To transplant a whole eye is practically impossible at this stage. In fact, the complications are very significant! From a medical perspective, CN I, aka: the optic nerve is huge, and is made up of at least several million neurons. Also, despite the childs age, it is unlikely that it could regenerate. Second, there are several other cranial nerves associated eye sensory and motor function. For example, the occulomotor nerve, CN III, is responsible for the proprioception of the eyes, as well as the motor function for the superior, medial and inferior rectus muscles, inferior oblique, and levator palpabrae. Not to mention the parasympathetic fibres innervating the iris and the lens. The trochlear nerve, CN IV, also has some proprioceptive functions, as well as motor functions for the superior oblique muscles. Finally, the Abducens, CN VI, too has propriocetive functions, and is responsible for the lateral rectus muscles.
So, while this story had a positive ending, the notion of a whole eye transplant, however, is quite unlikely right now. There are far too many nerves involved.
1. If Google goes strictly bookbuilding, day traders will certainly not get an allocation so that they can flip the stocks after the initial raise in price due to underpricing. Google will also prefer to avoid people who add much volatility to their stock.
2. If they go with the Dutch Auction, again, day-traders may not get an allocation if they underbid. Moreover, the market clearing price will be determined, and chances are, there will not be much, if any underpricing. The market clearing price also takes into account the fact that a lot of people are going to be overbidding.
It is rumored that Google is only going to offer 1/3rd of the company for the IPO. Another issue is Google's choice between bookbuilding and the Dutch Auction for pricing their shares. If they choose the former, Microsoft may not even be able to get an allocation of shares in the first place.
Google has a choice of going either with bookbuilding, the Dutch Auction, or a combination of both. It is clear that the former will result in arbitrary pricing and preferential allocation, often resulting in underpricing and significant initial returns.
On the other hand, one of the implications of the Internet is bringing transparency to the marketplace. In consequence, going with the Dutch Auction will result in non-preferential allocation and equal access to all investors. It should also find the market clearing price of the shares, and in theory, be less volatile since there should be less market activity with the stocks. In addition, less underpricing should occur, resulting in more money for the company.
The main problem that Google will have to face goes back to the issues associated with preferential allocation. Firms often get quite a bit of leverage with preferential allocation. Loyalty to favored investors who have invested in the past, and potentially in the future is still of importance on Wall Street, and a paradigm shift for them may not be easy to come by. Hence, some of the main costs with the Dutch Auction is that there may be no institutional support, as companies are quite reluctant to go against Wall Street.
Funny, I had just completed a research paper on Google for my corporate finance class. Anyhow, here's an excerpt from my paper.
To construct a "Google-killer" is intuitively rather simple, though logistically, quite difficult. Only companies as large as Microsoft or Yahoo may have the financial resources and manpower to carry out such a task. Nonetheless, one of the first steps would be to crawl every single page on the Internet. While Google has an index of 4,285,199,774 pages, it has been suggested that the Internet consists of over 1 trillion webpage's, most of which cannot be reached through the current PageRank algorithm that Google employs (Wired 12.03, 2004). Going through all these pages with a natural language search, and without sponsored advertisements would also be of significant benefit. Furthermore, an archive every single copy of every single webpage would be another "killer" feature. Finally, keeping track of up-to-the moment changes on every webpage through RSS feeds would also be considered another "killer" feature.
Hence, Google has to keep up with the progressing landscape of search technologies if it is to remain profitable. It was not too long ago that Netscape was thought to be unstoppable and considered to be the next Microsoft. An IPO, whether bookbuilding or Dutch Auction, will give Google some leverage to carry on its tremendous pace of innovation, and should allow it to possibly fend off the competition, at least in the short term. It may simply have to compromise between transparency and loyalty, and offer a combination of the Dutch Auction and bookbuilding to price its shares.
There was a significant amount of underpricing during the "dot con". There was no "new economy" working, but rather we had institutional investors taking advantages of noted problems in the system.
For example, there was (and still is) clear preferrential allocation of shares, thereby allowing only a select few to gain the benefits of an IPO. What we need is non-preferrential allocation of shares, akin to what Bill Hambrecht is doing with the OpenIPO system.
Nonetheless, the (historical) "new economy" was a lot more riskier than the "old economy", not less. There is a lot more reliance on innovation and high-risk investments to drive growth, which is great when the innovations work out in the long run. However, when big gambles, such as the dotcoms, fail to pay off (eg: no revenues, or costs exceeding profits), then the whole economy suffers.
This is likely the largest mistake that investors made. They failed to understand the high-volatility nature of the "new economy", and took far greater risks than they should. They failed to realize that by investing in new IPO's, they were effectively taking the same risks that venture capitalists do.
I am running OSX 10.2.6 on a fairly modest PowerMac G4 500MHz, 256MB SDRAM, and I'd say that it performs fairly well. One thing, however, is that the Aqua GUI isn't as resposive as I'd like it to be on the lowly ATI Rage128 video card in the machine. Nonetheless, I really do not see the point of running even a Live Linux ISO, as OSX is quite sufficient in the *nix department. And now that the X11 beta is out, I really wouldn't see much use of running Linux on a Mac either. There are many options available that do not require Linux in my opinion, and X11 is one of them.
Welcome to the real world. nVidia simply cannot compete with similar offerings by ATI at this point in time. Although the GeForce FX 5200 may be DX9 aimed at the masses, the performance isn't. Personally, I'd be more inclined to get an ATI based card, namely a 9000/9100/9200 series based card, even though they are "only" DX8.1.
In terms of DX9, the only smart thing would be to get a 9500/9600 Pro if you're looking for something in the middle end, and a 9700/9800 Pro if you're looking high-end.
I'm on a 9700 Pro right now myself, and there's no way that I'd consider any nVidia product at this moment in time. Maybe sometime in the future (and no, I am not an nVidiot or a fanATIc).
I live in Toronto, and know first hand what sorts of SARS precautions the city and the province is taking. Take for example, the University of Toronto. They have put in place a number of SARS precautions, including not letting 3rd and 4th year medical students attend clinical rotations. In fact, I know a handful of people, both directly and indirecty who are in quarantine.
Now even if we quarantine the entire population, my suspicions and academic knowhow seem to suggest that SARS is here to stay. In fact, a number of my professors have mentioned that fact. The virus does not seem to be as virulent as the media is making it out to be, which therefore means that it has a good chance ot sticking around, aka: trade-off hypothesis.
Remember, evolution is constantly occuring, and SARS is a perfect example of evolution taking place. It may not be be a perfect fit of the 'species' definition, but it sure seems close!
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
If you have a fairly reasonable monitor budget, the only monitor I could suggest getting is the Dell 2000FP 21" LCD (~$850 USD). Use it once, and you'll never want to go back to anything smaller. Ghosting is negligible, even with fast-paced FPS games (ie: Quake3, UT2K3, BF1942, etc).
If you're looking to get something smaller, the Dell 1900FP 19" LCD or even the Dell 1504FP 15" LCD are excellent.
After you goto LCD, I think you'd be very hard pressed to go back to looking at a CRT.
"So ATI can release a new product in the next five months, then announce another new product three months later? ATI would be foolish to do so."
First of all, ATI is on a 6-month product cycle. It is highly probable that R350 will be announced in February, and will generally be available in March/April. Count on that.
Thereafter, ATI will announce the R400 this Summer (likely in July/August), and release it in the Fall. Do you really think ATI has been sitting back and relaxing since last August when the announced the Radeon 9700? You're kidding yourself if you think that. (Reference: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6606)
"GeForceFX is at the beginning of it's live. TSMC's.13 micron process will improve and NVidia will be able to scale it up."
You assume too much about nVidia's/TSMC's.13u process, and how it should allow for better scaling than ATI's.15u process. It makes me wonder why the GFFX requires a "vacuum cleaner" for cooling, while the ATI's don't with their larger.15u process. That must suggest something about the scaling due to the clear differences in heat production. I should also mention, ATI also uses TSMC, so any gains they made with the.13u process will also be ATI's gain (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6661).
"First: The GeForceFX is not a pixel pushing monster. NVidia has stated that. It is a part designed to be ready for all that DX9 can put out."
Actually, the GFFX has gone beyond the DX9 spec. Chances are, nothing will even come close to using all of its features in the DX9 generation of games. The Radeon 9500/9700 adheres to the DX9 spec, so it's feature-set won't be left behind.
"Second: Who cares? You're the kind of person who would claim that the P4 is inferior because a lower clocked Athlon can do the same work."
Isn't is obvious? This is a matter of heat and scaling as I've previously mentioned. In addition, even if ATI doesn't move to.13u with the R350, they will with the R400 because they are a product-cycle ahead of nVidia.
I should also remark, sure the GFFX is a faster GPU. Again, consdering it's only marginally faster than the Radeon 9700, and is coming out almost 6 months later, is it really what people have been expecting from nVidia? I would have to say no, and I think most hardcore enthusiasts would have to agree. It's simply too little, too late.
The GeForce FX is in my opinion, not going to be what the world has expected from nVidia. It is simply too little, too late - 6 months too late. It may have the performance crown for a month, but it will be short-lived.
ATI will simply respond with the R350, which is likely going to be an improved R300 core, as well as DDR2 and manufactured with the.13u process. In case some people haven't noticed, the leaked benchmarks of the GeForce FX show it to only be marginally faster than the Radeon 9700 Pro. Not to mention that it's 500MHz vs. 325MHz. It seems that ATI is faster in terms of IPC's.
It would be unfeasible for nVidia to respond until the summer with the NV31/34, at which time ATI will announce the R400.
I will have to give nVidia one thing though, their drivers are excellent. This is perhaps the only thing they have going for them at the moment. However, ATI is pumping out a new driver set almost every month, and at this rate, they will soon reach parity with nVidia.
Now, to prove that for a negatively sloped demand curve, marginal revenue is less than price, let p = p(q).
Now, TR = p x q = p(q) x q and therefore, MR = dTR/dq = (q x dp/dq) + p
For a negatively sloped demand curve, dp/dq is negative, and thus, MR is less than price for positive values of q. What I think has happened is that we're talking about the same thing in different contexts. You're talking about it terms of short-run (SR), and long-run (LR) perfect competition, while I'm talking about it in terms of consumer/producer surplus and efficiency losses. I agree, for price takers, p = MR. And with pi = p(q) - SRTC(q), maximization implies p = SRMC(q). This ensures SRMC(q) is increasing as q increases.
Perhaps we're both right as we may be confusing the symbols, and the context that we're using. First, a bit of calculus. I am going to use 'pi' to denote profits, TR = total revenue, TC = total cost, MR = marginal revenue, MC = marginal cost, P = price, q = quantity, and ^ = exponent.
pi = TR - TC (each of which is a function of q. To maximize pi, it is necessary that):
d(pi)/dq = 0 (first order condition) and that d^2(pi)/dq^2 is less than 0 (second order condition).
Now, d(pi)/dq = dTR/dq - dTC/dq and d(pi)/dq = [(q x dp/dq) + p] - [TC'(q)]
Therefore, 0 = MR - MC, and this is a necessary condition for maximizing pi (profit).
The law of diminishing marginal utility basically states that the utility that any consumer derives from additional units of a particular product diminishes as total consumption of the product increases (if the consumption of all other products remains unchanged).
For example, I am currently typing this on my P4 2.2GHz workstation. If I replace the CPU with a P4 2.4GHz, the utility that I gain will be marginal (ie: hardly any difference). In any case, I have to argue that it is all relative!
I have a P3 1.3GHz laptop, and another P3 450MHz workstation, and for me to use those as my main workstation is just not possible anymore. Why? Well, believe it or not, there is a noticeable speed difference with all the machines - even for basic word processing and internet browsing. Sure there are architectural differences in terms of RAM, HD, etc, but the fact remains that there is a speed difference.
Why is that important? Computers are used more than just for word processing and internet browsing. Playing games, watching movies, listening to music all require a decent amount of resources for the experience to be enjoyable. You're kidding yourself if you can really play (and more importantly enjoy) UT2K3 on anything less than P3 1GHz and less than a GF2. Don't tell me that you're getting 60fps, max details, 32-bit colour, at 1280x1024 because you're not.
Nonetheless, we have to remember that CPU speeds are relative. The gaming industry is driving CPU speeds a lot more than say Microsoft is with productivity applications. But to say that you're 'happy' with your less than 1GHz machine with today's applications and games is kidding yourself a lot more than you realize. You'll never want to use a 'slow' machine as your main workstation when you've used something 'fast'. It's human nature after all.
This modchip issue has been quite the 'problem' lately in the Xbox 'scene'. I, like many others, have a modchip in my Xbox, and also have Xbox Live! Now, how is this possible?
It's actually a matter of simply installing a switch. When I'm using Xbox Live!, I simply use the switch to disable my Enigmah modchip (use a DPDT switch for wires 15 and 21). That turns off the modchip, and there's no conceivable way that Microsoft can detect the presence of the chip because the voltage going to the chip is simply shut-off.
If a person wants to use their modded Xbox, do not go on Xbox Live! What this means is that one should disconnect the network cable going to their Xbox when the chip is enabled, and presto.
So that's how to by-pass Microsoft's pseudo-detection. The overarching issue, however, is if Microsoft has a right to 'ban' modchip users from the Xbox Live! service. Arguably, they do because their is always the possibility of users downloading 'hacks' and 'cheats' for Xbox Live! enabled games. This would obviously be 'unfair' to other legitimate users, as well as Microsoft. And obviously, they have a right to protect their service.
Perhaps someone may argue that the modchip detection deters piracy. Maybe, but the amount of people who have the technical skills to install a modchip are arguably a negligible amount. In my case, soldering ~ 30 wires for my chip was a huge hassle. I doubt any of my friends and collegues could have done so. Nor would they even bother. How many people really want to run Linux on their Xbox just because it can be done?
In the end, if a person has the 'smarts' to install a modchip (even if it is the no-solder Matrix/Xodus chip), they should also have the intelligence to forsee that using such a chip has obvious consequences.
Well, I've had my GeForce2 for almost 2 years now, and with this announcement of the GeForce FX, it's finally a sign to upgrade.
It's funny, practically my entire workstation (P4 2.2GHz, 256MB DDR400, 80GB HD, etc.)has been upgraded in terms of components, however, my video card has remained static. Not that I'm complaining, because I can run pretty much every game out there at (what I consider to be) fairly decent speeds. Take Age of Mythology as an example. It's more than fast enough. Unreal Tournament 2003 is a tad different, as I have to turn down some of the graphics, but it's is still fine for the 'average' game. Plus, my Xbox and PS2 are for my gaming needs:)
Now, does the theory of diminishing marginal utility apply to video cards, or is it the opposite? How much more powerful can video cards get so that we won't even 'notice' (at least in the loose sense) any difference when playing games? The Radeon 9700 Pro (with a fast CPU) can run pratically every game on the market at max details at most resolutions. Well, so can the GeForce FX 5800. Sure it may be 30-50% faster, but the utility gained for current games is definately marginal.
Since I've held out for 2 generations of video cards, for me, it's definately the time to upgrade. Though, it's not really because my video card is too 'slow'. I suppose it's an issue of just gloating to my friends!
Moreover, in terms of approaching cinematic rendering, nVidia is definately going in the right step. They are quickly approaching the level of "Final Fantasy" in terms of quality of output. Nonetheless, they'll still need to add quite a bit of horsepower to be able to do it all in real-time.
In terms of Perfect Competition, Price = Marginal Cost. (P = MC)
In terms of Monopoly pricing, Marginal Revenue (MR) = Marginal Cost (MC). Solve for Quantity (Q*), and plug that into Price (P).
Price cannot equal Marginal Revenue as they are two different curves. For example:
if P = 100 - 2Q
Total Revenue (TR) = P*Q
TR = (100 - 2Q)(Q) TR = 100Q - 2Q^2
MR = dTR/dQ MR = 100 - 4Q
Now, in order practice price discrimination the monopolist must (1) rule out arbitrage and (2) be able to classify customers.
To maximize profits the monopolist should increase the price paid by customers with an inelastic demand and decrease the price paid by customers with an elastic demand.
Price discrimination will increase profits but unit sales are unaffected.
For the past two days, I've probably played my Xbox more than I have since I bought it this past May. The Xbox Live! setup is simply incredible. I haven't had so much fun playing console games in years. It's funny, I play PC games online all the time, yet I don't think I've ever heard the voice of any people whom I've played against.
Amazingly, there seems to be no apparent lag with the service thus far! I have my Xbox connected through my Linksys BEFW11S4 v.2. wireless router, and so far, so good. One odd thing though, in Whacked, I only seem to be getting 2-3 bars for my connection (and that's when all the computers are off). Now, even with all the computers on, it doesn't seem to change. Perhaps this is due to either poor service on the part of Rogers Hi-Speed, or perhaps it's a matter of distance, as a lot of people whom I've played with are in the United States.
In addition, there's this whole concern with Microsoft detecting and banning Xbox's with modchips installed. Apparently, you can disable your modchip (with a switch) and still be able to play, but if you went online with the modchip enabled, they ban your Xbox (likely its unique serial number). I agree that Microsoft has a 'right' to protect its service, but a more strongly-worded warning would have been nice.
I think you have just highlighted the difference between experimental physicists, and theoretical physicists. To dismiss one "school" of physics because you don't have experimental evidence is obviously not good science. There is a similar debate going on when it comes to measuring the cosmological constant. Briefly, the theoretical physicists have a number larger that the experimentally determined value. So who's right? Obviously, more work needs to be done on that end, so we can't simply dismiss one or the other. Sure we need experiments in science, but the pillars of science (and dialectical materialism for that matter) are laws that have to exist independent of experience - namely, the harmony between cause and effect, and the law of non-contradiction.
There's another possibility that was not mentioned in the article, namely, the possibility of different quantum realities. Imagine for an instant, that whatever could happen, does in fact actually happen. Through what what called an Einstein-Rosen bridge (remember the TV show Sliders, the concept does have some scientific merit after all), different quantum realities can be bridged. So, if you go back in time and kill one of your parents, you would still exist because you entered a different reality, one amongst an infinite number of them. Paradox solved. QED.
One can also consider the option of making your own "homebrew" modchip as well. Considering that the information and tutorials are now in the public domain, it may be a worthwhile endeavor.
Sure we can run MAME on the Dreamcast, but considering the difference in hardware, the Xbox is much better suited to being able to run MAME. In fact, with MAME-X, you can load ROM's which are much larger (29MB vs. 5MB). So in consequence, you can play a lot more games with it as compared to the Dreamcast version. Also, considering that the Xbox hardware is much more powerful, games will likely be running at more optimal speeds.
I think you're mistaken on the extent that Microsoft is going to allow vendors to "customize" Windows. From what I understand, they are going to change *licensing* issues, and thereby allow other browsers (such as Netscape) to be the default browser. They did not agree to remove IE or WMP. And as I've pointed out, they will not invest the R&D to remove them either. I wouldn't either. If someone doesn't like my product, they can use something else.
The problem is, everything else out there is fragmented (aside from perhaps MacOSX). Most users don't want to waste their time with fragmented distributions. Just look at all the Linux distributions.
I should also add that you're confusing the term platform. In the terminology that the litigating states are using, I think the appropriate term is "middleware". If you were to now develop on Mozilla, and it were included in every version of Windows, you would simply be replacing one monopoly with another. I think you've also made another falacy. Do you really think IE became the dominant platform because of its inclusion with Windows? Or is it because Netscape's technology simply sucked, and it has taken then ~ 3 years to do a rewrite, and it still sucks.
Now, if a user hates WMP, they can download Winamp or any other similar media player. Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to use WMP, just as they aren't forcing anyone to use the "Windows Calculator". More projects on Linux doesn't mean "better" either. I would love to see how you can justify that conclusion, but I doubt you would be able to. As for the problem with 'n' versions of Windows, here's a simple example. Take 5 components: WMP, IE, OE, Defrag, and Notepad. How many possible versions of Windows can be made of just these five? 2^5 = 32. And if Windows were made modular, considering the thousands of API's that are in Windows, and how interdependent some of them are on each other, that would lead to an astronomically large number of possible Windows distributions. And that would be devestating. Rather than attack Microsoft on their core OS, it would be more appropriate to limit the abuse of their monopoly, as the DoJ has done. I should also add, the Nine States shouldn't override a case by the Federal Government.
Slashdot Mirror
Duh, CN I = olfactory, CN II = optic. Typo.
To transplant a whole eye is practically impossible at this stage. In fact, the complications are very significant! From a medical perspective, CN I, aka: the optic nerve is huge, and is made up of at least several million neurons. Also, despite the childs age, it is unlikely that it could regenerate. Second, there are several other cranial nerves associated eye sensory and motor function. For example, the occulomotor nerve, CN III, is responsible for the proprioception of the eyes, as well as the motor function for the superior, medial and inferior rectus muscles, inferior oblique, and levator palpabrae. Not to mention the parasympathetic fibres innervating the iris and the lens. The trochlear nerve, CN IV, also has some proprioceptive functions, as well as motor functions for the superior oblique muscles. Finally, the Abducens, CN VI, too has propriocetive functions, and is responsible for the lateral rectus muscles.
So, while this story had a positive ending, the notion of a whole eye transplant, however, is quite unlikely right now. There are far too many nerves involved.
Two problems with this at the moment.
1. If Google goes strictly bookbuilding, day traders will certainly not get an allocation so that they can flip the stocks after the initial raise in price due to underpricing. Google will also prefer to avoid people who add much volatility to their stock.
2. If they go with the Dutch Auction, again, day-traders may not get an allocation if they underbid. Moreover, the market clearing price will be determined, and chances are, there will not be much, if any underpricing. The market clearing price also takes into account the fact that a lot of people are going to be overbidding.
It is rumored that Google is only going to offer 1/3rd of the company for the IPO. Another issue is Google's choice between bookbuilding and the Dutch Auction for pricing their shares. If they choose the former, Microsoft may not even be able to get an allocation of shares in the first place.
Google has a choice of going either with bookbuilding, the Dutch Auction, or a combination of both. It is clear that the former will result in arbitrary pricing and preferential allocation, often resulting in underpricing and significant initial returns.
On the other hand, one of the implications of the Internet is bringing transparency to the marketplace. In consequence, going with the Dutch Auction will result in non-preferential allocation and equal access to all investors. It should also find the market clearing price of the shares, and in theory, be less volatile since there should be less market activity with the stocks. In addition, less underpricing should occur, resulting in more money for the company.
The main problem that Google will have to face goes back to the issues associated with preferential allocation. Firms often get quite a bit of leverage with preferential allocation. Loyalty to favored investors who have invested in the past, and potentially in the future is still of importance on Wall Street, and a paradigm shift for them may not be easy to come by. Hence, some of the main costs with the Dutch Auction is that there may be no institutional support, as companies are quite reluctant to go against Wall Street.
Funny, I had just completed a research paper on Google for my corporate finance class. Anyhow, here's an excerpt from my paper.
To construct a "Google-killer" is intuitively rather simple, though logistically, quite difficult. Only companies as large as Microsoft or Yahoo may have the financial resources and manpower to carry out such a task. Nonetheless, one of the first steps would be to crawl every single page on the Internet. While Google has an index of 4,285,199,774 pages, it has been suggested that the Internet consists of over 1 trillion webpage's, most of which cannot be reached through the current PageRank algorithm that Google employs (Wired 12.03, 2004). Going through all these pages with a natural language search, and without sponsored advertisements would also be of significant benefit. Furthermore, an archive every single copy of every single webpage would be another "killer" feature. Finally, keeping track of up-to-the moment changes on every webpage through RSS feeds would also be considered another "killer" feature.
Hence, Google has to keep up with the progressing landscape of search technologies if it is to remain profitable. It was not too long ago that Netscape was thought to be unstoppable and considered to be the next Microsoft. An IPO, whether bookbuilding or Dutch Auction, will give Google some leverage to carry on its tremendous pace of innovation, and should allow it to possibly fend off the competition, at least in the short term. It may simply have to compromise between transparency and loyalty, and offer a combination of the Dutch Auction and bookbuilding to price its shares.
For example, there was (and still is) clear preferrential allocation of shares, thereby allowing only a select few to gain the benefits of an IPO. What we need is non-preferrential allocation of shares, akin to what Bill Hambrecht is doing with the OpenIPO system.
Nonetheless, the (historical) "new economy" was a lot more riskier than the "old economy", not less. There is a lot more reliance on innovation and high-risk investments to drive growth, which is great when the innovations work out in the long run. However, when big gambles, such as the dotcoms, fail to pay off (eg: no revenues, or costs exceeding profits), then the whole economy suffers.
This is likely the largest mistake that investors made. They failed to understand the high-volatility nature of the "new economy", and took far greater risks than they should. They failed to realize that by investing in new IPO's, they were effectively taking the same risks that venture capitalists do.
I am running OSX 10.2.6 on a fairly modest PowerMac G4 500MHz, 256MB SDRAM, and I'd say that it performs fairly well. One thing, however, is that the Aqua GUI isn't as resposive as I'd like it to be on the lowly ATI Rage128 video card in the machine. Nonetheless, I really do not see the point of running even a Live Linux ISO, as OSX is quite sufficient in the *nix department. And now that the X11 beta is out, I really wouldn't see much use of running Linux on a Mac either. There are many options available that do not require Linux in my opinion, and X11 is one of them.
Welcome to the real world. nVidia simply cannot compete with similar offerings by ATI at this point in time. Although the GeForce FX 5200 may be DX9 aimed at the masses, the performance isn't. Personally, I'd be more inclined to get an ATI based card, namely a 9000/9100/9200 series based card, even though they are "only" DX8.1.
In terms of DX9, the only smart thing would be to get a 9500/9600 Pro if you're looking for something in the middle end, and a 9700/9800 Pro if you're looking high-end.
I'm on a 9700 Pro right now myself, and there's no way that I'd consider any nVidia product at this moment in time. Maybe sometime in the future (and no, I am not an nVidiot or a fanATIc).
I live in Toronto, and know first hand what sorts of SARS precautions the city and the province is taking. Take for example, the University of Toronto. They have put in place a number of SARS precautions, including not letting 3rd and 4th year medical students attend clinical rotations. In fact, I know a handful of people, both directly and indirecty who are in quarantine.
Now even if we quarantine the entire population, my suspicions and academic knowhow seem to suggest that SARS is here to stay. In fact, a number of my professors have mentioned that fact. The virus does not seem to be as virulent as the media is making it out to be, which therefore means that it has a good chance ot sticking around, aka: trade-off hypothesis.
Remember, evolution is constantly occuring, and SARS is a perfect example of evolution taking place. It may not be be a perfect fit of the 'species' definition, but it sure seems close!
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
If you have a fairly reasonable monitor budget, the only monitor I could suggest getting is the Dell 2000FP 21" LCD (~$850 USD). Use it once, and you'll never want to go back to anything smaller. Ghosting is negligible, even with fast-paced FPS games (ie: Quake3, UT2K3, BF1942, etc).
If you're looking to get something smaller, the Dell 1900FP 19" LCD or even the Dell 1504FP 15" LCD are excellent.
After you goto LCD, I think you'd be very hard pressed to go back to looking at a CRT.
"So ATI can release a new product in the next five months, then announce another new product three months later? ATI would be foolish to do so."
.13 micron process will improve and NVidia will be able to scale it up."
.13u process, and how it should allow for better scaling than ATI's .15u process. It makes me wonder why the GFFX requires a "vacuum cleaner" for cooling, while the ATI's don't with their larger .15u process. That must suggest something about the scaling due to the clear differences in heat production. I should also mention, ATI also uses TSMC, so any gains they made with the .13u process will also be ATI's gain (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6661).
.13u with the R350, they will with the R400 because they are a product-cycle ahead of nVidia.
First of all, ATI is on a 6-month product cycle. It is highly probable that R350 will be announced in February, and will generally be available in March/April. Count on that.
Thereafter, ATI will announce the R400 this Summer (likely in July/August), and release it in the Fall. Do you really think ATI has been sitting back and relaxing since last August when the announced the Radeon 9700? You're kidding yourself if you think that. (Reference: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6606)
"GeForceFX is at the beginning of it's live. TSMC's
You assume too much about nVidia's/TSMC's
"First: The GeForceFX is not a pixel pushing monster. NVidia has stated that. It is a part designed to be ready for all that DX9 can put out."
Actually, the GFFX has gone beyond the DX9 spec. Chances are, nothing will even come close to using all of its features in the DX9 generation of games. The Radeon 9500/9700 adheres to the DX9 spec, so it's feature-set won't be left behind.
"Second: Who cares? You're the kind of person who would claim that the P4 is inferior because a lower clocked Athlon can do the same work."
Isn't is obvious? This is a matter of heat and scaling as I've previously mentioned. In addition, even if ATI doesn't move to
I should also remark, sure the GFFX is a faster GPU. Again, consdering it's only marginally faster than the Radeon 9700, and is coming out almost 6 months later, is it really what people have been expecting from nVidia? I would have to say no, and I think most hardcore enthusiasts would have to agree. It's simply too little, too late.
The GeForce FX is in my opinion, not going to be what the world has expected from nVidia. It is simply too little, too late - 6 months too late. It may have the performance crown for a month, but it will be short-lived.
.13u process. In case some people haven't noticed, the leaked benchmarks of the GeForce FX show it to only be marginally faster than the Radeon 9700 Pro. Not to mention that it's 500MHz vs. 325MHz. It seems that ATI is faster in terms of IPC's.
ATI will simply respond with the R350, which is likely going to be an improved R300 core, as well as DDR2 and manufactured with the
It would be unfeasible for nVidia to respond until the summer with the NV31/34, at which time ATI will announce the R400.
I will have to give nVidia one thing though, their drivers are excellent. This is perhaps the only thing they have going for them at the moment. However, ATI is pumping out a new driver set almost every month, and at this rate, they will soon reach parity with nVidia.
Now, to prove that for a negatively sloped demand curve, marginal revenue is less than price, let p = p(q).
Now, TR = p x q = p(q) x q and therefore, MR = dTR/dq = (q x dp/dq) + p
For a negatively sloped demand curve, dp/dq is negative, and thus, MR is less than price for positive values of q. What I think has happened is that we're talking about the same thing in different contexts. You're talking about it terms of short-run (SR), and long-run (LR) perfect competition, while I'm talking about it in terms of consumer/producer surplus and efficiency losses. I agree, for price takers, p = MR. And with pi = p(q) - SRTC(q), maximization implies p = SRMC(q). This ensures SRMC(q) is increasing as q increases.
So in the end, we're both "correct".
Perhaps we're both right as we may be confusing the symbols, and the context that we're using. First, a bit of calculus. I am going to use 'pi' to denote profits, TR = total revenue, TC = total cost, MR = marginal revenue, MC = marginal cost, P = price, q = quantity, and ^ = exponent.
pi = TR - TC (each of which is a function of q. To maximize pi, it is necessary that):
d(pi)/dq = 0 (first order condition) and that d^2(pi)/dq^2 is less than 0 (second order condition).
Now, d(pi)/dq = dTR/dq - dTC/dq and d(pi)/dq = [(q x dp/dq) + p] - [TC'(q)]
Therefore, 0 = MR - MC, and this is a necessary condition for maximizing pi (profit).
The law of diminishing marginal utility basically states that the utility that any consumer derives from additional units of a particular product diminishes as total consumption of the product increases (if the consumption of all other products remains unchanged).
For example, I am currently typing this on my P4 2.2GHz workstation. If I replace the CPU with a P4 2.4GHz, the utility that I gain will be marginal (ie: hardly any difference). In any case, I have to argue that it is all relative!
I have a P3 1.3GHz laptop, and another P3 450MHz workstation, and for me to use those as my main workstation is just not possible anymore. Why? Well, believe it or not, there is a noticeable speed difference with all the machines - even for basic word processing and internet browsing. Sure there are architectural differences in terms of RAM, HD, etc, but the fact remains that there is a speed difference.
Why is that important? Computers are used more than just for word processing and internet browsing. Playing games, watching movies, listening to music all require a decent amount of resources for the experience to be enjoyable. You're kidding yourself if you can really play (and more importantly enjoy) UT2K3 on anything less than P3 1GHz and less than a GF2. Don't tell me that you're getting 60fps, max details, 32-bit colour, at 1280x1024 because you're not.
Nonetheless, we have to remember that CPU speeds are relative. The gaming industry is driving CPU speeds a lot more than say Microsoft is with productivity applications. But to say that you're 'happy' with your less than 1GHz machine with today's applications and games is kidding yourself a lot more than you realize. You'll never want to use a 'slow' machine as your main workstation when you've used something 'fast'. It's human nature after all.
This modchip issue has been quite the 'problem' lately in the Xbox 'scene'. I, like many others, have a modchip in my Xbox, and also have Xbox Live! Now, how is this possible?
It's actually a matter of simply installing a switch. When I'm using Xbox Live!, I simply use the switch to disable my Enigmah modchip (use a DPDT switch for wires 15 and 21). That turns off the modchip, and there's no conceivable way that Microsoft can detect the presence of the chip because the voltage going to the chip is simply shut-off.
If a person wants to use their modded Xbox, do not go on Xbox Live! What this means is that one should disconnect the network cable going to their Xbox when the chip is enabled, and presto.
So that's how to by-pass Microsoft's pseudo-detection. The overarching issue, however, is if Microsoft has a right to 'ban' modchip users from the Xbox Live! service. Arguably, they do because their is always the possibility of users downloading 'hacks' and 'cheats' for Xbox Live! enabled games. This would obviously be 'unfair' to other legitimate users, as well as Microsoft. And obviously, they have a right to protect their service.
Perhaps someone may argue that the modchip detection deters piracy. Maybe, but the amount of people who have the technical skills to install a modchip are arguably a negligible amount. In my case, soldering ~ 30 wires for my chip was a huge hassle. I doubt any of my friends and collegues could have done so. Nor would they even bother. How many people really want to run Linux on their Xbox just because it can be done?
In the end, if a person has the 'smarts' to install a modchip (even if it is the no-solder Matrix/Xodus chip), they should also have the intelligence to forsee that using such a chip has obvious consequences.
Well, I've had my GeForce2 for almost 2 years now, and with this announcement of the GeForce FX, it's finally a sign to upgrade.
:)
It's funny, practically my entire workstation (P4 2.2GHz, 256MB DDR400, 80GB HD, etc.)has been upgraded in terms of components, however, my video card has remained static. Not that I'm complaining, because I can run pretty much every game out there at (what I consider to be) fairly decent speeds. Take Age of Mythology as an example. It's more than fast enough. Unreal Tournament 2003 is a tad different, as I have to turn down some of the graphics, but it's is still fine for the 'average' game. Plus, my Xbox and PS2 are for my gaming needs
Now, does the theory of diminishing marginal utility apply to video cards, or is it the opposite? How much more powerful can video cards get so that we won't even 'notice' (at least in the loose sense) any difference when playing games? The Radeon 9700 Pro (with a fast CPU) can run pratically every game on the market at max details at most resolutions. Well, so can the GeForce FX 5800. Sure it may be 30-50% faster, but the utility gained for current games is definately marginal.
Since I've held out for 2 generations of video cards, for me, it's definately the time to upgrade. Though, it's not really because my video card is too 'slow'. I suppose it's an issue of just gloating to my friends!
Moreover, in terms of approaching cinematic rendering, nVidia is definately going in the right step. They are quickly approaching the level of "Final Fantasy" in terms of quality of output. Nonetheless, they'll still need to add quite a bit of horsepower to be able to do it all in real-time.
Small correction.
In terms of Perfect Competition, Price = Marginal Cost. (P = MC)
In terms of Monopoly pricing, Marginal Revenue (MR) = Marginal Cost (MC). Solve for Quantity (Q*), and plug that into Price (P).
Price cannot equal Marginal Revenue as they are two different curves. For example:
if P = 100 - 2Q
Total Revenue (TR) = P*Q
TR = (100 - 2Q)(Q)
TR = 100Q - 2Q^2
MR = dTR/dQ
MR = 100 - 4Q
Now, in order practice price discrimination the monopolist must (1) rule out arbitrage and (2) be able to classify customers.
To maximize profits the monopolist should increase the price paid by customers with an inelastic demand and decrease the price paid by customers with an elastic demand.
Price discrimination will increase profits but unit sales are unaffected.
For the past two days, I've probably played my Xbox more than I have since I bought it this past May. The Xbox Live! setup is simply incredible. I haven't had so much fun playing console games in years. It's funny, I play PC games online all the time, yet I don't think I've ever heard the voice of any people whom I've played against.
Amazingly, there seems to be no apparent lag with the service thus far! I have my Xbox connected through my Linksys BEFW11S4 v.2. wireless router, and so far, so good. One odd thing though, in Whacked, I only seem to be getting 2-3 bars for my connection (and that's when all the computers are off). Now, even with all the computers on, it doesn't seem to change. Perhaps this is due to either poor service on the part of Rogers Hi-Speed, or perhaps it's a matter of distance, as a lot of people whom I've played with are in the United States.
In addition, there's this whole concern with Microsoft detecting and banning Xbox's with modchips installed. Apparently, you can disable your modchip (with a switch) and still be able to play, but if you went online with the modchip enabled, they ban your Xbox (likely its unique serial number). I agree that Microsoft has a 'right' to protect its service, but a more strongly-worded warning would have been nice.
I think you have just highlighted the difference between experimental physicists, and theoretical physicists. To dismiss one "school" of physics because you don't have experimental evidence is obviously not good science. There is a similar debate going on when it comes to measuring the cosmological constant. Briefly, the theoretical physicists have a number larger that the experimentally determined value. So who's right? Obviously, more work needs to be done on that end, so we can't simply dismiss one or the other. Sure we need experiments in science, but the pillars of science (and dialectical materialism for that matter) are laws that have to exist independent of experience - namely, the harmony between cause and effect, and the law of non-contradiction.
There's another possibility that was not mentioned in the article, namely, the possibility of different quantum realities. Imagine for an instant, that whatever could happen, does in fact actually happen. Through what what called an Einstein-Rosen bridge (remember the TV show Sliders, the concept does have some scientific merit after all), different quantum realities can be bridged. So, if you go back in time and kill one of your parents, you would still exist because you entered a different reality, one amongst an infinite number of them. Paradox solved. QED.
One can also consider the option of making your own "homebrew" modchip as well. Considering that the information and tutorials are now in the public domain, it may be a worthwhile endeavor.
For further information: http://members.rogers.com/xboxmods/
Sure we can run MAME on the Dreamcast, but considering the difference in hardware, the Xbox is much better suited to being able to run MAME. In fact, with MAME-X, you can load ROM's which are much larger (29MB vs. 5MB). So in consequence, you can play a lot more games with it as compared to the Dreamcast version. Also, considering that the Xbox hardware is much more powerful, games will likely be running at more optimal speeds.
I think you're mistaken on the extent that Microsoft is going to allow vendors to "customize" Windows. From what I understand, they are going to change *licensing* issues, and thereby allow other browsers (such as Netscape) to be the default browser. They did not agree to remove IE or WMP. And as I've pointed out, they will not invest the R&D to remove them either. I wouldn't either. If someone doesn't like my product, they can use something else.
The problem is, everything else out there is fragmented (aside from perhaps MacOSX). Most users don't want to waste their time with fragmented distributions. Just look at all the Linux distributions.
I should also add that you're confusing the term platform. In the terminology that the litigating states are using, I think the appropriate term is "middleware". If you were to now develop on Mozilla, and it were included in every version of Windows, you would simply be replacing one monopoly with another. I think you've also made another falacy. Do you really think IE became the dominant platform because of its inclusion with Windows? Or is it because Netscape's technology simply sucked, and it has taken then ~ 3 years to do a rewrite, and it still sucks.
Now, if a user hates WMP, they can download Winamp or any other similar media player. Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to use WMP, just as they aren't forcing anyone to use the "Windows Calculator". More projects on Linux doesn't mean "better" either. I would love to see how you can justify that conclusion, but I doubt you would be able to. As for the problem with 'n' versions of Windows, here's a simple example. Take 5 components: WMP, IE, OE, Defrag, and Notepad. How many possible versions of Windows can be made of just these five? 2^5 = 32. And if Windows were made modular, considering the thousands of API's that are in Windows, and how interdependent some of them are on each other, that would lead to an astronomically large number of possible Windows distributions. And that would be devestating. Rather than attack Microsoft on their core OS, it would be more appropriate to limit the abuse of their monopoly, as the DoJ has done. I should also add, the Nine States shouldn't override a case by the Federal Government.