4219 posts • joined 31 May 2010
Re: I'd be more concerned
Abdel Hakim Belhaj, for one.
Re: I don't see why?
Hook sin Huawei gear? Hmm?
Re: HP in the cloud
"I've been thinking that HP can roll out a cloud-based VDI service for home users. "
Re: I agree
"Free market and globalisation cut both ways."
Since when? Provide there examples of globalisation working out for the little guy*.
*If you say "American cloud providers", I shall hit you. They are unavailable to a "global "audience, unless you're quite happy with breaking local laws.
"I submit to you that it is possible to present a religion to a child in a positive manner, one that does not fixate on negatives like Hell or demonize those who do not share such beliefs."
So? Even if you can present a religion to a child that isn't chalk full of psychologically damaging crap designed to keep the peasants in line so the priests can rule...you're still presenting the child with a carefully manufactured lie and indoctrinating them into believing that it is the truth. That is still abuse.
You are still placing them at a disadvantage compared to those who weren't raised in a lie, to say nothing of the potential psychological fallout should they ever find out the fairy tale isn't true. Nihilism spirals aren't fun.
Present all known possibilities to the individual and give them the tools to make rational, informed decisions. If they choose to believe a lie - or to believe in one possibility amongst many in situations where the truth isn't yet known - that absolutely must be their choice. Forcing it upon them through "one truth and only one truth" indoctrination is still abuse.
"Jesus was the antithesis of a douchebag, I submit to you the idea that he could use a whole new fanclub - one whose members actually try to live like him."
Oh, yeah, the world needs another Christian cult like it needs a nuclear war. Puh-lease. You're veering dangerously close to the sun of "my church knows the one true truth, and everyone else is an unbeliever!" Danger! Danger! Danger!
"But I must point out that Richard Dawkins is no mental health professional - he has an axe to grind." You mean he champions empirical truth and condemns organized lying? Well shit, he's a witch! Burn him!
"The article also comes close to conflating sexual abuse with the mental trauma you no doubt want me to notice."
I don't give a bent goat what you notice or not. I've spend several days building things from source and I'm bored out of my skull. I'm trolling you largely for my own personal amusement because I don't think for a second you're actually capable of considering the negative impact of religion.
Your little line about "conflating sexual abuse with mental trauma" is evidence of your bias. You quite obviously perceive mental trauma to be not as important as physical or sexual trauma. Somewhere, someone taught you that this was so. Probably repeatedly until you internalized it good and proper. Sex is bad! Sexual abuse, therefore is significantly worse that mental abuse! Based on nothing, of course, excepting your own moral judgement about how different kinds of abuse are "rated"...which is rooted in your belief system. Hence why this whole conversation was completely pointless several comments ago...but hey, I got my trolling on, so I'm quite happy.
"...religious instruction received in childhood often does stick around for life. But, outside of those cases where ham-handed assholes have done damage, is that necessarily a bad thing?"
Religious indoctrination is the removal of the child's choice in what to believe and who they want to become. That is wrong, regardless of how "good" and "moral" and "right" you think your religion is. Those "ham handed" types teaching their kids racism or burning the heathens? They don't think to themselves "that's wrong, better teach it to my kids." They think to themselves "my beliefs are just, right and moral, I must pass them on to the next generation."
The individual you want to indoctrinate deserves the right to choose for themselves what to believe. What is right and what is wrong. They deserve, most of all, to be taught critical thinking so that they can identify truth from fabrication; to identify where the truth is genuinely unknown versus where manufactured controversy exists.
If they choose to make a leap of faith, that's up to them. under no circumstances should that faith be indoctrinated into them.
"We all need some sort of "lens" to view and make sense of the world around us and we largely get that from the people around us whether they be family, community, teachers or, in some cases, churchy types. This lens will be acquired long before the child reaches an age you consider appropriate for making informed choices, can't be helped thats just how life works. If the lens is not based on hatred, violence or negativity does it really matter where it comes from?"
Absolutely, yes it does. Critical thinking is what needs to be passed on, not doctrine. A moral compass doesn't require religion, and quite frankly doesn't benefit from religion at all. Doctrine and faith obscure the ability to question authority, question morality, question standing ethics and question extant social moors.
A child should be entirely free to believe that there is no "one true truth". That everything needs to be questioned, analyzed and confirmed. They need to know that people lie, and that as a consequence of this you cannot simply take what the parent/teacher/priest/politician/journalist/etc says at face value.
Faith of any sort is the instruction that it's entirely okay not to question. That something simply are, no matter what anyone says. Faith is about accepting the word of another over your own judgement. It is about accepting the authority of the lie over the truth, or - at the very least - accepting that the truth is unknowable/not worth knowing, and choosing to believe the comforting thing instead.
When the child is of age and they are ready to make an informed choice about faith, more power to them.
Until then, the "lens" they should be gifted is one of truthseeking.
Truthseeking is all the more critical as our population balloons. The percentage of charlatans per population unit likely hasn't changed much with time, but as the absolute population grows, so does the absolute number of charlatans. Worse, technology enhances their power and reach manyfold. Today's charlatan can do a lot more damage than those of yesteryear, and there are more of them.
So that child will grow up in a world where nearly all jobs are automated. Where competition for any job at all - let alone a good job - is rabid and fierce. Where charlatans of skill and knowledge are everywhere and where the truth is every more easily obscured beneath layers and layers of personal opinion, anecdote and beliefs.
Being taught that there is a "one true faith" is a weakness. It's a chink in the armour. Not only does it increase your attack surface (as you have so helpfully demonstrated) but it means you are trained from birth to accept a comforting lie as truth. It's a minor effort to find the hooks that drove into the psyche and exploit them.
"As for me being a self-important cockbag, look in the mirror - you're the shouty one. Seriously."
Funny, I don't feel particularly shouty. Bored, maybe. A little somolent. Perhaps eve a tinge malevolent with a dash of gleefully impish. Shouty would imply I'm either talking in all caps, or that I care enough about the topic to get worked up about it. Neither are true.
Re: Trevor, Trevor, Trevor
I never said that children exposed only to one religion would not be able to exercise free will. I said that exposing a vulnerable child only to one belief system and repeating over and over that it is the "the One True Truth" is abusive and damaging. One example amongst many is discussed by Richard Dawkins here.
The reality of it is that once inculcated into a given belief paradigm, the overwhelming majority of individuals can't move too far afield from it. Train a child to believe that hell exists, and if they're bad they'll go there, that will be in the back of their mind for the rest of their life. It certainly goes beyond religion.
A good (no religious) example from my own life: if the house was not perfectly clean when my mother got home, there would be hell to pay. The sound of the garage door opening late at night caused completely autonomic fear, anxiety and panic. Fifteen years later, the sound of a garage door opening in the middle of the night is still enough to bring me out of a dead sleep, body flooded with ++ adrenaline.
Religions have a similar impact. They impart a sense not only of what is right and wrong (though it needs be noted that in no way are religions the only means by which right and wrong can be transmitted), but they impart concepts like eternal damnation, faith-based-lack-of-consequences (nothing you do matters, so long as you believe you'll get into heaven!), hatred for non-believers and so on and so forth.
Religion doesn't merely present hatred, fear and lies to children, it imprints it deep into their psyche as the truth. The majority of our species finds that decades later they still believe these things that they were indoctrinated to believe. Even after a lot of effort on the part of many individual to "unlearn" these subconscious beliefs they were so kindly "gifted" by their parents, it's still there.
Contrary to your callous disregard for the impact of childhood indoctrination, one does not simply wake up one day and decide they don't believe in $religion anymore, thank you very much. Even if they put real effort into it, it's twisted up into so many aspects of their understanding of the world that it may never be untangled.
That is the legacy of religious indoctrination. And by advocating for the right of the parent to indoctrinate their child that is what you are saying it is your right to do to the mind of an innocent.
Most children are absolutely not fully cognitively developed by 10 years old. High neuoplasticisty is observed up to an average of 16 years of age, with children still developing important core psychological concepts (like conservation) into their teens.
Just because a kid learns to talk back doesn't mean they're ready to be told hell is real and if they love the wrong person they'll spend eternity there, or that if you think about something really hard you can cure any disease, or that aligning your spirit properly will solve your schizophrenia.
A child asking hard questions doesn't mean they're immune to being indoctrinated. It doesn't mean the indoctrination that occurred prior to that point suddenly vanishes. It means only that they've entered one of the latter stages of psychological development; there's still a great deal of development yet to occur before they are fully adult. (Incidentally, it's a great time to introduce children to the concept of religion, along with multiple examples and let them ask hard questions. So long as you aren't holding up any one belief and saying "this is the one true belief" then it will indeed help them develop critical thinking.)
As for your BS about "knowing about only one religion has afflicted probably the majority of humans that have ever lived yet we still managed to come up with" is just that: BS. You can rape a person to within an inch of their life and they can still go on to cure cancer. Does that mean you didn't abuse them? Cause long-lasting psychological damage? Even put them at a disadvantage compared to their peers?
Lots of people have achieved great things with disabilities. Does that mean that if I poke out your eyes and sever your legs I'm not abusing you? What utter twaddle.
Mental and emotional abuse is still abuse.
Regarding your self-congratulatory claims of intellectual supremacy, I'm afraid I'm going to have to take a pass on that particular leap of faith.
Addendum: my calling you a goddamned idiot doesn't weaken my argument at all. Facts are facts and reality is objective. What you think or feel matters nothing to how the world plays out. An argument stands on it's own merits or it doesn't; attacking the individual (or bitching about attacking the individual) doesn't make a difference to the content of the argument, it's purely emotional byplay. It can affect acceptance of the truth, but does not change the substance of the truth itself.
To wit: I think you're a self-important cockbag who feels that the minds of children are property. As such, I will obtain whatever minor pleasure I can get from calling you a dunce. You don't have to like it. I rather hope you don't. And your tiredness (or not) with regards to the concept doesn't affect me one bit.
Nothing you've said has altered my initial impression of you, but you've manged to reinforce it repeatedly. Hence, I will enjoy continuing to needle, poke, jab and jibe until you trundle off to impose your belief system on another innocent.
Re: Trevor, Trevor, Trevor
I never said all homeschooling is bad, you forehead-slanted idiot. I qualified it by saying very specifically that home schooling in order to indoctrinate your children with religion is bad. There are reasons why home schooling can be a good thing, but that - on the whole - it isn't engaged in for those reasons.
1. I have no issue with adults choosing a religion because they have reached the point where their brains are at their maximum development. They are not going to get any better at making decisions. I believe the right to choose your own fate is a fundamental human right. That means that at some point people have to have the right to choose.
Science tells us that we are no longer vulnerable to easy influence by authority figures around the age of 16, give or take two years, depending on the development of the individual. It's one of the reasons why the age of majority is generally accepted as 18(ish) in most countries.
Also: you again completely failed to actually read what I wrote, instead inserting your own inane gibberings. I said - quite specifically - that a spiritual belief was required for some individuals. As a matter of fact, we can even identify the gene sequences responsible for this requirement. It absolutely does not affect the entire population, it is present in approximately 25% of us.
Thus some of us have a need for some sort of spiritual belief to feel whole. The rest don't. Determining if that is true of you is your own personal journey.
Is any belief as good as the next? Yes. The bible isn't true, and none of the other scraps of parchment written by madmen wandering the desert are either. Morality isn't divine. Morality flows from pragmatism and a genetic predisposition to altruism that exists in approximately 85% of our species. (About 5% of our species are not pre-disposed to tribalism and sociopaths make up about 10% of the population.)
Literal interpretation of any sacred text is outright lunacy, which makes any religion as good as the next. Morality is asynchronous of religion: you learn your society's values regardless. That means that it doesn't matter what you believe, so long as you realize that those beliefs are limited by laws. If you want to change laws, you have to work within the system.
2. The reason that it is bad to tell a child what to believe is quite simple: humans aren't born fully formed and fully capable. We have a learning process wherein we are heavily influenced in our formative years by individuals in authority over us.
Telling a child repeatedly their whole life "this is what you must believe, this is the One True Faith" is not giving them a chance to choose a belief system. It is forcing your own upon them.
A life involving spirituality is not a net positive for all individuals. In fact, it's net positive for only about 25% of our species. All children should have the opportunity to decide for themselves A) whether they feel religion is net positive for them and B) which religion they would like to believe in.
What you, as the parent, believe doesn't matter because you don't matter. Not in the context of the rights of the child. Your desire to pass on your belief system is irrelevant. The right to choose comes before your desires.
And that choice must include the right to choose not to believe in a religion at all.
The separation between child and adult is all about cognitive development. If you use a position of power to tell a child what they should believe - especially if you isolate them from their society in order to reinforce it repeatedly over the course of decades - you're a monster. Pure and simple.
By all means teach children that religions exist. Teach them about as many as possible. Do not tell children that one - and only one - is somehow "fact".
Instead, teach them critical thinking and let them decide for themselves what is or isn't fact. Do not use your position of power on a developing mind to force them to develop a belief system. That is nothing more than child abuse, pure and simple.
By demanding the right to do so, you are demanding the right to abuse your child. Would baby jesus want that, do you think? Little baby jesus? Really? He wants you to take advantage of the children? Really?
Re: @Trevor_Pott yet again
"So you admit my main argument against your position - that you cannot handle people thinking differently than you and that you do support using the power of the state to enforce Orthodoxy."
Not at all, I'm perfectly okay with people thinking differently, if they are allowed the opportunity to make an informed choice. I absolutely do not hold that "removing someone else's rights" is merely "thinking differently." It is not merely "thinking differently" to indoctrinate a child. It is removing their right to choose.
You claim "indoctrination is unavoidable", but have nothing to back it up. You throw this out as a justification for religious indoctrination but cannot prove that raising a child to think critically and offering them a wide range of diverse options for belief as well as broad life experience before asking them to choose consists of "indoctrination." That is because, in fact, it is the opposite of indoctrination. It is not forcing any belief system on the child, but giving them the tools to discover one on their own.
You naturally think that it's okay to let the loonies abuse children because you are in here arguing for your personal right to abuse your child. You are arguing stridently that your "right" (and I maintain no such right exists) to force your belief system on an undeveloped child supersedes their right to be free to choose.
You also don't seem to actually read what I write, you just jump in and start screaming. I never said that "teaching a child about god, sky fairies, invisible pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, tree spirits and Santa Claus" harmed a child. I said that religious indoctrination was akin to child abuse.
To be perfectly clear, I am saying that teaching a child that one and only one religion is the "one true faith" is akin to child abuse. This would include taking some subset of science and holding it up as absolute doctrine, never to be questioned.
In fact, if you reread my comments you'll find that I believe children should be exposed to all of the mainstream faiths before the age of majority, and as many non-mainstream faiths as possible. They should be exposed to science, mathematics, art, literature and more as well. More importantly than anything else they should be taught critical thinking.
Exposure to this broad mix of beliefs and science, combined with as rich a life experience as is reasonable to afford the child is the only way to give them the tools to choose for themselves what to believe.
Taking a child out of school so that you can spend 15 years teaching them "science is evil, Muslims are evil, Blacks are subhuman, and everyone who doesn't worship Jesus in exactly the same way as we do is also evil" is fucking child abuse. End of.
What is not child abuse - what is in fact the antithesis of child abuse, or of orthodoxy - is to expose that child to various flavours of Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto, Hindu, the various other Abrahamic religions, the flying spaghetti monster, Gaianism, various flavours of paganism while also teaching them science in all it's messy, controversial and argumentative glory.
Teach them about the right diversity of human thought and never, under any circumstances tell them what they are to believe. Tell them that part of growing up is making that choice for themselves. Let them experiment, play, investigate and learn.
To force a child - and make no mistake religious indoctrination in the "one true faith" from nipple to nupital is the use of psychological force - to believe something is abuse. You can try to dismiss that as somehow "okay" because you feel it's your "right" as a parent to own that child, but that just makes you a monster.
Homeschooling can be a great thing, especially if the local school system is inadequate. It can also be a great thing if the only public school available is hell bent on indoctrinating a child into a given a religion.
Where homeschool absolutely is a terrible thing is where it is used by self-important monsters to remove from children the right to choose what to believe. Quite frankly, that it was it seems to be used for more than anything else, especially in North America.
And I don't care if you use homeschooling to achieve the ends or not; indoctrination of a child is abuse.
Re: @Trevor_Pott #3
1. Think as differently as you want. Don't indoctrinate children before they are old enough to make decisions for themselves.
2. Morality doesn't flow from religion. You can still be doing what you think is right and abusing a child. In fact a lot of people who abuse children don't honestly believe they are being abusive.
3. If you are homeschooling in order to give your child a better education because you feel that the extant system is inadequate, I've no issue with that. If you are doing it in order to religiously indoctrinate your child then I believe you should not be allowed to have children. Period.
4. The very concept of a "scientific fundamentalist" is nonsense. To be a fundamentalist you need a doctrine to adhere to. Science has no doctrine. Any aspect of science can be proven wrong if the correct reproducible evidence is provided. I absolutely am a believer in teaching all people critical thinking, but that doesn't necessarily lead to science. (It most frequently does, but make of that what you will.)
As a matter of fact, I am myself a religious person, I just don't generally discuss my religion because it isn't particularly mainstream and it takes a rather long time to explain. I chose my religion, after having explored various faiths, and decided that some element of faith - a belief in something greater than myself - was required to fill a void in my life. But I'm not fundamentalist about that either. I see no reason why I would push that faith on someone else - especially an innocent! - or even discuss it at length unless asked.
People must be free to make their own choices. If you do not believe that, then to my mind, you're a fucking monster. Whatever religion you wrap your ideology up in.
5. Don't you dare try to say "you cannot indoctrinate a child into a religion against their will because teenage religion." That's fucking bullshit and I expect fully that any reader of this site be capable of recognizing it for what it is. If you can't, leave. Don't ever come back. You aren't smart enough to play here.
6. I demand that the power of the state be used to ensure that all children be raised in such a manner as to be capable of making choices in their lives as to what to believe. That isn't orthodoxy. It's ensuring freedom for all citizens.
Your freedoms end exactly at the point where they would infringe upon the freedoms of another. A child does not belong to it's parents. A child is not property. Therefor you do not have the freedom - or the right - to indoctrinate them. They have the right to make their own choices.
You advocate a "right" by parents to to take away the right of children to choose, by indoctrination them before they are biologically developed enough to understand what is happening, old enough or experienced enough to make choices in full knowledge of the alternatives.
You demand the right to determine the fate of another human being and then have the unmitigated gall to say that I am the one preaching orthodoxy?
Do I believe that the state should prevent parents from indoctrinating children? Yes. Just like I think it should prevent parents from physically abusing them.
I also think the state should prevent people from murdering, from raping, from treating those who are a different gender/race/sexuality/etc differently...
All people should be equal under the law. That means we don't have the "right" to deprive others of their rights, or to force them to do our bidding, or to force them to believe what we tell them to believe. To me, that absolutely includes a parent's relationship with a child, or any vulnerable adult.
Do you think it should be legal for a parent to take their adult child, strap them to a chair and Clockwork Orange them with propaganda until they believe what they're told? No? How the merry fuck is that different from taking a child and indoctrinating them in a religion?
With an adult you'd need the restraints because they would otherwise walk away. A child can't. Even teenagers are demonstrably vulnerable. There's scads of science on this.
So, to come right down to it, you demand the ability to abuse children psychologically in the form of religious indoctrination be granted as a "right" to parents and enforced by the state with guns.
I demand that parents be prevented from abusing children psychologically in the form of religious indoctrination by the state, using guns if necessary.
The difference is that you aren't capable of accepting that your demands amount to child abuse. Somehow "it's different" if it's religion. And I say: "that's fucking bullshit." You can continue to reinforce your point, but you aren't going to change my mind on this. Indoctrinating a child into a belief system before they have the biological capability, knowledge and life experience to make a decision about what they want to believe is abuse. Full fucking stop.
Re: @Trevor_Pott #2
Bullshit. Teaching children religion absolutely is child abuse. Abuse has many facets, from the physical to the psychological. Religious indoctrination is all about denying children the right to think for themselves. It is about taking away their ability to choose before they are even old enough to realise that what the right to choose is and why it matters.
Teaching children facts, figures and critical thinking gives them the tools they need to make informed choices. It gives children the knowledge required to understand people who think differently and to deal with them in a way that doesn't involve violence.
I do not have any problem whatsoever with an adult who has reached the age of majority choosing to pursue one or more faiths of their choice. There is plenty of peer-reviewed science to show that faith is an important component to the psychological well being of a significant percentage of our species. If they need spirituality to feel whole, more power to them.
But I absolutely and vehemently disagree with the concept that parents "own" their children. That child's mind is not yours to do with as you please. It belongs to the child themselves and you've no right to remove their right to choose or their ability to think critically.
There is absolutely no moral or ethical argument you can make for indoctrination of children to any belief system before their brains have fully developed. Belief in a structured faith must be a choice, one made in full knowledge of the alternatives.
You're absolutely full of shit if you think I want other peoples' children "indoctrinated" in any specific way. I emphatically do not. I want them trained to think critically, to be aware of all options before they make a choice.
I don't pass judgement on the choice itself, if that choice is made after full cognitive development has occurred, with full exposure to alternatives and of the free will of the individual in question.
If you honestly believe that the above is "indoctrinating" a child to "my way of thinking" you're a liar or a fool. You can decide which.
Re: "whoever successfully builds a reliable, mass-producable qubit"
"Wow, Trevor. Usually I find your comments fairly reasonable, even if I don't agree with them; but you've really lost the plot on this one."
Only because you seem to believe that QC is only good for two different algorithms. I'm far less convinced.
"QC offers very little for the vast majority of mainframe workloads."
"They're rarely CPU-bound in the first place."
Again, agree. That said, however, the few things that are CPU bound are typically great bit huge database work. A huge chunk of that i I/O bound, but even when you can get enough of the DB into fast enough memory you run into CPU issues. This is not only where I think QC can help, it's also one of the things x86 can't really do well. (Power, Itanic et al having largely evolved to deal with these problems while x86 kept on the general compute path.)
And the major barriers to replacing mainframes with an "ultra-resiliant x86 cluster" are perceived risk, decades of strange proprietary add-on software and obscure APIs, and customers' lack of knowledge about what they're actually running.
Again, agree. That said, a lot of customers are looking to rewrite and move off onto ultra-resiliant x86 clusters. While some of that is possible, a major barrier is the ability to move the great big databases off, while still retaining the performance.
Very few businesses are using mainframes for big-data processing. They may have terabyte databases, but they're not dealing with big-data loads.
An interesting assertion, and not my understanding at all. I am lead to believe that many businesses using mainframes are working with giganamous databases that they have to do a large number of searches against. Datasets are so large that the searches become a problem for x86. I'd be quite happy to be proven wrong on that.
And QC doesn't help with many big-data problems anyway. Grover's algorithm is optimal, and it runs in O(N1/2) time and O(lg N) space. So if a search would have taken an hour on a classical computer, it'd take a little under 8 minutes on a QC, all else being equal - and that's only if you have enough qubits. For large N, even lg N starts to become a problem if you're running a lot of simultaneous queries - and if you're not, why is QC useful for your application? - if the resource is scarce.
Where QC helps - and for that matter, mainframes too - is searching a large dataset quickly. Traffic simulation and logistics are both repeated to me as examples of workloads where, apparently, multi-squillion-dollar mainframes are required and x86 clusters just don't do what is needed.
As for what QC is supposed to do for "custom interconnects" I cannot guess.
I don't think QC will replace custom interconnects. I think A3Cube and like setups will commoditise high-speed, low-latency interconnects to the point that there's no longer a need for the custom stuff. Thus the margin will evaporate.
That means that the real money will shift to quantum interconnects as the demand for secure transmission grows. Will that be in-datacenter? Probably not. But in the networking world, I think the margins are going to move away from lashing together servers and towards quantum-secure comns. (Which, apparently, we can now do using mostly regular equipment? I need to investigate that more...)
Many of the potential customers in our market can't even start to disentangle the thousands of undocumented programs they have on their mainframes, in order to find a subset suitable for a trial migration. Even with the help of source-code application-suite analysis tools. And that's when they have source.
And yet they are trying. They are migrating. A trickle here, a trickle there...and this business is evaporating. What happens when the heavy lifting of the DBs (and their associated gobs of RAM) is no longer needed? When your "mainframe" can be stuffed into 2U + a 4U QC to run all that legacy stuff? I doubt you'll be getting the kind of money for it that you were getting when you could sell two whole racks to do the same job...and that's my point.
QCs on their own are not going to kill the mainframe. They're just one additional wound. Mainframes are dying the death of a thousand papercuts as technology in general makes them no longer relevant.
I just think that QCs ability to deal with big databses, fast factoring and - if my sources are correct, natural language - will take some away some of the remaining "you need a mainframe for this" workloads...hence stealing the margin.
Re: Needs better explanation
Quantum effects of mammalian neurology is something that at the very least I know a group at the University of Alberta is working on. To listen to them talk about it, they've got folks around the world they're working with on the problem. I know the people involved and they don't do frivolous research. I also happen to know they aren't really anywhere near publishing.
Next time I sit down for beer with 'em, I'll poke more into the details.
As for qbits being used for natural language comprehension, I wish I could go into details, but it honestly does fall under "protecting a sources." I know that sounds like a cop out, but I am sworn to secrecy about the whole affair.
Re: "whoever successfully builds a reliable, mass-producable qubit"
"Erm, you *do* realize that quantum computers won't replace those companies "bread and butter" product lines, don't you?"
Um...yes they will. "Bread and butter" for HP, IBM and their ilk does not mean "sells the most volume of". "Bread and butter" means "is the most high margin. For HP/IBM/etc that isn't the commodity x86 servers that they're currently losing their shirt on. It's things like mainframes, custom interconnects, HPC ASICs and other tools of the very, very high-end and specialized trade.
To keep this short: these are the exact places where quantum computers will go. Your high-end mainframe will end up replaced by a combination ultra-resiliant x86 cluster and an quantum computer to handle the hard questions/big database/big data problems. You won't need all the high-margin custom gear HP/IBM/etc makes. You can use a quantum computer and a handful of PhDs to achieve the same thing.
That's the problem. This means the "mundane" portions of the workloads can get off the really high-margin mainframes and the tricky stuff can be farmed out to the pile of qbits in the corner. If those qbits are supplied by a startup then there's a damned good chance that the Big Customers will be able to bully the startup (rather than the other way around) and get a Great Deal.
That's the end for HP and IBM, at the very least. If someone comes out with this stuff and they don't control it, they're done. And frankly, whichever of those two can manage to get a working proper quantum computer first...wins. The other one will fold, as there won't be a need for their high-margin services.
Without their high margin services, they can't compete against the likes of Lenovo, ZTE and Quanta. They'll go quietly into that good night and nobody will notice.
Except the thousands upon thousands that don't have a job, of course.
"Bread and butter" is what keeps the company going. If you think that's commodity servers, you're mad.
To be fair, you reboot Windows monthly nowadays, and with a core install of Server (or when using Hyper-V) that can be stretched to 3 or even 6 months, on average. Plus, for their servers at least, they have cluster-aware updating.
I do, however, agree that "a bandaid on top of a band-aid on top of a band-aid" is Microsoft's default approach to this...and that's bad.
Windows RT should have been the opportunity to do it from scratch, and do it right. New chip architecture, new guts, no legacy cruft. Less application support, sure...but that will get solved if you make the thing not suck (and charge a reasonable price for it.)
Sadly, what Windows RT ended up as was the worst of both worlds: all the badness from the x86 line ported into their ARM line, with none of the app support.
No rational person debates the reality of climate change, or htat humans are responsible for it. You are admitting to being irrational, then?
Re: Bad poll?
Two wrongs don't make a right. They just destroy the future faster. And for the record, China is pumping trillions into replacing their energy sources with CO2 neutral sources. They have big incentives; most of their economy is on the coast.
Re: Re Christoph: Equilibrium?
Except that the flood myth shows up in populations that should not have been able to have contact with one another...and the variability is too wide. Not all flood myths involve someone surviving. Some are "wipe out, rebirth of all", etc.
It's far more likely that most primitive cultures had an encounter with a massive flood at one point or another, and that this became a basic part of our racial memory.
Re: Re Christoph: Equilibrium?
Yes. Sea levels change with the glacial cycles. That's a very different thing than "global flood". Or even different from the kind of cataclysmic flooding (say a collapsing pro-glacial lake) that could have embedded this meme into our racial memory.
Virtually every culture has a flood myth. Our species has been on the receiving end of some pretty big ones at various points. Maybe the post-glacial oceanic rebound is part of it, for some cultures. (Probably the Polynesians.) For most, however, I suspect that's not the trigger. "Catastrophic" flooding with few survivors seems to be the key...that usually indicates a large body of water having a major barrier give way, a-la lake Bonneville.
It's jake. He's too busy sipping his homebrewed beer made of the fermented tears of his enemies. All while he flies to work in his mahogany helicopter, from the deep-forest acreage that he build with his own two hands, out of the spare zeros and ones he saved by coding a Big Data financials database that makes trillions of dollars per second. Naturally he coded it on a Sinclair ZX Spectrum made out of things being better in the past.
Whatever you do, jake does better. Whatever you like, jake likes something better. Whatever you drink, eat, say, shit, piss, or breathe, jake does it better. And in the past, when men were men and women flew the choppers, everyone was better...but jake's all that's left, here to tell us all about how amazing he is.
...but he still doesn't get "humour". That's for lesser beings.
"There is no difference between water and Budweiser."
Yes there is. The latter contains more-than-trace quantities of horse urine.
Re: Tracking hydration levels ...
The problem is that those most likely to need it - the ill, elderly and infirm - will have trouble peeing in the cup. Make a toilet that can do this and you'll sell millions. Make something that can retrofit an existing toilet with this capability and you'll sell hundreds of millions.
Re: Another Frank Herbert prophecy comes to pass
Doesn't everyone employ a Bene Gesserit for this purpose? You don't? Oh...how terribly common...
Re: Ah.. explains it all.. IoT.
Hey, IoT where the data goes into "the cloud" for the yanks to sell? Bad. IoT where I get info to make my life better? Good!
Why does it all have to be "bad" just because the yanks making it want your privacy? Wait for some nice Nordic folk to come out with some IoT stuff. It won't try to sell you and your family for a bent pittance, and it'll have all the benefits. :)
Re: Actually, this may have a use.
This is only the beginning. A cup that could set off an alarm if you drink something your allergic to? Plates/forks/spoons with the same abilities? That gets into the real of saving lives.
Will this particular device be that good? Oh, I doubt it. But it's a 1.0. 10 years from now, I fully expect that trips to the hospital due to some poor child eating nuts where he wasn't supposed to being down to "virtually nonexistent" in first world nations.
But hey, for 90% of the world, it's all a great joke. Internet of Things! Ha-ha! What could
electricity horseless carriages moving pictures sensors ever do for the common man?
Yeah, snark aside, sign me up. "Don't remember if that's your 18th cup or your 8th?" Yep, that's me. Clinically diagnosable ADHD, right here. Also, I work a lot. Also, I have many jobs. Also...when at parties, it's be cool to have a widget that kept track of how many drinks I've had, because I'm the first to admit that I'm not good at remembering.
In addition, I have a lovely genetic mutation where I don't actually feel thirst. It might sound stupid to those not born with it, but I actually do not feel thirsty. When others would feel thirst, I feel a desire to consume carbohydrates. You can't just "think yourself better" from that; it's genetic, and it's a Very Bad Thing.
I usually have little reminders go off every so often to remind me to drink water. Combined with putting a cooler at my desk, I can mostly stay hydrated. But hey, how much of what do I drink? Coffee? Alcohol? Water? Gatorade? Gathering empirical evidence and then being able to tailor my alerting system to optimize my hydration (and caffination!) might bump my productivity up a few notches. Especially since dehydration = distracted = lost revenue to opportunity cost.
We aren't all perfect specimens of human normalcy. As a representative of the "damaged" members of species, I welcome this tool that is so casually dismissed as a mere vanity item.
Re: As to bullying ...
Canadian cops rarely "go to jail" for screwing up. Suspension with pay is more frequent, along with retraining. It's very - very - hard to get a Canadian cop canned.
Re: alternative view courtesy of StateWatch...
"the ISPs have previously stated to ACPO that they need to retain data for about 5 minutes in order to complete the billing process, the metadata could then be archived to tape."
Um...no. There's a whole system we use here wherein we log in to the ISP's network to register our devices. We assign devices by MAC address to the system so that we can select between dynamic IPs and static IPs (assigned by DHCP as well). This prevents people from just tossing unlimited numbers of devices naked to the modem and hoovering up IPs. It also allows the ISP to assign combinations of dynamic and static IPs to the same line.
That's why they need to keep the IP --> device mapping around. It's literally integrated into how the entire infrastructure works.
The Tories are the ones who have consistently fucked that province. Everyone else has to spend a great deal of time cleaning up their mess.
As for you leaving, please, do go. You aren't needed, or wanted. There are plenty of sane Canadians making good money who actually don't have a problem paying taxes because we appreciate what we get in return. There's a nation just south of you that is far more conservative than Canada will ever be. Go live there. If you're such a "producer", they'll welcome you with open arms.
Oddly enough, I find most conservatives aren't much in the way of "producers" anyways. They're typically either outrageously wealthy (and that ain't that many people) or they are outrageously poor. (Lack of education makes it impossible for them to realize how screwed up the party they vote for is.) There aren't a hell of a lot of mid-wage conservatives, at least not in this country.
The "producers" in Canada tend to be very centrist. The country more or less runs fine, we want it to keep running as it is. We'd really like it if the Tories didn't spend all their time trying to destroy our civil liberties, and we'd like it if the NDP would wake the fuck up and build some goddamned nuke plants.
Here's a deal for you: let's go get proportional representation passed in this country. That way each vote counts equally. Then, if our country really is made up of a bunch of overburdened conservative "producers" being taken advantage of by a vast leftist conspiracy you can turn the tables on us nefarious no goodniks and banish us into the ocean.
Oh, suddenly you're not so interested? You're afraid of proportional representation? Whyever would that be? Hmm?
Re: E-Warrants and such
If you were king, and that was your approach to privacy, I'd seize your throne by right of combat. You're fucking loony tunes.
Privacy doesn't end because computers are involved. That you seem to think a lower standard should apply "because internet" is fucking appalling. End of.
Re: As to bullying ...
Nope. Wrong. Canadian judges don't like e-warrants. That's because cops can't be trusted to be on the level. So the judges want to have actual communication with the cops to make sure they aren't trying to pull a fast one.
Damn, it's a bitch when your judiciary cares more about the people's rights than the swift application of almighty justice, eh? Stupid peasants should know they're all guilty, it's just a matter of finding out what they're guilty of!
Re: Makes a nice change
And if you don't - as I don't - believe in objectivity of those who make and enforce the law? If you don't agree with most of the laws on the books or the rationale behind how new ones are made?
I was never given a choice to follow laws or not. I never swore an oath of allegiance to Canada, nor did I swear to follow her laws or obey her law enforcement. Men with guns threaten me with violence unless I comply. The alternatives are incarceration or death.
I don't believe in these laws enough to do time for them, or to not do time for them. Where does that put me in your black-and-white view of the universe?
Re: E-Warrants and such
Actually, there are standards. I.E. that our judges actually give a bent fuck about Canadians, our constitution, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They do, in fact, want to look a cop in the eye and see if he's full of shit, or at least hear the voice on the phone and make sure they're on the level.
It isn't just "fill out the form, receive bacon." That's not how it works. If you want a warrant you have to convince a judge to give you one. That is done on balance of the evidence and whether or not the judge believes you're on a fishing expedition. In a lot of cases, you can get a warrant even on really thin evidence if you know the judge and he trusts you not be fishing.
As a cop, you have sources, you know the guy is guilty...you just can't reveal everything because you have to protect a source, would have to spend hours explaining several years of circumstantial evidence, etc.
In some cases, you have mountains of evidence, but you actually are fishing, because it's all circumstantial and kinda flimsy...and the judge isn't sure that you're on the level (or the right trail) with it all.
Americans would just automate away, because they give no fucks about the rights of their citizens. I think Canadian judges would have a huge problem with that.
"Why don't you come to Ontario its a leftist paradise"
What the fuck are you on about? Next to south buttfuck Alberta, Ontario is the most conservative place in Canada. They've had conservative Premiers for bloody ages and elect a heck of a lot of conservative MPs.
Maybe you should move to America. It sounds more your style...or, are they to "leftist" for you? Maybe you prefer Australia? Or do you need an out-and-out Christian Theocracy?
Why the hell are you even in my country? You're screwing up the place for actual humans.
Actually, Canada may be ruled by a fascist junta - and yes, we really are - but the judiciary takes no end of pleasure in striking down pretty much everything the junta gets up to. You might even call it glee.
The powers that be in this country are under the microscope for some very serious corruption and other no-no abuses of power. The mounties are eager to make arrests and the judges would like nothing better than the be known as the judge who put the Prime Minister in jail.
That's entirely understandable, because most of our country (I.E. those who are not the 30% of absolutely stalwart, slanted-forehead, would-vote-for-a-pig-if-it-was-painted-blue conservatives,) would pay absolutely incomprehensible amounts of money to be able to pop the sonofabitch right in the nose.
Re: As to bullying ...
Warrants take to long is the complaint.
"why do ISPs routinely record the association between IP address and account details in any case?"
It's tied into the billing and IP provisioning systems for all ISPs. This is a bigger issue as IPv4 becomes exhausted.
"If you are referring to Egypt in your last point above you could clarify that the elected ‘president’ was effectively booted out by the military, and the government has been described by some as a military junta."
And yet, after the election the junta-like activities seem to have ceased. They were imposing martial law after kicking out that cleric. They were suppressing dissent. Unless I'm terribly mistaken, a lot of that has eased up and they are slowly opening up, within reason, given that the religious whackos are still blowing things up periodically.
"Whilst it is certainly true that the western societies haven’t solved all the problems. I have traveled to a number of places that have made much less progress, have you?"
Yes, and I've traveled to places that have made more. Your point? Western civilization isn't "better".
"Fingers crossed this happens. But the evidence in the news suggests otherwise."
What evidence? Your own innate pessimism? Or your irrational belief that if reovlutions don't result in paradise after the first [short timeframe] they're a failure?
I don't see the difference between a Muslim theocracy and a Christian one...and, quite frankly, I see a few of the western nations sliding way too close towards "theocracy". Australia, for example. Or the
Batshit Bananas Party Republicans in the states.
Maybe some of these middle eastern nations will slip back into dictatorships. I seriously doubt they all will. At least one of them did elect a cleric as president, then had a revolution to evict him when he couldn't look beyond his own religion.
Things aren't so simple as you pain them. Brown people aren't "primitives" that need our "guidance". They're human beings, not all that different from you or I, with hopes and dreams, desires and beliefs. Some are similar, many are different.
By what right do you call yours better, and where is your evidence? Has your society solved all problems? Is it without corruption, without oppression, "-ism"s, dramatic wealth disparity, rampant unemployment and so forth?
When I look at the countries that went through the Arab Spring I see nations where the people have learned the value of their own freedom and are prepared to keep fighting for it to the bitter end. And yes, they'll fight you and your nation too if you think for a half a second you're going to waltz in there and tell them what to do.
it's their nation, and they're going to run it how they like. And that's the whole goddamned point.
Re: @Trevor_Pott @Titus_Technophobe
Why would these countries develop a constitution similar to the USA's constitution? Why would they want to? They have completely different cultures with completely different ideas of right and wrong...and the USA failed. It was cute, at first, but there's far better examples to choose from.
Egypt has signed a new constitution. It seems sane and rational in the context of the culture that created it. It has had an election with American-levels of apathetic turn out, but an outstandingly clear mandate for the extant candidate. It has a vibrant opposition looking to assert itself and appears to be a fledgling democracy. With issues. With the potential that president what's-his-nuts the military guy won't let go when his term's up...but with a populace that demands a say in their government and is willing to die to ensure they have it.
Other countries are getting there. Some are dividing up. That's also good.
Look, most of Africa and especially the middle east was drawn up by a bunch of Brits who didn't give a rat fuck about the culture of the people living there. They just cared about straight lines on a map.
The thing is...those cultures are very insular, tribal and xenophobic. Think football fans, but who wrap it up in patriotism, nationalism and religion. They don't think of "nations" in the same way westerners do, with borders being so very, deeply important and the concept of national sovereignty overriding the individual's duty to their tribe.
These people are going to either shatter their nations into smaller, more easily governed ones broken along tribal lines, or they are going to break into a federal system with individual territories having large amounts of autonomy, and probably their own seat of government. Either way, they are going to create a nation where the historic groups are all represented and largely self governing...and that's what they need today.
What they absolutely don't need is some one-size-fits-all ruler imposing their will on everyone. This is why Egypt went berzerk when their duly elected post-spring president broke his promises and started getting religious on everyone's behind: because he has to be able to represent more than just the interests of the "tribe" to which he belongs.
Here then, we may well see a better form of government emerge from this chaos. One that grow beyond the tribalism that afflicts their nations...and which has ground the US itself to a partisan standstill.
So, sirrah, I submit that you are wrong. The Arab Spring was a great thing. Not because it was the first step in these nations becoming more like us...but because it was the first step in these nations stepping out from our shadows and becoming something entirely unlike us.
Re: .5m resolution?
Yes, that's about the sum of it.
Fritz, I don't have a boss. I'm so fat that I long ago ceased giving a fuck what others think and my entire family are shinks of one flavour or another. I know what you're trying to say...
...and you're wrong. What's "liberating" for one human is horrifying for the species. Your utopia won't manifest. Mark my words. We aren't ready for this concept. We will attack eachother with these new tools. It's our nature.
But the tools are now beyond anything that we can cope with...
"So like you, yes, such an open "level" world scares the hell out of me too. But a world in which only those who have already seized power by any means retain sole control of the means to hold onto it, scares me even more."
Why? More to the point: what exactly do you think we can do about it? And how will surveilling everything and everyone all the time help level that playing feild?
The power of those is charge is completely asymmetric to "the muck". The American dream of picking up their precious guns and overthrowing the government is batshit bananas insane. Even in nations that are about as well armed as the LAPD, the hoi polloi either needed the military to side with the people, or other nations to help out. Who is going to help the "little people" rise up against a western government, hmm? Who is even going to force a western government to hold accountable, transparent elections?
The powers that be behave exactly how they want to behave, and the powers aren't the people elected. The PTB are the self-perpetuating bureaucracy that actually keeps the nations ticking along, and good fucking luck displacing them.
No, all publicly available mass surveillance is going to do is give the plebians one more tool to use in fighting amongst themselves. Mass surveillance is the replacement for television. It keeps the masses servile and obedient because they can direct their rage at something other than those in charge: eachother. The added bonus for the PTB is that the milled masses will spend their time tattling on one another, helping the government root out dissidents and NIMBYs that need to be watched for a lower cost.
I absolutely do not see how any of this puts norms on a level playing feild with those in charge. Please, do explain.
Re: Don't you get it?
"Calm down, when for instance smoking pot in Holland is allowed and stem cell research is allowed in the EU it does not matter at all what the US law says, not at all."
Actually, an American who smokes pot or conducts fetal stem cell research in Holland would be in violation of US federal laws and thus subject to prosecution when they got home, were it to come to the attention of the federal law enforcement that this activity had occurred.
The US is unlikely to invade a sovereign country to impose it's laws on that countries citizens, but that isn't because the US doesn't believe it has the inherent right to do so. It absolutely does believe that. It simply doesn't have the ability to do so, as getting it's ass handed to it by a bunch of tribal in the goddamned desert for a decade and a half has more than proven. I seem to recall a distinct inability to impose their will on countries covered in jungle as well.
As a US citizen, break a US law while abroad and the US absolutely can prosecute you when you get home. As a foreign citizen, break a US law anywhere that the US has enough of a military presence to enforce their laws and they'll gladly charge you under their system too.
Re: Hyper-V is free & MS SDN
Hyper-V networking is to SDN as Tintri is to software defined storage. You can call it that if you want, but then you look at Datacore (for storage) or NSX (for networking) and you realise that you're note even playing the same game, let alone in the same arena.
Re: SDN by MSFT! Really?!
"Distributed switch" != SDN. There's a little more to NSX than what MS is peddling...
Oh, and yes, I'm lumping in together a bunch of extremist copyright stances together to make a point. It's a general disparagement of the collective inability to even consider compromise. Just for those who can't grok that bit...
Ah, but you don't seem to understand anything. What's important here is that one of two things happen: A) society rewind technological advancement so that we can't possibly violate copyright or B) anyone who violates copyright should have their lives ruined, be made financially destitute for what remains of their sad existence and thrown in a federal ass-rape prison for longer than a murderer.
Only if one of these two things happens will society have honored the fundamental moral rights of Creators(*).
Oh, wait, I lied. The world isn't a fuzzy and beautiful place until we recognize the fundamental moral right of creators to perpetual copyright. You see, Creators(*) are just fundementally different from you and I. If you go to work and create a script that saves your company $2M every year you don't have a fundamental moral right to make a living off that script forever. That's a couple day's salary, at best.
Obviously, you knew this when you signed up, and you have no right to dine on that forever because you're not a Creator(*). Now a Creator(*) deserves perpetuity. That's just and moral. It's how proper societies comport themselves. Everyone else, however, has to generate fresh value every single day if they want to survive. Creators(*), however, are morally entitled to dine on that one thing forever, as are their descendants, and their descendants...at least until the world loses interest.
Now, the world losing interest is a problem. But this is where that perpetuity comes in. Derivative works must be stamped out(**). The mere idea that someone might take Mickey Mouse and start evolving the character is sacrilege! I mean, you might get Mickey Mouse, Warfighter or Gay Mouse or even Steamboat Slaughterhouse 14: Pluto gets Dead.
Hell, maybe you'd see an entire series about Mickey Mouse in space, where our beloved childhood hero attempts to colonize another world, and deals with existential contemplation alongside Minnie and Pluto and Donald Duck. Holy shitballs, that would be a moral travesty so dire that our society would never recover from it.
That's as crazy as someone taking a bunch of children's stories from before modern copyright existed, then twisting and perverting them beyond recognition in order to coldly and callously extract every last cent of profit from another culture's mythology. Then suing anyone into the ground that tried to use that same mythology for their own works!
Don't you understand why derivative works must be prevented, and copyright must exist forever, and why, above all, copyright must be defended to the point of jailing or ruining millions? No? Then you're obviously immoral. Set yourself on fire, you heathen bastard.
Of course, sane and rational approaches to dealing with copyright are verboten. Reasonable limits on copyright that mean copyright holders have to work for a living are heresy. Any sort of global copyright pool and actually using technology to determine who gets what % of it is madness. It's better to rail against modern technology and human nature than attempt to use that same technology to solve the problem in a cost efficient and user-friendly way.
Anyone who uses a carrot is immoral; you must use the stick and beat the sin out 'em, or they'll never learn.
So here was have a case where copyright was violated. It's a pretty clear cut example of a photgrapher not getting the tuppence he was due, along with his name in letters on the bottom corner. Someone - probably the website used, not Tom Hanks - made a boo boo.
Instead of sitting down and having a real talk about copyright and coming up with a compromise that suits all members of society, the incident is used for browbeating and the digital copyright equivalent of "slut shaming."
Stick, stick, stick...and never even a hint of a carrot.
The thing is - and your comment spells it out beautifully - the average person doesn't give a shit about copyright. Those of us with shrew-like mothers who use guilt as a weapon know why: eventually, you become completely immune to religious-inspired attempts to guilt-trip you into doing something purely for the benefit of someone else.
The problem here is that there's a bunch of us in the this world who simply don't agree that Creators(*) have a fundamental moral right to perpetual copyright, controlling derivative works and a bunch of other legally sanctioned thuggery. Many of us engage in digital hooliganism because of this, others simply tune out moralistic preaching from copyright maximalists, even when they have a legitimate grievance.
Bad blood has developed, and the only hope for rapprochement is to set down the stick and start hunting for wild carrots.
Sadly, this isn't likely to happen. Actual discussion about how to shape copyright in the 21st century to deal with both human nature and the explosive growth of technology will remain stymied until the old guard finally die off. Like science, it seems the evolution of rights must proceed one funeral at a time.
So expect a lot of this sort of thing. One side or the other holding up every infraction they can find as somehow emblematic and indicative of all of society's ills. Hatred and vitriol, sniping and guilting.
We have to wait for extremists on both sides to die off before we can reach a compromise that doesn't require enforcement of it's policies upon the masses at the barrel of a policeperson's gun.
*Actually, what needs defending is the rights of large content pigopolies. You see, these are actually fantastic organizations for reasons that change daily and are difficult to articulate. I think it has something to do with "content creators know what they're doing when they assign copyright to a pigopoly" and "the pigopoly is morally entitled to elevteen squillion times the amount they actually pay artists because of the horrible burden of marketing and producing anything in this era of automated marketing and production." Your milage will vary depending on which copyright maximalist you talk to and how many bits of circular reasoning you've called them out on so far.
**Ignore the part where everything created since our antecedent species started scratching on walls and banging sticks together is derivative of that which went before. Creators(*) are special in that everything they do is non-derivative, unless someone is deriving from them. Don't look for logic here, this is about morality, damn it!
- Updated HIDDEN packet sniffer spy tech in MILLIONS of iPhones, iPads – expert
- Peak Apple: Mountain of 80 MILLION 'Air' iPhone 6s ordered
- Students hack Tesla Model S, make all its doors pop open IN MOTION
- BBC goes offline in MASSIVE COCKUP: Stephen Fry partly muzzled
- PROOF the Apple iPhone 6 rumor mill hype-gasm has reached its logical conclusion