The folks who are not allowed to have something to hide, if not outright being required to be public are those employed by the public aka government employees.
If they don't like it, work privately. Otherwise, tough titties.
I was referring to windows having licensing costs, not Linux. Training costs exist but they aren't ongoing for open source.
Remind me how much it is to obtain windows, and then keep it on computers, and how much the servers cost, and the additional software required, etc etc. The costs go on and on.
Umm, the licensing costs are perpetual in many forms. So at no point ever can training costs go above the licensing, it's just a matter of how long to recoup. In addition, the benefits from always having the most up to date version of the software adds additional things in favor of not using MS products.
Long term licensing is never a viable solution, it's just a lot of people don't like to look at long term economic impacts.
Exactly. I can't imagine situations where people are doing the right thing, that they have reason to show concern. If anything, it should defend them further.
Pretty typical of cops: "The more we can be held accountable, the worse it must be for us! Woe unto us!" as opposed to "Holy shit, I can actually do my job now and not be told I'm not - via proof".
I don't think you have any idea what the roaming fees are. They're almost as cheap as italian phone plans, which are some of the cheapest in the world.
If this is what people think of upstream kernel maintaining, they should probably not troll anonymously.
This is about as far from truth as it is from reality. The man is abrasive, yes, but if you think he's just going to come after you then the problem is absolutely your own perception and not Linus.
The problem is, it's the internet. The ability to subvert a focus due to competition is easily, easily noticeable.
Look at google, MS and apple articles for an easy example of that. Google's have all this "criticism" and "controversy" and almost daily MS and apple have PR folks trying to remove said categories. It's not accidental, it's actually known by sock puppets. Internet access multiplies the ability of monied interests to subvert pure and unbiased interests - so no, it's not the same as a publicly edited encyclopedia.
I'm not trying to compare to say wiki and Mozilla are apples to apples, wiki is simply the best that exists at what it does. That's not being a leader, just "best of the worst". Anyone could start a new mediawiki with the same chance at having as good information as wikipedia until monied interests discover it.
Because wikipedia does so well being independent, along with all the PR folks hired to edit articles for corporations and edit them negatively for said corporations' competition?
I would not like to see it happen, wikipedia can't even manage the shit the're responsible for.
Sometimes people do, sometimes people don't. It's stupid to obey the regulations because if you get a lawyer and defend yourself it's highly likely the city would have to settle and pay you a considerable sum, but it's also not guaranteed. You could be screwed.
Also considering government these days is more like a mafia and less like a beneficial governing structure it's understandable people don't to be murdered by the government in one of many fashions for exercising the rights they *should* have in the first place.
I would disagree with the talent waste. While they are at google, yes, but their focus isn't really getting people to click more ads. A lot of interesting things come out of google:
search google music google maps google voice hangouts g+ android android nexus devices ingress google glass that media player device thing google fiber
I wouldn't say that "most" of their talent is in advertising.
It's an indication that yet again, none of the companies in question intend to improve their products or compete in any way except litigation. Let's hope someday people pay attention to who these companies are that sue and stop doing business with them.
The likeliness of succeeding against google regarding search is zero or as close as it can get. Google's success in courts has been almost nonstop every time they get sued. They are not a company to try to shake down/mess with in that sense, far more so than Microsoft. In addition to that, do these companies even understand what would happen if they *were* to succeed against Google here? It would essentially strip any protections from their own search engines and cause a lot of unintended side affects.
Essentially such things as finding out that hey, Bing is no longer safe and/or violates patents, etc.
Law is based on facts. If the facts are against you and you sue hoping to win you may be forced to reveal a whole lot more shit than you wanted. It's never a good idea to try to use patents and shakedown your biggest competitor.
Ray tracing would be nice if it gets there, but we've been waiting how long for that? Also, it's not like GPUs are sitting at a standstill, and that's just one of many raytracing issues that will present themselves. The original "hey, look at raytracing, we can do that!" stuff from intel was so laughably far behind that when it catches up to GPUs from 2007 it will be 2017, and we'll have more potent GPUs by then.
Even if you have a GPU capable of raytracing you are sacrificing something to do so. Nobody wants another round of "here, you need a separate GPU for raytracing" in addition to standard rendering in PCs, even if it were free/used the IGP while the rest of the graphics are being done via a GPU. If you're giving up gpu shader priority to raytracing over rastering, then all of a sudden rastering games take the performance hit.
In short, the market is too established with garbage like directx for raytracing to make a successful introduction any time in the next 10-15 years. I won't say it will never happen, but even if raytracing cards caught up to GPU performance today and were cheaper than standard graphics cards (aka better on all fronts) you would still have zero adoption.
Actually this is borderline hilarious/obtuse of an article in the first place. This is implying that increasing a GPU's power is about resolution - when more and more demanding games require those same increases of a GPU's power.The article could not be further from any truth whatsoever.
So can eyes tell when GPU's get faster? Absolutely. You just need to put in a context people can understand. In this article they have a call of duty video of the xbox one side by side with PS4, and then a video with PC side by side with PS4 for the same game. So resolutions are: 720p -> 1080p playtation -> 1080p (pc, fully upgraded). Anyone can easily see the differences made, and it's not "hard to tell".
I hope this shows people that the folks at Toms Hardware Guide are sometimes correct and sometimes completely idiotic.
Additionally, you will be able to see a difference if your game stutters at 30FPS vs 60FPS. So there as well, the need for better performing GPU's still exists.
Android is IBM? Uh, no. Not even close. They never went from controlling everything to outsourcing ala IBM. Android was open source from the start, and would have been a 100% GPL'd product had it not been for Sun in the first place. This is something they stated themselves in lawsuits.
Your comparison of "android today" instead of google simply highlights a shortcoming in your thought process. IBM basically stagnated in the 80s, while android is continually expanding and innovating and leading the market.
Beyond forgetting your sarcasm ( as pointed out below),
I'd guess we've had infinity terrorist plots foiled, then. Guess which one we didn't? The Boston Marathon. So yes, think back to Boston Marathon, where we are taught that more information does absolutely nothing except obfuscate facts. How long did it take to identify the bomber? Long enough for him to be successful.
Slashdot Mirror
The folks who are not allowed to have something to hide, if not outright being required to be public are those employed by the public aka government employees.
If they don't like it, work privately. Otherwise, tough titties.
Rambling post, huh?
I was referring to windows having licensing costs, not Linux. Training costs exist but they aren't ongoing for open source.
Remind me how much it is to obtain windows, and then keep it on computers, and how much the servers cost, and the additional software required, etc etc. The costs go on and on.
In new mexico they don't take semen and stool samples, they put them in you.
Umm, the licensing costs are perpetual in many forms. So at no point ever can training costs go above the licensing, it's just a matter of how long to recoup. In addition, the benefits from always having the most up to date version of the software adds additional things in favor of not using MS products.
Long term licensing is never a viable solution, it's just a lot of people don't like to look at long term economic impacts.
Exactly. I can't imagine situations where people are doing the right thing, that they have reason to show concern. If anything, it should defend them further.
Pretty typical of cops: "The more we can be held accountable, the worse it must be for us! Woe unto us!" as opposed to "Holy shit, I can actually do my job now and not be told I'm not - via proof".
Actually all I hear is "we're bowing to political pressure" and "using either Google or Bing is a mistake" (and not just for child abuse).
The answer is : People who's interests are in you simply not driving at all.
The biggest risks in driving are those created by bad traffic engineers and politicians.
I don't think you have any idea what the roaming fees are. They're almost as cheap as italian phone plans, which are some of the cheapest in the world.
If this is what people think of upstream kernel maintaining, they should probably not troll anonymously.
This is about as far from truth as it is from reality. The man is abrasive, yes, but if you think he's just going to come after you then the problem is absolutely your own perception and not Linus.
Yep, you have to root for this.
The fault is not android or HTC, this is exclusively and explicitly the fault of the carriers.
The problem is, it's the internet. The ability to subvert a focus due to competition is easily, easily noticeable.
Look at google, MS and apple articles for an easy example of that. Google's have all this "criticism" and "controversy" and almost daily MS and apple have PR folks trying to remove said categories. It's not accidental, it's actually known by sock puppets. Internet access multiplies the ability of monied interests to subvert pure and unbiased interests - so no, it's not the same as a publicly edited encyclopedia.
I'm not trying to compare to say wiki and Mozilla are apples to apples, wiki is simply the best that exists at what it does. That's not being a leader, just "best of the worst". Anyone could start a new mediawiki with the same chance at having as good information as wikipedia until monied interests discover it.
Because wikipedia does so well being independent, along with all the PR folks hired to edit articles for corporations and edit them negatively for said corporations' competition?
I would not like to see it happen, wikipedia can't even manage the shit the're responsible for.
Sometimes people do, sometimes people don't. It's stupid to obey the regulations because if you get a lawyer and defend yourself it's highly likely the city would have to settle and pay you a considerable sum, but it's also not guaranteed. You could be screwed.
Also considering government these days is more like a mafia and less like a beneficial governing structure it's understandable people don't to be murdered by the government in one of many fashions for exercising the rights they *should* have in the first place.
Also notably, they admitted it - it didn't have to be leaked, in contrast to the shit we've been pulling in the US.
I would disagree with the talent waste. While they are at google, yes, but their focus isn't really getting people to click more ads. A lot of interesting things come out of google:
search
google music
google maps
google voice
hangouts
g+
android
android nexus devices
ingress
google glass
that media player device thing
google fiber
I wouldn't say that "most" of their talent is in advertising.
Hi Florian!
I've discussed this with her too. It's her decision and as much as it pains a ton of us, we need to respect her decision.
Someone needs to start a new blog and get paralegals involved, to carry the torch.
It's an indication that yet again, none of the companies in question intend to improve their products or compete in any way except litigation. Let's hope someday people pay attention to who these companies are that sue and stop doing business with them.
The likeliness of succeeding against google regarding search is zero or as close as it can get. Google's success in courts has been almost nonstop every time they get sued. They are not a company to try to shake down/mess with in that sense, far more so than Microsoft. In addition to that, do these companies even understand what would happen if they *were* to succeed against Google here? It would essentially strip any protections from their own search engines and cause a lot of unintended side affects.
Essentially such things as finding out that hey, Bing is no longer safe and/or violates patents, etc.
Law is based on facts. If the facts are against you and you sue hoping to win you may be forced to reveal a whole lot more shit than you wanted. It's never a good idea to try to use patents and shakedown your biggest competitor.
Ray tracing would be nice if it gets there, but we've been waiting how long for that? Also, it's not like GPUs are sitting at a standstill, and that's just one of many raytracing issues that will present themselves. The original "hey, look at raytracing, we can do that!" stuff from intel was so laughably far behind that when it catches up to GPUs from 2007 it will be 2017, and we'll have more potent GPUs by then.
Even if you have a GPU capable of raytracing you are sacrificing something to do so. Nobody wants another round of "here, you need a separate GPU for raytracing" in addition to standard rendering in PCs, even if it were free/used the IGP while the rest of the graphics are being done via a GPU. If you're giving up gpu shader priority to raytracing over rastering, then all of a sudden rastering games take the performance hit.
In short, the market is too established with garbage like directx for raytracing to make a successful introduction any time in the next 10-15 years. I won't say it will never happen, but even if raytracing cards caught up to GPU performance today and were cheaper than standard graphics cards (aka better on all fronts) you would still have zero adoption.
Actually this is borderline hilarious/obtuse of an article in the first place. This is implying that increasing a GPU's power is about resolution - when more and more demanding games require those same increases of a GPU's power.The article could not be further from any truth whatsoever.
So can eyes tell when GPU's get faster? Absolutely. You just need to put in a context people can understand. In this article they have a call of duty video of the xbox one side by side with PS4, and then a video with PC side by side with PS4 for the same game. So resolutions are: 720p -> 1080p playtation -> 1080p (pc, fully upgraded). Anyone can easily see the differences made, and it's not "hard to tell".
I hope this shows people that the folks at Toms Hardware Guide are sometimes correct and sometimes completely idiotic.
Additionally, you will be able to see a difference if your game stutters at 30FPS vs 60FPS. So there as well, the need for better performing GPU's still exists.
Android is IBM? Uh, no. Not even close. They never went from controlling everything to outsourcing ala IBM. Android was open source from the start, and would have been a 100% GPL'd product had it not been for Sun in the first place. This is something they stated themselves in lawsuits.
Your comparison of "android today" instead of google simply highlights a shortcoming in your thought process. IBM basically stagnated in the 80s, while android is continually expanding and innovating and leading the market.
No, it's called "the irrelevance".
As in, why does anyone care?
This is as stupid an article as the comments themselves.
Email is as standard as it has always been. Nobody should be using or relying on email.
Beyond forgetting your sarcasm ( as pointed out below),
I'd guess we've had infinity terrorist plots foiled, then. Guess which one we didn't? The Boston Marathon. So yes, think back to Boston Marathon, where we are taught that more information does absolutely nothing except obfuscate facts. How long did it take to identify the bomber? Long enough for him to be successful.
you're relying on honor. Newegg, amazon etc might work. However, the scammers that decided you "opted in"? Which one do you think is more prevalent?