Of course they are, they all 'enhance performance', and those that take those drugs perform better than those that didn't. A concert violinist loses out on a job because the other person auditioning was able to perform better, a student on Adderall scores better on an exam than someone smarter than them thus getting them a better grade. How is that not cheating? There doesn't need to be rules in order for someone to cheat.
A group of handsets broke the rules and were delisted under those rules.
Futuremark made the rules and police them.
Cheats shouldn't prosper and people shouldn't whine about it with bullshit objections and excuses.
But different firmware (work with me here; just call it tweaking, I guess) between apps on a device isn’t? If it isn’t (legally), it isn’t; I just think it certainly should be. It’s like how your ISP prioritizes traffic to speed testing websites and lies to you about how fast your connection is.
Geez, I don’t like that. That’s one big tautological loophole.
The thing is it's the same firmware. It gets loaded when it's turned on and it works the same across all device. The difference is it alters how the device performs when it detects certain conditions. If you want to talk firmware (specifically) it's really the same as a higher-end vehicle being able to detect road conditions and then adjust how the vehicle performs when those conditions are present, but that has actual use for the driver. The vehicle performs differently because the firmware tells it to.
I don't think any of this is ethical but it's certainly not illegal, and seems very unlikely there will be a government agency that will be put in place to benchmark smartphones. The best way for this to be handled is for these benchmark test owners to delist them, but overall I can't imagine these tests mean anything to anyone. I don't even care that the iPhone is tops in most categories; I only care that it's feels fast when I use it and I suspect most users would agree.
The thing is it's the same firmware. It gets loaded when it's turned on and it works the same across all device. The difference is it alters how the device performs when it detects certain conditions. If you want to talk firmware it's really the same as a higher-end vehicle being able to detect road conditions and then adjust how the vehicle performs when those conditions are present, but that has actual use for the driver. The vehicle performs differently because the firmware tells it to.
I don't think any of this is ethical but it's certainly not illegal, and seems very unlikely there will be a government agency that will be put in place to benchmark smartphones. The best way for this to be handled is for these benchmark test owners to delist them, but overall I can't imagine these tests mean anything to anyone. I don't even care that the iPhone is tops in most categories; I only care that it's feels fast when I use it and I suspect most users would agree.
Hey my car has a 1000hp engine, here's a benchmark to prove it:-
I wonder how long it would last if I used it like this for everyday driving.
This is what Samsung and HTC want people to compare to everyday iPhones, or they wouldn't have done it.
Hey my car has a 1000hp engine, here's a benchmark to prove it:-
video: htttp://www.youtube.com/embed/VUWCo3lDjH8
I wonder how long it would last if I used it like this for everyday driving.
This is what Samsung and HTC want people to compare to everyday iPhones, or they wouldn't have done it.
Which makes it very odd when the gains have been so minimal. When you consider it's not standard across a vendor's line it's even more odd. My guess is this practice will end simply because benchmark sites are delisting devices.
He mentioned legal drugs so we're not talking about something obtained through dubious means even if not currently a controlled substance.
I think it's a fair point. We're not simply talking about an episode of "21 Jump Street" where rich high school kids are taking uppers to study for finals week. If one could take a pill to help concentrate and focus better than one would normally then does that make it wrong if it helps you to be a better you? What if the persons in question suffer from severe ADHD and therefore wouldn't be able to live a normal life without the medication? What about other physical and mental illnesses that can create a domino effect that affects one's ability to learn if not kept in check?
I kind of vaguely remember reading a quote somewhere about things being legal, though I suspect that your memory about who originally wrote it is better than mine. Many or most of the people taking the drugs were not the ones it was prescribed to.
Of course they are, they all 'enhance performance', and those that take those drugs perform better than those that didn't. A concert violinist loses out on a job because the other person auditioning was able to perform better, a student on Adderall scores better on an exam than someone smarter than them thus getting them a better grade. How is that not cheating? There doesn't need to be rules in order for someone to cheat.
Cheating =/= Giving yourself an advantage over others.
This seems to be the part that you're missing. Cheating means that you BROKE THE RULES. As I said: I don't know of any rules (if there are, then please cite them) that say, for instance, that a cellist can't have a drink before an audition to settle down.
There have to be RULES for cheating to even exist.
Cheating =/= Giving yourself an advantage over others.
This seems to be the part that you're missing. Cheating means that you BROKE THE RULES. As I said: I don't know of any rules (if there are, then please cite them) that say, for instance, that a cellist can't have a drink before an audition to settle down.
There have to be RULES for cheating to even exist.
If a drink was enough I don't think a cellist would go out of their way to obtain a beta blocker. Most rules for cheating are reactive not proactive. The rules are set after it became known that people were using means to gain an unfair advantage over everyone else.
If a drink was enough I don't think a cellist would go out of their way to obtain a beta blocker. Most rules for cheating are reactive not proactive. The rules are set after it became known that people were using means to gain an unfair advantage over everyone else.
*headdesk*
Honestly, by your definition practice is cheating.
Honestly, by your definition practice is cheating.
It's really simple, if you have to take a drug not prescribed to you to beat me then that's cheating. Answer this. Why has MLB banned substances that are perfectly legal?
It's really simple, if you have to take a drug not prescribed to you to beat me then that's cheating. Answer this. Why has MLB banned substances that are perfectly legal?
Actually, a high percentage of the drugs banned by MLB are not "perfectly legal" at all.
But as to those few that are, it's because there are RULES in place to protect those who aren't taking them. It's unfair to place a burden of health onto those who want to play fairly.
Take modeling for instance. Now, there are models who just are naturally thin. They still have to work out (yoga, Pilates, etc.) and seriously watch what they eat. But someone like Karlie Kloss just looks the way she looks because of genes, for the most part. Then you have the ones aren't quite that lucky, and do things like throw-up after eating. Then you have the ones who use either unprescribed legal drugs (amphetamines), or illegal drugs (cocaine, e.g.).
Now, when Kate Moss was 16 and walking runways and using coke on a more-than-regular basis (this isn't libel: it's a well-known fact) was she cheating? Of course not. She was just a teen millionaire who happened to be a coke head. Sure, it helped her stay (VERY) thin. And sure, she got covers and gigs because of her look, which at the time she helped usher in (heroin chic).
She wasn't cheating because there was no set of rules in place in the first place.
EDIT: Anyways, we've obviously drifted pretty far OT here. It's probably best if we just agree to disagree at this point.
Honestly, by your definition practice is cheating.
It's really simple, if you have to take a drug not prescribed to you to beat me then that's cheating. Answer this. Why has MLB banned substances that are perfectly legal?
But that's the entire point we were discussing earlier - if the MLB bans it then it's breaking the rules, and thus cheating. If they don't ban it, then it's within the rules, legitimate, and not cheating. If they decide to ban it later, then it becomes cheating.
But that's the entire point we were discussing earlier - if the MLB bans it then it's breaking the rules, and thus cheating. If they don't ban it, then it's within the rules, legitimate, and not cheating. If they decide to ban it later, then it becomes cheating.
Was it cheating before it was banned? If it wasn't cheating then why ban it?
Actually, a high percentage of the drugs banned by MLB are not "perfectly legal" at all.
But as to those few that are, it's because there are RULES in place to protect those who aren't taking them. It's unfair to place a burden of health onto those who want to play fairly.
Take modeling for instance. Now, there are models who just are naturally thin. They still have to work out (yoga, Pilates, etc.) and seriously watch what they eat. But someone like Karlie Kloss just looks the way she looks because of genes, for the most part. Then you have the ones aren't quite that lucky, and do things like throw-up after eating. Then you have the ones who use either unprescribed legal drugs (amphetamines), or illegal drugs (cocaine, e.g.).
Now, when Kate Moss was 16 and walking runways and using coke on a more-than-regular basis (this isn't libel: it's a well-known fact) was she cheating? Of course not. She was just a teen millionaire who happened to be a coke head. Sure, it helped her stay (VERY) thin. And sure, she got covers and gigs because of her look, which at the time she helped usher in (heroin chic).
She wasn't cheating because there was no set of rules in place in the first place.
The big difference being is that Kate Moss didn't take cocaine specifically to stay thin.
The big difference being is that Kate Moss didn't take cocaine specifically to stay thin.
I think what you mean is that, "Kate Moss didn't take cocaine SOLELY to stay thin."
A lot of models -- though it's gotten better now -- use illegal drugs to remain a size 2. It's not that easy when you're 5'11" to weigh 105 or 110 lbs. I mean, Karlie is 6'1" and weighs about 120 lbs. But as I said, in her case, it's natural. But in a lot of cases, it is a lot less natural and lot more drug-induced.
I think what you mean is that, "Kate Moss didn't take cocaine SOLELY to stay thin."
A lot of models -- though it's gotten better now -- use illegal drugs to remain a size 2. It's not that easy when you're 5'11" to weigh 105 or 110 lbs. I mean, Karlie is 6'1" and weighs about 120 lbs. But as I said, in her case, it's natural. But in a lot of cases, it is a lot less natural and lot more drug-induced.
In that case I would consider that cheating. People that don't stick to their diets are said that they 'cheat', but they're not harming anyone but themselves.
In that case I would consider that cheating. People that don't stick to their diets are said that they 'cheat', but they're not harming anyone but themselves.
Yeah, well, most models' careers last about 4 years tops. So they can quit with the bulimia and cocaine and amphetamine use when they "age out" out of the system at the ancient age of ~22-23.
But that's the entire point we were discussing earlier - if the MLB bans it then it's breaking the rules, and thus cheating. If they don't ban it, then it's within the rules, legitimate, and not cheating. If they decide to ban it later, then it becomes cheating.
Was it cheating before it was banned? If it wasn't cheating then why ban it?
Rules often change in sports, for all kinds of reasons, and that doesn't mean that everyone who ever played by the earlier rules was cheating. Those rules may cover equipment (for example changes in allowed equipment to prevent certain advantages), clothing, drugs/supplements, or tactics. At any given time, cheating is only defined by law and the current rules of a sport.
Comments
Of course they are, they all 'enhance performance', and those that take those drugs perform better than those that didn't. A concert violinist loses out on a job because the other person auditioning was able to perform better, a student on Adderall scores better on an exam than someone smarter than them thus getting them a better grade. How is that not cheating? There doesn't need to be rules in order for someone to cheat.
A group of handsets broke the rules and were delisted under those rules.
Futuremark made the rules and police them.
Cheats shouldn't prosper and people shouldn't whine about it with bullshit objections and excuses.
The thing is it's the same firmware. It gets loaded when it's turned on and it works the same across all device. The difference is it alters how the device performs when it detects certain conditions. If you want to talk firmware (specifically) it's really the same as a higher-end vehicle being able to detect road conditions and then adjust how the vehicle performs when those conditions are present, but that has actual use for the driver. The vehicle performs differently because the firmware tells it to.
I don't think any of this is ethical but it's certainly not illegal, and seems very unlikely there will be a government agency that will be put in place to benchmark smartphones. The best way for this to be handled is for these benchmark test owners to delist them, but overall I can't imagine these tests mean anything to anyone. I don't even care that the iPhone is tops in most categories; I only care that it's feels fast when I use it and I suspect most users would agree.
The thing is it's the same firmware. It gets loaded when it's turned on and it works the same across all device. The difference is it alters how the device performs when it detects certain conditions. If you want to talk firmware it's really the same as a higher-end vehicle being able to detect road conditions and then adjust how the vehicle performs when those conditions are present, but that has actual use for the driver. The vehicle performs differently because the firmware tells it to.
I don't think any of this is ethical but it's certainly not illegal, and seems very unlikely there will be a government agency that will be put in place to benchmark smartphones. The best way for this to be handled is for these benchmark test owners to delist them, but overall I can't imagine these tests mean anything to anyone. I don't even care that the iPhone is tops in most categories; I only care that it's feels fast when I use it and I suspect most users would agree.
Hey my car has a 1000hp engine, here's a benchmark to prove it:-
I wonder how long it would last if I used it like this for everyday driving.
This is what Samsung and HTC want people to compare to everyday iPhones, or they wouldn't have done it.
Which makes it very odd when the gains have been so minimal. When you consider it's not standard across a vendor's line it's even more odd. My guess is this practice will end simply because benchmark sites are delisting devices.
I kind of vaguely remember reading a quote somewhere about things being legal, though I suspect that your memory about who originally wrote it is better than mine. Many or most of the people taking the drugs were not the ones it was prescribed to.
It's not just iPhones they're competing against.
Of course they are, they all 'enhance performance', and those that take those drugs perform better than those that didn't. A concert violinist loses out on a job because the other person auditioning was able to perform better, a student on Adderall scores better on an exam than someone smarter than them thus getting them a better grade. How is that not cheating? There doesn't need to be rules in order for someone to cheat.
Cheating =/= Giving yourself an advantage over others.
This seems to be the part that you're missing. Cheating means that you BROKE THE RULES. As I said: I don't know of any rules (if there are, then please cite them) that say, for instance, that a cellist can't have a drink before an audition to settle down.
There have to be RULES for cheating to even exist.
If a drink was enough I don't think a cellist would go out of their way to obtain a beta blocker. Most rules for cheating are reactive not proactive. The rules are set after it became known that people were using means to gain an unfair advantage over everyone else.
If a drink was enough I don't think a cellist would go out of their way to obtain a beta blocker. Most rules for cheating are reactive not proactive. The rules are set after it became known that people were using means to gain an unfair advantage over everyone else.
*headdesk*
Honestly, by your definition practice is cheating.
It's really simple, if you have to take a drug not prescribed to you to beat me then that's cheating. Answer this. Why has MLB banned substances that are perfectly legal?
It's really simple, if you have to take a drug not prescribed to you to beat me then that's cheating. Answer this. Why has MLB banned substances that are perfectly legal?
Actually, a high percentage of the drugs banned by MLB are not "perfectly legal" at all.
But as to those few that are, it's because there are RULES in place to protect those who aren't taking them. It's unfair to place a burden of health onto those who want to play fairly.
Take modeling for instance. Now, there are models who just are naturally thin. They still have to work out (yoga, Pilates, etc.) and seriously watch what they eat. But someone like Karlie Kloss just looks the way she looks because of genes, for the most part. Then you have the ones aren't quite that lucky, and do things like throw-up after eating. Then you have the ones who use either unprescribed legal drugs (amphetamines), or illegal drugs (cocaine, e.g.).
Now, when Kate Moss was 16 and walking runways and using coke on a more-than-regular basis (this isn't libel: it's a well-known fact) was she cheating? Of course not. She was just a teen millionaire who happened to be a coke head. Sure, it helped her stay (VERY) thin. And sure, she got covers and gigs because of her look, which at the time she helped usher in (heroin chic).
She wasn't cheating because there was no set of rules in place in the first place.
EDIT: Anyways, we've obviously drifted pretty far OT here. It's probably best if we just agree to disagree at this point.
But that's the entire point we were discussing earlier - if the MLB bans it then it's breaking the rules, and thus cheating. If they don't ban it, then it's within the rules, legitimate, and not cheating. If they decide to ban it later, then it becomes cheating.
Was it cheating before it was banned? If it wasn't cheating then why ban it?
The big difference being is that Kate Moss didn't take cocaine specifically to stay thin.
The big difference being is that Kate Moss didn't take cocaine specifically to stay thin.
I think what you mean is that, "Kate Moss didn't take cocaine SOLELY to stay thin."
A lot of models -- though it's gotten better now -- use illegal drugs to remain a size 2. It's not that easy when you're 5'11" to weigh 105 or 110 lbs. I mean, Karlie is 6'1" and weighs about 120 lbs. But as I said, in her case, it's natural. But in a lot of cases, it is a lot less natural and lot more drug-induced.
In that case I would consider that cheating. People that don't stick to their diets are said that they 'cheat', but they're not harming anyone but themselves.
In that case I would consider that cheating. People that don't stick to their diets are said that they 'cheat', but they're not harming anyone but themselves.
Yeah, well, most models' careers last about 4 years tops. So they can quit with the bulimia and cocaine and amphetamine use when they "age out" out of the system at the ancient age of ~22-23.
Rules often change in sports, for all kinds of reasons, and that doesn't mean that everyone who ever played by the earlier rules was cheating. Those rules may cover equipment (for example changes in allowed equipment to prevent certain advantages), clothing, drugs/supplements, or tactics. At any given time, cheating is only defined by law and the current rules of a sport.
So if I drink coffee and beat you, that’s cheating. See, you don’t get to define what a “drug” is.