OK, seems like we were on a completely different page until now. The joys of written conversation. It's probably fair to say that both R and D politicians can be the target of character assassinations and that both the the R and D population are more likely to drink the kool-aid if it suits them ideologically.
Darn, that doesn't make for a good soundbite. Let me make it a bit more inflammatory by saying that the right's ideology contains substantially more elements that are not firmly footed in reality than the left's (yeah I'm bored of having high karma).
Nice try, but "cut" and "cut" don't always have the same value. In most countries with government-run healthcare, the government has a pretty damn good incentive to take the smallest possible cut - tax rates are high already (because healthcare is included), and voters hate taxes. Compare that with an ecosystem of for-profit companies that collude and fix prices like there's no tomorrow... And even if the government would start cracking down on these practices, they still would have expenses that a government-run healthcare doesn't have: advertisement, paying dividents,... You just can't set up a for-profit company and get away with minimizing your profit.
And then there's another thing: poor people in the US who don't have health care often don't go visit a doctor when they have symptoms, instead waiting until things get very bad and they end up in the emergency room. Guess what? Letting the regular medical channels take their due course and intervening early in a disease usually costs a lot less money than intervening late and in an emergency setting. And guess who has to foot the bill for these extra costs? No, it's not the hospitals, they just pass the check on to those patients who can pay their bills. Who pass the check on to their insurance companies, who pass the check on to everyone who has health insurance. So in some sense, the US has been having some demented form of "socialized medicine" since long before the debate on Obamacare even started, only the system is set up the most costly and inefficient way imaginable. All for the sake of keeping up the appearance that it's not - *gasp* - socialism.
So there's an explanation why the tax + health insurence cost in the US summed together is equal or (most often) larger than the tax rate in most developed countries with government-run heath insurance. And you get a whole lot more for your taxes in these countries to boot, like roads that aren't full of potholes, bridges that aren't on the brink of collapsing, decent public transport,... and the same quality of health care.
If by fixed you mean "Intel put a disclaimer on its compiler saying [ICC] may or may not optimize to the same degree for non-Intel microprocessors for optimizations that are not unique to Intel microprocessors", then yes, it is fixed. Otherwise, not so much. I happen to have tested ICC performance against other compilers not too long ago, and it refuses to genereate AVX instructions that are reachable when running on an AMD CPU. The -xO flag didn't help - all it did was turn off AVX altogether. Adding flags that prevent it from generating other execution paths than the AVX one didn't help either; when started, the binary would just generate a clean (but false) error message that the processor doesn't support its instructions, and exit immediately. From this, I concluded that after all these years, they still check for "GenuineIntel" instead of looking at the actual capability flags. In the end, we found absolutely no way to make ICC generate AVX instructions that would be executed on an AMD processor.
Just to satisfy my curiosity, could you give a few good examples of republicans that were the victims of successful character assassinations, and explain why they are good examples? And by "character assassinations", I mean they have been vilified in the public eye, predominantly based on half-truths, lies, exaggerations, and arguments that relate neither to their capacity and integrity as a politician nor to their commitment to their campaign promises.
Note that I'm not implying there are no such cases; for example, a significant amount (but not all) of the things that were used against Sarah Palin were a bit ridiculous. But I'm sure you have better examples...
I don't think there's any chipmaker (CPU, GPU or otherwise) who hasn't been caught doing it. Not that that makes it right, of course.
For the quick readers, note that this is about Clover Trail, not to be confused with the recently announced Bay Trail. Though it does cast doubts on Intel's claims about the latter's performance...
And then there's the other part of the equation: suppose the thief is simply interested in reselling your hardware and not your data, then they can take out the HD, reinstall the OS (or just the boot loader) and pop it back in.
On my brand new laptop, my home dir is encrypted, and I'm planning to install something like Prey as soon as I've looked at the pros and cons of the different options. That way, they can run the anti-theft software without getting access to any of the data I really care about. Of course, even a moderately sophisticated thief can circumvent the best anti-theft software, provided that they're diligent enough. But in a real-life burglary or car break-in, there's a fair chance that those conditions are not met. I guess if one knows a little bit about computers, fixing them for pay is more profitable and less risky than stealing them.
Yes, closed source is obscure, but that doesn't mean it follows the security through obscurity model. Something can be closed source, yet using sound security practices. Example: a closed-source RFC 4880 implementation. Granted, it would be difficult for such an implementation to gain the trust of the security community, but that's a different argument.
Stop posting the same thing over and over again - spamming is not conductive to intelligent dialogue. I didn't come here to scroll through endless repetitions of the same offtopic post.
If you punish ordinary opposing views in debate you aren't committed to free speech.
Why, I indeed am not. There is no absolute freedom of anything - it's a fantasy. You're clearly abusing your free speech, so I'm telling you to stop raising the noise level. If you have an issue with that, then perhaps *you* aren't committed to free speech.:P
Thank you for so pertinently illustrating GP's point. The gpo.gov document you linked to is a prime example of weasely legal reinterpretation of otherwise clear laws. Genius! Suddenly the US finds itself at *WAR* with an ill-defined(*) group of people not residing on US soil. But wait, it gets better - the POWs in this "war" are suddenly denied their Geneva Convention rights because, oh no, this is not really a war between nation-states.(+) If that is not reminiscent of "animal farm", then I don't know what is.
(*) "those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States." Does that include the CIA and the Bush administration, for grossly ignoring all the prior evidence they had lying on their desks?
(+) apart from incredilby hypocrite, this argument is also plain wrong because the Geneva Convention has specific provinsions for "armed conflict not of an international character".
Oh yeah, as for what they speak in French Flanders, that's just yet another Dutch dialect, and French Flanders was historically part of Flanders. Saying "West Flemish is even more related to the languages from Northern France then [sic] the Netherlands" is disingenuous because most uninformed readers will assume you're talking about a French dialect instead of a Dutch one.
I'm sorry for the long rant ahead, but this is one of my pet peeves. If you're Flemish, you really should know better than spreading that drivel. Flemish is not merely related to Dutch; Flemish is Dutch, or rather, "Flemish" is an umbrella term for a group of Dutch dialects. We're using the same grammar, dictionaries and spelling guide (het Groene Boekje) as in the Netherlands, the Dutch watch to Flemish TV shows and vice versa, and formal written Flemish is indistinguishable from formal written Dutch, as testified by Flemish people winning the great Dutch spelling competition (het Groot Dictee der Nederlandse Taal) nicely half of the time. Never use the word "Flemish" when talking about language, because there is no one true Flemish language; in Belgium, people speak Dutch, French and German. To claim otherwise is to help those who claim that "Flemish is a language without written spelling and Grammar - not a language one could write a contract in - the only serious language in Belgium is French". Quoting some disagreeable person I met in Brussels - yes, there still exist people who would rather repeal the laws of 1873, 1878, 1883 an 1898.
American companies are not always as language-insensitive as you would think, but if you go tell them they should support "Flemish", then they go look how many people speak "Flemish", and conclude it's not worth the effort. Or they'll look up what it would take to support it, find no "Flemish" localization services, and conclude it can't be done. Now, if you tell them: Belgium is bilingual and over half of people speak Dutch, then they'll go: let's see, we have bilingual support for Canada and we have Dutch localization for the Netherlands, so all we have to do toggle some flags in our database, et voilà, Belgium has Dutch language support.
To be honest, if I were the authorities, I would take his gun away based on the facts as you're telling them. If you're in the habit of getting so drunk you'll pass out on the floor, you have a responsibility to society to have your gun behind a nice childproof lock, or no gun at all. Also, the line between sarcasm and serious is a little bit blurry when the source is piss drunk. Even if it would certainly be sarcasm when coming from the sober version of the person. I'm not saying he'd have done anything stupid, but after displaying such poor judgment, he had it coming. Real-life justice can be just and unfair at the same time.
But TFA is a completely different case. Unless the police has strong damning evidence TFA failed to mention.
Amazing one can reach the/. "frontpage" these days by writing something this trivial (and having a big name). All TFA says is:
- The complexity of a complex problem cannot be reduced indefinitely.
- Code should strive to be as simple as possible but cannot be made to violate this law.
I'd think anyone who has ever written complex code (like most science/engineering code, or a 3D game engine) should knows this from experience. Not to mention people with basic background in information theory and half a brain cell. If you're a programmer and you think "wow, that's a clever insight", then better get another job.
Again, quite wrong. It's the laws (and interpreted policies from law - remember how far the clean water act of 1972 was stretched to victimize the Sacketts) that enable these kinds of abuses. Without that, the people targeted by those dictators would have better ways to redress the issues and, more importantly, have the law on their side, instead of having to battle over rules that allow "discretionary" enforcement.
Surely you can't be that naive. These stupid tricks are as old as humanity. Whenever there's a possibility for enforcers to selectively turn a blind eye, you'll have discretionary enforcement. It's very difficult to 100% proof laws against that. Though I give you the US could do a better job at it. Dropping laws into place without transitional measures so that a majority of the population is suddenly placed outside the law, or more generally laws that are impossible to enforce consistently, that's just asking for it - not to mention completely hypocrite.
Obama's climate change plan will simply make this much worse, and you won't hear about all the abuses of people that roll over and capitulate because they can't afford a long court battle against an entity with limitless funding.
Speculation, speculation, speculation.
- If yes, then I'm with you: this country needs a good harsh crackdown on corruption and favoritism, from the highest to the lowest level.
Yes, we do. But when the law is enabling it, how do you fight it. As an exercise, please list one example of any level of bureaucrat or corrupted official that has been held accountable. Not just had their decision reversed, but actually suffered some kind of penalty for their actions.
Oh but I couldn't agree more on that point, the crackdown I had in mind would be preceded with tough legislation that can be enforced with jail sentences. According to some statistics, the US has enviably low levels of corruption, but that's only because a lot of shit is legally allowed in the US yet would be considered corruption in other countries. Citizens United, super PACs,... how can you ever expect public office holders to be honest and rule in the best interest of the people if the system encourages said public office holders to start their tenure with a multi-million dollar debt to all kinds of industries and special interests?
Slashdot Mirror
OK, seems like we were on a completely different page until now. The joys of written conversation. It's probably fair to say that both R and D politicians can be the target of character assassinations and that both the the R and D population are more likely to drink the kool-aid if it suits them ideologically.
Darn, that doesn't make for a good soundbite. Let me make it a bit more inflammatory by saying that the right's ideology contains substantially more elements that are not firmly footed in reality than the left's (yeah I'm bored of having high karma).
Nice try, but "cut" and "cut" don't always have the same value. In most countries with government-run healthcare, the government has a pretty damn good incentive to take the smallest possible cut - tax rates are high already (because healthcare is included), and voters hate taxes. Compare that with an ecosystem of for-profit companies that collude and fix prices like there's no tomorrow... And even if the government would start cracking down on these practices, they still would have expenses that a government-run healthcare doesn't have: advertisement, paying dividents,... You just can't set up a for-profit company and get away with minimizing your profit.
And then there's another thing: poor people in the US who don't have health care often don't go visit a doctor when they have symptoms, instead waiting until things get very bad and they end up in the emergency room. Guess what? Letting the regular medical channels take their due course and intervening early in a disease usually costs a lot less money than intervening late and in an emergency setting. And guess who has to foot the bill for these extra costs? No, it's not the hospitals, they just pass the check on to those patients who can pay their bills. Who pass the check on to their insurance companies, who pass the check on to everyone who has health insurance. So in some sense, the US has been having some demented form of "socialized medicine" since long before the debate on Obamacare even started, only the system is set up the most costly and inefficient way imaginable. All for the sake of keeping up the appearance that it's not - *gasp* - socialism.
So there's an explanation why the tax + health insurence cost in the US summed together is equal or (most often) larger than the tax rate in most developed countries with government-run heath insurance. And you get a whole lot more for your taxes in these countries to boot, like roads that aren't full of potholes, bridges that aren't on the brink of collapsing, decent public transport,... and the same quality of health care.
See also http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2011/04/26/cost-of-health-care-by-country-national-geographic/
Heh, good one.
Be that as it may, I don't think this observation will get you far in the courtroom.
If by fixed you mean "Intel put a disclaimer on its compiler saying [ICC] may or may not optimize to the same degree for non-Intel microprocessors for optimizations that are not unique to Intel microprocessors", then yes, it is fixed. Otherwise, not so much. I happen to have tested ICC performance against other compilers not too long ago, and it refuses to genereate AVX instructions that are reachable when running on an AMD CPU. The -xO flag didn't help - all it did was turn off AVX altogether. Adding flags that prevent it from generating other execution paths than the AVX one didn't help either; when started, the binary would just generate a clean (but false) error message that the processor doesn't support its instructions, and exit immediately. From this, I concluded that after all these years, they still check for "GenuineIntel" instead of looking at the actual capability flags. In the end, we found absolutely no way to make ICC generate AVX instructions that would be executed on an AMD processor.
See, I may be naive, but I always assumed that the CEO is neither the only nor (in most cases) the most important factor determining stock price.
Just to satisfy my curiosity, could you give a few good examples of republicans that were the victims of successful character assassinations, and explain why they are good examples? And by "character assassinations", I mean they have been vilified in the public eye, predominantly based on half-truths, lies, exaggerations, and arguments that relate neither to their capacity and integrity as a politician nor to their commitment to their campaign promises.
Note that I'm not implying there are no such cases; for example, a significant amount (but not all) of the things that were used against Sarah Palin were a bit ridiculous. But I'm sure you have better examples...
Should it, then?
Here's an excellent analysis of the implications for Bay Trail and its competitiveness against its big rivals Snapdragon (Qualcomm) and Tegra (Nvidia).
TL;DR version: the latter aren't shaking in their boots yet.
News at 11.
I don't think there's any chipmaker (CPU, GPU or otherwise) who hasn't been caught doing it. Not that that makes it right, of course.
For the quick readers, note that this is about Clover Trail, not to be confused with the recently announced Bay Trail. Though it does cast doubts on Intel's claims about the latter's performance...
A lot of petty thieves don't exactly fall under the "careful person" category...
And then there's the other part of the equation: suppose the thief is simply interested in reselling your hardware and not your data, then they can take out the HD, reinstall the OS (or just the boot loader) and pop it back in.
On my brand new laptop, my home dir is encrypted, and I'm planning to install something like Prey as soon as I've looked at the pros and cons of the different options. That way, they can run the anti-theft software without getting access to any of the data I really care about. Of course, even a moderately sophisticated thief can circumvent the best anti-theft software, provided that they're diligent enough. But in a real-life burglary or car break-in, there's a fair chance that those conditions are not met. I guess if one knows a little bit about computers, fixing them for pay is more profitable and less risky than stealing them.
A fallacy, you say?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity
Yes, closed source is obscure, but that doesn't mean it follows the security through obscurity model. Something can be closed source, yet using sound security practices. Example: a closed-source RFC 4880 implementation. Granted, it would be difficult for such an implementation to gain the trust of the security community, but that's a different argument.
Character assassination - when it's too late to (literally) shoot the messenger himself, kill his public perception instead. See also: Julian Assange.
If you punish ordinary opposing views in debate you aren't committed to free speech.
Why, I indeed am not. There is no absolute freedom of anything - it's a fantasy. You're clearly abusing your free speech, so I'm telling you to stop raising the noise level. If you have an issue with that, then perhaps *you* aren't committed to free speech. :P
Thank you for so pertinently illustrating GP's point. The gpo.gov document you linked to is a prime example of weasely legal reinterpretation of otherwise clear laws. Genius! Suddenly the US finds itself at *WAR* with an ill-defined(*) group of people not residing on US soil. But wait, it gets better - the POWs in this "war" are suddenly denied their Geneva Convention rights because, oh no, this is not really a war between nation-states.(+) If that is not reminiscent of "animal farm", then I don't know what is.
(*) "those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States." Does that include the CIA and the Bush administration, for grossly ignoring all the prior evidence they had lying on their desks?
(+) apart from incredilby hypocrite, this argument is also plain wrong because the Geneva Convention has specific provinsions for "armed conflict not of an international character".
Oh yeah, as for what they speak in French Flanders, that's just yet another Dutch dialect, and French Flanders was historically part of Flanders. Saying "West Flemish is even more related to the languages from Northern France then [sic] the Netherlands" is disingenuous because most uninformed readers will assume you're talking about a French dialect instead of a Dutch one.
I'm sorry for the long rant ahead, but this is one of my pet peeves. If you're Flemish, you really should know better than spreading that drivel. Flemish is not merely related to Dutch; Flemish is Dutch, or rather, "Flemish" is an umbrella term for a group of Dutch dialects. We're using the same grammar, dictionaries and spelling guide (het Groene Boekje) as in the Netherlands, the Dutch watch to Flemish TV shows and vice versa, and formal written Flemish is indistinguishable from formal written Dutch, as testified by Flemish people winning the great Dutch spelling competition (het Groot Dictee der Nederlandse Taal) nicely half of the time. Never use the word "Flemish" when talking about language, because there is no one true Flemish language; in Belgium, people speak Dutch, French and German. To claim otherwise is to help those who claim that "Flemish is a language without written spelling and Grammar - not a language one could write a contract in - the only serious language in Belgium is French". Quoting some disagreeable person I met in Brussels - yes, there still exist people who would rather repeal the laws of 1873, 1878, 1883 an 1898.
American companies are not always as language-insensitive as you would think, but if you go tell them they should support "Flemish", then they go look how many people speak "Flemish", and conclude it's not worth the effort. Or they'll look up what it would take to support it, find no "Flemish" localization services, and conclude it can't be done. Now, if you tell them: Belgium is bilingual and over half of people speak Dutch, then they'll go: let's see, we have bilingual support for Canada and we have Dutch localization for the Netherlands, so all we have to do toggle some flags in our database, et voilà, Belgium has Dutch language support.
You might want to read GP and GGP again, slowly and carefully, Mr. Pot.
Have you seen the outrage about Unity lately, and the droves of users switching to non-unity desktops and non-Ubuntu linuxes?
Yeah yeah, cold dead hands and everything. Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_safety#Impairment
To be honest, if I were the authorities, I would take his gun away based on the facts as you're telling them. If you're in the habit of getting so drunk you'll pass out on the floor, you have a responsibility to society to have your gun behind a nice childproof lock, or no gun at all. Also, the line between sarcasm and serious is a little bit blurry when the source is piss drunk. Even if it would certainly be sarcasm when coming from the sober version of the person. I'm not saying he'd have done anything stupid, but after displaying such poor judgment, he had it coming. Real-life justice can be just and unfair at the same time.
But TFA is a completely different case. Unless the police has strong damning evidence TFA failed to mention.
Good morning to the Chinese astroturf squad! Out of karma-pumped sockpuppets?
Amazing one can reach the /. "frontpage" these days by writing something this trivial (and having a big name). All TFA says is:
- The complexity of a complex problem cannot be reduced indefinitely.
- Code should strive to be as simple as possible but cannot be made to violate this law.
I'd think anyone who has ever written complex code (like most science/engineering code, or a 3D game engine) should knows this from experience. Not to mention people with basic background in information theory and half a brain cell. If you're a programmer and you think "wow, that's a clever insight", then better get another job.
Again, quite wrong. It's the laws (and interpreted policies from law - remember how far the clean water act of 1972 was stretched to victimize the Sacketts) that enable these kinds of abuses. Without that, the people targeted by those dictators would have better ways to redress the issues and, more importantly, have the law on their side, instead of having to battle over rules that allow "discretionary" enforcement.
Surely you can't be that naive. These stupid tricks are as old as humanity. Whenever there's a possibility for enforcers to selectively turn a blind eye, you'll have discretionary enforcement. It's very difficult to 100% proof laws against that. Though I give you the US could do a better job at it. Dropping laws into place without transitional measures so that a majority of the population is suddenly placed outside the law, or more generally laws that are impossible to enforce consistently, that's just asking for it - not to mention completely hypocrite.
Obama's climate change plan will simply make this much worse, and you won't hear about all the abuses of people that roll over and capitulate because they can't afford a long court battle against an entity with limitless funding.
Speculation, speculation, speculation.
- If yes, then I'm with you: this country needs a good harsh crackdown on corruption and favoritism, from the highest to the lowest level.
Yes, we do. But when the law is enabling it, how do you fight it. As an exercise, please list one example of any level of bureaucrat or corrupted official that has been held accountable. Not just had their decision reversed, but actually suffered some kind of penalty for their actions.
Oh but I couldn't agree more on that point, the crackdown I had in mind would be preceded with tough legislation that can be enforced with jail sentences. According to some statistics, the US has enviably low levels of corruption, but that's only because a lot of shit is legally allowed in the US yet would be considered corruption in other countries. Citizens United, super PACs,... how can you ever expect public office holders to be honest and rule in the best interest of the people if the system encourages said public office holders to start their tenure with a multi-million dollar debt to all kinds of industries and special interests?