The availability of a job is not only determined by the salary, but also by how many are eligible for it (among other things of course). There will be far, far more people who are reasonable candidates for the $40k job than the $100k job.
Mere logic can't solve this one... one needs some real data to figure out which kind of job is more available.
All of these were the result of massive consumer backlash and lack of benefits for the producer. With Gillette's action added to this, it seems that Palladium/TCPA/etc. might not be in for a very warm reception, and possibly a very quick withdrawal. And it seems that some corporations care more about consumer feelings than it seems at first.
SCSI drives only have significant benefits when used in a server environment with numerous portions of the disk being accessed in rapid succession. When you're saving to a few files with in a 3d graphics creation environment, IDE is fine (which is why there has been a huge decline in SCSI usage across the board, especially with the advent of SATA and good SATA drives like the WD Raptor).
Someone else pointed out that SolidWorks is by no means a "no-name" benchmark. I'll add that fill rate and polycount benchmarks are near meaningless when you can do real benchmarks with real applications. They're about as useful as using clock speed to compare processors.
Might I ask whether you have any "industry background", or experience, or anything? Judging only by your ignorance of SolidWorks, I'd say "no".
Benchmark optimization can only go so far. With non-synthetic benchmarks, manufacturers must attempt to cheat without it being noticed in normal usage of the software. Synthetic benchmarks have only one or maybe a few ways they can be run, so for example objects that are obscured could be omitted from a full rendering, without the viewer noticing. Non-synthetic benchmarks have infinite ways they can run and analyzed, generally preventing such cheating (when's the last time we've heard of cheating in a game benchmark? quack3.exe which was years ago?). If optimizations can be made without any noticeable effect in any benchmark run in any way, then I see those as standard driver efficiency improvements that are useful in the real world and not driver cheating at all.
Also, why are the numbers meaningless if all of the hardware used isn't the same as that of their audience? The purpose of the review was to compare the performance of the two video cards. As long as every other piece of hardware is the same in the systems used (assuming there were 2 computers and not just 1 with the vid card swapped), the video card is the only variable and is the only thing that will significantly affect performance.
Price has never been only about the work required to produce the product. Price is determined by the amount people are willing to pay and the value which they perceive in the product. In the high-end 3d graphics industry, cards costing several hundred or a thousand dollars are the norm, so that is why ATi and nVIDIA chose to price their cards the way they are.
I actually think there's some truth to this. Far too many MS applications still use those tiny 16x16 pixel icons which looked decent sized on yesterday's 14" monitors, but miniscule when running anything above 800x600. Not only are larger icons more aesthetically pleasing due to the higher detail, but in my opinion they present a less intimidating interface by being more easily identifiable and just a bit easier to click.
Neither are bad in my opinion. With the MS "tracking" users on Usenet-- they're just usenet postings, it's not like they're tracking down people's phone numbers and addresses. Microsoft and anybody else can read them or save them. Everyone "tracks" users in their minds, remembering who's knowledgeable and who's a flamer. This MS Sociologist seems to be doing this for research purposes though. It's no worse than keeping tack of consumer car purchases of certain colors to decide on what color to make your own product. It's not really spying.
I have to agree with your judgement of the writing quality. However, according to his blog, he's actually 30 years old.
Re:New improved ending for slashbots!
on
Masters of Doom
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Quake 3 a cheap cash grab? Well thousands of people still play Q3 deathmatch, so there must be some value in its gameplay. RTCW ran fine on Radeon 8500s. And Doom 3 ran fine on a Geforce 3 on a 1GHz G4, now we're 2 graphics card generations ahead, with a third likely coming before Doom 3's release.
Re:One of the things I find annoying...
on
Masters of Doom
·
· Score: 1
"Best" means different things for everyone. The "best" simulation might be the easiest one to learn, or the most realistic one, or the one with the best graphics, or the one which has the most accurate representation of an F-16, or a million other things.
Il-2 Sturmovik FB is probably one of the "best" combat simulations in terms of accurate flight modeling, AI, graphics and selection of aircraft. It's not so hard to learn due to it being a WW2 sim, no complex avionics or procedures. You will have to practice though before getting your first kill.
For a modern combat sim the best is probably Falcon 4.0 with SuperPak 4 (a user-developed patch using the game's full source code, authorized by the game's publishers). It takes months to become proficient at it though (i.e. be able to operate everything in every mode in your sleep).
A good helo sim is Enemy Engaged: Comanche vs. Hokum. It's widely accepted that it is by no means "hardcore", with sacrifices to realism made at every turn for the sake of gameplay, but it's very fun and has moderately detailed systems simulation. The 4 year old Longbow 2 is probably the most realistic helo simulation every made, its graphics aren't too bad for a 5 year old game either. You can find it on ebay.
For a civilian simulation, you might want to look into MS Flight Simulator 2004 or X-Plane.
Falcon 4.0 isn't buggy anymore with the 1.08 patch and the latest version of the SuperPak project. It also has better graphics (trees, filtered 32-bit object textures, improved models and textures), runs faster (SSE, memory leak fixes, general optimization), and a lot more features (all flight models tweaked, much more detailed avionics, etc.).
No, you won't get in trouble. There are plenty of simulation cockpit projects going on by sim players in the U.S. One of them is actually being built using an old F-15 cockpit. Building 'pits is fairly well known in the sim community, and I don't think I've ever heard of people being worried about getting into any kind of trouble.
Outlawing the construction of cockpits for flight sims would be ridiculous, and is something I highly doubt will ever happen.
Slashdot Mirror
"The population is dumbed down."
Of course, you yourself are not in the population. You are above it.
Does anyone else think that this /. story maybe has the first non-idiotic editorial comment from michael?
Was thinking the exact same thing.
The availability of a job is not only determined by the salary, but also by how many are eligible for it (among other things of course). There will be far, far more people who are reasonable candidates for the $40k job than the $100k job.
Mere logic can't solve this one... one needs some real data to figure out which kind of job is more available.
As alarming as many of the recent seemingly "invasive" technologies are, the response to consumer anger from some of the organizations which employ those technologies has been a bit comforting. Before we have seen the termination of serial numbers on Pentium 3 CPU's, the removal of DRM in TurboTax software and even Microsoft allowing OEM's to omit product activation with WindowsXP.
All of these were the result of massive consumer backlash and lack of benefits for the producer. With Gillette's action added to this, it seems that Palladium/TCPA/etc. might not be in for a very warm reception, and possibly a very quick withdrawal. And it seems that some corporations care more about consumer feelings than it seems at first.
NT = No Text
SCSI drives only have significant benefits when used in a server environment with numerous portions of the disk being accessed in rapid succession. When you're saving to a few files with in a 3d graphics creation environment, IDE is fine (which is why there has been a huge decline in SCSI usage across the board, especially with the advent of SATA and good SATA drives like the WD Raptor).
Someone else pointed out that SolidWorks is by no means a "no-name" benchmark. I'll add that fill rate and polycount benchmarks are near meaningless when you can do real benchmarks with real applications. They're about as useful as using clock speed to compare processors.
Might I ask whether you have any "industry background", or experience, or anything? Judging only by your ignorance of SolidWorks, I'd say "no".
The image "shearing" that you mention is caused by vsync being disabled. You can enable it in the control panel (assuming you're using Windows).
Benchmark optimization can only go so far. With non-synthetic benchmarks, manufacturers must attempt to cheat without it being noticed in normal usage of the software. Synthetic benchmarks have only one or maybe a few ways they can be run, so for example objects that are obscured could be omitted from a full rendering, without the viewer noticing. Non-synthetic benchmarks have infinite ways they can run and analyzed, generally preventing such cheating (when's the last time we've heard of cheating in a game benchmark? quack3.exe which was years ago?). If optimizations can be made without any noticeable effect in any benchmark run in any way, then I see those as standard driver efficiency improvements that are useful in the real world and not driver cheating at all.
Also, why are the numbers meaningless if all of the hardware used isn't the same as that of their audience? The purpose of the review was to compare the performance of the two video cards. As long as every other piece of hardware is the same in the systems used (assuming there were 2 computers and not just 1 with the vid card swapped), the video card is the only variable and is the only thing that will significantly affect performance.
Price has never been only about the work required to produce the product. Price is determined by the amount people are willing to pay and the value which they perceive in the product. In the high-end 3d graphics industry, cards costing several hundred or a thousand dollars are the norm, so that is why ATi and nVIDIA chose to price their cards the way they are.
You might want to upgrade your requirements a bit. Nearly every mid-range card in the past 2 years can do the first 2 items (dual head and decent AA).
On Slashdot, it's cool to be an irrational pessimist.
Aero bars are still awesome though.
I actually think there's some truth to this. Far too many MS applications still use those tiny 16x16 pixel icons which looked decent sized on yesterday's 14" monitors, but miniscule when running anything above 800x600. Not only are larger icons more aesthetically pleasing due to the higher detail, but in my opinion they present a less intimidating interface by being more easily identifiable and just a bit easier to click.
Neither are bad in my opinion. With the MS "tracking" users on Usenet-- they're just usenet postings, it's not like they're tracking down people's phone numbers and addresses. Microsoft and anybody else can read them or save them. Everyone "tracks" users in their minds, remembering who's knowledgeable and who's a flamer. This MS Sociologist seems to be doing this for research purposes though. It's no worse than keeping tack of consumer car purchases of certain colors to decide on what color to make your own product. It's not really spying.
NT = No text.
Battle Zone was a great game. Multiplayer was fun in deathmatch and strategy modes. Sniping pilots and commandeering their vehicles was cool as hell.
I have to agree with your judgement of the writing quality. However, according to his blog, he's actually 30 years old.
Quake 3 a cheap cash grab? Well thousands of people still play Q3 deathmatch, so there must be some value in its gameplay. RTCW ran fine on Radeon 8500s. And Doom 3 ran fine on a Geforce 3 on a 1GHz G4, now we're 2 graphics card generations ahead, with a third likely coming before Doom 3's release.
Snood is more of a Bustamove clone.
Ok, I find the parent post only partially intelligible...
"Best" means different things for everyone. The "best" simulation might be the easiest one to learn, or the most realistic one, or the one with the best graphics, or the one which has the most accurate representation of an F-16, or a million other things.
Il-2 Sturmovik FB is probably one of the "best" combat simulations in terms of accurate flight modeling, AI, graphics and selection of aircraft. It's not so hard to learn due to it being a WW2 sim, no complex avionics or procedures. You will have to practice though before getting your first kill.
For a modern combat sim the best is probably Falcon 4.0 with SuperPak 4 (a user-developed patch using the game's full source code, authorized by the game's publishers). It takes months to become proficient at it though (i.e. be able to operate everything in every mode in your sleep).
A good helo sim is Enemy Engaged: Comanche vs. Hokum. It's widely accepted that it is by no means "hardcore", with sacrifices to realism made at every turn for the sake of gameplay, but it's very fun and has moderately detailed systems simulation. The 4 year old Longbow 2 is probably the most realistic helo simulation every made, its graphics aren't too bad for a 5 year old game either. You can find it on ebay.
For a civilian simulation, you might want to look into MS Flight Simulator 2004 or X-Plane.
Not everyone likes civilian sims. Most people want some combat, and X-Plane's combat features are extremely rudimentary to say the least.
And what "other offerings" is X-Plane priced more reasonably than?
Falcon 4.0 isn't buggy anymore with the 1.08 patch and the latest version of the SuperPak project. It also has better graphics (trees, filtered 32-bit object textures, improved models and textures), runs faster (SSE, memory leak fixes, general optimization), and a lot more features (all flight models tweaked, much more detailed avionics, etc.).
No, you won't get in trouble. There are plenty of simulation cockpit projects going on by sim players in the U.S. One of them is actually being built using an old F-15 cockpit. Building 'pits is fairly well known in the sim community, and I don't think I've ever heard of people being worried about getting into any kind of trouble.
Outlawing the construction of cockpits for flight sims would be ridiculous, and is something I highly doubt will ever happen.