Mmm trolls. Well I was under NDA. Just the info I have to share here is public now. I'm roughly 6 months out since I resigned, and I can tell you even from week to week designs can change names/pinsouts/electrical.
That being said, no, I wasn't really doing anything spectacular at AMD, however, I was an AMD employee which is probably more than you can say.:-)
That wasn't a huge leap, 2.8GHz parts existed for a while now. It's also an extreme core, it runs a 120W which is 25W over the normal 95W rating. Basically, AMD is taking the cores that can be overclocked and, uh, overclocking them.
Without increasing the cache though, you're going to have the same hits to memory which, are actually going to take MORE cycles (same time period) meaning that you're actually wasting more energy. Unless your application has a very high DC and IC hit rate the improvement will be marginal. Hint: this is why performance doesn't scale linearly with clock frequency.
A 65W Opteron [that isn't a special edition] would help put them back on track. I don't recall the roadmap [been more than 6 months since I worked for AMD] but I'm sure this year is when they roll out 65nm parts [if not already]. That should definitely help both on cost and on power.
For the most part it's not about raw MIPS anymore. It's about MIPS/Watt more than anything. Intel knows this and their desktop/server cores are addressing it.
I was at AMD during the ATI merger and I totally called layoffs in the upcoming quarter. This is what happens when MARKETING runs the company instead of the engineers. AMD makes processors, not "solutions." The moment they start to focus on the meat and potatos again and not the "whatever Intel is doing but with a green palette" the better.
Why did AMD start to eat Intels lunch? Compare the products at the time. Athlon vs. P3. Roughly equiv but the Athlon scaled, and scaled. Intel got scared and made the P4 which tanked because it was slow, drew way too much power, etc. Now that Intel has grown up a bit and caught up, AMD's answer? a 3GHz 120W core. Quad-cores in the future, etc. Where is the power savings? Where is the cheaper process? etc.
The core2 already pretty much beats the AMD64 in every measurable way. It's roughly the same in IPC, has a faster FPU, more cache, takes less power, runs cooler, etc. The only saving grace right now is HT which can help in certain applications.
Where are the lower power AMD64's for desktops/mobiles? Where are the 2MB/4MB cache parts? Where's the faster FPU? (the latter bit is coming up this year iirc)...
This isn't to say the AMD folk are bright people. The Athlon was a fairly performance driven design for the day, and the improvements in process have kept it in the running (anyone remember how hot the K7's ran?). But sadly I see AMD lagging behind Intel in both design and process for the fair length of future. Which is a shame because I've been a fanboi for a long time and would love to see AMD processors in my workstation in the future (right now it's a E6600 core2).
That I've received death threats and random calls at early hours in the morning proves that there are people who are not capable of discerning a joe-job from a real post. Are they unreasonable? Maybe. But given that the vast majority of people think their computer is a magical box with wires coming out of it, not as uncommon as you think.
At the height of the joe-jobs I was receiving about 50 emails a day. Once a week or so I'd get a death threat.
The problem with "find the culprit" is that they're probably sitting in a net cafe 8000km away from the Ontario jurisdiction. However, google.ca does run servers in Canada which host the libelous posts. Amazon is incorporated as a Canadian company, etc.
I'm sorry, but the "too many posts to do it properly" defense is just weak. Either you can tolerate thousands of posts a day that are moderated, or you can't. It'd be like the newspaper printing everything that comes their way. You don't think that wouldn't be abused in the EXACT SAME WAY.
There is a reason they moderate what they publish. Because under Canadian law they're liable for the content between their pages. Why shouldn't google.ca or amazon.ca be held to the same standard? They're the ones who cause the material to be presented to readers, they're the ones doing the publishing.
The sad thing is people like you are too comfortable with the way things are to actually step back and realize it's a horribly flawed way of doing business and should be fixed. People don't deserve the sort of shit I went through [and I'm hardly the first person to get joe-job'ed over the net] and eventually, if it hasn't happened already, someone is really going to get physically harmed.
For my part, I'm a changed person. I no longer work on OSS for there is no more joy in sharing my talents. I can't share results of improved algorithms or techniques with the community, and general discussions in public always seem to have drastic consequences. I spent the last 5 years building a series of projects and body of knowledge and in a blink of an eye it was all taken away from me. I lost touch with who I was. I wasn't "the libtom guy" anymore, the person who would spent tireless hours learning so he could share the results with the world. Now all was left was a person whom sat alone incapable of really socializing with anyone.
I was fortunate that I could channel my time and energy into music (I used to play the piano as a youngster so I decided to get back into it). As a result I overcame the depression, am much happier, able to be out with my friends, etc. But for a few weeks I was sleeping near 12 hours a day, isolated from everyone I knew, and I was maybe a few weeks away from disaster.
Anyways, drama aside, point is the way things are done today is wrong. YES there should be anonymous postings, but no, they shouldn't be unmoderated, and there SHOULD be consequences for those who cause libelous material to be published.
Voyeurism aside, most shite that's published in the rags about public figures in reality serves no benefit whatsoever to the public other than to make them feel better about themselves at someone else's expense.
Again, I don't know the full merits of this case, because honestly, who the fuck follows the green party? If it's not PC, Liberal, NDP, or PQ it's pretty much off the radar for the majority of Cannucks.
My point of posting was to point out that libel does exist, can hurt people, and just because it's true or not, doesn't excuse it as libelous. Frankly, I don't get the opposition to civility. Sure, say what you want. But unless you actually have a good reason, not at someone else's expense. That's just basic manners.
Suppose he did collect barbie dolls or whatever. Is that really anyone's business? Why would that affect his ability to manage finances? etc. Just because something is "ragworthy" doesn't mean it's actually important. It just means people will buy the shit tabloids because they're tactless animals.
Hate to break it to you but the right to free speech is not absolute in the united states. Your country has similar hate speech, libel, and slander laws. And I don't see what you gain by allowing people to act uncivilized in the name of a constitution which is supposed to bring order, lawfulness, and harmony to it's people.
I don't feel more free knowing that spiteful little pricks can anonymous post joe-jobs and the publishers [websites] are too willfully complacent to do anything about it.
Like I said earlier, just wait until it's your name on 1000s of usenet posts spreading kiddie porn, anti-bush propaganda, re-posts, spam, and general annoyances. Then see how much you like the "well I'd rather be free than safe" attitude carries you.
NEWSFLASH: Just because that's the way things are now doesn't mean it's the way things should be.
Just because you can set up an anonymous message board and have no regard for anyones safety, doesn't mean you should.
Also, newsflash, you don't have to be a bad person to attract the evil doers. As homework, try to find what on usenet I did that would merit having kiddie porn attached to my name.
I'll admit I'm not the most agreeable person at all times, but I never went as far as to libel and slander people, nor did I get violent or whatever with people. I talked down about some snake oil vendor [CryptoSMS for the curious] in 2005 and shortly afterwards the attacks started. I don't see how my actions warranted being attacked like that other than they could so they did.
And it's not even about pleasing people, because you can't please everyone.
So really, by your logic the solution is to not play the game. If they don't know your name they can't attack you. Wonderful!
OR
We could hold people liable for the libel they publish...
I have no idea what your ranting about. I didn't vote NDP. And I'm pro-individual rights, which includes the rights to live safely (free from ridicule, contempt, torment, etc). I was simply replying to the parent suggesting that libel is real, does affect people, and there are boundaries that civilized people don't cross.
The idea that anonymous users exist on the net is an excuse to publish libel is nonsense. If you run a message board [or equiv] you should be held liable for any and ALL anonymous postings. After all, you're the one who is publishing it. I think it's reasonable that people moderate their websites such that libelous content is not widely distributed.
If that means changing existing website designs to disallow anonymous posts to become immediately published so be it.
Take a look at this for instance. Not once did I "spam" usenet about the book. I posted one message in an on-topic usenet group (where I've was an active participant for the last 7 years) about the book, some asshole then took that post and reposted it to a hundred other groups.
Amazon was at one point hosting reviews that read such as [from memory] "I would never buy this book as he's a usenet spamming jerk. This book clearly is not worth buying, etc, etc..." While amazon was nice enough to take down the reviews [which were posted before the book was in print] they didn't remove the "discussion" threads which are still there today.
While I don't think that's the only reason the books aren't selling, I have to assume that it has had an impact on some of the sales, at the very least, one sale.
And what did I do to deserve this treatment? Be an outspoken advocate of free software, open source cryptography, and an enemy of snake oil. Because someone didn't like how open I was, how generous I was to give out free knowledge and software they decided to post spam, kiddie porn and other nonsense with my name on it. It wasn't like I was actively attacking others. In fact, the last round of joe-jobs before I just quit using usenet altogether were people re-posting my research posts [I had optimized my ECC implementation that I give out in LibTomCrypt].
Basically some guy decided he didn't like me so he nearly ruined my life (hint: you consider awful things when you're being labeled a kiddie porn peddler).
Is that what living in a "free" society is like?
God help us all then when some random asshole on the web decides to have it in for you. Maybe the next time someone does the same to someone else (yourself, a friend of yours, a family member), someone will respond with violence. In my case, there were times were I was afraid someone would mail a bomb, or worse, come to my house looking for a fight.
People should be responsible for what they write, and people should be responsible for what they host.
What are you smoking? This is supposed to be an improvement on the O(1) scheduler which was an improvement on the previous scheduler.
I don't know about you but my 2.6 based box runs just fine, certainly no slower than my previous 2.4 boxes, and it packs a lot more features, drivers and other internal changes/improvements.
298. (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
Note the "without lawful justification or excuse." Section 300 states if it's false the punishment is 5 years, and section 301 blankets it with a 2 year sentence regardless. (that is, upto). So you can get more time for a false statement, but true or not, you can still be found guilty of libel.
It's in the publics interest if he messed with party money [or whatever]. If the allegations are false, then whoever published them can be found guilty of defamatory libel.
However, suppose he had an embarrassing hobby (that was otherwise legal), and it was paraded in public to mock and ridicule him. If the publication causes him harm [loss of job, contempt of peers, etc] it can be found to be libel, regardless of whether it's true or not.
Um, what libel law says is you can't publish things that aren't in the best interests of others that cause a target harm (something you can measure).
It doesn't say you have to be nice to others. In fact, in person, you can pretty much say whatever you want. Just don't publish it, or speak it to a crowd (slander). I don't see how you jumped to the conclusion that "feeling bad" means you're the victim of libel. The point of the law is to prevent people from spouting off in public, saying or writing things that could reasonably be believed as fact that cause a victim harm.
Or in short, wait until you're the victim of libel and then tell me how much it's a crock of shit.
If people were to say absolutely anything they wanted without consequence, the S/N ratio of our communication mediums would be zero. Everything would be a lie and of absolutely no use to anyone. The common definition of anarchy "a state of lawlessness and disorder." If you're free to say anything you want [which also includes lying about contractual obligations, ingredients in food, testimony, etc] then you have no order nor lawfulness. That to me is anarchy.
Anyone who thinks that "libel" is a nancy-made-up law that infringes on free speech has not been on the receiving end of a kiddie-porn based joe-job attack. Wait until you receive crazy letters and death threats at 3 in the morning before you use your almighty wisdom to decide otherwise.
iirc from the libel section [~298] of the CCC, the "truth" has to also be in the publics best interest.
It's may be true that you fancy barbie dolls and collect stamps, but the public has no need for such information and if you publish it to harm another (e.g. ridicule, contempt, etc) you may be guilty of libel.
Simply being true isn't enough. But I'm not a lawyer so I dunno if that's 100% correct.
With freedom of speech comes responsibility. You're free to say whatever you want so long as it doesn't unduly cause harm to other people. Without such restrictions we'd have anarchy.
Libel is libel.
Now I don't know the facts of this case, but being the victim of a recent Joe-job attack I'm entirely for holding message board operators responsible for the content of their systems. Just because you *can* let anonymous users post any random thought that comes to mind doesn't mean they should.
In my case, someone decided to post kiddie porn on the net with my name and address on it. What if someone decided to "get even" and mailed me a bomb or something? What if my employers weren't tech savvy? [or my friends?] Things people say online *can* have an impact on real people in really savage ways.
Now if he's just unhappy because the facts of some scandal got out, then tough cookies. But if some assclown(s) were posting libel for the sake of hurting his career they should be held accountable.
Except that doesn't work in a country that has area. I should remind the viewing audience that England is 1/8th the size of Ontario. Installing cameras to monitor all communities all over a real country [let alone England] would be really really hella expensive. Not to mention that in reality there would be plenty of blind spots, all of which the real criminals would know about anyways.
Cameras sound nice on paper, oops look we randomly caught a crime on video. But I suspect more often than not crimes are not caught on video and when they are the video isn't useful anyways. How hard is it to walk around with a hoodie on?
The point is part of what you're paying doesn't even go towards the people who are writing the software. It'd be like if your car cost $35,000 and $20,000 of which was a "car design patent tax." Wouldn't knowing that a huge chunk of the cost just goes to some squatter who filed a patent first?
That said, I just avoid said tax by not buying windows.
I agree that when you're in public you're in public [re: not private]. That doesn't mean constant surveillance is right. Especially since we can't always trust those doing the looking. You need variability and error in the system to keep people honest I think. E.g., you need the potential to fuck up to be able to first off tell the difference between right and wrong, and also a way to sound the alarms.
If we just take whatever the man says at face value all the time, we might as well just stand in line and submit ourselves to a lifetime of incarceration.
That and with all the cameras out there, crime still happens in the UK. Murders [including shootings] still happen. So what are the cameras really solving?
How about do it after class? Unless it's a serious deposition (bah music lawsuit != worth ditching school) it can wait till after. Or better yet, bring the lawyer to the school, do it during a lunch break.
Why does the music industry feel it should tamper with the education of our minors just to placate some facile legal action?
Fundamentally people claim they want security, but are often not willing to pay for it. The business that spends the market driven required amount of time on security (even if it's not enough) wins out.
If on the other hand you spend the proper amount of time on security, and position yourself outside the market by the delay in time and additional cost, you lose.
Which is pretty much why OSS rules in terms of security. In the OSS world, we can afford to spend an extra month or two per release to make sure everyone is in order and decent procedures are followed. Which isn't to say it's always the case [most GAIM plugins are horribly written] but usually more often than not it is with things like GPG, OpenSSL, OpenSSH, etc...
Whoops yeah, of course. Well the extra SSE makes a flat file FPU possible (e.g. -mfpmath=sse) which is nice as it avoids the stack dancing that is required with the x87 stack.
Um, ia32 could never address more than 4GB per process (and often it was 2GB). Even though with PAE you could put segments anywhere in a 36-bit address space. Most modern C compilers have no idea about "far pointers" [think back to the 16-bit days] so you're still stuck to at most 32-bits of address.
As for pointers being twice the size, yeah that's a pain. You can code around that if you know you'll be indexing something smaller than 4GB in size (hint: x86_64 can still efficiently use 32-bit registers). But if you're poking around a 10GB mmap object you just need 64-bit pointers so there is no getting around that anyways.
Since x86_64 can run 32-bit apps in long mode, you can just re-compile your app for 32-bit mode if it's absolutely not going to take advantage of the memory space or register size.
Slashdot Mirror
Mmm trolls. Well I was under NDA. Just the info I have to share here is public now. I'm roughly 6 months out since I resigned, and I can tell you even from week to week designs can change names/pinsouts/electrical.
:-)
That being said, no, I wasn't really doing anything spectacular at AMD, however, I was an AMD employee which is probably more than you can say.
Tom
That wasn't a huge leap, 2.8GHz parts existed for a while now. It's also an extreme core, it runs a 120W which is 25W over the normal 95W rating. Basically, AMD is taking the cores that can be overclocked and, uh, overclocking them.
Without increasing the cache though, you're going to have the same hits to memory which, are actually going to take MORE cycles (same time period) meaning that you're actually wasting more energy. Unless your application has a very high DC and IC hit rate the improvement will be marginal. Hint: this is why performance doesn't scale linearly with clock frequency.
A 65W Opteron [that isn't a special edition] would help put them back on track. I don't recall the roadmap [been more than 6 months since I worked for AMD] but I'm sure this year is when they roll out 65nm parts [if not already]. That should definitely help both on cost and on power.
For the most part it's not about raw MIPS anymore. It's about MIPS/Watt more than anything. Intel knows this and their desktop/server cores are addressing it.
Tom
I was at AMD during the ATI merger and I totally called layoffs in the upcoming quarter. This is what happens when MARKETING runs the company instead of the engineers. AMD makes processors, not "solutions." The moment they start to focus on the meat and potatos again and not the "whatever Intel is doing but with a green palette" the better.
Why did AMD start to eat Intels lunch? Compare the products at the time. Athlon vs. P3. Roughly equiv but the Athlon scaled, and scaled. Intel got scared and made the P4 which tanked because it was slow, drew way too much power, etc. Now that Intel has grown up a bit and caught up, AMD's answer? a 3GHz 120W core. Quad-cores in the future, etc. Where is the power savings? Where is the cheaper process? etc.
The core2 already pretty much beats the AMD64 in every measurable way. It's roughly the same in IPC, has a faster FPU, more cache, takes less power, runs cooler, etc. The only saving grace right now is HT which can help in certain applications.
Where are the lower power AMD64's for desktops/mobiles? Where are the 2MB/4MB cache parts? Where's the faster FPU? (the latter bit is coming up this year iirc)...
This isn't to say the AMD folk are bright people. The Athlon was a fairly performance driven design for the day, and the improvements in process have kept it in the running (anyone remember how hot the K7's ran?). But sadly I see AMD lagging behind Intel in both design and process for the fair length of future. Which is a shame because I've been a fanboi for a long time and would love to see AMD processors in my workstation in the future (right now it's a E6600 core2).
Tom
That I've received death threats and random calls at early hours in the morning proves that there are people who are not capable of discerning a joe-job from a real post. Are they unreasonable? Maybe. But given that the vast majority of people think their computer is a magical box with wires coming out of it, not as uncommon as you think.
At the height of the joe-jobs I was receiving about 50 emails a day. Once a week or so I'd get a death threat.
The problem with "find the culprit" is that they're probably sitting in a net cafe 8000km away from the Ontario jurisdiction. However, google.ca does run servers in Canada which host the libelous posts. Amazon is incorporated as a Canadian company, etc.
I'm sorry, but the "too many posts to do it properly" defense is just weak. Either you can tolerate thousands of posts a day that are moderated, or you can't. It'd be like the newspaper printing everything that comes their way. You don't think that wouldn't be abused in the EXACT SAME WAY.
There is a reason they moderate what they publish. Because under Canadian law they're liable for the content between their pages. Why shouldn't google.ca or amazon.ca be held to the same standard? They're the ones who cause the material to be presented to readers, they're the ones doing the publishing.
The sad thing is people like you are too comfortable with the way things are to actually step back and realize it's a horribly flawed way of doing business and should be fixed. People don't deserve the sort of shit I went through [and I'm hardly the first person to get joe-job'ed over the net] and eventually, if it hasn't happened already, someone is really going to get physically harmed.
For my part, I'm a changed person. I no longer work on OSS for there is no more joy in sharing my talents. I can't share results of improved algorithms or techniques with the community, and general discussions in public always seem to have drastic consequences. I spent the last 5 years building a series of projects and body of knowledge and in a blink of an eye it was all taken away from me. I lost touch with who I was. I wasn't "the libtom guy" anymore, the person who would spent tireless hours learning so he could share the results with the world. Now all was left was a person whom sat alone incapable of really socializing with anyone.
I was fortunate that I could channel my time and energy into music (I used to play the piano as a youngster so I decided to get back into it). As a result I overcame the depression, am much happier, able to be out with my friends, etc. But for a few weeks I was sleeping near 12 hours a day, isolated from everyone I knew, and I was maybe a few weeks away from disaster.
Anyways, drama aside, point is the way things are done today is wrong. YES there should be anonymous postings, but no, they shouldn't be unmoderated, and there SHOULD be consequences for those who cause libelous material to be published.
Tom
Voyeurism aside, most shite that's published in the rags about public figures in reality serves no benefit whatsoever to the public other than to make them feel better about themselves at someone else's expense.
Again, I don't know the full merits of this case, because honestly, who the fuck follows the green party? If it's not PC, Liberal, NDP, or PQ it's pretty much off the radar for the majority of Cannucks.
My point of posting was to point out that libel does exist, can hurt people, and just because it's true or not, doesn't excuse it as libelous. Frankly, I don't get the opposition to civility. Sure, say what you want. But unless you actually have a good reason, not at someone else's expense. That's just basic manners.
Suppose he did collect barbie dolls or whatever. Is that really anyone's business? Why would that affect his ability to manage finances? etc. Just because something is "ragworthy" doesn't mean it's actually important. It just means people will buy the shit tabloids because they're tactless animals.
Tom
Hate to break it to you but the right to free speech is not absolute in the united states. Your country has similar hate speech, libel, and slander laws. And I don't see what you gain by allowing people to act uncivilized in the name of a constitution which is supposed to bring order, lawfulness, and harmony to it's people.
I don't feel more free knowing that spiteful little pricks can anonymous post joe-jobs and the publishers [websites] are too willfully complacent to do anything about it.
Like I said earlier, just wait until it's your name on 1000s of usenet posts spreading kiddie porn, anti-bush propaganda, re-posts, spam, and general annoyances. Then see how much you like the "well I'd rather be free than safe" attitude carries you.
Tom
NEWSFLASH: Just because that's the way things are now doesn't mean it's the way things should be.
Just because you can set up an anonymous message board and have no regard for anyones safety, doesn't mean you should.
Also, newsflash, you don't have to be a bad person to attract the evil doers. As homework, try to find what on usenet I did that would merit having kiddie porn attached to my name.
I'll admit I'm not the most agreeable person at all times, but I never went as far as to libel and slander people, nor did I get violent or whatever with people. I talked down about some snake oil vendor [CryptoSMS for the curious] in 2005 and shortly afterwards the attacks started. I don't see how my actions warranted being attacked like that other than they could so they did.
And it's not even about pleasing people, because you can't please everyone.
So really, by your logic the solution is to not play the game. If they don't know your name they can't attack you. Wonderful!
OR
We could hold people liable for the libel they publish...
hmm... I wonder which is the better solution...
Tom
I have no idea what your ranting about. I didn't vote NDP. And I'm pro-individual rights, which includes the rights to live safely (free from ridicule, contempt, torment, etc). I was simply replying to the parent suggesting that libel is real, does affect people, and there are boundaries that civilized people don't cross.
The idea that anonymous users exist on the net is an excuse to publish libel is nonsense. If you run a message board [or equiv] you should be held liable for any and ALL anonymous postings. After all, you're the one who is publishing it. I think it's reasonable that people moderate their websites such that libelous content is not widely distributed.
If that means changing existing website designs to disallow anonymous posts to become immediately published so be it.
Take a look at this for instance. Not once did I "spam" usenet about the book. I posted one message in an on-topic usenet group (where I've was an active participant for the last 7 years) about the book, some asshole then took that post and reposted it to a hundred other groups.
Amazon was at one point hosting reviews that read such as [from memory] "I would never buy this book as he's a usenet spamming jerk. This book clearly is not worth buying, etc, etc..." While amazon was nice enough to take down the reviews [which were posted before the book was in print] they didn't remove the "discussion" threads which are still there today.
While I don't think that's the only reason the books aren't selling, I have to assume that it has had an impact on some of the sales, at the very least, one sale.
And what did I do to deserve this treatment? Be an outspoken advocate of free software, open source cryptography, and an enemy of snake oil. Because someone didn't like how open I was, how generous I was to give out free knowledge and software they decided to post spam, kiddie porn and other nonsense with my name on it. It wasn't like I was actively attacking others. In fact, the last round of joe-jobs before I just quit using usenet altogether were people re-posting my research posts [I had optimized my ECC implementation that I give out in LibTomCrypt].
Basically some guy decided he didn't like me so he nearly ruined my life (hint: you consider awful things when you're being labeled a kiddie porn peddler).
Is that what living in a "free" society is like?
God help us all then when some random asshole on the web decides to have it in for you. Maybe the next time someone does the same to someone else (yourself, a friend of yours, a family member), someone will respond with violence. In my case, there were times were I was afraid someone would mail a bomb, or worse, come to my house looking for a fight.
People should be responsible for what they write, and people should be responsible for what they host.
Tom
What are you smoking? This is supposed to be an improvement on the O(1) scheduler which was an improvement on the previous scheduler.
I don't know about you but my 2.6 based box runs just fine, certainly no slower than my previous 2.4 boxes, and it packs a lot more features, drivers and other internal changes/improvements.
Consider reading the code section 298 states
298. (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
Note the "without lawful justification or excuse." Section 300 states if it's false the punishment is 5 years, and section 301 blankets it with a 2 year sentence regardless. (that is, upto). So you can get more time for a false statement, but true or not, you can still be found guilty of libel.
It's in the publics interest if he messed with party money [or whatever]. If the allegations are false, then whoever published them can be found guilty of defamatory libel.
However, suppose he had an embarrassing hobby (that was otherwise legal), and it was paraded in public to mock and ridicule him. If the publication causes him harm [loss of job, contempt of peers, etc] it can be found to be libel, regardless of whether it's true or not.
Tom
Um, what libel law says is you can't publish things that aren't in the best interests of others that cause a target harm (something you can measure).
It doesn't say you have to be nice to others. In fact, in person, you can pretty much say whatever you want. Just don't publish it, or speak it to a crowd (slander). I don't see how you jumped to the conclusion that "feeling bad" means you're the victim of libel. The point of the law is to prevent people from spouting off in public, saying or writing things that could reasonably be believed as fact that cause a victim harm.
Or in short, wait until you're the victim of libel and then tell me how much it's a crock of shit.
Tom
If people were to say absolutely anything they wanted without consequence, the S/N ratio of our communication mediums would be zero. Everything would be a lie and of absolutely no use to anyone. The common definition of anarchy "a state of lawlessness and disorder." If you're free to say anything you want [which also includes lying about contractual obligations, ingredients in food, testimony, etc] then you have no order nor lawfulness. That to me is anarchy.
Anyone who thinks that "libel" is a nancy-made-up law that infringes on free speech has not been on the receiving end of a kiddie-porn based joe-job attack. Wait until you receive crazy letters and death threats at 3 in the morning before you use your almighty wisdom to decide otherwise.
Tom
iirc from the libel section [~298] of the CCC, the "truth" has to also be in the publics best interest.
It's may be true that you fancy barbie dolls and collect stamps, but the public has no need for such information and if you publish it to harm another (e.g. ridicule, contempt, etc) you may be guilty of libel.
Simply being true isn't enough. But I'm not a lawyer so I dunno if that's 100% correct.
With freedom of speech comes responsibility. You're free to say whatever you want so long as it doesn't unduly cause harm to other people. Without such restrictions we'd have anarchy.
Libel is libel.
Now I don't know the facts of this case, but being the victim of a recent Joe-job attack I'm entirely for holding message board operators responsible for the content of their systems. Just because you *can* let anonymous users post any random thought that comes to mind doesn't mean they should.
In my case, someone decided to post kiddie porn on the net with my name and address on it. What if someone decided to "get even" and mailed me a bomb or something? What if my employers weren't tech savvy? [or my friends?] Things people say online *can* have an impact on real people in really savage ways.
Now if he's just unhappy because the facts of some scandal got out, then tough cookies. But if some assclown(s) were posting libel for the sake of hurting his career they should be held accountable.
Tom
They could probably encode a URL in a small enough 2D barcode, or failing that a 1D barcode with used as an index into a table.
Or failing that, just put the URL on the damn box.
Of course this is MSFT so using sensible existing methods is directly out of the question.
Tom
Except that doesn't work in a country that has area. I should remind the viewing audience that England is 1/8th the size of Ontario. Installing cameras to monitor all communities all over a real country [let alone England] would be really really hella expensive. Not to mention that in reality there would be plenty of blind spots, all of which the real criminals would know about anyways.
Cameras sound nice on paper, oops look we randomly caught a crime on video. But I suspect more often than not crimes are not caught on video and when they are the video isn't useful anyways. How hard is it to walk around with a hoodie on?
Tom
The point is part of what you're paying doesn't even go towards the people who are writing the software. It'd be like if your car cost $35,000 and $20,000 of which was a "car design patent tax." Wouldn't knowing that a huge chunk of the cost just goes to some squatter who filed a patent first?
That said, I just avoid said tax by not buying windows.
Tom
I agree that when you're in public you're in public [re: not private]. That doesn't mean constant surveillance is right. Especially since we can't always trust those doing the looking. You need variability and error in the system to keep people honest I think. E.g., you need the potential to fuck up to be able to first off tell the difference between right and wrong, and also a way to sound the alarms.
If we just take whatever the man says at face value all the time, we might as well just stand in line and submit ourselves to a lifetime of incarceration.
That and with all the cameras out there, crime still happens in the UK. Murders [including shootings] still happen. So what are the cameras really solving?
Tom
cameras watching your every move, laws designed to control your behaviour [asbo and the like]. Congrats, you live in a nanny-police state.
If only they could actually do anything meaningful with all this "order" they're creating.
Tom
How about do it after class? Unless it's a serious deposition (bah music lawsuit != worth ditching school) it can wait till after. Or better yet, bring the lawyer to the school, do it during a lunch break.
Why does the music industry feel it should tamper with the education of our minors just to placate some facile legal action?
Fundamentally people claim they want security, but are often not willing to pay for it. The business that spends the market driven required amount of time on security (even if it's not enough) wins out.
If on the other hand you spend the proper amount of time on security, and position yourself outside the market by the delay in time and additional cost, you lose.
Which is pretty much why OSS rules in terms of security. In the OSS world, we can afford to spend an extra month or two per release to make sure everyone is in order and decent procedures are followed. Which isn't to say it's always the case [most GAIM plugins are horribly written] but usually more often than not it is with things like GPG, OpenSSL, OpenSSH, etc...
Tom
Does that include the time for downloading updates, rebooting, and praying towards Redmond?
Tom
-1 for subby for using the word "hacker" to describe the criminal(s) responsible. You'd think the /. crowd would know better.
Tom
Whoops yeah, of course. Well the extra SSE makes a flat file FPU possible (e.g. -mfpmath=sse) which is nice as it avoids the stack dancing that is required with the x87 stack.
I meant in terms of it being "64-bit" though.
Um, ia32 could never address more than 4GB per process (and often it was 2GB). Even though with PAE you could put segments anywhere in a 36-bit address space. Most modern C compilers have no idea about "far pointers" [think back to the 16-bit days] so you're still stuck to at most 32-bits of address.
As for pointers being twice the size, yeah that's a pain. You can code around that if you know you'll be indexing something smaller than 4GB in size (hint: x86_64 can still efficiently use 32-bit registers). But if you're poking around a 10GB mmap object you just need 64-bit pointers so there is no getting around that anyways.
Since x86_64 can run 32-bit apps in long mode, you can just re-compile your app for 32-bit mode if it's absolutely not going to take advantage of the memory space or register size.
Tom