It's not their choice. It wasn't ever their choice.
I was in Hawaii back when it was a territory, and it wasn't their option whether they would be a territory or a state. Being a state would have advantages. Being independent would have advantages. Being a territory... the only advantage is passport-free movement between there and the US.
On current processors, I believe that you are correct. But there is nothing inherent in out of order execution that implies any SPECTRE mode capability. You just need *much* better isolation that is possible on current hardware.
In proof of this claim, imagine that you divide the chip into totally isolated processes that communicate via UDP. They don't share memory at all. When a fork in execution is seen coming, you send a message to two different processes to start working on one branch of the problem. This will be a bit verbose, because you need to send copies of all the resources that will be needed. After awhile you figure out which branch was the correct one, and listen to only that response. You don't know anything about what happened in the external processes, and the external processes only know what you sent them. This would be a bit slow, of course, but it's a thought experiment, not a proposal. The crucial step is the isolation of the separate processes.
Actually, when I read a bit more the claim is that they are used screens from actual sold-by-Apple products. That they've got the trademark embedded in them, but it's gunked over (?) so that nobody can read it. This would seem to make the trademark claim worthless. I could see (vaguely) the sense of a copyright claim, and definitely the sense of a patent claim, but the sense of a trademark claim just bypasses me.
Since it was probably made by the same company that made the screens for Apple, what does "counterfeit" mean here? If it just means it was never the property of Apple, then "ok, and so what?".
Of course, it's possible that some other company set up a production line for Apple compatible screens...but I find that quite dubious.
No, only local hidden variables were ruled out. But non-local hidden variables are so weird that almost nobody believes in them. (They've got to be non-local in time as well as in space.)
I've got to admit I don't understand what that means. Ask David Bohm, though you'll need a medium. Or you could try to read his book "Wholeness and the Implicate Order". Good luck.
I wasn't asserting whether or not it was justified, I was saying the protectionism isn't just about culture. Yes, I think authentic Burgundy has been justifiable. I'm less convinced about Champaign. And, WRT to the other reply, I don't consider what to name the baby cultural...at least not usually. You could make an argument that "Biblical names are cultural", and I'd accept that, but saying "I'm naming him after his grandpa" doesn't sound to me like a cultural choice. Traditional, yes, but that's slightly different. I suppose naming a baby "Arthur Dent" would be a cultural choice, but it's not one I've encountered.
Yeah, my examples aren't French. I don't live in France, and have only an exterior view of their country, so if it didn't hit the news I probably won't know about it. But their protectionism has hit the news frequently in areas that are only vaguely related to culture in any narrow meaning of the term. This doesn't mean I disagree with all their decisions. Often I just say "de gustibus..." and let it go at that. Sometimes I think it was warranted, and sometimes I think it was silly, but in any case it's a matter of taste.
Not really. The main point of Cannes is to give showing to small films that otherwise wouldn't be picked up. I don't know how they select which films to offer, as I doubt they could show everything, but they have a history of picking up small, unusual, films that later become popular (as well, of course, as a whole bunch of films that flop).
When I was a kid I used to go to dime theaters. Where did they go? What social change should *I* advocate to get them back?
IOW, I think you're being foolish. Inflation has happened. If you want to preserve dollar theaters, the prescription to do that is a major depression. Are you sure that's what you want?
Not just cultural. They also protect the use of terms that elsewhere are taken to mean a variety of production to instead mean "made in a particular geographic area", and they protect the use of native names, and...
Well, I guess you *could* stretch "culture" to cover everything from techniques of wine production to "what to name the baby", but I would consider that a misuse of the language in English.
Yes, but Netflix business is built around distribution of movies to the home user, not to the theaters. 3 months is a bit more reasonable, but still quite reasonably unacceptable.
But it's paid for by the government. If he were calling our water supply socialized, I'd see his point. I might not think it was a bad idea, but it would be a reasonable use of the term. (Yes, I know there's a use charge, but it doesn't really reflect the cost of the service.)
Please rephrase "and aftermarket parts regularly break iPhones due to software updates" to "IPhone software upgrades regularly break aftermarket parts".
Those seem to be MSWind machines. I'm not going to trust them not to need drivers that aren't available for Linux. Even if they use the same manufacturer, this doesn't mean they need the same drivers.
Net Neutrality is orthogonal to unmetered service. Unmetered service is basically impossible without an unlimited budget. Net Neutrality is easier than the alternatives (except no internet, of course).
What Net Neutrality says is "there are no favored modes of communication". There are reasons why this is less than ideal, because some modes of communication are more time sensitive than others. But allowing violation of Net Neutrality requires that you trust the provider to not penalize users unfairly, and very few seem willing to believe that. Recent history should provide you with ample reasons why many people consider corporations untrustworthy.
I think you don't understand what an ISP is. ISPs are relatively easy to set up. Running the lines is expensive, but that's not a part of the job of the ISP, that's the phone company, or the cable company, or some such. And if they want to be common carriers, they can't refuse to carry the traffic of an ISP. Around here there are several ISPs that use AT&T lines, one of which is a subsidiary of AT&T.
I know there is Supreme Court precedent to the contrary, but I still feel it is violation of the Constitution for eminent domain to be used to take property from one group of people and give it to another group of people which are not a governmental body. That's not what eminent domain meant until around 1980. (I don't know exactly when that case started, so I'm guessing.) And the laws that were used to justify it were emplaced before that date.
That is *an* example of how federalism should work. The GP however, was claiming that those who previously espoused federalism would denounce it. It wouldn't surprise me if he was correct, as poliitcal stances usually seem more tied into emotional reactions to social and economic issues than to the logic that they purportedly are based on.
The thing is, calling the NeoCons federalists is abuse of the language. They are as much centralists as are most of the progressive left. Centralist vs. Decentralist is really nearly orthogonal to Left vs. Right, despite the verbal speeches. Watch what they do, not what they say. All of the major political parties (all four of them) are centralist. This is reasonable, when you think about it, because each one represents a centralization of power around some issues. It's sort of weird that the Libertarians are centralists, but they are...well, most of them. If you go back far enough both the Democrats and the Republicans had wings that weren't centralist, but they were founded on local groups and as the "central committe"s gained more control, they went away.
FWIW, I'm more in favor of cities and counties rights than I am of states rights, but I know human nature, and so I know that there needs to be an overlying enforcement layer to ensure that they abide by their charters and ordinances. Similarly the purpose of the Federal Government should be to ensure that the states adhere to their own laws and constitutions. And here we run into problems, because the Federal Government cannot be held to its own laws and constitution. I haven't seen any way around this. Patrick Henry's solution isn't really workable.
The thing is, if you "collect the data to improve the VR" what happens to the data after you've used it to improve the VR? How much do you trust the company that scarfed up your data? Why?
In the case of Facebook, my answer is pretty much "I don't trust them at all.", and I'd be dubious about their promises even if I thought they could legally be held to them.
In the case of Occulus, they're owned by Facebook. They'll do what Facebook tells them to do.
And with respect to TOS, more than once I've read a TOS that allowed them to change the terms by altering a web page, and made it my duty to know about any changes.
So let them have someone else's data. Because I can't stop all the fools.
I agree that's the direct path to approval. But a good double blind study is expensive, and takes a long time. It's hardly "fast track".
What's being talked about here is experimental use of an unapproved drug. I'm arguing that this should be allowed if there's full information available, if the use is carefully monitored, and if the manufacturer doesn't take a profit. This would allow preliminary information to be gathered to decide whether the double blind study is worthwhile. This, of course, needs to be done AFTER the preliminary safety study, but would provide much more realistic results at relatively low cost.
They'd do it because it could yield data on whether or not they should go to the time, effort, and expense of doing the double blind study that would justify FDA approval.
Double blind studies are expensive to set up, and it would be quite useful to be able to get a better idea ahead of time as to whether one is worthwhile.
While there do need to be double blind studies, there also needs to be a "fast usage" track for drugs like this. It shouldn't be a track that leads directly to general approval, and it should include some features that discourage the manufacturers from pushing it.
My preference is a requirement of thorough monitoring of the patients and forbidding the manufacturer from making a profit on drugs used in the study. And guaranteed open publication of the results. This is clearly inferior to a double blind study, but it does allow fast-track to access, and it provides a lot of case histories, even if it isn't double blind. The double-blind studies should, however, be a requirement for final approval.
Actually, no. Whiskey doesn't work as well. Whiskey tends to foster inflamation, and inflamation is a general system toxin. Being toxic is, of course, it's purpose as it's designed to kill off bacteria, but when it becomes systematic is almost always does more harm than good.
That said, I also use Whiskey for mild pain, when I've taken as many aspirin or ibuprofen as I feel secure in taking. It's quite effective against pain, though when taken in doses strong enough to quiet severe pain it's likely to encourage damaging or irresponsible actions. I've got to admit that I've never tried marijuana for such pain, so I have no idea whether it would even work. There have been studies, however, which reported that for really severe pain the best treatment is LSD. That allowed patients to "gain perspective" on the pain of terminal cancer when even morphine didn't work. It didn't exactly kill the pain, so much as allow the patients to refocus themselves. I'm not really sure what that means, and I read the report decades ago, so this is a paraphrase of what it said by someone who didn't really understand it.
But whiskey as a treatment for anything chronic is generally a very bad idea. Not the worst idea, but a bad one. If it's a chronic condition and marijuana will treat it, then marijuana is definitely a better choice...except for a few people who are sensitive to it. Like all drugs there are some people whose reactions are not desirable.
YES! The FDA was ostensibly created to ensure the purity and accurate labeling of products and foods being sold. That is a good, worthy, and defensible job. It would be within their general remit to publish studies of effectiveness of various materials for treating various conditions.
When they go beyond the jobs listed in the previous paragraph they step beyond being definitely justifiable and worthy, and enter a different realm of activity, which is much less laudable.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not their choice. It wasn't ever their choice.
I was in Hawaii back when it was a territory, and it wasn't their option whether they would be a territory or a state. Being a state would have advantages. Being independent would have advantages. Being a territory... the only advantage is passport-free movement between there and the US.
On current processors, I believe that you are correct. But there is nothing inherent in out of order execution that implies any SPECTRE mode capability. You just need *much* better isolation that is possible on current hardware.
In proof of this claim, imagine that you divide the chip into totally isolated processes that communicate via UDP. They don't share memory at all. When a fork in execution is seen coming, you send a message to two different processes to start working on one branch of the problem. This will be a bit verbose, because you need to send copies of all the resources that will be needed. After awhile you figure out which branch was the correct one, and listen to only that response. You don't know anything about what happened in the external processes, and the external processes only know what you sent them. This would be a bit slow, of course, but it's a thought experiment, not a proposal. The crucial step is the isolation of the separate processes.
Actually, when I read a bit more the claim is that they are used screens from actual sold-by-Apple products. That they've got the trademark embedded in them, but it's gunked over (?) so that nobody can read it. This would seem to make the trademark claim worthless. I could see (vaguely) the sense of a copyright claim, and definitely the sense of a patent claim, but the sense of a trademark claim just bypasses me.
Since it was probably made by the same company that made the screens for Apple, what does "counterfeit" mean here? If it just means it was never the property of Apple, then "ok, and so what?".
Of course, it's possible that some other company set up a production line for Apple compatible screens...but I find that quite dubious.
No, only local hidden variables were ruled out. But non-local hidden variables are so weird that almost nobody believes in them. (They've got to be non-local in time as well as in space.)
I've got to admit I don't understand what that means. Ask David Bohm, though you'll need a medium. Or you could try to read his book "Wholeness and the Implicate Order". Good luck.
I wasn't asserting whether or not it was justified, I was saying the protectionism isn't just about culture. Yes, I think authentic Burgundy has been justifiable. I'm less convinced about Champaign. And, WRT to the other reply, I don't consider what to name the baby cultural...at least not usually. You could make an argument that "Biblical names are cultural", and I'd accept that, but saying "I'm naming him after his grandpa" doesn't sound to me like a cultural choice. Traditional, yes, but that's slightly different. I suppose naming a baby "Arthur Dent" would be a cultural choice, but it's not one I've encountered.
Yeah, my examples aren't French. I don't live in France, and have only an exterior view of their country, so if it didn't hit the news I probably won't know about it. But their protectionism has hit the news frequently in areas that are only vaguely related to culture in any narrow meaning of the term. This doesn't mean I disagree with all their decisions. Often I just say "de gustibus..." and let it go at that. Sometimes I think it was warranted, and sometimes I think it was silly, but in any case it's a matter of taste.
Not really. The main point of Cannes is to give showing to small films that otherwise wouldn't be picked up. I don't know how they select which films to offer, as I doubt they could show everything, but they have a history of picking up small, unusual, films that later become popular (as well, of course, as a whole bunch of films that flop).
When I was a kid I used to go to dime theaters. Where did they go? What social change should *I* advocate to get them back?
IOW, I think you're being foolish. Inflation has happened. If you want to preserve dollar theaters, the prescription to do that is a major depression. Are you sure that's what you want?
Not just cultural. They also protect the use of terms that elsewhere are taken to mean a variety of production to instead mean "made in a particular geographic area", and they protect the use of native names, and...
Well, I guess you *could* stretch "culture" to cover everything from techniques of wine production to "what to name the baby", but I would consider that a misuse of the language in English.
Yes, but Netflix business is built around distribution of movies to the home user, not to the theaters. 3 months is a bit more reasonable, but still quite reasonably unacceptable.
But it's paid for by the government. If he were calling our water supply socialized, I'd see his point. I might not think it was a bad idea, but it would be a reasonable use of the term. (Yes, I know there's a use charge, but it doesn't really reflect the cost of the service.)
Please rephrase "and aftermarket parts regularly break iPhones due to software updates" to "IPhone software upgrades regularly break aftermarket parts".
ThinkPenguin's computers all seem to be rather low end. Fine, if that's what you need, but it sure isn't what I'm looking for.
OTOH, these days I also want to avoid Intel. Too may problems, and the problems that exist being addressed with PR before they finally admit them.
Those seem to be MSWind machines. I'm not going to trust them not to need drivers that aren't available for Linux. Even if they use the same manufacturer, this doesn't mean they need the same drivers.
It's also strange to call an action by a private company socialism.
Net Neutrality is orthogonal to unmetered service. Unmetered service is basically impossible without an unlimited budget. Net Neutrality is easier than the alternatives (except no internet, of course).
What Net Neutrality says is "there are no favored modes of communication". There are reasons why this is less than ideal, because some modes of communication are more time sensitive than others. But allowing violation of Net Neutrality requires that you trust the provider to not penalize users unfairly, and very few seem willing to believe that. Recent history should provide you with ample reasons why many people consider corporations untrustworthy.
I think you don't understand what an ISP is. ISPs are relatively easy to set up. Running the lines is expensive, but that's not a part of the job of the ISP, that's the phone company, or the cable company, or some such. And if they want to be common carriers, they can't refuse to carry the traffic of an ISP. Around here there are several ISPs that use AT&T lines, one of which is a subsidiary of AT&T.
I know there is Supreme Court precedent to the contrary, but I still feel it is violation of the Constitution for eminent domain to be used to take property from one group of people and give it to another group of people which are not a governmental body. That's not what eminent domain meant until around 1980. (I don't know exactly when that case started, so I'm guessing.) And the laws that were used to justify it were emplaced before that date.
That is *an* example of how federalism should work. The GP however, was claiming that those who previously espoused federalism would denounce it. It wouldn't surprise me if he was correct, as poliitcal stances usually seem more tied into emotional reactions to social and economic issues than to the logic that they purportedly are based on.
The thing is, calling the NeoCons federalists is abuse of the language. They are as much centralists as are most of the progressive left. Centralist vs. Decentralist is really nearly orthogonal to Left vs. Right, despite the verbal speeches. Watch what they do, not what they say. All of the major political parties (all four of them) are centralist. This is reasonable, when you think about it, because each one represents a centralization of power around some issues. It's sort of weird that the Libertarians are centralists, but they are...well, most of them. If you go back far enough both the Democrats and the Republicans had wings that weren't centralist, but they were founded on local groups and as the "central committe"s gained more control, they went away.
FWIW, I'm more in favor of cities and counties rights than I am of states rights, but I know human nature, and so I know that there needs to be an overlying enforcement layer to ensure that they abide by their charters and ordinances. Similarly the purpose of the Federal Government should be to ensure that the states adhere to their own laws and constitutions. And here we run into problems, because the Federal Government cannot be held to its own laws and constitution. I haven't seen any way around this. Patrick Henry's solution isn't really workable.
The thing is, if you "collect the data to improve the VR" what happens to the data after you've used it to improve the VR? How much do you trust the company that scarfed up your data? Why?
In the case of Facebook, my answer is pretty much "I don't trust them at all.", and I'd be dubious about their promises even if I thought they could legally be held to them.
In the case of Occulus, they're owned by Facebook. They'll do what Facebook tells them to do.
And with respect to TOS, more than once I've read a TOS that allowed them to change the terms by altering a web page, and made it my duty to know about any changes.
So let them have someone else's data. Because I can't stop all the fools.
I agree that's the direct path to approval. But a good double blind study is expensive, and takes a long time. It's hardly "fast track".
What's being talked about here is experimental use of an unapproved drug. I'm arguing that this should be allowed if there's full information available, if the use is carefully monitored, and if the manufacturer doesn't take a profit. This would allow preliminary information to be gathered to decide whether the double blind study is worthwhile. This, of course, needs to be done AFTER the preliminary safety study, but would provide much more realistic results at relatively low cost.
They'd do it because it could yield data on whether or not they should go to the time, effort, and expense of doing the double blind study that would justify FDA approval.
Double blind studies are expensive to set up, and it would be quite useful to be able to get a better idea ahead of time as to whether one is worthwhile.
While there do need to be double blind studies, there also needs to be a "fast usage" track for drugs like this. It shouldn't be a track that leads directly to general approval, and it should include some features that discourage the manufacturers from pushing it.
My preference is a requirement of thorough monitoring of the patients and forbidding the manufacturer from making a profit on drugs used in the study. And guaranteed open publication of the results. This is clearly inferior to a double blind study, but it does allow fast-track to access, and it provides a lot of case histories, even if it isn't double blind. The double-blind studies should, however, be a requirement for final approval.
Actually, no. Whiskey doesn't work as well. Whiskey tends to foster inflamation, and inflamation is a general system toxin. Being toxic is, of course, it's purpose as it's designed to kill off bacteria, but when it becomes systematic is almost always does more harm than good.
That said, I also use Whiskey for mild pain, when I've taken as many aspirin or ibuprofen as I feel secure in taking. It's quite effective against pain, though when taken in doses strong enough to quiet severe pain it's likely to encourage damaging or irresponsible actions. I've got to admit that I've never tried marijuana for such pain, so I have no idea whether it would even work. There have been studies, however, which reported that for really severe pain the best treatment is LSD. That allowed patients to "gain perspective" on the pain of terminal cancer when even morphine didn't work. It didn't exactly kill the pain, so much as allow the patients to refocus themselves. I'm not really sure what that means, and I read the report decades ago, so this is a paraphrase of what it said by someone who didn't really understand it.
But whiskey as a treatment for anything chronic is generally a very bad idea. Not the worst idea, but a bad one. If it's a chronic condition and marijuana will treat it, then marijuana is definitely a better choice...except for a few people who are sensitive to it. Like all drugs there are some people whose reactions are not desirable.
YES! The FDA was ostensibly created to ensure the purity and accurate labeling of products and foods being sold. That is a good, worthy, and defensible job. It would be within their general remit to publish studies of effectiveness of various materials for treating various conditions.
When they go beyond the jobs listed in the previous paragraph they step beyond being definitely justifiable and worthy, and enter a different realm of activity, which is much less laudable.