LePawel

22 hours ago, Phill104 said:

I am sure a lot of the world get that impression. However, a lot of it is perpetrated by the scum that call themselves newspapers here. Really, some spread hope and fear just to sell newspapers. Actual reporting is no longer the norm, instead they spout bile and hatred as well as complete lies.Seriously, we have some of the worst press on the planet for this and it gives an impression to the rest of the world that is simply not true. 

 

In this case should we allow sites showing rape, abuse, paedophilia, racial hatred, advice on how to be a better bully? I certainly hope in the future the worst of these can be weeded out.

I get you're passionate about this, but I disagree. Government body deciding what is or isn't news-worthy or worse valid on a public forum is a road to censorship, always.
Newspapers that talk shite will die off with the generation that reads them. If you want them to stop generating these articles stop opening their websites, educate people around you to do the same. Government is not the answer here

It's up to the individual to decide what you read/watch, you cannot force that choice down people's throats, that leads to indoctrination, control of the media when abused.

Offense itself is subjective, some will find BBC news articles talking about cases of "rape, abuse, paedophillia" offensive, is just talking about these too much? what defines abuse? same for racial hatred, what is considered hate in one context is friendly in another, UK's "hate-speech" laws literally say it's up to the offended to decide what constitutes offensive content, there's no definition.

UK already has laws against discrimination and abuse, and ridiculously strict ones at that, they are so seletively enforced however it's no wonder it sometimes feels like there's nothing in place.

On top of that Brits are so self-concious and scared of speaking their minds it's a genuine minefield talking about anything "controversial" in my office, they're voluntarily surrendering itself to the Gov, but then it feels like UK was always about passing another law, that'll surely fix it (check: porn filter). It's conflict avoidance at all costs, because otherwise you're called an -ist and we all know that's like, super bad!

There are very simple solutions to these problems, like classifying social media as either a publisher or a platform, and enforcing law based on that classification.

You don't need more government bodies doing more pointless busy work while complaining there's not enough money from taxes to fund the NHS.

/rant

erm.. what about mechanics changing based on action taken?

AKA

if I press right I walk into a collision box that triggers a cutscene, if I walk left I don't. You'd need fully rewindable games, and that's not someting anyone is coding for.

You'd need multiple instances running in parallel to the frame. this sounds like a massive resource drain for very little effect. The ultimate diminished return. Lets build a server so I can guess stuff right sometimes.

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

Technical realities aside,  I find it amusing that people don't think they are predictable.

read above.

7 hours ago, MadDuke said:

One cool think that is coming in EU is a legislation that any service provider in EU will have to provide it's services to ALL country members.

This will have potentially costly side effects looking at Europe's localisation issues. Depending on who qualifies as a service ofc.

it's not USB-C.

30 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

You do know that you only have rights because other people accept those rights? If you're a dick to people, those people don't have any obligations to grant you the rights you feel entitled to, so why should they?

People should start to learn that what they think their rights are figure of their imagination.

Go read philosophy book about the societal construction. One the easier one on that would be Hobbes' Leviathan, and you'll understand that you don't have those "rights" you think you are as long as others recognise them.

In that case it's not about censoring, it's about punishing people who make living together impossible.

People don't "grant" me shit. Government and law dictates what I can and cannot do. People have no right to shut me down because they don't agree with what I say.

You can philosophy your point across all you want, but this is absolutely about censorship, it snowballed in multiple cases throughout history, but I guess they just didn't implement it properly.

Different people handle different situations differently. I don't care about people being dicks to me on the net, becuase it's the net. I've experienced what falls under "cyber bullying" plenty of times, but I have no problems recognising that some weirdo from a forum cannot harm me with his words, because I've faced these multiple times and was taught how to react to these things.

Back to your great plan of punishing anyone that wrong-thinks:

Who decides what's offensive?

Who decides what the punishment is? You? The offended? "AI"?

What qualifies "living together impossible"? Is life really impossible if someone on instagram tells you you look like shit?

Internet is already shifted to nothing but positive feedback loops, even this forum lost the dislike button. Reality isn't like that. And trying to treat (as some mentioned here) half of people's lifes as some weird bubble where no disagreement can happen and everyone is only Black Mirroring 5-star reviews up each others asses to get a better social score won't work.

We're actively creating a generation of perpetually depressed, self-harming, mentally-disordered weak humans that can't handle a word of criticism, opposite views or actual bullying, precisely because we're trying the impossible of shielding people from all of these things, rather than teaching them how to face them and deal with them.

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

And by the same token if someone wants to call you out for something they consider to be dumb,  why should you get to police what they have to say?  The street is two way.

Say what you want, don't stop me from saying what I want because you find it offensive. I have a right to joke, you have a right to tell me you don't like it and I have a right to tell you go f yourself if I feel like it on top of it all.

Private companies that operate virtual monopolies on modern communication trying to tell you what you can and cannot say, what "may be" inappropriate or suggesting you're out of line is precisely what stop me from joking and you from telling me you think they're not funny.

Once you start censoring selectively to cater to a group of people, you'll get more groups asking for same treatment, ending up with UK Police proactively scanning twitter for "hate incidents", whatever they are or Canadian universities bringing a student to tears during a disciplinary meeting because she played a YT video they didn't agree with.

The street is two way indeed and let's keep it that way.

16 hours ago, jerkwagon said:

jokes are supposed to be funny, dumb meme are not funny,  like that one is just there to stir the pot.. being a troll is only funny for one person. 

Just because you don't find it funny doesn't mean the joke isn't funny for others. Stop trying to police others becaue you specifically got offended by something. Different strokes for different folks. I joke about everything, because I enjoy taking humour to its limits. I find it funny. I shouldn't be banned from doing so just because YOU got offended by it.

just listening to the line of questioning is cringeworthy.

I'm sorry guys but spend 20 mintues listening to the panel. They have very little knowledge of the tech that surrounds this topic.

On 3/19/2019 at 10:01 PM, leadeater said:

Specific to the issue of the video itself, we all agree video of child pornography is not acceptable? That happens to be international law as well. Is footage of a person killing 41 people up close, in full view and detail any less worse? It's not footage of person(s) getting killed but from a distance, or remote camera footage i.e. drone strike, it shows it point of view arms length with the attacker also going back to his car, getting more weapons, returning to scene, standing over the people and shooting them again. Is that less worse than child porn? And should that be shown on day time news, or freely accessed all ages on the internet?

Yes it is less worse.

As others say here, this is actively trying to hide facts from people. Nobody was banning footage of khadafi getting killed. Why? Because it was good cause? Not HD enough?

On another note: The guy's manifesto actually states that the point of his actions so to force gun restrictions and censorship on people. Now government are yielding to his demands and banning his content and restricting gun laws. Quite the opposite of the usual "we don't negotiate with terrorists"... Now why would they ban it? Maybe because it would reveal how much they're using this event as a tool to push their agenda? Or how much they agree with him? Because truth doesn't paint him as the far-right they want to make out of him? Funny how it took just 30 years after USSR for people to forget that states are not always working for their citizens... regardless of what they claim.

https://keepass.info/

3 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Facebook, Twitter and other companys have shown that in the IT, it tends to monopolize in some areas without much alternatives...

 

It's easier to monopolise social trends, what's "cool" and software than hardware and engineering. once you reach majority in a market as crucial to modern economy as chip manufacturing you can basically control how fast world develops computationally.

Look at what Shintel's done before Ryzen came out.

7 hours ago, mxk. said:

No but my school district is incredibly poor and kids use their phone allll the time. Lots of iphone 6s' and 6's on their last legs but families don't have enough money to get the newer phones for their kids.

  Hide contents

Just a little rant,

 

Nike is headquartered here, where I live in Oregon and they own a boat load of land. They have some stupid ass deal with our city and they don't have to pay taxes for all the goddamn land they own. My district could be a little less poor if Nike actually helped out a bit. Even Intel helps some, but it doesn't do too much.

 

I wonder why nvidia doesn't donate to my high school, bc Jensen graduated from my high school.. Wishful thinking ig

 

reality check: You're not entitled to any money from nike, nvidia or intel. And if your local council is signing messed up deals with companies, vote for a different council.

On 1/27/2019 at 10:59 PM, Cyracus said:

When you compare other places to the US it's something stupid like how we spend more on our military than anywhere, or we're at the mercy of a corrupt government... and sometimes there's legitimate good things

 

You realise that a lot of countries that don't spend stupid amounts on militart rely on US's role as world police to keep them safe?

Hey guys,

Watching WAN announcement, thinking of maybe flying in depending on costs from UK. As wise man once said, YOLO. 

Anyone wanna team up and see if we can save money? 

4 hours ago, Jurrunio said:

I dont get your logic. How can you prove something to be the limiting factor by increasing its effect?

Because there's more than 1 variable? Research 101?

8 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

What you are saying is like "they are bottlenecked by the CPU. Let's test wirh a slower CPU!". That won't tell you anything. 

what I'm saying is "We don't know what the bottleneck is, let's carry out a test for x to confirm or eliminate a factor". This really isn't hard to understand, it's basic research. 

23 hours ago, Jurrunio said:

So you suspect PCIe bandwidth to be a limitation on cards using PCIe 3.0 x16 and you suggest using PCIe 3.0 x4 to make this possible bottleneck even more serious? Seriously how do you do research with logic like that.

If they all bottleneck evenly it's pcie bandwidth, sounds pretty simple to me.. You can't get any faster than a pcie 3.0 x16, but you can get slower. 

21 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

using a x4 slot is actually making bandwidth a possible issue.

Jesus Christ, that's the point. If all gpus show same perf. drop, you're looking at possible bottleneck even at full speeds. 

You're not really familiar with research and testing are you... 

21 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

He did, we went as low as a 660 and still saw no change.

 

I wonder if the bottleneck is Premiere itself? I wonder if modern GPUs have reached the point where Premiere is unable to fully saturate them with data to process?

23 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

If a 7900x overclocked to 4.6GHz still bottleneck a gtx 660, then it's pointless to do more testing because people with this level of CPU power certainly has more powerful parts than a 660.

There's more to a pc than a gpu and a cpu. Imo it'd be interesting to see how they perform on a x4 slot, see if it's a bandwidth issue. 

This just means that gpu rendering is bottlenecked by another component. 

He should find which and do more tests based with different classes of that bottlenecked component.

On 26/08/2017 at 2:02 AM, Misanthrope said:

I'd go a step further here: Don't call it a "problem" with speech and communication but simply a linguistic evolution. I believe this is perhaps an early precursor to trans-humanism. 

What? 1337 speek should now be considered a step up in human evolution?

There's no benefit for us to compress 'are' to 'r' other than saving keyboard taps and hdd space. 

IMO, problem lies in generational gap between people that don't understand digital world and people that grew up in it. The old generation abuses it to replace proper parenting, and doesn't recognise side effects, because they didn't exist 10 years ago. 

There's basics of language and communication, and then there's your 'trans-humanism', what's next? 'Trans-humanising' physical laughter into the smile emoji? 

4 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Well there's multiple SKUs for them we'll see which one sells better.

They all have different details like finish, materials etc, but looks like same/similar core (screen quality, sensors) 

2 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

But I don't want motion controls or AR though: Like most average people I don't have room to have motion controls. Even with shit like the Wii most people had to move around their living room and that was without the inconvenience of cables. That's fucking stupid, I don't care how immersive it might be it's just nothing ready for regular consumers on regular households.

Shit, as someone with access to those through profession, these can easily be used in sitting position, with or without controllers, they have by far best resolution, easiest setup and lowest price, yet you complain for sake of complaining. 

And just because you don't want something, doesn't means the market doesn't either. 

18 hours ago, PartyWire said:

-nom-

If you take the internet away from the world for a month literally every service in the western hemisphere will stop working, so thanks, but no thanks.

On 02/08/2017 at 4:52 PM, Bananasplit_00 said:

dosent look especially good, was nice that one of the major brands were keeping away from the god damn TG but they couldent keep away it seems

Sounds so pretentious... "My case manufacturer doesn't do TG therefore it's better".

Or one of those "I don't like A therefore you are not allowed to enjoy it either".