What? Not at all. This isn't about your perspective, but that of the advertiser. I see no reason why it should make little sense to advertise to the rich.
With this revelation will the government support me putting a 17-year old idiot behind bars for killing a loved one of mine with distracted driving?
No, the government will never support you putting someone behind bars. Imprisonment is only allowed when the government does it.
With the prevalence of cell phones today (for those counting, that would be ALL drivers on the road) and the average persons ignorance (it'll never happen to me), a deadly accident isn't a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
Yep. Just like it was before we'd invented cell phones.
I'll spell it out for you: it's always a matter of probability.
Enjoy the very freedom our society still wants to give killers on the road. Just don't bitch about it when it hits home.
So... it's only right to be upset about traffic fatalities if there are strict laws in place?
Oh yeah, I forgot. It'll never happen to you, right?
Again, this has nothing to do with cell-phone use.
who is driving the campaign and what is their end goal?
It must be the Illuminati, right? Do shut up.
If you have compelling evidence of a global conspiracy, then show us. If not, then cut it out; there are simpler explanations than global conspiracies.
I disagree. When I hear unlimited, I take it to mean that, no matter how high my data usage, the telco will never deliberately hinder my ability to continue using the service.
If they cut me off entirely, then of course it's not unlimited, but you're also on very shaky ground to argue that it's unlimited because they 'merely' cripple my connection when I go over a limit. The very existence of any such limited means it's not really unlimited.
To try to cheapen the meaning of 'unlimited' is just marketing slime - they'll have to invent 'truly unlimited', or some other bullshit, to clarify as to whether they mean... well, truly unlimited.
If there is sufficient demand for something, the market would tend to provide it at a viable price.
Not really. Anti-consumer behaviour is not something that capitalism has shown successful in preventing.
want to play something on Linux? Get Linux to support my idealised bulletproof DRM and show there's enough of a market to justify any overheads in making the content available on that platform -- just like any other platform has to.
Well, your 'perfect DRM' idea is just a thought-experiment. Let's not forget that, in the real world, DRM doesn't help anyone. This is particularly self-evident in the case of audio: if it feeds a speaker, it's obviously possible to capture the audio.
All this said, I still buy on Audible and listen on their Android player. It works great for me personally, right now, but there are still downsides to DRM.
I wasn't clear, but my intended point wasn't disabled access specifically, but that DRM necessarily disempowers the user.
It will only play on supported devices, in ways they deem permissible. No support for Audible on your car? Hope you can get an old-fashioned audio feed from your Android to work, as there's no chance you'll get to use the controls built in to your steering wheel. Want to play on Linux? Hope you can wrestle Wine into playing ball.
These issues are similar to those addressed more generally by Free Software.
Your ideas address the oh dear they went bankrupt now I can never listen to my stuff ever again issue, but not the others. It's just a band-aid.
Suppose I make a program for blind users, that enables voice-commanded play/selection of audio, for music and/or audiobooks. The DRM used by Audible and Spotify prevent my app from being able to play their content, and (to my knowledge) neither Audible nor Spotify cater to blind users themselves.
Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by no.
I'll believe it when I see it. It's not just Windows that has this problem, after all. Android and Mac suffer from it, and even Linux isn't immune (or there'd be no Paco).
If a child is teetering on the edge of some grade category or entrance requirement, then who's to say this isn't as valid as knowledge testing.
Well, I will certainly say it. Your point is absurd. How does a parent giving blood assess the capability of a child in a way comparable to an academic test?
But we also do have some tradition of giving some little "extra credit" or recognition for community participation - e.g. clubs and activities, etc. for entrance to college, or to some selective schools, etc. How is this that much different? Yea, it's about the parent, not the child, but I think it is seen as more of a family unit.
No, I don't think it is. It's entirely possible that one child of a family will be Harvard-worthy, and the other totally useless. Not to mention that a hard-working individual from an unambitious family absolutely shouldn't be held back by that.
(I'm not fond of this trend of judging candidates on their hobbies, though. I've overheard someone being corrected in no uncertain terms that their relationship status has absolutely no place on their CV, but hobbies are apparently a must-list.)
Great job ignoring literally everything I said in my previous comment. Conservatives, approximately equating Republicans, are not really libertarians, as is evidenced (do I really have to say this all again?) in, for instance, their pro-military-intervention stance, and support of spying on citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
Great job failing to acknowledge that sexism and racism are serious issues in modern society.
they're going to higher-priced since they're having to pay for snake oi-- er I mean-- ads.
So marketing is always a waste of money? Keep the day job, I doubt you'd fare well with a start-up.
I work in advertising
But you haven't thought through its position in a company's strategy, clearly.
What? Not at all. This isn't about your perspective, but that of the advertiser. I see no reason why it should make little sense to advertise to the rich.
With this revelation will the government support me putting a 17-year old idiot behind bars for killing a loved one of mine with distracted driving?
No, the government will never support you putting someone behind bars. Imprisonment is only allowed when the government does it.
With the prevalence of cell phones today (for those counting, that would be ALL drivers on the road) and the average persons ignorance (it'll never happen to me), a deadly accident isn't a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
Yep. Just like it was before we'd invented cell phones.
I'll spell it out for you: it's always a matter of probability.
Enjoy the very freedom our society still wants to give killers on the road. Just don't bitch about it when it hits home.
So... it's only right to be upset about traffic fatalities if there are strict laws in place?
Oh yeah, I forgot. It'll never happen to you, right?
Again, this has nothing to do with cell-phone use.
who is driving the campaign and what is their end goal?
It must be the Illuminati, right? Do shut up.
If you have compelling evidence of a global conspiracy, then show us. If not, then cut it out; there are simpler explanations than global conspiracies.
working open-source AMD Hawaii GPU support
I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking that's much more front-page-worthy than Xbox 'One' controller support.
Phoronix reports performance to be generally satisfactory (which, given the context, is pretty damn good).
Some of us like low latency input
Is there really a difference in latency between kernel and userland drivers? As in, anywhere near the time it takes to render a frame?
Can we start firing people who are useless to the world in general?
Well, no. Generally someone is fired for being useless to their employer.
Anyway, you spend your Sundays cruising Slashdot, right?
Err... you too are posting as AC. Is that the joke?
Well, no, not every programmer lives in the C++ world...
I disagree. When I hear unlimited, I take it to mean that, no matter how high my data usage, the telco will never deliberately hinder my ability to continue using the service.
If they cut me off entirely, then of course it's not unlimited, but you're also on very shaky ground to argue that it's unlimited because they 'merely' cripple my connection when I go over a limit. The very existence of any such limited means it's not really unlimited.
To try to cheapen the meaning of 'unlimited' is just marketing slime - they'll have to invent 'truly unlimited', or some other bullshit, to clarify as to whether they mean... well, truly unlimited.
If there is sufficient demand for something, the market would tend to provide it at a viable price.
Not really. Anti-consumer behaviour is not something that capitalism has shown successful in preventing.
want to play something on Linux? Get Linux to support my idealised bulletproof DRM and show there's enough of a market to justify any overheads in making the content available on that platform -- just like any other platform has to.
Well, your 'perfect DRM' idea is just a thought-experiment. Let's not forget that, in the real world, DRM doesn't help anyone. This is particularly self-evident in the case of audio: if it feeds a speaker, it's obviously possible to capture the audio.
All this said, I still buy on Audible and listen on their Android player. It works great for me personally, right now, but there are still downsides to DRM.
I wasn't clear, but my intended point wasn't disabled access specifically, but that DRM necessarily disempowers the user.
It will only play on supported devices, in ways they deem permissible. No support for Audible on your car? Hope you can get an old-fashioned audio feed from your Android to work, as there's no chance you'll get to use the controls built in to your steering wheel. Want to play on Linux? Hope you can wrestle Wine into playing ball.
These issues are similar to those addressed more generally by Free Software.
Your ideas address the oh dear they went bankrupt now I can never listen to my stuff ever again issue, but not the others. It's just a band-aid.
But some of the problems of DRM remain.
Suppose I make a program for blind users, that enables voice-commanded play/selection of audio, for music and/or audiobooks. The DRM used by Audible and Spotify prevent my app from being able to play their content, and (to my knowledge) neither Audible nor Spotify cater to blind users themselves.
Betteridge's law of headlines:
Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by no.
I'll believe it when I see it. It's not just Windows that has this problem, after all. Android and Mac suffer from it, and even Linux isn't immune (or there'd be no Paco).
Verizon confirms new 'strangulation' policy.
Not to mention, the Constitution is really more of a guideline, anyway.
I mean, it must be, right?
Unless the judge interprets the '=' as an assertion rather than a definition, in which case action must of course equal zero.
(Assuming finite values, etc.)
But:
It's a ticking time bomb, and this is likely just the blasting cap going off.
So you're expecting an 'explosion' even worse than Shellshock and co?
I doubt it. Bash will be hammered on, and will be made more secure, in the coming weeks.
Don't we already have a tech called bluetooth for that?
Bluetooth doesn't handle phone-calls or SMS. That and that it's generally just a goddam trainwreck - I admit that, on occasion, it will actually work.
The nearest thing I know of is the Serval project.
If a child is teetering on the edge of some grade category or entrance requirement, then who's to say this isn't as valid as knowledge testing.
Well, I will certainly say it. Your point is absurd. How does a parent giving blood assess the capability of a child in a way comparable to an academic test?
But we also do have some tradition of giving some little "extra credit" or recognition for community participation - e.g. clubs and activities, etc. for entrance to college, or to some selective schools, etc. How is this that much different? Yea, it's about the parent, not the child, but I think it is seen as more of a family unit.
No, I don't think it is. It's entirely possible that one child of a family will be Harvard-worthy, and the other totally useless. Not to mention that a hard-working individual from an unambitious family absolutely shouldn't be held back by that.
(I'm not fond of this trend of judging candidates on their hobbies, though. I've overheard someone being corrected in no uncertain terms that their relationship status has absolutely no place on their CV, but hobbies are apparently a must-list.)
Good points.
I've had it. I don't understand why they don't just release all of the specs of the cards. Why don't they give them away for free?
This is actually a good question. As I understand it, the answer is that:
1) They don't want to reveal the intimate details of their architectures and/or drivers that they've invested in
2) They don't want to be sued for infringing patents (either by rival GPU companies or, more likely, by patent-trolls)
Or provide a 3D-printable download at the very least.
....what?
The actual libertarians call themselves either anarchists or communists.
Err, no. They call themselves libertarians.
The 'libertarians' in the US are conservatives.
Great job ignoring literally everything I said in my previous comment. Conservatives, approximately equating Republicans, are not really libertarians, as is evidenced (do I really have to say this all again?) in, for instance, their pro-military-intervention stance, and support of spying on citizens.