Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:NVIDIA's bread and butter long term (Score 1) 96

Of course, if the conspiracy theorists are to be believed, NSA and friends already have this 10-years-into-the-future technology...

With a nearly unlimited budget, no need to sell a product or make a profit, some of the best and brightest talent in the world (they especially like math majors), and the ability to spy on and thus learn from nearly anyone ... well, they'd be pretty damned incompetent if they somehow aren't ahead of the mainstream. Make no mistake, "national security" is a very high-stakes game, these are people who play to win, and "winning" means superiority.

That is a conspiracy theory? Usually those involve aliens or globalists bankers and such. This? This is two plus two type of material.

Comment Re:Bloat (Score 1) 75

Alternately, for those that do use it, it seems like a really good way to cut OUT a lot of bloat. By taking out the middle man, I would think that you would be able to get better quality for cheaper than if you used a 3rd party program like fraps. I could be wrong, but considering these cards tend to be targeted towards gamers, and gamers like to make videos of them playing games, it seems like there may be something to this.

Perhaps this is where I'm unusual. I play games sometimes, but I've never desired to make a video of my gameplay.

If I ever did that, well since it hasn't happened yet, it would be such a rare event that maximum performance and minimal overhead wouldn't be a big concern at all. I'd rather have a smaller, leaner, less bloated (and potentially less buggy) driver myself. I mean, I have an nVidia card and I do appreciate the ability to tweak the features and performance that their drivers offer, but that's also why as an nVidia customer I find myself (in the minority of?) people who want a driver to stick to its core functions.

Besides, I'm using Linux so I wouldn't be using Fraps. That too probably makes my situation unusual.

Comment Bloat (Score 3, Insightful) 75

Nvidia offers software to optimize game settings and record gameplay sessions

Did anyone else read that and think, "this does not belong in a device driver"?

Maybe it's a great idea that many people will use and there is no other possible way to accomplish this task in userspace. I'm open to that idea, but right now I just don't see the merit.

Comment Re:Who is in charge? (Score 1) 295

Even though they're "in charge," they might not set the rules due to a lack of political will (standing up to someone who wants to do something "to fight terrorists" or "in the name of national security" for fear of being portrayed as weak next election cycle)

This is why the Senators were originally appointed by their respective states, not elected. Changing that was a very bad idea.

Comment Re:Good to see senators at least doing their job (Score 1) 295

And no! I am not under the delusion that some anal retentive asshat won't find something to whine about and declare that I am guilty of a crime of genocidal proportions due to my failure to double check before posting.

What if each electron is actually an entire universe, and by using more than necessary to transmit two posts, you have destroyed trillions of trillions?

Comment Re:Since when (Score 1) 295

well.. maybe they just don't want to look like dickheads coupe of years down the road. and they're making a point about how senators are under gag orders. that's some transparent governing right there!

anyway, the privacy protections in the government surveillance have a flaw: technically the guys running the surveillance network can take any data they want out of it, so it depends on them not accessing the data without a court order. the logic behind how they "can't" spy on americans with it is simply because it's illegal to do so without a warrant. so the logic is that because it's illegal it can't be done. which is fine logic right there.

and they have long ago switched it around so that they can snoop on americans thought to have connections to foreigners anyhow.

There are only up to six degrees of separation (you know someone who knows someone is two) between yourself and any other human being on the planet. A greasy lawyer could probably make the case that every American has some connection to some foreigner at some time.

Comment Re:Since when (Score 1) 295

He was placed in the position where he could not simultaneously fulfill both parts of the oath. No matter what he did, he would be breaking part of it. So he sided with the constitution and the American people, and I think that makes him a hero.

I'm a little surprised there are still people who believe in the USA, who don't think it's too far gone, who are willing to risk ruining their own life in an attempt to turn the situation around rather than making an escape plan by deciding which foreign country they want to migrate to before leaving becomes too difficult.

Comment Re:Since when (Score 1) 295

Constitutional law is about arguing the constitution in court. -what arguments tend to succeed, what arguments tend not to. Unless the judge is receptive, it has nothing to do with normative truth.

The arguments allowing the government to expand its power by legitimizing what it was doing anyway are the ones most likely to succeed these days.

Abusing eminent domain not because you need the land for a legitimate public purpose, but because Wal-mart pays more taxes (not building a bridge or a school, but taking it from one private entity and giving it to another private entity)? Sure, the SCOTUS gives that a nice seal of approval. Police placing GPS tracking devices on vehicles without warrants and without even suspecting a specific crime? Hell, go ahead. Requiring citizens to buy a product/service from a private company or be hit with a fine? Yeah, we like that too. Applying no ceiling at all to the "limited" term of a copyright? Why not?

That's the Surpreme Court these days. It seems they've never seen a fascist or oppressive policy they didn't like. Government is always the good guys, never abuses its power, and always has our best interests at heart, right? Maybe you don't get to be a judge, let alone such a prestigious one, without first believing in the system so hard that everything it does must be good. Heh, maybe new Supreme Court judges are shown a video of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before (that's a joke - with props to Bill Hicks).

Comment Re:Since when (Score 1) 295

Bull crap. But you go head and take small piece of sentence and act like that's the entire Constitution amendment.

Ass

The "Congress shall make no law" part means that Congress shall make no law like that described by the rest of a given amendment. This is pretty basic.

But hey, when you're a miserable person with lots of spite to vent, any target will do, right? That's why you don't bother providing an example or even a general idea of why you think I am wrong and how my mistake could be corrected. A constructive response wouldn't give you that false sense of superiority you so obviously crave.

You'll never, ever fill that void in your life this way. No matter how hard you try. Yes, you are that transparent. Now then, if you wish to discuss the Constitution like two gentlemen I would be glad to do so.

Comment Re:fanboys? (Score 1) 406

Easier way to avoid such things, look for people who use the word "sheeple", then disregard everything else they say.

Replying to them and making it twice as visible that the word was used, does not further your cause. It does, however, let you show us that you're so much better and holier than them.

I don't like or agree with every term that everyone uses all the time myself. I just don't bitch about it. I don't tell others how they should express themselves because that's worse than any word they could use, and because I am not their lord and master. The only person I want to control is myself.

That this particular term "sheeple" gets so deeply and visibly under the skin of so many tells me something. It tells me that this word has power, that it's significant, that it must in fact do a very good job of connecting an ugly tendency with an ugly word. "Follower", "lemming", "droid", "trendy", "mindless automaton" etc. all describe the same thing, but for some reason it is the word "sheeple" that so many I'm-better-than-you types fixate on. That's all the more reason to use it.

Comment Re:Wow, just wow. (Score 4, Insightful) 406

I don't get it. What does free speech have to do with censoring comments on a website? He seemed to be talking about government censorship being bad, and then he said that.

If you believe that censorship is fundamentally wrong then you have two choices: 1) Be a hypocrite and pretend it's different when you do it, or 2) don't censor content on your own Web site either. This KWin maintainer is choosing the first option. What he doesn't seem to appreciate is easy enough to understand: if the trolls can cause him to abandon one of his core beliefs and make a hypocrite of himself, then that's a victory for the trolls and a defeat for himself. It reminds me of how certain nations respond to terrorism by eliminating freedoms -- if the terrorists want to do as much lasting harm as possible, then they must be delighted by that.

This near-obsession with treating government as a special case even when the discussion is about abstract principles is why you were confused. Government is only a special case when the discussion is about censorship via the legal system, because government is the only entity legally allowed to use force or threat of force to achieve its goals. A Web site operator isn't going to arrest a troll and throw him in jail so that just doesn't apply here. Said operator might, however, delete certain posts or ban certain users to effect censorship.

I think our society in general is losing the ability to think in terms of abstract principles (part of why privacy is eroding). This is why we have to rehash the same old "but but .. government!" discussion every single time censorship is mentioned regardless of context. It's a nearly indestructible meme it would seem. You will probably be fired if you tell your boss to go fuck himself and that, too, is a form of censorship. Anyway, this is like a GPL vs. BSD license discussion -- check the Slashdot archives and you'll find that every conceivable point and counterpoint has already been debated ad nauseum.

Comment Re:Seems fishy (Score 1) 262

If you steal your neighbor's car, they won't call it a "friendly theft" just because you were on good terms prior to the theft.

Except that nothing was stolen. It is like downloading a movie. Copying is not stealing. Countries spy on each other, friend or foe. It is normal and expected.

That's a fine job of redundantly restating my sentence while also pointing out the obvious.

Comment Re:Seems fishy (Score 1) 262

I think you miss his point. Homosexuality is ancillary to the problem it was just an example, it's that something- anything- could be discovered and used against the politician or anyone else for that matter.

That's the problem with this media-driven urge to view the entire world through the lens of group identity. It becomes a fixation, and people who allow their thought process to be a product of media will miss your clearly-stated point because of it.

Comment Re:Seems fishy (Score 1) 262

>When the day comes that this information is obtained and used against the same politicians who voted for it, it will be some delicious comeuppance.

I really don't think you quite get how that day would work.

"Senator, PRISM has discovered an email of you admitting to having a gay lover in college, something that would make you completely unelectable in this country for some reason."

"Ahh. Johnny Ten Inches. Yes, well, I admit to that. How much is it going to cost for this to go away?"

"We have all the money we need, but it would sure be nice if that new NSA data seizure legislation in the pipeline got a yes vote. #211,944 if I recall."

"#211,944? I'm not familiar with it."

"Of course you aren't, senator. We haven't written it yet."

You are describing authorized use by those officials who have access to the system.

We were talking about unauthorized use by outside attackers who manage to compromise said system. The post to which I replied spelled this out explicitly and I quoted that in my own post.

See how simple that is?

Slashdot Top Deals

The power to destroy a planet is insignificant when compared to the power of the Force. - Darth Vader

Working...