that without IP, you would not have Star Trek. Or Star Wars. Or Bladerunner. Or even Iron Skies, at least in its final form.
And without coffee we wouldn't have those things either because without coffee to drink the creators of those would have had a subtley different creative process and would have come up with something different. It's the butterfly effect. But in neither case does it mean that we wouldn't have something else in their place, maybe even something better.
Try the RequestPolicy add on for firefox. It gives you find grained control over cross-site content embedding and it doesn't replace the blocked content with an ugly error message - just a small icon of a flag in the case of a blocked image, if you tell it to.
The original claim was that Intel had no CPUs with 8 or more cores,
He wrote "8+ cores." You apparently chose to believe that meant 8 or more cores, anyone with basic knowledge of these things and a desire to find truth rather than pedancy would understand that he meant "more than 8 cores." But even a pedant could have just cited the tons of 8 core xeon models out there rather than go off on a tangent about 16 hyperthreads.
They run sixteen threads per CPU and they're stonkingly fast.
Hyperthreading is not the equal of a full-fledged core. On the other hand, an AMD bulldozer core is only half of a floating-point core. But, on the third hand, if FP is a big part of your workload you are probably handing it off to gpus anyway.
So in other words, this is a government problem not a Google problem.
Yes and no. The government wouldn't be so interested in google if their surveilance model weren't so similar to google's business model - centralized collection of as much data as possible for data mining purposes.
In google's defense, their publication of this information is about the best we can hope for from them to counter what are practically secret fishing expeditions, short of them using their lobbyists to convince congress to reign in the DOJ/DHS.
That's hardly a Hitler mindset. No one is talking about interning Muslims like Roosevelt did with the Japanese Americans during WWII much less gassing them and throwing them in mass graves.
Yeah, and nobody was talking about that stuff outloud until it was way past time to put the brakes on. But they are doing pretty much same sort of demonization that lead up to those sorts of actions. LIke I said, genocide is not a party plank, but we are getting way closer than is healthy. Numbnuts' innumerate defense of bigotry above is unacceptably close to mainstream within the party.
Exactly which Republican ideas do you consider as right wing and bonkers as those of Hitler.
Well, it isn't like genocide was an official part of the party platform this year, but it was pretty close. There was plenty of islamophobia on display during the republican primary, which I was inclined to chalk up to the just plain extremist nature of many primary voters. But, it seems that even during his "tack to the center" Romney maintained way too much of that in the form of his foreiign policy advisors. One foreign policy advisor was John Bolton who is so friendly with the two most high profile islamaphobes in the USA that he wrote the forward for one of their books.
Lets not conflate carelessness and idiocy with being uniformed. It should be enough from my to label something "toxic", I don't see why I have to sit you down and explain why drinking a quart of it might have negative consequences,
Wait. You JUST made that conflation in the very next sentence! The link from "toxic" to "this could kill you" is one step, that is the definition of toxic. The link from "share your heartrate and caloric burnrate with your friends" to "reveal personal secrets" is not anywhere near as direct.
GP's point is that the user willingly brought the device, willingly let it record their lives, and willingly shared that data with a third party.
And my point is that his decisions were not fully informed and given the lack of experience we as a society have with panopticon-type personal information gathering it is a randian pipedream to expect the average joe to be fully informed. Especially when the people selling the product have an interest in downplaying such risks in order to keep sales up.
Yes. It keeps track of what you're doing. You know this because you can see the data it captures.
Yes, you can see the data that it captures. What you can't see is all of the things which that data may reveal about you in the hands of someone motivated enough. Don't confuse the forest with the trees - the anecdote about the guy getting caught cheating is not about the risk of getting caught cheating, it is the risk of "20/20 hindsight." In retrospect it is obvious that his data would reveal something like that to a suspicios girlfriend. But at the time it was not so obvious, it isn't like he deliberately uploaded a message that said "having sex with another girl @1am" to the nike website.
Pervasive data collection is extremely new, we as a society have not figured out all of the risks involved. Contrast that to "living in a small town" - because society has had millenia of experience with that situation we generally have a good understanding of the risks involved. It is going to take a lot of people finding out the hard way what the problems are with pervasive data collection before we, if we ever, come to understand the trade-offs that come along with it.
That wasn't done with tithing money. It was money raised from the members of the church specifically for that purpose. In fact, I don't think it would even be legal for tithing (tax-deductible charitable donations) to be used to fight a political battle. In any case, I know that requests for donations were made, to support that battle, and that it was made clear to the members that such donations would not be tax deductible.
It does seem that there is more to the story. Apparently the $20 million was raised, as you said, via a specificly created non-charitable organization. However, it seems that the current tax code permits up to 20% of a religious organization's spending to be used on non-candidate politicing such as citizen initiatives regarding "moral questsions." So, given the vast amounts of money they do collect, they probably could have laundered $20M just fine.
Religious giving covers all four definitions except #3.
I'm going to disagree that #4 is even relevant to the discussion. As for the others - the money spent on the poor and needy typically comes with some level of proselytization. I recognize that there are religious charities who do not overtly proselytize, but even when they aren't forcing people to convert in order to receive the "charity" simply being there and identifying as a religious organization is a form of proselytization and would not be occuring if it were not for the charitable donations in the first place. You touched on this a little bit with the idea of alms, but none of these studies have measured the rates of unclaimed charitable deducations so nobody can draw conclusions either way.
Liberal "charitable" giving to things like nature funds and PBS is charitable in the tax-code way... but it is not feeding a hungry child, or caring for an elderly person and is not therefore, strictly speaking "charity" at all.
I agree somewhat. First the disagreement - "nature funds" generally do qualify as charitable in the lay sense of the term because the donors do not expect to receive anything in turn. Now the somewhat agreement -- things like PBS are not completely sefless because while PBS does educate everybody who wants to take advantage of it, the donor is almost certainly taking advantage of it themselves too. However, it is only the extremists who categorize PBS as a liberal cause, for example even the Koch brothers donate millions to PBS programming. So far I have not seen any evidence to suggest that conservatives care less about cultural and educational donations than liberals and so I feel confident in believing that those sorts of charitable donations are fairly evenly distributed across the spectrum.
Brooks discovered that approximately equal percentages of liberals and conservatives give to private charitable causes. However, conservatives gave about 30 percent more money per year to private charitable causes, even though his study found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year in income than did conservative families.
This is another one of those things I call a "true lie" - it is a shallow literal truth that is used to obscure a more meaningful truth.
It is literally true that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. But it is a lie to say that means conservatives are more charitable. That is because the entire difference in charitable giving is accounted for by religious donations. When you take those out of the equation, both groups give roughly the same amount of money.
When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast would jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2 in the rankings, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.
The problem with religious charity, aka tithing, is that it is not truly charitable. It is about giving money to something that benefits the giver whereas true charity is altruistic with no expectation of benefit to the giver. Religious donations are charity as defined by the IRS but are not charity as defined by common usage of the term.
In extreme cases the money can be "laundered" such that it counts as an IRS charitable deduction but then is used for something that is not deductible. One such example is the way the Knights of Columbus -- a religious charity affiliated with the catholic church -- spent $1.9M between 2008 and 2009 to fight same-sex marriage laws in Washington State. If a secular person wanted to donate money to a group like the Human Rights Campaign who advocate for gay marraige, it would not be considered charity.
They were trying to work out how to get you off the phone as quick as possible without insulting you.
Unlikely. Politely ending a phone call is going to be so common for campaigners that there are going to be at least a handful of generic scripts for them to follow. What this anecdote says is that the idea was not one the particular caller had ever considered and, more importantly to the GP's point, chances are their script writers had not either.
And not just another platform for mining your personal data to better push ads at you (google, Facebook),
Don't be so quick with that.
All Tesla cars come with cellular connectivity and they definitely phone home. i think that it would be naive to believe that Tesla is not looking to monetize as much of your driving information they can their hands on. I'd love to see proof otherwise, but I doubt it is out there given the way of the world nowadays.
I'm far more willing to chalk it up to deprecated, cheap-ass touch sensors than I am to call it fraud.
I agree, this would be a really dumbass way of committing systematic fraud. If you have access to futz with the screen code you have access to futz with the database of votes and nobody can see you flip bits in there.
But most people don't have a clue about what happens inside the machine, but this screen switching stuff is visible and so it gets coverage while the real potential for risks doesn't get widely discussed because it is too egghead.
Fundamentally my problem with your position is that it is the ostrich version of security. Just because you can't think of a way to exploit the system does not mean we shouldn't build it robustly. It is kind of like three legged chairs - they ought to be just fine in theory, but it in practice they are lot less stable than four legged chairs.
I expect you to say that we should not incur costs that are unnecessary but my position is that baseline securitiy is always necessary, particularly in a system that is very expensive to retrofit.
I mean not just a dropped call that you redialed and it worked but completely unable to make or receive calls in an area of normal coverage under non-emergency conditions?
Are you serious? This past week I was completely unable to make or receive calls in an area of normal coverage. I live on the south shore of Long Island, NY.
You mean the area that got hit by the hurricane? What part of non-emergency conditions do you fail to understand?
The part where non-emergency conditions are the exact opposite of the topic at hand?
You are right! I don't know what I was thinking. Of course the reason we shouldn't augment the cell system to reliably provide basic service during emergency conditions is because it currently only fails during emergency conditions. It is so obvious now that you laid it out. Thanks man!
Slashdot Mirror
that without IP, you would not have Star Trek. Or Star Wars. Or Bladerunner. Or even Iron Skies, at least in its final form.
And without coffee we wouldn't have those things either because without coffee to drink the creators of those would have had a subtley different creative process and would have come up with something different. It's the butterfly effect. But in neither case does it mean that we wouldn't have something else in their place, maybe even something better.
Try the RequestPolicy add on for firefox. It gives you find grained control over cross-site content embedding and it doesn't replace the blocked content with an ugly error message - just a small icon of a flag in the case of a blocked image, if you tell it to.
Actually, having 1000 developers working on one project is an excellent explanation for the cost, time taken and failure.
Especially if most of it was outsourced to people living on the other side of the planet.
The original claim was that Intel had no CPUs with 8 or more cores,
He wrote "8+ cores." You apparently chose to believe that meant 8 or more cores, anyone with basic knowledge of these things and a desire to find truth rather than pedancy would understand that he meant "more than 8 cores." But even a pedant could have just cited the tons of 8 core xeon models out there rather than go off on a tangent about 16 hyperthreads.
They run sixteen threads per CPU and they're stonkingly fast.
Hyperthreading is not the equal of a full-fledged core. On the other hand, an AMD bulldozer core is only half of a floating-point core. But, on the third hand, if FP is a big part of your workload you are probably handing it off to gpus anyway.
Misleading facts with citations are still misleading.
So in other words, this is a government problem not a Google problem.
Yes and no. The government wouldn't be so interested in google if their surveilance model weren't so similar to google's business model - centralized collection of as much data as possible for data mining purposes.
In google's defense, their publication of this information is about the best we can hope for from them to counter what are practically secret fishing expeditions, short of them using their lobbyists to convince congress to reign in the DOJ/DHS.
That's hardly a Hitler mindset. No one is talking about interning Muslims like Roosevelt did with the Japanese Americans during WWII much less gassing them and throwing them in mass graves.
Yeah, and nobody was talking about that stuff outloud until it was way past time to put the brakes on. But they are doing pretty much same sort of demonization that lead up to those sorts of actions. LIke I said, genocide is not a party plank, but we are getting way closer than is healthy. Numbnuts' innumerate defense of bigotry above is unacceptably close to mainstream within the party.
Yep, that's a pretty good illustration of the mindset I was talking about.
Exactly which Republican ideas do you consider as right wing and bonkers as those of Hitler.
Well, it isn't like genocide was an official part of the party platform this year, but it was pretty close. There was plenty of islamophobia on display during the republican primary, which I was inclined to chalk up to the just plain extremist nature of many primary voters. But, it seems that even during his "tack to the center" Romney maintained way too much of that in the form of his foreiign policy advisors. One foreign policy advisor was John Bolton who is so friendly with the two most high profile islamaphobes in the USA that he wrote the forward for one of their books.
Lets not conflate carelessness and idiocy with being uniformed. It should be enough from my to label something "toxic", I don't see why I have to sit you down and explain why drinking a quart of it might have negative consequences,
Wait. You JUST made that conflation in the very next sentence! The link from "toxic" to "this could kill you" is one step, that is the definition of toxic. The link from "share your heartrate and caloric burnrate with your friends" to "reveal personal secrets" is not anywhere near as direct.
GP's point is that the user willingly brought the device, willingly let it record their lives, and willingly shared that data with a third party.
And my point is that his decisions were not fully informed and given the lack of experience we as a society have with panopticon-type personal information gathering it is a randian pipedream to expect the average joe to be fully informed. Especially when the people selling the product have an interest in downplaying such risks in order to keep sales up.
Yes. It keeps track of what you're doing. You know this because you can see the data it captures.
Yes, you can see the data that it captures. What you can't see is all of the things which that data may reveal about you in the hands of someone motivated enough. Don't confuse the forest with the trees - the anecdote about the guy getting caught cheating is not about the risk of getting caught cheating, it is the risk of "20/20 hindsight." In retrospect it is obvious that his data would reveal something like that to a suspicios girlfriend. But at the time it was not so obvious, it isn't like he deliberately uploaded a message that said "having sex with another girl @1am" to the nike website.
Pervasive data collection is extremely new, we as a society have not figured out all of the risks involved. Contrast that to "living in a small town" - because society has had millenia of experience with that situation we generally have a good understanding of the risks involved. It is going to take a lot of people finding out the hard way what the problems are with pervasive data collection before we, if we ever, come to understand the trade-offs that come along with it.
That wasn't done with tithing money. It was money raised from the members of the church specifically for that purpose. In fact, I don't think it would even be legal for tithing (tax-deductible charitable donations) to be used to fight a political battle. In any case, I know that requests for donations were made, to support that battle, and that it was made clear to the members that such donations would not be tax deductible.
It does seem that there is more to the story. Apparently the $20 million was raised, as you said, via a specificly created non-charitable organization. However, it seems that the current tax code permits up to 20% of a religious organization's spending to be used on non-candidate politicing such as citizen initiatives regarding "moral questsions." So, given the vast amounts of money they do collect, they probably could have laundered $20M just fine.
Citation for both points: SFGate - Tax-exempt benefit disputed in Prop. 8 campaign
Religious giving covers all four definitions except #3.
I'm going to disagree that #4 is even relevant to the discussion. As for the others - the money spent on the poor and needy typically comes with some level of proselytization. I recognize that there are religious charities who do not overtly proselytize, but even when they aren't forcing people to convert in order to receive the "charity" simply being there and identifying as a religious organization is a form of proselytization and would not be occuring if it were not for the charitable donations in the first place. You touched on this a little bit with the idea of alms, but none of these studies have measured the rates of unclaimed charitable deducations so nobody can draw conclusions either way.
Liberal "charitable" giving to things like nature funds and PBS is charitable in the tax-code way... but it is not feeding a hungry child, or caring for an elderly person and is not therefore, strictly speaking "charity" at all.
I agree somewhat. First the disagreement - "nature funds" generally do qualify as charitable in the lay sense of the term because the donors do not expect to receive anything in turn. Now the somewhat agreement -- things like PBS are not completely sefless because while PBS does educate everybody who wants to take advantage of it, the donor is almost certainly taking advantage of it themselves too. However, it is only the extremists who categorize PBS as a liberal cause, for example even the Koch brothers donate millions to PBS programming. So far I have not seen any evidence to suggest that conservatives care less about cultural and educational donations than liberals and so I feel confident in believing that those sorts of charitable donations are fairly evenly distributed across the spectrum.
Brooks discovered that approximately equal percentages of liberals and conservatives give to private charitable causes. However, conservatives gave about 30 percent more money per year to private charitable causes, even though his study found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year in income than did conservative families.
This is another one of those things I call a "true lie" - it is a shallow literal truth that is used to obscure a more meaningful truth.
It is literally true that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. But it is a lie to say that means conservatives are more charitable. That is because the entire difference in charitable giving is accounted for by religious donations. When you take those out of the equation, both groups give roughly the same amount of money.
When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast would jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2 in the rankings, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.
--The Chronical of Philanthropy
The problem with religious charity, aka tithing, is that it is not truly charitable. It is about giving money to something that benefits the giver whereas true charity is altruistic with no expectation of benefit to the giver. Religious donations are charity as defined by the IRS but are not charity as defined by common usage of the term.
In extreme cases the money can be "laundered" such that it counts as an IRS charitable deduction but then is used for something that is not deductible. One such example is the way the Knights of Columbus -- a religious charity affiliated with the catholic church -- spent $1.9M between 2008 and 2009 to fight same-sex marriage laws in Washington State. If a secular person wanted to donate money to a group like the Human Rights Campaign who advocate for gay marraige, it would not be considered charity.
Same thing with the way Mormons are expected to pay a 10% tithe to the Mormon Church. But the Church turned around and spent $22 million of that to defeat the pro-gay-marraige Prop 8 in california.
How is this NOT representative?
Because the people that voted for Obama are not real Americans.
Why would this be a bigger problem than people having the same real name, which happens all the time?
Because pedo-cops are over-zealous (and ineffective) and because most of the judicial system has not figured out the nuances of the internet yet.
They were trying to work out how to get you off the phone as quick as possible without insulting you.
Unlikely. Politely ending a phone call is going to be so common for campaigners that there are going to be at least a handful of generic scripts for them to follow. What this anecdote says is that the idea was not one the particular caller had ever considered and, more importantly to the GP's point, chances are their script writers had not either.
And not just another platform for mining your personal data to better push ads at you (google, Facebook),
Don't be so quick with that.
All Tesla cars come with cellular connectivity and they definitely phone home. i think that it would be naive to believe that Tesla is not looking to monetize as much of your driving information they can their hands on. I'd love to see proof otherwise, but I doubt it is out there given the way of the world nowadays.
Stop trying to ban things and learn to work with what kids have natural interests in.
My daughter keeps begging me to help her give her personal information to BlueKai, I'm going to take your advice and help her with that tonight!
I'm far more willing to chalk it up to deprecated, cheap-ass touch sensors than I am to call it fraud.
I agree, this would be a really dumbass way of committing systematic fraud. If you have access to futz with the screen code you have access to futz with the database of votes and nobody can see you flip bits in there.
But most people don't have a clue about what happens inside the machine, but this screen switching stuff is visible and so it gets coverage while the real potential for risks doesn't get widely discussed because it is too egghead.
Fundamentally my problem with your position is that it is the ostrich version of security. Just because you can't think of a way to exploit the system does not mean we shouldn't build it robustly. It is kind of like three legged chairs - they ought to be just fine in theory, but it in practice they are lot less stable than four legged chairs.
I expect you to say that we should not incur costs that are unnecessary but my position is that baseline securitiy is always necessary, particularly in a system that is very expensive to retrofit.
I mean not just a dropped call that you redialed and it worked but completely unable to make or receive calls in an area of normal coverage under non-emergency conditions?
Are you serious? This past week I was completely unable to make or receive calls in an area of normal coverage. I live on the south shore of Long Island, NY.
You mean the area that got hit by the hurricane? What part of non-emergency conditions do you fail to understand?
The part where non-emergency conditions are the exact opposite of the topic at hand?
You are right! I don't know what I was thinking. Of course the reason we shouldn't augment the cell system to reliably provide basic service during emergency conditions is because it currently only fails during emergency conditions. It is so obvious now that you laid it out. Thanks man!