Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Especially in regards to a woman? Check.
sexually promiscuous OR provocative? Don't know about promiscuous, but double check on the provocative. DOn't care how things are in your country. This is the US, and whether you think we are puritanical or not, context matter, and it is out of the ordinary and provocative to wear revealing swimsuits indoors in a land-locked state at a trade show that is not for hot tubs.
especially in a manner regarded as vulgar or distasteful? Interestingly, the definition appeals to a cultural sense of vulgarity. So, again, context matters and your opinion/norms of your culture is moot. Whether YOU regard their attire as appropriate does not matter. Would it be okay to say they were dressed 'slutty' if it was a random person near the beach in Miami or San Diego? Culturally that attire in those places is perfectly acceptable, so no, you couldn't say that. But inside a trade conference in Denver? They are blatantly appealing to the women's sexuality to sell product. It is not *ME* who looks at the woman and sees only sex and shame on me for being a dirty pervert man who can't see past attire choices I disagree with. It is THEM who are blatantly bringing sex into the equation and forcing me to think about it. So vulgar or distasteful? Check on both.
So what is your problem again? You think it is disrepectful to women to say a woman is dressed "slutty" at a major trade expo when the textbook definition fits? But you think major corporations using young women's bodies and paying them probably only a few hundred dollars to attract a dominantly male customer base which has huge purchasing power is OK in a supposedly professional setting? Are you sure you are complaining about the right thing? Why is it assumed that the men will primarily be making product purchasing decisions? Even if it is a good assumption, WHY is that the case? Isn't that a bigger problem? And isn't it possible that this type of behavior reinforces that problem?
Just FYI, I am a man, and I find this stuff very insulting to all of the professional men and women that attend these things. I can get my kicks on my own time.
For example, in Oklahoma (I lived there for a time), they only have two candidates for president on the ballot. One democrat, one republican. No write-ins. You simply MUST pick, or leave it blank. There are literally no third-party options (there is a law on how a third party candidate can get on the ballot, but it is so onerous that nobody has done it since maybe Ross Perot). So what is someone supposed to do in this case? Not vote at all? Cede the last remnant of puny power that they have?
I have always thought that the primary process and local elections are where the real power is. Voting for people at that level that are amenable to changing these broken processes. And yet, these are precisely the elections that usually don't generate much interest.
I don't live in Oklahoma anymore, and typically I have a few more options. But tell me exactly why I should vote for someone who is only even on the ballot in 36 states?? I may as well write in Mickey Mouse in that case. It's just not going to happen without changing the way that elections are held. I really don't think it's worthwhile to blame voters for doing the most logical thing by voting for their favorite of the two candidates who are 100% guaranteed to win, rather than who they would like to have in some fantasy world...
On the article... I've always thought these aircraft enforcement signs were usually baloney anyways. There's one of these signs on Interstate 8 outside of San Diego up in the mountains. The road is windy, in a deep canyon, and has a heck of a grade on it for an interstate. I always thought that the idea of an aircraft flying around up there reliably tracking cars past markers and getting plate numbers was kind of fishy.
I don't mean to poo-poo GPU computing in general. I admittedly haven't followed this field closely in a year or two, so it's possible there have been some newer agorithms for unstructured meshes that have improved the situation. And without knowing more about your particular problem, I won't speculate and tell you how it should or shouldn't work. Maybe you figured out a decent implementation on your own. In which case, publish it already!
I agree with you 100% on that. If the cache isn't terrible, it might be okay if you have a problem amenable to openMP. But mainly I view these low-end things as kind of fun toys.
That said, there is a market for something reasonably compact and affordable in between a 4-8 core desktop and a large scale cluster. I occasionally test and debug problems on my desktop that seem to work fine, but when I scale it to 200 processors and put it on the cluster, all hell breaks loose and it can be hard to debug. A cheapo 64 core board, even if slow, could help bridge that gap, assuming I can use mpich/openMP on this thing.
Otherwise it is for hobbyists or as a learning tool.
There is simply a set of "parallel" function calls which can be built directly into your code. You then just need to compile your code with the proper libraries, usually either mpich or OpenMP. I believe both are available in the ubuntu repository. Pick the one that is most promising for your problem. They are fundamentally two distinct approaches to parallelism, each useful at times. Lawrence Livermore has a great tutorial site, including loads of example fortran and C codes of both openMP and mpich. THey are ready to compile and run on your home computer. Happy computing!
Example codes: https://computing.llnl.gov/tutorials/mpi/exercise.html#Exercise1
Do you have a link to that case?
I agree in principle with you. I think an easy method of remaining anonymous in communications can only help a democracy. I have two issues though:
1) I don't see anonymity as being legitimately threatened. Pre-paid phones exist. Mailboxes don't ask for ID. Newspapers can print an editorial under a psuedonym. You can pay for things in cash. For home internet, there are legal and effective tools like TOR which can effectively anonymize your internet traffic. I could go on. You can do pretty much anything you want to anonymously, except perhaps use Facebook. It's certainly not automatic, but then again, it was never assumed by default anyhow.
2) While I agree it is a nice feature, I still don't see why it is necessary, which is what the GP claimed. You use state-imposed censorship/repercussions as an argument for its necessity, but that is exactly what the First Amendment guarantees against. The use of anonymity to evade state harassment is only necessary in a society without a guarantee like the first amendment.
Going one step further, I have gotten into discussions with people who argue that I should be afraid of what the government might do if they one day decide they don't like my opinions, and that's why anonymity is still necessary. But I think this type of fear is exactly the type of fear that the first amendment frees us from having to experience. If you have to worry about being targetted for your views, and fear reprisal, what the heck is the point of the first amendment? Freedom means freedom from that fear. Period.
A last thought: Supposing the government suddenly starts throwing people in jail or otherwise harassing people for their political opinions, and the courts are somehow silenced. What good does a "right" to anonymity give you? Do you really think they wouldn't be listening to phone calls in any case? It's not worth anything more than the "right" to free speech which is being ignored.
The GP discussed the Bill of Rights. The last time I checked, this is an American document. It was claimed that the Bill of Rights protects anonymity in speech. I refuted that claim, and asked him why he thought that. If he were to cite a court decision where this concept is upheld, I would absolutely change my mind. If he presented a cogent argument about why it is necessary or otherwise implied, I would certainly consider it.
You could have presented such an argument as well, but instead chose to go with the nationalistic attack. I'm sure whatever country you're from is full of very enlightened people.
You can feel about Snowden however you want, and I don't care. Traitor or hero, it's your opinion, and it's perfectly valid. All I will say is that he knowingly violated the law because he thought it was the right thing to do. Sometimes it is the right thing, and it's open for discussion. But arguing that what he did was covered by free speech is factually wrong. Unless you equally think that someone at a government lab should be able to post blueprints for nuclear weapons without any consequences, because you know, free speech and government transparency.