Professional game reviewers reviewed the game before its release, because guess what? Gamers expect reviews to be out by the game's release date! If the review isn't out within the first few days of release (which would be impossible with a game like SimCity), the site's either criticized for not putting out a review, or the review is ignored because it's too late already.
You can't blame everything on the reviewers. If you played before all the servers started going boom, you'd have had a fine and dandy time. The hiccups only started appearing when the servers got overloaded, and it all went down from there.
As for the bugs with the simulation itself, those are largely found by people trying to break the game, and took more than a few days to show up, so once again you can't reasonably expect a straight review to necessarily find those.
You can get up to twice the performance of a Q6600 from a newer processor like the 2500K. Far Cry 2 on high in 1080p would go from very playable to too laggy to play. The benchmark also doesn't show Battlefield 3, which taxes CPUs very, very hard and benefits tremendously from modern CPUs.
It's not because you've not encountered an issue that issues do not exist.
Yes. See Valve as an example of a company which has never had to bow to idiotic stock market investors, allowing them to make actually sound business decisions. Now every publicly traded gaming company, bar maybe Activision, wants to be in their shoes.
If someone manages to recreate your DNA and then recreate an adult hand from that, I'd say A) you have bigger problems than authentication and B) we've gone way past current technological levels.
It's inertia. IE6 was a terrible browser. IE7 and 8 were better, but not markedly so. IE9 was a total turnaround for Microsoft, and IE10 is keeping with that trend.
However, the damage is already done. On top of it being a Microsoft product and thus being automatically terrible, dangerous and likely to cause the death of a few Linux whackjobs, its bad reputation in the past has stuck to it like a skunk's stink. Is it deserved? Not anymore, no. But you probably have noticed by now that for all our claims of technology being a fast moving sector, a lot of the people working in it are old men shouting at you to get off their lawn;)
Opera's shift to WebKit should concern everyone. It's likely a good decision for them, but it consolidates WebKit's position as the dominant rendering engine, and having any dominant engine is bad, as you go from standards directing engines to the dominant engine imposing "standards".
Ironically, it's Firefox which is still doing its job: never the dominating browser, but always a significant enough force to stop any one browser from entirely dominating. Those who think Mozilla's outlasted their welcome should think again.
Millions of people drive less than 100km a day. The car's for them.
The pathetic complaint that the range is low is funny, because the vast majority of people never make use of the maximum range of their car. If you do, good for you! Just keep using a gas guzzler and shut up.
Those fields are perhaps the worst of the lot when it comes to open access, so I guess it's a good start. Physics, maths and comp sci almost always have preprints on arXiv, which are just as good as the real thing but free of charge.
Still hope more journals like this arise so that researchers don't need to pay extortionate fees to publish, though.
A degree teaches you how to think. It gives you a solid foundation of knowledge in key areas like data structures and algorithms, as well as however many subjects you want to pursue. It lets you mingle with like-minded people who are just as driven and interested as you are. It's a much more theoretical perspective, yes, but if that's a bad thing to you, then you're either blind or dumb.
Do bear in mind, however, that even the best school can't help you if you squeeze through your degree with the absolute minimum effort. The degree isn't the piece of paper you receive at the end, it's the 4 years of work that went into it. If you wasted them by being lazy, by not even trying to learn and just stuffing what was needed to hand the assignments and puke stuff on the exams, congratulations, you understood nothing of what university is all about.
If however you do work and actually strive to perform and to learn, then it's perhaps one of the greatest achievements you can make.
College isn't about any specific subject. It's about learning how to learn, and how to solve.
There's a reason why, for instance, physics undergrad degrees often lead to economics graduate degrees: because physics, like all STEM disciplines, force you to think, to reason, to model a problem and then solve it. This kind of understanding is priceless.
No. The chip interprets a program, but in itself cannot do anything it was not designed to do at the factory. You can't add a new command (e.g. Assembly ops), and all commands need some form of hardware implementation to work (I'm not a chip designer, gross simplifications etc. etc.).
This would allow the chip to be reprogrammed, perhaps even by itself. For example, you could have a circuit do addition, but then change it so it does division. The closest we have to this right now would be field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), but those require significantly more circuitry to be reprogrammable as each gate needs to be able to perform any of a set of basic commands depending on what the current setup is.
It's too early to say whether this'll pan out, but it's definitely interesting research and not useless as you seem to imply.
Yes, and as they also want their products to be shown in a positive light, this is why most licensed cars are never shown with much more than light scraps on the doors or shattered windshields, even in the most absurd collision.
A good example would be Burnout Paradise vs Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit (the latest version), both developed by Criterion. The first is the older game, but since it doesn't have licensed cars, the crashes are ridiculously damaging, with full destruction of the whole frame. HP has meagre damage in comparison, with the car largely keeping its shape.
Yeah, while I'm not a fan of being entirely bound to MS (though thanks to Mono that's not as much of an issue as it could be), C# just feels so much more modern than Java. Just having an actual event structure instead of passing through all sorts of hoops is refreshing, and then things like lambda functions, LINQ, extension methods and all that. No, none of it is essential, but it's mighty convenient and it also makes the code a lot more readable, which in my opinion is a much more important metric for worth than raw performance, which isn't going to be that different anyways. If the code is intuitive and easy to parse, it's likely going to be easier to maintain and expand, which can have much more important long-term impact on performance than anything in the language's intrinsic speed.
For your first question, I'm afraid it gets rather complicated fairly fast. Essentially, when we measure things on such timescales as the expansion of the universe can affect measurements in a significant way, we stop using Euclidean geometry. Using a non-Euclidean metric, we can correct for the effects of the expansion of the universe.
We already have precise data on the expansion of the universe, which were derived from specific experiments designed to measure that (one good example is supernovae, which are known to always shine at the same brightness, thus allowing us to use their apparent brightness and redshift to calculate the expansion coefficient), as well as laws that fit the current data. With that in mind, it becomes fairly straightforward to correct for the expansion of the universe and calculate that no, those objects aren't moving faster than light.
For your second question, the answer is still that no, you wouldn't be going FTL and you wouldn't be able to "say easily the universe speeds past you". To make an example that may make more sense, take the Earth. Say you decide to walk in a straight line from New York to Tokyo (let's ignore the fact you can't walk on the sea) and measure the distance. You can then calculate the time it'd take for light to cross that distance. That's the fastest you can go using conventional movement.
Warp drives would be akin to boring a hole through the Earth so you go straight from NY to Tokyo, the crust and mantle be damned. It's obviously much harder, it takes a lot more energy, but once the bore's done, you can make the trip markedly faster. If you were to again do that trip at the speed of light, you'd get a time shorter than your last measurement. Are you going faster than light? No, of course not! You're using an entirely different path, but one which happens to be faster than anything you could do if you were constrained to "conventional" movement.
The distance between two stars is mostly fixed and is fully known: that's your movement on the Earth's surface. A warp drive allows you to discover a new path: that's your movement through the Earth. Sometimes a wormhole is also pictured as a hole through a 2D sheet which is folded on itself, with the 2D sheet representing space.
It's a fancy concept which we're not even sure is possible, but GR doesn't preclude it, so obviously people have been running with it!
Slashdot Mirror
Professional game reviewers reviewed the game before its release, because guess what? Gamers expect reviews to be out by the game's release date! If the review isn't out within the first few days of release (which would be impossible with a game like SimCity), the site's either criticized for not putting out a review, or the review is ignored because it's too late already.
You can't blame everything on the reviewers. If you played before all the servers started going boom, you'd have had a fine and dandy time. The hiccups only started appearing when the servers got overloaded, and it all went down from there.
As for the bugs with the simulation itself, those are largely found by people trying to break the game, and took more than a few days to show up, so once again you can't reasonably expect a straight review to necessarily find those.
Slashdot doesn't have direct access to your credit card.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/53?vs=288
You can get up to twice the performance of a Q6600 from a newer processor like the 2500K. Far Cry 2 on high in 1080p would go from very playable to too laggy to play. The benchmark also doesn't show Battlefield 3, which taxes CPUs very, very hard and benefits tremendously from modern CPUs.
It's not because you've not encountered an issue that issues do not exist.
Nah, instead they just force you to play online even in their so-called "singleplayer" mode.
Yes. See Valve as an example of a company which has never had to bow to idiotic stock market investors, allowing them to make actually sound business decisions. Now every publicly traded gaming company, bar maybe Activision, wants to be in their shoes.
If someone manages to recreate your DNA and then recreate an adult hand from that, I'd say A) you have bigger problems than authentication and B) we've gone way past current technological levels.
Two OCZ SSDs that have been running for 1 and 3 years respectively, both still going strong.
The plural of anecdote is not data yadda yadda.
It's inertia. IE6 was a terrible browser. IE7 and 8 were better, but not markedly so. IE9 was a total turnaround for Microsoft, and IE10 is keeping with that trend.
However, the damage is already done. On top of it being a Microsoft product and thus being automatically terrible, dangerous and likely to cause the death of a few Linux whackjobs, its bad reputation in the past has stuck to it like a skunk's stink. Is it deserved? Not anymore, no. But you probably have noticed by now that for all our claims of technology being a fast moving sector, a lot of the people working in it are old men shouting at you to get off their lawn ;)
Opera's shift to WebKit should concern everyone. It's likely a good decision for them, but it consolidates WebKit's position as the dominant rendering engine, and having any dominant engine is bad, as you go from standards directing engines to the dominant engine imposing "standards".
Ironically, it's Firefox which is still doing its job: never the dominating browser, but always a significant enough force to stop any one browser from entirely dominating. Those who think Mozilla's outlasted their welcome should think again.
You drive 600mi often? The car is not for you.
Millions of people drive less than 100km a day. The car's for them.
The pathetic complaint that the range is low is funny, because the vast majority of people never make use of the maximum range of their car. If you do, good for you! Just keep using a gas guzzler and shut up.
Those fields are perhaps the worst of the lot when it comes to open access, so I guess it's a good start. Physics, maths and comp sci almost always have preprints on arXiv, which are just as good as the real thing but free of charge.
Still hope more journals like this arise so that researchers don't need to pay extortionate fees to publish, though.
Bullshit.
A degree teaches you how to think. It gives you a solid foundation of knowledge in key areas like data structures and algorithms, as well as however many subjects you want to pursue. It lets you mingle with like-minded people who are just as driven and interested as you are. It's a much more theoretical perspective, yes, but if that's a bad thing to you, then you're either blind or dumb.
Do bear in mind, however, that even the best school can't help you if you squeeze through your degree with the absolute minimum effort. The degree isn't the piece of paper you receive at the end, it's the 4 years of work that went into it. If you wasted them by being lazy, by not even trying to learn and just stuffing what was needed to hand the assignments and puke stuff on the exams, congratulations, you understood nothing of what university is all about.
If however you do work and actually strive to perform and to learn, then it's perhaps one of the greatest achievements you can make.
College isn't about any specific subject. It's about learning how to learn, and how to solve.
There's a reason why, for instance, physics undergrad degrees often lead to economics graduate degrees: because physics, like all STEM disciplines, force you to think, to reason, to model a problem and then solve it. This kind of understanding is priceless.
Please. I hate Facebook as much as the next guy, but this is just ridiculous.
Option A)
Use Google's advanced search.
Option B)
When searching, hit "Search tools" then in the "All results" drop-down use "Verbatim". Alternatively, append &tbs=li:1 to the search URL.
Option C)
Use a different search engine.
I think it's pretty obvious that the Surface is a tablet and the Surface Pro is a computer, even if a rather gimped one.
No. The chip interprets a program, but in itself cannot do anything it was not designed to do at the factory. You can't add a new command (e.g. Assembly ops), and all commands need some form of hardware implementation to work (I'm not a chip designer, gross simplifications etc. etc.).
This would allow the chip to be reprogrammed, perhaps even by itself. For example, you could have a circuit do addition, but then change it so it does division. The closest we have to this right now would be field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), but those require significantly more circuitry to be reprogrammable as each gate needs to be able to perform any of a set of basic commands depending on what the current setup is.
It's too early to say whether this'll pan out, but it's definitely interesting research and not useless as you seem to imply.
Yes, and as they also want their products to be shown in a positive light, this is why most licensed cars are never shown with much more than light scraps on the doors or shattered windshields, even in the most absurd collision.
A good example would be Burnout Paradise vs Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit (the latest version), both developed by Criterion. The first is the older game, but since it doesn't have licensed cars, the crashes are ridiculously damaging, with full destruction of the whole frame. HP has meagre damage in comparison, with the car largely keeping its shape.
Nah, but gun nuts whine that Borderlands' guns are unrealistic, too.
Google were never really into taoism, but they sure like pie.
You rather obviously know nothing about usability and interface design. The blank space is not for aesthetic reasons.
Funny how your sig is so appropriate for your post.
There's an 80% chance that, 75% of the time, 44% of the data in TFA is 87% right, but only nine times out of ten.
You didn't get that? Really?
Yeah, while I'm not a fan of being entirely bound to MS (though thanks to Mono that's not as much of an issue as it could be), C# just feels so much more modern than Java. Just having an actual event structure instead of passing through all sorts of hoops is refreshing, and then things like lambda functions, LINQ, extension methods and all that. No, none of it is essential, but it's mighty convenient and it also makes the code a lot more readable, which in my opinion is a much more important metric for worth than raw performance, which isn't going to be that different anyways. If the code is intuitive and easy to parse, it's likely going to be easier to maintain and expand, which can have much more important long-term impact on performance than anything in the language's intrinsic speed.
For your first question, I'm afraid it gets rather complicated fairly fast. Essentially, when we measure things on such timescales as the expansion of the universe can affect measurements in a significant way, we stop using Euclidean geometry. Using a non-Euclidean metric, we can correct for the effects of the expansion of the universe.
We already have precise data on the expansion of the universe, which were derived from specific experiments designed to measure that (one good example is supernovae, which are known to always shine at the same brightness, thus allowing us to use their apparent brightness and redshift to calculate the expansion coefficient), as well as laws that fit the current data. With that in mind, it becomes fairly straightforward to correct for the expansion of the universe and calculate that no, those objects aren't moving faster than light.
For your second question, the answer is still that no, you wouldn't be going FTL and you wouldn't be able to "say easily the universe speeds past you". To make an example that may make more sense, take the Earth. Say you decide to walk in a straight line from New York to Tokyo (let's ignore the fact you can't walk on the sea) and measure the distance. You can then calculate the time it'd take for light to cross that distance. That's the fastest you can go using conventional movement.
Warp drives would be akin to boring a hole through the Earth so you go straight from NY to Tokyo, the crust and mantle be damned. It's obviously much harder, it takes a lot more energy, but once the bore's done, you can make the trip markedly faster. If you were to again do that trip at the speed of light, you'd get a time shorter than your last measurement. Are you going faster than light? No, of course not! You're using an entirely different path, but one which happens to be faster than anything you could do if you were constrained to "conventional" movement.
The distance between two stars is mostly fixed and is fully known: that's your movement on the Earth's surface. A warp drive allows you to discover a new path: that's your movement through the Earth. Sometimes a wormhole is also pictured as a hole through a 2D sheet which is folded on itself, with the 2D sheet representing space.
It's a fancy concept which we're not even sure is possible, but GR doesn't preclude it, so obviously people have been running with it!
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
I think this article very clearly underlines this.
Not a good analogy, because one may feel pity for two dying dogs.