If I ordered a 1.67Ghz MacBook at a certain price, and Apple sends me a 1.83Ghz MacBook without charging me more, then I just got 160Mhz (times two) for free. That shouldn't be too hard to understand.
That sounds like fun, but even assuming your computer can handle ripping and encoding 24 CDs at once, your plan is almost certainly more work than just spending a day with a normal 2-drive computer and a helluva lot more expensive than hiring a teenager.
Contrary to popular opinion, OSX is not FreeBSD and isn't really very closely related to it. AFAIK, the userland UNIX tools are derived from BSD, but the kernel is Mach and just about everything else is proprietary.
Apple's profit margin on a copy of OSX ($120 or so) is probably larger than the margin on a mac Mini, so they'd actually be better off selling the copy of OSX. Their higher-end machines probably have larger margins though.
I don't see why it wouldn't work. It's just a normal x86 platform; the boot process is the only weird thing. The only problem would be Linux drivers for the video card - does ATI provide binary drivers for their modern cards?
Did you try running a Linux-native game to make sure 3D acceleration was working? I have a hard time believing that anything other than driver problems would cause the kind of slowdown you're talking about.
Re:My experience with Cedega
on
Cedega 5.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Cedega probably wasn't your problem. I'd bet that you probably didn't have hardware 3D acceleration set up for your video card. The stock installs of most distros use the 2D-only open-source drivers distributed with X, which are useless for gaming. You wouldn't expect games to work under Windows without installing the proper drivers, and the same is true for Linux. With decent drivers (i.e. binaries from nVidia, or the open-source drivers for older Radeons), most games should run at similar framerates under Windows and Linux/Cedega.
Unless I'm much mistaken, they don't charge you like an MMORPG. Your subscription buys you voting rights and access to updates. If you cancel, you still have the right to use the software that you've already downloaded.
Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 2, Informative
And the people that have tried it say it doesn't work.
The chances of a properly managed (meaning no IE, no Outlook, no servers, and no running random programs from filesharing networks) Windows install coming down with a virus are exceedingly small, and the chances of that virus corrupting the MBR are slim to none (really, when was the last time you heard of a widespread virus that did anything that destructive?). I wouldn't worry about it.
I don't think the GP was slamming FWD. He/she was was just pointing out that two engines in a FWD car would be pretty much useless, which is quite true. Actually, two engines are useless in any car, unless that car is a Bugatti Veyron.
The idea of marriage is a social benefit granted to those that help propagate the society.
Bull fucking shit. The idea of marriage is a bond between people who love each other enough to dedicate the rest of their lives to each other. Children are not required for marriage, and marriage is not some kind of "reward" for having them.
Those rights are given to married couples primarily for the function of helping propagate the society.
Hospital visitation rights have nothing to do with whether two people can have biological children together. My mother and father have such rights and I assure you I'm not planning on having kids with either of them. These rights are given to married couples because it's assumed that people are as close to their spouses as to their biological family members.
it's society's purpose to propagate itself, it's in every culture's root to spread forth and flourish
That will be a valid argument when the US starts having underpopulation problems. As it is, what we need are people willing to take care of the thousands of unwanted children up for adoption or in foster homes. Gay couples are statistically much more likely to adopt, and as such provide far greater benefit to society than the average heterosexual couple.
Re:Would the Beatles have made it today?
on
How Songs Get Popular
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The beatles fucking sucked. Off-tune, off-time.
No one is saying that the Beatles played/sang with perfect technique. That's not necessarily the mark of a good band. Their technique was good enough for them to get their music across.
They became popular mostly due to their haircuts, and the fact that they were doing something new.
Exactly. They were doing something new. They were innovative and creative and they changed the face of music. Take a songwriting class sometime and you'll see how much of modern rock/pop is based on ideas introduced by the Beatles. Even if you don't listen to a lot of their stuff (and I don't), it's stupid to deny that Lennon/McCartney were musical geniuses.
No one said anything about "ability to play their instruments". That's technique, not musicianship. A musician is someone who creates music, which is a very broad category, including performers, writers, composers, etc. If you like the music of early Clash, than from your POV they were great musicians.
One other note (this isn't really relevant, but it bugs me): there's no such thing as a perfectly performed piano concerto. If there were, we'd just have a computer generate the recordings and be done with it. There's a huge amount of emotion, personality and soul going into the performance of any good classical player; while any two professional classical musicians will both hit all the notes, they may have completely different interpretations of a piece. Nothing is ever perfect in such a subjective area as interpretation.
needs them to be raised well so they won't turn into ganglanders or junkies later in life.
If you're trying to imply that gay people can't raise children well, I'd like to see some evidence. And please don't spout crap about "every child needs a mother and father", because not every child has a mother and father. Kids grow up in less-than-ideal environments all the time, and two gay parents would obviously do a better job than a single parent, an orphanage, or a new foster home every week.
In fact, gay parents would probably do a better job on average than married heterosexual couples, because for gays, having/adopting kids is a big decision, one that you don't make unless you really want them and are committed to raising them.
Likewise, why should people who cannot have children be allowed to part-take in an institution that was primarily designed for raising children?
Gay people can and do raise children. Even if they couldn't, marriage has other benefits such as hospital visitation rights, inheritance, power of attorney, etc.
as a people men and men or women and women are dead ends of an evolutionary chain.
Evolutionary chains are irrelevent here; homosexuality isn't hereditary.
I do not know about that. Personally, I look forward to having several children. Then again, it's a perosnal thing I suppose.
I look forward to having kids too; I'm sure most people do. Since people want to have kids anyway, why should society offer special incentives to encourage it?
Are women past menopause allowed to marry? Are infertile straight people of any age allowed to marry? What about couples who have decided never to have children? They are, and your argument is bullshit.
Besides, the last thing the world needs is more children.
Nature gave homosexuals the ability to love, care for, and want to be with people of the same sex. Who are we to deny that? Why should we not afford them these basic rights, especially when they come at no cost to anyone else?
Nature is not a thinking entity. It doesn't "want" any two people to be together; it doesn't "want" anything at all. And if it did, then the existence of people attracted to the same sex would be a strong indicator that nature "wanted" us to recognize those relationships.
A dictionary merely describes how words are probably going to be understood by most people
And the judge's job is to decide how words were probably understood by the lawmakers. Since the dictionary describes common usage, it's usually a decent guide to what the lawmakers meant. Not perfect, of course, but better than the judge just pulling things out of his ass.
Slashdot Mirror
If I ordered a 1.67Ghz MacBook at a certain price, and Apple sends me a 1.83Ghz MacBook without charging me more, then I just got 160Mhz (times two) for free. That shouldn't be too hard to understand.
That sounds like fun, but even assuming your computer can handle ripping and encoding 24 CDs at once, your plan is almost certainly more work than just spending a day with a normal 2-drive computer and a helluva lot more expensive than hiring a teenager.
Contrary to popular opinion, OSX is not FreeBSD and isn't really very closely related to it. AFAIK, the userland UNIX tools are derived from BSD, but the kernel is Mach and just about everything else is proprietary.
Apple's profit margin on a copy of OSX ($120 or so) is probably larger than the margin on a mac Mini, so they'd actually be better off selling the copy of OSX. Their higher-end machines probably have larger margins though.
I don't see why it wouldn't work. It's just a normal x86 platform; the boot process is the only weird thing. The only problem would be Linux drivers for the video card - does ATI provide binary drivers for their modern cards?
You can pay $5 and keep your copy of Cedega for eternity if you want. No one's forcing you to subscribe.
Did you try running a Linux-native game to make sure 3D acceleration was working? I have a hard time believing that anything other than driver problems would cause the kind of slowdown you're talking about.
Cedega probably wasn't your problem. I'd bet that you probably didn't have hardware 3D acceleration set up for your video card. The stock installs of most distros use the 2D-only open-source drivers distributed with X, which are useless for gaming. You wouldn't expect games to work under Windows without installing the proper drivers, and the same is true for Linux. With decent drivers (i.e. binaries from nVidia, or the open-source drivers for older Radeons), most games should run at similar framerates under Windows and Linux/Cedega.
Unless I'm much mistaken, they don't charge you like an MMORPG. Your subscription buys you voting rights and access to updates. If you cancel, you still have the right to use the software that you've already downloaded.
And the people that have tried it say it doesn't work.
The chances of a properly managed (meaning no IE, no Outlook, no servers, and no running random programs from filesharing networks) Windows install coming down with a virus are exceedingly small, and the chances of that virus corrupting the MBR are slim to none (really, when was the last time you heard of a widespread virus that did anything that destructive?). I wouldn't worry about it.
Theology is science by any reasonable definition of the word.
I don't think the GP was slamming FWD. He/she was was just pointing out that two engines in a FWD car would be pretty much useless, which is quite true. Actually, two engines are useless in any car, unless that car is a Bugatti Veyron.
If you hadn't noticed, the price of computers has decreased over recent years. No one is shoving cores down your throat.
Bull fucking shit. The idea of marriage is a bond between people who love each other enough to dedicate the rest of their lives to each other. Children are not required for marriage, and marriage is not some kind of "reward" for having them.
Those rights are given to married couples primarily for the function of helping propagate the society.
Hospital visitation rights have nothing to do with whether two people can have biological children together. My mother and father have such rights and I assure you I'm not planning on having kids with either of them. These rights are given to married couples because it's assumed that people are as close to their spouses as to their biological family members.
it's society's purpose to propagate itself, it's in every culture's root to spread forth and flourish
That will be a valid argument when the US starts having underpopulation problems. As it is, what we need are people willing to take care of the thousands of unwanted children up for adoption or in foster homes. Gay couples are statistically much more likely to adopt, and as such provide far greater benefit to society than the average heterosexual couple.
No one is saying that the Beatles played/sang with perfect technique. That's not necessarily the mark of a good band. Their technique was good enough for them to get their music across.
They became popular mostly due to their haircuts, and the fact that they were doing something new.
Exactly. They were doing something new. They were innovative and creative and they changed the face of music. Take a songwriting class sometime and you'll see how much of modern rock/pop is based on ideas introduced by the Beatles. Even if you don't listen to a lot of their stuff (and I don't), it's stupid to deny that Lennon/McCartney were musical geniuses.
One other note (this isn't really relevant, but it bugs me): there's no such thing as a perfectly performed piano concerto. If there were, we'd just have a computer generate the recordings and be done with it. There's a huge amount of emotion, personality and soul going into the performance of any good classical player; while any two professional classical musicians will both hit all the notes, they may have completely different interpretations of a piece. Nothing is ever perfect in such a subjective area as interpretation.
If you're trying to imply that gay people can't raise children well, I'd like to see some evidence. And please don't spout crap about "every child needs a mother and father", because not every child has a mother and father. Kids grow up in less-than-ideal environments all the time, and two gay parents would obviously do a better job than a single parent, an orphanage, or a new foster home every week.
In fact, gay parents would probably do a better job on average than married heterosexual couples, because for gays, having/adopting kids is a big decision, one that you don't make unless you really want them and are committed to raising them.
Gay people can and do raise children. Even if they couldn't, marriage has other benefits such as hospital visitation rights, inheritance, power of attorney, etc.
as a people men and men or women and women are dead ends of an evolutionary chain.
Evolutionary chains are irrelevent here; homosexuality isn't hereditary.
I do not know about that. Personally, I look forward to having several children. Then again, it's a perosnal thing I suppose.
I look forward to having kids too; I'm sure most people do. Since people want to have kids anyway, why should society offer special incentives to encourage it?
Besides, the last thing the world needs is more children.
Nature gave homosexuals the ability to love, care for, and want to be with people of the same sex. Who are we to deny that? Why should we not afford them these basic rights, especially when they come at no cost to anyone else?
If tags cost $50, nobody would ever tag anyone for any reason.
Would that be such a bad thing?
Nature is not a thinking entity. It doesn't "want" any two people to be together; it doesn't "want" anything at all. And if it did, then the existence of people attracted to the same sex would be a strong indicator that nature "wanted" us to recognize those relationships.
And the judge's job is to decide how words were probably understood by the lawmakers. Since the dictionary describes common usage, it's usually a decent guide to what the lawmakers meant. Not perfect, of course, but better than the judge just pulling things out of his ass.