I have a 970 myself, and gaming on 1080p, I just can't find all that many (really any) games that go below my point of comfort (which is around 60fps) without going so far below it that 1070 wouldn't be enough of an upgrade to matter.
In general, a good rule of a thumb is that you upgrade ever two-three generations depending on your preferences in games and resolution you play on. The thing that throws many people nowadays off is that last three generations lasted for a much longer time than those before them.
Natural right refers to the right naturally awarded to a person.
As differentiated by system like one used in US, which prioritises written down rights over natural rights, natural rights are not written down and codified. They simply naturally exist.
Codifying rights makes them easier to defend, as they are clearly codified. However it also means that bad actors like google can more easily infringe on rights that aren't specifically and exactly codified.
Not codifying rules specifically makes individual rights harder to defend, as it opens up legal avenues of arguing against them that don't exist in system that codifies them. But it protects all natural rights, and not just the codified ones to a much greater extent.
That's also why this is highly unlikely to be NSA. The folks doing intelligence work for government intelligence agencies don't fuck around like this. They go for the throat, and they go hard.
And it's not like it's limited to US. In fact, one of the biggest complaints of FBI doing investigations of Russian for profit hackers was that almost every one they reported on to Russian authorities ended up being recruited for their intelligence apparatus.
Bitmain, the company behind the ASIC in question, and the dominant player in Bitcoin mining field appears to disagree with you, as they have a working ASIC.
1. Why is a for-profit organisation entitled to destroying a natural right in the name of profit. 2. What are you citation for for crimes of "financial greed nature" being driven by "other incurable pathologies" and what are such pathologies. Be specific, provide criminological or psych citations please. (Hint: this is a view that media sells for views that has nothing to do with reality - ask for a book on criminology related to "financial crimes" in your nearest university library for more).
Not at all. Original archive, just like archives at the court and memories of the people involved should be left untouched. There is no natural right to be forgotten by those actually involved with the case, even through journalism.
What is a natural right is not to have a digital equivalent of a someone chasing you everywhere you go, broadcasting to anyone who knows your name about your past.
You either missed the "after the time has been served" part, which is the corner stone of the entire issue, or you're the most malicious person so far in this thread.
Which is worthless is host state's court rules that local law doesn't require extradition. And even if it is, you still may end up with no extradition.
Did you at all realise that you fully confirmed my point? The point of the said convention being this vague is normal in EU legislative efforts.
Because what happens is that each and every national parliament has to do what is known as "adoption" of EU legislation. Which means that they can interpret it in any way that is possible within the framework of it, and then codify that into the law.
Which results in national legislation across the EU that is dramatically different between states. Each state makes an interpretation based on their own existing legal code, culture and institutions.
Fact remains however, that it was a natural right of any citizen after they have served their time to move into the new field/new area and start their lives anew.
This is the right that has been taken away by google. There is indeed no right to be forgotten by the people actually involved. But there is a natural right not to have a megacorp that acts as an anti-social person who follows you around everyone doing the digital equivalent of broadcasting "this guy was a criminal, look, look", ensuring that your personal details are always available for everyone to see.
Which has a severely negative societal impact in terms of recidivism and criminality.
So this has nothing to do with "memories disappearing", or "feeling sorry". This has to do with google taking away a natural right for profit, with negative consequences for society as a whole.
It doesn't make it any truer because you can't take a true statement and make it "truer". Which I don't do.
You on the other hand proceed to make an issue of natural right people had, which has been taken away by for-companies with awful consequences for societies, and suggest that it is moral to do so. And then you somehow try to tie this to "unwriting the past".
Former claim is simply about "this is current year, and your natural rights don't mean a thing if I can find a novel way to take them away from you". Latter has zero interaction with my claim.
It's true in the way we build our societies. You literally cite nothing but:
1. Vengeance 2. More modern internet related companies 3. Crimes of sexual nature driven by specific incurable pathologies, which I specifically outlined above as exception to the rule
Essentially you did not read or comprehend my post.
Harder to make ASIC for, not impossible. It's effectively impossible to make a crypto currency you can't build an ASIC for.
The company that has the prototype is the same Chinese company that rules the roost when it comes to bitcoin ASIC mining. They're experts in the field, and it took them what, a year and then some to get ASIC designed.
You last sentence basically underlines the problem with your thought model, which assumes guilt. This medieval model of justice causes widespread societal damage well documented in modern criminology. Which is why states that value things like low recidivism rates, individual rights and presumption of innocence do not allow it.
Reminder: after person has served his/her time, they are innocent of any thought crime you may think they're guilty of "based on their character". There are some exceptions generally accepted to this rule (crimes of sexual nature driven by specific incurable pathologies). This is definitely not in this category by any reasonable definition.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you'd be looking at used market for 700- and 900-series cards.
It's funny how you open with a suggestion of a disagreement, followed by a complete agreement with my point.
You appear to have a disorder that makes you hallucinate. May I suggest shutting off the computer and visiting your general practitioner about that?
I'm sure there are also problems in Somalia, Brazil and China.
Topic here however talks about EU.
I have a 970 myself, and gaming on 1080p, I just can't find all that many (really any) games that go below my point of comfort (which is around 60fps) without going so far below it that 1070 wouldn't be enough of an upgrade to matter.
In general, a good rule of a thumb is that you upgrade ever two-three generations depending on your preferences in games and resolution you play on. The thing that throws many people nowadays off is that last three generations lasted for a much longer time than those before them.
Natural right refers to the right naturally awarded to a person.
As differentiated by system like one used in US, which prioritises written down rights over natural rights, natural rights are not written down and codified. They simply naturally exist.
Codifying rights makes them easier to defend, as they are clearly codified. However it also means that bad actors like google can more easily infringe on rights that aren't specifically and exactly codified.
Not codifying rules specifically makes individual rights harder to defend, as it opens up legal avenues of arguing against them that don't exist in system that codifies them. But it protects all natural rights, and not just the codified ones to a much greater extent.
Thank you for conceding your point.
That's also why this is highly unlikely to be NSA. The folks doing intelligence work for government intelligence agencies don't fuck around like this. They go for the throat, and they go hard.
And it's not like it's limited to US. In fact, one of the biggest complaints of FBI doing investigations of Russian for profit hackers was that almost every one they reported on to Russian authorities ended up being recruited for their intelligence apparatus.
Bitmain, the company behind the ASIC in question, and the dominant player in Bitcoin mining field appears to disagree with you, as they have a working ASIC.
1. Why is a for-profit organisation entitled to destroying a natural right in the name of profit.
2. What are you citation for for crimes of "financial greed nature" being driven by "other incurable pathologies" and what are such pathologies. Be specific, provide criminological or psych citations please. (Hint: this is a view that media sells for views that has nothing to do with reality - ask for a book on criminology related to "financial crimes" in your nearest university library for more).
Not at all. Original archive, just like archives at the court and memories of the people involved should be left untouched. There is no natural right to be forgotten by those actually involved with the case, even through journalism.
What is a natural right is not to have a digital equivalent of a someone chasing you everywhere you go, broadcasting to anyone who knows your name about your past.
Why are you citing a different country on a different continent with a completely different culture?
You either missed the "after the time has been served" part, which is the corner stone of the entire issue, or you're the most malicious person so far in this thread.
Which is worthless is host state's court rules that local law doesn't require extradition. And even if it is, you still may end up with no extradition.
Case to point: current brouhaha with Puigdemont.
What makes you think that all, most, or even a meaningful minority of criminals fit such a psychological profile?
Did you at all realise that you fully confirmed my point? The point of the said convention being this vague is normal in EU legislative efforts.
Because what happens is that each and every national parliament has to do what is known as "adoption" of EU legislation. Which means that they can interpret it in any way that is possible within the framework of it, and then codify that into the law.
Which results in national legislation across the EU that is dramatically different between states. Each state makes an interpretation based on their own existing legal code, culture and institutions.
Fact remains however, that it was a natural right of any citizen after they have served their time to move into the new field/new area and start their lives anew.
This is the right that has been taken away by google. There is indeed no right to be forgotten by the people actually involved. But there is a natural right not to have a megacorp that acts as an anti-social person who follows you around everyone doing the digital equivalent of broadcasting "this guy was a criminal, look, look", ensuring that your personal details are always available for everyone to see.
Which has a severely negative societal impact in terms of recidivism and criminality.
So this has nothing to do with "memories disappearing", or "feeling sorry". This has to do with google taking away a natural right for profit, with negative consequences for society as a whole.
Ah, slashdot. Explain your view in more detail, offering an olive branch to the other person to explain others, so mutual understanding can be found.
Get a "fuck you, try again" as a response.
Well done.
It doesn't make it any truer because you can't take a true statement and make it "truer". Which I don't do.
You on the other hand proceed to make an issue of natural right people had, which has been taken away by for-companies with awful consequences for societies, and suggest that it is moral to do so. And then you somehow try to tie this to "unwriting the past".
Former claim is simply about "this is current year, and your natural rights don't mean a thing if I can find a novel way to take them away from you". Latter has zero interaction with my claim.
You didn't interact with aforementioned natural right claim I made in any way.
It's true in the way we build our societies. You literally cite nothing but:
1. Vengeance
2. More modern internet related companies
3. Crimes of sexual nature driven by specific incurable pathologies, which I specifically outlined above as exception to the rule
Essentially you did not read or comprehend my post.
A miner who has used cards to sell?
Honestly, 970 to 1070 is not worth it unless you actually have games that are straining you just below your point of comfort.
Harder to make ASIC for, not impossible. It's effectively impossible to make a crypto currency you can't build an ASIC for.
The company that has the prototype is the same Chinese company that rules the roost when it comes to bitcoin ASIC mining. They're experts in the field, and it took them what, a year and then some to get ASIC designed.
You last sentence basically underlines the problem with your thought model, which assumes guilt. This medieval model of justice causes widespread societal damage well documented in modern criminology. Which is why states that value things like low recidivism rates, individual rights and presumption of innocence do not allow it.
Reminder: after person has served his/her time, they are innocent of any thought crime you may think they're guilty of "based on their character". There are some exceptions generally accepted to this rule (crimes of sexual nature driven by specific incurable pathologies). This is definitely not in this category by any reasonable definition.