If you've never been, go. Pretty soon direct flight will be possible and they're even going to send a cruise ship in a few months (end of June, I think?). Go to Canada, put a piece of blank paper in your passport, and fly to Cuba. Go visit now, see them before they're more heavily influenced by America. Cuba will be resigning themselves from the list of communist countries - but not until after Fidel is dead. He's already admitted such as far as I'm told. Go, before they are no longer the Cuba that they are.
I've been twice and enjoyed it both times. I'm debating going again, just so I can visit one more time before they get hit full in the face with the US. It's not much like most people expect. There's no political undercurrent that's trying to find ways to subvert the regime and oust Raul. The sneakernet that is so talked about? The USB drives have got the latest Mexican soap-operas and most recently translated James Patterson novels. Oh, and music. Lots of music. They're not sneaking around and sharing secret plans and maps to hidden arms caches. They're sharing media.
The people are cool, they're open and friendly. Don't offer to let them use your computer or anything. Your internet access will be dog-slow if you can even get access in one of the cafes (I never did). Don't do anything crazy and they stamp your passport on the blank page instead of in the book itself. Bring some blank thumb drives - just the smaller ones, not the big ones. Don't put media on 'em, they'll take those and you won't get them back until you leave, if at all. Just put on your cigar smoking lungs, your music listening ears, and your best rum bib.
This... There might be a tick in the aficionado market and there might be some historical or art value. If you're going to go to Cuba to buy the cars dirt cheap and bring them back like they're collector pieces, you will be disappointed. I *am* an automotive enthusiast and I have *been* to Cuba. You will not just find engines swapped, you will find the seats aren't the right model, the rims aren't correct, the body panels may not even be original (and probably aren't in many cases).
They've done a great job keeping these vehicles running. They have not kept them pristine. I've mentioned this a few times now because every time the subject of Cuba comes up, someone seems to say, "I bet those cars are worth a fortune." They might be - if you get in very quick and grab some of the better ones. Mostly, they'll have some historical significance and some art significance. They will be unlikely to retain that value once the novelty wears off and they realize that they're not something you can just drive down to VIP and get a lube and oil job.
Many of them do not look good from the outside. It's an island. It's an island in the ocean. The ocean has salt water. There's salt in the air. They've been in this salt air for a very long time, without proper care, and getting a whole lot of wear and tear. They are not going to be a reliable vehicle that the collectors can take to shows and show off. At best, they'll be trailer queens. That Mercury has a Lada engine, brakes from a Dodge, Ford seats, a bumper from a bus of unknown origin, four wheels from varied OEMs, and the body is rusting out under that paint.
That they run at all is a miracle and a testimony to the skills of the Cuban mechanics. They might have some novelty value but that will wear thin very quickly. Collectors aren't going to have a big demand for them - though there might be a few that are worth a small amount for parts that are otherwise rare. They might have some art or historical value but those will probably dwindle quickly - probably not a sound long-term investment. If you're going to do anything, get a parts list and bring someone with you and hit up their junk yards and ship back parts by the ton in crates - there will be the only real money making possibility.
If you buy a car from Cuba and you plan to actually use it, show it, or keep it in running condition then you're going to need to bring back the Cuban mechanic with you. Make suitable arrangements for their visa, family, and means of livelihood unless you plan on adopting the whole family. This is *not* a task I'd recommend anyone undertake unless they've a very compelling reason. Trying to invest in these will almost certainly result in a financial loss unless you're the first one on the scene and able to get the pick of the litter and somehow prove it was one of Fidel's, Raul's, or Batista's personal car. If you buy it to use it, it's going to break your heart. If you buy it to sell it, it's going to break your wallet.
Other than that, they're kind of cool. But it's important to note, do not invest! We've had a dozen threads lately and I bet this has come up in all of them.
I do know of the starvation. Mao had some... He had some interesting proposals and solutions. Yes, interesting. It's quite likely that mine was brought into Viet Nam to be used by the NVA and then was probably never issued. Somehow, and we can speculate, it likely ended up in the possession of a US soldier. Again, with some speculation as to the method, it made it to the US.
Hmm... I am not finding it - I know I've posted pictures of it here on Slashdot. Someone didn't believe I had one and that it was perfectly legal so I took a picture of it with the standard index card with the date on it. I want to say 10/2013 but that might be off and might be something else entirely. It wasn't that meaningful so I'm not sure if my memory is that good. The logged in user didn't reply but an AC replied and called me a something like a klan member, NAZI, or something like that. Meh, I got my thirty seconds worth of amusement out of it.
Oh, no... I had put my CWP in the picture with it and edited out my name (that's about the best of my image editing skills). Yeah, I don't think that was the one with the index card and the date. Ah well...
I don't know if your SKS (probably not, not at that price) is select fire but I do believe that some versions actually have a kit to enable select fire. If that kit was pre-ban, and your model is suitable, then you could have select fire. It's an SKS so that'd probably only be single and full.
Tragically, I had a friend in North Carolina who retired to Maine a couple of years prior to myself. He owned a giant gun shop, is a gunsmith, and is retired. He still does some custom work for people here and there and sometimes moves a few pieces - he's still a licensed dealer. Well, in his retirement he opted to keep a large number of his more interesting pieces. Unfortunately, he is really, really good at convincing me that they need a good home. It's tragic, it really is.
When I get back to Maine, I'll take some pics for you. I own an obscene number of firearms. In my basement, I have a room that is about 15x20' and it has 8" thick concrete walls and a steel door with the frame embedded in the concrete. Inside that room are a bunch of safes that line the walls and some standing back to back in the middle. You can imagine what they're full of. No, I do not count them. No, I haven't even fired them all. No, I don't even have a good justification for owning them all except to claim they're a collection. They are, technically, a collection. I've got boxes and boxes full of ammo and the associated gear.
It's truly tragic. The worst part is that he still has more. They need a good home and some of them are antiques or significant in some way... It doesn't help that I've been amassing them since I was just a kid. We had a rifle and pistol team at my school. That didn't help. People would think I'm a crazy gun-nut who's preparing to defend himself against an oppressive government. Really, I just like things that go boom. Ah well... I even have all the gear to reload, including a bunch of brass, and I've never once unpacked it and done anything with it. I have done some reloading, just not at my house and with my own equipment.
So, you should probably come to Maine sometime. I'm pretty sure I can keep you amused for a few days. They like some attention now and again. My kids shoot but not all that much any more. My daughter hits the range once a week for an hour. My son's in Peru and he's not a citizen so he doesn't have a firearm with him - so I have his at the house too. I guess it's difficult to get a firearm and they have some unique self-defense laws? I never looked into it when I was in the area but he tells me that so long as you use equal force, you're pretty much golden. If they pull a knife and you shoot them, you're screwed. If they pull a knife and you stab them 200 times and they die, you're good to go. I guess it's common practice to carry two knives and have to firearms in the home with the second one being untraceable.
Bleh, well, this is a novella. Meh... You're probably used to it by now. Yes, yes I am a bit bored today.
No worries. I had to double check it myself. It's not like I read the manual either. I wasn't actually sure that it would work before I tested it in order to reply. I actually only noticed the option a few months ago, never tested it, and I've been using uMatrix for years now. It was available for Opera much sooner than he made the Firefox version. Opera has no NoScript as it uses the same style extensions as Chrome/Chromium. Hell, as I recall, I only noticed it by accident in the first place.
So, you can configure wildcard (all domains), sub-domain (if applicable), and root domain. At some point, I'll probably get around to reading the manual.:/
Oh, I like to backup my rules. I use multiple computers, sometimes just a Live USB, and being able to just restore my rules is very handy. It might seem like it's not that important but it just kind of sucks when you end up screwing something up and being unable to retrieve them and you lose a year's worth of rule refinements. I have it kind of automated and save to a network share that's accessible from anywhere I go that has internet. It has come in handy many times and I've even shared it with others. I should ask him if he's interested in adding the ability to merge multiple backups together. Or maybe it's in the manual.
Do you actually know how this works? No, really? If you've not looked beyond the Slashdot headlines, you might not understand. This is an application, a free download, that enables people to use a subset of the internet at no cost. They can still use the regular 'net. There's no restrictions on that. This is just free. Any developer can apply and make a fully functional, low-bandwidth, method and *maybe* get access. That's a little sketchy but that's how it is. They didn't charge people extra money for regular internet access - they still were charged for non-free content at regular prices. The application didn't actually stop anyone from accessing the rest of the 'net. Use of the application wasn't mandatory.
It was in place, it had over a million users, and then people complained. It's in use in over 40 other countries, quite happily. It wasn't income based, anyone could download it and use it - until they banned it. It doesn't target the poorest of the poor, that's true. It's not entirely altruistic, that's true. It enabled people access to over 100 sites at no cost. There were no bandwidth restrictions for those 100 sites and, by all objective accounts, they were mostly good sites including things like Johnson and Johnson's parenting help, Wikipedia, jobs, weather, emergency alerts, and Facebook - of course.
So, now those people who were using it have nothing. What they did have wasn't perfect. It was better than nothing and many people were able to get the things they'd normally get for free which allowed them to afford access to more things that weren't free. (Free as in beer, obviously.) They were happy with this choice, they knew what they were doing, and they now have had their freedom of choice taken away from them. That's not a cause to celebrate!
Your analogies make no sense to me and I'm not sure why you'd begrudge poor people some information. That simply makes no sense to me. You want to force them to go without. The only logical conclusion I can reach is that you want to keep them impoverished, uneducated, and off your internet. The caste system is officially illegal but it's still heavily practiced. Maybe it's time to accept the "untouchables" on the internet, they won't spoil it. It's not like this limited their choice and the speculation about them being locked into it is demonstrably false.
I posted a number of relevant links in my reply to Ray if you're curious. They had nice free, limited, access. Now, they have no access unless they scrape up the money to pay for it. It's not ideal but it's better than nothing. You're literally begrudging them information because of your desire to control others. "You can't have that. I don't want you to. It is not good enough. You need to go without access or go without food if you want access." I do not understand that mentality. It's not a drug, it's not oil, it's access to information in a choice people were happy to make but you're gleeful that they've been deprived of that liberty.
Indeed. And I see what I was missing. I thought I was missing something! Alright, I'll see if I can help - if you want.;-) It seems you've been misled.
No, lots of people wanted this. It's also *not* specific hardware. I don't know what you are already familiar with - I spent a bit of time researching this when I learned about it. Let's just say that some of the presentation of the material is a little biased. (Even outright dishonest.) I'll try to make it short but I'm not sure what you know of the actual truth - there's been a whole lot of disinformation going on here. That's what I was missing - I thought you knew that.
Facebook wants to *continue* to offer a service that let's people access part the internet for free. They're still allowed to access the regular internet. This doesn't require any special device. This doesn't need any separate hardware - if you've got a smart phone (Android) then you can have free internet. They're in no way restricted from accessing the rest of the internet. Accessing the rest of the internet is seamless and doesn't incur any expenses other than what they'd normally have paid for that same access. It is not more expensive, it is not crippled, it is completely open per India's regulations. They were already doing this.
Any developer is free to apply to be included in this subset of free site but they may be turned down. This doesn't block people from accessing other sites - it just doesn't charge them for visiting certain sites such as Wikipedia, weather, news, jobs, many others and, of course, Facebook. Any developer who wishes to apply can do so. They may be allowed, they may not. If they do so then they *also* must have a low bandwidth version (like the low bandwidth versions for all the other sites - but bandwidth total for the user is not limited) of their site that must also be fully functional. Again, they can be turned down for inclusion and that's a little sketchy but nobody gets to pay to be automatically included. They were already offering, before being shut down, access to over 100 sites for free.
The TRIA is actually made up of people from competing ISPs and appear to be corrupt as all hell. They got a bunch of people riled up - almost a year ago, when Facebook was getting this rolling. They put a petition up for people to sign in protest. Except, they put the petition online. Yes, online... Even if there were a competing petition, the folks who want this can't exactly go sign it.
A number of people are advocating for it - including some of the lower cost ISPs, who won't really be making a whole lot on this. The COIA (Cellular group - not just traditional ISPs) is one such agency that supports this. They speak for all the little cellular companies that are members. I don't think we've got anything similar here in the US. The TRIA is government, the COIA is industry.
Late last year, Reliance said nearly one million people had tried Free Basics.
That was just in the startup phase - and that's just India (they also operate elsewhere).
Through mobile-phone providers, Facebook offers Free Basics in nearly 40 countries, but nowhere else has the program been as controversial as in India, where it has sparked fierce debate over whether it unfairly favors some services over competitors.
Baby Center LLC, a parenting informational site owned by Johnson & Johnson, says more than 5.5 million people have visited its site globally through Free Basics, including in India.
There's no special hardware needed - beyond a cell phone that it runs on (I think it's just Android). They had it. They were using it. They liked it. They wanted it.
Anyhow, here's some citations for all that. The WSJ is the best of 'em all, that I've found. There are others. Nah, people do *want* this. They were happy with it and, on top of that, they were doing it intelligently. Namely, they were sucking down all the free stuff they could get bu
Oh, what the hell? It's *kinda* trolling but it's also serious...
I'll believe you're actually interested in equality when you send me a newspaper clipping that shows you went down to your local courthouse to wave a sign protesting that women don't get equal sentences when they're convicted for domestic violence.
I mean, c'mon... What else are we supposed to do with this thread? But, in all seriousness... I await a newspaper clipping.;-)
It's probably an age thing. He's mostly correct *if you only look at that time frame* - there was a big lull in that after the boys returned. That comes with some caveats and people will try to twist that. A fun stat that people like to toss out is that 80% of the women were "forced" out of work after the war. The reality is, only 20% of them wanted to continue and 18% of the women forced out of work were "colored." (Yes, I've dragged out the citations before.)
So, 2% of the white women still wanted to work and were actually forced out of work following the boy's return. 18% of the black women were forced out but that's for a whole other reason - the rate was something like 47% of the black men were forced out - I don't recall that one specifically so don't quote me on it.
That lasted for a while until there was a brief uptake after the sexual revolution. A lot of those ended up pregnant at a latter data and it calmed down but then began the increase in the 1980s. If you look at flat line statistics it's not entirely accurate, you can see it better with percentages and it's even more pronounced with the (scant but existing) charts that show percentages who *wanted* to work out of the household. The percentages increased slowly and then start to rise sharply sometime in the mid 1980s - I think (I'd have to look) it was not long after Reagan's recession.
There's always been a decent undercurrent, speaking specifically of the US - but it's now extended elsewhere, of women workers. I guess, to be a bit more specific, it *probably* (I'm not an expert) began in the Industrial Revolution. See, during the Industrial Revolution a lot of that work was textiles or related to that industry, quite specifically in the UK. That was actually mostly done (albeit not in management all that much) by women and children. That was mirrored, in many ways, in the US.
The US had lots of women in factories. They worked in textiles, shoe manufacturing, and assembly line work. This shouldn't really be confused with mills and foundries. Those tended to have a lot of males with an exception being things like woolen mills, cotton mills, and things like that - again, in the textiles.
At any rate, there have been peaks and swings with the one you reference with Rosie but don't forget that many women also joined the work-force in WWI. This wasn't quite as pronounced until the latter part of WWI as the US wasn't really involved except as an arms dealer until very near the end of the conflict. Again, that died down, and WWII happened. Then that settled down but not as far, so it's been steadily increasing with some downturns.
That does't really discount any of the above - it's just a bit of a larger picture. I do very much agree with some of their sentiment - that it's largely due to manipulation. I know that will be misunderstood and misrepresented but that doesn't change the fact that there's a bunch of social manipulation that tries to increase consumerism and decrease wages - they seem like conflicting ideas but the goal is increased profit percentages (I assume).
Do please note that I said nothing along the lines of who belongs in what role nor did I indicate a belief that anyone is particular superior at any given task. In fact, if I had my druthers, I'd suggest that we could actually have a decent society where the tasks were split along individual choice and a family could be raised on a single income. I think it would be great if parents could divide their hours working at home and outside the home (an example would be 20 hours each) and actually have a reasonable lifestyle on that alone. Single and non-traditional couples should also be just fine.
Of course, that would mean that employers would need to up their game and start paying people enough to have a reasonable standard of living from what's traditionally considered a full work-week. How we get there, I do not know. I'm loathe to suggest legislation. I do think that such a step may become mandatory as we near the age of a near leisure econo
With AR? Overlay. Not all at once. That's why I mentioned the ability to drill down. Mentally? It'd not even need to be visualized - I shouldn't think. Not necessarily like one would see it and without optical input. So, any ol' spot. But, off to the side with glasses. It can be varied sizes, it'd be pretty close to the eyes so there's lots of room to actually move your eyes and still see inside of the glasses. But no, not all at once and definitely gonna want to be able to turn it off. My original thought was it would make an awesome HUD in a car but that's really rather dangerous. It might be something that can be done with autonomous vehicles.
You're new here. I'll cut you some slack. The answer is no. Actually, the answer is fuck no. You can browse at a higher threshold if you're unable to just grin and ignore the idiots and trolls. They're an essential part of Slashdot. In time, you'll understand that. They've even been here longer than you. This is you coming into *their* site and suggesting that someone delete *their* posts when you're the new guy.
Laugh, they don't hurt you. They're words on a screen. Random, pointless, mindless pixels with no harm to you or your loved ones. Nobody really likes them but we accept them because of what that means. That means that we're allowed a modicum of free speech here - without interference from the benevolent overlords. I've known of two posts that were intentionally deleted and I'm actually on my second account (lost the email and wandered away for a while). They were here when I got here. They'll be here, hopefully, long after I'm gone.
If you can't laugh and/or just ignore them, there's a really good chance you don't belong here.
I want augmented reality, tied in with photo recognition and big data. I want to be able to look at a bridge, know when it was built, how high it is, if anyone was harmed during the build process, what the structural capacity is, what the max throughput is, and things like that. I want to look at a building and see the floor plan, know who built it, know who rents space in it, know what the value is, and things like that - not houses but, you know, more famous buildings.
Basically, I want augmented reality so that I have a veritable real-time documentary available for me - pretty much everywhere I look. All optional, of course, and with varied depths of information as well as the ability to drill deeper. I'd really rather an implant but I'll be okay with AR. I'd love to be able to look at a statue and know who carved it, when, where, why it's significant, and then find out the history of that person and their significance to the area. If it were an implant, I'd even let 'em put a wireless antenna nub on my head and a wired port in my neck.
I'd love that sort of tech - assuming it can be turned off, on, controlled, etc... AR is a fine place to start but I want full access to the web, nearly instantaneously, without the need for visual input. Imagine being able to use Google, WolframAlpha, Wikipedia, YouTube, or even porn - right in your head. I think AR might be do-able in my lifetime. I've my doubts about implants being available in my lifetime but that's really what I'd prefer. I'll be pretty damned happy with AR like I envision it.
Hmm... Does processing power really need to come down in price to do that? I know this might sound crazy but, couldn't we have a device - say in our own home, that did our voice processing for us and then pushed out and retrieved what was needed - list a server in the middle type of deal? Your phone, computer, television - all those things, they could connect to your own device - even if you're away from home - via the 'net and process it. It might even be better because the refinements and machine learning/corrections would be applicable to you voice profile?
Yeah, I know it's kind of crazy to want a device under my control and all but it seems like that might work. I promise, I'm not a terrorist or anything! I'm not even a subversive! I might be missing something (I don't actually use any of those sorts of things) so maybe I'm wrong but it seems like it could be a fairly cheap dedicated device and just use an API and a network connection (it could even be encrypted) so that any device could work.
I suppose that's true but I'm gonna notice some guy standing on my lawn with an antenna. Even if he's using a cell phone in his pocket, I'm gonna ask why he's standing on my lawn. I guess, if my elderly neighbors, about a half mile through the woods, decide to start hacking a powerful wifi access point to make it so that my data's shunted over to the 'net it could be a problem.
Meh, it's a moot point anyhow. I don't actually own a very smart television. I do own a television. It's even a fairly nice television, or it was - it's a few years old now. I don't have it connected to anything fancy. It's just attached to a laptop and I stream documentaries to it from across my network. It can actually browse my network by itself (it doesn't have get a public IP address) but it will only play one movie and won't queue up a list and doesn't support playlist formats. So, a laptop it is. I do think it advertised itself as being smart. It doesn't do playlists so it's not nearly as smart as I'd hoped.
It's kind of interesting. It's not one of my favorites but there's the link for those who want to see it. If you've got an hour to burn and want to learn about it, have at it. I like NOVA and this one is fine, still not one of my favorites.
I don't think that's a very good analogy. You know that they sell unrefined ore, right? They do an assay and figure out an estimated value, agree on a price, and they buy the rocks and then refine the ore. So you can, I guess, show up at *a market* and foist a bunch of rocks on 'em and say "there's gold in there, pay me." Obviously, there needs to be gold in them there rocks.
I'm pretty sure there's operations for that with a bunch of different valuable metals. The mining company isn't always the same company as the refining company. It's even available on a smaller scale - if you, personally wanted to do it you can. If you go to one of those "mine the shit yourself" places and bang around with a pick ax and don't hurt yourself then you too can participate in such a market. You bang about with your pick ax, hunt around, and find some stuff with gold in it. Then you stomp down at the end of the day and either take your rocks with you or you pretty much say exactly that.
If you don't mind, I have a question... What doesn't have subjective value?
I really can't think of anything that doesn't have a subjective value - at least at an individual level. I am not trolling, I am not being snide, I am not fishing for an answer to then pounce and say, "Ah ha!" I really don't understand and you're far more adept at it than I. I can assure you that you know more about the subject than I do and I will happily defer to your expertise.
Yes, it's sad that I pretty much have to include that. The quality of the comments are such that I'd doubt my motives too. Rest assured, I am not trolling.,
I double checked the dictionary for fear that I was mistaken about the definition for disingenuous. Are you sure that's the word you're going for? 'Cause that seems pretty straight forward to me. Are you or are you not going to provide access for the people who can't afford it in India?
Also, while we look at that $1 and say, "Oh, that's not much." There's a whole swath of people in India who can't even afford that - but still have access to something less expensive. If you spent a minute or two outside of your bubble, you'd be aware of this. Try going to India sometime and getting the fuck out of the tour group and having a look around. Don't worry, they won't bite. They're just poor. They're otherwise decent human beings.
You'll begrudge them any access at all because you're... What? You don't want them to be better educated? You don't want them to have access to Wikipedia? You hate Facebook? Then step up to the plate and offer something better. All you're doing is reinforcing the caste system.
"Oh no! Those untouchables will be on my internet!" Seriously, what's wrong with letting them *choose* to have this? I do have a problem if it's their only option. I do have a problem if they are forced to use it. I have no problem if they are allowed to choose it. So far, nobody has given a good reason why people should not be able to make that choice. So far, nobody has offered an alternative that doesn't rely on the good graces of someone other than them.
As near as I can tell, it's just a bunch of people who are jealous that someone might get something they don't have, don't want, but might result in the untouchables being on their internet. It's justification for perpetuating the caste system. Are you guys seriously worried that they might learn something and better themselves? Are you worried that they'll fuck off all day on Facebook games? Are you worried that they'll communicate with their friends and family? WTF?
This makes NO sense to me. Is it altruistic? Of course not. Does it solve all the problems? Don't be daft. Does it target the poorest of the poor? That's a stupid question too. Yet, in these two threads now, I've seen all those as complaints. I've seen not one realistic solution offered that didn't rely on taking something from somebody else - and probably out of jealousy at one end and greed at the other. Why the hell is it wrong for people to be able to make a choice?
It becomes wrong when they have no choice. Right now, they have no choice. This at least gives them an option. Is it perfect? Hell no. Is it better than nothing? Buggered if I know - I should think you'd let THEM decide. But no, this is just India being India and continuing their oppressive behaviors at the behest of the moneyed akin to their traditional caste system that they claim to have outlawed in one breath but is still heavily practices across their country. Go to India... Get off the tour bus and walk around. You're cheering their continued deprivation.
I still don't really see much of a problem with them offering the service - it's free. I have a problem if they make that service mandatory. I also noticed this gem in the summary:
...which is more than a Free Basics user will consume in a month...
Holy shit that's a huge assumption to make. How did they conclude what a Free Basics user would have consumed in a month? Facebook has video, audio, and other "rich" content - or so I'm told. Wikipedia has videos and music and even has articles that will read themselves aloud to you now. How the hell did they conclude that?
I'd have a problem if this were being offered as an exclusionary service but that doesn't appear to be the case. It's not that I like Facebook or anything (I don't even have an account) but that I'm of the opinion that something is better than nothing. Does this target the poorest of the poor? Nope. Not at all. Nobody's doing anything for them either. It targets those who might otherwise have nothing for connectivity. It gives them some access. I see nothing wrong with offering it as a choice.
I do see everything wrong with making it the only solution. Maybe I'm mistaken? I'm kind of big on letting people make their own choices. I'm okay with people making choices that I'd not personally make. You're usually pretty smart, what am I missing here?
I don't usually have problems with AMD CPUs but I do with the ATi GPUs and, sometimes, the on-board stuff. So, I usually go with nVidia for my GPU. Like you, I was first exposed to AMD with the K6 line. In my case, it was the AMD K6-2 350 but I kept it OCed as it was still stable at just a bit under 500 MHz. (I forget the exact number.) If I could keep it cold, I could actually wind it up a bit further.
For amusement, I had it wrapped in plastic and sitting in a freezer for a while - not long-term or anything. I don't recall the name of the benchmarking utility but it got really nice numbers! A bunch of us did stuff like that back then. I'm guessing you probably did your share. It's all fun and games until you smell something smoking and the magic smoke escapes. I don't think I've actually overclocked anything in 10+ years. I just don't see any benefit to it. Everything is already fast enough.
Well, it should be fast enough. It seems that OS vendors and software makers seem hell bent on using more and more resources. I was pondering it the other day and discussing it with someone. It'd be kind of neat if the older software had been maintained without all that bloat. But, really... I've lived through a lot of it and I'm super grateful for what we're able to get these days. AMD is fast enough. I'm not in that great of a rush and it's not like it's slow. I use an SSD, my laptop has more RAM than I can use, and it's pretty damned speedy. I suspect it could be a lot speedier. I should see if I can, for the sake of amusement, get something like Ubuntu 7.04 to run on it.
I really don't see much of a performance difference for the things that I do. I have recently refreshed three desktops (as in within the past month) and they're all pretty much as fast as my workstation. I don't see much of a difference at all in them. They've only got ¼ of the RAM.
This... I'm not even all that worried about price but I find I get more than adequate value from AMD. I do buy nVidia GPUs normally but I almost always get an AMD CPU. I really don't even notice a difference.
I linked to my current laptop the other day. That has an Intel. It's on purpose. I really liked the laptop. It's not really a typical laptop, it's a mobile work station from Titan. (The X4K model. All done up sexy, of course.) I picked an Intel because that was in the laptop that I wanted. If I'd been able to pick an AMD then I might have gone with that, I don't really run on battery for very long or very often. It's more a mobile workstation and I've generally got adequate power.
Don't get me wrong - Intel makes nice hardware. However, I get perfectly serviceable results from AMD and I go through a lot of hardware so it does save me some money. I also get to support AMD by buying them. I'm not entirely altruistic nor am I zealously against Intel (though they've done some deplorable things) but it's nice to be able to support the underdog.
I do, sometimes, buy ATi but I prefer not to. I know, I know... However, for whatever reason, I've had better luck with driver support with nVidia than I have with ATi. I don't play games, I don't do anything GPU intensive, and I don't even (normally) opt for the current generation of graphics card. I'd use on-board graphics but I figure that's a backup option and I prefer the separate device. (Old habits die hard.) On-board graphics is more than enough for me. I'd go with ATi more but I often end up with odd issues like screen tearing - even with the proprietary driver. I can go root around in my basement at home, pull out and old nVidia 52xx and it will probably still work just fine - without even needing the proprietary drivers. ATi and I end up with strange bugs, X crashing, screen tearing, or odd timing issues.
I'll probably give the current generation of ATi another shot the next time I order a box or put a box together. Worst case scenario is that it ends up in a parts bin and replaced with one of the ones that are already in my possession. I'd like to use ATi even more but I've just not had that much luck with their desktop GPUs. Oddly, I've had much better results with their mobile offerings.
We could use a few more... Super/sub script. 10^4 works but it'd be nice to be able to insert it properly. Rei's thorn would be okay. The micro (like a u almost) would be nice. Some of them are valuable, some of them are just a mess. What I do agree with is that we don't need the emoji characters. There's no reason for us to be able to type a hot dog, pile of poop, or a smiley face.
By the way, those are inserted using the keyboard layout. CTRL + ALT + SHIFT + U-12345 doesn't work - normally. Though, I have fcitx running and the search seems to *sometimes* work.
Slashdot Mirror
Sexist! That rapist and murderer could have been a female.
If you've never been, go. Pretty soon direct flight will be possible and they're even going to send a cruise ship in a few months (end of June, I think?). Go to Canada, put a piece of blank paper in your passport, and fly to Cuba. Go visit now, see them before they're more heavily influenced by America. Cuba will be resigning themselves from the list of communist countries - but not until after Fidel is dead. He's already admitted such as far as I'm told. Go, before they are no longer the Cuba that they are.
I've been twice and enjoyed it both times. I'm debating going again, just so I can visit one more time before they get hit full in the face with the US. It's not much like most people expect. There's no political undercurrent that's trying to find ways to subvert the regime and oust Raul. The sneakernet that is so talked about? The USB drives have got the latest Mexican soap-operas and most recently translated James Patterson novels. Oh, and music. Lots of music. They're not sneaking around and sharing secret plans and maps to hidden arms caches. They're sharing media.
The people are cool, they're open and friendly. Don't offer to let them use your computer or anything. Your internet access will be dog-slow if you can even get access in one of the cafes (I never did). Don't do anything crazy and they stamp your passport on the blank page instead of in the book itself. Bring some blank thumb drives - just the smaller ones, not the big ones. Don't put media on 'em, they'll take those and you won't get them back until you leave, if at all. Just put on your cigar smoking lungs, your music listening ears, and your best rum bib.
And do it before it's too late.
This... There might be a tick in the aficionado market and there might be some historical or art value. If you're going to go to Cuba to buy the cars dirt cheap and bring them back like they're collector pieces, you will be disappointed. I *am* an automotive enthusiast and I have *been* to Cuba. You will not just find engines swapped, you will find the seats aren't the right model, the rims aren't correct, the body panels may not even be original (and probably aren't in many cases).
They've done a great job keeping these vehicles running. They have not kept them pristine. I've mentioned this a few times now because every time the subject of Cuba comes up, someone seems to say, "I bet those cars are worth a fortune." They might be - if you get in very quick and grab some of the better ones. Mostly, they'll have some historical significance and some art significance. They will be unlikely to retain that value once the novelty wears off and they realize that they're not something you can just drive down to VIP and get a lube and oil job.
Many of them do not look good from the outside. It's an island. It's an island in the ocean. The ocean has salt water. There's salt in the air. They've been in this salt air for a very long time, without proper care, and getting a whole lot of wear and tear. They are not going to be a reliable vehicle that the collectors can take to shows and show off. At best, they'll be trailer queens. That Mercury has a Lada engine, brakes from a Dodge, Ford seats, a bumper from a bus of unknown origin, four wheels from varied OEMs, and the body is rusting out under that paint.
That they run at all is a miracle and a testimony to the skills of the Cuban mechanics. They might have some novelty value but that will wear thin very quickly. Collectors aren't going to have a big demand for them - though there might be a few that are worth a small amount for parts that are otherwise rare. They might have some art or historical value but those will probably dwindle quickly - probably not a sound long-term investment. If you're going to do anything, get a parts list and bring someone with you and hit up their junk yards and ship back parts by the ton in crates - there will be the only real money making possibility.
If you buy a car from Cuba and you plan to actually use it, show it, or keep it in running condition then you're going to need to bring back the Cuban mechanic with you. Make suitable arrangements for their visa, family, and means of livelihood unless you plan on adopting the whole family. This is *not* a task I'd recommend anyone undertake unless they've a very compelling reason. Trying to invest in these will almost certainly result in a financial loss unless you're the first one on the scene and able to get the pick of the litter and somehow prove it was one of Fidel's, Raul's, or Batista's personal car. If you buy it to use it, it's going to break your heart. If you buy it to sell it, it's going to break your wallet.
Other than that, they're kind of cool. But it's important to note, do not invest! We've had a dozen threads lately and I bet this has come up in all of them.
I do know of the starvation. Mao had some... He had some interesting proposals and solutions. Yes, interesting. It's quite likely that mine was brought into Viet Nam to be used by the NVA and then was probably never issued. Somehow, and we can speculate, it likely ended up in the possession of a US soldier. Again, with some speculation as to the method, it made it to the US.
Hmm... I am not finding it - I know I've posted pictures of it here on Slashdot. Someone didn't believe I had one and that it was perfectly legal so I took a picture of it with the standard index card with the date on it. I want to say 10/2013 but that might be off and might be something else entirely. It wasn't that meaningful so I'm not sure if my memory is that good. The logged in user didn't reply but an AC replied and called me a something like a klan member, NAZI, or something like that. Meh, I got my thirty seconds worth of amusement out of it.
Oh, no... I had put my CWP in the picture with it and edited out my name (that's about the best of my image editing skills). Yeah, I don't think that was the one with the index card and the date. Ah well...
I don't know if your SKS (probably not, not at that price) is select fire but I do believe that some versions actually have a kit to enable select fire. If that kit was pre-ban, and your model is suitable, then you could have select fire. It's an SKS so that'd probably only be single and full.
Tragically, I had a friend in North Carolina who retired to Maine a couple of years prior to myself. He owned a giant gun shop, is a gunsmith, and is retired. He still does some custom work for people here and there and sometimes moves a few pieces - he's still a licensed dealer. Well, in his retirement he opted to keep a large number of his more interesting pieces. Unfortunately, he is really, really good at convincing me that they need a good home. It's tragic, it really is.
When I get back to Maine, I'll take some pics for you. I own an obscene number of firearms. In my basement, I have a room that is about 15x20' and it has 8" thick concrete walls and a steel door with the frame embedded in the concrete. Inside that room are a bunch of safes that line the walls and some standing back to back in the middle. You can imagine what they're full of. No, I do not count them. No, I haven't even fired them all. No, I don't even have a good justification for owning them all except to claim they're a collection. They are, technically, a collection. I've got boxes and boxes full of ammo and the associated gear.
It's truly tragic. The worst part is that he still has more. They need a good home and some of them are antiques or significant in some way... It doesn't help that I've been amassing them since I was just a kid. We had a rifle and pistol team at my school. That didn't help. People would think I'm a crazy gun-nut who's preparing to defend himself against an oppressive government. Really, I just like things that go boom. Ah well... I even have all the gear to reload, including a bunch of brass, and I've never once unpacked it and done anything with it. I have done some reloading, just not at my house and with my own equipment.
So, you should probably come to Maine sometime. I'm pretty sure I can keep you amused for a few days. They like some attention now and again. My kids shoot but not all that much any more. My daughter hits the range once a week for an hour. My son's in Peru and he's not a citizen so he doesn't have a firearm with him - so I have his at the house too. I guess it's difficult to get a firearm and they have some unique self-defense laws? I never looked into it when I was in the area but he tells me that so long as you use equal force, you're pretty much golden. If they pull a knife and you shoot them, you're screwed. If they pull a knife and you stab them 200 times and they die, you're good to go. I guess it's common practice to carry two knives and have to firearms in the home with the second one being untraceable.
Bleh, well, this is a novella. Meh... You're probably used to it by now. Yes, yes I am a bit bored today.
No worries. I had to double check it myself. It's not like I read the manual either. I wasn't actually sure that it would work before I tested it in order to reply. I actually only noticed the option a few months ago, never tested it, and I've been using uMatrix for years now. It was available for Opera much sooner than he made the Firefox version. Opera has no NoScript as it uses the same style extensions as Chrome/Chromium. Hell, as I recall, I only noticed it by accident in the first place.
So, you can configure wildcard (all domains), sub-domain (if applicable), and root domain. At some point, I'll probably get around to reading the manual. :/
Oh, I like to backup my rules. I use multiple computers, sometimes just a Live USB, and being able to just restore my rules is very handy. It might seem like it's not that important but it just kind of sucks when you end up screwing something up and being unable to retrieve them and you lose a year's worth of rule refinements. I have it kind of automated and save to a network share that's accessible from anywhere I go that has internet. It has come in handy many times and I've even shared it with others. I should ask him if he's interested in adding the ability to merge multiple backups together. Or maybe it's in the manual.
Do you actually know how this works? No, really? If you've not looked beyond the Slashdot headlines, you might not understand. This is an application, a free download, that enables people to use a subset of the internet at no cost. They can still use the regular 'net. There's no restrictions on that. This is just free. Any developer can apply and make a fully functional, low-bandwidth, method and *maybe* get access. That's a little sketchy but that's how it is. They didn't charge people extra money for regular internet access - they still were charged for non-free content at regular prices. The application didn't actually stop anyone from accessing the rest of the 'net. Use of the application wasn't mandatory.
It was in place, it had over a million users, and then people complained. It's in use in over 40 other countries, quite happily. It wasn't income based, anyone could download it and use it - until they banned it. It doesn't target the poorest of the poor, that's true. It's not entirely altruistic, that's true. It enabled people access to over 100 sites at no cost. There were no bandwidth restrictions for those 100 sites and, by all objective accounts, they were mostly good sites including things like Johnson and Johnson's parenting help, Wikipedia, jobs, weather, emergency alerts, and Facebook - of course.
So, now those people who were using it have nothing. What they did have wasn't perfect. It was better than nothing and many people were able to get the things they'd normally get for free which allowed them to afford access to more things that weren't free. (Free as in beer, obviously.) They were happy with this choice, they knew what they were doing, and they now have had their freedom of choice taken away from them. That's not a cause to celebrate!
Your analogies make no sense to me and I'm not sure why you'd begrudge poor people some information. That simply makes no sense to me. You want to force them to go without. The only logical conclusion I can reach is that you want to keep them impoverished, uneducated, and off your internet. The caste system is officially illegal but it's still heavily practiced. Maybe it's time to accept the "untouchables" on the internet, they won't spoil it. It's not like this limited their choice and the speculation about them being locked into it is demonstrably false.
I posted a number of relevant links in my reply to Ray if you're curious. They had nice free, limited, access. Now, they have no access unless they scrape up the money to pay for it. It's not ideal but it's better than nothing. You're literally begrudging them information because of your desire to control others. "You can't have that. I don't want you to. It is not good enough. You need to go without access or go without food if you want access." I do not understand that mentality. It's not a drug, it's not oil, it's access to information in a choice people were happy to make but you're gleeful that they've been deprived of that liberty.
Indeed. And I see what I was missing. I thought I was missing something! Alright, I'll see if I can help - if you want. ;-) It seems you've been misled.
No, lots of people wanted this. It's also *not* specific hardware. I don't know what you are already familiar with - I spent a bit of time researching this when I learned about it. Let's just say that some of the presentation of the material is a little biased. (Even outright dishonest.) I'll try to make it short but I'm not sure what you know of the actual truth - there's been a whole lot of disinformation going on here. That's what I was missing - I thought you knew that.
Facebook wants to *continue* to offer a service that let's people access part the internet for free. They're still allowed to access the regular internet. This doesn't require any special device. This doesn't need any separate hardware - if you've got a smart phone (Android) then you can have free internet. They're in no way restricted from accessing the rest of the internet. Accessing the rest of the internet is seamless and doesn't incur any expenses other than what they'd normally have paid for that same access. It is not more expensive, it is not crippled, it is completely open per India's regulations. They were already doing this.
Any developer is free to apply to be included in this subset of free site but they may be turned down. This doesn't block people from accessing other sites - it just doesn't charge them for visiting certain sites such as Wikipedia, weather, news, jobs, many others and, of course, Facebook. Any developer who wishes to apply can do so. They may be allowed, they may not. If they do so then they *also* must have a low bandwidth version (like the low bandwidth versions for all the other sites - but bandwidth total for the user is not limited) of their site that must also be fully functional. Again, they can be turned down for inclusion and that's a little sketchy but nobody gets to pay to be automatically included. They were already offering, before being shut down, access to over 100 sites for free.
The TRIA is actually made up of people from competing ISPs and appear to be corrupt as all hell. They got a bunch of people riled up - almost a year ago, when Facebook was getting this rolling. They put a petition up for people to sign in protest. Except, they put the petition online. Yes, online... Even if there were a competing petition, the folks who want this can't exactly go sign it.
A number of people are advocating for it - including some of the lower cost ISPs, who won't really be making a whole lot on this. The COIA (Cellular group - not just traditional ISPs) is one such agency that supports this. They speak for all the little cellular companies that are members. I don't think we've got anything similar here in the US. The TRIA is government, the COIA is industry.
Late last year, Reliance said nearly one million people had tried Free Basics.
That was just in the startup phase - and that's just India (they also operate elsewhere).
Through mobile-phone providers, Facebook offers Free Basics in nearly 40 countries, but nowhere else has the program been as controversial as in India, where it has sparked fierce debate over whether it unfairly favors some services over competitors.
Baby Center LLC, a parenting informational site owned by Johnson & Johnson, says more than 5.5 million people have visited its site globally through Free Basics, including in India.
There's no special hardware needed - beyond a cell phone that it runs on (I think it's just Android). They had it. They were using it. They liked it. They wanted it.
Anyhow, here's some citations for all that. The WSJ is the best of 'em all, that I've found. There are others. Nah, people do *want* this. They were happy with it and, on top of that, they were doing it intelligently. Namely, they were sucking down all the free stuff they could get bu
Oh, what the hell? It's *kinda* trolling but it's also serious...
I'll believe you're actually interested in equality when you send me a newspaper clipping that shows you went down to your local courthouse to wave a sign protesting that women don't get equal sentences when they're convicted for domestic violence.
I mean, c'mon... What else are we supposed to do with this thread? But, in all seriousness... I await a newspaper clipping. ;-)
It's probably an age thing. He's mostly correct *if you only look at that time frame* - there was a big lull in that after the boys returned. That comes with some caveats and people will try to twist that. A fun stat that people like to toss out is that 80% of the women were "forced" out of work after the war. The reality is, only 20% of them wanted to continue and 18% of the women forced out of work were "colored." (Yes, I've dragged out the citations before.)
So, 2% of the white women still wanted to work and were actually forced out of work following the boy's return. 18% of the black women were forced out but that's for a whole other reason - the rate was something like 47% of the black men were forced out - I don't recall that one specifically so don't quote me on it.
That lasted for a while until there was a brief uptake after the sexual revolution. A lot of those ended up pregnant at a latter data and it calmed down but then began the increase in the 1980s. If you look at flat line statistics it's not entirely accurate, you can see it better with percentages and it's even more pronounced with the (scant but existing) charts that show percentages who *wanted* to work out of the household. The percentages increased slowly and then start to rise sharply sometime in the mid 1980s - I think (I'd have to look) it was not long after Reagan's recession.
There's always been a decent undercurrent, speaking specifically of the US - but it's now extended elsewhere, of women workers. I guess, to be a bit more specific, it *probably* (I'm not an expert) began in the Industrial Revolution. See, during the Industrial Revolution a lot of that work was textiles or related to that industry, quite specifically in the UK. That was actually mostly done (albeit not in management all that much) by women and children. That was mirrored, in many ways, in the US.
The US had lots of women in factories. They worked in textiles, shoe manufacturing, and assembly line work. This shouldn't really be confused with mills and foundries. Those tended to have a lot of males with an exception being things like woolen mills, cotton mills, and things like that - again, in the textiles.
At any rate, there have been peaks and swings with the one you reference with Rosie but don't forget that many women also joined the work-force in WWI. This wasn't quite as pronounced until the latter part of WWI as the US wasn't really involved except as an arms dealer until very near the end of the conflict. Again, that died down, and WWII happened. Then that settled down but not as far, so it's been steadily increasing with some downturns.
That does't really discount any of the above - it's just a bit of a larger picture. I do very much agree with some of their sentiment - that it's largely due to manipulation. I know that will be misunderstood and misrepresented but that doesn't change the fact that there's a bunch of social manipulation that tries to increase consumerism and decrease wages - they seem like conflicting ideas but the goal is increased profit percentages (I assume).
Do please note that I said nothing along the lines of who belongs in what role nor did I indicate a belief that anyone is particular superior at any given task. In fact, if I had my druthers, I'd suggest that we could actually have a decent society where the tasks were split along individual choice and a family could be raised on a single income. I think it would be great if parents could divide their hours working at home and outside the home (an example would be 20 hours each) and actually have a reasonable lifestyle on that alone. Single and non-traditional couples should also be just fine.
Of course, that would mean that employers would need to up their game and start paying people enough to have a reasonable standard of living from what's traditionally considered a full work-week. How we get there, I do not know. I'm loathe to suggest legislation. I do think that such a step may become mandatory as we near the age of a near leisure econo
With AR? Overlay. Not all at once. That's why I mentioned the ability to drill down. Mentally? It'd not even need to be visualized - I shouldn't think. Not necessarily like one would see it and without optical input. So, any ol' spot. But, off to the side with glasses. It can be varied sizes, it'd be pretty close to the eyes so there's lots of room to actually move your eyes and still see inside of the glasses. But no, not all at once and definitely gonna want to be able to turn it off. My original thought was it would make an awesome HUD in a car but that's really rather dangerous. It might be something that can be done with autonomous vehicles.
You're new here. I'll cut you some slack. The answer is no. Actually, the answer is fuck no. You can browse at a higher threshold if you're unable to just grin and ignore the idiots and trolls. They're an essential part of Slashdot. In time, you'll understand that. They've even been here longer than you. This is you coming into *their* site and suggesting that someone delete *their* posts when you're the new guy.
Laugh, they don't hurt you. They're words on a screen. Random, pointless, mindless pixels with no harm to you or your loved ones. Nobody really likes them but we accept them because of what that means. That means that we're allowed a modicum of free speech here - without interference from the benevolent overlords. I've known of two posts that were intentionally deleted and I'm actually on my second account (lost the email and wandered away for a while). They were here when I got here. They'll be here, hopefully, long after I'm gone.
If you can't laugh and/or just ignore them, there's a really good chance you don't belong here.
I want augmented reality, tied in with photo recognition and big data. I want to be able to look at a bridge, know when it was built, how high it is, if anyone was harmed during the build process, what the structural capacity is, what the max throughput is, and things like that. I want to look at a building and see the floor plan, know who built it, know who rents space in it, know what the value is, and things like that - not houses but, you know, more famous buildings.
Basically, I want augmented reality so that I have a veritable real-time documentary available for me - pretty much everywhere I look. All optional, of course, and with varied depths of information as well as the ability to drill deeper. I'd really rather an implant but I'll be okay with AR. I'd love to be able to look at a statue and know who carved it, when, where, why it's significant, and then find out the history of that person and their significance to the area. If it were an implant, I'd even let 'em put a wireless antenna nub on my head and a wired port in my neck.
I'd love that sort of tech - assuming it can be turned off, on, controlled, etc... AR is a fine place to start but I want full access to the web, nearly instantaneously, without the need for visual input. Imagine being able to use Google, WolframAlpha, Wikipedia, YouTube, or even porn - right in your head. I think AR might be do-able in my lifetime. I've my doubts about implants being available in my lifetime but that's really what I'd prefer. I'll be pretty damned happy with AR like I envision it.
Heh... That's kind of what I was thinking but, really, I mostly got a kick out of this quote:
Prestigious investment bank Goldman Sachs
Prestigious? I'm not really sure I can agree with that sentiment.
I understand. I'm also familiar with your username so I figured it was a misunderstanding and worth my time to mention it.
Hmm... Does processing power really need to come down in price to do that? I know this might sound crazy but, couldn't we have a device - say in our own home, that did our voice processing for us and then pushed out and retrieved what was needed - list a server in the middle type of deal? Your phone, computer, television - all those things, they could connect to your own device - even if you're away from home - via the 'net and process it. It might even be better because the refinements and machine learning/corrections would be applicable to you voice profile?
Yeah, I know it's kind of crazy to want a device under my control and all but it seems like that might work. I promise, I'm not a terrorist or anything! I'm not even a subversive! I might be missing something (I don't actually use any of those sorts of things) so maybe I'm wrong but it seems like it could be a fairly cheap dedicated device and just use an API and a network connection (it could even be encrypted) so that any device could work.
I suppose that's true but I'm gonna notice some guy standing on my lawn with an antenna. Even if he's using a cell phone in his pocket, I'm gonna ask why he's standing on my lawn. I guess, if my elderly neighbors, about a half mile through the woods, decide to start hacking a powerful wifi access point to make it so that my data's shunted over to the 'net it could be a problem.
Meh, it's a moot point anyhow. I don't actually own a very smart television. I do own a television. It's even a fairly nice television, or it was - it's a few years old now. I don't have it connected to anything fancy. It's just attached to a laptop and I stream documentaries to it from across my network. It can actually browse my network by itself (it doesn't have get a public IP address) but it will only play one movie and won't queue up a list and doesn't support playlist formats. So, a laptop it is. I do think it advertised itself as being smart. It doesn't do playlists so it's not nearly as smart as I'd hoped.
If you want to watch the documentary, here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's kind of interesting. It's not one of my favorites but there's the link for those who want to see it. If you've got an hour to burn and want to learn about it, have at it. I like NOVA and this one is fine, still not one of my favorites.
I don't think that's a very good analogy. You know that they sell unrefined ore, right? They do an assay and figure out an estimated value, agree on a price, and they buy the rocks and then refine the ore. So you can, I guess, show up at *a market* and foist a bunch of rocks on 'em and say "there's gold in there, pay me." Obviously, there needs to be gold in them there rocks.
I'm pretty sure there's operations for that with a bunch of different valuable metals. The mining company isn't always the same company as the refining company. It's even available on a smaller scale - if you, personally wanted to do it you can. If you go to one of those "mine the shit yourself" places and bang around with a pick ax and don't hurt yourself then you too can participate in such a market. You bang about with your pick ax, hunt around, and find some stuff with gold in it. Then you stomp down at the end of the day and either take your rocks with you or you pretty much say exactly that.
If you don't mind, I have a question... What doesn't have subjective value?
I really can't think of anything that doesn't have a subjective value - at least at an individual level. I am not trolling, I am not being snide, I am not fishing for an answer to then pounce and say, "Ah ha!" I really don't understand and you're far more adept at it than I. I can assure you that you know more about the subject than I do and I will happily defer to your expertise.
Yes, it's sad that I pretty much have to include that. The quality of the comments are such that I'd doubt my motives too. Rest assured, I am not trolling.,
... I grew up ...
Ha! Who are you kidding? ;-)
I double checked the dictionary for fear that I was mistaken about the definition for disingenuous. Are you sure that's the word you're going for? 'Cause that seems pretty straight forward to me. Are you or are you not going to provide access for the people who can't afford it in India?
Also, while we look at that $1 and say, "Oh, that's not much." There's a whole swath of people in India who can't even afford that - but still have access to something less expensive. If you spent a minute or two outside of your bubble, you'd be aware of this. Try going to India sometime and getting the fuck out of the tour group and having a look around. Don't worry, they won't bite. They're just poor. They're otherwise decent human beings.
You'll begrudge them any access at all because you're... What? You don't want them to be better educated? You don't want them to have access to Wikipedia? You hate Facebook? Then step up to the plate and offer something better. All you're doing is reinforcing the caste system.
"Oh no! Those untouchables will be on my internet!" Seriously, what's wrong with letting them *choose* to have this? I do have a problem if it's their only option. I do have a problem if they are forced to use it. I have no problem if they are allowed to choose it. So far, nobody has given a good reason why people should not be able to make that choice. So far, nobody has offered an alternative that doesn't rely on the good graces of someone other than them.
As near as I can tell, it's just a bunch of people who are jealous that someone might get something they don't have, don't want, but might result in the untouchables being on their internet. It's justification for perpetuating the caste system. Are you guys seriously worried that they might learn something and better themselves? Are you worried that they'll fuck off all day on Facebook games? Are you worried that they'll communicate with their friends and family? WTF?
This makes NO sense to me. Is it altruistic? Of course not. Does it solve all the problems? Don't be daft. Does it target the poorest of the poor? That's a stupid question too. Yet, in these two threads now, I've seen all those as complaints. I've seen not one realistic solution offered that didn't rely on taking something from somebody else - and probably out of jealousy at one end and greed at the other. Why the hell is it wrong for people to be able to make a choice?
It becomes wrong when they have no choice. Right now, they have no choice. This at least gives them an option. Is it perfect? Hell no. Is it better than nothing? Buggered if I know - I should think you'd let THEM decide. But no, this is just India being India and continuing their oppressive behaviors at the behest of the moneyed akin to their traditional caste system that they claim to have outlawed in one breath but is still heavily practices across their country. Go to India... Get off the tour bus and walk around. You're cheering their continued deprivation.
I still don't really see much of a problem with them offering the service - it's free. I have a problem if they make that service mandatory. I also noticed this gem in the summary:
...which is more than a Free Basics user will consume in a month...
Holy shit that's a huge assumption to make. How did they conclude what a Free Basics user would have consumed in a month? Facebook has video, audio, and other "rich" content - or so I'm told. Wikipedia has videos and music and even has articles that will read themselves aloud to you now. How the hell did they conclude that?
I'd have a problem if this were being offered as an exclusionary service but that doesn't appear to be the case. It's not that I like Facebook or anything (I don't even have an account) but that I'm of the opinion that something is better than nothing. Does this target the poorest of the poor? Nope. Not at all. Nobody's doing anything for them either. It targets those who might otherwise have nothing for connectivity. It gives them some access. I see nothing wrong with offering it as a choice.
I do see everything wrong with making it the only solution. Maybe I'm mistaken? I'm kind of big on letting people make their own choices. I'm okay with people making choices that I'd not personally make. You're usually pretty smart, what am I missing here?
I don't usually have problems with AMD CPUs but I do with the ATi GPUs and, sometimes, the on-board stuff. So, I usually go with nVidia for my GPU. Like you, I was first exposed to AMD with the K6 line. In my case, it was the AMD K6-2 350 but I kept it OCed as it was still stable at just a bit under 500 MHz. (I forget the exact number.) If I could keep it cold, I could actually wind it up a bit further.
For amusement, I had it wrapped in plastic and sitting in a freezer for a while - not long-term or anything. I don't recall the name of the benchmarking utility but it got really nice numbers! A bunch of us did stuff like that back then. I'm guessing you probably did your share. It's all fun and games until you smell something smoking and the magic smoke escapes. I don't think I've actually overclocked anything in 10+ years. I just don't see any benefit to it. Everything is already fast enough.
Well, it should be fast enough. It seems that OS vendors and software makers seem hell bent on using more and more resources. I was pondering it the other day and discussing it with someone. It'd be kind of neat if the older software had been maintained without all that bloat. But, really... I've lived through a lot of it and I'm super grateful for what we're able to get these days. AMD is fast enough. I'm not in that great of a rush and it's not like it's slow. I use an SSD, my laptop has more RAM than I can use, and it's pretty damned speedy. I suspect it could be a lot speedier. I should see if I can, for the sake of amusement, get something like Ubuntu 7.04 to run on it.
I really don't see much of a performance difference for the things that I do. I have recently refreshed three desktops (as in within the past month) and they're all pretty much as fast as my workstation. I don't see much of a difference at all in them. They've only got ¼ of the RAM.
This... I'm not even all that worried about price but I find I get more than adequate value from AMD. I do buy nVidia GPUs normally but I almost always get an AMD CPU. I really don't even notice a difference.
I linked to my current laptop the other day. That has an Intel. It's on purpose. I really liked the laptop. It's not really a typical laptop, it's a mobile work station from Titan. (The X4K model. All done up sexy, of course.) I picked an Intel because that was in the laptop that I wanted. If I'd been able to pick an AMD then I might have gone with that, I don't really run on battery for very long or very often. It's more a mobile workstation and I've generally got adequate power.
Don't get me wrong - Intel makes nice hardware. However, I get perfectly serviceable results from AMD and I go through a lot of hardware so it does save me some money. I also get to support AMD by buying them. I'm not entirely altruistic nor am I zealously against Intel (though they've done some deplorable things) but it's nice to be able to support the underdog.
I do, sometimes, buy ATi but I prefer not to. I know, I know... However, for whatever reason, I've had better luck with driver support with nVidia than I have with ATi. I don't play games, I don't do anything GPU intensive, and I don't even (normally) opt for the current generation of graphics card. I'd use on-board graphics but I figure that's a backup option and I prefer the separate device. (Old habits die hard.) On-board graphics is more than enough for me. I'd go with ATi more but I often end up with odd issues like screen tearing - even with the proprietary driver. I can go root around in my basement at home, pull out and old nVidia 52xx and it will probably still work just fine - without even needing the proprietary drivers. ATi and I end up with strange bugs, X crashing, screen tearing, or odd timing issues.
I'll probably give the current generation of ATi another shot the next time I order a box or put a box together. Worst case scenario is that it ends up in a parts bin and replaced with one of the ones that are already in my possession. I'd like to use ATi even more but I've just not had that much luck with their desktop GPUs. Oddly, I've had much better results with their mobile offerings.
Some support is already here, if you know how to insert it. © ® ½ ½ ½ £ € × ÷ ¥ Ñ ñ ä ë ú ß.
We could use a few more... Super/sub script. 10^4 works but it'd be nice to be able to insert it properly. Rei's thorn would be okay. The micro (like a u almost) would be nice. Some of them are valuable, some of them are just a mess. What I do agree with is that we don't need the emoji characters. There's no reason for us to be able to type a hot dog, pile of poop, or a smiley face.
By the way, those are inserted using the keyboard layout. CTRL + ALT + SHIFT + U-12345 doesn't work - normally. Though, I have fcitx running and the search seems to *sometimes* work.