I think you might be the only poster that has a true grasp of economics.
Most of these posters are arm-chair tax critics in one form or another. Tax [fill in the blank], don't tax [fill in the blank], don't let [fill in the blank] evade taxes, etc..
What it all really boils down to is VALUE, and value is derived from the mobilization of resources. In the most simplistic scenario is the taxes on a raw commodity resources, such as Corn, Coal, etc.. If we enforce a 25% tax rate on harvesting these resources then we are effectively saying that the government owns 25% of the value of those resources, while in the perspective of private enterprise its 25% less efficient than it could be to harvest it.
So the governments benefit is not simply the percentage rate at which things are taxed. The government should be concerned with maximizing unitvalue * harvestvolume * taxrate. Its nonsense to blindly raise taxrate, because that negatively effects both volume and value. Volume will often take a big dive if the domestic harvesting isn't competitive with foreign harvesting.
People are a resource just as much as Corn, Coal, etc.. Right now in America, unemployment represents a huge shortfall in government tax revenues. The government should probably be lowering taxes (and mandated costs) on labor-heavy businesses in order to maximize its revenue... but its not doing that.. its doing the exact opposite with, for example, the healthcare and cap and trade bills.
It really does seem like the congress and senate critters in the government have decided to make things from a tax revenue perspective worse on purpose.
"I look in the raw data section and low and behold, there is no raw data linked to for the stratosphere. Damn. Guess I'll have to settle for processed data."
That data set? You think its raw? You think I havent been there?
...and I quote: "HadAT has used a neighbour-based approach to attempt to adjust for these effects and produce a homogeneous product suitable for climate applications."
Follow the link to their audit page where they are at least up-front about the fact that this data IS adjusted, MULTIPLE TIMES. This is a new definition of the word "raw" that I wasn't previously aware of.
First, you complain about adjusted values in processed data? Well no shit. No raw data there.
No, first I complained that there was no raw data for what I was interested in. Then I complained that the supposed processed data was in fact just some GIF files of line graphs. You may not know this, but GIF files with line graphs is not actually the data they were derived from.
I THEN complain about adjusted values in what is purported to be raw data. The claim is (A) the raw data is available see how great we are, and (B) here it is
Yet when you got look, it isnt raw data. The page making the claim is lying, and the claim was made (that page did not exist until) immediately after climategate hit. The entire page is a PR piece that does not link to much data at all, and where it does, it is mostly misrepresented.
Have you read Animal Farm? That page is for the sheep that wont bother verifying that what it claims is true.
Call me up when I can run AppleIIgs software on a Macintosh. The AppleIIgs was a better machine than the first few Macintosh's, and the AppleII line was in fact quite popular prior to Apple completely abandoning it. Apple has NEVER had as much market share in the home as they did with their AppleII line.
The AppleIIgs was hands down the best home computer hardware on the market when it was introduced in 1986.
This monster had 16 channel wavetable synthesis via the Ensoniq DOC2 chipset it came with, capabilities not to be equalled or surpassed in home computers until Gravis made the UltraSound expansion card for the PC six years later using the Ensoniq DOC3. This thing blew away the Amiga, known for its audio capabilities, which introduced with 4 channel wavetable, upgraded later to 8 channel wavetable.
Graphics-wise it could display 4096 colors at once, out of the box, again not to be surpassed in the home until the first HiColor expansion boards for the PC.
This was a high performance 16-bit computer built on the 65816 CPU, the processor that eventually made its way into the Super Nintendo in 90's.
The AppleIIgs was better than everyone else at everything when it was introduced, and it was compatible with the older 8-bit AppleII's. But Apple, in its infinite wisdom, went full-throttle with their inferior, incompatible, offering: The craptastic Macintosh.
I know that you are trying to sell us on the idea that Apple cares about backward compatability, but its just not true. Even in the Macintosh domain, backward compatability was broken more times than I can count, and not just compatability with 10+ year old stuff either. 1+ year old compatability, in some cases, was totally abandoned.
People forget that Microsoft didn't start out with DOS.
Microsoft started out with a BASIC interpreter for the Altair, and pretty much owned what is effectively the "operating system" for nearly all hobby architectures developed between 1975 and 1981, the year they got the DOS deal with IBM.
Apples? Applesoft Basic was written by Microsoft.
Comodores? Yeh. Microsoft Basic.
Ataris? Microsoft Basic.
Tandys? Microsoft Basic.
They dominated all the inexpensive CPU's with their Basic: Z-80, 6502, 8080, 6800, and 68000.
This is before the first Personal Computer (PC)..before DOS, and it was this reputation of producing a landmark product that landed them the deal with IBM, which at the time didnt seem like such a big deal in actuality (buy DOS from dumb guy, sign deal with IBM for an immediate profit.)
Microsoft is a software company and prior to Windows 3, they had products for nearly every desktop ecosystem. It was only after Windows 3 made them obscenely profitable that they started abandoning all the other ecosystems.
Care to offer a refutation? Seriously. That doesnt say what you think it says.
Somehow you think that Explorer beating the crap out of Netscape, fairly or unfairly, negates the fact that Netscape was even worse at standards.
Educate yourself, because you obviously werent paying attention back then. Those were the days when proprietary extensions were king, be it blinking text, scrolling text, and all the other crud. Back then, sites had to explain which browser they were developed for so people knew which one to use, and that wasnt because Microsoft didnt follow standards. It was because NOBODY followed standards. Not the browsers. Not the authors. Nobody.
One of the browsers won. It was Microsofts. Get over it already. The whole "Microsoft is evil" crap is lame-assed pandering to a like-minded, equally argument challenged, crowd of drones.
If not, then why do we care if YOU specifically verify the science?
It wont be me, specifically, because I will write open source code. It will be everyone who cares that the job is done right, specifically.
I'm not saying your process is bad - the data should be published and verified by other climate scientists - but the simple point is that science is hard, which is why we have experts.
The data is not published, nor verified. Thats the point. Climate papers are published, and maybe reviewed, but not verified.
The data is not verified, and its review is piss poor at best:
A canadian statistician noticed a problem with some of nasa's climate graphs. He asked for the algorithm used to generate them, but was denied.. so he publicly reverse engineered their algorithm by trial and error, detailing what he was doing in blog posts (a very popular blog, btw) and found that in fact, there was a problem with the algorithm. When nasa was informed that the problem was now indisputable and public, they found someone who knew enough about programming to correct their algorithm, made a quiet public announcement about it and then played down the whole affair like it didn't matter.
The direct ramifications of the error this man had discovered meant that 1998 was not in fact the hottest year on record (its 1934... ooops.), and that climate scientists may have been using incorrectly adjusted data from nasa for 7 years. Indirectly, we can assume that nasa will attempt to stall any other corrections when problems are suspected, just like they did this time.
Yes. I would in fact verify that the adjusted data is in fact derived from the raw data using the methods they disclose...
...oh wait, they havent disclosed the methods.. FUCK!!.. so I guess I'll have to derive my own adjustments in a PUBLIC manner and DISCLOSE my methodology (open source code) and then SEE IF IT STANDS UP TO SCRUTINY.
I know for a fact that you did not use that link to get to actual complete data. You want to know how I know? Because its a ruse meant to convince people that wont bother to check it.
I have followed your link before, because I want data on the stratosphere. This is what happened when I followed it:
I look in the raw data section and low and behold, there is no raw data linked to for the stratosphere. Damn. Guess I'll have to settle for processed data.
I look in the processed section and yay!, there is a link to the processed data! I follow the link and the page it brings me to looks like it has a lot of data... but whats this.. everything there is a GIF file? Every last thing? Its just a page with links to GIF images of graphs? Where is the data? Am I expected to write a program that loads the GIFS and scrapes the pixels finding how high the graph is, and then perform some sort of conversion of that pixel height into actual data? Where is the stratospheric data? That site you linked to, that you claimed had the data, which also itself claimed to link to the data, did not in fact link to the data. There is no way to get to the data using your method of using your link GOD FUCKING DAMN I WAS LIED TO BY THAT SITE, AND OTHERS LIKE YOU!
I then went and checked the other links on that page, and low-and-behold, nearly all of them do not link to actual data, or did not linked to what was claimed.
Surely they got the surface data right for the U.S, right? Well lets see.. the link for the RAW USHCN network, version 1, links to processed data.. just about every data source in there has, and I quote, been "adjusted." Lets check out 'README.TXT':
hcn_doe_max_data.Z Areal Edited, Time of Observation, and Filnet Adjusted Maximum Monthly Temperature
hcn_calc_mean_data.Z Time of Observation and Filnet Adjusted Mean Monthly Temperature (Calculated from hcn_doe_max_data.Z and hcn_doe_min_data.Z)
hcn_doe_mean_data.Z Areal Edited, Time of Observation, and Filnet Adjusted Mean Monthly Temperature
hcn_doe_min_data.Z Areal Edited, Time of Observation, and Filnet Adjusted Minimum Monthly Temperature
hcn_doe_pcp_data.Z Areal Edited, Time of Observation, and Filnet Adjusted Monthly Precipitation
station.history.Z Station History
station.inventory.Z Station Inventory
station.landuse.Z Station Area Land Use and Land Cover
urban_max_fahr.Z Urban Heat Adjusted Maximum Monthly Temperature
urban_calc_mean_fahr.Z Urban Heat Adjusted Mean Monthly Temperature (Calculated from urban.max.Z and urban.min.Z)
urban_mean_fahr.Z Urban Heat Adjusted Mean Monthly Temperature
urban_min_fahr.Z Urban Heat Adjusted Minimum Monthly Temperature
Now, besides that fact that most of these files arent even there any more, surely 'station.history' has a good amount of raw data in it? Its the biggest file in the directory... but after downloading it and looking at it, it becomes obviously rather quickly that the best this file can have is one record per year per station, because the records are very inefficiently encoded (and the fact that no station has more than a single record for a single year)... so this file cannot possibly be raw data either.
So where is the raw data for surface stations? Maybe in version 2? Yes, its got some raw data... or does it?.. File 9641C_201003_RAW.MAX surely has the raw maximum daily temperature values from stations? Oh damn, its got the *mean* maximum values, computed monthly.. so THIS can't be the raw data, as the raw data was used to create THIS file of means... where is the raw data?
I want the data actually used.. which means the data post-adjustment (because thats what climate scientists use).. and then I want those adjustments explained and justified in detail, and the adjustments verified.. which means also having the data pre-adjustment.
Cubans get on a freaking TIRE and paddle their ass to America. Mexicans just walk to America.
This idea that you are "too poor" to move somewhere just doesnt wash. Some of the poorest people on earth make their way to a new, better, country.
I claim that, in fact, you are too RICH to move. Any move for you would be a downgrade, which is why you think that you need more money before you can do it.
Maybe because we dont want geeks updating their cars firmware so that when accelerating, the pitch of the engine matches the "Final Countdown" melody, on the theories that "it would be cool", "that sequence kicks ass", and "because I didnt like the fork that locked and unlocked the breaks in time with "BOOM-BOOM-TSK"
A citation shouldn't be needed for things that have appeared on slashdot a dozen times, is in fact common knowledge, and is also so easily findable that even your grandmother could google it.
Thats not the I/O performance he is talking about tho.
The AMD 12-core offering is capped at something like 24GB/sec over the bus.. for 12 cores thats 2GB/sec per core average.. not a whole hell of a lot when you get right down to it (only ~1 byte per clock cycle!).. even a driveless system with tons of DRAM will be struggling with I/O here.
The benchmarks TFA links to bares witness to this.. Intel's server cores are I/O monsters in comparison.. only 6 cores, but still beating AMD's 12-cores in every I/O benchmark.
If Windows XP supported DX10, then DX10 systems would be 78.02% and most of the games would be DX10 by now
Thats a faulty conclusion. OpenGL games arent pushing DX10 features while also not being constrained by XP/Vista/7 issues.
The thing about game development is that most game developers dont pick DirectX or OpenGL or XBOX360 or PS3. They use middle-ware called a Rendering Engine (Unreal, IDTECH, CryEngine, etc..) which abstracts away the API-specifics.
The fact that XBOX360 and PS3 arent DX10 capable is a lot more persuasive than the XP/VISTA/7 argument.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you might be the only poster that has a true grasp of economics.
Most of these posters are arm-chair tax critics in one form or another. Tax [fill in the blank], don't tax [fill in the blank], don't let [fill in the blank] evade taxes, etc..
What it all really boils down to is VALUE, and value is derived from the mobilization of resources. In the most simplistic scenario is the taxes on a raw commodity resources, such as Corn, Coal, etc.. If we enforce a 25% tax rate on harvesting these resources then we are effectively saying that the government owns 25% of the value of those resources, while in the perspective of private enterprise its 25% less efficient than it could be to harvest it.
So the governments benefit is not simply the percentage rate at which things are taxed. The government should be concerned with maximizing unitvalue * harvestvolume * taxrate. Its nonsense to blindly raise taxrate, because that negatively effects both volume and value. Volume will often take a big dive if the domestic harvesting isn't competitive with foreign harvesting.
People are a resource just as much as Corn, Coal, etc.. Right now in America, unemployment represents a huge shortfall in government tax revenues. The government should probably be lowering taxes (and mandated costs) on labor-heavy businesses in order to maximize its revenue... but its not doing that.. its doing the exact opposite with, for example, the healthcare and cap and trade bills.
It really does seem like the congress and senate critters in the government have decided to make things from a tax revenue perspective worse on purpose.
"I look in the raw data section and low and behold, there is no raw data linked to for the stratosphere. Damn. Guess I'll have to settle for processed data."
That data set? You think its raw? You think I havent been there?
...and I quote: "HadAT has used a neighbour-based approach to attempt to adjust for these effects and produce a homogeneous product suitable for climate applications."
Follow the link to their audit page where they are at least up-front about the fact that this data IS adjusted, MULTIPLE TIMES. This is a new definition of the word "raw" that I wasn't previously aware of.
First, you complain about adjusted values in processed data? Well no shit. No raw data there.
No, first I complained that there was no raw data for what I was interested in. Then I complained that the supposed processed data was in fact just some GIF files of line graphs. You may not know this, but GIF files with line graphs is not actually the data they were derived from.
I THEN complain about adjusted values in what is purported to be raw data. The claim is (A) the raw data is available see how great we are, and (B) here it is
Yet when you got look, it isnt raw data. The page making the claim is lying, and the claim was made (that page did not exist until) immediately after climategate hit. The entire page is a PR piece that does not link to much data at all, and where it does, it is mostly misrepresented.
Have you read Animal Farm? That page is for the sheep that wont bother verifying that what it claims is true.
Lets put this in perspective...
...you trust an advertising company.
Dude.
Netscape's first version had the proprietary blink tag, and it only went downhill from there.
Period. End of story. Game, set, and match. You lose by being completely uninformed. Standards indeed....
Call me up when I can run AppleIIgs software on a Macintosh. The AppleIIgs was a better machine than the first few Macintosh's, and the AppleII line was in fact quite popular prior to Apple completely abandoning it. Apple has NEVER had as much market share in the home as they did with their AppleII line.
The AppleIIgs was hands down the best home computer hardware on the market when it was introduced in 1986.
This monster had 16 channel wavetable synthesis via the Ensoniq DOC2 chipset it came with, capabilities not to be equalled or surpassed in home computers until Gravis made the UltraSound expansion card for the PC six years later using the Ensoniq DOC3. This thing blew away the Amiga, known for its audio capabilities, which introduced with 4 channel wavetable, upgraded later to 8 channel wavetable.
Graphics-wise it could display 4096 colors at once, out of the box, again not to be surpassed in the home until the first HiColor expansion boards for the PC.
This was a high performance 16-bit computer built on the 65816 CPU, the processor that eventually made its way into the Super Nintendo in 90's.
The AppleIIgs was better than everyone else at everything when it was introduced, and it was compatible with the older 8-bit AppleII's. But Apple, in its infinite wisdom, went full-throttle with their inferior, incompatible, offering: The craptastic Macintosh.
I know that you are trying to sell us on the idea that Apple cares about backward compatability, but its just not true. Even in the Macintosh domain, backward compatability was broken more times than I can count, and not just compatability with 10+ year old stuff either. 1+ year old compatability, in some cases, was totally abandoned.
People forget that Microsoft didn't start out with DOS.
..before DOS, and it was this reputation of producing a landmark product that landed them the deal with IBM, which at the time didnt seem like such a big deal in actuality (buy DOS from dumb guy, sign deal with IBM for an immediate profit.)
Microsoft started out with a BASIC interpreter for the Altair, and pretty much owned what is effectively the "operating system" for nearly all hobby architectures developed between 1975 and 1981, the year they got the DOS deal with IBM.
Apples? Applesoft Basic was written by Microsoft.
Comodores? Yeh. Microsoft Basic.
Ataris? Microsoft Basic.
Tandys? Microsoft Basic.
They dominated all the inexpensive CPU's with their Basic: Z-80, 6502, 8080, 6800, and 68000.
This is before the first Personal Computer (PC)
Microsoft is a software company and prior to Windows 3, they had products for nearly every desktop ecosystem. It was only after Windows 3 made them obscenely profitable that they started abandoning all the other ecosystems.
Care to offer a refutation? Seriously. That doesnt say what you think it says.
Somehow you think that Explorer beating the crap out of Netscape, fairly or unfairly, negates the fact that Netscape was even worse at standards.
Educate yourself, because you obviously werent paying attention back then. Those were the days when proprietary extensions were king, be it blinking text, scrolling text, and all the other crud. Back then, sites had to explain which browser they were developed for so people knew which one to use, and that wasnt because Microsoft didnt follow standards. It was because NOBODY followed standards. Not the browsers. Not the authors. Nobody.
One of the browsers won. It was Microsofts. Get over it already. The whole "Microsoft is evil" crap is lame-assed pandering to a like-minded, equally argument challenged, crowd of drones.
Except that they filter out any user data and passwords when they publish the search terms.
So you are safe with Chrome as long as you search with Google? If you use Chrome to search with Bing, or SuperPornFinder, you arent?
No, it's not. Any developer knows that you could very well have both inputs being sent continuously to whomever they want.
You are missing it.
The search box *is* sent continuously, in both browsers.
Whereas with an address bar, you are right, "it could be sent continuously"
One of these things is not like the other.
Where are the daily min and max temps located, for each station?
Not the monthly averages. No sir. An average implies multiple values used to derive it.
Was their monthly averaging done correctly? How did they handle missing data? Is the method of handling missing data unbiased?
(daily data) -> adjustments -> (monthly data) -> adjustments -> (yearly data)
Must start with the daily data.. get it?
Are you a climate scientist?
I am a programmer.
If not, then why do we care if YOU specifically verify the science?
It wont be me, specifically, because I will write open source code. It will be everyone who cares that the job is done right, specifically.
I'm not saying your process is bad - the data should be published and verified by other climate scientists - but the simple point is that science is hard, which is why we have experts.
The data is not published, nor verified. Thats the point. Climate papers are published, and maybe reviewed, but not verified.
The data is not verified, and its review is piss poor at best:
A canadian statistician noticed a problem with some of nasa's climate graphs. He asked for the algorithm used to generate them, but was denied.. so he publicly reverse engineered their algorithm by trial and error, detailing what he was doing in blog posts (a very popular blog, btw) and found that in fact, there was a problem with the algorithm. When nasa was informed that the problem was now indisputable and public, they found someone who knew enough about programming to correct their algorithm, made a quiet public announcement about it and then played down the whole affair like it didn't matter.
The direct ramifications of the error this man had discovered meant that 1998 was not in fact the hottest year on record (its 1934... ooops.), and that climate scientists may have been using incorrectly adjusted data from nasa for 7 years. Indirectly, we can assume that nasa will attempt to stall any other corrections when problems are suspected, just like they did this time.
Are you actually going to do the verification?
Yes. I would in fact verify that the adjusted data is in fact derived from the raw data using the methods they disclose...
...oh wait, they havent disclosed the methods.. FUCK!!.. so I guess I'll have to derive my own adjustments in a PUBLIC manner and DISCLOSE my methodology (open source code) and then SEE IF IT STANDS UP TO SCRUTINY.
Oh, that link again.
... so this file cannot possibly be raw data either.
.. File 9641C_201003_RAW.MAX surely has the raw maximum daily temperature values from stations? Oh damn, its got the *mean* maximum values, computed monthly.. so THIS can't be the raw data, as the raw data was used to create THIS file of means... where is the raw data?
I know for a fact that you did not use that link to get to actual complete data. You want to know how I know? Because its a ruse meant to convince people that wont bother to check it.
I have followed your link before, because I want data on the stratosphere. This is what happened when I followed it:
I look in the raw data section and low and behold, there is no raw data linked to for the stratosphere. Damn. Guess I'll have to settle for processed data.
I look in the processed section and yay!, there is a link to the processed data! I follow the link and the page it brings me to looks like it has a lot of data... but whats this.. everything there is a GIF file? Every last thing? Its just a page with links to GIF images of graphs? Where is the data? Am I expected to write a program that loads the GIFS and scrapes the pixels finding how high the graph is, and then perform some sort of conversion of that pixel height into actual data? Where is the stratospheric data? That site you linked to, that you claimed had the data, which also itself claimed to link to the data, did not in fact link to the data. There is no way to get to the data using your method of using your link GOD FUCKING DAMN I WAS LIED TO BY THAT SITE, AND OTHERS LIKE YOU!
I then went and checked the other links on that page, and low-and-behold, nearly all of them do not link to actual data, or did not linked to what was claimed.
Surely they got the surface data right for the U.S, right? Well lets see.. the link for the RAW USHCN network, version 1, links to processed data.. just about every data source in there has, and I quote, been "adjusted." Lets check out 'README.TXT':
hcn_doe_max_data.Z
Areal Edited, Time of Observation, and Filnet Adjusted Maximum Monthly Temperature
hcn_calc_mean_data.Z
Time of Observation and Filnet Adjusted Mean Monthly Temperature (Calculated from hcn_doe_max_data.Z and hcn_doe_min_data.Z)
hcn_doe_mean_data.Z
Areal Edited, Time of Observation, and Filnet Adjusted Mean Monthly Temperature
hcn_doe_min_data.Z
Areal Edited, Time of Observation, and Filnet Adjusted Minimum Monthly Temperature
hcn_doe_pcp_data.Z
Areal Edited, Time of Observation, and Filnet Adjusted Monthly Precipitation
station.history.Z
Station History
station.inventory.Z
Station Inventory
station.landuse.Z
Station Area Land Use and Land Cover
urban_max_fahr.Z
Urban Heat Adjusted Maximum Monthly Temperature
urban_calc_mean_fahr.Z
Urban Heat Adjusted Mean Monthly Temperature (Calculated from urban.max.Z and urban.min.Z)
urban_mean_fahr.Z
Urban Heat Adjusted Mean Monthly Temperature
urban_min_fahr.Z
Urban Heat Adjusted Minimum Monthly Temperature
Now, besides that fact that most of these files arent even there any more, surely 'station.history' has a good amount of raw data in it? Its the biggest file in the directory... but after downloading it and looking at it, it becomes obviously rather quickly that the best this file can have is one record per year per station, because the records are very inefficiently encoded (and the fact that no station has more than a single record for a single year)
So where is the raw data for surface stations? Maybe in version 2? Yes, its got some raw data... or does it?
I guess so much for getting the raw data us
I want the data actually used.. which means the data post-adjustment (because thats what climate scientists use) .. and then I want those adjustments explained and justified in detail, and the adjustments verified.. which means also having the data pre-adjustment.
Until I have that, I cannot verify jack shit.
Not all politicians are liars?
[CITATION NEEDED]
umm, duh... not everyone is motivated enough to move.
Are you serious?
Cubans get on a freaking TIRE and paddle their ass to America. Mexicans just walk to America.
This idea that you are "too poor" to move somewhere just doesnt wash. Some of the poorest people on earth make their way to a new, better, country.
I claim that, in fact, you are too RICH to move. Any move for you would be a downgrade, which is why you think that you need more money before you can do it.
Well, no duh!
Maybe because we dont want geeks updating their cars firmware so that when accelerating, the pitch of the engine matches the "Final Countdown" melody, on the theories that "it would be cool", "that sequence kicks ass", and "because I didnt like the fork that locked and unlocked the breaks in time with "BOOM-BOOM-TSK"
A citation shouldn't be needed for things that have appeared on slashdot a dozen times, is in fact common knowledge, and is also so easily findable that even your grandmother could google it.
Thats not the I/O performance he is talking about tho.
.. even a driveless system with tons of DRAM will be struggling with I/O here.
The AMD 12-core offering is capped at something like 24GB/sec over the bus.. for 12 cores thats 2GB/sec per core average.. not a whole hell of a lot when you get right down to it (only ~1 byte per clock cycle!)
The benchmarks TFA links to bares witness to this.. Intel's server cores are I/O monsters in comparison.. only 6 cores, but still beating AMD's 12-cores in every I/O benchmark.
Are you stupid?
It sure as fuck looks that way. Do you understand what the word bias means? Do you know that it doesnt mean popular?
Now. If you arent fucking stupid, explain why it is that you look stupid.
Sure it might annoy those who prefer driving with one hand, but I suspect driving with two hands might be inherently safer anyway.
Using twice as many muscles is safer? Really?
If Windows XP supported DX10, then DX10 systems would be 78.02% and most of the games would be DX10 by now
Thats a faulty conclusion. OpenGL games arent pushing DX10 features while also not being constrained by XP/Vista/7 issues.
The thing about game development is that most game developers dont pick DirectX or OpenGL or XBOX360 or PS3. They use middle-ware called a Rendering Engine (Unreal, IDTECH, CryEngine, etc..) which abstracts away the API-specifics.
The fact that XBOX360 and PS3 arent DX10 capable is a lot more persuasive than the XP/VISTA/7 argument.