Although 'blind biker' was wrong; people were horribly offended by Life of Brian - it was banned by 39 councils and some bishop made a laughable attempt to debate the film with the Pythons.
They ripped him apart, with utter beautiful courtesy, using elegant arguments and a depth of knowledge that exposed his complete ignorance. It was a joy to behold.
They haven't been treated to kindly by the west and they haven't been allowed to have a voice of reason.
Act like unreasonable cunts and people wont treat you kindly.
Or are you blaming Western democracy for the grotesque harassment of women in the 'new' Egypt? For the attempted assassination of a girl in Pakistan for daring to want education? For kicking off fucking riots over some shit film nobody else cares about?
How the fuck does being unlikely to win election make someone 'not a serious candidate'?
Maybe some of his policies aren't popular. Maybe he's seen as too inexperienced for the role even if his policies are good. Maybe he just doesn't have the funding to buy a victory in the same way that everyone else does.
Maybe he's just not newsworthy, but none of these things stop him being a serious candidate.
Blocking the same public exposure enjoyed by richer candidates is not democratic, and also lets those candidatesavoid having to address the specific policies he's putting forward.
That's a massive issue. In the UK someone has been elected on the policy of "I'm not as corrupt as the incumbent" and won with a landslide. Someone else has stood on a policy of "I hate all these foreigners nicking our jobs" and got enough of the vote that the more mainstream parties are changing their policies to avoid losing voters to these niche interests.
It's important whether you agree with the policies or not, and it's fucking insulting to suggest that a candidate isn't serious.
Congratulations on demonstrating your utter ignorance. I'd explain how, but you're not worth the time. Go research the role of the Queen in the 20th and 21st centuries, and also Google for this small fracas referred to as "the second world war" which bankrupted the empire and led to its (approximate) dissolution.
So just dont use the code. How exactly is not using the code or conforming to the GPL worse than not using Nvidia's code or not using Nvidia's code (because they wont licence it to you anyway)?
Seriously, do tell me. Because I'm fucking confused.
Oddly, no. The nvidia hardware is indeed excellent, but to really use it to full advantage you need their drivers.
For a long time the hardware difference between ATI and Nvidia was minimal, but the driver support was massive and a strong contributor to Nvidia's eventual supremacy within the market.
You don't buy Nvidia hardware, you buy Nvidia graphics which includes capable hardware and the associated software to make it run effectively.
(how else do you think driver changes can improve the performance of extant hardware)
Nvidia do not have to call the API. They do not have to support Linux. If they do want to, they have to obey the law.
Alan Cox can't revoke the GPLv2 licence on Linux. Only the (hundreds/thousands) of authors of the kernel code can do that.
If Nvidia are willing to contact all of those copyright holders and convince them to provide their code under an alternate licence, then they can use it according to that alternate licence.
At no point are they forced to open source their drivers. That hasn't been demanded (by Cox in his note) and it isn't necessary. They just can't distribute a derived work without complying with the terms of the licence, and that's an established convention in copyright law whether we're talking software or other forms of expression.
I've read enough incontinent dribbling from fuckwits that expect the earth for free and demand that others break the law to achieve it.
The person you replied to said that people can use proprietary drivers. They can. Those drivers may not be able to call this new API, but people have been using proprietary drivers on Linux for years.
Even if the drivers can no longer be distributed for Linux, you are allowed to write your own proprietary drivers that are derived from the kernel code and integrate closely to it. You just aren't allowed to distribute it.
Lets say you're the sort of lazy ignorant cunt that expects everyone else to do the work, doesn't want to use existing proprietary drivers on Linux and wont write your own. That's fine too. Just install another OS and use the proprietary drivers available for that one.
Nobody is demanding that you use Linux. Nobody is forcing you to use open source code. Nobody is restricting your freedoms. You're just being a muppet. Stop it.
Could you provide a link please? I don't use Facebook, but I will report this to the police - I'm fucked if I'm letting them prosecute and jail someone for making a joke then turn a blind eye to someone planning to murder someone that may yet be proved innocent.
If he were a friend of mine, I'd have at least thought about lecturing him on the value of keeping some of one's thoughts to one's self.
If he was a friend of mine, I'd have laughed.
Actually, reading the joke, I did.
You want offensive? Try the Chancellor's speech at the Conservative Party Conference today. That was grossly offensive, but I don't see the police arresting him.
Or are you trying to say that only some offensive speech should be protected?
Only if guilty. The time they took to charge him strongly suggests that he hasn't confessed, and there's been no public indication of the evidence on which he's been charged.
The whole affair stinks; first they were looking for a 'light coloured van', then they arrested the owner of a dark coloured Land Rover.
Why arrest him with no body? If they really thought he abducted her then if he hadn't killed her, they've caused her to die of thirst because he didn't return to feed her.
It looks like the police wanted to talk to him anyway, and I'd assume they have some evidence beyond that, but it's looking as dodgy as hell right now.
I actually hope that they do have the right man; not just the obvious "prevent reoffending" angle, but also because reactions like yours mean he's fucked whether he's guilty or not.
If you can't keep a consistant bare min. sustained speed of 35mph...then, yes...you are holding up traffic on about 98% of the roads most driver use...and are an impediment.
Yes. Unfortunately there are too many cars in front of me preventing me from going any faster. My car just wont fit through the gaps.
Unlike the cyclists, who casually pedal past looking smug, holding nobody up and not taking up car parking spaces.
Since a bicycle is largely for recreational exercise, and not a serious mode of transportation for most people and most peoples' lifestyles in the US
What the fuck does 'most people' have to do with it?
we need to reconsider allowing non-motorized traffic on main thoroughfares
..or consider implementing a modern and considerate transportation network that doesn't demean people fit enough to get to work without driving a smelly inefficient expensive car.
Thank you for skipping the whole mercenary financial reward basis for motivation.
I'm fucked off with idiots claiming that finance is the primary incentive. Maybe in America where everyone's hung up on using personal wealth as a measure it is, but most people working in IT earn far above average wages, can easily lead "middle class" lifestyles (tending towards above that if everyone else in your country is piss-poor).
So you have to look beyond the financial compensation and understand what people really value in their day to day roles. Sure, a nice bonus is always welcome, but letting people feel they have control over their working day, the chance to add value, the opportunities to improve and the prospects of progressing, that's what reduces churn in an organisation.
Sure, some muppet down the road may offer 10-20% higher salaries. Unless you're on the breadline 10% just doesn't compensate for working for an utter cunt, and I know so many people that don't want the shit that comes with a 20% salary rise it's unreal. Everyone I work with could earn 20% more by joining a consultancy, working away from home four nights a week, never seeing their kids... It's not the fucking money.
About four minutes before it gets disabled under child protection legislation. Or you think no four year old kids dance naked in the lounge?
As someone without kids I just have the camera disabled in my Samsung TV. I probably ought to block the microphone too, and also filter the connections the TV makes to the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
I have them on DVD :)
Although 'blind biker' was wrong; people were horribly offended by Life of Brian - it was banned by 39 councils and some bishop made a laughable attempt to debate the film with the Pythons.
They ripped him apart, with utter beautiful courtesy, using elegant arguments and a depth of knowledge that exposed his complete ignorance. It was a joy to behold.
They haven't been treated to kindly by the west and they haven't been allowed to have a voice of reason.
Act like unreasonable cunts and people wont treat you kindly.
Or are you blaming Western democracy for the grotesque harassment of women in the 'new' Egypt? For the attempted assassination of a girl in Pakistan for daring to want education? For kicking off fucking riots over some shit film nobody else cares about?
Please forgive my utter lack of fucking sympathy.
How the fuck does being unlikely to win election make someone 'not a serious candidate'?
Maybe some of his policies aren't popular. Maybe he's seen as too inexperienced for the role even if his policies are good. Maybe he just doesn't have the funding to buy a victory in the same way that everyone else does.
Maybe he's just not newsworthy, but none of these things stop him being a serious candidate.
Blocking the same public exposure enjoyed by richer candidates is not democratic, and also lets those candidatesavoid having to address the specific policies he's putting forward.
That's a massive issue. In the UK someone has been elected on the policy of "I'm not as corrupt as the incumbent" and won with a landslide. Someone else has stood on a policy of "I hate all these foreigners nicking our jobs" and got enough of the vote that the more mainstream parties are changing their policies to avoid losing voters to these niche interests.
It's important whether you agree with the policies or not, and it's fucking insulting to suggest that a candidate isn't serious.
Congratulations on demonstrating your utter ignorance. I'd explain how, but you're not worth the time. Go research the role of the Queen in the 20th and 21st centuries, and also Google for this small fracas referred to as "the second world war" which bankrupted the empire and led to its (approximate) dissolution.
Me, I think the price was worth the outcome.
So just dont use the code. How exactly is not using the code or conforming to the GPL worse than not using Nvidia's code or not using Nvidia's code (because they wont licence it to you anyway)?
Seriously, do tell me. Because I'm fucking confused.
Oddly, no. The nvidia hardware is indeed excellent, but to really use it to full advantage you need their drivers.
For a long time the hardware difference between ATI and Nvidia was minimal, but the driver support was massive and a strong contributor to Nvidia's eventual supremacy within the market.
You don't buy Nvidia hardware, you buy Nvidia graphics which includes capable hardware and the associated software to make it run effectively.
(how else do you think driver changes can improve the performance of extant hardware)
No, it's not. Don't be silly.
Nvidia do not have to call the API. They do not have to support Linux. If they do want to, they have to obey the law.
Alan Cox can't revoke the GPLv2 licence on Linux. Only the (hundreds/thousands) of authors of the kernel code can do that.
If Nvidia are willing to contact all of those copyright holders and convince them to provide their code under an alternate licence, then they can use it according to that alternate licence.
At no point are they forced to open source their drivers. That hasn't been demanded (by Cox in his note) and it isn't necessary. They just can't distribute a derived work without complying with the terms of the licence, and that's an established convention in copyright law whether we're talking software or other forms of expression.
No license can extinguish the copyright of another.
I'm confused. How does the GPL extinguish the copyright of any other code? If you don't want to comply with the GPL then DONT FUCKING USE THE CODE.
Is that so hard? Really?
I've read enough incontinent dribbling from fuckwits that expect the earth for free and demand that others break the law to achieve it.
The person you replied to said that people can use proprietary drivers. They can. Those drivers may not be able to call this new API, but people have been using proprietary drivers on Linux for years.
Even if the drivers can no longer be distributed for Linux, you are allowed to write your own proprietary drivers that are derived from the kernel code and integrate closely to it. You just aren't allowed to distribute it.
Lets say you're the sort of lazy ignorant cunt that expects everyone else to do the work, doesn't want to use existing proprietary drivers on Linux and wont write your own. That's fine too. Just install another OS and use the proprietary drivers available for that one.
Nobody is demanding that you use Linux. Nobody is forcing you to use open source code. Nobody is restricting your freedoms. You're just being a muppet. Stop it.
So were they arrested? Or is it legal to form a lynch mob?
The police and the CPS appear to be focussing on the wrong fucking thing here.
So this kid should be jailed because he's got a medical condition resulting in a lack of empathy?
Or the magistrate that gave him three months should be called an officious cunt with no sense of humour?
I know which option I prefer.
the police don't have the discretion to just ignore an offence
I'm sorely tempted to set up an online movement to swamp the police with complaints about online offensiveness.
I bet you they start ignoring it. The law is selectively enforced and that makes it a very bad law.
I'm a great fan of black humour, and I don't think it's ever appropriate to kill someone for making a joke.
Just don't laugh, if you feel that way about it.
Could you provide a link please? I don't use Facebook, but I will report this to the police - I'm fucked if I'm letting them prosecute and jail someone for making a joke then turn a blind eye to someone planning to murder someone that may yet be proved innocent.
If he were a friend of mine, I'd have at least thought about lecturing him on the value of keeping some of one's thoughts to one's self.
If he was a friend of mine, I'd have laughed.
Actually, reading the joke, I did.
You want offensive? Try the Chancellor's speech at the Conservative Party Conference today. That was grossly offensive, but I don't see the police arresting him.
Or are you trying to say that only some offensive speech should be protected?
he's a sick man
Only if guilty. The time they took to charge him strongly suggests that he hasn't confessed, and there's been no public indication of the evidence on which he's been charged.
The whole affair stinks; first they were looking for a 'light coloured van', then they arrested the owner of a dark coloured Land Rover.
Why arrest him with no body? If they really thought he abducted her then if he hadn't killed her, they've caused her to die of thirst because he didn't return to feed her.
It looks like the police wanted to talk to him anyway, and I'd assume they have some evidence beyond that, but it's looking as dodgy as hell right now.
I actually hope that they do have the right man; not just the obvious "prevent reoffending" angle, but also because reactions like yours mean he's fucked whether he's guilty or not.
My 3000 year old city has managed just fine. What's your problem?
I live in the UK. AFAIK it is illegal for *any* vehicle to pass on the left (including cycles). Not that anyone pays attention to this.
Hmm. Check rules 163 and 268 of the Highway Code, both of which explicitly allow undertaking by cars.
Note also rule 72 which (while not explicitly permitting it) acknowledges that cyclists do undertake.
If you can't keep a consistant bare min. sustained speed of 35mph...then, yes...you are holding up traffic on about 98% of the roads most driver use...and are an impediment.
Yes. Unfortunately there are too many cars in front of me preventing me from going any faster. My car just wont fit through the gaps.
Unlike the cyclists, who casually pedal past looking smug, holding nobody up and not taking up car parking spaces.
Since a bicycle is largely for recreational exercise, and not a serious mode of transportation for most people and most peoples' lifestyles in the US
What the fuck does 'most people' have to do with it?
we need to reconsider allowing non-motorized traffic on main thoroughfares
..or consider implementing a modern and considerate transportation network that doesn't demean people fit enough to get to work without driving a smelly inefficient expensive car.
A bicycle is mainly for recreational exercise
I work with people that use their bicycles for commuting. They average 20mph in rush hour - faster than the cars around them.
You kidding? I mentally maintain a list of "people more senior than me I'd like to shag".
Admittedly it's a short list. So much for female equality in the boardroom.
Thank you for skipping the whole mercenary financial reward basis for motivation.
I'm fucked off with idiots claiming that finance is the primary incentive. Maybe in America where everyone's hung up on using personal wealth as a measure it is, but most people working in IT earn far above average wages, can easily lead "middle class" lifestyles (tending towards above that if everyone else in your country is piss-poor).
So you have to look beyond the financial compensation and understand what people really value in their day to day roles. Sure, a nice bonus is always welcome, but letting people feel they have control over their working day, the chance to add value, the opportunities to improve and the prospects of progressing, that's what reduces churn in an organisation.
Sure, some muppet down the road may offer 10-20% higher salaries. Unless you're on the breadline 10% just doesn't compensate for working for an utter cunt, and I know so many people that don't want the shit that comes with a 20% salary rise it's unreal. Everyone I work with could earn 20% more by joining a consultancy, working away from home four nights a week, never seeing their kids... It's not the fucking money.
No, his argument holds completely if you only take 'free' to mean 'free as in beer'.
That much of the free stuff is also free is just a bonus.
About four minutes before it gets disabled under child protection legislation. Or you think no four year old kids dance naked in the lounge?
As someone without kids I just have the camera disabled in my Samsung TV. I probably ought to block the microphone too, and also filter the connections the TV makes to the internet.