NVidia used to have buggy drivers too, and AMD was more stable for most of the time Vista was around. I remember stories in this vein about NVidia back then. NVidia stepped up big time on their driver development shortly before Win7's release, while AMD has gone downhill. This indicates it's something about their internal processes and priorities, not with Intel.
I'm talking about AdBlock Plus, the open source project, not the addon you linked (which on Google's extension page is called "AdBlock", not "AdBlock Plus" as I specifically mentioned in my post). I have no sympathy for this guy, but the actual app's description (found by removing/pay/ from that URL) states clearly "1. This is AdBlock: the original Chrome extension written from the ground up to be optimized for Chrome. I was inspired by the excellent Firefox "Adblock Plus" project (which is a fork of an old Firefox "Adblock" project -- confusing, I know), but I'm not related to those, nor to "Adblock Plus For Google Chrome", to which the old "AdThwart" extension was recently renamed." - something you probably didn't read.
If you build a free app without in-app ads that replace Google's video ads, then yes, it's definitely done without them gaining financially. Do you think AdBlock Plus, which removes ads on Twitch and some other video services, is doing it for their own financial gain? How about Video DownloadHelper, the extension for Firefox that lets you download videos?
I do go against Microsoft in this case. All of those addons are made by small teams, if not one individual, and are not done for profit. Microsoft, as one of the largest companies around, isn't doing this for the good of the community - they're doing it because it eats into Google's bottom line while hopefully increasing their own. It's really simple to see the difference between a free app that does this and Microsoft attempting to take a stab at Google while they're building up their own platform's desirability, and I have no problem siding with Google for that reason.
Microsoft is doing this directly for their own financial gain, and in the process giving Google the finger by blocking their ads and allowing downloads. If a random individual did this with a free app, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but Microsoft is clearly doing this for their own gain.
It's all on AMD, since NVidia, despite being cockblocked in the chipset market, is able to produce a reliable driver and has done so for quite a few years now. On top of that, there's just as many problems with ATI graphics on AMD-based systems, which indicates there's no real problem that's being caused by Intel.
40.1% cannot push anything through the Senate. 40.1% cannot push anything through the House. 40.1% cannot do much of anything.
What 40.1% can do is prevent 59.9% from doing anything, which is exactly the situation we're now in. The filibuster is only designed to give disproportionate power to the 40.1% instead of the 59.9%.
If I understand it right, it's not so much that everyone gets to go to a university for free, but that there's actual training options for trade jobs that are government sponsored, and tons of worker retraining options available when companies fail or downsize. It's a more holistic system than dealing almost exclusively in college-level education.
The summary seems to imply that you can do nearly any of those things without providing "proof of self" already. Just look at the list:
"at polling places, to rent a house, buy a gun, open a bank account, acquire credit, board a plane or even attend a sporting event or log on the internet."
Are they seriously implying you can get a credit card, or rent a house, or open a bank account, buy a gun at a storefront, or board a plane without providing ID right now?
Yeah, seeing the celebrations in the street kinda threw me for a loop too. Sure, this was a guy who needed to be caught and tried for his crimes, but that ourpouring in the streets caught me as being too similar to scenes in 1984 (the 2 minute hate, and the prisoners being paraded around) and that I imagine happened in Nazi Germany.
I have no idea, but I was brought up with strategy video games, so I'm not sure they have that impact. Anecdotal, sure, but that at least means it isn't a universal effect - at least for those of us that watched the cutscenes describing why you're doing what you're doing.
It is. I'm just responding to the assertion that the US lost in Vietnam because of the attitude of troops and its' effect on military operations, which clearly isn't the case.
The US got its ass kicked big time because of the attitude of people like Jim Porter.
I don't think you understand Vietnam all that well. The US was winning the war, if you define war as only containing the elements of combat. To put it in perspective, deaths on the North Vietnamese side were somewhere between double and triple the deaths on the South Vietnamese side, depending on which estimates you use for both North and South Vietnam's deaths. US deaths in Vietnam were actually relatively limited for the number of troops there; somewhere between 800,000 and 2 million died overall, while the US took about 60,00 casualties, despite having a quarter of the total forces of the entire war.
The US death toll was somewhere between 3 and 7.5% of the total casualties, while having 25% of the forces in the war. Let that sink in for a minute. That's not losing the war by a long shot, and it definitely doesn't reflect on the US military as having "people that had no experience nor understanding of war". It definitely reflects that the Vietnamese, on both sides, were actually doing exactly that.
Once you start defining war in a broader way that encompasses politics, which the Vietnam War did in the US (but apparently not in Switzerland or Germany), then you can see how the US actually lost in Vietnam. There's plenty of literature out there on how politics lost the Vietnam War for the US, so I suggest you go reading.
As far as I understood it, it's in very rare circumstances, if ever, that YouTube engages in censorship. Innocence of Muslims, for example, is basically the only video censored in certain Muslim areas of the world, and it was only done in response to how badly it could affect the relationship between the US and the region.
I'm in the US, so I don't know what's censored. If YouTube is only censoring specific videos that cause YouTube to be banned in a country, or have a substantial impact on international politics, I'm alright with it. There's a thousand videos expressing the same thing for every one that causes an issue with a country's political leadership, and the good of having those thousand similar videos available outweighs the censorship of one in particular.
It's reasonable to assume that the trucks have to drive more food to compensate for the calorie intake required for the individual, and that much more food also needs to be grown and processed. Say it's 150 calories for the round trip, made a couple times a week, and it adds up. I don't know how substantially, but it's something.
It depends on the person talking too. 2 kids, or 2 individuals that have never driven, are likely to not be paying the kind of attention needed to give that feedback, while 2 experienced drivers will.
That's making the assumption that they have the man-hour resources to clean up the infection themselves. Likely, they aren't well enough staffed to just divert the number of people needed to cleaning up the PCs in a reasonable amount of time.
Public transport isn't a viable option for many in this country. You're acting like the research isn't applicable, when it is really applicable to a substantial portion, if not a majority. I'd also be surprised if most of the companies that deliver groceries don't use a few standard sizes of boxes that are easy to pack into the truck efficiently on their own, and pick sizes that are pretty well matched up to the size of the goods within.
It would be interesting to see the math for the added carbon emissions required for the extra food you eat to do that walking. Not saying you're wrong about your claim that the emissions would be less, but it'd definitely be interesting.
Yeah, but if he were continuing to shoot when the police found him again, there's no reason to expect him to survive the encounter. That's my point - if you're throwing bombs and shooting at the police, I have no reservations about police reacting in kind and taking him down. If he gets away, and is later found in a position where he's not an imminent danger, it becomes a different story. It's imperative that the totality of the situation is considered when determining the proper reaction.
Slashdot Mirror
He's not mentioned in the summary.
NVidia used to have buggy drivers too, and AMD was more stable for most of the time Vista was around. I remember stories in this vein about NVidia back then. NVidia stepped up big time on their driver development shortly before Win7's release, while AMD has gone downhill. This indicates it's something about their internal processes and priorities, not with Intel.
I don't think the US will be extraditing a company to the UK anytime soon.
I'm talking about AdBlock Plus, the open source project, not the addon you linked (which on Google's extension page is called "AdBlock", not "AdBlock Plus" as I specifically mentioned in my post). I have no sympathy for this guy, but the actual app's description (found by removing /pay/ from that URL) states clearly "1. This is AdBlock: the original Chrome extension written from the ground up to be optimized for Chrome. I was inspired by the excellent Firefox "Adblock Plus" project (which is a fork of an old Firefox "Adblock" project -- confusing, I know), but I'm not related to those, nor to "Adblock Plus For Google Chrome", to which the old "AdThwart" extension was recently renamed." - something you probably didn't read.
If you build a free app without in-app ads that replace Google's video ads, then yes, it's definitely done without them gaining financially. Do you think AdBlock Plus, which removes ads on Twitch and some other video services, is doing it for their own financial gain? How about Video DownloadHelper, the extension for Firefox that lets you download videos?
I do go against Microsoft in this case. All of those addons are made by small teams, if not one individual, and are not done for profit. Microsoft, as one of the largest companies around, isn't doing this for the good of the community - they're doing it because it eats into Google's bottom line while hopefully increasing their own. It's really simple to see the difference between a free app that does this and Microsoft attempting to take a stab at Google while they're building up their own platform's desirability, and I have no problem siding with Google for that reason.
Microsoft is doing this directly for their own financial gain, and in the process giving Google the finger by blocking their ads and allowing downloads. If a random individual did this with a free app, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but Microsoft is clearly doing this for their own gain.
You might not be covered, given they're a US-based corporation. If there's no office in the UK, you're basically SOL.
It's all on AMD, since NVidia, despite being cockblocked in the chipset market, is able to produce a reliable driver and has done so for quite a few years now. On top of that, there's just as many problems with ATI graphics on AMD-based systems, which indicates there's no real problem that's being caused by Intel.
40.1% cannot push anything through the Senate. 40.1% cannot push anything through the House. 40.1% cannot do much of anything.
What 40.1% can do is prevent 59.9% from doing anything, which is exactly the situation we're now in. The filibuster is only designed to give disproportionate power to the 40.1% instead of the 59.9%.
If I understand it right, it's not so much that everyone gets to go to a university for free, but that there's actual training options for trade jobs that are government sponsored, and tons of worker retraining options available when companies fail or downsize. It's a more holistic system than dealing almost exclusively in college-level education.
The summary seems to imply that you can do nearly any of those things without providing "proof of self" already. Just look at the list:
"at polling places, to rent a house, buy a gun, open a bank account, acquire credit, board a plane or even attend a sporting event or log on the internet."
Are they seriously implying you can get a credit card, or rent a house, or open a bank account, buy a gun at a storefront, or board a plane without providing ID right now?
Yeah, seeing the celebrations in the street kinda threw me for a loop too. Sure, this was a guy who needed to be caught and tried for his crimes, but that ourpouring in the streets caught me as being too similar to scenes in 1984 (the 2 minute hate, and the prisoners being paraded around) and that I imagine happened in Nazi Germany.
I have no idea, but I was brought up with strategy video games, so I'm not sure they have that impact. Anecdotal, sure, but that at least means it isn't a universal effect - at least for those of us that watched the cutscenes describing why you're doing what you're doing.
It is. I'm just responding to the assertion that the US lost in Vietnam because of the attitude of troops and its' effect on military operations, which clearly isn't the case.
The US got its ass kicked big time because of the attitude of people like Jim Porter.
I don't think you understand Vietnam all that well. The US was winning the war, if you define war as only containing the elements of combat. To put it in perspective, deaths on the North Vietnamese side were somewhere between double and triple the deaths on the South Vietnamese side, depending on which estimates you use for both North and South Vietnam's deaths. US deaths in Vietnam were actually relatively limited for the number of troops there; somewhere between 800,000 and 2 million died overall, while the US took about 60,00 casualties, despite having a quarter of the total forces of the entire war.
The US death toll was somewhere between 3 and 7.5% of the total casualties, while having 25% of the forces in the war. Let that sink in for a minute. That's not losing the war by a long shot, and it definitely doesn't reflect on the US military as having "people that had no experience nor understanding of war". It definitely reflects that the Vietnamese, on both sides, were actually doing exactly that.
Once you start defining war in a broader way that encompasses politics, which the Vietnam War did in the US (but apparently not in Switzerland or Germany), then you can see how the US actually lost in Vietnam. There's plenty of literature out there on how politics lost the Vietnam War for the US, so I suggest you go reading.
As far as I understood it, it's in very rare circumstances, if ever, that YouTube engages in censorship. Innocence of Muslims, for example, is basically the only video censored in certain Muslim areas of the world, and it was only done in response to how badly it could affect the relationship between the US and the region.
I'm in the US, so I don't know what's censored. If YouTube is only censoring specific videos that cause YouTube to be banned in a country, or have a substantial impact on international politics, I'm alright with it. There's a thousand videos expressing the same thing for every one that causes an issue with a country's political leadership, and the good of having those thousand similar videos available outweighs the censorship of one in particular.
It's reasonable to assume that the trucks have to drive more food to compensate for the calorie intake required for the individual, and that much more food also needs to be grown and processed. Say it's 150 calories for the round trip, made a couple times a week, and it adds up. I don't know how substantially, but it's something.
It depends on the person talking too. 2 kids, or 2 individuals that have never driven, are likely to not be paying the kind of attention needed to give that feedback, while 2 experienced drivers will.
That's making the assumption that they have the man-hour resources to clean up the infection themselves. Likely, they aren't well enough staffed to just divert the number of people needed to cleaning up the PCs in a reasonable amount of time.
Public transport isn't a viable option for many in this country. You're acting like the research isn't applicable, when it is really applicable to a substantial portion, if not a majority. I'd also be surprised if most of the companies that deliver groceries don't use a few standard sizes of boxes that are easy to pack into the truck efficiently on their own, and pick sizes that are pretty well matched up to the size of the goods within.
There's a good chance that mass transit of any sort isn't available, either, especially on a moderately convenient route.
It would be interesting to see the math for the added carbon emissions required for the extra food you eat to do that walking. Not saying you're wrong about your claim that the emissions would be less, but it'd definitely be interesting.
I wish I had mod points for this comment!
Yeah, but if he were continuing to shoot when the police found him again, there's no reason to expect him to survive the encounter. That's my point - if you're throwing bombs and shooting at the police, I have no reservations about police reacting in kind and taking him down. If he gets away, and is later found in a position where he's not an imminent danger, it becomes a different story. It's imperative that the totality of the situation is considered when determining the proper reaction.