I assure you they don't.

Impoverished people are a small part of the economy. Sure, if their world was greatly improved, that would be a great economic "rising tide" that would be some help. But if their lot isn't improved, it won't change my world noticeably.

I see you're saying below "Because if you look like a duck...". So how come you gloss over this? Those problems don't affect me or mine despite your lazy assertions to the contrary. They merely affect a lot of people in the world unrelated to me in any way. Yet I still care. Connect the dots sometime.

I admit that the proposed mitigation solutions for global warming would affect my world substantially and adversely. I do have an interest in such. My view on "climate change" is simply that it's a pretext for creating powerful bureaucracies and control of society. Advocates have cycled through a variety of flimsy arguments and evidence while simultaneously endorsing expensive and poorly thought out actions.

If you're advocating action that is a tremendous sacrifice for society, then you should have more going for it than some weak climate models which haven't been tested against solid climate data (that is, date like the solid satellite data we've been collecting for a meager thirty years) and various fallacies and biases (such as Pascal's wager - can't afford not to act, observation bias - unusual weather becomes "extreme weather" caused by global warming, argument from authority - the IPCC does this a lot, and argument from consensus - the infamous "97%" survey).

You may have demonstrated this, but you haven't demonstrated that global warming has long term effects that we need to act on whether now or later. I also believe at some point you need to let future generations have some responsibility for their own well-being. I think it's ridiculous to advocate all this sacrifice now just so that future generations might have slightly better climates.

No, the distinctive thing is that you're paying for a ride. That's a service.

Not saying that the city/state whatever needs to be involved, but I *am* saying that to pretend this isn't a paid service to the rider is disingenuous.

Suppose a taxi driver was thinking of going downtown to Bruno's for a good pizza slice. Turns around, heads down Broadway, there you are, waving your hand. You get in and tell him, Bruno's, please! Did that suddenly turn the taxi ride into not-a-taxi-ride? No, of course not.

This is a solution to a very special problem - one program with cryptographic code running in a VM, and a hostile program running in the same VM. There are some crypto algorithms which can be broken if you can submit keys to them, and watch how long they run or what cache misses they make. This is very tough to do in the real world.

It also comes up for crypto modules which do DRM for content owners. There, an attacker can watch the signals and interfere with the operation of the crypto unit to slowly extract its internal keys. That's a real threat to DRM systems.

This isn't for general purpose computing.

From the full article:

Update July 4: Visa Europe told us that it âoehas not been involved in this matter in any way, and has not made any such stipulations to Payson or to any other organisation.â Visa believes that the issue was raised by Paysonâ(TM)s acquiring bank, which acts as an intermediary between payment processors and card associations such as Visa and MasterCard.

We have asked Payson to clarify the discrepancy and will update the article when we hear back from them.

Mastercard has not responded yet.

This sounds like something a music promotion company would do.

Then feel free to explain...

Not really. The ARM part is pretty similar currently between all of them. With the exception of Marvell's line, they're all either stock ARM designs or slight tweaks (e.g. the improved floating point pipeline on Qualcomm's offerings). If one SoC vendor offers something better than another, it will typically be in terms of other cores on the SoC, and these are generally not compatible between vendors.

This is something that ARM is trying to fix with ARMv8. They intentionally delayed the release of the ARM-designed cores to allow a few other companies to have independent implementations arrive on the market at about the same time. This means that integrators will be able to shop around for ARMv8 cores that match their exact requirements.

Yes, France is helping Iran by being one of the leading countries in the EU pushing for crippling sanctions being placed on Iran's economy such that it has leading to it's complete economic collapse.

Wait, what?

To be fair that's already happening to a large degree. US bases are shutting down en-mass in Europe.

Just the other week the last A10s left so they're very much in exit mode from Europe as an ongoing process. They have no presence at all in many European countries now and even the UK hosts I believe only about 4 air bases, not all (none?) of which are even US exclusive. The US marines only have one base left in the whole of Europe now too IIRC.

Personnel is down to well under 75,000 troops now in the whole of Europe I believe, which spread across a continent of over 700 million people is pretty negligible and that number is decreasing regularly. I believe their largest deployment is still Germany with about 40,000 troops, followed by Italy with about 10,000 and the UK with about 9000. Countries like France and the Scanadinavian nations have none whatsoever (other than for short training/join exercise visits, no permanent deployments).

Um, the people pushing this sort of thing are about as far from socialist as you can get, it's the hard right behind most of this and has been for years.

The socialist countries (i.e. most of those in the EU) are the ones pushing back against it.

Still, nice attempt at trying to blame something on socialism that has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I third that (is that a thing?). As a UK citizen I do not feel me or my country has been harmed by Snowden's revelations at all, a few irresponsible individuals may have been harmed such as the management in GCHQ who seem to have broken the law but that's a different thing.

For British citizens it's a good thing because it shows how we don't need to waste billions on the Interception Modernisation Program because GCHQ have been doing it anyway and it still didn't stop terrorists.

It also means we're aware of criminality in our political and intelligence classes and it's much better to know crimes have been committed even if nothing is done about them to be blissfully unaware of the fact because it both better informs you who not to vote for and it acts as ammunition against these people getting their own way on other things that are against the public interest in future lessening their capacity to pull them off.

So yes this is an excellent thing all around, even for those of us in countries that have been embarrassed by the revelations. I didn't vote for this, I explicitly voted against it by voting Lib Dem last election and so did everyone who voted Tory who were also against the policy and we were, combined, over 50% of the electorate, although the Tories have tried to backtrack the Lib Dems have at least stood their ground to kill the IMP twice now which is exactly what the majority of the electorate voted for in this democracy. If GCHQ is going ahead and doing this against the will of the majority of the electorate and against the majority of politicians in power through the published election policies of their parties then we the electorate have a fundamental right to know.

Thank you Snowden for fulfilling that right when vested interests would go against our democratic will and deny us it.

"It's a one-sided arrangement that isn't working for anyone but the US"

To be fair the reason the EU and even Russia have these agreements with the US is that they expect in return the US will warn them of terrorist threats on their soil and work with them on intelligence issues. So it's not entirely one-sided, there are benefits, the problem is that the equation is changed and so do those benefits still outweigh the downsides?

It has to be consensual, the EU has no problem working with the US on this basis of intelligence cooperation, and neither does Russia, and neither does anyone else, but if the US then starts spying above and beyond what has agreed then the whole system has to be examined as to whether working with the US is indeed a net positive. The calculation was that when it was limited to those activities designed in legally binding agreements that it was a net positive, but now that it's clear the US' intelligence program has gone way beyond those agreed limits it's no longer clear that the original calculation involved in authorising the intelligence sharing agreements is still valid.

For example, the EU obviously determined that giving up citizen names, addresses, credit cards and so forth to the US was worth it for the intelligence shared back, but now it's clear that the US may have been mining private conversations and other personal information on top of that agreed, potentially mixing it together into one big data mining operation, that calculation has changed, and the EU has to hence re-evaluate that.

Opting to give up citizens personal data for security is one thing because the decision has been made (whether we here on Slashdot like it or not) that doing so is in the net interest of EU citizens, but having that personal data mixed in with illegally gathered trade and personal data that might be used to the detriment of EU citizens and economic interests is a whole different ballgame. Suddenly it's not so clearly in the EU's interest, though I guess perhaps that what you mean when you say it's one sided?

I agree with everything you say though by the way.

Ah, so you ARE being deliberately misleading. Why are you doing that? What's the point of lying about it?

Zimmerman was armed, and in his car and Zimmerman was following Martin, not the other way around.

Your scenario amounts to:
"The armed man in a car following an unarmed man on foot was unable to avoid a confrontation in which he shoots the unarmed guy."

Yeah, sure, maybe. I'm glad there's a trial.

No, what Zimmerman did was observe Martin from a distance and call the police,

By which you mean he followed him.

he didn't seek to confront Martin.

Who was following who? Oh, right.

It was Martin that described Zimmerman with a racial slur, confronted and attacked Zimmerman.

Wasn't Zimmerman in his car when he called 911? ... checks transcript... yes... yes he was. So, why didn't he just drive away?

Your theory is the guy with the gun sitting in is car, somehow got attacked by an unarmed man and had to shoot him to save his own life?

Yeah, maybe. But I'm glad we're having a trial.