Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (764540)	1/19/2014 10:43:47 AM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575781

>No links to back up your claim that only 16-20% of the money in philanthropy actually goes toward helping the poor. I'm happy to give you links, but would it make any difference? >If Bill Gates thought the government would do a better job helping the poor than his own foundation, he would simply donate it to Obama. 1. That's not how government works. You can't say, "Hey, Obama, here's a billion dollars. Give it to the poor." 2. The wealthy nearly all believe they can do it themselves, better than anyone else. 3. There's no glamour in that. Philanthropy is 95% about the philanthropist's feelings and desire for recognition. 4. There's a place for targeted philanthropy. It just can't do everything, particularly projects on the scale of Medicaid. I'm pretty sure there's never been a philanthropic project to the tune of $10 billion annually (the largest not-for-profit in the U.S., the United Way, takes in about $4 billion a year (http://www.forbes.com/top-charities/). -Z

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (764540)	1/19/2014 1:18:23 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1575781

Eat this Ten. Most charities are nothing but scams, probably run by cynical, evil, criminal Republicans claiming to be "Christians": cnn.com "-- The 50 worst charities in America devote less than 4% of donations raised to direct cash aid. Some charities gave even less. Over a decade, one diabetes charity raised nearly $14 million and gave about $10,000 to patients. Six spent no cash at all on their cause. -- Even as they plead for financial support, operators at many of the 50 worst charities have lied to donors about where their money goes, taken multiple salaries, secretly paid themselves consulting fees or arranged fund-raising contracts with friends. One cancer charity paid a company owned by the president's son nearly $18 million over eight years to solicit funds. A medical charity paid its biggest research grant to its president's own for-profit company. -- Some nonprofits are little more than fronts for fund-raising companies, which bankroll their startup costs, lock them into exclusive contracts at exorbitant rates and even drive the charities into debt. Florida-based Project Cure has raised more than $65 million since 1998, but every year has wound up owing its fundraiser more than what was raised. According to its latest financial filing, the nonprofit is $3 million in debt. -- To disguise the meager amount of money that reaches those in need, charities use accounting tricks and inflate the value of donated dollar-store cast-offs - snack cakes and air fresheners - that they give to dying cancer patients and homeless veterans. Over the past six months, the Times and CIR called or mailed certified letters to the leaders of Kids Wish Network and the 49 other charities that have paid the most to solicitors. Most declined to answer questions about their programs or would speak only through an attorney."

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (764540)	1/20/2014 1:33:31 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575781

Valve: The future of Virtual Reality is just one year away BY BEN GILBERT JANUARY 18TH, 2014 AT 2:30PM ET 166 engadget.com The most exciting aspect of contemporary virtual reality is its implications. Even using Oculus VR's early duct taped-prototype, most users immediately "get it." You're transported to, say, Tuscany, or an underwater exploration vehicle, or a space fighter, and that experience is enough to trigger a flood of ideas for other potential interactions -- interactions that are dramatically heightened by employing a VR headset. How about deep-sea exploration in 4K? Or maybe Mars? And we're not talking just video games, but experiences. Valve VR lead Michael Abrash detailed that notion in a recent talk: "Not only could VR rapidly evolve into a major platform, but it could actually tip the balance of the entire industry from traditional media toward computer entertainment." Abrash believes that VR headsets so vastly outperform other interaction methods (TV, theaters, etc.) that how folks absorb media in general may be impacted by the coming wave of head-mounted displays. His concept of our potential future may be distant-sounding, but the beginning of consumer-grade, extremely polished VR headsets isn't far off: 2015. At least that's what Abrash and Valve are targeting as primetime for VR, and they're laying the groundwork right now. This is a VR prototype headset from Valve Valve's first ever game developer conference, dubbed Steam Dev Days in honor of the company's ubiquitous digital storefront/ ongoing socio-economic experiment, took place this week. Abrash gave a talk titled "What VR Could, Should, and Almost Certainly Will Be Within Two Years," where he detailed the current state of VR, what challenges the technology faces going foward, and when he (and Valve) believe it'll be ready for primetime. In it, he established a baseline of standards for VR: perfect timing to lay a base given Oculus VR's own standards for VR game development going live at nearly the same time. First, any VR headset needs to create "presence" for the person using the headset. Abrash defined presence as such: "It's the sense of being someplace else while in virtual reality; many people feel as if they've been teleported. Presence is an incredibly powerful sensation, and it's unique to VR; there's no way to create it in any other medium." Cliché as it is, VR headsets aim to do exactly what their name implies: simulate a new reality for the user, real enough to fool the human brain. Oculus VR CEO Brendan Iribe echoed that sentiment to us earlier this year when he said that the closer the experience is to reality, the better the experience is for the user. Sadly for us writers, "presence" -- or rather the experience of using a virtual reality headset and being convinced-- is incredibly hard to convey with just words. "Most people find it to be kind of magical, and we think that once people have experienced presence, they'll want it badly,"Abrash noted during his talk. Moreover, Abrash thinks that the VR hardware available right now -- including the latest Oculus Crystal Cove prototype -- is still a step or two away from the specs required for true presence. He even has a list of target specs required for creating presence (which Valve has functioning in an R&D headset right now, and was shown to developers during Steam Dev Days): The Crystal Cove prototype that Valve provided support for is "a big step in the right direction" Abrash said, but still not enough to create the sense of presence he and Valve are aiming to achieve. While Valve continues R&D on virtual reality hardware -- Abrash said "several" companies are working on VR headsets, though we only know of two officially creating consumer products (Oculus and GameFace Labs). The company's also building out Steam's VR software support to stay ahead of the curve. That's why SteamVR just went live (a VR version of Big Picture Mode) in beta; why VR games now have their own category in Valve's store; and why the company created the SteamVR API (read: it makes games play nice with the SteamVR platform). Valve's yet to give press a chance to try its VR hardware prototype, but developers who tried it at Steam Dev Days are responding positively thus far. It apparently has specs similar to what's detailed above, and we're not entirely clear on whether or not it uses a camera in conjunction with the headset for positional tracking (a la the latest Rift prototype). We do know that it uses IR trackers plastered to the walls of the demo room, much like what we saw at Valve HQ when visiting last year. Given Valve's openness during Dev Days and Abrash's assertion that Valve is open to working with any partners to push VR forward, we're certain to hear more in the coming year(s). Abrash ended his speech with a confident, thrilling statement regarding VR: "A great VR system at a consumer price in 2015 is more than just possible – it's sitting there waiting to happen. And it will happen, if not in 2015, then soon after. Virtual reality on the PC over the next few years may be as exciting as anything that's ever happened in games. We're sharing what we've learned with you, and we'll continue to do so. There's a huge amount to be learned and figured out about VR, and we certainly can't figure it all out by ourselves; I hope that as you dive into VR, you'll make it a two-way exchange, so together we can make VR one of the great entertainment evolutions."

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (764540)	1/20/2014 8:41:58 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1575781

Bits Blog: Intel Plans to Cut 5,000 Jobs in 2014

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (764540)	1/21/2014 12:29:27 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575781

Think Again: Prostitution Why zero tolerance makes for bad policy on world's oldest profession. foreignpolicy.com "Prostitution Is Bad."DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN AND WHOM YOU ASK.Prostitution may be the world's oldest profession, but there is still little agreement on the social and moral legitimacy of commercial sex. There are, of course, those who consider sex sacred and its sale a sin, and there are libertarians who are willing to accept nearly any degree of sexual freedom. But plenty of people have views that lie somewhere in between, and they are fighting over the fairness, regulation, and even the precise definition of what advocates and practitioners increasingly refer to as "sex work." Take France, for instance, where a debate erupted last fall over a proposed law that would fine people $2,000 for purchasing sex. All sorts of protesters took to the streets: women arguing that the law was necessary because violence and coercion are endemic to the sex industry, and sex workers, hoisting posters with slogans like "La repression n'est pas la prevention," who condemned the law. A group of men also insisted in a letter that the government take its hands "off our whores." Ultimately, on Dec. 4, the lower house of Parliament adopted the measure. The French case is but one example of a global dispute about what constitutes exploitation in the sale and purchase of sex -- and it also shows that one side of the argument often has the upper hand. That side, a group of odd bedfellows frequently called abolitionists, thinks that because all prostitution is inherently degrading and dangerous, it must be eliminated. The group draws from, among others, religious and faith-based organizations, both liberal and conservative political ranks, and some outspoken feminist camps. (The driving force behind the controversial measure in France is Women's Rights Minister Najat Vallaud-Belkacem.) <more @link> http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/01/19/think_again_prostitution

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (764540)	1/23/2014 5:04:39 PM
From: i-node	3 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 FJB PKRBKR Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575781

>>If Bill Gates thought the government would do a better job helping the poor than his own foundation, he would simply donate it to Obama. There was an interview with Buffett -- either 60 Minutes or CNBC -- in which he explicitly let it slip that he believed the Gates Foundation was a "better allocator of resources" than the federal government. And of course it is. But for you and me, we should just pay our taxes. For him, the wealthy, it is better to avoid taxes and let Gates handle the money. Elitism if ever there was any.