Jump to content

mr moose

Member
  • Posts

    25,911
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards

This user doesn't have any awards

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    On a prison island hidden in the summer for a million years.
  • Interests
    Social science, special needs integration/education. human development and personal information adoption and problem solving. In short I like to watch people be people.
  • Biography
    jobs: EE, pc tech, ITC consultant, Production/manufacturing training supervisor, Heritage building restoration consultant, human services, special education/integration specialist. Hobbies: backyard mechanic, music, electronics, 4x4 and camping.
  • Occupation
    Giggalo.
  • Member title
    I own a unicorn.

System

  • CPU
    Ryzen 3600
  • Motherboard
    prime 350
  • RAM
    16 Corsair vegance
  • GPU
    Asus RX 570
  • Case
    rotanium hardened glass monstrosity
  • Storage
    WD Black 250G NVME, 3TB and 2TB cuda hdd's
  • PSU
    Seasonic 650gold
  • Display(s)
    BenQ 22.3" + Viewsonic 17" + 2x 17" think visions
  • Cooling
    All stock
  • Keyboard
    Cougar 600K
  • Mouse
    Corsair bog stock thing
  • Sound
    cheap arse USB thing.
  • Operating System
    win 10

Recent Profile Visitors

13,652 profile views
  1. when it looks like shit, smells like shit and tastes like shit, the only people who claim it is a bunch of flowers are the companies making money from it and the mentally twisted kids who don't know they have been fooled by the marketing. The rest of us know shit when it's shoved in our faces.
  2. History tells us quite emphatically that when humans do the shit jobs for shit pay we suffer way more than when we develop machines to do it for us. e.g Australia has lost a significant amount of automotive manufacturing (from 50+ down to 18, and of that 18 half are EV companies that started business in the last 5 years), our unemployment and average wages have not dropped and our net worth has only gone up. The average unemployed dropout in Australia has a flat screen tv, a smart phone and 3 meals a day. A properly managed economy with good social welfare and medical services will prevent nearly all negative effects of job redundancy.
  3. I don't think he is wrong, I mean look how far it has come in the last 5 years alone then follow the trajectory. Also people can't have it both ways, you can't argue it will take too many jobs and at the same time argue it will never be good enough to replace humans for the one thing it likely will be best at (language interpretation). This won't be the first time people have to eat their hats.
  4. I've seen it too, I've built those factories as well. Most of the time it's because the companies expending the capital are not big enough to weather all the issues that inevitably occur on the way and they stumble or they are so big that they can afford to change plans mid exercise and just sit on the project. I seem to recall Intel did that with fab42, they started building and planning then shelved it, then started again. And to be honest I don't even know if they finally moved in any equipment in the end. BHP has done it twice at Olympic damn as well. but don't get me started on that (single largest Uranium deposit in the world and nuclear is not viable/feasible in Australia???? WTF to that)
  5. I never said TSMC can't invest. I said it would be a shame if a new company invested the GDP of a large country only to have that investment obsoleted long before it paid for itself.
  6. TSMC will continue to exist while there is a demand for product that can be made with their lithography infrastructure. But any business can be caught out setting up to produce a product that becomes obsolete long before the cap ex has been recouped.
  7. I wasn't arguing it was going to happen, just that silicon may not be a "forever" investment, especially at the cost of 4T. don't forget that there are only two countries with GDP worth more than 5T.
  8. But what if a new technology obsoletes ALL silicon based chips?
  9. Right up till they develop a process that doesn't use current lithography tech. Then you have a few trillion dollars worth of scrap no one wants. People are still trying to develop biological matter for information storage and who knows where quantum will take us.
  10. We had a little trade war with them not long ago, they tried to stop buying our coal, they went back to it after they realized they had no choice. I feel a little more comfortable about our economy after that.
  11. which is good and sad at the same time, good because people need to be more vigilant, but sad because it fosters a judicial system that doesn't take into account how easy it is to break the law when some laws are confusingly obscure and not well publicised (not referring to this particular one but in a more in general sense).
  12. Actually it does. Because in the sense I have been using the term and to what situational end, flawed or wrong is irrelevant, if enough people believe said notion (for any reason) then someone is way less likely to be found guilty of intentionally causing trouble due to said beliefs. That's just how it works. Ahh, but that's where it hasn't actually been tested on the digital front. There is no reason why the same application of law does not apply to digital services as it does postal or otherwise. Some jurisdictions you don't even get a fair trial. However I feel my original point still stands.
  13. yes, but your point seems irrelevant too. Reasonable expectation doesn't rely on anything being factual, just the reasonable outcome given the information you have.
  14. I only showed that is is reasonable for an average person to expect privacy in a snapchat group message. I did that by pointing to tech enthusiast discussing it. If tech enthusiasts thought is was encrypted (type of encryption is irrelevant) and thus was private then how do you propose to claim that an average person should believe different? So you understand that the average person would reasonably expect their message to be private because that is what snapchat tells them? That's all I am arguing, most reasonable people with an average understanding of their devices and services would believe the message was not able to be read by anyone other than the recipient. The damage caused by his message was (without making assumptions) not intentional and not an expected outcome.
  15. Ahh, the problem here is that reasonable expectation is not defined as a hard objective fact. it is the impression an individual has based on the information they have been given. If you raise a child to think blue is green and green is red, then it is a reasonable expectation that they will call blue things green and green things red. Truth of color names is irrelevant. That is why the judicial system in many countries refers to "reasonable expectation" (sometimes referred to as "good faith") as a subjective expectation rather than an objective one (people cannot determine/question if the information they have been given is wrong without already knowing if it is or not). If the average person thinks a private message is private because it's in the name, because apple told them privacy was number one on iphone, because mozilla said they make you safer because ETC ETC ETC), then that is what the courts accept as reasonable expectation. Whether that impression is based on unreasonable information or not is irrelevant. In most legal situations it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that anyone else in the defendants position would have believed their message was not private and would be read by people empowered by law to enact on it. The Australian law reform commission has a decent article on this topic as it is hotly debated, one of the key issues raised (which is evident in this thread) is the fact that when someone says something really nasty that causes great offense, the people who are trying to decide if that person had a reasonable expectation of privacy become biased, because they personally take offense at what was said. In this situation the basic question is; did this bloke mean for anyone other than his friends to get his message? If he sent it believing it was private and that no one was watching then he did not commit a crime in most jurisdictions. And this is regardless what he said or the consequences because it was not him who made that message public.
×