Blender supports cuda for much of its gpu work. It will work with amd. And there are projects allowing gpu rendering via amd. But they are (and have been for a while) a long way behind the cuda stuff.
For major rendering projects nvidia is still the fastest set up to use.
AMD. Unless you need blender.
they want to shoot down nuclear missiles using satellites.
Very Reagan era star wars project of them.
The art of the deal.
Fuck the party thats not you.
And hiring a prick with 0 military or tactical experience definatly helps not winning.
I think you underestimate the hate.
For the organisations that want to deny the ideals suggested. Using software under such a licence would lose them support. So when developers select such a licence. The software itself gets recognised as such. Meaning any shitty organisation using it gets labeled unacceptable to their very user base.
So requiring the acceptance of these facts would have the same effect as anything else.
Cheers ill look into it.
I think such a licence would need very careful wording. Wording that concentrates on the entity or organisation using rather then jurisdiction.
GPL claims free as in speech not beer. Whereas this would be removing that very concept. By suggesting use for some ideas is not allowed.
I can def see the advantage. Especially for people developing social software. But trying to form a licence like that. While not running fowl of existing GPL restrictions. Would take some seriose legal understanding. As making gpled current libraries incompatible. Could totally remove existing work to expand upon. Removing most developers desire to place the effort needed for the new software.
Would be interesting to watch the project form though. Unfortunately it would be very much like watching a dangerous stunt. Facinating as much for the risk of failure as that of hoping for success.
Ssh x11 forwarding has been a popular system for decades. (Id love to know if wayland options exist yet)
But as other have suggested you need x11 on both systems. It is very inbuilt into the way x11 was originally designed. (From back when we had huge shared servers and dumbish xterm workstations. This means it was designed to do much of the work on the server end with the display being the lower cost less able system.
It will work on a pie. But not with the lite os system as designed.
If they were. (As unlikely as that seems)
Actually stating so would be the best way to prevent having to do so. That is what bothers me about media asking world leaders this. All they are doing is giving a war criminal a list of safe and unsafe nations to visit. Surely any nation that was seriose about wanting to arrest him. Would remain silent about it.
Not news so much as bloody obvious olds.
But a helicopter and hire a pilot.
If you not Musk. A circus cannon.
But you really should not be driving on that health state.
When you are doing something for publicity.
Possibly suffer
It is at the least probably suffer.
If you are intentionally damaging property while looking for publicity. And do not expect to face legal consequences. You are seriously failing to learn from history.
In this case. The jury was specifically ordered to ignore her motive for the actions. That was what prompted the response I quoted. And this is the case in the vaste majority of crimes.
Her argument was that climate change is not a belief but a fact. Unfortunately, that is not what the court claimed. The belief they ordered them to ignore was not climate change. But her claim that her committing a crime was excusable due to the need to draw attention to it.
You may claim she expected jury nullification. And heck, she almost got it. But that in itself is what I mean by history. Jury nullification is so rare in the UK as to be almost non-existence. To expect it from property damage. Where the evidence is public and obvious is not realistic. It is a theoretical principle of over legal system. Not a defined expectation.
Comparison If you speed on the motorway. You may believe it is possible you will get a ticket. But when you do it past a speed camera that flashes. You are not being honest unless you tell the wife it’s probable or pretty darn certain.
EDIT: unless you can claim someone was chasing you with a gun. Saving life has historically been an excuse for crime. But only in very direct situations.
Interesting to consider. If she filled aircraft fuel tanks with sugar. Or the jet engine equiv. Her climate change argument might be considered an excuse. As her belief that damaging the aircraft could stop the harm would be relevant.
Unlike damaging electronic signs, painting or historical documents.
The law says I must kill anyone 2 shades of white below mine.
Ever wonder why laws like that don’t exist.
The closest we got is prejudicial reporting laws. Germany in WW2.
But a less racist example/ Draft during the same war. Draft is the only time it has been a crime to refuse to kill. And at the time, society truly believed you had an obligation to kill for your nation. Pacifism was just seen as another word for coward.
Many people suffered prison and other punishment. For refusing to fight during the second world war. If those people were not willing to risk prison. They would have been ignored. But because many were willing to go to prison. And be forced to work mines rather than fight and kill. (PS, My grandfather brother died in those mines.)
Mining at that time was generally more dangerous than joining the soldiers. And according to my grandfather, he knew the risk when he refused to fight. For context ill add my grandfather was an engineer for smiths. So was in a protected profession. He made instrumentation for spitfires. I raise all this just to point out the discussions I had with him. As he considers himself to have grown from his brother’s experience. He was angry that he was not able to fight during the beginning of the war. As was the case for many young men in protected professions in the first years. Learning of his brother, experience and death in forced labour. Made him realise and respect the sacrifice he and other pacifists made.
Other options were presented late in the war. Plus more recently. Remember the recent election. And the Tories trying to reintroduce national service. If no event like pacifists going to jail during WW2 had happened. Then the Tories would not have bothered to offer so many non-military options.
We as a society now respect the concept of pacifism because people took risk to fight for the rights not to kill. Same with mmost other modern ideals.
Women’s right to vote was won by the women willing to be jailed and beaten by police. Not the people running church coffee mornings.
They say ‘I do what I like without thinking about the law’. I don’t think following the law and doing the right thing are always the same thing.
And you are correct. But when you make the choice to break the law based on what is right. You also make the choice to suffer the consequences. As law is made by society. Not right or wrong.
If you believe, your actions are correct and society wrong. Then you are choosing to sacrifice to fight that battle.
And just like, a person killing a paedophile may be seen by all as right. It is still a crime of murder. Just like destroying property to make your point is still criminal damage, no matter your point. Your willingness to commit the crime is pretty worthless. If you are not also willing to suffer the punishment.
Universe’s longest needle dick.
Pretty sure anyone living in these solar systems. Considers their star to suck.
I imagine all the parties are pretty lame.
Seriously if that was trumos motivation. If be more impressed. At least it would be some genuine emotion.
Now if it was an image of Putin riding him like a horse while Musky billionaires are whipping his arse with money. As Trump fucks the arse of everyone else he sees.
Now it might be more realistic…
And an impressive artwork now I think about it.