Not just that, in the above story, the blasphemer was a Paki Muslim, not some dope out of Berkeley or Oxford who decided to pull a stunt in Bahawalpur. So it's not an issue of foreigners failing to respect laws of a place that they're visiting: it's a case of a citizen violating a law that most people think is archaic, if not completely barbaric.
There have been Pew polls on this subject in various countries, w/ disturbing results. Like in Egypt, 74% support Shariah law. In Pakistan, similar % support death for apostasy. There have been similar levels of support for honor killings and jihad terror. One doesn't exactly have to pull numbers out of one's hiney on that one.
I also think polytheism within a religion would allow its adherents to be correct. A lot of polytheists belong to the idea that all religions worship the same God(s), and that the religions are different paths. Under that approach, if, for the sake of argument, Ahura Mazda (the Zoroastrian God) was the real one, then the polytheists who included him in their worship of several deities, would hit the jackpot on that one - along w/ Zoroastrianism, but Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, et al would miss it.
Not a credible argument. While the Arab countries and Iran are rich in oil, other countries, like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, which don't have oil, have the same unreformed Islam. All this has little to do w/ oil or money, and much more to do w/ the fact that in Islam, Mohammed is the last word, and also the fact that the laws about Islam were set in stone by the caliphs, and can't be changed according to Muslims. That would be everything, from Jihad to Shariah features like stoning for adultary, dropping gays off tall buildings, cutting off opposite hands & legs of thieves for stealing, death penalty for apostasy, honor killings, a ban on Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men but encouraging Muslim men to marry (& implicitly convert) non Muslim women.
Let's say, after the fall of the Ottoman empire, there had never been any oil discoveries. One of 2 things would have happened. Had the Brits & French not colonized and carved out places like Iraq, Syria, Transjordan, et al, the people there would be living like people in Africa, probably still raiding each other and having inter-tribal gang warfare. Had the Brits & French colonized them, it would have depended on how much they intruded into Islamic practices. Unfortunately, the Brits had a history of strengthening Muslims - be it during the Great Game against Tsarist Russia, or in the Crimean War, or in India where they prevented Hindus from completely reversing centuries of Muslim rule. So regardless of what, Islam would not have modernized. It's a mistake to think that all religions are similar, and that what happened w/ one religion would necessarily happen w/ any other, let alone all others.
Congratulations! You found the one place that is essentially a sub city - an area of 0.17 sq miles (Rome, by contrast, is almost 500 sq miles). Being there is like being in a church - if the entire place ain't one already. Also, if one committed blasphemy there - like stated support for abortion or birth control, would they be expelled from there, much less jailed or even much lesser executed?
Point is that there are countries that have official religions e.g. in England, it's the Church of England, in Scotland, it's the Church of Scotland. Even though England is not a secular state, complete freedom of religion does exist - some 25% are no religion i.e. either atheist or agnostic. That's pretty much there the world over, and one can't hold up Uganda as the model of what it is to be Christian. One can, however, hold up places like Saudi Arabia or Iraq or Egypt as models of what it is to be Islamic, since a lot of Islam's ideology developed there, as well as in Baghdad. And most people know that anyone committing blasphemy in any Muslim country (except maybe the ex Soviet stans) would either be imprisoned or executed, or targeted for vigilante murder for insulting Islam. So let's not draw a moral equivalence here.
In the case of Pakistan, like I said above, the only reason that country exists as an independent political entity is Islam: otherwise, it was no different from India. The reason they have a 100% fanatical population is that they know that their country wouldn't exist w/o Islam. This doesn't mean that if they suddenly became secular, India would annex them (most Indians I know would be against such a re-unification b'cos it would drag down their economy, and blow up the % of Muslims in the country); however, they do what they can to emphasize their differences from India, including creating commonalities w/ Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey and the Arab countries.
This has less to do with Facebook and more with what happens when you let imaginary friends rule your life.
In this case, the imaginary friends are the entire basis for that country existing in the first place (before that, it was a part of India). So in their mind, if they were to allow blasphemy of Islam, they'd lose their raison-de-etre for existing in the first place.
It also explains why they are the #1 sponsor of Jihad (not Iran or Saudi Arabia or Qatar) and why the US would do well to treat them at par w/ ISIS or al Qaeda, and add them to the travel ban list
Can't comment on others, but I for one cannot work from home. I essentially lose the difference b/w working & not working - not something that I experience when I'm physically in an office. At home, if I feel tired, I can just go take a nap, and nobody would be the wiser. At work, I'd have to keep myself awake, if in that predicament.
One thing that struck me - does Automattic have plenty of employees in San Francisco? It seems that they were just pissing away cash by having what would be an expensive office in prime location. And it wouldn't make sense for even conscientious employees living outside San Francisco to go there if given the option of working remotely: the traffic on Bayshore or Juniperro Serra alone would be enough to make it a big waste of time. The company would have saved a lot by having an office elsewhere - be it somewhere like Foster City, Emeryville, Redwood Shores - still nice locales, but not as stratospheric as the city.
Also, if they are paying people a $250 stipend for working remotely, how does it even begin to make sense to have any offices at all (other than headquarters, which could be just a suite in a big building somewhere in Anytown?
The 80s called, Comrade! They want their Soviet meme back. In the meantime, Cuban, North Korean & Venezuelan comrades are up in arms at a non-Communist entity like Russia still keeping the 'comrade' moniker
Okay. I wasn't talking about WiFi only tablets or laptops, just cellular tablets or phones. In that scenario, for the older OSs (other than iOS), one had to go through the cellular carrier (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, et al) rather than Google or Microsoft to get an upgrade, since that device had to be certified by the carrier. Google changed that from Android 5 (Lollipop onwards), and Microsoft changed that in Windows 10 Mobile.
But those older tablets did not get upgrades, for various reasons, be it memory configuration to a desire by the vendor to discontinue that and push the newer iterations. I had a Verizon Ellipsis 7, which could at best be upgraded to Kit Kat: I tossed it when the sound stopped working, and got an Ellipsis 10, which has Lollipop. So if I had the 7, the sound worked and I used Skype, I'd be SOL by now due to this. At any rate, only times I use Skype is on a laptop, so I'm somewhat safe.
I get those calls that pretend to be a real person, saying, 'Oh, sorry, I was just talking to my husband', and then go on about a proposed Royal Caribbean Cruise off FL. They won't stop when I say I'm not interested - it's obviously an automated call.
Far better than those Ed McMahon/Dick Clark ads in the 90s that told you that you were a winner, when you weren't! A lot of poor old saps fell for that one: those 2 should have been executed
I'm actually about to buy an iphone 7 because I've discovered that it has a feature that no other phone has:
-bluetooth power class 1. (100mw)
....
I'll try to get one with a qualcomm chip though. Not so much for the bandwidth, but it looks like it can deal with a weaker carrier signal before cutting out, compared to intel.
I doubt that there is any way that you can specify that, since it comes under the same ordering part number. If you have to be sure of that, get your iPhone 7 from either Verizon or Sprint. Since their legacy networks are CDMA, in places where there is no 4G, that's what they have to fall back on, and it's something that the Intel chipset can't support, since that is Qualcomm patented. If you get your iPhone 7 from either AT&T or T-Mobile or the Apple Store, there is no way you can control what you get.
Reason we won't see patent reform is that the topic is way too complicated for even swamp bureaucrats on K Street or Foggy Bottom, let alone DC politicians. So their recourse would be to turn to the experts, which would be the industry leaders - who became leaders due to their expertise. As a result, those big guns are the ones who'll keep calling the shots, so the laws would be written in a way to favor them at the expense of any upstarts.
I doubt it, since in those days, AMD had a tough time selling its CPUs anywhere. Same was true for Cyrix. It was only after Athlon that AMD started gaining traction. Also, that agreement probably didn't cover 32-bit CPUs, which is why Intel sued AMD over Am386s and Am486s.
Well, Intel had the StrongARM processor, which they got from DEC, rebranded as XScale, and then later sold to Marvell. Like you say, there's nothing to stop them from licensing it from ARM. Heck, since Apple & Qualcomm are both fabless, they can cut deals w/ them to put them on their 14nm process and give them some of the best performing energy saving silicon.
The argument here is not RISC vs CISC, and hasn't been for 2 decades. The problem is a simple running code written in the instruction set of processor X on processor Y. Y has to understand what the code written in X is saying, which is where emulation/translation comes in. I agree that it's a recipe for disaster: just look at DEC Alpha, which never caught on since native code was never written for it in NT.
I'd think that AMD would be the best positioned to make a CPU ideal for this: have a quad core CPU, where 2 cores are AMD64 and 2 cores are their ARM64. Have Microsoft tool their OS such that any wintel binaries get set to the x64, while the ARM native OS itself, or other native ARM apps run on the ARM. They can then avoid the emulation issue, and if a CPU is being under-utilized, they can switch to power saving modes for those cores.
Intel did have battles w/ AMD in the past over x86, whenever AMD tried making 386s, 486s & the like. At that time, the CPUs that AMD made were similar to Intel's, but slower. The first time AMD tried anything new was when they acquired NexGen, but they were still way behind Intel in that they lacked an FPU. It was only after Dirk Meyer's Alpha team from DEC joined them that AMD really had a quality product in the Athlon, and on that one, Intel didn't sue them.
I also disagree about your second point: if any other company, say Cyrix, had simply taken the Intel x86 instruction set and made a 64-bit extention like AMD did, sans any 32-bit support, Intel wouldn't (and couldn't) have done a thing about that: it had nothing to do w/ any cross licensing, which even AMD didn't have before AMD64. The only reason Intel played ball w/ AMD at all was Microsoft, and that incident made it clear for the first time that if there was a fight b/w Intel & Microsoft, the latter would win. I doubt that that's so much the case today, since Microsoft is greatly diminished after the Windows 8 & 10 fiascos, while Intel is still #1 when it comes to fab technology alone - even if they lost the x86 completely. They could just sign a contract w/ Apple or Qualcomm and start churning out phone chipsets by the lot. Since both Apple & Qualcomm happen to be fabless.
At any rate, if anybody makes an x64 CPU w/o supporting any x32 mode, all they'd need would be an agreement w/ AMD, but not Intel. In the past, CPUs absolutely had to support x32. But it's fast getting to the point where they don't have to, and once that happens, it won't be an Intel game any longer. Of course, since everybody's doing far better w/ the ARM, I can't see them bothering. But a design that has 2 cores - 1 ARM, and 1 x64 - would be able to run either binary natively. Like if it had Windows 10 Mobile on it, but needed to run a PC app, that app, once recognized, could be sent by the scheduler to the x64 CPU.
What exactly is your beef w/ 'Whatscrapp' and 'Fleecetime'? I use both at home over WiFi, although I have enough data in my data plan that I rarely use, but could on the road if needed. I've never had trouble w/ either, except when the other end had a really spotty internet connection (in which case, NO messaging service would work well)
How often do people do that? More often than not, it's people who get a somewhat discounted phone w/ a 2 year contract. The number of people w/ the/. mentality of getting a phone that they can audit is about as high as the number of closet Rastafarians in Mecca.
Slashdot Mirror
Not just that, in the above story, the blasphemer was a Paki Muslim, not some dope out of Berkeley or Oxford who decided to pull a stunt in Bahawalpur. So it's not an issue of foreigners failing to respect laws of a place that they're visiting: it's a case of a citizen violating a law that most people think is archaic, if not completely barbaric.
There have been Pew polls on this subject in various countries, w/ disturbing results. Like in Egypt, 74% support Shariah law. In Pakistan, similar % support death for apostasy. There have been similar levels of support for honor killings and jihad terror. One doesn't exactly have to pull numbers out of one's hiney on that one.
I also think polytheism within a religion would allow its adherents to be correct. A lot of polytheists belong to the idea that all religions worship the same God(s), and that the religions are different paths. Under that approach, if, for the sake of argument, Ahura Mazda (the Zoroastrian God) was the real one, then the polytheists who included him in their worship of several deities, would hit the jackpot on that one - along w/ Zoroastrianism, but Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, et al would miss it.
Not a credible argument. While the Arab countries and Iran are rich in oil, other countries, like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, which don't have oil, have the same unreformed Islam. All this has little to do w/ oil or money, and much more to do w/ the fact that in Islam, Mohammed is the last word, and also the fact that the laws about Islam were set in stone by the caliphs, and can't be changed according to Muslims. That would be everything, from Jihad to Shariah features like stoning for adultary, dropping gays off tall buildings, cutting off opposite hands & legs of thieves for stealing, death penalty for apostasy, honor killings, a ban on Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men but encouraging Muslim men to marry (& implicitly convert) non Muslim women.
Let's say, after the fall of the Ottoman empire, there had never been any oil discoveries. One of 2 things would have happened. Had the Brits & French not colonized and carved out places like Iraq, Syria, Transjordan, et al, the people there would be living like people in Africa, probably still raiding each other and having inter-tribal gang warfare. Had the Brits & French colonized them, it would have depended on how much they intruded into Islamic practices. Unfortunately, the Brits had a history of strengthening Muslims - be it during the Great Game against Tsarist Russia, or in the Crimean War, or in India where they prevented Hindus from completely reversing centuries of Muslim rule. So regardless of what, Islam would not have modernized. It's a mistake to think that all religions are similar, and that what happened w/ one religion would necessarily happen w/ any other, let alone all others.
Congratulations! You found the one place that is essentially a sub city - an area of 0.17 sq miles (Rome, by contrast, is almost 500 sq miles). Being there is like being in a church - if the entire place ain't one already. Also, if one committed blasphemy there - like stated support for abortion or birth control, would they be expelled from there, much less jailed or even much lesser executed?
Point is that there are countries that have official religions e.g. in England, it's the Church of England, in Scotland, it's the Church of Scotland. Even though England is not a secular state, complete freedom of religion does exist - some 25% are no religion i.e. either atheist or agnostic. That's pretty much there the world over, and one can't hold up Uganda as the model of what it is to be Christian. One can, however, hold up places like Saudi Arabia or Iraq or Egypt as models of what it is to be Islamic, since a lot of Islam's ideology developed there, as well as in Baghdad. And most people know that anyone committing blasphemy in any Muslim country (except maybe the ex Soviet stans) would either be imprisoned or executed, or targeted for vigilante murder for insulting Islam. So let's not draw a moral equivalence here.
In the case of Pakistan, like I said above, the only reason that country exists as an independent political entity is Islam: otherwise, it was no different from India. The reason they have a 100% fanatical population is that they know that their country wouldn't exist w/o Islam. This doesn't mean that if they suddenly became secular, India would annex them (most Indians I know would be against such a re-unification b'cos it would drag down their economy, and blow up the % of Muslims in the country); however, they do what they can to emphasize their differences from India, including creating commonalities w/ Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey and the Arab countries.
This has less to do with Facebook and more with what happens when you let imaginary friends rule your life.
In this case, the imaginary friends are the entire basis for that country existing in the first place (before that, it was a part of India). So in their mind, if they were to allow blasphemy of Islam, they'd lose their raison-de-etre for existing in the first place.
It also explains why they are the #1 sponsor of Jihad (not Iran or Saudi Arabia or Qatar) and why the US would do well to treat them at par w/ ISIS or al Qaeda, and add them to the travel ban list
Can't comment on others, but I for one cannot work from home. I essentially lose the difference b/w working & not working - not something that I experience when I'm physically in an office. At home, if I feel tired, I can just go take a nap, and nobody would be the wiser. At work, I'd have to keep myself awake, if in that predicament.
One thing that struck me - does Automattic have plenty of employees in San Francisco? It seems that they were just pissing away cash by having what would be an expensive office in prime location. And it wouldn't make sense for even conscientious employees living outside San Francisco to go there if given the option of working remotely: the traffic on Bayshore or Juniperro Serra alone would be enough to make it a big waste of time. The company would have saved a lot by having an office elsewhere - be it somewhere like Foster City, Emeryville, Redwood Shores - still nice locales, but not as stratospheric as the city.
Also, if they are paying people a $250 stipend for working remotely, how does it even begin to make sense to have any offices at all (other than headquarters, which could be just a suite in a big building somewhere in Anytown?
The 80s called, Comrade! They want their Soviet meme back. In the meantime, Cuban, North Korean & Venezuelan comrades are up in arms at a non-Communist entity like Russia still keeping the 'comrade' moniker
Actually, if they could figure out a way to run Steam & Steam games, they'd be off to the races. Or if Steam comes up w/ a box of its own
But it is the most accepted of the cryptocurrencies, to the point that they're accepted at all
Okay. I wasn't talking about WiFi only tablets or laptops, just cellular tablets or phones. In that scenario, for the older OSs (other than iOS), one had to go through the cellular carrier (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, et al) rather than Google or Microsoft to get an upgrade, since that device had to be certified by the carrier. Google changed that from Android 5 (Lollipop onwards), and Microsoft changed that in Windows 10 Mobile.
But those older tablets did not get upgrades, for various reasons, be it memory configuration to a desire by the vendor to discontinue that and push the newer iterations. I had a Verizon Ellipsis 7, which could at best be upgraded to Kit Kat: I tossed it when the sound stopped working, and got an Ellipsis 10, which has Lollipop. So if I had the 7, the sound worked and I used Skype, I'd be SOL by now due to this. At any rate, only times I use Skype is on a laptop, so I'm somewhat safe.
I get those calls that pretend to be a real person, saying, 'Oh, sorry, I was just talking to my husband', and then go on about a proposed Royal Caribbean Cruise off FL. They won't stop when I say I'm not interested - it's obviously an automated call.
Far better than those Ed McMahon/Dick Clark ads in the 90s that told you that you were a winner, when you weren't! A lot of poor old saps fell for that one: those 2 should have been executed
If he got either a cellular-less iPad or an iPod, would that satisfy his power class 1 requirement? What other devices have that?
I'm actually about to buy an iphone 7 because I've discovered that it has a feature that no other phone has:
-bluetooth power class 1. (100mw)
....
I'll try to get one with a qualcomm chip though. Not so much for the bandwidth, but it looks like it can deal with a weaker carrier signal before cutting out, compared to intel.
I doubt that there is any way that you can specify that, since it comes under the same ordering part number. If you have to be sure of that, get your iPhone 7 from either Verizon or Sprint. Since their legacy networks are CDMA, in places where there is no 4G, that's what they have to fall back on, and it's something that the Intel chipset can't support, since that is Qualcomm patented. If you get your iPhone 7 from either AT&T or T-Mobile or the Apple Store, there is no way you can control what you get.
I think any computer w/ 4GB or less of RAM should be 32-bit, to avoid any grief later on, while it should be 64-bit if it has >4GB.
Why not use a barebones DOS computer then - say an Atom w/ just 1MB of RAM and whatever the maximum hard drive it can take, duly loaded w/ FreeDOS?
Reason we won't see patent reform is that the topic is way too complicated for even swamp bureaucrats on K Street or Foggy Bottom, let alone DC politicians. So their recourse would be to turn to the experts, which would be the industry leaders - who became leaders due to their expertise. As a result, those big guns are the ones who'll keep calling the shots, so the laws would be written in a way to favor them at the expense of any upstarts.
I doubt it, since in those days, AMD had a tough time selling its CPUs anywhere. Same was true for Cyrix. It was only after Athlon that AMD started gaining traction. Also, that agreement probably didn't cover 32-bit CPUs, which is why Intel sued AMD over Am386s and Am486s.
Well, Intel had the StrongARM processor, which they got from DEC, rebranded as XScale, and then later sold to Marvell. Like you say, there's nothing to stop them from licensing it from ARM. Heck, since Apple & Qualcomm are both fabless, they can cut deals w/ them to put them on their 14nm process and give them some of the best performing energy saving silicon.
The argument here is not RISC vs CISC, and hasn't been for 2 decades. The problem is a simple running code written in the instruction set of processor X on processor Y. Y has to understand what the code written in X is saying, which is where emulation/translation comes in. I agree that it's a recipe for disaster: just look at DEC Alpha, which never caught on since native code was never written for it in NT.
I'd think that AMD would be the best positioned to make a CPU ideal for this: have a quad core CPU, where 2 cores are AMD64 and 2 cores are their ARM64. Have Microsoft tool their OS such that any wintel binaries get set to the x64, while the ARM native OS itself, or other native ARM apps run on the ARM. They can then avoid the emulation issue, and if a CPU is being under-utilized, they can switch to power saving modes for those cores.
Intel did have battles w/ AMD in the past over x86, whenever AMD tried making 386s, 486s & the like. At that time, the CPUs that AMD made were similar to Intel's, but slower. The first time AMD tried anything new was when they acquired NexGen, but they were still way behind Intel in that they lacked an FPU. It was only after Dirk Meyer's Alpha team from DEC joined them that AMD really had a quality product in the Athlon, and on that one, Intel didn't sue them.
I also disagree about your second point: if any other company, say Cyrix, had simply taken the Intel x86 instruction set and made a 64-bit extention like AMD did, sans any 32-bit support, Intel wouldn't (and couldn't) have done a thing about that: it had nothing to do w/ any cross licensing, which even AMD didn't have before AMD64. The only reason Intel played ball w/ AMD at all was Microsoft, and that incident made it clear for the first time that if there was a fight b/w Intel & Microsoft, the latter would win. I doubt that that's so much the case today, since Microsoft is greatly diminished after the Windows 8 & 10 fiascos, while Intel is still #1 when it comes to fab technology alone - even if they lost the x86 completely. They could just sign a contract w/ Apple or Qualcomm and start churning out phone chipsets by the lot. Since both Apple & Qualcomm happen to be fabless.
At any rate, if anybody makes an x64 CPU w/o supporting any x32 mode, all they'd need would be an agreement w/ AMD, but not Intel. In the past, CPUs absolutely had to support x32. But it's fast getting to the point where they don't have to, and once that happens, it won't be an Intel game any longer. Of course, since everybody's doing far better w/ the ARM, I can't see them bothering. But a design that has 2 cores - 1 ARM, and 1 x64 - would be able to run either binary natively. Like if it had Windows 10 Mobile on it, but needed to run a PC app, that app, once recognized, could be sent by the scheduler to the x64 CPU.
What exactly is your beef w/ 'Whatscrapp' and 'Fleecetime'? I use both at home over WiFi, although I have enough data in my data plan that I rarely use, but could on the road if needed. I've never had trouble w/ either, except when the other end had a really spotty internet connection (in which case, NO messaging service would work well)
How often do people do that? More often than not, it's people who get a somewhat discounted phone w/ a 2 year contract. The number of people w/ the /. mentality of getting a phone that they can audit is about as high as the number of closet Rastafarians in Mecca.
The Mac OS prior to System 7 may well have had shortcomings, and useful only as a toy OS. It wasn't until they got OS X that they had a serious OS
Was that what the DEC lawsuit against Intel over the Alpha was? Intel stealing DEC techniques and implementing them in the Pentium IV?
Have MMX or SSE been relevant at all, ever since the advent of GPUs?