you blindly and sheepishly support a failed system that across history and across nations and peoples has resulted in nothing but poverty, hunger, death and destruction, oh and also made a small number of people quite rich and powerful, but not me and not YOU of course!
You are a moron. I have a single word for you: Norway.
In particular, it's worth noting there's nothing *stopping* AMD from writing their own CUDA compiler for their GPUs -- for instance, the Portland Group has an x86 compiler for CUDA.
True, but unlike OpenCL it's controlled entirely by Nvidia, and I presume only OpenCL is documented for both the user and the implementer (though as you say, independent reimplementation is certainly possible anyway).
Lastly, most people making this argument tend to gloss over the fact that AMD/ATI has also tried (and usually failed) to make proprietary technologies.
Yep. Mantle is the obvious one. ATi Stream was ATi's proprietary CUDA competitor, which iiuc went nowhere.
The reason ATI is more "friendly" to open technologies is that their attempts at closed, vendor lock-in technologies have a nasty history of failing miserably, while some of nVidia's (CUDA, PhysX) are still going strong.
I agree. Personally I suspect it's because AMD just don't seem as good at innovating as Nvidia do. Nvidia seem to be much better at coming up with new ideas: see SLI, CUDA, G-Sync. I suspect that if AMD were as good, they too would make their solutions proprietary.
I don't think that's really it. I think it's rather that if they aren't first-to-market, the appeal of a proprietary technology is low (unless you can totally demolish the competition, of course).
If the choice was CUDA, OpenCL, and AMD's own technology, one can't see that AMD's own technology would see any real up-take. OpenCL is having a hard enough time as it is, even with its advantage of being open.
Also Freesync is an AMD-lead reinvention of the wheel - AMD are willing to 'do the real work' when it's necessary.
You're right, I should've been clearer. Mantle isn't really open (as you say, no freely available spec), but I understand AMD did offer it to Nvidia, and Nvidia refused (along the lines of oh look yet another graphics API, no we'll wait for DX12 thanks). The same cannot be said of PhysX or, to my knowledge, G-Sync.
Just a pity Android doesn't let you do anything meaningful with that well-designed permissions infrastructure...
For instance, you either trust an app with your entire contacts-list, or your contacts-list is out-of-bounds entirely. There no way to 'Add contact to app', and have that launch a trusted contact-selector utility.
As far as ATI/Nvidia competition, Nvidia tends to make things as proprietary as possible while AMD makes them more open.
Correct: CUDA, SLI, Physx, G-Sync, Shield Portable/GRID. AMD tend to either hop on board the open follow-up technologies (OpenCL, OpenGL compute shaders, DirectCompute) or create their own technologies which tend to be more open (FreeSync, Crossfire).
Mantle is an interesting one: it's open, but Nvidia aren't interested. This seems kinda reasonable: Mantle seems to have served well as a wake-up call that it's possible to create more efficient graphics APIs, so we can expect the next-gen OpenGL and Direct3D APIs to catch up to Mantle and far reduce its relative merits.
Whether this trend of openness with AMD is because they're just nice like that, or because they're generally playing catch-up... I guess Mantle would imply they do it 'voluntarily', but again, it was never going to have the sort of lock-in effect that CUDA does.
If you accept the idea of the existence of God, then you probably accept the existence of some kind of afterlife and/or reincarnation.
I don't agree. We have drugs that can knock you out for surgery. No consciousness at all, because it shuts off parts of your brain. And yet you are suggesting that consciousness can somehow survive the obliteration of the brain, and live on in an after-life.
It seems to me that the question of an afterlife is easier to answer than the question of a creator.
It's far more likely that the police will be (further) militarised, than that the military will be deployed domestically. As to whether those serving would really take part, I'm not too optimistic that that's a self-solving problem, as it's happened (and happens today) in plenty of countries around the world.
You implicitly assume that anti-weapon measures are always completely ineffective. They're not. There's rather obviously a trade-off here.
As we adjust various parameters, the ideal policy will vary. Trustworthiness of average law-abiding citizen, weapon-handling competence of average citizen, proportion of citizens who are criminals, how widespread are guns currently among criminals/civilians/police. These all factor in, and there are less direct factors like escalation.
It's not always a good idea to take away a law-abiding person's gun, despite what the waaah ermigerd a gun! crowd would have you believe. Likewise it's not always a good idea to make it easier to access guns, despite what the guns for everyone! crowd would have you believe. It depends. Annoyingly both sides consistently fail to notice or acknowledge this.
Of course, if you believe gun-rights are a fundamental right, or that they're necessary for protection against the state, then it's possible that none of the above will matter to you.
Sure, I guess I should've said: it's hardly self-evident that elimination of millions of jobs is by any means a good thing in, say, the current US economic system, in which the effect of such a shift is to funnel money away from the poor and toward the richer classes.
Slashdot Mirror
you blindly and sheepishly support a failed system that across history and across nations and peoples has resulted in nothing but poverty, hunger, death and destruction, oh and also made a small number of people quite rich and powerful, but not me and not YOU of course!
You are a moron. I have a single word for you: Norway.
You mean that it's a UI issue, rather than an issue of support existing in the OS?
CUDA was released to the public a year and a half before the OpenCL specification was published.
Yes. And is it open? No.
SLI hit the market ages before CrossFire.
I don't really have a problem with those two being closed, as I imagine they're inherently quite vendor-specific in their workings.
G-Sync is commercially available now and has been for some time, while FreeSync is not.
True. A recurring theme here is that Nvidia tends to be the first to innovate, with the open technologies playing catch-up.
FreeSync and Crossfire are not any more open than G-Sync and SLI respectively.
Apparently FreeSync really is open.
In particular, it's worth noting there's nothing *stopping* AMD from writing their own CUDA compiler for their GPUs -- for instance, the Portland Group has an x86 compiler for CUDA.
True, but unlike OpenCL it's controlled entirely by Nvidia, and I presume only OpenCL is documented for both the user and the implementer (though as you say, independent reimplementation is certainly possible anyway).
Lastly, most people making this argument tend to gloss over the fact that AMD/ATI has also tried (and usually failed) to make proprietary technologies.
Yep. Mantle is the obvious one. ATi Stream was ATi's proprietary CUDA competitor, which iiuc went nowhere.
The reason ATI is more "friendly" to open technologies is that their attempts at closed, vendor lock-in technologies have a nasty history of failing miserably, while some of nVidia's (CUDA, PhysX) are still going strong.
I agree. Personally I suspect it's because AMD just don't seem as good at innovating as Nvidia do. Nvidia seem to be much better at coming up with new ideas: see SLI, CUDA, G-Sync. I suspect that if AMD were as good, they too would make their solutions proprietary.
I don't think that's really it. I think it's rather that if they aren't first-to-market, the appeal of a proprietary technology is low (unless you can totally demolish the competition, of course).
If the choice was CUDA, OpenCL, and AMD's own technology, one can't see that AMD's own technology would see any real up-take. OpenCL is having a hard enough time as it is, even with its advantage of being open.
Also Freesync is an AMD-lead reinvention of the wheel - AMD are willing to 'do the real work' when it's necessary.
That's that then. Nowhere near open.
At least no-one's claiming the Metal API is open.
You're right, I should've been clearer. Mantle isn't really open (as you say, no freely available spec), but I understand AMD did offer it to Nvidia, and Nvidia refused (along the lines of oh look yet another graphics API, no we'll wait for DX12 thanks). The same cannot be said of PhysX or, to my knowledge, G-Sync.
I was hoping someone would mention Android.
Just a pity Android doesn't let you do anything meaningful with that well-designed permissions infrastructure...
For instance, you either trust an app with your entire contacts-list, or your contacts-list is out-of-bounds entirely. There no way to 'Add contact to app', and have that launch a trusted contact-selector utility.
People do that: virtualisation.
In a sense it indicates that the OS has failed...
As far as ATI/Nvidia competition, Nvidia tends to make things as proprietary as possible while AMD makes them more open.
Correct: CUDA, SLI, Physx, G-Sync, Shield Portable/GRID. AMD tend to either hop on board the open follow-up technologies (OpenCL, OpenGL compute shaders, DirectCompute) or create their own technologies which tend to be more open (FreeSync, Crossfire).
Mantle is an interesting one: it's open, but Nvidia aren't interested. This seems kinda reasonable: Mantle seems to have served well as a wake-up call that it's possible to create more efficient graphics APIs, so we can expect the next-gen OpenGL and Direct3D APIs to catch up to Mantle and far reduce its relative merits.
Whether this trend of openness with AMD is because they're just nice like that, or because they're generally playing catch-up... I guess Mantle would imply they do it 'voluntarily', but again, it was never going to have the sort of lock-in effect that CUDA does.
Nonsense. Monopolies exist as the end-game of unregulated capitalism.
I guess you're right in that businesses as we know them couldn't exist without government...
If you accept the idea of the existence of God, then you probably accept the existence of some kind of afterlife and/or reincarnation.
I don't agree. We have drugs that can knock you out for surgery. No consciousness at all, because it shuts off parts of your brain. And yet you are suggesting that consciousness can somehow survive the obliteration of the brain, and live on in an after-life.
It seems to me that the question of an afterlife is easier to answer than the question of a creator.
No, freedom of speech is the freedom to offend (or rather, "criticize") your government.
What total nonsense. Are you serious?
Oh do shut up.
If you had the slightest clue what an actual oppressive regime looks like, I wouldn't have to ask.
Go look up what constitutes "freedom of speech". It doesn't mean "I say whatever I like [without consequence]"
People often confuse the two... but not here. Here, we really are talking about government censorship. Did you miss that?
They control 50% of the money
...what? Troll better. Really.
the Civil War is proof
Not really. That was, for the most part, north vs south, after all.
It's far more likely that the police will be (further) militarised, than that the military will be deployed domestically. As to whether those serving would really take part, I'm not too optimistic that that's a self-solving problem, as it's happened (and happens today) in plenty of countries around the world.
Almost as if extreme militarisation of a country is incompatible with libertarian principles, huh... ;P
There's an argument to be made that a lot of those military gizmos wouldn't count for much in a civil war, though.
You implicitly assume that anti-weapon measures are always completely ineffective. They're not. There's rather obviously a trade-off here.
As we adjust various parameters, the ideal policy will vary. Trustworthiness of average law-abiding citizen, weapon-handling competence of average citizen, proportion of citizens who are criminals, how widespread are guns currently among criminals/civilians/police. These all factor in, and there are less direct factors like escalation.
It's not always a good idea to take away a law-abiding person's gun, despite what the waaah ermigerd a gun! crowd would have you believe. Likewise it's not always a good idea to make it easier to access guns, despite what the guns for everyone! crowd would have you believe. It depends. Annoyingly both sides consistently fail to notice or acknowledge this.
Of course, if you believe gun-rights are a fundamental right, or that they're necessary for protection against the state, then it's possible that none of the above will matter to you.
I surely haven't bought any music I've never heard.
Don't give them ideas. With video-games, they use discounts and in-game 'bonuses' to entice fools to pre-order.
Sure, I guess I should've said: it's hardly self-evident that elimination of millions of jobs is by any means a good thing in, say, the current US economic system, in which the effect of such a shift is to funnel money away from the poor and toward the richer classes.
Assuming the economic system supports this.
Well, there is end-to-end crypto, technically speaking. They're 'just' deliberately misleading the customer as to its utility.
(I see that I was right: Windows Update is now telling me I'm required to reboot to install updates.)
I haven't shut down a laptop in 3 years
Guess you were rather behind on Windows Update patches, huh...
(As I understand it, some patches require a full reboot to install.)
Indeed, I noticed that too. And strictly, the 's' should be an 'S'.
(The correct name is BioShock Infinite.)