Core i7 920, since it's the same basic chip? The only difference at all is that the Xeon has 2xQPI and a lower TDP than the i7. They probably perform identically.
And of course it's not particularly relevant anyway, since he could just pick a much more powerful CPU than the MP's Xeon and it would still cost a lot less.
Perhaps there's some meta humour I'm missing, but what is the point of getting the first post and why do people try to do it?
Since they get modded into oblivion hardly anyone is going to read it. But if you take the time to make a decent post instead, you'll probably get modded up for it. For an attention whore that should be fairly appealing.
Weaker video all around next to the old systems and a even bigger mac pro rip off $2500 for a core i7 based system with ONLY ONE CPU and nvidia 9500 video as the GT 120 is a 9500.
God damn Nvidia and their stupid naming schemes. I thought it was a 9600GSO.
Can't they just settle on one scheme? For anyone who doesn't follow GPU news closely it must be incomprehensible. Not to mention the irritating tendency to release the same GPU over and over again under different names. The 8800GT was also the 9800GT, and it'll soon be the GTS 240 as well. The 8800GTS 512 was the 9800GTX... Etc.
The lower-end Quad Core system includes a 2.66Ghz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor, 3GB of memory, 640GB hard drive, 18x double-layer Superdrive, and a NVIDIA Geforce GT 120 with 512MB of memory priced at $2,499.
Since they don't come with a monitor, the profit margin on these things must be around 50%. Wow!
The hardware is typical mid-range stuff: decent hard disc, low-end GPU (renamed 9600GSO) and mid-high end CPU (renamed i7 920). Including a high quality motherboard and PSU, that would cost around 900 dollars at retail. That leaves a healthy 1,600 for the case, OS, software and peripherals.
I'm reminded of why the drive selection was taken out of Vista's defragmenter application.
Man I hate that.
Back in Windows 98 you even had a block visualisation where you could see everything being moved around as it happened.
In XP you had a crappy visualisation but at least it was something. You could see some progress.
Now in Vista you have... nothing. I don't think there's even a progress bar.
The whole principle of it annoys me. It's the same concept with useless error messages that won't tell you where the error happened or even a vague description. Completely useless, a total user interface failure.
You're new here so I'll explain how it works. There's a special tag for bad articles called "kdawson," it's placed under the title to the left. You can see it on this one if you look closely.
The correct response at this juncture is to flame it until it's reduced to a smoldering cinder.
I apologize, because I forget that "Man Made Global Warming" has more or less become a religion, since, like God, it has followers who believe in something that cannot be unequivocally proven to exist. I didn't mean to insult your faith.
I was pretty harsh, but not because of that.
I'm not a 'believer' in anything. It's a scientific issue investigated by climatologists. In reading about the subject it seems that they agree that we are having an effect, and since they're experts on the subject their conclusions are the most reasonable to take. Therefore that's my position.
That said, I have no emotional investment in the issue. That's why I wanted to disregard it in my opening sentence and focus on the reasoning behind what you were saying, which seemed to be based on an ad hominem (and as such really damn stupid). That's all I have a problem with. Questioning things I wholeheartedly approve of, but there's such a thing as pseudoskepticism. Rejecting things for invalid reasons is not sensible.
That said, I don't believe in it. Nor will I be goaded into guilt over the fact that I drive a gasoline powered car (which uses less gas in a year than The Goreacle's fleet uses in a month) and I like to (gasp!) eat steaks. Sorry, I produce less pollution and "greenhouse gasses" than ONE of The Goreacle's "man made global warming" chicken little fests. Which ironically always seem to occur in places where record cold or some freak WINTER type event happens.
That's some more bad reasoning. Just because you create less pollution doesn't mean what you do create is okay. It might even BE okay, but not for that reason.
You're also being dishonest there, and you surely know it given your apparent interest in this subject. Regional extremes are irrelevant, since by definition global warming (anthropogenic or otherwise) is only relevant to the global average. Variations and extremes are expected, which is one of the reasons it's made out to be such a big deal.
This movement has nothing to do with the environment. It has nothing to do with climate change. It has EVERYTHING to do with money and control. The Goreacle gets rich selling "carbon credits" which is the snake oil of the modern age. Politicians who embrace the hoax use it to violate our Constitution and gain even more control at the expense of individual liberty.
For the sake of argument I'll concede this even though I disagree.
What does this tell us? They're bad. But that's it - you can be sure that their willingness to exploit the issue hasn't got anything to do with whether it's a real problem or not. Exploitation is typical behaviour in either case. The point is, their motives aren't relevant to the truth of the issue they represent.
I don't get it. Microsoft makes a web browser and bundles it with their operating system. Big deal! Apple does the same thing with Safari.
That isn't the issue. Microsoft are treated differently because they have a monopoly and they allegedly leverage it to gain further control.
It would only be the same thing if Apple were in Microsoft's position, a monopoly. In that case they would be under the same scrutiny, but they're not so they aren't. Likewise, if Microsoft were in Apple's position they wouldn't be facing this right now.
When those who keep preaching the global warming hysteria start ACTING like it's a real crisis (by giving up their limos, huge houses, and private jets, which generate more pollution in a year than I will in my lifetime) then I'll start taking them seriously.
Disregarding the matter of whether ACC is correct or not...
I wish people would drop this playground-level bullshit. This is an utterly imbecilic argument that nobody outside of high-school should be making.
The argument isn't even related to them being right or wrong. It's a tu quoque fallacy, a type of ad hominem. Hypocrisy and incorrectness are orthogonal; if I shoot a dog and tell you it's wrong to do so, I'm not suddenly wrong about it. Likewise with these climate publicists.
Even the premise is wrong. Not all the people advocating it are rich polluters, probably not even a majority. Even so, it's pretty easy to think of reasons that they would pollute despite communicating a message of reducing emissions. For example, just off the top of my head: a publicity event might cause a greater reduction than the increase necessary for it to take place.
In the end, all it tells us is that you stick your head in the sand and ignore what people say for nonsensical reasons. Since you appear to be very confident of your position, perhaps instead you could make a coherant logical argument for it. Then there would be something to debate besides whether you're an intellectually dishonest douchebag or a clueless ignoramus.
As soon as I can afford a Larrabee CPU (thinking 30 cores?), I'm going to put it to good use. Mass virtualization of games comes to mind (undetectable bots anybody?).
Where are you getting the idea that it'll be anything close to powerful enough for that?
Virtualising games? Crazy. It's a graphics card, not a magical artifact.
Re:even more ironic, he praises add/remove
on
A Real Bill Gates Rant
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yup, it's a piece of shit. I use this Nirsoft tool instead, which shows more information and allows you to remove and change the entries.
Why does this site even have those, anyway? It's not like we're a bunch of technically illiterate retards, we can read the mouseover text in the status bar.
Slashdot Mirror
You can actually see the gaps in the spectrum yourself if you use a refracting object like a prism. It's pretty neat.
Core i7 920, since it's the same basic chip? The only difference at all is that the Xeon has 2xQPI and a lower TDP than the i7. They probably perform identically.
And of course it's not particularly relevant anyway, since he could just pick a much more powerful CPU than the MP's Xeon and it would still cost a lot less.
Gah! It's turtles all the way down, isn't it?
Perhaps there's some meta humour I'm missing, but what is the point of getting the first post and why do people try to do it?
Since they get modded into oblivion hardly anyone is going to read it. But if you take the time to make a decent post instead, you'll probably get modded up for it. For an attention whore that should be fairly appealing.
Weaker video all around next to the old systems and a even bigger mac pro rip off $2500 for a core i7 based system with ONLY ONE CPU and nvidia 9500 video as the GT 120 is a 9500.
God damn Nvidia and their stupid naming schemes. I thought it was a 9600GSO.
Can't they just settle on one scheme? For anyone who doesn't follow GPU news closely it must be incomprehensible. Not to mention the irritating tendency to release the same GPU over and over again under different names. The 8800GT was also the 9800GT, and it'll soon be the GTS 240 as well. The 8800GTS 512 was the 9800GTX... Etc.
AMD/ATi seem to have gotten the idea at least.
The lower-end Quad Core system includes a 2.66Ghz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor, 3GB of memory, 640GB hard drive, 18x double-layer Superdrive, and a NVIDIA Geforce GT 120 with 512MB of memory priced at $2,499.
Since they don't come with a monitor, the profit margin on these things must be around 50%. Wow!
The hardware is typical mid-range stuff: decent hard disc, low-end GPU (renamed 9600GSO) and mid-high end CPU (renamed i7 920). Including a high quality motherboard and PSU, that would cost around 900 dollars at retail. That leaves a healthy 1,600 for the case, OS, software and peripherals.
Honest question: Who buys these things?
It should be a fine production.
Maybe the answer lies in making a few different controllers rather than just one. Different shapes for different hands.
So in other words, we're retarded and they aren't?
Bummer.
I'm reminded of why the drive selection was taken out of Vista's defragmenter application.
Man I hate that.
Back in Windows 98 you even had a block visualisation where you could see everything being moved around as it happened.
In XP you had a crappy visualisation but at least it was something. You could see some progress.
Now in Vista you have... nothing. I don't think there's even a progress bar.
The whole principle of it annoys me. It's the same concept with useless error messages that won't tell you where the error happened or even a vague description. Completely useless, a total user interface failure.
You joined to say this? You're doing it wrong.
You're new here so I'll explain how it works. There's a special tag for bad articles called "kdawson," it's placed under the title to the left. You can see it on this one if you look closely.
The correct response at this juncture is to flame it until it's reduced to a smoldering cinder.
Probably because almost all the Windows 7 articles are either flaming or empty advertising. This is one of the latter. The coverage is terrible.
I want to hear about some new mechanism or function, some technical point of interest. Not high-level marketing bullet-points.
I apologize, because I forget that "Man Made Global Warming" has more or less become a religion, since, like God, it has followers who believe in something that cannot be unequivocally proven to exist. I didn't mean to insult your faith.
I was pretty harsh, but not because of that.
I'm not a 'believer' in anything. It's a scientific issue investigated by climatologists. In reading about the subject it seems that they agree that we are having an effect, and since they're experts on the subject their conclusions are the most reasonable to take. Therefore that's my position.
That said, I have no emotional investment in the issue. That's why I wanted to disregard it in my opening sentence and focus on the reasoning behind what you were saying, which seemed to be based on an ad hominem (and as such really damn stupid). That's all I have a problem with. Questioning things I wholeheartedly approve of, but there's such a thing as pseudoskepticism. Rejecting things for invalid reasons is not sensible.
That said, I don't believe in it. Nor will I be goaded into guilt over the fact that I drive a gasoline powered car (which uses less gas in a year than The Goreacle's fleet uses in a month) and I like to (gasp!) eat steaks. Sorry, I produce less pollution and "greenhouse gasses" than ONE of The Goreacle's "man made global warming" chicken little fests. Which ironically always seem to occur in places where record cold or some freak WINTER type event happens.
That's some more bad reasoning. Just because you create less pollution doesn't mean what you do create is okay. It might even BE okay, but not for that reason.
You're also being dishonest there, and you surely know it given your apparent interest in this subject. Regional extremes are irrelevant, since by definition global warming (anthropogenic or otherwise) is only relevant to the global average. Variations and extremes are expected, which is one of the reasons it's made out to be such a big deal.
This movement has nothing to do with the environment. It has nothing to do with climate change. It has EVERYTHING to do with money and control. The Goreacle gets rich selling "carbon credits" which is the snake oil of the modern age. Politicians who embrace the hoax use it to violate our Constitution and gain even more control at the expense of individual liberty.
For the sake of argument I'll concede this even though I disagree.
What does this tell us? They're bad. But that's it - you can be sure that their willingness to exploit the issue hasn't got anything to do with whether it's a real problem or not. Exploitation is typical behaviour in either case. The point is, their motives aren't relevant to the truth of the issue they represent.
I don't get it. Microsoft makes a web browser and bundles it with their operating system. Big deal! Apple does the same thing with Safari.
That isn't the issue. Microsoft are treated differently because they have a monopoly and they allegedly leverage it to gain further control.
It would only be the same thing if Apple were in Microsoft's position, a monopoly. In that case they would be under the same scrutiny, but they're not so they aren't. Likewise, if Microsoft were in Apple's position they wouldn't be facing this right now.
Only Breathing Anaerobic Man, Awesome
The editors are a great guy, they accidentally a dupe and don't afraid of anything.
Good idea. Let's download some battleships, we can join all our 3D printers together to make it. :)
The USS Slashdot, a thermoplastic battleship where officers can't speak and the ranks are randomly assigned each day. Sounds good to me!
We could form a site about this, since people love doing it. I'm thinking "metawhinr.com".
I have PDFs set to automatically download to my desktop in FF, since the Adobe plugin has a habit of crashing and it's very slow.
It seems that I was fortunate. I never opened them since I didn't know where they came from, they went straight to the bin.
When those who keep preaching the global warming hysteria start ACTING like it's a real crisis (by giving up their limos, huge houses, and private jets, which generate more pollution in a year than I will in my lifetime) then I'll start taking them seriously.
Disregarding the matter of whether ACC is correct or not...
I wish people would drop this playground-level bullshit. This is an utterly imbecilic argument that nobody outside of high-school should be making.
The argument isn't even related to them being right or wrong. It's a tu quoque fallacy, a type of ad hominem. Hypocrisy and incorrectness are orthogonal; if I shoot a dog and tell you it's wrong to do so, I'm not suddenly wrong about it. Likewise with these climate publicists.
Even the premise is wrong. Not all the people advocating it are rich polluters, probably not even a majority. Even so, it's pretty easy to think of reasons that they would pollute despite communicating a message of reducing emissions. For example, just off the top of my head: a publicity event might cause a greater reduction than the increase necessary for it to take place.
In the end, all it tells us is that you stick your head in the sand and ignore what people say for nonsensical reasons. Since you appear to be very confident of your position, perhaps instead you could make a coherant logical argument for it. Then there would be something to debate besides whether you're an intellectually dishonest douchebag or a clueless ignoramus.
Conspiracy theorists don't need things like 'facts', they're perfectly happy to fabricate their own.
Hah. Divine arrogance is human arrogance through a proxy.
As soon as I can afford a Larrabee CPU (thinking 30 cores?), I'm going to put it to good use. Mass virtualization of games comes to mind (undetectable bots anybody?).
Where are you getting the idea that it'll be anything close to powerful enough for that?
Virtualising games? Crazy. It's a graphics card, not a magical artifact.
Yup, it's a piece of shit. I use this Nirsoft tool instead, which shows more information and allows you to remove and change the entries.
Why does this site even have those, anyway? It's not like we're a bunch of technically illiterate retards, we can read the mouseover text in the status bar.