Hopefully the American public will start to realize that the GOP and their current president are not representing ordinary citizens, but influential corporations, especially the ethically flexible ones, such as those highly invested in military and oil.
This is why the GOP and their friends at FOX have been climate change deniers, and the current president is calling it a hoax. It's all about protecting profits right up until the point the entire world goes to shit. The US is the only country in the world where a large percentage of the population still does not believe in climate change even though 99% of scientists support it. This sick situation thanks to GOP politicians, lobbyists and the media that supports them, especially FOX News. Can you please tell them to fuck off before it is too late?
"RT that is literally a state-sponsored news funded by the Russian Kremlin" ands the BBC is what exactly genius?
BBC is funded by license fees independent from the currently ruling party, and a commercial factor. RT is funded by the Russian government. Big difference, genius.
"a country on the bottom of the press-freedom index" No its not its "difficult situation" level 2/5. UK is satisfactory situation 4/5.
Yeah, right. Russia is place 148 below Pakistan, Venezuela or Afghanistan on the Press Freedom Index, but not actual rock-bottom, you're right. That would be North Korea. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
"independent journalists are murdered on a regular basis" Now you are just making shit up.
Crimea actually, part of Russia proper until 1954, 60-80% Russian-speaking (depending on who's counting), annexed after a (granted,questionable) referendum after successful US-sponsored coup in Ukraine. Sounds much less villainous after you know some facts. Also a great loss of resources that were supposed to be made available to US interests after the successful coup. Oops.
There was no "coup" unless you rely on Russian sources. It was the majority of Ukrainians who VOTED to join the EU. Russia views the EU as the gateway to NATO and of course Putin would have none of that, so he decided to invade the east and annex Crimea with soldiers without insigna, all the while putting up smokescreens denying any involvement. All of which is obviously illegal under international law.
Support for a Russian-allied tyrant is different from US supporting its Allied Tyrants (say the House of Saud) by how many levels of Hell exactly? Oh, I see, the same action's evil depends of who is doing it! Also known as Hypocrisy. And no, "whataboutism" is an Orwellian NewSpeak term, a logical fallacy in itself designed to deflect from exposing actions Hypocritical. Don't even bother.
The Syrians were protesting on the streets for more freedoms and democracy as part of the Arab spring. Assad decided not to chat and gun them down instead. You can bet your ass the US or any Western country would never be able or willing to uphold support for a regime that guns down their own citizens. Putin has no problem with that, obviously.
You should read stuff by Seymour Hersh (one of those old school war journalists no longer popular for their knack of telling inconvenient truths - oh, hey this sounds familiar!) and his on-site investigations of the Great Chlorine Fabrication. There are many others. For further reference check out a girl named Nayirah and incubator babies but then again it will probably bounce off your uncritical self-smug world-view like a water off a duck.
International inspectors have performed their investigations and it is clear that the Syrian regime bears responsibility for the chemical attacks. But you might prefer to believe Putin and Assad's version, since they are clearly more trustworthy than any international organization.
Hang them now! How dare they have a preference! Wait, isn't this exactly what US is doing? Wasn't Obama actually co-campaigning in Britain against Brexit even...
Voicing support for one party or the other is one thing. A foreign state actor providing material support and finances to a party and agenda of a foreign nation is another thing altogether.
The ongoing murders of opposition figures and journalists in Russia
Having been fed a steady diet of bullshit of such high purity you probably also think that Putin is not having popularity ratings in 80% range
Putin's rating haven't been in the 80's for a while now. Not that it matters. Of course a strong leader in a police state where the media is controlled by the government will have high ratings. How high do you think Hitler's rating where?
RT sure its has bias but you can take that into account. Overall tho it is a more honest and open news outlet than any of the above or even the Big Brother Corporation (BBC).
Yes, I'm sure that RT that is literally a state-sponsored news funded by the Russian Kremlin, a country on the bottom of the press-freedom index, and a de-facto police state in which independent journalists are murdered on a regular basis is more trustworthy than the BBC.
That's exactly what the Russian media is trying to get people to believe. That Russia-bashing is some kind of trend plotted by the west to discredit Russia.
If it weren't for the fact that Putin's Russia is the sociopath on the international scale at the moment. - Annexation of Krimea - Invasion of eastern Ukraine by Russian soldiers "on vacation" - The downing of a passenger airliner with a Russian AA missile provided to the separatists - Support for dictator Assad in Syria - Covering up for use of chemical weapons in Syria - Support for right-wing parties across Europe - Internet trolls spreading FUD across the western Interenet - Meddling in democratic process of US and other Western governments - The ongoing murders of opposition figures and journalists in Russia The list goes on. Of course, a website like RT.com that is funded by the Kremlin would like to have you believe that that is all anti-Russian propaganda. Big surprise.
Wikileaks is mostly just an intermediary between the person(s) leaking data and journalists and the public. If they don't get any leaks from Russia or China they cannot leak them. Or are you claiming that Wikileaks is intentionally burying leaks from inside Russia and China? Or is it more a feeling that when they get leaks from Western sources they focus on the dirty deeds of Western governments?
Wikileaks receives many leaks from all over the world, and it's up to the Wikileaks insiders, most of all Assange, to decide what to sift through, and what gets the most attention by forwarding to media and making the headlines. In this respect Wikileaks is no better than most news organizations - they want to get as much attention as possible. And I guess some dirt on the self-proclaimed leader of the free world is more spectacular and outrageous than all the shit that happens every day in Russia and China.
Umm.. and FOX, CNN, MSNBC et all are all unbiased media sources? Or are you going to cry 'false equivalency'?
All news sources are biased to an extent. There is a difference however between a bias and purposefully spreading disinformation to confuse, manipulate and distort the truth.
Assange's contribution to humanity is immense. Uncovering really dodgee dealings which are ruining countless lives.
I was a strong proponent of Wikileaks, hell I even bought one of their T-shirts to support them. Right up to the point when they were always singularly highlighting grievances in the US and the West in general, while seemingly giving real police states like Russia and China with desolate human rights conditions a free pass.
Also Assange has been a too useful idiot to Putin's plan of dismantling Europe and hurting NATO lately in his support of separatist movements like Brexit and Catalonian independence. Parts of Europe are practically paralyzed due to being busy with these non-issues. It's no secret that Russia is supporting separatist and right-wing parties throughout Europe. Assange has been acting like one of these Russian agents lately, whose purpose it is to undermine our democracies by spreading FUD, so fuck him.
Also, Slashdot shouldn't post articles citing RT.com sources. RT is Russia's propaganda mouthpiece disguised as a a legit news channel.
NATO should blow up those salvage ships to keep the gold at the bottom of the ocean. No reason to make a multi-billion dollar present to Putin and his murdering army of thugs in Syria and Ukraine.
Here is the reason why nuclear is so "inexpensive":
The demolition of a nuclear power plant is a technically complicated undertaking that can take between 15 and 20 years to complete. In the case of Obrigheim, dismantling the power plant will cost energy utility company EnBW, which owns the facility, an estimated â500 million ($684 million). Compared to other plants in Germany, this pressurized-water reactor is relatively small. The dismantling of larger plants like Gundremmingen B or Isar 2 in the state of Bavaria are estimated to cost as much as â1 billion each.
Most Germans have assumed that these costs will be picked up by the energy utility companies, which have gleaned billions of euros in profits from these plants. Besides, why should different rules apply to nuclear plant operators than to normal car owners, who have to pay to scrap their car when it's no longer fit for the road?
But the heads of Germany's three major electric utility companies -- E.On CEO Johannes Teyssen, RWE chief Peter Terium and EnBW head Frank Mastiaux -- have come up with what they think is a brilliant plan to transfer the billions in risks related to dismantling nuclear plants. They want to punt responsibility to the state and taxpayers.
Why the fuck would you need an opt-in for a security feature?
Security is always a trade-off. There is no perfect security. You always trade convenience and practicality for a reasonably high degree of security. That's why we have things like passwords instead of everyone requiring to take a blood-sample, have the sample sent to a lab and your DNA analyzed for your identity before letting you access your emails. The blood-sample approach would be more secure than the password, so why not make it default?
To use a less contrived example: your computer connects to the Internet by default when it starts up, right? Connecting to the internet is a security risk, so by your logic not connecting should be the default and you should always connect manually.
With a $2.8B fine, and another that could be higher, would it just be more profitable to stay away from the EU where they appear to keep their economy afloat via litigation (gross overgeneralization, but you know what I mean)?
The US is the most litigious country in the world, where people can make millions by getting their lips burned by a hot cup of coffee at starbucks, which is why the US is plastered with ridiculous warning signs all over the place. So I guess you know best.
But it is good that you're being a real patriot defending the honor of US companies against blackmailing and leeching EU bureaucrats. Too bad Google is not very patriotic and moving all of their billions in revenue through Ireland to pay almost nothing in taxes... anywhere else.
My computer is 2 years old, it is not a particular expensive computer... it packs 32 GB of memory, GTX1080 and an i6700K
If your computer is 2 years old and packs a GTX 1080, you must have bought the card practically on launch day (May 27th 2016), which must have cost a small fortune.
You are probably one of the tranquilized masses that is spoon-fed the ludicrous lies and conspiracies of the liberal media and the scientific establishment. You probably even believe in climate change even though our president confirmed it's nothing but a Chinese conspiracy! LoL! You are such a tool! Watch more Fox News and be purged from leftist idiocy. All hail very stable genius!
I wonder, did scientists account that perhaps the stars in the outer galaxy are not actually orbiting, but escaping? Wouldn't this also explain the spiral form of the galaxy?
They probably did, using some strange scientific tricks that are beyond me.
Game developers have largely shied away from it because similar results can be achieved with typically better performance using other methods.
True, but it was also a self-reinforcing trend. Raster-based graphics was how it all started, so chip-makers and API providers where optimizing for that, which in turn entrenched this way of rendering further, 25 years on, graphics chips and API's are an amalgamation of super-optimized functions, tricks and hacks to squeeze every ounce of performance from that rendering methodology. And the fact is that this way of rendering has very little to do with the real world. I would welcome the trend towards ray-traced rendering because it reflects how the physical processes work in the real world, which is vastly more logical and intuitive than the OpenGL or DirectX graphics specification. Surely ray-traced rendering will also use hacks and shortcuts, but I'm sure it will be nowhere near the bag of tricks that that current graphics engines work with.
On the other hand, this is bad-news for some of the heavily invested graphics-gurus, since all of their accumulated knowledge could become moot if ray-tracing becomes the new standard.
Well, there was that infamous opening scene in a Call of Duty game that invited you to gun down civilians in an airport as an undercover agent who had infiltrated a terrorist group.
I really hated that scene, not just because it was tasteless, but because the game prevented you from doing the right thing and saving those people - shooting any of the terrorists would fail the mission. And the terrorists would uncover your identity and kill you at the end, no matter what you did.
The entire thing felt like a cheap excuse to let the player run amok and indiscriminately murder people in an airport.
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully the American public will start to realize that the GOP and their current president are not representing ordinary citizens, but influential corporations, especially the ethically flexible ones, such as those highly invested in military and oil.
This is why the GOP and their friends at FOX have been climate change deniers, and the current president is calling it a hoax. It's all about protecting profits right up until the point the entire world goes to shit.
The US is the only country in the world where a large percentage of the population still does not believe in climate change even though 99% of scientists support it. This sick situation thanks to GOP politicians, lobbyists and the media that supports them, especially FOX News.
Can you please tell them to fuck off before it is too late?
"RT that is literally a state-sponsored news funded by the Russian Kremlin"
ands the BBC is what exactly genius?
BBC is funded by license fees independent from the currently ruling party, and a commercial factor. RT is funded by the Russian government. Big difference, genius.
"a country on the bottom of the press-freedom index"
No its not its "difficult situation" level 2/5. UK is satisfactory situation 4/5.
Yeah, right. Russia is place 148 below Pakistan, Venezuela or Afghanistan on the Press Freedom Index, but not actual rock-bottom, you're right. That would be North Korea. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
"independent journalists are murdered on a regular basis"
Now you are just making shit up.
I wish I would.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Crimea actually, part of Russia proper until 1954, 60-80% Russian-speaking (depending on who's counting), annexed after a (granted,questionable) referendum after successful US-sponsored coup in Ukraine. Sounds much less villainous after you know some facts. Also a great loss of resources that were supposed to be made available to US interests after the successful coup. Oops.
There was no "coup" unless you rely on Russian sources. It was the majority of Ukrainians who VOTED to join the EU. Russia views the EU as the gateway to NATO and of course Putin would have none of that, so he decided to invade the east and annex Crimea with soldiers without insigna, all the while putting up smokescreens denying any involvement. All of which is obviously illegal under international law.
Support for a Russian-allied tyrant is different from US supporting its Allied Tyrants (say the House of Saud) by how many levels of Hell exactly? Oh, I see, the same action's evil depends of who is doing it! Also known as Hypocrisy. And no, "whataboutism" is an Orwellian NewSpeak term, a logical fallacy in itself designed to deflect from exposing actions Hypocritical. Don't even bother.
The Syrians were protesting on the streets for more freedoms and democracy as part of the Arab spring. Assad decided not to chat and gun them down instead. You can bet your ass the US or any Western country would never be able or willing to uphold support for a regime that guns down their own citizens. Putin has no problem with that, obviously.
You should read stuff by Seymour Hersh (one of those old school war journalists no longer popular for their knack of telling inconvenient truths - oh, hey this sounds familiar!) and his on-site investigations of the Great Chlorine Fabrication. There are many others. For further reference check out a girl named Nayirah and incubator babies but then again it will probably bounce off your uncritical self-smug world-view like a water off a duck.
International inspectors have performed their investigations and it is clear that the Syrian regime bears responsibility for the chemical attacks. But you might prefer to believe Putin and Assad's version, since they are clearly more trustworthy than any international organization.
Hang them now! How dare they have a preference! Wait, isn't this exactly what US is doing? Wasn't Obama actually co-campaigning in Britain against Brexit even...
Voicing support for one party or the other is one thing. A foreign state actor providing material support and finances to a party and agenda of a foreign nation is another thing altogether.
The ongoing murders of opposition figures and journalists in Russia
Having been fed a steady diet of bullshit of such high purity you probably also think that Putin is not having popularity ratings in 80% range
Putin's rating haven't been in the 80's for a while now. Not that it matters. Of course a strong leader in a police state where the media is controlled by the government will have high ratings. How high do you think Hitler's rating where?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world...
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...
The list goes on...
Business as usual in Putin's Russia.
RT sure its has bias but you can take that into account. Overall tho it is a more honest and open news outlet than any of the above or even the Big Brother Corporation (BBC).
Yes, I'm sure that RT that is literally a state-sponsored news funded by the Russian Kremlin, a country on the bottom of the press-freedom index, and a de-facto police state in which independent journalists are murdered on a regular basis is more trustworthy than the BBC.
... because it's trendy.
That's exactly what the Russian media is trying to get people to believe. That Russia-bashing is some kind of trend plotted by the west to discredit Russia.
If it weren't for the fact that Putin's Russia is the sociopath on the international scale at the moment.
- Annexation of Krimea
- Invasion of eastern Ukraine by Russian soldiers "on vacation"
- The downing of a passenger airliner with a Russian AA missile provided to the separatists
- Support for dictator Assad in Syria
- Covering up for use of chemical weapons in Syria
- Support for right-wing parties across Europe
- Internet trolls spreading FUD across the western Interenet
- Meddling in democratic process of US and other Western governments
- The ongoing murders of opposition figures and journalists in Russia
The list goes on.
Of course, a website like RT.com that is funded by the Kremlin would like to have you believe that that is all anti-Russian propaganda. Big surprise.
Wikileaks is mostly just an intermediary between the person(s) leaking data and journalists and the public. If they don't get any leaks from Russia or China they cannot leak them. Or are you claiming that Wikileaks is intentionally burying leaks from inside Russia and China? Or is it more a feeling that when they get leaks from Western sources they focus on the dirty deeds of Western governments?
Wikileaks receives many leaks from all over the world, and it's up to the Wikileaks insiders, most of all Assange, to decide what to sift through, and what gets the most attention by forwarding to media and making the headlines. In this respect Wikileaks is no better than most news organizations - they want to get as much attention as possible. And I guess some dirt on the self-proclaimed leader of the free world is more spectacular and outrageous than all the shit that happens every day in Russia and China.
Umm.. and FOX, CNN, MSNBC et all are all unbiased media sources? Or are you going to cry 'false equivalency'?
All news sources are biased to an extent. There is a difference however between a bias and purposefully spreading disinformation to confuse, manipulate and distort the truth.
Assange's contribution to humanity is immense. Uncovering really dodgee dealings which are ruining countless lives.
I was a strong proponent of Wikileaks, hell I even bought one of their T-shirts to support them. Right up to the point when they were always singularly highlighting grievances in the US and the West in general, while seemingly giving real police states like Russia and China with desolate human rights conditions a free pass.
Also Assange has been a too useful idiot to Putin's plan of dismantling Europe and hurting NATO lately in his support of separatist movements like Brexit and Catalonian independence. Parts of Europe are practically paralyzed due to being busy with these non-issues. It's no secret that Russia is supporting separatist and right-wing parties throughout Europe.
Assange has been acting like one of these Russian agents lately, whose purpose it is to undermine our democracies by spreading FUD, so fuck him.
Also, Slashdot shouldn't post articles citing RT.com sources. RT is Russia's propaganda mouthpiece disguised as a a legit news channel.
The problem is arms race. Nobody will be able to prevent the Chinese from developing militarized AI, so everyone else will have to follow through.
NATO should blow up those salvage ships to keep the gold at the bottom of the ocean.
No reason to make a multi-billion dollar present to Putin and his murdering army of thugs in Syria and Ukraine.
Here is the reason why nuclear is so "inexpensive":
The demolition of a nuclear power plant is a technically complicated undertaking that can take between 15 and 20 years to complete. In the case of Obrigheim, dismantling the power plant will cost energy utility company EnBW, which owns the facility, an estimated â500 million ($684 million). Compared to other plants in Germany, this pressurized-water reactor is relatively small. The dismantling of larger plants like Gundremmingen B or Isar 2 in the state of Bavaria are estimated to cost as much as â1 billion each.
Most Germans have assumed that these costs will be picked up by the energy utility companies, which have gleaned billions of euros in profits from these plants. Besides, why should different rules apply to nuclear plant operators than to normal car owners, who have to pay to scrap their car when it's no longer fit for the road?
But the heads of Germany's three major electric utility companies -- E.On CEO Johannes Teyssen, RWE chief Peter Terium and EnBW head Frank Mastiaux -- have come up with what they think is a brilliant plan to transfer the billions in risks related to dismantling nuclear plants. They want to punt responsibility to the state and taxpayers.
Article: Utility companies want public trust for winding down nuclear plants
1. Make big $$$ while plants operate.
2. When it's time to shut down, involve taxpayer
3. Profit!
Why the fuck would you need an opt-in for a security feature?
Security is always a trade-off. There is no perfect security. You always trade convenience and practicality for a reasonably high degree of security. That's why we have things like passwords instead of everyone requiring to take a blood-sample, have the sample sent to a lab and your DNA analyzed for your identity before letting you access your emails. The blood-sample approach would be more secure than the password, so why not make it default?
To use a less contrived example: your computer connects to the Internet by default when it starts up, right? Connecting to the internet is a security risk, so by your logic not connecting should be the default and you should always connect manually.
With a $2.8B fine, and another that could be higher, would it just be more profitable to stay away from the EU where they appear to keep their economy afloat via litigation (gross overgeneralization, but you know what I mean)?
The US is the most litigious country in the world, where people can make millions by getting their lips burned by a hot cup of coffee at starbucks, which is why the US is plastered with ridiculous warning signs all over the place. So I guess you know best.
But it is good that you're being a real patriot defending the honor of US companies against blackmailing and leeching EU bureaucrats. Too bad Google is not very patriotic and moving all of their billions in revenue through Ireland to pay almost nothing in taxes... anywhere else.
I for one am very grateful for the US intervention in WW2.
Could you send your best worm-eating rodents to Europe, save us one more time, plz?
"Dark" side of the moon? In this day and age, seriously??
This is what has you concerned? Seriously?
How about Space Communists discovering the Space Nazis!! Intergalactic Space War!!!
Right! Right? Who the hell do NASA think they are? Rocket scientists!?!?
Good thing president pussygrabber has cut off climate research funding for these liberal scumbags.
Are you daft? It's the same natural process that evaporates the tobacco and the chemicals in a cigarette, when the tip of the cigarette is lighted.
My computer is 2 years old, it is not a particular expensive computer... it packs 32 GB of memory, GTX1080 and an i6700K
If your computer is 2 years old and packs a GTX 1080, you must have bought the card practically on launch day (May 27th 2016), which must have cost a small fortune.
You are probably one of the tranquilized masses that is spoon-fed the ludicrous lies and conspiracies of the liberal media and the scientific establishment. You probably even believe in climate change even though our president confirmed it's nothing but a Chinese conspiracy! LoL! You are such a tool! Watch more Fox News and be purged from leftist idiocy. All hail very stable genius!
My shiny, expensive LEGO collection!?! =-O
KILL IT WITH FIRE!
As I said in my previous comment...
It works better than money, and it has none of the down sides of the bickerings of the international community.
I agree. Digital currency only has upsides. Stealing Bitcoins online is way easier than robbing a bank.
I wonder, did scientists account that perhaps the stars in the outer galaxy are not actually orbiting, but escaping? Wouldn't this also explain the spiral form of the galaxy?
They probably did, using some strange scientific tricks that are beyond me.
Game developers have largely shied away from it because similar results can be achieved with typically better performance using other methods.
True, but it was also a self-reinforcing trend. Raster-based graphics was how it all started, so chip-makers and API providers where optimizing for that, which in turn entrenched this way of rendering further, 25 years on, graphics chips and API's are an amalgamation of super-optimized functions, tricks and hacks to squeeze every ounce of performance from that rendering methodology. And the fact is that this way of rendering has very little to do with the real world.
I would welcome the trend towards ray-traced rendering because it reflects how the physical processes work in the real world, which is vastly more logical and intuitive than the OpenGL or DirectX graphics specification. Surely ray-traced rendering will also use hacks and shortcuts, but I'm sure it will be nowhere near the bag of tricks that that current graphics engines work with.
On the other hand, this is bad-news for some of the heavily invested graphics-gurus, since all of their accumulated knowledge could become moot if ray-tracing becomes the new standard.
Well, there was that infamous opening scene in a Call of Duty game that invited you to gun down civilians in an airport as an undercover agent who had infiltrated a terrorist group.
I really hated that scene, not just because it was tasteless, but because the game prevented you from doing the right thing and saving those people - shooting any of the terrorists would fail the mission. And the terrorists would uncover your identity and kill you at the end, no matter what you did.
The entire thing felt like a cheap excuse to let the player run amok and indiscriminately murder people in an airport.