When you run a Direct3D game on Windows, the Direct3D functions call the driver functions directly. With a modern game that uses shaders, you are often doing a source-to-source transform of the shader (or a bytecode-to-bytecode transform) before then JIT compiling it for the target GPU.
Wouldn't something like Gallium3D eventually eliminate that sort of problem?
I like how the summary mentions "climate deniers". Does anybody seriously deny that there is such a thing as climate? I thought it was all about it warming up (or not) because of human activity.
For me it doesn't speak very well for the um... Climate believers(?) sense of rational argument. No, the opposing view isn't questioning our computer models or the accuracy of our data. Nope. They deny climate altogether!
Can you think of a country where the leader genuinely does nowadays? Governments stopped serving the people years ago. Give yourself a couple years after any replacement and you'll feel the exact same way, even if you voted them in.
It's not the public figure you're really angry with though, it's the ones pulling its strings. And guess what, you can't vote those in or out of where they stand. You honestly think Harper has any deep ideological views towards copyrights? He's just doing what he'll gain most from on a personal level.
You want things to change, shine a light on them like Michael Geist is doing. That's a principle you can apply to just about everything that's wrong with the way we are governed too.
Because being Goldman-Sachs guarantees a slap on the wrist? They have a nearly endless supply of lesser management pawns to absorb all blame and they make significantly more money being crooked than any fine might cost them.
It's like fining a a company 20 000 for dumping toxic waste that would have cost them 100 000 to get rid of legally.
It's a common misconception that the taxes people pay on their income go to services provided by the government. In reality, schools and police and fire departments are largely funded by local property taxes, and roads and infrastructure are paid for by a tax on gasoline. Most of the income tax revenue goes to discretionary spending, like building up the military, and paying interest on the national debt.
So, yes, it is possible to view child pornography and not hurt anyone. However, in aggregate, the viewing of child pornography creates a demand for new images, and the filling of this demand results in child abuse.
Fair enough, but is anyone here arguing that child abuse shouldn't be illegal? We're talking about pre-crime and thought crime here... What if you ever got so mad at someone that you *thought* about killing them (before you cooled off or somesuch), do you really feel yourself deserving of jail time?
There are plenty of pictures depicting quite violent acts in movies, comics, etc. Heck, it could even be reasonably argued that *some* real crimes are influenced by some of those images. You want to ban the next Fank Miller comic and send him and everyone who's ever read his stuff to jail? I'm pretty sure murder and violence on that level is illegal.
Secession might be, but interposition is what Jefferson came up with as a solution. There are several examples in US history of it getting the job done too. Tom Woods has a pretty good historical speech on the topic if you care to youtube for it.
You might want to research that a little further... There was reason a plenty from their perspective. Several of them, even, seemed rather conveniently provided by the US administration of the time... Though that last bit is left to anyone's interpretation. The US population had no intention to go to war, but I don't think that entirely speaks true of the whole government back then. Here's Gore Vidal on the subject:
On July 16, 1941, Prince Konoye, a would-be peacemaker, became prime minister. On July 26 (as a vote of confidence?) the US froze all Japanese funds in the US and stopped the export of oil. When Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles was asked by the Japanese if some compromise might be worked out, Welles said there was not the "slightest ground for any compromise solution."
Our first provocation against Japan began with FDR's famous Chicago address (October 5, 1937), asking for a quarantine against aggressor nations. Certainly, Japan in Manchuria and north China qualified as an aggressor just as we had been one when we conquered the Philippines and moved into the Japanese neighborhood at the start of the twentieth century. In December 1937, the Japanese sank the Panay, an American gunboat in Chinese waters, on duty so far from home as the Monroe Doctrine sternly requires. Japan promptly, humbly paid for the damage mistakenly done our ship. Meanwhile, FDR—something of a Sinophile—was aiding and abetting the Chinese warlord Chiang Kai-shek.
Three years later the Western world changed dramatically. France fell to Hitler, an ally of Japan. FDR was looking for some way to help Britain avoid the same fate. Although most bien pensant Americans were eager to stop Hitler, not many fretted about Japan. Also, more to the point—the point—a clear majority of American voters were against going to war a second time in Europe in a single generation. Nevertheless, instead of meeting Konoye, FDR met Winston Churchill aboard a warship off Newfoundland. FDR said that he would do what he could to help England but he was limited by an isolationist Congress, press, and electorate. Later, Churchill, in a speech to Parliament, let part of the cat out of the bag: "The possibility since the Atlantic Conference...that the United States, even if not herself attacked, would come into a war in the Far East, and thus make final victory sure, seemed to allay some of those anxieties...." (The anxieties were FDR's inability to come to the full aid of England in the war with the Axis.) "As time went on, one had great assurance that if Japan ran amok in the Pacific, we should not fight alone."
If the US would focus more on "freedom" and less on delivering it to other countries, we would be a stronger country. Right now, our freedoms are eroding, our jobs are at risk, our manufacturing base is rusting away, half of our allies stay pissed at us, all due a national self-rightousness that arrogantly assumes that ALL countries should have a form of government just like ours.
I find it highly encouraging that more and more US citizens are waking up to that fact. And assuming strict adherence to your constitution, I would actually quite welcome your form of government. Honestly, if you guys manage to get your act back together, there wouldn't be any need to enforce it on others anyway. Most would be striving to emulate you guys merely for the prosperity and genuine individual liberty it brings. Until then though, don't loose hope and see if you can inspire a few more of your fellows.
Insurance also allows hospitals to charge patients 200$ for a tooth brush. You may create a bigger pool of usable money by putting more healthy people in it, but nothing in that plan addresses the obscene amount of waste caused (in part) by insurance in the first place.
If a medical bill is under 50 000$, insurance companies typically don't even look at the invoice. And now they'll have even less of an incentive to pay attention to the costs since insurance becomes mandatory. I'm quite happy for those who'll finally get covered instead of suffering, that's a good thing... But I really don't kid myself as to who this bill really aims to help the most and it's not them.
You never ever drive the cost of something down by having the government (tax payer) pay for it.
No. Anarchy is undemocratic, because for practical purposes, in an anarchic state, the strong rule the weak.
And in a democracy, the many rule the few. Both are quite well suited to the oppression you describe, it's just the group being oppressed that changes. Open source has a constitution (like the GPL) ensures that even the many cannot take away your freedom to fork whatever you want and your ownership the code you wrote. Democracy in itself is not a good form of government at all.
I don't think it's very doable to equate either of those to open source. But it fits the bill of a true free market pretty well. The major commodities are features, interfaces, code, etc. The regulations are (open) standards. Producers are coders, consumers are users. You 'vote' with your use of the software, buying into whatever commodities you need. You invest by contributing your code...
Might be the reason why it works so well. And makes one pause when they try to equate it to economic 'communism' (central economic planning), which is essentially much more like closed source software.
I think the issue here is that there is a distinction between open source as a whole, and an open source project, which might have whatever internal structure it finds most efficient... And in such cases, the most efficient model so far would be best described as 'benevolent dictatorship'. And to go back to my earlier analogy, the same apparently goes in a free market where most successful companies have a visionary CEO at the top.
In fact, if you just take away copyrights, patents, trade secrets and government (regulation) sponsored monopolies, you would likely find the free market to be as free (and chaotic) as open source.
(I've heard that this used to be combatted with very toxic copper based compounds, no idea what they use now).
When I worked for some ship systems company, they used the desalination slurry (byproduct of the freshwater-making systems). Basically, they made the water around the ship too salty for things to want to stick around... Literally.
On non bleeding edge kernels, using the TARPIT target is actually better than -j DROP as it will hog their resources. Be careful not to use connection tracking on those specific connections however.
Slashdot Mirror
When you run a Direct3D game on Windows, the Direct3D functions call the driver functions directly. With a modern game that uses shaders, you are often doing a source-to-source transform of the shader (or a bytecode-to-bytecode transform) before then JIT compiling it for the target GPU.
Wouldn't something like Gallium3D eventually eliminate that sort of problem?
Let's hope they used a bit more rigor when they calculated the sun's estimated lifespan.
I like how the summary mentions "climate deniers". Does anybody seriously deny that there is such a thing as climate? I thought it was all about it warming up (or not) because of human activity.
For me it doesn't speak very well for the um... Climate believers(?) sense of rational argument. No, the opposing view isn't questioning our computer models or the accuracy of our data. Nope. They deny climate altogether!
Can you think of a country where the leader genuinely does nowadays? Governments stopped serving the people years ago. Give yourself a couple years after any replacement and you'll feel the exact same way, even if you voted them in.
It's not the public figure you're really angry with though, it's the ones pulling its strings. And guess what, you can't vote those in or out of where they stand. You honestly think Harper has any deep ideological views towards copyrights? He's just doing what he'll gain most from on a personal level.
You want things to change, shine a light on them like Michael Geist is doing. That's a principle you can apply to just about everything that's wrong with the way we are governed too.
the industry has a 100% track record with major oils spills
I hate them as much as the next guy, but um... You realize that it's not like anyone else even has the *means* of producing a major oil spill.
It's sort of like giving the nuclear industry a 100% track record for major (non weapon) nuclear disasters.
Because being Goldman-Sachs guarantees a slap on the wrist? They have a nearly endless supply of lesser management pawns to absorb all blame and they make significantly more money being crooked than any fine might cost them.
It's like fining a a company 20 000 for dumping toxic waste that would have cost them 100 000 to get rid of legally.
*this* big.
Better arping, some devices don't respond to icmp.
What makes one Linux better than another?
Your needs and your tastes.
I'd get more worried if they only play Zerg...
It's a common misconception that the taxes people pay on their income go to services provided by the government. In reality, schools and police and fire departments are largely funded by local property taxes, and roads and infrastructure are paid for by a tax on gasoline. Most of the income tax revenue goes to discretionary spending, like building up the military, and paying interest on the national debt.
So, yes, it is possible to view child pornography and not hurt anyone. However, in aggregate, the viewing of child pornography creates a demand for new images, and the filling of this demand results in child abuse.
Fair enough, but is anyone here arguing that child abuse shouldn't be illegal? We're talking about pre-crime and thought crime here... What if you ever got so mad at someone that you *thought* about killing them (before you cooled off or somesuch), do you really feel yourself deserving of jail time?
There are plenty of pictures depicting quite violent acts in movies, comics, etc. Heck, it could even be reasonably argued that *some* real crimes are influenced by some of those images. You want to ban the next Fank Miller comic and send him and everyone who's ever read his stuff to jail? I'm pretty sure murder and violence on that level is illegal.
Secession might be, but interposition is what Jefferson came up with as a solution. There are several examples in US history of it getting the job done too. Tom Woods has a pretty good historical speech on the topic if you care to youtube for it.
You might want to research that a little further... There was reason a plenty from their perspective. Several of them, even, seemed rather conveniently provided by the US administration of the time... Though that last bit is left to anyone's interpretation. The US population had no intention to go to war, but I don't think that entirely speaks true of the whole government back then. Here's Gore Vidal on the subject:
On July 16, 1941, Prince Konoye, a would-be peacemaker, became prime minister. On July 26 (as a vote of confidence?) the US froze all Japanese funds in the US and stopped the export of oil. When Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles was asked by the Japanese if some compromise might be worked out, Welles said there was not the "slightest ground for any compromise solution."
Our first provocation against Japan began with FDR's famous Chicago address (October 5, 1937), asking for a quarantine against aggressor nations. Certainly, Japan in Manchuria and north China qualified as an aggressor just as we had been one when we conquered the Philippines and moved into the Japanese neighborhood at the start of the twentieth century. In December 1937, the Japanese sank the Panay, an American gunboat in Chinese waters, on duty so far from home as the Monroe Doctrine sternly requires. Japan promptly, humbly paid for the damage mistakenly done our ship. Meanwhile, FDR—something of a Sinophile—was aiding and abetting the Chinese warlord Chiang Kai-shek.
Three years later the Western world changed dramatically. France fell to Hitler, an ally of Japan. FDR was looking for some way to help Britain avoid the same fate. Although most bien pensant Americans were eager to stop Hitler, not many fretted about Japan. Also, more to the point—the point—a clear majority of American voters were against going to war a second time in Europe in a single generation. Nevertheless, instead of meeting Konoye, FDR met Winston Churchill aboard a warship off Newfoundland. FDR said that he would do what he could to help England but he was limited by an isolationist Congress, press, and electorate. Later, Churchill, in a speech to Parliament, let part of the cat out of the bag: "The possibility since the Atlantic Conference...that the United States, even if not herself attacked, would come into a war in the Far East, and thus make final victory sure, seemed to allay some of those anxieties...." (The anxieties were FDR's inability to come to the full aid of England in the war with the Axis.) "As time went on, one had great assurance that if Japan ran amok in the Pacific, we should not fight alone."
... they're all over Slashdot and don't sound nearly nerdy enough! So much for your cover, sucker!
Heck, you can take mine too, if you can carry it.
Dear WrongSizeGlass,
Can we move one of our data-centres next to your house?
Sincerely,
Eric Schmidt
If the US would focus more on "freedom" and less on delivering it to other countries, we would be a stronger country. Right now, our freedoms are eroding, our jobs are at risk, our manufacturing base is rusting away, half of our allies stay pissed at us, all due a national self-rightousness that arrogantly assumes that ALL countries should have a form of government just like ours.
I find it highly encouraging that more and more US citizens are waking up to that fact. And assuming strict adherence to your constitution, I would actually quite welcome your form of government. Honestly, if you guys manage to get your act back together, there wouldn't be any need to enforce it on others anyway. Most would be striving to emulate you guys merely for the prosperity and genuine individual liberty it brings. Until then though, don't loose hope and see if you can inspire a few more of your fellows.
Insurance also allows hospitals to charge patients 200$ for a tooth brush. You may create a bigger pool of usable money by putting more healthy people in it, but nothing in that plan addresses the obscene amount of waste caused (in part) by insurance in the first place.
If a medical bill is under 50 000$, insurance companies typically don't even look at the invoice. And now they'll have even less of an incentive to pay attention to the costs since insurance becomes mandatory. I'm quite happy for those who'll finally get covered instead of suffering, that's a good thing... But I really don't kid myself as to who this bill really aims to help the most and it's not them.
You never ever drive the cost of something down by having the government (tax payer) pay for it.
I suggest drawing the line at what the constitution explicitly says the federal government should provide.
The most elegant solution to the energy crisis I've seen in quite a while...
Like you just did?
Hehe, just messing with ya there... But it makes one pause to consider their statement, doesn't it?
No. Anarchy is undemocratic, because for practical purposes, in an anarchic state, the strong rule the weak.
And in a democracy, the many rule the few. Both are quite well suited to the oppression you describe, it's just the group being oppressed that changes. Open source has a constitution (like the GPL) ensures that even the many cannot take away your freedom to fork whatever you want and your ownership the code you wrote. Democracy in itself is not a good form of government at all.
I don't think it's very doable to equate either of those to open source. But it fits the bill of a true free market pretty well. The major commodities are features, interfaces, code, etc. The regulations are (open) standards. Producers are coders, consumers are users. You 'vote' with your use of the software, buying into whatever commodities you need. You invest by contributing your code...
Might be the reason why it works so well. And makes one pause when they try to equate it to economic 'communism' (central economic planning), which is essentially much more like closed source software.
I think the issue here is that there is a distinction between open source as a whole, and an open source project, which might have whatever internal structure it finds most efficient... And in such cases, the most efficient model so far would be best described as 'benevolent dictatorship'. And to go back to my earlier analogy, the same apparently goes in a free market where most successful companies have a visionary CEO at the top.
In fact, if you just take away copyrights, patents, trade secrets and government (regulation) sponsored monopolies, you would likely find the free market to be as free (and chaotic) as open source.
(I've heard that this used to be combatted with very toxic copper based compounds, no idea what they use now).
When I worked for some ship systems company, they used the desalination slurry (byproduct of the freshwater-making systems). Basically, they made the water around the ship too salty for things to want to stick around... Literally.
On non bleeding edge kernels, using the TARPIT target is actually better than -j DROP as it will hog their resources. Be careful not to use connection tracking on those specific connections however.