It failed in its bid to use evidence related to the F700 phone and now has been refused permission once again to use images from Stanley Kubrick's seminal science fiction film 2001: A Space Odyssey as well as images from British science fiction show The Tomorrow People."
Link to Original Source
So I don't know why anyone should be surprised at this, Linux has always been OpenGL, Windows DirectX, so having Linux do OpenGL better isn't surprising, anymore than Windows doing DirectX, its just what the platform is made for is all.
Assuming I understand you correctly, I should perhaps have rephrased this:
What I find more interesting, to be honest, is that Open GL is (slightly) outperforming Direct 3D on a windows/nvidia box.
What I find more interesting, to be honest, is that Open GL on a windows/nvidia box is (slightly) outperforming Direct 3D on the same box.
I'd imagine that whether or not this message is interpreted as "menacing" is dependent on the recipient?
This neuro technique presupposes that you accomplish what you want by just skipping the insight and going straight to the rush of pleasure that insight causes.
I've not read TFA, but I'm not convinced that they are making that supposition. Any reason why they wouldn't consider the build up (which they can presumably also track) to be an equally important part of the phenomenon? They may be missing the point entirely, but they're the neurologists, so I'd hope they wouldn't disregard that sort of thing.
Those that are about that, unless they're SF or fantasy-based, should strive to have the most realistic experience as digitally possible but there is no substitute for the firing range.
Surely they'd be better off striving to have the most enjoyable experience possible? Especially if you say that they'd still be "no substitute." A sniper game that involves hiding in the one place for 2 days straight, for instance, may be realistic, but why would anyone want to play it? Give me TF2 any day.
Merely rhetorical questions: Do you believe the most vile of criminals such as pedophiles, murderers and rapists can honestly meet justice with a life sentence? Should people who are serving sentences which are guaranteed to extend well past their natural life span be supported on taxpayer money?
Even though it's rhetorical, I couldn't answer the first question without knowing what you mean by "justice"
And here's a rhetorical one back at you: Do you believe that a state killing someone can ever be just? I can think of scenarios where it might be the best option, but I don't believe it's ever just.