It clearly said "strongest hurricane", which is true. Typhoons are on the other side of the Pacific ocean. Hurricanes are only in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific.
"They happen every few years". 50 years is not what I would call "few". If so, I would only be a "few" years old.
I don't care if you/like/ it. If you buy it or download it, you are giving them monetary and mindshare resources to continue to punish their customers and act improperly.
When they are penniless, perhaps they will see the error of their ways. Probably not, but then no one will give a fuck about them any more, and they can do no more harm.
In short, STOP feeding the monster.
INSTEAD, buy/download music from GOOD actors in the market. Support them in spite of the BAD actors. Support the artists directly. Never support any labels unless they eschew being part of organizations like RIAA and ASCAP.
I have done this for over twenty years. I am very happy with the music that is available to me, and also very happy that I don't support the bad actors in any way, shape or form. Indeed, I do all I can to put them out of business.
It's a GOOD problem for people to have to actually put some work into a project on their end before coming to the community and asking for money.
Like has been said better by others above, ideas are a dime a dozen. People who have put forth a great deal of up-front effort on their own to get their idea to at least a presentable stage, even if it presently looks like crap, should have a better time getting funded. It shows that they are serious, at least basically capable, and can actually produce/something/.
Anybody who pays someone on KS, IGG, or any other crowdfunding project based solely on an idea pitch is pissing their money away in the vast majority of cases.
I have some plans to do crowdfunded projects in the near future, but I am not even looking into it seriously until I have something at least marginably playable so people to be able to get some idea of what is being done and where I want to take it. It also helps me get a basic idea of what kind of effort it is going to take to get the project realized and what it may cost.
Games and gamer culture were already well on their way to inclusion of females in various contexts long before the Anitas and Zoes were out of diapers, and will likely continue unabated despite them and their detractors. From players to developers, to games specifically gender-neutral or targeted towards women, it's already happening. That a small percentage of games cater to a certain male-dominated demographic (which has been around since the dawn of gaming), or contain certain representations which some females find offensive for whatever reason, shouldn't paint the rest of the industry as non-inclusive. Personally, even as a male, I don't care for those games; I find them base and puerile, but I deal with it simply by not buying or playing them. I certainly don't care if they are made or if anyone else plays them or not.
The vast majority of gamers either don't know about this crap or don't care -- they just want to be left alone to enjoy their hobby without a bunch of culture warrior idiots and douchebags telling them "you're over" and screwing with the games they are harmlessly enjoying. That is what I think tends to infuriate gamers which would otherwise have no issues whatsoever with the smooth transition of games and gamer culture from being nearly completely male-dominated for decades to one of gender balance which represents everyone fairly, if not equally.
In short, everyone needs to step back and take a god damned breather, put all this bullshit into perspective, and move on into the future. Trust me, it's going to be just fine for everyone involved with respect to games.
Do you honestly think that a business is going to sink billions of dollars in capital outlays to make a gigantic automated factory which produces crap that no one can buy?
If so, you're a fool. If not, then you realize one of the many things this simplistic view of the future missed in the video.
I like CGP Grey. He's very informative about many present and past (and some near-future) issues. However, this particular one I think he was ill-suited to address. That's not saying much, though; predicting the impact of technology on human culture has been an extremely difficult target for even the most pragmatic of the forward-lookers.
and, yes, there will be PLENTY of jobs for humans to perform DURING the period of transition. There will also be ample time to assess the real impacts (as opposed to this speculative one), and consider solutions to the problems created by a complete transition to automated means of production.
As with many overly-optimistic/pessimistic navel-gazes, there are numerous factors which were excluded from consideration in the video.
Beyond the simple fact that we're still quite far away from this post-human productivity apocalypse, considering the current state of the technology, the simple fact of the matter is that it will take a LOT of human physical and mental labor to bring it about. Even then, there will still be a need for humans to plan and make decisions, as well as deal with the exceptions that the machines still won't be able to cope with as yet.
So, while the video may be an interesting take on the subject matter, and it is something that we/should/ be mindful of going forward, I do not believe it is quite the existential threat the video makes it out to be.
So, basically, the "tuning" is just giving them a way to trade active cores for speed, changing on-the-fly without restarting. More cores active, slower speed each. Less cores active, faster speed each.
Kinda nifty, I think. Not sure why it should be limited only to Oracle, though. Seems like a performance idea with broad appeal and utility.
Certainly, that's why every system in every building needs to have multiple service entry points, multiple redundant electrical, plumbing, and HVAC systems, including at least two independent circuits for every load, including desk lamps!
Oh, wait, that's needlessly overbuilt.
Redundancy should only be necessary when and where it makes sense. I don't think this is one of those cases.
Though that marketing video, while "snazzy", is pretty pedestrian, as marketing videos go.
There are some bona fide "kid geniuses" out there who have done amazing things (though many with lots of help from family/friends/other adult geniuses). That said, there are 100 times more who talk a good line, but have nothing to show for it.
I'll wait until I see the goods before I pronounce anyone "kid genius".
And here we see extremism in its final stage. Kill those who disagree with you.
FTFY
Not like lunatic conservative nutjobs haven't said the same fucking thing over and over for years.
Though, I have to say, if those nutjobs (of either stripe) come around looking to shoot anybody, I will be glad to bury their corpses in my lime pit after I am done with them.
I was aware, as I have read and cited the report here and elsewhere several times in the last year.
The report does NOT refute the argument. You're reading into it more than it actually says.
The report is flawed in this area, because no other political affiliations were checked to see if they were also targeted. The IG *ONLY* looked at "Tea Party" groups, and lamented this fact in his later congressional testimony. A more thorough and detailed review will likely reveal that there were a number of groups improperly targeted, not just "Tea Party" groups.
You'll also note on the next page, it says that quite a few groups which DO trigger the normal, acceptable criteria for special review were not sent to the unit. The whole process was more broken than it was politically selective.
Schedule B filings are public information. Normally, the names of the donors are redacted before it is released, but it was not done in this case.
That said, their case has already been set back by the judge, denying punitive damages, because NOM had "made no showing from which a reasonable jury could find that the disclosure of its Schedule B was the result of willfulness or gross negligence". Doesn't look like there's going to be a felony conviction forthcoming from that.
Still haven't cited the relevant law which was broken, too.
..and you should also read what the IG said AFTER the report in congressional testimony, where he admits he was 'very concerned' that his report missed progressive targeting.
You should also, you know, READ the original TIGTA report, too. It is very enlightening, even with its admitted flaws. For example, the targeting was still a very small part of the total applications, and the "Tea Party" targeting was also less than a third of all targeted applications.
Internal BOLO spreadsheets are hardly secret. They are little more than worksheets to help people get their jobs done, and are distributed to everyone in the unit.
It wasn't unlawful, since no "illegal information" was required or used. If you think it was, cite the law that was broken. My wager is that you can't. Thus, I'll stick with "not unlawful" until you (or anyone else) demonstrates otherwise.
As for being harmful, it was no more harmful than it was for the other 2/3rds of the organizations which were sent to the unit for further processing. That it took forever affected everyone, not just "Tea Party" groups. Further, the law even provides for the ability for applicants to sue the IRS to expedite their application after 270 days, and NONE of them availed themselves of it. NONE.
But, you know, don't let silly little things like facts quash a good witchhunt.
a) It wasn't secret, nor was it "covered up". b) It wasn't unlawful (go on, name the law that they broke if you disagree) c) It wasn't particularly harmful (the only group that was denied as a result was a PROGRESSIVE group).
Now, did it violate policy? Maybe. They treated it like it was, but it is the job of the IRS to investigate applicants for the status in question. If anything, I would argue that they have been violating policy with the ridiculous amount of grants of c(3) status for years to organizations who OBVIOUSLY do not qualify for it.
It says that musicians, who are signed with an indie label that has not agreed to the "terms", will have their videos removed/blocked.
What "terms"? How does this affect indie musicians who are not signed to an affected indie label (or an indie label at all)? Do they also have to agree to these so-called "terms"?
Maybe if Google had someone who wasn't a low-grade moron marketroid answering such questions with real answers, they could avoid egg on their face, as well as rotten tomatoes, then torches and pitchforks.
I don't and never will use Farcebork or any kind of social media service which is specifically designed to profit off of me, using my personal information, without my permission or consent, let alone knowledge.
I don't think an early comment on some website would qualify as "important".
Maybe writing an article about it and getting it submitted to/. might qualify. But, then, I guess it would be important to someone other than just him, huh?
No, I think you need help, at least in figuring out how to discern relevance and context.
I've given up on mass media for nearly a decade now. I find independent sources of entertainment and pay the content creators directly.
The only way to kill the monster we collectively created is to starve it into non-existence. People have the power to effect positive change, but they have to be smart, educated, and courageous enough with their votes and their wallets to make it happen. Part of that entails educating their family and friends and spreading that knowledge and courage around.
For those that leave the system early, it's a lot tougher, but it will pay off in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
It clearly said "strongest hurricane", which is true. Typhoons are on the other side of the Pacific ocean. Hurricanes are only in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific.
"They happen every few years". 50 years is not what I would call "few". If so, I would only be a "few" years old.
So, in short, they're not breaking crypto, they are breaking shitty implementations of crypto.
So basically, like using a one-time pad multiple times.
Well, I guess it's time to start sorting the wheat from the chaff and start ditching fixed-prime implementations wholesale.
Technically, every modern computer is made from crystals. The silicon they are based on is a tiny piece of a larger crystal.
I think your satire meter needs some new batteries. >.>
(at least the ones who think this is a good idea)
Fuck off and die, preferably in a fire.
STOP BUYING THEIR MUSIC!
Stop downloading their music.
Ignore their entire existence.
I don't care if you /like/ it. If you buy it or download it, you are giving them monetary and mindshare resources to continue to punish their customers and act improperly.
When they are penniless, perhaps they will see the error of their ways. Probably not, but then no one will give a fuck about them any more, and they can do no more harm.
In short, STOP feeding the monster.
INSTEAD, buy/download music from GOOD actors in the market. Support them in spite of the BAD actors. Support the artists directly. Never support any labels unless they eschew being part of organizations like RIAA and ASCAP.
I have done this for over twenty years. I am very happy with the music that is available to me, and also very happy that I don't support the bad actors in any way, shape or form. Indeed, I do all I can to put them out of business.
You can do it, too. ALL of you.
Take a stand. Make a difference.
It's a GOOD problem for people to have to actually put some work into a project on their end before coming to the community and asking for money.
Like has been said better by others above, ideas are a dime a dozen. People who have put forth a great deal of up-front effort on their own to get their idea to at least a presentable stage, even if it presently looks like crap, should have a better time getting funded. It shows that they are serious, at least basically capable, and can actually produce /something/.
Anybody who pays someone on KS, IGG, or any other crowdfunding project based solely on an idea pitch is pissing their money away in the vast majority of cases.
I have some plans to do crowdfunded projects in the near future, but I am not even looking into it seriously until I have something at least marginably playable so people to be able to get some idea of what is being done and where I want to take it. It also helps me get a basic idea of what kind of effort it is going to take to get the project realized and what it may cost.
Games and gamer culture were already well on their way to inclusion of females in various contexts long before the Anitas and Zoes were out of diapers, and will likely continue unabated despite them and their detractors. From players to developers, to games specifically gender-neutral or targeted towards women, it's already happening. That a small percentage of games cater to a certain male-dominated demographic (which has been around since the dawn of gaming), or contain certain representations which some females find offensive for whatever reason, shouldn't paint the rest of the industry as non-inclusive. Personally, even as a male, I don't care for those games; I find them base and puerile, but I deal with it simply by not buying or playing them. I certainly don't care if they are made or if anyone else plays them or not.
The vast majority of gamers either don't know about this crap or don't care -- they just want to be left alone to enjoy their hobby without a bunch of culture warrior idiots and douchebags telling them "you're over" and screwing with the games they are harmlessly enjoying. That is what I think tends to infuriate gamers which would otherwise have no issues whatsoever with the smooth transition of games and gamer culture from being nearly completely male-dominated for decades to one of gender balance which represents everyone fairly, if not equally.
In short, everyone needs to step back and take a god damned breather, put all this bullshit into perspective, and move on into the future. Trust me, it's going to be just fine for everyone involved with respect to games.
Guess I will never use Twitch again after this.
*sighs*
Do you honestly think that a business is going to sink billions of dollars in capital outlays to make a gigantic automated factory which produces crap that no one can buy?
If so, you're a fool. If not, then you realize one of the many things this simplistic view of the future missed in the video.
I like CGP Grey. He's very informative about many present and past (and some near-future) issues. However, this particular one I think he was ill-suited to address. That's not saying much, though; predicting the impact of technology on human culture has been an extremely difficult target for even the most pragmatic of the forward-lookers.
and, yes, there will be PLENTY of jobs for humans to perform DURING the period of transition. There will also be ample time to assess the real impacts (as opposed to this speculative one), and consider solutions to the problems created by a complete transition to automated means of production.
As with many overly-optimistic/pessimistic navel-gazes, there are numerous factors which were excluded from consideration in the video.
Beyond the simple fact that we're still quite far away from this post-human productivity apocalypse, considering the current state of the technology, the simple fact of the matter is that it will take a LOT of human physical and mental labor to bring it about. Even then, there will still be a need for humans to plan and make decisions, as well as deal with the exceptions that the machines still won't be able to cope with as yet.
So, while the video may be an interesting take on the subject matter, and it is something that we /should/ be mindful of going forward, I do not believe it is quite the existential threat the video makes it out to be.
Fraudulent advertising, perhaps?
I'm sure some highly-paid lawyer type could find something to stick on them.
So, basically, the "tuning" is just giving them a way to trade active cores for speed, changing on-the-fly without restarting. More cores active, slower speed each. Less cores active, faster speed each.
Kinda nifty, I think. Not sure why it should be limited only to Oracle, though. Seems like a performance idea with broad appeal and utility.
Certainly, that's why every system in every building needs to have multiple service entry points, multiple redundant electrical, plumbing, and HVAC systems, including at least two independent circuits for every load, including desk lamps!
Oh, wait, that's needlessly overbuilt.
Redundancy should only be necessary when and where it makes sense. I don't think this is one of those cases.
Though that marketing video, while "snazzy", is pretty pedestrian, as marketing videos go.
There are some bona fide "kid geniuses" out there who have done amazing things (though many with lots of help from family/friends/other adult geniuses). That said, there are 100 times more who talk a good line, but have nothing to show for it.
I'll wait until I see the goods before I pronounce anyone "kid genius".
And here we see extremism in its final stage. Kill those who disagree with you.
FTFY
Not like lunatic conservative nutjobs haven't said the same fucking thing over and over for years.
Though, I have to say, if those nutjobs (of either stripe) come around looking to shoot anybody, I will be glad to bury their corpses in my lime pit after I am done with them.
I was aware, as I have read and cited the report here and elsewhere several times in the last year.
The report does NOT refute the argument. You're reading into it more than it actually says.
The report is flawed in this area, because no other political affiliations were checked to see if they were also targeted. The IG *ONLY* looked at "Tea Party" groups, and lamented this fact in his later congressional testimony. A more thorough and detailed review will likely reveal that there were a number of groups improperly targeted, not just "Tea Party" groups.
You'll also note on the next page, it says that quite a few groups which DO trigger the normal, acceptable criteria for special review were not sent to the unit. The whole process was more broken than it was politically selective.
Yeah, AFTER the TIGTA report came out telling them that they could, sure.
Schedule B filings are public information. Normally, the names of the donors are redacted before it is released, but it was not done in this case.
That said, their case has already been set back by the judge, denying punitive damages, because NOM had "made no showing from which a reasonable jury could find that the disclosure of its Schedule B was the result of willfulness or gross negligence". Doesn't look like there's going to be a felony conviction forthcoming from that.
Still haven't cited the relevant law which was broken, too.
Keep trying, though.
..and you should also read what the IG said AFTER the report in congressional testimony, where he admits he was 'very concerned' that his report missed progressive targeting.
You should also, you know, READ the original TIGTA report, too. It is very enlightening, even with its admitted flaws. For example, the targeting was still a very small part of the total applications, and the "Tea Party" targeting was also less than a third of all targeted applications.
Internal BOLO spreadsheets are hardly secret. They are little more than worksheets to help people get their jobs done, and are distributed to everyone in the unit.
It wasn't unlawful, since no "illegal information" was required or used. If you think it was, cite the law that was broken. My wager is that you can't. Thus, I'll stick with "not unlawful" until you (or anyone else) demonstrates otherwise.
As for being harmful, it was no more harmful than it was for the other 2/3rds of the organizations which were sent to the unit for further processing. That it took forever affected everyone, not just "Tea Party" groups. Further, the law even provides for the ability for applicants to sue the IRS to expedite their application after 270 days, and NONE of them availed themselves of it. NONE.
But, you know, don't let silly little things like facts quash a good witchhunt.
It wasn't a conspiracy.
a) It wasn't secret, nor was it "covered up".
b) It wasn't unlawful (go on, name the law that they broke if you disagree)
c) It wasn't particularly harmful (the only group that was denied as a result was a PROGRESSIVE group).
Now, did it violate policy? Maybe. They treated it like it was, but it is the job of the IRS to investigate applicants for the status in question. If anything, I would argue that they have been violating policy with the ridiculous amount of grants of c(3) status for years to organizations who OBVIOUSLY do not qualify for it.
THAT is the REAL scandal here.
It says that musicians, who are signed with an indie label that has not agreed to the "terms", will have their videos removed/blocked.
What "terms"? How does this affect indie musicians who are not signed to an affected indie label (or an indie label at all)? Do they also have to agree to these so-called "terms"?
Maybe if Google had someone who wasn't a low-grade moron marketroid answering such questions with real answers, they could avoid egg on their face, as well as rotten tomatoes, then torches and pitchforks.
I don't and never will use Farcebork or any kind of social media service which is specifically designed to profit off of me, using my personal information, without my permission or consent, let alone knowledge.
I don't think an early comment on some website would qualify as "important".
Maybe writing an article about it and getting it submitted to /. might qualify. But, then, I guess it would be important to someone other than just him, huh?
No, I think you need help, at least in figuring out how to discern relevance and context.
I've given up on mass media for nearly a decade now. I find independent sources of entertainment and pay the content creators directly.
The only way to kill the monster we collectively created is to starve it into non-existence. People have the power to effect positive change, but they have to be smart, educated, and courageous enough with their votes and their wallets to make it happen. Part of that entails educating their family and friends and spreading that knowledge and courage around.
For those that leave the system early, it's a lot tougher, but it will pay off in the long run.