Posts by Turtle 1888 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Jan 2010
"In the USA, gun control laws - naturally enough - attempt to regulate and control trade in actual gun parts while still permitting unrestricted trade in actual guns".
I know that that's not what the article actually says, and I also know that it's not actually true, but that's how I read it...
"'Dear Mr Cook,' Telzerow continued. 'Is this really how your company wants to deal with the media that provide your customers with profound tests of your products? Do you really think a withdrawal of Apple’s love and affection could have an intimidating effect on us?'"
In the above statement, Telzerow poses two questions. Although Tim Cooke won't answer them for Telzerow, I will take it upon myself to answer them as Tim Cooke would, if he were so inclined.
The answers are "Yes" and "Yes".
I have never seen anyone use "hooter" for anything other than that except one instance of a girl from Sri Lanka who was not a native speaker, I told her that the proper word would have been "honker". And that would be the proper word here too, according to the meanings of the words as I know them to be used.
"But 1 death / 10 launches for a craft that was supposed to launch twice/week and where managers claimed it had a 1:100,000 chance of failure is a bit poor. Especially because it was only sheer luck that several other flights with damaged tiles didn't go bang"
That's an excellent point, to be sure, but then again, consider that the engineers directly responsible in one case for the o-rings and in the other for the missing tiles, knew there was something wrong and wanted to take action but were overruled by bureaucrats. So it can be said that the two disasters were not so much the result of technological or engineering failures, but of administrator-failures.
"135 launches and 14 deaths. More than 1 death per 10 launches. Very high standards."
Or 1 fatal incident per 67.5 launches. Or a MTBF of 17 years. (The Challenger in 1986 and Columbia in 2003.)
Thanks for the post, which reminds us all that statistics don't lie, people do.
"I assume counsel is allowed to cut and run at any point. "
This might not be true. I seem to recall reading that lawyers in federal suits agree to stay for the duration of the lawsuit as a precondition of being allowed to take the case and they might not be allowed to resign without permission of the judge in the case. But I am not exactly sure of all of this.
"But if you're going to make a business out of such services, California lawmakers want to get involved, and the letters to Lyft, Sidecar, and Uber will put a serious crimp in the three companies' plans to expand their contract taxi services into the ride-sharing arena."
Doesn't seem right to me. Isn't it true that any business, organization, enterprise, or endeavor that uses the internet in some way is automatically exempt from all laws?
"Also, luxury watches need to be serviced periodically which is extremely expensive (and labor intensive)."
I read a very interesting book by Paul Fussell called "Class" which dissects the way status symbols work in the US although most of his points apply to any stratified society, i.e. any society that has ever existed. He mentions that service being expensive (because labor intensive) is actually a benefit from the status-symbol point of view. Because the watch (or other status symbol) is both expensive to obtain and to maintain - it is more difficult for the lower classes to overreach themselves. Okay, you've bought that 40 foot wooden-hulled sailboat - let's see if you afford the marina fees, the cost of sails, the upkeep for that wooden hull, or if it's going to bleed you dry.
At any rate, I kind of doubt that anyone with real money considers Apple to produce high-status goods as any good produced in the millions or tens of millions is, by their definition, pretty plebeian. So from their point of view, nothing says "low-brow" like thinking Apple is "high-brow".
But the plebes and the proles are impressed - bless their stupid and pointy little heads.
"This country is in serious trouble with people like him being in upper management of the government. "
You think that the people who hired him knew this about him? Or perhaps you think that there is some way to tell who is like this and who isn't? You might not know or be capable of believing this, but people like this, i.e, serial killers and serial rapists, child abusers and pedophiles, and in fact all kinds of people who have interests and predilections which constitute a danger to their lives and liberty, very often have learned how to hide those interests and predilections very effectively.
That someone hired this child abuser is in no way any kind of reflection on the people who hired him, and to think otherwise is to completely misunderstand how difficult it is to unmask such people.
As to what he told and expected the FBI and a jury to believe, well, sometimes the choice is between telling unbelievable stories and hope to get someone, even perhaps a lone juror, to believe them, or to simply plead guilty and resign oneself to spending decades in prison. Faced with the choice, plenty of people will attempt to sell the unbelievable story.
"Freedom is playing by the rules and obeying the Law"
What was it that Hegel said? "The Orientals knew that one is free; the Ancients knew that some are free, but today we know that all are free." See Popper's The Open Society And Its Enemies for a detailed explication of what Hegel meant, and why he (Popper) said, thank god that beyond the world of Prussian philosophers there was the world of Prussian militarists.
The "Orientals" were right, though. One is free.
"As The Register reported on Friday, ESA boffins are increasing the frequency of launches to get the entire network of 30 orbital birds ready by 2017 – an ambitious three years ahead of schedule."
Not a problem because, as we all know, there's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over.
"Where a man was killed by a cop for selling smokes without a license."
This statement is false, as the rest of your post proves. He was not "killed for selling (untaxed) cigarettes". He was killed while resisting arrest. I understand that put this way it is not as inflammatory or politically useful, but it does have the advantage of being more accurate. (Which of course you might feel is not a virtue worth having...)
"If you have an issue such as Aspergers or OCD, and are not a "technologist", I have to think this will add to your anxiety. So you will need to schedule an engineer to visit, and worry he won't show on time, and your IoT will not function correctly and add to your anxiety... I think technology can help a caring individual assist the people in need. However, putting this technology in untrained, afflicted peoples hands will most likely muddy the water, and not clear it."
Very very insightful. That's a perspective on the matter that is worth remembering.
"Are we going to see Google Nuclear before too long? Amazon Atomics anyone?"
Google did at one time have a specific project that they, in their arrogance and ignorance, thought would be able to solve the problems of nuclear fusion.
They didn't get too far with that. So now they are going to solve everyone's health problems.
Don't expect too much from that either.
"Citizen 1, you have not performed the required amount of cardiovascular exercise as per the computer specifications and you have eaten items that are not on the optimal list in quantities that differ from your schedule. Your insurance premiums are now $875 per day. To reduce your premiums you will follow the exact regimen laid out by the computer."
And thanks to the "Internet of Things", adherence to that regimen and the use (or non-use) of exercise machines, tracking of purchases of food and "edible goods", and all sorts of consumption and activity in general, can be very closely monitored.
Not to mention the impending regulation, stricter regulation, or outright banning of various items that cause harm and its attendant medical bills with the way being lead by tobacco, alcohol, sugar. (And if you don't know how harmful sugar can and/or might be then you really need to read up on it. Cf http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 and links therein although this is not settled science.)
"Fair enough let creators have a chance to make a few quid; but 70 years past the creator's death? Fucking stupid. So there is going to be considerable resistance if things stay as they are."
This bullshit again. People are pirating movies being made now, music being made now, books being written now, photographs being taken now. The idea that people wouldn't pirate the latest hit movie or record if only it were to enter the public domain in 50 years (or even 50 weeks) instead of 70 years past the creators' deaths is just stupid - people won't wait a fucking day if they don't have to, and Google and the other beneficiaries of content theft make sure that they don't have to wait at all.
"All rights holders need to do is make their products available everywhere, to everyone, at a reasonable price and much of their infringement problems will go away."
When everything is available for free, anything that isn't free is "overpriced".
"So now Google, after years of knowing, finally fixes a battery drain issue, a rather important issue in today's mobile world."
One of us has misunderstood the story. From what I read, the bug has not been fixed; it has been assigned to someone to be fixed. So, depending on the person to whom it has been assigned, and the state and severity of their substance abuse problems, it could be another few years before a fix is actually implemented and made available to end-users.
"'Next Steve Ballmer' leaves Ford for GOOGLE"
As a Windows user, the very last thing that I would want to see is another Steve Ballmer at Microsoft.
As a person who considers Google to be a borderline (and sometimes way, way over the borderline) criminal organization, there is nothing I am happier to see, than the "next Steve Ballmer" joining Google.
Here's hoping "the next Steve Ballmer" does to Google, what the original Steve Ballmer did to Windows.
“'At Samsung, we continuously strive to create value for our customers by providing Apple's solutions and services on hardware inspired by Apple's innovative devices,' said Won-Pyo Hong (known to his friends as Ste-Won Chobs), president of the Apple-Watch Center at Samsung Electronics.”
I knew it! I KNEW it!
"And what is it that you have done to be able to claim a superior 'right' to state your opinion as if it were fact."
A similar statement could be made for a variety of the people in this thread, none of whom can claim a "'right'" to state an opinion not merely not contradicting but even judging Buzz Aldrin's opinion. But tell me the "evidence" (in the strictest sense of "facts") which is accessible to Buzz but not to the original poster and not to the other posters here, that would invalidate any opinions conflicting with Buzz Aldrin's opinion.
What you don't seem to realize is that science is not some sort of "democratic" process where science is determined by vote; nor are facts subordinate to appeals to Buzz Aldrin's authority - which, in this case, seems to scarcely exist.
There are two facts and only two facts in this matter:
1) The universe is immense, and
2) There are no evidence of life existing anywhere else in it.
That's all there is. It's got nothing to do with Buzz Aldrin, no matter how much you want to rely on his opinions.
Might there someday be evidence? Well of course. But we don't have it yet. But if you want to rely on evidence that might, one day, exist, what do you need science for at all?
"Buzz Aldrin may have stood on the surface of the moon, but neither that nor anything else gives him the right to state that as fact. That's pure opinion, conjecture... and the hard evidence is completely against it.So what are you suggesting? That we were made by a bloke called God one Sunday afternoon? That Jesus partied with the dinosaurs? I would say that life here on Earth hasn't evolved ENOUGH in some cases..."
Here's the hard evidence: there is no evidence showing that life exists anywhere else. Is that conclusive evidence? Of course not. But it is a fact. And if you, like someone else in this thread, want to invoke foolish statements such as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" let me point out to you that "absence of evidence" kinda is "evidence of absence" although again, not nearly conclusive. But if you absolutely insist on the foolish statement, then you won't mind it being used for proving the existence of God, right?
Why does there always seem to be some half-wit atheist who grasps the flimsiest excuse for taking his half-wit out for an airing?
"IANAL, clearly, but how does the RIPA law play in terms of your right to not incriminate yourself?"
If you have in mind some sort of "right not incriminate yourself" that goes beyond a conditional "right not to make self-incriminating statements", then I would like to see any reason to think that such a right has ever existed anywhere.
"'Unfortunately, stealing passwords by watching people as they type them into ATMs and laptops is nothing new and so there's no reason for us to care. We designed Glass with deprivation of privacy in mind. The fact that Glass is worn above the eyes and the screen lights up whenever it's activated clearly signals it's in use and makes it a fairly lousy surveillance device because it's apparent to anyone who thinks about it that, in order to steal your PIN at an ATM, the glasshole must be standing directly in front of the victim who can therefore... Ooops. Never mind. Just buy the glasses, 'kay?'" .
Mmm'kay.
"Correct me if I have read this incorrectly but are these people really protesting because they feel Google hasn't been vociferous enough in its support of 'net neutrality?"
And be quite sure to ignore the part about Google shyster lawyer Jack Halprin evicting tenants from their homes - which is just part of the story about how Google has been helping make housing even more difficult to afford than it already is...
Oops, sorry! Needless advice: I see you did ignore it.
"Seattle Computer Products QDOS which Microsoft sold on without permission to IBM as 'MSDOS'."
"In July 1981, a month before the PC's release, Microsoft purchased all rights to 86-DOS from SCP for $50,000. It met IBM's main criteria: it looked like CP/M, and it was easy to adapt existing 8-bit CP/M programs to run under it, notably thanks to the TRANS command which would translate source files from 8080 to 8086 machine instructions. Microsoft licensed 86-DOS to IBM, and it became PC DOS 1.0. This license also permitted Microsoft to sell DOS to other companies, which it did. The deal was spectacularly successful, and SCP later claimed in court that Microsoft had concealed its relationship with IBM in order to purchase the operating system cheaply. SCP ultimately received a 1 million dollar settlement payment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Computer_Products_QDOS
"The Chinese government is not subject to US law, so by that argument the court lacks jurisdiction."
Not only does the US court seem to lack jurisdiction, but if Baidu, a Chinese corporation (well, presumptively, anyway) in China, was not merely not complying US law but actually complying with Chinese law, that would also seem to grant them immunity from any lawsuits in other jurisdictions.
I wonder how the plaintiffs have standing to bring a lawsuit in the first place, and I don't even see a justiciable matter here.
"Both the Health Minister [,,,] and the clueless Shadow Health Minister [...] BOTH believe Homeopathy. It's time (real) doctors spoke out and had them both sacked."
I used to have a fairly positive opinion of Prince Charles until I learned that he is a big proponent of homeopathy and other alternative quackery. Good luck getting him sacked...
"It's not escaped our attention that, rather than get caught up in messy public courtroom feuds, Microsoft has of late leaned on companies until they sign licensing agreements well away from the courts."
Microsoft's strategy has always (and if not literally "always" then for a very long time) been to monetize its patent portfolio. In fact, I can't think of any patent lawsuits that they have initiated other than against those companies that refuse to sign license agreements. The only alternatives that Microsoft, or any company has, when their patents are infringed, are either to seek to license the patents, or have the infringing product removed from the market. And I don't know when they have ever tried to do that; if they have, it certainly has not been recently.
So the sentence quoted makes no sense because Microsoft is doing pretty much what has always done.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
