Well, that may be true for this specific issue, but nVidias drivers for Linux still have noticeably worse performance than their drivers for Windows. (I'm using nVidia myself.)
Civilization IV is faster and more responsive on Linux/Wine than on Windows XP, for some reason. In particular, it loads much faster.
But in general, graphics performance is noticeably slower on Linux due to the lower quality of graphics drivers. The gfx card manufacturers don't feel the need to spend that much time writing drivers for Linux.
Sort of wrong, sort of right. DC rewrites their universe with increasing frequency since the 80's, but their changes are of the type "assume everything is the same except for the things we explicitly say are different". So the books keep relying on decades of backstory, and keep being inaccessible to new readers - plus become a lot more confusing due to conflicting continuity changes.
Marvel is much better in this regard - their reboots are temporary and have a clear beginning and ending. For example, a time-traveller or reality-warping mutant changes the Marvel universe, and all the books are affected for a number of months, then go back to normal when reality is restored. Marvel's new Sentry character is retroactively inserted in the Marvel universe with decades of backstory, but this is a small change compared to DC's reboots.
I'm not "wondering about it", since I already know about all that. I just asked you to substantiate the claim that you'll vanish without a trial if you leak US secrets. The Swedish imam didn't disappear because he leaked secrets.
As far as I can see, the USA doesn't make people disappear without a trial just because they leak secrets. You need to be non-white and muslim, in addition to having some sort of national security interest, for that.
I think I see your point. Even if the above monopolies are owned by the government, you're saying they would occur naturally anyway, and the government is just responding to the natural need for a monopoly.
I'm not sure I agree, though. Let's look at the cases one by one:
Water: Even if there can only be one water supplier in each geographical area, private water suppliers can co-exist in different areas in the country, and compete for contracts to supply an area with water. This is how it works with collective traffic where I live - only one company can supply collective traffic for a city, but competing companies bid for that contract.
Electricity: Here in Sweden, one company owns the cables leading the electricity to your house, while a number of companies compete to fill the cables with electricity. Switching electricity provider is as easy as terminating your contract and signing a new one. (The same is true for Internet via ADSL - you can switch ADSL provider at will. The company owning the telephone switch station is obliged to give all Internet providers physical access to it.)
Health care: Here in Sweden, the government provides universal health insurance AND owns the vast majority of the hospitals and clinics. Private health providers are at a disadvantage, since the left wing parties are opposed to private health care, and the authority running the government health care also decides the rules the private providers compete under. Health providers are not 100% government owned, but they don't have to be to count as a monopoly.
Drugs: Here in Sweden, prescription drugs could only be sold by a government-owned chain of stores until a few years ago. (Alcoholic beverages above a few % alcohol content can still only be sold in special government-owned stores.)
Women like gays. There's a good reason why a lot of women have gay friends: No "threat". There's no inherent threat that they don't want friendship but more and are only friendly because they want to get in her pants. For some women, this is really something special.
Thanks for a sensible and well-informed post. It amazes me how people start ridiculing the only one in the discussion who actually provides some basis for their arguments, just because it contradicts their prejudices.
Like many mammals, male humans are wired to try and mate with as many females as possible, while also defending his breeding stock from being impregnated by rival males. Like many mammals, female humans are wired to try and mate with only the "best" male candidate, and to "trade up" when a more suitable mate comes along.
So yeah, "cheating wives" makes perfect sense in light of the natural mating habits of our species.
Even if we take a strict biological view, this only implies that people will cheat - it doesn't imply that cheating sex will be more attractive to people than non-cheating sex. From a purely evolutionary standpoint, why would a female in a relationship with someone else be viewed as more attractive than a single female, assuming all other factors are equal?
I don't mean Monsanto will jack up the prices in the future. I mean they are able to charge a much higher price on their patented seeds because nobody else can produce them. The high price gives farmers a reason to save seeds from one season to the next, which in turn gives Monsanto a reason to license their seeds per year.
Why do you think Monsanto needs to sue farmers who don't obey the license?
If it were that simple... in reality, genes rarely control a single identifiable trait. Thousands of genes contribute to one trait, and a single gene can affect a number of traits. We can't predict the outcome of modifying a single gene; the only way to see what happens is to subject the crop to practical experiments, whether it's manufactured using artificial selection or direct gene manipulation.
I hope it's a royal "we" in the "we don't know the effects of genetically altering an organism". You may not know. But the people who study it do (or at least will after the experiment is done).
No, they won't. They'll know one of the short-term effects with reasonable certainty, but they'll have no idea of the long-term effects, or what will happen if cross-pollination occurs with other species.
Do you really think it's possible to investigate all possible effects of a technology with a few experiments?
1) the total number of lawsuit Monsanto has files against farmers is in the low hundreds. (And most of these were for saving patented seeds to replant the next year. Which I still think is an abuse of intellectual property law, but has nothing to do with cross pollination).
The number of lawsuits is not very relevant. The threat of a lawsuit is enough to force people to change their behaviour (or, in this case, pay up). In fact, when the legal system works well, people don't need to go to court, because the result is predictable.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you play 3D games, and if so, what graphics card with free drivers are you using?
That may be true; I'm not an active programmer myself, and have to rely on what friends and journalists tell me.
Well, that may be true for this specific issue, but nVidias drivers for Linux still have noticeably worse performance than their drivers for Windows. (I'm using nVidia myself.)
Civilization IV is faster and more responsive on Linux/Wine than on Windows XP, for some reason. In particular, it loads much faster.
But in general, graphics performance is noticeably slower on Linux due to the lower quality of graphics drivers. The gfx card manufacturers don't feel the need to spend that much time writing drivers for Linux.
Sort of wrong, sort of right. DC rewrites their universe with increasing frequency since the 80's, but their changes are of the type "assume everything is the same except for the things we explicitly say are different". So the books keep relying on decades of backstory, and keep being inaccessible to new readers - plus become a lot more confusing due to conflicting continuity changes.
Marvel is much better in this regard - their reboots are temporary and have a clear beginning and ending. For example, a time-traveller or reality-warping mutant changes the Marvel universe, and all the books are affected for a number of months, then go back to normal when reality is restored.
Marvel's new Sentry character is retroactively inserted in the Marvel universe with decades of backstory, but this is a small change compared to DC's reboots.
Shouldn't you be allowed to download legally if you pay a fee for it?
The rest of us download a fucking Brittany Spears song and they want to sue us for eleventy trillion dollars.
To be fair, you need to be punished for downloading Britney Spears. And for spelling her name wrong.
And I need to be punished for knowing you spelled it wrong...
By Brittany Spears. Covered in hot grits.
Sorry, must have clicked "Reply" on the wrong post.
I'm not "wondering about it", since I already know about all that. I just asked you to substantiate the claim that you'll vanish without a trial if you leak US secrets. The Swedish imam didn't disappear because he leaked secrets.
As far as I can see, the USA doesn't make people disappear without a trial just because they leak secrets. You need to be non-white and muslim, in addition to having some sort of national security interest, for that.
Which contradicts what you said earlier, about disappearing without a trial.
Yes, I know some politicians and bureaucrats want him dead with no regard of the law, but do you have any proof there are judges who think so?
If you say "just read about..." or "just google on..." again, I'll start thinking you just throw out random statements.
I think I see your point. Even if the above monopolies are owned by the government, you're saying they would occur naturally anyway, and the government is just responding to the natural need for a monopoly.
I'm not sure I agree, though. Let's look at the cases one by one:
Water: Even if there can only be one water supplier in each geographical area, private water suppliers can co-exist in different areas in the country, and compete for contracts to supply an area with water. This is how it works with collective traffic where I live - only one company can supply collective traffic for a city, but competing companies bid for that contract.
Electricity: Here in Sweden, one company owns the cables leading the electricity to your house, while a number of companies compete to fill the cables with electricity. Switching electricity provider is as easy as terminating your contract and signing a new one. (The same is true for Internet via ADSL - you can switch ADSL provider at will. The company owning the telephone switch station is obliged to give all Internet providers physical access to it.)
Health care: Here in Sweden, the government provides universal health insurance AND owns the vast majority of the hospitals and clinics. Private health providers are at a disadvantage, since the left wing parties are opposed to private health care, and the authority running the government health care also decides the rules the private providers compete under. Health providers are not 100% government owned, but they don't have to be to count as a monopoly.
Drugs: Here in Sweden, prescription drugs could only be sold by a government-owned chain of stores until a few years ago. (Alcoholic beverages above a few % alcohol content can still only be sold in special government-owned stores.)
I'm honestly curious - what type of porn do women want?
When I ask my girlfriend, she tells me women are not interested in graphical porn (and she's not shy to admit what she likes).
Stop it already! I'm at work and need both hands!
Women like gays. There's a good reason why a lot of women have gay friends: No "threat". There's no inherent threat that they don't want friendship but more and are only friendly because they want to get in her pants. For some women, this is really something special.
Plus, a gay guy doesn't compete for the same men.
And yet, the bonobo apes engage in homosexual sex. Perhaps a mix of hetero and homo sex is natural for humans, too?
Thanks for a sensible and well-informed post. It amazes me how people start ridiculing the only one in the discussion who actually provides some basis for their arguments, just because it contradicts their prejudices.
http://www.onehandedkeyboard.com/
Lies! You can't type out "horse" with one hand!
The other ones I don't know about.
Like many mammals, male humans are wired to try and mate with as many females as possible, while also defending his breeding stock from being impregnated by rival males.
Like many mammals, female humans are wired to try and mate with only the "best" male candidate, and to "trade up" when a more suitable mate comes along.
So yeah, "cheating wives" makes perfect sense in light of the natural mating habits of our species.
Even if we take a strict biological view, this only implies that people will cheat - it doesn't imply that cheating sex will be more attractive to people than non-cheating sex. From a purely evolutionary standpoint, why would a female in a relationship with someone else be viewed as more attractive than a single female, assuming all other factors are equal?
Please mod parent "Insightful"
I don't mean Monsanto will jack up the prices in the future. I mean they are able to charge a much higher price on their patented seeds because nobody else can produce them. The high price gives farmers a reason to save seeds from one season to the next, which in turn gives Monsanto a reason to license their seeds per year.
Why do you think Monsanto needs to sue farmers who don't obey the license?
If it were that simple... in reality, genes rarely control a single identifiable trait. Thousands of genes contribute to one trait, and a single gene can affect a number of traits. We can't predict the outcome of modifying a single gene; the only way to see what happens is to subject the crop to practical experiments, whether it's manufactured using artificial selection or direct gene manipulation.
I hope it's a royal "we" in the "we don't know the effects of genetically altering an organism". You may not know. But the people who study it do (or at least will after the experiment is done).
No, they won't. They'll know one of the short-term effects with reasonable certainty, but they'll have no idea of the long-term effects, or what will happen if cross-pollination occurs with other species.
Do you really think it's possible to investigate all possible effects of a technology with a few experiments?
1) the total number of lawsuit Monsanto has files against farmers is in the low hundreds. (And most of these were for saving patented seeds to replant the next year. Which I still think is an abuse of intellectual property law, but has nothing to do with cross pollination).
The number of lawsuits is not very relevant. The threat of a lawsuit is enough to force people to change their behaviour (or, in this case, pay up). In fact, when the legal system works well, people don't need to go to court, because the result is predictable.