- you should be able to log back into your account, no?
No. My browser remembers the password, I don't.
(A) they were my words and I am straight out telling you that you were WRONG - get it? YOU. ARE. WRONG.
- you may believe that this is what you are saying, it doesn't actually make me wrong.
I "may believe" wtf kind of bs is that? I know exactly what I am saying AND HAVE PROVIDED EXAMPLES TO BACK UP MY CLAIMS. You are the one who doesn't understand the terms.
you are simply unavailable when it is required to understand that what I am saying is based on this fact: artificial scarcity and temporary monopoly. This does not make the society poorer, it makes it richer by allowing more content to be produced
YOU are simply unavailable when it is required to understand that what I am saying is based on this fact: monopolies are inherently inefficient. THIS INEFFICIENCY MAKES SOCIETY POORER BECAUSE THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS NOW HIGHER THAN IT WAS BEFORE THE INTERNET AND THERE ARE NEW NON-MONOPOLY BUSINESS MODELS THAT WERE NOT FEASIBLE BEFORE THE INTERNET.
How much value do you assign to the service of distribution? How do you measure it?
- 0. The answer is 0 when there is profit that is made on top of the redistribution.
And there goes the dissonance ringing around in your head. You just said that if it is profitable to distribute something then distribution provides no value. Think about how just utterly ridiculous that claim is.
so the failure rate may actually be higher, and there may be no way to recover from a failure.
Flash fails on write, not on read. If the write was successful, then baring catastrophic failure like a bullet to the unit, it will be readable indefinitely.
Rotating disk can fail on write, but the most common failure is degradation over time that is only discovered when a read fails.
let's put this way: i have now advanced two logical and reasonable assaults on the folly of free market fundamentalism and the idiocy of libertarianism. you have responded to neither assaults.
Seems to me that I refuted your original "assault" in my original response but due to your own personal irrational adherence to an absurd faith were unable to acknowledge it -- which is why you just repeated your same mantra about "read history dude" instead of taking to heart the criticism that stagnation is a signification risk of regulation.
When that AC laughed at the irony of you becoming that which you accuse others of, you just dropped the point rather than defend it. As far as I'm concerned, your new point is really unrelated to your original point in anything other than name and a bunch of hand-waving about "reality" which is really just your faith in certain realities and ignoring other realities.
So? His point is that people could use the female Connector side. I.E. make a plug the fits the patented male plug.
Doh, both sides are patented.
Since you can buy the cable from non Apple places right now, I don't think the licensing fee is as hefty as the manufacturers are whining about.
I'm sure that if the cable is not marketed as being for use with an ipod - i.e. there are no signals that match the patented signal/pin combos, then it probably doesn't fall within the scope of the patent. But use it to connect to an ipod and now you're violating the patent.
dude: study history, the banking panics of the 1800s. a completely unregulated market has severity and consequences WORSE than one that is regulated
Perhaps you do not know the meaning of the phrase "on average?" As in, "over the long term." You are all hyperventilating about one specific kind of failure and completely ignoring other kinds of failures, like, for example, stagnation.
It doesn't help that Mac's always use their own special apostrophe character that looks like a capital A with a hat on it when viewed on other systems.
you've taken a single act of faith: that a completely free market is always good, and in spite of all common sense and reasonable evidence to the contrary,
Sounds like a strawman argument to me. Sure, there probably are people like that, but I doubt they compromise even a significant minority of people who strongly support free markets.
Any rational free-marketeer understands that even open and unregulated markets fail. They just believe that the severity and consequences of such failures are on average less than the kind of failures that occur in any other system.
It isn't that free markets are perfect, it is that they are just the least worst option.
Under the original terms of US copyright law (14 years with optional 14 year renewal if author is still alive, and zero copyright protection for foreign works), most monty python material would already be in the public domain in the USA.
Now the hardware can actually communicate with other media devices that demand a HDCP connection.
No such devices exist. HDCP is strictly transmitter enforced. All HDCP-enabled display and audio devices are fully capable of doing their job without HDCP being turned on.
However, by enabling HDCP on their video hardware Apple has actually increased the opportunity for compatibility problems. If the Apple video hardware tries to do an HDCP handshake and fails - for any number of reasons, like data corruption or a bug in the implementation on either end, etc - then the end result is likely to be a completely blank screen (it should be obvious that if HDCP is turned on, but isn't working right, the only logical result is for the video hardware to stop transmitting, else it risk transmitting sooper-secret-video in the clear). There have been many reports of just this sort of handshaking failure with all kinds of HDCP-enabled devices like ps3's, blu-ray players, amplifier/receivers, etc.
At the very least I think it is inappropriate to share the names of other applicants. For your purposes of evaluation and fairness, I think it is totally unnecessary. For purposes of someone who is unbalanced and didn't get the job because they were unbalanced or even just unqualified, such a list of names and a local telephone book might be enough to get 'revenge' on the others who were ranked higher.
Reality is that most open source bugs I can't do anything with either, for practical values of "can't"
Pretty much your entire argument, including your previous posting, boils down to "The freedoms of Free software don't directly benefit myself, so they are useless for everyone."
That's a terribly short-sighted viewpoint and if everyone held it, you would not have the option to run linux in the first place.
The answer to this question should be relatively easy to come to, just compare the PROs and CONs of semi-anonymity:
PROS - very hard for anyone who wishes you ill to find you through the project
but not entirely impossible, subpoena of ISP records and such will probably
be succesful, but run-of-the-mill stalker or process server will not.
CONS - harder to take credit for your efforts, but that can be mitigated
if you use a public email address from which you can privately
(or publically if you so wish) name your true identity
Seems to me that of the above list, the PROs are a lot stronger than the CONs. Anyone else want to add to the list?
Sorry, I don't know of any tech company that has decent support. My own experience with all companies, including AMD and ATi is similar.
Precisely. If the vendor can't fix it, they should not get in the way of you fixing it yourself, or of that smart guy who always posts to your favorite web forum.
You might want to read a blog post I wrote about why nVidia rocks when x.org does not. It's likely to give you more reasons to move over to nVidia over ATi.
I don't find your arguments compelling.
For one thing, you assert that "because of vocal powers in the foundation that demand that things should stay compliant to a specification and they should work around the architecture rather than strip out certain pieces and implement them, add proper new features (memory management and API functions to go with it)" -- yet my reading of the Xorg mailing lists suggests that is exactly what is being done with the GEM memory manager and API's previously there was the TTM memory manager, but the APIs were not satisfactory, so they ripped it out and started again.
The bulk of your argument seems to be that Nvidia's got a much more complete OpenGL implementation than does anyone else. Nevermind that almost all of it is simply code duped from their MS Windows driver, your argument is really the ages-old "if it works, then who cares if it is closed source" argument we've heard time and time again.
Of course the fallacy of that approach becomes obvious the second it stops working and you are helpless to do anything about it.
That happened to a guy I know, he spent about $600 on a pair of top-end nvidia cards a few years back. All based on nvidia's highly touted support for linux. Except the cards did not work with his IBM T220 monitor. It wasn't anything to do with the ultra-high resolution. It was a trivial bug in the nvidia drivers - if the card could not read an EDID, the drivers assumed the card had a single-link DVI transmitter. A stupid, stupid bug because the actual nvidia chip had the DVI transmitters onboard and they were always dual-link, there was no way for any card in that generation to even be single link, and of course no matter what directives we specified in the config file, the driver "knew better."
He had to go out and spend another ~$150 for two Gefen DVI Detectives just to enable the nvidia card to see an edid so that the driver would correctly turn on the chip's DVI transmitter.
Nvidia's vaunted customer support? Totally clueless and useless, they completely dropped the ball, just ignoring the issue once they realized it was more than a "did you plug in the power cord" level issue.
And don't think that problem was unique to an odd-ball monitor - the same lack of edid is an issue for anyone using unidirectional fibre DVI extender cables.
So, while it is great for you personally that Nvidia's drivers work perfectly with the hardware you own, I'm pretty sure your tune would change right quick if you had to just bend over and take it due to such a trivial bug, the kind that could easily be fixed with a single line or two of code, if you just had the source.
VDPAU sounds like some sort of local hawaiian cure for venereal disease - VD Pau! Fo wen you ala-alas stay too itchy.
Meanwhile, it is interesting that after many years, Nvidia finally starts to support video decode/playback acceleration just days after ATI ships a driver with similar hardware acceleration support. Of course neither vendor uses any sort of common standard - although ATI claims their stuff is almost identical to the Direct X Video Acceleration (DXVA) API that MS has enforced on Windows.
Real libertarians would tell you to start your own search engine that doesn't save information in order to compete with Google in a fair unregulated market, so that the competition forces Google to change.
No, that's more proto-libertarian thinking. Real libertarians understand barriers to entry and scope of service. Besides, that is essentially the same thing as saying "don't use google" - creating competition for google is not an answer that helps google's business, so what are they going to do about it?
Except Google says they anonymize after 9 months, so this should be impossible, unless Google is lying.
Google's 'anonymization' is not terribly effective. They only zero out the last 8-bits of the ip address. Any decent data forensics group should be able to piece together enough information from multiple data points to 're-nonymize' the info. Not feasible for a small-stakes civil matter, but anything larger (say a multi-million dollar divorce) it would probably be worth the effort.
Plus, there is the whole matter of the 9 months, depending on the specific case, that's plenty of time to go digging for incriminating information.
How long until we see people getting subpoena's for google's information about a user for things like divorce cases (e.g. husband with a vasectomy subpoenas wife's search history for info on condoms in order to prove she has been having an affair for years).
I'm sure some proto-libertarian is going to say "well, just don't use google if you don't want that information to be collected about yourself" but a real libertarian would respond with "'don't use google' is not an answer that helps google's business, so what are they going to do about it?"
For whatever reasons the otherwise smart chaps who devised RAID decided to use that word, at no stage was it a characteristic of RAIDsets that they were made of inexpensive disks.
The term "inexpensive" in the RAID acronym is used to mean relative to the cost of a single disk with equal performance. It doesn't mean cheap it means cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
- you should be able to log back into your account, no?
No. My browser remembers the password, I don't.
(A) they were my words and I am straight out telling you that you were WRONG - get it? YOU. ARE. WRONG.
- you may believe that this is what you are saying, it doesn't actually make me wrong.
I "may believe" wtf kind of bs is that? I know exactly what I am saying AND HAVE PROVIDED EXAMPLES TO BACK UP MY CLAIMS. You are the one who doesn't understand the terms.
you are simply unavailable when it is required to understand that what I am saying is based on this fact: artificial scarcity and temporary monopoly. This does not make the society poorer, it makes it richer by allowing more content to be produced
YOU are simply unavailable when it is required to understand that what I am saying is based on this fact: monopolies are inherently inefficient. THIS INEFFICIENCY MAKES SOCIETY POORER BECAUSE THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS NOW HIGHER THAN IT WAS BEFORE THE INTERNET AND THERE ARE NEW NON-MONOPOLY BUSINESS MODELS THAT WERE NOT FEASIBLE BEFORE THE INTERNET.
How much value do you assign to the service of distribution? How do you measure it?
- 0. The answer is 0 when there is profit that is made on top of the redistribution.
And there goes the dissonance ringing around in your head. You just said that if it is profitable to distribute something then distribution provides no value. Think about how just utterly ridiculous that claim is.
For a car analogy, a memristor is like a faulty transmission in the car that is a sentence's flow. It lurches and degrades the overall ride.
Pronounce it as mem-reh-store. That flows just as easily as trans-zis-store.
so the failure rate may actually be higher, and there may be no way to recover from a failure.
Flash fails on write, not on read. If the write was successful, then baring catastrophic failure like a bullet to the unit, it will be readable indefinitely.
Rotating disk can fail on write, but the most common failure is degradation over time that is only discovered when a read fails.
let's put this way: i have now advanced two logical and reasonable assaults on the folly of free market fundamentalism and the idiocy of libertarianism. you have responded to neither assaults.
Seems to me that I refuted your original "assault" in my original response but due to your own personal irrational adherence to an absurd faith were unable to acknowledge it -- which is why you just repeated your same mantra about "read history dude" instead of taking to heart the criticism that stagnation is a signification risk of regulation.
When that AC laughed at the irony of you becoming that which you accuse others of, you just dropped the point rather than defend it. As far as I'm concerned, your new point is really unrelated to your original point in anything other than name and a bunch of hand-waving about "reality" which is really just your faith in certain realities and ignoring other realities.
So? His point is that people could use the female Connector side. I.E. make a plug the fits the patented male plug.
Doh, both sides are patented.
Since you can buy the cable from non Apple places right now, I don't think the licensing fee is as hefty as the manufacturers are whining about.
I'm sure that if the cable is not marketed as being for use with an ipod - i.e. there are no signals that match the patented signal/pin combos, then it probably doesn't fall within the scope of the patent. But use it to connect to an ipod and now you're violating the patent.
dude: study history, the banking panics of the 1800s. a completely unregulated market has severity and consequences WORSE than one that is regulated
Perhaps you do not know the meaning of the phrase "on average?" As in, "over the long term." You are all hyperventilating about one specific kind of failure and completely ignoring other kinds of failures, like, for example, stagnation.
It doesn't help that Mac's always use their own special apostrophe character that looks like a capital A with a hat on it when viewed on other systems.
Reverse engineered or not, it is still patented. So, you've got another 10 years or so before anyone can make legal use of that reverse engineering.
you've taken a single act of faith: that a completely free market is always good, and in spite of all common sense and reasonable evidence to the contrary,
Sounds like a strawman argument to me. Sure, there probably are people like that, but I doubt they compromise even a significant minority of people who strongly support free markets.
Any rational free-marketeer understands that even open and unregulated markets fail. They just believe that the severity and consequences of such failures are on average less than the kind of failures that occur in any other system.
It isn't that free markets are perfect, it is that they are just the least worst option.
Under the original terms of US copyright law (14 years with optional 14 year renewal if author is still alive, and zero copyright protection for foreign works), most monty python material would already be in the public domain in the USA.
Just something to think about...
Now the hardware can actually communicate with other media devices that demand a HDCP connection.
No such devices exist. HDCP is strictly transmitter enforced. All HDCP-enabled display and audio devices are fully capable of doing their job without HDCP being turned on.
However, by enabling HDCP on their video hardware Apple has actually increased the opportunity for compatibility problems. If the Apple video hardware tries to do an HDCP handshake and fails - for any number of reasons, like data corruption or a bug in the implementation on either end, etc - then the end result is likely to be a completely blank screen (it should be obvious that if HDCP is turned on, but isn't working right, the only logical result is for the video hardware to stop transmitting, else it risk transmitting sooper-secret-video in the clear). There have been many reports of just this sort of handshaking failure with all kinds of HDCP-enabled devices like ps3's, blu-ray players, amplifier/receivers, etc.
At the very least I think it is inappropriate to share the names of other applicants. For your purposes of evaluation and fairness, I think it is totally unnecessary. For purposes of someone who is unbalanced and didn't get the job because they were unbalanced or even just unqualified, such a list of names and a local telephone book might be enough to get 'revenge' on the others who were ranked higher.
Not passion, but pride of worksmanship. The former care about the doing, the latter care about the end result.
I'd start with an open ended question:
"You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike...what do you do?"
Press up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A.
Reality is that most open source bugs I can't do anything with either, for practical values of "can't"
Pretty much your entire argument, including your previous posting, boils down to "The freedoms of Free software don't directly benefit myself, so they are useless for everyone."
That's a terribly short-sighted viewpoint and if everyone held it, you would not have the option to run linux in the first place.
The answer to this question should be relatively easy to come to, just compare the PROs and CONs of semi-anonymity:
PROS - very hard for anyone who wishes you ill to find you through the project
but not entirely impossible, subpoena of ISP records and such will probably
be succesful, but run-of-the-mill stalker or process server will not.
CONS - harder to take credit for your efforts, but that can be mitigated
if you use a public email address from which you can privately
(or publically if you so wish) name your true identity
Seems to me that of the above list, the PROs are a lot stronger than the CONs.
Anyone else want to add to the list?
Sorry, I don't know of any tech company that has decent support. My own experience with all companies, including AMD and ATi is similar.
Precisely. If the vendor can't fix it, they should not get in the way of you fixing it yourself, or of that smart guy who always posts to your favorite web forum.
What standard? Well, they could have done it the way the internet was built - with an RFC like approach. Coopetition and all that.
let's just say I can live very well with a 98% open source system.
Yeah, people always say that, until a show-stopper bug comes along in the 2% that's closed and they can't do a thing about it.
You might want to read a blog post I wrote about why nVidia rocks when x.org does not. It's likely to give you more reasons to move over to nVidia over ATi.
I don't find your arguments compelling.
For one thing, you assert that "because of vocal powers in the foundation that demand that things should stay compliant to a specification and they should work around the architecture rather than strip out certain pieces and implement them, add proper new features (memory management and API functions to go with it)" -- yet my reading of the Xorg mailing lists suggests that is exactly what is being done with the GEM memory manager and API's previously there was the TTM memory manager, but the APIs were not satisfactory, so they ripped it out and started again.
The bulk of your argument seems to be that Nvidia's got a much more complete OpenGL implementation than does anyone else. Nevermind that almost all of it is simply code duped from their MS Windows driver, your argument is really the ages-old "if it works, then who cares if it is closed source" argument we've heard time and time again.
Of course the fallacy of that approach becomes obvious the second it stops working and you are helpless to do anything about it.
That happened to a guy I know, he spent about $600 on a pair of top-end nvidia cards a few years back. All based on nvidia's highly touted support for linux. Except the cards did not work with his IBM T220 monitor. It wasn't anything to do with the ultra-high resolution. It was a trivial bug in the nvidia drivers - if the card could not read an EDID, the drivers assumed the card had a single-link DVI transmitter. A stupid, stupid bug because the actual nvidia chip had the DVI transmitters onboard and they were always dual-link, there was no way for any card in that generation to even be single link, and of course no matter what directives we specified in the config file, the driver "knew better."
He had to go out and spend another ~$150 for two Gefen DVI Detectives just to enable the nvidia card to see an edid so that the driver would correctly turn on the chip's DVI transmitter.
Nvidia's vaunted customer support? Totally clueless and useless, they completely dropped the ball, just ignoring the issue once they realized it was more than a "did you plug in the power cord" level issue.
And don't think that problem was unique to an odd-ball monitor - the same lack of edid is an issue for anyone using unidirectional fibre DVI extender cables.
So, while it is great for you personally that Nvidia's drivers work perfectly with the hardware you own, I'm pretty sure your tune would change right quick if you had to just bend over and take it due to such a trivial bug, the kind that could easily be fixed with a single line or two of code, if you just had the source.
VDPAU sounds like some sort of local hawaiian cure for venereal disease
- VD Pau! Fo wen you ala-alas stay too itchy.
Meanwhile, it is interesting that after many years, Nvidia finally starts to support video decode/playback acceleration just days after ATI ships a driver with similar hardware acceleration support. Of course neither vendor uses any sort of common standard - although ATI claims their stuff is almost identical to the Direct X Video Acceleration (DXVA) API that MS has enforced on Windows.
Gamut.
Real libertarians would tell you to start your own search engine that doesn't save information in order to compete with Google in a fair unregulated market, so that the competition forces Google to change.
No, that's more proto-libertarian thinking. Real libertarians understand barriers to entry and scope of service. Besides, that is essentially the same thing as saying "don't use google" - creating competition for google is not an answer that helps google's business, so what are they going to do about it?
Except Google says they anonymize after 9 months, so this should be impossible, unless Google is lying.
Google's 'anonymization' is not terribly effective. They only zero out the last 8-bits of the ip address. Any decent data forensics group should be able to piece together enough information from multiple data points to 're-nonymize' the info. Not feasible for a small-stakes civil matter, but anything larger (say a multi-million dollar divorce) it would probably be worth the effort.
Plus, there is the whole matter of the 9 months, depending on the specific case, that's plenty of time to go digging for incriminating information.
How long until we see people getting subpoena's for google's information about a user for things like divorce cases (e.g. husband with a vasectomy subpoenas wife's search history for info on condoms in order to prove she has been having an affair for years).
I'm sure some proto-libertarian is going to say "well, just don't use google if you don't want that information to be collected about yourself" but a real libertarian would respond with "'don't use google' is not an answer that helps google's business, so what are they going to do about it?"
For whatever reasons the otherwise smart chaps who devised RAID decided to use that word, at no stage was it a characteristic of RAIDsets that they were made of inexpensive disks.
The term "inexpensive" in the RAID acronym is used to mean relative to the cost of a single disk with equal performance. It doesn't mean cheap it means cheaper.