A person or two mentioned Conway's Game of Life. Unless I specifically say so, I am not binding myself to only mentioning that one thing and never moving on to any related ideas which happen to be outside its scope. And I didn't specifically say so. Therefore I see no value in pointing that out.

Am I the only one who thinks the entire notion of a "class-action lawsuit" was a bad idea?

If a company materially harms 250,000 individuals, let them defend against 250,000 individual lawsuits. That would be a massive disincentive against harming people. Having to pay lawyers for that many separate lawsuits would be a lot more like the predicament (during a standard isolated case) of the one individual trying to have a legal battle against a huge multination corporation. Seems fair to me.

Plus in many class-action lawsuits, only the lawyers really win. The former customers might get a $10 coupon or something like that.

Is there any chance that the lawyers who knowingly and intentionally come up with such ideas and try to implement them could be disbarred? Few measures would more effectively discourage the practice.

The difference being, there is some chance the Slashdot user was actually involved in producing that software (or has enough expertise to competently discuss its merits and faults). There's also a chance they're responding to people who chose to use shoddy software when better alternatives were available, and are now complaining about the results.

That depends on where it's located.

If you took it upon yourself to assume "right next to the machine being backed up" or "running on the same machine to be backed up" then don't ascribe to me your own assumption. It was no accident or omission that I said no such things.

Right, just like a pilot's license is useless to someone with no access to an aircraft. Personally I deal with that by running the file server 24/7. When you enable various power management options and have a clue about SSH and your favorite shell, it's really not a problem. If that doesn't describe you, find another solution. Simple and much more productive than complaining that there is no Final Ultimate Answer that is 100% suitable for all people at all times.

Is that done in hardware? Is there a performance penalty?

A related question about the programs you tried: were these computationally intensive games, or things like office apps and file managers?

I actually think Jules Verne got a surprising number of things quite accurately. In fact, I seem to recall that his depiction of mid 20th century as less personal and more polluted got him into trouble with his publisher. He did not get all of the inventions 100% accurate, but he did have some pretty impressive hits as far as tone and atmosphere go.

Shachar

If he reached the same position as you did in with less effort, chances are he'll continue reaching the targets he has faster and with less effort. Learn from it, or you're going to be angry and resentful the rest of your career, and as the biggest companies in the industry are run by drop outs you may very well end up working for them.

As opposed to... ?

Shachar

Or ... get a free dynamic DNS hostname (there are still plenty available) and take a few minutes to learn about SSH/SFTP (and SSHGuard if you are using passwords) and set up your own personal file server. It doesn't have to allow shell access.

Now the companies can do whatever they want because you did the little bit of learning it took not to care.

It makes perfect sense. What if your concept of absolute determinism as implied here is actually not absolute and has limitations? That's what he was saying, at least as I understood it. That would mean that some subset of everything would be steady, regular, unpredictable, and unsurprising. The rest wouldn't.

An analogy could be a program that takes certain actions based on the output of a high-quality random number generator of some kind. The compiled program code itself is completely deterministic, behaving as designed each time it is run. The randomness adds an unpredictable element; it determines which of the predetermined (that is, available or achievable) outcomes actually ends up happening. You can't break fundamental rules of physics but plenty of other things could play out in myriad ways.

Huh?

Don't get me wrong. If that's what gets you through the night, go right ahead in thinking that. Otherwise, my profile page has previous comments I've written on many subjects.

Click with care, however.. That link might prove you wrong.

Shachar

... caused by a false belief in an inherent benevolence of government, compounded by this denial-apathy thing concerning the casual lies coming from every major institution and corporation on a regular basis.

If you imagine for a moment that there were aliens observing the earth, you could not blame them for refusing to initiate first contact.

What I meant, and I'm fairly sure it wasn't as hard to understand as you make it out to be, is that you do not refrain from raising a true point merely because it seems to weaken your case.

If you do so, your best case is that you will be ignored, and your worst case is that you will be no more right than the people you are arguing with. Constraint yourself to making any and all relevant true points, and then pick up your opinion so that it is still correct. Otherwise, how do you know you are right?

Shachar

The longer you spend arguing with an idiot, the higher the chances he's doing the same thing.

TL;DR.

Seriously, though, I agree with your objectives, but not with your suggested methods.

I think the trend of never conceding anything for the sake of winning the argument is one that hurts our ability to conduct actual conversations. I also think that, when the numbers are tallied, it is a counter-productive one. People will see you as a zealot and disregard you. I refuse to participate in it.

Shachar