Except Mozilla is not involved at all. Hell, if you took only a second to read the link you've provided, you'd have noticed that SeaMonkey came to be specifically because Mozilla stopped working on their Mozilla Application suite.
"Free speech" in a legal sense is indeed only about governmental intrusion, and the definition is largely specific to the US, so mentioning it for a UK matter is already not particularly relevant. It's not like Dawkins is claiming that what they are doing is illegal either.
What Dawkins is talking about is the principle, the ideal of free speech. That is applicable to anything and anyone, anywhere. You can most certainly decry a lack of free speech in any situation, even when concerning private corporations.
Well, they did say "modern" and "desktop", but OSX would indeed work. Perhaps I should've put a "/s" or something to indicate the joking nature of the post? Ah what am I thinking, can't have jokes about Linux on Slashdot.
Actually, I think there's an opposite effect going on. I'd say the children born to wealthy parents, but not unbelieveably so, have the best chances. Being the child of Zuckerberg or Gates means you're growing up in a very unique position which isn't necessarily good for a child's development. It becomes hard to have "normal" social interactions, you have a completely out of whack understanding and relationship with money, etc. This goes even more so as a teenager, where the other teens will know who your parents are, which will heavily color their interactions with you. Plus, many of those parents tend to be extremely busy and it's very well known that parental presence is one of the most important factors in a child's development.
This post is a perfect example of why social conservatism is stupid.
You want to oppose importing terrorists eh? How do you go about doing that, pray tell? First of all, just in case you weren't aware: all of the successful terrorist attacks that happened in France weren't caused by Syrian refugees. They were carried out by people who emigrated years prior, who'd been setup as sleeper cells until the time was right to strike. So what do you do to prevent them from entering the country? Prevent anyone who looks vaguely Arabic from entering? That's millions of people you're suddenly blocking there to prevent 0.01% of them (if that) from entering.
But that's not all, is it? There are already millions of them on your soil. Do you kick them out too? People who might've been here for generations, who have families, friends, a job and are perfectly normal citizens? Because if you don't, that leaves hundreds of possible sleeper cells around.
And then, that's not even solving the issue fully. There have been terrorist acts carried out by converted Westerners too. How do you go about preventing that? Ban Islam entirely? That's again millions of people, some of whom have been here for so many generations they're an integral part of your country's history. Plus, it won't really help, since those converted people know how to act "normally" since they've been raised that way and were only converted later on.
But no matter, even if you fixed that miraculously, you'd still have school shootings and crazies like Anders Breivik who are literally indistinguishable from the rest of your population and who can carry out atrocities just as well as that horrible Muslim you're so scared of.
Here's the funny thing too: regardless of where you stop in this dangerous trend, you've still created two classes of people: those who can live in your country and those who can't. You've removed their freedom to "protect" yours. You've failed to achieve what you set out to do, unless you are so egotistical to only care about yourself. And if you're American (which is a pretty good guess from the tone of your post and the website it was posted on), you've also gone against the one thing that made it into what it is: that everyone stands equal and everyone has a chance. Now you don't stand a chance if your skin is brown. Welcome to the Confederacy.
TL;DR: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Yields. When intel releases a new processor line, yields are still pretty low, especially towards the high end. That's why you have binning and so many different processors - so they can recycle a top-end processor as a mid or high-end processor should parts of it end up subpar (though this is more popular in GPUs these days).
As the line ages, yields improve and they generally iterate over the design in smaller ways to obtain even better efficiency or iron out issues. It's at that point that it becomes very appealing to release an improved flagship series (the -E branding) using the better yields. They're branded the same as the current line (so Broadwell-E is 6000 like Skylake processors) because they're still considered superior.
HBM only works for stacking memory (hence why it's called High Bandwidth Memory). You can't stack CPU cores because they output waaaaaay too much heat. You can dissipate heat from memory passively, so stacking them and slapping an active cooler can work. Good luck stacking CPU cores in the same way.
Yeah, which is pointless because comparing clock speeds between different manufacturers has never meant anything. Your A10 still tanks against most Intel processors in any but the most parallel of use cases. Oh, and you do need a separate video card if you actually care about having a GPU. APUs are still laughably underpowered.
Android Marshmallow has completely revamped the permission model so that permissions are explicitly requested the first time they are needed and can be denied individually. It was possible prior to that to block the usage of certain elements of the phone, but that took more work than most people would've bothered with.
Anything that touches the Beats brand is terrible. I still find myself depressed whenever I see someone walking around with their crappy shiny plastic headphones.
You're saying that like scientists posting results and doing work is something new. They existed before Harper muzzled them, you know that, right? They didn't conform to ideologies either. Yet, there's exactly one government that decided they had to be controlled and their ability to talk restricted. One.
Um, no it has nothing to do with this. Canadian scientists were muzzled by the Conservative government in large part because what they would've otherwise said would have gone against the political agenda of the Conservative party. Let's just say that the vast majority of their policies were grounded in idiotic convictions rather than analysis. Conservatives also seem to hate science as a general rule, because God's word is all you need.
This is just the start of the undoing of the dark ages. It'll take years to restore everything, assuming the Liberals actually do try to restore everything. This first move was by far the easiest and is universally approved.
Yes, after a six-year hiatus because they had no fucking clue how to properly develop the franchise, instead literally flooding the market with multiple titles a year until people stopped being interested. They managed to take an extremely popular franchise and turn it into toxic waste in just a few years.
But that's the thing - $2bn in revenue. In profit, you're talking more arounf $600-700m. Mind you, that's still a lot, and it's apparently still seeing growth, but those mobile games are very very fickle. Who's to say that it'll be there in a few years, let alone at least five if you want to just recoup the investment assuming massive profit growth?
Activision better have a plan for turning that single-franchise acquisition into something longer lasting, but seeing their methodology with Guitar Hero and Call of Duty, I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Except those devs overwhelmingly build with a single target in mind: consoles. They use devkits to work and do all of their testing and iterating on it. Sorry, you're flat out wrong.
The real reason for shit like this is that publishers hand off the porting job to random crappy devs and give them untenable deadlines to do it.
The 2005 Energy act prevents entities like that and local governments from interfering with the placement and approval of Nuclear facilities, including Reactors. Compliance for building a nuclear reactor was established by the NRC's predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission so it has very little to do with the groups you mentioned.
The groups I mentioned have an influence well before placement and approval are on the table. They negatively influence the very notion of greenlighting additional nuclear facilities: it's currently less damaging for a politician to let more coal plants get built than to push for nuclear power.
I'd suggest that it is more the operator of the facilities not complying with the manufacturers recommended operating conditions for the reactors. Windscale, TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents all came about due to problem with the operator's procedures and had very little to do with the groups you mentioned.
That's part of it, but since the groups I mentioned prevent the deployment of more modern facilities, especially those which have failsafes that do not require human intervention to work, then they are at least in part responsible for the lack of safety of the currently running nuclear power plants.
It is not a scare though, it is a valid concern as Fukushima has really shown us that storing the spent fuel at reactor sites is a really bad idea when things go wrong.
If the spent fuel is bred into usable fuel again, then the net sum is less than what we have now, where we need both usable fuel and spent fuel stored.
Burner reactors are a much better idea and EBR tested the reactor component of an Integral Fast Reactor facility (known as IFR) that actually *burns* plutonium at around 15-20% of the fuel load (compared to the 0.3% of existing BWR/PWR). Such technology answered pro and anti nuclear concerns by addressing issues of (spent) fuel storage (now fuel for this technology), reprocessing and reactors into a single facility. Additionally the reactor could consume depleted uranium.
I have no particular preference for breeder reactors, it was just one of many possible solutions. Thorium reactors are another example. The point is just that if you have problems with highly radioactive spent fuel, that's because it's not really waste, it's almost the same as perfectly viable fuel and should be considered as such instead of wasted.
This is what the stupid scaremongering of the media, some politicians and many environmentalists ends up causing: instead of building Gen III or even Gen IV plants, we're finishing ancient Gen II plants because that's all that's been approved, decades ago. They are quite literally the cause for nuclear energy's relative safety concerns.
If the government could make its mind up and stop wasting time, the US could rapidly diminish and even eliminate its reliance on fossil fuels without even having to suffer through energy shortages. Allow breeder reactors on top and you'd also eliminate the whole nuclear waste scare while being that much more efficient and cost-effective.
It still costs over $50/month for an internet connection in most households, and that's if you're lucky enough to have internet available at your house.
In the US/Canada/Australia/NZ, that is. There are plenty of other countries that don't have that problem and where a Fire tablet would be attractive. Now, whether Amazon actually sells the damn thing elsewhere is another matter entirely.
Fun story: almost ten years ago, I went on a trip to Budapest. Now, the city was beautiful, but you could still see that they were recovering from the Soviet regime. Many buildings were dirty and/or crumbling, a lot of people seemed to lack money for all but the most basic of supplies... and yet every single person we saw had a cell phone, and a pretty modern one at that. If they could tack on a cheap tablet and get a better experience, you can bet many of them would.
There is no room for ethics on capitalism. The market sets the rate, based on what people are to pay. Since people will die if they don't take the drug, they will pay every penny they have (or that their insurance is willing to give).
That'd be all fine and well if that were the case, but that's the kicker: from what we know, he had no interest in selling the pills and knew full well that the rate he set was not based on what people are willing to pay. He did this to cause a scare and drop biotech stock prices so he could reap the benefits. This has very little to do with the basic offer and demand logic of capitalism and everything to do with crooks corrupting every system they find.
Slashdot Mirror
There are ~10 million people in Greece who owe them money, so that would be a gargantuan list!
They'd just hand you a phone book.
Except Mozilla is not involved at all. Hell, if you took only a second to read the link you've provided, you'd have noticed that SeaMonkey came to be specifically because Mozilla stopped working on their Mozilla Application suite.
"Free speech" in a legal sense is indeed only about governmental intrusion, and the definition is largely specific to the US, so mentioning it for a UK matter is already not particularly relevant. It's not like Dawkins is claiming that what they are doing is illegal either.
What Dawkins is talking about is the principle, the ideal of free speech. That is applicable to anything and anyone, anywhere. You can most certainly decry a lack of free speech in any situation, even when concerning private corporations.
Well, they did say "modern" and "desktop", but OSX would indeed work. Perhaps I should've put a "/s" or something to indicate the joking nature of the post? Ah what am I thinking, can't have jokes about Linux on Slashdot.
Just use Windows.
Zips up flame-proof suit. Dons shaded goggles.
So that's why we never had the Spaceballs flamethrower? :(
Actually, I think there's an opposite effect going on. I'd say the children born to wealthy parents, but not unbelieveably so, have the best chances. Being the child of Zuckerberg or Gates means you're growing up in a very unique position which isn't necessarily good for a child's development. It becomes hard to have "normal" social interactions, you have a completely out of whack understanding and relationship with money, etc. This goes even more so as a teenager, where the other teens will know who your parents are, which will heavily color their interactions with you. Plus, many of those parents tend to be extremely busy and it's very well known that parental presence is one of the most important factors in a child's development.
This post is a perfect example of why social conservatism is stupid.
You want to oppose importing terrorists eh? How do you go about doing that, pray tell? First of all, just in case you weren't aware: all of the successful terrorist attacks that happened in France weren't caused by Syrian refugees. They were carried out by people who emigrated years prior, who'd been setup as sleeper cells until the time was right to strike. So what do you do to prevent them from entering the country? Prevent anyone who looks vaguely Arabic from entering? That's millions of people you're suddenly blocking there to prevent 0.01% of them (if that) from entering.
But that's not all, is it? There are already millions of them on your soil. Do you kick them out too? People who might've been here for generations, who have families, friends, a job and are perfectly normal citizens? Because if you don't, that leaves hundreds of possible sleeper cells around.
And then, that's not even solving the issue fully. There have been terrorist acts carried out by converted Westerners too. How do you go about preventing that? Ban Islam entirely? That's again millions of people, some of whom have been here for so many generations they're an integral part of your country's history. Plus, it won't really help, since those converted people know how to act "normally" since they've been raised that way and were only converted later on.
But no matter, even if you fixed that miraculously, you'd still have school shootings and crazies like Anders Breivik who are literally indistinguishable from the rest of your population and who can carry out atrocities just as well as that horrible Muslim you're so scared of.
Here's the funny thing too: regardless of where you stop in this dangerous trend, you've still created two classes of people: those who can live in your country and those who can't. You've removed their freedom to "protect" yours. You've failed to achieve what you set out to do, unless you are so egotistical to only care about yourself. And if you're American (which is a pretty good guess from the tone of your post and the website it was posted on), you've also gone against the one thing that made it into what it is: that everyone stands equal and everyone has a chance. Now you don't stand a chance if your skin is brown. Welcome to the Confederacy.
TL;DR: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
How about you start by treating people ethically, PETA?
Yields. When intel releases a new processor line, yields are still pretty low, especially towards the high end. That's why you have binning and so many different processors - so they can recycle a top-end processor as a mid or high-end processor should parts of it end up subpar (though this is more popular in GPUs these days).
As the line ages, yields improve and they generally iterate over the design in smaller ways to obtain even better efficiency or iron out issues. It's at that point that it becomes very appealing to release an improved flagship series (the -E branding) using the better yields. They're branded the same as the current line (so Broadwell-E is 6000 like Skylake processors) because they're still considered superior.
HBM only works for stacking memory (hence why it's called High Bandwidth Memory). You can't stack CPU cores because they output waaaaaay too much heat. You can dissipate heat from memory passively, so stacking them and slapping an active cooler can work. Good luck stacking CPU cores in the same way.
Yeah, which is pointless because comparing clock speeds between different manufacturers has never meant anything. Your A10 still tanks against most Intel processors in any but the most parallel of use cases. Oh, and you do need a separate video card if you actually care about having a GPU. APUs are still laughably underpowered.
Android Marshmallow has completely revamped the permission model so that permissions are explicitly requested the first time they are needed and can be denied individually. It was possible prior to that to block the usage of certain elements of the phone, but that took more work than most people would've bothered with.
Anything that touches the Beats brand is terrible. I still find myself depressed whenever I see someone walking around with their crappy shiny plastic headphones.
On the other hand, France hasn't had mass school shootings in quite some time.
You're saying that like scientists posting results and doing work is something new. They existed before Harper muzzled them, you know that, right? They didn't conform to ideologies either. Yet, there's exactly one government that decided they had to be controlled and their ability to talk restricted. One.
Um, no it has nothing to do with this. Canadian scientists were muzzled by the Conservative government in large part because what they would've otherwise said would have gone against the political agenda of the Conservative party. Let's just say that the vast majority of their policies were grounded in idiotic convictions rather than analysis. Conservatives also seem to hate science as a general rule, because God's word is all you need.
This is just the start of the undoing of the dark ages. It'll take years to restore everything, assuming the Liberals actually do try to restore everything. This first move was by far the easiest and is universally approved.
Yes, after a six-year hiatus because they had no fucking clue how to properly develop the franchise, instead literally flooding the market with multiple titles a year until people stopped being interested. They managed to take an extremely popular franchise and turn it into toxic waste in just a few years.
But that's the thing - $2bn in revenue. In profit, you're talking more arounf $600-700m. Mind you, that's still a lot, and it's apparently still seeing growth, but those mobile games are very very fickle. Who's to say that it'll be there in a few years, let alone at least five if you want to just recoup the investment assuming massive profit growth?
Activision better have a plan for turning that single-franchise acquisition into something longer lasting, but seeing their methodology with Guitar Hero and Call of Duty, I wouldn't get my hopes up.
There's also the excellent arXiv.org which is used by a lot of scientists. More fields should have something like that.
Except those devs overwhelmingly build with a single target in mind: consoles. They use devkits to work and do all of their testing and iterating on it. Sorry, you're flat out wrong.
The real reason for shit like this is that publishers hand off the porting job to random crappy devs and give them untenable deadlines to do it.
The 2005 Energy act prevents entities like that and local governments from interfering with the placement and approval of Nuclear facilities, including Reactors. Compliance for building a nuclear reactor was established by the NRC's predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission so it has very little to do with the groups you mentioned.
The groups I mentioned have an influence well before placement and approval are on the table. They negatively influence the very notion of greenlighting additional nuclear facilities: it's currently less damaging for a politician to let more coal plants get built than to push for nuclear power.
I'd suggest that it is more the operator of the facilities not complying with the manufacturers recommended operating conditions for the reactors. Windscale, TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents all came about due to problem with the operator's procedures and had very little to do with the groups you mentioned.
That's part of it, but since the groups I mentioned prevent the deployment of more modern facilities, especially those which have failsafes that do not require human intervention to work, then they are at least in part responsible for the lack of safety of the currently running nuclear power plants.
It is not a scare though, it is a valid concern as Fukushima has really shown us that storing the spent fuel at reactor sites is a really bad idea when things go wrong.
If the spent fuel is bred into usable fuel again, then the net sum is less than what we have now, where we need both usable fuel and spent fuel stored.
Burner reactors are a much better idea and EBR tested the reactor component of an Integral Fast Reactor facility (known as IFR) that actually *burns* plutonium at around 15-20% of the fuel load (compared to the 0.3% of existing BWR/PWR). Such technology answered pro and anti nuclear concerns by addressing issues of (spent) fuel storage (now fuel for this technology), reprocessing and reactors into a single facility. Additionally the reactor could consume depleted uranium.
I have no particular preference for breeder reactors, it was just one of many possible solutions. Thorium reactors are another example. The point is just that if you have problems with highly radioactive spent fuel, that's because it's not really waste, it's almost the same as perfectly viable fuel and should be considered as such instead of wasted.
This is what the stupid scaremongering of the media, some politicians and many environmentalists ends up causing: instead of building Gen III or even Gen IV plants, we're finishing ancient Gen II plants because that's all that's been approved, decades ago. They are quite literally the cause for nuclear energy's relative safety concerns.
If the government could make its mind up and stop wasting time, the US could rapidly diminish and even eliminate its reliance on fossil fuels without even having to suffer through energy shortages. Allow breeder reactors on top and you'd also eliminate the whole nuclear waste scare while being that much more efficient and cost-effective.
It still costs over $50/month for an internet connection in most households, and that's if you're lucky enough to have internet available at your house.
In the US/Canada/Australia/NZ, that is. There are plenty of other countries that don't have that problem and where a Fire tablet would be attractive. Now, whether Amazon actually sells the damn thing elsewhere is another matter entirely.
Fun story: almost ten years ago, I went on a trip to Budapest. Now, the city was beautiful, but you could still see that they were recovering from the Soviet regime. Many buildings were dirty and/or crumbling, a lot of people seemed to lack money for all but the most basic of supplies... and yet every single person we saw had a cell phone, and a pretty modern one at that. If they could tack on a cheap tablet and get a better experience, you can bet many of them would.
There is no room for ethics on capitalism. The market sets the rate, based on what people are to pay. Since people will die if they don't take the drug, they will pay every penny they have (or that their insurance is willing to give).
That'd be all fine and well if that were the case, but that's the kicker: from what we know, he had no interest in selling the pills and knew full well that the rate he set was not based on what people are willing to pay. He did this to cause a scare and drop biotech stock prices so he could reap the benefits. This has very little to do with the basic offer and demand logic of capitalism and everything to do with crooks corrupting every system they find.