They're not though are they. Vulkan will run on feature level of most current cards and many previous ones (DirectX 11 capable is probably the baseline). Put it this way, if your current hardware is DX 11 compatible, it will run DX 12 and Vulkan.
What are you on about? Microsoft has already release their "Vulkan" (DirectX 12). Apple have their Metal API. Intel, NVIDIA and AMD are on the standards committee for Vulkan and doing most of the work for it. People in the industry were playing with AMD's Mantle before, upon which this is all based.
As a Human endeavour yes, it's corrupt in places. The only other system that really motivates people to get things done involves the threat of a bullet in the neck, so it's not quite so bad as many people think.
capitalism (and its corruption) seems to be worsening rather than improving that particular value
People always think these things but in fact if you look at the actual data, as Steven Pinker does in his books, you'll find a general improvement of conditions over a long time period across the world. This didn't happen because of Capitalism but Capitalism (free trade and liberalism specifically) is one of the primary causes.
By the way, I think a better term for "social justice" is to say "justice". There's no need to add the word "social" to the front.
Every single MP got more votes than the other parties in every single constituency of the United Kingdom. The party currently in government got more MPs than any other party, indeed so many more that it managed to form a majority. Was it 36% of the total number who voted? Who cares.
Are you a fool? I don't know. The point is if you don't want it enough to want to pay for it, why should anyone put in any effort to provide it for you?
Not bullshit, no. A reasonable assumption is that usage falls on a curve of some kind and that the peak value is probably not everybody using all 15Gb. For example I'm currently using 1.4Gb of mine. Now if the bean counters see that the peak value of the curve has moved substantially, well, that's what terms of service changes are for. It's just a business decision for them. It's free to you (though not to them) so if you don't like it you can jog on I guess.
And yes, it is a "tragedy of the commons" argument.
Wrong. The reputable models from the 80's and 90's (those that had a good level of peer-review and were based on sound assumptions) quite accurately predicted our current warming rate
No they don't. The current warming rate is ZERO and has been for nearly two decades. The actual temperature has diverged quite significantly from the model predictions.
So, again, if government-funded research was going to have a bias one way or the other, it would be against AGW
Quite a contradiction, as you go on to say that the entire war on terror is centred around oil. If that's the case you can easily see how demonising it would be a vital strategic interest for government, as it was for Margaret Thatcher in her efforts to defeat our militant miners in the 1980's (funnily enough, her government was the first to fund research in this area, at that time).
You don't mention the financial services industry either - more powerful than the oil industry - and very interested indeed in trading carbon credit instruments of all kinds.
So do you agree we need to arrest and charge everyone involved in climate science because the divergence between their predictions and the actual reality is quite extreme? It seems quite bizarre to me that you'd punish dissenters when all you have to do is compare reality with climate scientists predictions (almost all of which have turned out to be wrong so far). Just who is the denier in this scenario?
Climate scientists have been caught out telling bald-faced lies for financial gain many times. Let us assume that shaking down government for research funds and selling books counts as financial gain. So I'm not sure where you think this should all end.
The denialists are already claiming that they are victims of a left-wing anti-capitalist conspiracy
It's true though isn't it. If you look at the major pressure groups and activist scientists involved in it, they're all pretty much anti-capitalist. The waters are somewhat muddied by big capitalist involvement, mostly through the desire to trade things like carbon credits.
As always all you need to do is follow the money: Scientific institutions want big government research funding so people who dissent tend not to get tenure. Financial services want big government subsidy and/or legislation to set up cap & trade markets they can wrap their tentacles around, green industries want subsidy for their uneconomic energy generation schemes and the big oil and gas producers outside of the west (Russia, Middle East) don't want countries without these resources to frack shale.
4 years isn't much time to give it. In the UK you need something called planning permission before you erect a mast. It's very hard to get, especially in rural areas.
Google are working on an Android version, LunarG demonstrated a Linux version earlier this year (on Intel HD graphics). As it's far simpler from a driver perspective, it won't require a huge investment from the big two either (AMD, NVIDIA) so I expect they'll support it.
I know, people keep saying that. The trouble is the cost of development and maintenance of OpenGL 4.0 from the hardware manufacturer perspective will mean it'll eventually wither on the vine. There will still be a lot of hardware out there (and software) using OpenGL of course. I'm still maintaining a product that uses OpenGL 2.0 (15 years old).
When you look at mobile particularly, where using something like Vulkan could substantially increase battery life - assuming you don't make it work twice as hard in the process, it's very hard to see anyone still using OpenGL in 5 years time.
Slashdot Mirror
I have an Oculus Rift DKII sitting on my desk.
They're not though are they. Vulkan will run on feature level of most current cards and many previous ones (DirectX 11 capable is probably the baseline). Put it this way, if your current hardware is DX 11 compatible, it will run DX 12 and Vulkan.
Funny, there are a billion mobile phones out there running OpenGL graphics APIs.
What are you on about? Microsoft has already release their "Vulkan" (DirectX 12). Apple have their Metal API. Intel, NVIDIA and AMD are on the standards committee for Vulkan and doing most of the work for it. People in the industry were playing with AMD's Mantle before, upon which this is all based.
So you know, whatever.
People always think these things but in fact if you look at the actual data, as Steven Pinker does in his books, you'll find a general improvement of conditions over a long time period across the world. This didn't happen because of Capitalism but Capitalism (free trade and liberalism specifically) is one of the primary causes.
By the way, I think a better term for "social justice" is to say "justice". There's no need to add the word "social" to the front.
You chose to utilise the facility by filling it to 80% capacity right from the get-go.
Nobody is able to say whether this is part of an EU directive, or legislation resulting from a European Court judgement. It probably is.
Every single MP got more votes than the other parties in every single constituency of the United Kingdom. The party currently in government got more MPs than any other party, indeed so many more that it managed to form a majority. Was it 36% of the total number who voted? Who cares.
Are you a fool? I don't know. The point is if you don't want it enough to want to pay for it, why should anyone put in any effort to provide it for you?
Because the analysis of whether or not its profitable is multivariate. It's not a simple function of the cost of providing storage.
Not bullshit, no. A reasonable assumption is that usage falls on a curve of some kind and that the peak value is probably not everybody using all 15Gb. For example I'm currently using 1.4Gb of mine. Now if the bean counters see that the peak value of the curve has moved substantially, well, that's what terms of service changes are for. It's just a business decision for them. It's free to you (though not to them) so if you don't like it you can jog on I guess.
And yes, it is a "tragedy of the commons" argument.
Spot on. At work I develop with a mid-range PC. That's the baseline. At home it's a different matter of course.
Precisely. It's just virtue signalling.
It doesn't matter what shape their genitals are.
No they don't. The current warming rate is ZERO and has been for nearly two decades. The actual temperature has diverged quite significantly from the model predictions.
To continue the analogy, your prediction is that over time the result will converge on 0.75. Your model of the coin is wrong.
Quite a contradiction, as you go on to say that the entire war on terror is centred around oil. If that's the case you can easily see how demonising it would be a vital strategic interest for government, as it was for Margaret Thatcher in her efforts to defeat our militant miners in the 1980's (funnily enough, her government was the first to fund research in this area, at that time).
You don't mention the financial services industry either - more powerful than the oil industry - and very interested indeed in trading carbon credit instruments of all kinds.
Racist?
Are you nuts? They could get far more electricity with a few coal-fired power stations at 1/8th the cost - without any subsidy at all.
So do you agree we need to arrest and charge everyone involved in climate science because the divergence between their predictions and the actual reality is quite extreme? It seems quite bizarre to me that you'd punish dissenters when all you have to do is compare reality with climate scientists predictions (almost all of which have turned out to be wrong so far). Just who is the denier in this scenario?
Climate scientists have been caught out telling bald-faced lies for financial gain many times. Let us assume that shaking down government for research funds and selling books counts as financial gain. So I'm not sure where you think this should all end.
It's true though isn't it. If you look at the major pressure groups and activist scientists involved in it, they're all pretty much anti-capitalist. The waters are somewhat muddied by big capitalist involvement, mostly through the desire to trade things like carbon credits.
As always all you need to do is follow the money: Scientific institutions want big government research funding so people who dissent tend not to get tenure. Financial services want big government subsidy and/or legislation to set up cap & trade markets they can wrap their tentacles around, green industries want subsidy for their uneconomic energy generation schemes and the big oil and gas producers outside of the west (Russia, Middle East) don't want countries without these resources to frack shale.
This is all notwithstanding the state of the "science" (I use that term in its broadest possible sense). If you look at the divergence between actual reality and climate models, it's easy to see how puffed up and overblown the whole thing is.
4 years isn't much time to give it. In the UK you need something called planning permission before you erect a mast. It's very hard to get, especially in rural areas.
Google are working on an Android version, LunarG demonstrated a Linux version earlier this year (on Intel HD graphics). As it's far simpler from a driver perspective, it won't require a huge investment from the big two either (AMD, NVIDIA) so I expect they'll support it.
I know, people keep saying that. The trouble is the cost of development and maintenance of OpenGL 4.0 from the hardware manufacturer perspective will mean it'll eventually wither on the vine. There will still be a lot of hardware out there (and software) using OpenGL of course. I'm still maintaining a product that uses OpenGL 2.0 (15 years old).
When you look at mobile particularly, where using something like Vulkan could substantially increase battery life - assuming you don't make it work twice as hard in the process, it's very hard to see anyone still using OpenGL in 5 years time.