Irrelevant, because we are not talking about The Netherlands

.

Come on, we all know why it is. Just fucking tell them. Tell them that it's their first instinct because they don't want to believe that they could be part of the problem, however slightly. Tell them that they don't want to believe that people they know and call friends are actually acting like complete shitbags. Tell them that you know that they've been hurt, that they feel worthless and useless and powerless, and that you know they feel more powerful and thus more worthy and useful when they make someone else feel even worse about themselves.

And then tell them that the only way that they're ever going to feel better is by helping to create a world where we don't just shit all over one another. Because you've got to tie it into their self-interest.

Naturally, most of them won't listen right away. But perhaps eventually, after continuing to try making the world shittier as a way of making it a nicer place to live, they will start watching where they shit.

A quick glance around the internets suggests that it was promoted by the Romney campaign, including his self, but has a history going back reps calling single-payer health care "Hillarycare". So no, definitely "Obamacare" as well.

That is correct. Every time this comes up I like to spark a debate over what I perceive as the uselessness of referring to an "instruction set architecture" because that is a bullshit, meaningless term and has been ever since we started making CPUs whose external instructions are decomposed into RISC micro-ops. You could switch out the decoder, leave the internal core completely unchanged, and have a CPU which speaks a different instruction set. It is not an instruction set architecture. That's why the architectures themselves have names. For example, K5 and up can all run x86 code, but none of them actually have logic for each x86 instruction. All of them are internally RISCy. Are they x86-compatible? Obviously. Are they internally x86? No, nothing is any more.

OK, so this is an assertion that the reps are for reprocessing, and the dems against. So is this a deliberately static situation, in which both sides are benefiting from the status quo, or is this a case of the democrats being the ones profiting the most? Because even environmentalists overwhelmingly believe what they're told.

Because a hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.

I bought a GF4MX and was happy. It was successful not because it fooled people, but because of what it actually offered: Performance in between GF2 and GF4, at a GF2 price. If your games didn't have shader support, which was typical back then, you got acceptable performance at rock-bottom price.

My old sharp AQUOS TV needs only 2 processing stages to scale. Latency is negligible, if you don't have other sources stacking up someplace else.

Well, AC, you are just as stupid as ever. It took a century or more of baby-steps to get there, not counting about 3000 years of fundamental mathematical research.

I'm not going to buy an "expensive" upscaler, but I'd rather use the real consoles. I actually run into emulation errors with games I want to play on a semi-regular basis. I don't think that it's unreasonable to think about buying a scaler, even if it's unreasonable to buy this one.

It would be nice if someone would kick out a television with a fancy scaler built in. AQUOS and Bravia televisions (among others... I have an older example of the former, just barely pre-LED-backlight) have scalers which provide pretty good results for video sources at typical resolutions while also adding minimal latency, which is their primary appeal as compared to other lines — especially since the competition caught up in the black level department. But someone like Vizio (which is commonly favored by gamers due to sharp, clean scaling, if a bit jaggy at times) might consider offering some models with a seriously upgraded scaler and offering them to gamers as a means of improving their old-school gaming experience. Even people who don't own classic consoles, or who keep them in a box in their closet, might consider spending some extra money on such a feature even if they wind up never actually using it.

Not me, but some people :) Never know what the future holds for my TV, though.

But who are you? You don't have a name, or a mother. You're just an anonymous coward. If you really believed what you're saying, you'd log in.

I install Ubuntu and then nvidia won't install until I fucking massage the thing. And that's the selling point of Ubuntu. Give me a break. It's cool how fancy it is, and how it supports stuff, but it's not cool how flaky it is.

This is an awful idea even without the idea of human malice. With it, it's an Orwellian nightmare mated to a Murphyesque fuckup. Cars which depend on communications from other cars cannot in fact be said to be self-driving. They're part of a hive mind, and if there's sickness in that hive, it's going to affect them.

The people believe whatever they're told to believe. Americans were told that cars would bring them freedom, security, and individuality. Instead, the vehicles can be seized at the least pretext without recourse other than waiving of fees (if you are lucky), any attempt to flee a natural disaster will result in joining a traffic jam, and the individuality is just like everyone else's.

I love driving. It is probably my second-favorite activity in the whole wide world, although I've never actually flown anything outside of a simulator, and I have a feeling that would do even better. But frankly, a functional public transportation system would serve most people better. If the auto companies weren't running things in transportation we could at least have a national dialogue about replacing cars with something better, like PRT — which can provide all of the benefits of the personal auto without any of the drawbacks.

If there were any evidence that this saved lives, then that might be a good idea. There isn't. What makes cars more dangerous is more speed — it doesn't necessarily increase the risk of an accident, but it does make an accident more dangerous. What makes cars less dangerous is more safety features. Stuff that keeps cars out of accidents, stuff that reduces the amount of energy transferred to the occupants. Not less safety features. Meanwhile, I want all the safety features for that moment when someone else isn't paying attention.

You seriously haven't noticed American government becoming more authoritarian? You seriously didn't pay attention to the revelations of secret conspiracies to which we've been treated of late? This is all news to you?