Reason 1: his name was the very first to appear in every episode opening credits (of the reimagined show obviously), which I am proud to admit I have watched 4 times now (at 74 episodes per rerun, that's ~300 times I've read his name);
As someone said here, very sad to see another great personality part due to pancreatic cancer. From my standpoint, as a fan, I believe he had a successful artistic life where he displayed great ability performing multiple types (his villain comeback is proof). He did look (in the BSG shows, where I happened to see him perform) like he loved what he did for a living, and his mojo was notoriously contagious on stage. It even surpassed the fourth wall as I really did feel his character emotion in his most stressful or flamboyant moments, both as Cpt. Apollo and Tom Zarek.
I hope his personal life was as filled with bliss as his professional one, and if they happen to be reading: my most sincere condolences to family and friends.
Wherever you are Richard, you have reason to be proud.
"Long time Apple commentator Rene Ritchie writes:...Much like there's no real "tablet market"
I'll have to be blunt, but I'm guessing the reality distortion field didn't quite die with it's creator. The fact that Apple has more revenue than competition, as it happens with the iPhone, doesn't mean there is a market or that the market is profitable (it might for the iPhone, and probably also for the iPad, but definitely not for any smartwatch, including the iWatch). In the case of the iPhone, it's factual they sell less units, and it's not exactly sure it makes more total profit than the top Android maker.
There is no smartphone market. Not a significant one. There isn't one for VR either, there wasn't one for 3D TV. There wasn't a market for the Wii U. Companies try to "make the market" by shipping less units and throw around empty, inflating assertions such as "demand so strong that we couldn't make enough". That's what Nintendo did. It didn't save the Wii U, but like Apple, Nintendo has other ways to make money they can throw in the R+D bin on stuff like niche watches.
You don't answer questions with questions. Leave that to Trump, Hillary and whatever candidates want to steer public opinion in a structuraly charismatic debate that wants to sway votes sans logic in the mix.
As for why does the press does what it does when democrats lose the upper hand - and in your own question for question logic - why does social media care to share fake news and disproportionate assertions about immigrants or misinformation about global warming? Because it's just that easy to turn a stupid idea into a popular one by just having an all-caps headline and a fearsome photo to accompany it.
Here, in a "highly-engineering" biased comments section, I'd rather have logic, common sense and real argumentation. Not a question for question dialogue. I I want that I'll just turn on C-SPAN, CNN, FOX News or whatever.
Very thorough timeline, and a tormenting conclusion.
But as a common citizen, I try not to dwell too much ins conspiracy theories - my mind, by my own decision (I believe) has to focus on the small tasks and interactions that actually affect and can be affected by me, and my mind has to take (false?) comfort there's someone else "above" me, directing, ruling my country in ways that cannot be that bad, as in effect I live in a world I somewhat consider safe.
Nevertheless, when I tackle this "basic rights and basic principles of society", I try to be structural and fundamentally assertive - just like a constitution, a declaration of rights, or any other structural law. It is essential that basic law is simple, so that it both can be understood the meaning of its existence, and it cannot be misinterpreted.
So pardon me if I am not as shaken by all the facts you present - I'm just not "wired" to do that. Obama was an overall decent president, and whatever national-security loss-of-rights that came while he was in power is a result of all the conjuncture from the 1940's until today, and most specially the consequence of 9/11 and of Bush's administration, not only Obama's. I believe if I constantly thought of fearful things as what you present, I would have to reorient my personal and professional life. The sense of insecurity would take over and I couldn't act as a normal human being that has to, for instance, do the most basic human things like have a "wille zur macht", or become a father, raise my children, and keep the flow of natural selection. Not all of us can be an MLK or an Elon Musk (they did, however, become successful in many fronts while not forfeiting their humanity, but they were/are exceptional human beings) - if we have no achievable, cohesive purpose, we basically turn ourselves meaningless and miserable. There is nothing to achieve by being a conspirationist.
They really should (trump national security). But gvnm't plays the catch-22 game rather easily with the "your freedom is messing with my freedom" argument. They basically turn "national security" into ALL 'MURICAN RIGHTS, like sand in the eyes of those that can't grasp 99% of the times, only one side's rights are actually being taken away.
That was actually a very educational explanation to my (sorta rhetorical) question, thanks!
And sadly, I don't believe you're exaggerating either, but in contrast I do believe most people ARE aware of practices like this. I just think current society likes teeny tiny doses of 1984-esque Big Brother where law doesn't really apply, and that's why such "ruling" must be kept under wraps - too much "one-man law" and people revolt.
That came out a bit wrong. I was initially thinking of another concept, different from abuse of power so spying ended up sounding wrong - it is not DIRECTLY related to abuse power indeed, and spying has nothing to do with theoretical, constitutional law/justice. Spying effectively is though an abuse of power by intelligence agencies' officers (even when they try to dissociate for safeguard), and such agencies were initially based and created as law enforcement, even though they actually don't enforce anyone or anything that can actually be judged. Intelligence, or "spy" agencies are de facto "extra-judicial law enforcement units", for whatever the government decides is rule of law against foreign people and entities.
In this specific case, you have a very judicial entity (the FBI), apparently abusing its law enforcement power. So I guess in the end I actually make sense: there are FBI agents, acting AS SPIES to nationals by sole authorization of 2 other FBI employees, and no actual court order ruling......effectively turning FBI agents into spies, who abuse their power, as they have no judicial jurisdiction passed in a VALID law-maing body.
Am I oblivious to the US Constitution? How can you have "secret rules", not approved/ratified/signed/passed/whatever in and by a public law.making body such as the upper house, the lower house, an executive order (am I missing something here?)? Aren't all these supposed to publicize new laws to those that vote? So people actually know what the guys they voted for are doing, and, you know, actually know if they are following the "most recent law"?
Because the way I see this, when you have ad hoc "secret rules" applied by justice or intelligence bodies, that is the definition of abuse of power (or spying, which is basically "abuse of power" for non-judicial purposes). One thing is to know there are gag orders put in place to companies - those gags were approved publicly, so the people basically "know companies might or might not be screwing with your privacy rights", but such a thing as "secret rules" would turn that to "every government executive body or law enforcement might or might not be screwing with your _rights_" (as in "all rights", that's how broad it becomes).
The existence of such rules mean, in essence, there can be rules like, for instance "allowing your or your entire family's execution because you ate a pretzel this morning without giving tip and a police officer didn't like it"; or milder, yet stupider things like "ban you from Netflix because you watch too much foreign movies". It gets that stupid.
I might be biased: the EU market (specifically the euro-zone, where I live) rarely get's a game on release day for less than 69EUR. UK is luckier but still not US-level. Some months ago, before the Brexit vote which affected GBP and EUR against the USD, 69EUR was close to 85USD, and now it's still a good 74USD .
I should have made that clearer, and maybe it wasn't the best example due to the obvious technology price gap. For reference, and a clear example, the Nintendo Switch is being pre-sold at 300USD, 280GBP and... 315EUR (cheapest markets; Spain for instance is getting it at 319EUR). Adjusted for current exchange, that's 325USD for the UK, and 338USD for cheapest eurozone price (50USD difference in countries with similar HDI and purchasing power levels). Games are the same deal.
And closing the loop, Netflix 4k subs. costs 12EUR which is what I'm paying right now. That's 12.88USD, and we get about half the content US does. Netflix has close to 0 competition in most of Europe and they can inflate prices at will. Then again, those that own and charge royalties in Europe (and charge Netflix), since they're paying royalties themselves to US-based companies, might be forcing the bad quality/price ratio we get here, in both Netflix and the other tech industries talked about.
So you go to a pizza place. Let's name it Sammy's Hut. You start browsing the menu and you see the house special... It's a mess - it's like they tried to be healthy and trendy and full of spice at once. The clerk calls it "a whiz choice, recently we cut half its calories", but it's still an overengineered ball of mud, only gonna satisfy whoever can't grasp the fine line between taste and variety. You settle for the good ol' margherita, maybe add the usual ham, it never really disappoints - you get to feel the restaurant style with a tried and true classic, you figure what to try next time, if you decide to come back to the place that is... Unfortunately, that margherita felt like it had the same ingredients than the house special, it just didn't look like it.
Some months later you're out in Italy and you try this new spot - it's called Gugely's, and they say "it's where pizza was invented". They only really serve 3 pizzas, and they're basically the same only changing in size and shape. They do seem like a balanced and adequate for different appetites, but you know what, they say whoever comes doesn't really feel compelled to come again. Despite tasting really good, they're all boring.
There's a dessert place around the corner from Gugely's: Sweetpertino and they make an apple pie that is always made from the same tree, yet the dudes that go there eat them like zombies. Especially after they get fed up with Gugely's. They are loyal though, and the thing is really expensive for plain apple pie. My guess is they really like expensive apples. It's not anywhere as nutritional as pizza, but zombies be like... Whatever.
Fed up with apples (or maybe never had the cash for them), and not wanting to go back to the "en vogue" spots, you dig up an underground place that brags can prepare the pizza you need. They are upfront about some limitations though: what you need is not always what you want, but at least you get to decide what you think you want. They also warn your stomach might not take it; that some people are allergic to their pizza type of "source"; that some even refuse to swallow their non-standard meals. They tell you to sign an insurance release at the door, but trust me, most that go there don't even understand the consequences - sometimes they have really bad produce, but luckily you can smell it from afar if you try the least, and just change the dish. But you know, nobody really cares when looking for the perfect pizza fix they can't find anywhere. Where this shop really distinguishes itself from others though: they let you take the recipes home, mix them up, go back to them and request small changes, and at the end of the day, you can just return your pizza for a brand new one. You can do this as long as you can stomach it. Suffice it to say, it's a releasing experience and some just can't figure out what to do with so much freedom. Some give up at the first try. It is also said a lot of people go back to apples and Gugely's. Nobody really goes back to Sammy's - they'd rather have their stomachs burst from a overly zealous gastric band.
So after all that rant, what do we really learn from pizza and from people? There's no perfect pizza for everyone, that's obvious. Some fancy variety, some tolerate simplicity, and some just don't like pizza at all. Then there are those that only like pizza they can see being prepared and know the source of the ingredients. Some only want genuine ingredients even though they don't need them. It's a big shame some essential ingredients can only be bought from exclusive sellers that don't always want to sell to non-regulars, then again it's for their own commercial reasons, like every company should. The time for the perfectly balanced pizza can only come after a perfectly balanced society arises, one that only has the best interest of the customer in mind. Then again some call that communism, and it's the worst thing since the plague.
Me, personally? I make my pizza at home. That means my kitchen and my stomach are always fully prepared. WHAT HAVE YOU EATEN LATELY?
Do not give too much control over a single industry to a single corporate interest. I am a netflix subscriber splitting a 4k account 4-ways, but I have absolutely no doubt when they have the market they want, the only way they are gonna keep investors interested, the 3rd-party studios low-balling prices, or their own production assets happy with their salaries is by breaking the current service in some way. It surely won't be ads, but I'm betting 4k or even HD will at some point increase to become prohibitively expensive for a big chunk of their user base that currently has those and people will have to compromise. (it already increased in the past). Either that or the account-sharing capability will be cut-off.
Subscription services have flat rates, and when the user-base stops growing and also becomes flat while you have already optimized your entire business process, the company freezes financially, which is also known as stagnation. If you look at other industries that have peaked, such as ISP and other communication providers, you know exactly what happens: they increase prices, decrease quality, or bundle useless services to artificially raise prices. And these guys have competition to cope with, while Netflix is like Apple and Android ecosystems together, while Hulu, HBO Go and whatever else are like Windows Phone. It's not gonna be pretty when it happens.
And... Spotify is gonna be just the same, with the difference the music industry provides a infinitesimally cheaper product (music production is almost free when compared to film/tv) at a much higher end-user cost. Spotify knows they have a high-margin, "premium" feeling product and they don't sell it cheap. There's a reason they are so restrictive with family plans as opposed to Netflix account sharing.
Different industry example: Console games - just launched prices have risen from around 40bucks to 70 in less than a decade. Another industry: smartphones - top-tier flagships now cost more than 1000 dollars unlocked. The first iPhone fully spec'd out cost 599$ while top of the line 7 Plus costs 969$. 370 bucks is no joke my friends, apple needs cash to build that UFO.
Some disclaimer: I have moderate IT Security experience. I'm admittedly not the ITSec convention-going type, but I've developed for solid security, done successful penetration testing on people's code and the likes... From the guardian's article, and from my POV, the major issue here is one of wording: a Backdoor is a feature, one intentionally added by developers and hidden from the end user-facing stuff such as UI and (R)TFM. This is definitely not a backdoor - it looks like a flaw, probably associated with different use cases of whatsapp vs the original API, considering it happens on verbose conditions, and it surely seems tricky to replicate without very explicit user behavior. Apparently even a change in defaults by whatsapp can solve this.
Now for the real issue: How can anyone even start arguing about an article's guilt on this or Whatsapp intentions without tackling the subject that: every closed source app claiming privacy (such as whatsapp), however you paint it, can never do so as guaranteed without being open source. There is one way, and one way only, that privacy can be achieved without having to trust on privacy policies, disclosures, public legal action or even secretive court orders and it is to open source the damn thing and providing a way of building that outputs the same without the branding (think Chromium or the Mozilla suite in Debian).
Here's the deal: Whatsapp states it uses the Whisper API but they might as well not use it. Whisper and Signal might state they collaborate and trusts they do use it, but who is to say they aren't being paid for this, lying or even chain-trusting blindly in Whatsapp statements of use? Oh wait, so there's a legal binding document saying Whatsapp actually does this... BIG DEAL. There are also constitutions being RAPED EVERY DAY by US, Chinese, Russian, (every country?) security services.
Snowden advises on using Signal for two essential reasons that cannot be taken apart: 1. he has access to the shyt going on inside and... 2. he actually understands that shyt.
Number one is the big deal here, and number 2 is the reason he publicly admits his support for Signal - people trust his technical judgement. Granted, no.1 won't make much sense to 99% of the world at which point you have to start trusting on someone's technical ability, reputation and honor, and for fuck sake Whatsapp is a commercial application based in the US - they HAVE to lie about such things, they don't even get a choice. Just having no.1 is like placing your neck under the sword of the entire world community. It's a lot better than a feature list, and advert, a legal document, someone's word. it's everybody's word.
This is no conspiration theory, but logic beats trust, and most here, as engineers should be very aware of that. Even the trust in one's own actions isn't fallible - some people lie to themselves, some people don't know better than to believe they have failed at something and will trust blindly on their own ability. But sooner or later everybody finds out we are only as perfects as what we are made of. SHOW ME WHAT YOUR APP IS MADE OF and you will have the right for my complete blind trust (because it just isn't blind anymore). It can even be coded in esperanto (intentional bullshit here). It's the only way it is honestly submitted for scrutiny of your own statements of privacy and security.
As a non-native english speaker, I have trouble understanding stuff like "on tap" so I might sound stupid over-analyzing it. SORRY
About the tracking prey argument, tea leave, and the innocent filth-proof cape, I honestly have no fucking idea what you're talking about. If it's some sort of fallacy, I should mention that the last time I studied "hard" philosophy was some good 12 years ago. If it's not the case, its also good to note that, since Real Life (tm) caught up to me, my depths-of-the-web dictionary pretty much stopped expanding at or around stuff like SJW or troll, maybe pundit? I have no idea what kappa is but it really sounds post-millenial.
The only thing I wanted with my post was to state that the OP might have been mislead (keyword might), but even then he actually made sense, and so did the products AMD brought to the CES booth (if they were, in effect, only those 2 chipset variants).
AMD wants, like any other CPU manufacturer these days (which aren't that many other than Intel and the [unrelated] ARM bandwagon), to "tap" hard into the PC market (like they once did). AMD just knows full well it isn't going to compete in the premium corporate, small-biz or even semi-pro segments (read: workstations) anytime soon, so it targeted the segment where, pun incoming, it's game is at (verbose: the super-cheap gaming rig), and took a baby steps consumer-level approach into a segment they are closely-related with lately (the small, efficient and cost-effective machine that might even game like a big boy). I think I already mentioned consoles right? I can see these mini-itx chips powering the next gen steam machines or similarly flavored AIO PCs, or even cool new stuff like dedicated VR-headset drivers (think PSVR Processing units) for "people that will never pay >300 bucks for such a thing - if anyone can do it, it's likely AMD.
But the same original article stated it verbatim: "All 16 AM4 motherboards that are on tap are built around two desktop chipsts for Ryzen, X370 and X300." so OP has an excuse for being mislead (he did omit the "on tap" part though).
My interpretation is that what they meant by "on tap" is what was being displayed at CES. OP failed to quote an important part, but at the same time, what they display at CES is likely what's coming to market first (it's what they prototyped easier), so if the market starts with those 2 chipsets, you will likely see them first on retail.
I also believe that, unlike Intel's chips and chipsets, you will see more of the enthusiast stuff from AMD's CPU in the wild simply because the target market is gonna be the cost-saving enthusiast, so you will either have the "cheap-o gaming rig" type enthusiasts going for the x350 or the the "small gaming rig " type enthusiasts for the x300. You will rarely see the IT admin type going for the stable, "unoverclockable" B350 - those guys will still favor Intel for some years, they favor stability that goes beyond the first batch of reviews. I'm guessing the B350 is more for pre-built, run-off-the-mill, low-cost machines from OEMs like Dell, HP, Asus and whatnot. These sell a lot but they also make pay less to individual parts makers (margins go mostly to the assembler OEM). A good example is AMD having the golden share of the latest gen console CPU/GPU (both xbox one and ps4 sport AMD chips all around), yet Intel AND Nvidia both are miles ahead of profit from single part sales (notebook hegemony also helps).
Most answers here are right to some degree, yet highly context-dependent, such as better or worse regions for IT professionals or a high personal bias on whats's better or worse for them, and what their connections say about company X or Y.
My own personal bias favors big data and the finance/security/energy consulting sectors as the most prolific, salary-wise, but I am inclined to say the place where you will get he most satisfaction is one where you do what you like making what you need. For instance, startups are a great place for having some leverage on the workload, while not being a great source of income (but in some narrow cases, you do get what you're worth and the fact the startup might explode financially are great incentives to be on them, but they're always hit or miss).
I started in finance consulting, and didn't enjoy myself the least, but some similar peers who got luckier on their projects/teams managed to stay longer (some didn't even leave) and now they're making big bucks without the exhaustive, burnout-inducive hours they had at the beginning. Health, medical, public sector and energy consulting are like that, especially big-data oriented positions, yet still very demanding.
I'd say, look at your own opinion of how hard you want to focus on the kick-start of your professional life - do you want to "live" more before you're 35-40 or do you want to make the big bucks no matter the hours and be comfortable in your 40's? In the case of the former, risk yourself into some startups or some broadly popular, employee-centric companies that give perks such as a short schedule, long holidays and are big on team-building and freebies. In the later case, just find the best salary in an established, big revenue name and accept the fact your time and mind space can (will) be syphonned out to the point of exhaustion.
Yeah, I didn't read the article, but I did get first post:D (read my answer to someone else here where I explain myself). Obviously one can conclude that car companies in Europe are making a lot of money from marketeering their vehicles with a lot of power while following VERY FLAWED regulations (and they get to say "we're clean as sh*t"), but I'm guessing this is easily solvable through awareness like this study (and VW-like scandals) and the consequent harder restrictions.
OTOH I disagree with that electric/hydrogen public transportation argument - there are a lot, but they are not remotely significant and exist just for show. I happen to live in a populated city that brags about having a ton of electric/hydrogen fueled vehicles (Porto, Portugal), but I find that these are a small fraction of it's fleet, and further find these represent a minuscule part of all the heavy duty vehicles roaming the city. You have to take into account around half, if not more (although highly speculative by my POV) of large public transportation you find in big cities are from peripheral companies that service the suburban areas yet still make a big chunk of its route in the middle of the city. These rarely have any sort of clean energy vehicles on their fleet because they don't get the refueling facilities as available as fleets that roam around the city alone.
In my defense, I had seen this article somewhere else first, and it didn't come with that first-line summary that made it clear heavy duty vehicles had such superior restrictions. At the point I stopped reading that article, I hadn't reached that part, so when I commented here on./ I didn't really read anything but the title. There's too much news these days to read more than first sentences (unless it's very interesting), and this is worse when you see the same news over and over across your sources of choice.
People have said most: - filter glass requirement, bad quality, and the fact most don't work well with prescription glasses; - even when such glasses aren't physically hampering, a significative no. of people report headaches, dizziness and/or blurriness, especially after extended use; - to prejudice of the above reasons, 3D that works without glasses is very position-sensitive thus only being usable by a single, centered observer. And people still report discomfort while/after usage; - there is loss of immersion when the 3D illusion is blended in a real, non-illuminated (and physically tri-dimensional) background - this induces that the only real, immersive experiences you can have with 3D picture, is by dimming all other light sources, effectively "flattening" the real world through darkness. And this is obviously a very narrow use-case except for non-casual movie-watching. This is why 3D in VR headsets is actually usable - the use-case is always sensory-deprivation-like and this helps a lot with making sense of simulated 3D.
But my personal opinion for 3D failure is the same one that makes most movie theatres have dual sessions: some people just never found it beneficial. The implementation is never flawless: tech and quality is highly variable, and rarely above "good". I doubt there will ever be perfect 3D perception that doesn't involve some sort of brain interface other than the eye - the physics of light and space needed for actual 3D-simulation through the eye are a bit more than we can handle with the current universe we live in:P
How do you solve the problem of seniority in a democratic state? You use legal means of breaking seniority. And why were these passed as law in the first place? Because democracy, as it is implemented, is nothing more than a technocratic elite making decisions for everyone, i.e. for themselves. How can you allow staffers to replace permanent workers with the sole purpose of the company remaining profitable for the owners? Or in other words, how can you allow small-time individuals' long-term plans to be destroyed immediately just because the top guys need a new summer house. Capitalism has triumphed in ways everyone else predicted but nobody cared about - an american dream of sorts, but really ubiquitous, even in Europe. "I would rather be exploited my entire life than be denied the chance to exploit everyone else to be uber rich". We allowed such things and we are reaping what those before us seow. Never before has the People been so powerless against established governing bodies as today, not even in the Ancient Egypt - you have a vote all right, but there are those who play dirty with the votes of everyone else. Control of statistics, the media and even of communication platforms have become much more powerful than a royal bloodline as a claim for power. Lobbying is a tool made for companies, and the individual rights have eroded deeper than the Grand Canyon. In the US people will claim they still got the 2nd. Tell that to the Malheur guys. Or better - they're en route to being dominated by one of the greatest capitalists there is, who is seriously gonna ignore all individual rights for the needy, and I see no militia forming in any way.
This guy's letter - nothing but a swan song to a time where the human being took precedence over inhuman greed.
Slashdot Mirror
obviously because of 2 reasons:
Reason 1: his name was the very first to appear in every episode opening credits (of the reimagined show obviously), which I am proud to admit I have watched 4 times now (at 74 episodes per rerun, that's ~300 times I've read his name);
Reason 2: slashdot comment titles length cap. Duh
By 2 years at that.
As someone said here, very sad to see another great personality part due to pancreatic cancer. From my standpoint, as a fan, I believe he had a successful artistic life where he displayed great ability performing multiple types (his villain comeback is proof). He did look (in the BSG shows, where I happened to see him perform) like he loved what he did for a living, and his mojo was notoriously contagious on stage. It even surpassed the fourth wall as I really did feel his character emotion in his most stressful or flamboyant moments, both as Cpt. Apollo and Tom Zarek.
I hope his personal life was as filled with bliss as his professional one, and if they happen to be reading: my most sincere condolences to family and friends.
Wherever you are Richard, you have reason to be proud.
"Long time Apple commentator Rene Ritchie writes: ...Much like there's no real "tablet market"
I'll have to be blunt, but I'm guessing the reality distortion field didn't quite die with it's creator. The fact that Apple has more revenue than competition, as it happens with the iPhone, doesn't mean there is a market or that the market is profitable (it might for the iPhone, and probably also for the iPad, but definitely not for any smartwatch, including the iWatch). In the case of the iPhone, it's factual they sell less units, and it's not exactly sure it makes more total profit than the top Android maker.
There is no smartphone market. Not a significant one. There isn't one for VR either, there wasn't one for 3D TV. There wasn't a market for the Wii U. Companies try to "make the market" by shipping less units and throw around empty, inflating assertions such as "demand so strong that we couldn't make enough". That's what Nintendo did. It didn't save the Wii U, but like Apple, Nintendo has other ways to make money they can throw in the R+D bin on stuff like niche watches.
You don't answer questions with questions. Leave that to Trump, Hillary and whatever candidates want to steer public opinion in a structuraly charismatic debate that wants to sway votes sans logic in the mix.
As for why does the press does what it does when democrats lose the upper hand - and in your own question for question logic - why does social media care to share fake news and disproportionate assertions about immigrants or misinformation about global warming? Because it's just that easy to turn a stupid idea into a popular one by just having an all-caps headline and a fearsome photo to accompany it.
Here, in a "highly-engineering" biased comments section, I'd rather have logic, common sense and real argumentation. Not a question for question dialogue. I I want that I'll just turn on C-SPAN, CNN, FOX News or whatever.
Very nice info, many thanks.
Very thorough timeline, and a tormenting conclusion.
But as a common citizen, I try not to dwell too much ins conspiracy theories - my mind, by my own decision (I believe) has to focus on the small tasks and interactions that actually affect and can be affected by me, and my mind has to take (false?) comfort there's someone else "above" me, directing, ruling my country in ways that cannot be that bad, as in effect I live in a world I somewhat consider safe.
Nevertheless, when I tackle this "basic rights and basic principles of society", I try to be structural and fundamentally assertive - just like a constitution, a declaration of rights, or any other structural law. It is essential that basic law is simple, so that it both can be understood the meaning of its existence, and it cannot be misinterpreted.
So pardon me if I am not as shaken by all the facts you present - I'm just not "wired" to do that. Obama was an overall decent president, and whatever national-security loss-of-rights that came while he was in power is a result of all the conjuncture from the 1940's until today, and most specially the consequence of 9/11 and of Bush's administration, not only Obama's. I believe if I constantly thought of fearful things as what you present, I would have to reorient my personal and professional life. The sense of insecurity would take over and I couldn't act as a normal human being that has to, for instance, do the most basic human things like have a "wille zur macht", or become a father, raise my children, and keep the flow of natural selection. Not all of us can be an MLK or an Elon Musk (they did, however, become successful in many fronts while not forfeiting their humanity, but they were/are exceptional human beings) - if we have no achievable, cohesive purpose, we basically turn ourselves meaningless and miserable. There is nothing to achieve by being a conspirationist.
They really should (trump national security). But gvnm't plays the catch-22 game rather easily with the "your freedom is messing with my freedom" argument. They basically turn "national security" into ALL 'MURICAN RIGHTS, like sand in the eyes of those that can't grasp 99% of the times, only one side's rights are actually being taken away.
That was actually a very educational explanation to my (sorta rhetorical) question, thanks!
And sadly, I don't believe you're exaggerating either, but in contrast I do believe most people ARE aware of practices like this. I just think current society likes teeny tiny doses of 1984-esque Big Brother where law doesn't really apply, and that's why such "ruling" must be kept under wraps - too much "one-man law" and people revolt.
That came out a bit wrong. I was initially thinking of another concept, different from abuse of power so spying ended up sounding wrong - it is not DIRECTLY related to abuse power indeed, and spying has nothing to do with theoretical, constitutional law/justice. Spying effectively is though an abuse of power by intelligence agencies' officers (even when they try to dissociate for safeguard), and such agencies were initially based and created as law enforcement, even though they actually don't enforce anyone or anything that can actually be judged. Intelligence, or "spy" agencies are de facto "extra-judicial law enforcement units", for whatever the government decides is rule of law against foreign people and entities.
In this specific case, you have a very judicial entity (the FBI), apparently abusing its law enforcement power. So I guess in the end I actually make sense: there are FBI agents, acting AS SPIES to nationals by sole authorization of 2 other FBI employees, and no actual court order ruling... ...effectively turning FBI agents into spies, who abuse their power, as they have no judicial jurisdiction passed in a VALID law-maing body.
Am I oblivious to the US Constitution? How can you have "secret rules", not approved/ratified/signed/passed/whatever in and by a public law.making body such as the upper house, the lower house, an executive order (am I missing something here?)? Aren't all these supposed to publicize new laws to those that vote? So people actually know what the guys they voted for are doing, and, you know, actually know if they are following the "most recent law"?
Because the way I see this, when you have ad hoc "secret rules" applied by justice or intelligence bodies, that is the definition of abuse of power (or spying, which is basically "abuse of power" for non-judicial purposes). One thing is to know there are gag orders put in place to companies - those gags were approved publicly, so the people basically "know companies might or might not be screwing with your privacy rights", but such a thing as "secret rules" would turn that to "every government executive body or law enforcement might or might not be screwing with your _rights_" (as in "all rights", that's how broad it becomes).
The existence of such rules mean, in essence, there can be rules like, for instance "allowing your or your entire family's execution because you ate a pretzel this morning without giving tip and a police officer didn't like it"; or milder, yet stupider things like "ban you from Netflix because you watch too much foreign movies". It gets that stupid.
As I replied to Wraithlyn, I have a geographical bias to provide those examples. It doesn't make the rest any less true.
I might be biased: the EU market (specifically the euro-zone, where I live) rarely get's a game on release day for less than 69EUR. UK is luckier but still not US-level. Some months ago, before the Brexit vote which affected GBP and EUR against the USD, 69EUR was close to 85USD, and now it's still a good 74USD .
I should have made that clearer, and maybe it wasn't the best example due to the obvious technology price gap. For reference, and a clear example, the Nintendo Switch is being pre-sold at 300USD, 280GBP and... 315EUR (cheapest markets; Spain for instance is getting it at 319EUR). Adjusted for current exchange, that's 325USD for the UK, and 338USD for cheapest eurozone price (50USD difference in countries with similar HDI and purchasing power levels). Games are the same deal.
And closing the loop, Netflix 4k subs. costs 12EUR which is what I'm paying right now. That's 12.88USD, and we get about half the content US does. Netflix has close to 0 competition in most of Europe and they can inflate prices at will. Then again, those that own and charge royalties in Europe (and charge Netflix), since they're paying royalties themselves to US-based companies, might be forcing the bad quality/price ratio we get here, in both Netflix and the other tech industries talked about.
So you go to a pizza place. Let's name it Sammy's Hut. You start browsing the menu and you see the house special... It's a mess - it's like they tried to be healthy and trendy and full of spice at once. The clerk calls it "a whiz choice, recently we cut half its calories", but it's still an overengineered ball of mud, only gonna satisfy whoever can't grasp the fine line between taste and variety. You settle for the good ol' margherita, maybe add the usual ham, it never really disappoints - you get to feel the restaurant style with a tried and true classic, you figure what to try next time, if you decide to come back to the place that is... Unfortunately, that margherita felt like it had the same ingredients than the house special, it just didn't look like it.
Some months later you're out in Italy and you try this new spot - it's called Gugely's, and they say "it's where pizza was invented". They only really serve 3 pizzas, and they're basically the same only changing in size and shape. They do seem like a balanced and adequate for different appetites, but you know what, they say whoever comes doesn't really feel compelled to come again. Despite tasting really good, they're all boring.
There's a dessert place around the corner from Gugely's: Sweetpertino and they make an apple pie that is always made from the same tree, yet the dudes that go there eat them like zombies. Especially after they get fed up with Gugely's. They are loyal though, and the thing is really expensive for plain apple pie. My guess is they really like expensive apples. It's not anywhere as nutritional as pizza, but zombies be like... Whatever.
Fed up with apples (or maybe never had the cash for them), and not wanting to go back to the "en vogue" spots, you dig up an underground place that brags can prepare the pizza you need. They are upfront about some limitations though: what you need is not always what you want, but at least you get to decide what you think you want. They also warn your stomach might not take it; that some people are allergic to their pizza type of "source"; that some even refuse to swallow their non-standard meals. They tell you to sign an insurance release at the door, but trust me, most that go there don't even understand the consequences - sometimes they have really bad produce, but luckily you can smell it from afar if you try the least, and just change the dish. But you know, nobody really cares when looking for the perfect pizza fix they can't find anywhere. Where this shop really distinguishes itself from others though: they let you take the recipes home, mix them up, go back to them and request small changes, and at the end of the day, you can just return your pizza for a brand new one. You can do this as long as you can stomach it. Suffice it to say, it's a releasing experience and some just can't figure out what to do with so much freedom. Some give up at the first try. It is also said a lot of people go back to apples and Gugely's. Nobody really goes back to Sammy's - they'd rather have their stomachs burst from a overly zealous gastric band.
So after all that rant, what do we really learn from pizza and from people? There's no perfect pizza for everyone, that's obvious. Some fancy variety, some tolerate simplicity, and some just don't like pizza at all. Then there are those that only like pizza they can see being prepared and know the source of the ingredients. Some only want genuine ingredients even though they don't need them. It's a big shame some essential ingredients can only be bought from exclusive sellers that don't always want to sell to non-regulars, then again it's for their own commercial reasons, like every company should. The time for the perfectly balanced pizza can only come after a perfectly balanced society arises, one that only has the best interest of the customer in mind. Then again some call that communism, and it's the worst thing since the plague.
Me, personally? I make my pizza at home. That means my kitchen and my stomach are always fully prepared. WHAT HAVE YOU EATEN LATELY?
Do not give too much control over a single industry to a single corporate interest. I am a netflix subscriber splitting a 4k account 4-ways, but I have absolutely no doubt when they have the market they want, the only way they are gonna keep investors interested, the 3rd-party studios low-balling prices, or their own production assets happy with their salaries is by breaking the current service in some way. It surely won't be ads, but I'm betting 4k or even HD will at some point increase to become prohibitively expensive for a big chunk of their user base that currently has those and people will have to compromise. (it already increased in the past). Either that or the account-sharing capability will be cut-off.
Subscription services have flat rates, and when the user-base stops growing and also becomes flat while you have already optimized your entire business process, the company freezes financially, which is also known as stagnation. If you look at other industries that have peaked, such as ISP and other communication providers, you know exactly what happens: they increase prices, decrease quality, or bundle useless services to artificially raise prices. And these guys have competition to cope with, while Netflix is like Apple and Android ecosystems together, while Hulu, HBO Go and whatever else are like Windows Phone. It's not gonna be pretty when it happens.
And... Spotify is gonna be just the same, with the difference the music industry provides a infinitesimally cheaper product (music production is almost free when compared to film/tv) at a much higher end-user cost. Spotify knows they have a high-margin, "premium" feeling product and they don't sell it cheap. There's a reason they are so restrictive with family plans as opposed to Netflix account sharing.
Different industry example: Console games - just launched prices have risen from around 40bucks to 70 in less than a decade. Another industry: smartphones - top-tier flagships now cost more than 1000 dollars unlocked. The first iPhone fully spec'd out cost 599$ while top of the line 7 Plus costs 969$. 370 bucks is no joke my friends, apple needs cash to build that UFO.
EXACTLY. I went into a lot more detail and rambling in my own comment, but you are 100% right.
Some disclaimer:
I have moderate IT Security experience. I'm admittedly not the ITSec convention-going type, but I've developed for solid security, done successful penetration testing on people's code and the likes... From the guardian's article, and from my POV, the major issue here is one of wording: a Backdoor is a feature, one intentionally added by developers and hidden from the end user-facing stuff such as UI and (R)TFM. This is definitely not a backdoor - it looks like a flaw, probably associated with different use cases of whatsapp vs the original API, considering it happens on verbose conditions, and it surely seems tricky to replicate without very explicit user behavior. Apparently even a change in defaults by whatsapp can solve this.
Now for the real issue:
How can anyone even start arguing about an article's guilt on this or Whatsapp intentions without tackling the subject that: every closed source app claiming privacy (such as whatsapp), however you paint it, can never do so as guaranteed without being open source. There is one way, and one way only, that privacy can be achieved without having to trust on privacy policies, disclosures, public legal action or even secretive court orders and it is to open source the damn thing and providing a way of building that outputs the same without the branding (think Chromium or the Mozilla suite in Debian).
Here's the deal: Whatsapp states it uses the Whisper API but they might as well not use it. Whisper and Signal might state they collaborate and trusts they do use it, but who is to say they aren't being paid for this, lying or even chain-trusting blindly in Whatsapp statements of use? Oh wait, so there's a legal binding document saying Whatsapp actually does this... BIG DEAL. There are also constitutions being RAPED EVERY DAY by US, Chinese, Russian, (every country?) security services.
Snowden advises on using Signal for two essential reasons that cannot be taken apart:
1. he has access to the shyt going on inside and...
2. he actually understands that shyt.
Number one is the big deal here, and number 2 is the reason he publicly admits his support for Signal - people trust his technical judgement. Granted, no.1 won't make much sense to 99% of the world at which point you have to start trusting on someone's technical ability, reputation and honor, and for fuck sake Whatsapp is a commercial application based in the US - they HAVE to lie about such things, they don't even get a choice. Just having no.1 is like placing your neck under the sword of the entire world community. It's a lot better than a feature list, and advert, a legal document, someone's word. it's everybody's word.
This is no conspiration theory, but logic beats trust, and most here, as engineers should be very aware of that. Even the trust in one's own actions isn't fallible - some people lie to themselves, some people don't know better than to believe they have failed at something and will trust blindly on their own ability. But sooner or later everybody finds out we are only as perfects as what we are made of. SHOW ME WHAT YOUR APP IS MADE OF and you will have the right for my complete blind trust (because it just isn't blind anymore). It can even be coded in esperanto (intentional bullshit here). It's the only way it is honestly submitted for scrutiny of your own statements of privacy and security.
As a non-native english speaker, I have trouble understanding stuff like "on tap" so I might sound stupid over-analyzing it. SORRY
About the tracking prey argument, tea leave, and the innocent filth-proof cape, I honestly have no fucking idea what you're talking about. If it's some sort of fallacy, I should mention that the last time I studied "hard" philosophy was some good 12 years ago. If it's not the case, its also good to note that, since Real Life (tm) caught up to me, my depths-of-the-web dictionary pretty much stopped expanding at or around stuff like SJW or troll, maybe pundit? I have no idea what kappa is but it really sounds post-millenial.
The only thing I wanted with my post was to state that the OP might have been mislead (keyword might), but even then he actually made sense, and so did the products AMD brought to the CES booth (if they were, in effect, only those 2 chipset variants).
AMD wants, like any other CPU manufacturer these days (which aren't that many other than Intel and the [unrelated] ARM bandwagon), to "tap" hard into the PC market (like they once did). AMD just knows full well it isn't going to compete in the premium corporate, small-biz or even semi-pro segments (read: workstations) anytime soon, so it targeted the segment where, pun incoming, it's game is at (verbose: the super-cheap gaming rig), and took a baby steps consumer-level approach into a segment they are closely-related with lately (the small, efficient and cost-effective machine that might even game like a big boy). I think I already mentioned consoles right? I can see these mini-itx chips powering the next gen steam machines or similarly flavored AIO PCs, or even cool new stuff like dedicated VR-headset drivers (think PSVR Processing units) for "people that will never pay >300 bucks for such a thing - if anyone can do it, it's likely AMD.
wait what? Nobody in the consumer business needs ECC RAM for any reason other than bragging rights or outright need to burn money...
But the same original article stated it verbatim: "All 16 AM4 motherboards that are on tap are built around two desktop chipsts for Ryzen, X370 and X300." so OP has an excuse for being mislead (he did omit the "on tap" part though).
My interpretation is that what they meant by "on tap" is what was being displayed at CES. OP failed to quote an important part, but at the same time, what they display at CES is likely what's coming to market first (it's what they prototyped easier), so if the market starts with those 2 chipsets, you will likely see them first on retail.
I also believe that, unlike Intel's chips and chipsets, you will see more of the enthusiast stuff from AMD's CPU in the wild simply because the target market is gonna be the cost-saving enthusiast, so you will either have the "cheap-o gaming rig" type enthusiasts going for the x350 or the the "small gaming rig " type enthusiasts for the x300. You will rarely see the IT admin type going for the stable, "unoverclockable" B350 - those guys will still favor Intel for some years, they favor stability that goes beyond the first batch of reviews. I'm guessing the B350 is more for pre-built, run-off-the-mill, low-cost machines from OEMs like Dell, HP, Asus and whatnot. These sell a lot but they also make pay less to individual parts makers (margins go mostly to the assembler OEM). A good example is AMD having the golden share of the latest gen console CPU/GPU (both xbox one and ps4 sport AMD chips all around), yet Intel AND Nvidia both are miles ahead of profit from single part sales (notebook hegemony also helps).
Most answers here are right to some degree, yet highly context-dependent, such as better or worse regions for IT professionals or a high personal bias on whats's better or worse for them, and what their connections say about company X or Y.
My own personal bias favors big data and the finance/security/energy consulting sectors as the most prolific, salary-wise, but I am inclined to say the place where you will get he most satisfaction is one where you do what you like making what you need. For instance, startups are a great place for having some leverage on the workload, while not being a great source of income (but in some narrow cases, you do get what you're worth and the fact the startup might explode financially are great incentives to be on them, but they're always hit or miss).
I started in finance consulting, and didn't enjoy myself the least, but some similar peers who got luckier on their projects/teams managed to stay longer (some didn't even leave) and now they're making big bucks without the exhaustive, burnout-inducive hours they had at the beginning. Health, medical, public sector and energy consulting are like that, especially big-data oriented positions, yet still very demanding.
I'd say, look at your own opinion of how hard you want to focus on the kick-start of your professional life - do you want to "live" more before you're 35-40 or do you want to make the big bucks no matter the hours and be comfortable in your 40's? In the case of the former, risk yourself into some startups or some broadly popular, employee-centric companies that give perks such as a short schedule, long holidays and are big on team-building and freebies. In the later case, just find the best salary in an established, big revenue name and accept the fact your time and mind space can (will) be syphonned out to the point of exhaustion.
Yeah, I didn't read the article, but I did get first post :D (read my answer to someone else here where I explain myself). Obviously one can conclude that car companies in Europe are making a lot of money from marketeering their vehicles with a lot of power while following VERY FLAWED regulations (and they get to say "we're clean as sh*t"), but I'm guessing this is easily solvable through awareness like this study (and VW-like scandals) and the consequent harder restrictions.
OTOH I disagree with that electric/hydrogen public transportation argument - there are a lot, but they are not remotely significant and exist just for show. I happen to live in a populated city that brags about having a ton of electric/hydrogen fueled vehicles (Porto, Portugal), but I find that these are a small fraction of it's fleet, and further find these represent a minuscule part of all the heavy duty vehicles roaming the city. You have to take into account around half, if not more (although highly speculative by my POV) of large public transportation you find in big cities are from peripheral companies that service the suburban areas yet still make a big chunk of its route in the middle of the city. These rarely have any sort of clean energy vehicles on their fleet because they don't get the refueling facilities as available as fleets that roam around the city alone.
In my defense, I had seen this article somewhere else first, and it didn't come with that first-line summary that made it clear heavy duty vehicles had such superior restrictions. At the point I stopped reading that article, I hadn't reached that part, so when I commented here on ./ I didn't really read anything but the title. There's too much news these days to read more than first sentences (unless it's very interesting), and this is worse when you see the same news over and over across your sources of choice.
But you know what? FIRST COMMENT F*CKERS :D
Most trucks and buses are diesel aren't they?
People have said most:
- filter glass requirement, bad quality, and the fact most don't work well with prescription glasses;
- even when such glasses aren't physically hampering, a significative no. of people report headaches, dizziness and/or blurriness, especially after extended use;
- to prejudice of the above reasons, 3D that works without glasses is very position-sensitive thus only being usable by a single, centered observer. And people still report discomfort while/after usage;
- there is loss of immersion when the 3D illusion is blended in a real, non-illuminated (and physically tri-dimensional) background - this induces that the only real, immersive experiences you can have with 3D picture, is by dimming all other light sources, effectively "flattening" the real world through darkness. And this is obviously a very narrow use-case except for non-casual movie-watching. This is why 3D in VR headsets is actually usable - the use-case is always sensory-deprivation-like and this helps a lot with making sense of simulated 3D.
But my personal opinion for 3D failure is the same one that makes most movie theatres have dual sessions: some people just never found it beneficial. The implementation is never flawless: tech and quality is highly variable, and rarely above "good". I doubt there will ever be perfect 3D perception that doesn't involve some sort of brain interface other than the eye - the physics of light and space needed for actual 3D-simulation through the eye are a bit more than we can handle with the current universe we live in :P
How do you solve the problem of seniority in a democratic state? You use legal means of breaking seniority. And why were these passed as law in the first place? Because democracy, as it is implemented, is nothing more than a technocratic elite making decisions for everyone, i.e. for themselves. How can you allow staffers to replace permanent workers with the sole purpose of the company remaining profitable for the owners? Or in other words, how can you allow small-time individuals' long-term plans to be destroyed immediately just because the top guys need a new summer house. Capitalism has triumphed in ways everyone else predicted but nobody cared about - an american dream of sorts, but really ubiquitous, even in Europe. "I would rather be exploited my entire life than be denied the chance to exploit everyone else to be uber rich". We allowed such things and we are reaping what those before us seow. Never before has the People been so powerless against established governing bodies as today, not even in the Ancient Egypt - you have a vote all right, but there are those who play dirty with the votes of everyone else. Control of statistics, the media and even of communication platforms have become much more powerful than a royal bloodline as a claim for power. Lobbying is a tool made for companies, and the individual rights have eroded deeper than the Grand Canyon. In the US people will claim they still got the 2nd. Tell that to the Malheur guys. Or better - they're en route to being dominated by one of the greatest capitalists there is, who is seriously gonna ignore all individual rights for the needy, and I see no militia forming in any way.
This guy's letter - nothing but a swan song to a time where the human being took precedence over inhuman greed.