You argument in its whole is that democracy as a system needs to be thrown out and instead we need a system where only those with money get to vote and their vote depends on money they are willing to spend on their voting.
Democracy, you see, is intended to be a system that will allow EQUAL REPRESENTATION to all people, REGARDLESS OF WEALTH. That is why you only get one vote.
Putting money into politicians' campaigns and arguing that "politicians should represent their constituents who are donors" which is you real argument, is effectively arguing that base premises of democracy are bad and should be demolished in favour of wealth-based voting system.
Chief researcher comes from the Japanese center. Hence, most of the responsibility falls on them.
There's also the fact that said chief researcher used the research to make herself into something of a national star. She was appearing in women's magazines and so on. Others didn't capitalize on the paper in the same way.
You miss out once you have to scroll more than a single length of track pad. After that, you have to interrupt the action and move fingers back up to start again, when on a circular scrolling trackpad you can just curve the motion of one finger and keep on scrolling.
There's also the factor of scrolling speed, where circular scrolling across large documents is many times, possibly an order of magnitude faster.
Actually, basic and advanced QoS is definitely needed in large networks. You can, for example, throttle but allow certain undesired traffic through certain links within ISP's network if you want to balance the load to ensure that this traffic is prioritised to go over another link, but ensure that it can get through that link in case of emergency like a sudden hardware failure.
The problem here is that they're not arguing about QoS needed to ensure immediate health of the network, but QoS needed to extract more money by blackmailing owners of certain bits. Former should be allowed to an extent. Latter should be forbidden.
They solved their problem (speed) without solving the problem that it caused for all the bystanders (price).
So yes, it's a pretty typical private sector solution that doesn't fix any of the problems caused to large audience by the original product, forcing customers to pick up the tab.
Double precision floating point hardware, designed to do things like physics simulation. This thing has no ECC and some other similar tradeoffs, so it's fairly cheap at only 3k.
They don't. What they need this for is ghetto floating point development hardware. This is cheap by those standards and offers far more precision than consumer grade GPUs.
I'll give you a Swiss example which is a great example of how to handle high weapon ownership and high gun death rate that comes with it.
Today almost every Swiss who has gone through army (which is conscription in Switzerland, so most men go through it) has a right to have their service assault rifle at home. As a result, many of the home and neighbour violence cases that in their neighbouring countries resulted in things like blunt trauma (frying pan etc) or knife wounds (aka first tool that I can think of when I'm angry- types of attacks) were instead gun murders. Because it's easy to just grab a gun and shoot, even if you're physically weak. This is the same problem that US has and causes extreme rates of gun violence. Gun is simply too easy to get when you're angry and if you have a violent disposition, it's the first tool you will grab and it's much better at producing fatal results than alternatives that you can find at home.
Swiss largely solved this problem in a brilliant way. Their law and tradition dictates that unlike US culture (or exactly like if you argue from pure constitution, rather than cultural change enacted by weapon manufacturers in the 50s and 60s), their guns are for militia defence of their country against an invader - not defence of a person or house or anything of the kind. As a result, ownership of ammunition was largely outlawed, as was a right to take the gun out of the house in assembled state or even keep it at home in assembled state. The logic is simple - these measures ensure that crimes of passion, when person is looking for that something to hurt the other with, assault rifle is off the table as its disassembled and has no ammo. If you want to go to a shooting range to practice, you keep your ammo there. If you want to go hunting, you keep your ammunition at a safe in the local hunting club. And so on.
As a direct result of those measures, gun violence in Switzerland has collapsed. US could perhaps look to it as an example?
That depends on what you're comparing it to. Gun crime in US is still extremely high (at least when compared to the rest of the world that's not at war, and some places that are). Gun murder however is very much down.
The reason is not in guns. The reason lies in the fact that trauma medicine has improved dramatically over last twenty years. A certain death twenty years ago is not just survivable but will walk away from hospital on its own feet in a matter of a few weeks today.
That was actually not about transition to electronic money, but deregulation of financial services. Just a few decades ago, there was a specific regulation in place which limited the amount of money you could move out of the country without asking government agencies for permission first.
FYI: I count several somali refugees of my age as my childhood friends. Right now, the northern Somalia is sorta kinda about as awful as Eritrea. Rest of it is by far the worst place in the region. Eritrea comes a distant second. Sudan is much better than either.
Let me help you. The trend is increasing regulation of the "little people" and decreasing regulation of "big business". This allows big business to control government, while creating distrust among the electorate towards the said government, further weakening it against big business influence.
That's why it looks to you like regulation is expanding, when in grand total, it's shrinking. It's basically an assault on the government from both fronts and its working very well in turning government against its people.
It was an attack on your message of "less regulation is good". We've already seen where that leads - huge monopolies and duopolies that have enough power to corrupt government to astonishing levels while unleashing massive PR campaigns that claim that even less regulation would fix it.
You're talking about militarization of the police, a fairly recent trend. At the same time you are completely forgetting the massive shrinking of power structures of the government agencies after Cold War ended among other things.
I'm referring to government as the system that provides you with countless services ranging from making sure that food and water are safe to allowing you to buy things with money you know will be accepted.
On the opposite, most of the regulation was repealed over last thirty years. Regulation against current risky investment banking? Repealed. Regulation against collusion of media and concentration of its ownership? Repealed. Regulation of monopolies? Severely weakened.
Yours is the argument that is spoon fed to you by an aggressive and long standing PR effort that doesn't stand even basic scrutiny once you look at the actual facts of the matter in the history. Certainly there's must bad regulation in place - regulation that is now being built by that business to keep them in power now that they got in, after the regulation that prevented them from getting powerful was repealed, thanks to people like you.
You're like the chukcha in the old russian joke, sitting on the branch happily sawing it off the tree and not understanding the warning that if you keep doing that, you'll fall and hurt yourself. And when you do fall, instead of understanding your actions led to it, you instead transplant blame on the person warning you about it.
Slashdot Mirror
You argument in its whole is that democracy as a system needs to be thrown out and instead we need a system where only those with money get to vote and their vote depends on money they are willing to spend on their voting.
Democracy, you see, is intended to be a system that will allow EQUAL REPRESENTATION to all people, REGARDLESS OF WEALTH. That is why you only get one vote.
Putting money into politicians' campaigns and arguing that "politicians should represent their constituents who are donors" which is you real argument, is effectively arguing that base premises of democracy are bad and should be demolished in favour of wealth-based voting system.
I find it strange how "didn't want to be on the news" woman gives interviews left right and middle, happily discussing her PRIVATE life in those.
Chief researcher comes from the Japanese center. Hence, most of the responsibility falls on them.
There's also the fact that said chief researcher used the research to make herself into something of a national star. She was appearing in women's magazines and so on. Others didn't capitalize on the paper in the same way.
You miss out once you have to scroll more than a single length of track pad. After that, you have to interrupt the action and move fingers back up to start again, when on a circular scrolling trackpad you can just curve the motion of one finger and keep on scrolling.
There's also the factor of scrolling speed, where circular scrolling across large documents is many times, possibly an order of magnitude faster.
But PC is not a Mac you dumbass.
Two fingers is "as good as you can get on a mac". You can get proper circular scrolling which is much better on PC. Try it sometime.
Piratebay as a caching site, that's a first.
Actually, basic and advanced QoS is definitely needed in large networks. You can, for example, throttle but allow certain undesired traffic through certain links within ISP's network if you want to balance the load to ensure that this traffic is prioritised to go over another link, but ensure that it can get through that link in case of emergency like a sudden hardware failure.
The problem here is that they're not arguing about QoS needed to ensure immediate health of the network, but QoS needed to extract more money by blackmailing owners of certain bits. Former should be allowed to an extent. Latter should be forbidden.
Sued for what exactly?
They solved their problem (speed) without solving the problem that it caused for all the bystanders (price).
So yes, it's a pretty typical private sector solution that doesn't fix any of the problems caused to large audience by the original product, forcing customers to pick up the tab.
Double precision floating point hardware, designed to do things like physics simulation. This thing has no ECC and some other similar tradeoffs, so it's fairly cheap at only 3k.
Here's an example of a non-ghetto version: http://h30094.www3.hp.com/prod...
ASIC makers have done if for the government. GPU mining is a thing of the past.
Prices still haven't come down though.
They don't. What they need this for is ghetto floating point development hardware. This is cheap by those standards and offers far more precision than consumer grade GPUs.
Actually a few 780s in a SLI will run that just fine.
Pale Moon is a Firefox fork without all the "modern UI" failures.
http://www.palemoon.org/
Windows only though.
So you are expecting to use future technology that doesn't exist to put people in space now.
Well done.
I'll give you a Swiss example which is a great example of how to handle high weapon ownership and high gun death rate that comes with it.
Today almost every Swiss who has gone through army (which is conscription in Switzerland, so most men go through it) has a right to have their service assault rifle at home. As a result, many of the home and neighbour violence cases that in their neighbouring countries resulted in things like blunt trauma (frying pan etc) or knife wounds (aka first tool that I can think of when I'm angry- types of attacks) were instead gun murders. Because it's easy to just grab a gun and shoot, even if you're physically weak. This is the same problem that US has and causes extreme rates of gun violence. Gun is simply too easy to get when you're angry and if you have a violent disposition, it's the first tool you will grab and it's much better at producing fatal results than alternatives that you can find at home.
Swiss largely solved this problem in a brilliant way. Their law and tradition dictates that unlike US culture (or exactly like if you argue from pure constitution, rather than cultural change enacted by weapon manufacturers in the 50s and 60s), their guns are for militia defence of their country against an invader - not defence of a person or house or anything of the kind. As a result, ownership of ammunition was largely outlawed, as was a right to take the gun out of the house in assembled state or even keep it at home in assembled state. The logic is simple - these measures ensure that crimes of passion, when person is looking for that something to hurt the other with, assault rifle is off the table as its disassembled and has no ammo. If you want to go to a shooting range to practice, you keep your ammo there. If you want to go hunting, you keep your ammunition at a safe in the local hunting club. And so on.
As a direct result of those measures, gun violence in Switzerland has collapsed. US could perhaps look to it as an example?
That depends on what you're comparing it to. Gun crime in US is still extremely high (at least when compared to the rest of the world that's not at war, and some places that are). Gun murder however is very much down.
The reason is not in guns. The reason lies in the fact that trauma medicine has improved dramatically over last twenty years. A certain death twenty years ago is not just survivable but will walk away from hospital on its own feet in a matter of a few weeks today.
That was actually not about transition to electronic money, but deregulation of financial services. Just a few decades ago, there was a specific regulation in place which limited the amount of money you could move out of the country without asking government agencies for permission first.
FYI: I count several somali refugees of my age as my childhood friends. Right now, the northern Somalia is sorta kinda about as awful as Eritrea. Rest of it is by far the worst place in the region. Eritrea comes a distant second. Sudan is much better than either.
Let me help you. The trend is increasing regulation of the "little people" and decreasing regulation of "big business". This allows big business to control government, while creating distrust among the electorate towards the said government, further weakening it against big business influence.
That's why it looks to you like regulation is expanding, when in grand total, it's shrinking. It's basically an assault on the government from both fronts and its working very well in turning government against its people.
It was an attack on your message of "less regulation is good". We've already seen where that leads - huge monopolies and duopolies that have enough power to corrupt government to astonishing levels while unleashing massive PR campaigns that claim that even less regulation would fix it.
You're talking about militarization of the police, a fairly recent trend. At the same time you are completely forgetting the massive shrinking of power structures of the government agencies after Cold War ended among other things.
I'm referring to government as the system that provides you with countless services ranging from making sure that food and water are safe to allowing you to buy things with money you know will be accepted.
On the opposite, most of the regulation was repealed over last thirty years. Regulation against current risky investment banking? Repealed. Regulation against collusion of media and concentration of its ownership? Repealed. Regulation of monopolies? Severely weakened.
Yours is the argument that is spoon fed to you by an aggressive and long standing PR effort that doesn't stand even basic scrutiny once you look at the actual facts of the matter in the history. Certainly there's must bad regulation in place - regulation that is now being built by that business to keep them in power now that they got in, after the regulation that prevented them from getting powerful was repealed, thanks to people like you.
You're like the chukcha in the old russian joke, sitting on the branch happily sawing it off the tree and not understanding the warning that if you keep doing that, you'll fall and hurt yourself. And when you do fall, instead of understanding your actions led to it, you instead transplant blame on the person warning you about it.