"It's the incredibly deep shame felt regarding "the greatest country on earth" being the primary source of the most horrifying acts in recorded human history."
The US is not and was never the "primary source" of slavery nor is slavery the most horrifying act in recorded human history. Deep shame is unlikely the reason either.
Neither the president nor the senators are directly elected by the people. The president is selected by the electoral college. Electors and senators are chosen in whatever manner each state chooses. States choose election today, mostly, but that's not always been so and the US is powerless to control it going forward.
It may seem a subtle distinction, but just because states choose representatives through elections does NOT mean that the US is a democracy, as it is the choice of the states and they can change it at any time. The US is a representative republic, the representatives are not (all) guaranteed to be chosen by direct election.
While technically the post is "interesting", it is only so because of how poorly informed the author is.
Without any information regarding viewing angles, no conclusion can be made regarding whether the eye can see individual pixels or not. If it cannot, then it cannot. Aliasing is unrelated to this and is handled upstream of the display. Furthermore, the eye isn't "quite good" at "spotting" aliasing, aliasing appears as false detail, no different than any other detail to the eye.
Regarding color space, again it is unrelated to resolution. A wider color gamut is only useful when there is content that can use it. In most cases it is moot.
Manual focus is impossible with 8K? You're out of your mind. Still photography has achieved this resolution forever and manual focus is used there all the time. Why even bother mentioning this, though? The topic is display, not content creation.
"Anybody with an IQ over room temperature has known this for years."
While that may be true, other threads in Slashdot, even recently, have been dominated by the "a calorie is a calorie" experts. You know the ones that have yet to experience puberty, much less a weight problem. I know expressing contempt for the issue makes you feel smart but it makes you look stupid.
Until someone experiences what another does every day due to long term diet problems, they will insist it doesn't exist. As the experts have told us, fat people are fat because they are inferior people, because they want to be. We all know from these same experts that sugar is perfectly good, it's HFCS that's bad. These experts will spew their "knowledge" here as well, kids just don't get up this early.
Potentially nice for what? Running software that doesn't exist on machines no one has for a platform decades out of date with performance that's obsolete? But hey, at least it might clock in the "GHz range". We all know that's all that matters.
First off, Amiga was a computing platform, 8088 was a processor. Confusing the two isn't surprising considering the quality of your post.
Second, "enthusiasm" for the PC platform that used the 8088 was massive, in fact historic, and birthed an entire industry and platform that we have to this day. No such enthusiasm, really?
Third, "enthusiasm" is merely tribalism and is the consolation of losers. The PC platform enjoyed lasting success, no one with that "enthusiasm" ever had time for petty arguments over their failed platforms or bankrupt companies. Too busy with success.
It's not clear Amiga died "prematurely" but it was clear that it was destined to die. It was an irrelevant platform that did not serve any important base well. Same for the Atari ST. The PC succeeded despite it's internal design because it was a robust machine targeted at a large market with money (and backed by the right company). The Amiga failed because it was an unstable POS targeted at hobbyists.
"It does matter." But not to why it is no longer used much.
68k lost because it did not remain performance-competitive. It was a CISC processor that did not have the benefit of a huge software base that could fund its continued development. Motorola/Freescale lacked the engineering talent to overcome the challenges required and chose instead to focus development on the 88k family that was far more modern. That family was also a failure and Moto lucked into the gift of the PowerPC family from IBM (who did have the talent) but immediately squandered that good fortune with the same lack of talent that doomed the others.
68k failed because Moto's engineering and marketing sucked, not because of instruction complexity. Intel survived, after all, and not because of elegant instructions.
LOL comments like this are a dead giveaway. Alpha's "ISA" was threadbare, the most primitive of all; beautiful to hardware engineers for ease of implementation, POS for programmers who had to use it. No hardware divide LOL. Power envelopes 3-4x the competition as well. Awful. Fortunately, the engineering talent was refocused to produce useful processors rather than ones designed to run the Vomit Making System.
"Didn't the x86 (to pick randomly) have a single-instruction block move? I do believe it did because I used it when asm'ing on a 286"
You were asm'ing? quite the sophisticate you were. We can see now the intellect that produced the other comment.
REP MOVSW might be what you struggle to recall, expert that surely otherwise are. No, it's not a "single-instruction block move" since it requires other instructions to set up the source, destination and count registers.
"...which in most of the first world is less than the value of the time you'd spend trying to find a pirated copy of every new episode before your co-workers spoil it for you."
How much time do you think it takes to find 4 episodes a month? You seriously think the value of that time is greater than $15 in "most of the first world"? Delusional thinking.
I would expect anyone of average ability to be able to accomplish this in only a few minutes.
Then there's the matter of HBO's delays in making content available to internet-only subscribers. It is common to be able to see broadcasted content sooner via torrent than waiting for HBO to make it available online. If "co-workers spoil it for you" is a concern, torrent is clearly preferred.
Who says they don't? Their fair share is not determined by whether they pay an extra tax at the time of purchase.
When cyclists ride bikes, everyone benefits. Should everyone else pay a tax for not riding a bicycle? Why shouldn't they pay their fair share too?
Governments exist to serve the public. Not everything they do must be funded directly by each person who might benefit, rarely does that occur, in fact.
By any reasonable definition of "questionable" it is absolutely not questionable. Emails from russians admit to it.
"What was done could have been done by a handful of 15 yearolds."
Arranging to meet with Trump family and campaign representatives to discuss information obtained via espionage, and to hold that meeting, is not something that can be done "by a handful of 15 year olds". Since what other things might have been done are not public knowledge, no one in the public sphere could possibly know the extent of what was done or the skill and access needed to do it.
"The real story in all this is the people in positions of power that we trust to run government don't have a clue about security and don't take it seriously enough. Lax security."
Whether or not that is a story, it is not the "real story".
"Stop blaming others when your using the equivalent of Roman locks and wax seals for security."
Who is blaming others? This is your straw man, not someone else's failure.
"Then, given the fact that Comey admits it didn't impact the investigation in any way, there is no way this really rises to obstruction."
The success of a criminal act is not relevant to it being a criminal act. Comey didn't allow attempted obstruction to interfere, that doesn't mean it wasn't attempted.
"So Comey's testimony would not be enough to establish intent for two reasons. 1. The words recorded by Comey do NOT clearly establish intent AND 2. The conversation was private so Trump is free to deny Comey's version of events."
On the first point, you simply stating it does not make it true. Comey refused to make that judgement himself because it was not his place to do so. It's not your place to do so either. Regarding the second point, Trump is "free to deny" regardless, that has little bearing. Trump asserts that there may be tapes. If so, his "freedom to deny" may be irrelevant.
"I think Comey fully understood what Trump intended, that it wasn't obstructive and knew so at the time."
Comey felt he understood what Trump intended as well, so much so that he changed his personal policy of taking notes because he believed he may need them for just the kind of fight that is unfolding. It's quite clear that Comey felt the opposite of what you claim.
"What's happened is Comey feels betrayed and disrespected by a man he doesn't like who fired him in a rough way. He's just angry, so he's doing what he can to get revenge for being fired."
Yes, it is, and your CowboyNeal example is not a gay reference. Not every pejorative homosexual joke is homophobic or offensive, but ones which are homophobic and offensive are, and that includes mocking someone for being homosexual, your very first example.
I followed along with a-c but then there's this ridiculous rant completely divorced from reality. Absolutely nothing in Colbert's career would suggest that he's anything but supportive of the gay community.
WHY did Colbert go straight to the slang reference to a generally recognized as gay activity when he needed a way to label Trump as particularly repulsive? Good question, totally out of character for Colbert. Totally in character for Trump, however.
Being a "c@ck holster", though, is not "generally recognized as gay activity". In fact, it would be largely considered a position that women assume. It is only gay in this context because of Trump's gender.
"The only people who thought this homophobic aren't gay."
How do you know this? Are you speaking as a gay man? Have you taken polls of the gay community? Why is it important that such a distinction even be made?
Second time I've seen this comment and it makes absolutely no sense. What you're really saying is that it's not homophobic because gays approve...and then simply making up that gays approve. Gays may approve of the putdown without approving of the form, it's not as though gays never make homophobic comments themselves.
Frankly, there's a homophobic bent to this observation itself.
Trump is not personally anti-gay, his party is. Trump in office is not good for gay issues, but probably not as bad as Pence assuming his office would be.
How do you know that gays don't care, do you speak for them? How do you know the complaints are coming from Trump supporters (for a fact!)?
Gays, by an large, are likely to dislike Trump more than the general population. That, combined with the fact the homophobic nature of the comment was one of its lesser problems, means that many gays may not consider the homophobic aspects so important, it does not mean that they don't see it as homophobic.
Homophobia creates an emotional response. When that emotional response is dominated by other responses, you may not notice it in the moment.
If the joke merely implied "consensual servitude" then substituting that term would make the joke equally effective. It does not. The joke only works with an underlying assumption that the particular form of servitude is repugnant and there's no reason to assume that the servitude is even consensual. Talk about diversions, apparently you've never understood a single blow job putdown in your life.
The "joke" requires an assumption there is something wrong with being what was said. Many would interpret that differently for a man than a woman while many would not. It's not really odd that many see it as homophobic. It clearly is, though that's not its primary problem.
The real problem is that the joke crossed the line, the entire section of the monologue did. It was not funny, just hateful. Very unlike Colbert and I'm surprised anything like that material ever made it to air.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's the incredibly deep shame felt regarding "the greatest country on earth" being the primary source of the most horrifying acts in recorded human history."
The US is not and was never the "primary source" of slavery nor is slavery the most horrifying act in recorded human history. Deep shame is unlikely the reason either.
AC was never known as a deep thinker.
Neither the president nor the senators are directly elected by the people. The president is selected by the electoral college. Electors and senators are chosen in whatever manner each state chooses. States choose election today, mostly, but that's not always been so and the US is powerless to control it going forward.
It may seem a subtle distinction, but just because states choose representatives through elections does NOT mean that the US is a democracy, as it is the choice of the states and they can change it at any time. The US is a representative republic, the representatives are not (all) guaranteed to be chosen by direct election.
and if you want evidence of this "dumbening" look no further than than the OP's comment!
No surprise to find some casual racism in the same post either. Ignorance and bigotry go hand in hand.
While technically the post is "interesting", it is only so because of how poorly informed the author is.
Without any information regarding viewing angles, no conclusion can be made regarding whether the eye can see individual pixels or not. If it cannot, then it cannot. Aliasing is unrelated to this and is handled upstream of the display. Furthermore, the eye isn't "quite good" at "spotting" aliasing, aliasing appears as false detail, no different than any other detail to the eye.
Regarding color space, again it is unrelated to resolution. A wider color gamut is only useful when there is content that can use it. In most cases it is moot.
Manual focus is impossible with 8K? You're out of your mind. Still photography has achieved this resolution forever and manual focus is used there all the time. Why even bother mentioning this, though? The topic is display, not content creation.
A little information is a dangerous thing.
...and, technically, all sex is incest. These are crucial observations.
Neither the new one nor any filesystem that it would replace. This is a moot point.
Spoken as though this could only be addressed in the filesystem (or even that you'd want it to be).
If only storage devices had ever thought to implement ECC to protect against bit errors!
"Anybody with an IQ over room temperature has known this for years."
While that may be true, other threads in Slashdot, even recently, have been dominated by the "a calorie is a calorie" experts. You know the ones that have yet to experience puberty, much less a weight problem. I know expressing contempt for the issue makes you feel smart but it makes you look stupid.
Until someone experiences what another does every day due to long term diet problems, they will insist it doesn't exist. As the experts have told us, fat people are fat because they are inferior people, because they want to be. We all know from these same experts that sugar is perfectly good, it's HFCS that's bad. These experts will spew their "knowledge" here as well, kids just don't get up this early.
And who wouldn't be excited over the 44 pin IDE connector? At last a use for those hard drives in your shoebox that have been obsolete for a decade.
Potentially nice for what? Running software that doesn't exist on machines no one has for a platform decades out of date with performance that's obsolete? But hey, at least it might clock in the "GHz range". We all know that's all that matters.
First off, Amiga was a computing platform, 8088 was a processor. Confusing the two isn't surprising considering the quality of your post.
Second, "enthusiasm" for the PC platform that used the 8088 was massive, in fact historic, and birthed an entire industry and platform that we have to this day. No such enthusiasm, really?
Third, "enthusiasm" is merely tribalism and is the consolation of losers. The PC platform enjoyed lasting success, no one with that "enthusiasm" ever had time for petty arguments over their failed platforms or bankrupt companies. Too busy with success.
It's not clear Amiga died "prematurely" but it was clear that it was destined to die. It was an irrelevant platform that did not serve any important base well. Same for the Atari ST. The PC succeeded despite it's internal design because it was a robust machine targeted at a large market with money (and backed by the right company). The Amiga failed because it was an unstable POS targeted at hobbyists.
"It does matter." But not to why it is no longer used much.
68k lost because it did not remain performance-competitive. It was a CISC processor that did not have the benefit of a huge software base that could fund its continued development. Motorola/Freescale lacked the engineering talent to overcome the challenges required and chose instead to focus development on the 88k family that was far more modern. That family was also a failure and Moto lucked into the gift of the PowerPC family from IBM (who did have the talent) but immediately squandered that good fortune with the same lack of talent that doomed the others.
68k failed because Moto's engineering and marketing sucked, not because of instruction complexity. Intel survived, after all, and not because of elegant instructions.
"(nb. the Alpha's ISA was beautiful IMO)"
LOL comments like this are a dead giveaway. Alpha's "ISA" was threadbare, the most primitive of all; beautiful to hardware engineers for ease of implementation, POS for programmers who had to use it. No hardware divide LOL. Power envelopes 3-4x the competition as well. Awful. Fortunately, the engineering talent was refocused to produce useful processors rather than ones designed to run the Vomit Making System.
"Didn't the x86 (to pick randomly) have a single-instruction block move? I do believe it did because I used it when asm'ing on a 286"
You were asm'ing? quite the sophisticate you were. We can see now the intellect that produced the other comment.
REP MOVSW might be what you struggle to recall, expert that surely otherwise are. No, it's not a "single-instruction block move" since it requires other instructions to set up the source, destination and count registers.
"...which in most of the first world is less than the value of the time you'd spend trying to find a pirated copy of every new episode before your co-workers spoil it for you."
How much time do you think it takes to find 4 episodes a month? You seriously think the value of that time is greater than $15 in "most of the first world"? Delusional thinking.
I would expect anyone of average ability to be able to accomplish this in only a few minutes.
Then there's the matter of HBO's delays in making content available to internet-only subscribers. It is common to be able to see broadcasted content sooner via torrent than waiting for HBO to make it available online. If "co-workers spoil it for you" is a concern, torrent is clearly preferred.
There's no reason to believe that finds are allocated properly. Roads will not cease to be maintained if there is a shortfall of gas taxes.
Tax revenue is fungible, saying specific taxes pay for specific services is just lip service.
Who says they don't? Their fair share is not determined by whether they pay an extra tax at the time of purchase.
When cyclists ride bikes, everyone benefits. Should everyone else pay a tax for not riding a bicycle? Why shouldn't they pay their fair share too?
Governments exist to serve the public. Not everything they do must be funded directly by each person who might benefit, rarely does that occur, in fact.
"It's questionable the Russians did anything."
By any reasonable definition of "questionable" it is absolutely not questionable. Emails from russians admit to it.
"What was done could have been done by a handful of 15 yearolds."
Arranging to meet with Trump family and campaign representatives to discuss information obtained via espionage, and to hold that meeting, is not something that can be done "by a handful of 15 year olds". Since what other things might have been done are not public knowledge, no one in the public sphere could possibly know the extent of what was done or the skill and access needed to do it.
"The real story in all this is the people in positions of power that we trust to run government don't have a clue about security and don't take it seriously enough. Lax security."
Whether or not that is a story, it is not the "real story".
"Stop blaming others when your using the equivalent of Roman locks and wax seals for security."
Who is blaming others? This is your straw man, not someone else's failure.
Nice try, BlueCoder.
"Then, given the fact that Comey admits it didn't impact the investigation in any way, there is no way this really rises to obstruction."
The success of a criminal act is not relevant to it being a criminal act. Comey didn't allow attempted obstruction to interfere, that doesn't mean it wasn't attempted.
"So Comey's testimony would not be enough to establish intent for two reasons. 1. The words recorded by Comey do NOT clearly establish intent AND 2. The conversation was private so Trump is free to deny Comey's version of events."
On the first point, you simply stating it does not make it true. Comey refused to make that judgement himself because it was not his place to do so. It's not your place to do so either. Regarding the second point, Trump is "free to deny" regardless, that has little bearing. Trump asserts that there may be tapes. If so, his "freedom to deny" may be irrelevant.
"I think Comey fully understood what Trump intended, that it wasn't obstructive and knew so at the time."
Comey felt he understood what Trump intended as well, so much so that he changed his personal policy of taking notes because he believed he may need them for just the kind of fight that is unfolding. It's quite clear that Comey felt the opposite of what you claim.
"What's happened is Comey feels betrayed and disrespected by a man he doesn't like who fired him in a rough way. He's just angry, so he's doing what he can to get revenge for being fired."
And here you're really showing your hand.
Yes, it is, and your CowboyNeal example is not a gay reference. Not every pejorative homosexual joke is homophobic or offensive, but ones which are homophobic and offensive are, and that includes mocking someone for being homosexual, your very first example.
I followed along with a-c but then there's this ridiculous rant completely divorced from reality. Absolutely nothing in Colbert's career would suggest that he's anything but supportive of the gay community.
WHY did Colbert go straight to the slang reference to a generally recognized as gay activity when he needed a way to label Trump as particularly repulsive? Good question, totally out of character for Colbert. Totally in character for Trump, however.
Being a "c@ck holster", though, is not "generally recognized as gay activity". In fact, it would be largely considered a position that women assume. It is only gay in this context because of Trump's gender.
"The only people who thought this homophobic aren't gay."
How do you know this? Are you speaking as a gay man? Have you taken polls of the gay community? Why is it important that such a distinction even be made?
Second time I've seen this comment and it makes absolutely no sense. What you're really saying is that it's not homophobic because gays approve...and then simply making up that gays approve. Gays may approve of the putdown without approving of the form, it's not as though gays never make homophobic comments themselves.
Frankly, there's a homophobic bent to this observation itself.
Trump is not personally anti-gay, his party is. Trump in office is not good for gay issues, but probably not as bad as Pence assuming his office would be.
How do you know that gays don't care, do you speak for them? How do you know the complaints are coming from Trump supporters (for a fact!)?
Gays, by an large, are likely to dislike Trump more than the general population. That, combined with the fact the homophobic nature of the comment was one of its lesser problems, means that many gays may not consider the homophobic aspects so important, it does not mean that they don't see it as homophobic.
Homophobia creates an emotional response. When that emotional response is dominated by other responses, you may not notice it in the moment.
If the joke merely implied "consensual servitude" then substituting that term would make the joke equally effective. It does not. The joke only works with an underlying assumption that the particular form of servitude is repugnant and there's no reason to assume that the servitude is even consensual. Talk about diversions, apparently you've never understood a single blow job putdown in your life.
The "joke" requires an assumption there is something wrong with being what was said. Many would interpret that differently for a man than a woman while many would not. It's not really odd that many see it as homophobic. It clearly is, though that's not its primary problem.
The real problem is that the joke crossed the line, the entire section of the monologue did. It was not funny, just hateful. Very unlike Colbert and I'm surprised anything like that material ever made it to air.