So, how is consumer harmed in this scenario? I mean, we get better targeted advertising, which is in turn cheaper. And consumers see ads for products and services they will actually be interested in. And the downside is..... what?
Or are you saying that the consumer is harmed because the company saves some money, but the price of the product does not go down? Are they required to lower their prices?
Re:If THIS is not open to abuse, then what is?!
on
RFID Not Just for Kids
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Huh? How exactly does this technology turn the visitors of the park in to "serfs"? How does it make them property of the park?
if you hate the idea so much, the solution is simple: Don't go to the frigging park!
Well, if your idea of "having a good time" means standing in a 200 meters long line, go right ahead. However, if I go to a them-park/amusement-park I go there to enjoy the rides and other fun things they offer, not to stand in a line. If they can figure out ways to reduce the time I waste by standing in a line, so much the better!
Besides, they are already studying ways to improve their facilities. And that includes studying which rides are popular and which are not. Do you complain about that as well? Or is it a bad thing only if they use RFID-tags to do it?
It's such a high bang-for-your-buck optimization that I'd feel a lot more comfortable buying AMD chips if I knew they weren't hobbled by not exploiting it.
Well, Intel-CPU's don't have Hypertransport, are you uncomfortable when buying Intel-CPU's since they don't support such a kick-ass feature? They also lack integrated mem-controller, does that make you "uncomfortabe"?
Fact is that some CPU's have features that others may not have. P4 has HyperThreading. Athlon64 has HyperTransport and integrated mem-controller.
I don't understand what distinction you are trying to make. That Hitler didn't personally go to the homes of Jews and take their guns?
The post I replied to claimed that "Hitler had disarmed the Jews". I merely pointed out that Hitler had NOT disarmed the Jews. Gun-control was established long before Hitler came to power, and there weren't that many guns to begin with.
Let's stipulate that the German people, Jews included, were disarmed prior to Hitler's regime. What difference does it make to the argument?
It would make the "Hitler disarmed the Jews"-claim completely, 100% baseless, since the Jews (and everyone else for that matter) were disarmed long before Hitler came to power.
The post I replied to tried to make gun-control evil since "Hitler supported gun-control and he disarmed the Jews". I merely pointed out the error in his assumptions.
As to benefits or evilness of gun-control. I make no comments.
It sounds like the article you cite takes the position that the German gun control laws were successful because the Nazis came into power without using guns. That strikes me as a meager victory.
Not having gun-control wouldn't have changed the situation one damn bit. For starters, there weren't many guns to begin with. And the populace weren't inclined towards armed resistance. Hell, even when Germany was losing the war, there was no resistance from the general populace, even after the attempted assassination of Hitler in 1944! Why would there have been resistance in the 30's? That was the high-point of the Nazi-power! For the average-Karl, Nazis had significantly improved his standard of living (it might not be politically correct to say that, but....), who cares if they give some scumbags (Jews, gays, retards etc.) a hard time? That was the way the average people thought back then.
Why? Why should I care about some asshole ho doesn't make any kind of positive contribution to the greater community? Why should I care about someone who obviosuly doesn't give a flying fuck about me or my property? Why should I care for someone who think that my property is there for his taking as he sees fit? Seriously: why should I care about him? If he wants to earn my sympathy, the first steps would be pretty simple: obey the law! Treat others with respect!
If someone steals or vandalizes my stuff, he obviously doesn't respect me or my property. Why should I respect him?
Nobody has the right to take away another's life, that you think you do has taken the kick out of my Monday caffeine rush.
Are you as concerned when it comes to my rights to own and manage my property? When it comes to my rights to live in peace in my own home? my rights to not be assaulted and mugged when walking down the street? the criminals don't respect my rights, so IMO they also give up their rights as well.
I will respect them and their rights as long as they respect my rights. And that means (among other things): You do not steal my stuff! You do not force your way in to my home! You do not attack me! You do not threaten my loved-ones! Any action I would take against them would merely be a reaction to their act of lawlessness. Seriously: it really is up to them! If they obey the law, then they would not face acts that they would find.... undesireable.
I don't wish to harm anyone. But I will defend myself, my loved ones and my property if needed. Instead of whining on how I dare to defend myself, maybe you should whine to criminals and plead them not to break the law? The ball is in their court.
I hope you remember that when you're accused of something you didn't do.
Uh-huh. If I catch someone breaking the window of my car, opening the locks and taking the stereos, I think I can safely assume that he's an asshole bent on stealing my property, and not some concerned citizen on his way to water my flowers.
And no, I don't think I'm being an asshole. I just think that my rights as a law-abiding citizen are bigger and more improtant than some law-breakers rights are, espesially when it comes to my property. In simple terms: if I catch a burglar in my home, I have alot more rights in that situation than the burglar does. the burglar gave up his rights the moment he decided to break in to my home.
I'm getting sick and tired of people who are concerned about the rights of the criminals, instead of the rights of the victims. If the criminal doesn't want to be in a situation where he wouldn't want to be, he should simply follow one simple rule: _OBEY THE LAW_. He wouldn't get in to that kind of problems if he just lived by the rules the rest of the society lives by.
2. Games - seriously, name me three first run games released for Linux this yere.
- Doom3 - Unreal Tournament 2004 - Amnerica's Army
3. Fonts - this is my complaint, and maybe my biggest. Font display under Debian two months ago was abysmal. Maybe I'm just used to windows, but I think font display on Linux is headed in the wrong direction. Display hasn't improved for like 4 years now, IMO, even though each release they claim it will.
I'm using KDE3.3 with X.org 6.8.0, and I can honestly say that my fonts look very, very good. I like the appearance of the fonts more than I like the fonts on this XP-machine (Cleartype enabled).
Re: Java. In my case all it took was "emerge java".
It's common for Europeans to believe that they're enlightened enough not to need guns. Unfortunately, they're living in a dream.
"Europeans don't own guns" is a vastly over-generalized myth. Hell, I live in Finland (an European country), and this country is full of guns. Hunting-rifles, shotguns, pistols, few "souveniers" from the war.... You name it. 6% of Finns are active hunters, and many others own guns as well.
I don't hunt, but I grew up surrounded by guns. I shot my first shots when I was about 6 years old, my father teached me how to handle guns and how to live with them. Hell, he even showed me how to take them apart and put them together (blindfolded if needed. he was trained as a gunsmith by the Army) And he did that before I was eight years old (he died when I was eight). He thought that it would be alot better to learn how to handle guns than to pretend that guns don't exist. If there's one thing I remember him teaching me is "You never, EVER point a gun, even an unloaded one, towards another person, unless your intention is to kill him". Of course, killing in this context referred more to times of war than home-defence.
Remember the massacre of the Israeli olympians in Munich
Yes. And I fail to see how armed general population could have prevented it.
Why is it okay to shoot someone for stealing and taunting?
Simple: my right to own and manage my own property are infinitely bigger than the criminals right to acquire my property through burglary.
And besides, had the man let the burglar feeel, how could you tell that he and his friends hadn't paid him another visit? This time with weapons?
Their life (or in this case, the use of their leg) is more important than your stu
For me, my property is more important to me than the life of some low-life scum. If that low-life scum doesn't want to get harmed, he only has to make one simple decision: "I will not break the law, I will not try to steal that mans property for my own selfish reasons". The man who shot the burglar in the leg did not choose to be a victim (quite the contrary), but the burglar did choose to break in to his garage. Nothing would have happened, if the burglar had decided not to break the law. It really is as simple as that.
But people don't get better after being shot to death.
Most crimes are committed by people who have broken the law in the past. If you shoot them death, they will not commit crimes in the future.
To think that wounded pride and a car is worth someone's life just boggles my imagination.
For me, my car is worth hell of alot more than life of some scumbag who wants to steal it. Instead of complaining when people defend their homes, family and/or property, why don't you complain when some idiots think they have the right to break in to people's homes, threaten their family and/or steal their stuff?
Why should the criminals have more rights than the victims do? Seriously?
Hitler had disarmed the Jews long before they were being carted off for slaughter.
It seems to me that YOU have not studied history. Here are the facts:
"A commonly heard argument against gun control is that the National Socialists of Germany (the Nazis) used it in their ascent to and maintenance of power. A corollary argument is sometimes made that had the Jews (and presumably the other targeted groups) been armed, they could have fought off Nazi tyranny. This tract seeks to counter these misassumptions about Nazi gun control.
Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an armed coup. "
If the kids didn't want to get shot, meybe they shouldn't have broken the law? It was their decision.
There was a similar case in Finland just now. Guy broke in to another mans garage. The owner of the garage caught him red-handed. The burglar ran away, but the owner had a rifle with him. He told him to stop, or he will shoot. The burlars response? "You don't have the guts! And I have friends waiting in the car!". So the guy fired a warning-shot. Right in to the burglars leg. Then he called the police.
He did go to prison, although the sentence wasn't that long. And politicians still wonder why the justice-system ranks at the bottom when the citizens are asked which institututions they respect the most (Military and the police take the top-sopts IIRC).
In my priorities, any human life ranks higher than anybody's property, including my own.
If the thug doesn't want to get his brains splattered across the wall maybe he shouldn't, you know, break the law? It's his decision. Obey the law and live in peace. Break the law, harass someone, steal his stuff, and face the risk of getting shot. If he desices to break the law, that's his decision, and he must be willing to accept the concequences.
I for one think that if someone knowingly wipes his ass with the Law, he does not deserve the protection that law gives him. If he doesn't respect the law, why should the law respect him? And besides, my rights to own and manage my own property are infinitely bigger than some thugs rights to steal my stuff.
Speaking as a Finn, and speaking as a concerned citizen.
Given that fact: it is hard to dispute that the U.S. is the LEAST imperialistic country in the modern world. Just look at the last century and compare the U.S. to England, France, Germany, Russia in terms of invading and then KEEPING POSSESSION OF other countries
Of course, if you can create the definitons, you could make USA seems like paradise on Earth (or hell on Earth, depending where you want it to be). If you define "imperialism" as invading and keeping countries, then USA is not that imperialistic. But if you look at the bigger picture, it seems whole lot different.
For example: Chile. USA ousted a democratically elected socialist president, and replaced him with pro-USA military-dictator (Pinochet).
Iran: USA supported a brutal military-dictator. He was ousted by a popular coup that rules Iran even today (ever wonder why Iranians hate USA?)
Iraq: USA supported a brutal dictator just because he was at war against Iran (see above). He gassed his own people as well. nut USA didn't care that much about it.
Saudi-Arabia: USA supports a non-democratic tyranny just because they have oil and they are friendly with USA.
And to top it all off: School of the Americas. If something like that existed in pre-invasion Iraq, it would have been labeled as a "terrorist training-camp".
Modern-day imperialism does not have to mean invasion and annexation of other countries. It can also mean setting up friendly governments and making sure the corporations can move in and make money.
How do you explain the French anti-aircraft missiles with manufacturing stamps dated 2002 used in the second war?
France sells weapons to the open-market. So it's possible that some of them end up in Iraq, after the French have sold them. Hell, American forces found mil-spec _AMERICAN_ IR-imaging-systems in Iraq, does that mean USA was selling weapon-systems to IRaq during the embargo?
Jesus was having a bad day in Heaven. He was concerned because more and more people of The Earth were using drugs. So he summoned his disciples to an emergency meeting. They talked and thought of ways to solve the drug-problem, but they could not figure out a way. So they decided that in order to solve the problem, they had to understand the problem. So Jesus sent his disciples back to Earth, with a mission top gather drugs from all corners of the world, so they could study them.
Days passed, and Jesus was getting nersous. Then he heard a knock on the door:
"Who is it?" "It's me, Matthew" "What did you bring with you?" "Crack-cocaine from Los Angeles" "Very good my child, come on in" Jesus opened the door, and Matthew stepped inside
Then there was another knock on the door:
"Who is it?" "It's me, Peter" "What did you bring with you?" "Ecstacy from Amsterdam" "Very good my child, come on in" Jesus opened the door and Peter stepped in.
Then there was another knock on the door:
"Who is it?" "It's me, John" "What did you bring with you?" "Khat from Mogadishu" "Very good my child, come on in" Jesus opened the door and John stepped in
Then there was another knock on the door:
"Who is it?" "It's me, Simon" "What did you bring with you?" "Heroin from Moscow" "Very good my child, come on in" Jesus opened the door and Simon stepped in.
Then there was anothe knock on the door:
"Who is it?" "It's me, Judas" "What did you bring with you?" "DEA motherfuckers! Hands against the wall!"
Yes, I did own a set of those:)! They seriously kicked ass! I'm glad to see they are still making them. I just have to make sure my future kid will have plenty of Legos and Capsela's to play around with.
They now have the G5 iMac. You don't get much more of a "desktop system" than the iMac, and it's now 64-bit.
Almost. The OS is still 32bits.
. And 64-bit processors on the x86 side of things don't seem to have gained any traction in the last 14 months or so.
huh? Athlon64 is selling like crazy, and they are the fastest CPU's you could buy. Hell, AMD even has 64bit low-end processors (some of the Sempron-CPU's)! How many A64's should AMD sell so you would say it has gained "traction"?
You could say that G5 PowerMacs haven't gained any traction either. I mean, Apple has about 4-5% market-share. And only fraction of their userbase is using a G5-system. So Apple's 64-bit machines have about 1% market-share (my guesstimate). Why do you think G5 has "gained traction", whereas Athlon64/Opteron has not?
I'm not seeing much difference here from things we can already do, like having a window be a single large block and telling the GPU where to render it.
Using the GPU for the task means that we can use GPU's features to draw the UI. Using OpenGL as the backend and applying antialiasing to the UI? No problem! How about hardware-assisted shading, transformation and lighting? Again: not a problem! Bumb-mapping? Go right ahead! Multitexturing? Not a problem. Doing any of that with the CPU alone would not be practical. Of course, you might ask "why do we need any of that in a UI?". Good question. But with hardware-support being in place, we have the possibility to use them. That does not mean that we have to use them. Point is to remove the limitations. Then the developers can design UI's that they want to design, instead of being limited by the capabilities of the system.
I don't think there's as much room for change here as you seem to be thinking of
There is alot room for a change. Just take a look at Sun's Looking Glass or those Longhorn concept-UI's. Just because UI's have been strictly 2D for a long time now, does not mean that that's the way they should be in the future as well. How long did we have strictly text-based "UI's"?
Slashdot Mirror
So, how is consumer harmed in this scenario? I mean, we get better targeted advertising, which is in turn cheaper. And consumers see ads for products and services they will actually be interested in. And the downside is..... what?
Or are you saying that the consumer is harmed because the company saves some money, but the price of the product does not go down? Are they required to lower their prices?
Huh? How exactly does this technology turn the visitors of the park in to "serfs"? How does it make them property of the park?
if you hate the idea so much, the solution is simple: Don't go to the frigging park!
Well, if your idea of "having a good time" means standing in a 200 meters long line, go right ahead. However, if I go to a them-park/amusement-park I go there to enjoy the rides and other fun things they offer, not to stand in a line. If they can figure out ways to reduce the time I waste by standing in a line, so much the better!
Besides, they are already studying ways to improve their facilities. And that includes studying which rides are popular and which are not. Do you complain about that as well? Or is it a bad thing only if they use RFID-tags to do it?
They are faster than Intel's.
AMD has SMT (AKA HyperThreading) related patents as well, so they could do it.
Well, Intel-CPU's don't have Hypertransport, are you uncomfortable when buying Intel-CPU's since they don't support such a kick-ass feature? They also lack integrated mem-controller, does that make you "uncomfortabe"?
Fact is that some CPU's have features that others may not have. P4 has HyperThreading. Athlon64 has HyperTransport and integrated mem-controller.
News-flash: Comparable Intel-CPUs run just as hot or even hotter.
Brought peace?
As opposed to stuff like
It did work. Nazis did not execute a revolution against the government. How did Nazis get their power? Simple: They won in the ballot-box.
Nazis were assholes, but they got their power through democracy.
The post I replied to claimed that "Hitler had disarmed the Jews". I merely pointed out that Hitler had NOT disarmed the Jews. Gun-control was established long before Hitler came to power, and there weren't that many guns to begin with.
It would make the "Hitler disarmed the Jews"-claim completely, 100% baseless, since the Jews (and everyone else for that matter) were disarmed long before Hitler came to power.
The post I replied to tried to make gun-control evil since "Hitler supported gun-control and he disarmed the Jews". I merely pointed out the error in his assumptions.
As to benefits or evilness of gun-control. I make no comments.
Not having gun-control wouldn't have changed the situation one damn bit. For starters, there weren't many guns to begin with. And the populace weren't inclined towards armed resistance. Hell, even when Germany was losing the war, there was no resistance from the general populace, even after the attempted assassination of Hitler in 1944! Why would there have been resistance in the 30's? That was the high-point of the Nazi-power! For the average-Karl, Nazis had significantly improved his standard of living (it might not be politically correct to say that, but....), who cares if they give some scumbags (Jews, gays, retards etc.) a hard time? That was the way the average people thought back then.
It should be available shortly.
IIRC middle of last year.
Why? Why should I care about some asshole ho doesn't make any kind of positive contribution to the greater community? Why should I care about someone who obviosuly doesn't give a flying fuck about me or my property? Why should I care for someone who think that my property is there for his taking as he sees fit? Seriously: why should I care about him? If he wants to earn my sympathy, the first steps would be pretty simple: obey the law! Treat others with respect!
If someone steals or vandalizes my stuff, he obviously doesn't respect me or my property. Why should I respect him?
Are you as concerned when it comes to my rights to own and manage my property? When it comes to my rights to live in peace in my own home? my rights to not be assaulted and mugged when walking down the street? the criminals don't respect my rights, so IMO they also give up their rights as well.
I will respect them and their rights as long as they respect my rights. And that means (among other things): You do not steal my stuff! You do not force your way in to my home! You do not attack me! You do not threaten my loved-ones! Any action I would take against them would merely be a reaction to their act of lawlessness. Seriously: it really is up to them! If they obey the law, then they would not face acts that they would find.... undesireable.
I don't wish to harm anyone. But I will defend myself, my loved ones and my property if needed. Instead of whining on how I dare to defend myself, maybe you should whine to criminals and plead them not to break the law? The ball is in their court.
Uh-huh. If I catch someone breaking the window of my car, opening the locks and taking the stereos, I think I can safely assume that he's an asshole bent on stealing my property, and not some concerned citizen on his way to water my flowers.
And no, I don't think I'm being an asshole. I just think that my rights as a law-abiding citizen are bigger and more improtant than some law-breakers rights are, espesially when it comes to my property. In simple terms: if I catch a burglar in my home, I have alot more rights in that situation than the burglar does. the burglar gave up his rights the moment he decided to break in to my home.
I'm getting sick and tired of people who are concerned about the rights of the criminals, instead of the rights of the victims. If the criminal doesn't want to be in a situation where he wouldn't want to be, he should simply follow one simple rule: _OBEY THE LAW_. He wouldn't get in to that kind of problems if he just lived by the rules the rest of the society lives by.
- Doom3
- Unreal Tournament 2004
- Amnerica's Army
I'm using KDE3.3 with X.org 6.8.0, and I can honestly say that my fonts look very, very good. I like the appearance of the fonts more than I like the fonts on this XP-machine (Cleartype enabled).
Re: Java. In my case all it took was "emerge java".
"Europeans don't own guns" is a vastly over-generalized myth. Hell, I live in Finland (an European country), and this country is full of guns. Hunting-rifles, shotguns, pistols, few "souveniers" from the war.... You name it. 6% of Finns are active hunters, and many others own guns as well.
I don't hunt, but I grew up surrounded by guns. I shot my first shots when I was about 6 years old, my father teached me how to handle guns and how to live with them. Hell, he even showed me how to take them apart and put them together (blindfolded if needed. he was trained as a gunsmith by the Army) And he did that before I was eight years old (he died when I was eight). He thought that it would be alot better to learn how to handle guns than to pretend that guns don't exist. If there's one thing I remember him teaching me is "You never, EVER point a gun, even an unloaded one, towards another person, unless your intention is to kill him". Of course, killing in this context referred more to times of war than home-defence.
Yes. And I fail to see how armed general population could have prevented it.
Simple: my right to own and manage my own property are infinitely bigger than the criminals right to acquire my property through burglary.
And besides, had the man let the burglar feeel, how could you tell that he and his friends hadn't paid him another visit? This time with weapons?
For me, my property is more important to me than the life of some low-life scum. If that low-life scum doesn't want to get harmed, he only has to make one simple decision: "I will not break the law, I will not try to steal that mans property for my own selfish reasons". The man who shot the burglar in the leg did not choose to be a victim (quite the contrary), but the burglar did choose to break in to his garage. Nothing would have happened, if the burglar had decided not to break the law. It really is as simple as that.
Most crimes are committed by people who have broken the law in the past. If you shoot them death, they will not commit crimes in the future.
For me, my car is worth hell of alot more than life of some scumbag who wants to steal it. Instead of complaining when people defend their homes, family and/or property, why don't you complain when some idiots think they have the right to break in to people's homes, threaten their family and/or steal their stuff?
Why should the criminals have more rights than the victims do? Seriously?
It seems to me that YOU have not studied history. Here are the facts:
"A commonly heard argument against gun control is that the National Socialists of Germany (the Nazis) used it in their ascent to and maintenance of power. A corollary argument is sometimes made that had the Jews (and presumably the other targeted groups) been armed, they could have fought off Nazi tyranny. This tract seeks to counter these misassumptions about Nazi gun control.
Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an armed coup. "
Lots more there, go read it.
If the kids didn't want to get shot, meybe they shouldn't have broken the law? It was their decision.
There was a similar case in Finland just now. Guy broke in to another mans garage. The owner of the garage caught him red-handed. The burglar ran away, but the owner had a rifle with him. He told him to stop, or he will shoot. The burlars response? "You don't have the guts! And I have friends waiting in the car!". So the guy fired a warning-shot. Right in to the burglars leg. Then he called the police.
He did go to prison, although the sentence wasn't that long. And politicians still wonder why the justice-system ranks at the bottom when the citizens are asked which institututions they respect the most (Military and the police take the top-sopts IIRC).
If the thug doesn't want to get his brains splattered across the wall maybe he shouldn't, you know, break the law? It's his decision. Obey the law and live in peace. Break the law, harass someone, steal his stuff, and face the risk of getting shot. If he desices to break the law, that's his decision, and he must be willing to accept the concequences.
I for one think that if someone knowingly wipes his ass with the Law, he does not deserve the protection that law gives him. If he doesn't respect the law, why should the law respect him? And besides, my rights to own and manage my own property are infinitely bigger than some thugs rights to steal my stuff.
Speaking as a Finn, and speaking as a concerned citizen.
Of course, if you can create the definitons, you could make USA seems like paradise on Earth (or hell on Earth, depending where you want it to be). If you define "imperialism" as invading and keeping countries, then USA is not that imperialistic. But if you look at the bigger picture, it seems whole lot different.
For example: Chile. USA ousted a democratically elected socialist president, and replaced him with pro-USA military-dictator (Pinochet).
Iran: USA supported a brutal military-dictator. He was ousted by a popular coup that rules Iran even today (ever wonder why Iranians hate USA?)
Iraq: USA supported a brutal dictator just because he was at war against Iran (see above). He gassed his own people as well. nut USA didn't care that much about it.
Saudi-Arabia: USA supports a non-democratic tyranny just because they have oil and they are friendly with USA.
And to top it all off: School of the Americas. If something like that existed in pre-invasion Iraq, it would have been labeled as a "terrorist training-camp".
Modern-day imperialism does not have to mean invasion and annexation of other countries. It can also mean setting up friendly governments and making sure the corporations can move in and make money.
France sells weapons to the open-market. So it's possible that some of them end up in Iraq, after the French have sold them. Hell, American forces found mil-spec _AMERICAN_ IR-imaging-systems in Iraq, does that mean USA was selling weapon-systems to IRaq during the embargo?
Jesus was having a bad day in Heaven. He was concerned because more and more people of The Earth were using drugs. So he summoned his disciples to an emergency meeting. They talked and thought of ways to solve the drug-problem, but they could not figure out a way. So they decided that in order to solve the problem, they had to understand the problem. So Jesus sent his disciples back to Earth, with a mission top gather drugs from all corners of the world, so they could study them.
Days passed, and Jesus was getting nersous. Then he heard a knock on the door:
"Who is it?"
"It's me, Matthew"
"What did you bring with you?"
"Crack-cocaine from Los Angeles"
"Very good my child, come on in"
Jesus opened the door, and Matthew stepped inside
Then there was another knock on the door:
"Who is it?"
"It's me, Peter"
"What did you bring with you?"
"Ecstacy from Amsterdam"
"Very good my child, come on in"
Jesus opened the door and Peter stepped in.
Then there was another knock on the door:
"Who is it?"
"It's me, John"
"What did you bring with you?"
"Khat from Mogadishu"
"Very good my child, come on in"
Jesus opened the door and John stepped in
Then there was another knock on the door:
"Who is it?"
"It's me, Simon"
"What did you bring with you?"
"Heroin from Moscow"
"Very good my child, come on in"
Jesus opened the door and Simon stepped in.
Then there was anothe knock on the door:
"Who is it?"
"It's me, Judas"
"What did you bring with you?"
"DEA motherfuckers! Hands against the wall!"
Yes, I did own a set of those :)! They seriously kicked ass! I'm glad to see they are still making them. I just have to make sure my future kid will have plenty of Legos and Capsela's to play around with.
:).
Like father like son
Almost. The OS is still 32bits.
huh? Athlon64 is selling like crazy, and they are the fastest CPU's you could buy. Hell, AMD even has 64bit low-end processors (some of the Sempron-CPU's)! How many A64's should AMD sell so you would say it has gained "traction"?
You could say that G5 PowerMacs haven't gained any traction either. I mean, Apple has about 4-5% market-share. And only fraction of their userbase is using a G5-system. So Apple's 64-bit machines have about 1% market-share (my guesstimate). Why do you think G5 has "gained traction", whereas Athlon64/Opteron has not?
Using the GPU for the task means that we can use GPU's features to draw the UI. Using OpenGL as the backend and applying antialiasing to the UI? No problem! How about hardware-assisted shading, transformation and lighting? Again: not a problem! Bumb-mapping? Go right ahead! Multitexturing? Not a problem. Doing any of that with the CPU alone would not be practical. Of course, you might ask "why do we need any of that in a UI?". Good question. But with hardware-support being in place, we have the possibility to use them. That does not mean that we have to use them. Point is to remove the limitations. Then the developers can design UI's that they want to design, instead of being limited by the capabilities of the system.
There is alot room for a change. Just take a look at Sun's Looking Glass or those Longhorn concept-UI's. Just because UI's have been strictly 2D for a long time now, does not mean that that's the way they should be in the future as well. How long did we have strictly text-based "UI's"?