So, why should I, stuck with my crappy old Radeon 9600 Pro, go out and buy Crysis, even if I really wanted to? The answer is: I shouldn't. There's no possible way I could even squeeze 2FPS on that one.
Probably a bad example. I can confirm crysis will work with a radeon X600, 3.4GHz P4. Doesn't look good at lowest settings, but I did get enjoyable speeds. Download the demo & try it out.
Your $500 Dell desktop isn't going to cut it. You'll need at least $1000 ($1400 for a laptop) worth of hardware just to hope to be able to play the game at a playable speed, and you'd better hope you didn't skimp on the video.
The hell? Don't buy gaming rigs from dell. Again I can personally confirm a $700 desktop from newegg (not including the LCD) will run crysis at all but high settings.
You can't do that with pdfs (well, if you want to save it anyways) and I can't curl up on the couch, lie on my back and hold my laptop above my face for an hour while reading an article either.
Just to add to QuantumRiff's sentiments, calling spam "solved" by spam filters is like calling world wide conflicts "solved" by the arms race.
Well what more do you want? These are the only real solutions. Your analogy isn't perfect because MAD isn't precisely an arms race, but the solutions are similar. You can't force people to submit to some external power that'll enforce peace any more than you can force everyone to switch to $SECURE_OS. I personally prefer a massive waste of resources over the only other alternative which is war - an even greater waste of resources.
I suppose the GP was talking about it from a consumer perspective when he called it a solution. It's pretty fucking good from my end getting free spam-less email. If you're in a business, you're quite free to pay for gmail & encryptit for privacy.
Well then lets do what we do best & path around the damage like we did with mp3s. There's already a GUI out for kernel building. Someone add a button for "Build with ZFS support." Isn't it just that simple?
It's not necessarily that you need them. Surely if you're posting on/. you've seen analogies eg in the Principle of least privilege, or that you never trust the client. Call it building fault tolerance. When someone has power over you, do you just sit there & hope he's not incompetent?
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, what had been a limited program expanded dramatically, with some experts estimating that 150 foreign nationals have been victims of rendition in the last few years alone.
...which actually seems to support his point (that there is no moral equivalence) more than it supports yours.
So if OSS devs were to recreate MS Paint, assuming a minimal to non-existent budget, the obvious conclusion is that their product will blow since they put hardly any money into it at all... Notice the flaw there?
What? No, that doesn't follow at all. He only argued money should make a good product. He didn't say it's the only way to make a good product. Lack of it might or might not affect development - he didn't specify & you're putting words into his mouth.
Check Amazon top selling software, OS X Leopard is currently number 4 without even being released yet, XP Home edition is somewhere at 50th or something, Vista DOES NOT EXIST on that list which has Ubuntu, the same Ubuntu which you can download for free is on list.
Except it is never taken. The developer writes the code, the developer chooses what license to use for his code. You don't have a right to use someone else's code except under his choice of license. If you don't like GPL, don't use it. That's how copyright has always worked.
Which, incidentally, is why it makes a lot of sense to protect the user from what the developer can do to him. It was always a very asymmetrical relationship: the choice was between proprietary with all its crap or..... nothing. Obviously many people want to determine what runs on their computer. The GPL invites developers to use the code so long as they extend the same invitation to others re their modifications.
Imagine suing an open source project over patents & getting such limited bad karma on slashdot. Someone discovered all you have to do is claim they struck first even when all available evidence points to you being the patent troll.
Perhaps it's because of Sun's refusal to play nice with GPL. One of the reasons they picked the CDDL for ZFS was precisely because it's incompatible with GPL & they're afraid of linux. Of the two I suppose Sun is more likely to give a patent license for kernel implementation, but I wouldn't bet on it.
I don't see this happening anytime soon. There's a limit to how far people will go towards incentivizing good behavior. I think people instinctively recognize victors write the history books so people often let their interests supercede morality. Morality is as much a product of evolutionary forces as selfishness. It's founded on emotional instincts that were selected for because they aided survival and reproduction. When morality starts telling people to act against their interests, there's a good chance they'll ignore it.
Whether or not that's "ok" isn't a scientific question. I'm not arguing it's (morally) ok to be ruthless because that would make no sense. I'm simply pointing out what happens.
Slashdot Mirror
The Logical Fallacy of Generalization from Fictional Evidence
rather spacetime curves as per general relativity.
It's not backlit.
You'd rather pay for unknown possibly inconsequential vulnerabilities over confirmed vulnerabilities? I may or may not have a bridge to sell to you.
highest marketshare browser buys 2nd highest marketshare browser. Yeah the feds are gonna like that.
That's nothing. I've seen it installed on a dead badger.
I suppose the GP was talking about it from a consumer perspective when he called it a solution. It's pretty fucking good from my end getting free spam-less email. If you're in a business, you're quite free to pay for gmail & encrypt it for privacy.
AAARRRRR
That's what she said.
Well then lets do what we do best & path around the damage like we did with mp3s. There's already a GUI out for kernel building. Someone add a button for "Build with ZFS support." Isn't it just that simple?
the man porn was a bit much though...
It's not necessarily that you need them. Surely if you're posting on /. you've seen analogies eg in the Principle of least privilege, or that you never trust the client. Call it building fault tolerance. When someone has power over you, do you just sit there & hope he's not incompetent?
Welcome to slashdot :)
I love watching theists path around science. You don't understand that it's actually a bad thing if it's impossible to falsify your god(s).
Except it is never taken. The developer writes the code, the developer chooses what license to use for his code. You don't have a right to use someone else's code except under his choice of license. If you don't like GPL, don't use it. That's how copyright has always worked.
..... nothing. Obviously many people want to determine what runs on their computer. The GPL invites developers to use the code so long as they extend the same invitation to others re their modifications.
Which, incidentally, is why it makes a lot of sense to protect the user from what the developer can do to him. It was always a very asymmetrical relationship: the choice was between proprietary with all its crap or
Imagine suing an open source project over patents & getting such limited bad karma on slashdot. Someone discovered all you have to do is claim they struck first even when all available evidence points to you being the patent troll.
Perhaps it's because of Sun's refusal to play nice with GPL. One of the reasons they picked the CDDL for ZFS was precisely because it's incompatible with GPL & they're afraid of linux. Of the two I suppose Sun is more likely to give a patent license for kernel implementation, but I wouldn't bet on it.
I don't see this happening anytime soon. There's a limit to how far people will go towards incentivizing good behavior. I think people instinctively recognize victors write the history books so people often let their interests supercede morality. Morality is as much a product of evolutionary forces as selfishness. It's founded on emotional instincts that were selected for because they aided survival and reproduction. When morality starts telling people to act against their interests, there's a good chance they'll ignore it.
Whether or not that's "ok" isn't a scientific question. I'm not arguing it's (morally) ok to be ruthless because that would make no sense. I'm simply pointing out what happens.