Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:nVidia w/ binary driver works (Score 1) 40

by drinkypoo (#48898961) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: GPU of Choice For OpenCL On Linux?

But now I have something to say on the matter: my Nvidia card is no longer supported (that 96.xx line of drivers). So, no proprietary driver for me.

You mean no new proprietary driver for you. The old one still exists. It didn't magically stop working because a new driver came out.

I don't play games and my machine is ok to even play video. I don't need to sacrifice anything except the things I already don't use (like desktop indexing).

You can install an indexed search tool on older Ubuntu versions. But regardless, if newer Ubuntu doesn't support older nVidia drivers, how is that nVidia's fault?

Wait, I just saw this:

And no, I can't go for a more recent distribution, like Ubuntu), because they decided my CPU is too old for them.

CPU without PAE? How quaint. Maybe you should join this millenium. But there are some non-PAE kernels for Ubuntu floating around out there, sometimes.

Comment: What's unclear? (Score 1) 2

by drinkypoo (#48898923) Attached to: Why We Still Can't Really Put Anything In the Public Domain

Along with your work, you provide a promise not to sue, giving up all your rights to the work in question. It's clearly illegal to do that with the intent of changing your mind later.

It would be nice if there were a no-copyright-registration process, which would certainly remove any and all doubt. But it's not like it's unclear, now. If there's no promise not to sue, look for something else.

Comment: Re:Left Hander Doesn't Care About Your Problem (Score 1) 346

by drinkypoo (#48898895) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Where Can You Get a Good 3-Button Mouse Today?

so link to the manufacturers website to the page which supports your claim

You still don't understand how the Logitech website works. When they reuse a product name, the old product is renamed in the database to remove the conflict, and listed only under its model number. But here is an ebay listing showing the exact device in question, asshole. You could have found this yourself with google if you weren't such a dumbshit.

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 1) 38

What is unfair about how commercial licenses are handled?

That you can get it yanked for trivial moving violations commited when not even driving a commercial vehicle, of the type that people regularly engage in. This is only really a problem because the court has the right to deny you the right to go to traffic school even if you weren't driving a commercial vehicle (or with commercial purpose) at the time. People don't usually go to traffic school because they committed an infraction through ignorance, they typically knew what they were doing was illegal, so there's really no grounds for closing this particular loophole to these people. It's wrong because especially if your livelihood depends on it, but really in any situation, you shouldn't be held to a higher standard than anyone else while operating non-commercially. And that's only because everyone should be held to the same standard while driving, regardless of reason. We're told over and over again that it's a privilege and not a right, but some of us seem to be more privileged than others.

Comment: Re:Jesus, we're fucked. (Score 1) 136

by drinkypoo (#48898865) Attached to: Americans Support Mandatory Labeling of Food That Contains DNA

Unless you've taken some chemisty and know how to parse "dihydrogen monoxide" as "a molecule consisting of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms", you don't realize it's water

The fact that so many of us didn't get any chemistry is vindication of the statement that we're fucked, though. Being a nerd, I figured it out the first time I heard it, which was convenient since I first heard it from one of the people instrumental in spreading the meme early on. Being a part of the scruz geek scene was fairly magical, even though I caught the tail end of the golden years.

Everyone should be getting basic chemistry and biology, like it or not. I never had to dissect anything. Closest I've come is carving up food. Never learned much about biology at all, or chemistry for that matter.

Comment: Re:Damn Meant to include this (Score 1) 136

by drinkypoo (#48898833) Attached to: Americans Support Mandatory Labeling of Food That Contains DNA

People need to be reminded that the anti-GMO movement itself has a large industry component as well. "Organic" is a huge market with many players,

That's why many of us didn't want the USDA involved in organic certification. Sure enough, they allow many things which really have no business falling under such a label. We knew it would just shit on the whole concept, which involves cyclical systems — it's not just about a list of banned products.

Comment: Re:Breakdown of adult interaction, oral tradition? (Score 1) 136

by drinkypoo (#48898819) Attached to: Americans Support Mandatory Labeling of Food That Contains DNA

Perhaps it is not the educational system that has failed us, but a knowledge-transfer process between the generations.

Seems like it's both. If school's job is to prepare you to be a good citizen, then shouldn't it be finding ways to take up the slack? And perhaps to build a better parent? Since that's what kids grow up and become, in part.

Throughout the Nuclear Age the nuclear family has been in steady decline.

You can say that again. But maybe it's a good thing. I never got along with my family. Why shouldn't I form a synthetic family with people more like me? It's a proven fact that family won't necessarily stand by you, so no difference there.

Call your Mom.

My mom has been focused firmly on herself since before I was born, and talking to her makes me feel like crap every time. Why don't you call my mom, if you think she needs a phone call so much?

Comment: Re:Why oh Why (Score 1) 43

That's false. Assuming you are the sole copyright holder to all said code you can do with it as you please. See MySQL.

They can sell it, but they can't sell it out from under you. Besides the obvious downside of having to build support all over again, the only down side to forking is not being able to change the license in the future — which is an up side for the user base.

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 1) 38

Bottom line to me Uber is excellent way to improve the amount of car pooling we do, which HAS to be better for the environment than every one of us driving our own car carrying a single person to get where we need to go.

It's better in a whole multitude of ways. It's better because you don't need as many cars; okay, so that's only 25-33% of a vehicle's lifetime energy use, but that remains significant. The percentage decreases as our fleet ages... but the more old cars we have on the road, the more unnecessary pollution we are producing, so that's another reason to encourage vehicle sharing. And then there's the fact that a car that's being utilized constantly isn't cooling down and having to be warmed up again, so the anti-pollution catalysts are functioning more of the time. It's a massive, massive win. "Proper" taxi companies have not sprung up to feed demand, perhaps in part because of licensing schemes which have been put in place which deter them.

Ultimately, protecting the passengers is a job best done by a combination of proper driver testing and vehicle inspection, and a goddamned working national health system. You don't need massive insurance liability coverage if you have a health system which will care for you if you get smashed. The required liability insurance is only so high as it is because health care costs are out of control, and yet the liability insurance is likely to not actually cover all your health care costs in a serious accident anyway. You can't fix this by increasing the insurance, because the costs would be too high. You can only fix it by fixing health care. But here we sit, arguing about whether people should be able to use their cars as they see fit. If they're not capable of that, they're not capable of driving, and you should just take the car away already.

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 1) 38

Statistically, a commercial driver drives way more than a noncommercial driver, and they're much more likely to be sued, and for more money.

Drivers who drive more are already assessed a larger fee for their insurance coverage than the rest of us, because mileage is part of the calculation.

If you allow that sort of ignoring of statistics

The only ignorance here is your willful ignorance of the way insurance fees are calculated, which already takes this into account.

Comment: Re:The fuzzy line between hobby and job (Score 1) 38

Uber and Lyft may be a hobby for some people, but they are a job for others. The commercial auto license, like the commercial driver's license, is a binary distinction

And one which California in particular already applies unfairly so as to steal money from the citizenry. Any pickup truck over a fairly low weight has to be registered as a commercial vehicle. You don't need a commercial license to drive a commercial vehicle unless you use it for a commercial purpose, but you still have to pay more for the registration because California. There are many legitimate non-commercial uses to which a person might put a pickup truck heavy enough to trigger this fraudulent surcharge, which is actually way down somewhere below 5,500 lb. That's not very much for a truck, especially these days since truck weights have climbed ever upwards save for the 2015 F-150, which has an Aluminum body.

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 1) 38

I don't have a problem with the driver not having commercial insurance. However, in that case the company needs to insure the driver when "on duty".

Well, Uber at least already does this. However, your normal insurance company might refuse to cover you at all, defining the activity as commercial and thus outside of your policy. Then you won't have the legally mandated-and-approved minimum required insurance, and you'll be driving uninsured and thus illegally. Technically, probably pretty much all of this activity is illegal because of restrictions on commercial activity in personal liability insurance policies.

Whether the insurance companies should be allowed to do that to you is the real root question which we need to answer. My argument is that if someone isn't safe enough to drive people around for money, then they're not really safe enough to drive at all. If we need more stringent driving tests and vehicle inspections before we permit anyone to drive for any purpose, then okay, let's have those. But there's nothing transformative about accepting money for an activity: the activity remains the same. You are basically required to make some money to not be a criminal — homelessness is more or less illegal, and having a home requires some money due to taxes at the minimum. In that light, any restraint of trade which is not absolutely necessary is abhorrent, since it interferes with the citizen's ability not just to exist at all, but also to exist within the law.

Comment: Flea markets, yard sales, and eBay (Score 1) 346

by drinkypoo (#48898663) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Where Can You Get a Good 3-Button Mouse Today?

Obviously, what you want is a really old mouse. There's loads of them out there. Lots of the ball mice were perfectly useful. Get a 3M precision mousing surface to go with your mouse, they lay very flat and they grip very well. Every time I go to a flea market I see dozens of old PS2/Serial Logitech mice with three buttons.

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score -1, Troll) 38

Why, exactly, should Uber drivers get to drive passengers using regular non-commercial drivers' insurance?

Because commercial licenses are handled unfairly.

If you're letting them drive on non-commercial licenses than that means that regular drivers are subsidizing Uber-drivers.

You've got these things completely backwards. It's why should Uber drivers get to drive using non-commercial licenses, and if you're letting them drive on non-commercial insurance.

The big problem with commercial licenses is that we hold commercial drivers to a higher standard even when they're not driving on a commercial basis. It's abusive when considered in combination with ride-sharing.

Ride-sharing cars can't use taxi stops or taxi lanes, so they're not really using more road resources than would the person they're hauling around if they could afford a car, if it made sense for them to drive their own car, whatever. But they help relieve parking pressure, so they're still a positive force. You shouldn't try to prevent them. Taxi companies aren't serving the needs of the public, which is why these services even exist.

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer

Working...