Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Rather than address the underlying problem (Score 1) 324

by shizzle (#47923571) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance

If we decide we can't (or don't want to) pay our debts, it won't only be us that is screwed.

FTFY. True that not paying back our debts would screw our borrowers, but (1) a lot of US debt is held by Americans, so we would partially be screwing ourselves directly, and (2) people and countries that don't pay their debts generally find it a lot harder to borrow in the future, so there'd be some slightly less direct self-screwing going on too.

Comment: Re:Rather than address the underlying problem (Score 1) 324

by shizzle (#47920961) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance

If someone pays you to borrow money, you'd be stupid not to take it.

Yea, cause it's unthinkable that interests rate would ever go up.

I don't have the data handy, but I believe that the term of US debt has been shrinking as the debt has gone up, so we actually have to refinance a pretty substantial fraction of our debt every year. So when interest rates start to rise, we're screwed...

Comment: Re: This will hugely backfire... (Score 1) 422

by shizzle (#47239223) Attached to: FWD.us: GOP Voters To Be Targeted By Data Scientists

So where's the line between "active manipulation" and merely "disseminating information"? Maybe we should just ban political ads entirely, on the principle that an uninformed electorate is better than a misinformed electorate. Or if we're going to distinguish between "informative" and "manipulative" advertising, who gets to be the judge of that?

Also, tf corporations don't have free speech rights, or can't spend above a certain amount of money on those rights, where does that leave The New York Times Co.? And if you think the NYT is "special" because it's part of the "press", then who gets to decide which companies are officially sanctioned "press" companies and which aren't? What about Comcast, would they get special corporate free-speech benefits by virtue of owning NBC?

The reality is that overturning Citizens United would mean that the government would have to get very involved in making a lot of subjective calls along these lines, which I would think would be very troubling for someone who "detest[s] all forms of censorship".

Comment: Re:This will hugely backfire... (Score 1) 422

by shizzle (#47236789) Attached to: FWD.us: GOP Voters To Be Targeted By Data Scientists

But the key is that there's a tangible difference between the immediate physical harm of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater and the more abstract and amorphous harm of unlimited campaign spending, and the First Amendment bias is that we protect speech, and only carve out narrow exceptions for the most egregious situations.

It's like the question of who has rights... does everyone have full rights by default, and we only take them away in narrow and exceptional cases (like taking Second Amendment rights away from felons), or do we look at people on a case-by-case basis and decide whether they're worthy of rights or not? In either case, you end up with some people having rights and some not having rights, but it colors your perspective on where that line should be drawn.

Also, I think the whole Citizens United outcry is insulting to average Americans, acting like they can be easily swayed by advertising dollars. While that can be true, the Cantor primary loss is an interesting counterpoint. I think if as much energy went into finding ways to defeat well-funded candidates without spending comparable amounts of money (as was done with Brat) as went into complaining about Citizens United, we'd all be much better off.

And then there's the "money as speech" canard... I don't have time to debunk that right now, but to me it's another sign that you've been brainwashed by the left-wing media, much as you think conservatives have been brainwashed by Fox. Think for yourself! Don't take the Daily Kos as gospel!

Comment: Re:This will hugely backfire... (Score 1) 422

by shizzle (#47236393) Attached to: FWD.us: GOP Voters To Be Targeted By Data Scientists

From a practical perspective, we're basically agreeing... some speech is protected, and some is not. From a philosophical perspective, though, there's a big gap, and I think this gap explains the difference in attitudes toward things like Citizens United.

Specifically, it seems to me like you're setting up categories of "protected speech" and "non-protected speech", implying that there's some process that must be followed to decide which category a particular type of speech falls into. In contrast, the First Amendment does no such thing; it just says "freedom of speech", with no qualifications. Of course, the Supreme Court has subsequently declared a number of exceptions that we've already gone over. But the key idea is that, by default, all speech is protected, and only in some (ideally narrowly defined) cases do we make an exception to that default.

I think the former view makes it easier to say that restricting campaign-related speech is just a natural part of categorizing speech into these two varieties, while the latter emphasizes that their really needs to be a very compelling interest to add campaign-related speech to the very short list of First Amendment exceptions.

Comment: Re:This will hugely backfire... (Score 1) 422

by shizzle (#47236075) Attached to: FWD.us: GOP Voters To Be Targeted By Data Scientists

I believe that the false part of your original definition of "specific applicability" was not the "protect citizens against government" part (which is true) but the "targeted at some aspect of government" part. Other than the short list of exceptions you list, which have to do with speech that incites imminent physical danger, the First Amendment protects any speech, not just speech that is "targeted at some aspect of government".

Also, Godwin's Law involves comparing "someone or something to Hitler or Nazism". Merely drawing an analogy to an incident involving Nazis doesn't count; no one is being compared to the Nazis in this case.

Comment: Re:Just like Bulldozer? (Score 1) 345

by shizzle (#47021989) Attached to: AMD Preparing To Give Intel a Run For Its Money

Instruction set, the set of instructions. ISA, the part of the architecture which handles the instruction set..

That may be what you think it means, but that's not what it means. Instruction set and ISA are synonyms. In fact "architecture" by itself can mean "instruction set", but people also use "architecture" in other ways, so the term ISA came around to clarify that we're talking about "architecture" in the sense of "instruction set".

As in my other post, I'm not really trying to argue with drinkypoo, just hoping to keep others from being misled.

Comment: Re:Just like Bulldozer? (Score 1) 345

by shizzle (#47021837) Attached to: AMD Preparing To Give Intel a Run For Its Money

AMD64 and x86 most certainly are architectures.

Nope. I will correct you one time and then I'm done with this stupid thread.

Since drinkypoo is done with this thread, I won't bother to try and change his/her mind---but for the benefit of other readers, you may safely assume that drinkypoo is wrong. If you really care to learn more, there's plenty of information out there, say here or here.

Or if you really want to go back to the start of it all, the IBM 360:

The design made a clear distinction between architecture and implementation, allowing IBM to release a suite of compatible designs at different prices.

All the code names listed above are different implementations of the AMD64 architecture.

Comment: First to 64-bit (Score 1) 345

by shizzle (#47021633) Attached to: AMD Preparing To Give Intel a Run For Its Money

x86 is holding us back, so much that servers are turning towards ARMv8 (inferior design to Itanium, but tons of momentum from mobile/embedded).

The x86 ISA is not holding us back. IMO, the only thing that motivates people to turn to ARM for servers is that AMD is not giving Intel sufficient competition in the server space. No one wants an Intel monopoly, and if AMD is not going to be an effective alternative, then people are forced to look beyond x86 for one. But that has nothing to do with the relative technical merits of x86 vs. ARM.

Also, no way is ARMv8 and inferior design to Itanium. I think the fate of Itanium should make it clear that there were very few things in this world inferior to Itanium ;-).

Comment: Re:Just like Bulldozer? (Score 2) 345

by shizzle (#47021557) Attached to: AMD Preparing To Give Intel a Run For Its Money

What are you on about? amd64 is not an architecture, nor is x86. They are instruction sets. The underlying architecture may be informed by the instruction set, but it's also only loosely coupled in modern CPUs.

AMD64 and x86 most certainly are architectures. Have you heard the term "instruction set architecture", i.e., ISA? The underlying implementation you refer to is usually referred to as the "microarchitecture" to distinguish it from the ISA.

The term "architecture" is often tossed around to refer more broadly to the general organization of an implementation, but it's not wrong to use it in the more specific sense of ISA as well.

Comment: Re:What party was that again... (Score 1) 234

by shizzle (#46651821) Attached to: Anti-Game-Violence Legislator Arrested, Faces Gun Trafficking Charges

I know this thread is dead, but I can't help noting a couple of recent developments:

On the Yee story, CNN has managed to avoid the question of whether or not to disclose his party affiliation by not reporting on the story at all. Seriously. Check this. As of this writing the most recent story on him is from 2011.

In terms of more anecdotal evidence that I'm sure will be written off as confirmation bias, there's a new classic here from the Associated Press (via the Washington Post). An interesting summary article noting that Charlotte mayor Partick Cannon is just the latest of six mayors around the nation caught up in scandal. Most relevant to the thread here, none of them have their party affiliation mentioned. How many of those six do you think are Democrats?

Comment: Re:Conservative?? (Score 1) 138

True enough... while we are both obviously even-tempered and rational, many others are not ;-). My conservative parents often say things (or more often, forward me emails) that make me want to cringe. It's not a one-sided thing though; for every person that thinks Obama is a secretly Muslim Kenyan, there's probably someone out there that thinks GWB planned 9/11. Reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute discussion with the average voter."

I agree with you on the Pauls... sometimes I think they're the only sane ones out there, but then in other areas they really redefine crazy. I mean, just think if GWB suggested that he had the authority to unilaterally order the assasination of American citizens---but Obama does it, and Rand's the only one that makes fuss. But then I look at some of his other positions, like foreign policy, and I really wonder.

I didn't know that about M&M colorings... scary. On the other hand, the EPA hasn't done a lot to make people trust it lately, like this and this and this. I think the liberal vision would be fine if government could be trusted to always be efficient and impartial, and the conservative vision would be fine if business people, while seeking to maximize profit, agreed to always play by the rules when doing so. But obviously neither of those conditions is anywhere close to being true in reality.

I've enjoyed our conversation as well, thanks!

Comment: Re:Conservative?? (Score 1) 138

Though now that I think of it, in spite of some commonality on identifying what the current problems are, you run into problems when you start to talk about solutions. Take crony capitalism for instance. From the conservative side, this is a particularly strong argument for limited government. The less power and money government has, the less you have to gain by insinuating yourself with politicians. The liberal reaction is that, if there's a problem, it must be that we need more laws to address the problem, plus more bureaucracy to administer the new laws.

In reality, both these approaches have merit but are insufficient. The conservative argument is valid, but government will never be so limited that the opportunity for rent seeking is eliminated entirely. On the other hand, the liberal solution fails to recognize that the new laws and new bureaucracy will be developed by politicians who are already in the pockets of the crony capitalists, so they don't really solve the problem either.

If you're not careful, you're going to catch something.

Working...