from those that subsist in a proprietary monoculture.
Actually, that would be a "monoculture," not just a proprietary one. If everybody ran Linux and such a vulnerability existed, the same thing would happen.
I think it's pretty well understood that ATI isn't making the job of open-source drivers any easier. Some open-source drivers are better than others...
Agreed. My understanding is that they are concerned that competing video card companies will have access to their trade secrets. Even so, you're quite correct on this front.
I'm not so sure anymore. I used to think that people were grateful for Free software, but just look elsewhere on this thread- People are honestly saying that Free Software developers should be grateful to ATI and NVidia! This is absolutely amazing to me- because that's exactly what Microsoft is saying: Be grateful to us that we even still let you use your computer.
Well, I don't think that free software owes either company much (ATI or nVidia). We do represent a small market segment that doesn't represent the profit margin that the MS segment does, but, eh, the situation has been a historically rocky one.
I'm not really sure that MS is saying "be grateful that we let you use your computer." I just don't see it like that. Perhaps they are, but I don't really see the argument.
It's one thing to not care about your own Freedom and go through the contortions to use ATI and NVidia's drivers, but it's an entirely different thing to say that other people should give up their Freedom so that they they don't have to go through these contortions.
I don't really think that using the proprietary drivers requires others to give up their freedom. It's not like anybody else has to use them. It's not like anybody else has to taint their kernel, but, those of us who want to have the ability to do so. How does this make others less free? Because we don't pressure ATI and nVidia into releasing their code? They're not going to do it.
I don't have a link, but this tidbit is actually true. Google has a badass cafeteria that will give you a really good lunch, like salmon or steak and so on.
it just means people are convinced (In the same way that Mercedes-Benz, Starbucks, Bose, and Banana Republic customers are convinced).
Starbucks coffee has more caffeine and is loaded with sugar (if you get the popular varieties. The reason it's popular is because it tastes like a milkshake and satisfies the chemical dependencies that it's consumers have, better.
I believe that one airline in Europe has even done some trials, where the basic flights come out to some absurdly low number but people buy the amenities, and often end up spending just about the same money as before. Others walk in with little more than a portable music player, and pay the base rate, and are happy with it.
I hope that that service comes to a US carrier soon. That would be great!
I've checked. You can expect a pretty good performance hit using the free drivers by relation to using proprietary drivers. By pretty good I mean from "great performance" to "unusable."
Seriously. Quick experiment. Load the "radeon" driver, and run Tuxracer. It should look like a slide show. Load the "fglrx" driver, and the same game. It should run fine.
Anyway, going from running proprietary video card drivers to running Windows is a fairly big leap. I think that a number of people just want to run whatever software suite works best for them. Not everyone in the Free Software community is ESR.
First of all, the airlines are private companies - you can chose to use or not use a specific airline. They have every right to chose what services to offer - and you can pick a different airline if you don't like what they offer
I agree. I didn't say anything inherently negative about the matter. I said that they have a captive audience and commensurately high prices. They do. I wasn't saying that Congress should go in and change this, just that it's the case. It is.
As for Airfone, they pay he airlines to haul the equipment - in essence they are leasing the space from the airlines; the extra weight of the phones cost the airlines money so unless someone is paying them to haul it they won't. personally, I'm surprised Airfone is still in business - I fly a lot and can't remember they last time I saw one in use - I've used it once - when my flight was horribly delayed and I barely made a later connector and didn't want the person meeting me to wait 6 hours at the airport and worry when I wasn't on my original flight
K.
Cell phones, OTOH, get whipped out as soon as the plane lands.
Yep.
Personally, I hope the service providers charge high fees for WiFi acess - that will limit usage and keep some sanity in the skies.
Don't worry, the rates they charge make wireless at StarBucks look like a bargain. Even so, I wish that they'd be lower. I don't know what not being connected to the Internet has to do with sanity...
Airfone already offers phone service on many flights, but its high cost has limited its use
You know what else is limited on airlines by cost?
Everything.
You know what would limit the cost of such services on airlines?
Somehow being able to take away the monopoly of an airline catering to its customers aboard its own jet.
AirFone is expensive because it's the only game in town. Making phone calls on airplanes will remain expensive until there are multiple carriers on the same flight. Good luck with that one.
If the tests are successful, these shirts could be used to remotely check old people living alone, but also soldiers in the field or athletes.
I'm sure that on the battlefield of the future nobody is going to want to wear a shirt that makes them glow like someone who killed one of their teammates in Counter Strike.
I use Linux as my primary OS, but, seriously, I use tons of proprietary, closed source software. Philosophically, it doesn't bother me a bit.
I think that most people who agree with the philosophy that all software must be open source only do so to fit in with the crowd. The people who believe in something the least will be the ones who shout that belief most loudly, to prove to the rest of the group that they believe it (I saw this once at a lecture on the use of multi-agent simulations in sociology experiments).
Even if one accepts that all of this will happen in our lifetimes. The simple fact is that it does not cost Intel $900 to manufacture a CPU. You are paying the engineers to develop that CPU, much in the same way that you would pay for hardware... plus some, probably fairly significant markup... the "ripoff."
There's something a little messed up about a culture that is willing to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars on hardware, that they must assemble themselves, but will absolutely rail against the idea of paying a dime for any of the software.
Do you really think that it costs $500 to manufacture a graphics card, when you remove the price of engineering and so forth? How about that $200 aluminum case?
I'm not saying that there's no benefit to a mame cabinet... but, well, you got the free emulator for your PC, so you could download ROMS illegally and play the video games (that you otherwise would have had to pay almost $2.50 for at a used game shop)! Then you're like, "you know what would be even better? Pumping $1000 and tons of effort into a fancy pc case!"
Then this is followed by, "I can't believe companies that want to charge for software!"
I'm not saying that this is you so to speak, but it's mind-blowing to see how much people are willing to pay for hardware, and then they'll freak out about paying for software.
I'm not sure where Nintento licensed their motion sensing controller from, but the gyros required to make such a thing work, while not exactly "old news," are available and there is already a company making a similar controller for PC.
Nintendo was the first next-gen console to have this, but, eh, I doubt that there is material at all for a law suit.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like the only people who crossed a line were the school district. Hopefully, they will learn something.
from those that subsist in a proprietary monoculture.
Actually, that would be a "monoculture," not just a proprietary one. If everybody ran Linux and such a vulnerability existed, the same thing would happen.
I've heard mixed reviews on that one, but I'm inclined to agree. It doesn't sound like a good long-term strategy for anything.
Oh yeah... well, if they put up mirrors, then why can't crazy conspiracy theorists shave by looking into the moon?
Also, how would the astronauts have survived the pungent odor of green cheese that's been aging since the moon was born?
I think it's pretty well understood that ATI isn't making the job of open-source drivers any easier. Some open-source drivers are better than others...
Agreed. My understanding is that they are concerned that competing video card companies will have access to their trade secrets. Even so, you're quite correct on this front.
I'm not so sure anymore. I used to think that people were grateful for Free software, but just look elsewhere on this thread- People are honestly saying that Free Software developers should be grateful to ATI and NVidia! This is absolutely amazing to me- because that's exactly what Microsoft is saying: Be grateful to us that we even still let you use your computer.
Well, I don't think that free software owes either company much (ATI or nVidia). We do represent a small market segment that doesn't represent the profit margin that the MS segment does, but, eh, the situation has been a historically rocky one.
I'm not really sure that MS is saying "be grateful that we let you use your computer." I just don't see it like that. Perhaps they are, but I don't really see the argument.
It's one thing to not care about your own Freedom and go through the contortions to use ATI and NVidia's drivers, but it's an entirely different thing to say that other people should give up their Freedom so that they they don't have to go through these contortions.
I don't really think that using the proprietary drivers requires others to give up their freedom. It's not like anybody else has to use them. It's not like anybody else has to taint their kernel, but, those of us who want to have the ability to do so. How does this make others less free? Because we don't pressure ATI and nVidia into releasing their code? They're not going to do it.
I don't have a link, but this tidbit is actually true. Google has a badass cafeteria that will give you a really good lunch, like salmon or steak and so on.
It is a very strange sentence anyway, the Wii is just as serious as any other console, except for maybe, the name.
Yes, only children say Wii anyway. It would sound much more adult to call it the Urine.
it just means people are convinced (In the same way that Mercedes-Benz, Starbucks, Bose, and Banana Republic customers are convinced).
Starbucks coffee has more caffeine and is loaded with sugar (if you get the popular varieties. The reason it's popular is because it tastes like a milkshake and satisfies the chemical dependencies that it's consumers have, better.
Plus, for a large chain, it's not bad coffee.
I believe that one airline in Europe has even done some trials, where the basic flights come out to some absurdly low number but people buy the amenities, and often end up spending just about the same money as before. Others walk in with little more than a portable music player, and pay the base rate, and are happy with it.
I hope that that service comes to a US carrier soon. That would be great!
I've checked. You can expect a pretty good performance hit using the free drivers by relation to using proprietary drivers. By pretty good I mean from "great performance" to "unusable."
Seriously. Quick experiment. Load the "radeon" driver, and run Tuxracer. It should look like a slide show. Load the "fglrx" driver, and the same game. It should run fine.
Anyway, going from running proprietary video card drivers to running Windows is a fairly big leap. I think that a number of people just want to run whatever software suite works best for them. Not everyone in the Free Software community is ESR.
Except in the way that really matters: Intel provides open source drivers and documentation.
You can have your ideals. I'll have good looking 3D.
They could always go to a Japanese 7-11 and purchase all the air they like.4 5.htm
http://www.rapidnewswire.com/5146-cannedoxygen-02
First of all, the airlines are private companies - you can chose to use or not use a specific airline. They have every right to chose what services to offer - and you can pick a different airline if you don't like what they offer
I agree. I didn't say anything inherently negative about the matter. I said that they have a captive audience and commensurately high prices. They do. I wasn't saying that Congress should go in and change this, just that it's the case. It is.
As for Airfone, they pay he airlines to haul the equipment - in essence they are leasing the space from the airlines; the extra weight of the phones cost the airlines money so unless someone is paying them to haul it they won't. personally, I'm surprised Airfone is still in business - I fly a lot and can't remember they last time I saw one in use - I've used it once - when my flight was horribly delayed and I barely made a later connector and didn't want the person meeting me to wait 6 hours at the airport and worry when I wasn't on my original flight
K.
Cell phones, OTOH, get whipped out as soon as the plane lands.
Yep.
Personally, I hope the service providers charge high fees for WiFi acess - that will limit usage and keep some sanity in the skies.
Don't worry, the rates they charge make wireless at StarBucks look like a bargain. Even so, I wish that they'd be lower. I don't know what not being connected to the Internet has to do with sanity...
It's not possible mid-flight to walk out of a plane in disgust.
That's not true at all. The difficulty arises upon trying to return to the plane.
Airfone already offers phone service on many flights, but its high cost has limited its use
You know what else is limited on airlines by cost?
Everything.
You know what would limit the cost of such services on airlines?
Somehow being able to take away the monopoly of an airline catering to its customers aboard its own jet.
AirFone is expensive because it's the only game in town. Making phone calls on airplanes will remain expensive until there are multiple carriers on the same flight. Good luck with that one.
If the tests are successful, these shirts could be used to remotely check old people living alone, but also soldiers in the field or athletes.
I'm sure that on the battlefield of the future nobody is going to want to wear a shirt that makes them glow like someone who killed one of their teammates in Counter Strike.
No, at first I thought that it said something about feces as well. Perhaps its the font.
If elephants can do it, why can't we?
On a clean machine, Ubuntu is probably easier to install than Windows. I don't think that that is the issue at all.
I just switched to Ubuntu last week, from Gentoo, when I got tired of waiting for every new update to compile.
I use Linux as my primary OS, but, seriously, I use tons of proprietary, closed source software. Philosophically, it doesn't bother me a bit.
I think that most people who agree with the philosophy that all software must be open source only do so to fit in with the crowd. The people who believe in something the least will be the ones who shout that belief most loudly, to prove to the rest of the group that they believe it (I saw this once at a lecture on the use of multi-agent simulations in sociology experiments).
"Make your knees neighbors," as the director of my cotillion used to say to the young girls in attendance.
I've seen at least a few of this guy's robots...
k _robot.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/23/philip_k_dic
They seem to do everything that makes this robot a big deal. Why is it considered only the second ever?
Even if one accepts that all of this will happen in our lifetimes. The simple fact is that it does not cost Intel $900 to manufacture a CPU. You are paying the engineers to develop that CPU, much in the same way that you would pay for hardware... plus some, probably fairly significant markup... the "ripoff."
Sony needs to be plowed under anyway, since they felt it appropriate to stick a root-kit on people's machines.
If people voted with their pocketbooks and didn't say, "please Sony, beat me a little more," then we wouldn't have these sorts of problems.
There's something a little messed up about a culture that is willing to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars on hardware, that they must assemble themselves, but will absolutely rail against the idea of paying a dime for any of the software.
Do you really think that it costs $500 to manufacture a graphics card, when you remove the price of engineering and so forth? How about that $200 aluminum case?
I'm not saying that there's no benefit to a mame cabinet... but, well, you got the free emulator for your PC, so you could download ROMS illegally and play the video games (that you otherwise would have had to pay almost $2.50 for at a used game shop)! Then you're like, "you know what would be even better? Pumping $1000 and tons of effort into a fancy pc case!"
Then this is followed by, "I can't believe companies that want to charge for software!"
I'm not saying that this is you so to speak, but it's mind-blowing to see how much people are willing to pay for hardware, and then they'll freak out about paying for software.
I'm not sure where Nintento licensed their motion sensing controller from, but the gyros required to make such a thing work, while not exactly "old news," are available and there is already a company making a similar controller for PC.
Nintendo was the first next-gen console to have this, but, eh, I doubt that there is material at all for a law suit.