I may be mistaken, but I don't think any of the current ATX implementations have this specific goal: "The DTX standard will be designed to embrace energy-efficient processors from AMD or other hardware vendors, and allow an optimally designed small form factor system to consume less power and generate less noise," the company said in a release Thursday."
How AMD intends to implement this is beyond me. It seems that is more of a case layout and CPU issue than motherboard
No, it does not turn the tides, but it brings up an interesting point. I have found a disappointing lack of discussion of the "other side" on Slashdot. The obvious argument that cameras are intrusive and therefore bad is very overplayed on Slashdot - there are literally 50 comments with this same argument, half of them modded way up. It hurts discussion. So, for the sake of argument, these are some counterarguments I would like to see discussed:
1. Cameras are usually only placed in public places, where you don't have a legal (or realistic) right of privacy. No one ever rationally complains about a person standing on a street or alley looking at you. 2. Cameras are usually watched by a human very sparsely, if at all. Modern technology has allowed computers to look for something "not right" to show a human 3. Cameras can save lives and make the streets safer. That is the *very valid* argument that this article is making that far too many Slashdotters are simply dismissing or ignoring (despite commenting on an article about it) 4. Cameras save the government money by forcing less police to waste their time looking for trouble. Ideally, police would be where they are needed, not where they may be needed. This is the ideal cameras are inching towards 5. Cameras can make areas safer by discouraging crime. My street in college had a car break-in every week. At least. A simple camera could have probably stopped half of those, and brought more than one arrest in the other half. The obvious counterargument is that it'll push crime into the fringes, but I don't know anyone in Baltimore who parks their car in an alley.
I could go on and on. I know cameras have their problems, but my basic point is that the discussion is more complicated than the strict ideal that cameras destroy rights.
You missed the point of other people's comments about as much as the blind hunter missed his target before shooting his friend.
This isn't about making fun of blind people, or even Texans, it's about the law.
Seriously, giving a gun, which by its very nature requires some idea of what you are shooting, to a person who will have no clue what he is shooting, displays a lack of common sense. If the lawmaker is trying to make some abstract point, he did it at the expense of blind people and Texans, who will be a laughing-stock for a few days in the rest of the country.
"Try publicly saying that whites are smarter than blacks, or that teenage girls should have have hands-on sex ed in junior high, or that ice floes are a good way of relieving the social security crunch, and see what happens to your career."
Those are not obvious truisms, they are subjective opinions. Those do not belong on wikipedia, and would rightfully be removed.
On the other hand, I am guessing if you went to articles about race, sexual education, or social security, you could find discussion on those viewpoints in the article. If not, you would be able to add them and probably not have them removed.
One problem is that I actually thought Indian referred to the country at first in this headline - it is confusing. "Amazon natives" is almost as easy to say, and much clearer.
I don't have any PC reasons against the usage of "Indian" to refer to natives, but I do think it is antiquated and only creates confusion. Language should be clear and unambiguous when possible
"DRM does not suddenly unlock with the material is public domain or the copyright is expired or the use is a "fair use"."
Very good point - in theory. But when the copyright expires, people will likely be using an entirely different technology. For example, music that is coming out of copyright now is on fairly primitive medium. If you want a chance in hell of hearing anything from then, it will be playing on a different technology than was common back then. And besides, 75 years from now most DRM today will seem like a joke to crack (and it will be legal then to crack). I agree with you, but your reasoning is only convincing to me in the theoretical sense.
"Welcome to the future of unmaintainable garbage software."
That's a strong statement. I disagree - I think a strong component library will actually improve maintainability of software by an incredible amount. Software Engineering is the last major engineering field to realize a useful and standardized component model. Electronics would be nowhere without IC's. Mechanical engineering would be nowhere if people had to design motors and engines seperately for each application.
All this increases maintanilbity by decreasing debugging time when something goes wrong.
Just to be clear, my views on life align with his - I am pro-life and against the death penalty. So I have no agenda...
From Wikipedia: "In 2006 he introduced H.R. 776 to have Congress declare that life exists at conception and to prevent federal courts from claiming jurisdiction over cases involving abortion."
IMO no true liberterian introduces a federal bill to *remove* rights from people. Liberterians, as I understand it, believe in free rights for people at the federal level, not arbitrary rights for the people at the state level. States tend to have far less fair laws than federal government (see california's 3 strikes laws, or most of the south's opinions on seperation of state and religion.)
To repeat, libeterianism should be (in my opinion) about the rights of the people, not the rights of the state. I am not a card carrying liberterian, and I am guessing you are based on your name, so please correct me if I am wrong.
-Opposes abortion -Against gay marriage (this automatically should get him kicked out of the liberterian party IMO) -For the electoral college (this is not conservative per se, but it is certainly not liberterian where one vote should count the same as every other)
I agree he is pretty liberterian, but the last thing I want is a social conservative after the Orwellian years of Bush. Liberals can lean liberterian too (I consider myself both)
That's fine, but biased people, in my opinion, have opinions that mean less. Their bias causes their opinion to contain less information. A person who can analyze a situation and come up with an original thought instead of:
if (msft OR government)
reply "this sucks" if (google or linux)
reply "this is the greatest thing ever" else
put some actual thought into it
BTW, your comment was not interesting. You offered no explanation or intelligent response to my assertion that people here treat microsoft and google differently than basically saying: "yeah we do." Microsoft has never beat me up, and Google has never been a savior to me. While google is developing a semi-monopoly on search, people love them. Microsoft did it with OS and Office apps, and people hate them (on slashdot, at least).
This has to be one of the most interesting comments I have seen in a while, because it so succinctly demonstrates the hipocracy of slashdotters (and the entire tech industry as a whole).
"The fact is, I am willing to pay for music at a reasonable price in a format I want."
Are you willing to go see a movie at the theater for 7 dollars? If not, does that justify buying it from a street peddler on DVD? Are you willing to pay 50 dollars a month to connect to the internet? If not, does that justify splicing your neighbor's cable?
I could go on. I agree with you. I use allofmp3 too. But the fact is, with allofmp3, the money does NOT go to the artist, it does not go to the people who put up the risk to create the art (record companies, shudder), it does not go to anyone who did anything constructive. It goes to some russians who got lucky and who clearly don't mind making millions from copyright violations. I consider bit torrent to be at least as moral, and actually easier to use.
"Save me the bullshit about it still being "theft" ad nasuem"
Why should they? It is. I know it is a stupid argument, but it is true - purchasing music gives an incentive to artists to create. I know you have heard this before, but you lost all right (in my eyes) to come off as innocent the second you tried justifying your actions. I pirate too, but at least I can admit it.
Well written college level history books are rarely written from a specific POV. Elementary level history books often are though. I actually thought America was infallible until about 6th grade.
I don't think diebold is saying that people can use the source code to hack it. All things being equal (I am ephasizing that last statement, because I know people will ignore it otherwise) having the source code can only make it easier to hack into software. For example, if you intercept an encrypted message, knowing the general encryption algorithm is infinitely useful in determining what the message says.
I know this is an unpopular opinion on Slashdot (which is built around open-source principles), but it is true. I am not saying that diebold should be trusted, but I am saying that your assertion that closed source has to inherently be less secure than open source is flawed. A solid architecture is a solid architecture...
And yes, I know open source encourages people to look at the source and find flaws. In fact, I think diebold should be open-sourced. I just disagree with your assumptions.
Professors may be willing to give away their work for free (as in beer), but I don't know many who would give away the rights to the books that they spent countless hours on. Many professors are paid by their university to write a book, so giving it away to the students of that university taking a specific class isn't that revolutionary.
"This, along with all the other reasons trotted out daily in Dilbert, is why the large corporations can't invent anything. The best and brightest won't work for them."
The only reason why the best and brightest wouldn't work for them is their R&D spending. I think HP actually spends quite a bit. For further counter-examples see google, Intel & AMD, Amazon and XEROX/IBM back in the day.
I think more importantly, large corporations have a larger chance of incompetence and arrogance being at the top. As HP has taught us, even in large corporations a single mistake from someone up top can really hurt the entire corporation.
"A Google executive said the company will rely on solar power to supply nearly a third of the electricity consumed by office workers at its roughly one-million-square-foot headquarters. This does not include power consumed by data centers that power many of Google's Web services worldwide, he said."
That's great, I am really proud of them for using an alternative energy source (especially in such a sunny area) but most of their energy usage is those data centers and servers, not their employees. They purposefully did not give a % of total energy saved because it probably would have been on the order of 0.1-5%, which would have revealed the ridiculous amount of energy they actually use.
"They won't sell them because thieves would use them for nefarious purposes"
Can't a thief already just vacuum mail out of one? Seems easier and less obvious than lugging a 300 pound steel mailbox into the middle of the street, waiting for someone to put their mail into it (without becoming suspicious and calling the police), and then lugging it back to your hideout to read birthday cards and bills.
I don't think anyone really expects 100% safety using those public mailboxes. For example, a prankster could stick a hose in one and ruin all the mail - sorry, just had to make the Simpsons reference:)
I dunno, I tried out google's beta arabic translator, and my arabic speaking friend said it works really well. It is not comparable to the crappy traditional translators people are used to because it uses statistical learning methods instead of hard-coded rules that are often difficult and unwieldy to maintain.
Here's the arabic re-translation (translate from english->arabic->english, not the best test, but whatever) of the first paragraph of this comment:
"Dondo, I tried to images to the interpreter of Arab homes and Arab : My friend that works really. It is not similar to Krappie traditional interpreters of the people that he used the statistical methods of learning rather than hard rules symbols, which are often complex and difficult to maintain. "
Note that it only really failed in meaning when I used slang, but worked better when I was more formal. I am sure the soldiers will be trained to speak formally in it. I agree with you that this won't entirely replace humans, but this is still better than nothing.
Well, my comment was not "rediculous," and his was not funny. And I think this thread ranks as one of the lamest ones ever. Thank you for wasting 2 minutes of my time:)
Slashdot Mirror
I may be mistaken, but I don't think any of the current ATX implementations have this specific goal:
"The DTX standard will be designed to embrace energy-efficient processors from AMD or other hardware vendors, and allow an optimally designed small form factor system to consume less power and generate less noise," the company said in a release Thursday."
How AMD intends to implement this is beyond me. It seems that is more of a case layout and CPU issue than motherboard
No, it does not turn the tides, but it brings up an interesting point. I have found a disappointing lack of discussion of the "other side" on Slashdot. The obvious argument that cameras are intrusive and therefore bad is very overplayed on Slashdot - there are literally 50 comments with this same argument, half of them modded way up. It hurts discussion. So, for the sake of argument, these are some counterarguments I would like to see discussed:
1. Cameras are usually only placed in public places, where you don't have a legal (or realistic) right of privacy. No one ever rationally complains about a person standing on a street or alley looking at you.
2. Cameras are usually watched by a human very sparsely, if at all. Modern technology has allowed computers to look for something "not right" to show a human
3. Cameras can save lives and make the streets safer. That is the *very valid* argument that this article is making that far too many Slashdotters are simply dismissing or ignoring (despite commenting on an article about it)
4. Cameras save the government money by forcing less police to waste their time looking for trouble. Ideally, police would be where they are needed, not where they may be needed. This is the ideal cameras are inching towards
5. Cameras can make areas safer by discouraging crime. My street in college had a car break-in every week. At least. A simple camera could have probably stopped half of those, and brought more than one arrest in the other half. The obvious counterargument is that it'll push crime into the fringes, but I don't know anyone in Baltimore who parks their car in an alley.
I could go on and on. I know cameras have their problems, but my basic point is that the discussion is more complicated than the strict ideal that cameras destroy rights.
You missed the point of other people's comments about as much as the blind hunter missed his target before shooting his friend.
This isn't about making fun of blind people, or even Texans, it's about the law.
Seriously, giving a gun, which by its very nature requires some idea of what you are shooting, to a person who will have no clue what he is shooting, displays a lack of common sense. If the lawmaker is trying to make some abstract point, he did it at the expense of blind people and Texans, who will be a laughing-stock for a few days in the rest of the country.
"Try publicly saying that whites are smarter than blacks, or that teenage girls should have have hands-on sex ed in junior high, or that ice floes are a good way of relieving the social security crunch, and see what happens to your career."
Those are not obvious truisms, they are subjective opinions. Those do not belong on wikipedia, and would rightfully be removed.
On the other hand, I am guessing if you went to articles about race, sexual education, or social security, you could find discussion on those viewpoints in the article. If not, you would be able to add them and probably not have them removed.
Bbspot is a satire site. This story is not real. I would have more of a sense of humor about it if the story was actually funny.
One problem is that I actually thought Indian referred to the country at first in this headline - it is confusing. "Amazon natives" is almost as easy to say, and much clearer.
I don't have any PC reasons against the usage of "Indian" to refer to natives, but I do think it is antiquated and only creates confusion. Language should be clear and unambiguous when possible
I was thinking of thisr ly_history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record#Ea
Although i'll admit its a bit of a stretch. My point, which you understood, is that 75 (or 95 rather) years is a long time
""legal" or "illegal" has nothing to do with DRM."
o pyright_Act
Not true in the USA. If you attempt to get around it and you live in the USA you are likely breaking the law.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_C
"DRM does not suddenly unlock with the material is public domain or the copyright is expired or the use is a "fair use"."
Very good point - in theory. But when the copyright expires, people will likely be using an entirely different technology. For example, music that is coming out of copyright now is on fairly primitive medium. If you want a chance in hell of hearing anything from then, it will be playing on a different technology than was common back then. And besides, 75 years from now most DRM today will seem like a joke to crack (and it will be legal then to crack). I agree with you, but your reasoning is only convincing to me in the theoretical sense.
"Welcome to the future of unmaintainable garbage software."
That's a strong statement. I disagree - I think a strong component library will actually improve maintainability of software by an incredible amount. Software Engineering is the last major engineering field to realize a useful and standardized component model. Electronics would be nowhere without IC's. Mechanical engineering would be nowhere if people had to design motors and engines seperately for each application.
All this increases maintanilbity by decreasing debugging time when something goes wrong.
Just to be clear, my views on life align with his - I am pro-life and against the death penalty. So I have no agenda...
From Wikipedia:
"In 2006 he introduced H.R. 776 to have Congress declare that life exists at conception and to prevent federal courts from claiming jurisdiction over cases involving abortion."
IMO no true liberterian introduces a federal bill to *remove* rights from people. Liberterians, as I understand it, believe in free rights for people at the federal level, not arbitrary rights for the people at the state level. States tend to have far less fair laws than federal government (see california's 3 strikes laws, or most of the south's opinions on seperation of state and religion.)
To repeat, libeterianism should be (in my opinion) about the rights of the people, not the rights of the state. I am not a card carrying liberterian, and I am guessing you are based on your name, so please correct me if I am wrong.
He looks pretty conservative to me:
-Opposes abortion
-Against gay marriage (this automatically should get him kicked out of the liberterian party IMO)
-For the electoral college (this is not conservative per se, but it is certainly not liberterian where one vote should count the same as every other)
I agree he is pretty liberterian, but the last thing I want is a social conservative after the Orwellian years of Bush. Liberals can lean liberterian too (I consider myself both)
"most people here don't hide their bias."
That's fine, but biased people, in my opinion, have opinions that mean less. Their bias causes their opinion to contain less information. A person who can analyze a situation and come up with an original thought instead of:
if (msft OR government)
reply "this sucks"
if (google or linux)
reply "this is the greatest thing ever"
else
put some actual thought into it
BTW, your comment was not interesting. You offered no explanation or intelligent response to my assertion that people here treat microsoft and google differently than basically saying: "yeah we do." Microsoft has never beat me up, and Google has never been a savior to me. While google is developing a semi-monopoly on search, people love them. Microsoft did it with OS and Office apps, and people hate them (on slashdot, at least).
This has to be one of the most interesting comments I have seen in a while, because it so succinctly demonstrates the hipocracy of slashdotters (and the entire tech industry as a whole).
I actually found this site very hard to navigate. I think this is a direct result of the no-click rule in designing it.
"The fact is, I am willing to pay for music at a reasonable price in a format I want."
Are you willing to go see a movie at the theater for 7 dollars? If not, does that justify buying it from a street peddler on DVD?
Are you willing to pay 50 dollars a month to connect to the internet? If not, does that justify splicing your neighbor's cable?
I could go on. I agree with you. I use allofmp3 too. But the fact is, with allofmp3, the money does NOT go to the artist, it does not go to the people who put up the risk to create the art (record companies, shudder), it does not go to anyone who did anything constructive. It goes to some russians who got lucky and who clearly don't mind making millions from copyright violations. I consider bit torrent to be at least as moral, and actually easier to use.
"Save me the bullshit about it still being "theft" ad nasuem"
Why should they? It is. I know it is a stupid argument, but it is true - purchasing music gives an incentive to artists to create. I know you have heard this before, but you lost all right (in my eyes) to come off as innocent the second you tried justifying your actions. I pirate too, but at least I can admit it.
How about - first person to say something gets shot. I think we can all agree on that.
History is not an opinion. It is fact.
Well written college level history books are rarely written from a specific POV. Elementary level history books often are though. I actually thought America was infallible until about 6th grade.
I don't think diebold is saying that people can use the source code to hack it. All things being equal (I am ephasizing that last statement, because I know people will ignore it otherwise) having the source code can only make it easier to hack into software. For example, if you intercept an encrypted message, knowing the general encryption algorithm is infinitely useful in determining what the message says.
I know this is an unpopular opinion on Slashdot (which is built around open-source principles), but it is true. I am not saying that diebold should be trusted, but I am saying that your assertion that closed source has to inherently be less secure than open source is flawed. A solid architecture is a solid architecture...
And yes, I know open source encourages people to look at the source and find flaws. In fact, I think diebold should be open-sourced. I just disagree with your assumptions.
Professors may be willing to give away their work for free (as in beer), but I don't know many who would give away the rights to the books that they spent countless hours on. Many professors are paid by their university to write a book, so giving it away to the students of that university taking a specific class isn't that revolutionary.
on how many boy scouts use pirated versions of photoshop or illustrator to make posters to earn their merit badge?
"This, along with all the other reasons trotted out daily in Dilbert, is why the large corporations can't invent anything. The best and brightest won't work for them."
The only reason why the best and brightest wouldn't work for them is their R&D spending. I think HP actually spends quite a bit. For further counter-examples see google, Intel & AMD, Amazon and XEROX/IBM back in the day.
I think more importantly, large corporations have a larger chance of incompetence and arrogance being at the top. As HP has taught us, even in large corporations a single mistake from someone up top can really hurt the entire corporation.
"A Google executive said the company will rely on solar power to supply nearly a third of the electricity consumed by office workers at its roughly one-million-square-foot headquarters. This does not include power consumed by data centers that power many of Google's Web services worldwide, he said."
That's great, I am really proud of them for using an alternative energy source (especially in such a sunny area) but most of their energy usage is those data centers and servers, not their employees. They purposefully did not give a % of total energy saved because it probably would have been on the order of 0.1-5%, which would have revealed the ridiculous amount of energy they actually use.
"They won't sell them because thieves would use them for nefarious purposes"
:)
Can't a thief already just vacuum mail out of one? Seems easier and less obvious than lugging a 300 pound steel mailbox into the middle of the street, waiting for someone to put their mail into it (without becoming suspicious and calling the police), and then lugging it back to your hideout to read birthday cards and bills.
I don't think anyone really expects 100% safety using those public mailboxes. For example, a prankster could stick a hose in one and ruin all the mail - sorry, just had to make the Simpsons reference
I dunno, I tried out google's beta arabic translator, and my arabic speaking friend said it works really well. It is not comparable to the crappy traditional translators people are used to because it uses statistical learning methods instead of hard-coded rules that are often difficult and unwieldy to maintain.
Here's the arabic re-translation (translate from english->arabic->english, not the best test, but whatever) of the first paragraph of this comment:
"Dondo, I tried to images to the interpreter of Arab homes and Arab : My friend that works really. It is not similar to Krappie traditional interpreters of the people that he used the statistical methods of learning rather than hard rules symbols, which are often complex and difficult to maintain. "
Note that it only really failed in meaning when I used slang, but worked better when I was more formal. I am sure the soldiers will be trained to speak formally in it. I agree with you that this won't entirely replace humans, but this is still better than nothing.
Well, my comment was not "rediculous," and his was not funny. And I think this thread ranks as one of the lamest ones ever. Thank you for wasting 2 minutes of my time :)