You say we've standardised on SMTP for email, and now we can all send mail to AOL users.
You neglected to mention that AOL considers you a spammer by default and filters your SMTPD by subnet, based on whether they *believe* you have a dynamic IP address. You can send email to AOL users? Great.
I don't know why I'd want to, but on the few occasions that I have tried, the message has bounced because AOL is convinced that I am conducting some illegal activity.
What you are saying makes a lot of sense. Quite a bit more than the comment to which I had originally replied.
That said, I don't get paid $18 an hour. And I am over here in the USA. I don't remember saying I worked in IT/IS, and (mistakenly, it seems) believed that pointing out the difference in scale was sufficient to convey that point. Mea culpa.
I suspect you would care more deeply about how much money those machines were costing you if you had to pay the bills out of your own pocket. A bit of perspective here.
Businesses are in business for one reason alone: making as much money as possible so the senior officers can go home to their cheating wives and roll around in big piles of money. All other objectives (for example, having a computer network) are completely incidental expenses to that end. If maintaining the network costs them $70,000 in salary alone for one guy, who could be replaced for a guy who would keep the machines running (hey, what else are they there for?) for $50,000, then these senior officers need to know about it.
That is the only way they can go tell their shareholders that they are indeed sleeping on big piles of money and rolling their cigarettes in $100 bills.
The business that doesn't care about that "meager" $20,000 difference is the.com of the 90s.
I work with much smaller sums of money, but the difference in profits is made up for in volume of product moved. It is my job to balk at even a $0.25 discrepancy in invoicing. 25 cents is really nothing in itself, but 20 such small discrepancies per day would pile up over the year to equal $1825. "Chump change," surely. But you save $1825 here, $20,000 there, and squeeze an extra $1000 from... Before long, you realise that you spent the last ten years losing $100,000 per year that you could have kept.
That, my friend, is why the "people" are obsessed with measuring everything. $1 million is not a small sum of money to any business that takes money seriously.
More importantly, if I understand TFA correctly, the default behaviour will not know or care which finger you use to generate your "clicks."
It looks like a standard 1 button Apple(tm) mouse. It acts like a standard 1 button Apple(tm) mouse. However, unlike vanilla standard Apple(tm) brand mouse devices, you can optionally configure it to mimic the behaviour of already-available multibutton mouse devices.
Maybe my understanding is lacking something, but that was how i read the marketspeak.
Perhaps you are correct, but I would suggest that you consider one other possibility:
Sysadmins have one of the most thankless jobs in the world.
I only administrate my own home network. If I am at home, I am ON the network. if there are network problems, I am always the first to know.
Yet, I have my own phone line, and as soon as there is any hint of trouble with the network, my phone starts ringing. Maybe sysadmins are a touchy bunch, but you know what? 100% uptime is impossible. And anything less than that makes you the complaint department. It is nice to know that at least one day out of the year, there will be some people who think "ya know, he couldn't have prevented that DDoS attack, but hey, he did what he could to defend against it."
My whole point is that the sysadmin often looks like the bad guy, simply for delivering the messages, and in spite of all his hard work... well, let me put it this way. My ISP (Comcast) works well *most* of the time. Quite coincidentally, I had connectivity problems for ~20 minutes this morning. Did i think "Goddamn those motherfuckers?" You bet your bippies I did. Because I, like anybody else, do not appreciate it when things stop working. On the shoulders of a good administrator lies the weight of the world. He's not perfect. And nobody likes when stuff breaks. And when he fixes it, nobody cares. They're still pissed off that it was broken at all.
So... are we really touchy? maybe. Maybe we just hate it when people click "OK" on every goddamned popup window, javascript dialog window, or banner ad that happens to resemble a windows dialog window (just like my dad), and then act like it is *my* fault for fucking up his machine.
Why? knock it if you must, but the author genuinely believes people choose Microsoft Windows XP(tm) over other alternatives, because it is actually superior as a desktop operating system.
Not mentioned at all is that XP is included "free of charge" with virtually all OEM computers, and that the operating system will never be replaced by the vast majority of users out there.
The question is: What makes XP so great? The fact that so many people use it, or the fact that so many people don't really care enough to actually look into other options?
Re:Be wary of ebay DVDs
on
Shopping Online
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I once suggested to ebay that the whole feedack system is broken and useless. I explained why it was logically so, and it's really very simple:
Merchants flatly refuse to provide feedback until it has been left for them. This means they will all hold the threat of a negative feedback over your head indefinitely, even though you lived up to your duties as the buyer. The solution to this was very simple, but I see they never implemented it:
The buyer should not be *capable* of leaving feedback until the seller has done so. If I win the auction, and I pay you without complaint or delay, then I *deserve* a positive feedback for it, because I have lived up to my duties as a buyer. Once I have been so rated, *then* it becomes possible for me to leave feedback on the seller.
Again, the current feedback system is broken and dangerous. One cannot trust it any more than the customer reviews at newegg, and newegg admits this. Have I been screwed at ebay? A couple of times, but for relatively small purchases. I have no negative feedback on my record. How? I simply never left feedback for the seller, because people don't mind so much a negative review or two for a guy who does 10,000 sales. If your record is only 20:2 though, you can bet people will be leery of dealing with you, even though you're the one dealing honestly.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for 97% of its citizens.
Hm. Bill's business acumen must be slipping. Either that, or he just hoped we wouldn't notice that there is no point in throwing a mountain of cash at this project, when he could possibly convince somebody else to throw a mountain of cash at him for it. (;
It really isn't that complicated. A vulnerability is one issue. A "critical" vulnerability is something which could immediately compromise the system if uncorrected. Yet if a "critical" vulnerability shows up the day after the monthly patch cycle, Microsoft does not issue the patch for another ~29 days.
I do not run any "mission-critical" applications, but to me, a 29 day head-start for the ill-intentioned is 29 days too much. I, like any reasonable person, would like to have my patches on the same day. if not available on the same day, then as soon as possible. 29 days later is flagrantly irresponsible.
But I forgot the windows mantra. Is it not "Reboot, Reformat, Reinstall?" Hey, a lot can happen in 29 days. Am I just supposed to sit, vulnerable, on an untrusted network? No thanks. If you want to... Please give me your IP address. (;
Please keep in mind that when I refer to "majority rule," I really am referring to "the will of the people," since it is logically impossible to have rules that please everybody, everywhere, all the time. You have to please the majority.
So... what you're telling me is that "the government should represent the people by majority rule, unless the majority happens to oppose my ideals."
What do you propose "they" do? Turn control around and put it in the hands of the minority? Why?
I do not believe it is half the "crime" people make it out to be. Google does not allow this practice, but other search engines do. Google is therefore working within the constraints of those other search engines to promote itself.
To put this in perspective, any other search engine could block google results for doing these things. Google is not breaking their own rule, but merely living by the established rules of other companies.
Just because google does not like direct manipulation of page rankings does not mean that other search engines don't either. If Yahoo! blocked Google's results, that'd be fine. Even if Google weren't breaking any of Yahoo!'s rules at all. Yahoo! does *not* have some moral obligation to send your eyes to another website, or even to make it clear that you could go.
Again, if Google wants to stuff the page title full of irrelevant words to increase page rankings on search engines like altavista... Then the onus is on altavista to deal with such "misleading" behaviour. Let that sink in for a minute. If a search engine doesn't mind if you fill your page with irrelevant terms... why should you?
To be frank, the honor policy doesn't work online. You ought to know that by now. Trusting people to write web pages with words only related to the content of that page, while utopian, is *never* going to happen. If other search engines object to this practice, they will block Google. Either way, it's not Google's problem.
I was under the impression that to be gullible implied some belief in an otherwise ostentatious claim.
If you tell me that "gullible" is not in the OED and I believe you then yes, I am gullible.
However, if I insist on looking it up on my own, then I am in persuit of knowledge. Seeking knowledge and being gullible are mutually exclusive, in my own perception.
To call that a conoundrum is rather short-sighted. Perhaps somebody does not know what "gullible" means, and attempts to look it up to learn. Does that render him gullible? Or does it merely paint him inquisitive?
If you should choose never to return the movie, you do not pay this "new late fee."
The movie? You now own a copy. If you wish to return the copy you own, you can do so for the nominal $1.25 restocking fee.
Hell, take that idea to somewhere like Circuit City. You want to return a dvd that has its shrink-wrap broken? Good luck there, mate. They will take it back, but only in exchange for another copy of the exact same movie. depending on the shop you are visiting, some may also charge a nominal "restocking" fee.
First, the CEO is the Chief Executive Officer. You probably should speak to the CFO (if you can get that high up) to perhaps validate your numbers.
Second: You are stuck with Windows for now. That is the way it was designed: you seem to get much more than you bargained for, but getting out of it seems impossible.
After all, when people quit, who are you going to hire to replace them? Anybody you hire must be re-trained, unless you are willing to pay more up-front for those who are already trained. Ignorance is cheap. Gates admits this in the interview: "One thing we have to do is make computer use simpler in order to increase people's awareness of such questions."
To paraphrase: By hiding the questions, we increase peoples' awareness. NetNanny is not the solution, because nobody has really heard of it."
To paraphrase (again): "by hiding complexity, we increase awareness."
Just as one final analogy of my own design, driving an automobile is many orders of magnitude simpler than piloting an F16. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that driving an automobile must be better than flying an F16, simply because it is "less complicated" and "increases your awareness of how the equipment works." So should we all be driving tricycles?
The arithmetic is left to the reader, though my answer key says that 2 - 1 *always* equals 1, and that simplicity != superiority. If you really want idiots to use computers, you will give people computers that are more idiot-prone. "if you build it, they will come," and then you have a bunch of idiots using computers. The solution to their incompetency? make it possible for even dumber people to use computers.
No, we did not give Hussein any WMD (nuclear|biological). We armed him with standard gear (bad enough as it is) to help him achieve his goals.
You confuse mortars, helicopters (and the like) with "weapons of mass destruction," which they are not.
Please keep in mind that our "search for WMD in Iraq" was recently abandoned, having turned up -nothing-. If we really armed Saddam with nuclear ICBMS (or nuclear anything), we ought to have found it by now, at least to justify our invasion to the UN. But...nothing. Nothing at all. These are not the WMDs you are looking for...
And what was it that you thought cancer actually *is*?
Mutations, my friend. Nothing more, nothing less. some beneficial or benign, most dangerous. Are you really proposing that Deet causes (according to some studies) "mutations" that will give you the power to control the weather or fly? What type of "mutation" are you really expecting here?
Alright. Substitute a "Gold Altar" (which, by the way I have never seen, and i've been around a few times. the worth of such an altar would suggest a high profile target for theft) for "a staff of 30,000 (pulled from my ass statistic) workers who must be compensated in some way.
Get this: Gold Altars are not in high demand among any major religion. Funds to procure such altars are scarce. You are pulling information out of your ass. Information pulled from your ass is equally well refuted by information pulled from mine.
So in that vein, I'd like to see these gold altars you claim to be so common.
I realise there are charities that exist which do not pay their volunteers. but there are so many more that do than there are that do not, you've got no grounds for complaint.
Mod me a troll if you must, but consider: There is no evidence (apart from anecdotal) to support the outrageous claim that any (arbitrary) religious "charities" pocket their income to buy "Gold Alters" (misspellings included) and donate only the leftovers to help those in need.
Mere disagreement between you and a few members of a particular religion is not conclusive proof that the religion in question squanders funds donated for charitable causes. Get the records if you want, and get back to me.
I can't vouch for your donations, but in all the churches i've attended, financing records are available to anybody who dares to question them.
If what you say is true, then Uncle Sam must not care that we're buying Gold Altars with those funds we declared would be sent to relief aid for those tsunami victims./me prepares for the onslaught of -1 (Troll) mods
I think we are both disappointed with ATI's efforts at producing linux drivers for their cards.
However, I would ask you: did you do any research before you bought that 9800? I believe the 9800 is pretty new, and these driver issues have been around with their newer cards for some time now.
It would seem that reading ahead could have saved you the trouble (yes, I realise you might have paid for it before you started using linux or any number of other things.)
While my question may not be applicable, I would like to point out the other respondant who pointed out that the exchange rates for the latest gen cards are pretty close, and even if you go with a "slower" nvidia card (such as a GeForce4 TI series) you are still likely to see massive improvements.
Slashdot Mirror
By which I obviously refer to the one true geek blog (found all over the net):
Bugzilla.
Hold on there, cowboy. We're not there yet.
You say we've standardised on SMTP for email, and now we can all send mail to AOL users.
You neglected to mention that AOL considers you a spammer by default and filters your SMTPD by subnet, based on whether they *believe* you have a dynamic IP address. You can send email to AOL users? Great.
I don't know why I'd want to, but on the few occasions that I have tried, the message has bounced because AOL is convinced that I am conducting some illegal activity.
What you are saying makes a lot of sense. Quite a bit more than the comment to which I had originally replied.
That said, I don't get paid $18 an hour. And I am over here in the USA. I don't remember saying I worked in IT/IS, and (mistakenly, it seems) believed that pointing out the difference in scale was sufficient to convey that point. Mea culpa.
I suspect you would care more deeply about how much money those machines were costing you if you had to pay the bills out of your own pocket. A bit of perspective here.
.com of the 90s.
Businesses are in business for one reason alone: making as much money as possible so the senior officers can go home to their cheating wives and roll around in big piles of money. All other objectives (for example, having a computer network) are completely incidental expenses to that end. If maintaining the network costs them $70,000 in salary alone for one guy, who could be replaced for a guy who would keep the machines running (hey, what else are they there for?) for $50,000, then these senior officers need to know about it.
That is the only way they can go tell their shareholders that they are indeed sleeping on big piles of money and rolling their cigarettes in $100 bills.
The business that doesn't care about that "meager" $20,000 difference is the
I work with much smaller sums of money, but the difference in profits is made up for in volume of product moved. It is my job to balk at even a $0.25 discrepancy in invoicing. 25 cents is really nothing in itself, but 20 such small discrepancies per day would pile up over the year to equal $1825. "Chump change," surely. But you save $1825 here, $20,000 there, and squeeze an extra $1000 from... Before long, you realise that you spent the last ten years losing $100,000 per year that you could have kept.
That, my friend, is why the "people" are obsessed with measuring everything. $1 million is not a small sum of money to any business that takes money seriously.
More importantly, if I understand TFA correctly, the default behaviour will not know or care which finger you use to generate your "clicks."
It looks like a standard 1 button Apple(tm) mouse. It acts like a standard 1 button Apple(tm) mouse. However, unlike vanilla standard Apple(tm) brand mouse devices, you can optionally configure it to mimic the behaviour of already-available multibutton mouse devices.
Maybe my understanding is lacking something, but that was how i read the marketspeak.
Perhaps you are correct, but I would suggest that you consider one other possibility:
Sysadmins have one of the most thankless jobs in the world.
I only administrate my own home network. If I am at home, I am ON the network. if there are network problems, I am always the first to know.
Yet, I have my own phone line, and as soon as there is any hint of trouble with the network, my phone starts ringing. Maybe sysadmins are a touchy bunch, but you know what? 100% uptime is impossible. And anything less than that makes you the complaint department. It is nice to know that at least one day out of the year, there will be some people who think "ya know, he couldn't have prevented that DDoS attack, but hey, he did what he could to defend against it."
My whole point is that the sysadmin often looks like the bad guy, simply for delivering the messages, and in spite of all his hard work... well, let me put it this way. My ISP (Comcast) works well *most* of the time. Quite coincidentally, I had connectivity problems for ~20 minutes this morning. Did i think "Goddamn those motherfuckers?" You bet your bippies I did. Because I, like anybody else, do not appreciate it when things stop working. On the shoulders of a good administrator lies the weight of the world. He's not perfect. And nobody likes when stuff breaks. And when he fixes it, nobody cares. They're still pissed off that it was broken at all.
So... are we really touchy? maybe. Maybe we just hate it when people click "OK" on every goddamned popup window, javascript dialog window, or banner ad that happens to resemble a windows dialog window (just like my dad), and then act like it is *my* fault for fucking up his machine.
I quit there.
Why? knock it if you must, but the author genuinely believes people choose Microsoft Windows XP(tm) over other alternatives, because it is actually superior as a desktop operating system.
Not mentioned at all is that XP is included "free of charge" with virtually all OEM computers, and that the operating system will never be replaced by the vast majority of users out there.
The question is: What makes XP so great? The fact that so many people use it, or the fact that so many people don't really care enough to actually look into other options?
I once suggested to ebay that the whole feedack system is broken and useless. I explained why it was logically so, and it's really very simple:
Merchants flatly refuse to provide feedback until it has been left for them. This means they will all hold the threat of a negative feedback over your head indefinitely, even though you lived up to your duties as the buyer. The solution to this was very simple, but I see they never implemented it:
The buyer should not be *capable* of leaving feedback until the seller has done so. If I win the auction, and I pay you without complaint or delay, then I *deserve* a positive feedback for it, because I have lived up to my duties as a buyer. Once I have been so rated, *then* it becomes possible for me to leave feedback on the seller.
Again, the current feedback system is broken and dangerous. One cannot trust it any more than the customer reviews at newegg, and newegg admits this. Have I been screwed at ebay? A couple of times, but for relatively small purchases. I have no negative feedback on my record. How? I simply never left feedback for the seller, because people don't mind so much a negative review or two for a guy who does 10,000 sales. If your record is only 20:2 though, you can bet people will be leery of dealing with you, even though you're the one dealing honestly.
That's absurd! The forward slash '/' key is totally innocuous. Keyboards will never again be made with the '//' key!
Ok, i'll bite. :)
"blah blah blah, QT is really nice. Blah blah blah, MFC sucks. Gtk is fast, but who cares about fast? QT is *nice*, blah blah blah"
yes, i was kidding. but strip out all the market-speak, and that's about what i was able to reduce it to.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for 97% of its citizens.
Hm. Bill's business acumen must be slipping. Either that, or he just hoped we wouldn't notice that there is no point in throwing a mountain of cash at this project, when he could possibly convince somebody else to throw a mountain of cash at him for it. (;
It really isn't that complicated. A vulnerability is one issue. A "critical" vulnerability is something which could immediately compromise the system if uncorrected. Yet if a "critical" vulnerability shows up the day after the monthly patch cycle, Microsoft does not issue the patch for another ~29 days.
I do not run any "mission-critical" applications, but to me, a 29 day head-start for the ill-intentioned is 29 days too much. I, like any reasonable person, would like to have my patches on the same day. if not available on the same day, then as soon as possible. 29 days later is flagrantly irresponsible.
But I forgot the windows mantra. Is it not "Reboot, Reformat, Reinstall?" Hey, a lot can happen in 29 days. Am I just supposed to sit, vulnerable, on an untrusted network? No thanks. If you want to... Please give me your IP address. (;
Please keep in mind that when I refer to "majority rule," I really am referring to "the will of the people," since it is logically impossible to have rules that please everybody, everywhere, all the time. You have to please the majority.
So... what you're telling me is that "the government should represent the people by majority rule, unless the majority happens to oppose my ideals."
What do you propose "they" do? Turn control around and put it in the hands of the minority? Why?
I do not believe it is half the "crime" people make it out to be. Google does not allow this practice, but other search engines do. Google is therefore working within the constraints of those other search engines to promote itself. To put this in perspective, any other search engine could block google results for doing these things. Google is not breaking their own rule, but merely living by the established rules of other companies. Just because google does not like direct manipulation of page rankings does not mean that other search engines don't either. If Yahoo! blocked Google's results, that'd be fine. Even if Google weren't breaking any of Yahoo!'s rules at all. Yahoo! does *not* have some moral obligation to send your eyes to another website, or even to make it clear that you could go. Again, if Google wants to stuff the page title full of irrelevant words to increase page rankings on search engines like altavista... Then the onus is on altavista to deal with such "misleading" behaviour. Let that sink in for a minute. If a search engine doesn't mind if you fill your page with irrelevant terms... why should you? To be frank, the honor policy doesn't work online. You ought to know that by now. Trusting people to write web pages with words only related to the content of that page, while utopian, is *never* going to happen. If other search engines object to this practice, they will block Google. Either way, it's not Google's problem.
I like this approach so much I started to write my own kernel using these very steps to keep track of versioning. But I have one question:
I cannot figure out why a kernel needs to support even one video codec, or have to support a GUI on its own (among a few other things).
How can I tie these features in with my roadmap in a relevant way? (;
(yes, I was kidding)
I was under the impression that to be gullible implied some belief in an otherwise ostentatious claim. If you tell me that "gullible" is not in the OED and I believe you then yes, I am gullible. However, if I insist on looking it up on my own, then I am in persuit of knowledge. Seeking knowledge and being gullible are mutually exclusive, in my own perception. To call that a conoundrum is rather short-sighted. Perhaps somebody does not know what "gullible" means, and attempts to look it up to learn. Does that render him gullible? Or does it merely paint him inquisitive?
No, it is not.
If you should choose never to return the movie, you do not pay this "new late fee."
The movie? You now own a copy. If you wish to return the copy you own, you can do so for the nominal $1.25 restocking fee.
Hell, take that idea to somewhere like Circuit City. You want to return a dvd that has its shrink-wrap broken? Good luck there, mate. They will take it back, but only in exchange for another copy of the exact same movie. depending on the shop you are visiting, some may also charge a nominal "restocking" fee.
First, the CEO is the Chief Executive Officer. You probably should speak to the CFO (if you can get that high up) to perhaps validate your numbers.
Second: You are stuck with Windows for now. That is the way it was designed: you seem to get much more than you bargained for, but getting out of it seems impossible.
After all, when people quit, who are you going to hire to replace them? Anybody you hire must be re-trained, unless you are willing to pay more up-front for those who are already trained. Ignorance is cheap. Gates admits this in the interview: "One thing we have to do is make computer use simpler in order to increase people's awareness of such questions."
To paraphrase: By hiding the questions, we increase peoples' awareness. NetNanny is not the solution, because nobody has really heard of it."
To paraphrase (again): "by hiding complexity, we increase awareness."
Just as one final analogy of my own design, driving an automobile is many orders of magnitude simpler than piloting an F16. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that driving an automobile must be better than flying an F16, simply because it is "less complicated" and "increases your awareness of how the equipment works." So should we all be driving tricycles?
The arithmetic is left to the reader, though my answer key says that 2 - 1 *always* equals 1, and that simplicity != superiority. If you really want idiots to use computers, you will give people computers that are more idiot-prone. "if you build it, they will come," and then you have a bunch of idiots using computers. The solution to their incompetency? make it possible for even dumber people to use computers.
No, we did not give Hussein any WMD (nuclear|biological). We armed him with standard gear (bad enough as it is) to help him achieve his goals.
...nothing. Nothing at all. These are not the WMDs you are looking for...
You confuse mortars, helicopters (and the like) with "weapons of mass destruction," which they are not.
Please keep in mind that our "search for WMD in Iraq" was recently abandoned, having turned up -nothing-. If we really armed Saddam with nuclear ICBMS (or nuclear anything), we ought to have found it by now, at least to justify our invasion to the UN. But
*waves hand dismissively*
It would be ironic, but it's not irony. It is mere coincidence. I suspect you've been listening to too much Alanis Morissette. (;
*coughs*
And what was it that you thought cancer actually *is*?
Mutations, my friend. Nothing more, nothing less. some beneficial or benign, most dangerous. Are you really proposing that Deet causes (according to some studies) "mutations" that will give you the power to control the weather or fly? What type of "mutation" are you really expecting here?
(Sorry everybody, this was an answer that had to be given to a question like that): "Very comfortably, on a big pile of money."
Alright. Substitute a "Gold Altar" (which, by the way I have never seen, and i've been around a few times. the worth of such an altar would suggest a high profile target for theft) for "a staff of 30,000 (pulled from my ass statistic) workers who must be compensated in some way.
/me prepares for the onslaught of -1 (Troll) mods
Get this: Gold Altars are not in high demand among any major religion. Funds to procure such altars are scarce. You are pulling information out of your ass. Information pulled from your ass is equally well refuted by information pulled from mine.
So in that vein, I'd like to see these gold altars you claim to be so common.
I realise there are charities that exist which do not pay their volunteers. but there are so many more that do than there are that do not, you've got no grounds for complaint.
Mod me a troll if you must, but consider: There is no evidence (apart from anecdotal) to support the outrageous claim that any (arbitrary) religious "charities" pocket their income to buy "Gold Alters" (misspellings included) and donate only the leftovers to help those in need.
Mere disagreement between you and a few members of a particular religion is not conclusive proof that the religion in question squanders funds donated for charitable causes. Get the records if you want, and get back to me.
I can't vouch for your donations, but in all the churches i've attended, financing records are available to anybody who dares to question them.
If what you say is true, then Uncle Sam must not care that we're buying Gold Altars with those funds we declared would be sent to relief aid for those tsunami victims.
I think we are both disappointed with ATI's efforts at producing linux drivers for their cards.
However, I would ask you: did you do any research before you bought that 9800? I believe the 9800 is pretty new, and these driver issues have been around with their newer cards for some time now.
It would seem that reading ahead could have saved you the trouble (yes, I realise you might have paid for it before you started using linux or any number of other things.)
While my question may not be applicable, I would like to point out the other respondant who pointed out that the exchange rates for the latest gen cards are pretty close, and even if you go with a "slower" nvidia card (such as a GeForce4 TI series) you are still likely to see massive improvements.
Just a thought.