I agree: but that's exactly the problem. It's well know that HP is slower for single threaded aps, and faster for aps that take advantage of many things at once. These benchmarks had HT turned ON for single threaded aps, and OFF for mutlithreaded aps: exactly the opposite of what it does best.
:) I mean, seriously: what do most regular people need to blow 3000$ on a top-end computer for if they aren't hardcore gamers? All the greatest hardware and OS development in the world (and, to be honest, I definately think they have both for a mainstream system, though a little pricey for a market underdog) isn't going to convince me, or gamers like me, to switch if the greatest in desktop gaming is either forbidden or 12 months late.
Actually, it's likely to taste a lot better than regular decaf. To MAKE decaf coffee, they have to basically destroy the flavor of the bean. If this plant actually works, then hopefully they can use untouched high-quality beans for decaf.
So now there is now an obligation on the diverse community to seek out lies and publish them...
No, there is no obligation on anyone. IF people want to seek out the truth, they can do so.
why not make it the obligation of the publisher to fix his/her errors in truth when pointed out?
First of all, this legislation has nothing to do with truth, just criticism. But second of all, even if the publisher does make errors: so what? Even if they are lying through their teeth, lying is not against the law unless its fraud or libel or some other attempt to defraud or do material harm.
I'm sorry too, I just can't see what your replies have to do with what I said.
That's a nice, easy way to weasel out of it for you I guess.
Anyway, I still don't see why people are going on about freedom of speech being restricted here. Where? How? You know, if I were threatened with a beating for speaking my mind, I would consider that a restriction. But oh, shock horror, I have to deal with someone actually responding to my argument.
This isn't about people responding to an argument: they can ALREADY do that. This is about placing obligations on me to do all sorts of time consuming, expensive stuff just because I spoke.
I mean you still have the right to say things, and you still have the right to type them on your keyboard, but your computer won't be connected to our internet.
So, what's the problem? In this scenario, it's your internet. I don't have a right to type on it. I didn't pay for it.
You live in a society. You do not have total freedom. You will never have total freedom. Perhaps if you went to live on the moon.
I'm sorry, but "I'M LAZY: YOU DO IT!" is not a valid reason to restrict people's freedom of speech. Restrictions are supposed to make sense, not be some morons idea of just deserts.
No, I'm not forgetting that. And indeed, the liberal scientific values of "open, diverse, and endless criticism" and "no special authority" are exactly what I'm defending.
If every news paper were spitting half assed lies about me, I would like to have the right to make rectification rather than make a libel process or have my own propespect printed out.
As far as I can tell, that's mostly because you're lazy, not because of any well justified philosophy or cultural value.
But I perfectly understand that in a litigious all-over-the-board free speech society you rather have lawyer handle the job.
In our society, words are not thought crimes, or doubleungoodthink. People speak their minds, and other people have the ability to decide for themselves whether they are speaking bullshit: and the ethic behind this is that everyone is suppoed to be critical, and check for other information. Some people here are lazy too, of course, but it's the laziness that's the problem, not that other people won't do your work for you.
This is about forcing www media outlet to have the same law as newspaper outlet. That is media which have an enormous coverage in comparison to a citizen must allow him the same coverage under certain circumstance, like report of negative info on the former.
Yes, I understand. Can you explain to me why "negative info" is bad unless it causes someone material harm (in which case they already have the right to seek redress?)
The individual/small firm probably doesn't HAVE the money, time, or power to reply effectively. Even a lawsuit may not rectify the damages, nor deter the large firm. The damage is already done. But your view on that depends on your view of "survival of the fittest".
It isn't about survival of the fittest. There are already laws against malicious slander and libel. And frankly, in this society, what we need are people smart enough not to take everything at face value.
But the reality still is: I open my mouth, whether I'm a company or a person, and that imposes no obligations on anyone to listen or care. So how can it impose obligations on me to ? If I'm lying, we're supposed to live in a society that ALREADY has a diverse community of criticism to ferret out and publicize lies. People that want information can put effort into looking for it. THAT is the philosophy that democracy is built on, and if it's not working as well as you'd like, THAT is what needs to be fixed.
But the reply in the public forum is not linked to the original, so how will the public find it?
For goodness sakes: finding information the responsibility OF the reading public. THEY are the ones who seek out the materials and views they want. If they want to seek out contrary views, then they should do it. But it's no one's legal or moral responsibility to do it for them.
You should be held liable for your sayings, and if you offend someone, you have at least to give that someone the right to defend himself.
This is so profoundly aliberal and totalitarian that it's scary. Words are not violence. There is no valid justification for a right to not be offended. And as soon as you declare such a right, you can bet that people will have prime motives for getting offended at everything they can.
Me speaking my mind imposes nothing on anyone else. No one has to listen to me, no matter what forum I use. No one has to care. So how can it impose an obligation on me to put any effort at all into all the people that want to respond to my criticisms of them?
If you don't see it that way, then I'll call you @#$%!@ and you will have ability to defend against that blatent accusation.:-)
So what? First of all, no one listens to you. Second of all, if someone did, I'd respond as appropriate. And if no one listens to me, that's too bad for me... but I'll probably live through it.
The power to publish your thoughts is still there. You can post whatever you want. But like all good debates, the other side gets a voice too...
Back here in reality, debates seem to work just fine where the attacks and responses appear in different forums (like various op eds to battling press releases). There's no reaosn I should have to pay for your response just because I feel like speaking my mind, and put money and effort into getting my words out there. Getting your response out there is YOUR job, and YOUR money and effort to spend.
Who is preventing people from telling their side of story? If this is about people who are upset that no one will listen to their side of the story: I'm sorry, that's not a free speech issue. There is no right to be heard.
Hello? When I disagree with you, I am not obligated to then repeat your response word for word out loud for all to hear. If you want to respond, you respond in whatever forum is open to you. THAT is free speech, not some ridiculous law that says I have to pay for your response.
Uh: by virtually every other major moral philosopher in previous history (Socrates, for one)? By many different Eastern mystics and philosophers? I mean, the idea that if we treat each other well, the world will be great, is not exactly an earth-shattering insight.
Now, suddenly, the Bible is innerrant (something that would require precisely what you are trying to prove)? Beg any more questions today, or are you done with your half-assed apologetics?
Regardless, I don't consider Jesus to be a particularly outstanding or original moral teacher. Name me one moral idea of his that was original, or even articulated better than previous thinkers.
And don't even try to sell me on the suspiciously pagan voodoo sacrifice trope wherein the blood of an innocent gives magical cleansing power to the unclean. God briefly murders himself to "pay back "a debt that he is demanding... apparently from himself. That sure makes a lot of sense! Are we going to toss the virgin Mary into a volcano next to appease the great Volcano gods?
Often, it DOES wait until you're older and less productive. And again: we're not talking about the economy in that sense: we're talking about how much it costs society in terms of costs it imposes on others (via medical care).
The only they found alive from the EXPIDITION, not from Zion period. The infected guy was part of one of the crews, remember: he wanted his captain to be part of Morphy's group.
Do you even know what "strawman" is? The point is EXACTLY that cultural mores differ: and while people assume that our sexual morality is "Puritan," its actually very different from what the Puritans.
Mitochondrial Eve has been shown in secular literature (ever heard of the magazine "Science") to have lived ~6000 years ago. Evidence of the [creationscience.com] flood [trueorigin.org] here [answersingenesis.org].
Sigh. mEve also lived thousands of years different from yAdam. How does that fit into this neat little flood picture? The fact is, no competant geologist believes that there was a universal flood a couple thousands of years ago. A cite to a bunch of crackpots who cobble together misunderstood facts, ignoring all the oher evidence when necessary, is hardly a compelling argument.
The great thing about the liberal scientific method is that it doesn't require individual people to be free of dogma or sutborness. All it requires is that there be a system of open criticism based on evidence that a diverse range of people participate in. Along with capitalism (decentralized system for allocating economic activity) and democracy (decentralized system for allocating political authority), science is one of three pillars of astounding human progress.
This is just silly. Yes, we use the expression today, but it came from that period BECAUSE that's what people thought back then. There is no reason at all to think that the Biblical writers did not think just like everyone else did, before and after their time, about the shape of the earth, and used the words to describe that misconception. If they "knew" that the world was spherical, this would have been an astounding insight: yet we see nothing of it: instead the common descriptions based on the idea that the Earth was flat.
You've been reading too much C.S. Lewis. This is a classic, and now textbook, example of a false dilemna. Real people are complex, and real people have all sorts of complex mixes of nutty and insightful. Newton was a genius: he was also nuts when it came to the arcane. People can have all sort of crazy beliefs and also be insightful. People tell the truth a little, people lie a little, and some people are a little bit nutty (the vast majority of people with mental illness aren't "insane" but are quite high functioning, just with some odd beliefs: just look up schitzotypal personality disorder). In fact, you don't even take your own argument seriously because if you did you'd have to accept the claims of mystics and phrophets in a whole host of other religions who made extreme claims about who and what they were, but also made insightful comments.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree: but that's exactly the problem. It's well know that HP is slower for single threaded aps, and faster for aps that take advantage of many things at once. These benchmarks had HT turned ON for single threaded aps, and OFF for mutlithreaded aps: exactly the opposite of what it does best.
They should benchmark it using Half Life 2.
Intel: 120 FPS
Mac: 0 FPS
:) I mean, seriously: what do most regular people need to blow 3000$ on a top-end computer for if they aren't hardcore gamers? All the greatest hardware and OS development in the world (and, to be honest, I definately think they have both for a mainstream system, though a little pricey for a market underdog) isn't going to convince me, or gamers like me, to switch if the greatest in desktop gaming is either forbidden or 12 months late.
Heh: you said Half-life 2.
>= is not the same as ==, dumbass
Actually, it's likely to taste a lot better than regular decaf. To MAKE decaf coffee, they have to basically destroy the flavor of the bean. If this plant actually works, then hopefully they can use untouched high-quality beans for decaf.
So now there is now an obligation on the diverse community to seek out lies and publish them...
No, there is no obligation on anyone. IF people want to seek out the truth, they can do so.
why not make it the obligation of the publisher to fix his/her errors in truth when pointed out?
First of all, this legislation has nothing to do with truth, just criticism. But second of all, even if the publisher does make errors: so what? Even if they are lying through their teeth, lying is not against the law unless its fraud or libel or some other attempt to defraud or do material harm.
I'm sorry too, I just can't see what your replies have to do with what I said.
That's a nice, easy way to weasel out of it for you I guess.
Anyway, I still don't see why people are going on about freedom of speech being restricted here. Where? How? You know, if I were threatened with a beating for speaking my mind, I would consider that a restriction. But oh, shock horror, I have to deal with someone actually responding to my argument.
This isn't about people responding to an argument: they can ALREADY do that. This is about placing obligations on me to do all sorts of time consuming, expensive stuff just because I spoke.
I mean you still have the right to say things, and you still have the right to type them on your keyboard, but your computer won't be connected to our internet.
So, what's the problem? In this scenario, it's your internet. I don't have a right to type on it. I didn't pay for it.
You live in a society. You do not have total freedom. You will never have total freedom. Perhaps if you went to live on the moon.
I'm sorry, but "I'M LAZY: YOU DO IT!" is not a valid reason to restrict people's freedom of speech. Restrictions are supposed to make sense, not be some morons idea of just deserts.
No, I'm not forgetting that. And indeed, the liberal scientific values of "open, diverse, and endless criticism" and "no special authority" are exactly what I'm defending.
If every news paper were spitting half assed lies about me, I would like to have the right to make rectification rather than make a libel process or have my own propespect printed out.
As far as I can tell, that's mostly because you're lazy, not because of any well justified philosophy or cultural value.
But I perfectly understand that in a litigious all-over-the-board free speech society you rather have lawyer handle the job.
In our society, words are not thought crimes, or doubleungoodthink. People speak their minds, and other people have the ability to decide for themselves whether they are speaking bullshit: and the ethic behind this is that everyone is suppoed to be critical, and check for other information. Some people here are lazy too, of course, but it's the laziness that's the problem, not that other people won't do your work for you.
This is about forcing www media outlet to have the same law as newspaper outlet. That is media which have an enormous coverage in comparison to a citizen must allow him the same coverage under certain circumstance, like report of negative info on the former.
Yes, I understand. Can you explain to me why "negative info" is bad unless it causes someone material harm (in which case they already have the right to seek redress?)
The individual/small firm probably doesn't HAVE the money, time, or power to reply effectively. Even a lawsuit may not rectify the damages, nor deter the large firm. The damage is already done. But your view on that depends on your view of "survival of the fittest".
It isn't about survival of the fittest. There are already laws against malicious slander and libel. And frankly, in this society, what we need are people smart enough not to take everything at face value.
But the reality still is: I open my mouth, whether I'm a company or a person, and that imposes no obligations on anyone to listen or care. So how can it impose obligations on me to ? If I'm lying, we're supposed to live in a society that ALREADY has a diverse community of criticism to ferret out and publicize lies. People that want information can put effort into looking for it. THAT is the philosophy that democracy is built on, and if it's not working as well as you'd like, THAT is what needs to be fixed.
But the reply in the public forum is not linked to the original, so how will the public find it?
For goodness sakes: finding information the responsibility OF the reading public. THEY are the ones who seek out the materials and views they want. If they want to seek out contrary views, then they should do it. But it's no one's legal or moral responsibility to do it for them.
You should be held liable for your sayings, and if you offend someone, you have at least to give that someone the right to defend himself.
:-)
This is so profoundly aliberal and totalitarian that it's scary. Words are not violence. There is no valid justification for a right to not be offended. And as soon as you declare such a right, you can bet that people will have prime motives for getting offended at everything they can.
Me speaking my mind imposes nothing on anyone else. No one has to listen to me, no matter what forum I use. No one has to care. So how can it impose an obligation on me to put any effort at all into all the people that want to respond to my criticisms of them?
If you don't see it that way, then I'll call you @#$%!@ and you will have ability to defend against that blatent accusation.
So what? First of all, no one listens to you. Second of all, if someone did, I'd respond as appropriate. And if no one listens to me, that's too bad for me... but I'll probably live through it.
The power to publish your thoughts is still there. You can post whatever you want. But like all good debates, the other side gets a voice too...
Back here in reality, debates seem to work just fine where the attacks and responses appear in different forums (like various op eds to battling press releases). There's no reaosn I should have to pay for your response just because I feel like speaking my mind, and put money and effort into getting my words out there. Getting your response out there is YOUR job, and YOUR money and effort to spend.
Wha' happen?
Who is preventing people from telling their side of story? If this is about people who are upset that no one will listen to their side of the story: I'm sorry, that's not a free speech issue. There is no right to be heard.
Hello? When I disagree with you, I am not obligated to then repeat your response word for word out loud for all to hear. If you want to respond, you respond in whatever forum is open to you. THAT is free speech, not some ridiculous law that says I have to pay for your response.
Uh: by virtually every other major moral philosopher in previous history (Socrates, for one)? By many different Eastern mystics and philosophers? I mean, the idea that if we treat each other well, the world will be great, is not exactly an earth-shattering insight.
Now, suddenly, the Bible is innerrant (something that would require precisely what you are trying to prove)? Beg any more questions today, or are you done with your half-assed apologetics?
Regardless, I don't consider Jesus to be a particularly outstanding or original moral teacher. Name me one moral idea of his that was original, or even articulated better than previous thinkers.
And don't even try to sell me on the suspiciously pagan voodoo sacrifice trope wherein the blood of an innocent gives magical cleansing power to the unclean. God briefly murders himself to "pay back "a debt that he is demanding... apparently from himself. That sure makes a lot of sense! Are we going to toss the virgin Mary into a volcano next to appease the great Volcano gods?
Often, it DOES wait until you're older and less productive. And again: we're not talking about the economy in that sense: we're talking about how much it costs society in terms of costs it imposes on others (via medical care).
The only they found alive from the EXPIDITION, not from Zion period. The infected guy was part of one of the crews, remember: he wanted his captain to be part of Morphy's group.
Do you even know what "strawman" is? The point is EXACTLY that cultural mores differ: and while people assume that our sexual morality is "Puritan," its actually very different from what the Puritans.
Mitochondrial Eve has been shown in secular literature (ever heard of the magazine "Science") to have lived ~6000 years ago. Evidence of the [creationscience.com] flood [trueorigin.org] here [answersingenesis.org].
Sigh. mEve also lived thousands of years different from yAdam. How does that fit into this neat little flood picture? The fact is, no competant geologist believes that there was a universal flood a couple thousands of years ago. A cite to a bunch of crackpots who cobble together misunderstood facts, ignoring all the oher evidence when necessary, is hardly a compelling argument.
The great thing about the liberal scientific method is that it doesn't require individual people to be free of dogma or sutborness. All it requires is that there be a system of open criticism based on evidence that a diverse range of people participate in. Along with capitalism (decentralized system for allocating economic activity) and democracy (decentralized system for allocating political authority), science is one of three pillars of astounding human progress.
This is just silly. Yes, we use the expression today, but it came from that period BECAUSE that's what people thought back then. There is no reason at all to think that the Biblical writers did not think just like everyone else did, before and after their time, about the shape of the earth, and used the words to describe that misconception. If they "knew" that the world was spherical, this would have been an astounding insight: yet we see nothing of it: instead the common descriptions based on the idea that the Earth was flat.
You've been reading too much C.S. Lewis. This is a classic, and now textbook, example of a false dilemna. Real people are complex, and real people have all sorts of complex mixes of nutty and insightful. Newton was a genius: he was also nuts when it came to the arcane. People can have all sort of crazy beliefs and also be insightful. People tell the truth a little, people lie a little, and some people are a little bit nutty (the vast majority of people with mental illness aren't "insane" but are quite high functioning, just with some odd beliefs: just look up schitzotypal personality disorder). In fact, you don't even take your own argument seriously because if you did you'd have to accept the claims of mystics and phrophets in a whole host of other religions who made extreme claims about who and what they were, but also made insightful comments.