No, there were many driver faults which seem to be largely Nvidia's fault. We're talking about a single company reponsible for almost a third of the crashes.
Nobody forced Nvidia to release drivers when they did, and in beta form. NVidia should have tested more and that's all there is to it.
Depending on what version of "blame Microsoft" you are responding to the complaint may or may not be legitimate.
How is a link to Windows 2003 relevent to Vista, which has a different driver model?
According to the only link you provided, video drivers were moved into the kernel for performance reasons, not stability reasons. Also according to the link, they were able to address the previous performance issues (or faster hardware made the impact negligible, or both) and thus moved the drivers BACK into user land.
I don't think what they said was consistent, and given that there's more video hardware now than in the NT 3.51 days, I can understand why they started leaving it to the vendors to do the majority of testing of their own drivers.
As for the screw you attitude, i don't see why you attibute that to only MS; that seems to be the MO of pretty much any corporation (or government, for that matter) that gains a lot of power. It's not great, but it's expected because it does seem to be human nature.
Well, I'm sure people said the same thing about building out a copper network too, yet we managed to get phone service pretty much everywhere people can live in this country. And the service WAS really good, it's just that the government let AT&T get way too greedy and lazy.
Well they decided they wanted to improve reliablity or security, and to really make progress they had to make breaking changes. There's nothing wrong with that. It's up to hardware vendors to make sure their drivers work with the new model. Given that ATI and Intel seem to have been able to make stable Vista drivers, I don't see why you'd blame MS for Nvidia's failings. At the end of the day, the graphics card and drivers are THEIR products, its soley THIER responsiblity to make sure it works. It's not like MS pushed a patch that broke everything; Nvidia had plenty of time, and they choose to release drivers that weren't stable. Its poor quality control.
Stop being a zealot MS hater, and start thinking rationally.
Indeed, especially since I never had to edit mode lines with Windows. That was one of those things i could never figure out; what too X so long to get that fucking feature in there.
It probably has to do with the fact that if we need to sue, we'd have to sue Google, and not the CEO. The "legal fiction" relieves him of any responsibilty for some reason.
It's not the place of an international corporation to pick and choose which laws to follow.
Is Google not a collection of people? Don't individuals have the responsiblity to help defend the rights of others? Don't individuals have the responsiblity to stand up to unjust laws? Our founders believed that an unjust law was not a law the moment it was passed, you can see that in what happens when a law is deemed unconsitutional.
Many have. Check out the major owners, who now own multiple stations within a market - Bonneville, Clear Channel, etc. The only time it would be halted is if one corporation was moving to a monopoly position.
Indeed; that's largely my point. Regular radio is pretty dismal because of it. I'd hate to see the same happen to sat. radio.
The "airwaves" are supposed to be public/free, and are licensed by the FCC. Satellite is not under FCC's jurisdiction as it goes beyond the public spectrum. It was purely a lobbyist's game that held this up for so long.
If the airwaves are supposed to be public/free, the reasoning would have to apply to ALL of the spectrum, not just some. I would say sat. radio is even more under the jurisdiction of the FCC, since you could build a terristrial station that doesn't cross state lines.
Interesting how Murdoch can take over the WSJ with all the holdings in news media (print/airwaves) with nary a hitch in the proceedings, but something outside the gov't (and lobbyists') regulatory control takes more than a year.
Well, he wouldn't have been able to if the FCC didn't for some reason remove it's monopoly rules.
Right, you keep telling yourself that anyone that doesn't agree with you is a twit or shill. Can't possibly be that your argument is crap, and you really don't know what you're talking about.
Stop it. You're making a fool of yourself. Speed limits are there for a very specific reason: that is the speed at which the average person can safely drive on that road. Or do you want the speed limit in your neighborhood raised to 50 instead of 25? The few cases in which speed limits are used to gather revenue have been well documented*.
Actually speed limits are primarly revenue generators. Unless you can think of a reason VT has removed your right to challenge the speed limit based on civil engineering guidelines after a year. Think about it; civil engineers say "this is the best limit" but VT says unless someone challenges it, that doesn't matter. Tell me again that's not done in the name of revenue.
Research on the other hand has shown that average people are prefectly capable of determining how fast to drive their car. Indeed, that's exactly how speed limits are supposed to be set; by looking at what speed people pick for themselves without any limits and then choosing the speed which covers the 85th percentile.
Further, as the repeat of a History channel show pointed out, the autobahn is constructed much differently than roads in the U.S. The autobahn is 27" thick which means it is much less susceptible to cracking or warping. In the U.S., road thickness is not more than 16" and that is only in the best of conditions. Maintenance of the autobahn is also much more rigorous compared to U.S. roads. Living in PA, I can attest to the poor state of our roads that we regularly are rated last or next to last in the nation.
Someone else pointed out our roads are designed for 120MPH at most, yet speed limits in PA are about half of that. Oh, and I also lived in PA, and yes, it was perfectly safe from a road condition point of view to do 80MPH. I did this regualarly on I95, I695, I476, I76 and I276. The main problem from a traffic point of view was heavy volume and people driving in the middle lane on the six lane poritions.
In addition, when driving on the autobahn, you are driving the car. Not sipping your coffee, eating a burger or talking on the phone. You're driving. As the story goes, German car designers couldn't understand why people in the U.S. were asking for cupholders in their cars.
Good old anecdote. NOt that I haven't seen stupidity, I just don't see how doing somethign stupid matters when talking about the difference between 55 and 80. Both are going to be bad. Of course I tend to think that if you tell people what they must do in each and every case, they tend not to think as much. When leads to things like people trying to drive 55 in a blizzard.
Besides, as everyone knows, the faster you drive, the more fuel you burn and the less mileage you get.
What business is that of yours?
What rights? There is no right to drive a car. Driving a car is a privilege because of the dangers involved in driving one.
Riding a horse while pulling a carriage is dangerous too. And there is a right to drive; it's actually the right to travel using the common means of the day. Government does not grant rights, we have them. http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Travel/RightToTravel.htm
Saying something is dangerous and may cause harm to others isn't enough to take away one's rights. If you believe that, than you probably agree with Britian and its attempt to ban kitchen knives. Personally, I call that tyranny.
You are essentially driving a killing machine and it is only because of the skill of the person behind the wheel that prevents an accident.
No, if I were driving a killing machine I'd surely have flamethrowers, grendade launchers, pointy metal sticks and machine guns. Of is a knife in your mind nothing more than a killing stick?
*Note in the article that the cops give people a ten mile leeway over the posted speed limit before giving them a ticket.
Um, that's up to you to know the limits of your car, and the limits of your tire. Or are you suggesting reasonable people would drive faster than their tires could properly handle?
Also, I don't know where you get your numbers, but my car's normal tires are rated 140+. The snow tires I have on now are rated at 86, so I purposefully limit myself to 80 when conditions are good.
Why is it a cops job to make sure that your car is up to spec? That's YOUR job.
No, insurance is not at all like a bank. First, the insurance companies make WAY more profit than banks. Second, when I leave an insurance company I don't get any of my money back. I'm left with nothing in return.
The logic is simple; if you take a risk and blow up your own car, you're SOL, which is how it should be. However, if you take a risk and end up destroying someone else's property or health you are responsible. However, since people wouldn't end up paying (because the cost is high) you only need insurance to cover damages to OTHER people's property and health. You're free to risk your property and health all you want. Its your right to screw yourself.
Re:Overhead, look at cereals in your grocery store
on
Must a CD Cost $15.99?
·
· Score: 1
What about DVDs, let alone Blu-Ray. Thirty for a blu-ray version compared to 14.99 for the regular? Is there really that much more in cost in making it?
Well, a small Hyundia will move you just as well as say an Acura, but the latter will last longer and offer a more comfortable ride.
From this article, yes, some of it is in stock. However, it sounds like at least $400 million is NOT paid in stock. Unless you have something that gives more detail.
Ya it would be great to those that say bring a lawsuit against their employer because their employer acted improperly and the employees got some life threatening illness... but lost their case for some reason.
Loser pays would ONLY discourage people from filing a case if they have no money, yet still have a legitimate case.
Are you stupid? You said there are VERSIONS that can only support databases of a certain size. There's ONE version that is limited to 4GB. The others have no such limit. And if you bothered to read even your link, you'd see that Developer is the Enterprise edition, except you can only use it for development reasons. Otherwise, its identitcal to Enterprise.
XM has smaller radios; XM has channel blocking. AFAIK, you still can't record songs from Sirius radios. Also, on the sat. side, XMs sats. are in geosyncronous orbit, meaning they don't lose signal like Sirius' sat. does.
They're not the same, or they'd have the same features and signal quality.
They're both struggling, Sirrus more, because it has WAY more debt. I think that's why it wants to "buy" XM... for the assets, so the debt doesn't look as bad. 500M for Stern, plus they have to pay to broadcast NFL (who listens to football on the radio anyway?) & NBA.
Slashdot Mirror
You should check out XAML.
No, there were many driver faults which seem to be largely Nvidia's fault. We're talking about a single company reponsible for almost a third of the crashes.
Nobody forced Nvidia to release drivers when they did, and in beta form. NVidia should have tested more and that's all there is to it.
Here is a link:
http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/library/eb1936c0-e19c-4a17-a1a8-39292e4929a41033.mspx?mfr=true
Depending on what version of "blame Microsoft" you are responding to the complaint may or may not be legitimate.
How is a link to Windows 2003 relevent to Vista, which has a different driver model?
According to the only link you provided, video drivers were moved into the kernel for performance reasons, not stability reasons. Also according to the link, they were able to address the previous performance issues (or faster hardware made the impact negligible, or both) and thus moved the drivers BACK into user land.
I don't think what they said was consistent, and given that there's more video hardware now than in the NT 3.51 days, I can understand why they started leaving it to the vendors to do the majority of testing of their own drivers.
As for the screw you attitude, i don't see why you attibute that to only MS; that seems to be the MO of pretty much any corporation (or government, for that matter) that gains a lot of power. It's not great, but it's expected because it does seem to be human nature.
Well, I'm sure people said the same thing about building out a copper network too, yet we managed to get phone service pretty much everywhere people can live in this country. And the service WAS really good, it's just that the government let AT&T get way too greedy and lazy.
Well they decided they wanted to improve reliablity or security, and to really make progress they had to make breaking changes. There's nothing wrong with that. It's up to hardware vendors to make sure their drivers work with the new model. Given that ATI and Intel seem to have been able to make stable Vista drivers, I don't see why you'd blame MS for Nvidia's failings. At the end of the day, the graphics card and drivers are THEIR products, its soley THIER responsiblity to make sure it works. It's not like MS pushed a patch that broke everything; Nvidia had plenty of time, and they choose to release drivers that weren't stable. Its poor quality control.
Stop being a zealot MS hater, and start thinking rationally.
Indeed, especially since I never had to edit mode lines with Windows. That was one of those things i could never figure out; what too X so long to get that fucking feature in there.
It probably has to do with the fact that if we need to sue, we'd have to sue Google, and not the CEO. The "legal fiction" relieves him of any responsibilty for some reason.
It's not the place of an international corporation to pick and choose which laws to follow.
Is Google not a collection of people? Don't individuals have the responsiblity to help defend the rights of others? Don't individuals have the responsiblity to stand up to unjust laws? Our founders believed that an unjust law was not a law the moment it was passed, you can see that in what happens when a law is deemed unconsitutional.
Huh.. I suppose that's why it's been harder and harder to get drugs. Wait, it hasn't been, but drug related violence is up? Hmm.
The only cost will be innocent people being killed.
Ouch, must have hit a soft spot for you.. truth hurts, huh?
Many have. Check out the major owners, who now own multiple stations within a market - Bonneville, Clear Channel, etc. The only time it would be halted is if one corporation was moving to a monopoly position.
Indeed; that's largely my point. Regular radio is pretty dismal because of it. I'd hate to see the same happen to sat. radio.
The "airwaves" are supposed to be public/free, and are licensed by the FCC. Satellite is not under FCC's jurisdiction as it goes beyond the public spectrum. It was purely a lobbyist's game that held this up for so long.
If the airwaves are supposed to be public/free, the reasoning would have to apply to ALL of the spectrum, not just some. I would say sat. radio is even more under the jurisdiction of the FCC, since you could build a terristrial station that doesn't cross state lines.
Interesting how Murdoch can take over the WSJ with all the holdings in news media (print/airwaves) with nary a hitch in the proceedings, but something outside the gov't (and lobbyists') regulatory control takes more than a year.
Well, he wouldn't have been able to if the FCC didn't for some reason remove it's monopoly rules.
Right, you keep telling yourself that anyone that doesn't agree with you is a twit or shill. Can't possibly be that your argument is crap, and you really don't know what you're talking about.
Stop it. You're making a fool of yourself. Speed limits are there for a very specific reason: that is the speed at which the average person can safely drive on that road. Or do you want the speed limit in your neighborhood raised to 50 instead of 25? The few cases in which speed limits are used to gather revenue have been well documented*.
Actually speed limits are primarly revenue generators. Unless you can think of a reason VT has removed your right to challenge the speed limit based on civil engineering guidelines after a year. Think about it; civil engineers say "this is the best limit" but VT says unless someone challenges it, that doesn't matter. Tell me again that's not done in the name of revenue.
Research on the other hand has shown that average people are prefectly capable of determining how fast to drive their car. Indeed, that's exactly how speed limits are supposed to be set; by looking at what speed people pick for themselves without any limits and then choosing the speed which covers the 85th percentile.
Further, as the repeat of a History channel show pointed out, the autobahn is constructed much differently than roads in the U.S. The autobahn is 27" thick which means it is much less susceptible to cracking or warping. In the U.S., road thickness is not more than 16" and that is only in the best of conditions. Maintenance of the autobahn is also much more rigorous compared to U.S. roads. Living in PA, I can attest to the poor state of our roads that we regularly are rated last or next to last in the nation.
Someone else pointed out our roads are designed for 120MPH at most, yet speed limits in PA are about half of that. Oh, and I also lived in PA, and yes, it was perfectly safe from a road condition point of view to do 80MPH. I did this regualarly on I95, I695, I476, I76 and I276. The main problem from a traffic point of view was heavy volume and people driving in the middle lane on the six lane poritions.
In addition, when driving on the autobahn, you are driving the car. Not sipping your coffee, eating a burger or talking on the phone. You're driving. As the story goes, German car designers couldn't understand why people in the U.S. were asking for cupholders in their cars.
Good old anecdote. NOt that I haven't seen stupidity, I just don't see how doing somethign stupid matters when talking about the difference between 55 and 80. Both are going to be bad. Of course I tend to think that if you tell people what they must do in each and every case, they tend not to think as much. When leads to things like people trying to drive 55 in a blizzard.
Besides, as everyone knows, the faster you drive, the more fuel you burn and the less mileage you get.
What business is that of yours?
What rights? There is no right to drive a car. Driving a car is a privilege because of the dangers involved in driving one.
Riding a horse while pulling a carriage is dangerous too. And there is a right to drive; it's actually the right to travel using the common means of the day. Government does not grant rights, we have them. http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Travel/RightToTravel.htm
Saying something is dangerous and may cause harm to others isn't enough to take away one's rights. If you believe that, than you probably agree with Britian and its attempt to ban kitchen knives. Personally, I call that tyranny.
You are essentially driving a killing machine and it is only because of the skill of the person behind the wheel that prevents an accident.
No, if I were driving a killing machine I'd surely have flamethrowers, grendade launchers, pointy metal sticks and machine guns. Of is a knife in your mind nothing more than a killing stick?
*Note in the article that the cops give people a ten mile leeway over the posted speed limit before giving them a ticket.
Doesn't sound like the
Um, that's up to you to know the limits of your car, and the limits of your tire. Or are you suggesting reasonable people would drive faster than their tires could properly handle?
Also, I don't know where you get your numbers, but my car's normal tires are rated 140+. The snow tires I have on now are rated at 86, so I purposefully limit myself to 80 when conditions are good.
Why is it a cops job to make sure that your car is up to spec? That's YOUR job.
Actually engineers set according to the 85th percentile rule, or they should be. Otherwise you're spot on.
No, insurance is not at all like a bank. First, the insurance companies make WAY more profit than banks. Second, when I leave an insurance company I don't get any of my money back. I'm left with nothing in return.
The logic is simple; if you take a risk and blow up your own car, you're SOL, which is how it should be. However, if you take a risk and end up destroying someone else's property or health you are responsible. However, since people wouldn't end up paying (because the cost is high) you only need insurance to cover damages to OTHER people's property and health. You're free to risk your property and health all you want. Its your right to screw yourself.
What about DVDs, let alone Blu-Ray. Thirty for a blu-ray version compared to 14.99 for the regular? Is there really that much more in cost in making it?
Well, a small Hyundia will move you just as well as say an Acura, but the latter will last longer and offer a more comfortable ride.
From this article, yes, some of it is in stock. However, it sounds like at least $400 million is NOT paid in stock. Unless you have something that gives more detail.
As far as bankrupcy goes, I haven't found anything to say that's true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM_Satellite_Radio
A company which at one time OWNED XM went into bancrupcy, but XM itself hasn't, from what I can see.
Regarding Honda / GM backing XM; that's just smart business. Sirius finally has started to do that, but only because they were being killed by XM.
If you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't comment.
Ya it would be great to those that say bring a lawsuit against their employer because their employer acted improperly and the employees got some life threatening illness... but lost their case for some reason.
Loser pays would ONLY discourage people from filing a case if they have no money, yet still have a legitimate case.
Are you stupid? You said there are VERSIONS that can only support databases of a certain size. There's ONE version that is limited to 4GB. The others have no such limit. And if you bothered to read even your link, you'd see that Developer is the Enterprise edition, except you can only use it for development reasons. Otherwise, its identitcal to Enterprise.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
XM has smaller radios; XM has channel blocking. AFAIK, you still can't record songs from Sirius radios. Also, on the sat. side, XMs sats. are in geosyncronous orbit, meaning they don't lose signal like Sirius' sat. does.
They're not the same, or they'd have the same features and signal quality.
And there's versions of MSSQL that only support databases of certain size.
There's ONE version, and it's free.
They're both struggling, Sirrus more, because it has WAY more debt. I think that's why it wants to "buy" XM... for the assets, so the debt doesn't look as bad. 500M for Stern, plus they have to pay to broadcast NFL (who listens to football on the radio anyway?) & NBA.