ATI even locks the BIOS so after POST you cannot access the card to download it. They are so afraid that the competiition will find out how they work or that someone else will build a better driver.
Since the competition is wiping the floor with them, and their current drivers are so thoroughly bad that they're an impediment to buying or using their products, this should not be among the uppermost of their worries.
In general it seems like there's a correlation between a thing's fungibility and the degree to which it makes sense to centralize its production. (Power obviously being highly fungible.)
I haven't read economics so maybe this is an obvious (or an obviously wrong) observation that everyone's already aware of...
Most vegetables were not edible by man in their natural state; it took thousands of years of genetic engineering to get to their current "natural" state.
Basically you just object to science that you find "icky," which is quite retarded. You describe "some big nasty bit of athlete's foot and yeast infection spreading through the protein slurry vats" when it would be a perfectly safe sterile process, compared to the massive petri dish in which vegetables are grown, earth (or the smaller petri dishes in which natural meat is grown, animals). You write about "Soylent Green," "Ronco Spray On Meat," "meat-goo," etc., but there's no reason why synthetic meat wouldn't look, feel and taste exactly like the real thing, only cleaner.
Your "natural" foods are the product of science, the only difference is that you've trained your brain to find negatives about the things that ideologically bother you, so your brain concocted a "grossness" for something that's far less gross, dangerous, etc., than things that are aligned with your beliefs.
And if that's wrong and you just plain don't like science, well that's even more retarded. Science provided you with vegetables and health and safety and so on. Nature has mostly inedible plants, animals that eat you, rape, murder, death. But I suspect it has more to do with your brain's self-delusion re finding "bad" science icky.
While I suppose the fact that we're posting in an electronic medium indicates a link to the TV and movie versions, clearly any Slashdotter who's not a young tot would be familiar with the allusion to the fin-de-siecle daguerrotype "Ye Feugetife."
The question is still interesting, though, to those who might promote a [more] free market. If one wants a free market, how does one account for the fact that, between all true and objective data, opinions and personal agenda's still exists? They are detrimental to an effective free market economy.
No, they make a free market economy a good solution to the problem. If there were no opinions and personal agendas, it would be easy to set up a central bureau and calculate how much of everything should get made to suit x people. It's the fact that different individuals have their own preferences, opinions, etc., that makes that socialist claptrap completely ludicrous. Think of free markets as a subtle, refined version of communism that takes into account the fact that not everyone is equal and completely identical.
Bah, whatever, if they do end up eventually crushing eDonkey and its ilk, and maybe even if they don't, people will just switch to anonymous P2P. It's pretty much impossible to stop people from exchanging data with each other.
You're right, we should all have a million dollars in the bank and not have to take jobs we don't want and still afford to cover all the bills and whatever fun expenses we have. But, in the real world, there's not quite that much wealth. And the socialist solution of cutting everybody down to the lowest common denominator isn't a solution, it makes the problem worse.
A bill of $500 will only break someone's neck if he lives paycheck-to-paycheck because of constant spending on stupid things, or because of complete lack of income, or under very extenuating circumstances. Any responsible adult with a job, even one paying minimum wage, earns more than enough to sustain that kind of surprise cost, and should also be building a nest egg. A somewhat more responsible than average adult can probably make it work (beyond mere subsistence) even on welfare payments.
To get in debt so deep that one can't get out on 40 hrs./week at a low-paying job requires a lot of debt. How does one get that much debt? By spending that huge amount of money. It's enough to cover the basics for years and years, so basically the person was an idiot who spent irresponsibly.
You and I, and countless other people, have enough money that we can look for a better job, but at some point a lot of us didn't have that much money and we had to take the $4/hour job. We responsibly saved enough that we no longer fit that description. Not everybody, but most people, can do the same (and those who can't do that much are generally the people who need our help, and should be essentially outside the whole world of money). The only way in which that "somehow just ain't right" is the way I mentioned at the beginning of this post, where it's a shame we can't all have mansions and yachts and plasma TVs. But back in reality, it seems a lot more reasonable to me than any of the alternatives.
What are you on? I worked hard, and now I can afford what I want. Don't project your failings onto all of society, or worse, some abstract political ideology. Weak.
You don't have to get deep in debt to get a high school education which is all you need for most work, you don't have to get deep in debt to go to a public university which is all you need for most high-paying work, and you don't have to get deep in debt to make a down payment on a house and live in part while renting out the rest to cover your mortgage and other costs. Invest a good chunk of your wages, and in a few years you'll be comfortable, in a few decades you'll be a wealthy retiree, and at some point in between you'll probably vote Republican. Anyone who's able and willing to stay awake and in one place for forty hours a week -- not all that hard, really -- can live better than royalty used to. Hell, you probably can do that on welfare if you're clever.
Just because you're a complete failure, or made bad decisions regarding debt, doesn't make all modes of social organization equal. Learn a little, either by reading or by living, then you can comment.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could develop a taste for listening to very loud heavy metal in an enclosed space...
Right, but Joe Smith the biologist has intent, whereas a bunch of atoms or a bunch of pharmaceutical companies don't.
They already covered that in the article and summary, the idea is that the information travels through the bone.
ATI even locks the BIOS so after POST you cannot access the card to download it. They are so afraid that the competiition will find out how they work or that someone else will build a better driver.
Since the competition is wiping the floor with them, and their current drivers are so thoroughly bad that they're an impediment to buying or using their products, this should not be among the uppermost of their worries.
Dad?
Son?
In general it seems like there's a correlation between a thing's fungibility and the degree to which it makes sense to centralize its production. (Power obviously being highly fungible.)
I haven't read economics so maybe this is an obvious (or an obviously wrong) observation that everyone's already aware of...
Are you using the sense of "moderately libertarian" that means ardently collectivist?
Most vegetables were not edible by man in their natural state; it took thousands of years of genetic engineering to get to their current "natural" state.
Basically you just object to science that you find "icky," which is quite retarded. You describe "some big nasty bit of athlete's foot and yeast infection spreading through the protein slurry vats" when it would be a perfectly safe sterile process, compared to the massive petri dish in which vegetables are grown, earth (or the smaller petri dishes in which natural meat is grown, animals). You write about "Soylent Green," "Ronco Spray On Meat," "meat-goo," etc., but there's no reason why synthetic meat wouldn't look, feel and taste exactly like the real thing, only cleaner.
Your "natural" foods are the product of science, the only difference is that you've trained your brain to find negatives about the things that ideologically bother you, so your brain concocted a "grossness" for something that's far less gross, dangerous, etc., than things that are aligned with your beliefs.
And if that's wrong and you just plain don't like science, well that's even more retarded. Science provided you with vegetables and health and safety and so on. Nature has mostly inedible plants, animals that eat you, rape, murder, death. But I suspect it has more to do with your brain's self-delusion re finding "bad" science icky.
Well, old news is no news, and no news is good news, so old news is good news.
While I suppose the fact that we're posting in an electronic medium indicates a link to the TV and movie versions, clearly any Slashdotter who's not a young tot would be familiar with the allusion to the fin-de-siecle daguerrotype "Ye Feugetife."
I'll second that!
Mod me down, motherfuckers! (Brought to you by "this post started at -1")
No, they make a free market economy a good solution to the problem. If there were no opinions and personal agendas, it would be easy to set up a central bureau and calculate how much of everything should get made to suit x people. It's the fact that different individuals have their own preferences, opinions, etc., that makes that socialist claptrap completely ludicrous. Think of free markets as a subtle, refined version of communism that takes into account the fact that not everyone is equal and completely identical.
Bah, whatever, if they do end up eventually crushing eDonkey and its ilk, and maybe even if they don't, people will just switch to anonymous P2P. It's pretty much impossible to stop people from exchanging data with each other.
It won't stop until processors are smarter than you are. Don't worry about your solar panels.
So, was she born in a window?
Or conceived?
D'oh... you drank the kool-aid.
Yeah, but there's water in Mountain Dew.
You preview all that shit you write here?
I find that hard to believe.
And then live happily ever after in the egg white? ;)
dot.com 2.0?
You're right, we should all have a million dollars in the bank and not have to take jobs we don't want and still afford to cover all the bills and whatever fun expenses we have. But, in the real world, there's not quite that much wealth. And the socialist solution of cutting everybody down to the lowest common denominator isn't a solution, it makes the problem worse.
A bill of $500 will only break someone's neck if he lives paycheck-to-paycheck because of constant spending on stupid things, or because of complete lack of income, or under very extenuating circumstances. Any responsible adult with a job, even one paying minimum wage, earns more than enough to sustain that kind of surprise cost, and should also be building a nest egg. A somewhat more responsible than average adult can probably make it work (beyond mere subsistence) even on welfare payments.
To get in debt so deep that one can't get out on 40 hrs./week at a low-paying job requires a lot of debt. How does one get that much debt? By spending that huge amount of money. It's enough to cover the basics for years and years, so basically the person was an idiot who spent irresponsibly.
You and I, and countless other people, have enough money that we can look for a better job, but at some point a lot of us didn't have that much money and we had to take the $4/hour job. We responsibly saved enough that we no longer fit that description. Not everybody, but most people, can do the same (and those who can't do that much are generally the people who need our help, and should be essentially outside the whole world of money). The only way in which that "somehow just ain't right" is the way I mentioned at the beginning of this post, where it's a shame we can't all have mansions and yachts and plasma TVs. But back in reality, it seems a lot more reasonable to me than any of the alternatives.
What are you on? I worked hard, and now I can afford what I want. Don't project your failings onto all of society, or worse, some abstract political ideology. Weak.
You don't have to get deep in debt to get a high school education which is all you need for most work, you don't have to get deep in debt to go to a public university which is all you need for most high-paying work, and you don't have to get deep in debt to make a down payment on a house and live in part while renting out the rest to cover your mortgage and other costs. Invest a good chunk of your wages, and in a few years you'll be comfortable, in a few decades you'll be a wealthy retiree, and at some point in between you'll probably vote Republican. Anyone who's able and willing to stay awake and in one place for forty hours a week -- not all that hard, really -- can live better than royalty used to. Hell, you probably can do that on welfare if you're clever.
Just because you're a complete failure, or made bad decisions regarding debt, doesn't make all modes of social organization equal. Learn a little, either by reading or by living, then you can comment.
Good grief, you're so fair and balanced you even used a dumb liberal talking point as an example in your post about fairness and balance!
You humorless fuck