If you believe science and religion arent in conflict you either dont know much about science or dont know much about religion.
Heres jsut one example. God states in the bible that he is omnipotent. omnipotence is impossible according to natural laws, e.g. can god create a rock ge cant lift. the only way to get around this is to say that god is exempt from the laws of nature, which conflicts with science.
Einstein did not believe this. He simply used god as a metaphor for the unknown. He was an athiest 100%. Many physicists do this, unfortunatly they have chosen a bad word to use because as soon as they use the word god they get labled religious.
History tends to repeat itself because humans are for the most part stupid and dont take an active interest in history to prevent future mistakes. Human history repeats itself, i dont think you can really apply this to physiscs, unless your a fan of Unintelligent Design or something.
Considering approximately 5% of Physicists in the Unites States are religious I dont think they considered it a religous question.
If the likes of stephen hawking and albert einstein with general reletivity cant work it out how are illiterate goat herders from 2000 years ago supposed to have done it?
Theres nothing worse than a 1024x not quite enough screen. I have 1024x600 on my vaio ux, and it manages to cut 120 pixels off the bottom of almost every control panel in XP, Vista, Ubuntu and OSX. Just enough to hide the cancel ok and apply buttons among other things. You have to tab around and guess, especially in OS's that only let you resize windows from the bottom right. And thats not a good thing when your trying to change boot settings and stuff.
I wish they would set a minimum height res of 720 or something.
It's wonderful the large range of possibilities a school like Yale or Stanford or Brown can give to you. Brown? Oh! My incarcerated business partner's retarded gay niece went to Brown.
Can someone sciency that hasn't spent thousands on a sound system to play vinyl tell me if theres any truth to this "warm" idea or if its just a subjective placebo myth? Granted i don't have much understanding but as far as i can tell the only way this could be is if the warmness came from imperfecitons and errors in the playback process...
I suppose you might call me a serious gamer, and I'm certainly someone who would love to give up windows for linux, I've been running ubuntu for a while now and its great... i just find i never use it because i play games more than anything else. iv tried in the past to play games on linux but its a disaster. trying to set it up, set up wine, things crash, wine crashes, working with the console.... i mean i don't mind tinkering around but it all gets a bit much when sometimes i just want to play a game.
Also as far as I'm aware theres no SLI support, and if there is you still take a performance hit on linux, and I didn't spend $1000+ on GPUs to take a performance hit. Its the same reason I went from vista back to xp. (well, one of many, many, many, many reasons.) It was the difference between playing Crysis on medium to playing it on almost very high, which is a big deal, on medium it just looks like every other FPS. And please no arguments about how graphics aren't important. after 3 years of selling video games in one way or another i can tell you almost every adult customer cared about the graphics, and they're the ones that need to be converted.
I think these issues are becoming more common with your average consumer too that isn't a serious gamer. from working in retail and experiences with my friends more and more people are buying specific gpus, quoting model numbers, and looking up performance. A lot more people nowadays will know which graphics card they have, or at least the series, and know roughly what they can expect from it. Then if they try linux, and their shiny expensive $200 gpu loses half its value, and on top of that they have to try and get games working with wine, it all becomes unreasonable to them.
As far as games made for linux, it would be fanatstic if there were more, but its a chicken and egg problem. And im really not interested in playing UT2K4 anymore, iv been playing that for 4 years. While some of the linux games i hear about sound interesting, lets be honest, they aren't Crysis or COD4, and its games like that i bought my system to play, as well as many people i know.
People buy gaming machines to run whats on the shelves, and so the first step is to get those working smoothly and hassle free, as well as at similar or preferably better speed. Then once you have a better product you can win over a linux user base and can start making linux only games.
I know all of this is filled with problems and may well be impossible to implement, but these are the reasons i see why people arent gaming on linux.
The section at the bottom of that article i was directing to states that the majority of the panel on all occasions rejected that usage of the word in all situations except when referring to computer software.
Nitpicking: Just like that list of banished words said, can we stop using this rediculous bastardization? We dont say someone "paintered" a picture. We already have the word "written" for just this purpose.
What do they aim this thing at? Cause im imagining something with that kind of power isnt something you'd want to aim at a wall or.. anything really. Wouldnt it just instantly cut through like anything or am i missing something here
Well considering they make them with 4 cores the vast majority are probably fully functional, and it is disabled. Perhaps they have a system like the ps3 where if one of the cores dies post production it enables the spare core to further reduce warranty claims.
Any other personal details you can post on slashdot? Perhaps about their children? lol.
My favorite part is "..says Richard White, a clinical fellow in the Stem Cell Program.."
It sounds like they just walked in to the building and saw some guy in a lab coat and thought "Hey, theres a clinical looking fellow! lets ask him what he thinks!"
Are you sure of this? have you tested any 8800gts cards or are you just making guesses because yours is fast?
I was learning maya last year, they reccomended we get new quadro cards for our computers to handle it. I figured the 2 8800GTS cards I currently had would do the job just fine.
The performance on my computer totally blew away all the lab computers. The teacher initially didnt beleive me when i told him the performance I was getting because I was using "just a cheap gaming card", not like his shiny expensive quadro. The cards they reccomended started at $2000AU. Maya on my machine was only using one card which cost me $600 at the time. Sorry I dont recall what exact quadros they were but they were the range of about march last year.
Also IANA3DA, but isnt all the work of the finished rendering done with cpu power? like ray tracing etc. As far as im aware GPUs in 3d are only for having fancy real time graphics in the dev environment so you can see whats going on so pixel perfect quality isnt an issue. So if perfect quality of the GPU isnt relevant what actual benefits am i getting from spending $3499 on a Quadro?
I spoke to a couple of people from a game developer at the time thats working on a ps3 game and that particular employee said they had never had any need for a quadro, and preffered to use dual 8800GTXs. I know that animal logic (the company that made happy feet) use only cpu power for their rendering process. As far as im aware render farms are pretty much cpu only.
If im wrong in any of this please correct me but GPU companies have to make money somewhere, and with the bargain basement prices of gaming cards my moneys on workstation graphics.
It is always more beneficial to have a better GPU and slower CPU. You might see no decent improvemnt going from medium to high graphcs but i do. Crysis on medium looks like quake 4. on Ultra it looks way better than any other game. And its not the difference between 60fps and 150fps, its 5fps vs 30fps. unplayable vs playable.
Also CPU benefits to me are for the most part a placebo effect. An E6300 can give the same XP/vista/wordprocessing/intenet browsing experience as a QX6800. An E6300 is also adequate for max settings on most games. almost all applications dont even use 2 of the 4 cores. Of course cpu specific tasks like mathematical applications are different. Apple always plays up cpu power as they put shithouse gpus in their computers and ridiculously overkill cpus, at least in the mac pro. a 7300GT and 8 3ghz cores? good luck making use of that. Waste of money. Anyway the GPU makes all the difference.
You cant deny a higher end graphics card will give you better performance, make more games playable and make the graphics much nicer. Some games you will lose a part of the experience but most games you wont. A mid range gpu will give you the essentials. If your haappy with that thats fine. But a lot of people arent happy with just the essentials, they want more. I like having the best experience possible. The same way a lot of people arent happy with a ford mondeo and want a porsche. The game devs understand this, and so do the GPU makers. thats why better GPUS and better games keep becoming available, and they keep selling.
The problem i had was just because its not worth it for you, doesnt mean you should go saying its a waste of time and yawning about it, much less get modded up. I thought as geeks all mods would understand that geeks often like the lastest technology, (fancy that?), and do get excited by these things. The high end market plays a very important role in any industry. It seems more and more some mods just mod up witty comments that put the article topic down in a patronizing or condescending manner. maybe they want to feel superior i dont know.
This is good news for you casual gamers as well because as soon as a new flgaship product comes out the prices of lower end products usually drop quite significantly. Also for those interested it can give new information on where the technology is headed and what might be possible in the future. so why are you yawning? you should be thinking great, now next time i upgrade il be able to get a better card for $150 than i could a week ago.
You ignored my second example, FEAR is the perfect example where there are elements missing on lower settings. The shadows MAKE the entire game. When it came out you could only have them on smoothly on high end hardware. I dont know why people try to argue that graphics dont matter, if they didnt high end graphics cards wouldnt sell and crysis would look like pong. They're just as important as any other game element, and in some cases a lot moreso. If crysis looked like doom 3 it would be mediocre. And the higher your hardware, the prettier it gets. The highest settings might not be worth it to you, but news of this new graphics card means the prices of cards below will be pushed down, so you shouldnt be yawning, you should be happy.
Also it takes a long time for the general standard to catch up. HL2 and Doom3 could barely be played on max settings with high end hardware when released and they kept the graphics edge for a very long time. The 9000 series will be out any moment, and they will play crysis well. I dont see a game matching crysis for graphics for at least the next several months, proably more. That means everyone that has been waiting to upgrade will get crysis as its the only thing that will use the full potential of their new card, which means a lot of money. It's a lot more than just a fun project. The GPU is the most expensive part of the computer for a reason. As Stephen Colbert would say, democracy has spoken.
You've never seen crysis on max settings have you?
You cant deny graphics can add a lot to the game. In crysis the graphics are half the game. Try playing fear with all settings off and no shadows, it will be pretty boring. Then play it with all settings max, it will be scary as shit.
Slashdot Mirror
Im pretty sure everyone with a job doesnt see the pc as "just a toy".
I thought the story was awesome, not everything has to be memento.
If you believe science and religion arent in conflict you either dont know much about science or dont know much about religion.
Heres jsut one example. God states in the bible that he is omnipotent. omnipotence is impossible according to natural laws, e.g. can god create a rock ge cant lift. the only way to get around this is to say that god is exempt from the laws of nature, which conflicts with science.
Einstein did not believe this. He simply used god as a metaphor for the unknown. He was an athiest 100%. Many physicists do this, unfortunatly they have chosen a bad word to use because as soon as they use the word god they get labled religious.
History tends to repeat itself because humans are for the most part stupid and dont take an active interest in history to prevent future mistakes. Human history repeats itself, i dont think you can really apply this to physiscs, unless your a fan of Unintelligent Design or something.
Considering approximately 5% of Physicists in the Unites States are religious I dont think they considered it a religous question.
If the likes of stephen hawking and albert einstein with general reletivity cant work it out how are illiterate goat herders from 2000 years ago supposed to have done it?
I know what you mean, when i run a hard drive troubleshooting program to find out whats wrong it doesnt respond with a dialog box saying "NOTHING!!"
If only women would bluescreen and restart when they encounter a paige fault. At least they dont constantly perform illegal operations.
Theres nothing worse than a 1024x not quite enough screen. I have 1024x600 on my vaio ux, and it manages to cut 120 pixels off the bottom of almost every control panel in XP, Vista, Ubuntu and OSX. Just enough to hide the cancel ok and apply buttons among other things. You have to tab around and guess, especially in OS's that only let you resize windows from the bottom right. And thats not a good thing when your trying to change boot settings and stuff.
I wish they would set a minimum height res of 720 or something.
Disabled people don't meet Jobs' pixel perfect design specifications. Parking in their spot is just his way of being a red-faced tyrant about it.
I think the placebo effect directly proportional to the amount of money spent
Can someone sciency that hasn't spent thousands on a sound system to play vinyl tell me if theres any truth to this "warm" idea or if its just a subjective placebo myth? Granted i don't have much understanding but as far as i can tell the only way this could be is if the warmness came from imperfecitons and errors in the playback process...
If there is what is the nature of this warmness?
You know to be fair i actually cant remember the last time i saw a goatse link...
I suppose you might call me a serious gamer, and I'm certainly someone who would love to give up windows for linux, I've been running ubuntu for a while now and its great... i just find i never use it because i play games more than anything else. iv tried in the past to play games on linux but its a disaster. trying to set it up, set up wine, things crash, wine crashes, working with the console.... i mean i don't mind tinkering around but it all gets a bit much when sometimes i just want to play a game.
Also as far as I'm aware theres no SLI support, and if there is you still take a performance hit on linux, and I didn't spend $1000+ on GPUs to take a performance hit. Its the same reason I went from vista back to xp. (well, one of many, many, many, many reasons.) It was the difference between playing Crysis on medium to playing it on almost very high, which is a big deal, on medium it just looks like every other FPS. And please no arguments about how graphics aren't important. after 3 years of selling video games in one way or another i can tell you almost every adult customer cared about the graphics, and they're the ones that need to be converted.
I think these issues are becoming more common with your average consumer too that isn't a serious gamer. from working in retail and experiences with my friends more and more people are buying specific gpus, quoting model numbers, and looking up performance. A lot more people nowadays will know which graphics card they have, or at least the series, and know roughly what they can expect from it. Then if they try linux, and their shiny expensive $200 gpu loses half its value, and on top of that they have to try and get games working with wine, it all becomes unreasonable to them.
As far as games made for linux, it would be fanatstic if there were more, but its a chicken and egg problem. And im really not interested in playing UT2K4 anymore, iv been playing that for 4 years. While some of the linux games i hear about sound interesting, lets be honest, they aren't Crysis or COD4, and its games like that i bought my system to play, as well as many people i know.
People buy gaming machines to run whats on the shelves, and so the first step is to get those working smoothly and hassle free, as well as at similar or preferably better speed. Then once you have a better product you can win over a linux user base and can start making linux only games.
I know all of this is filled with problems and may well be impossible to implement, but these are the reasons i see why people arent gaming on linux.
The section at the bottom of that article i was directing to states that the majority of the panel on all occasions rejected that usage of the word in all situations except when referring to computer software.
I made a spelling mistake. Your incorrect.
http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=authored&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=4939&dict=CALD
http://www.yourdictionary.com/search?ydQ=authored&x=0&y=0&area=entries
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authored (especially the bottom part)
Nitpicking: Just like that list of banished words said, can we stop using this rediculous bastardization? We dont say someone "paintered" a picture. We already have the word "written" for just this purpose.
What do they aim this thing at? Cause im imagining something with that kind of power isnt something you'd want to aim at a wall or.. anything really. Wouldnt it just instantly cut through like anything or am i missing something here
Well considering they make them with 4 cores the vast majority are probably fully functional, and it is disabled. Perhaps they have a system like the ps3 where if one of the cores dies post production it enables the spare core to further reduce warranty claims.
Any other personal details you can post on slashdot? Perhaps about their children? lol.
My favorite part is "..says Richard White, a clinical fellow in the Stem Cell Program.."
It sounds like they just walked in to the building and saw some guy in a lab coat and thought "Hey, theres a clinical looking fellow! lets ask him what he thinks!"
Are you sure of this? have you tested any 8800gts cards or are you just making guesses because yours is fast?
I was learning maya last year, they reccomended we get new quadro cards for our computers to handle it. I figured the 2 8800GTS cards I currently had would do the job just fine.
The performance on my computer totally blew away all the lab computers. The teacher initially didnt beleive me when i told him the performance I was getting because I was using "just a cheap gaming card", not like his shiny expensive quadro. The cards they reccomended started at $2000AU. Maya on my machine was only using one card which cost me $600 at the time. Sorry I dont recall what exact quadros they were but they were the range of about march last year.
Also IANA3DA, but isnt all the work of the finished rendering done with cpu power? like ray tracing etc. As far as im aware GPUs in 3d are only for having fancy real time graphics in the dev environment so you can see whats going on so pixel perfect quality isnt an issue. So if perfect quality of the GPU isnt relevant what actual benefits am i getting from spending $3499 on a Quadro?
I spoke to a couple of people from a game developer at the time thats working on a ps3 game and that particular employee said they had never had any need for a quadro, and preffered to use dual 8800GTXs. I know that animal logic (the company that made happy feet) use only cpu power for their rendering process. As far as im aware render farms are pretty much cpu only.
If im wrong in any of this please correct me but GPU companies have to make money somewhere, and with the bargain basement prices of gaming cards my moneys on workstation graphics.
It is always more beneficial to have a better GPU and slower CPU. You might see no decent improvemnt going from medium to high graphcs but i do. Crysis on medium looks like quake 4. on Ultra it looks way better than any other game. And its not the difference between 60fps and 150fps, its 5fps vs 30fps. unplayable vs playable.
Also CPU benefits to me are for the most part a placebo effect. An E6300 can give the same XP/vista/wordprocessing/intenet browsing experience as a QX6800. An E6300 is also adequate for max settings on most games. almost all applications dont even use 2 of the 4 cores. Of course cpu specific tasks like mathematical applications are different. Apple always plays up cpu power as they put shithouse gpus in their computers and ridiculously overkill cpus, at least in the mac pro. a 7300GT and 8 3ghz cores? good luck making use of that. Waste of money. Anyway the GPU makes all the difference.
You cant deny a higher end graphics card will give you better performance, make more games playable and make the graphics much nicer. Some games you will lose a part of the experience but most games you wont. A mid range gpu will give you the essentials. If your haappy with that thats fine. But a lot of people arent happy with just the essentials, they want more. I like having the best experience possible. The same way a lot of people arent happy with a ford mondeo and want a porsche. The game devs understand this, and so do the GPU makers. thats why better GPUS and better games keep becoming available, and they keep selling.
The problem i had was just because its not worth it for you, doesnt mean you should go saying its a waste of time and yawning about it, much less get modded up. I thought as geeks all mods would understand that geeks often like the lastest technology, (fancy that?), and do get excited by these things. The high end market plays a very important role in any industry. It seems more and more some mods just mod up witty comments that put the article topic down in a patronizing or condescending manner. maybe they want to feel superior i dont know.
This is good news for you casual gamers as well because as soon as a new flgaship product comes out the prices of lower end products usually drop quite significantly. Also for those interested it can give new information on where the technology is headed and what might be possible in the future. so why are you yawning? you should be thinking great, now next time i upgrade il be able to get a better card for $150 than i could a week ago.
wow... that was like... so incoherent. You kind of misunderstood everything i said... doesnt matter tho if your happy with your imac thats good.
You ignored my second example, FEAR is the perfect example where there are elements missing on lower settings. The shadows MAKE the entire game. When it came out you could only have them on smoothly on high end hardware. I dont know why people try to argue that graphics dont matter, if they didnt high end graphics cards wouldnt sell and crysis would look like pong. They're just as important as any other game element, and in some cases a lot moreso. If crysis looked like doom 3 it would be mediocre. And the higher your hardware, the prettier it gets. The highest settings might not be worth it to you, but news of this new graphics card means the prices of cards below will be pushed down, so you shouldnt be yawning, you should be happy.
Also it takes a long time for the general standard to catch up. HL2 and Doom3 could barely be played on max settings with high end hardware when released and they kept the graphics edge for a very long time. The 9000 series will be out any moment, and they will play crysis well. I dont see a game matching crysis for graphics for at least the next several months, proably more. That means everyone that has been waiting to upgrade will get crysis as its the only thing that will use the full potential of their new card, which means a lot of money. It's a lot more than just a fun project. The GPU is the most expensive part of the computer for a reason. As Stephen Colbert would say, democracy has spoken.
You've never seen crysis on max settings have you?
You cant deny graphics can add a lot to the game. In crysis the graphics are half the game. Try playing fear with all settings off and no shadows, it will be pretty boring. Then play it with all settings max, it will be scary as shit.