That sounds like a good idea. I'm always hearing people's stories about how people got into programming by fiddling around with a bundled programming environment in an old computer they got as a kid.
2048 by 1080 means 2211840 pixels per inch
1920 by 720 means 1382400 pixels per inch
Here's some more basic mathematics for you: 1080 and 720 are not the same number. Your comparison is off by an order of magnitude because of that.
The comparison is between 1920x1080 and 2048x1080. The figures are:
2048x1080: 2,211,840 pixels.
1920x1080: 2,073,600 pixels.
The difference being a factor of 1.0666. 6.6%, not 60%.
The figures you mentioned aren't in pixels per inch either, unless the screen has the dimensions of 1x1 inch. That would be a little underwhelming.
Citation is futile. Lower your firewalls and surrender your hardware. You will be assimilated. Your prose and factual distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will adapt to serve the collective.
I think it's more that the crackers can reverse engineer the patch and find the vulnerability much more easily. If it fixes it, it has to touch it. There has to be a change - and they can see that change.
Hackneyed androgenous anime figures with an emo lead wielding oversized weapons doing physics defying acrobatics in some stock fantasy world on a quest to save the world is art???
I'm curious as to how any typical game could NOT be 'art'. No matter how shitty it is.
Music is, and games have music. Creative architecture is, and game worlds are composed of this. Sculptures are, and models are just another digital variant of that. There's (shitty) acting. There's animation and motion capture. There's the creative composition of all of these elements, another artform in itself. Even if I hated it as a game, I've never played one that had no artistic qualities.
Why would they? There's no forcing them to and I don't see why they would. They could just put a huge red warning somewhere in the software that says outright, "This hardware is not officially supported and may not operate correctly, use it at your own risk." Maybe every startup if they're feeling anvilicious.
Apple are great at marketing and I'm confident they could spin it to their advantage. Apple hardware is special, OSX can't run on such shitty hardware, or some other crap. People will swallow it. It's not beyond imigination that they could say what you did. "We're doing this because it's good for you, the Apple user."
So, all the $$$$$ Apple put into R&D counts for nothing? It took over 5 years for Apple to develop OS X (not counting NextStep), and more time for them to enhance it.
And after all that effort, they should be forced to essentially give it away for $130 and sacrifice their hardware business?
I don't care much either way in this debate, but that is one hell of a delusional-looking set of statements. Seriously, what?
They're "forced" to sell their software (by themselves!) for 130 dollars (a price set by themselves!). I'm not exactly tearing up for a LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE moment here.
The parent poster never argued they should be forced to do anything. He argued that Apple can't dictate how their product is used after sale as they think they can. As far as I can tell he's correct: they sell it at stores, and in the US the doctrine of first sale dictates that it must be allowed to be resold. Because Psystar are reselling the media along with a PC, they aren't an 'end user' and have not agreed to be bound to any EULA themselves. Therefore they can resell it with a PC.
Besides considering Apple a sacred cow, what reason is there to disagree?
Upshot means a result or consequence, but not necessarily a positive one.
Also, the disparity isn't in single-integer milliseconds; he's rightly saying to be careful regarding monitors that claim they have that response time. The disparity could be entire frames. (a frame typically being 13 or 16ms).
The response times are always cherry picked from the absolute best circumstances the panel can manage, so you should take it with a grain of salt to begin with. It's all but meaningless.
Take the Syncmaster 2493HM, with a stated response time of 5ms. You might think it can update the screen 200 times completely each second with a figure like that, but no: Here's an image of its ghosting.
The monitor takes input at 60hz, so it has 16.66ms to update the panel completely each cycle. Obviously it can't do that since you can see two images clearly, which means it takes at least 33.33ms to update.
You're now thinking, "Can you even notice it though?" I have the monitor, and yes you can. It's plainly visible sometimes. The most noticable thing is when you have scrolling high-contrast elements on the screen, such as in a game.
Curious about Brain-Repair, I recently went hunting in the Slashdot Brain Repository for summaries that provide the new brain-repair-button. After locating on few [sic], I decided to click the button to download the Slashdot package to automatically enable the the Consider Actions feature in Idiot OS - on my brain.
"Surely, Slashdot will use some pupil dilation measurements, phrenology, or even invasive surgery to verify that I do in fact have a brain," I thought. It did not and I stopped in my tracks when I received the prompt to read the study materials into my brain myself.
So, I wonder: is there a repair button for Brain-Repair? Because I can easily imagine someone doing what I did without scrolling to the bottom of the Slashdot Brain Repository and verifying that the Consider Actions package applies to their brain. This is a great example poor design. [sic] Why not simply use the Brain Preview Jar approach that other Repositories use, whereby the user must select the appropriate brain?
Slashdot Mirror
Suits me. I've bought two keyboards in my entire life and one of them was part of an Amiga 1200.
No wireless. Less ammunition than an AH-64. Lame.
That sounds like a good idea. I'm always hearing people's stories about how people got into programming by fiddling around with a bundled programming environment in an old computer they got as a kid.
Problem is, in the newest shop it's invisible until you press alt.
ok lets start at some basic mathematics for you.
2048 by 1080 means 2211840 pixels per inch
1920 by 720 means 1382400 pixels per inch
Here's some more basic mathematics for you: 1080 and 720 are not the same number. Your comparison is off by an order of magnitude because of that.
The comparison is between 1920x1080 and 2048x1080. The figures are:
2048x1080: 2,211,840 pixels.
1920x1080: 2,073,600 pixels.
The difference being a factor of 1.0666. 6.6%, not 60%.
The figures you mentioned aren't in pixels per inch either, unless the screen has the dimensions of 1x1 inch. That would be a little underwhelming.
To put that in context, that's nearly the resolution of a typical 24" monitor you might have at home.
Nowhere near it. Check out this image of a dual core 45nm CPU die. On the left is its L2 cache. Nearly half the chip is cache, and it's only 6MB.
A design choice rather than a limitation. The C2Ds have a TDP of 65 watts and very high tolerances in general. Great candidates for passive cooling.
Citation is futile. Lower your firewalls and surrender your hardware. You will be assimilated. Your prose and factual distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will adapt to serve the collective.
I think it's more that the crackers can reverse engineer the patch and find the vulnerability much more easily. If it fixes it, it has to touch it. There has to be a change - and they can see that change.
You can mod that in. Bathesda are PR cowards but not the modders.
Hackneyed androgenous anime figures with an emo lead wielding oversized weapons doing physics defying acrobatics in some stock fantasy world on a quest to save the world is art???
I'm curious as to how any typical game could NOT be 'art'. No matter how shitty it is.
Music is, and games have music. Creative architecture is, and game worlds are composed of this. Sculptures are, and models are just another digital variant of that. There's (shitty) acting. There's animation and motion capture. There's the creative composition of all of these elements, another artform in itself. Even if I hated it as a game, I've never played one that had no artistic qualities.
"Control" and "Flying car" are mutually exclusive, I suspect. People are bad enough at driving in two dimensions, let alone three.
...years ago? It didn't work out too well from what I hear.
I'm sure they got some nice jets, and while they can hold a tremendous amount of data, the latency on the things is terrible.
Yup. Hang your head in shame, my friend.
It works for Something Awful. Especially since there's a 10 dollar registration fee, so banning actually means something.
There are still people who've gotten banned tens of times though. That's the kind of silliness you're up against when running a forum.
If OS X has to support every hardware imaginable
Why would they? There's no forcing them to and I don't see why they would. They could just put a huge red warning somewhere in the software that says outright, "This hardware is not officially supported and may not operate correctly, use it at your own risk." Maybe every startup if they're feeling anvilicious.
Apple are great at marketing and I'm confident they could spin it to their advantage. Apple hardware is special, OSX can't run on such shitty hardware, or some other crap. People will swallow it. It's not beyond imigination that they could say what you did. "We're doing this because it's good for you, the Apple user."
The Psystar assholes are trying to profit off of someone elses work, that is all there is to it.
Isn't that the whole point of a business?
So, all the $$$$$ Apple put into R&D counts for nothing? It took over 5 years for Apple to develop OS X (not counting NextStep), and more time for them to enhance it. And after all that effort, they should be forced to essentially give it away for $130 and sacrifice their hardware business?
I don't care much either way in this debate, but that is one hell of a delusional-looking set of statements. Seriously, what?
They're "forced" to sell their software (by themselves!) for 130 dollars (a price set by themselves!). I'm not exactly tearing up for a LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE moment here.
The parent poster never argued they should be forced to do anything. He argued that Apple can't dictate how their product is used after sale as they think they can. As far as I can tell he's correct: they sell it at stores, and in the US the doctrine of first sale dictates that it must be allowed to be resold. Because Psystar are reselling the media along with a PC, they aren't an 'end user' and have not agreed to be bound to any EULA themselves. Therefore they can resell it with a PC.
Besides considering Apple a sacred cow, what reason is there to disagree?
Maybe they just like to sit around and laugh maniacally. I know I do!
Bollocks.
:(
*whoooooooosh*
One other thing to consider: was the shutter speed on the camera used less than 5ms?
Yes, that was taken into account but I forgot to mention it. The exposure time for the shots is 1/400th of a second, or 2.5ms.
Upshot means a result or consequence, but not necessarily a positive one.
Also, the disparity isn't in single-integer milliseconds; he's rightly saying to be careful regarding monitors that claim they have that response time. The disparity could be entire frames. (a frame typically being 13 or 16ms).
The response times are always cherry picked from the absolute best circumstances the panel can manage, so you should take it with a grain of salt to begin with. It's all but meaningless.
Take the Syncmaster 2493HM, with a stated response time of 5ms. You might think it can update the screen 200 times completely each second with a figure like that, but no: Here's an image of its ghosting.
The monitor takes input at 60hz, so it has 16.66ms to update the panel completely each cycle. Obviously it can't do that since you can see two images clearly, which means it takes at least 33.33ms to update.
You're now thinking, "Can you even notice it though?" I have the monitor, and yes you can. It's plainly visible sometimes. The most noticable thing is when you have scrolling high-contrast elements on the screen, such as in a game.
Curious about Brain-Repair, I recently went hunting in the Slashdot Brain Repository for summaries that provide the new brain-repair-button. After locating on few [sic], I decided to click the button to download the Slashdot package to automatically enable the the Consider Actions feature in Idiot OS - on my brain.
"Surely, Slashdot will use some pupil dilation measurements, phrenology, or even invasive surgery to verify that I do in fact have a brain," I thought. It did not and I stopped in my tracks when I received the prompt to read the study materials into my brain myself.
So, I wonder: is there a repair button for Brain-Repair? Because I can easily imagine someone doing what I did without scrolling to the bottom of the Slashdot Brain Repository and verifying that the Consider Actions package applies to their brain. This is a great example poor design. [sic] Why not simply use the Brain Preview Jar approach that other Repositories use, whereby the user must select the appropriate brain?