 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 00:59:21 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> I suppose you could look at it that way. The friends I have in Germany
> >> have described it more as suppressing hate speech.
> >
> > There's a fine line between suppressing hate speech and suppressing
> > freedom of expression. It seems that European countries in general are
> > slowly but steadily probing how much they can extend the latter in the
> > name of the former before people get angry.
> You have to admit that Germany is something of a special case, though -
> one of my friends there works in government (not as an elected official,
> but as an IT guy) and he's stated that that chapter of German history is
> something that should never, ever be repeated again.
> I think that's something that most people would agree on.
Yes, but what I find questionable is the *timing* of these laws.
WW2 and the nazi regime happened over 50 years ago. Why exactly are these
laws being enacted *now*. Why werent't they enacted in the 50's or 60's?
I also find it ridiculous to ban the swastica as the nazi symbol.
Do they honestly think that outlawing a symbol is going to diminish the
amount of hatred, xenofobia, racism and anger people have?
What they *really* want is to outlaw certain political ideologies. But
they cannot do that (yet) because it would break certain constitutional
principles. Thus they invent these ridiculous laws to get around the problem.
Since these undesired political ideologies tend to use certain symbols to
visually express their stance, what the government does is to ban the
symbols, so that they will have an excuse to punish the people with those
unwanted political ideologies.
Of course this won't stop the political ideologies from proliferating.
It will only cause these people to express them in other (still not
outlawed) ways.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I don't know about his graphics card, but I can sort of monitor my GPU's
> temperature by listening to the fan. It seems to speed up when I ask the
> GPU to do some work, and slow down again afterwards. Although nothing I
> have yet run has made it speed up all that much... I guess it's cold in
> my room or something.
You can only "monitor" the temperature up to a certain point by listening,
because the fan won't go faster than a certain speed. You have no way of
knowing if it's actually overheating.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I don't know about his graphics card, but I can sort of monitor my GPU's
>> temperature by listening to the fan. It seems to speed up when I ask the
>> GPU to do some work, and slow down again afterwards. Although nothing I
>> have yet run has made it speed up all that much... I guess it's cold in
>> my room or something.
>
> You can only "monitor" the temperature up to a certain point by listening,
> because the fan won't go faster than a certain speed. You have no way of
> knowing if it's actually overheating.
When I turn the computer on, the fan spins up to maximum speed. While
the computer is running, it has never (yet) gone anywhere near that
fast. But yes, if it did reach that point, there would be no way to tell
if it really wanted to go faster still.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Sounds like... a very tedious way to spend 4 years.
>
> Nah. Usually, there's not more than one or two people there at a time.
> If there is, you go a different direction. Or you throw something down
> the hall to distract them, then run past. It's a very well balanced
> game, overall.
Ah yes, the annoying thing about Crysis: You look on your map to see
where you're supposed to be going, walk in that direction, and discover
there's a 200 foot cliff face in the way. :-/
(Actually, that's not true. The *most* annoying thing about Crysis is
how feeble all your guns are...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/7/2009 11:09 PM, Warp wrote:
> Chambers<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, it's crashed my computer twice now. I have to try the
>> latest update to see if that fixes anything.
>
> Can you monitor the GPU and CPU temperatures somehow?
>
> I have never heard how common it is, but I have the strong suspicion that
> at least sometimes the computer crashing when playing a game is caused by
> overheating, rather than any bug in the game (or other software) itself.
>
> After all, a game like Crysis probably stresses the GPU (and the CPU)
> quite a lot, and they tend to gain temperature when overworked.
>
Windows reported that the crash was in the ATI driver. The Catalyst
Control Center has a monitor section, so I'll try it out tomorrow and
see how hot it gets.
FWIW, I bought this card on Ebay, and it came with a ridiculously large
aftermarket fan attached. I thought that was a little odd (since I was
already getting a good price on the card, and the fan should cost even
more), until I plugged it in and noticed a faint ghost image offset from
the actual image by a few millimeters.
I strongly suspect that the previous owner of this card overheated it,
panicked, slapped a large fan on it, and put it on Ebay.
Still, it runs quite well, and I haven't had any problems in other games
(even UT3, which is quite new as well). The ghosting isn't noticeable
in games (too much motion), and I've learned to ignore it when working
with text.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Sun, 08 Feb 2009 04:22:04 -0500 schrieb Warp:
> Yes, but what I find questionable is the *timing* of these laws.
To what laws are you referring? There have been laws since 1945 forbiding
it (under the allies) and different laws since then. It is hardly new.
The current § 86a is from 1994 after several neonazi mobs killed people.
§86 is older and basically tells the same.
>
> WW2 and the nazi regime happened over 50 years ago. Why exactly are
> these
> laws being enacted *now*. Why werent't they enacted in the 50's or 60's?
See above.
>
> I also find it ridiculous to ban the swastica as the nazi symbol.
> Do they honestly think that outlawing a symbol is going to diminish the
> amount of hatred, xenofobia, racism and anger people have?
>
> What they *really* want is to outlaw certain political ideologies.
Such as overthrowing democracy? Yes we want to prevent that. The concept
is called "Streitbare Demokratie":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streitbare_Demokratie
But
> they cannot do that (yet) because it would break certain constitutional
> principles. Thus they invent these ridiculous laws to get around the
> problem. Since these undesired political ideologies tend to use certain
> symbols to visually express their stance, what the government does is to
> ban the symbols, so that they will have an excuse to punish the people
> with those unwanted political ideologies.
>
> Of course this won't stop the political ideologies from proliferating.
> It will only cause these people to express them in other (still not
> outlawed) ways.
Germany was a democracy when Hitler was elected by the people. All of
those ideologies want to abolish the democratic order of germany.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> So what's your FPS? Bring the console down in-game, and type:
> r_displayinfo 1
I swam onto the beach at the beginning of the game, and got about 40
FPS. If you swing the camera around enough for motion blur to kick in,
it drops slightly, but not much. Night vision appears to make no difference.
The cutscene where they find Astec dropped to about 18 FPS. Some really
large scenic vistas take it as low as 15 FPS (though curiosly an entire
frame full of dense jungle is no problem, only long-range views).
Typically the framerate stays above 25 FPS, which is all the monitor can
physically display anyway, so I'm happy.
This is at 1680x1050 (the native resolution of my LCD) with everything
set to "high" plus 8x antialias.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Florian Pesth <fpe### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> Germany was a democracy when Hitler was elected by the people. All of
> those ideologies want to abolish the democratic order of germany.
Are you saying that democracy is a bad thing? Because it certainly looks
that way.
Well, I actually wouldn't find it surprising even if it were true,
because that seems to be a common trend in Europe nowadays: Democracy
and freedom of opinion is a bad thing because it allows some people to
have the wrong opinions.
Some people say (something along the lines of): "Freedom of opinion
doesn't mean you can be a racist." Well, freedom of opinion means precisely
that you can be a racist if you want, or support whatever else ideology you
want. That's precisely what it means. If you outlaw opinions, you are
suppressing freedom.
Allowing people to have certain opinions doesn't mean you support those
opinions or agree with them.
I certainly detest some people's opinions (such as racism and nazism),
but they just have the right to have an opinion. If they start harming
other people, that's a completely different issue, but as long as they
are only opinions and don't bother others, that's their right.
However, in modern Europe it's more and more common to forbid certain
opinions (even if it's not still de jure, very certainly de facto).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Sun, 08 Feb 2009 07:53:14 -0500 schrieb Warp:
> Florian Pesth <fpe### [at] gmxde> wrote:
>> Germany was a democracy when Hitler was elected by the people. All of
>> those ideologies want to abolish the democratic order of germany.
>
> Are you saying that democracy is a bad thing? Because it certainly
> looks
> that way.
No and I don't see how you can read my post that way.
My point is that we have to protect democracy itself. The failure of the
first democracy of Weimars republic was partly because we didn't have
measures to prevent a democratically elected chancellor to overturn
democracy. These laws are a consequence of the failure of the first
democracy.
>
> Well, I actually wouldn't find it surprising even if it were true,
> because that seems to be a common trend in Europe nowadays: Democracy
> and freedom of opinion is a bad thing because it allows some people to
> have the wrong opinions.
>
> Some people say (something along the lines of): "Freedom of opinion
> doesn't mean you can be a racist." Well, freedom of opinion means
> precisely that you can be a racist if you want, or support whatever else
> ideology you want. That's precisely what it means. If you outlaw
> opinions, you are suppressing freedom.
There is no law in germany outlawing racism.
>
> Allowing people to have certain opinions doesn't mean you support
> those
> opinions or agree with them.
>
> I certainly detest some people's opinions (such as racism and nazism),
> but they just have the right to have an opinion. If they start harming
> other people, that's a completely different issue, but as long as they
> are only opinions and don't bother others, that's their right.
Do you think there is / was no harm done with propaganda? Do you think
there is no guilt in convincing other people to murder if you don't
murder yourself? Surely there have been high Nazis who let others do the
dirty work of killing. Does that mean they are free of guilt, because
they just offered an opinion? I really don't think so.
>
> However, in modern Europe it's more and more common to forbid certain
> opinions (even if it's not still de jure, very certainly de facto).
Your argument would hold more water if you could point to recent law
changes which restrict your speech in new ways.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 04:22:04 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 00:59:21 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >> I suppose you could look at it that way. The friends I have in
>> >> Germany have described it more as suppressing hate speech.
>> >
>> > There's a fine line between suppressing hate speech and suppressing
>> > freedom of expression. It seems that European countries in general
>> > are slowly but steadily probing how much they can extend the latter
>> > in the name of the former before people get angry.
>
>> You have to admit that Germany is something of a special case, though -
>> one of my friends there works in government (not as an elected
>> official, but as an IT guy) and he's stated that that chapter of German
>> history is something that should never, ever be repeated again.
>
>> I think that's something that most people would agree on.
>
> Yes, but what I find questionable is the *timing* of these laws.
As Floridan said, some have been around for many, many years.
> WW2 and the nazi regime happened over 50 years ago. Why exactly are
> these
> laws being enacted *now*. Why werent't they enacted in the 50's or 60's?
Well, for the more modern laws, I can only speculate that there is
perhaps a resurgence of those ideas and that's what's prompted an
apparent rise in political awareness of it in the country.
> I also find it ridiculous to ban the swastica as the nazi symbol.
> Do they honestly think that outlawing a symbol is going to diminish the
> amount of hatred, xenofobia, racism and anger people have?
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it is a very strong symbol.
Outlawing it (which as has been mentioned elsewhere, by Florian, I
believe, isn't strictly what's happened) raises people's awareness of it.
> What they *really* want is to outlaw certain political ideologies. But
> they cannot do that (yet) because it would break certain constitutional
> principles. Thus they invent these ridiculous laws to get around the
> problem. Since these undesired political ideologies tend to use certain
> symbols to visually express their stance, what the government does is to
> ban the symbols, so that they will have an excuse to punish the people
> with those unwanted political ideologies.
That happens with all sorts of laws, not just laws of this type - we
criminalize behaviour that isn't inherently criminal itself.
> Of course this won't stop the political ideologies from proliferating.
> It will only cause these people to express them in other (still not
> outlawed) ways.
Yes, but from what I understand in Germany, outlawing some of the symbols
has slowed any serious movement down.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
