screen, HDMI has largely solved that problem. You can use any screen, regardless of if it is a "computer monitor" or "television." If they don't have one anywhere in the office, they probably don't even want a video presentation. You still might need the speakers for audio. Corporate environments have provision for guest network access; indeed, giving access to visiting business people is very important. Generally, guest access is going to give you an outside gateway in a DMZ and you'll have no access to the VPN. This device is only trying to solve the parts of the problem they talk about; the other parts are already solved.
And like you quoted, "... on a whim should the prospective client ask." Well, that clears that up; if they don't have any screens they probably didn't even ask to see the video.;) If they don't allow visiting business people or consultants to access outside network resources, then they didn't ask you to do an online demo while visiting.
Fuck city dwellers who move to rural areas and then complain about livestock and pets.
Fuck country bumpkins who move to the city and have feral animals as "pets" that bark nonstop because they didn't go to doggy-preschool and now it is Lord of the Flies.
Just because those city-slickers don't look so tough, don't think they're powerless to deal with these sorts of problems. They may have a lot more process backing them up than you imagine.
Getting rid of the neighbour is not the solution if the neighbour is doing nothing wrong.
And the corollary, of course: Getting rid of the neighbor is a great solution if they are doing something wrong, like chronically violating the law in a way that prevents you from the peaceful enjoying your premises. "Peaceful enjoyment of the premises" is a legal right in my State that applies to all residences, both homeowners and renters have that right. If the properties have the same owner, you can actually force the landlord to get rid of them.
Lifestyle choice isn't only something you have on the run. Many people desire to make a lifestyle choice when they select the home. Moving when people break the law in a way that impacts your property is not a sustainable, scalable solution the way that making the person breaking the law move is.
If the police were showing up and putting heat on the other guy, it sounds like he had his paperwork in order and understood the process.
In my State if a dog barks for over 15 minutes, that is disturbing the peace and you don't have to wait for them to get annoyed with the complaints, you can escalate them and ultimately have the dog removed. The only thing the authorities can do other than help you with the process is to pretend they're too busy, but that doesn't work every time; and if they do that you just go to Court and end up with an Order, and now if they violate it they have to move or get rid of the dog.
And if it is a rental and the dog is repeatedly violating the noise laws, sometimes you can force the property owner to give them a short term eviction notice to avoid shared responsibility for the ongoing legal violations.
It all depends on local law. Without that information, you're just making a false accusation. You can do that here with no penalty, but if you're playing the game he is of calling the cops over little shit and you tell a cop about a false accusation, that becomes a crime. We can assume that isn't the case, because of whose door the cops kept coming to.
I got stuck at, "wait, why is this a problem?" There is a huge difference between our values for Planck's Constant and Pi too, why would it be a problem for different things to be at different scales? It doesn't seem to me that they're even puking up a real "why" in the first place.
And who cares, philosophically, about the proportions of different forces? We don't even know how gravity works, what the mechanism is. Therefore we have no context for presumptions about how strong it should be.
The details matter if you're predicting something, but preferences for an outcome are arbitrary.
He was yelling because he didn't save for a rainy day.
Don't worry, there is room in the future for old men yelling at clouds. http://everyoneishereinthefutu... (medical warning: flashing lights) AmishGuy2006 is about ten minutes in. He definitely isn't liking the cloud.
I think the idea was to make video to encourage them to write more.
Sure, granted. But I'm not sure adding write-only interfaces would have any chance of outputting useful documentation. By "reading" I meant, becoming a person who participates in the exchange of knowledge via written words; e.g., a reader might then come across a missing section of documentation, and add to it. If you can't reach them with written words to discuss the issue then even if you talked them into writing they wouldn't be able to contribute. They have to be a reader in order to know which itch needs scratching.
Right, people for whom video is the preferred delivery method are not going to write documentation. Or read it either. It is idiotic to make videos to connect with them to advocate to them that they read more. Their teachers already tried and failed, casual encouragement isn't going to move the needle.
If somebody cares enough about these unfortunates to try, they should just skip right ahead to videos teaching them to make video documentation for each other.
As an aside, I've been way over 99% FLOSS since the late 90s, and the vast majority of that software has extensive documentation. That was true then, and it remains true now. Though I can also say from experience that if you're using recently-popular programming frameworks, the documentation won't be finished until after the fad passes, leaving most of the people who briefly used it during the heyday with the idea that it is poorly documented, even where the people using it successfully have high quality documentation. In many cases, the documentation was always there, but individual blogs describing techniques get more links. Often this is compounded by a culture of experimentation that inadvertently discourages reading manuals; you can spot this by all the people that run to a paste site to ask questions that would have been answered by a small subset of the same words being entered into a search bar.
There is, and that is how this was discovered. Since then, the same tests have been started for other manufacturers, with nobody else showing evidence of a defeat device yet.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what laws are for, though. Even things like murder; without a law, not everybody will agree it is bad. Most will, and so it is easy to pass laws banning murder and establishing consequences. But a few people would say, well, it depends on your reason. I'm not talking about self defense, just the set of situations that are currently considered "murder."
Dogs barking for extended periods is such a common problem that the laws banning it exist almost everywhere, and yet it is very easy to pass the law. The vast majority of pet owners agree that the dog is basically feral if it is doing that, and is being abused by neglect or worse. But you don't have to go far to find somebody that disagrees. 5% of people believe really wild and crazy hateful stuff. That's 1 in 20. Even in places without a history of slavery, you can usually get 5% to support it. Any hateful teaching that is seen as locally fairly mainstream or historical is going to draw 20-25% support. Without laws against murder... there is a 5%-er on every block. Their fear of retaliation would keep the murder rate low in many cases, but without laws against it it would be common for there to be murders of people with their backs turned. The vast majority of people can be good, and yet there is still a need for laws. Indeed, that might actually be the cause of the need!
LOL where you're from do they teach something different? The Universe where I'm from she's spot on; shadows really do block photosynthesis!
From the local paper that reported her comments:
She went on to point out that "I don’t see the profit for the town," something repeated again and again by the townspeople.
Some of the concerns are reasonable; would young people stay in a place that used to be a small town, but now most of the land is bought for solar farms which don't provide many jobs? That is their concern; land is scarce. The guy with that quote is comparing it to the building of the interstate. If you see an interstate freeway as a negative thing because now jobs (and therefore young people) migrate to the centralized locations, then it should be natural to also oppose zoning for new technologies that don't create jobs but take up land.
Hicks where I'm from love photovoltaic, because nothing is more anti-establishment, anti-city, than being off-grid.
Road adopting conflict is hilarious. You can almost always get rid of the "controversial" applicants by instituting trash cleanup standards and just checking if they did it. The only people who actually go out and pick up track are the people who signed up... to get recognition for picking up trash. And there seems to be very little overlap between that, and "wants to make a political statement to offend their neighbors."
Only in Am'ruca would these hillbillies say something reasonable, like that solar farms include vertical structures that block light if built too closely to property lines and that local zoning rules don't account for that on agricultural land, and going far enough to point out that it isn't just recreational light we're talking about, but it could block light from the Sun, block photosynthesis and kill affected plants...
And have self-proclaimed, "ultra-sciency" nerds point out that photovoltaics doesn't vacuum up sunlight from neighboring farms. Sometimes our educated idiots are dumber than the ignorant ones, especially if they stumble into an echo chamber.
Some of the people said funny stuff; it has already been reported that the local electric company has informed these people that solar is bad for the company, so there is a bit of a contest to say silly things at the meetings about this. If there is no tax produced, the people don't want it inside their town. That was the take-away from the meeting; they repeated, again and again, that these solar farms aren't going to do anything for the town; they won't change the local price of electricity, they won't produce tax revenue, they won't produce significant jobs, they won't need to buy products from the local community, etc., etc. These all sound like reasonable concerns to me; why embrace local changes in land use if you're not convinced of the usefulness, and all the claimed benefits go to somebody else? If they want to be a small town and not a big city, and have local support for their zoning rules, why is it bad? It seems they are doing the right thing to me, even if it is vapid, because the people of the town have vapid, romantic, colloquial regional culture that they want to protect. That is their prerogative.
The retired science teacher was literally saying that shadows block photosynthesis, and armchair internet scientists decided he must be an idiot because PV doesn't vacuum sunlight. Fuck an A, people. Fuck an A.
Science is based on fundamental philosophical axioms. Agreed, philosophy is definitely the parent and science the child.
ROFL I don't know if this was an intentional Russell's paradox puzzle, but I laughed pretty good. I won't give away the answer, but just a hint: metadata
Oh, it's not me that says its wrong. It's the universe that says it's wrong.
No, this is falsity pushed by various math religionists. The universe doesn't use human math at all. Math is entirely 100% arbitrary. It is a constructed human tool. The problem with "one plus one equals three" is entirely that you'll get different answers than other humans, and so won't be able to fully participate in the use of math as a language form.
Math is designed to be self-consistent, and the universe is (presumably) self-consistent. The self-consistency of math is what makes it useful. One plus one equals three is not self-consistent in the context of the known rules of math. But you could construct a different set of math rules where it would be consistent, and then it would be just as "correct" from a universal perspective. All you would have done is change the units. Makes it non-communicative, though.
If we were using the Universe's math, counting numbers would all be multiples of Planke's Constant, and all the "natural constants" would be whole numbers. Those are the proportions that are objectively real in the actual Universe, and we can't even represent them precisely in our hackneyed math system. But that is OK, we can get "close enough for human scale." Arbitrary, but contextual.
The Dalai Lama explained it very clearly.
He said that science is very good at answering the types of questions it asks. And if science and religion disagree about the answer to a question, science is usually right because science really is good at answering those questions. But science doesn't ask questions like, "How do we get along in the world in a moral and ethical way that we can agree on?" I would go on to observe that science doesn't have an imaginary universe to simulate these things, and the human experience is not easily reversible. Even if you engineered a great way to get along, you wouldn't know if it is optimal because you can't both maintain a moral and ethical consensus, and also test alternate systems. So you can't even build the experiment to test it if you tried. You would have no way to quantify the results in comparison to other possible results, because the test wouldn't have any isolation from worldly events.
You've identified problems not with religion, but with individuals who practice it in an illogical way. But not all religious people would endorse those practices. A majority of lay Christians believe in evolution, for example. They believe that God could simply create the Earth in such a way that evolution would later happen. They might not even be asking questions about "why," or about Santa.
Just as the questions that philosophy (and its retarded offspring, religion) likes to say "science can't answer" (as opposed to science hasn't answered yet) are.
This here is just horseshit, because the "philosophers" who claim science can't answer certain types of questions include the majority of scientists, who generally have views compatible with Logical Positivism. It is the basic epistemology of science. Once you start to consider epistemological questions, you can't retain a belief in science without adopting some sort of theory of the nature of knowledge. And that is called a "philosophy."
It is a basic part of science that science only asks answerable questions. If it isn't an answerable question, then science isn't waiting to answer it later. It is incorrect to claim that science has not yet answered questions like, "what is the meaning of life?" Science is explicitly not considering those types of questions. They are believed not to have answers. And if our understanding of the nature of consciousness advances so we can answer questions in that direction, those intermediate advances would change the questions and make it specific and answerable. The original general question would still be unanswerable.
You're trying to invent an understanding for something that is already well explored philosophically. That the philosophers in question would mostly be regarded in modern times as "scientists" might be getting in the way of your understanding of their work, and indeed, of the philosophy of science. Because that is primarily what science is; a philosophy about epistemology, and a set of established practices designed to provide information on that basis. New ideas are great, but they can't easily supersede ideas they don't know about and didn't consider.
You can't separate a question lacking meaning from science being unable to answer questions that lack meaning. Other systems, as you dismissively observe, do in fact answer those types of questions. Also, you not believing in their answers don't stop them from having answers. How can you disagree without first conceding that nobody has a truly objective perspective? Throwing insults next to words like philosophy is not a convincing philosophical argument. And no claim about science can be made without philosophy, because that is what science is.
Forgive me for not pointing out the contradictory parts, I preferred instead to argue against both sides in isolation.
Sorry kid, you didn't read your history so you didn't understand. Stop trying to explain the past to people who read about it already.
For example, Newton was not a scientist. He was a natural philosopher.
The system of "peer review" was created by Natural Philosophers such as Newton publishing open letters in the journals (like a blog) of the different Philosophical Societies that they were all members of. This was an alternative to letting publishers decide which studies and reports to publish. (!)
The underpinnings of all of science were created by Natural Philosophers. Science is a superset of Natural Philosophy that formalizes a bunch of best practices into a consensus system; but those same practices are and were Natural Philosophy when done simply because they're good ideas, and not because they're the consensus requirement of established experts.
There are other types of philosophy you also don't know about, as proven by your definition at the end.
It isn't about lock-in, the use case is basically a modular business dongle set. You're not locked in, because the role this device fills is that of a portable dumb-terminal to display your presentations at random times/locations.
It wouldn't make sense as a standard, because the use case is really narrow. There wouldn't be enough devices sold that fit the port for it to be worth all that effort.
If there should be a standard, the first question is, what use case has broader appeal? If there is one, then once that is identified it might make sense to make an open standard for the thing that solves that problem, instead of this one.
Everything important that this is doing is already standard; wifi, routing, bluetooth speakers, external disks. The proprietary parts are just the physical plugging. There is no lock-in at all.
IME this is only on machines that don't have an advertised internal port, but they implemented their optional add-ons using some Mini-PCI variant. Generally the "workstation replacement" class of laptops will have an advertised expansion port that is to standard, and the others wont.
This is a valuable security feature for people who want secure business laptops for travel use. The PCI card could be replaced surreptitiously during various stages of transport, leading to data theft or much worse, infiltration of your intranet when you return to the office. This removes the risk from non-State actors, and even most State actors. Only the highest profile targets would have a defeat device that carefully and narrowly targeted.
Obviously on a personal computer, or for a small or non-secret business, this is an anti-feature. But on a business laptop? Feature. Plus, the days of needing that port for non-wireless expansions are long past; everything else uses either USB or bluetooth.
I just bought a desktop motherboard with a mini-PCIe port housing a wifi/bt dual radio card. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it doesn't support replacing that card with something else, because that isn't designed as a usable port; if you buy it without the radios, you don't even get the slot. And of course it also has real PCI slots for actual expansion. The only reason they use the mini-PCI is that designing a custom interface would be a waste of lots of money, and make the feature unsaleable.
USB 3 is for data storage, which benefits from faster speeds. Network speeds faster than 100mbps are unlikely to be useful during a business presentation. You'd have a different device if you needed that, this one is for being able to give presentations on a whim by the client. The sort of thing that usually stays in the trunk of the rental car.
If you wanted a toy, you'd buy a cheap consumer toy like the Raspberry Pi. This is a business tool and would really suck as a toy. Almost any $20 toy is going to be more fun. Don't buy this for a gift.
Yeah, you are reading it wrong, you're comparing it to general purpose devices when it is a special purpose business tool that doesn't benefit from internet connections faster than 100mbps. This is not a backup router for your subnet, this is a portable device that only has a router so that it can connect to VPNs from different places without having to be mucking around reconfiguring your laptop for each site you visit.
$400 is practically free, for a business tool. What does a portable projector cost? If it isn't worth buying for a presentation, it isn't worth doing a site visit to give a presentation. ;)
802.11ac is important because want to support current expected protocols, and this also increases range. 100mbps ethernet is the same format and fully compatible with 1gbps ethernet, and the 100 will be more reliable with ad-hoc wiring or in an electrically noisy environment. If it had 10mbps ethernet it wouldn't actually impact the likely use cases at all. The network is for powerpoint, youtube-quality video, or database access for demo software. Probably the reason it is 100mbps is that they stopped making chips that only do 10mbps.
But what's the point of adding speakers to a router?
The point is that you're in the office of a client business, and don't have access to your own VPN. You need your own router to connect to the local site's guest access, connect to your own stuff, and then you need a speaker to play that content. The presentation material might be on the HD in the device, it might be remote, or you might actually be running demo software that connects to your VPN.
If you're a consumer, you would never need this as a package; you'd want discrete components and you'd leave your router at home.
Sure, but OTOH if the purpose of the device is to hold data for use in presentations, then slightly lowering the life of the drive is meaningless. There would never be unique data on the drive. You don't even need a backup, because you're just delivering documents to the field for use in the presentation, but those documents are already primarily located in another place, and backed up normally.
As a consumer device I would agree with the concern, but as a business device it sounds like a small detail relating to TCO that should be considered. In most cases tech businesses will want to put together their own setup with better drives, but this looks reasonable for something that an average PHB or SOHO worker can throw in the trunk, and whip for presentations whenever put on the spot or when a potential sale is detected.
Or indeed speakers near an electrically noisy thing like a router.
The speakers are bluetooth, so we know it is a digital input. If they used a metal enclosure and placed the DAC and amp near each other, then no problem. And if for some reason you want them farther apart, or you want to design a device like this with analog inputs, you just use balanced audio. It uses 2 wires, either in opposite phase (real balanced) or with a common line of known resistance (pseudo balanced). Then you put the amplifier outputs really close to the speaker inputs, and shield the wires. No problems.
If you think a router is electrically noisy... try a pro audio room! There is noise and interference everywhere! If you don't know how to make it go away by using balanced IO, shielding, and filtering, you're screwed. Most of the older analog effects pedals and stuff that big name musicians show up with, because they've been using it their whole life and it is part of their sound, that shit all spews massive noise back into the AC.
For example, old Morley Volume-Wah pedals. http://www.morleypedals.com/wv... That's the circuit diagram, that's why I chose that example because they publish their old docs. Notice that it has a power transformer with a center-tapped secondary. Now, because of their rectification tricks, they get three voltages off that, +55V, +25V and also +40V which isn't labeled on the circuit but I've measured it when modifying these guys to use some newer parts. Depending on which parts of the circuit draw more or less power, it is preferentially pulling current from one side of the secondary. The result is a bunch of noise on the AC that is multi-phase, and worse, the phase rotates according to the amount of wah effect.
But nobody cares, because all the inputs on the mixer board have bandpass filters. And it is the same for radio interference, except that the reason nobody cares is they're using balanced lines for everything if they're also using any kind of radio equipment.
The problems you describe are legitimate concerns if you're grabbing random consumer-grade devices and stacking them, but they're not likely to be a concern in products professionally engineered to be operating near each other. Especially as in this case where they're made to stack, and the interference can be managed entirely with well-placed metal chassis parts. It isn't like they would otherwise be allowed to sell radio equipment without measuring interference. ;)
As for how they deal with a screen, HDMI has largely solved that problem. You can use any screen, regardless of if it is a "computer monitor" or "television." If they don't have one anywhere in the office, they probably don't even want a video presentation. You still might need the speakers for audio. Corporate environments have provision for guest network access; indeed, giving access to visiting business people is very important. Generally, guest access is going to give you an outside gateway in a DMZ and you'll have no access to the VPN. This device is only trying to solve the parts of the problem they talk about; the other parts are already solved.
And like you quoted, "... on a whim should the prospective client ask." Well, that clears that up; if they don't have any screens they probably didn't even ask to see the video. ;) If they don't allow visiting business people or consultants to access outside network resources, then they didn't ask you to do an online demo while visiting.
Fuck city dwellers who move to rural areas and then complain about livestock and pets.
Fuck country bumpkins who move to the city and have feral animals as "pets" that bark nonstop because they didn't go to doggy-preschool and now it is Lord of the Flies.
Just because those city-slickers don't look so tough, don't think they're powerless to deal with these sorts of problems. They may have a lot more process backing them up than you imagine.
Getting rid of the neighbour is not the solution if the neighbour is doing nothing wrong.
And the corollary, of course: Getting rid of the neighbor is a great solution if they are doing something wrong, like chronically violating the law in a way that prevents you from the peaceful enjoying your premises. "Peaceful enjoyment of the premises" is a legal right in my State that applies to all residences, both homeowners and renters have that right. If the properties have the same owner, you can actually force the landlord to get rid of them.
Lifestyle choice isn't only something you have on the run. Many people desire to make a lifestyle choice when they select the home. Moving when people break the law in a way that impacts your property is not a sustainable, scalable solution the way that making the person breaking the law move is.
If the police were showing up and putting heat on the other guy, it sounds like he had his paperwork in order and understood the process.
In my State if a dog barks for over 15 minutes, that is disturbing the peace and you don't have to wait for them to get annoyed with the complaints, you can escalate them and ultimately have the dog removed. The only thing the authorities can do other than help you with the process is to pretend they're too busy, but that doesn't work every time; and if they do that you just go to Court and end up with an Order, and now if they violate it they have to move or get rid of the dog.
And if it is a rental and the dog is repeatedly violating the noise laws, sometimes you can force the property owner to give them a short term eviction notice to avoid shared responsibility for the ongoing legal violations.
It all depends on local law. Without that information, you're just making a false accusation. You can do that here with no penalty, but if you're playing the game he is of calling the cops over little shit and you tell a cop about a false accusation, that becomes a crime. We can assume that isn't the case, because of whose door the cops kept coming to.
I got stuck at, "wait, why is this a problem?" There is a huge difference between our values for Planck's Constant and Pi too, why would it be a problem for different things to be at different scales? It doesn't seem to me that they're even puking up a real "why" in the first place.
And who cares, philosophically, about the proportions of different forces? We don't even know how gravity works, what the mechanism is. Therefore we have no context for presumptions about how strong it should be.
The details matter if you're predicting something, but preferences for an outcome are arbitrary.
Physics can only predict the future, it can't tell you why anything happens. Only what happens, and when.
He was yelling because he didn't save for a rainy day.
Don't worry, there is room in the future for old men yelling at clouds. http://everyoneishereinthefutu... (medical warning: flashing lights) AmishGuy2006 is about ten minutes in. He definitely isn't liking the cloud.
Just giving someone an idea to code will result in something unrecognizable.
Of course, but if the "idea" part includes the use case, the result could be better than what they asked for.
I think the idea was to make video to encourage them to write more.
Sure, granted. But I'm not sure adding write-only interfaces would have any chance of outputting useful documentation. By "reading" I meant, becoming a person who participates in the exchange of knowledge via written words; e.g., a reader might then come across a missing section of documentation, and add to it. If you can't reach them with written words to discuss the issue then even if you talked them into writing they wouldn't be able to contribute. They have to be a reader in order to know which itch needs scratching.
Right, people for whom video is the preferred delivery method are not going to write documentation. Or read it either. It is idiotic to make videos to connect with them to advocate to them that they read more. Their teachers already tried and failed, casual encouragement isn't going to move the needle.
If somebody cares enough about these unfortunates to try, they should just skip right ahead to videos teaching them to make video documentation for each other.
As an aside, I've been way over 99% FLOSS since the late 90s, and the vast majority of that software has extensive documentation. That was true then, and it remains true now. Though I can also say from experience that if you're using recently-popular programming frameworks, the documentation won't be finished until after the fad passes, leaving most of the people who briefly used it during the heyday with the idea that it is poorly documented, even where the people using it successfully have high quality documentation. In many cases, the documentation was always there, but individual blogs describing techniques get more links. Often this is compounded by a culture of experimentation that inadvertently discourages reading manuals; you can spot this by all the people that run to a paste site to ask questions that would have been answered by a small subset of the same words being entered into a search bar.
There is, and that is how this was discovered. Since then, the same tests have been started for other manufacturers, with nobody else showing evidence of a defeat device yet.