And once again, when called on your idiocy, you move the goalposts. You literally said that every government program ever failed, yet using a network designed in a government program. It matters not what you natter on about the current budget or whether or not the private sector could have done it, your point is disproved.
And that is why you are a libertard. Plus the fact that you can't distinguish an insult from an argument.
There is a reason that every government program ends up in a disaster.
And once again a libertard posts this screed using a network designed in a government program, using a protocol designed in a government program to exchange documents.
That you are smart enough to not forget to breathe is a miracle.
As I said, I have rarely seen video problems, and most of them I've seen on machines that were not powerful enough to decode modern codecs at the prerequisite framerates to run multiple video streams.
Short of actual numbers, all we have is anecdotes of people saying 'X video playback sucks' and people saying 'works for me'. That in itself is no ground to make decisions on.
I have rarely seen problems with multiple video streams, and only on systems where decoding the video was the bottleneck. Rendering has always been as good as on Windows (which pre-XP wasn't very good either).
As for pro-Wayland: I think there is a misunderstanding; I am not arguing in favour of or against Wayland, I am arguing against what in my view are shortsighted and badly founded claims against X.
Sure, it's old and complex code, that takes some getting used to. Throwing it away is however not the answer. Xorg was a step in the right direction, and I wonder why people gave up on that and started pushing the new hotness (aside from the CADT model applying, of course).
You are begging the question that there is something wrong with social engineering to get rid of 'traditional values'. May I remind you that this wholly depends on what those traditional values actually are?
In other words, they're too inefficient and can't handle the competition, so they make up a stupid excuse that the right wing loonies at home will eat up.
In case you hadn't noticed, one of Europe's biggest tire makers has obviously no problems with French labour culture, so it is fairly obvious that it is Titan that has a problem, not France.
On modern X servers the video buffer is shared, and media playback is done by direct writes into a shared buffer. If I am wrong, or you mean something different, can you provide a link? (And on a side note, I've never seen systematic video problems traceable back to X, only incidental ones, and no system is free from those).
X worked in days when the network standards were slower and less responsive, and today it should be worse? If there is too much communication, that is partly bad toolkit design. The alternatives of shoving full bitmap images over the lines for remote rendering can hardly improve the situation.
Boohoo. Complex problems lead to complex code. Oh those poor programmers, they don't get to reinvent the wheel for fame and glory. Fuck them.
If the folks who care about 'the proper scope of government' did a better job of keeping the racism out of their ranks, they'd not have to worry about being accused of it so much.
A few bad apples spoil the bunch, and I haven't seen the US libertarians do a good job of keeping the bad apples out. In point of fact they seem to lionise them (see: Ron Paul).
I have done all you say is impossible, with little to no issues. So now we have competing anecdotes, how about next time you provide some actual data to go with your FUD?
And yet you completely skip over the point that most of the 19th Century prosperity in the USA was made on the work of the Federal army in cleaning out those pesky natives from the resources the settlers wanted.
Scratch a libertard, find a good old-fashioned oligarch underneath.
Don't know about OP, but I would have serious issues if that was all there was, yes.
Fortunately the judges did not look at just the previous convictions, but as much at the pattern of travel to places known to be friendly to child prostitution.
This is very informative. It tells us that the only source for the 'snitch' allegation is a quote from another Murdoch publication.
Once again the Murdoch empire shows its true colours. Given their behaviour, and Rupert's insatiable hunger for media monopoly, I will assume until I have seen proof otherwise that this is an orchestrated hit piece to slander the legislative process in the EU, in order to deflect attention away from the rapaciousness of News Corp and its subsidiaries.
Actually, it would help a lot to be confronted with something out of the ordinary. A challenge to your assumptions makes you examine them, and this examination teaches you not just about the new thing, but also about the things you already know.
All this assumes an ideal situation of course. The news coming out of the US shows us that fairly large swatches of the population would rather stay safe in their cozy assumptions.
Oh boy. Another one who can't read statistics. Yes, I was talking about actual gun crimes, not just the overall crime rate. So sorry that I didn't specify that, that was my mistake, but anyone who hasn't pro-gun blinders on would have known I was talking about that, as that was what the subthread starter was talking about.
As for violent crimes, you do know that the UK classes things as violent crime that don't even show up in the US statistics, right? You do know that, or are you relying on what the NRA tells you?
And for you and Mr. Slippery: continue to assume that I am against private gun ownership. You'd be making fools of yourself, but that is not my problem.
But nobody is making that point, except for the strawmen thrown up by the gun fanbois.
The point was that the mostly unarmed population and police of Great Britain didn't seem to be suffering a larger amount of crime, which was what the gun fanboi who started this subthread implicated: no self-protection in the form of guns would create more victims.
Also, the guardrail is usually situated on a soft shoulder. One of the wheels suddenly entering a surface with different traction characteristics is asking for a car to end up careening all over the motorway.
Slashdot Mirror
And once again, when called on your idiocy, you move the goalposts. You literally said that every government program ever failed, yet using a network designed in a government program. It matters not what you natter on about the current budget or whether or not the private sector could have done it, your point is disproved.
And that is why you are a libertard. Plus the fact that you can't distinguish an insult from an argument.
And once again a libertard posts this screed using a network designed in a government program, using a protocol designed in a government program to exchange documents.
That you are smart enough to not forget to breathe is a miracle.
And yet I run an Intel 945 and I see none of the problems you describe.
Again, anecdotes do not make for reliable data.
As I said, I have rarely seen video problems, and most of them I've seen on machines that were not powerful enough to decode modern codecs at the prerequisite framerates to run multiple video streams.
Short of actual numbers, all we have is anecdotes of people saying 'X video playback sucks' and people saying 'works for me'. That in itself is no ground to make decisions on.
I have rarely seen problems with multiple video streams, and only on systems where decoding the video was the bottleneck. Rendering has always been as good as on Windows (which pre-XP wasn't very good either).
As for pro-Wayland: I think there is a misunderstanding; I am not arguing in favour of or against Wayland, I am arguing against what in my view are shortsighted and badly founded claims against X.
Sure, it's old and complex code, that takes some getting used to. Throwing it away is however not the answer. Xorg was a step in the right direction, and I wonder why people gave up on that and started pushing the new hotness (aside from the CADT model applying, of course).
You are begging the question that there is something wrong with social engineering to get rid of 'traditional values'. May I remind you that this wholly depends on what those traditional values actually are?
In other words, they're too inefficient and can't handle the competition, so they make up a stupid excuse that the right wing loonies at home will eat up.
In case you hadn't noticed, one of Europe's biggest tire makers has obviously no problems with French labour culture, so it is fairly obvious that it is Titan that has a problem, not France.
I think I am soiling Alex' memory by comparing him to you.
In other words, all you can do is parrot decades old grumbling.
Alex had more sense than you.
If the folks who care about 'the proper scope of government' did a better job of keeping the racism out of their ranks, they'd not have to worry about being accused of it so much.
A few bad apples spoil the bunch, and I haven't seen the US libertarians do a good job of keeping the bad apples out. In point of fact they seem to lionise them (see: Ron Paul).
I have done all you say is impossible, with little to no issues. So now we have competing anecdotes, how about next time you provide some actual data to go with your FUD?
So what exactly is wrong with X? Please be specific.
And yet you completely skip over the point that most of the 19th Century prosperity in the USA was made on the work of the Federal army in cleaning out those pesky natives from the resources the settlers wanted.
Scratch a libertard, find a good old-fashioned oligarch underneath.
Don't know about OP, but I would have serious issues if that was all there was, yes.
Fortunately the judges did not look at just the previous convictions, but as much at the pattern of travel to places known to be friendly to child prostitution.
Phew. Never so happy to be wrong, the world is not as bad as I thought it was.
This is very informative. It tells us that the only source for the 'snitch' allegation is a quote from another Murdoch publication.
Once again the Murdoch empire shows its true colours. Given their behaviour, and Rupert's insatiable hunger for media monopoly, I will assume until I have seen proof otherwise that this is an orchestrated hit piece to slander the legislative process in the EU, in order to deflect attention away from the rapaciousness of News Corp and its subsidiaries.
Actually, it would help a lot to be confronted with something out of the ordinary. A challenge to your assumptions makes you examine them, and this examination teaches you not just about the new thing, but also about the things you already know.
All this assumes an ideal situation of course. The news coming out of the US shows us that fairly large swatches of the population would rather stay safe in their cozy assumptions.
Minor nitpick: the best defense against getting killed in a robbery is to hand over what the mugger wants.
Oh boy. Another one who can't read statistics. Yes, I was talking about actual gun crimes, not just the overall crime rate. So sorry that I didn't specify that, that was my mistake, but anyone who hasn't pro-gun blinders on would have known I was talking about that, as that was what the subthread starter was talking about.
As for violent crimes, you do know that the UK classes things as violent crime that don't even show up in the US statistics, right? You do know that, or are you relying on what the NRA tells you?
And for you and Mr. Slippery: continue to assume that I am against private gun ownership. You'd be making fools of yourself, but that is not my problem.
But nobody is making that point, except for the strawmen thrown up by the gun fanbois.
The point was that the mostly unarmed population and police of Great Britain didn't seem to be suffering a larger amount of crime, which was what the gun fanboi who started this subthread implicated: no self-protection in the form of guns would create more victims.
Lay off the ganja, dude. It's not doing wonders for your reading comprehension.
TrÃs drÃle. Next you'll tell the poor Americans to address the police as 'flics'.
Also, the guardrail is usually situated on a soft shoulder. One of the wheels suddenly entering a surface with different traction characteristics is asking for a car to end up careening all over the motorway.
More spittle.