Yup, valid points and I agree, the situation is paralyzing; I'm a heavy user myself. The point I'm trying to make is that by involving government intervention, you will more often than not make the situation worse and not better.
The historic economic data, in almost all cases states explicitly that if you want more production then you need more competition, and not less. More government regulation has a tendency, as you have pointed out, to decrease competitive pressures.
Here's an absurd example to illustrate my point. Lets say that all across the US, people like to knit. Naturally, the prices of yarn start to go up and the hardcore knitters get mad. The get the government to pass a law saying that the providers of yarn can't charge more than $X.
It no longer becomes profitable for the small yarn produces to stay in business because losses to profit affect them more and the larger companies are all that remain. Of the companies that remain, none of them have any incentive to change what they're doing because the price is fixed; the result isn't more yarn being produced.
Lets say that the hardcore yarn makers instead get the government to subsidize yarn production. Now you have a situation where everyone in the United States is paying for a hobby that few people have. The cost of that subsidy would in turn would be the loss of productive effort elsewhere.
A valid point can be made for legal intervention however. If Verizon submits a contract to provide a certain amount of bandwidth and subsequently forfeits that contract, it is in the interest of all citizens to see Verizon held accountable. That recourse is a desirable function of the marketplace.
I'm an aforementioned moron. The argument is very simple; it's much more effective to let Verizon shoot itself in the foot than to pass a law with potentially harmful side effects.
Beyond these, NeHe still applies. The exception are operating system specific APIs like playing sound, but those have nothing to do with OpenGL. After NeHe, you may want to consider using shaders, which are covered in the Orange Book:
From what I understand (and I am not too well informed on the subject), the counter argument is; the cost is too great to justify the benefits. The priority now is to restore the economy so that long term investments like these become possible once again. Increasing the demand by supporting the economy and funding private companies to make manned space travel economically viable will likely get you into space faster than waiting for NASA to do it.
I never claimed that the insights were totally invaluable; you get gems from time to time.
While, I agree that fedspeak is hard to unravel and intentionally so, they do publish very thorough statistical analysis of the economy. Moreover, their conclusions are often based on these statistics and very rarely influenced by political expediency (the Fed was designed this way); take a look at the history around the end of George H.W. Bush's term in office and his re-election if you don't believe me.
You occasionally get opponents like Senator Henry B. Gonzalez, who wanted FOMC meetings televised to increase their transparency. The intention is good but the effect would be bad in my opinion; either you have a market that reacts violently to the meetings or a set of very tight lipped federal bankers. Neither is good for the economy.
You're right; there is no holy grail and a lot of the reporting and economic forecasts are biased. However, in my experience real economic data and interpretation from economists I trust is often a more valuable use of my reading time.
Or you can just subscribe to the blogs of your favorite analysts:)
Unfortunately, a lot of the traditional news I've read in the past (National Post, The Economist) is very alarmist and often irrational, without much actual content. I've had to resort to publications from the federal reserve, blogs from economists, and my own education for anything descent.
I'd also still rank Slashdot as a source for fairly reliable content; a lot of the fluff gets filtered out.
With a minimum, they'd have to price at least at cost. That being said, I'm disappointed because the FCC doesn't realize that their proposal will likely achieve the opposite of their stated goal. I'm annoyed because this sort of thing (backwards legislation) happens very often and is well documented. I'm concerned because the existing large telcos will likely push to have this bill enacted into law in order to kill competitors meaning worse service.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey guys, Canada here. Friendly fire?
I think the wire sharks will do more damage.
Dude, uptime blog cred!
Noooooooooooo...I don't want to be tempted by highly addicting games :(
...and my hax!
One tin to rule them all: http://www.irongeek.com/i.php?page=security/programmable-hid-usb-keystroke-dongle
I thought torture was against the Geneva Convention.
I'm not sure if "PowerPoint makes us stupid" or if stupid people use PowerPoint to make themselves look smart. Do buzz words make us stupid?
Actually litigation is a desirable function of a free market. Similarly, if Verizon is breaking contracts they should be sued.
Yup, valid points and I agree, the situation is paralyzing; I'm a heavy user myself. The point I'm trying to make is that by involving government intervention, you will more often than not make the situation worse and not better.
The historic economic data, in almost all cases states explicitly that if you want more production then you need more competition, and not less. More government regulation has a tendency, as you have pointed out, to decrease competitive pressures.
Here's an absurd example to illustrate my point. Lets say that all across the US, people like to knit. Naturally, the prices of yarn start to go up and the hardcore knitters get mad. The get the government to pass a law saying that the providers of yarn can't charge more than $X.
It no longer becomes profitable for the small yarn produces to stay in business because losses to profit affect them more and the larger companies are all that remain. Of the companies that remain, none of them have any incentive to change what they're doing because the price is fixed; the result isn't more yarn being produced.
Lets say that the hardcore yarn makers instead get the government to subsidize yarn production. Now you have a situation where everyone in the United States is paying for a hobby that few people have. The cost of that subsidy would in turn would be the loss of productive effort elsewhere.
A valid point can be made for legal intervention however. If Verizon submits a contract to provide a certain amount of bandwidth and subsequently forfeits that contract, it is in the interest of all citizens to see Verizon held accountable. That recourse is a desirable function of the marketplace.
I'm an aforementioned moron. The argument is very simple; it's much more effective to let Verizon shoot itself in the foot than to pass a law with potentially harmful side effects.
Didn't go over so well. Just ask newegg.
I'm putting on my black hat. Consider your system hacked!
...on how to get your rendering context setup in Linux. Here are a few:
http://www.wxwidgets.org/docs/tutorials/opengl.htm
http://projects.gnome.org/gtkglext/
Beyond these, NeHe still applies. The exception are operating system specific APIs like playing sound, but those have nothing to do with OpenGL. After NeHe, you may want to consider using shaders, which are covered in the Orange Book:
http://www.3dshaders.com/home/
I think he's a witch!
Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?
Yes, 5 Monty Python.
Actually, the impression I get from web developers is that IE6 is a witch. Maybe we should build a bridge out of it?
A live code base and a retired code base have the same number of lines.
How do you Rickroll this video?
In Soviet Russia, system administrates you.
From what I understand (and I am not too well informed on the subject), the counter argument is; the cost is too great to justify the benefits. The priority now is to restore the economy so that long term investments like these become possible once again. Increasing the demand by supporting the economy and funding private companies to make manned space travel economically viable will likely get you into space faster than waiting for NASA to do it.
I never claimed that the insights were totally invaluable; you get gems from time to time.
While, I agree that fedspeak is hard to unravel and intentionally so, they do publish very thorough statistical analysis of the economy. Moreover, their conclusions are often based on these statistics and very rarely influenced by political expediency (the Fed was designed this way); take a look at the history around the end of George H.W. Bush's term in office and his re-election if you don't believe me.
You occasionally get opponents like Senator Henry B. Gonzalez, who wanted FOMC meetings televised to increase their transparency. The intention is good but the effect would be bad in my opinion; either you have a market that reacts violently to the meetings or a set of very tight lipped federal bankers. Neither is good for the economy.
You're right; there is no holy grail and a lot of the reporting and economic forecasts are biased. However, in my experience real economic data and interpretation from economists I trust is often a more valuable use of my reading time.
Or you can just subscribe to the blogs of your favorite analysts :)
Unfortunately, a lot of the traditional news I've read in the past (National Post, The Economist) is very alarmist and often irrational, without much actual content. I've had to resort to publications from the federal reserve, blogs from economists, and my own education for anything descent.
I'd also still rank Slashdot as a source for fairly reliable content; a lot of the fluff gets filtered out.
With a minimum, they'd have to price at least at cost. That being said, I'm disappointed because the FCC doesn't realize that their proposal will likely achieve the opposite of their stated goal. I'm annoyed because this sort of thing (backwards legislation) happens very often and is well documented. I'm concerned because the existing large telcos will likely push to have this bill enacted into law in order to kill competitors meaning worse service.