This "debate" is quite similar to global climate change or evolution in that there is no other side in a rational, fact-based discussion. In this case there is no logical basis for allowing carriers to set discriminatory prices. Putting "both sides" on a news program is the truly shameful part of this.
I wouldn't go that far. To take the global warming example, yes it's almost certainly happening, but reasonable people can disagree on what to do about it. Likewise, there's a credible argument against mandated neutrality because of the danger that regulations would be or would become overbroad and stifling. Of course, Cleland is too busy spouting inane lies like "Google doesn't pay for their bandwidth" to make that point.
How does net neutrality translate into government surveillance?
It doesn't of course, that's just another of the lobbyist's lies. If anything, non-neutrality could lead to more government surveillance. If the ISP is examining every packet to determine which ones it can charge more for, various 3-letter agencies would be interested in that data.
My $0.02 for anyone thinking about either procedure: skip the videos. I would rather not have known what was going on during each step.
Yeah. I already know too much. I'd gladly pay upwards of $5k to have my vision magically corrected to 20/20, but I get queasy even just reading about the details of LASIK.
Online poker can not be regulated in any reasable means.
Online casinos are mostly unregulated, yet there are few reports of them abscoding with customers' bankrolls, because they depend on their reputations to survive.
It is protecting the consumer.
No, making it known that offshore casinos are not subject to US regulations would be protecting consumers by giving them relevant information. This is *controlling* the consumers by removing their choices.
You don't have a wife, children and a mortgage do you?
I don't, so take the following with as much salt as you like. But it seems to me that for most people making $X annually, there's another guy with a similar family situation making $(X-5000), and he isn't starving. So do what he does, and you'll save $5k a year. (Less due to taxes, but you get the idea).
The Beloved Free Market isn't about giving people the better product, it's about giving people what they think is the better product. And, in case you haven't noticed, people are fucking morons.
I have noticed. Which is why I'm not enthusiastic about giving a group of people chosen by 51% of said morons the power to regulate my life in every detail.
I watch both DVDs and HD signals on my 23" LCD. (Well, not much HD anymore since after moving I can't get any reception with an antenna). The difference is noticeable, but not tremendous. There's a larger subjective improvement from analog TV to DVD than from DVD to HD.
Phones are even worse because you're only hearing one side of the conversation which for some reason makes it twice as annoying.
I'm think that's the key. We're used to hearing strangers' normal conversations and we're pretty good at subconsciously tuning them out. With cell phones, the guy talks for a few seconds, then silence, then starts talking again. My entirely unsupported theory is that each time he starts talking, our brains register it as a "new" conversation and have to expend effort to once again realize that it's irrelevant to us.
why on earth would anyone A) implement a casino without the ability to skim
Because it's not worth the risk. A clean casino can rake in continuous profits, but if there's credible evidence that they're cheating they'll lose their customers.
Which could be completely invisible to anyone without some serious probabilities analysis tools and a lot of time to sit playtesting
At least regarding online poker, such tools exist and are commonly used by serious players. If there was funny stuff going on, somebody would have found it.
B) want to play said unregulated online casino?
Governments are not the only source of regulation.
Right after 9/11 Bush made a speech about how the terrorists wanted to ruin our way of life and how the best way to fight them would be to go to the mall and spend some money. I was livid.
I actually didn't mind that, although Bush didn't express himself well (imagine that). The message wasn't "go out and buy crap", it was "don't give in to fear, keep living your lives". Sadly we have in fact given in to fear, as a large percentage of Americans are willing to hand unlimited power to the government if the magic words "terrorism" or "national security" are uttered. Every time an 80 year old grandmother gets felt up by the TSA, a terrorist is laughing.
Thanks, I remembered that Schneier article and was going to hunt for it if nobody posted it. The other aspect I find irritating is that *without* all this data mining, we had the information we needed to detect prevent stop 9/11. Suspicious-acting Arabs were going to flight school and asking to learn how to fly but not land airplanes. James Woods noticed and reported terrorists doing a dry run for 9/11. These warning signs were ignored, and they would be even *more* likely to be ignored today, because the NSA will be too busy dealing with millions of false positives.
I consider this one of the more insightful quotes from any bit of literature, ever. You can learn a lot from considering what should have happened if X is true and comparing it to reality to determine if perhaps X is not true.
P.S. Giving your code away for free is stealing from your own retirement.
Then so is posting on Slashdot when you could be doing or looking extra work. You seem to know just enough about economics to make spectacularly wrong and foolish statements. Here's a *free* lesson: utility is not equivalent to money.
Please, you are not a stock holder. You are just trolling and spreading FUD
And you're obviously a BSA shill. Isn't argument by unsupported assertion fun?
This move was motivated by the activity of pirates.
And so was Sony's rootkit. That doesn't make either a good idea.
If you really were a stockholder, you should be pleased that Apple is doing all they can to protect their bottom line and preserve the value of the company which you hold stocks for.
I am a stockholder, and I recognize that this will have roughly zero impact on unauthorized installations of OS X. It makes things marginally harder for the hackers, but they have and will continue to crack it. Meanwhile, it inconveniences developers and harms Apple's pro-open source image. These drawbacks are relatively small, but the benefits are even smaller.
Actually, I think the vast majority of developers out there are far more interested in getting their damn job done
Probably true as far as it goes. But when there's a nasty bug that's deep in the bowels of the framework I'm using, being able to access the source greatly helps in getting the job done.
The PPE in the Cell is essentially IBM's "G5" PowerPC 970 core, complete with Altivec/VMX.
Not really. The PPE is much simpler; for example it's an in-order processor, as opposed to the 970's deep OOOE. It does have SMT, but can only dispatch 2 instructions at once. From discussions among people who know much more than me, the suggested rule of thumb was that a PPE at N GHz is roughly equivalent to 2 G4s each at N/2 Hz.
The SPE's are the really interesting parts though.
Right. I think how easy it is to use the SPEs will largely determine how successful Cell is. I wouldn't be suprised if Apple offers Cell coprocessor cards for high-end Macs; it seems like a good fit for offloading image and video tasks.
The SSN was never intended to be an identification system. In fact, its proponents promised up and down that the SSN would never be used for anything but keeping records of individual retirement accounts.
Also, the rate would never be more than 3%. And "your employer pays half". And it wasn't "insurance" for legal purposes, until the Supreme Court agreed that it wasn't insurance, at which point they started calling it insurance. The entire program is based on deceptions.
Slashdot Mirror
This "debate" is quite similar to global climate change or evolution in that there is no other side in a rational, fact-based discussion. In this case there is no logical basis for allowing carriers to set discriminatory prices. Putting "both sides" on a news program is the truly shameful part of this.
I wouldn't go that far. To take the global warming example, yes it's almost certainly happening, but reasonable people can disagree on what to do about it. Likewise, there's a credible argument against mandated neutrality because of the danger that regulations would be or would become overbroad and stifling. Of course, Cleland is too busy spouting inane lies like "Google doesn't pay for their bandwidth" to make that point.
How does net neutrality translate into government surveillance?
It doesn't of course, that's just another of the lobbyist's lies. If anything, non-neutrality could lead to more government surveillance. If the ISP is examining every packet to determine which ones it can charge more for, various 3-letter agencies would be interested in that data.
It could have side effects (triggering glaucoma, etc) that would render you near blind in 30 years.
Bah. In 30 years we should be able to inject images directly into the optic nerve, giving everyone perfect vision.
My $0.02 for anyone thinking about either procedure: skip the videos. I would rather not have known what was going on during each step.
Yeah. I already know too much. I'd gladly pay upwards of $5k to have my vision magically corrected to 20/20, but I get queasy even just reading about the details of LASIK.
He didn't cross the line until he explicitly linked to one.
So "I like partypoker.com" is fine, but "I like <a href="http://partypoker.com">partypoker.com</a>" makes me a criminal?
Online poker can not be regulated in any reasable means.
Online casinos are mostly unregulated, yet there are few reports of them abscoding with customers' bankrolls, because they depend on their reputations to survive.
It is protecting the consumer.
No, making it known that offshore casinos are not subject to US regulations would be protecting consumers by giving them relevant information. This is *controlling* the consumers by removing their choices.
Your post combines amusingly with your sig.
You don't have a wife, children and a mortgage do you?
I don't, so take the following with as much salt as you like. But it seems to me that for most people making $X annually, there's another guy with a similar family situation making $(X-5000), and he isn't starving. So do what he does, and you'll save $5k a year. (Less due to taxes, but you get the idea).
The Beloved Free Market isn't about giving people the better product, it's about giving people what they think is the better product. And, in case you haven't noticed, people are fucking morons.
I have noticed. Which is why I'm not enthusiastic about giving a group of people chosen by 51% of said morons the power to regulate my life in every detail.
The free market is full of boneheads with more money than sense.
As opposed to government?
I watch both DVDs and HD signals on my 23" LCD. (Well, not much HD anymore since after moving I can't get any reception with an antenna). The difference is noticeable, but not tremendous. There's a larger subjective improvement from analog TV to DVD than from DVD to HD.
Phones are even worse because you're only hearing one side of the conversation which for some reason makes it twice as annoying.
I'm think that's the key. We're used to hearing strangers' normal conversations and we're pretty good at subconsciously tuning them out. With cell phones, the guy talks for a few seconds, then silence, then starts talking again. My entirely unsupported theory is that each time he starts talking, our brains register it as a "new" conversation and have to expend effort to once again realize that it's irrelevant to us.
Both ACs are factually correct.
why on earth would anyone A) implement a casino without the ability to skim
Because it's not worth the risk. A clean casino can rake in continuous profits, but if there's credible evidence that they're cheating they'll lose their customers.
Which could be completely invisible to anyone without some serious probabilities analysis tools and a lot of time to sit playtesting
At least regarding online poker, such tools exist and are commonly used by serious players. If there was funny stuff going on, somebody would have found it.
B) want to play said unregulated online casino?
Governments are not the only source of regulation.
Right after 9/11 Bush made a speech about how the terrorists wanted to ruin our way of life and how the best way to fight them would be to go to the mall and spend some money. I was livid.
I actually didn't mind that, although Bush didn't express himself well (imagine that). The message wasn't "go out and buy crap", it was "don't give in to fear, keep living your lives". Sadly we have in fact given in to fear, as a large percentage of Americans are willing to hand unlimited power to the government if the magic words "terrorism" or "national security" are uttered. Every time an 80 year old grandmother gets felt up by the TSA, a terrorist is laughing.
Thanks, I remembered that Schneier article and was going to hunt for it if nobody posted it. The other aspect I find irritating is that *without* all this data mining, we had the information we needed to detect prevent stop 9/11. Suspicious-acting Arabs were going to flight school and asking to learn how to fly but not land airplanes. James Woods noticed and reported terrorists doing a dry run for 9/11. These warning signs were ignored, and they would be even *more* likely to be ignored today, because the NSA will be too busy dealing with millions of false positives.
Are there any alternatives to just sucking it up and dealing with it?
Sure. Assuming low regulatory barriers, start your own ISP and use neutrality as a selling point.
I consider this one of the more insightful quotes from any bit of literature, ever. You can learn a lot from considering what should have happened if X is true and comparing it to reality to determine if perhaps X is not true.
Yes; it's a specific application of Bayesian reasoning.
P.S. Giving your code away for free is stealing from your own retirement.
Then so is posting on Slashdot when you could be doing or looking extra work. You seem to know just enough about economics to make spectacularly wrong and foolish statements. Here's a *free* lesson: utility is not equivalent to money.
Please, you are not a stock holder. You are just trolling and spreading FUD
And you're obviously a BSA shill. Isn't argument by unsupported assertion fun?
This move was motivated by the activity of pirates.
And so was Sony's rootkit. That doesn't make either a good idea.
If you really were a stockholder, you should be pleased that Apple is doing all they can to protect their bottom line and preserve the value of the company which you hold stocks for.
I am a stockholder, and I recognize that this will have roughly zero impact on unauthorized installations of OS X. It makes things marginally harder for the hackers, but they have and will continue to crack it. Meanwhile, it inconveniences developers and harms Apple's pro-open source image. These drawbacks are relatively small, but the benefits are even smaller.
16 terraflops is what the cheap $499 PS3 can do
I have a rather difficult time believing this.
Actually, I think the vast majority of developers out there are far more interested in getting their damn job done
Probably true as far as it goes. But when there's a nasty bug that's deep in the bowels of the framework I'm using, being able to access the source greatly helps in getting the job done.
The PPE in the Cell is essentially IBM's "G5" PowerPC 970 core, complete with Altivec/VMX.
Not really. The PPE is much simpler; for example it's an in-order processor, as opposed to the 970's deep OOOE. It does have SMT, but can only dispatch 2 instructions at once. From discussions among people who know much more than me, the suggested rule of thumb was that a PPE at N GHz is roughly equivalent to 2 G4s each at N/2 Hz.
The SPE's are the really interesting parts though.
Right. I think how easy it is to use the SPEs will largely determine how successful Cell is. I wouldn't be suprised if Apple offers Cell coprocessor cards for high-end Macs; it seems like a good fit for offloading image and video tasks.
That, and considering China has a billion and a half people, chances are they would win in combat.
Wars these days are not fought by having the soldiers line up and shoot.
The SSN was never intended to be an identification system. In fact, its proponents promised up and down that the SSN would never be used for anything but keeping records of individual retirement accounts.
Also, the rate would never be more than 3%. And "your employer pays half". And it wasn't "insurance" for legal purposes, until the Supreme Court agreed that it wasn't insurance, at which point they started calling it insurance. The entire program is based on deceptions.