Final framebuffer operation shaders perhaps? This is being introduced by 3DLabs and what has until now been a fixed function state based operation may become programmable, so stuff like ztest, alpha test blend etc may be replacable by a programmable unit.
So anyone can write hysterical nonsense now and if it isn't published they can claim censorship, even if their assertions were completely baseless?
The owners of publications have always hade the ability to edit content, that does not equate to censorship, it is their own filter to eliminate hysterical crap. It's how they work without moderators slashdot.
I know, I've installed NVIDIA drivers. But that makes my point in some ways, driver installation scripts need a branches(as in logic) in them, go look in there. NVIDIA has done a good job but once again, NVIDIA *don't* use the DRI. NVIDIA do an excellent job but you do usually have to edit XConfig at least the last time I installed them.
NVIDIA replace a truck load of stuff that ATI doesn't touch. That's one of the biggest 'intellectual' complaints about NVIDIA's drivers, even though they look the same to applications calling the standard ABI.
Wrong, the NVIDIA Driver guys don't even try to interface using the DRI. They have their own infrastructuire architecture, ATI attempts to use the standard rendering infrastructure with the XFree86 server and released several drivers for multiple versions of the server. i.e. unlike NVIDIA they support the standard interface and the off teh shelf server implementation. The ABI is not the issue, NVIDIA exposes the same ABI even though they completely bypass the infrastructure that ATI uses. There are two aspects you are confusing, the DRI and the ABI. It is the compatability of driver modules and the integration with the Direct Rendering Infrastructure across multiple architectures with various kernel & X server modules on or off that is the issue. Yes a lot of this has been standardized and some excellent work has been done but there are still issues with compatability.
If it was as simple and easy as you suggest then if ATI's driver worked on a few test systems it should work on them all. Unfortunately that isn't the case and so it is self evident that not all Linux systems are the same and the samd driver code that works on one system won't work on another. So we don't even need to debate whether there is compatability and resource files can be found, there is clear evidence that despite all this problems are being encountered.
Your extensive experience posting to slashdot clearly makes you qualified to judge the Linux/Unix competence of ATIs graphics engineers, many of whom have worked for companies like SGI and/or contributed to the DRI.
ATI finally release new more functional drivers and all of a sudden people are bitching about their shoddy work. Look, Linux is not homogeneous, it is not straightforward to deliver drivers that will plug into XFree86 and just work on *every* distro with *every* little tweak your average Linux enthusiast has decided to play with.
ATI driver guys are plenty competent at Linux/Unix drivers, they have engineers from just about every graphics company you care to mention including SGI, heck some of their engineers helped developed the DRI on Linux so this is absolutely *not* about the technical competence of their engineers. The complaints of installation are probably a tiny minority but there's enough of them to make this an issue. Many of those problems may be poorly configured systems or running the wrong x server version or a mixture of both.
Beating ATI up for finally giving Linux some attention is not the right approach here.
Equally alarming is you have a gang of conspirators who commit a cold blooded murder and robbery including buying gloves ahead of time & trapping then stabbing some poor guy to death in his home before they rob him. What sentence do they get for this? 7 years and most of them probably didn't even get that. It is disgusting, they would lock up the judge for this in the U.S. but in the U.K. this is actually pretty typical. If you're wondering why there's a lot of casual violence in Britain, look no further.
I didn't say it was a govenrmant coverup, nor even that this is likely to be a valid signal, however after *years* of searching they are left with one *single* candidate signal that hasn't been eliminated. I'm not saying it's a coverup or that it doesn't need to be scheduled but you just need to read the utterly dismissive tone of this guy to realize that instrument time isn't the only issue here.
No offense dude but your average layman would consider another swing by your most promising signal to date after a lengthy and extensive search would be a moderately high priority, even if it is a relatively low probability of success. Jeeze you'd think you understood alien civilizations intimately the way you were talking. The fact is there are so many unknowns here you may not understand the nature of such a signal and based on transient observations may not be able to deduce anything other than you have a candidate and in this case the **ONLY** candidate signal to make it this far. At the very least they may be an interesting astronomical phenomenon there.
Consider for a moment there may be an alien project on that planet, and some guy struggling for budget to keep his signal transmitter running and you don't have all the time in the world, maybe they had an equipment upgrade between your scans, or a change in transmission theories. Maybe the have detected methane and oxygen in our atmosphere after extensive surveys of their sky and are targeting us with a signal.
My point is not that this is likely, but given this is the only signal and we don't know much about most of the factors in Drake's equation and the anthropic principal is at work here thare are many reasons for *showing a little bit of enthusiasm* and checking out this signal one more time, and not taking your sweet time to do it.
YOu didn't get misinterpreted dude, the reporter is a dishonest goon. This is how that industry works. He had an agenda, you saying there's no story... well... leaves him with no story. So in the fine tradition of his dishonorable profession the jerk misquoted and edited your message to mislead his readers. It pisses me off but I don't expect any better from reporters, no matter how highly they like to think of themselves.
The frequency of an orbital shift would make it directionally dependent. i.e. the frequency of any shift would only work for one transmission vector. Additionally we don't know ehat the purpose of the signal is. If it were a local broadcast that is leaking to us then they would never correct because it would throw it off in the local frame. In other words they'd have to be intentionally beaming into space and more specifically, beaming exactly in our direction in our direction to make any frequency shift viable and neither is neccessary, for example transmisisons from Earth don't dopler shift for our orbit, and if they did you'd have to pick a direction you wanted to correct for, any frequency shift would throw the transmission off even more in teh opposite direction. This should tell you instantly that this guy is trying to knock down the theory rather than objectively assess on merit.
Moreover orbital frequency shifts would be relatively small, for this kind of shift to be caused by dopler effects would take a some very extreme delta V. I think it is likely to be an astronomical source but not for some of the intellectually dishonest reasons espoused by this guy.
Shame, I was going to get a new phone and a new provider (just moved states), I was heavily leaning towards Verizon until reading about this situation.
What a shame. Why is the telco industry so darned screwed up, it seems uniquely stuffed up.
Boise didn't start this. SCO hired them long after the sabre rattling had begun. The main reason IMHO was to trade of the Boise reputation, so in that respect they got their moneys worth, unfortunately for SCO there's reality waiting at the other end of Daryl's rabbit hole.
Government agencies can't just lock you away on a whim, we have procedures, courts and juries. They can try to indict you and prosecute you. If they succeed then I guess they were right to make the attempt. We're talking about the secret service here that routinely looks into threats against government personnel, even less credibe threats. They do this because the track record of assasination attempts on US political leaders and candidates.
If you want to post others details online then I have no sympathy when your anonymity is blown. I'm not 'just wrong', these people are claiming they are being intimidated by their identities being sought, however they posted the identities, personal details and location of others in the clear hopes of intimidating them, and the scumbags did it anonymously. Since when did freedom of speech include freedom to say anything you like anonymously without consequences? It has never meant this but now the debate is framed in these ludicrous terms.
Nobody is restricting their right to free speech, it is ridiculous to suggest so however they WERE trying to restrict the rights of free assembly of GOP delegates, that is an undisputed fact.
To repeat an old adage, the right to free speech does not include the right to yell "Fire!" in a theatre, unless there is a fire. There are many other examples what freedom of speech is not.
At these prices I'm almost propelled back 10 years in time to Unix workstation per seat licensing practices. Nothing that costs a grand a seat will ever achive the penetration Google has. Geeze these guys have 100 customers, you'd think someone there would be smart enough to wake up one day and realize why they have 100 custs. Why bother even writing a puff piece about some expensive data mining app? You've gotta be out of your tree to see something like this and think Google. There's any number of useful but expensive software packages sold by relatively anonymous niche players that would make a much better analogy (although few charge as much as these guys). I guess since Google just floated for a wad of cash they're the round hole into which this square peg of a company would like to be bashed by their cooperative 'journalist'.
Ahh... there you go thinking these people don't have accountability. Everyone has accountability for their actions.
I find these anonymous posters complaining about intimidation beneath contempt. You think they weren't trying to intimidate those delegates? Not everyone at the conference is an elected representative.
Veiled threats and publication of personal information designed soley to heap misfortune on the victim has nothing to do with 'speech'. Those details were published with the explicit hope that a mob would show up and intimidate the individuals targeted. Maybe with the added bonus of a stolen identity or two.
Geeze, why must everyone pretend this is about speech and spout analogies when everyone on *both* sides knows exactly what was going on here. It had nothing to do with persuading delegates and we all know darned well that this only stiffens resolve on both sides.
There's a certain irony that the people hiding behind anonymous posts which were trying to intimidate convention delagates by publishing their personal details and locations are now claiming indimidation about their mere identities being exposed.
It's just stunningly hypocritical for anyone to claim intimidation by the mere uncovering of their anonymous identity when they've posted the personal details including residence of others encouraging thousands of potential protestors to show up and ahem... 'protest'.
If you go posting information online in a way that clearly invites intimidation of others and worse, excuse me if I don't feel very sympathetic about bleating of intimidation when someone attempts to uncover your anonymity.
It almost takes anonymous posting to a new low, but let's face it, it is pretty tough to reach new depths there.
This broken glass analogy merely serves to illustrate how out of touch these pigopolists are. Disingenuous analogies (and that's giving him the benefit of the doubt) don't inform the debade, but let's take his own analogy a little bit further since he raised it.
You cannot duplicate a cognac glass at home for a few cents, and the manufacturing and distribution costs of glasses are not insignificant, unlike digital music. Moreover the "cognac glass association" is not given an exclusive and endlessly extended monopoly by congress to produce cognac glasses to the detrement of free markets. Buying an entirely new set of matching glasses to replace the old set at a competitive price is an option with glasses, not so with music, at least not yet.
That's NOT the post I replied to. Just hit the parent link on my post. The post I replied to mentioned the Direct Rendering and said DirectX 3 was more elegant. I chose to mention the ABI as one means of illustrating my point about how easy the DRI is to use. So what the heck are you complaining about?
This I already know, I never said it was essential, however NVIDIA drivers have their own closed source dropin replacement for DRI that doesn't play nice with the DRI.
Slashdot Mirror
Bwahahaha!
The dufus who moded it informative scares me.
Final framebuffer operation shaders perhaps? This is being introduced by 3DLabs and what has until now been a fixed function state based operation may become programmable, so stuff like ztest, alpha test blend etc may be replacable by a programmable unit.
So anyone can write hysterical nonsense now and if it isn't published they can claim censorship, even if their assertions were completely baseless?
The owners of publications have always hade the ability to edit content, that does not equate to censorship, it is their own filter to eliminate hysterical crap. It's how they work without moderators slashdot.
I know, I've installed NVIDIA drivers. But that makes my point in some ways, driver installation scripts need a branches(as in logic) in them, go look in there. NVIDIA has done a good job but once again, NVIDIA *don't* use the DRI. NVIDIA do an excellent job but you do usually have to edit XConfig at least the last time I installed them.
NVIDIA replace a truck load of stuff that ATI doesn't touch. That's one of the biggest 'intellectual' complaints about NVIDIA's drivers, even though they look the same to applications calling the standard ABI.
Wrong, the NVIDIA Driver guys don't even try to interface using the DRI. They have their own infrastructuire architecture, ATI attempts to use the standard rendering infrastructure with the XFree86 server and released several drivers for multiple versions of the server. i.e. unlike NVIDIA they support the standard interface and the off teh shelf server implementation. The ABI is not the issue, NVIDIA exposes the same ABI even though they completely bypass the infrastructure that ATI uses. There are two aspects you are confusing, the DRI and the ABI. It is the compatability of driver modules and the integration with the Direct Rendering Infrastructure across multiple architectures with various kernel & X server modules on or off that is the issue. Yes a lot of this has been standardized and some excellent work has been done but there are still issues with compatability.
If it was as simple and easy as you suggest then if ATI's driver worked on a few test systems it should work on them all. Unfortunately that isn't the case and so it is self evident that not all Linux systems are the same and the samd driver code that works on one system won't work on another. So we don't even need to debate whether there is compatability and resource files can be found, there is clear evidence that despite all this problems are being encountered.
Your extensive experience posting to slashdot clearly makes you qualified to judge the Linux/Unix competence of ATIs graphics engineers, many of whom have worked for companies like SGI and/or contributed to the DRI.
ATI finally release new more functional drivers and all of a sudden people are bitching about their shoddy work. Look, Linux is not homogeneous, it is not straightforward to deliver drivers that will plug into XFree86 and just work on *every* distro with *every* little tweak your average Linux enthusiast has decided to play with.
ATI driver guys are plenty competent at Linux/Unix drivers, they have engineers from just about every graphics company you care to mention including SGI, heck some of their engineers helped developed the DRI on Linux so this is absolutely *not* about the technical competence of their engineers. The complaints of installation are probably a tiny minority but there's enough of them to make this an issue. Many of those problems may be poorly configured systems or running the wrong x server version or a mixture of both.
Beating ATI up for finally giving Linux some attention is not the right approach here.
Equally alarming is you have a gang of conspirators who commit a cold blooded murder and robbery including buying gloves ahead of time & trapping then stabbing some poor guy to death in his home before they rob him. What sentence do they get for this? 7 years and most of them probably didn't even get that. It is disgusting, they would lock up the judge for this in the U.S. but in the U.K. this is actually pretty typical. If you're wondering why there's a lot of casual violence in Britain, look no further.
I didn't say it was a govenrmant coverup, nor even that this is likely to be a valid signal, however after *years* of searching they are left with one *single* candidate signal that hasn't been eliminated. I'm not saying it's a coverup or that it doesn't need to be scheduled but you just need to read the utterly dismissive tone of this guy to realize that instrument time isn't the only issue here.
No offense dude but your average layman would consider another swing by your most promising signal to date after a lengthy and extensive search would be a moderately high priority, even if it is a relatively low probability of success. Jeeze you'd think you understood alien civilizations intimately the way you were talking. The fact is there are so many unknowns here you may not understand the nature of such a signal and based on transient observations may not be able to deduce anything other than you have a candidate and in this case the **ONLY** candidate signal to make it this far. At the very least they may be an interesting astronomical phenomenon there.
Consider for a moment there may be an alien project on that planet, and some guy struggling for budget to keep his signal transmitter running and you don't have all the time in the world, maybe they had an equipment upgrade between your scans, or a change in transmission theories. Maybe the have detected methane and oxygen in our atmosphere after extensive surveys of their sky and are targeting us with a signal.
My point is not that this is likely, but given this is the only signal and we don't know much about most of the factors in Drake's equation and the anthropic principal is at work here thare are many reasons for *showing a little bit of enthusiasm* and checking out this signal one more time, and not taking your sweet time to do it.
YOu didn't get misinterpreted dude, the reporter is a dishonest goon. This is how that industry works. He had an agenda, you saying there's no story... well... leaves him with no story. So in the fine tradition of his dishonorable profession the jerk misquoted and edited your message to mislead his readers. It pisses me off but I don't expect any better from reporters, no matter how highly they like to think of themselves.
The frequency of an orbital shift would make it directionally dependent. i.e. the frequency of any shift would only work for one transmission vector. Additionally we don't know ehat the purpose of the signal is. If it were a local broadcast that is leaking to us then they would never correct because it would throw it off in the local frame. In other words they'd have to be intentionally beaming into space and more specifically, beaming exactly in our direction in our direction to make any frequency shift viable and neither is neccessary, for example transmisisons from Earth don't dopler shift for our orbit, and if they did you'd have to pick a direction you wanted to correct for, any frequency shift would throw the transmission off even more in teh opposite direction. This should tell you instantly that this guy is trying to knock down the theory rather than objectively assess on merit.
Moreover orbital frequency shifts would be relatively small, for this kind of shift to be caused by dopler effects would take a some very extreme delta V. I think it is likely to be an astronomical source but not for some of the intellectually dishonest reasons espoused by this guy.
Shame, I was going to get a new phone and a new provider (just moved states), I was heavily leaning towards Verizon until reading about this situation.
What a shame. Why is the telco industry so darned screwed up, it seems uniquely stuffed up.
Yep not even comedy like Mystery Science Theatre is safe from being ripped off by people who can't even come up with their own parody format.
I don't think they're parodying a parody, they're just flat out ripping off someone elses parody.
Boise didn't start this. SCO hired them long after the sabre rattling had begun. The main reason IMHO was to trade of the Boise reputation, so in that respect they got their moneys worth, unfortunately for SCO there's reality waiting at the other end of Daryl's rabbit hole.
Government agencies can't just lock you away on a whim, we have procedures, courts and juries. They can try to indict you and prosecute you. If they succeed then I guess they were right to make the attempt. We're talking about the secret service here that routinely looks into threats against government personnel, even less credibe threats. They do this because the track record of assasination attempts on US political leaders and candidates.
If you want to post others details online then I have no sympathy when your anonymity is blown. I'm not 'just wrong', these people are claiming they are being intimidated by their identities being sought, however they posted the identities, personal details and location of others in the clear hopes of intimidating them, and the scumbags did it anonymously. Since when did freedom of speech include freedom to say anything you like anonymously without consequences? It has never meant this but now the debate is framed in these ludicrous terms.
Nobody is restricting their right to free speech, it is ridiculous to suggest so however they WERE trying to restrict the rights of free assembly of GOP delegates, that is an undisputed fact.
To repeat an old adage, the right to free speech does not include the right to yell "Fire!" in a theatre, unless there is a fire. There are many other examples what freedom of speech is not.
At these prices I'm almost propelled back 10 years in time to Unix workstation per seat licensing practices. Nothing that costs a grand a seat will ever achive the penetration Google has. Geeze these guys have 100 customers, you'd think someone there would be smart enough to wake up one day and realize why they have 100 custs. Why bother even writing a puff piece about some expensive data mining app? You've gotta be out of your tree to see something like this and think Google. There's any number of useful but expensive software packages sold by relatively anonymous niche players that would make a much better analogy (although few charge as much as these guys). I guess since Google just floated for a wad of cash they're the round hole into which this square peg of a company would like to be bashed by their cooperative 'journalist'.
Ahh... there you go thinking these people don't have accountability. Everyone has accountability for their actions.
I find these anonymous posters complaining about intimidation beneath contempt. You think they weren't trying to intimidate those delegates? Not everyone at the conference is an elected representative.
Veiled threats and publication of personal information designed soley to heap misfortune on the victim has nothing to do with 'speech'. Those details were published with the explicit hope that a mob would show up and intimidate the individuals targeted. Maybe with the added bonus of a stolen identity or two.
Geeze, why must everyone pretend this is about speech and spout analogies when everyone on *both* sides knows exactly what was going on here. It had nothing to do with persuading delegates and we all know darned well that this only stiffens resolve on both sides.
There's a certain irony that the people hiding behind anonymous posts which were trying to intimidate convention delagates by publishing their personal details and locations are now claiming indimidation about their mere identities being exposed.
It's just stunningly hypocritical for anyone to claim intimidation by the mere uncovering of their anonymous identity when they've posted the personal details including residence of others encouraging thousands of potential protestors to show up and ahem... 'protest'.
If you go posting information online in a way that clearly invites intimidation of others and worse, excuse me if I don't feel very sympathetic about bleating of intimidation when someone attempts to uncover your anonymity.
It almost takes anonymous posting to a new low, but let's face it, it is pretty tough to reach new depths there.
This broken glass analogy merely serves to illustrate how out of touch these pigopolists are. Disingenuous analogies (and that's giving him the benefit of the doubt) don't inform the debade, but let's take his own analogy a little bit further since he raised it.
You cannot duplicate a cognac glass at home for a few cents, and the manufacturing and distribution costs of glasses are not insignificant, unlike digital music. Moreover the "cognac glass association" is not given an exclusive and endlessly extended monopoly by congress to produce cognac glasses to the detrement of free markets. Buying an entirely new set of matching glasses to replace the old set at a competitive price is an option with glasses, not so with music, at least not yet.
That's NOT the post I replied to. Just hit the parent link on my post. The post I replied to mentioned the Direct Rendering and said DirectX 3 was more elegant. I chose to mention the ABI as one means of illustrating my point about how easy the DRI is to use. So what the heck are you complaining about?
This I already know, I never said it was essential, however NVIDIA drivers have their own closed source dropin replacement for DRI that doesn't play nice with the DRI.