I propose that people go for full disclosure when they post here. If you work for X when the topic is X and you post here, please disclose it, or avoid to post agresive posting without putting your name behind it.(or a speudo that people understand)

I remind everybody that this web site has a public log... hummm hummm
and for the respect of intelligence, if you post anomymous with a computer, make sure your name is not the computer name .....
The list ...

who?

Charlie, that's funny how fast some people stopped posting personal attack, isn't it?

who?

I guess, they are ordering a new laptop to their IT department, and will start posting very soon again with a PC without their names in the PC name ...
Let's give them some more advise ... If you post from home, be aware that your ISP since 2006 is very likely to identify you via "whois", Comcast and other USA isps follow the recommandation of the USA gov and clearly establish your ID ... it takes 5 min. If you are in E.U, you are safe, it will only point back to your city ... But your ISP keep the log ... and some of them let the log be public.

Most of web browser will give away your ISP, your IP, your machine name, and you MAc address ... your windows name, your domain, even the open source one ... There are cure for it, but well, look for it.

so, if you plan to do a "cover operation", please hire some brain power ... :)
Or you can be smart ... and you disclose who you are ...

Stand up!
who?

Whats up with all this nonsense? No one but the administrators of this site can identify the IP of the poster. And the IP will in most cases, not give you much more than the ISP. Where I live, you'd need a court order to get that IP adress translated into an identity. And even then, anyone with a half a brain can setup Tor or similar if they would want to hide that.

As for you pledge for full disclosure, I don't see why that would be needed as long as the posts stand by themselves and or not trolling or smears, which don't belong on this forum anyhow. But since you seem to think its very important, why don't give the right example by putting your name, employer and function in your sig ? Its not because I and a few regulars know who you are, that everyone does. (Not that reading your posts would leave much doubt about your employer mind you ;) )

Mmmm I know his first name and employer but AFAIK (and this is no attack of any sort) I haven't seen any last name or official employer statement which makes him pretty disposable (if that would be possible). :cry:

Ok, this is rediculous. I've finally signed up for this "temporary" aces' replacement to respond to this.

I used my real name at Aces for the username from about 1998 ish through 2005 or so. I stopped doing so when a lawyer from a big tech company threatened me. The info I put up was something I overheard at a party near Silicon Valley, and frankly, not that interesting. But this particular company has an image to uphold with its true believers, and pays a lot of lawyers. And that information was counter to their image. I've since heard through the grapevine that they are notorious for suing people big and small. I didn't cave and tell them who I heard it from (and saved that person their job, probably).

So as for your disclosure BS -- I've never had anything to hide behind, but am not going to leave myself exposed for no good reason. If I post some information that can't stand on its own and NEEDS to be supported by information about myself or the context, I may provide that. If I post information that may attract attention, I'm not going to reveal my sources.

But most good information stands on its own, regardless of source.

In general, a well written opinion stands on its own -- as an opinion.
An analytical insight and logical discussion ALWAYS stands on its own and needs not an ounce of information about who the person is that posted it.

Its only the opinions or statements that rely on the author's "position" or unique access to knowledge that need not be anonymous. Or those that are based on claims that can't be checked via other sources. But in all these cases, the very fact that the author's identity matters makes the information weaker and suspect.

If you can't see the difference between the sort of statements that an anonymous source is as valid as a named one and those that gain weight when the source is known, you probably shouldn't debate on this site.

The latter type are tricky and often propaganda. If a statement NEEDS to gain validity from the context of the author, it is automatically suspect. One of the most powerful ways of influencing great numbers of people is to gain their trust and then use your position of trust to present claims that are false, distorted, or extremely incomplete. The same statements would be ignored or approached with skepticism if presented by a stranger.

Interesting article on nVidia's CUDA on Toms Hardware

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-cuda-gpu,1954.html

Quote from articles conclusion:

So, CUDA is not a gimmick intended for researchers who want to cajole their university into buying them a GeForce. CUDA is genuinely usable by any programmer who knows C, provided he or she is ready to make a small investment of time and effort to adapt to this new programming paradigm. That effort won’t be wasted provided your algorithms lend themselves to parallelization. We should also tip our hat to Nvidia for providing ample, quality documentation to answer all the questions of beginning programmers.