I never said it was a good idea, just that it's what's happening. I also don't believe these people give a shit about the long term. They keep framing every "battle" like the nation will die tomorrow if we don't kick the Mexicans out, or allow abortions, or whatever. It's all about *now* for them.
Republicans don't actually need to win a presidential election. They just need to control enough of congress to block or hinder any kind of meaningful social progression. The Tea Party knows this, which is why they really don't care about fielding an "electable" candidate.
But not for any nefarious reasons. The depth of field effect, in particular, messes with the gameplay in unexpected ways. Stuff like not being able to find a camera easily because it's more than 20 feet away and blurred out. Or when you're in a gunfight and everyone not right next to you are blurred out. That kind of thing.
It's great for screenshots, and very tightly-controlled situations, but I wasn't impressed with how it felt in terms of gameplay.
It just seems like the options down the road for media that can store 4k are a bit limited. Streaming seems out of the question when we can't even get consistent 1080p streams out to people. Blu Ray would need some major overhauls unless people want to have 4k movies come on 10 to 20 disks, and something tells me people aren't going to rush out to embrace a new media format even if it did get that overhaul.
I just can't help but think 4k tech will have to be targeted at niche industries like photo editing and maybe CAD type stuff. I could also see a push towards the medical industry. But the average consumer? Not happening.
You missed his point entirely. The power is already in the hands of the state, and average citizens owning rifles and handguns won't change that in the slightest. Doesn't matter how much you dream about being part of a militia that stockpiles grenades and thousands of rounds of ammo per person. The balance he's talking about is the one between citizens.
The only reason I still rent movies is because broadband in my area comes with fairly low data caps. I'm stuck paying about $100 a month for 18Mbs, and 150 GB limit. Gotta love monopolies.
I don't think you quite understand what they are doing here. They are essentially getting rid of the "slow disk, fast memory" method of computing by combining storage and memory into a single unit. If they make it work, then it will be a game-changer for lots of industries.
What's the point of running *nix on it? If the architecture is so much different that they have to rewrite tons of OS code to support it, why not just build their own?
Even that isn't entirely remote, if he plays his cards right. We had something similar happen in Alaska back in 2010 when the incumbent Lisa Murkowski lost the primary to the Tea Party favorite Joe Miller. She went on to win as a write-in candidate with something like a 40% margin, because it didn't take long for the more crazy extreme side of Joe Miller to show up and public opinion of him quickly flipped.
And if a strong competitor were to show up and actually offer an alternative, I'm sure the programs would be ported. My point is that I find it amazing how Windows has been strongly criticized for a solid 10 years, and there has been zero competition or market influence to challenge Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said it was a good idea, just that it's what's happening. I also don't believe these people give a shit about the long term. They keep framing every "battle" like the nation will die tomorrow if we don't kick the Mexicans out, or allow abortions, or whatever. It's all about *now* for them.
Republicans don't actually need to win a presidential election. They just need to control enough of congress to block or hinder any kind of meaningful social progression. The Tea Party knows this, which is why they really don't care about fielding an "electable" candidate.
Student loans are typically 10 year repayments.
Virtual property.
You must not play many PC games outside of the niche indie market.
But not for any nefarious reasons. The depth of field effect, in particular, messes with the gameplay in unexpected ways. Stuff like not being able to find a camera easily because it's more than 20 feet away and blurred out. Or when you're in a gunfight and everyone not right next to you are blurred out. That kind of thing. It's great for screenshots, and very tightly-controlled situations, but I wasn't impressed with how it felt in terms of gameplay.
Except the term redskin isn't referencing their skin color.
It just seems like the options down the road for media that can store 4k are a bit limited. Streaming seems out of the question when we can't even get consistent 1080p streams out to people. Blu Ray would need some major overhauls unless people want to have 4k movies come on 10 to 20 disks, and something tells me people aren't going to rush out to embrace a new media format even if it did get that overhaul. I just can't help but think 4k tech will have to be targeted at niche industries like photo editing and maybe CAD type stuff. I could also see a push towards the medical industry. But the average consumer? Not happening.
I guess it's a good thing this guy wasn't set out to solve your problem then. He identified a market (not yours) and went for it.
1200 images per second at a resolution of 336x96... That was a low resolution even for 2002.
For what it's worth, Hitler very likely would have won had he not been bogged down with Russia for so long.
Figures that the first comment would be someone criticizing punctuation.
Because then they'd either have to track usb chargers, or customers would have to carry them around. Kind of removes the convenience for either party.
Nope.
You missed his point entirely. The power is already in the hands of the state, and average citizens owning rifles and handguns won't change that in the slightest. Doesn't matter how much you dream about being part of a militia that stockpiles grenades and thousands of rounds of ammo per person. The balance he's talking about is the one between citizens.
The only reason I still rent movies is because broadband in my area comes with fairly low data caps. I'm stuck paying about $100 a month for 18Mbs, and 150 GB limit. Gotta love monopolies.
A better analogy would be like building a new OS to run without any RAM present on the computer.
Read the article, and you'll get your answer.
I don't think you quite understand what they are doing here. They are essentially getting rid of the "slow disk, fast memory" method of computing by combining storage and memory into a single unit. If they make it work, then it will be a game-changer for lots of industries.
What's the point of running *nix on it? If the architecture is so much different that they have to rewrite tons of OS code to support it, why not just build their own?
The forced movement to the right is only going to mean less compromise and progress in congress. The tea party doesn't want a functioning government.
Even that isn't entirely remote, if he plays his cards right. We had something similar happen in Alaska back in 2010 when the incumbent Lisa Murkowski lost the primary to the Tea Party favorite Joe Miller. She went on to win as a write-in candidate with something like a 40% margin, because it didn't take long for the more crazy extreme side of Joe Miller to show up and public opinion of him quickly flipped.
I'm more curious about how they plan to separate the external IP addresses, considering how many lawsuits seem to hinge entirely on those.
Seems no worse than what politicians do with our money.
And if a strong competitor were to show up and actually offer an alternative, I'm sure the programs would be ported. My point is that I find it amazing how Windows has been strongly criticized for a solid 10 years, and there has been zero competition or market influence to challenge Microsoft.