Out of curiousity, which Adobe product is the ideal mix for you? On the Mac side, I didn't think CS4 brought much over CS3, but I haven't noticed any significant resource hogging in CS4 vs CS3. The thing is, Adobe isn't interested in making dabblers happy. Adobe is interested in selling the suite to professionals and making money on it. They have Adobe Elements for the masses, and that doesn't seam bloated or resource hogging for me.
It is an overview. Overview: "a general summary of a subject." Going into how the Ui is performing and whether or not it is consistent fast or attractive would be an in-depth review. Very different form an overview, actually.
What I have found is that Adobe's UI is much like Democracy. An innefficient, nasty, worst sort of thing except for all other things tried. What should photoshop's UI look like (for instance)? And although the UI is not perfect, that is not the deciding factor for me getting a new suite that costs a lot of money. It better make my workflow more efficient and my life easier when I am doing challenging tasks, or I am not springing for the money.
Everyone who knows the Adobe Suite doesn't use the UI that much anyway. They know the keyboard shortcuts.
The day Microsoft made Halo 2 DX10 all of PC gaming died?
I guess I'll have to believe you that your not trying to flame or troll. An maybe Slashdot will give you some +mods because if you say something blaming Microsoft they love it. So Microsoft promotes their latest OS by releasing their game supporting DX10, their (at the time) best graphics system. This is only common sense on their part, if they don't believe in DX10 who will? As for "killing" PC gaming, that might have been true if people gamed only playing Halo 2 and couldn't upgrade their computers.
The reality is, Steam appears to do a really good job of selling a lot of PC games, and there have been several major releases of new games in the past couple of years as mentioned in several different posts. A lot of them seem to have made quite a bit of money. Although this does seem to be a down time for people upgrading computers and buying games etc., I don't know how anyone could proclaim the death of PC gaming. Isn't this something people have been saying for the last 10 years? I think its all crazy talk.
As for me, if I can't use a mouse and a keyboard, I don't like the game. You give up so much control with a gamepad. There are enough PC gamers to make the market worthwhile now. I suspect with the next generation of graphics on laptops and computers, low end computers should be able to do decent graphics. That may even spark a big surge in PC gaming. The one sure thing is, when you decide you are going to predict the future, you are deciding to be wrong 99% of the time.
The ignorance and bias in this post is breathtaking. Apple increased its market share by producing new products, innovating and taking risks. I sure agree with that. They are moving up to 5% of the phone market, and perhaps 10% of the phone market (WAG). They dominate the personal music department much like sony did in the late 80's and early 90's.
But Microsoft only got where it is today (dominating around 95% of the computer market) by selling IBM vaporware in 80s? Wow. How about by kicking Apples butt in the '80s by producing a workable OS that would run on cheap computers? How about by producing windows 95 which answered the advantages of apples ui, while still allowing backwards compatibility (a word apple fears and despises)? How about by producing arguably the best and most stable operating system of its time in Windows 98 (after the first service pack maybe, but still)? Lets not talk about Windows ME, that was depressing. How about by producing the most stable and successful operating system again with Windows XP? Sure, they stumbled with Vista, but then Windows 7 is again the best and most stable operating system (beating OS X by a wide margin in my book). Please note I am posting this from my personal MacBook.
I like apple products, but don't be ignorant by trashing the company that holds over 90% of the computer marketshare. They didn't get that by pure luck and chance.
From my perspective, it might be ideal to have 5 screens in eyefinity. 3 across the middle, and one on top and on the bottom in the middle. That allows me to see above and below and to the sides. Does eyefinity allow this kind of setup?
18% efficiency at converting Water to Hydrogen and Oxygen through sound doesn't sound very practical, efficient or useful. You would need to be in an environment with a LOT of sound, and that needed hydrogen. I can't think of many places like that.
I have two questions about AGW, and these claims scientists are making:
Why is every error made in the process made so that AGW seems like a bigger problem than it is? That seems to indicate a serious bias in the system, and leads me to not trust anything the group of scientists claim.
Why is it that every prediction made about AGW, when it doesn't come true, is easy to explain away? That suggests that the scientists do not understand the workings of a global climate sufficiently to make accurate predictions. When you make a million predictions, and half of them come true, that's not good enough. You are acting as a fortune teller not a scientist then.
When the lead scientist in the IPCC says that there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 15 years, but it is still real... That doesn't give me confidence he knows what he is talking about. You AGW scientists keep plugging away. When you can make an accurate prediction of temperature changes over the next 5 years without any error, I'll become interested.
In fact lets start here. What was the average global temperature last year, and what is your prediction for next year? What will the average ocean water temperatures be? What is the percent of certainty in that number? Can you give us solid numbers? If not you don't understand your science thoroughly yet.
Not sure what is a good alternative that does all that you mention on linux or apple computers, but irfanview does everything you mention and more and it is free. Check out www.irfanview.com
Please show your support for the argument that the Iraq war was illegal. Assuming it WAS illegal, what are the legal ramifications? How would a violation of that law be handled and by what agency?
Also how do you get off saying the Iraq war was UNCONSTITUTIONAL? The constitution says the president gets to command the military, which he did. The constitution says that congress gets to declare war, which it did. The constitution has nothing in it to suggest the Iraq war violated it, and a lot to suggest it was allowable.
What difference would it make if congress tomorrow declares war on Afghanistan do you suppose? First off, we would be declaring war on a government we are trying to support right now. That seems ill advised. Second of all, we would be supporting Al Qaida, who have also declared war on the government of Afghanistan along with the Taliban. We are actually involved in a policing action in Afghanistan at this point, and it can't technically be called a war, as we are not fighting any legally recognized nation.
I am curious. What is your proposed solution to terrorism? Please show historical precedents that show your solution will work well. What specifically would you have done with Afghanistan after 9/11. Because I'm suspecting you are one of those that complains about every step someone takes but really has no workable alternative.
Also I am curious if you are actually implying that the threat of Soviet invasion and nuclear attacks was fabricated by the US government to scare us for some end. That suggests to me that you are incredibly naive. There is example after example of the USSR taking over countries and enacting policies that were threatening to Western Civilization. What specifically do you think the US should have done in the face of such a threat?
There are actual threats to our society that are difficult to overcome and must be dealt with. I'm not sure if you recognize that reality, and I'm suspecting your views of international relations and war are incredibly uninformed.
A US President is expected to act to promote the interests of the US. It is silly to expect otherwise. What other countries have leaders that dont promote the interests of their nation? I would argue only bad ones.
I know a LOT of average users who need more power than an atom can provide. If you want to browse the web and have a couple of pages open that have flash on, and have microsoft office open and listen to music at the same time, that stresses an atom. So basically everyone who goes to college needs more than an atom.
Even though you can get more power in space, this idea still doesn't make sense
Basically, lets say solar panels of a certain mass in space are 8x more efficient. (Actually solar cells are LESS efficient in space, but there is greater amounts of energy up there) Take away losses in beaming down to earth, and lets be generous and say they are 7x more efficient. So lets say you get 7x energy per unit of mass in space. In what universe is it cheaper to put a pound of equipment in geo-synchronous orbit over 7 pounds of the same equipment on the ground? This idea seems idiotic at this point unless they find a way to launch things into orbit WAY cheaper than they do now.
For Example: The average cost of Geo-Synch orbit is $10000 per pound. So I can save $10000 per pound by putting the solar cells on the ground. That is a significant economy that I don't believe any space launch technology can overcome at this point. Plus maintenance is a LOT cheaper when I don't have to launch people into space. This guy is just talking to say things that sound cool. No way are they going to do this in real life for a LONG time.
What you assume about aliens reveals more about yourself than it sheds useful light on an alien encounter. If you assume the aliens will not be hostile to us, you can only back that up using your human reasoning. If you assume aliens will be hostile and we must fight them, you can only back that up using your human reasoning as well. Step back and think about how human reasoning has changed over the years, and how different civilizations and cultures would have markedly different ways of communicating with an alien visitor.
When I think of the closest things to an alien visiting a culture, I think of the Spanish Conquistadors visiting the Americas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador and David Cargill visiting the Fiji Islands http://www.heretical.com/cannibal/fiji.html . Perhaps Lewis and Clarke could be considered an analogy for an alien visitation as well. The thing is all 3 of those analogies are of a people that visited a completely new culture with very different outcomes. The Conquistadors devastated a culture, David Cargill was shocked and dismayed by the culture he visited, and Lewis and Clarke went out to gather information leaving little impact on the cultures they experienced (at least at that time).
The point I want to make is we don't know what an alien visit would be like, and our imagination is limited by our experiences in the culture and world we are in. Aliens will not be limited by that. To assume they would be peaceful would be silly. Actually our experience would suggest that more advanced cultures always seem to destroy or conquer or change drastically the less advanced cultures without any exception I can think of. To assume they would be violent would be equally silly. We could turn a peaceful visit into a deadly one for us or for the aliens, and we could miss out on a treasure of knowledge and science.
We may find the aliens aren't interested in us at all (Think Star Trek 3). They may not recognize humanity as being interesting or worthy of attention at all, and may decided to be fascinated by house flies or mold. Actually that would be kind of funny to have aliens come, and basically take measures to keep people from bothering them as they go about their business, and then leave.
For many trains, it is more cost efficient, and cheaper on maintenance to just keep the engine running. In cooler weather it can be a very complicated process to warm up and start a cold engine. Also it may require manpower and expertise not readily available in a freight yard. Here is an article about some of the issues involved with idling trains: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/591065.html . I know in my experience that some engines are tough to get started. (I have a friend who is an engineer at a railroad) Rather than go through the trouble and work of restarting a difficult engines, many crews just keep the engine idling. An idling train engine does not use a lot of diesel fuel compared to hauling a load, so the cost of the fuel burned is less than the cost of the manpower and time lost when restarting an engine.
I guess I would have to disagree with you then. Windows 7 feels faster than vista, and has a lot of features I like way better than XP, and somewhat better than Vista. When they allow you to install an RC on your computer and use it, and it is stable and fast, that seems about as honest a beta or RC as you can have. I don't know what would make you think Windows 7 is a "demo". You think Microsoft will intentionally break their code now? I somehow don't think they will.
And it will finally be time to argue definitively how fast and slick Windows 7 is. I'm tired of people saying "Windows 7 is great!" when it isn't even out yet.
You are tired of people talking about how nice a release candidate is? Perhaps you should stop reading about operating systems. Tech websites talk about OS's all the time before they release. That's a major part of what they do. Its been this way for 10 years at least. Not just about Microsoft either. They talk about Mac OS's, Linux OS's, Microsoft OS's and more. If you don't like hearing about Operating Systems, and what people think about them, perhaps you are on the wrong site by accident or something.
You are right, that is why I compared a Cessna 172 to a passenger jet. I compared an F1 race car to a normal car. The reason I feel the comparison is valid is because your car can do everything an F1 race car can do, only slower. And a Cessna 172 can do everything a passenger jet can do, just slower, lower, and with less capacity.
But thats simply not true. The cheaper machine and cards cannot do what this card can do. They can only do smaller things. That's like saying your car can do everything an F1 race car can do, only slower. Or that your Cessna 172 can do everything a passenger jet can do, only smaller and slower. If your car is slower, it cannot do what the F1 race car can do. If your Cessna is small and slow, it cannot do what the passenger jet can do. And for some applications, namely the ones I and a couple others have pointed out, there are things this card setup could do other things could not.
They already have the ability to do that for your house, I have no idea how much it would cost or what it would involve, though. You could try to get yourself a noise cancelling headset. That might work.
Not trying to be offensive, but you are wrong.
A GTX285 card is the most powerful single-GPU processor for gaming out there right now. 2 GTX 285 processors in SLI are the only thing that can play some games in 2560x1600 resolution at the highest quality settings. So to make your analogy more appropriate, its like the way an off-roader looks at a car designed to win the Baja 1000. Here is a benchmark that makes my point: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3501&p=6
The article doesn't mention the price, but I suppose it would cost more than the GTX 295, so this card would be expensive. The advantage of it though, is you can stick enough graphics power in a single slot to power a 30 inch monitor at the highest settings with playable framerates in almost any game. So while I can not speak for every nerd, this is surely not tech purely for the sake of tech. No one could get something with half the RAM, less processor power to do everything this card can do that I know of. Perhaps you could prove me wrong on that point?
So while some think your post is insightful, I think you have no idea what you are talking about. This card was made to fill a niche in the high end gamers market, pure and simple.
To make an argument toward changing a policy that has worked over a long period of time, you need (at least in my opinion) to have a really good case in your favor.
First, you need to have a real problem that creates an issue for a large percentage of the users that cannot be addressed in any other way but by changing that policy.
Second, your policy has to be able to solve the problem in an effective and efficient way.
Third, you need to have a new policy that would address this real problem in a way that doesn't create its own real issues that could affect other percentages of users in a problematic way. I am not convinced ceding US control of DNS to an international body meets any of the 3 criteria (let alone all 3) I have for changing a policy. If any of you disagree with me, could you address my 3 areas of concern? Thanks!
You need to buy a more capable camera then. Every digital camera I have outperforms film. Film maxed out at 400 iso for most applications where you wanted a nice color image blown up to 8x10. You can get this out of any 10 megapixel camera on the market right now. Even the little point and shooters.
Longing for the good old days of film is plain silliness.
If you are talking about guitar amps, there is a clear and immediately recognizeable difference between a tube amp and a transistor amp. The distortion of a tube amp is very pleasing to the ear and avoids harsh high end noise that would turn off the listener. Transistor amp manufacturers have gone through a lot of money and development time to mimic the tube amp sound in transistor amps.
If you are talking about amplification for a home studio, tube amps smooth over the stepping from one sound to another. If you were to look at a digital recording, there is a sawtoothed stepping from one tone level to the next (Picture a pixelated curve). Analog recordings allow a more smooth transition from one tone level to the next. Tube amps can smooth out the sawtoothed nature of sound reproduction.
I can't point to an exact science, but I can tell the difference between a normal transistor amp, and a tube amp. Now there are some transistor amps that deal with this phenomena well, but tubes just do it naturally.
Please note you need exceptional speakers to notice this at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Well you do have me there. The Macromedia parts have been not as nice as the rest of it. Here's hoping that has been cleaned up.
Out of curiousity, which Adobe product is the ideal mix for you? On the Mac side, I didn't think CS4 brought much over CS3, but I haven't noticed any significant resource hogging in CS4 vs CS3. The thing is, Adobe isn't interested in making dabblers happy. Adobe is interested in selling the suite to professionals and making money on it. They have Adobe Elements for the masses, and that doesn't seam bloated or resource hogging for me.
It is an overview. Overview: "a general summary of a subject." Going into how the Ui is performing and whether or not it is consistent fast or attractive would be an in-depth review. Very different form an overview, actually.
What I have found is that Adobe's UI is much like Democracy. An innefficient, nasty, worst sort of thing except for all other things tried. What should photoshop's UI look like (for instance)? And although the UI is not perfect, that is not the deciding factor for me getting a new suite that costs a lot of money. It better make my workflow more efficient and my life easier when I am doing challenging tasks, or I am not springing for the money.
Everyone who knows the Adobe Suite doesn't use the UI that much anyway. They know the keyboard shortcuts.
The day Microsoft made Halo 2 DX10 all of PC gaming died?
I guess I'll have to believe you that your not trying to flame or troll. An maybe Slashdot will give you some +mods because if you say something blaming Microsoft they love it. So Microsoft promotes their latest OS by releasing their game supporting DX10, their (at the time) best graphics system. This is only common sense on their part, if they don't believe in DX10 who will? As for "killing" PC gaming, that might have been true if people gamed only playing Halo 2 and couldn't upgrade their computers.
The reality is, Steam appears to do a really good job of selling a lot of PC games, and there have been several major releases of new games in the past couple of years as mentioned in several different posts. A lot of them seem to have made quite a bit of money. Although this does seem to be a down time for people upgrading computers and buying games etc., I don't know how anyone could proclaim the death of PC gaming. Isn't this something people have been saying for the last 10 years? I think its all crazy talk.
As for me, if I can't use a mouse and a keyboard, I don't like the game. You give up so much control with a gamepad. There are enough PC gamers to make the market worthwhile now. I suspect with the next generation of graphics on laptops and computers, low end computers should be able to do decent graphics. That may even spark a big surge in PC gaming. The one sure thing is, when you decide you are going to predict the future, you are deciding to be wrong 99% of the time.
The ignorance and bias in this post is breathtaking. Apple increased its market share by producing new products, innovating and taking risks. I sure agree with that. They are moving up to 5% of the phone market, and perhaps 10% of the phone market (WAG). They dominate the personal music department much like sony did in the late 80's and early 90's.
But Microsoft only got where it is today (dominating around 95% of the computer market) by selling IBM vaporware in 80s? Wow. How about by kicking Apples butt in the '80s by producing a workable OS that would run on cheap computers? How about by producing windows 95 which answered the advantages of apples ui, while still allowing backwards compatibility (a word apple fears and despises)? How about by producing arguably the best and most stable operating system of its time in Windows 98 (after the first service pack maybe, but still)? Lets not talk about Windows ME, that was depressing. How about by producing the most stable and successful operating system again with Windows XP? Sure, they stumbled with Vista, but then Windows 7 is again the best and most stable operating system (beating OS X by a wide margin in my book). Please note I am posting this from my personal MacBook.
I like apple products, but don't be ignorant by trashing the company that holds over 90% of the computer marketshare. They didn't get that by pure luck and chance.
From my perspective, it might be ideal to have 5 screens in eyefinity. 3 across the middle, and one on top and on the bottom in the middle. That allows me to see above and below and to the sides. Does eyefinity allow this kind of setup?
18% efficiency at converting Water to Hydrogen and Oxygen through sound doesn't sound very practical, efficient or useful. You would need to be in an environment with a LOT of sound, and that needed hydrogen. I can't think of many places like that.
I have two questions about AGW, and these claims scientists are making:
Why is every error made in the process made so that AGW seems like a bigger problem than it is? That seems to indicate a serious bias in the system, and leads me to not trust anything the group of scientists claim.
Why is it that every prediction made about AGW, when it doesn't come true, is easy to explain away? That suggests that the scientists do not understand the workings of a global climate sufficiently to make accurate predictions. When you make a million predictions, and half of them come true, that's not good enough. You are acting as a fortune teller not a scientist then.
When the lead scientist in the IPCC says that there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 15 years, but it is still real... That doesn't give me confidence he knows what he is talking about. You AGW scientists keep plugging away. When you can make an accurate prediction of temperature changes over the next 5 years without any error, I'll become interested.
In fact lets start here. What was the average global temperature last year, and what is your prediction for next year? What will the average ocean water temperatures be? What is the percent of certainty in that number? Can you give us solid numbers? If not you don't understand your science thoroughly yet.
Not sure what is a good alternative that does all that you mention on linux or apple computers, but irfanview does everything you mention and more and it is free. Check out www.irfanview.com
Please show your support for the argument that the Iraq war was illegal. Assuming it WAS illegal, what are the legal ramifications? How would a violation of that law be handled and by what agency?
Also how do you get off saying the Iraq war was UNCONSTITUTIONAL? The constitution says the president gets to command the military, which he did. The constitution says that congress gets to declare war, which it did. The constitution has nothing in it to suggest the Iraq war violated it, and a lot to suggest it was allowable.
What difference would it make if congress tomorrow declares war on Afghanistan do you suppose? First off, we would be declaring war on a government we are trying to support right now. That seems ill advised. Second of all, we would be supporting Al Qaida, who have also declared war on the government of Afghanistan along with the Taliban. We are actually involved in a policing action in Afghanistan at this point, and it can't technically be called a war, as we are not fighting any legally recognized nation.
I am curious. What is your proposed solution to terrorism? Please show historical precedents that show your solution will work well. What specifically would you have done with Afghanistan after 9/11. Because I'm suspecting you are one of those that complains about every step someone takes but really has no workable alternative.
Also I am curious if you are actually implying that the threat of Soviet invasion and nuclear attacks was fabricated by the US government to scare us for some end. That suggests to me that you are incredibly naive. There is example after example of the USSR taking over countries and enacting policies that were threatening to Western Civilization. What specifically do you think the US should have done in the face of such a threat?
There are actual threats to our society that are difficult to overcome and must be dealt with. I'm not sure if you recognize that reality, and I'm suspecting your views of international relations and war are incredibly uninformed.
A US President is expected to act to promote the interests of the US. It is silly to expect otherwise. What other countries have leaders that dont promote the interests of their nation? I would argue only bad ones.
I know a LOT of average users who need more power than an atom can provide. If you want to browse the web and have a couple of pages open that have flash on, and have microsoft office open and listen to music at the same time, that stresses an atom. So basically everyone who goes to college needs more than an atom.
Even though you can get more power in space, this idea still doesn't make sense
Basically, lets say solar panels of a certain mass in space are 8x more efficient. (Actually solar cells are LESS efficient in space, but there is greater amounts of energy up there) Take away losses in beaming down to earth, and lets be generous and say they are 7x more efficient. So lets say you get 7x energy per unit of mass in space. In what universe is it cheaper to put a pound of equipment in geo-synchronous orbit over 7 pounds of the same equipment on the ground? This idea seems idiotic at this point unless they find a way to launch things into orbit WAY cheaper than they do now.
For Example: The average cost of Geo-Synch orbit is $10000 per pound. So I can save $10000 per pound by putting the solar cells on the ground. That is a significant economy that I don't believe any space launch technology can overcome at this point. Plus maintenance is a LOT cheaper when I don't have to launch people into space. This guy is just talking to say things that sound cool. No way are they going to do this in real life for a LONG time.
What you assume about aliens reveals more about yourself than it sheds useful light on an alien encounter. If you assume the aliens will not be hostile to us, you can only back that up using your human reasoning. If you assume aliens will be hostile and we must fight them, you can only back that up using your human reasoning as well. Step back and think about how human reasoning has changed over the years, and how different civilizations and cultures would have markedly different ways of communicating with an alien visitor.
When I think of the closest things to an alien visiting a culture, I think of the Spanish Conquistadors visiting the Americas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador and David Cargill visiting the Fiji Islands http://www.heretical.com/cannibal/fiji.html . Perhaps Lewis and Clarke could be considered an analogy for an alien visitation as well. The thing is all 3 of those analogies are of a people that visited a completely new culture with very different outcomes. The Conquistadors devastated a culture, David Cargill was shocked and dismayed by the culture he visited, and Lewis and Clarke went out to gather information leaving little impact on the cultures they experienced (at least at that time).
The point I want to make is we don't know what an alien visit would be like, and our imagination is limited by our experiences in the culture and world we are in. Aliens will not be limited by that. To assume they would be peaceful would be silly. Actually our experience would suggest that more advanced cultures always seem to destroy or conquer or change drastically the less advanced cultures without any exception I can think of. To assume they would be violent would be equally silly. We could turn a peaceful visit into a deadly one for us or for the aliens, and we could miss out on a treasure of knowledge and science.
We may find the aliens aren't interested in us at all (Think Star Trek 3). They may not recognize humanity as being interesting or worthy of attention at all, and may decided to be fascinated by house flies or mold. Actually that would be kind of funny to have aliens come, and basically take measures to keep people from bothering them as they go about their business, and then leave.
For many trains, it is more cost efficient, and cheaper on maintenance to just keep the engine running. In cooler weather it can be a very complicated process to warm up and start a cold engine. Also it may require manpower and expertise not readily available in a freight yard. Here is an article about some of the issues involved with idling trains: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/591065.html . I know in my experience that some engines are tough to get started. (I have a friend who is an engineer at a railroad) Rather than go through the trouble and work of restarting a difficult engines, many crews just keep the engine idling. An idling train engine does not use a lot of diesel fuel compared to hauling a load, so the cost of the fuel burned is less than the cost of the manpower and time lost when restarting an engine.
I guess I would have to disagree with you then. Windows 7 feels faster than vista, and has a lot of features I like way better than XP, and somewhat better than Vista. When they allow you to install an RC on your computer and use it, and it is stable and fast, that seems about as honest a beta or RC as you can have. I don't know what would make you think Windows 7 is a "demo". You think Microsoft will intentionally break their code now? I somehow don't think they will.
And it will finally be time to argue definitively how fast and slick Windows 7 is. I'm tired of people saying "Windows 7 is great!" when it isn't even out yet.
You are tired of people talking about how nice a release candidate is? Perhaps you should stop reading about operating systems. Tech websites talk about OS's all the time before they release. That's a major part of what they do. Its been this way for 10 years at least. Not just about Microsoft either. They talk about Mac OS's, Linux OS's, Microsoft OS's and more. If you don't like hearing about Operating Systems, and what people think about them, perhaps you are on the wrong site by accident or something.
You are right, that is why I compared a Cessna 172 to a passenger jet. I compared an F1 race car to a normal car. The reason I feel the comparison is valid is because your car can do everything an F1 race car can do, only slower. And a Cessna 172 can do everything a passenger jet can do, just slower, lower, and with less capacity.
But thats simply not true. The cheaper machine and cards cannot do what this card can do. They can only do smaller things. That's like saying your car can do everything an F1 race car can do, only slower. Or that your Cessna 172 can do everything a passenger jet can do, only smaller and slower. If your car is slower, it cannot do what the F1 race car can do. If your Cessna is small and slow, it cannot do what the passenger jet can do. And for some applications, namely the ones I and a couple others have pointed out, there are things this card setup could do other things could not.
There already is technology that can help you there. Its called Active Noise Cancellation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_noise_control
They already have the ability to do that for your house, I have no idea how much it would cost or what it would involve, though. You could try to get yourself a noise cancelling headset. That might work.
Not trying to be offensive, but you are wrong. A GTX285 card is the most powerful single-GPU processor for gaming out there right now. 2 GTX 285 processors in SLI are the only thing that can play some games in 2560x1600 resolution at the highest quality settings. So to make your analogy more appropriate, its like the way an off-roader looks at a car designed to win the Baja 1000. Here is a benchmark that makes my point: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3501&p=6
The article doesn't mention the price, but I suppose it would cost more than the GTX 295, so this card would be expensive. The advantage of it though, is you can stick enough graphics power in a single slot to power a 30 inch monitor at the highest settings with playable framerates in almost any game. So while I can not speak for every nerd, this is surely not tech purely for the sake of tech. No one could get something with half the RAM, less processor power to do everything this card can do that I know of. Perhaps you could prove me wrong on that point?
So while some think your post is insightful, I think you have no idea what you are talking about. This card was made to fill a niche in the high end gamers market, pure and simple.
To make an argument toward changing a policy that has worked over a long period of time, you need (at least in my opinion) to have a really good case in your favor.
First, you need to have a real problem that creates an issue for a large percentage of the users that cannot be addressed in any other way but by changing that policy.
Second, your policy has to be able to solve the problem in an effective and efficient way.
Third, you need to have a new policy that would address this real problem in a way that doesn't create its own real issues that could affect other percentages of users in a problematic way. I am not convinced ceding US control of DNS to an international body meets any of the 3 criteria (let alone all 3) I have for changing a policy. If any of you disagree with me, could you address my 3 areas of concern? Thanks!
You need to buy a more capable camera then. Every digital camera I have outperforms film. Film maxed out at 400 iso for most applications where you wanted a nice color image blown up to 8x10. You can get this out of any 10 megapixel camera on the market right now. Even the little point and shooters.
Longing for the good old days of film is plain silliness.
If you are talking about guitar amps, there is a clear and immediately recognizeable difference between a tube amp and a transistor amp. The distortion of a tube amp is very pleasing to the ear and avoids harsh high end noise that would turn off the listener. Transistor amp manufacturers have gone through a lot of money and development time to mimic the tube amp sound in transistor amps. If you are talking about amplification for a home studio, tube amps smooth over the stepping from one sound to another. If you were to look at a digital recording, there is a sawtoothed stepping from one tone level to the next (Picture a pixelated curve). Analog recordings allow a more smooth transition from one tone level to the next. Tube amps can smooth out the sawtoothed nature of sound reproduction. I can't point to an exact science, but I can tell the difference between a normal transistor amp, and a tube amp. Now there are some transistor amps that deal with this phenomena well, but tubes just do it naturally. Please note you need exceptional speakers to notice this at all.