There are deep intelligence operations. These are funded by Mossad, CIA, Pakistan's ISI, etc.
A complete investigation of David Headley - for just one example - would give you some idea of the nature of para-political, deep-state actors in perpetrating terror for their own ends, and the usefulness of the "Islamic" fiction.
If you think that you are capable of correctly evaluating the the real nature of these events, based on the unexamined and uninvestigated statements of official sources? Then you do not correctly ascertain the meaning or implications of the term "disinformation".
Ask yourself this: "Does my government maintain a policy of disinformation, regarding its own people? If so, how would I know? Is the reporting of independent, corporate news agencies a sufficient source of information to verify or validate these claims?"
I suggest you take up mindfulness meditation for 5-15 minutes a day. Wen yourself from all "news" for one month. Then come back, and look freshly at the spinning matrix of lies.
You have a UID of 137, and you've posted the dumbest thing I've ever read on the internet.
Your argument is "You can't trust the government! You can't trust the media! Trust me and my hyperlinks! Also, meditate!".
Apple's mistakes have been both relatively harmless and also overblown by the media ( they mysterious "death grip" is a good example
A fundamental and obvious design flaw that ignores basic engineering principles, that ignores the laws of physics, that was adopted purely in order to advance the aesthetic of a device, that went unnoticed during testing because real-world testing simply didn't occur, that results in catastrophic signal loss to the point of dropping calls / being unable to place calls, ON A PHONE, that to this day is still unaddressed beyond a rubber band workaround, that to this day is still unacknowledged by the company that made the device beyond "It's not true, but we'll give you free rubber bands to shut you up.", is by no measure "harmless".
Unless there is serious profit in destroying lives, but so far that isn't the case
That depends. There is profit to be had from hyping up a piece of shit software, let's call it Windies MEVisto, have everyone buy it and complain that it's destroying their lives. Because then you can bringing out a new and similar version later called Windies XP7SE "Doesn't Destroy Your Life So Much" Edition to get people to pay yet again.
The problem with your post is, well, everything. ME and XP were vastly different. ME was shit. XP was fine. Vista and 7 are nearly identical. Vista is fine. 7 is fine. 90% of he "problems" with Vista were due to 3rd-party drivers, and the issues were fixed relatively quickly. SP1 also fixed a few issues that were MS's fault (as opposed to the driver issues that weren't MS's fault in any way shape or form). In the end, Vista became the black sheep mostly due to perception. The end result was Windows 7 being rushed, and features being dropped (WinFS, anyone?).
The word "dynamic" has a meaning. This is not an "HDR" display, nor does such a display exist, nor would anyone want one.
This is an "HR" display.
"The new system, by contrast, captures 20 f-stops per frame of 1080p high-def video, at the NTSC standard 30 frames-per-second. In post-production, the optimum exposures can then be selected and/or combined for each shot, via a "tone-mapping" procedure."
They're using the typical method of taking many exposures of the same frame. Makes sense. I would hope they're using an image/video format that can store exposure data per pixel. (But I know they're not - they're using a separate file per frame that maps each pixel or macroblock to an exposure value).
"The final step in the process is the HDR monitor. It consists of an LED panel which projects through an LCD panel placed in front of it. The combination of the two screens is necessary to provide all of the lighting information."
So basically, the monitor is super fucking bright, and then it's made lighter or darker based on another monitor in front of it acting as a dynamic screen. I don't care whether or not the system works well or not. (I'd have serious questions about compatibility with editing software, storage space, the viewing angle of a double-screen system, etc.) What I do care about is them using the range dynamic. If the range (of brightness) of the entire screen (every pixel) is the same, then it is not dynamic range. The range of the screen is simply [LEDS OFF + LCD CLOSED] to [LEDS ON + LCD OPEN]. Certainly way better than shitty, shitty, 24-bit color and the corresponding brightness range (humans care far more about luminance than chrominance, so RGB alone was a bad choice for color representation). But the word "dynamic" has a meaning. If the range doesn't change across the screen (and why would you want that), it's not dynamic. The brightness changes over time, but the range is fixed.
The dynamic in HDR photography means different sections of the image are exposed or level-adjusted differently from other sections of the same image. The range refers not to the display range, or the image format, but to the SOURCE MATERIAL.
There is no such thing as an HDR DISPLAY, and there never will be.
try sex while stoned. it compares favorably to sober sex
Have you ever seen a $10 bill?
Have you ever seen a $10 bill... on weed? It's the best, man!
DUUUUUUUUDE He's totally facing the wrong way! Hey! Hammy! What are you looking at? You into Lincoln or some shit? You pissed at my man Andrew? WTF why? A Jay is the MAN, man!
It's actually 20 random characters that are recommended for use as cryptographic keys. The reason for this is that 20 random keys from the US keyboard has the same number of possible combinations as 128 random bits.
128 bits do not have anywhere near the same number of possible permutations as 20 US keyboard characters. None of the above has anywhere near the permutations a 2048-bit RSA key has (~3.23e616), either:)
26 letters 10 digits 11 symbols (`-=[]\;',./)
= 47 keys *2 = 94 characters. Add tab, space, and newline/carriage return if your shit allows it.
Beavers have had an undeniable impact on the global environment -- there is really no point in questioning that anymore. As for dying, well, nobody is claiming that our doom is near at hand, just that things are going to get a lot different and that we should be prepared for it, and perhaps taking steps to slow or halt the rate at which we beaver about. We are already over the edge; it is a question of whether or not we want to worsen things for ourselves (or at least make things change more significantly than they are already destined to change).
Also, bees, termites, algae, wrens, jellyfish, rats, trees, etc.
That's a troll if I've ever seen one. No officer or anyone for that matter would first stop someone driving badly, then find out they are buzzed and can't handle it and let them back into a car and drive away.
I've seen exactly this many times around UC Santa Barbara.
HEVC is aiming for a 50% reduction in bit rate for the same subjective quality, while increasing the complexity no more than 200%.
The problem I have with "subjective quality" is that it almost invariably means "Let's change the color space to something shittier, and sample chroma only on 50/25/12.5% of the pixels!".
While PSNR isn't an ideal measure, at least it's objective. Give me a standard that does full RGB instead of YV12/YUY2 and I'll be happy. And by "standard", I mean on paper, in implementation, and in practice when I watch TV or a movie.
What GeoHot and others did is in violation of the DMCA. Reverse engineering, removing copy protection and other security systems, etc. is strictly forbidden, with one very tiny loophole that doesn't apply in this case.
And GeoHot was "hacking" the PS3 before the removal of OtherOS, he just didn't get anywhere.
And of course, after the removal of OtherOS, GeoHot STILL didn't get anywhere! As for being against piracy, GeoHot has a fun little post on his blog where he openly condones piracy and says Sony deserves it for removing OtherOS.
All GeoHot did was use Fail0verflow's work to extract a key needed to make piracy easier. And then he published it. If you haven't been paying attention, piracy on the PS3 has been available ever since the "jigstick" was stolen/leaked. Yes, it came from the inside. As did the original BluRay drive emulator and hard drive loader.
The problem with the jigstick is that you had to insert the damn thing and go through the process to get to service mode every damned time you booted up. Getting the keys means we can make our own custom firmware, or even update packages that sit on official firmware. Getting the keys means you can go to custom firmware, install homebrew, and then go back to original firmware, and still have homebrew intact. None of this enables piracy beyond what was already available. GeoHot publishing the game level (metldr I think?) key means piracy is as simple as insert disc, copy via Wakinkoko's tool, return to GameFly/friend. Or download ISO, drag and drop to external hard drive. Or hell, since we have FTP programs for the PS3 already, you can just push that shit straight out to the PS3's internal drive. Essentially, PS3 piracy is as easy as Wii piracy.
GeoHot contributed nothing to "the scene". He's going to pay for publishing keys because he's an attention whore.
The thing is, if Google doesn't do this, and allows both formats, they are contributing to the success of H.264, and detracting from the possibilities of success of their WebM.
You, the consumer are caught in yet another standards-war. Which side will you be on?
H.264 already is a success, a resounding one. It has been for nearly a decade.
WebM is shit. Theora is shit. Why? Because H.264 is the superior codec, hands down. As someone who uses the codecs, all I give a shit about is the resulting quality/speed/size.
If you don't like it because it isn't free, that's your problem. Me? I like having superior picture quality. If that means some asshat down the line pays for a license, or that 2 cents of every Windows License goes to the MPEG group, so be it.
If that means I can't decode shit with an officially sanctioned codec in Linux because I care more about "free as in speech" than "kittens and boxes on youtube", then so be it. If that means I can't decode shit at all using a "free" alternative such as x264 (which violates countless MPEG patents) because I ACTUALLY care about "free as in speech", and prefer principles to silly videos, then so be it.
The patent system sucks ass. No question about it. But if you want to rail against it, you're on your own in this case, fosshats. H.264 is fanfuckingtastic. It's leaps and bounds above basic MPEG-4 ASP, and is well ahead of the "free" alternatives that are Theora, WebM, etc.
The bottom line is that we wouldn't have shit if it weren't for the work of the MPEG group. X.264, WebM, Theora, XviD, DivX, and countless others all have their roots in the hacking and reverse engineering an MS MPEG codec ages ago. I have no problems with the morality of this - the state of the art was advanced as a result, and to do so legally would have been far too burdensome. But to trumpet for the "free" options in this case is naive because it turns a blind eye to the origins of the "free" options. To trumpet the "free" options as well as shit on anyone who would dare support both, at their own cost, is ludicrous.
Let's be clear, this is not a war consumers have any say in. Sites will be forced to transcode and keep multiple versions of streams for compatibility with all browsers. And until they're ready with all that, they'll continue to server shit up via Flash. The browser vendors will have no incentive to change their position, and we'll end up with IE and Safari on one side, and Chrome, FF, and Opera on the other. The end result is that users get their videos, tons of storage and processing time is wasted, and the CEOs will find another topic to get all preachy about.
You won't see a large migration of users to or from any browser in response to this move. This is no different than when Steve Jobs went on a crusade against Flash (which is still around and isn't going anywhere soon).
Horse shit. If the Mozilla foundation wanted to support H.264, they'd release a plug-in that ties into codecs installed on the system.
MS did exactly this.
The plug-in can be open or closed source, and the codec can be open or closed source. Whether or not the codec the end user has is open, closed, or legal doesn't matter, and has no bearing on the openness or legality of Firefox itself.
XP, Adobe Reader 9 or some shit with all updates, black lines all over the place.
Works fine if I open it up in Adobe Acrobat 8.
Couldn't care less about figuring out why, or the content of the PDFs. Take your fucking word graphs, tag clouds, and other useless shit back to 1999, where you'll still be recognized as completely useless.
I totally agree with you. But sometimes, when you're stuck and can't find another number, it would be cool that this app just gives you a hint, instead of solving the entire sudoku.
But if you make a mistake, you're fucked unless the OCR is smart enough to distinguish between the givens and your entries, and account for any scribbling, crossing out, etc. you've done).
Maybe it's because I have an outdated card, but I don't get the hate. I thought Nvidia released good drivers for Linux and all. I'm a Linux user, I have a GeForce and performance seems comparable to that of Windows. Proprietary drivers, yes, but good ones. Am I missing something?
Open source drivers from both camps suck ass. Closed source drivers from AMD suck ass. Closed source drivers from NVidia are competent.
Linux Neckbeard Warriors will never publicly support installing the closed source drivers, but every single one of them will do it.
And thus, with the exit of half a dozen of the highest level Microsoft department heads, there is nobody at MS that can take over Ballmer's seat as CEO if the board of directors decides to fire him. He's made it much harder to fire him now.
Any schlubb could do better than Ballmer. No one has the credentials and image to seem (to the public and the pundits) to be a good choice.
The only good choice after Ballmer is to somehow coax Bill back.
It's easy to volunteer for something that doesn't sound like it's going to hurt. When the radio messages come back with "Please... I'm running out of oxygen... it's cold and the pain is excruciating," the mission will be viewed as a fiasco for the rest of time.
Facing death with dignity is a lot easier to imagine than it is in real life. Some do manage it anyway, of course, but which of those hundreds of volunteers is really going to pull it off? It's the kind of thing you don't find out about for certain until you get your one-and-only shot.
Even if they do pull it off, the people behind the mission are going to be accused of murder. It will be an ugly stain on them for the rest of their lives. The mission is temporary, but the subsequent death is forever.
So we can treat this as a charming mental exercise, and even be surprised by how many people would volunteer for the mission. But it's simply not ever going to happen.
Is how a father of three could volunteer to depart on what would most likely be a suicide mission. Exploration and the battle against entropy and all that is all good and well, but if one is a father, one has certain responsibilities that are paramount about anything else.
I will probably get flamed to death about this, but I guess in this case, the guy must be either be completely discontent with his lot in life, or he must be the most selfish, self serving person that exists.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no "Islamic Terror".
There are deep intelligence operations. These are funded by Mossad, CIA, Pakistan's ISI, etc.
A complete investigation of David Headley - for just one example - would give you some idea of the nature of para-political, deep-state actors in perpetrating terror for their own ends, and the usefulness of the "Islamic" fiction.
If you think that you are capable of correctly evaluating the the real nature of these events, based on the unexamined and uninvestigated statements of official sources? Then you do not correctly ascertain the meaning or implications of the term "disinformation".
Ask yourself this: "Does my government maintain a policy of disinformation, regarding its own people? If so, how would I know? Is the reporting of independent, corporate news agencies a sufficient source of information to verify or validate these claims?"
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
http://danwismar.com/uploads/Bernstein%20-%20CIA%20and%20Media.htm
I suggest you take up mindfulness meditation for 5-15 minutes a day. Wen yourself from all "news" for one month. Then come back, and look freshly at the spinning matrix of lies.
You have a UID of 137, and you've posted the dumbest thing I've ever read on the internet.
Your argument is "You can't trust the government! You can't trust the media! Trust me and my hyperlinks! Also, meditate!".
duck
duck
go
http://duckduckgo.com/
Apple's mistakes have been both relatively harmless and also overblown by the media ( they mysterious "death grip" is a good example
A fundamental and obvious design flaw that ignores basic engineering principles, that ignores the laws of physics, that was adopted purely in order to advance the aesthetic of a device, that went unnoticed during testing because real-world testing simply didn't occur, that results in catastrophic signal loss to the point of dropping calls / being unable to place calls, ON A PHONE, that to this day is still unaddressed beyond a rubber band workaround, that to this day is still unacknowledged by the company that made the device beyond "It's not true, but we'll give you free rubber bands to shut you up.", is by no measure "harmless".
Unless there is serious profit in destroying lives, but so far that isn't the case
That depends. There is profit to be had from hyping up a piece of shit software, let's call it Windies MEVisto, have everyone buy it and complain that it's destroying their lives. Because then you can bringing out a new and similar version later called Windies XP7SE "Doesn't Destroy Your Life So Much" Edition to get people to pay yet again.
The problem with your post is, well, everything.
ME and XP were vastly different. ME was shit. XP was fine.
Vista and 7 are nearly identical. Vista is fine. 7 is fine. 90% of he "problems" with Vista were due to 3rd-party drivers, and the issues were fixed relatively quickly. SP1 also fixed a few issues that were MS's fault (as opposed to the driver issues that weren't MS's fault in any way shape or form). In the end, Vista became the black sheep mostly due to perception. The end result was Windows 7 being rushed, and features being dropped (WinFS, anyone?).
Or Else What?
The word "dynamic" has a meaning.
This is not an "HDR" display, nor does such a display exist, nor would anyone want one.
This is an "HR" display.
"The new system, by contrast, captures 20 f-stops per frame of 1080p high-def video, at the NTSC standard 30 frames-per-second. In post-production, the optimum exposures can then be selected and/or combined for each shot, via a "tone-mapping" procedure."
They're using the typical method of taking many exposures of the same frame. Makes sense.
I would hope they're using an image/video format that can store exposure data per pixel. (But I know they're not - they're using a separate file per frame that maps each pixel or macroblock to an exposure value).
"The final step in the process is the HDR monitor. It consists of an LED panel which projects through an LCD panel placed in front of it. The combination of the two screens is necessary to provide all of the lighting information."
So basically, the monitor is super fucking bright, and then it's made lighter or darker based on another monitor in front of it acting as a dynamic screen.
I don't care whether or not the system works well or not. (I'd have serious questions about compatibility with editing software, storage space, the viewing angle of a double-screen system, etc.) What I do care about is them using the range dynamic. If the range (of brightness) of the entire screen (every pixel) is the same, then it is not dynamic range. The range of the screen is simply [LEDS OFF + LCD CLOSED] to [LEDS ON + LCD OPEN]. Certainly way better than shitty, shitty, 24-bit color and the corresponding brightness range (humans care far more about luminance than chrominance, so RGB alone was a bad choice for color representation). But the word "dynamic" has a meaning. If the range doesn't change across the screen (and why would you want that), it's not dynamic. The brightness changes over time, but the range is fixed.
The dynamic in HDR photography means different sections of the image are exposed or level-adjusted differently from other sections of the same image. The range refers not to the display range, or the image format, but to the SOURCE MATERIAL.
There is no such thing as an HDR DISPLAY, and there never will be.
try sex while stoned. it compares favorably to sober sex
Have you ever seen a $10 bill?
Have you ever seen a $10 bill... on weed? It's the best, man!
DUUUUUUUUDE
He's totally facing the wrong way!
Hey! Hammy! What are you looking at? You into Lincoln or some shit? You pissed at my man Andrew? WTF why? A Jay is the MAN, man!
It's actually 20 random characters that are recommended for use as cryptographic keys. The reason for this is that 20 random keys from the US keyboard has the same number of possible combinations as 128 random bits.
26 letter keys + 10 number keys + 8 symbol keys * 2 shift keys = 88 characters.
2^128 = 128 bits ~= 3.40e38
88^20 = 20 characters ~= 7.76e38
88!20 = 20 unique characters ~= 7.48e37
128 bits do not have anywhere near the same number of possible permutations as 20 US keyboard characters. None of the above has anywhere near the permutations a 2048-bit RSA key has (~3.23e616), either :)
26 letters
10 digits
11 symbols (`-=[]\;',./)
= 47 keys
*2 = 94 characters.
Add tab, space, and newline/carriage return if your shit allows it.
Beavers have had an undeniable impact on the global environment -- there is really no point in questioning that anymore. As for dying, well, nobody is claiming that our doom is near at hand, just that things are going to get a lot different and that we should be prepared for it, and perhaps taking steps to slow or halt the rate at which we beaver about. We are already over the edge; it is a question of whether or not we want to worsen things for ourselves (or at least make things change more significantly than they are already destined to change).
Also, bees, termites, algae, wrens, jellyfish, rats, trees, etc.
We have reliable proxy data for much earlier than 1880.
No we don't.
Anything taken that far back was using vastly different equipment and methodology.
That's a troll if I've ever seen one. No officer or anyone for that matter would first stop someone driving badly, then find out they are buzzed and can't handle it and let them back into a car and drive away.
I've seen exactly this many times around UC Santa Barbara.
HEVC is aiming for a 50% reduction in bit rate for the same subjective quality, while increasing the complexity no more than 200%.
The problem I have with "subjective quality" is that it almost invariably means "Let's change the color space to something shittier, and sample chroma only on 50/25/12.5% of the pixels!".
While PSNR isn't an ideal measure, at least it's objective. Give me a standard that does full RGB instead of YV12/YUY2 and I'll be happy. And by "standard", I mean on paper, in implementation, and in practice when I watch TV or a movie.
GeoHot's stand against piracy is well known in the scene
Yes, it is. He is in full support of it.
Here's just one choice quote from his blog, which he has now made private. You can google the full quote if you don't believe me.
"If you are willing to open up your system, learn some electronics, and solder, perhaps you deserve free games."
What GeoHot and others did is in violation of the DMCA. Reverse engineering, removing copy protection and other security systems, etc. is strictly forbidden, with one very tiny loophole that doesn't apply in this case.
And GeoHot was "hacking" the PS3 before the removal of OtherOS, he just didn't get anywhere.
And of course, after the removal of OtherOS, GeoHot STILL didn't get anywhere! As for being against piracy, GeoHot has a fun little post on his blog where he openly condones piracy and says Sony deserves it for removing OtherOS.
All GeoHot did was use Fail0verflow's work to extract a key needed to make piracy easier. And then he published it. If you haven't been paying attention, piracy on the PS3 has been available ever since the "jigstick" was stolen/leaked.
Yes, it came from the inside. As did the original BluRay drive emulator and hard drive loader.
The problem with the jigstick is that you had to insert the damn thing and go through the process to get to service mode every damned time you booted up. Getting the keys means we can make our own custom firmware, or even update packages that sit on official firmware. Getting the keys means you can go to custom firmware, install homebrew, and then go back to original firmware, and still have homebrew intact. None of this enables piracy beyond what was already available. GeoHot publishing the game level (metldr I think?) key means piracy is as simple as insert disc, copy via Wakinkoko's tool, return to GameFly/friend. Or download ISO, drag and drop to external hard drive. Or hell, since we have FTP programs for the PS3 already, you can just push that shit straight out to the PS3's internal drive. Essentially, PS3 piracy is as easy as Wii piracy.
GeoHot contributed nothing to "the scene".
He's going to pay for publishing keys because he's an attention whore.
You cannot print Paypal shipping labels on any browser EXCEPT Internet Explorer.
Works fine in FF and Opera for me.
The thing is, if Google doesn't do this, and allows both formats, they are contributing to the success of H.264, and detracting from the possibilities of success of their WebM.
You, the consumer are caught in yet another standards-war. Which side will you be on?
H.264 already is a success, a resounding one. It has been for nearly a decade.
WebM is shit. Theora is shit. Why? Because H.264 is the superior codec, hands down. As someone who uses the codecs, all I give a shit about is the resulting quality/speed/size.
If you don't like it because it isn't free, that's your problem. Me? I like having superior picture quality. If that means some asshat down the line pays for a license, or that 2 cents of every Windows License goes to the MPEG group, so be it.
If that means I can't decode shit with an officially sanctioned codec in Linux because I care more about "free as in speech" than "kittens and boxes on youtube", then so be it.
If that means I can't decode shit at all using a "free" alternative such as x264 (which violates countless MPEG patents) because I ACTUALLY care about "free as in speech", and prefer principles to silly videos, then so be it.
The patent system sucks ass. No question about it.
But if you want to rail against it, you're on your own in this case, fosshats. H.264 is fanfuckingtastic. It's leaps and bounds above basic MPEG-4 ASP, and is well ahead of the "free" alternatives that are Theora, WebM, etc.
The bottom line is that we wouldn't have shit if it weren't for the work of the MPEG group. X.264, WebM, Theora, XviD, DivX, and countless others all have their roots in the hacking and reverse engineering an MS MPEG codec ages ago.
I have no problems with the morality of this - the state of the art was advanced as a result, and to do so legally would have been far too burdensome.
But to trumpet for the "free" options in this case is naive because it turns a blind eye to the origins of the "free" options. To trumpet the "free" options as well as shit on anyone who would dare support both, at their own cost, is ludicrous.
Let's be clear, this is not a war consumers have any say in. Sites will be forced to transcode and keep multiple versions of streams for compatibility with all browsers. And until they're ready with all that, they'll continue to server shit up via Flash.
The browser vendors will have no incentive to change their position, and we'll end up with IE and Safari on one side, and Chrome, FF, and Opera on the other. The end result is that users get their videos, tons of storage and processing time is wasted, and the CEOs will find another topic to get all preachy about.
You won't see a large migration of users to or from any browser in response to this move. This is no different than when Steve Jobs went on a crusade against Flash (which is still around and isn't going anywhere soon).
Horse shit.
If the Mozilla foundation wanted to support H.264, they'd release a plug-in that ties into codecs installed on the system.
MS did exactly this.
The plug-in can be open or closed source, and the codec can be open or closed source. Whether or not the codec the end user has is open, closed, or legal doesn't matter, and has no bearing on the openness or legality of Firefox itself.
XP, Adobe Reader 9 or some shit with all updates, black lines all over the place.
Works fine if I open it up in Adobe Acrobat 8.
Couldn't care less about figuring out why, or the content of the PDFs. Take your fucking word graphs, tag clouds, and other useless shit back to 1999, where you'll still be recognized as completely useless.
I totally agree with you. But sometimes, when you're stuck and can't find another number, it would be cool that this app just gives you a hint, instead of solving the entire sudoku.
But if you make a mistake, you're fucked unless the OCR is smart enough to distinguish between the givens and your entries, and account for any scribbling, crossing out, etc. you've done).
Maybe it's because I have an outdated card, but I don't get the hate. I thought Nvidia released good drivers for Linux and all. I'm a Linux user, I have a GeForce and performance seems comparable to that of Windows. Proprietary drivers, yes, but good ones. Am I missing something?
Open source drivers from both camps suck ass.
Closed source drivers from AMD suck ass.
Closed source drivers from NVidia are competent.
Linux Neckbeard Warriors will never publicly support installing the closed source drivers, but every single one of them will do it.
x86-64 is owned by AMD. Somehow I doubt they'll be licensing it to their main GPU competitor.
Somehow I doubt they'd be legally allowed to NOT license it to their main GPU competitor.
And thus, with the exit of half a dozen of the highest level Microsoft department heads, there is nobody at MS that can take over Ballmer's seat as CEO if the board of directors decides to fire him. He's made it much harder to fire him now.
Any schlubb could do better than Ballmer.
No one has the credentials and image to seem (to the public and the pundits) to be a good choice.
The only good choice after Ballmer is to somehow coax Bill back.
It's easy to volunteer for something that doesn't sound like it's going to hurt. When the radio messages come back with "Please... I'm running out of oxygen... it's cold and the pain is excruciating," the mission will be viewed as a fiasco for the rest of time.
Facing death with dignity is a lot easier to imagine than it is in real life. Some do manage it anyway, of course, but which of those hundreds of volunteers is really going to pull it off? It's the kind of thing you don't find out about for certain until you get your one-and-only shot.
Even if they do pull it off, the people behind the mission are going to be accused of murder. It will be an ugly stain on them for the rest of their lives. The mission is temporary, but the subsequent death is forever.
So we can treat this as a charming mental exercise, and even be surprised by how many people would volunteer for the mission. But it's simply not ever going to happen.
History book.
Read one.
Is how a father of three could volunteer to depart on what would most likely be a suicide mission. Exploration and the battle against entropy and all that is all good and well, but if one is a father, one has certain responsibilities that are paramount about anything else.
I will probably get flamed to death about this, but I guess in this case, the guy must be either be completely discontent with his lot in life, or he must be the most selfish, self serving person that exists.
History book.
Read one.
Nvidia is making ARM CPUs.
The next version of Windows will run on ARM.
So, yes.
And if you're a Linux zealot, you can compile your kernel for whatever target hardware you want.