From the article:
The technology can enable extremely inexpensive electronics for use in "throw away" devices, and is expected to be used in automobile windshields, cell phones, TVs, games, and toys, among other applications, OSU said.
The article is not saying that TV's and cellphones are throwaway devices, even though they are becoming more that way.
I'm not debating the effectiveness of the drivers. I'm just saying that their suggestion for Intel chipsets is ludicrous. As far as I know, Intel only makes the crappy on-board shared-memory graphic chipsets.
I agree with that. ATI and NVidia aren't going to open up their drivers unless Linux grabs a considerable market share from Windows, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon. A considerable market share can be as low as 10% though. It doesn't sound like much but it's enough users that a company doesn't want to alienate.
I'd just like to know if there are any video card manufacturers with open drivers whose product performance matches ATI/Nvidia and is compatible with enough applications. As far as I know, Intel (Fedora's suggestion) only makes crappy on-board chipsets with shared RAM and no hardware 3D. Am I correct on this? I'd seriously like to know if Intel has an AGP or PCI-E standalone graphics card and how it measures up to the competition.
It's like putting internet and IM on a cell phone. Trying to type words on a number keypad is depressingly inefficient. Think about what goes through your mind when you're chatting with a friend and he's using a cell phone. It takes forever to type a message and you're word limit is rediculously low. Cell phones do internet and IM badly, which is why it's not very popular. Then Blackberry comes along and improves things with the keyboard.
From the Fedora website:
"The ATI graphics drivers are proprietary and many kernel developers consider this driver to violate the GPL license of the kernel. Fedora Core does not include proprietary software.
Fedora Suggests: Consider using a graphics adapter from Intel or any other manufacturer that supports open source with full specifications and/or source code. Note that ATI adapters will usually work well using the drivers included with Fedora, but accelerated functions (OpenGL) will not be available. "
This is exactly what is keeping a lot of people from using Linux. Fedora's hard-nosed stance against non-GPL software is laughable. This advice sheet is fine for someone building a new machine, but I'm not going to go out and buy some shitty Intel chipset just so I can use Linux. The whole tone of the forbidden items page is "We purposely broke that feature because it conflicts with our idealogy, but that's ok, you don't really need things like hardware 3D acceleration and the ability to play your mountainous library of MP3's anyway."
It's not the fact that the NVidia drivers aren't included that bothers me, no OS bundles that driver, it's the fact that Fedora people and a lot of Linux zealots seem to have the "change your hardware to things we like" attitude as opposed to "we don't include support for that because of , but here's how you can add it yourself."
What about weather? How big would this thing have to be to withstand the high winds and water currents found at extreme depths and altitudes?
What about maintenance or even building the thing. Who would take a job building 11km high in 100+ mph winds?
I think it's funny when a person takes one statement and forms unrelated assumptions about my personality and then calls me a hypocrite. Nice straw-man argument asshole.
That depends on the defect.
Blue eyes are a recessive trait and therefore technically a genetic defect. However, a lot of people happen to find that eye color aesthetically pleasing which is why there are still blue-eyed people around.
Other recessive traits are destructive, and some even sterilize the person that has them, so it all depends.
That makes sense except that the easter island disaster wasn't a sudden natural disaster. It was a direct result of the island residents using up the islands resources.
In the end, it didn't matter how many lovers and kids you had because of stone-head building, because they all ended up dying because of it.
Well if we're looking at the situation today, then neither intelligence nor having a lot of offspring is necessary.
In the animal world, large litters exist because most of them won't survive into adulthood. Infant death is extremely uncommon, unlike say 100 years ago when more people had large families. Now, medical science almost guarantees an infant's survival, even if a couple only has one.
There is still a danger of overpopulation, and having too many people running around is a drain on resources, and we could have a world-wide Easter Island if it gets out of hand. Anyone that denies this is just ignorant.
I think a small community of smart people intelligent enough to divide resources evenly and work together towards a common cause would be a lot more likely to survive than a multitude of violent, stupid rednecks who's large community uses up resources quickly and tears itself apart with infighting.
A good example is the Rapanui of Easter Island. Their population grew to 10,000, larger than the island could handle and soon all of its resources were used up. Why? Because instead of working together, the leaders made a bad choice and began using everything to build big stone heads. They had no idea what kind of shit they were in until it was too late. The majority starved to death and the remaining people had to resort to eating the dead to survive. The population fell to 111.
Survival isn't just about how many offspring you produce. It's the quality, or output to society as a whole from each person that makes the difference.
Right, but if you're thinking on a total darwinian level, the only reason to have kids is so that they can have kids, and so on. The more defective gene-contaminated kids you have, the less likely they will reproduce.
Also, people with incest-related genetic disorders tend to use more resources than average in the community, with little practical output.
Again, from a pure animalist standpoint, I would take option A over option B because a semi-defective kid could be a burden to myself and the rest of the community.
*disclaimer* I am in no way condoning euthanasia or saying that All people with genetic defects are a drain on society. What I am doing is entertaining a purely non-compassionate (theoretical) darwinian mentality.
incest? come on. Children resulting from incestuous relationships are more likely to have birth defects, which aren't condusive to survival at all. From a purely animal standpoint, people with defects are less attractive and are less likely to mate if they aren't sterile already.
The Z5 won't make a dent in iPod sales and here's why:
It's ugly. iPod (like all of Apple's products) are sleek and sexy. I almost exploded in laughter at the big square button. Does a pocket protector and eyeglass repair tape come with it too? Seriously, it looks like someone took a mini-cassette voice recorder from 1987 and put a screen on it. I wonder if it has an orange record button on the side.
The other reason really isn't Samsung's fault. It's rhapsody, napster and the other WMA-file companies that insist on a subscription system for music that self-destructs when you cancel. It's nothing more than expensive on-demand radio. You mean I get to pay you $15 a month PLUS 79 cents per song? Oh thanks Rhapsody, I love paying you twice to hear music that doesn't become mine. This subscription model is nothing more than the hare-brained ideas of music industry grey-beards in ivory towers who have lost all touch with reality. Scratch that actually, the idea probably came from their half-wit imbeciles for-hire, er, I mean "consultants."
I know no one important reads this, but I have one thing to say to the RIAA, Microsoft, Napster, Rhapsody and every other cartel affiliate:
PEOPLE HATE SUBSCRIPTIONS!
Nobody wants *another* bill every month. I realize it just shows up on your credit card, but overall music subscriptions are a bad deal. Case in point:
Rhapsody charges $15 a month and 79 cents per song (last I checked), with iTunes charging 99 cents per song, it seems like a better deal. Well a simple division problem can dispell this myth: 15 / 0.20 = 75. Seventy-Five, that's how many song you would have to buy from Rhapsody EVERY MONTH, to just end up in a wash with iTunes. That's roughly 6 or 7 albums. I know no one who buys this much music.
I will close this rant with some free advice for any internet business out there:
Do not complicate your puchasing schemes, the more you make your point-of-purchase like a brick-and-mortar store (et. al. no subscriptions, you actually get to KEEP what you buy), the more successful you will be. THIS is why iTunes is number one, and will be for a very long time.
Coffee and caffeine addiction can be a problem for people that have addictive personalities.
I, for example, have been drinking coffee for 5 years (I'm 23, started at around 18). I drink maybe 3-4 cups a week. I can get through a day without drinking it and be fine. In fact, some days I have found a liter of water to be much more rejuvenating than coffee. My favorite drink at Starbucks though is a venti Chai with 3 espresso shots, but I usually burn out on caffeine afterwards and don't drink any more for a while.
I believe that it is healthy for most people, but can be harmful in excess. Of course celery is good for you too, but if you eat 100 lbs of it, you're going to gain 100 lbs.
Word is not included on any PC you buy unless you pay for it first. It was part of the anti-trust settlement. You can get it pre-installed, but it's always an option that you have to pay extra for.
Exactly,
This is why iTunes is number one. You pay once for a song and you keep it. There are no monthly subscription fees. I don't understand why Rhapsody and Napster are going with the subscription model rather than the pay-per-download model that is kicking their asses. People don't like paying more than once for the same thing.
Like I told a brainless Best Buy drone who tried to sell me Rhapsody:
Wow! songs are 20 cents cheaper than iTunes but I have to pay a monthly fee that effectively negates said savings and I end up paying more for music unless I download at least 30 songs a month? Where do I sign?!?!
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
The technology can enable extremely inexpensive electronics for use in "throw away" devices, and is expected to be used in automobile windshields, cell phones, TVs, games, and toys, among other applications, OSU said.
The article is not saying that TV's and cellphones are throwaway devices, even though they are becoming more that way.
I'm not debating the effectiveness of the drivers. I'm just saying that their suggestion for Intel chipsets is ludicrous. As far as I know, Intel only makes the crappy on-board shared-memory graphic chipsets.
I agree with that. ATI and NVidia aren't going to open up their drivers unless Linux grabs a considerable market share from Windows, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon. A considerable market share can be as low as 10% though. It doesn't sound like much but it's enough users that a company doesn't want to alienate.
I'd just like to know if there are any video card manufacturers with open drivers whose product performance matches ATI/Nvidia and is compatible with enough applications. As far as I know, Intel (Fedora's suggestion) only makes crappy on-board chipsets with shared RAM and no hardware 3D. Am I correct on this? I'd seriously like to know if Intel has an AGP or PCI-E standalone graphics card and how it measures up to the competition.
It's like putting internet and IM on a cell phone. Trying to type words on a number keypad is depressingly inefficient. Think about what goes through your mind when you're chatting with a friend and he's using a cell phone. It takes forever to type a message and you're word limit is rediculously low. Cell phones do internet and IM badly, which is why it's not very popular. Then Blackberry comes along and improves things with the keyboard.
From the Fedora website: "The ATI graphics drivers are proprietary and many kernel developers consider this driver to violate the GPL license of the kernel. Fedora Core does not include proprietary software. Fedora Suggests: Consider using a graphics adapter from Intel or any other manufacturer that supports open source with full specifications and/or source code. Note that ATI adapters will usually work well using the drivers included with Fedora, but accelerated functions (OpenGL) will not be available. " This is exactly what is keeping a lot of people from using Linux. Fedora's hard-nosed stance against non-GPL software is laughable. This advice sheet is fine for someone building a new machine, but I'm not going to go out and buy some shitty Intel chipset just so I can use Linux. The whole tone of the forbidden items page is "We purposely broke that feature because it conflicts with our idealogy, but that's ok, you don't really need things like hardware 3D acceleration and the ability to play your mountainous library of MP3's anyway." It's not the fact that the NVidia drivers aren't included that bothers me, no OS bundles that driver, it's the fact that Fedora people and a lot of Linux zealots seem to have the "change your hardware to things we like" attitude as opposed to "we don't include support for that because of , but here's how you can add it yourself."
but I heard they're modeling it like the 1985 Walkman, only bulkier, heavier and a TON more buttons.
Stealing CC numbers is the only way Best Buy can get people to sign up for "free" subscriptions to Sports Illustrated and Entertainment Weekly.
What about weather? How big would this thing have to be to withstand the high winds and water currents found at extreme depths and altitudes? What about maintenance or even building the thing. Who would take a job building 11km high in 100+ mph winds?
It's like Clinton and Bush really aren't that different, almost as if they belonged to the same secret society in college or something.
Oh wait
MerchExchange and Ebay are both being sued by the ghost of Adam Smith for Intellectual Property theft of "Economics."
No, I hate rednecks and judge them regularly.
I think it's funny when a person takes one statement and forms unrelated assumptions about my personality and then calls me a hypocrite. Nice straw-man argument asshole.
True, but repeated inbreeding increases those chances with each generation._ 2004/Inbreeding_Humans.htm
Here's an interesting article I found.
http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/QuantGen/Gen535_2
That depends on the defect. Blue eyes are a recessive trait and therefore technically a genetic defect. However, a lot of people happen to find that eye color aesthetically pleasing which is why there are still blue-eyed people around. Other recessive traits are destructive, and some even sterilize the person that has them, so it all depends.
That makes sense except that the easter island disaster wasn't a sudden natural disaster. It was a direct result of the island residents using up the islands resources. In the end, it didn't matter how many lovers and kids you had because of stone-head building, because they all ended up dying because of it.
Well if we're looking at the situation today, then neither intelligence nor having a lot of offspring is necessary. In the animal world, large litters exist because most of them won't survive into adulthood. Infant death is extremely uncommon, unlike say 100 years ago when more people had large families. Now, medical science almost guarantees an infant's survival, even if a couple only has one. There is still a danger of overpopulation, and having too many people running around is a drain on resources, and we could have a world-wide Easter Island if it gets out of hand. Anyone that denies this is just ignorant.
no, you're wrong. see my above response about easter island.
I think a small community of smart people intelligent enough to divide resources evenly and work together towards a common cause would be a lot more likely to survive than a multitude of violent, stupid rednecks who's large community uses up resources quickly and tears itself apart with infighting.
A good example is the Rapanui of Easter Island. Their population grew to 10,000, larger than the island could handle and soon all of its resources were used up. Why? Because instead of working together, the leaders made a bad choice and began using everything to build big stone heads. They had no idea what kind of shit they were in until it was too late. The majority starved to death and the remaining people had to resort to eating the dead to survive. The population fell to 111.
Survival isn't just about how many offspring you produce. It's the quality, or output to society as a whole from each person that makes the difference.
Right, but if you're thinking on a total darwinian level, the only reason to have kids is so that they can have kids, and so on. The more defective gene-contaminated kids you have, the less likely they will reproduce.
Also, people with incest-related genetic disorders tend to use more resources than average in the community, with little practical output.
Again, from a pure animalist standpoint, I would take option A over option B because a semi-defective kid could be a burden to myself and the rest of the community.
*disclaimer* I am in no way condoning euthanasia or saying that All people with genetic defects are a drain on society. What I am doing is entertaining a purely non-compassionate (theoretical) darwinian mentality.
incest? come on. Children resulting from incestuous relationships are more likely to have birth defects, which aren't condusive to survival at all. From a purely animal standpoint, people with defects are less attractive and are less likely to mate if they aren't sterile already.
The Z5 won't make a dent in iPod sales and here's why: It's ugly. iPod (like all of Apple's products) are sleek and sexy. I almost exploded in laughter at the big square button. Does a pocket protector and eyeglass repair tape come with it too? Seriously, it looks like someone took a mini-cassette voice recorder from 1987 and put a screen on it. I wonder if it has an orange record button on the side.
The other reason really isn't Samsung's fault. It's rhapsody, napster and the other WMA-file companies that insist on a subscription system for music that self-destructs when you cancel. It's nothing more than expensive on-demand radio. You mean I get to pay you $15 a month PLUS 79 cents per song? Oh thanks Rhapsody, I love paying you twice to hear music that doesn't become mine. This subscription model is nothing more than the hare-brained ideas of music industry grey-beards in ivory towers who have lost all touch with reality. Scratch that actually, the idea probably came from their half-wit imbeciles for-hire, er, I mean "consultants."
I know no one important reads this, but I have one thing to say to the RIAA, Microsoft, Napster, Rhapsody and every other cartel affiliate:
PEOPLE HATE SUBSCRIPTIONS!
Nobody wants *another* bill every month. I realize it just shows up on your credit card, but overall music subscriptions are a bad deal. Case in point:
Rhapsody charges $15 a month and 79 cents per song (last I checked), with iTunes charging 99 cents per song, it seems like a better deal. Well a simple division problem can dispell this myth: 15 / 0.20 = 75. Seventy-Five, that's how many song you would have to buy from Rhapsody EVERY MONTH, to just end up in a wash with iTunes. That's roughly 6 or 7 albums. I know no one who buys this much music.
I will close this rant with some free advice for any internet business out there:
Do not complicate your puchasing schemes, the more you make your point-of-purchase like a brick-and-mortar store (et. al. no subscriptions, you actually get to KEEP what you buy), the more successful you will be. THIS is why iTunes is number one, and will be for a very long time.
before someone installs Linux on it.
Coffee and caffeine addiction can be a problem for people that have addictive personalities. I, for example, have been drinking coffee for 5 years (I'm 23, started at around 18). I drink maybe 3-4 cups a week. I can get through a day without drinking it and be fine. In fact, some days I have found a liter of water to be much more rejuvenating than coffee. My favorite drink at Starbucks though is a venti Chai with 3 espresso shots, but I usually burn out on caffeine afterwards and don't drink any more for a while. I believe that it is healthy for most people, but can be harmful in excess. Of course celery is good for you too, but if you eat 100 lbs of it, you're going to gain 100 lbs.
Word is not included on any PC you buy unless you pay for it first. It was part of the anti-trust settlement. You can get it pre-installed, but it's always an option that you have to pay extra for.
Everyone in my company uses Excel to make databases.
Exactly, This is why iTunes is number one. You pay once for a song and you keep it. There are no monthly subscription fees. I don't understand why Rhapsody and Napster are going with the subscription model rather than the pay-per-download model that is kicking their asses. People don't like paying more than once for the same thing. Like I told a brainless Best Buy drone who tried to sell me Rhapsody: Wow! songs are 20 cents cheaper than iTunes but I have to pay a monthly fee that effectively negates said savings and I end up paying more for music unless I download at least 30 songs a month? Where do I sign?!?!