Or you could just, you know, do what the rest of us do and dupe netflix discs with DVD Shrink. Considerably simpler, quicker, and produces much better results. Oh, and there's no DRM on a VHS tape - it would have to be called ARM.
Certainly. But my argument is that there relatively few of them, not that they don't exist. Compared to the number of Muslims in the world a vanishingly small number of them are potential terrorists, yet they seem worthy of our attention, don't they?
The context of this discussion is - as far as I know - people trying to blow up aeroplanes in the US. Muslim extremists are, *by far* the most likely candidates for such an act. Actually, I'm interested in such attacks anywhere (not being a USian myself). But regardless, on what evidence do you base this supposition? Certainly not past history - I can't think of any incident of a Muslim blowing up a plane in the US (or even attempting to do so, other than Richard Reid). Looking at who has actually blown things up in the US recently (Oklahoma, Atlanta, Unabomber, etc) I don't see "being Muslim" as a very obvious indicator. Remember, the 9/11 plane hikackings were just that - hijackings - not bombs.
This conclusion is far from certain. You need evidence to support it or, at the very least, a reasoned argument that can be addressed.
I really have to explain this? It's so elementary (although take a look at someone like Bruce Schnier for a much better written argument). Take 100 people, give one of them a bomb. Conduct random 1 in 10 searches - you have a 10% chance of searching the bomber (of course, a less than 10% chance of actually finding the device, but I digress). Now, let's suppose half are white and half are non-white. We'll assume (for whatever reason) that the non-whites are more likely to be bombers and skew the searches to towards them, say 7 to 3. Now, if the bomb is being carried by a non-white we have a greater chance (7/50=14%) chance of finding it. But if it's being carried by a white person we have a substantially smaller chance (3/50=6%) of finding it. As the mastermind, I don't need to find a "substantial number" of white people willing to carry bombs (or even who I can secretly plant bombs on, or threaten/blackmail or whatever) - I only need to find 1, and my chances of escaping detection are very much higher. Remember - past attacks have shown a great deal of imagination and a great deal of careful planning. To assume that a planner wouldn't think of this and be able to put it into action would be very naive.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that intelligence lead targetting of resources is a bad thing, far from it - it's the only effective way of dealing with the enourmous number of people and risks. I'm arguing that assuming white people (or any other arbitrary category like young or old or married or single) pose a greater or lesser risk is foolish. Think about it - how many times have bombs actually been found by security screening? Compare that to how many times plots have been uncovered and thwarted by the traditional covert security services and police using conventional techniques like infiltration and comms interception.
Why do people like you continue to work under the assumption that a "white person" can just be "dropped in" with the snap of some fingers ? What evidence is bringing you to the conclusion that some "white person" (your term, not mine) is equally as likely to be a suicide bomber ? Ahh the old "people like me" line. Please don't generalise, it's offensive and makes you look kinda dumb.
But again, I digress. I assume that a white person can be "dropped in" because I don't see why it would be so difficult. There's nothing (that I can see) which would make a white Muslim any less likely to be a bomber than a non-white one. Sure there are less white Muslims, but there are enough to form a pool to draw candidates from. And, as I mentioned, don't neglect the possibility that the bomber may be unknowing or unwilling.
And as one last point, before I leave, consider this. Richard Reid is British, has a non-Muslim name, is of non-middle eastern extraction (he's part white, part Jamaican) and is exactly the kind of person you'd actually want to search (be
Last I checked, radicalised Islamic converts from the west were still pretty thin on the ground. Those willing to commit suicide, even rarer.
It's a well known phenomenon that recent converts to a belief or religon are often amongst it's most fierce advocates. For example, people who recently gave up smoking often will be more vocal in it's condemnation than those who never smoked in the first place. Likewise, those who convert to Islam from non-muslim backgrounds are actually surprisingly likely to be in the extreme minorities who would take part in such acts.
That, and of course the fact that muslims are not the only terrorists in the world (Tim McVeigh was Christian, so are the IRA, UDF, etc) and the idea of targetting certain ethnicities is bad. It doesn't make finding the bomber any more likely and it gives the planners a way of lowering the likleyhood of detection. If you know that a white person is even 10% less likely to be stopped you just use a white person and the odds are in your favour.
Your second point is a better-expressed version of my own thoughts. I also have issues with the whole concept of linking (dynamic or static) and how that translates to languages/platforms which don't work the same way as C. For example, Java doesn't link at all - your code simple asks the classloader to load a class from "somewhere" and if it gets one which it can use, great. The classloader could have got it from anywhere - the filesystem, a web server, a database, whatever. As an application developer you don't really have any control over what the rutime classpath is - you could distribute with a BSD licensed impl of some interface and then have a user switch that for a GPL one. Are you now suddenly in violation of the GPL because your app accidentally "linked" itself to a GPL lib? Even in the traditional C world I can see issues with things like plugins. Imagine the scenario where you create a closed-source app which allows third parties to develop plugins as DLLs (or.so or whatever). If someone creates such a plugin and GPL licenses it, what happens when your non-GPL app links to it dynamically just because it was in the plugins directory at runtime?
I'm happy to be set straight on all this if my concerns are unfounded, it just seems like a bit of a minefield due to the really quite vague definition of what linking really means. As always with technology, it's hard to keep the law up to date with it!
I'm curious - what was the trick in King Kong? I mean it certainly wasn't a hard game, but I died plenty (run out of ammo, have to use the stupid spears, get eaten).
Nothing wrong with healthy competition, and I don't think cable has anything to worry about. Verizon is offering FIOS to a few people in/around NYC, and I hear it's pretty fast (for now). You need new equipment installed both in and outside your residence, which AFAIK rules out most people living in apartments. On the other hand, I just upgraded my cable from 15mbps to 30mbps simply by filling in a form on a webpage and waiting 10 minutes. I have no complaints at all about my cable service and wouldn't touch Verizon even if they did offer service here.
The reason FLAC is not in the iPod is that it is too costly to decode. This is why the Apple Lossless codec was developed; to allow lossless playback on existing hardware (and without reducing the battery life too much). Sorry, that's crap. FLAC is amazingly easy to decode, as evidenced by the fact that Rockbox running on the exact same iPod WILL play FLAC. The reason iPod doesn't have FLAC is simple - it wasn't made by Apple and it doesn't have DRM.
It was always supposed to be. The purpose of Xbox was not to make money, it was to get them brand recognition and a "foot in the door" of people's living rooms. It did astonishingly well at that, selling roughly as many units in it's first generation as one of the most established companies in the field (Nintendo).
Indeed. I'm a photographer and take thousands of shots (gotta love digital). But editing is key. Like the other day I was at a 4 hour shoot with 6 models and took maybe 1500 shots - I have that currently down to around 30 "keepers" and I'll trim further yet. The only ones I want anyone else to see are the truly awesome ones, and they're rare.
Certainly they are both violent crimes which any sane society takes a very firm stand against, so I'm not sure why jail time should differ between them It's simple. By making the penalty for murder and rape the same, you've just removed a major deterrent preventing the offender from simply killing the only witness to their crime.
That's strike three, you're out. Thanks for playing!
We should give every adult who boards a plane a gun, that way the first terrorist to stand up and yell "allah ackbar" would get his brains splattered on the cabin ceiling and that would be the end of that.
Your "idea" (it's not even your idea, I've heard other morons spouting it before) is absurd. 400 cramped people, too much heat, screaming kids, travel stress & alcohol does not equal a sensible environment in which to introduce firearms.
(and despite what Penn and Teller's BullS*$T says, there is actually less crime in texas and that's why)
In the year 2000 Texas had an estimated population of 20,851,820 which ranked the state 2nd in population. For that year the State of Texas had a total Crime Index of 4,955.5 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 8th highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime Texas had a reported incident rate of 545.1 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 13th highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states. For crimes against Property, the state had a reported incident rate of 4,410.4 per 100,000 people, which ranked as the state 10th highest.
Texas is, statistically, one of the more dangerous states. It seems they are also lacking an education system.
Just because it has "always" been like this doesn't make it right. In the absense of copyright law the movie producers would need to get paid up front like everyone else on the planet By who? I get paid by my employer for performing a service they consider useful. A company which makes movies should, I guess, get paid by whoever values the movies they create. In other words, the audience. Which is exactly how it works now. You wanna watch - you pay. You don't wanna watch - you don't pay. Pretty damn simple, and it works - the movie companies get their money and we get our movies.
Before modern copyright laws wealthy aristocrats would commission work, I don't see why something like that couldn't work now It wouldn't work now because those of us who aren't wealthy aristocrats still want to watch movies. I can't afford $100 million, but if me and 9,999,999 friends each pay $10 we'll have enough to make it worthwhile for Paramount or whoever to do the work. Now they could try and arrange payment in advance - but who on earth is going to buy a ticket to a movie they can't watch for 3 years? No one. So instead, they take a risk that we'll probably want to watch the movie when it comes out and finance the production. That's the service the studios provide - putting up the money upfront and taking the risk.
I'm not sure where you're writing this from (laws obviously vary by jurisdiction) but a quick google for "asbestos removal" shows that there are licensed asbestos removal companies all over the US. I assume they're acting within the law...
Incorrect. Backdating options is illegal, that's what people will go to jail for. That is also what Apple hasn't done.
No, you are wrong. Backdating options is not illegal provided you account for it properly. The scandals currently unfolding are largely related to improperly backdated options (in other words, the reporting requirements were not met), but also to other irregularities in the reporting of option grants. Whether Apple are guilty of improper manipulations (and what those manipulations might have been) is yet to be determined - that's what the inquiry is for. But the seriousness of what they have announced today implies that they are pretty certain they did something pretty wrong.
Regulators are not involved in this at all. This is an Apple internal inquiry.
Not for long. The SEC have been notified and a major company are restating 4 years of figures - there's a 0% chance they won't get involved at least at a high level.
"Another way to open drivers...Is to sue the hardware makers for only releasing drivers for an OS that was an illegal monopoly."
Linux in/was never an illegal monopoly, thus the fact that all these manufacturers provide drivers for Linux nicely disproves the assertion that they "only released drivers for an OS that was an illegal monopoly". The fact that you happen to want BSD drivers is neither here nor there.
On the other hand, if you take aerial photographs of private property, that may be an invasion of privacy by way of trespass, if you wish to publish them.
It's not designed for use in court, it's designed for use when dealing with idiot security guards and rentacops. First you read the card, so you understand your rights. Then, if anyone challenges them you can refer them to the card. If they still don't believe you, well then it goes to court and your lawyer rips them a new one.
The police were there to keep the peace and make sure people don't get hurt. Yes, they were. They weren't there to arrest people who were doing nothing wrong. When people instigate, it encourages others to do the same, and the situation can get out of control quickly The idea of hundreds of people saying "do that again so I can get it on tape" is hardly terrifying. I don't see what else the OP could be considered to have been "instigating". If you want to piss off police officers, fine, that's your right, but you should expect to be arrested if you do Pardon? Are you kidding me? Arrest me when I break the law. There is no law against "pissing off a police officer". They are regular people and should learn self-restraint and maturity, just like everyone else. You made a choice to be at that protest, the cop didn't Yes he did. He signed up for the force, knowing full well that part of his duties would involve going to demonstrations. If he doesn't like it he can quit. I don't ask to go to endless boring meetings but it's part of my job - like it or leave it. First Amendment takes a back seat to immediate public safety Agreed 100%. But utterly irrelevant as nothing the OP did or said was in any way a threat to public safety.
I'm a supporter of the police in general, they do tough and valuable work and face a lot of uncalled for abuse on the job. In all my (thankfully limited) dealings with the police in both the UK and the US I've been treated well and with respect. But as a wise man (!) once said - "with great power comes great responsibility" - we as a society give them power and if they can't use it responsibly then I for one will happily see the book thrown at them.
You also can't legally arrest someone on bogus charges and make up fictional laws to back up your actions, but it seems they did that too. So it seems they screwed up on many fronts.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could just, you know, do what the rest of us do and dupe netflix discs with DVD Shrink. Considerably simpler, quicker, and produces much better results. Oh, and there's no DRM on a VHS tape - it would have to be called ARM.
Certainly. But my argument is that there relatively few of them, not that they don't exist.
Compared to the number of Muslims in the world a vanishingly small number of them are potential terrorists, yet they seem worthy of our attention, don't they?
The context of this discussion is - as far as I know - people trying to blow up aeroplanes in the US. Muslim extremists are, *by far* the most likely candidates for such an act.
Actually, I'm interested in such attacks anywhere (not being a USian myself). But regardless, on what evidence do you base this supposition? Certainly not past history - I can't think of any incident of a Muslim blowing up a plane in the US (or even attempting to do so, other than Richard Reid). Looking at who has actually blown things up in the US recently (Oklahoma, Atlanta, Unabomber, etc) I don't see "being Muslim" as a very obvious indicator. Remember, the 9/11 plane hikackings were just that - hijackings - not bombs.
This conclusion is far from certain. You need evidence to support it or, at the very least, a reasoned argument that can be addressed.
I really have to explain this? It's so elementary (although take a look at someone like Bruce Schnier for a much better written argument). Take 100 people, give one of them a bomb. Conduct random 1 in 10 searches - you have a 10% chance of searching the bomber (of course, a less than 10% chance of actually finding the device, but I digress). Now, let's suppose half are white and half are non-white. We'll assume (for whatever reason) that the non-whites are more likely to be bombers and skew the searches to towards them, say 7 to 3. Now, if the bomb is being carried by a non-white we have a greater chance (7/50=14%) chance of finding it. But if it's being carried by a white person we have a substantially smaller chance (3/50=6%) of finding it. As the mastermind, I don't need to find a "substantial number" of white people willing to carry bombs (or even who I can secretly plant bombs on, or threaten/blackmail or whatever) - I only need to find 1, and my chances of escaping detection are very much higher. Remember - past attacks have shown a great deal of imagination and a great deal of careful planning. To assume that a planner wouldn't think of this and be able to put it into action would be very naive.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that intelligence lead targetting of resources is a bad thing, far from it - it's the only effective way of dealing with the enourmous number of people and risks. I'm arguing that assuming white people (or any other arbitrary category like young or old or married or single) pose a greater or lesser risk is foolish. Think about it - how many times have bombs actually been found by security screening? Compare that to how many times plots have been uncovered and thwarted by the traditional covert security services and police using conventional techniques like infiltration and comms interception.
Why do people like you continue to work under the assumption that a "white person" can just be "dropped in" with the snap of some fingers ? What evidence is bringing you to the conclusion that some "white person" (your term, not mine) is equally as likely to be a suicide bomber ?
Ahh the old "people like me" line. Please don't generalise, it's offensive and makes you look kinda dumb.
But again, I digress. I assume that a white person can be "dropped in" because I don't see why it would be so difficult. There's nothing (that I can see) which would make a white Muslim any less likely to be a bomber than a non-white one. Sure there are less white Muslims, but there are enough to form a pool to draw candidates from. And, as I mentioned, don't neglect the possibility that the bomber may be unknowing or unwilling.
And as one last point, before I leave, consider this. Richard Reid is British, has a non-Muslim name, is of non-middle eastern extraction (he's part white, part Jamaican) and is exactly the kind of person you'd actually want to search (be
Excellent. So after the Oklahoma City bombing we should have nuked what, the Vatican? And sent special forces in to "cleanse" Pendleton, New York?
Or does he not count because he's a white Catholic who speaks English?
Last I checked, radicalised Islamic converts from the west were still pretty thin on the ground. Those willing to commit suicide, even rarer.
It's a well known phenomenon that recent converts to a belief or religon are often amongst it's most fierce advocates. For example, people who recently gave up smoking often will be more vocal in it's condemnation than those who never smoked in the first place. Likewise, those who convert to Islam from non-muslim backgrounds are actually surprisingly likely to be in the extreme minorities who would take part in such acts.
That, and of course the fact that muslims are not the only terrorists in the world (Tim McVeigh was Christian, so are the IRA, UDF, etc) and the idea of targetting certain ethnicities is bad. It doesn't make finding the bomber any more likely and it gives the planners a way of lowering the likleyhood of detection. If you know that a white person is even 10% less likely to be stopped you just use a white person and the odds are in your favour.
Your second point is a better-expressed version of my own thoughts. I also have issues with the whole concept of linking (dynamic or static) and how that translates to languages/platforms which don't work the same way as C. For example, Java doesn't link at all - your code simple asks the classloader to load a class from "somewhere" and if it gets one which it can use, great. The classloader could have got it from anywhere - the filesystem, a web server, a database, whatever. As an application developer you don't really have any control over what the rutime classpath is - you could distribute with a BSD licensed impl of some interface and then have a user switch that for a GPL one. Are you now suddenly in violation of the GPL because your app accidentally "linked" itself to a GPL lib? Even in the traditional C world I can see issues with things like plugins. Imagine the scenario where you create a closed-source app which allows third parties to develop plugins as DLLs (or .so or whatever). If someone creates such a plugin and GPL licenses it, what happens when your non-GPL app links to it dynamically just because it was in the plugins directory at runtime?
I'm happy to be set straight on all this if my concerns are unfounded, it just seems like a bit of a minefield due to the really quite vague definition of what linking really means. As always with technology, it's hard to keep the law up to date with it!
I'm curious - what was the trick in King Kong? I mean it certainly wasn't a hard game, but I died plenty (run out of ammo, have to use the stupid spears, get eaten).
Nothing wrong with healthy competition, and I don't think cable has anything to worry about. Verizon is offering FIOS to a few people in/around NYC, and I hear it's pretty fast (for now). You need new equipment installed both in and outside your residence, which AFAIK rules out most people living in apartments. On the other hand, I just upgraded my cable from 15mbps to 30mbps simply by filling in a form on a webpage and waiting 10 minutes. I have no complaints at all about my cable service and wouldn't touch Verizon even if they did offer service here.
It wasn't Microsoft, it was Bizarre Creations, as they own Geometry Wars. Microsoft have/had nothing to do with it.
You can read the article and press release here.
Still not gapless though... :(
The reason FLAC is not in the iPod is that it is too costly to decode. This is why the Apple Lossless codec was developed; to allow lossless playback on existing hardware (and without reducing the battery life too much).
Sorry, that's crap. FLAC is amazingly easy to decode, as evidenced by the fact that Rockbox running on the exact same iPod WILL play FLAC. The reason iPod doesn't have FLAC is simple - it wasn't made by Apple and it doesn't have DRM.
It was always supposed to be. The purpose of Xbox was not to make money, it was to get them brand recognition and a "foot in the door" of people's living rooms. It did astonishingly well at that, selling roughly as many units in it's first generation as one of the most established companies in the field (Nintendo).
Just in case there are any investors out there who are interested, I'd like to announce that I'm doing something totally fantabulistically amazing.
And did anyone ever tell you how sparkly your eyes are? Like diamonds on an emerald tray.
(taps feet...any moment now...)
Indeed. I'm a photographer and take thousands of shots (gotta love digital). But editing is key. Like the other day I was at a 4 hour shoot with 6 models and took maybe 1500 shots - I have that currently down to around 30 "keepers" and I'll trim further yet. The only ones I want anyone else to see are the truly awesome ones, and they're rare.
Certainly they are both violent crimes which any sane society takes a very firm stand against, so I'm not sure why jail time should differ between them
It's simple. By making the penalty for murder and rape the same, you've just removed a major deterrent preventing the offender from simply killing the only witness to their crime.
Wow. Are you really that ignorant?
Let's review what we know: Terrorists are 1) usually middle eastern
Wrong
2) always Muslim
Wrong
3) aged 15-35.
Wrong again
That's strike three, you're out. Thanks for playing!
We should give every adult who boards a plane a gun, that way the first terrorist to stand up and yell "allah ackbar" would get his brains splattered on the cabin ceiling and that would be the end of that.
Your "idea" (it's not even your idea, I've heard other morons spouting it before) is absurd. 400 cramped people, too much heat, screaming kids, travel stress & alcohol does not equal a sensible environment in which to introduce firearms.
(and despite what Penn and Teller's BullS*$T says, there is actually less crime in texas and that's why)
And yet again, Wrong. From the linked:
In the year 2000 Texas had an estimated population of 20,851,820 which ranked the state 2nd in population. For that year the State of Texas had a total Crime Index of 4,955.5 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 8th highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime Texas had a reported incident rate of 545.1 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 13th highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states. For crimes against Property, the state had a reported incident rate of 4,410.4 per 100,000 people, which ranked as the state 10th highest.
Texas is, statistically, one of the more dangerous states. It seems they are also lacking an education system.
Just because it has "always" been like this doesn't make it right. In the absense of copyright law the movie producers would need to get paid up front like everyone else on the planet
By who? I get paid by my employer for performing a service they consider useful. A company which makes movies should, I guess, get paid by whoever values the movies they create. In other words, the audience. Which is exactly how it works now. You wanna watch - you pay. You don't wanna watch - you don't pay. Pretty damn simple, and it works - the movie companies get their money and we get our movies.
Before modern copyright laws wealthy aristocrats would commission work, I don't see why something like that couldn't work now
It wouldn't work now because those of us who aren't wealthy aristocrats still want to watch movies. I can't afford $100 million, but if me and 9,999,999 friends each pay $10 we'll have enough to make it worthwhile for Paramount or whoever to do the work. Now they could try and arrange payment in advance - but who on earth is going to buy a ticket to a movie they can't watch for 3 years? No one. So instead, they take a risk that we'll probably want to watch the movie when it comes out and finance the production. That's the service the studios provide - putting up the money upfront and taking the risk.
I'm not sure where you're writing this from (laws obviously vary by jurisdiction) but a quick google for "asbestos removal" shows that there are licensed asbestos removal companies all over the US. I assume they're acting within the law...
Incorrect. Backdating options is illegal, that's what people will go to jail for. That is also what Apple hasn't done.
No, you are wrong. Backdating options is not illegal provided you account for it properly. The scandals currently unfolding are largely related to improperly backdated options (in other words, the reporting requirements were not met), but also to other irregularities in the reporting of option grants. Whether Apple are guilty of improper manipulations (and what those manipulations might have been) is yet to be determined - that's what the inquiry is for. But the seriousness of what they have announced today implies that they are pretty certain they did something pretty wrong.
Regulators are not involved in this at all. This is an Apple internal inquiry.
Not for long. The SEC have been notified and a major company are restating 4 years of figures - there's a 0% chance they won't get involved at least at a high level.
Quoting the original poster:
"Another way to open drivers...Is to sue the hardware makers for only releasing drivers for an OS that was an illegal monopoly."
Linux in/was never an illegal monopoly, thus the fact that all these manufacturers provide drivers for Linux nicely disproves the assertion that they "only released drivers for an OS that was an illegal monopoly". The fact that you happen to want BSD drivers is neither here nor there.
On the other hand, if you take aerial photographs of private property, that may be an invasion of privacy by way of trespass, if you wish to publish them.
Someone should tell Google that...
It's not designed for use in court, it's designed for use when dealing with idiot security guards and rentacops. First you read the card, so you understand your rights. Then, if anyone challenges them you can refer them to the card. If they still don't believe you, well then it goes to court and your lawyer rips them a new one.
The police were there to keep the peace and make sure people don't get hurt.
Yes, they were. They weren't there to arrest people who were doing nothing wrong.
When people instigate, it encourages others to do the same, and the situation can get out of control quickly
The idea of hundreds of people saying "do that again so I can get it on tape" is hardly terrifying. I don't see what else the OP could be considered to have been "instigating".
If you want to piss off police officers, fine, that's your right, but you should expect to be arrested if you do
Pardon? Are you kidding me? Arrest me when I break the law. There is no law against "pissing off a police officer". They are regular people and should learn self-restraint and maturity, just like everyone else.
You made a choice to be at that protest, the cop didn't
Yes he did. He signed up for the force, knowing full well that part of his duties would involve going to demonstrations. If he doesn't like it he can quit. I don't ask to go to endless boring meetings but it's part of my job - like it or leave it.
First Amendment takes a back seat to immediate public safety
Agreed 100%. But utterly irrelevant as nothing the OP did or said was in any way a threat to public safety.
I'm a supporter of the police in general, they do tough and valuable work and face a lot of uncalled for abuse on the job. In all my (thankfully limited) dealings with the police in both the UK and the US I've been treated well and with respect. But as a wise man (!) once said - "with great power comes great responsibility" - we as a society give them power and if they can't use it responsibly then I for one will happily see the book thrown at them.
You also can't legally arrest someone on bogus charges and make up fictional laws to back up your actions, but it seems they did that too. So it seems they screwed up on many fronts.
Ahem...
...and your point was?
ATI Linux Page
nVidia Linux Page
IBM Linux Drivers (for a random chipset)
VIA Linux Drivers (for a random chipset)
Hear that whooshing sound? That's my point flying over your head.