I still haven't seen any actual examples but if that page is anything to go by then it's almost a complete non-issue for the overwhelming majority of cases.
Have you got any examples of office documents that you can't open? I've still got an old hotmail account and via that I can open any word document online with no problems, I've not really had any issues importing an ms office document into google docs or opening in libreoffice before either. Surely it would be pretty trivial to produce and example that exhibits this problem you describe.
You know, there was a time when no one had cell phones and we all got along fine.
Stalin, Hitler, Pot, etc did just fine without cell phones too. With more pervasive technology it can be easier to track people but it is also easier for people to coordinate, encryption means you can organise in secret be that by directly sending encrypted messages or spamming encrypted messages to hide the identity of the true intended recipient.
SystemD causes a lot of problems. That makes more money for people who work for companies that do Linux technology support.
Well it does for supporting RedHat-derivative Linux desktop distributions. But it doesn't look particularly good for RedHat and certainly makes their competitors look more attractive.
Is that a giant conflict of interest? Was SystemD allowed by management of Red Hat because it would make more money?
No it's not a conflict of interest, RedHat isn't the only desktop Linux game in town and if the software is getting unstable and support costs are going significantly up then it's worth switching to something else like Slackware. There's not much point in it being Free Software if you're still just going to tie yourself to one vendor like RedHat regardless of the quality and cost of the software.
"How" can we, the Userlanders, bring the Debians, Suses, Redhats, Ubuntus, Mints, Arches, Manjaros and their kin to "PLEASE DUMP SYSTEMD".
Well this is exactly what Free Software is for, it's the "freedom" it grants you. You either contribute significant money or development effort to these projects such that you can influence their direction or you fork the project and take it in your own direction. Alternatively Slackware doesn't have systemd and Devuan is a project that came about from forking Debian and removing systemd so you can show your support for them by contributing money or development time to them.
Free Software has already solved this problem, it's a complete non-issue now. Just don't use distributions that include systemd and contribute to those distributions.
"Realtime raytracing will be huge for gaming" - meanwhile you recommend paying 2x as much money for an unsupported feature.
No. I don't recommend it. Nor is it an "unsupported feature", quite clearly it is supported and will become more supported over time. I'm not that interested in extreme visual fidelity so the small improvement it currently makes by augmenting rasterized games doesn't seem worth it to me.
You want to justify your mistake, that's fine. I'm ok with your mistakes.
Given that was pretty unequivocal perhaps you're unaware that the 1080 is a card from the previous Geforce generation (which goes back 2 architecture revisions to "Pascal", where the current is "Turing" and before that there was "Volta" which really only had the Titan V as a consumer card) and it doesn't support hardware-based DXR because it lacks the new RT and Tensor cores.
You're saying Nvidia pays specific game dev shops (activision) to add pseudo-RT "features" that nobody else supports, including games people want to play. (Not activision)
No I'm saying these new cards have a capability that the cards you're comparing to do not have. Realtime raytracing will be huge for gaming but you have to start somewhere.
Go ahead and pay twice as much, I'm fine with your decision, just realize that's exactly what you're doing in the name of "shiny, unsupported feature" - because that's exactly how they rope morons, just like that.
I have a 1080 with no plan to upgrade. I'm not sure why you're calling it an "unsupported feature", these nvidia cards di already support DXR via the tensor and rt cores. More games are adding DXR features and both AMD and nvidia were in collaboration with Microsoft (and together as part of Khronos) in defining the APIs, it has a software fallback but AMD will soon have hardware support for it as well. How else do you propose to solve the chicken and egg problem that comes with new features requiring both hardware and software support?
In reality you can get 2x AMD cards in crossfire for less money than a single Nvidia sucker-investment that can't compete with them.
Which AMD cards in Crossfire versus which single nvidia card?
Also AMD doesn't yet have a DXR solution so it's an apples and oranges comparison, the bits that make these new cards expensive are the tensor and RT cores, if you're not interested in those features then you wouldn't be buying a card like that anyway.
Every mid-range graphics card I've bought has been $99 to $199. Low end cards $50+ and high-end graphics cards between $250 and $400.
Yes, times change, back in the 90s the highend Voodoo2 went for < $300 and the TNT was < $200. Highend phones used to be priced around there too but as with inflation and the packing of huge amounts of new technology in the price goes up.
Well, I had a quick look at ford.com. And their cheapest truck, the Ranger... which you used to be able to buy for $15K-$20K depending on options... now *starts* at $25K, bare-bones, and can push $50K equipped. So, right off, if you choose more wisely you're already in Civic Si and BRZ territory, and really close to an MX-5.
And if you choose more wisely than that you can have a BMW S1000RR and a lot of change, it will be much faster and much more fuel efficient than an MX-5 too. Of course it also has other problems that the MX-5 has like not being able to carry my trail bike, transport my kids or dogs or tow the camper and it certainly can't get very far offroad.
Everybody is aware that for the price of one thing you can buy many different things. I have a pickup because it suits my needs, if there was an EV that did the same then that'd be great but there isn't (yet).
So... this whole blue-collar "working class hero" in opposition to those rich and arrogant "liberal technocrat elites" business? I'm not buying it for a second.
It might serve you well not to paint everybody with the same brush, is every pickup owner - much less every pickup owner who specced up a $94k truck - protesting against Telsa or EVs? No of course not. You've got maybe a couple dozen of the tens of millions of pickup truck owners protesting something here.
That's the GP's point. They chose a pickup truck to drive around all the time even though they rarely to never haul anything.
95% of the time they probably don't but every other weekend I do take out the trailer, camper or jetski and/or throw a couple of trail bikes in the tub. I'm certainly not opposed to Tesla and if they can make a reasonably priced vehicle that can do that then I'm all for it (in theory it could be immensely powerful too). I don't know whether they have a solar option or battery booster so you don't have to worry about range when offroading (somebody in the convoy always has, or can get, extra fuel if somebody else runs out) but that would also be important.
Let's not pretend these few douchebags in the picture are representative of all people who own pickups or that everybody who owns a pickup is irrationally opposed to EVs, the only issue is that there isn't yet an EV that satisfies that market segment. I'm not sure what they're protesting about but certainly depending on your use case there are a lot of reasons to buy an EV and a lot of reasons not to buy one, that doesn't mean the person who does or doesn't buy one is irrational.
How much it costs is dependent on the product and the manufacturing process. Do you expect me to go and investigate every product before suggesting something?
No, I'm pointing out that it's impractical. Can you do it for say even half a dozen products? Probably not.
If you're lobbying for it or doing the math and putting that forward then I'd be very interested to see it, if we do indeed need to do it then then I'm curious as to what you're doing.
Well the alternative is turning the planet into Venus and everything dies, so what's that worth to you?
If you believe it is indeed that dire then again, what is it you're doing?
However, your point that it would cost more and you snidely do not wish to pay for it is exactly the point.
I never said or implied that, my point is that you're saying "we need to" do this but the reality is you can't even say how much that would be or even suggest how you would go about making it happen much less actually do anything to make it happen. If you're lobbying for it or doing the math and putting that forward then I'd be very interested to see it, if we do indeed need to do it then then I'm curious as to what you're doing.
Now they've "fixed" their hidden slowdown of older phones and provided cheaper battery replacements there certainly seems little reason to pay such a high price for no real innovation in the latest offerings.
There's no longer anything particularly innovative, that's the problem. You can't just jack up the price, add mediocre upgrades and expect people to pay for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Fortunately we use Google Docs at work and don't have to deal with it.
Which is really what the move to office 365 is about, you can see Google is aligning their G Suite to a subscription model as well.
There you go: https://support.office.com/en-... Trivial indeed.
I still haven't seen any actual examples but if that page is anything to go by then it's almost a complete non-issue for the overwhelming majority of cases.
Have you got any examples of office documents that you can't open? I've still got an old hotmail account and via that I can open any word document online with no problems, I've not really had any issues importing an ms office document into google docs or opening in libreoffice before either. Surely it would be pretty trivial to produce and example that exhibits this problem you describe.
Better that than dozing off without autopilot.
And if it's detected that the driver is not paying attention then the car should be brought to a stop, not just continue on driving at highway speeds.
You know, there was a time when no one had cell phones and we all got along fine.
Stalin, Hitler, Pot, etc did just fine without cell phones too. With more pervasive technology it can be easier to track people but it is also easier for people to coordinate, encryption means you can organise in secret be that by directly sending encrypted messages or spamming encrypted messages to hide the identity of the true intended recipient.
SystemD causes a lot of problems. That makes more money for people who work for companies that do Linux technology support.
Well it does for supporting RedHat-derivative Linux desktop distributions. But it doesn't look particularly good for RedHat and certainly makes their competitors look more attractive.
Is that a giant conflict of interest? Was SystemD allowed by management of Red Hat because it would make more money?
No it's not a conflict of interest, RedHat isn't the only desktop Linux game in town and if the software is getting unstable and support costs are going significantly up then it's worth switching to something else like Slackware. There's not much point in it being Free Software if you're still just going to tie yourself to one vendor like RedHat regardless of the quality and cost of the software.
"How" can we, the Userlanders, bring the Debians, Suses, Redhats, Ubuntus, Mints, Arches, Manjaros and their kin to "PLEASE DUMP SYSTEMD".
Well this is exactly what Free Software is for, it's the "freedom" it grants you. You either contribute significant money or development effort to these projects such that you can influence their direction or you fork the project and take it in your own direction. Alternatively Slackware doesn't have systemd and Devuan is a project that came about from forking Debian and removing systemd so you can show your support for them by contributing money or development time to them.
Free Software has already solved this problem, it's a complete non-issue now. Just don't use distributions that include systemd and contribute to those distributions.
" quite clearly it is supported" - by 1-2 activision games?
No.
Just pay twice for everything you buy, because you're so smart and savvy.
Again, I'm not sure you understand what a 1080 is.
"Realtime raytracing will be huge for gaming" - meanwhile you recommend paying 2x as much money for an unsupported feature.
No. I don't recommend it. Nor is it an "unsupported feature", quite clearly it is supported and will become more supported over time. I'm not that interested in extreme visual fidelity so the small improvement it currently makes by augmenting rasterized games doesn't seem worth it to me.
You want to justify your mistake, that's fine. I'm ok with your mistakes.
What mistake? I don't think it was that complicated but here it is again anyway:
I have a 1080 with no plan to upgrade.
Given that was pretty unequivocal perhaps you're unaware that the 1080 is a card from the previous Geforce generation (which goes back 2 architecture revisions to "Pascal", where the current is "Turing" and before that there was "Volta" which really only had the Titan V as a consumer card) and it doesn't support hardware-based DXR because it lacks the new RT and Tensor cores.
You're saying Nvidia pays specific game dev shops (activision) to add pseudo-RT "features" that nobody else supports, including games people want to play. (Not activision)
No I'm saying these new cards have a capability that the cards you're comparing to do not have. Realtime raytracing will be huge for gaming but you have to start somewhere.
Go ahead and pay twice as much, I'm fine with your decision, just realize that's exactly what you're doing in the name of "shiny, unsupported feature" - because that's exactly how they rope morons, just like that.
I have a 1080 with no plan to upgrade. I'm not sure why you're calling it an "unsupported feature", these nvidia cards di already support DXR via the tensor and rt cores. More games are adding DXR features and both AMD and nvidia were in collaboration with Microsoft (and together as part of Khronos) in defining the APIs, it has a software fallback but AMD will soon have hardware support for it as well. How else do you propose to solve the chicken and egg problem that comes with new features requiring both hardware and software support?
In reality you can get 2x AMD cards in crossfire for less money than a single Nvidia sucker-investment that can't compete with them.
Which AMD cards in Crossfire versus which single nvidia card?
Also AMD doesn't yet have a DXR solution so it's an apples and oranges comparison, the bits that make these new cards expensive are the tensor and RT cores, if you're not interested in those features then you wouldn't be buying a card like that anyway.
Every mid-range graphics card I've bought has been $99 to $199. Low end cards $50+ and high-end graphics cards between $250 and $400.
Yes, times change, back in the 90s the highend Voodoo2 went for < $300 and the TNT was < $200. Highend phones used to be priced around there too but as with inflation and the packing of huge amounts of new technology in the price goes up.
Well, I had a quick look at ford.com. And their cheapest truck, the Ranger... which you used to be able to buy for $15K-$20K depending on options... now *starts* at $25K, bare-bones, and can push $50K equipped. So, right off, if you choose more wisely you're already in Civic Si and BRZ territory, and really close to an MX-5.
And if you choose more wisely than that you can have a BMW S1000RR and a lot of change, it will be much faster and much more fuel efficient than an MX-5 too. Of course it also has other problems that the MX-5 has like not being able to carry my trail bike, transport my kids or dogs or tow the camper and it certainly can't get very far offroad.
Everybody is aware that for the price of one thing you can buy many different things. I have a pickup because it suits my needs, if there was an EV that did the same then that'd be great but there isn't (yet).
So... this whole blue-collar "working class hero" in opposition to those rich and arrogant "liberal technocrat elites" business? I'm not buying it for a second.
It might serve you well not to paint everybody with the same brush, is every pickup owner - much less every pickup owner who specced up a $94k truck - protesting against Telsa or EVs? No of course not. You've got maybe a couple dozen of the tens of millions of pickup truck owners protesting something here.
Well can you calculate it for even one thing?
Sure, it's not very expensive to capture CO2: $94 to $232 per ton CO2 from the atmosphere The question is what to do with it afterward but I'm sure there are good uses.
So that price is just added to the cost of everything depending on how much CO2 it takes to produce? A carbon tax?
No I mean specifically on this issue?
Why are you asking me what you mean?
You said: "Everything in my power to ensure better environmental policies are put in place."
I'm asking what specifically that entails.
That's the GP's point. They chose a pickup truck to drive around all the time even though they rarely to never haul anything.
95% of the time they probably don't but every other weekend I do take out the trailer, camper or jetski and/or throw a couple of trail bikes in the tub. I'm certainly not opposed to Tesla and if they can make a reasonably priced vehicle that can do that then I'm all for it (in theory it could be immensely powerful too). I don't know whether they have a solar option or battery booster so you don't have to worry about range when offroading (somebody in the convoy always has, or can get, extra fuel if somebody else runs out) but that would also be important.
Let's not pretend these few douchebags in the picture are representative of all people who own pickups or that everybody who owns a pickup is irrationally opposed to EVs, the only issue is that there isn't yet an EV that satisfies that market segment. I'm not sure what they're protesting about but certainly depending on your use case there are a lot of reasons to buy an EV and a lot of reasons not to buy one, that doesn't mean the person who does or doesn't buy one is irrational.
I don't think it's impractical and you haven't pointed out anything that would make it impractical.
Well can you calculate it for even one thing?
Everything in my power to ensure better environmental policies are put in place.
No I mean specifically on this issue?
Right, that's my point, that's not what's happening and it would be a very different issue if it were.
How much it costs is dependent on the product and the manufacturing process. Do you expect me to go and investigate every product before suggesting something?
No, I'm pointing out that it's impractical. Can you do it for say even half a dozen products? Probably not.
If you're lobbying for it or doing the math and putting that forward then I'd be very interested to see it, if we do indeed need to do it then then I'm curious as to what you're doing.
Well the alternative is turning the planet into Venus and everything dies, so what's that worth to you?
If you believe it is indeed that dire then again, what is it you're doing?
Probably true for entry-level smartphone users like yourself.
Yes while the advanced users like yourself are busy paying through the nose to put your face on animated poo emojis.
Haha, I'll just leave it up to you but you'll just keep telling me how you need to do it but never actually do anything :P
It's not an argument at all, try again.
However, your point that it would cost more and you snidely do not wish to pay for it is exactly the point.
I never said or implied that, my point is that you're saying "we need to" do this but the reality is you can't even say how much that would be or even suggest how you would go about making it happen much less actually do anything to make it happen. If you're lobbying for it or doing the math and putting that forward then I'd be very interested to see it, if we do indeed need to do it then then I'm curious as to what you're doing.
They have lost their momentum. They used to make great products that just worked. Perfectly.
Now you can buy the latest MacBook and the latest iPhone and the cable they supply won't even connect the two together.
Now they've "fixed" their hidden slowdown of older phones and provided cheaper battery replacements there certainly seems little reason to pay such a high price for no real innovation in the latest offerings.
There's no longer anything particularly innovative, that's the problem. You can't just jack up the price, add mediocre upgrades and expect people to pay for it.