RTFA. The FBI tracked down several Gamergate kids in their parents' basements and decided not to arrest them because the dweebs said "they were sorry".
You still don't appear to know what "actionable" means. A child posting a death threat over the internet to an adult is hardly a credible death threat, hence not actionable.
Let me repeat that in case you are slow - the gamergate "threats" were found to be from kids, hence not credible, hence not actionable. What did you expect them to do to kids?
There isn't really any need to interpret the FBI report, it's pretty straight forward. They spoke to some of the people dong the harassing and ask them nicely to stop, Most of them were kids who never thought that there would be any consequences, quickly apologised and promised not to do it again.
The issue is that they didn't make much effort to get to the organisers of the harassment campaign, merely the useful idiots who joined in and failed to even create proper anonymous accounts.
Regardless of what you think of Wu, it seems that law enforcement in general is unequipped to deal with this sort of crime. For example, the person who posted a death threat along with her home address has never been brought to justice. Again, regardless of your opinion of Wu, such things are clearly illegal. I'm sure someone else can cite the exact law.
Your interpretation of "they found nothing actionable" is "they are unequipped to deal with this", rather than "they found nothing actionable".
The straight forward takeaway from "they found nothing actionable" is indeed "they found nothing actionable".
I wonder where Brianna Wu got the strange notion that an internet troll could run for office and possibly win.
Like most of the far-left, she got this impression from the echo-chamber the far-left insists on living in. It's why Brexit and Trump were surprises - when you're surrounded by yes-men who agree with your (flawed) ideology it's very easy to get blind-sided by the silent majority.
Most of the far-left behaviour is as unacceptable as the far-right behaviour. Shaming language, name-calling, attempts to silence opposing viewpoints, etc are all despicable behaviours that the centrists like myself find repugnant, while both the far-right and the far-left (like yourself) far too often find this behaviour acceptable (depending on the speaker of course).
You're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
(Oh, yeah, pissbabies, manbabies, etc, etc, ad nauseum... all those lovely things you previously said about the now-exonerated gamergaters).
I didn't call anyone a racist, and trying to redefine a word to shortcut actually have to deal with what someone said is, apart from anything else, intellectually lazy
You've called lots of people racist in the past, including me, a black man. Assigning unrelated traits into a single collection like you did may not be you calling someone racist, but you're certainly implying it.
At least have the courage to directly call someone out instead of loosely chaining booleans together with a vague conditional.
There may have been "death threats," but they weren't actually threats of harm, and they were mostly sent by idiots from the chans or other young kids.
Oh, death threats aren't illegal if they're sent by stupid people? Is that case law somewhere?
Kid, get your head out of your ass. The report clearly explains clearly illegal behavior. People should have been arrested.
You don't appear to understand what "actionable" means. It literally means "there is nothing to do". It's what LEO say when they determine that something/someone isn't credible.
They've literally said "there is nothing here", and you want someone to be arrested? For what? Death threats that the report (with one exception) literally calls non-actionable?
Or do you want them to go and arrest the 10 year old who was identified as sending the threat?
I think the FBI should investigate the times where Wu was caught red handed creating fake accounts to harass himself.
Besides, even if 10% of the shit claimed by Wu wasn't made up, trolling is hardly worth spending actual money to investigate.
Don't worry. AmiMoJo, PopeRatzo and/or Serviscope_minor will be along soon to "explain" and "interpret" the FBI report to fit with their delusions about gamergate. Serviscope_minor might throw his usual moral panic fit because people are thinking the wrong thoughts instead of going with "listen and believe".
Look for the phrase "this doesn't mean that she wasn't in danger"... or similar god-of-the-gaps arguments.
Strong AI is the ultimate goal of AI research, and has been impossibly hard to figure out. The company that figures it out first will have a huge advantage over the competitors. Everyone is making slow progress on strong AI and is deathly afraid one of their competitors will figure it out first. By joining up, they will guarantee themselves a piece of the pie no matter who figures it out.
Think about it, if they were making good progress on strong AI, why join up? Would Google have collaborated with Yahoo on search technology in 2000?
Parent needs to be modded up insightful. Truly, if any of those companies were making headway they wouldn't give away the family jewels, hence none of them are having any success.
WTF? You'll pay for AutoCAD or SolidWorks, but are too cheap to buy Windows? You deserve what you get, I guess.
You think I run Linux because I can't afford free-as-in-beer windows? Newsflash: many Linux desktop users already have the windows license when it came bundled with the computer. Our reasons for discarding the windows install has nothing to do with price.
Not so long ago, people assumed that a world class Go playing computer would also take years to create, and all of of a sudden there was AlphaGo beating them.
People in the nineties assumed that a world class Go playing computer would take years to create. They were correct.
but a lot is going on in the classroom -- there is so much to look at inside it and out the window.
This is a little worrying, since we are told that a rich classroom environment stimulates the young mind. It almost sounds as if we should go back to the drab, austere, classrooms of past decades. That way the children will have few distractions and will be better able to pay attention to their teacher.
We've always known that distractions are the enemy of learning. The problem is that the most vocal proponents of any idea are themselves vacuous and unable to focus, hence they suggest stupid things like distracting environments and (being the most vocal) manage to get their way.
I recall a study that found that a touch of OCD contributed immensely to problem solving skills. This is because having just enough OCD to turn things over and over in your head (for days, if need be) allows the person to view all facets of a problem. Being easily distracted means that only superficial thought is put into a problem.
How could you possibly interpret his statement like that? He supported the exposure of corruption when it was exposing corruption *with an even hand*. Once the exposure was applied only to one side of a partisan contest, it became insupportable.
Why bother making such ridiculous strawman statements? It's obviously not what the OP thinks. I doubt it's even what you think. It won't convince more than a handful of readers. What was the point?
Wait, what? If you don't expose all corruption then don't expose any? All this hand-waving about even-handedness is just an end-run around the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that WL had any evidence of corruption on Trumps part.
Besides, the media didn't treat the elections with an even hand, so why do you expect anyone else to?
My thoughts exactly. I once supported Wikileaks seeing it as a potentially powerful weapon against the high and mighty; Bankers, corrupt politicians, lobbyists, police states...
But for some reason Wikileaks decided to target almost exclusively the United States, now even helping a political liability like Trump into power, playing into the hands of countries like Russia and China - enemies of freedoms and human rights.
Fuck Wikileaks and Assange.
So, you supported the exposure of corruption all the way until it exposed something you did not like?
Yes, I'll pay for a movie in one of the common streaming services for $10-$20 per movie.
It's clearly a generational thing. Many older individuals can't seem to understand that dvds are inconvenient.
It's a cost/benefit analysis.
You can either watch something once for $10-$20, or you can buy the DVD for $5 and watch it as many times as you want, lend it out to friends, swap the entire collection in the classifieds with someone who has a different collection, put it on repeat for kids (if it is a kids movie - they often watch the same movie multiple times)...
Paying $10-$20 for a once off use vs paying $5 for unlimited, repeated use. Whether we are talking about movies or coffee-brewing is irrelevant, what matters is whether the savings from the $5 repeated use justify the inconvenience.
To many (non-lazy) people, the advantages of disks far outweigh the inconveniences of disks. After all, getting up from your couch and walking three feet to your player is fairly convenient to most people.
So what you're saying is that transportation and energy use policies should be based upon a pretty infrequent set of scenarios. With that logic, why not build thirty lane highways to wine country, or fuck it, have a helicopter standing by?
No, what he is saying is that if you can only provide 50% coverage of the use-cases (average) you can pretty much expect that people will choose the cheaper 100% use-case coverage.
Seriously, why is this so hard for you to understand? You've basically spent the entire thread ranting that 95% use-case coverage is good enough for individuals.
Jumping 95% across a chasm is no good to an individual - you need to make it all the way or don't even attempt. Having 95% of the population able to jump a chasm is acceptable to the population. Having a single individual able to make it 95% across isn't acceptable to the individual.
Everything I'm seeing in the way of urbanization, population density and commute statistics suggests that EVs would work in the large majority of scenarios in North America and Europe.
Some things are atomic. For example, I can't drive my car if only a large majority of it is functioning; for some things, satisfying 95% of the use cases still leaves that thing 100% useless.
With transportation (as a collective, not as an individual), a population can get by 100% with a cheap gasoline-only car, but only (say) 95% with an EV. With transportation for an individual, satisfying 95% of the uses cases means that the individual would prefer to simply by an equivalent car that can do the remaining 5% as well as the EV's 95% - i.e. a gasoline-only car.
Most people with an EV either have a second car or don't travel to places they can't buy a ticket to (bus/train/plane). Those people who prefer to own only a single car and often travel outside of mass-transit would prefer to get the ICE-car that satisfies 100% of their uses-cases for a car rather than an EV that satisfies 95% of their use-cases for a car.
Yes, there are outliers, and certainly there are scenarios that Americans regularly partake in which will push past EV limits, but to base an entire transportation strategy on scenarios that are either infrequent or in a very sharp minority seems utterly illogical to me.
It would seem illogical to you because you are not being logical. You are unreasonably assuming that people would take the more expensive option that does not meet all the use-cases that the cheaper option does.
Simply put, most people do not drive hundreds of miles in a single driving session per day, most people live in urban areas where average commute times are below 30 minutes and distances are in fact below 20 miles one way. It sounds to me like the majority of North Americans could drive EVs with little significant impact on day to day driving habits.
Maybe, but it is not their day-to-day transport needs that drives their purchase, it's that remote 5% of their transport needs that drive their purchase. For the population, 95% good enough is, well, good enough. For an individual, 95% good enough is going to lose to the cheaper option that is 100% good enough.
Then why don't you give at least one specific example.
Should $FOO go as OPEX in $BAR or CAPEX with a depreciation in $BAZ?
As hard as it is to believe, while a lot of the basic bookkeeping decisions are very rigidly structured, questions like the above are very much a matter of preference - it's possible for both paths to give the same basic fiscal result but for one path to be advantageous in one environment but not in another
Since you seem to know it, explain me this: I have studied lisp for a while, and I never actually found that magic that suddenly made me much better than I was before. "You can redefine the language!", the ads said. I still don't get it: yes, I can add new functions. I can do the same thing in pretty much _every single other language out there_. Yes, I can pass code blocks to other code blocks. I can do that in other languages too, and only occasionally use it for some small code improvement - it's not a silver bullet that redefines how I write software. So, where is it, that magic you people keep talking about?
In Lisp you can do more than add new functions or pass blocks of code around. Maybe you didn't learn it well.
The one book directly forms the basis of government and law in many countries; it is, indeed, routinely followed to the letter.
[snipped anecdotal evidence]
It is not the religion, per se, that is the problem. It is fundamentalists or extremists who claim to be part of the religion that are the problem.
In case you hadn't noticed, the fundamentalist followers of one of the books number so few that they are hardly a rounding error, while the fundamentalist followers of the other book (while still in a minority) comprise a significant percentage of the followers.
Your point that both the books prescribes barbarism is correct, your conclusion that both the religions are practiced in an equally barbaric manner is not.
Quran (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
And I'm pretty sure that the Old Testament says that kids who sass their parents should be put to death. Not to mention the large number of "abominations" outside of being gay that are routinely ignored in Leviticus.
You are comparing a book that is routinely ignored with a book that is routinely followed.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFA. The FBI tracked down several Gamergate kids in their parents' basements and decided not to arrest them because the dweebs said "they were sorry".
You still don't appear to know what "actionable" means. A child posting a death threat over the internet to an adult is hardly a credible death threat, hence not actionable.
Let me repeat that in case you are slow - the gamergate "threats" were found to be from kids, hence not credible, hence not actionable. What did you expect them to do to kids?
There isn't really any need to interpret the FBI report, it's pretty straight forward. They spoke to some of the people dong the harassing and ask them nicely to stop, Most of them were kids who never thought that there would be any consequences, quickly apologised and promised not to do it again.
The issue is that they didn't make much effort to get to the organisers of the harassment campaign, merely the useful idiots who joined in and failed to even create proper anonymous accounts.
Regardless of what you think of Wu, it seems that law enforcement in general is unequipped to deal with this sort of crime. For example, the person who posted a death threat along with her home address has never been brought to justice. Again, regardless of your opinion of Wu, such things are clearly illegal. I'm sure someone else can cite the exact law.
Your interpretation of "they found nothing actionable" is "they are unequipped to deal with this", rather than "they found nothing actionable".
The straight forward takeaway from "they found nothing actionable" is indeed "they found nothing actionable".
I wonder where Brianna Wu got the strange notion that an internet troll could run for office and possibly win.
Like most of the far-left, she got this impression from the echo-chamber the far-left insists on living in. It's why Brexit and Trump were surprises - when you're surrounded by yes-men who agree with your (flawed) ideology it's very easy to get blind-sided by the silent majority.
Most of the far-left behaviour is as unacceptable as the far-right behaviour. Shaming language, name-calling, attempts to silence opposing viewpoints, etc are all despicable behaviours that the centrists like myself find repugnant, while both the far-right and the far-left (like yourself) far too often find this behaviour acceptable (depending on the speaker of course).
You're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
(Oh, yeah, pissbabies, manbabies, etc, etc, ad nauseum ... all those lovely things you previously said about the now-exonerated gamergaters).
I didn't call anyone a racist, and trying to redefine a word to shortcut actually have to deal with what someone said is, apart from anything else, intellectually lazy
You've called lots of people racist in the past, including me, a black man. Assigning unrelated traits into a single collection like you did may not be you calling someone racist, but you're certainly implying it.
At least have the courage to directly call someone out instead of loosely chaining booleans together with a vague conditional.
There may have been "death threats," but they weren't actually threats of harm, and they were mostly sent by idiots from the chans or other young kids. Oh, death threats aren't illegal if they're sent by stupid people? Is that case law somewhere? Kid, get your head out of your ass. The report clearly explains clearly illegal behavior. People should have been arrested.
You don't appear to understand what "actionable" means. It literally means "there is nothing to do". It's what LEO say when they determine that something/someone isn't credible.
They've literally said "there is nothing here", and you want someone to be arrested? For what? Death threats that the report (with one exception) literally calls non-actionable?
Or do you want them to go and arrest the 10 year old who was identified as sending the threat?
I think the FBI should investigate the times where Wu was caught red handed creating fake accounts to harass himself.
Besides, even if 10% of the shit claimed by Wu wasn't made up, trolling is hardly worth spending actual money to investigate.
Don't worry. AmiMoJo, PopeRatzo and/or Serviscope_minor will be along soon to "explain" and "interpret" the FBI report to fit with their delusions about gamergate. Serviscope_minor might throw his usual moral panic fit because people are thinking the wrong thoughts instead of going with "listen and believe".
Look for the phrase "this doesn't mean that she wasn't in danger"... or similar god-of-the-gaps arguments.
Well, TFA reading is a weak point here, but you should have at least read the summary:
Wu catalogued more than 180 death threats that she said she received because she spoke out against sexism in the game industry and #GamerGate misogyny
Nah, nothing special. No need to investigate.
It's in the summary dumbass - they did investigate. What more did you want?
Strong AI is the ultimate goal of AI research, and has been impossibly hard to figure out. The company that figures it out first will have a huge advantage over the competitors. Everyone is making slow progress on strong AI and is deathly afraid one of their competitors will figure it out first. By joining up, they will guarantee themselves a piece of the pie no matter who figures it out. Think about it, if they were making good progress on strong AI, why join up? Would Google have collaborated with Yahoo on search technology in 2000?
Parent needs to be modded up insightful. Truly, if any of those companies were making headway they wouldn't give away the family jewels, hence none of them are having any success.
What's wrong with dance and gender studies being a part of that?
It's an ideological indoctrination, not a study of anything.
WTF? You'll pay for AutoCAD or SolidWorks, but are too cheap to buy Windows? You deserve what you get, I guess.
You think I run Linux because I can't afford free-as-in-beer windows? Newsflash: many Linux desktop users already have the windows license when it came bundled with the computer. Our reasons for discarding the windows install has nothing to do with price.
Not so long ago, people assumed that a world class Go playing computer would also take years to create, and all of of a sudden there was AlphaGo beating them.
People in the nineties assumed that a world class Go playing computer would take years to create. They were correct.
but a lot is going on in the classroom -- there is so much to look at inside it and out the window.
This is a little worrying, since we are told that a rich classroom environment stimulates the young mind. It almost sounds as if we should go back to the drab, austere, classrooms of past decades. That way the children will have few distractions and will be better able to pay attention to their teacher.
We've always known that distractions are the enemy of learning. The problem is that the most vocal proponents of any idea are themselves vacuous and unable to focus, hence they suggest stupid things like distracting environments and (being the most vocal) manage to get their way.
I recall a study that found that a touch of OCD contributed immensely to problem solving skills. This is because having just enough OCD to turn things over and over in your head (for days, if need be) allows the person to view all facets of a problem. Being easily distracted means that only superficial thought is put into a problem.
Solitude is necessary for depth when thinking.
How could you possibly interpret his statement like that? He supported the exposure of corruption when it was exposing corruption *with an even hand*. Once the exposure was applied only to one side of a partisan contest, it became insupportable.
Why bother making such ridiculous strawman statements? It's obviously not what the OP thinks. I doubt it's even what you think. It won't convince more than a handful of readers. What was the point?
Wait, what? If you don't expose all corruption then don't expose any? All this hand-waving about even-handedness is just an end-run around the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that WL had any evidence of corruption on Trumps part.
Besides, the media didn't treat the elections with an even hand, so why do you expect anyone else to?
My thoughts exactly. I once supported Wikileaks seeing it as a potentially powerful weapon against the high and mighty; Bankers, corrupt politicians, lobbyists, police states... But for some reason Wikileaks decided to target almost exclusively the United States, now even helping a political liability like Trump into power, playing into the hands of countries like Russia and China - enemies of freedoms and human rights.
Fuck Wikileaks and Assange.
So, you supported the exposure of corruption all the way until it exposed something you did not like?
Yes, I'll pay for a movie in one of the common streaming services for $10-$20 per movie.
It's clearly a generational thing. Many older individuals can't seem to understand that dvds are inconvenient.
It's a cost/benefit analysis.
You can either watch something once for $10-$20, or you can buy the DVD for $5 and watch it as many times as you want, lend it out to friends, swap the entire collection in the classifieds with someone who has a different collection, put it on repeat for kids (if it is a kids movie - they often watch the same movie multiple times)...
Paying $10-$20 for a once off use vs paying $5 for unlimited, repeated use. Whether we are talking about movies or coffee-brewing is irrelevant, what matters is whether the savings from the $5 repeated use justify the inconvenience.
To many (non-lazy) people, the advantages of disks far outweigh the inconveniences of disks. After all, getting up from your couch and walking three feet to your player is fairly convenient to most people.
So what you're saying is that transportation and energy use policies should be based upon a pretty infrequent set of scenarios. With that logic, why not build thirty lane highways to wine country, or fuck it, have a helicopter standing by?
No, what he is saying is that if you can only provide 50% coverage of the use-cases (average) you can pretty much expect that people will choose the cheaper 100% use-case coverage.
Seriously, why is this so hard for you to understand? You've basically spent the entire thread ranting that 95% use-case coverage is good enough for individuals.
Jumping 95% across a chasm is no good to an individual - you need to make it all the way or don't even attempt. Having 95% of the population able to jump a chasm is acceptable to the population. Having a single individual able to make it 95% across isn't acceptable to the individual.
Everything I'm seeing in the way of urbanization, population density and commute statistics suggests that EVs would work in the large majority of scenarios in North America and Europe.
Some things are atomic. For example, I can't drive my car if only a large majority of it is functioning; for some things, satisfying 95% of the use cases still leaves that thing 100% useless.
With transportation (as a collective, not as an individual), a population can get by 100% with a cheap gasoline-only car, but only (say) 95% with an EV. With transportation for an individual, satisfying 95% of the uses cases means that the individual would prefer to simply by an equivalent car that can do the remaining 5% as well as the EV's 95% - i.e. a gasoline-only car.
Most people with an EV either have a second car or don't travel to places they can't buy a ticket to (bus/train/plane). Those people who prefer to own only a single car and often travel outside of mass-transit would prefer to get the ICE-car that satisfies 100% of their uses-cases for a car rather than an EV that satisfies 95% of their use-cases for a car.
Yes, there are outliers, and certainly there are scenarios that Americans regularly partake in which will push past EV limits, but to base an entire transportation strategy on scenarios that are either infrequent or in a very sharp minority seems utterly illogical to me.
It would seem illogical to you because you are not being logical. You are unreasonably assuming that people would take the more expensive option that does not meet all the use-cases that the cheaper option does.
Simply put, most people do not drive hundreds of miles in a single driving session per day, most people live in urban areas where average commute times are below 30 minutes and distances are in fact below 20 miles one way. It sounds to me like the majority of North Americans could drive EVs with little significant impact on day to day driving habits.
Maybe, but it is not their day-to-day transport needs that drives their purchase, it's that remote 5% of their transport needs that drive their purchase. For the population, 95% good enough is, well, good enough. For an individual, 95% good enough is going to lose to the cheaper option that is 100% good enough.
Seriously? Quite a bit actually.
Then why don't you give at least one specific example.
Should $FOO go as OPEX in $BAR or CAPEX with a depreciation in $BAZ?
As hard as it is to believe, while a lot of the basic bookkeeping decisions are very rigidly structured, questions like the above are very much a matter of preference - it's possible for both paths to give the same basic fiscal result but for one path to be advantageous in one environment but not in another
Since you seem to know it, explain me this: I have studied lisp for a while, and I never actually found that magic that suddenly made me much better than I was before. "You can redefine the language!", the ads said. I still don't get it: yes, I can add new functions. I can do the same thing in pretty much _every single other language out there_. Yes, I can pass code blocks to other code blocks. I can do that in other languages too, and only occasionally use it for some small code improvement - it's not a silver bullet that redefines how I write software. So, where is it, that magic you people keep talking about?
In Lisp you can do more than add new functions or pass blocks of code around. Maybe you didn't learn it well.
Clinton has been accused of being in bed with big business. Trump is a card carrying member of big business.
a) It's not illegal for business to be in bed with other businesses.
b) It damn well *is* illegal for a politician to be in bed with big business.
I'm pretty sure both books are routinely ignored.
The one book directly forms the basis of government and law in many countries; it is, indeed, routinely followed to the letter.
[snipped anecdotal evidence]
It is not the religion, per se, that is the problem. It is fundamentalists or extremists who claim to be part of the religion that are the problem.
In case you hadn't noticed, the fundamentalist followers of one of the books number so few that they are hardly a rounding error, while the fundamentalist followers of the other book (while still in a minority) comprise a significant percentage of the followers.
Your point that both the books prescribes barbarism is correct, your conclusion that both the religions are practiced in an equally barbaric manner is not.
We shouldn't react to events like this by compounding the loss of life with a loss of rights, loss of dignity and loss of humanity.
You should repeat that quote the next time a shooter goes crazy and the vocal minority calls for gun bans.
Quran (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
And I'm pretty sure that the Old Testament says that kids who sass their parents should be put to death. Not to mention the large number of "abominations" outside of being gay that are routinely ignored in Leviticus.
You are comparing a book that is routinely ignored with a book that is routinely followed.
How would you stop such autonomous cargo truck with no driver to shoot at?
Fortunately you have to be kind of an idiot to want to murder people like this anyway.
That fact doesn't lessen the threat; the world is filled with idiots, after all.
And a cuck.
You're extremely bitter. Why is that?