I lean on the side of it being perfectly ok to hate people for their attributes, regardless of whether they can change them or not, regardless of whether they are willing to change them or not. And that it is why I have no problem fucking over the anti-gay ideologues and I laugh at your precious concern for their freedom of "conscience". I don't give the slightest fuck about your religious beliefs, your oh-so-logical arguments, or the cultural norms you grew up with. There is no sane defense for that nonsense, it's as irrational as racism and as stupid as astrology. If you side with anti-gay bigots, there's really no way around it, you're basically a cunt.

But the hypocrisy, you cry! Don't you remember the parable of the Nazis? After they came for the bigots, there was no one left to speak for me! I need the bigots to speak for me!

Hating gay people doesn't make you a protected class. It is our choice to hate those people who believe that our hate of their hate should make them a protected class. The difference between us and the bigots is that history is never going to decide that hating bigots is a horrifically immoral crime, you know, like every over thing the bigots once supported. But go ahead, liken us to Jim Crow and the Red Scare, it's hilarious. I hope they all end up unemployable like the child molesters who live under bridges. If we could start a blacklist to hasten that outcome, I'd be snitching on them like Reagan.

nVidia actually did sell it pretty well though. It wasn't in any way a better experience, but the brand name did actually carry the product as I recall.

It was one of the reasons that the relationship between Intel and nVidia went so far south, Intel made it impossible to have third party chipsets and nVidia lost some revenue opportunity. People rightly critical of the technical aspects were not the downfall of the product line, Intel locking down their platform was.

In short, this stuff *could* in theory fly. In practice, I don't think AMD has the brand strength. People still seem to look to nVidia as 'the go-to' brand more often than AMD in the PC component world.

The Below was actually mine, so I am re-posting it here since I know that many ppl ignore ACs.

It is far far better for these companies to keep the sites open, running safe nuclear, while cleaning up the old mess.
In addition, just as we are looking to build new safe reactors, it would be useful to come up with a rail-road based plant that will take the old nuke waste, and convert it into fuel for reactors like transatomic's, or flibe's. Upon converting a bunch, or perhaps all, then the plant is simply moved to another site that is being decommissioned, OR, is itself sent to be decommissioned (too old; better tech; or perhaps just too contaminated).

And the lightwaters, while requiring more enrichment initially, will leave less after the fact, than what came out of the ground. IOW, like Candu, they also burn up a SMALL PORTION of it.

OTOH, MSRs, and IFRs can take what Candu and others can NOT use, and burn up 95% of it. And all at a fraction of the price

No, it really is NOT about the software. It is about a company that is not only copying an interface, but using all of the IP that others developed. It was Apple that FOOLISHLY moved their production, but then taught foxconn how to do it cheaper and with higher quality. Now foxconn is doing the same work for other companies, such as Xiaomi.

The more information that companies with MBA's send to CHina, the faster that they will get unfair competition that will destroy them.

Hmmm. While IFR would help, Candu will not. It is not a breeder.

yeah, I wish that we had editing on /. at times.

is that Xiaomi, and many other chinese phone makers, are using FoxxConn. So, Jobs funded a company, so that they can produce even more competition at a lower price that will steal any and all trade secrets from Apple.

Apple made the same mistake with Samsung and continues to do it in China.

The reason why the west is in trouble is because we became dependent on singular sources of energy. America at one time was at 75% dependant on Coal, though we are now, below 40% coal and dropping (America will be below 25% coal by 2020).
Europe, as a whole, actually hit over 80% coal, and still remains over 50% coal. However, with the situation with Russia, coal is expected to jump again.
China is currently at around 80% coal (and it is GROWING, not shrinking).

What these show, is that when you make a SINGULAR source be your energy, you do not have the capability to remove it fast.
What is needed is a diversified energy matrix, in which no singular source is above 33%, if not 25%.

I see nothing on there that makes it anti-nuke. I DO see him pointing out a REAL problem, which is that many of the old reactors are being extend past their lifetimes and NEED to be taken down. BUT, they really need to be replaced by new ones, not other forms of energy.

Darn it. After I posted, I realized that I had moderation power. I would have modded you up.
I consider my an environmentalists, but a sane one. Hell, the primary reason why I became Libertarian was because both dems and pubs are responsible for so much destruction.
We desperately need an energy mix, not depending on just ONE TYPE of energy. Right now the greenies push wind/solar. Yet, BOTH depend on the sun, which means that if say yellowstone erupts, or China attacks and uses clouds over America first (China is working very hard on weather control and they DO consider it a form of military weaponary), then we would lose much of our power at the very moment that we need it the most.

These sites have land close to cities (efficient), cooling, transmission lines, generators, etc. Basically, the problem with the old reactors is that they are old and are second generation.
What should be happening is that we should put on-site NEW multiple small 3+ gen reactors, such as mPower, to handle the loads, providing power/money for the company, while they take down the OLD reactors.

At the same time, we need to do a 4th gen reactor that will burn up the 'nuclear waste', and leave only 5% of the volume as well leave it safe in under 200 years (as opposed to 20,000+ years).

Walled gardens like AOL and CompuServe failed because they had to compete with everyone else. In the early '90s, there was a lot of content that was exclusive to AOL or CompuServe. There were a load of small BBS that had their own unique content. And then there was the Internet. Anyone could put something on the Internet and when web browsers started to be easy to install anyone could put up a web page. Individuals would put things up on their ISPs' web space or somewhere like Geocities, big companies would buy their own servers. Small individual ISPs started to spring up, because the cost of entry was low: a rack of modems, a leased line, and a load of phone lines and you could be an ISP. Local ISPs competed by differentiating themselves in various ways (free email, free web space, static IPs, whatever).

Meanwhile, AOL and CompuServe (OSPs - Online Service Providers) were trying to sell access but also be responsible for all of the content. The parallel with Facebook isn't quite there, because they're only selling the content. The problem is that, while there is some content on Facebook, anyone who can access Facebook can also access the whole of the web. They need to somehow justify putting content on Facebook (where only Facebook users can see it) rather than just putting it on a web site. Their argument for this is that they can collect lots of data about potential customers if you do, but it's not clear that this is a good long-term alternative.

That was more true a year ago than it is now. Modern smartphones and data plans mean that email is becoming as easy as SMS for a lot of people who would previously only check it when they actively went to their computer. This is also true of the older generation, who previously might have turned on the computer once every day or two for email, but now increasingly have tablets that can do email, thanks to companies like Amazon selling appliances that are mainly there for videos and ebooks..

The useful gadget to sell would be something cheap (under $50) that has a small array of microphones and listens to a predefined set of tones, then produces calibration data telling your audio source what it needs to do to compensate for the poor acoustics and speaker placement in the owner's living room.