I imagine any study I point to will be immediately dismissed by you as being "irrationally paranoid" so you'll have to excuse me for not wasting my time doing a Google search.
I did one for you, I didn't see any. I found the ones I pointed to though. Please use real studies, facts, and logic to justify lawsuits. It's your line of thinking that has led to this horrible overlawyered situation we have today. You gave absolutely no reason why these fish are a menace to society, you just assume they are because rich people created them.
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done, especially when the only gain is to make someone enough money to buy their second Hummer, "cool invention" or not.
Rich people have done more for this world than whiners like you ever will. It's because of the rich people in this world who work their asses off to invent things that you can sit in front of your computer typing pointless messages on/. They invented that car you drive around, and they bought up all the expensive new inventions to drive the price down so people like you could buy glowing fish.
If you pointed me to a real study, done by an unbiased third-party, that justified your claims, I would not call you irrationally paranoid, instead I might learn something.
But obviously I'm not going to learn anything from you today, and that's disappointing.
I wish people would stop suing and trying to regulate everything just because they don't trust it, for some reason they can't put their finger on.
In the meantime, the only people calling this product "unsafe" have no evidence whatsoever to back up their claims. Again, please point me to some if you have some inside knowledge. But I'd hate for you to "waste your time" by doing a 2 second google search.
Just because a company says that a product it is selling is safe does not mean it isn't. Point me to one study that justifies a lawsuit.
I'll point you to some evidence that your statement is wrong:
Right off the bat, I can show you just spoke out of your ass:
"There is no evidence that these genetically engineered zebra danio fish pose any more threat to the environment than their unmodified counterparts which have long been widely sold in the United States. In the absence of a clear risk to the public health, the FDA finds no reason to regulate these particular fish."
"The zebra fish were originally developed to detect environmental toxins, but Alan Blake and colleagues at Yorktown Technologies, L.P. licensed them to sell as pets."
Please, point us to a single study that says they aren't safe. A real study, not just someone being irrationally paranoid about the mystical evils of genetic engineering.
We all saw Jurassic Park, but that's not a reason to go freaking out about a cool invention.
Studies have shown that this genetically modified fish is in no way dangerous to humans, even if consumed...
Maybe I have a difference of opinion with "The Center For Food Safety", but to me a Government should "properly regulate" a product that has been determined SAFE by letting it out there on the free market and letting the people decide if they want it or not.
Let's see here:
1 - Scientists create something cool, in this case a bad-ass glowing fish.
This will die a horrible death. Given time, China will die a horrible death. Communism doesn't work, free-market capitalism does. This is just yet another of the millions of signs that China's so-called "Democratic capitalist reforms" are a joke.
It's impossible to fund communism in the long run, and to those saying this is a good thing because it's "free" are demonstrating a really ridiculous ignorance of the basics of economics. This isn't free, the Government gets their money from somewhere (citizens). And with no profit incentive, the cost of the product will never go down, and the system will fold.
How could you feel sorry for the "brainwashed" that stayed? They made that decision for themselves... "brainwashing" is not an excuse for stupidity, everyone's accountable for their actions.
Now the children held captive, that's another story.
I will remember to immediately disgregard anything he says from now on, and consider all of his interviews irrelevant, now that I realize he holds different political views than you!
http://www.nullsoft.com/free/nsis/license.html license Copyright (C) 1999-2001 Nullsoft, Inc.
This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software.
Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions:
1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software
in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be
appreciated but is not required. 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
misrepresented as being the original software. 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
Huh? Read the article. It's not the ATI leak, id provided them with a demo called "test2".
Not only that, ATI's card didn't cream nVidia, it's the other way around. This thread is insane. Obviously people around here need to learn how to read those pretty little bar graphs.
For a gaming console the XBox is still at the top of the league for performance, but compared to a cheap PC, it isn't that special anymore.
(Even the laptop I am typing this on can put out several times the poly's and pixels per sec than an XBox)
Problem is, that isn't true. If you look at the specs / numbers, the PC is faster on paper. The problem is that the games on the X-Box are specifically optimized for that platform. I remember reading John Carmack's.plan awhile back where he said a 50% performance improvement isn't unreasonable when developing for a specific system.
Plus, how's the video-out on that GF4 MX? I'd be willing to bet it's not as good as the video-out on the x-box card. Not to mention, does the MX even have programmable pixel shaders? You're going to start seeing those in more and more games so cards without that are going to take a big hit in visual quality, and some games may even require that feature.
Your system may run Linux better than the X-Box, but the X-Box is better where it's meant to be: gaming. Games WILL look better and perform better than that system, I guarantee it.
Man no kidding someone mod that up. I hate signing up for things in the first place, but I can understand the reasoning behind that.
But requiring a specific browser just to view a *.mpeg file, that's utter bullshit.
Luckily I read all the posts here, and found that mirror...
http://ftp.fredan.org/games/doom3_e32003.mpg
This isn't a programming competition!!! It's a game development competition. There is a HUGE difference there.
Their job was to come up with the best game, not the best technology. The technology is and should be irrelevent. There are tons of games out there for the game boy advance that are way more fun to play than Quake III, despite the different (inferior) technology used.
Bottom line: There's a difference between a game development competition and a programming competition.
One more thing... The less influence that commercial software has on the government, the better. Because that means the less influence some company, whose primary concern is their own income, will have over our lives. Maybe you disagree but I'd rather have the people we voted into office making decisions for my life than a corporation like Microsoft.
Personally, I find the one major group you can trust less than Microsoft in this world is the Government!
Also, the anti-corporation argument doesn't make much sense in reality. It's not like a bunch of government workers are going to be running over to freshmeat to get their software, I would imagine the OSS would still be provided and supported by an "evil corporation". It would probably just be more along the lines of Red Hat, IBM, or HP.
I AM a "Hardcore Libertarian screwball", I'm even proud of it! (plug: web site). And I've heard lots of politicians use the phrase "reduce the size of government", one example being Bill Clinton (who obviously didn't actually do that, but it sounded good to everyone at the time...).
Since no one is accusing Bill Clinton or Bob Dole of being "screwballs" or "anarchists", I'm not afraid to use that phrase.
But rather than calling members of political parties bad names, why don't you point out what makes that such a dumb thing to say?
Yes, laws Should make sense, but they don't; so we need to play the political game
Sorry, but I don't share that attitude... Somebody needs to stop this insanity!
Everything is so over-legislated nowadays. There are zillions of laws saying you can't do this, you have to do that, congress "shall" do this.. etc.
You're never going to make it better by playing the political game and heaping on "good laws" as band-aid fixes for all the bad ones.
Honestly the only way we're going anywhere but down the drain is if people can someday stand up and vote for some candidates who will actually reduce the size of government and bring some efficiency to the table. I may sound a little too idealist, but there are alternatives to democrats and republicans out there.
I'd rather be a naive idealist than someone who is perpetuating the horrid status quo...
My basic point is that there shouldn't have to be a law here. The government should ALWAYS consider all their options, rather than just automatically going with Microsoft.
On top of that, it's a wasteful law that won't actually accomplish much. Does anyone really believe that they're going to start using OpenOffice.org at the DMV? I think this is a publicity stunt here, they're just trying to put a little pressure on Microsoft.
I just believe they should be using the best tool for the job at the best price point for taxpayers. The fact they need to pass a law to do that is a sad example of how incredibly unefficient government has become.
What's next? Will they require a law that says they have to consider something cheaper than "Charmin" for the toilet paper rolls in the capital bathrooms?
Okay, so I'm an Oregonian, and I see absolutely ZERO point to this bill...
This bill says Oregon should have to consider open-source software when upgrading systems... Where is the law that says Oregon CAN'T do that already? What a stupid waste of legislation, no matter how big you are on open source. Are politicians so stupid they need a law to tell them they can consider obvious options?
Uhmm... wait... don't answer that last question. I figured it out on my own.
It'll be more than enough. Consider the fact he can highly optimize everything for one specific machine (X-Box), rather than having to take into account the infinite number of PC configurations out there...
He was quoted earlier as saying he could expect to get a 50% performance increase when optimizing for specific hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine any study I point to will be immediately dismissed by you as being "irrationally paranoid" so you'll have to excuse me for not wasting my time doing a Google search.
I did one for you, I didn't see any. I found the ones I pointed to though. Please use real studies, facts, and logic to justify lawsuits. It's your line of thinking that has led to this horrible overlawyered situation we have today. You gave absolutely no reason why these fish are a menace to society, you just assume they are because rich people created them.
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done, especially when the only gain is to make someone enough money to buy their second Hummer, "cool invention" or not.
Rich people have done more for this world than whiners like you ever will. It's because of the rich people in this world who work their asses off to invent things that you can sit in front of your computer typing pointless messages on
If you pointed me to a real study, done by an unbiased third-party, that justified your claims, I would not call you irrationally paranoid, instead I might learn something.
But obviously I'm not going to learn anything from you today, and that's disappointing.
I wish people would stop suing and trying to regulate everything just because they don't trust it, for some reason they can't put their finger on.
In the meantime, the only people calling this product "unsafe" have no evidence whatsoever to back up their claims. Again, please point me to some if you have some inside knowledge. But I'd hate for you to "waste your time" by doing a 2 second google search.
EEEEEH!!! Wrong!
4 .h tml
h .r eut/
Just because a company says that a product it is selling is safe does not mean it isn't. Point me to one study that justifies a lawsuit.
I'll point you to some evidence that your statement is wrong:
Right off the bat, I can show you just spoke out of your ass:
"There is no evidence that these genetically engineered zebra danio fish pose any more threat to the environment than their unmodified counterparts which have long been widely sold in the United States. In the absence of a clear risk to the public health, the FDA finds no reason to regulate these particular fish."
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW0099
In fact:
"The zebra fish were originally developed to detect environmental toxins, but Alan Blake and colleagues at Yorktown Technologies, L.P. licensed them to sell as pets."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/11/21/offbeat.glofis
Please, point us to a single study that says they aren't safe. A real study, not just someone being irrationally paranoid about the mystical evils of genetic engineering.
We all saw Jurassic Park, but that's not a reason to go freaking out about a cool invention.
Studies have shown that this genetically modified fish is in no way dangerous to humans, even if consumed...
Maybe I have a difference of opinion with "The Center For Food Safety", but to me a Government should "properly regulate" a product that has been determined SAFE by letting it out there on the free market and letting the people decide if they want it or not.
Let's see here:
1 - Scientists create something cool, in this case a bad-ass glowing fish.
2 - California bans it.
3 - Some group sues someone.
4 - More regulations and taxes.
5 - Profit! (for the Government, not us)
This will die a horrible death. Given time, China will die a horrible death. Communism doesn't work, free-market capitalism does. This is just yet another of the millions of signs that China's so-called "Democratic capitalist reforms" are a joke.
It's impossible to fund communism in the long run, and to those saying this is a good thing because it's "free" are demonstrating a really ridiculous ignorance of the basics of economics. This isn't free, the Government gets their money from somewhere (citizens). And with no profit incentive, the cost of the product will never go down, and the system will fold.
Makes me wonder how this game would stack up using Old Man Murray's Crate Review system...
http://www.oldmanmurray.com/features/39.html
How could you feel sorry for the "brainwashed" that stayed? They made that decision for themselves... "brainwashing" is not an excuse for stupidity, everyone's accountable for their actions.
Now the children held captive, that's another story.
Excellent point!
I will remember to immediately disgregard anything he says from now on, and consider all of his interviews irrelevant, now that I realize he holds different political views than you!
Whew, and to think, I almost RTFA...
It's not o.k. to do the same wrong onto people which those people have done onto you.
It's O.K. if those people don't think it's a wrong, and you're doing it to make a valid point.
Just because they annoy you, you can't harass them.
Yes, you can actually.
If it's illegal then leave the revenge to the goverment.
No one ever said it was illegal, and since when is the Government any good at doing anything for us?
I mean otherwise it would be like shooting people who break into your home etc.
Break into my home, and I WILL shoot you. No questions asked.
Who modded up this third grader as insightful???
Not to mention NVidia's earlier actions surrounding "driver enhancements" wouldn't make them suspicious.
Don't single out nVidia for this. You must have a short or selective memory. Remember the Quack 3 fiasco?
Bottom line is, any company's going to do whatever they think they can get away with to sell more cards. Doesn't make nVidia any more evil than ATI.
Thanks to Portal of Evil News
/. submitters should stop giving them hits.
L: poenews
P: poenews
Still,
Not the GPL...
Pulled from
http://www.nullsoft.com/free/nsis/license.html
license
Copyright (C) 1999-2001 Nullsoft, Inc.
This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages
arising from the use of this software.
Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
freely, subject to the following restrictions:
1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software
in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be
appreciated but is not required.
2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
misrepresented as being the original software.
3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
Huh? Read the article. It's not the ATI leak, id provided them with a demo called "test2".
Not only that, ATI's card didn't cream nVidia, it's the other way around. This thread is insane. Obviously people around here need to learn how to read those pretty little bar graphs.
For a gaming console the XBox is still at the top of the league for performance, but compared to a cheap PC, it isn't that special anymore.
.plan awhile back where he said a 50% performance improvement isn't unreasonable when developing for a specific system.
(Even the laptop I am typing this on can put out several times the poly's and pixels per sec than an XBox)
Problem is, that isn't true. If you look at the specs / numbers, the PC is faster on paper. The problem is that the games on the X-Box are specifically optimized for that platform. I remember reading John Carmack's
Plus, how's the video-out on that GF4 MX? I'd be willing to bet it's not as good as the video-out on the x-box card. Not to mention, does the MX even have programmable pixel shaders? You're going to start seeing those in more and more games so cards without that are going to take a big hit in visual quality, and some games may even require that feature.
Your system may run Linux better than the X-Box, but the X-Box is better where it's meant to be: gaming. Games WILL look better and perform better than that system, I guarantee it.
Man no kidding someone mod that up. I hate signing up for things in the first place, but I can understand the reasoning behind that. But requiring a specific browser just to view a *.mpeg file, that's utter bullshit. Luckily I read all the posts here, and found that mirror... http://ftp.fredan.org/games/doom3_e32003.mpg
I agree with the original post actually, I think you misinterpreted it.
Computers may be (approximately) 10,000 times faster, but is operating them really more complex?
Nah, the trees are here. It's all the liberals we elect who won't let us cut them down while raising our taxes :(
This isn't a programming competition!!! It's a game development competition. There is a HUGE difference there.
Their job was to come up with the best game, not the best technology. The technology is and should be irrelevent. There are tons of games out there for the game boy advance that are way more fun to play than Quake III, despite the different (inferior) technology used.
Bottom line: There's a difference between a game development competition and a programming competition.
I'm completely confused by what you mean here...
The people who design the kernels, drivers, etc, etc. DO need to make a living. Or they'd be dead.
There are open source games out there as well, there are free as in beer games too. Those developers obviously find some other way to make money.
And lots of people who contribute to open source linux apps get paid for it.
Nobody ever said they shouldn't, it's their choice to continue developing for free if they aren't making money off of it.
One more thing... The less influence that commercial software has on the government, the better. Because that means the less influence some company, whose primary concern is their own income, will have over our lives. Maybe you disagree but I'd rather have the people we voted into office making decisions for my life than a corporation like Microsoft.
Personally, I find the one major group you can trust less than Microsoft in this world is the Government!
Also, the anti-corporation argument doesn't make much sense in reality. It's not like a bunch of government workers are going to be running over to freshmeat to get their software, I would imagine the OSS would still be provided and supported by an "evil corporation". It would probably just be more along the lines of Red Hat, IBM, or HP.
Well your post made me laugh. :)
I AM a "Hardcore Libertarian screwball", I'm even proud of it! (plug: web site). And I've heard lots of politicians use the phrase "reduce the size of government", one example being Bill Clinton (who obviously didn't actually do that, but it sounded good to everyone at the time...).
Since no one is accusing Bill Clinton or Bob Dole of being "screwballs" or "anarchists", I'm not afraid to use that phrase.
But rather than calling members of political parties bad names, why don't you point out what makes that such a dumb thing to say?
But I'm glad you think I'm right!
Yes, laws Should make sense, but they don't; so we need to play the political game
Sorry, but I don't share that attitude... Somebody needs to stop this insanity!
Everything is so over-legislated nowadays. There are zillions of laws saying you can't do this, you have to do that, congress "shall" do this.. etc.
You're never going to make it better by playing the political game and heaping on "good laws" as band-aid fixes for all the bad ones.
Honestly the only way we're going anywhere but down the drain is if people can someday stand up and vote for some candidates who will actually reduce the size of government and bring some efficiency to the table. I may sound a little too idealist, but there are alternatives to democrats and republicans out there.
I'd rather be a naive idealist than someone who is perpetuating the horrid status quo...
Sorry my confusion is still there...
My basic point is that there shouldn't have to be a law here. The government should ALWAYS consider all their options, rather than just automatically going with Microsoft.
On top of that, it's a wasteful law that won't actually accomplish much. Does anyone really believe that they're going to start using OpenOffice.org at the DMV? I think this is a publicity stunt here, they're just trying to put a little pressure on Microsoft.
I just believe they should be using the best tool for the job at the best price point for taxpayers. The fact they need to pass a law to do that is a sad example of how incredibly unefficient government has become.
What's next? Will they require a law that says they have to consider something cheaper than "Charmin" for the toilet paper rolls in the capital bathrooms?
Okay, so I'm an Oregonian, and I see absolutely ZERO point to this bill...
This bill says Oregon should have to consider open-source software when upgrading systems... Where is the law that says Oregon CAN'T do that already? What a stupid waste of legislation, no matter how big you are on open source. Are politicians so stupid they need a law to tell them they can consider obvious options?
Uhmm... wait... don't answer that last question. I figured it out on my own.
But we have good beer :)
It'll be more than enough. Consider the fact he can highly optimize everything for one specific machine (X-Box), rather than having to take into account the infinite number of PC configurations out there...
He was quoted earlier as saying he could expect to get a 50% performance increase when optimizing for specific hardware.