Fortunately, there is such a thing as correctness in everything. Unfortunately, there are typically multiple correct solutions. People, like lemmings, typically blindly subscribe to one solution or another without really looking at all of them, or looking for their own.
We have the facts at hand. We have logic. Foregoing a spiritual debate, for which logic and facts don't apply, we should be learned enough to apply this logic to those facts, and to then draw our correct solution. The worst thing is when people decide to "feel" their way to an end. Feelings have a place in life, but it really ought not come into play in politics. Too many people's lives and livelihoods are at stake for that.
The one thing that is sure, though, is that there isn't or shouldn't be fuzziness. If there is, then there is something wrong.
But he's a lot better than those of opposing idiology. He's simply misleading.
I don't distinguish between "misleading" and "misleading" very well. Anyone who subscribes to either of these two sides is a moron.
Now, if you choose to think for yourself, you would start to be concerned with things that actually have an effect on American lives. Such things as social security, health insurance, economics, and whatnot seem to have been swept under the carpet in the face of these obviously more important "maybes." I dunno, perhaps I'm just old school. I have my own beliefs and ideas, and I find the content of Michael Moore is truth spun into fiction, just as the content of Rush Limbaugh is.
Do I care if so-and-so wounded himself to get out of the war? Do I care if so-and-so "joined" the national guard to avoid the war? Hmm. Last time I checked, that was all more than 20 years ago. Now, do I care if so-and-so is going to do the job of being the president correctly? Absolutely.
Does Michael Moore have a toll-free number for complaints against his movies, web site, and rants at the Oscars?
I realize that this is government vs. individual, but if you really want to criticize, you'd better be living the life that you are demanding of others. Moore has an amount of influence upon the uneducated, as demonstrated by the highly moderated, yet highly inflammable posts above.
It is also a mistake of the editing and cutting, which was done by Michael Moore.
When doing "Documentaries," you are carrying a responsibility of presenting truth to the audience. Unfortunately, Moore gives documentaries a bad name. He doesn't use much logic to peice together his arguments, rather, he relies upon the heartstrings of his viewers. He does his own stuff, because he would definitely be fired if he ever worked in a normal reporting position. Remember the NY Times fiasco?
Gore lost. It has been four years already. It's about time that you got over it, stopped bitching, and got on with the rest of your life.
DRI, AGPGART, yada, mostly can be compiled into modules. You don't have to recompile the kernel if you had it set up in this way... just unload the module. The most common distros ship the kernel in this way too.
As a rebuttal, though, if you had done it with modules, then you wouldn't even have to reboot Linux. I've never installed graphics drivers in Windows without having to reboot at least once.
Then those two companies are full of pussies. Look, ATI and nVidia make up the majority of the high performance graphics card market. Nearly everyone has a card from them in one form or another. It's their choice to support a particular platform, too.
If both companies dropped driver support for DirectX 9, what could MS possibly do to them? MS would be on the losing side, for all of a sudden their flagship graphics libary no longer works. Of course, there would be a bit of discontent amongst gamers, mostly because HL2 wouldn't work.
On the upside, more companies would choose to go forward with OpenGL, and maybe that spec would be pushed into the front of everyone's attention. nVidia and ATI would be in the position to make demands, then. They make their own drivers, MS would be stupid to force them to do things... think about it.
Face it. ATI doesn't support Linux because there's no profit in Linux for them. They don't release the source anymore because they have their own intellectual property in their cards, not because of having some stupid OS maker with it's finger in the pot.
I believe that the same principle that applies to OS computer utilities can apply to games. FOSS utilities usually covers those things which are a foundation to build upon, the OS, the desktop, the wm, the web servers. They are foundations for the commercial league to build their own stuff on.
In games, this can/should apply to the engines that are used. Why not open source (LGPL) the engine, then allow many game companies to contribute to it. They could then come up with their own non-free stuff (levels, textures, story, dialogue, sound, action scripts, etc.) for a full sized game. It seems to me that the majority of the work on these newer games is not on the engine, it is on all of the artwork and design that make up the game.
This leaves the OSS community with the option of coming up with their own stuff, and give them the ability to create a game that could be on-par with games like Theif, Deus Ex 1, and Doom 3. I believe that J. Carmack follows this to an extant, the Quake engines were GPL'd.
There wasn't a half-time, but they were trying to squeeze the promo into the time-out between the two games of a double header. The last time this happened, there were a bunch of kids that flooded the field. They absconded with the pitching rubber, home plate, and were busy laying around their own fires smoking pot.
The destruction of vinyl was in some sort of machine, so it was environmentally sound. They weren't burned, until the stoners started doing it.
We don't need a bunch of geeks getting onto the field to destroy CD's. They'd all bring their own generators, create a gigantic LAN, and begin playing a monstrous game of Counterstrike or Quake 3. Everyone in the crowd would be so disgusted with the geeks that they'd start chucking crap on them, therefore destroying the field.
Oh, stop it with the self-righteous bullshit already.
That poor sod on the other end of the line chooses to work for Dell, and is a valid representative of the company. If he gives hell to the tech support guy, he is venting his frustration to the company, not the person. If the poor sod on the other end doesn't like it, he can voluntarily give up his position so that a poor American sod can take his place.
Throw out the rhetoric concerning human morality when companies become involved. They profit off of us, and have an obligation that is in writing to provide us with satisfaction. Some moron that can't read English, much less speak it, deserves what he gets for trying to fill a role that he is not qualified to fill.
Heh. Pragmatism (which you just stated, in form) is a philosophy. It's a decidedly American philosophy, perpetuated by Peirce and Dewey. Peirce and Dewey were very different, and Peirce disagreed so much with modern pragmatics that he renamed his version of pragmatism to pragmaticism.
you are infavor of not respecting otherpeoples rights, so give me a reason why I should continue to respect yours?
You, obviously, are also in favor of not respecting other people's rights. By virtue of saying this, you are just as bigotted as he is. You don't agree with his religion, therefore you judge him by that, and then proceed to disrespect him.
I would say that this is the essence of hypocritical thinking.
I've read what I wrote, and I didn't see anything there about passing laws to govern such stuff. I prefer people to have the freedom to make choices based on their religion, instead of having it forced on them.
I was responding to the parent post, elaborating on what would be offensive to a Christian. It's amusing how people get a stick up their ass if you mention your religion, and how it's influenced your opinion. It's like you've automatically assumed that I wanted laws passed to enforce my own beliefs.
I read in a Rolling Stone about some donor's life, and how crappy it was. When you become a sperm donor, you aren't allowed to have sex or masturbate except at the facility. You only go to the facility every other day or something like that. They also are very particular about your diet.
If you're thinking that sperm donation is enjoyable, don't be thinking about the women.
I think that it would be most offensive if that game depicted angels attacking Earth, and your mission was to go up into Heaven to blow up Jesus.
I believe that it is possible for the background music in Hell to be a Latin mass, and I'm a Christian. It's also possible for the cross to be depicted down there. One of the attributes of Satan is that he's the master of lies, which means that he could do anything to try to lead people astray.
So, I wouldn't be offended to hear a service while killing things in Hell. It would probably add more to the feeling of perversion of Hell. I would be extremely offended, however, if the game mocked the sacrifice that God made, or if the game made a mockery of God himself.
It's a watermark, which means it's soluble in water. The guy refers to "blank out the watermark." I think he's saying that you need to take a garden hose to your hard disk. That ought to wash out those nasty watermarks.
Take another look at the meaning of communism before you object. Soviet "communism" is not communism at all, rather it is/was a form of totalitarianism... only in large body-governmental form instead of human.
Communism is different, since there is not supposed to be a body of government, ideally. Think of the communal farms, where everyone does their share of the work, and everyone profits from eachother's work. It's a form of subservience to everyone else. This is what the original hope of communism was, but that form is way to easy for greedy individuals to take advantage of. Remember "Animal Farm," which elaborates on this.
At MS, you can't just spend their money, but you can make the choice of working there. You can't choose what to work on, but you can offer your wares (in the form of sweat-shop slavery), and hope that the consumer (MS) decides to promote you. In the end, you do get a measure of responsibility. Of course, it's typically a matter of "Only the strong or ruthless survive," and you don't necessarily get the "good" people in the important positions.
Evolution is still a theory, and only shows us a possibility. There isn't really any concrete evidence that we came from monkeys, all we have is a whole lot of clues and hopeful associations.
It's just as possible that humans descend from humans, and monkeys descend from monkeys, with no common ancestor at all.
Re:Communal != Communist: State control anyone?
on
Linux vs. Windows
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The other thing that makes this work is the fact that it is voluntary. If I don't want to write code for OSS, I don't have to. The code is written in a distributed manner by people who wish to write the code.
This can't really apply to a governmental system, because it would require the willingness to participate by all governed individuals. There is always going to be people who procrastinate, or those who just flat out refuse to participate.
De-centralized control only works amongst the willing, the ones who have made the choice to contribute.
What's amusing about your post, is that you depict the road to open source as being like the road from communism to capitalism. If you really look at the organization of the open source community, you'll see that it follows a more communal approach than a capitalistic one.
Sure, there is the label of "hacker" that people want, that is... ESR's "hacker," and not Time-Life's "hacker," but there's more of a "you have your job, I have mine, we make this work together" feel instead of "I pay you for this, I pay you more for this specialized thing." The "capitalistic" approach is more of the MS way of doing things, where they promote severe competition even amongst their own employees.
I'm not really promoting communism as a governmental type, though. It's an ideal system that will never work in this un-ideal world.
Slashdot Mirror
Fortunately, there is such a thing as correctness in everything. Unfortunately, there are typically multiple correct solutions. People, like lemmings, typically blindly subscribe to one solution or another without really looking at all of them, or looking for their own.
We have the facts at hand. We have logic. Foregoing a spiritual debate, for which logic and facts don't apply, we should be learned enough to apply this logic to those facts, and to then draw our correct solution. The worst thing is when people decide to "feel" their way to an end. Feelings have a place in life, but it really ought not come into play in politics. Too many people's lives and livelihoods are at stake for that.
The one thing that is sure, though, is that there isn't or shouldn't be fuzziness. If there is, then there is something wrong.
But he's a lot better than those of opposing idiology. He's simply misleading.
I don't distinguish between "misleading" and "misleading" very well. Anyone who subscribes to either of these two sides is a moron.
Now, if you choose to think for yourself, you would start to be concerned with things that actually have an effect on American lives. Such things as social security, health insurance, economics, and whatnot seem to have been swept under the carpet in the face of these obviously more important "maybes." I dunno, perhaps I'm just old school. I have my own beliefs and ideas, and I find the content of Michael Moore is truth spun into fiction, just as the content of Rush Limbaugh is.
Do I care if so-and-so wounded himself to get out of the war? Do I care if so-and-so "joined" the national guard to avoid the war? Hmm. Last time I checked, that was all more than 20 years ago. Now, do I care if so-and-so is going to do the job of being the president correctly? Absolutely.
Does Michael Moore have a toll-free number for complaints against his movies, web site, and rants at the Oscars?
I realize that this is government vs. individual, but if you really want to criticize, you'd better be living the life that you are demanding of others. Moore has an amount of influence upon the uneducated, as demonstrated by the highly moderated, yet highly inflammable posts above.
How the hell is this garbage insightful? There are many reasons to vote for Bush, just as there are many reasons to vote for Kerry.
Attack of the abusive moderators!
It is also a mistake of the editing and cutting, which was done by Michael Moore.
When doing "Documentaries," you are carrying a responsibility of presenting truth to the audience. Unfortunately, Moore gives documentaries a bad name. He doesn't use much logic to peice together his arguments, rather, he relies upon the heartstrings of his viewers. He does his own stuff, because he would definitely be fired if he ever worked in a normal reporting position. Remember the NY Times fiasco?
Gore lost. It has been four years already. It's about time that you got over it, stopped bitching, and got on with the rest of your life.
Really easy:
Of course, there's the part about needing a kernel that doesn't have DRI compiled in, but does have AGPGART.
DRI, AGPGART, yada, mostly can be compiled into modules. You don't have to recompile the kernel if you had it set up in this way... just unload the module. The most common distros ship the kernel in this way too.
As a rebuttal, though, if you had done it with modules, then you wouldn't even have to reboot Linux. I've never installed graphics drivers in Windows without having to reboot at least once.
Then those two companies are full of pussies. Look, ATI and nVidia make up the majority of the high performance graphics card market. Nearly everyone has a card from them in one form or another. It's their choice to support a particular platform, too.
If both companies dropped driver support for DirectX 9, what could MS possibly do to them? MS would be on the losing side, for all of a sudden their flagship graphics libary no longer works. Of course, there would be a bit of discontent amongst gamers, mostly because HL2 wouldn't work.
On the upside, more companies would choose to go forward with OpenGL, and maybe that spec would be pushed into the front of everyone's attention. nVidia and ATI would be in the position to make demands, then. They make their own drivers, MS would be stupid to force them to do things... think about it.
Face it. ATI doesn't support Linux because there's no profit in Linux for them. They don't release the source anymore because they have their own intellectual property in their cards, not because of having some stupid OS maker with it's finger in the pot.
I believe that the same principle that applies to OS computer utilities can apply to games. FOSS utilities usually covers those things which are a foundation to build upon, the OS, the desktop, the wm, the web servers. They are foundations for the commercial league to build their own stuff on.
In games, this can/should apply to the engines that are used. Why not open source (LGPL) the engine, then allow many game companies to contribute to it. They could then come up with their own non-free stuff (levels, textures, story, dialogue, sound, action scripts, etc.) for a full sized game. It seems to me that the majority of the work on these newer games is not on the engine, it is on all of the artwork and design that make up the game.
This leaves the OSS community with the option of coming up with their own stuff, and give them the ability to create a game that could be on-par with games like Theif, Deus Ex 1, and Doom 3. I believe that J. Carmack follows this to an extant, the Quake engines were GPL'd.
There wasn't a half-time, but they were trying to squeeze the promo into the time-out between the two games of a double header. The last time this happened, there were a bunch of kids that flooded the field. They absconded with the pitching rubber, home plate, and were busy laying around their own fires smoking pot.
The destruction of vinyl was in some sort of machine, so it was environmentally sound. They weren't burned, until the stoners started doing it.
We don't need a bunch of geeks getting onto the field to destroy CD's. They'd all bring their own generators, create a gigantic LAN, and begin playing a monstrous game of Counterstrike or Quake 3. Everyone in the crowd would be so disgusted with the geeks that they'd start chucking crap on them, therefore destroying the field.
Oh, stop it with the self-righteous bullshit already.
That poor sod on the other end of the line chooses to work for Dell, and is a valid representative of the company. If he gives hell to the tech support guy, he is venting his frustration to the company, not the person. If the poor sod on the other end doesn't like it, he can voluntarily give up his position so that a poor American sod can take his place.
Throw out the rhetoric concerning human morality when companies become involved. They profit off of us, and have an obligation that is in writing to provide us with satisfaction. Some moron that can't read English, much less speak it, deserves what he gets for trying to fill a role that he is not qualified to fill.
And if 100% of all people are average?
I hope that your husband doesn't know that you figured out how to post with his /. account.
Heh. Pragmatism (which you just stated, in form) is a philosophy. It's a decidedly American philosophy, perpetuated by Peirce and Dewey. Peirce and Dewey were very different, and Peirce disagreed so much with modern pragmatics that he renamed his version of pragmatism to pragmaticism.
you are infavor of not respecting otherpeoples rights, so give me a reason why I should continue to respect yours?
You, obviously, are also in favor of not respecting other people's rights. By virtue of saying this, you are just as bigotted as he is. You don't agree with his religion, therefore you judge him by that, and then proceed to disrespect him.
I would say that this is the essence of hypocritical thinking.
I've read what I wrote, and I didn't see anything there about passing laws to govern such stuff. I prefer people to have the freedom to make choices based on their religion, instead of having it forced on them.
I was responding to the parent post, elaborating on what would be offensive to a Christian. It's amusing how people get a stick up their ass if you mention your religion, and how it's influenced your opinion. It's like you've automatically assumed that I wanted laws passed to enforce my own beliefs.
Dumbass.
I read in a Rolling Stone about some donor's life, and how crappy it was. When you become a sperm donor, you aren't allowed to have sex or masturbate except at the facility. You only go to the facility every other day or something like that. They also are very particular about your diet.
If you're thinking that sperm donation is enjoyable, don't be thinking about the women.
I think that it would be most offensive if that game depicted angels attacking Earth, and your mission was to go up into Heaven to blow up Jesus.
I believe that it is possible for the background music in Hell to be a Latin mass, and I'm a Christian. It's also possible for the cross to be depicted down there. One of the attributes of Satan is that he's the master of lies, which means that he could do anything to try to lead people astray.
So, I wouldn't be offended to hear a service while killing things in Hell. It would probably add more to the feeling of perversion of Hell. I would be extremely offended, however, if the game mocked the sacrifice that God made, or if the game made a mockery of God himself.
It's a watermark, which means it's soluble in water. The guy refers to "blank out the watermark." I think he's saying that you need to take a garden hose to your hard disk. That ought to wash out those nasty watermarks.
Does it count if the software is written by a bunch of tools?
I figure owning one of those products, combined with hiring a complete tool for administration...
Best "tool," man.
Take another look at the meaning of communism before you object. Soviet "communism" is not communism at all, rather it is/was a form of totalitarianism... only in large body-governmental form instead of human.
Communism is different, since there is not supposed to be a body of government, ideally. Think of the communal farms, where everyone does their share of the work, and everyone profits from eachother's work. It's a form of subservience to everyone else. This is what the original hope of communism was, but that form is way to easy for greedy individuals to take advantage of. Remember "Animal Farm," which elaborates on this.
At MS, you can't just spend their money, but you can make the choice of working there. You can't choose what to work on, but you can offer your wares (in the form of sweat-shop slavery), and hope that the consumer (MS) decides to promote you. In the end, you do get a measure of responsibility. Of course, it's typically a matter of "Only the strong or ruthless survive," and you don't necessarily get the "good" people in the important positions.
Evolution is still a theory, and only shows us a possibility. There isn't really any concrete evidence that we came from monkeys, all we have is a whole lot of clues and hopeful associations.
It's just as possible that humans descend from humans, and monkeys descend from monkeys, with no common ancestor at all.
The other thing that makes this work is the fact that it is voluntary. If I don't want to write code for OSS, I don't have to. The code is written in a distributed manner by people who wish to write the code.
This can't really apply to a governmental system, because it would require the willingness to participate by all governed individuals. There is always going to be people who procrastinate, or those who just flat out refuse to participate.
De-centralized control only works amongst the willing, the ones who have made the choice to contribute.
What's amusing about your post, is that you depict the road to open source as being like the road from communism to capitalism. If you really look at the organization of the open source community, you'll see that it follows a more communal approach than a capitalistic one.
Sure, there is the label of "hacker" that people want, that is... ESR's "hacker," and not Time-Life's "hacker," but there's more of a "you have your job, I have mine, we make this work together" feel instead of "I pay you for this, I pay you more for this specialized thing." The "capitalistic" approach is more of the MS way of doing things, where they promote severe competition even amongst their own employees.
I'm not really promoting communism as a governmental type, though. It's an ideal system that will never work in this un-ideal world.
heh, no... You're dumb if you can't speak.
At least, that was the original meaning of the word.