Id-i-ot. You are one. He was asked if he had ever been involved in litigation, as a witness or a party. He answered only one case, when there were two others that he 'forgot' to mention.
You don't need to have proof of intent; he was asked a direct question by the court, shown in the transcript, and court records show that his answer was very dishonest.
You don't need to know whether the question related to Samsung - the question was about *any* litigation *ever*.
You don't need to show that it affected his performance.
Yes. I guess it depends what you think of as mid-range and top-of-the-range.
My summary of the monitor market (TVs, too, for that matter) is that the price-feature curve trends up slowly until it reaches a knee and then shoots up. So, on ebuyer.com, for instance, you can have a 17" monitor for £81, a 22" monitor for £84, a 24" monitor for £106 - slow increase with features. But go to 27" and you're paying £176 and they go on from there. So, for me, right now, mid-range is 24". And, for the average user, there's not much difference between a HannsG 24" monitor for £106 (1920x1080, 5ms response, 1000:1, DVI-D, VGA) and a Samsung 24" monitor for £170 (exactly the same spec). Or even a Iiyama 24", which has HDMI inputs and a 2ms response for £155 - a gamer will appreciate the 2ms response, an average user probably not. And the HDMI input saves you £7 for a DVI-HDMI adapter, even supposing your PC only has HDMI outputs (might be reasonable if it's being used for a laptop - mine has HDMI but no DVI).
+1 for this. Even if it's "only" twice as fast, that boost is in all the places that computers are a pain to use. Starting and switching between apps goes from painfully clunky to flowingly fast.
Unless you're a hardcore gamer, a mid-range GPU is as good as a top-of-the-range GPU. Unless you're seriously crunching numbers, a mid-range CPU is as good as a top-of-the-range CPU. Unless you're supporting some weirdly huge workload, 4GB of RAM is as good as 8GB of RAM. Unless you have special sight needs, a mid-range monitor is as good as a top-of-the-range monitor.
But switching an HDD for an SSD will make a difference to every user and every workload, somewhere between significant and transformational.
There's so much I love about this. Seeing British-designed products being produced in Britain. It just feels right. I love the educational aims of the RPi. I love the hacker culture around it. I love the ethical sourcing and the informal PR of the RPi foundation. It's all so good.
You are right that this sort of reasoning is pointless - because there is no religion that makes this sort of claim anyway. None of the theistic religions conceive of a God that is everything from X backwards, they all make claims about a personal God who is (or perhaps who are) interested and involved in the world in some way. Faith in this sort of personal God is very different from, and much harder to accept than, an intellectual acceptance of the existence of "the divine."
While the review gives an interesting summary of the arguments in the book, I was disappointed by the simplicity of the reviewer's own thoughts and the contradictions inherent in many of them.
The reviewer objects to the discussion of natural language expression of nothing because "these human invented definitions and grammars are buggy systems for the task at hand" while preferring math and predicate logic, apparently on the assumption that they are not equally "human invented definitions and grammars." He appears ignorant that all three are human invented languages for expressing concepts.
For someone who insists on math and logic, then, it is disappointing that he dismisses the existence of God on a flimsy, emotional argument - something that has "plagued my mind since I was a child." The inference from mass-energy equivalence to the proposition that "a finite amount of power would prolong their lives" seems... well, novel at best. Even supposing that the application of a finite amount of energy could prolong life, the continual application of this principle necessarily leads to infinite life - which would, presumably, require infinite energy. And one could just as well argue from ergodicity of physical systems that finite prolongation of life would require infinite energy. The fundamental fallacy, however, is the attempt to apply natural laws to their own creator.
However, the details of the reasoning around energy and goodness is irrelevant, because the same form of argument also leads to the opposite conclusion. The choice of God's goodness as the quality under test is arbitrary. God is also supposed to be infinite in justice. It is much clearer that the destruction of a person requires only a finite expenditure of energy, and so any offence against his justice ought to result in instant destruction. Why does the person who cheats me, or hurts me, or exploits me, not immediately suffer the justice of a supposedly infinitely just God? Moreover, when I am selfish and unjust, why do I not immediately suffer this justice? This makes the underlying emotionality of the original argument clear - the same form of argument leads to the conclusion that an infinite God ought to immediately destroy all people - and I don't like that, so I can find a way around that argument. Yet any way around it also applies to the argument from God's goodness.
The reviewer treats other theories emotionally in the other direction - Wheeler's it-from-bit theory is only described as "tantalising" because the reviewer is a software developer.
Lastly, the reviewer suffers from an inherent logical contradiction throughout the review. He objects to the use of any form of reasoning from within the universe to explore what lies outside of it - and then proceeds to write this review. He is right to make this objection. The only possibility for knowing something outside the universe is if the universe was created by that something - because anything else accessible to us is, by definition, part of the universe. We therefore have to accept either that the universe was created by something (to which we might give the label God) or that we can't know anything about it.
No, science tests for a specific set of substances at a specific point in time. The allegation is that he has found a way of taking drugs that avoids those specific tests. Nothing is trumping "science", but the science isn't perfect.
I'm no familiar with Akin and his politics, but I presume that by "legitimate rape" he means a truthful complaint of rape. Therefore "illegitimate rape" is an untruthful complaint of rape. Are you saying that never happens?
I think that both the terms "legitimate rape" and "war on women" are unhelpful. Both sides of this argument need to face up to a simple-to-say but very difficult-to-solve problem: rape is hard to judge, and preventing rape is not the only priority of our society.
The desire to prevent rape is balanced against the desire to acquit the innocent. Our society currently, and has for a long time, preferred to acquit the innocent than to convict the guilty. Since there are inevitably cases where proof is not certain, this means that we also prefer to acquit the guilty rather than convict the innocent.
This breaks down to a degree for rape. By its nature it is infrequently observed by witnesses. This judicial system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that (a) a specific event happened (what event depends slightly on your jurisdiction) and (b) one of the parties involved did not consent to it.
Some cases are straight-forward. When a man grabs a woman in a park and rapes her behind a wall, it's pretty clear that consent was not given. Then you only need to prove that the event happened, and you have a case. The event is usually pretty easy to prove - it leaves physical evidence.
But in many other cases, consent is not straightforward. When two drunk teens are fooling around and things go too far, or (in many jurisdictions) when consent is withdrawn during intercourse, or, indeed when Julian Assange goes to bed with someone at night and decides he'd like a bit more the next morning, then it inevitably descends in to a mess of he-said she-said. At present, when a case comes down to one person's word against another, of roughly equal credibility, the law will acquit, because we prefer protecting innocence to punishing guilt. That means that some rapists walk free because it's his word against hers.
We could change this. The law could be changed so that women making a complaint of rape are believed by default. But that is placing the prevention of rape above the priority of protecting the innocent. Do you really believe that this would never be used to persecute the innocent? This would mean that some innocent people go to prison and spend their lives on a sex offenders register because their partners found a cruel way to get back at them.
I just don't know what planet you people live on. As near as I can make out, the conspiracy is this:
1. Make a false accusation of rape. 2. Have him extradited from the UK to Sweden. 3. Have the charges fall through, but in the meantime the US requests his extradition from Sweden. 4. Julian is handed over the USA, tried and executed.
The USA could have had Julian Assange any time they wanted - wait for him to land in the UK or Australia and make an extradition request. Both have extradition treaties with US which basically say, "We will give you anyone you ask for."
Sweden, on the other hand, can't extradite anyone at risk of the death penalty. The basis of Assange's asylum request is that he might be extradited to the USA where he would be charged with espionage, which could carry the death penalty. There is a basic contradiction here. Either he is at risk of the death penalty, in which case Sweden is one of the safer places for him, or he is not, in which case the asylum request is groundless.
What it all amounts to is this: Julian is special and should never have to answer for his actions. Ever.
The foreign office sent a letter pointing out they have a legal route to arresting Julian in the embassy. It's not quite the same as threatening to sent the paratroopers in.
Hi right not to be questioned over sexual assault? Hmmm. Which democracy are you from? I'm fine with my governments (Australian living in the UK) handing him over.
The Guardian also carries a translated copy of the letter the UK sent to Ecuador regarding the threat to 'storm' the Ecuadorian embassy.
Where exactly is that 'storm' quoting from? You're supposed to use quote marks to indicate that you're quoting something. The relevant bit of the letter says this:
You should be aware that there is a legal basis in the U.K. the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act which would allow us to take action to arrest Mr. Assange in the current premises of the Embassy. We very much hope not to get this point, but if you cannot resolve the issue of Mr. Assange's presence on your premises, this route is open to us.
...with tales of how Apple had released the F700 way before Samsung started making phones. How Apple had invented the Diamond Touch decades ago. Apple built Roger Fidler from the ground up in 1979.
Honestly, the barrage of bizarre crap that goes on these threads takes astroturfing to a new level.
No. 22 more years has seen Challenger and Columbia blow up, and we've learnt some lessons about things we should do and things we shouldn't do. Just as the Challenger investigation didn't conclude, "Ban O-rings," nobody has decided to ban parts of C++, either.
C++ is in some ways like a human language: It has an enormous range of things you can say in it. Some of them are only appropriate in certain situations. Some of them are never appropriate if you want people to take you seriously. Some of them just plain don't make sense.
So quite a lot of the development over those 22 years has been in the community learning idioms that let you use the power of C++ without hurting yourself.
I also note with curiosity that the one vendor you can actually name with a competing compiler is a development environment aimed primarily at ARM and is, in fact, produced by the "elitist, narrow though visible" ARM.
Re:too bad GCC is not relevant anymore thanks to L
on
GCC Switches From C to C++
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Well, let's see. I personally work with control systems using x86, MIPS, PowerPC and ARM architectures, running Linux, VxWorks, QNX and WinCE (various combinations). They all have GCC toolchains, although we admittedly don't use it for CE.
If you're thinking microcontrollers, then GCC supports AVR, 68000-series, MicroBlaze, MSP430, ARM again...
Now, personally, my refrigerator has an analog thermostat, so, technically, you are right. If it had a thermostat implemented on a CPU, then I'd think there's a very good chance it was compiled with GCC.
What exactly "programmed in GCC" might mean is left for the reader to speculate on.
Re:too bad GCC is not relevant anymore thanks to L
on
GCC Switches From C to C++
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Irrelevant? Not quite. For your particular use, maybe. But most Linux distros are still built using GCC, and most embedded platforms provide a GCC-based toolchain. So if, by 'irrelevant', you actually mean, 'the compiler with the most-often executed output code on earth', then yes, I guess you're right.
Slashdot Mirror
Really??? Where can I get one? This sounds the best development in Office since Clippy went to the big stationary drawer in the sky.
Id-i-ot. You are one. He was asked if he had ever been involved in litigation, as a witness or a party. He answered only one case, when there were two others that he 'forgot' to mention.
You don't need to have proof of intent; he was asked a direct question by the court, shown in the transcript, and court records show that his answer was very dishonest.
You don't need to know whether the question related to Samsung - the question was about *any* litigation *ever*.
You don't need to show that it affected his performance.
He lied to the court under oath. End of story.
Yes. I guess it depends what you think of as mid-range and top-of-the-range.
My summary of the monitor market (TVs, too, for that matter) is that the price-feature curve trends up slowly until it reaches a knee and then shoots up. So, on ebuyer.com, for instance, you can have a 17" monitor for £81, a 22" monitor for £84, a 24" monitor for £106 - slow increase with features. But go to 27" and you're paying £176 and they go on from there. So, for me, right now, mid-range is 24". And, for the average user, there's not much difference between a HannsG 24" monitor for £106 (1920x1080, 5ms response, 1000:1, DVI-D, VGA) and a Samsung 24" monitor for £170 (exactly the same spec). Or even a Iiyama 24", which has HDMI inputs and a 2ms response for £155 - a gamer will appreciate the 2ms response, an average user probably not. And the HDMI input saves you £7 for a DVI-HDMI adapter, even supposing your PC only has HDMI outputs (might be reasonable if it's being used for a laptop - mine has HDMI but no DVI).
+1 for this. Even if it's "only" twice as fast, that boost is in all the places that computers are a pain to use. Starting and switching between apps goes from painfully clunky to flowingly fast.
Unless you're a hardcore gamer, a mid-range GPU is as good as a top-of-the-range GPU.
Unless you're seriously crunching numbers, a mid-range CPU is as good as a top-of-the-range CPU.
Unless you're supporting some weirdly huge workload, 4GB of RAM is as good as 8GB of RAM.
Unless you have special sight needs, a mid-range monitor is as good as a top-of-the-range monitor.
But switching an HDD for an SSD will make a difference to every user and every workload, somewhere between significant and transformational.
I have mod points. Now, if only there was a '+1 Flamebait', because, as right as you are, you are going to get a thrashing.
There's so much I love about this. Seeing British-designed products being produced in Britain. It just feels right. I love the educational aims of the RPi. I love the hacker culture around it. I love the ethical sourcing and the informal PR of the RPi foundation. It's all so good.
And then... it's produced by... Sony. Yuck.
Someone actually thinks bitcoins are worth having.
You are right that this sort of reasoning is pointless - because there is no religion that makes this sort of claim anyway. None of the theistic religions conceive of a God that is everything from X backwards, they all make claims about a personal God who is (or perhaps who are) interested and involved in the world in some way. Faith in this sort of personal God is very different from, and much harder to accept than, an intellectual acceptance of the existence of "the divine."
While the review gives an interesting summary of the arguments in the book, I was disappointed by the simplicity of the reviewer's own thoughts and the contradictions inherent in many of them.
The reviewer objects to the discussion of natural language expression of nothing because "these human invented definitions and grammars are buggy systems for the task at hand" while preferring math and predicate logic, apparently on the assumption that they are not equally "human invented definitions and grammars." He appears ignorant that all three are human invented languages for expressing concepts.
For someone who insists on math and logic, then, it is disappointing that he dismisses the existence of God on a flimsy, emotional argument - something that has "plagued my mind since I was a child." The inference from mass-energy equivalence to the proposition that "a finite amount of power would prolong their lives" seems... well, novel at best. Even supposing that the application of a finite amount of energy could prolong life, the continual application of this principle necessarily leads to infinite life - which would, presumably, require infinite energy. And one could just as well argue from ergodicity of physical systems that finite prolongation of life would require infinite energy. The fundamental fallacy, however, is the attempt to apply natural laws to their own creator.
However, the details of the reasoning around energy and goodness is irrelevant, because the same form of argument also leads to the opposite conclusion. The choice of God's goodness as the quality under test is arbitrary. God is also supposed to be infinite in justice. It is much clearer that the destruction of a person requires only a finite expenditure of energy, and so any offence against his justice ought to result in instant destruction. Why does the person who cheats me, or hurts me, or exploits me, not immediately suffer the justice of a supposedly infinitely just God? Moreover, when I am selfish and unjust, why do I not immediately suffer this justice? This makes the underlying emotionality of the original argument clear - the same form of argument leads to the conclusion that an infinite God ought to immediately destroy all people - and I don't like that, so I can find a way around that argument. Yet any way around it also applies to the argument from God's goodness.
The reviewer treats other theories emotionally in the other direction - Wheeler's it-from-bit theory is only described as "tantalising" because the reviewer is a software developer.
Lastly, the reviewer suffers from an inherent logical contradiction throughout the review. He objects to the use of any form of reasoning from within the universe to explore what lies outside of it - and then proceeds to write this review. He is right to make this objection. The only possibility for knowing something outside the universe is if the universe was created by that something - because anything else accessible to us is, by definition, part of the universe. We therefore have to accept either that the universe was created by something (to which we might give the label God) or that we can't know anything about it.
No, science tests for a specific set of substances at a specific point in time. The allegation is that he has found a way of taking drugs that avoids those specific tests. Nothing is trumping "science", but the science isn't perfect.
I'm no familiar with Akin and his politics, but I presume that by "legitimate rape" he means a truthful complaint of rape. Therefore "illegitimate rape" is an untruthful complaint of rape. Are you saying that never happens?
I think that both the terms "legitimate rape" and "war on women" are unhelpful. Both sides of this argument need to face up to a simple-to-say but very difficult-to-solve problem: rape is hard to judge, and preventing rape is not the only priority of our society.
The desire to prevent rape is balanced against the desire to acquit the innocent. Our society currently, and has for a long time, preferred to acquit the innocent than to convict the guilty. Since there are inevitably cases where proof is not certain, this means that we also prefer to acquit the guilty rather than convict the innocent.
This breaks down to a degree for rape. By its nature it is infrequently observed by witnesses. This judicial system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that (a) a specific event happened (what event depends slightly on your jurisdiction) and (b) one of the parties involved did not consent to it.
Some cases are straight-forward. When a man grabs a woman in a park and rapes her behind a wall, it's pretty clear that consent was not given. Then you only need to prove that the event happened, and you have a case. The event is usually pretty easy to prove - it leaves physical evidence.
But in many other cases, consent is not straightforward. When two drunk teens are fooling around and things go too far, or (in many jurisdictions) when consent is withdrawn during intercourse, or, indeed when Julian Assange goes to bed with someone at night and decides he'd like a bit more the next morning, then it inevitably descends in to a mess of he-said she-said. At present, when a case comes down to one person's word against another, of roughly equal credibility, the law will acquit, because we prefer protecting innocence to punishing guilt. That means that some rapists walk free because it's his word against hers.
We could change this. The law could be changed so that women making a complaint of rape are believed by default. But that is placing the prevention of rape above the priority of protecting the innocent. Do you really believe that this would never be used to persecute the innocent? This would mean that some innocent people go to prison and spend their lives on a sex offenders register because their partners found a cruel way to get back at them.
I just don't know what planet you people live on. As near as I can make out, the conspiracy is this:
1. Make a false accusation of rape.
2. Have him extradited from the UK to Sweden.
3. Have the charges fall through, but in the meantime the US requests his extradition from Sweden.
4. Julian is handed over the USA, tried and executed.
The USA could have had Julian Assange any time they wanted - wait for him to land in the UK or Australia and make an extradition request. Both have extradition treaties with US which basically say, "We will give you anyone you ask for."
Sweden, on the other hand, can't extradite anyone at risk of the death penalty. The basis of Assange's asylum request is that he might be extradited to the USA where he would be charged with espionage, which could carry the death penalty. There is a basic contradiction here. Either he is at risk of the death penalty, in which case Sweden is one of the safer places for him, or he is not, in which case the asylum request is groundless.
What it all amounts to is this: Julian is special and should never have to answer for his actions. Ever.
I think it's quite clear to anyone with an IQ above 'dead' that that would be an act of war. Not how things are done.
Still, I'm game: I'll bet you £5 the British don't storm the Ecuadorian embassy.
I hadn't thought of that. Rather a good bit of irony.
Don't forget the billions of dollars also on the books. "Bickering over nothing"? Or "Bickering over $40,000,000,000 per year of market"?
Neutrinos! No steel box will stop them! Enough of those bastards get through the box and interact with the disc, my data will be history!
Lucky I've got my tinfoil hat on, or they'd have fried my brain ages ago.
The foreign office sent a letter pointing out they have a legal route to arresting Julian in the embassy. It's not quite the same as threatening to sent the paratroopers in.
Hi right not to be questioned over sexual assault? Hmmm. Which democracy are you from? I'm fine with my governments (Australian living in the UK) handing him over.
The Guardian also carries a translated copy of the letter the UK sent to Ecuador regarding the threat to 'storm' the Ecuadorian embassy.
Where exactly is that 'storm' quoting from? You're supposed to use quote marks to indicate that you're quoting something. The relevant bit of the letter says this:
You should be aware that there is a legal basis in the U.K. the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act which would allow us to take action to arrest Mr. Assange in the current premises of the Embassy. We very much hope not to get this point, but if you cannot resolve the issue of Mr. Assange's presence on your premises, this route is open to us.
Do you see the word 'storm' in there? I don't.
...with tales of how Apple had released the F700 way before Samsung started making phones. How Apple had invented the Diamond Touch decades ago. Apple built Roger Fidler from the ground up in 1979.
Honestly, the barrage of bizarre crap that goes on these threads takes astroturfing to a new level.
No. 22 more years has seen Challenger and Columbia blow up, and we've learnt some lessons about things we should do and things we shouldn't do. Just as the Challenger investigation didn't conclude, "Ban O-rings," nobody has decided to ban parts of C++, either.
C++ is in some ways like a human language: It has an enormous range of things you can say in it. Some of them are only appropriate in certain situations. Some of them are never appropriate if you want people to take you seriously. Some of them just plain don't make sense.
So quite a lot of the development over those 22 years has been in the community learning idioms that let you use the power of C++ without hurting yourself.
I also note with curiosity that the one vendor you can actually name with a competing compiler is a development environment aimed primarily at ARM and is, in fact, produced by the "elitist, narrow though visible" ARM.
Well, let's see. I personally work with control systems using x86, MIPS, PowerPC and ARM architectures, running Linux, VxWorks, QNX and WinCE (various combinations). They all have GCC toolchains, although we admittedly don't use it for CE.
If you're thinking microcontrollers, then GCC supports AVR, 68000-series, MicroBlaze, MSP430, ARM again...
Now, personally, my refrigerator has an analog thermostat, so, technically, you are right. If it had a thermostat implemented on a CPU, then I'd think there's a very good chance it was compiled with GCC.
What exactly "programmed in GCC" might mean is left for the reader to speculate on.
Irrelevant? Not quite. For your particular use, maybe. But most Linux distros are still built using GCC, and most embedded platforms provide a GCC-based toolchain. So if, by 'irrelevant', you actually mean, 'the compiler with the most-often executed output code on earth', then yes, I guess you're right.