Couldn't the programs inherit the benefits of a multi-core system if the APIs they call are written to distribute the work to the cores? I know this probably isn't optimal but there must be some benefits from this.
Yes. I think this is in fact what The Architect is proposing to do as part of the solution to the particular problem of this project, while suggesting this might become a product usable by others in future.
I don't know why you got modded down especially when I got modded up. You clearly proved that my definition of ex post facto was not the full and currently correct legal definition and you even cited case law to prove it. And it all ties back to the original article. Apparently some animals are more clueful than others.
With any language I'm aware of you just have to implement it.
But there's the rub... technically you can implement anything you want. Heck, you can do it in assembler! But do people do it and do they do it right? How much extra time and energy does it cost you and how difficult is the task? Why did database application developers care whether the database inherently supported transactions when they could just implement it in the application? Why did anyone care about Java's garbage collector when it can be (and was) implemented in C++? Why did people care about the C++ support for object orientation (or Java's enforcement of such) when you could implement such support yourself in C? Why does anyone use or care about GDI objects, GUI widgets, GUI APIs, and such when they can just write a program that draws stuff on the screen and implement that too? Why do we care that there are libraries providing threading functions, etc?
The point is that abstraction layers, libraries, frameworks, object classes, etc exist specifically to provide functionality that is needed on a broad basis with an interface that is meant to be intuitive and usable for developers writing code within a given platform or context. The hope, too, is, that they might enforce certain policies and methodologies and provide more optimal implementations as well as an easier means of correcting any problems down the road. (If I have 1000 apps, each implementing some functionality a certain way, and a bug shows up that affects all or a chunk of them, I have to update them all. If these 1000 apps call on a library that implements that function and a similar bug is found, I can just update that library, in theory).
The argument that software will get slower assumes that most consumer software will continue to have additional CPU requirements without being coded for multi-core applications. This doesn't make sense. The average consumer uses an Office product, e-mail, and a browser. None of these use anywhere close to 100% of the CPU for very long even on a Pentium 3, let alone on a 2GHz+ core in a multi-core processor.
Be that as it may, I think that the focus here was more on scientific computing and enterprise software, at least for now. Those are the people who are more likely to care whether their application is taking advantage of 128 processors.
"It's not about multi-core processors, it's about the Cell architecture, for parts of which IBM holds many patents and makes a lot of money on licensing."
You are correct. But I should point out that IBM is not the only company producing the Cell either. Sony and Toshiba also own rights to the Cell, but I doubt they will start putting them into servers.
They are, however, the only company working on the Roadrunner project, which TFA was actually about and which TFA (or rather IBM's spokesperson in TFA) says will produce the technological products they will soon be able to provide through a rep near you:D. There are also allusions to the idea that the technology has applications beyond supercomputing; that it will be useful in "normal" multicore systems as well. I don't know how accurate that is, but the hypnotic salespeak does make one feel warm and fuzzy inside.
It is an interesting approach to say the least. I am sure this is a hard requirement in the supercomputing world (though I must confess some ignorance in that area) but frameworks like this do have useful applications, and if implemented properly can make life easier potentially. I think the problem is that any technological abstraction we have tried thus far, be it a soft requirement like apis or libraries or a harder requirement like we have with JVMs tend to be judged suboptimal by experienced developers for one reason or another. When that happens either you get developers coding around the thing (basically poking holes in the abstraction model), which has the effect of negating some of its benefits, or in places where that is not an option (like JVM) they choose not to use it which is probably at least as bad.
I know this is gross oversimplification but so is the article. In any case every time we hear about tech x that will save the world, especially in this particular way, we run into the same set of problems, chief of which are universal adoption as a requirement (which doesn't happen) and whether the tech performs like the brochure said it would in real life (I think it's safe to include a ditto here). It sounds like great tech and I hope it works out well. I can't pretend to understand it at a level that matters for working with it, but it does sound useful in general computing terms. If it can be used on non-supercomputers I don't doubt IBM will use it themselves, maybe integrating it with AIX and even their Linux solutions. Even if it isn't it's probably really great for supercomputing applications, and it's pretty cool that they are using Opterons in the hardware side of the project.
Whether it will be useful for anyone else, or used by anyone else, who knows. The fact remains that the criticism is correct. This article is an announcement of a potential future product given by a spokesperson for the company producing it in which they outline a computing problem, declare that there have hertofore been no real solutions, then propose theirs. That does not make it inaccurate, wrong, or bad, but it is in fact true.
You know, not to be a troll, but I really don't see what the big deal is. Regardless of whatever ethical problems one may have with Microsoft, if a business is using illegal copies of software, that company should be sued. Buying the appropriate licenses for software is one of the costs of doing business. If I wrote a piece of software the businesses wanted and I found out that it was being rampantly pirated, I'd be wanting to stick the BSA on them, too. I don't see why Microsoft should be held to a different standard.
Fair enough, but the problem is that the Microsoft way historically has been to treat people as guilty before proven innocent, and make them pay for their own audits. Not to mention the fact that Microsoft bases its decision as to whether you are likely to be a license violator based on how many Windows licenses you have bought from them lately. If you don't buy enough product from them they assume you are using more of their software than before anyway without buying more licenses.
So - for instance - the veto should have been used when the ex post facto law that felons, already convicted, could not own firearms, because this adds to their punishment after conviction and is manifestly unconstitutional. There are other ex post facto violations that should have been defended as well.
While I agree that presidents should veto (and congress not vote for) laws which they deem unconstitutional, it's important to use proper terms here. The argument could be made that laws restricting felons' access to firearms is unconstitutional because it violates the second amendment (in fact, I think it does, despite how I might feel about armed felons). But it is not an ex post facto law; you seem to be confused about the meaning of the term.
An ex post facto law criminalizes past behaviour. The behaviour that of which felons were convicted was criminal at the time they engaged in it, which the law regarding firearms for felons does not change. It does prescribe an additional punishment, and if applied to felons with past convictions is adding punishment after the fact and in many cases after the sentence has been served. Quite apart from the issue of second amendment rights this arguably could violate those due process provisions enumerated in the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendments (there are more pieces for due process but these are the amendments that seem most to apply to this particular case). Since many laws regarding the rights of felons are state laws, the 14th amendment is especially important.
Nevertheless, despite the fact that one might disagree with the constitutionality of these laws regarding felons, ex post facto is not really one of them.
Incidentally, rereading the 14th amendment I realized that what I had considered a far more egregious offence, that of removing the right to vote from felons, is actually provided for in that amendment. It says in part:
"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state."
We should all read and become more familiar with the Constitution. It would be better for all were we to commit its words to memory. It's especially important that those who serve us know it well, but just as Jude pointed out that the students he had bested at reciting the Apostles' Creed in Latin were at a disadvantage in determining whether he had recited correctly, we are at a disadvantage in rebuking our leaders for violating their oath to the Constitution when we do not learn it ourselves.
. The only way to prevent the sale of in-game artifacts is to make them non-transferable, and that's never going to happen.
Actually that is exactly what is happening. I remember older MMORPGs doingthat with quest items; actually I could swear I've even seen MUDs do it to a certain extent. In any case it's usually called binding or something.. in DDO it's "bind on accquire." You cannot sell or transfer bound items. At least it's better than some games where you can't even drop the things. IN DDO you can destroy them or use them yourself but that is it, and they have been flagging more and more items "bind on accquire" that are quest rewards so you can't trade them.
Your newb gear is bound as well, preventing you from doing the old RPG standby of creating character after character and selling off all their starter gear to get more gold for your real starter character.
DDO does make item transfers easier though for things that are not bound, because they have a mail system. What I like best about that is that I can mail things between alts so my rogue can trade wizard gear to my wizard in return for gear more suitable for rogues, etc etc, without having to find (and trust) a middleman. In any case, while it's too bad I cannot now mail the semirandom quest rewards anymore, at least it serves to give the finger to the chinese gold farmers that spam my in-game mailbox and tells, and that is satisfying enough. Hell with it. Make everything bind on accquire muahahaha! Though then you would not be able to sell the junk items to fuel your shopping habits...
Yup, just sock the brain with enough alcohol to knock out an elephant before its development is complete, and then you wonder how these half-naked fakirs [*] are overtaking your economy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6294409.stm
[*] before you mod me troll, that was what Sir Winston Churchill called a guy named Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
That is interesting indeed. I had been told by Indians that Gandhi was called the "nanga fakir" which they said meant "naked fakir" although the most naked he is ever depicted, unlike some ascetics, was to have his top half uncovered (basically like being shirtless, though he is usually shown wearing a type of robe). I did not know that this originated as an insult by Churchill (of all people) but it did. I guess it is similar to the New England colonists adopting the moniker "yankee" which originated as a Dutch slur lobbed at them from New Amsterdam,and the later adoption of "Yankee Doodle" as a fight song after British soldiers used it to mock those colonists in the Revolution.
It does look like it is not too late for others to get in on the act of mocking Gandhi, if even in jest.
Still, I think it is disengenuous to refer to the Indians who are "taking our jobs" as "naked fakirs." After all the reason they are able to do your job so well is partly due to the fact that in addition to the Indian appreciation for education they also have learned to appreciate certain aspects of European and American culture; you'll find that most of them are for lack of a better term very much westernized, and certainly modern. They are thoroughly Indian as they are part of the new India. Though it does often please us American IT folks to be called wizards and gurus, I am not sure how Indian IT people would feel about being called fakirs, naked or not, especially given the religious implications. I guess they can answer for themselves, unless they feel like you are trolling after all and do not deign to respond.
(I actually think that this was probably a troll after all given the username, but it was thought-provoking even if unintentionally so, and given the subject matter I felt compelled to comment anyhow).
"here are companies now that require you to have an RFID chip emplanted in you in order to work for them."
You don't need the implant in order to work for them, just to access the data center.
At CityWatcher.com that is correct. There were other locations where all workers were required to be tagged, and some of those are listed in the wikipedia RFID site (which I thought I had linked, but apparently did not) and in other places. In any case the distinction is not very relevant with regard to slashdotters who would pretty much all be working in the data center if they worked for a company like that. Regardless this is a use of RFID that is particularly troubling because data centers tend to be the sort of installations that quickly adopt the security tech du jour in order to be as secure as possible.
When biometrics looked like they might became practical privacy advocates raised a hue and cry against that technology because of the postential for abuse (for instance discriminating against employees whose illness was betrayed by biometrics), the intrusion into the employees privacy, etc. Naysayers like the poster above said it was unlikely that the technology would be used that way if at all, and in any case was unlikely to become ubiquitous. However they were proved wrong as companies nt only adopted the technology swiftly, but in the case of data centers practically universally. Now we're hearing that they couldn't possibly be interested in RFID for the purpose despite the proven utility of RFID for tracking, inventory, and authentication, all of which are important to security.
Personally I think the tech is great and it does have the benefit of performing as promised, but it not only has potential for abuse and for a reduction of security in the guise of increasing it (especially if it is used as an end-all-be-all solution, as with anything) but it is in fact likely to be abused and exploited. That's true of any technology, and saying that something that is more likely than most others to be abused and exploited could not possibly be and that discussion of such a possibility is ridiculous is just plain ignorant.
Hey, if you just wanted a place to publicise your opinion, you could have just replied to the article. Actually, "people like me" are fully aware that it's a real possibility that something like this will happen in the distant future, and "people like me" aren't denying anything. Are you sure that you were able to correctly form an idea of what "people like me" are like from that small post regarding preference?
Your post seemed to indicate that the very idea that this could be applied to humans was so preposterous that it should not even be discussed. The original article mentioned the application of this technology to humans, and that the purpose of development of this technology included its use on soldiers, so the source of that idea is not slashdot. In any case, you posed the question of why this technology might be scary for some people and why these developments might be important and I answered you. You did not like the answer, apparently.
I think you are saying that it was unfair to make a personality judgement about you based on one post. That would in fact be correct. But your post was of the "nothing to see here" "don't discuss this because it's just conspiracy theory" variety and that is what I was responding to when I said people like you. I don't think we are talking about the distant future or dystopian science fiction here. We are talking about current law and current technology, which you seem to prefer not to believe. It is true that we do not currently live in the "brave new world" and it's not 1984 yet, but developments like these are the potential precursors, which, again, is why poeple discuss them.
The time to discuss this sort of thing is not after these potential worlds have come to pass. Vigilance requires that any slippage toward this sort of thing needs to be pointed out and prudence requires that disruptive technologies be studied for their potential effects, dangers, and misapplication. I don't think it is too far out to suggest that applying this tech to humans would pose a potential danger and at the very least be uncomfortable for some people for various reasons.
"In any case none of this is anything like the actual story, where people whose activities were completely legal in their country, which only took place in their country, and which they had ceased doing years ago, were travelling through the US and arrested under a law that is not even in effect yet."
It is alleged that one end of the transaction took place in the US, and I haven't heard anybody contradicting that. The activity occurred at least partly in the US, so if these people were responsible for the activity, and the activity was illegal, then where they were when the activities took place is not very important. A crime occurred in the US and they committed it. Now all these assumes that there actually was a crime committed. I have no idea if that is the case.
Not exactly. What is supposed to have happened here is that a company that transfers money on the internet was transferring money between US citizens and the companies that provide online gambling sites. That was not illegal under any law at the time. The US had passed a law against this sort of thing (one wonders what that would mean for credit card companies, who do this every day -- not many congressen have been heard calling for the takedown of the criminal Visa and Mastercard corporations). The law which was passed was not yet in effect when the arrest was made, much less when the aforementioned activities allegedly occurred. In any case the persons arrested were previous officers of the company in question who had resiged several years before and were at that stage only shareholders in that company. Although officers of a company could rightly be held liable for criminal operations of that company, it is odd to treat shareholders that way and illegal to hold someone responsible for transgressing a law that did not exist when the "crime" occurred, jurisdictional arguments aside.
"The dictator in your example broke international law, which is what defines "crimes against humanity." The jurisdiction for international laws requires that you be on planet Earth, so yes, what the dictator did was illegal when and where they did it. Therefore your example is irrelevant."
International law is only enforceable because there are more countries with more powerful militaries that agree with the laws. If Country X had the most powerful military in the world, and Countries A-W had more military strength than the rest of the world combined, then our international laws would not matter very much. Any group of countries can make any number of international laws that they want. But they would have to have the military might to back it up. International laws are no more powerful than any individual country's laws, except there are generally more countries involved that are willing to back up international laws.
Enforcement of the law requires power regardless of the scope of the law. Unless you can overpower a "criminal" you cannot arrest the perpetuation of his depredations. That is why police forces have organization and firepower.
These people broke U.S. laws while they were in another country. That is basically the same as breaking an international law. The only difference is that only the U.S. will try to catch them and prosecute them, instead of the entire international community. It also means that the U.S. will probably not invade a sovereign country to extricate them from another country, but will still arrest them if they come to the U.S.
US law is not international law. The US does attempt to strongarm other countries into adopting similar laws to its own which has the effect of creating a more uniform set of laws, but the legal jurisdiction of US law extends only to its own territories. I realize some poeple want to make that synonomous with the entire planet, one way or another, but it is not the case. International law is defined by agreements between representatives of nations just as US law is defined by agreements between representatives of states. It is not something created in one country that is trying to control everyone else for their own benefit and the detriment of others.
"Analogies are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink."
There are plenty of stupid sayings like this that someone can use to refute almost any argument when they have no other leg to stand on. Its kind of like making fun of misspellings, you use it when you have nothing else reasonable to say. Analogies can be very useful for explaining situations, expecially when someone is too emotionally involved with a subject to think about it rationally.
I realize I used a cliche and that deserves castigation. Nevertheless there is a rational argument here. Not only is the previous poster dead wrong they have used a fallacious argument which relies on a technique (analogy) which is proven to result in such arguments. Any analogy tends to break down as you delve deeper into details, and most analogies are used to propo up what would otherwise seem an obviously ridiculous assertion. In this case and in the case of nearly every analogy in the comments for this article, the analogy was particularly bad and did not even fit its purported analogue but rather the straw man that the poster was really arguing against. This is common in human discourse, endemic on slashdot, and in my opinion not only has this article produced the very worst analogies ever in the history of slashdot, but the poster I responded to had the worst of the bunch.
" I sure would if they didn't commit the crime while inside of your borders, and I think most Americans would agree with me. Imagine this scenario: I'm an American collector of Nazi World War II memorabilia, which was legally obtained...[the rest of the well-stated scenario]"
It's definitely a problem. But the reverse also causes a problem. If someone is mailing bombs to the US from another country, and then visits, should we let him go and hope we can extradite? If we're willing to extradite, why should we be unwilling to arrest the guy while he's here? Finally, I think the problem is not where or how someone is arrested, but the laws themselves. We don't mind if a US citizen gets arrested in France for killing people with letter bombs from the US. This is because we think the murder laws are good, and he ought to be arrested. We don't like it when someone gets arrested for selling or buying Nazi stuff in France because he did it from outside France, AND we think it's a bad law. That's my take, anyway.
If someone mails bombs into the US, or they shoot bombs into the US, or any of the other scenarios like that others have posted, they are committing a crime in the US. They did something IN THE US which is a crime there. They also committed a crime in pretty much any country on earth if they fired ordnance like that. That's not even bringing in the fact that doing something like that could be construed an act of war.
In any case none of this is anything like the actual story, where people whose activities were completely legal in their country, which only took place in their country, and which they had ceased doing years ago, were travelling through the US and arrested under a law that is not even in effect yet.
I never said I thought our laws on internet gambling are just laws. And I wasnt referring to the actual laws of Cuba, it was a hypothetical situation I was referring to. I could just as easily used "Country X", I just used a country that is close to the US and hostile.
None of that makes the analogy wrong. It was late at night when I posted, so I probably should have picked a better analogy but didnt.
How about some dictator of a country (Country X) killing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, as well as any foreign citizens stupid enough to enter his country. By his laws it is completely lawful for him to do so. Lets just say there are 23 other countries (Countries A - W) in the world that have similar laws allowing dictators to kill whoever they want to in their own country.
If the dictator of Country X decided to travel to San Deigo for vacation, I would like to believe that the United States has every right to arrest him for crimes against humanity even if that isnt against the law in his country. He didnt even break the law in our country, but I still dont think it is wrong to detain him. Even if there are a large number of other countries that agree with his laws, I still dont think it is wrong to arrest this man.
Analogies are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink.
The dictator in your example broke international law, which is what defines "crimes against humanity." The jurisdiction for international laws requires that you be on planet Earth, so yes, what the dictator did was illegal when and where they did it. Therefore your example is irrelevant.
Now if a Budweiser exec went to Saudi Arabia and was arrested for distributing alcohol it might be closer to what happened here (except that as someone else pointed out the people arrested weren't even breaking US law). Of course that sort of thing does not happen.
"2: I'm sure that if the article related to barcoding cattle and soldiers, you'd have received similar comments. To be honest, I don't want RFID or barcodes printed on me for the world to see."
I'd go out on a limb and guess that what he meant was that it was alarmist. This isn't about the use of RFID as such. It's just a new innovation using the technology. Mentioning that humans could be tattooed as well is superfluous and not at all different from saying the same thing about any tracking technology used for animal life. "Barcodes/RFID/generic radio tags/GPS/ect is used to track animals and could be used to track humans, too! Your privacy is at risk!". It'd be slightly annoying to have to read that every time some sort of identification technology was frontpaged on Slashdot.
I think a major reason this concerns people is when it is mandated by law. Right now you cannot get a passport in certain countries (including the US) that does not contain an RFID chip. There are companies now that require you to have an RFID chip emplanted in you in order to work for them. Now we hear you can have RFID tattoos. How long before companies or governments require these tattoos for everyone? It could start with the military, sure, but you never know.
Meanwhile people like you have been saying all along that this will never happen. And now that it has you're still denying the possibility. I wonder why the people that are concerned about this sort of thing do not believe you. It boggles the mind how far denial can go. It's this kind of denial that allows governments to do things like repeal human rights with impunity. After all, why get our panties in a bunch over a little thing like that?
Nevermind that some people think of this sort of technology fulfills an apocolyptic prophecy. It does not help that the word used in the phrase "mark of the beast" is also used for a tattoo.
I have no problem with RFID being used for the purpose for which it was designed, tracking stock. It is great for supply chain and inventory management. Unfortunately governments are already showing that our fears that we are considered their stock are better-founded than one would think. I would expect it to be strictly tinfoil-hat stuff, but it is really happening. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Whenever something like this happens, there is always a debate between the "alarmists" and the naysayers. We only see which side is right in the cases where naysayers win but are wrong. Otherwise it is a matter of conjecture whether the nefarious does not occur because it was not going to happen or because it was prevented because people raised alarm.
So, will I be able to buy a Total HD Player that plays both Blu-Ray and HD-DVDs? I'd like one of those.
TotalHD is a disc format rather than a player; as someone else already pointed out this requires that the publisher put the movie in both formats (Bluray and HD-DVD) and then publish in the TotalHD format. TFA *does* talk about a new player by LG that will cost more (nothing on how much more) but will play both formats.
Warner claims that their format is a better solution than a new player that plays both formats. I have to disagree there at least with respec to what's better for the consumer. Were publishers to actually adopt this format en masse it would seem good because it would mean people with either system could see the results. But the cost would be passed on and considering what the markup is already it would probably mean some pretty expensive movies. The main nail in the coffin for this is the fact it requires publishers to go for that model. Even if they do it would probably only be for those movies they deemed most profitable. Meanwhile they already have been publishing in the current formats which our intrepid consumer cannot play because he only has the one player.
But in the second scenario you get a dual format player from LG. That choice puts initiative and control back where it belongs; with the customer. Sure you had to drink the kool-aid and buy the new expensive device to do it, but don't you feel like you're in control now? In any case at least that way you get to see all the movies. That makes more sense that wishing and hoping that an industry that is known for its sheisterism, shenanigans, and drooling, stupid, heavy-handed, mafia-style greed will suddenly become enlightened and either a) learn to get along like nice people, or b) be kind enough to bridge the gap and open their arms with a new dual format that just screams love and happiness and joy -- Peace, Love, Total HD, and all that rot.
Since the Blu-Ray players cost something like $1000 to $1500 and HD-DVD players are about $500, I can only imagine what the LG player will cost. It could be $3000 or whatever they want at this point. And there's where I am.
I refused to buy VCRs at $1000 but when they got down to $100 I was willing to live with it (some people waited for $50 or free) then we went through the same progression *exactly* in price for CDRs, DVDRs, DVD players, etc. And honestly we all know early adopters get screwed many many ways. Quite apart from the price there is the question of choice, availability of support, supplies, media, etc, and the level of community. Not to mention the steepness of learning curve and how much data will be available for you to overcome it.
My first CDR drive was complete shit, tempermental, and the software, drivers, and firmware were just nasty. If it wasn't locking up the system it was spitting out coasters, and the software left invisible turds all over the system whenever you installed it or did anything with it. It didn't like you messing with them either, because it became paranoid that this time you were going to wipe it out and never put it back on again. That drive cost me like $150 or something. $20 drives lasted a lot longer, performed better, and the free software I used was the best for burning (in fact the best and most user-friendly burn environment by far IMHO is Linux + xcdroast). It was the same with my DVDRW. I broke down and got one for like $150 and it didn't last at all. It worked ok at least. But the ones I use now cost like $20 and are made by Sony instead of the off-brand the other one was.
Well, true:) Or is it? All economies seem inter-related these days... Problems with the US economy would probably have ripple effects across other economies. Maybe less so for other (smaller) countries than the US.
I am not an economist, but there are a few basic things to consider here... in general increasing the value of your currency increases your buying power, while increasing the cost of goods produced in your country (thus potentially hurting trade in that other countries cannot afford your goods as well). There are ways around this (like outsourcing) and there are other factors (like what effect the value of your currency has on inflation, your debts, wages and savings, the cost of other goods internally, etc). Currently the US has a trade deficit with other countries with weaker currencies. If our currency is devalued it devalues cash assets in savings (which most ordinary folk here don't have) an decreases our buying power. That should mean we have to buy more domestically but we should be able to export more. I am sure it is a bit more complicated than that. I also think the important thing is that the value does not change too quickly in either direction as both could be disasterous I am sure.
Right now the relationship between the US dollar and the Euro is about the same as it was between the US dollar and the Canadian dollar, except reversed ($1 US == 0.75 Euro ). That's not horrible.. if the Euro went up a bit more it would begin to achieve parity with the Birtish pound, which might entice Britain into drinking the EU koolaid at last. Then we can unleash our sinister plot to bring the dollar back up and finally be higher than all of you:D (ok maybe not).
If the dollar goes down it will be more profitable than it was before to manufacture things in the US. In any case the trend of European and Japanese companies outsourcing their labour to the US where it is cheaper would probably be increased and the trend of US companies outsourcing to other countries would be decreased. Meanwhile we might be able to export more than we do and would have to produce more here since we can buy less. It's not as simple as all that I am sure, but so far it sounds good for the US as long as we don't screw it up. Then again, given who is in charge of our companies and government these days I guess we probably will.
The original intention was probably to defraud the Iraqis more than the US taxpayer, but since the insurgents are sabotaging the oil facitilies, all the costs are being borne by the US taxpayers. The insurgents' goal is probably to bankrupt us by preventing us from stealing their oil wealth to pay for our invasion and occupation.
Stealing? At $75/barrel I wonder who is stealing from who?
Fraud would require deception and delivering something other than what was promised. In the case of the Iraqis they have not been the victims of fraud since we promised we would invade, we promised to topple Saddam Hussein, and we promised to help them start a democracy. We did all of that, so I don't really see the fraud. If anyone's getting the short end of the stick here it is not the Iraqis.
The Iraqis destroying the oil facilities are idiots. If they want the US to leave all they have to do is stop bombing things for a couple of months. If they were smart they would try to take over the Iraqi side of the oil equation. Once our troops are out we could probably care less who bombs who anymore.
If the US is losing money on the proposition of war in Iraq there is no profit motive for the US. Haliburton et al are making money but this is mainly because of the decision which was made to use contractors to do what soldiers normally do. If that was not done we would either have to redeploy our troops (not a bad idea... we could pull all our troops from France and Germany and see how they feel about "occupation" ) or get more some other way (like a draft). In any case if anything this war, like most wars, is hurting the US economy. Like another poster pointed out, Haliburton could make money doing other things that do not involve going to war, but this is what it is doing. I think that the profit Haliburton is making is more a matter of course than a reason for war. The main reason for this war was probably that the neocons felt that leaving Saddam in power was a bad idea in the first place and have been itching to get back in there and "finish the job" for 12 years. They finally got someone in power that agrees with them and they went for it. Plain and simple.
I've asked a thousand times and never had answered very well:
List wireless cards, vendors, and prices that I can obtain today, which do work with Linux.
The compatability lists on the linux wireless sites are useless -- sure there are lots of cards that work, but many of them have been discontinued for years, some were only available in certain locales, and some, if you found the model, have had their chipsets changes.
I know of no resource that would allow me to successfully pursue wither of the following use cases:
1. I want to purchase an 802.11g device guaranteed by the vendor to work with some version of Linux.
2. I want to make a purchase order for a wireless device by vendor and part number, for a corpoarte deployment.
I consider my wireless cards to be rare and treasured artifacts. I didn't upgrade my notebook because I knew I was extremely lucky to get a laptop with a built-in Prysm2. The situation *sucks* far worse than the winmodem situation ever did.
I've been reading this thread and the answers to this poster and I must say it is rather humorous. Probably not so for the poster, but it does show precisely why Linux is on the decline these days.
This poor guy is trying to find out where a professional company can source a large order of supported (and supportable) linux hardware from a reputable vendor, and the answer appears to be that there is none. Instead of actually answering his question (since they don't know the answer or there is no answer), the community responds with "chipset x is cool," "read the source," and "buy stuff on ebay." One does wonder what kind of support or warranty comes from ebay... oh, that's right, NONE.
If you want to stake your business on Linux either slashdot is the wrong place to ask or this is a suicidal endeavour. It is sad since Linux peaked in 2000 with all the big vendors backing Linux, but after the crash of the stock market, the SCO lawsuit, and Microsoft's various FUD and "anti-piracy (if you use Linux on a system you're pirating Windows!)" campaigns this is the state of affairs we are in. No reputable company proclaiming Linux support and a splintered community with no good answers for anyone. Great.
I have to wonder why more people in the Linux community do not see this as a problem. To my mind it is a problem only the Linux community can fix since the big corporations are not going to come save our hides after all. Otherwise Linux will just remain a toy hobby OS that ascerbic geeks use in basements instead of a powerhouse that topples Microsoft in the Server and Desktop Markets. Granted there are plenty in the community who want this very result, but I kind of thought there was a *movement* here. If you want a revolution you have to work for it.
Answer, no way. That's a really lame single issue. Besides Clinton pretty much did this as part of his policy of more openness in government. And he didn't have an accident or get assassinated.
Why assassinate the man when you can assassinate his character?
This dollar has been falling in general (not just against the rouble that is). So much so that many countries are now considering selling off some of their dollar reserves, and considering "diversifying" in other currency (the Euro primarily). Not being an economist I am not sure what effect a sell off would have, but I imagine it can't be too good.
That depends on whether you live in Europe or the US:D.
Afganistan Went to war as Taliban were unwilling to allow the US to build a huge oil pipeline across the country. New govt agreed as soon as they came to power. The pipeline is necessary to get oil from the black sea to the west.
Even the conspiracy theorists say the pipeline was going to be built anyway, just not by a US company. In any case I think you ought to check out your map, because the black sea is a bit west of Afghanistan. You don't need a pipeline in Afghanistan to get oil from the Black Sea to Europe.
"Or are you talking about more recently? I still see reports of how much we are spending in Iraq. I have yet to see any profit reports come out. Wait, did we sell all that purple ink to the polling places? Are those women attending school in Afghanistan going to send us a check? Where is the profit?"
Don't be an idiot. The profit is for Halliburton and other companies "rebuilding" Iraq. It's being paid for partly by Iraqi oil, but mostly by the American taxpayer. The whole war was basically a big excuse to enrich Bush's corporate buddies.
None of the profit Halliburton is making is paid for by Iraqis. The US is not making a profit here because all of the costs are paid for by the US, not anyone else. As for Iraqi oil, where's the beef? I haven't seen a drop of it; the Iraqi oil still isn't flowing because the insurgents keep sabotaging the oil facilities and pipelines. It would be nice if there was some oil coming in from Iraq because it would mean profits for Iraqis (which would help their country both because of revenue and jobs created) and hopefully lower fuel prices for everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Couldn't the programs inherit the benefits of a multi-core system if the APIs they call are written to distribute the work to the cores? I know this probably isn't optimal but there must be some benefits from this.
Yes. I think this is in fact what The Architect is proposing to do as part of the solution to the particular problem of this project, while suggesting this might become a product usable by others in future.
I don't know why you got modded down especially when I got modded up. You clearly proved that my definition of ex post facto was not the full and currently correct legal definition and you even cited case law to prove it. And it all ties back to the original article. Apparently some animals are more clueful than others.
With any language I'm aware of you just have to implement it.
But there's the rub ... technically you can implement anything you want. Heck, you can do it in assembler! But do people do it and do they do it right? How much extra time and energy does it cost you and how difficult is the task? Why did database application developers care whether the database inherently supported transactions when they could just implement it in the application? Why did anyone care about Java's garbage collector when it can be (and was) implemented in C++? Why did people care about the C++ support for object orientation (or Java's enforcement of such) when you could implement such support yourself in C? Why does anyone use or care about GDI objects, GUI widgets, GUI APIs, and such when they can just write a program that draws stuff on the screen and implement that too? Why do we care that there are libraries providing threading functions, etc?
The point is that abstraction layers, libraries, frameworks, object classes, etc exist specifically to provide functionality that is needed on a broad basis with an interface that is meant to be intuitive and usable for developers writing code within a given platform or context. The hope, too, is, that they might enforce certain policies and methodologies and provide more optimal implementations as well as an easier means of correcting any problems down the road. (If I have 1000 apps, each implementing some functionality a certain way, and a bug shows up that affects all or a chunk of them, I have to update them all. If these 1000 apps call on a library that implements that function and a similar bug is found, I can just update that library, in theory).
The argument that software will get slower assumes that most consumer software will continue to have additional CPU requirements without being coded for multi-core applications. This doesn't make sense. The average consumer uses an Office product, e-mail, and a browser. None of these use anywhere close to 100% of the CPU for very long even on a Pentium 3, let alone on a 2GHz+ core in a multi-core processor.
Be that as it may, I think that the focus here was more on scientific computing and enterprise software, at least for now. Those are the people who are more likely to care whether their application is taking advantage of 128 processors.
"It's not about multi-core processors, it's about the Cell architecture, for parts of which IBM holds many patents and makes a lot of money on licensing."
You are correct. But I should point out that IBM is not the only company producing the Cell either. Sony and Toshiba also own rights to the Cell, but I doubt they will start putting them into servers.
They are, however, the only company working on the Roadrunner project, which TFA was actually about and which TFA (or rather IBM's spokesperson in TFA) says will produce the technological products they will soon be able to provide through a rep near you :D. There are also allusions to the idea that the technology has applications beyond supercomputing; that it will be useful in "normal" multicore systems as well. I don't know how accurate that is, but the hypnotic salespeak does make one feel warm and fuzzy inside.
It is an interesting approach to say the least. I am sure this is a hard requirement in the supercomputing world (though I must confess some ignorance in that area) but frameworks like this do have useful applications, and if implemented properly can make life easier potentially. I think the problem is that any technological abstraction we have tried thus far, be it a soft requirement like apis or libraries or a harder requirement like we have with JVMs tend to be judged suboptimal by experienced developers for one reason or another. When that happens either you get developers coding around the thing (basically poking holes in the abstraction model), which has the effect of negating some of its benefits, or in places where that is not an option (like JVM) they choose not to use it which is probably at least as bad.
I know this is gross oversimplification but so is the article. In any case every time we hear about tech x that will save the world, especially in this particular way, we run into the same set of problems, chief of which are universal adoption as a requirement (which doesn't happen) and whether the tech performs like the brochure said it would in real life (I think it's safe to include a ditto here). It sounds like great tech and I hope it works out well. I can't pretend to understand it at a level that matters for working with it, but it does sound useful in general computing terms. If it can be used on non-supercomputers I don't doubt IBM will use it themselves, maybe integrating it with AIX and even their Linux solutions. Even if it isn't it's probably really great for supercomputing applications, and it's pretty cool that they are using Opterons in the hardware side of the project.
Whether it will be useful for anyone else, or used by anyone else, who knows. The fact remains that the criticism is correct. This article is an announcement of a potential future product given by a spokesperson for the company producing it in which they outline a computing problem, declare that there have hertofore been no real solutions, then propose theirs. That does not make it inaccurate, wrong, or bad, but it is in fact true.
You know, not to be a troll, but I really don't see what the big deal is. Regardless of whatever ethical problems one may have with Microsoft, if a business is using illegal copies of software, that company should be sued. Buying the appropriate licenses for software is one of the costs of doing business. If I wrote a piece of software the businesses wanted and I found out that it was being rampantly pirated, I'd be wanting to stick the BSA on them, too. I don't see why Microsoft should be held to a different standard.
Fair enough, but the problem is that the Microsoft way historically has been to treat people as guilty before proven innocent, and make them pay for their own audits. Not to mention the fact that Microsoft bases its decision as to whether you are likely to be a license violator based on how many Windows licenses you have bought from them lately. If you don't buy enough product from them they assume you are using more of their software than before anyway without buying more licenses.
So - for instance - the veto should have been used when the ex post facto law that felons, already convicted, could not own firearms, because this adds to their punishment after conviction and is manifestly unconstitutional. There are other ex post facto violations that should have been defended as well.
While I agree that presidents should veto (and congress not vote for) laws which they deem unconstitutional, it's important to use proper terms here. The argument could be made that laws restricting felons' access to firearms is unconstitutional because it violates the second amendment (in fact, I think it does, despite how I might feel about armed felons). But it is not an ex post facto law; you seem to be confused about the meaning of the term.
An ex post facto law criminalizes past behaviour. The behaviour that of which felons were convicted was criminal at the time they engaged in it, which the law regarding firearms for felons does not change. It does prescribe an additional punishment, and if applied to felons with past convictions is adding punishment after the fact and in many cases after the sentence has been served. Quite apart from the issue of second amendment rights this arguably could violate those due process provisions enumerated in the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendments (there are more pieces for due process but these are the amendments that seem most to apply to this particular case). Since many laws regarding the rights of felons are state laws, the 14th amendment is especially important.
Nevertheless, despite the fact that one might disagree with the constitutionality of these laws regarding felons, ex post facto is not really one of them.
Incidentally, rereading the 14th amendment I realized that what I had considered a far more egregious offence, that of removing the right to vote from felons, is actually provided for in that amendment. It says in part:
"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state."
We should all read and become more familiar with the Constitution. It would be better for all were we to commit its words to memory. It's especially important that those who serve us know it well, but just as Jude pointed out that the students he had bested at reciting the Apostles' Creed in Latin were at a disadvantage in determining whether he had recited correctly, we are at a disadvantage in rebuking our leaders for violating their oath to the Constitution when we do not learn it ourselves.
. The only way to prevent the sale of in-game artifacts is to make them non-transferable, and that's never going to happen.
Actually that is exactly what is happening. I remember older MMORPGs doingthat with quest items; actually I could swear I've even seen MUDs do it to a certain extent. In any case it's usually called binding or something .. in DDO it's "bind on accquire." You cannot sell or transfer bound items. At least it's better than some games where you can't even drop the things. IN DDO you can destroy them or use them yourself but that is it, and they have been flagging more and more items "bind on accquire" that are quest rewards so you can't trade them.
Your newb gear is bound as well, preventing you from doing the old RPG standby of creating character after character and selling off all their starter gear to get more gold for your real starter character.
DDO does make item transfers easier though for things that are not bound, because they have a mail system. What I like best about that is that I can mail things between alts so my rogue can trade wizard gear to my wizard in return for gear more suitable for rogues, etc etc, without having to find (and trust) a middleman. In any case, while it's too bad I cannot now mail the semirandom quest rewards anymore, at least it serves to give the finger to the chinese gold farmers that spam my in-game mailbox and tells, and that is satisfying enough. Hell with it. Make everything bind on accquire muahahaha! Though then you would not be able to sell the junk items to fuel your shopping habits...
Yup, just sock the brain with enough alcohol to knock out an elephant before its development is complete, and then you wonder how these half-naked fakirs [*] are overtaking your economy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6294409.stm
[*] before you mod me troll, that was what Sir Winston Churchill called a guy named Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
That is interesting indeed. I had been told by Indians that Gandhi was called the "nanga fakir" which they said meant "naked fakir" although the most naked he is ever depicted, unlike some ascetics, was to have his top half uncovered (basically like being shirtless, though he is usually shown wearing a type of robe). I did not know that this originated as an insult by Churchill (of all people) but it did. I guess it is similar to the New England colonists adopting the moniker "yankee" which originated as a Dutch slur lobbed at them from New Amsterdam,and the later adoption of "Yankee Doodle" as a fight song after British soldiers used it to mock those colonists in the Revolution.
It does look like it is not too late for others to get in on the act of mocking Gandhi, if even in jest.
Still, I think it is disengenuous to refer to the Indians who are "taking our jobs" as "naked fakirs." After all the reason they are able to do your job so well is partly due to the fact that in addition to the Indian appreciation for education they also have learned to appreciate certain aspects of European and American culture; you'll find that most of them are for lack of a better term very much westernized, and certainly modern. They are thoroughly Indian as they are part of the new India. Though it does often please us American IT folks to be called wizards and gurus, I am not sure how Indian IT people would feel about being called fakirs, naked or not, especially given the religious implications. I guess they can answer for themselves, unless they feel like you are trolling after all and do not deign to respond.
(I actually think that this was probably a troll after all given the username, but it was thought-provoking even if unintentionally so, and given the subject matter I felt compelled to comment anyhow).
"here are companies now that require you to have an RFID chip emplanted in you in order to work for them."
You don't need the implant in order to work for them, just to access the data center.
At CityWatcher.com that is correct. There were other locations where all workers were required to be tagged, and some of those are listed in the wikipedia RFID site (which I thought I had linked, but apparently did not) and in other places. In any case the distinction is not very relevant with regard to slashdotters who would pretty much all be working in the data center if they worked for a company like that. Regardless this is a use of RFID that is particularly troubling because data centers tend to be the sort of installations that quickly adopt the security tech du jour in order to be as secure as possible.
When biometrics looked like they might became practical privacy advocates raised a hue and cry against that technology because of the postential for abuse (for instance discriminating against employees whose illness was betrayed by biometrics), the intrusion into the employees privacy, etc. Naysayers like the poster above said it was unlikely that the technology would be used that way if at all, and in any case was unlikely to become ubiquitous. However they were proved wrong as companies nt only adopted the technology swiftly, but in the case of data centers practically universally. Now we're hearing that they couldn't possibly be interested in RFID for the purpose despite the proven utility of RFID for tracking, inventory, and authentication, all of which are important to security.
Personally I think the tech is great and it does have the benefit of performing as promised, but it not only has potential for abuse and for a reduction of security in the guise of increasing it (especially if it is used as an end-all-be-all solution, as with anything) but it is in fact likely to be abused and exploited. That's true of any technology, and saying that something that is more likely than most others to be abused and exploited could not possibly be and that discussion of such a possibility is ridiculous is just plain ignorant.
Hey, if you just wanted a place to publicise your opinion, you could have just replied to the article. Actually, "people like me" are fully aware that it's a real possibility that something like this will happen in the distant future, and "people like me" aren't denying anything. Are you sure that you were able to correctly form an idea of what "people like me" are like from that small post regarding preference?
Your post seemed to indicate that the very idea that this could be applied to humans was so preposterous that it should not even be discussed. The original article mentioned the application of this technology to humans, and that the purpose of development of this technology included its use on soldiers, so the source of that idea is not slashdot. In any case, you posed the question of why this technology might be scary for some people and why these developments might be important and I answered you. You did not like the answer, apparently.
I think you are saying that it was unfair to make a personality judgement about you based on one post. That would in fact be correct. But your post was of the "nothing to see here" "don't discuss this because it's just conspiracy theory" variety and that is what I was responding to when I said people like you. I don't think we are talking about the distant future or dystopian science fiction here. We are talking about current law and current technology, which you seem to prefer not to believe. It is true that we do not currently live in the "brave new world" and it's not 1984 yet, but developments like these are the potential precursors, which, again, is why poeple discuss them.
The time to discuss this sort of thing is not after these potential worlds have come to pass. Vigilance requires that any slippage toward this sort of thing needs to be pointed out and prudence requires that disruptive technologies be studied for their potential effects, dangers, and misapplication. I don't think it is too far out to suggest that applying this tech to humans would pose a potential danger and at the very least be uncomfortable for some people for various reasons.
"In any case none of this is anything like the actual story, where people whose activities were completely legal in their country, which only took place in their country, and which they had ceased doing years ago, were travelling through the US and arrested under a law that is not even in effect yet."
It is alleged that one end of the transaction took place in the US, and I haven't heard anybody contradicting that. The activity occurred at least partly in the US, so if these people were responsible for the activity, and the activity was illegal, then where they were when the activities took place is not very important. A crime occurred in the US and they committed it. Now all these assumes that there actually was a crime committed. I have no idea if that is the case.
Not exactly. What is supposed to have happened here is that a company that transfers money on the internet was transferring money between US citizens and the companies that provide online gambling sites. That was not illegal under any law at the time. The US had passed a law against this sort of thing (one wonders what that would mean for credit card companies, who do this every day -- not many congressen have been heard calling for the takedown of the criminal Visa and Mastercard corporations). The law which was passed was not yet in effect when the arrest was made, much less when the aforementioned activities allegedly occurred. In any case the persons arrested were previous officers of the company in question who had resiged several years before and were at that stage only shareholders in that company. Although officers of a company could rightly be held liable for criminal operations of that company, it is odd to treat shareholders that way and illegal to hold someone responsible for transgressing a law that did not exist when the "crime" occurred, jurisdictional arguments aside.
"The dictator in your example broke international law, which is what defines "crimes against humanity." The jurisdiction for international laws requires that you be on planet Earth, so yes, what the dictator did was illegal when and where they did it. Therefore your example is irrelevant."
International law is only enforceable because there are more countries with more powerful militaries that agree with the laws. If Country X had the most powerful military in the world, and Countries A-W had more military strength than the rest of the world combined, then our international laws would not matter very much. Any group of countries can make any number of international laws that they want. But they would have to have the military might to back it up. International laws are no more powerful than any individual country's laws, except there are generally more countries involved that are willing to back up international laws.
Enforcement of the law requires power regardless of the scope of the law. Unless you can overpower a "criminal" you cannot arrest the perpetuation of his depredations. That is why police forces have organization and firepower.
These people broke U.S. laws while they were in another country. That is basically the same as breaking an international law. The only difference is that only the U.S. will try to catch them and prosecute them, instead of the entire international community. It also means that the U.S. will probably not invade a sovereign country to extricate them from another country, but will still arrest them if they come to the U.S.
US law is not international law. The US does attempt to strongarm other countries into adopting similar laws to its own which has the effect of creating a more uniform set of laws, but the legal jurisdiction of US law extends only to its own territories. I realize some poeple want to make that synonomous with the entire planet, one way or another, but it is not the case. International law is defined by agreements between representatives of nations just as US law is defined by agreements between representatives of states. It is not something created in one country that is trying to control everyone else for their own benefit and the detriment of others.
"Analogies are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink."
There are plenty of stupid sayings like this that someone can use to refute almost any argument when they have no other leg to stand on. Its kind of like making fun of misspellings, you use it when you have nothing else reasonable to say. Analogies can be very useful for explaining situations, expecially when someone is too emotionally involved with a subject to think about it rationally.
I realize I used a cliche and that deserves castigation. Nevertheless there is a rational argument here. Not only is the previous poster dead wrong they have used a fallacious argument which relies on a technique (analogy) which is proven to result in such arguments. Any analogy tends to break down as you delve deeper into details, and most analogies are used to propo up what would otherwise seem an obviously ridiculous assertion. In this case and in the case of nearly every analogy in the comments for this article, the analogy was particularly bad and did not even fit its purported analogue but rather the straw man that the poster was really arguing against. This is common in human discourse, endemic on slashdot, and in my opinion not only has this article produced the very worst analogies ever in the history of slashdot, but the poster I responded to had the worst of the bunch.
" I sure would if they didn't commit the crime while inside of your borders, and I think most Americans would agree with me. Imagine this scenario: I'm an American collector of Nazi World War II memorabilia, which was legally obtained...[the rest of the well-stated scenario]"
It's definitely a problem. But the reverse also causes a problem. If someone is mailing bombs to the US from another country, and then visits, should we let him go and hope we can extradite? If we're willing to extradite, why should we be unwilling to arrest the guy while he's here? Finally, I think the problem is not where or how someone is arrested, but the laws themselves. We don't mind if a US citizen gets arrested in France for killing people with letter bombs from the US. This is because we think the murder laws are good, and he ought to be arrested. We don't like it when someone gets arrested for selling or buying Nazi stuff in France because he did it from outside France, AND we think it's a bad law. That's my take, anyway.
If someone mails bombs into the US, or they shoot bombs into the US, or any of the other scenarios like that others have posted, they are committing a crime in the US. They did something IN THE US which is a crime there. They also committed a crime in pretty much any country on earth if they fired ordnance like that. That's not even bringing in the fact that doing something like that could be construed an act of war.
In any case none of this is anything like the actual story, where people whose activities were completely legal in their country, which only took place in their country, and which they had ceased doing years ago, were travelling through the US and arrested under a law that is not even in effect yet.
I never said I thought our laws on internet gambling are just laws. And I wasnt referring to the actual laws of Cuba, it was a hypothetical situation I was referring to. I could just as easily used "Country X", I just used a country that is close to the US and hostile.
None of that makes the analogy wrong. It was late at night when I posted, so I probably should have picked a better analogy but didnt.
How about some dictator of a country (Country X) killing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, as well as any foreign citizens stupid enough to enter his country. By his laws it is completely lawful for him to do so. Lets just say there are 23 other countries (Countries A - W) in the world that have similar laws allowing dictators to kill whoever they want to in their own country.
If the dictator of Country X decided to travel to San Deigo for vacation, I would like to believe that the United States has every right to arrest him for crimes against humanity even if that isnt against the law in his country. He didnt even break the law in our country, but I still dont think it is wrong to detain him. Even if there are a large number of other countries that agree with his laws, I still dont think it is wrong to arrest this man.
Analogies are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink.
The dictator in your example broke international law, which is what defines "crimes against humanity." The jurisdiction for international laws requires that you be on planet Earth, so yes, what the dictator did was illegal when and where they did it. Therefore your example is irrelevant.
Now if a Budweiser exec went to Saudi Arabia and was arrested for distributing alcohol it might be closer to what happened here (except that as someone else pointed out the people arrested weren't even breaking US law). Of course that sort of thing does not happen.
"2: I'm sure that if the article related to barcoding cattle and soldiers, you'd have received similar comments. To be honest, I don't want RFID or barcodes printed on me for the world to see."
I'd go out on a limb and guess that what he meant was that it was alarmist. This isn't about the use of RFID as such. It's just a new innovation using the technology. Mentioning that humans could be tattooed as well is superfluous and not at all different from saying the same thing about any tracking technology used for animal life. "Barcodes/RFID/generic radio tags/GPS/ect is used to track animals and could be used to track humans, too! Your privacy is at risk!". It'd be slightly annoying to have to read that every time some sort of identification technology was frontpaged on Slashdot.
I think a major reason this concerns people is when it is mandated by law. Right now you cannot get a passport in certain countries (including the US) that does not contain an RFID chip. There are companies now that require you to have an RFID chip emplanted in you in order to work for them. Now we hear you can have RFID tattoos. How long before companies or governments require these tattoos for everyone? It could start with the military, sure, but you never know.
Meanwhile people like you have been saying all along that this will never happen. And now that it has you're still denying the possibility. I wonder why the people that are concerned about this sort of thing do not believe you. It boggles the mind how far denial can go. It's this kind of denial that allows governments to do things like repeal human rights with impunity. After all, why get our panties in a bunch over a little thing like that?
Nevermind that some people think of this sort of technology fulfills an apocolyptic prophecy. It does not help that the word used in the phrase "mark of the beast" is also used for a tattoo.
I have no problem with RFID being used for the purpose for which it was designed, tracking stock. It is great for supply chain and inventory management. Unfortunately governments are already showing that our fears that we are considered their stock are better-founded than one would think. I would expect it to be strictly tinfoil-hat stuff, but it is really happening. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Whenever something like this happens, there is always a debate between the "alarmists" and the naysayers. We only see which side is right in the cases where naysayers win but are wrong. Otherwise it is a matter of conjecture whether the nefarious does not occur because it was not going to happen or because it was prevented because people raised alarm.
So, will I be able to buy a Total HD Player that plays both Blu-Ray and HD-DVDs? I'd like one of those.
TotalHD is a disc format rather than a player; as someone else already pointed out this requires that the publisher put the movie in both formats (Bluray and HD-DVD) and then publish in the TotalHD format. TFA *does* talk about a new player by LG that will cost more (nothing on how much more) but will play both formats.
Warner claims that their format is a better solution than a new player that plays both formats. I have to disagree there at least with respec to what's better for the consumer. Were publishers to actually adopt this format en masse it would seem good because it would mean people with either system could see the results. But the cost would be passed on and considering what the markup is already it would probably mean some pretty expensive movies. The main nail in the coffin for this is the fact it requires publishers to go for that model. Even if they do it would probably only be for those movies they deemed most profitable. Meanwhile they already have been publishing in the current formats which our intrepid consumer cannot play because he only has the one player.
But in the second scenario you get a dual format player from LG. That choice puts initiative and control back where it belongs; with the customer. Sure you had to drink the kool-aid and buy the new expensive device to do it, but don't you feel like you're in control now? In any case at least that way you get to see all the movies. That makes more sense that wishing and hoping that an industry that is known for its sheisterism, shenanigans, and drooling, stupid, heavy-handed, mafia-style greed will suddenly become enlightened and either a) learn to get along like nice people, or b) be kind enough to bridge the gap and open their arms with a new dual format that just screams love and happiness and joy -- Peace, Love, Total HD, and all that rot.
Since the Blu-Ray players cost something like $1000 to $1500 and HD-DVD players are about $500, I can only imagine what the LG player will cost. It could be $3000 or whatever they want at this point. And there's where I am.
I refused to buy VCRs at $1000 but when they got down to $100 I was willing to live with it (some people waited for $50 or free) then we went through the same progression *exactly* in price for CDRs, DVDRs, DVD players, etc. And honestly we all know early adopters get screwed many many ways. Quite apart from the price there is the question of choice, availability of support, supplies, media, etc, and the level of community. Not to mention the steepness of learning curve and how much data will be available for you to overcome it.
My first CDR drive was complete shit, tempermental, and the software, drivers, and firmware were just nasty. If it wasn't locking up the system it was spitting out coasters, and the software left invisible turds all over the system whenever you installed it or did anything with it. It didn't like you messing with them either, because it became paranoid that this time you were going to wipe it out and never put it back on again. That drive cost me like $150 or something. $20 drives lasted a lot longer, performed better, and the free software I used was the best for burning (in fact the best and most user-friendly burn environment by far IMHO is Linux + xcdroast). It was the same with my DVDRW. I broke down and got one for like $150 and it didn't last at all. It worked ok at least. But the ones I use now cost like $20 and are made by Sony instead of the off-brand the other one was.
I
Well, true :) Or is it? All economies seem inter-related these days... Problems with the US economy would probably have ripple effects across other economies. Maybe less so for other (smaller) countries than the US.
I am not an economist, but there are a few basic things to consider here... in general increasing the value of your currency increases your buying power, while increasing the cost of goods produced in your country (thus potentially hurting trade in that other countries cannot afford your goods as well). There are ways around this (like outsourcing) and there are other factors (like what effect the value of your currency has on inflation, your debts, wages and savings, the cost of other goods internally, etc). Currently the US has a trade deficit with other countries with weaker currencies. If our currency is devalued it devalues cash assets in savings (which most ordinary folk here don't have) an decreases our buying power. That should mean we have to buy more domestically but we should be able to export more. I am sure it is a bit more complicated than that. I also think the important thing is that the value does not change too quickly in either direction as both could be disasterous I am sure.
Right now the relationship between the US dollar and the Euro is about the same as it was between the US dollar and the Canadian dollar, except reversed ($1 US == 0.75 Euro ). That's not horrible .. if the Euro went up a bit more it would begin to achieve parity with the Birtish pound, which might entice Britain into drinking the EU koolaid at last. Then we can unleash our sinister plot to bring the dollar back up and finally be higher than all of you :D (ok maybe not).
If the dollar goes down it will be more profitable than it was before to manufacture things in the US. In any case the trend of European and Japanese companies outsourcing their labour to the US where it is cheaper would probably be increased and the trend of US companies outsourcing to other countries would be decreased. Meanwhile we might be able to export more than we do and would have to produce more here since we can buy less. It's not as simple as all that I am sure, but so far it sounds good for the US as long as we don't screw it up. Then again, given who is in charge of our companies and government these days I guess we probably will.
The original intention was probably to defraud the Iraqis more than the US taxpayer, but since the insurgents are sabotaging the oil facitilies, all the costs are being borne by the US taxpayers. The insurgents' goal is probably to bankrupt us by preventing us from stealing their oil wealth to pay for our invasion and occupation.
Stealing? At $75/barrel I wonder who is stealing from who?
Fraud would require deception and delivering something other than what was promised. In the case of the Iraqis they have not been the victims of fraud since we promised we would invade, we promised to topple Saddam Hussein, and we promised to help them start a democracy. We did all of that, so I don't really see the fraud. If anyone's getting the short end of the stick here it is not the Iraqis.
The Iraqis destroying the oil facilities are idiots. If they want the US to leave all they have to do is stop bombing things for a couple of months. If they were smart they would try to take over the Iraqi side of the oil equation. Once our troops are out we could probably care less who bombs who anymore.
If the US is losing money on the proposition of war in Iraq there is no profit motive for the US. Haliburton et al are making money but this is mainly because of the decision which was made to use contractors to do what soldiers normally do. If that was not done we would either have to redeploy our troops (not a bad idea... we could pull all our troops from France and Germany and see how they feel about "occupation" ) or get more some other way (like a draft). In any case if anything this war, like most wars, is hurting the US economy. Like another poster pointed out, Haliburton could make money doing other things that do not involve going to war, but this is what it is doing. I think that the profit Haliburton is making is more a matter of course than a reason for war. The main reason for this war was probably that the neocons felt that leaving Saddam in power was a bad idea in the first place and have been itching to get back in there and "finish the job" for 12 years. They finally got someone in power that agrees with them and they went for it. Plain and simple.
I've asked a thousand times and never had answered very well:
List wireless cards, vendors, and prices that I can obtain today, which do work with Linux.
The compatability lists on the linux wireless sites are useless -- sure there are lots of cards that work, but many of them
have been discontinued for years, some were only available in certain locales, and some, if you found the model, have had their
chipsets changes.
I know of no resource that would allow me to successfully pursue wither of the following use cases:
1. I want to purchase an 802.11g device guaranteed by the vendor to work with some version of Linux.
2. I want to make a purchase order for a wireless device by vendor and part number, for a corpoarte deployment.
I consider my wireless cards to be rare and treasured artifacts. I didn't upgrade my notebook because I knew I was extremely
lucky to get a laptop with a built-in Prysm2. The situation *sucks* far worse than the winmodem situation ever did.
I've been reading this thread and the answers to this poster and I must say it is rather humorous. Probably not so for the poster, but it does show precisely why Linux is on the decline these days.
This poor guy is trying to find out where a professional company can source a large order of supported (and supportable) linux hardware from a reputable vendor, and the answer appears to be that there is none. Instead of actually answering his question (since they don't know the answer or there is no answer), the community responds with "chipset x is cool," "read the source," and "buy stuff on ebay." One does wonder what kind of support or warranty comes from ebay ... oh, that's right, NONE.
If you want to stake your business on Linux either slashdot is the wrong place to ask or this is a suicidal endeavour. It is sad since Linux peaked in 2000 with all the big vendors backing Linux, but after the crash of the stock market, the SCO lawsuit, and Microsoft's various FUD and "anti-piracy (if you use Linux on a system you're pirating Windows!)" campaigns this is the state of affairs we are in. No reputable company proclaiming Linux support and a splintered community with no good answers for anyone. Great.
I have to wonder why more people in the Linux community do not see this as a problem. To my mind it is a problem only the Linux community can fix since the big corporations are not going to come save our hides after all. Otherwise Linux will just remain a toy hobby OS that ascerbic geeks use in basements instead of a powerhouse that topples Microsoft in the Server and Desktop Markets. Granted there are plenty in the community who want this very result, but I kind of thought there was a *movement* here. If you want a revolution you have to work for it.
Answer, no way. That's a really lame single issue. Besides Clinton pretty much did this as part of his policy of more openness in government. And he didn't have an accident or get assassinated.
Why assassinate the man when you can assassinate his character?
"Because a trillion rubles is roughly 10 bucks."
Or 37.9 billion U.S. dollars.
But yeah, that's close enough for government work.
Shush! You just ruined my sinister plan to trade him $10 for a trillion roubles!
This dollar has been falling in general (not just against the rouble that is). So much so that many countries are now considering selling off some of their dollar reserves, and considering "diversifying" in other currency (the Euro primarily). Not being an economist I am not sure what effect a sell off would have, but I imagine it can't be too good.
That depends on whether you live in Europe or the US :D.
Afganistan
Went to war as Taliban were unwilling to allow the US to build a huge oil pipeline across the country. New govt agreed as soon as they came to power. The pipeline is necessary to get oil from the black sea to the west.
Even the conspiracy theorists say the pipeline was going to be built anyway, just not by a US company. In any case I think you ought to check out your map, because the black sea is a bit west of Afghanistan. You don't need a pipeline in Afghanistan to get oil from the Black Sea to Europe.
"Or are you talking about more recently? I still see reports of how much we are spending in Iraq. I have yet to see any profit reports come out. Wait, did we sell all that purple ink to the polling places? Are those women attending school in Afghanistan going to send us a check? Where is the profit?"
Don't be an idiot. The profit is for Halliburton and other companies "rebuilding" Iraq. It's being paid for partly by Iraqi oil, but mostly by the American taxpayer. The whole war was basically a big excuse to enrich Bush's corporate buddies.
None of the profit Halliburton is making is paid for by Iraqis. The US is not making a profit here because all of the costs are paid for by the US, not anyone else. As for Iraqi oil, where's the beef? I haven't seen a drop of it; the Iraqi oil still isn't flowing because the insurgents keep sabotaging the oil facilities and pipelines. It would be nice if there was some oil coming in from Iraq because it would mean profits for Iraqis (which would help their country both because of revenue and jobs created) and hopefully lower fuel prices for everyone else.