I disagree with putting that into the category of "right."
(Opinion) People are born with rights, rights can't (shouldn't anyway) be changed by law. Dictating wages by law is okay in theory. You aren't born with a God-given right to pay your workers slave wages in the way that you are born with the right to free speech. Society benefits from your right to free speech as a general rule, society does not benefit necessarily from your right to pay however little you want to.(/opinion)
We have:
-A summary which says there is no FiOS in boston
-An article behind a paywall, the preview to which only says that some very minor celebrity said something about FiOS in boston
-An AC which says he is in Boston and has FiOS.
I'm going to listen to the non-famous Walhberg and the AC and believe there is probably FiOS in boston. As I don't live in Boston, it really doesn't matter. The much bigger issue is paywalls. Lets not submit them anymore or link to them, mkay?
I'm conflicted about your post. I think it's good to point out why the NSA spying on everything is a good thing to people who might otherwise be apathetic, but I think you engage in hyperbole which might cause more people to ignore the situation and write it off as paranoia.
Maybe suggest that COULD happen if we don't take steps to pare down the NSA now rather than suggesting it's something you're already worried about.
Not saying you're wrong, just that the NSA is spending a lot of time and effort (and money) on PR to convince the public they have nothing to fear. We need to similarly think about PR concerns in order to have a chance of opposing it.
Does this also apply to more fantasy oriented war games?
No, the ICRC is talking about video games that simulate real-war situations. It is not suggesting that this apply to games that portray more fictional scenarios such as medieval fantasy or futuristic wars in outer space.
So... no. They're making a more specific recommendation that would not apply to Mario, or even most games.
Also, they're not making a general critique about more realism. Again, reading their website, their suggestion is much more specific:
The ICRC is concerned about scenarios that, for instance, depict the use of torture, particularly in interrogation, deliberate attacks on civilians, the killing of prisoners or the wounded, attacks on medical personnel, facilities, and transport such as ambulances, or that anyone on the battlefield can be killed.
So again, they're not talking about most aspects of most games. They're basically suggesting that media not sanitize human rights violations. Which is an issue. The news doesn't show war carnage. And after terrorist attacks, the public becomes much more okay with torture in theory. Perhaps its because they have little idea what actually happens. Torture scenes are ugly, so they're rarely included in most media. Videogames too, there's killing galore, but not much torture. I mean, there was that one level in Super Mario Bros 2 where Mario sodomized and waterboarded... wait, sorry, that's in my as of yet unreleased mod. Forget I said anything. Anyway, I think they're right that showing torture, attacking civilians, and other human rights violations, and the negative consequences could be something that videogames could actually inform the public on.
Call of Duty doesn't get much respect, I think it's a hipster like response, but that scene in Modern Warfare 2, where you went in and shot civilians in an airport, and then a war broke out... say what you will about the gameplay, but that was a ballsy inclusion and didn't shy away too much from how ugly it was.
I'd argue that the people responsible for the mess don't actually work in congress or government. Off topic, I know, but everyone seems to be afraid to actually point fingers for the shutdown beyond hand waving like "Oh congress!" Failure to identify the specific problem will ensure nothing changes.
In my opinion, it's the tea party, which is in turn ordered by the Koch brothers and other rich elites, over health care. That's who I blame for the shutdown. And obviously they're going to continue to get paid: they've played the game very well. So well, in fact, that I'm suspicious the obamacare website problems are intentional. No evidence to support that at all, just that so much money and effort is being thrown against Obamacare that I suspect it's intentional. The website is critical to that.
To go further into speculation, I think it's because the existence of a middle class depends increasingly on health care being paid for. Medical bills contribute to many bankruptcies, having the middle class saddled down with medical bills is an easy way to erase it and have another third world nation you can exploit easier. Obamacare will fail in the long-term if enough young people don't enroll in it. It has been suggested that the shutdown is basically just to get rid of the news cycle that it's starting.
I think the reluctance to point fingers is due to not wanting to sound partisan or biased, and disgust with both parties. So realize that I'm not saying "republican/conservative bad, democrat/liberal good." The tea party is an entirely different beast, they're not conservatives, and they're only republicans in name. I blame both parties for being incapable of stopping them. But the blame for the shutdown should be squarely on the tea party.
Indeed. Doing something like this only makes sense if you TELL people about the limitations. "Buy our adapters and you WILL be able to fully use your HDMI cable for audio!"
If it's a surprise, you're just annoying customers and not making any money off of it.
Sure, but this is news for nerds, and Nissan, DoCoMo (mobile phone company) and NHK (TV station) aren't going to have much to do with the athletes. They're cashing in on the windfall of spending that is taking place.
If they actually get mega-high def, 5G coverage, OR self driving cars, that will be a lot more than the citizens in most other countries get out of the games. Debt and headaches from lots of really annoying tourists seem to be all that usually comes out of the games for the locals.
Making a computer that runs like a brain to do computer stuff WOULD be stupid. Fortunately, that's not what's happening, the goal is actually the opposite. The point of this project isn't to build a better computer based on a brain, it's to understand our brains using computers. From wiki:
... simulate the complete human brain on supercomputers to better understand how it functions. The end hopes of the HBP include being able to mimic the human brain and being able to better diagnose human brain diseases and mental problems.
The confusion seems to have come from the Fox News article, the author mentions that the computer to simulate the human brain must be much more powerful than we currently have. But it's not supposed to be powerful because it's based on the human brain, it's supposed to be powerful to SIMULATE the brain.
He says a computer brain will consume gigawatts of power, require new forms of memory, and force scientists to look at cutting edge storage techniques. But the immense technical hurdles will be worth the effort. The first phases will help us understand how the brain functions. In later phases, we’ll find out how we learn, how we see and hear, and why the brain sometimes doesn’t process information correctly.
TLDR: they're building a supercomputer to model the human brain, not building a computer modeled on the human brain to be super.
It's odd to me that you assume because the budget originates in the house, that makes anything that the house puts into it legitimate, while the checks and balances put on it, the senate and president, is illegitimate.
Where in the constitution does it say that the senate and the president aren't supposed to use veto and voting as giant bargaining chips? When are they supposed to veto or vote down the budget from the house?
Everyone does. You probably are thinking "best" in terms of image quality, rather than "fits in my pocket and won't get damaged," but that's not necessarily the best definition of "best."
Not arguing FOR the war, but on the suspicions about chemical weapons, remember that truth is the first casualty of war. With something like the chemical weapons attacks, there never would be any solid evidence obtained from the middle of a war zone. The fact the government allowed such a situation to develop, whether they were the ones who used it or whether, say, Islamic cultists stole the weapons and used them against secular rebels... that still seems like a situation where some outside force would have a justification to enter and try to prevent it from happening again. It should be the UN, but of course Russia prevented that in order to continue having a monopoly in Europe on natural gas.
You're right that corporations don't have SWAT or the power to kill or imprison you, but not for the reasons you think. It's not that they're incapable of killing you outright or imprisoning you, it's because it's much more efficient to let the government do it where necessary. Why assume the cost or liability of their own SWAT teams? Fear of bankrupcy or lawsuits is more than sufficient to get what they want out of pretty much everyone. If they make themselves appear too much of a menace, arming themselves and killing people, the citizens might actually do something to end it. People let governments do it for various reasons, in ours it's because we vote for the government, that legitimizes it. Other governments get their citizens to tolerate them based on fear, but that's a hard act to maintain when people are rich and educated enough. Corporations legitimize their power here by the assumption that if they got wealth, they worked hard to earn it, and if you little citizen work hard, you'll get rich too. And they legitimize it by "We're just a corporation! We're not the government!" And recently by acting as if providing jobs is a noble act.
Large groups of people with power and influence, whether "corporation" or "government" are basically the same creature. Individual people contribute their cunning and greed, and the group structure allows ethics and mortality to be filtered out. I'm not saying corporations are worse than governments, I'm saying it's silly to debate which one is worse. Neither should be allowed to be too powerful.
I'm not saying their intentions justify their actions, only that if you want to understand their actions, that is their intent. Knowing that should shape how we respond. For instance, we'd be idiots to simply demand the NSA heads be fired and then leave it at that: any new heads of the NSA will get right back to doing the same things before too long. Changing the path of least resistance from running through "spy on everyone at all times" is what needs to happen. That's tougher than band-aid solutions like "vote for someone who makes vague promises to get tough on the NSA" but is the only thing that will be effective.
How about we not personify the government? I find it more useful. Understanding the factors and motivations at work will allow us to respond appropriately, or at least properly understand why this keeps happening.
Here's how I see it: Government agencies tend to take the path of least resistance to accomplish their assigned goals. Spy agencies goals are to monitor and identify threats. It's much easier to monitor everyone online rather than the comparatively difficult task of getting a proper subpoena for each individual being monitored.
The reason this is easier is because it's allowed by the government and tolerated by the people (at least enough to let it stand, we're not taking to the streets with torches and rope). Due process has not been updated to cover this in a way most of us feel would be appropriate. There are probably other barriers against this type of behavior that more knowledgeable people could come up with. They should be there, but they're not.
The officials in charge likely know that there is only so much they can abuse that power before it's taken away from them. If it came out that the NSA had found a way to listen in on every conversation and track you at the moment, and the public understood it and wasn't successfully distracted from it, the NSA would have it's powers trimmed. And then their job would be harder again.
So it's not that they're just voyeurs who will stop at nothing to have a live feed on your sphincter. It's more that we want to have our cake and eat it too. We want the NSA to protect us from the boogeymen terrorists, and we don't want them to spy on us either. But we're more flexible on the latter, so there you have it.
We'd need to keep limiting the NSA from taking the easiest paths we don't want them to take, but we're also lazy and apathetic as a nation.
There are primaries and third party candidates. If there are congressional seats where law is "Each of two major parties selects a candidate through a secret closed process without voter participation, and those are the only two candidates allowed," then yes, you have a point, but I don't think that's actually the case anywhere.
Voters usually have a lot more than two choices. It's just that the choice they usually make is "Ignore everything but the very last vote, and usually ignore that too." That's a choice. Maybe "...who voted in such a way that this was going to happen" should be changed to "... who did or did not participate in politics in such a way that this was going to happen" would be more fair.
Whatever phrasing you prefer, my point is still that people always get the government they deserve. And that IS true in America right now as well.
Hopefully double or triple their regular pay, at least. They have to guard assholes who make their jobs more difficult. And they have to defend the assholes against the citizens, the very citizens who voted in such a way that this was going to happen, the very citizens who are now totally outraged that the assholes they elected to congress are acting like assholes.
I don't know why GP thinks "economics" or "genome" are such sacred words that shouldn't be bastardized anyway. Biology has changed rapidly in the last 50 years and the rate of change appears to be increasing. New words and phrases to cover new concepts effectively are going to have to be made up.
Hopefully tesla will point that out, but the story here is public relations. The public is illogical. They can easily come to believe that Teslas are much less safe than the competition, even if that isn't really the case. Car companies and the oil industry obviously have an interest in spreading FUD to foster that effect, and would have absolutely no qualms about doing so. They've played dirty so far.
The name Tesla is fitting, since Nikolai Tesla faced a similar situation in life with Edison.
Slashdot Mirror
Three people would have to be using each keyboard simultaneously. Otherwise, this is still the title holder.
Very poetic, but I was saying lets fight fire with fire, not "lets ignore reality."
Well, he could ignore something that's explicitly in the constitution. That's more blatant.
I disagree with putting that into the category of "right."
(Opinion) People are born with rights, rights can't (shouldn't anyway) be changed by law. Dictating wages by law is okay in theory. You aren't born with a God-given right to pay your workers slave wages in the way that you are born with the right to free speech. Society benefits from your right to free speech as a general rule, society does not benefit necessarily from your right to pay however little you want to.(/opinion)
We have:
-A summary which says there is no FiOS in boston
-An article behind a paywall, the preview to which only says that some very minor celebrity said something about FiOS in boston
-An AC which says he is in Boston and has FiOS.
I'm going to listen to the non-famous Walhberg and the AC and believe there is probably FiOS in boston. As I don't live in Boston, it really doesn't matter. The much bigger issue is paywalls. Lets not submit them anymore or link to them, mkay?
I'm conflicted about your post. I think it's good to point out why the NSA spying on everything is a good thing to people who might otherwise be apathetic, but I think you engage in hyperbole which might cause more people to ignore the situation and write it off as paranoia.
Maybe suggest that COULD happen if we don't take steps to pare down the NSA now rather than suggesting it's something you're already worried about.
Not saying you're wrong, just that the NSA is spending a lot of time and effort (and money) on PR to convince the public they have nothing to fear. We need to similarly think about PR concerns in order to have a chance of opposing it.
Does this also apply to more fantasy oriented war games? No, the ICRC is talking about video games that simulate real-war situations. It is not suggesting that this apply to games that portray more fictional scenarios such as medieval fantasy or futuristic wars in outer space.
So... no. They're making a more specific recommendation that would not apply to Mario, or even most games.
Also, they're not making a general critique about more realism. Again, reading their website, their suggestion is much more specific:
The ICRC is concerned about scenarios that, for instance, depict the use of torture, particularly in interrogation, deliberate attacks on civilians, the killing of prisoners or the wounded, attacks on medical personnel, facilities, and transport such as ambulances, or that anyone on the battlefield can be killed.
So again, they're not talking about most aspects of most games. They're basically suggesting that media not sanitize human rights violations. Which is an issue. The news doesn't show war carnage. And after terrorist attacks, the public becomes much more okay with torture in theory. Perhaps its because they have little idea what actually happens. Torture scenes are ugly, so they're rarely included in most media. Videogames too, there's killing galore, but not much torture. I mean, there was that one level in Super Mario Bros 2 where Mario sodomized and waterboarded... wait, sorry, that's in my as of yet unreleased mod. Forget I said anything. Anyway, I think they're right that showing torture, attacking civilians, and other human rights violations, and the negative consequences could be something that videogames could actually inform the public on.
Call of Duty doesn't get much respect, I think it's a hipster like response, but that scene in Modern Warfare 2, where you went in and shot civilians in an airport, and then a war broke out... say what you will about the gameplay, but that was a ballsy inclusion and didn't shy away too much from how ugly it was.
Why do you assume that AMD did this voluntarily?
Ignorance probably. I don't work in anything related. Your theory makes more sense than mine of "marketing gone horribly stupid."
I'd argue that the people responsible for the mess don't actually work in congress or government. Off topic, I know, but everyone seems to be afraid to actually point fingers for the shutdown beyond hand waving like "Oh congress!" Failure to identify the specific problem will ensure nothing changes.
In my opinion, it's the tea party, which is in turn ordered by the Koch brothers and other rich elites, over health care. That's who I blame for the shutdown. And obviously they're going to continue to get paid: they've played the game very well. So well, in fact, that I'm suspicious the obamacare website problems are intentional. No evidence to support that at all, just that so much money and effort is being thrown against Obamacare that I suspect it's intentional. The website is critical to that.
To go further into speculation, I think it's because the existence of a middle class depends increasingly on health care being paid for. Medical bills contribute to many bankruptcies, having the middle class saddled down with medical bills is an easy way to erase it and have another third world nation you can exploit easier. Obamacare will fail in the long-term if enough young people don't enroll in it. It has been suggested that the shutdown is basically just to get rid of the news cycle that it's starting.
I think the reluctance to point fingers is due to not wanting to sound partisan or biased, and disgust with both parties. So realize that I'm not saying "republican/conservative bad, democrat/liberal good." The tea party is an entirely different beast, they're not conservatives, and they're only republicans in name. I blame both parties for being incapable of stopping them. But the blame for the shutdown should be squarely on the tea party.
Indeed. Doing something like this only makes sense if you TELL people about the limitations. "Buy our adapters and you WILL be able to fully use your HDMI cable for audio!"
If it's a surprise, you're just annoying customers and not making any money off of it.
Sure, but this is news for nerds, and Nissan, DoCoMo (mobile phone company) and NHK (TV station) aren't going to have much to do with the athletes. They're cashing in on the windfall of spending that is taking place.
If they actually get mega-high def, 5G coverage, OR self driving cars, that will be a lot more than the citizens in most other countries get out of the games. Debt and headaches from lots of really annoying tourists seem to be all that usually comes out of the games for the locals.
... simulate the complete human brain on supercomputers to better understand how it functions. The end hopes of the HBP include being able to mimic the human brain and being able to better diagnose human brain diseases and mental problems.
The confusion seems to have come from the Fox News article, the author mentions that the computer to simulate the human brain must be much more powerful than we currently have. But it's not supposed to be powerful because it's based on the human brain, it's supposed to be powerful to SIMULATE the brain.
He says a computer brain will consume gigawatts of power, require new forms of memory, and force scientists to look at cutting edge storage techniques. But the immense technical hurdles will be worth the effort. The first phases will help us understand how the brain functions. In later phases, we’ll find out how we learn, how we see and hear, and why the brain sometimes doesn’t process information correctly.
TLDR: they're building a supercomputer to model the human brain, not building a computer modeled on the human brain to be super.
It's odd to me that you assume because the budget originates in the house, that makes anything that the house puts into it legitimate, while the checks and balances put on it, the senate and president, is illegitimate.
Where in the constitution does it say that the senate and the president aren't supposed to use veto and voting as giant bargaining chips? When are they supposed to veto or vote down the budget from the house?
Is it "when I disagree with the budget"?
Everyone does. You probably are thinking "best" in terms of image quality, rather than "fits in my pocket and won't get damaged," but that's not necessarily the best definition of "best."
Not arguing FOR the war, but on the suspicions about chemical weapons, remember that truth is the first casualty of war. With something like the chemical weapons attacks, there never would be any solid evidence obtained from the middle of a war zone. The fact the government allowed such a situation to develop, whether they were the ones who used it or whether, say, Islamic cultists stole the weapons and used them against secular rebels... that still seems like a situation where some outside force would have a justification to enter and try to prevent it from happening again. It should be the UN, but of course Russia prevented that in order to continue having a monopoly in Europe on natural gas.
You're right that corporations don't have SWAT or the power to kill or imprison you, but not for the reasons you think. It's not that they're incapable of killing you outright or imprisoning you, it's because it's much more efficient to let the government do it where necessary. Why assume the cost or liability of their own SWAT teams? Fear of bankrupcy or lawsuits is more than sufficient to get what they want out of pretty much everyone. If they make themselves appear too much of a menace, arming themselves and killing people, the citizens might actually do something to end it. People let governments do it for various reasons, in ours it's because we vote for the government, that legitimizes it. Other governments get their citizens to tolerate them based on fear, but that's a hard act to maintain when people are rich and educated enough. Corporations legitimize their power here by the assumption that if they got wealth, they worked hard to earn it, and if you little citizen work hard, you'll get rich too. And they legitimize it by "We're just a corporation! We're not the government!" And recently by acting as if providing jobs is a noble act.
Large groups of people with power and influence, whether "corporation" or "government" are basically the same creature. Individual people contribute their cunning and greed, and the group structure allows ethics and mortality to be filtered out. I'm not saying corporations are worse than governments, I'm saying it's silly to debate which one is worse. Neither should be allowed to be too powerful.
I'm not saying their intentions justify their actions, only that if you want to understand their actions, that is their intent. Knowing that should shape how we respond. For instance, we'd be idiots to simply demand the NSA heads be fired and then leave it at that: any new heads of the NSA will get right back to doing the same things before too long. Changing the path of least resistance from running through "spy on everyone at all times" is what needs to happen. That's tougher than band-aid solutions like "vote for someone who makes vague promises to get tough on the NSA" but is the only thing that will be effective.
How about we not personify the government? I find it more useful. Understanding the factors and motivations at work will allow us to respond appropriately, or at least properly understand why this keeps happening.
Here's how I see it: Government agencies tend to take the path of least resistance to accomplish their assigned goals. Spy agencies goals are to monitor and identify threats. It's much easier to monitor everyone online rather than the comparatively difficult task of getting a proper subpoena for each individual being monitored.
The reason this is easier is because it's allowed by the government and tolerated by the people (at least enough to let it stand, we're not taking to the streets with torches and rope). Due process has not been updated to cover this in a way most of us feel would be appropriate. There are probably other barriers against this type of behavior that more knowledgeable people could come up with. They should be there, but they're not.
The officials in charge likely know that there is only so much they can abuse that power before it's taken away from them. If it came out that the NSA had found a way to listen in on every conversation and track you at the moment, and the public understood it and wasn't successfully distracted from it, the NSA would have it's powers trimmed. And then their job would be harder again.
So it's not that they're just voyeurs who will stop at nothing to have a live feed on your sphincter. It's more that we want to have our cake and eat it too. We want the NSA to protect us from the boogeymen terrorists, and we don't want them to spy on us either. But we're more flexible on the latter, so there you have it.
We'd need to keep limiting the NSA from taking the easiest paths we don't want them to take, but we're also lazy and apathetic as a nation.
... I really should have limited that to pseudorand.
Well, jokes on you, because I'm going to pay in bitcoins!
And you have an extremely arrogant, unconvincing retort.
There are primaries and third party candidates. If there are congressional seats where law is "Each of two major parties selects a candidate through a secret closed process without voter participation, and those are the only two candidates allowed," then yes, you have a point, but I don't think that's actually the case anywhere.
Voters usually have a lot more than two choices. It's just that the choice they usually make is "Ignore everything but the very last vote, and usually ignore that too." That's a choice. Maybe "...who voted in such a way that this was going to happen" should be changed to "... who did or did not participate in politics in such a way that this was going to happen" would be more fair.
Whatever phrasing you prefer, my point is still that people always get the government they deserve. And that IS true in America right now as well.
Hopefully double or triple their regular pay, at least. They have to guard assholes who make their jobs more difficult. And they have to defend the assholes against the citizens, the very citizens who voted in such a way that this was going to happen, the very citizens who are now totally outraged that the assholes they elected to congress are acting like assholes.
Ten dollars says you won't find anyone to take you up on that bet.
About 27 years too late in fact.
I don't know why GP thinks "economics" or "genome" are such sacred words that shouldn't be bastardized anyway. Biology has changed rapidly in the last 50 years and the rate of change appears to be increasing. New words and phrases to cover new concepts effectively are going to have to be made up.
Hopefully tesla will point that out, but the story here is public relations. The public is illogical. They can easily come to believe that Teslas are much less safe than the competition, even if that isn't really the case. Car companies and the oil industry obviously have an interest in spreading FUD to foster that effect, and would have absolutely no qualms about doing so. They've played dirty so far.
The name Tesla is fitting, since Nikolai Tesla faced a similar situation in life with Edison.