That's not a very good study though. In fact it's not a study at all - just a poll about what people prefer. It could be that what people think is the easiest to read and what actually is the easiest to read might not be the same. I'd like to see a study that involved some objective measure of which fonts people can read the most quickly, and with the fewest mistakes.
The "ozone hole" is therefore a perfectly natural phenomenon
Then explain why it has gotten worse in recent times. I live in one of the countries closest to antarctica, perhaps you can explain why average burn times are so much shorter now than they were 20 years ago.
One thing I don't like about DLP is the relatively limited vertical angle for best picture viewing
None of the alternatives can beat conventionals in that metric.
I can't speak for vertical viewing angle, but for horizontal viewing angle I find my current 42" plasma is better than any CRT I've seen. I'm amazed how well you can see it from side on.
So, with google, how do I search for the difference between the following LaTeX commands:
\circle
\circle*
Google's dropping of all punctuation is quite annoying, and makes some queries impossible, as/LaTeX \circle \circle*/ is the same as/latex circle/, which is completly different.
Just search for "latex circle" (sans quotes). You'll find plenty of results on the first page that answer your question. You don't need to be that precise.
Sure they do. People watch lots of "live" TV; however, I think it's getting less and less common. As people are all very busy, they still want to watch shows, they just want to watch them when they want to and have time to.
I think about my own situation: I've been considering building a MythTV DVR for a little while now.
It shows that you don't have a DVR. We've been using MythTV for a year or so now and our experience seems to mirror most TiVO/MythTV users. At first we used to want to watch things when they were on, like we did before MythTV. But over time we stopped doing that - it's just so much better to be able to watch when it suits us, skip ads, and watch at 120% normal speed if we want. Now we don't watch anything live anymore, not even sports. We always wait until at least 20 mins have been recorded before we start watching, we just watch something else in the meantime.
They have asserted that they would never ask for the average consumer to be prosecuted, so it didn't matter that it was illegal - a rather ridiculous argument, but one that the Government has been happy to accept up until now.
I wonder if ARIA would also accept a law that would make the publication of music illegal if the government threw in the verbal rider that hey, "we'd never prosecute anyone for it".
The fertility criterion can be for the definition of a species - and the ring species thing is a red herring, after all it's hard to imagine how a chihuahua could breed with a great dane but nobody (I hope) would claim they're different species. This is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable definition which was used successfully for centuries.
Actually that definition was coined by Earnst Mayr less than a hundred years ago. For most of history species have been definied by morphology. Mayr's definition is useful, but it's not completely objective - how do you assign species to organisims that don't reproduce sexually? How do you deal with partial fertility? Some big cat crossbreeds are sometimes fertile - are you arguing that lions and tigers are really the same species? If not, then how do you reconcile that with the fact that humans sometimes have infertile offspring?
I still go with the original definition - if polar bears and grizzly bears can reproduce (and produce fertile offspring) they are the same species as far as I'm concerned. Modern biologist who would argue with this are arrogant assholes, at it's simplest they're just plain wrong.
You're saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is an arrogant asshole. From the tone of your post that sounds like a bit of the old pot and kettle. There is plenty of scope to argue with the use of fertility to define species, and there is plenty of debate in biology about the definition of species.
"they're also trying to get me to hold to them. And in many cases (e.g. Pamela Jones in TFA) in rather heated terms. If that doesn't justify calling them fanatical, tell me what does."
Your def: trying to persuade you + (sometimes) heated terms = fanaticism.
I said it justifies my use of the term, not that it was the definition of the term.
It is on you to demonstrate that trying to persuade and (sometimes) using heated terms automatically qualifies as excessive/extreme/unreasonable/uncritical
It's not on me to demonstrate anything. I used an emotive term that you disagreed with based on your non-standard understanding of the meaning of the word. No one else complained about the characterisation I used. I suspect that the frequent use of the term to refer to terrorists has given it (in your view) a more negative connotation than it really deserves. That's probably also where you got the idea that violence was involved. Don't forget that "fan" is merely an abbrieviation for fanatic and that has a fairly neutral connotation.
I use it. Not for 3D (couldn't care about that), but because the 5200FX was the least expensive card with quality TV out.
Since you can't do 3D, whether you want to or not, with the open source driver, I can't see how you can fail to agree with me. I'm not really familiar with the nv driver, but I also believe you can't do things like XvMC acceleration or use twinview configurations. There's a pretty sizable set of features that are just not available in the OSS driver.
There is a black (or blue) band on the left edge (video overlay). Quite large - its over 8 pixels wide. Can't get rid of it. And I don't have the driver source. I was able to change the video overlay color from blue to black to make it less noticable. But it's still there.
I am going to ditch the driver soon for something open source. Simply because closed source doesn't work.
Are you sure that the problem is in the driver? I have used 3 FX5200s with my MythTV system (2 of them real no-name brand ones, too), and this is not a problem I've seen with the closed source driver. I also haven't seen it on the MythTV mailing lists. That's not to say that the problem isn't in the closed source driver, of course, but it certainly seems to work for most people.
Cite a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a primary source. I can't comment on your other reference because I'm not willing to go through the hassle of subscribing. Anyway, here are a couple of dictionary definitions to get you started:
From Merriam-Webster: "marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion"
From Answers.com: "A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause."
"Some stuff is currently not doable using only open source software."
I imagine that's true. The converse is also true. "Some stuff is currently not (easily) doable using only closed source software.". Example (off the top of my head): QIC-80 tape support for XP.
So your argument is basically a push, and depends heavily on the user.
You (and most of the other replies) are reading more in to what I wrote than I actually said. I never claimed that there wasn't stuff that could only be done with OSS. And I'm certainly not against OSS in any way, I use a lot of OSS myself. My argument is that if you restrict yourself to open source software there are going to be something things that you cannot do, compared to using a mix of open and closed source software, and that most people only care about getting their stuff done so that compromise will be unacceptable to them.
You seem to have the bizarre belief that nVidia owe you something beyond what you paid for. They don't. They're not restricting your freedom if they don't give you complete specs to the card. They're not restricting your freedom if they don't give you source to their driver binaries. You still have the right to do whatever you like with that card and that software (within the laws of the country you are in). You're really exaggerating the philosophical argument far beyond the point where it is reasonable to most people. It's not that big of a deal to most people.
I guess you won't mind having no control of the computer hardware you use either.
You accuse me of missing the point, and then you repeat the same claim I pulled you up on without addressing my statement at all. You claim closed source software is significantly more risky to run than open source software. I disagree and challenge you to provide some evidence. Actual evidence, not just more rhetoric about philosophy.
Look, you don't have to have ethics, principles, or values. I don't care. But when someone else has them they're not automatically fanatical.
I'm not dismissing them at all. But these people aren't just holding to their own principles, they're also trying to get me to hold to them. And in many cases (e.g. Pamela Jones in TFA) in rather heated terms. If that doesn't justify calling them fanatical, tell me what does.
Only a complete moron would forget about the option of using both open source and closed source software. That's the whole point. Some Free Software people refuse to use close source software so there are some things they just can't do. But people who are not so fanatical need not restrict themselves to one or the other.
So by your logic, if I give you a binary blob that 'gets your stuff done' that's it, end of story, right?
Now what if that blob also lets me take over your computer and do whatever I want with it?
Unless you check every line of the source of all the software you use yourself, and compile it all yourself, I don't see how open source software is any better than closed source software in this regard. Unless you do all that you're relying on other people to verify the software as secure. Now open source software MAY make verification easier, but it certainly isn't impossible with closed source software. It's not like people don't monitor the things that closed source does - they do. That's why Sony got into so much trouble with their CD copy protection stuff a while back - it got caught doing dodgy stuff, despite the fact that it was closed source.
There's a second point here too. If nVidia puts a back door into their binary driver and get caught they are going to be in a lot of trouble legally. They're an easy to find target for lawsuits or criminal prosecution. That is a large incentive for them to make sure that their software does not contain anything malicious. The same cannot be said about most open source software.
The point of an operating system is to enable the user to get their stuff done. It doesn't matter if it's an open source OS or a closed source OS, if it fails that primary requirement then it's worthless to the user. Some stuff is currently not doable using only open source software.
The "art file or 'skin'" was already present in the game, locked out or otherwise.
If it's not available to someone playing the unmodified game then it's not relevant to the rating of the unmodified game. The fact that objectionable artwork is or isn't hidden on the disk is irrelevant. ERSB's ratings system is supposed to provide ratings for games AS YOU BUY THEM, not as they may become when modified. If ERSB wants to start providing ratings for mods, that's fine, but until then they should limit themselves to the content that is in the game, not what is on the disk.
Slashdot Mirror
You're assuming a consistent destination. What if they are asking for the submitter to travel to different offices around the world?
In a similar vein, there have been a few products over the years that contained uranium. Check out the Fiestaware and Revigorators on this page.
That's a pretty niche requirement. And a little contrived, if you ask me.
I don't use OSX, but under windows drag and drop between java apps and non-java apps certainly works.
From Merriam-Webster: "marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion"
From Answers.com: "A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause."
Nothing about violence or social norms there.
Only a complete moron would forget about the option of using both open source and closed source software. That's the whole point. Some Free Software people refuse to use close source software so there are some things they just can't do. But people who are not so fanatical need not restrict themselves to one or the other.
There's a second point here too. If nVidia puts a back door into their binary driver and get caught they are going to be in a lot of trouble legally. They're an easy to find target for lawsuits or criminal prosecution. That is a large incentive for them to make sure that their software does not contain anything malicious. The same cannot be said about most open source software.
The point of an operating system is to enable the user to get their stuff done. It doesn't matter if it's an open source OS or a closed source OS, if it fails that primary requirement then it's worthless to the user. Some stuff is currently not doable using only open source software.