I independently innovated a profile for RivaTuner that uses this exact same technique to cool a GPU in the worst-case scenario, by underclocking it when the fan is already at 100% past a certain threshold. I guess I'm a naughty infringer, too? I'm not even a fully matriculated genius, so if *I* can come up with the idea on my own then just how unique and non-obvious can it be?
The people who operate IPVentures are the only sort of trolls we should be trying to hunt down with torches. Forum trolls are pin pricks by comparison to the damage these ugly creatures do.
I find it quite hilarious that people speak seriously about coding artificial intelligence as if it will happen in the this decade, when at the same time we can't even achieve a consistent rendering of the same elements in different browsers.
CAN the United States "lead" in space exploration? Certainly... but that's the wrong question, not the one to be asking. The useful question is: does the United States WANT to lead in space exploration? It doesn't matter what some bureaucrat or politician proclaims; what do the office clerks and farm hands and factory workers and service industry people think? Do THEY want to colonize Mars or the Moon or even L-5? Do THEY anticipate the benefits or necessity of doing so?
Further, there's that whole sickening competition thing again. How about we evolve the confidence to fully cooperate in exploring space, rather than once again setting the ultimate goals as dominance and some form of monopoly?
I wonder... what was it about the fictional Borg that so terrified people? Was it really the whole assimilation thing, or was it perhaps their ability to operate in perfect unison and harmony like a colony of ants? We could learn something useful from both.
You're presuming facts and intent not in evidence: the goal of a lawsuit does not have to be monetary compensation, and I never said anything to even imply that I expected that would be the estate's purpose in suing. I assumed they might have been seeking some sort of specific performance: a change in practices or behavior, not to mention a very public apology.
So did Hemingway's estate ever sue the government for wrongful death or some such, after it was revealed that Hemingway's paranoia was justified and really not so paranoid after all?
This data type/structure is big enough; why would I need more to store larger values than I can anticipate right now? Keeping It Simple Stupid saves some bytes, too. Why would we ever need to store a four-digit year, anyway? What could possibly go wrong?
... And thus the socialists laugh at the libertarians because markets are dominated by irrational actors, the libertarians laugh at the socialists because markets are dominated by unethical and uncooperative actors, and the capitalists mock them both for being so wishful and pre-scriptive in a world that only tolerates de-scription, all the while mis-educating and raping them all at every opportunity. Vive la market noir! [Forgive my bad French.]
Consumer ignorance and/or apathy is the WORST thing that can ever happen to an economy. If the ignorant are the majority, they wreck the market even for those who aren't ignorant. "Whatever price the market will bear" is a meaningless phrase when consumers don't know how to estimate cost to produce and don't know or care about profit margins.
Sadly, where and when I'm living the ignorant typically are the majority.
I'd like to see how they gonna secure SMDs and BGAs to silver circuits scribbled on a bar napkin. Steve Wozniak no doubt would've loved if he coulda done that.
Those two activities are a helluva lot more comparable than you think, in terms of mental process and state of mind. Given basketball players who have no more emotional bond or regard for their opponents* than players of GTA do for theirs, those two activities are equally violent upstairs, at least in terms of what the players would like to do to each other.
* Examples? I dunno... perhaps Islamic jihadists versus American corporate CEOs? If two groups of people can completely subhumanize each other - and humans routinely do this - then you have the recipe for the sort of violence seen in GTA. If there's any degree of emotional acknowledgement of "personhood", then you get something more like the usual competitive behavior in basketball and business. Of course having a bunch of police and other watchdogs ready to spring into action affects how people act on their actual state of mind, but it's that state of mind that matters and not how it gets expressed in action.
... violence. Raw violence, controlled violence, channeled violence... it's all the same. "Competition", that poster boy of capitalism, is really nothing more than a highly channeled and almost symbolic form of violence. Competition is all about putting your figurative foot to the other guy's figurative throat and squeezing until he cries uncle, right? Would somebody please explain how that is really so much different than the caveman version of that scenario, where it's actual feet and necks in play rather than sales figures and balance sheets and quarterly reports? Then there's the ubiquity of literally violent team sports, which curiously no one is rushing to banish from schools and universities and the airwaves. Violence is violence, when the intent is the same, to put one's figurative foot on the other guy's neck.
So "competition" isn't that different from game violence in terms of the intent, but once again the ruling class/elite/whatever wants to make sure we're all restricted to playing this game of life by their rules only, by which they hope to have an incumbent advantage. They've been playing this game with systems of laws for centuries, using "the law" to their primary advantage. They perhaps don't want these games reminding a generation that they in fact do have other options for playing The Game. Vive la revolucion!
What Sony should've done if they had a working brain left anywhere outside their legal department. What does that say about an innovating company when its best minds are on the floor marked Legal?
Wall warts were a plague on humanity before laptops existed. They're also just one of many things that should have been standardized long ago but weren't, for no other reason than fear of losing a competitive advantage (via what we know as "lock-in" in particular).
Conversely, there are de facto standards that never should have seen the light of day, like the Windows Registry.
Everything you said is technically correct. I didn't mean to say that we plebes had actually done the granting, rather that our governments who are supposed to represent our interests had done it for us. I meant it as a bit sarcastic, knowing who it is that governments really represent.
Are we ready for that next overdue revolution yet? I'm counting the days, errr... months, errr... years.
Some of that is new information to me. Thanks for taking the time.
Of course it's not surprising that the new United States adopted Britain's "intellectual property" laws; no doubt Britain was at the time trying to impose them as widely as possible on trading partners, just as the United States is doing today. I'm sure we would have wound up on some precursor to our own present-day Special 301 list if we had rebelled against Britain's IP laws, too.
Do we really need copyright to get that sorta creativity? I think I could get it just by bribing a few lawyers, accountants, and economists. All of them are already on the take to somebody already anyway.
Perhaps it's time we demanded of these so-called rights holders - "rights" which We The People GRANTED to them - to conclusively prove to us that granting them these copyrights has actually done anything at all to encourage further creativity? If they can't prove that, then we should revoke their rights and let them scratch in the dirt for a living like the rest of us. We've been presuming for far too long that copyrights (and patents) actually function as intended.
But it is mostly the only motivator, human behavior still being mostly selfish and at best tribalistic. Egalitarian, you say? Globalism, you say? What are those silly words? Some of us talk about those things, but we're what, perhaps 0.1 percent of the human population? How much success are we having eliminating tribalism and racism and their other kissing cousins just by talking about these concepts?
I don't like it, but humans aren't yet evolved to choose cooperation by default instead of competition. We are our own worst enemies now, since we have no others except the indifferent destructiveness of the planet itself. I think the best we can expect for many generations yet is that the natural (descriptive, not prescriptive) dynamics of economics and competing selfishness will establish an uneasy truce until some further evolution can take hold.
Congress certainly has more resources to verify claims than Joe Q. Public does. Do they use them? Do they use them correctly? Did they KNOW or suspect the justifications were false and agreed to it anyway for other motives? Are the members of Congress really possessed of nothing more than average fluid intelligence?
I listened to Obama and I wasn't convinced. I listened to the arguments for a second war against Iraq, and I wasn't convinced. I have far fewer resources than even the most junior Congressman, but I leveraged them fully, including international sources; then I was not merely unconvinced, I was convinced to the contrary. How anyone in Congress could have possibly concluded the opposite was true, that the justifications were accurate, is hard for me to comprehend. How anyone could be *certain* that Obama was being completely "transparent", and further could actually follow through on those promises, is almost as incomprehensible. Time and actions and events have shown both to be hollow, yet there are people who STILL believe both.
Slashdot Mirror
I independently innovated a profile for RivaTuner that uses this exact same technique to cool a GPU in the worst-case scenario, by underclocking it when the fan is already at 100% past a certain threshold. I guess I'm a naughty infringer, too? I'm not even a fully matriculated genius, so if *I* can come up with the idea on my own then just how unique and non-obvious can it be?
The people who operate IPVentures are the only sort of trolls we should be trying to hunt down with torches. Forum trolls are pin pricks by comparison to the damage these ugly creatures do.
Vinegar and rubbing alcohol will do a fine job of creating a microbe-free zone, but you might smell a bit more like sour wine than you'd like.
In Soviet Russia, Windows runs away from AI!
I find it quite hilarious that people speak seriously about coding artificial intelligence as if it will happen in the this decade, when at the same time we can't even achieve a consistent rendering of the same elements in different browsers.
Does a cereal, even a tasty one, really need apps? You've got the box for entertainment, what more do ya need?
CAN the United States "lead" in space exploration? Certainly... but that's the wrong question, not the one to be asking. The useful question is: does the United States WANT to lead in space exploration? It doesn't matter what some bureaucrat or politician proclaims; what do the office clerks and farm hands and factory workers and service industry people think? Do THEY want to colonize Mars or the Moon or even L-5? Do THEY anticipate the benefits or necessity of doing so?
Further, there's that whole sickening competition thing again. How about we evolve the confidence to fully cooperate in exploring space, rather than once again setting the ultimate goals as dominance and some form of monopoly?
I wonder... what was it about the fictional Borg that so terrified people? Was it really the whole assimilation thing, or was it perhaps their ability to operate in perfect unison and harmony like a colony of ants? We could learn something useful from both.
You're presuming facts and intent not in evidence: the goal of a lawsuit does not have to be monetary compensation, and I never said anything to even imply that I expected that would be the estate's purpose in suing. I assumed they might have been seeking some sort of specific performance: a change in practices or behavior, not to mention a very public apology.
So did Hemingway's estate ever sue the government for wrongful death or some such, after it was revealed that Hemingway's paranoia was justified and really not so paranoid after all?
This data type/structure is big enough; why would I need more to store larger values than I can anticipate right now? Keeping It Simple Stupid saves some bytes, too. Why would we ever need to store a four-digit year, anyway? What could possibly go wrong?
... And thus the socialists laugh at the libertarians because markets are dominated by irrational actors, the libertarians laugh at the socialists because markets are dominated by unethical and uncooperative actors, and the capitalists mock them both for being so wishful and pre-scriptive in a world that only tolerates de-scription, all the while mis-educating and raping them all at every opportunity. Vive la market noir! [Forgive my bad French.]
Consumer ignorance and/or apathy is the WORST thing that can ever happen to an economy. If the ignorant are the majority, they wreck the market even for those who aren't ignorant. "Whatever price the market will bear" is a meaningless phrase when consumers don't know how to estimate cost to produce and don't know or care about profit margins.
Sadly, where and when I'm living the ignorant typically are the majority.
^^ This.
Lemme guess... it got swallowed by Moby Dick while you were deep sea fishing?
Once again art wins the contest by default, when real life plagiarizes it (Minority Report).
I'd like to see how they gonna secure SMDs and BGAs to silver circuits scribbled on a bar napkin. Steve Wozniak no doubt would've loved if he coulda done that.
Those two activities are a helluva lot more comparable than you think, in terms of mental process and state of mind. Given basketball players who have no more emotional bond or regard for their opponents* than players of GTA do for theirs, those two activities are equally violent upstairs, at least in terms of what the players would like to do to each other.
* Examples? I dunno... perhaps Islamic jihadists versus American corporate CEOs? If two groups of people can completely subhumanize each other - and humans routinely do this - then you have the recipe for the sort of violence seen in GTA. If there's any degree of emotional acknowledgement of "personhood", then you get something more like the usual competitive behavior in basketball and business. Of course having a bunch of police and other watchdogs ready to spring into action affects how people act on their actual state of mind, but it's that state of mind that matters and not how it gets expressed in action.
... violence. Raw violence, controlled violence, channeled violence... it's all the same. "Competition", that poster boy of capitalism, is really nothing more than a highly channeled and almost symbolic form of violence. Competition is all about putting your figurative foot to the other guy's figurative throat and squeezing until he cries uncle, right? Would somebody please explain how that is really so much different than the caveman version of that scenario, where it's actual feet and necks in play rather than sales figures and balance sheets and quarterly reports? Then there's the ubiquity of literally violent team sports, which curiously no one is rushing to banish from schools and universities and the airwaves. Violence is violence, when the intent is the same, to put one's figurative foot on the other guy's neck.
So "competition" isn't that different from game violence in terms of the intent, but once again the ruling class/elite/whatever wants to make sure we're all restricted to playing this game of life by their rules only, by which they hope to have an incumbent advantage. They've been playing this game with systems of laws for centuries, using "the law" to their primary advantage. They perhaps don't want these games reminding a generation that they in fact do have other options for playing The Game. Vive la revolucion!
What Sony should've done if they had a working brain left anywhere outside their legal department. What does that say about an innovating company when its best minds are on the floor marked Legal?
Wall warts were a plague on humanity before laptops existed. They're also just one of many things that should have been standardized long ago but weren't, for no other reason than fear of losing a competitive advantage (via what we know as "lock-in" in particular).
Conversely, there are de facto standards that never should have seen the light of day, like the Windows Registry.
Everything you said is technically correct. I didn't mean to say that we plebes had actually done the granting, rather that our governments who are supposed to represent our interests had done it for us. I meant it as a bit sarcastic, knowing who it is that governments really represent.
Are we ready for that next overdue revolution yet? I'm counting the days, errr... months, errr... years.
Some of that is new information to me. Thanks for taking the time.
Of course it's not surprising that the new United States adopted Britain's "intellectual property" laws; no doubt Britain was at the time trying to impose them as widely as possible on trading partners, just as the United States is doing today. I'm sure we would have wound up on some precursor to our own present-day Special 301 list if we had rebelled against Britain's IP laws, too.
Do we really need copyright to get that sorta creativity? I think I could get it just by bribing a few lawyers, accountants, and economists. All of them are already on the take to somebody already anyway.
Perhaps it's time we demanded of these so-called rights holders - "rights" which We The People GRANTED to them - to conclusively prove to us that granting them these copyrights has actually done anything at all to encourage further creativity? If they can't prove that, then we should revoke their rights and let them scratch in the dirt for a living like the rest of us. We've been presuming for far too long that copyrights (and patents) actually function as intended.
But it is mostly the only motivator, human behavior still being mostly selfish and at best tribalistic. Egalitarian, you say? Globalism, you say? What are those silly words? Some of us talk about those things, but we're what, perhaps 0.1 percent of the human population? How much success are we having eliminating tribalism and racism and their other kissing cousins just by talking about these concepts?
I don't like it, but humans aren't yet evolved to choose cooperation by default instead of competition. We are our own worst enemies now, since we have no others except the indifferent destructiveness of the planet itself. I think the best we can expect for many generations yet is that the natural (descriptive, not prescriptive) dynamics of economics and competing selfishness will establish an uneasy truce until some further evolution can take hold.
Congress certainly has more resources to verify claims than Joe Q. Public does. Do they use them? Do they use them correctly? Did they KNOW or suspect the justifications were false and agreed to it anyway for other motives? Are the members of Congress really possessed of nothing more than average fluid intelligence?
I listened to Obama and I wasn't convinced. I listened to the arguments for a second war against Iraq, and I wasn't convinced. I have far fewer resources than even the most junior Congressman, but I leveraged them fully, including international sources; then I was not merely unconvinced, I was convinced to the contrary. How anyone in Congress could have possibly concluded the opposite was true, that the justifications were accurate, is hard for me to comprehend. How anyone could be *certain* that Obama was being completely "transparent", and further could actually follow through on those promises, is almost as incomprehensible. Time and actions and events have shown both to be hollow, yet there are people who STILL believe both.