I would say who gives a about 2D, because graphics cards are mostly for 3D rendering and gaming. But, since I do have a DVD player, is it a cards 2D quality that affects how well the card displays DVD videos?
Gamers not loyal to companies, but
on
The Age of Nvidia
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Gamers are not loyal at all to graphics companies, whether it be nVidia, 3dfx, or ATI.
However, gamers ARE very loyal to games they love. As I said in an earlier post, I'm loyal to some of my beloved games like Descent 1 - 3 and Tombraider 1 - 5. So loyal, in fact, that I won't buy graphicsc cards which don't work well with these games.
Graphics card companies would be wise to recognize that gamers are more than simply graphics-freaks always hopping on the latest eye-candy game. This is partly because you fall in love with games just like with cars, and partly because of gameplay. It seems like most games that come out just plain suck. So diamonds in the rough like Descent or Tomb Raider (or to some people with poor taste, Doom-like games) are highly revered.
Re:Don't Underestimate nVidia's [Alleged] "Cheatin
on
The Age of Nvidia
·
· Score: 2
You have good points, though I think these companies would have failed anyways. The model of long update cycles just doesn't work in an industry where new games bring previously "excellent" graphics cards to their knees as a matter of course. nVidia's 6-month cycle was and is impressive, but nothing "herculean". They don't release revolutionized cards every 6 months -- they release incrementally improved versions every 6 months. For example, consider the GeForce 2, GeForce 3, and GeForce 4. The GF4 isn't worth the cost of upgrading over the GF3; but its definately a big improvement over the GF2. Similarly with the GF3 to the GF2.
Not only that, but nVidia continues to maintain their fast update cycles, even though competition is not very sturdy.
Should nVidia be found guilty of foul business practices, I would hope that nothing would be done which would hinder nVidia's great fast update process and superior products.
Also, I think your view that nVidia's success was the reason why other GPU companies failed is rather 19th century (i.e., zero sum game) economics. The stockholdes who invested in nVidia because of "colorful accounting", if they hadn't invested in nVidia, would they have invested in dead-end prospects like 3dfx, which was continually delaying the release of new products?
The truth is, 3dfx died because they made the gamer wait to long for their newest products. Telling consumers, "our latest greatest revolutionary GPU will be delayed another 6 months," again and again is a great way to piss of consumers, and not a good business model.
You read the article. 3dfx made a series of abysmally poor business choices.
The only thing to mourn in 3dfx's passing is that the company acquiring it, nVidia, doesn't see the wisdom in catering to current GeForce-owners and making GeForce drivers so that it works with older Glide-only games.
This is surely a weak-point in nVidia, and may be a key point for competitors. Many gamers are not much impressed by the latest and greatest graphics, but poor gameplay. I haven't bought a new game in over a year precisely because nothing on the market now is more fun to play than the games I already own (which include Janes USAF, the Descent series, the Tomb Raider series, Prince of Persia, Thief, the Descent Freespace series, and Magic Carpet). Most of these games are old, but quite frankly, there's nothing that matches them in gameplay on the market. The only doom-like game I ever liked was Wolfenstein, and everything else has been a clone of that. Sorry, but this whole Quake/Unreal/Halflife thing just doesn't impress me much: lots of blood being spilled and typical macho-voices from fake-looking aliens isn't my idea of a good time.
Games like Prince of Persia and Magic Carpet are still fun, despite vastly inferior (and even -- gasp -- 2D graphics) are still fun. Nothing on the market today comes close to the mystique of the Tomb Raider series (despite many a crack at this series, I think its popular because people like exploring ancient stuff and the scenery, not b/c of LC's "assets"). Tomb Raider is to the gaming world as Indiana Jones is to the moview world. Also, having a woman as the center of focus is a refreshing change from the typical macho-ism in the doom-like games.
Finally, I have yet to encounter a game that's anywhere near Descent 1, 2, or 3 in terms of the freedom it offers you, and the great multiplayer fun. Nor would I likely be receptive to anything (unless it comes from Interplay/Outrage) trying to mimic that. Because Descent was so unique, anything like it seems like a cheap rip off (sorry games like Terracide and Forsaken [which only sold because of the near-naked chick on the cover] come to mind).
I own all of these games, and I think its only fair to ask that graphics companies releasing new GPU's at least ensure their GPU's perform as well on these older games as older GPU's. Its freakin' outrageous that a Voodoo 2 or 3 outperforms a GeForce 2 in Descent 3 and Descent 2.
Lets see, nVidia OWNS all the proprietary information on Glide. They could make a port which would allow their drivers to play Glide-only games. No, there's nothing idiotic about that suggestion. I buy a new graphics card, I expect it to provide superior performance over my old one in all areas -- that includes old games, like Descent 1 & 2, and Tomb Raider I, which I think are better than almost all recent games (except Descent 3 and TR 2 - 5, of course).
Re:Don't Underestimate nVidia's [Alleged] "Cheatin
on
The Age of Nvidia
·
· Score: 2
Ultimately, they're the biggest because they're cards are the best. I wouldn't buy an nVidia card just because their stock prices inflated.
Stock-inflating or not, they make the best graphics cards. Not to mention, their shareholders in this case can be happy, because if they did use creative booking, it ultimately benefitted them: i.e., now they're reaping the benefits.
As for the financial mis-statements, until we get something solid, its all conjecture and speculation. In that regard, we know Enron acted illegally, and we know that so did Global Crossings. However, the punishment is affected by the outcome: in the case of Enron and Global Crossings, thousands of employees were laid off and investers were screwed over. In the case of nVidia, investors are almost assured continually rising stock prices and the consumers are very happy.
Not that I'm saying it would be OK if nVidia were to become a monopoly; should that happen, they're products will become inferior (like MS') due to lack of competition, and they'll undoubtely use black-ball tactics, as is a trademark of all monopolies.
nVidia does have serious competition from ATI. But ATI would do well to start supporting Linux better. Also, ATI probably should switch to a shorter development cycle -- he who takes many small steps rather than one big step is less likely to fall on his ass. Furthermore, ATI is consistently plagued by performance problems -- ATI chips released to-date often don't perform as well as nVidia chips released 6 months ago.
But ATI is very smart to Open-source their drivers. nVidia would do well to do that too: graphics companies don't make any money off of the "drivers" they make; just the GPU's. Also, if nVidia open-sourced their drivers, many people would offer improvements, which would make nVidia chips more stable and "faster".
Re:They are on top, but they may fall
on
The Age of Nvidia
·
· Score: 2
The minute someone comes out with an all-around solution better than Nvidia's -- meaning performance, looks, stability, and OS support -- I'll drop them like a load of hot bricks and go to the better one.
Yes, actually MS did get on top by dirty business tricks -- like stabbing IBM in the back, trademarking "Windows", using Apple's IP, purposefully introducing backwards incompatabilities to force upgrades, OEM-blackballing, and so on and so forth.
Well, lets see, we could do a long long long analysis of why they're so successful, or we could just state the obvious.
They are the most successful GPU company because they make the best, highest-quality, fastest GPU's, and make a wide variety of them: models designed for gamers, for graphics designers, for businesses. Not to mention, they support a broad range of OS' very well: Windows, Linux, MacOSX, and at one time BeOS. Not only do they support other OS' such as Linux, but their drivers for Linux are actually damn good: benchmarks show that Nvidia Linux drivers operate about 99% as well as Windows drivers.
This isn't like MS where they're on top because of dirty business practices. They're on top plain and simple because they make the best products, from every angle imaginable. Best quality, best performance, best OS-support.
This isn't to say that they're infallible, or always make the right decision. Personally, I think its rather idiotic of them not to support Glide in their GeForce drivers, as Glide offers vastly superior performance in games which use it.
Even research on human embryo's should be legal -- Roe v. Wade (and Casey) clearly state that embryo's are NOT PERSONS and have NO RIGHTS (at least not before the end of the first trimester). Thus, any research on human embryo's is clearly protected under Roe v. Wade (and Casey) at least until the embryo reaches the third trimester.
But research and patents are two different things. Research is about discovery, and using that discovery for progress. Patents are about ownership, more specifically invention. No one can claim ownership over any form of life; furthermore, no one can claim to have "invented a life". Claims that companies should be able to say patent "oil-eating bacteria" ignore the fact that such "inventions" are really modifications of things naturally evolved, which belong to us all (or to "God" or "mother nature" if you believe in that sort of nonsense). Furthermore, I oppose patents on life for becaues patents on life do not promote progress and in fact hinder it, by creating barriers for future researchers. Furthermore, patents on life deny the the public important treatments and cures, which would otherwise be provided in a competitive marketplace at lower costs.
I oppose patents in general, as they are completely unnecessary. Business patents and the like are pure bullshit -- successful business practices produce their own rewards. Furthermore, all patents are unnecessary because of "finders fees". See Lawrence Lessig and "The Future of Ideas".
Ok, so they're talking about a law that says software producers can be liable.
We know no details, yet are already saying this law could be the end of OSS. Please. For one thing, anyone can contribute to OSS anonymously, thus eliminating liability.
Also, there can be exemptions in the law for FSF, OSS, free, and other humanitarian-ware. It doesn't make sense to have liability for people who give stuff away freely.
Also, even for corps like MS, these laws don't necessarily mean every flaw is something they can be sued for and held liable for. The wording of the law will tell exactly how liable they are. Should MS be held liable if there's a small bug in its GUI, which was easy to miss? No. Should they be held liable if there's a major flaw which causes massive data loss, or if there's virus or otherwise malicious code in their software? Yes.
Yes, software isn't like cars. But we can still treat it like cars -- anything that was very serious and major should have been caught; minor things are not a big deal.
If Ford makes a car and the heated seats don't work, that isn't cause for a lawsuit. Similarly, if MS makes an OS and some erroneous extra feature doesn't work, that's not cause for a lawsuit either.
However, if Ford makes cars with airbags that don't open, they should be held liable. Similarly, if MS releases a new OS which destroys your data upon shutdown, they should be held liable.
I have a PC. There is no manual eject button for CD's. If I insert one of these CD's, my computer will NEVER START UP AGAIN. Time to sue these fucks. I'll make sure to list in compensation that their DEFECTIVE DISC destroyed thousands of dollars worth of music that I'd downloaded off of KazaaLite/LimeWire.
I really don't see the big deal, since everyone knows Linux is covered under the GPL and that much of the software in Linux dist's was made by the FSF.
But is it really that much to ask for, that in official things, high ranking members of the community call it GNU/Linux?
Linux would be nowhere without the FSF / GNU. Most of the apps in Linux were made by the FSF. The license that protects Linux from corporate raiders was pioneered by Stallman.
I'll admit, I don't say GNU/Linux regularly. In normal-day life, I simply say Linux. And I don't think that Stallman's asking that we always refer to it as GNU/Linux, even in casual talk -- just in formal discussions or conferences, etc.
When I introduce myself to one of my friend's friend's, I say, "Hi, I'm Dave." My e-mail tag says "--Dave H." But neither of those situations are formal. When I'm on a job interview, I say, "Hello, I am David Heinrich".
We recognize that there is a time to be casual and a time to be formal when speaking of ourself, clothing ourselves, and so on and so forth. Why can't we recognize that for software too?
Really, people are trying to write this guy out of the history of GNU/Linux, because they think he's that radical that scares everyone away from their cause. But without him -- or without someone strongly maintaining the ideals of Free Software -- it all falls apart.
I don't agree with everyone Stallman says. Anyone who agrees with everything someone else says (i.e., a religious person who goes to church) is a complete fucking moron. But just because I don't agree with him on everything -- even alot of things -- doesn't mean I don't respect the man and his ideals.
Stallman represents the idealist any movement must have. And he's not some wacky guy saying stuff and doing nothing. He does things to bring his ideals closer to reality. Linus and others like him represent the pragmatic wings of the movement; the idea should be to bring what is possibly in reality closer to what ideals demand.
These are some benchmarks the scientific community will be interested in:
(1) See how long it takes each machine to completely align a large gene (i.e., 500+ nucleotides) for a large number of isolates (i.e., 30+).
(2) See how long it takes each machine to complete a maximum likelihood hueristics search using a large gene and a large number of isolates, to determine the phylogeny of the isolates.
I use Windows, and I like MS' Media Player. It is good. It's not the best audio player, but its a good audio/video combination.
MS Media player is vastly superior to Real and Apple players. However, in terms of sound, its not nearly as good as WinAmp or FreeAmp. MS Media Player has managed not to become as bloated as Apple's and Real's products, but its still bloated. What's the point of those large buttons on the left side of it? MS should've stuck with the classic format.
Anyways, it isn't as good as WinAmp for music, and isn't as good as DivXPlaya for video.
Despite Media Player being good, that doesn't justify MS' abuses of its OS position to force people to use Win Media Player. People and OEM's should have the choice about what software the OS uses to play media file, NOT MS.
Young lawyers, there's no need to be down I said, young lawyers, pick yourself off the ground I said, young lawyers, cause your in a new town There's no need to be unhappy Young lawyers, there law where you can go I said, young lawyers, when you're short on your dough You can use that law, and I'm sure you'll find Many ways to sue a good time. Its fun to sue with the D.M.C.A Its fun to sue with the Dee-Em-See-A It has lots of legal cahces for lawyers to enjoy You can hang out with all the MPAA-boys Its fun to sue with the D.M.C.A Its fun to sue with the Dee-Em-See-A You can sue them till they're sucked clean You can, off their money, have a good meal You can sue them well whenever you feel Young lawyers, are you listening to me I said young lawyers, what do you want to be I said young lawyers, you can sue in your dreams but you've got to know this one thing No lawyers, does it all by himself I said young lawyers, put your put your pride on the shelf And just go there, to the D.M.C.A I'm sure the MPAA lawyers can help you today Its fun to sue with the D.M.C.A Its fun to sue with the Dee-Em-See-A It has everything for young lawyers to enjoy Lots of nice little legal toys Its fun to sue with the D.M.C.A Its fun to sue with the Dee-Em-See-A . . .
Like anyone actually buys crap from ads on TV anyways.
A new technology comes along, which allows us users to save time, not having to spend so much time out of our busy day watching commercials, that's just fucking tough for advertisers.
Furthermore, intelligent advertisers have started to insert "ads" into TV shows. For example, All My Children promotes cosmetics company Revlon within the show, by having one of their actresses take a job at Revlon within the show.
As a command-line user, I understand the value of not logging in as root all the time.
However, most Mac users couldn't use a command line if their life depended on it and probably don't even know that MacOSX has a command line.
The MacOSX user who's a classic mac user will probably never use the command line; if they have to rename a thousand files to add an extension or a prefix or whatever, they'll do it by hand, not by using a tcsh script.
So, the question is, how much damage can one do from the MacOSX GUI at root? I don't know. I have accounts on other ppl's MacOSX computer (namely, at my University) but have never been logged in as root.
Of course, not logging in as root doesn't only protect you from yourself. It also protects you from "trogan" install programs, which say they'll do one thing, and in fact delete the entire hard drive or something else like that.
Not to be too poetical, but this is a threat to the net.
The entire internet is based around deep linking.
Imagine how much of a pain in the ass the net would be if NO ONE used deep linking, and ONLY linked to the home page. Worse yet, I have a road runner website: so can TimeWarner/AOL force people who want to link to my site to "link to the road runner homepage, and give instructions on how to get to my site"? That's nonsense.
So, you lame corporate spamming fucks, if you don't like deep linking, GET THE FUCK OFF THE NET! As if corporations have actually done anything useful for the net anyways.
Sorry if you don't like deep linking, but its a fact of the net. Putting up a website and then saying, "but no one can deep link" is like buying a car and then bitching about how crazy everyone drives. You don't like how other people drive? Get the fuck off the road, then, old man.
Deep linking is, simply put, a fact of the net; and a good fact. There are many other good facts of the net -- file sharing, freedom to express alternate ideas anonymously by creating accounts from public computers, etc -- but deep linking is one of the most important ones.
Not only does deep linking SAVE the netizen time and pain, but it also SAVES the netizen bandwidth because he doesn't have to download useless ads. But corporate netinazi's don't like that; they try to say that a netizen who uses a deep link or makes one is a neticrook. But really, these netinazi's should be happy, because deep linking saves THEM bandwidth too. Why should they want to use all the upload bandwidth to navigate a user through several layers of their site, when that user knows specifically where (s)he wants to go?
I argue to embrace and extend deep linking by creating a few scripts for your home page which allow users to view "stories" and "images" from other pages in a defined box on your page.
Make a script that goes to the desired link -- automatically logging in with your user ID (if necessary) so that your user doesn't have to log in -- and retrieving the desired text and images ONLY, and placing them, reformatted, in the box. This way, the person visiting your website doesn't have to get any unnecessary crap.
Selfish DNA. There's nothing absurd about it. The human genome is very sloppy, and most of our DNA is composed of various selfish elements, such as LTRs, retrotransposons, etc. Selfish elements for the timing of transcription? I assume your getting at the idea that that 90% of non-coding DNA is just there to slow down the cell cycle so it doesn't go too fast? That's laughable; that's like saying that if I'm riding a bike and want to slow down, I stuff a stick in the spokes, rather than press the brakes. There are mechanisms to make sure the cell cycle doesn't go by too quickly, as well as regulatory mechanisms. Its a stretch to think that the approach arrived at by evolution was to jam the replicative machinery by having 90% non-coding DNA.
You have to think about it in terms of selective pressure. Once a selfish element such as an LTR gets into our genome, it has the evolutionary advantage. The selective pressure on it to maintain itself in the genome is great; however, the selective pressure on the host (us) to remove it is minute because it has a marginal effect.
Are you saying that somehow our eye color or the color of our hair is responsible for the probability of contracting certain diseases?
Granted, blue eye color (for example) may be linked with a certain disease because it may be close to that allele; however, to state that such things cause diseases is absurd.
The link appears to be slashdotted already, as it produces an error page on my browser.
Btw, something I don't understand about the slashdot effect. If slashdot can take all of these users who MUST have come to slashdot before following the link, how comes th sites to which slashdot links crash when slashdot users go there?
Slashdot Mirror
I would say who gives a about 2D, because graphics cards are mostly for 3D rendering and gaming. But, since I do have a DVD player, is it a cards 2D quality that affects how well the card displays DVD videos?
Gamers are not loyal at all to graphics companies, whether it be nVidia, 3dfx, or ATI.
However, gamers ARE very loyal to games they love. As I said in an earlier post, I'm loyal to some of my beloved games like Descent 1 - 3 and Tombraider 1 - 5. So loyal, in fact, that I won't buy graphicsc cards which don't work well with these games.
Graphics card companies would be wise to recognize that gamers are more than simply graphics-freaks always hopping on the latest eye-candy game. This is partly because you fall in love with games just like with cars, and partly because of gameplay. It seems like most games that come out just plain suck. So diamonds in the rough like Descent or Tomb Raider (or to some people with poor taste, Doom-like games) are highly revered.
You have good points, though I think these companies would have failed anyways. The model of long update cycles just doesn't work in an industry where new games bring previously "excellent" graphics cards to their knees as a matter of course. nVidia's 6-month cycle was and is impressive, but nothing "herculean". They don't release revolutionized cards every 6 months -- they release incrementally improved versions every 6 months. For example, consider the GeForce 2, GeForce 3, and GeForce 4. The GF4 isn't worth the cost of upgrading over the GF3; but its definately a big improvement over the GF2. Similarly with the GF3 to the GF2.
Not only that, but nVidia continues to maintain their fast update cycles, even though competition is not very sturdy.
Should nVidia be found guilty of foul business practices, I would hope that nothing would be done which would hinder nVidia's great fast update process and superior products.
Also, I think your view that nVidia's success was the reason why other GPU companies failed is rather 19th century (i.e., zero sum game) economics. The stockholdes who invested in nVidia because of "colorful accounting", if they hadn't invested in nVidia, would they have invested in dead-end prospects like 3dfx, which was continually delaying the release of new products?
The truth is, 3dfx died because they made the gamer wait to long for their newest products. Telling consumers, "our latest greatest revolutionary GPU will be delayed another 6 months," again and again is a great way to piss of consumers, and not a good business model.
You read the article. 3dfx made a series of abysmally poor business choices.
The only thing to mourn in 3dfx's passing is that the company acquiring it, nVidia, doesn't see the wisdom in catering to current GeForce-owners and making GeForce drivers so that it works with older Glide-only games.
This is surely a weak-point in nVidia, and may be a key point for competitors. Many gamers are not much impressed by the latest and greatest graphics, but poor gameplay. I haven't bought a new game in over a year precisely because nothing on the market now is more fun to play than the games I already own (which include Janes USAF, the Descent series, the Tomb Raider series, Prince of Persia, Thief, the Descent Freespace series, and Magic Carpet). Most of these games are old, but quite frankly, there's nothing that matches them in gameplay on the market. The only doom-like game I ever liked was Wolfenstein, and everything else has been a clone of that. Sorry, but this whole Quake/Unreal/Halflife thing just doesn't impress me much: lots of blood being spilled and typical macho-voices from fake-looking aliens isn't my idea of a good time.
Games like Prince of Persia and Magic Carpet are still fun, despite vastly inferior (and even -- gasp -- 2D graphics) are still fun. Nothing on the market today comes close to the mystique of the Tomb Raider series (despite many a crack at this series, I think its popular because people like exploring ancient stuff and the scenery, not b/c of LC's "assets"). Tomb Raider is to the gaming world as Indiana Jones is to the moview world. Also, having a woman as the center of focus is a refreshing change from the typical macho-ism in the doom-like games.
Finally, I have yet to encounter a game that's anywhere near Descent 1, 2, or 3 in terms of the freedom it offers you, and the great multiplayer fun. Nor would I likely be receptive to anything (unless it comes from Interplay/Outrage) trying to mimic that. Because Descent was so unique, anything like it seems like a cheap rip off (sorry games like Terracide and Forsaken [which only sold because of the near-naked chick on the cover] come to mind).
I own all of these games, and I think its only fair to ask that graphics companies releasing new GPU's at least ensure their GPU's perform as well on these older games as older GPU's. Its freakin' outrageous that a Voodoo 2 or 3 outperforms a GeForce 2 in Descent 3 and Descent 2.
Lets see, nVidia OWNS all the proprietary information on Glide. They could make a port which would allow their drivers to play Glide-only games. No, there's nothing idiotic about that suggestion. I buy a new graphics card, I expect it to provide superior performance over my old one in all areas -- that includes old games, like Descent 1 & 2, and Tomb Raider I, which I think are better than almost all recent games (except Descent 3 and TR 2 - 5, of course).
Ultimately, they're the biggest because they're cards are the best. I wouldn't buy an nVidia card just because their stock prices inflated.
Stock-inflating or not, they make the best graphics cards. Not to mention, their shareholders in this case can be happy, because if they did use creative booking, it ultimately benefitted them: i.e., now they're reaping the benefits.
As for the financial mis-statements, until we get something solid, its all conjecture and speculation. In that regard, we know Enron acted illegally, and we know that so did Global Crossings. However, the punishment is affected by the outcome: in the case of Enron and Global Crossings, thousands of employees were laid off and investers were screwed over. In the case of nVidia, investors are almost assured continually rising stock prices and the consumers are very happy.
Not that I'm saying it would be OK if nVidia were to become a monopoly; should that happen, they're products will become inferior (like MS') due to lack of competition, and they'll undoubtely use black-ball tactics, as is a trademark of all monopolies.
nVidia does have serious competition from ATI. But ATI would do well to start supporting Linux better. Also, ATI probably should switch to a shorter development cycle -- he who takes many small steps rather than one big step is less likely to fall on his ass. Furthermore, ATI is consistently plagued by performance problems -- ATI chips released to-date often don't perform as well as nVidia chips released 6 months ago.
But ATI is very smart to Open-source their drivers. nVidia would do well to do that too: graphics companies don't make any money off of the "drivers" they make; just the GPU's. Also, if nVidia open-sourced their drivers, many people would offer improvements, which would make nVidia chips more stable and "faster".
The minute someone comes out with an all-around solution better than Nvidia's -- meaning performance, looks, stability, and OS support -- I'll drop them like a load of hot bricks and go to the better one.
Ok, so it didn't support BeOS very well. Name one graphics company that even tried? Did Radeon even try? Nope.
Anyways, nVidia offers awesome support for Linux.
Yes, actually MS did get on top by dirty business tricks -- like stabbing IBM in the back, trademarking "Windows", using Apple's IP, purposefully introducing backwards incompatabilities to force upgrades, OEM-blackballing, and so on and so forth.
If ATI cards are so much better, how come every benchmark shows Nvidia wiping the floor with ATI? All a vast "Nvidia-wing" conspiracy?
Well, lets see, we could do a long long long analysis of why they're so successful, or we could just state the obvious.
They are the most successful GPU company because they make the best, highest-quality, fastest GPU's, and make a wide variety of them: models designed for gamers, for graphics designers, for businesses. Not to mention, they support a broad range of OS' very well: Windows, Linux, MacOSX, and at one time BeOS. Not only do they support other OS' such as Linux, but their drivers for Linux are actually damn good: benchmarks show that Nvidia Linux drivers operate about 99% as well as Windows drivers.
This isn't like MS where they're on top because of dirty business practices. They're on top plain and simple because they make the best products, from every angle imaginable. Best quality, best performance, best OS-support.
This isn't to say that they're infallible, or always make the right decision. Personally, I think its rather idiotic of them not to support Glide in their GeForce drivers, as Glide offers vastly superior performance in games which use it.
Perl is great, but its not essential. Its not a part of the operating system and should NOT be a mandatory install.
Life should be researchable, but not patentable.
Even research on human embryo's should be legal -- Roe v. Wade (and Casey) clearly state that embryo's are NOT PERSONS and have NO RIGHTS (at least not before the end of the first trimester). Thus, any research on human embryo's is clearly protected under Roe v. Wade (and Casey) at least until the embryo reaches the third trimester.
But research and patents are two different things. Research is about discovery, and using that discovery for progress. Patents are about ownership, more specifically invention. No one can claim ownership over any form of life; furthermore, no one can claim to have "invented a life". Claims that companies should be able to say patent "oil-eating bacteria" ignore the fact that such "inventions" are really modifications of things naturally evolved, which belong to us all (or to "God" or "mother nature" if you believe in that sort of nonsense). Furthermore, I oppose patents on life for becaues patents on life do not promote progress and in fact hinder it, by creating barriers for future researchers. Furthermore, patents on life deny the the public important treatments and cures, which would otherwise be provided in a competitive marketplace at lower costs.
I oppose patents in general, as they are completely unnecessary. Business patents and the like are pure bullshit -- successful business practices produce their own rewards. Furthermore, all patents are unnecessary because of "finders fees". See Lawrence Lessig and "The Future of Ideas".
Ok, so they're talking about a law that says software producers can be liable.
We know no details, yet are already saying this law could be the end of OSS. Please. For one thing, anyone can contribute to OSS anonymously, thus eliminating liability.
Also, there can be exemptions in the law for FSF, OSS, free, and other humanitarian-ware. It doesn't make sense to have liability for people who give stuff away freely.
Also, even for corps like MS, these laws don't necessarily mean every flaw is something they can be sued for and held liable for. The wording of the law will tell exactly how liable they are. Should MS be held liable if there's a small bug in its GUI, which was easy to miss? No. Should they be held liable if there's a major flaw which causes massive data loss, or if there's virus or otherwise malicious code in their software? Yes.
Yes, software isn't like cars. But we can still treat it like cars -- anything that was very serious and major should have been caught; minor things are not a big deal.
If Ford makes a car and the heated seats don't work, that isn't cause for a lawsuit. Similarly, if MS makes an OS and some erroneous extra feature doesn't work, that's not cause for a lawsuit either.
However, if Ford makes cars with airbags that don't open, they should be held liable. Similarly, if MS releases a new OS which destroys your data upon shutdown, they should be held liable.
I have a PC. There is no manual eject button for CD's. If I insert one of these CD's, my computer will NEVER START UP AGAIN. Time to sue these fucks. I'll make sure to list in compensation that their DEFECTIVE DISC destroyed thousands of dollars worth of music that I'd downloaded off of KazaaLite/LimeWire.
I really don't see the big deal, since everyone knows Linux is covered under the GPL and that much of the software in Linux dist's was made by the FSF.
But is it really that much to ask for, that in official things, high ranking members of the community call it GNU/Linux?
Linux would be nowhere without the FSF / GNU. Most of the apps in Linux were made by the FSF. The license that protects Linux from corporate raiders was pioneered by Stallman.
I'll admit, I don't say GNU/Linux regularly. In normal-day life, I simply say Linux. And I don't think that Stallman's asking that we always refer to it as GNU/Linux, even in casual talk -- just in formal discussions or conferences, etc.
When I introduce myself to one of my friend's friend's, I say, "Hi, I'm Dave." My e-mail tag says "--Dave H." But neither of those situations are formal. When I'm on a job interview, I say, "Hello, I am David Heinrich".
We recognize that there is a time to be casual and a time to be formal when speaking of ourself, clothing ourselves, and so on and so forth. Why can't we recognize that for software too?
Really, people are trying to write this guy out of the history of GNU/Linux, because they think he's that radical that scares everyone away from their cause. But without him -- or without someone strongly maintaining the ideals of Free Software -- it all falls apart.
I don't agree with everyone Stallman says. Anyone who agrees with everything someone else says (i.e., a religious person who goes to church) is a complete fucking moron. But just because I don't agree with him on everything -- even alot of things -- doesn't mean I don't respect the man and his ideals.
Stallman represents the idealist any movement must have. And he's not some wacky guy saying stuff and doing nothing. He does things to bring his ideals closer to reality. Linus and others like him represent the pragmatic wings of the movement; the idea should be to bring what is possibly in reality closer to what ideals demand.
These are some benchmarks the scientific community will be interested in:
(1) See how long it takes each machine to completely align a large gene (i.e., 500+ nucleotides) for a large number of isolates (i.e., 30+).
(2) See how long it takes each machine to complete a maximum likelihood hueristics search using a large gene and a large number of isolates, to determine the phylogeny of the isolates.
(3) Etc.
I use Windows, and I like MS' Media Player. It is good. It's not the best audio player, but its a good audio/video combination.
MS Media player is vastly superior to Real and Apple players. However, in terms of sound, its not nearly as good as WinAmp or FreeAmp. MS Media Player has managed not to become as bloated as Apple's and Real's products, but its still bloated. What's the point of those large buttons on the left side of it? MS should've stuck with the classic format.
Anyways, it isn't as good as WinAmp for music, and isn't as good as DivXPlaya for video.
Despite Media Player being good, that doesn't justify MS' abuses of its OS position to force people to use Win Media Player. People and OEM's should have the choice about what software the OS uses to play media file, NOT MS.
Young lawyers, there's no need to be down
I said, young lawyers, pick yourself off the ground
I said, young lawyers, cause your in a new town
There's no need to be unhappy
Young lawyers, there law where you can go
I said, young lawyers, when you're short on your dough
You can use that law, and I'm sure you'll find
Many ways to sue a good time.
Its fun to sue with the D.M.C.A
Its fun to sue with the Dee-Em-See-A
It has lots of legal cahces for lawyers to enjoy
You can hang out with all the MPAA-boys
Its fun to sue with the D.M.C.A
Its fun to sue with the Dee-Em-See-A
You can sue them till they're sucked clean
You can, off their money, have a good meal
You can sue them well whenever you feel
Young lawyers, are you listening to me
I said young lawyers, what do you want to be
I said young lawyers, you can sue in your dreams
but you've got to know this one thing
No lawyers, does it all by himself
I said young lawyers, put your put your pride on the shelf
And just go there, to the D.M.C.A
I'm sure the MPAA lawyers can help you today
Its fun to sue with the D.M.C.A
Its fun to sue with the Dee-Em-See-A
It has everything for young lawyers to enjoy
Lots of nice little legal toys
Its fun to sue with the D.M.C.A
Its fun to sue with the Dee-Em-See-A
.
.
.
Like anyone actually buys crap from ads on TV anyways.
A new technology comes along, which allows us users to save time, not having to spend so much time out of our busy day watching commercials, that's just fucking tough for advertisers.
Furthermore, intelligent advertisers have started to insert "ads" into TV shows. For example, All My Children promotes cosmetics company Revlon within the show, by having one of their actresses take a job at Revlon within the show.
As a command-line user, I understand the value of not logging in as root all the time.
However, most Mac users couldn't use a command line if their life depended on it and probably don't even know that MacOSX has a command line.
The MacOSX user who's a classic mac user will probably never use the command line; if they have to rename a thousand files to add an extension or a prefix or whatever, they'll do it by hand, not by using a tcsh script.
So, the question is, how much damage can one do from the MacOSX GUI at root? I don't know. I have accounts on other ppl's MacOSX computer (namely, at my University) but have never been logged in as root.
Of course, not logging in as root doesn't only protect you from yourself. It also protects you from "trogan" install programs, which say they'll do one thing, and in fact delete the entire hard drive or something else like that.
Not to be too poetical, but this is a threat to the net.
The entire internet is based around deep linking.
Imagine how much of a pain in the ass the net would be if NO ONE used deep linking, and ONLY linked to the home page. Worse yet, I have a road runner website: so can TimeWarner/AOL force people who want to link to my site to "link to the road runner homepage, and give instructions on how to get to my site"? That's nonsense.
So, you lame corporate spamming fucks, if you don't like deep linking, GET THE FUCK OFF THE NET! As if corporations have actually done anything useful for the net anyways.
Sorry if you don't like deep linking, but its a fact of the net. Putting up a website and then saying, "but no one can deep link" is like buying a car and then bitching about how crazy everyone drives. You don't like how other people drive? Get the fuck off the road, then, old man.
Deep linking is, simply put, a fact of the net; and a good fact. There are many other good facts of the net -- file sharing, freedom to express alternate ideas anonymously by creating accounts from public computers, etc -- but deep linking is one of the most important ones.
Not only does deep linking SAVE the netizen time and pain, but it also SAVES the netizen bandwidth because he doesn't have to download useless ads. But corporate netinazi's don't like that; they try to say that a netizen who uses a deep link or makes one is a neticrook. But really, these netinazi's should be happy, because deep linking saves THEM bandwidth too. Why should they want to use all the upload bandwidth to navigate a user through several layers of their site, when that user knows specifically where (s)he wants to go?
I argue to embrace and extend deep linking by creating a few scripts for your home page which allow users to view "stories" and "images" from other pages in a defined box on your page.
Make a script that goes to the desired link -- automatically logging in with your user ID (if necessary) so that your user doesn't have to log in -- and retrieving the desired text and images ONLY, and placing them, reformatted, in the box. This way, the person visiting your website doesn't have to get any unnecessary crap.
The first part of your response, I agree with.
However, you run afoul in:
Selfish DNA. There's nothing absurd about it. The human genome is very sloppy, and most of our DNA is composed of various selfish elements, such as LTRs, retrotransposons, etc. Selfish elements for the timing of transcription? I assume your getting at the idea that that 90% of non-coding DNA is just there to slow down the cell cycle so it doesn't go too fast? That's laughable; that's like saying that if I'm riding a bike and want to slow down, I stuff a stick in the spokes, rather than press the brakes. There are mechanisms to make sure the cell cycle doesn't go by too quickly, as well as regulatory mechanisms. Its a stretch to think that the approach arrived at by evolution was to jam the replicative machinery by having 90% non-coding DNA.
You have to think about it in terms of selective pressure. Once a selfish element such as an LTR gets into our genome, it has the evolutionary advantage. The selective pressure on it to maintain itself in the genome is great; however, the selective pressure on the host (us) to remove it is minute because it has a marginal effect.
Are you saying that somehow our eye color or the color of our hair is responsible for the probability of contracting certain diseases?
Granted, blue eye color (for example) may be linked with a certain disease because it may be close to that allele; however, to state that such things cause diseases is absurd.
The link appears to be slashdotted already, as it produces an error page on my browser.
Btw, something I don't understand about the slashdot effect. If slashdot can take all of these users who MUST have come to slashdot before following the link, how comes th sites to which slashdot links crash when slashdot users go there?
Wish I'd known about this before I spent 300 dollars on MS Office 2000.
Really, these guys are v. smart by releasing both a version for Windows and Linux.