Yes, but with difficulty. Rendering generally scales linearly with the number of pixels, so rendering at 3840x2160 takes four times as much processing power as rendering at 1920x1080.
Games rarely have to specifically support a resolution. Most will query the system to see what resolutions are possible - they may have to upscale UI elements that are normally 1:1 or downscaled, and they may only support certain aspect ratios, but they rarely "break". Even games that use hardcoded resolution lists tend to work if you edit a config file - I did so to get UT2004 rendering at 2560x1440.
The problem, of course, is getting that power. Top-tier video cards tend to be tested at 5760x1080 (triple 1080p) or at 2560x1440, and they rarely break 60fps at high settings. My comparatively-puny Radeon 6870 struggles at 1440p, requiring me to drop Crysis down to medium settings. I can still max out undemanding games (UT3, BF2) but recent titles (or Crysis games), no.
PS: What the hell are you talking about, games not running at 1080p? In the time since I got a 1080p monitor, I have found only one game that cannot play at that resolution (Star Wars: Republic Commando), and that's because it only runs in 4:3. Everything else runs fine. Are you perhaps saying that you cannot find *console* games that can run at 1080p?
Really? I've put off playing it simply because everyone saying it's the worst one ever. And the things they complain about (huge focus on story and cutscenes, incoherent gameplay mechanics, and too much hand-holding and "helping") are the exact things I didn't like about Twilight Princess.
Most of the actual processing power in current supercomputers comes from GPUs, not CPUs. There are exceptions (that all-SPARC Japanese one, or a few Cell-based ones), but they're just that, exceptions.
So sure, replace the Xeons and Opterons with Cortex-A15s. Doesn't really change much.
What might be interesting is a GPU-heavy SoC - some light CPU cores on the die of a supercomputer-class GPU. I have heard Nvidia is working on such (using Tegra CPUs and Tesla GPUs), and I would not be surprised if AMD is as well, although they'd be using one of their x86 cores for it (probably Bulldozer - damn thing was practically built for heavily-virtualized servers, not much different from supercomputers).
Considering that sales of the Wii U have *spiked* since the Xbox One announcement, I think it's pretty clear that Nintendo can survive.
What's different about this generation? That most third-party games are ignoring the Wii U? Guess what - that happened with the Wii and Gamecube (to a lesser extent) as well. No good launch titles? Look at the 3DS - dead on arrival, but it's picking up, and while it's not the runaway success of the DS, it's no failure.
Hell, the only "different" thing about this generation is how badly Nintendo botched the naming (a lot of consumer confusion because "Wii U" sounds more like a new hardware iteration of the Wii than a new console). But fortunately, Microsoft came out with an even worse name for their console.
And Nintendo also has the advantage of having a strong focus on games. Sure, they don't actually have too many actual games right now, but even when talking about the hardware, their message is always "how it makes better games". Compare to Sony's distractions with Youtube uploading or "social gaming", or to Microsoft's "it's a set-top Windows 8 box that also plays Call of Duty" abomination of a conference.
But there's one fundamental reason why Nintendo can survive Sony and Microsoft - they don't care. Most Nintendo console owners buy them to play Nintendo games, which isn't the case for Sony or Microsoft consoles. First-party games might boost the other consoles up, but they always exist as much to play third-party games as first-party.
So the only threat to Nintendo is... Nintendo. Which, admittedly, it a pretty big threat right now - a lot of their recent games have been going downhill (Skyward Sword, Other M), and they haven't yet come up with a good killer app for the Wii U.
They're moving the magnet to a particle accelerator. It's already at one, and it generated some interesting findings, but the particle accelerator it's currently at is too weak to give a margin of error low enough to safely call it a discovery.
Thus, they're moving it to a more powerful accelerator, since moving the accelerator to it is not exactly an option.
Probably only through software emulation, if that. They didn't actually say any specs, but what they did say lines up with the leaked specs that gave it an x86 processor. Since the Xb360 was PowerPC-based, that would mean some sort of emulation would be a requirement, just like the compatibility of the Xb360 to the original Xbox.
Ironically, they could now do near-perfect compatibility with the original Xbox, if anyone cared about it anymore.
Better solution: Disconnect the internet connections of anyone involved in the case, *including* the judge. As far as they'll be able to tell, the video was removed.
I refuse to use iTunes. I refuse to buy any Apple device that will require me to use it. Any time I do have to use one anyways, I find a workaround (like finding a way to stream from VLC to AirPort). And even on my Mac (never paid a dime to Apple for it), on my OS X partition, I don't use iTunes.
Memory latency. Beowulf clusters are good for things that are highly parallel *and* have a high degree of memory locality, ie. you rarely need to make memory calls between boxes.
True supercomputers use high-speed interconnects between systems for this reason, usually using something like Infiniband or a weird proprietary system, and usually with some network topology with numerous inter-system links. This gives them much lower latency when one system uses data in memory in another system.
The point was supposed to be that one of the three version numbers wasn't really being used - the first number changed maybe twice, while major updates were just bumping up the second digit over and over.
However, as you've pointed out, now they've started ignoring the second digit, going straight from 20.0.1 to 21.0.0. So nothing's really changed at all.
You, and several other haters, are falling for a variant of the sunk cost fallacy - that, because it was so expensive to get him into space, every second of his time needs to be occupied in "useful tasks".
That's not how it works. There has to be some "down time", both as a buffer against the "useful tasks" taking longer than anticipated (like that ammonia leak they had to fix a few days ago), and just because human beings cannot be working every waking minute.
The cost/benefit analysis included those necessary "down times", and it was deemed worth it to send him into space. This music video was not planned for, but there was sufficient extra time found for it, and I'm sure once again, it was deemed more productive than anything else he could do (remember, a lot of "productive work" requires new equipment to be shipped up there, which is expensive).
Does everything need to be about money? Can we not do things for the sake of doing them?
Was that not the great driving force behind the space race? We may have done some science on the moon, but it was hardly worth the billions we spent. But it was worth it to go there, simply for the sake of going there.
In an odd little coincidence, the first time I ever listened to the original version of this song was yesterday. What can I say, I don't listen to much music, not from that era (yes, yes, I'll get off your damn lawn now, old man).
I have now listened to the Commander Hadfield version more times than the original. And, while Bowie is undoubtedly more musically talented, there's something about Hadfield's version that makes it seem more... emotional? Real? Something like that. Whatever the reason is, I prefer it over the original.
I do have to run UT2004 as admin in order for LAN play to work. I'm not sure why. There's probably another way, that doesn't involve blanket admin access, but "run as admin" is easier.
Runs perfectly fine singleplayer without admin rights, though. And it's hardly a "recent" game (and it's not even the Steam version - CD from the Unreal Anthology). I've never encountered a game that requires admin rights just to run.
Right now, Steam is using 5.5MB of RAM, sitting between "Bluetooth tray" and SSHFS. DWM is using 29MB, Explorer 38MB, and Firefox 335MB (five tabs). Opening a Steam window brings it up to 23MB, still an absolutely tiny amount. Even when doing multiple simultaneous downloads, I've never seen it go over 200MB of RAM.
As for disk space, my Steam folder is currently 346GB. However, 345GB of that is the steamapps folder, which contains all game data. Everything else - executable, graphics, crash dumps, resources, cache - is a mere 787MB. Considering how many game icons that has to include (I kind of have a lot of games), that's pretty impressive.
Seriously, what do they spy on? There's the hardware survey, which is anonymous, and at least as I recall, opt-in. There's "recording amount of time in games", which a) isn't particularly useful information, b) isn't particularly accurate, and c) can be routed around via offline mode if it really bugs you.
Compared to even the spying Firefox does (if you opt in), that's really not much.
Oh, there can be charges. They can charge you with everything for nothing.
Just for this post, they could arrest me and charge me with conspiracy, homicide, patent infringement, tax evasion, horse theft, transmitting nuclear secrets to East Germany, violating the Volstead Act and, last but not least, attempted conspiracy.
Absolutely zero of those charges would stick. Some of them are no longer illegal, or possible. One of them never was. But they can charge me with it all the same, keep me in jail for at least a year before it goes to trial. They don't even have to charge me, if they decide I'm a terrorist and throw me in Gitmo instead of County.
When I want to see my reflection in the flying splatter of blood, with full bokeh depth-of-field, bloom, and ray-traced lighting, I have a PC. Two, actually.
But I'd have no problem buying one of these, if it had some good games I couldn't get elsewhere. If the Ouya can play regular Android games, that would be perfect - I don't have a phone able to play any game more advanced than Chess, so I've been missing out on some of the higher-quality Android games.
As it is, I don't think it's *quite* worth it, but only for lack of software, not hardware. And even then, if it fails and you can find them being sold for $50, I'd snap one up instantly for XMBC and emulator usage.
At least it only fluctuates. When a major currency *does* change value by that much, that fast, it's always been part of an inflationary spiral - the value goes down, and never comes back up.
And I think it's a bit unfair to judge Bitcoin against major currencies just yet. Even the most ardent supporters of Bitcoin don't claim it's on par with the Euro or Dollar. It's perhaps on par with certain small countries' currencies - and yes, those experience changes in value relative to other currencies as well, even when "pegged" to a larger currency. Not quite to the degree of the Bitcoin Bubble, but that was a pretty rare circumstance.
PS: How are you figuring that 1000% figure? It peaked almost exactly a month ago at 235$/BTC, crashed at its lowest to 25$/BTC, and currently seems fairly stable around 120$/BTC. I can't see a sane way to get 1000% out of those numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but with difficulty. Rendering generally scales linearly with the number of pixels, so rendering at 3840x2160 takes four times as much processing power as rendering at 1920x1080.
Games rarely have to specifically support a resolution. Most will query the system to see what resolutions are possible - they may have to upscale UI elements that are normally 1:1 or downscaled, and they may only support certain aspect ratios, but they rarely "break". Even games that use hardcoded resolution lists tend to work if you edit a config file - I did so to get UT2004 rendering at 2560x1440.
The problem, of course, is getting that power. Top-tier video cards tend to be tested at 5760x1080 (triple 1080p) or at 2560x1440, and they rarely break 60fps at high settings. My comparatively-puny Radeon 6870 struggles at 1440p, requiring me to drop Crysis down to medium settings. I can still max out undemanding games (UT3, BF2) but recent titles (or Crysis games), no.
PS: What the hell are you talking about, games not running at 1080p? In the time since I got a 1080p monitor, I have found only one game that cannot play at that resolution (Star Wars: Republic Commando), and that's because it only runs in 4:3. Everything else runs fine. Are you perhaps saying that you cannot find *console* games that can run at 1080p?
Really? I've put off playing it simply because everyone saying it's the worst one ever. And the things they complain about (huge focus on story and cutscenes, incoherent gameplay mechanics, and too much hand-holding and "helping") are the exact things I didn't like about Twilight Princess.
Most of the actual processing power in current supercomputers comes from GPUs, not CPUs. There are exceptions (that all-SPARC Japanese one, or a few Cell-based ones), but they're just that, exceptions.
So sure, replace the Xeons and Opterons with Cortex-A15s. Doesn't really change much.
What might be interesting is a GPU-heavy SoC - some light CPU cores on the die of a supercomputer-class GPU. I have heard Nvidia is working on such (using Tegra CPUs and Tesla GPUs), and I would not be surprised if AMD is as well, although they'd be using one of their x86 cores for it (probably Bulldozer - damn thing was practically built for heavily-virtualized servers, not much different from supercomputers).
Considering that sales of the Wii U have *spiked* since the Xbox One announcement, I think it's pretty clear that Nintendo can survive.
What's different about this generation? That most third-party games are ignoring the Wii U? Guess what - that happened with the Wii and Gamecube (to a lesser extent) as well. No good launch titles? Look at the 3DS - dead on arrival, but it's picking up, and while it's not the runaway success of the DS, it's no failure.
Hell, the only "different" thing about this generation is how badly Nintendo botched the naming (a lot of consumer confusion because "Wii U" sounds more like a new hardware iteration of the Wii than a new console). But fortunately, Microsoft came out with an even worse name for their console.
And Nintendo also has the advantage of having a strong focus on games. Sure, they don't actually have too many actual games right now, but even when talking about the hardware, their message is always "how it makes better games". Compare to Sony's distractions with Youtube uploading or "social gaming", or to Microsoft's "it's a set-top Windows 8 box that also plays Call of Duty" abomination of a conference.
But there's one fundamental reason why Nintendo can survive Sony and Microsoft - they don't care. Most Nintendo console owners buy them to play Nintendo games, which isn't the case for Sony or Microsoft consoles. First-party games might boost the other consoles up, but they always exist as much to play third-party games as first-party.
So the only threat to Nintendo is... Nintendo. Which, admittedly, it a pretty big threat right now - a lot of their recent games have been going downhill (Skyward Sword, Other M), and they haven't yet come up with a good killer app for the Wii U.
I'm honestly having a hard time deciding if I distrust Sony or Microsoft more.
Steam still needs to be online to activate new purchases, even if you buy them in a brick and mortar store AFAIK.
Yes, but I'd wager money that the Xb1 does the same.
They're moving the magnet to a particle accelerator. It's already at one, and it generated some interesting findings, but the particle accelerator it's currently at is too weak to give a margin of error low enough to safely call it a discovery.
Thus, they're moving it to a more powerful accelerator, since moving the accelerator to it is not exactly an option.
With appropriate lighting (or lack thereof) and some creatively poor camera work, it would be easy to make the Xbox Classic look like the Xbox One.
Probably only through software emulation, if that. They didn't actually say any specs, but what they did say lines up with the leaked specs that gave it an x86 processor. Since the Xb360 was PowerPC-based, that would mean some sort of emulation would be a requirement, just like the compatibility of the Xb360 to the original Xbox.
Ironically, they could now do near-perfect compatibility with the original Xbox, if anyone cared about it anymore.
And because he tried to send an email while the network was down, nobody received it until the network was fixed.
Better solution: Disconnect the internet connections of anyone involved in the case, *including* the judge. As far as they'll be able to tell, the video was removed.
By the transitive property, yes.
I refuse to use iTunes. I refuse to buy any Apple device that will require me to use it. Any time I do have to use one anyways, I find a workaround (like finding a way to stream from VLC to AirPort). And even on my Mac (never paid a dime to Apple for it), on my OS X partition, I don't use iTunes.
It's that bad.
Story is about a spy, James Bond is a spy, Bond uses crazy gadgets, nerds love crazy gadgets.
QED.
Memory latency. Beowulf clusters are good for things that are highly parallel *and* have a high degree of memory locality, ie. you rarely need to make memory calls between boxes.
True supercomputers use high-speed interconnects between systems for this reason, usually using something like Infiniband or a weird proprietary system, and usually with some network topology with numerous inter-system links. This gives them much lower latency when one system uses data in memory in another system.
The point was supposed to be that one of the three version numbers wasn't really being used - the first number changed maybe twice, while major updates were just bumping up the second digit over and over.
However, as you've pointed out, now they've started ignoring the second digit, going straight from 20.0.1 to 21.0.0. So nothing's really changed at all.
You, and several other haters, are falling for a variant of the sunk cost fallacy - that, because it was so expensive to get him into space, every second of his time needs to be occupied in "useful tasks".
That's not how it works. There has to be some "down time", both as a buffer against the "useful tasks" taking longer than anticipated (like that ammonia leak they had to fix a few days ago), and just because human beings cannot be working every waking minute.
The cost/benefit analysis included those necessary "down times", and it was deemed worth it to send him into space. This music video was not planned for, but there was sufficient extra time found for it, and I'm sure once again, it was deemed more productive than anything else he could do (remember, a lot of "productive work" requires new equipment to be shipped up there, which is expensive).
Does everything need to be about money? Can we not do things for the sake of doing them?
Was that not the great driving force behind the space race? We may have done some science on the moon, but it was hardly worth the billions we spent. But it was worth it to go there, simply for the sake of going there.
In an odd little coincidence, the first time I ever listened to the original version of this song was yesterday. What can I say, I don't listen to much music, not from that era (yes, yes, I'll get off your damn lawn now, old man).
I have now listened to the Commander Hadfield version more times than the original. And, while Bowie is undoubtedly more musically talented, there's something about Hadfield's version that makes it seem more... emotional? Real? Something like that. Whatever the reason is, I prefer it over the original.
I do have to run UT2004 as admin in order for LAN play to work. I'm not sure why. There's probably another way, that doesn't involve blanket admin access, but "run as admin" is easier.
Runs perfectly fine singleplayer without admin rights, though. And it's hardly a "recent" game (and it's not even the Steam version - CD from the Unreal Anthology). I've never encountered a game that requires admin rights just to run.
Right now, Steam is using 5.5MB of RAM, sitting between "Bluetooth tray" and SSHFS. DWM is using 29MB, Explorer 38MB, and Firefox 335MB (five tabs). Opening a Steam window brings it up to 23MB, still an absolutely tiny amount. Even when doing multiple simultaneous downloads, I've never seen it go over 200MB of RAM.
As for disk space, my Steam folder is currently 346GB. However, 345GB of that is the steamapps folder, which contains all game data. Everything else - executable, graphics, crash dumps, resources, cache - is a mere 787MB. Considering how many game icons that has to include (I kind of have a lot of games), that's pretty impressive.
What spying?
Seriously, what do they spy on? There's the hardware survey, which is anonymous, and at least as I recall, opt-in. There's "recording amount of time in games", which a) isn't particularly useful information, b) isn't particularly accurate, and c) can be routed around via offline mode if it really bugs you.
Compared to even the spying Firefox does (if you opt in), that's really not much.
Oh, there can be charges. They can charge you with everything for nothing.
Just for this post, they could arrest me and charge me with conspiracy, homicide, patent infringement, tax evasion, horse theft, transmitting nuclear secrets to East Germany, violating the Volstead Act and, last but not least, attempted conspiracy.
Absolutely zero of those charges would stick. Some of them are no longer illegal, or possible. One of them never was. But they can charge me with it all the same, keep me in jail for at least a year before it goes to trial. They don't even have to charge me, if they decide I'm a terrorist and throw me in Gitmo instead of County.
When I want to see my reflection in the flying splatter of blood, with full bokeh depth-of-field, bloom, and ray-traced lighting, I have a PC. Two, actually.
But I'd have no problem buying one of these, if it had some good games I couldn't get elsewhere. If the Ouya can play regular Android games, that would be perfect - I don't have a phone able to play any game more advanced than Chess, so I've been missing out on some of the higher-quality Android games.
As it is, I don't think it's *quite* worth it, but only for lack of software, not hardware. And even then, if it fails and you can find them being sold for $50, I'd snap one up instantly for XMBC and emulator usage.
At least it only fluctuates. When a major currency *does* change value by that much, that fast, it's always been part of an inflationary spiral - the value goes down, and never comes back up.
And I think it's a bit unfair to judge Bitcoin against major currencies just yet. Even the most ardent supporters of Bitcoin don't claim it's on par with the Euro or Dollar. It's perhaps on par with certain small countries' currencies - and yes, those experience changes in value relative to other currencies as well, even when "pegged" to a larger currency. Not quite to the degree of the Bitcoin Bubble, but that was a pretty rare circumstance.
PS: How are you figuring that 1000% figure? It peaked almost exactly a month ago at 235$/BTC, crashed at its lowest to 25$/BTC, and currently seems fairly stable around 120$/BTC. I can't see a sane way to get 1000% out of those numbers.