The Mali 400 GPU drivers are openly being developed. This is all fairly emerging stuff. Give it some time.
If that's the case, this is the platform everyone should be working on. The RPi is actually harmful because it discourages people from working on a truly open platform.
USA independence... All of them would have failed if the people involved had been anonymous cowards.
Which also would have failed if none of the people involved had been anonymous. There are times to agitate openly, and times when it's better to do so in secret. Whatever works, do it.
I thought secrecy was required afterwards, too, the reason being that people being investigated shouldn't be smeared by questions asked, should charges not be brought.
You and I both know that's not really why grand juries are held in secret.
I know that this is normally a forum to bash **AA, but the fact still remains that Kim Dotcom made his fortune by providing a service that was used to circumvent paying for content.
You could say the same about every owner of every ISP, anyone who makes hard drives, blank DVDs, or any file locker anywhere. These tools have legitimate uses.
Traditionally, someone who provides a tool with legitimate uses isn't held responsible for the illegitimate uses of that tool. Should FedEx be held responsible for shipping stolen property? Should CutCo be held responsible for domestic violence? Should GM be held responsible for smuggling?
The answer to the above is clearly "no". Why should it be different for KDC?
Can I run Debian on the A10? With hardware floating point? Are binary blobs required? This is what is really needed to beat the RPi. I don't need more CPU or RAM or SATA, I need plain vanilla Debian and full use of the hardware.
You probably shouldn't be using TOR for *ALL* your internet activities. After all, everything that goes through Tor comes out in plain text at an exit node that could be run by anyone.
Kids 12 and over can have sex before this, though -- the only restriction is that one partner cannot be more than two years the senior of the other.
This is another point I just don't get. If you're old enough to consent, you're old enough to consent. The age of the partner you choose is irrelevant to whether you are able to consent. Some people might even prefer an older, more experienced partner to introduce them to sexuality, instead of fumbling around not knowing what to do like most of us did.
The point of the legislation is to prevent someone being coerced into having sex against their will
Coercive sex is illegal no matter what the ages are. There's no reason to set an age limit, coercive sex is illegal.
How about the fact that there are any number of 13 year olds who most certainly would not like that opportunity? What a truly bizarre attitude to take!
In which case they would not assent to the encounter, and it would be full on forcible rape if it proceeded. There's no use case for statutory rape here.
I suspect that if you'd ever experienced an assault you wouldn't make such a statement.
There are plenty of young men and women who have, and have gone on to marry their "abuser". Who are you to tell them that they are wrong?
Remember, we're not talking about forcible rape here. We're talking about situations that resemble consensual sex in every way except the age of one participant is below a legal threshhold.
What you're saying is correct, but the problem is Wall St interferes with law making such that "good regulation" is never possible.
We had pretty good regulation for 70 years or so after the Great Depression. The temporary failure of leaders to keep a good policy doesn't mean we should give up. That's what the banks want you to do. Instead, we should fight harder for even stricter regulation.
The main problem though, is that we have not allowed reckless behavior to be punished. Too big to fail should be too big to exist
So who is going to enforce that if not for the government? Isn't the only other alternative to let these corporations grow on their own until they crash and take everyone else down with them?
Do yourself a favor and stop being deliberately fucking obtuse about this.
Provide some arguments not based on anecdote or threats and I will.
I'm like this because my mother, my wife, my wife's sister, my aunt, all have suffered abuse at the hands of older men they were supposed to be able to trust.
That's an awful thing, but what does this have to do with statutory rape?
The psychological damage that comes from rape is undeniable
Except that quite a lot of people have lost their virginity before the age of consent and deny that it has done them any harm. If anything, it's the unnecessary shame that people like you force on them that does the real harm.
If you are confused about this I strongly recommend you don't test your head-up-the-ass moral ambiguity out on the nearest teenage girl you can find,
My sexual needs are sated, thanks. But at 13, I would have loved to been "raped" by a 30 year old. I know there are other 13 year olds out there who would like that opportunity. I still don't see any reason to deny them that.
So, I repeat, do yourself a favor, and shut the fuck up before you really piss me off.
And just what are you going to do about it, a barrel roll?
Even the FBI doesn't consider statutory rape a violent crime:
Forcible rape, as defined in the FBIâ(TM)s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.
the "desire to please an authority figure" (drilled into our children's heads from a very young age, as I'm sure you're well aware) supplied by that "authority" figure does factor into these types of relationships.
That's the real problem. We teach children not to stand up to authority. Teach children to question authority at every opportunity, and we'd have a much better world. We should be teaching that logic is logic, and if you have a good argument it doesn't matter what age anyone is. Deference to authority is one of the worst vices there is, and we encourage it in our children.
Purely based on cognitive ability, the age of consent would sit right about 16
That's nice in theory, but what about in practice. What are the actual harms that come to a person if they are allowed to consent to sex before 16?
But, based on emotional and psychosocial standards, children mature much slower, and only develop to match the emotional maturity level of a "typical adult" by the time they're 22 or older. (This, in large part, helps to explain why teens & early-20's people are so prone to accidents: they're mature enough, cognitively, to be granted the right to do these things, but they are often not mature enough, emotionally, to judge (and control) the level of risk they're taking.)
You claim that they are not capable of judging, or incapable of exerting control over risk. But perhaps they just have a higher risk tolerance? What exactly is wrong with that?
The safest thing to do is just sit inside all day and never do anything. Yet I would argue that someone who does that has given up a lot more than they have gained. You can't just say "the only acceptable risks are the risks a 50 year old would take". People grow and change, and their risk tolerance changes, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Maybe the optimal risk tolerance is that of a 50 year old, maybe the optimal risk tolerance is that of a 20 year old. Safer is not always better.
Oh that's easy. There has been an official state of emergency in the US since 1995, continued by Bush, and continued by Obama. The US is in a permanent state of emergency, and any emergency powers must be considered permanent powers.
Dunno how to break it to you, but there are a lot more issues than just sexual congress here.
I take it then that you want to raise the age for driving, alcohol use, joining the military, and everything else typically restricted by age to 25?
Or are we going to do the sensible thing and realize that young people have had adult responsibilities for millenia and dealt with it fine? The problem here isn't the brain of a young adult, they obviously work well enough or we wouldn't all be here. The problem is paranoid parents looking for ever more excuses to exert ever more control over their offspring.
But since you said it: the problem is that teenagers are far more likely than adults to *expect* to be happy with their decisions, and only afterwards find out they're not.
I've not actually seen data that shows that. I've seen data that shows that teenagers think harder (IOW, the decision making part of their brain uses more oxygen) about risky situations, and are more likely to make choices adults wouldn't. Is there data about how satisfied they are with their decisions?
But whether teenagers make better decisions for themselves than the decisions adults make for themselves is irrelevant. What's important is whether teenagers make better decisions for teenagers than adults make for teenagers. I've seen no evidence that this is the case.
Sure, they can dump toxic waste in your back yard, but only government can absolve the corporation, its owners and its employees of liability (a tort) for doing so.
By the same token, only the government can hold the corporation accountable.
Without the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (creatures of government) the mortgage crisis would not have happened. Without TARP, HAMP, HAMA, AIG bailout, and trillions in secret Federal Reserve life support, the banks would have been forced to accept the consequences of their own actions, and the damage could have been repaired.
Without government regulation of the financial industries, we would have had a crash far sooner. The 20th century from the Great Depression onwards was a time of remarkable calm. We only saw a real depression after financial deregulation.
Without the government there would be no more underwater borrowers (certainly not 11 million) and fewer foreclosures
Most of the fraudlent stated income loans were made by private banks who knew they were 90% fraudulent, and when they were informed as much by the FBI they *increased* the amount of stated income loans they made. Your statement bears no relationship to reality.
Yes, because no one has ever been wronged by a corporation that they don't do business with.
B) Must use the government to abuse its power
Do criminals require the government to abuse their power? Are you claiming that corporations cannot be criminal? Why don't we just deregulate the murder industry then, and let the invisible hand sort everything out?
Corporations are only dangerous with government power, reduce government power and you reduce any damage that corporations can do to nothing.
Reduce government power and corporate power rushes in to fill that void. That's exactly what we've seen with the past 30 years of deregulation.
So now you want to raise the age of consent to 25?
Also, just because teenagers decision making process is different than that of a full grown adult doesn't necessarily mean it's worse, even if a grown adult would consider it worse by our criteria. What matters is whether they are happy with their decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
The Mali 400 GPU drivers are openly being developed. This is all fairly emerging stuff. Give it some time.
If that's the case, this is the platform everyone should be working on. The RPi is actually harmful because it discourages people from working on a truly open platform.
Why not get the worst of both worlds by combining them?
NZ is lucky that they are mostly populated by English speaking people of European decent.
Ugh, I'm not one for the flavor of burning shrinkwrap.
USA independence... All of them would have failed if the people involved had been anonymous cowards.
Which also would have failed if none of the people involved had been anonymous. There are times to agitate openly, and times when it's better to do so in secret. Whatever works, do it.
I thought secrecy was required afterwards, too, the reason being that people being investigated shouldn't be smeared by questions asked, should charges not be brought.
You and I both know that's not really why grand juries are held in secret.
I know that this is normally a forum to bash **AA, but the fact still remains that Kim Dotcom made his fortune by providing a service that was used to circumvent paying for content.
You could say the same about every owner of every ISP, anyone who makes hard drives, blank DVDs, or any file locker anywhere. These tools have legitimate uses.
Traditionally, someone who provides a tool with legitimate uses isn't held responsible for the illegitimate uses of that tool. Should FedEx be held responsible for shipping stolen property? Should CutCo be held responsible for domestic violence? Should GM be held responsible for smuggling?
The answer to the above is clearly "no". Why should it be different for KDC?
Can I run Debian on the A10? With hardware floating point? Are binary blobs required? This is what is really needed to beat the RPi. I don't need more CPU or RAM or SATA, I need plain vanilla Debian and full use of the hardware.
Ideally, by law. The way rights are usually enforced.
Don't be silly. ALL the network news stations are state-corporatist propaganda.
You probably shouldn't be using TOR for *ALL* your internet activities. After all, everything that goes through Tor comes out in plain text at an exit node that could be run by anyone.
Kids 12 and over can have sex before this, though -- the only restriction is that one partner cannot be more than two years the senior of the other.
This is another point I just don't get. If you're old enough to consent, you're old enough to consent. The age of the partner you choose is irrelevant to whether you are able to consent. Some people might even prefer an older, more experienced partner to introduce them to sexuality, instead of fumbling around not knowing what to do like most of us did.
The point of the legislation is to prevent someone being coerced into having sex against their will
Coercive sex is illegal no matter what the ages are. There's no reason to set an age limit, coercive sex is illegal.
How about the fact that there are any number of 13 year olds who most certainly would not like that opportunity? What a truly bizarre attitude to take!
In which case they would not assent to the encounter, and it would be full on forcible rape if it proceeded. There's no use case for statutory rape here.
I suspect that if you'd ever experienced an assault you wouldn't make such a statement.
There are plenty of young men and women who have, and have gone on to marry their "abuser". Who are you to tell them that they are wrong?
Remember, we're not talking about forcible rape here. We're talking about situations that resemble consensual sex in every way except the age of one participant is below a legal threshhold.
And the Constitution counts black people as 3/5 of a person. All this proves is that the Founding Fathers were both racist and ageist.
What you're saying is correct, but the problem is Wall St interferes with law making such that "good regulation" is never possible.
We had pretty good regulation for 70 years or so after the Great Depression. The temporary failure of leaders to keep a good policy doesn't mean we should give up. That's what the banks want you to do. Instead, we should fight harder for even stricter regulation.
The main problem though, is that we have not allowed reckless behavior to be punished. Too big to fail should be too big to exist
So who is going to enforce that if not for the government? Isn't the only other alternative to let these corporations grow on their own until they crash and take everyone else down with them?
Do yourself a favor and stop being deliberately fucking obtuse about this.
Provide some arguments not based on anecdote or threats and I will.
I'm like this because my mother, my wife, my wife's sister, my aunt, all have suffered abuse at the hands of older men they were supposed to be able to trust.
That's an awful thing, but what does this have to do with statutory rape?
The psychological damage that comes from rape is undeniable
Except that quite a lot of people have lost their virginity before the age of consent and deny that it has done them any harm. If anything, it's the unnecessary shame that people like you force on them that does the real harm.
If you are confused about this I strongly recommend you don't test your head-up-the-ass moral ambiguity out on the nearest teenage girl you can find,
My sexual needs are sated, thanks. But at 13, I would have loved to been "raped" by a 30 year old. I know there are other 13 year olds out there who would like that opportunity. I still don't see any reason to deny them that.
So, I repeat, do yourself a favor, and shut the fuck up before you really piss me off.
And just what are you going to do about it, a barrel roll?
Even the FBI doesn't consider statutory rape a violent crime:
the "desire to please an authority figure" (drilled into our children's heads from a very young age, as I'm sure you're well aware) supplied by that "authority" figure does factor into these types of relationships.
That's the real problem. We teach children not to stand up to authority. Teach children to question authority at every opportunity, and we'd have a much better world. We should be teaching that logic is logic, and if you have a good argument it doesn't matter what age anyone is. Deference to authority is one of the worst vices there is, and we encourage it in our children.
Purely based on cognitive ability, the age of consent would sit right about 16
That's nice in theory, but what about in practice. What are the actual harms that come to a person if they are allowed to consent to sex before 16?
But, based on emotional and psychosocial standards, children mature much slower, and only develop to match the emotional maturity level of a "typical adult" by the time they're 22 or older. (This, in large part, helps to explain why teens & early-20's people are so prone to accidents: they're mature enough, cognitively, to be granted the right to do these things, but they are often not mature enough, emotionally, to judge (and control) the level of risk they're taking.)
You claim that they are not capable of judging, or incapable of exerting control over risk. But perhaps they just have a higher risk tolerance? What exactly is wrong with that?
The safest thing to do is just sit inside all day and never do anything. Yet I would argue that someone who does that has given up a lot more than they have gained. You can't just say "the only acceptable risks are the risks a 50 year old would take". People grow and change, and their risk tolerance changes, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Maybe the optimal risk tolerance is that of a 50 year old, maybe the optimal risk tolerance is that of a 20 year old. Safer is not always better.
In fact, the entire snafu can be said to be due to the government's failure to require proper mortgage paperwork in the first place.
Exactly, the entire thing was due to bad regulation. The solution isn't no regulation, but good regulation.
Oh that's easy. There has been an official state of emergency in the US since 1995, continued by Bush, and continued by Obama. The US is in a permanent state of emergency, and any emergency powers must be considered permanent powers.
Dunno how to break it to you, but there are a lot more issues than just sexual congress here.
I take it then that you want to raise the age for driving, alcohol use, joining the military, and everything else typically restricted by age to 25?
Or are we going to do the sensible thing and realize that young people have had adult responsibilities for millenia and dealt with it fine? The problem here isn't the brain of a young adult, they obviously work well enough or we wouldn't all be here. The problem is paranoid parents looking for ever more excuses to exert ever more control over their offspring.
But since you said it: the problem is that teenagers are far more likely than adults to *expect* to be happy with their decisions, and only afterwards find out they're not.
I've not actually seen data that shows that. I've seen data that shows that teenagers think harder (IOW, the decision making part of their brain uses more oxygen) about risky situations, and are more likely to make choices adults wouldn't. Is there data about how satisfied they are with their decisions?
But whether teenagers make better decisions for themselves than the decisions adults make for themselves is irrelevant. What's important is whether teenagers make better decisions for teenagers than adults make for teenagers. I've seen no evidence that this is the case.
Sure, they can dump toxic waste in your back yard, but only government can absolve the corporation, its owners and its employees of liability (a tort) for doing so.
By the same token, only the government can hold the corporation accountable.
Without the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (creatures of government) the mortgage crisis would not have happened. Without TARP, HAMP, HAMA, AIG bailout, and trillions in secret Federal Reserve life support, the banks would have been forced to accept the consequences of their own actions, and the damage could have been repaired.
Without government regulation of the financial industries, we would have had a crash far sooner. The 20th century from the Great Depression onwards was a time of remarkable calm. We only saw a real depression after financial deregulation.
Without the government there would be no more underwater borrowers (certainly not 11 million) and fewer foreclosures
Most of the fraudlent stated income loans were made by private banks who knew they were 90% fraudulent, and when they were informed as much by the FBI they *increased* the amount of stated income loans they made. Your statement bears no relationship to reality.
So explain to me the harm that a corporation has in a free market.
The harm that a corporation has in a free market is to use its size to commit anticompetetive acts that make the market no longer free.
A) Only have voluntary power/wealth
Yes, because no one has ever been wronged by a corporation that they don't do business with.
B) Must use the government to abuse its power
Do criminals require the government to abuse their power? Are you claiming that corporations cannot be criminal? Why don't we just deregulate the murder industry then, and let the invisible hand sort everything out?
Corporations are only dangerous with government power, reduce government power and you reduce any damage that corporations can do to nothing.
Reduce government power and corporate power rushes in to fill that void. That's exactly what we've seen with the past 30 years of deregulation.
How stupid can you people be?
So now you want to raise the age of consent to 25?
Also, just because teenagers decision making process is different than that of a full grown adult doesn't necessarily mean it's worse, even if a grown adult would consider it worse by our criteria. What matters is whether they are happy with their decisions.