actually, no, nvidia artificially limits performance to specific profiles.. geforce has shitty gpgpu performance, quadro has decent gfx and gpgu, and their 'tesla' stuff is all gpgpu.
I'm not sure about that.. the architectures are so different that any optimizations made to the shader compiler would be useless to other designs.. hell, even different generations of chips require different optimizations.
How do you guarantee this? If the model is roadside assist capable, it has a built in cell SoC that uses GPS (it's mandated that all cell devices have it), and these chips are left active even if the owner doesn't subscribe to the service. these devices can do the things I've said they can do and there is history to back it.. search around if you really care about the details..
even if every car doesn't come with it yet, it they will within the next few years. It's just too convenient for everyone involved. as it is, all modern cars track stats that are interpreted as driving habits in court cases.. of course since computers don't lie, and the prosecutor says you're at fault because the computer said you were doing 52 in a 50 when the idiot stepped out into the street without looking...
Anyway as this topic concerns TRENDS in right-to-repair-info and ability (as opposed to the ever present 'now' basis for your argument), these stupid software 'features' make your own equipment snitch on you, make repairs more difficult (proprietary error codes/interfaces) and costly (when the black boxes burn out from lack of power filtering or cheap components, leaving you stranded), and force you into vendor lock in (dealer is the only place to get things serviced), which is why I listed cars in the first place.
See, back when apple and microsoft started, technology and computing specifically were about making money empowering the user, compared with IBM and ma bell. today, it's about controlling the user, while offering token convenience.
All the stats show is that people are happy to buy baubles. That's nothing new, but part of my point was that society is being conditioned so that what i mentioned in my previous comment is considered 'normal.' While the stats may show people 'happy' with their purchases, they do not show the whole picture. people are not as happy with the consequences of bauble-use. it's just that they're often unaware of said consequences and how they link back to bauble-use, so naturally they check 'very satisfied' on the marketing questionnaire.
Just because tanks aren't rolling down the streets (yet?) doesn't mean the safety interlocks that are supposed to prevent it here in america aren't under attack (some have already been removed, such as posse comitatus) by BOTH liberals and conservatives for various ideological reasons.
define 'socialize'.. that's a relatively new term in this context.. it's newspeak for 'bring into conformance.' School should be preparing kids for life, life where things aren't always happy rainbows and unicorns. One of the big reasons schools are failing nowadays is their curriculum is completely disconnected from reality. The things that are taught are the bottom barrel scrapes left over after every institution (mostly left, since they pay the bills, but some right too) and major lobby has had their veto say on what can pass through the pipe. This whitewashing of the truth serves no one in the long run.
Most of the book censorship in schools is done by liberals, not conservatives, as they are the ones who push for public school funding and thus end up running the system at the federal and state levels. These people set the curriculum, and whether intentional or not, their political bias has created institutional bias in school.
1. your fridge and dishwasher aren't handling/processing your personal information (yet). You can bet that your car does if it was made in the last few years (location/remote cutoff/remote passenger monitoring).. eventually you can bet you'll be forced to authenticate to it (and to the state) before the engine will start. the more activities computing touches, the more activities that will be affected by this issue.
2. ok so your examples boil down to the fact that people trade their personal sovereignty over their property away for convenience. duhh..
Your post doesn't address the complaint the 'nerds' here are making. it isn't that they're saying people should know the technical specifics of everything they own, it's that they should realize the importance of open specs and modability, as well as the sovereignty they give up for convenience.
I'm not talking about rights. I'm talking about sensibility.. IE it is likely clementi knew he had a dumbass roommate who pulled shit like this (he should've, as people like this have obvious track records/attitudes). based on this, he should've carefully considered his next move before doing something risking his oh-so-precious chosen-to-be private life. these are pragmatic dynamics that aren't going to change at college campus environments and apply no matter what genders are involved or the genetics of which holes the penises go into. basically, stupid stuff like "make sure the door is closed and locked/wedged shut" and "the webcams aren't pointed at the bed" should be obvious to just about anyone, tech savvy or not if they value privacy.
the last part of your statement is speculative ad-hominem. this is typical of people who buy into the auto-victimology. IE if you don't agree with me, you must be a $whatever hater/phobic. This is just as misrepresentative of the truth as what is said by those who truly ARE irrational haters (as opposed to people who have legitimate grievances) of said group. it is likely ravi would've filmed him regardless.. these types are a dime a dozen these days. they are opportunists looking for social payoff for notoriety. clementi gave him a big one because he didn't think ahead, and then he killed himself because he didn't plan his indulgence around the reality of his situation (or altered it) before going ahead with it. stupid.
anonymous coward only talks about half the equation.. it is a passive-aggressive reactionary tactic typically presented as the only 'moral' solution. the question it doesn't answer is what does one do when it's all locked down (as is the trend nowadays)? being painted into a corner is inevitable where one is forced into something one doesn't really want, but needs, to accomplish something else timely/conveniently. unfortunately, that something else is now less pleasant than it used to be because of its newfound dependency on user-hostile technology masquerading as convenience. Since the amount of activities computing affects are legion and growing every day, there could be a point where where one's whole LIFE is a list of things one is/was forced into but doesn't really want because of designed-in hostility to one's rights/personal sovereignty.
In fact, society at large is going down this passive-aggressive path when it comes to rights and it is a big problem if one cares for personal liberty, not just politically, but also in terms of what one may do with his property and existence. the only way to break this is constant, active effort to work around/break the locking put in place by corporates/governments who want to build artificial scarcity into their markets/societies at the expense of those who are footing the bill so they can charge/tax more money/power.
you can't repair what was lost.. not really anyway.. I'm sure you can fake it with algos to 'reconstruct' clipped peaks and such, but that's it's NOT the same.
so we're doomed to live like most indians and chinese do? in refuse covered streets and poverty? no thanks. it might be possible to extract a little bit of our economic sovereignty back if we get some politicians who aren't afraid to stand up for the interests of the people who elected them. what we have now are leaders who play paddy cake with multinational corporations and entangle us in treaties with other nations that bind our hands even more. I'm not arguing for total isolation, just a marrow transplant for the cultural spine.
So what? Legally, the concept is the "eggshell plaintiff". If I punch someone in the gut, and it turns out that by some weird physical defect being punched in the gut will be lethal to this guy, I'm not guilty of assault. I'm guilty of homicide.
with this kind of logic in place, justice becomes a lottery. I sincerely hope it's not this simple. anyway, just because a law exists doesn't mean it makes sense or is the correct course of action.
Maybe you're right, and this person you never met and whose shoes you will never walk in was so fragile that he was a suicide waiting to happen. Maybe Ravi outing him by filming him having sex wasn't that big a deal (I mean, why would it be? Who would mind having your sex life broadcast and laughed at all over the dorm? Pshaw.) if he wasn't already so fragile. And EVEN IF YOU'RE RIGHT, it doesn't make a difference.
clementi chose to have sex in a room he SHARED with a roommate he presumably knew the character of at least somewhat. he chose to risk exposure in return for a little fun. he lost the gamble. then he chose to kill himself. he could've had his date somewhere else too, knowing the risk. I never said being outed or broadcast by others was 'nice'. What would solve this is a society that doesn't value sensitivity and emotional reaction so much. With a thicker skin and the confidence that comes with it, clementi would still be alive today as he would've realized that no one would give a shit a month later...certainly by the time the semester's over. even if not, there are plenty of other options to choose before death.
Another legal analogy - if I'm robbing a liquor store with a gun, and an innocent bystander is shot and killed by the store owner, while he was aiming at me, I AM GUILTY OF MURDER. Why? Because people getting shot is the kind of thing that is happens during an armed robbery, And you know what? I think you don't have to work too hard to say "People jumping off of bridges is the kind of thing that happens when you make their sex life a laughingstock." The likelihood in either case isn't high - but it happens, and when it does, it's YOUR FAULT.
No, you aren't guilty of murder. You're guilty of robbery. society CHOOSES to blame you for the bystander's death too because it feels good to finger jab and unload as much blame as possible for any fallout rather than focus on preventatives that don't trample everyone else along the way. the bystander was unlucky...and possibly stupid for hanging around in such a situation. also, using your logic, the owner could be held just as liable for mishandling a firearm...ie whichever path will make the lawyers more money and drums up support for enforcement groups finances and political lobbying.
why stop there? why not make their parents liable? and the corporations that built the vehicles they used to steal the signs..and.. the manslaughter convictions are NOT appropriate. they are guilty of stealing signs. idiot drivers who were not paying attention are guilty of the results of that. if you rely solely on signs instead of the road/cars around you for safety, you probably shouldn't be on the road yourself. when you come to unsigned intersections, do you just drive on through without looking? really?
My point is his actions certainly contributed strongly to the suicide. He did the crime. True, there are a lot of jerks in dorms all over the country, but they are lucky enough to not have people kill themselves over their actions.
Which crime? the stated one? or the one everyone seems to want to stick him with? I think the real issue is that the punishment does not fit. 10 years in prison for 'bias intimidation'? please.. the suicide was probably inevitable. people who are that unbalanced usually end up there by something along the way.. this is the same kind of unreasoning politicians use to push for censorship of all kinds. blaming the next link along the cause-effect chain is NOT justice at all. it's a lottery.
seriously, the under-table special pleading for clementi because he was gay does not change the fact he chose to take his life.
Free societies shouldn't have nanny 'no-hate' laws because they put the freeze on any critical discourse targeted at anyone from the protected castes, whether it be at action or at character. Even the term 'hate-speech' is a fallacy because it assumes any critique as adhominem towards their protected attribute(s) (race, gender, orientation etc). Encouraging thicker skins rather than breeding more unstable sensitivity is what this culture needs. Individuals in such a culture are less likely to be affected by what others say, and are less likely to say anything about others' (situationally irrelevant) attributes because they are more mentally healthier to begin with. Of course the lgbts will mod me down for saying that, but they must realize that announcing (or in clementi's case, practicing) their position/lifestyle/politics in public, they will be judged just like everyone else is. Judgment by relevant and irrelevant attributes is a de-facto part of life. Everyone must learn to deal with it. Most of us learn this lesson by age 6. I guess clementi didn't, but placing groups of sensitive people into protected castes to shield them from the judgment of others does not help their self-esteem, whatever legitimacy their causes have, or build the free, just, and equal society they claim they want. It builds a society that caters to them exclusively, whether they're right or wrong about literally anything.
btw, I'm not singling out gay people here. this concept applies to all 'established' activist groups, ones that have existed long enough to become integrated with the daily political process at all levels. once that happens, the PACs keep the fires burning just enough to keep themselves relevant, demanding ever more to make up for ever diminishing returns. while it's sad that he took his life, the guy had issues. Free societies cannot play the blame chain, then arbitrarily select someone for a lynching whenever an individual does something like that. I'd say 10 years for a college prank qualifies as such.
Slashdot Mirror
actually, no, nvidia artificially limits performance to specific profiles.. geforce has shitty gpgpu performance, quadro has decent gfx and gpgu, and their 'tesla' stuff is all gpgpu.
why call the consumer cheapskate for using the full capabilities of his hardware? you should be calling the company grubby for artificial scarcity.
I'm not sure about that.. the architectures are so different that any optimizations made to the shader compiler would be useless to other designs.. hell, even different generations of chips require different optimizations.
if you're gonna carry one card, why not carry two and be done with it?
until someone chops your thumb off to rob you..
How do you guarantee this? If the model is roadside assist capable, it has a built in cell SoC that uses GPS (it's mandated that all cell devices have it), and these chips are left active even if the owner doesn't subscribe to the service. these devices can do the things I've said they can do and there is history to back it.. search around if you really care about the details..
even if every car doesn't come with it yet, it they will within the next few years. It's just too convenient for everyone involved. as it is, all modern cars track stats that are interpreted as driving habits in court cases.. of course since computers don't lie, and the prosecutor says you're at fault because the computer said you were doing 52 in a 50 when the idiot stepped out into the street without looking...
Anyway as this topic concerns TRENDS in right-to-repair-info and ability (as opposed to the ever present 'now' basis for your argument), these stupid software 'features' make your own equipment snitch on you, make repairs more difficult (proprietary error codes/interfaces) and costly (when the black boxes burn out from lack of power filtering or cheap components, leaving you stranded), and force you into vendor lock in (dealer is the only place to get things serviced), which is why I listed cars in the first place.
See, back when apple and microsoft started, technology and computing specifically were about making money empowering the user, compared with IBM and ma bell. today, it's about controlling the user, while offering token convenience.
All the stats show is that people are happy to buy baubles. That's nothing new, but part of my point was that society is being conditioned so that what i mentioned in my previous comment is considered 'normal.' While the stats may show people 'happy' with their purchases, they do not show the whole picture. people are not as happy with the consequences of bauble-use. it's just that they're often unaware of said consequences and how they link back to bauble-use, so naturally they check 'very satisfied' on the marketing questionnaire.
Just because tanks aren't rolling down the streets (yet?) doesn't mean the safety interlocks that are supposed to prevent it here in america aren't under attack (some have already been removed, such as posse comitatus) by BOTH liberals and conservatives for various ideological reasons.
I doubt other countries are any better overall.. the push against individual liberty is a worldwide problem.
define 'socialize'.. that's a relatively new term in this context.. it's newspeak for 'bring into conformance.' School should be preparing kids for life, life where things aren't always happy rainbows and unicorns. One of the big reasons schools are failing nowadays is their curriculum is completely disconnected from reality. The things that are taught are the bottom barrel scrapes left over after every institution (mostly left, since they pay the bills, but some right too) and major lobby has had their veto say on what can pass through the pipe. This whitewashing of the truth serves no one in the long run.
Most of the book censorship in schools is done by liberals, not conservatives, as they are the ones who push for public school funding and thus end up running the system at the federal and state levels. These people set the curriculum, and whether intentional or not, their political bias has created institutional bias in school.
1. your fridge and dishwasher aren't handling/processing your personal information (yet). You can bet that your car does if it was made in the last few years (location/remote cutoff/remote passenger monitoring).. eventually you can bet you'll be forced to authenticate to it (and to the state) before the engine will start. the more activities computing touches, the more activities that will be affected by this issue.
2. ok so your examples boil down to the fact that people trade their personal sovereignty over their property away for convenience. duhh..
Your post doesn't address the complaint the 'nerds' here are making. it isn't that they're saying people should know the technical specifics of everything they own, it's that they should realize the importance of open specs and modability, as well as the sovereignty they give up for convenience.
just so you know, the 'sent from my iFap' message can be toggled.
I'm not talking about rights. I'm talking about sensibility.. IE it is likely clementi knew he had a dumbass roommate who pulled shit like this (he should've, as people like this have obvious track records/attitudes). based on this, he should've carefully considered his next move before doing something risking his oh-so-precious chosen-to-be private life. these are pragmatic dynamics that aren't going to change at college campus environments and apply no matter what genders are involved or the genetics of which holes the penises go into. basically, stupid stuff like "make sure the door is closed and locked/wedged shut" and "the webcams aren't pointed at the bed" should be obvious to just about anyone, tech savvy or not if they value privacy.
the last part of your statement is speculative ad-hominem. this is typical of people who buy into the auto-victimology. IE if you don't agree with me, you must be a $whatever hater/phobic. This is just as misrepresentative of the truth as what is said by those who truly ARE irrational haters (as opposed to people who have legitimate grievances) of said group. it is likely ravi would've filmed him regardless.. these types are a dime a dozen these days. they are opportunists looking for social payoff for notoriety. clementi gave him a big one because he didn't think ahead, and then he killed himself because he didn't plan his indulgence around the reality of his situation (or altered it) before going ahead with it. stupid.
anonymous coward only talks about half the equation.. it is a passive-aggressive reactionary tactic typically presented as the only 'moral' solution. the question it doesn't answer is what does one do when it's all locked down (as is the trend nowadays)? being painted into a corner is inevitable where one is forced into something one doesn't really want, but needs, to accomplish something else timely/conveniently. unfortunately, that something else is now less pleasant than it used to be because of its newfound dependency on user-hostile technology masquerading as convenience. Since the amount of activities computing affects are legion and growing every day, there could be a point where where one's whole LIFE is a list of things one is/was forced into but doesn't really want because of designed-in hostility to one's rights/personal sovereignty.
In fact, society at large is going down this passive-aggressive path when it comes to rights and it is a big problem if one cares for personal liberty, not just politically, but also in terms of what one may do with his property and existence. the only way to break this is constant, active effort to work around/break the locking put in place by corporates/governments who want to build artificial scarcity into their markets/societies at the expense of those who are footing the bill so they can charge/tax more money/power.
..this is the attitude that brought us the loudness war in the first place..musicians who want it 'louder.'
you can't repair what was lost.. not really anyway.. I'm sure you can fake it with algos to 'reconstruct' clipped peaks and such, but that's it's NOT the same.
same as a typical first time murder.. which was my point..
so we're doomed to live like most indians and chinese do? in refuse covered streets and poverty? no thanks. it might be possible to extract a little bit of our economic sovereignty back if we get some politicians who aren't afraid to stand up for the interests of the people who elected them. what we have now are leaders who play paddy cake with multinational corporations and entangle us in treaties with other nations that bind our hands even more. I'm not arguing for total isolation, just a marrow transplant for the cultural spine.
10 years in prison is a pretty bold statement..
So what? Legally, the concept is the "eggshell plaintiff". If I punch someone in the gut, and it turns out that by some weird physical defect being punched in the gut will be lethal to this guy, I'm not guilty of assault. I'm guilty of homicide.
with this kind of logic in place, justice becomes a lottery. I sincerely hope it's not this simple. anyway, just because a law exists doesn't mean it makes sense or is the correct course of action.
Maybe you're right, and this person you never met and whose shoes you will never walk in was so fragile that he was a suicide waiting to happen. Maybe Ravi outing him by filming him having sex wasn't that big a deal (I mean, why would it be? Who would mind having your sex life broadcast and laughed at all over the dorm? Pshaw.) if he wasn't already so fragile. And EVEN IF YOU'RE RIGHT, it doesn't make a difference.
clementi chose to have sex in a room he SHARED with a roommate he presumably knew the character of at least somewhat. he chose to risk exposure in return for a little fun. he lost the gamble. then he chose to kill himself. he could've had his date somewhere else too, knowing the risk. I never said being outed or broadcast by others was 'nice'. What would solve this is a society that doesn't value sensitivity and emotional reaction so much. With a thicker skin and the confidence that comes with it, clementi would still be alive today as he would've realized that no one would give a shit a month later...certainly by the time the semester's over. even if not, there are plenty of other options to choose before death.
Another legal analogy - if I'm robbing a liquor store with a gun, and an innocent bystander is shot and killed by the store owner, while he was aiming at me, I AM GUILTY OF MURDER. Why? Because people getting shot is the kind of thing that is happens during an armed robbery, And you know what? I think you don't have to work too hard to say "People jumping off of bridges is the kind of thing that happens when you make their sex life a laughingstock." The likelihood in either case isn't high - but it happens, and when it does, it's YOUR FAULT.
No, you aren't guilty of murder. You're guilty of robbery. society CHOOSES to blame you for the bystander's death too because it feels good to finger jab and unload as much blame as possible for any fallout rather than focus on preventatives that don't trample everyone else along the way. the bystander was unlucky...and possibly stupid for hanging around in such a situation. also, using your logic, the owner could be held just as liable for mishandling a firearm...ie whichever path will make the lawyers more money and drums up support for enforcement groups finances and political lobbying.
No, but the punishment suggests they wanted to...really badly.
why stop there? why not make their parents liable? and the corporations that built the vehicles they used to steal the signs..and.. the manslaughter convictions are NOT appropriate. they are guilty of stealing signs. idiot drivers who were not paying attention are guilty of the results of that. if you rely solely on signs instead of the road/cars around you for safety, you probably shouldn't be on the road yourself. when you come to unsigned intersections, do you just drive on through without looking? really?
My point is his actions certainly contributed strongly to the suicide. He did the crime. True, there are a lot of jerks in dorms all over the country, but they are lucky enough to not have people kill themselves over their actions.
Which crime? the stated one? or the one everyone seems to want to stick him with? I think the real issue is that the punishment does not fit. 10 years in prison for 'bias intimidation'? please.. the suicide was probably inevitable. people who are that unbalanced usually end up there by something along the way.. this is the same kind of unreasoning politicians use to push for censorship of all kinds. blaming the next link along the cause-effect chain is NOT justice at all. it's a lottery.
seriously, the under-table special pleading for clementi because he was gay does not change the fact he chose to take his life.
was his room private? he was sharing it with ravi no less..
Free societies shouldn't have nanny 'no-hate' laws because they put the freeze on any critical discourse targeted at anyone from the protected castes, whether it be at action or at character. Even the term 'hate-speech' is a fallacy because it assumes any critique as adhominem towards their protected attribute(s) (race, gender, orientation etc). Encouraging thicker skins rather than breeding more unstable sensitivity is what this culture needs. Individuals in such a culture are less likely to be affected by what others say, and are less likely to say anything about others' (situationally irrelevant) attributes because they are more mentally healthier to begin with. Of course the lgbts will mod me down for saying that, but they must realize that announcing (or in clementi's case, practicing) their position/lifestyle/politics in public, they will be judged just like everyone else is. Judgment by relevant and irrelevant attributes is a de-facto part of life. Everyone must learn to deal with it. Most of us learn this lesson by age 6. I guess clementi didn't, but placing groups of sensitive people into protected castes to shield them from the judgment of others does not help their self-esteem, whatever legitimacy their causes have, or build the free, just, and equal society they claim they want. It builds a society that caters to them exclusively, whether they're right or wrong about literally anything.
btw, I'm not singling out gay people here. this concept applies to all 'established' activist groups, ones that have existed long enough to become integrated with the daily political process at all levels. once that happens, the PACs keep the fires burning just enough to keep themselves relevant, demanding ever more to make up for ever diminishing returns. while it's sad that he took his life, the guy had issues. Free societies cannot play the blame chain, then arbitrarily select someone for a lynching whenever an individual does something like that. I'd say 10 years for a college prank qualifies as such.