How to avoid getting robbed:
Be completely broke all the time.
How to avoid getting hit by a car:
Stay inside all the time (preferrably above the ground floor).
How to avoid getting shot at:
Live alone on a desert island.
Have I made my point? No? Then please allow me to restate it: Just because you can do something about it doesn't mean it's okay.
And in case you think I'm overreacting, just remember the position those mail server admins were in. Sure, I can just delete the spam, but think about the guy whose mail server just crashed, and whose boss wants to know what's going on and why it wasn't fixed a week ago...
Re:Who cares about performances with Winblows98 ?
on
Emergence of SMT
·
· Score: 1
Hmm.. Who Cares? Probably the 90% of computer users who use a Windows based-OS.
That's not what the original poster said. The original poster was talking about Windows 98/ME. 90% of Windows 98/ME users don't know how to benchmark their computers, and wouldn't want to either. I'm sure lots of NT/2000 users care, especially if they're using Windows as a server. But the average home user of Windows 98/ME doesn't care. Serious gamers and some kinds of professionals care, but that's a very small part of the Windows 98/ME market.
Sorry to reply to myself, but I did some looking around. There's a "suspend to disk" patch (which requires patching the kernel and sysvinit, but not shutdown). Look
here for more info on that. This is the same "swsusp" program mentioned previously.
There are many ways you can reach the goal you want to acheive.
More to the point, College isn't the only place you're allowed to learn:) It's four (or more) years of very structured and intensive learning, so it's good for learning a specialized area, but it's not the end-all, be-all of everything.
Remember, there are programmers out there right now who predate "Computer Science" as a major (and maybe as a field?)
Because the linux advocates constantly criticise microsofts service packs means of upgrading. Buy windows 2000 and you have to download 1 service pack and thats means its a terrible OS that needs constant patching. Download linux 2.4.0 then 2.4.1 and then 2.4.2 in less than half that timespan and rather than meaning that 2.4.0 was a terrible OS that needs constant patching it is an innovative OS with a rapid turnaround.
Am I the only one who spots the hipocracy here?
You're the only one who sees any hypocracy here, mainly because you're the only one who believes in that statement about Windows 2000 you made. The complaint I keep hearing about MS OSes is that they have bugs, and that you can't download patches for them until the next service pack arrives. Notice the difference between what I heard and what you've claimed. I don't think that anyone actually complains that MS OSes are buggy because you can only download patches as a big service pack. That complaint doesn't even make sense. But people do complain that 1) MS OSes are buggy and 2) They hate waiting for a service pack to get their patches for those bugs. The problem with Windows 2000 is that "it's a terrible OS which needs constant patching" but we can't constantly patch it, because there are no patches for many problems." Also, big service packs tend to create multiple new bugs, but that's another issue.
"Rapid turnaround" is the key here. We all want "rapid turnaround" for bug fixes. If a bug is out there, we want it fixed now! Which OS gives you this, Linux or Windows 2000 (gives you this more often, at least)?
For goodness sake, they're just replacing the SAT I and ACT with the SAT II. The latter is just more comprehensive (see here for an example of what I mean).
It's not that debates over admissions policies are meaningless. There is a real topic for debate there. But what is it about this particular article that got the debate going again (assuming that everyone read it, that is)?
A quote from the article:
Under his proposal, the university would drop the requirement that applicants submit scores from the SAT I, an aptitude test, but continue to require the so-called SAT II, which tests students in subject areas, including English, math, history, science and foreign languages.
How will they define merit? Will this "holistic" approach consider test scores and gpa's from highschool take differences between schools into account? By no account will that remove bias. Both the schools that grade students and the ways those grades would be weighted in university admissions processes will be biased. That could lead to the wholesale exclusion of students from certain regions from the best schools, due to a lack of any universal ranking factor that disregards the quality of their highschool educational systems.
They're just tweaking the present policy, not completely overhauling it! The SAT I (and ACT) will just be replaced with the SAT II, which is more comprehensive (covers History, various sciences, and other topics taught in high school). I read a similar article in San Diego's Union-Tribune which said the same thing. Thus, the answer to your question is: look at their present policy, just replacing the words "SAT I" with "SAT II". However this slightly revised policy defines merit is the answer you're looking for.
Actually, I think the moral of the story was supposed to be that people tend to go with whatever is in their best interest. First, the guy had a good deal. So he laughed at the idea of unions. Then he got screwed, so he went with something that might fix his problem: a union. Ironically, this article has very little to do with unions at all. It's more about the tradgedy of those people who believed the hype.
Re:Looking for a new DSL provider?
on
DSL Woes
·
· Score: 1
I suspect part of the trick is that they were a dial-up ISP before being a DSL provider. So they probably have both a loyal customer base (dial-up upgraders) and more customer service/technical experience than most others.
This is one thing that always irritates me on/. You have a bunch of people saying that you should just choose the product that works best, regardless of who makes it. Then you have a bunch of people saying that if you don't like the way a certain corporation does business, don't buy their products. These two views are mutually exclusive, yet I hear them both uttered by the same people fairly often.
I think this may be an oversimplification. For one thing, why are those two views mutually exclusive? Doesn't the way a corporation does business affect whether or not the product will work best for me? (i.e. in a year, I'll have to upgrade because everybody else did and they're all using a new file format which isn't supported by my "old" software.)
Also, you realize that people may believe both of those things but prioritize them differently depending on the situation. Are you sure people aren't saying something more like "Use what works best as long as it's not from a company which I don't like", or "You may not agree with me about not liking this or that company, so you might as well use whatever works best for you." Note that in some cases, part of the complexity of the situation may be implied rather than stated outright. When dealing with a computer newbie, for example, people might just say "Use what's best for you" while not worrying about the whole "Don't buy from this or that company" thing. This has nothing to do with people going back on their beliefs. They're just trying to help someone who has limited experience by giving simple advice, so as not to be too confusing. They don't actually bother to say "You're new, so I'll spare you my anti-whoever diatribe."
I used to live in california, and back when there were water shortages there, everyone was asked to put bricks and half milk cartons in their toiet tanks, water their lawns every other day, etc. Later, I learned that agriculture in CA uses 85% of the state's water. So, if every urban person in the whole state (about 30 million people) had cut their water usage in *half* (not bloody likely, or even possible), that would have only made a difference of about 7%.
I don't buy that. If you make $1 a day, and you spend $1.01 a day, you'll go deeply into debt eventually. If you spend $0.99 a day, you'll save quite a bit eventually. Sometimes it's not about the amount you save as a percentage of the whole, but about whether or not you save more than you spend, or rather, use more electricity than power companies can generate at their normal output levels.
Similarly, a quick look at the laws of thermodynamics tells us that, for example, it takes more energy to cool a room because of a computer than the computer itself gives off. Air conditioning, lighting, and utilities for new residents are some of the reasons behind the brownouts in the golden state. A few idling CPUs and spun-down hard drives, while a Good Thing, wouldn't make much difference.
You're forgetting that a "few idling CPUs and spun-down hard drives" will also reduce the amount of cooling which is needed as well. The energy expense of cooling isn't an argument against power management, it's an argument for power management!
Also, remember that it's Winter here in California. Ever heard of "passive cooling"?;) People are still cooling their server rooms, but not as much as before, and just opening the window a crack will cool down the office, unlike in the Summer. Of course, most people probably have the heat on to deal with the cold.:)
There are some problems with that idea. One is the need for redundancy. If your servers are at maximum load all the time, they're going to crash more, if just for hardware reasons. Therefore, there should be at least enough servers so that if one (or more?) go down, the farm is still serving.
The big problem, however, is this - every server farm has to be powerful enough to handle the maximum load it will ever have to handle. Seems obvious, right? The problem is, of course, that 99% of the time the load isn't that high.
I recently worked at a University which moved from pen-and-paper accounting to inputing accounting data into a massive online database. I suspect that between 9-5, the load on those servers was pretty high, but the rest of the day it was around 0%. That would be fine if they could turn those servers off. I have no idea if they did (or could), though. Has anyone ever worked on a job where "The financial database will be inaccessible from 5pm to 9am"?
You can imagine a similar setup serving a multinational corporation. There might be some load all day as branch offices in other countries submit financial data, but the peak would be 9-5 in whatever timezone HQ was in. For a farm like this, more boxes are needed, even though they're often just sitting around wasting power. Which is why some basic power-saving built in to the hardware (idling the CPUs when not in use at least!) is a good idea.
This is a poor explanation. If microwaves cause unusual growth rates among the melanocytes, then microwave radiation could act as a promoter, not an initiator, of cancer. Ultraviolet light is both a promoter and an initiator, because it is high-enough energy to ionize DNA molecules and cause mutations. Microwaves are non-ionizing, so there is no known mechanism by which they could act as an initiator.
I've seen quite a few posts mentioning this "ionizing radiation" thing. Shall I assume that it's only possible to cause uncontrolled cell division (e.g. Cancer) through damaging DNA directly, and not through indirect molecular mechanisms, such as causing RNA molecules to be built improperly? Is there a biologist out there who can confirm this, since it seems to be a common complaint about this article.
Even if microwave radiation didn't act as an initiator, just promoting the growth of any cancerous cells which develop is still a pretty bad thing. And cancerous cells don't really need an initiator. As long as cell division is an imperfect process, DNA will be damaged. Perhaps a pre-cancerous mass which would otherwise have died out (due to insufficient blood flow or something) could survive with regular exposure to growth-promoting radation? (Okay, that's a complete guess. Still, I probably know more biology than this guy. Not that I know very much either...)
Incidentally, the Stang article doesn't actually say anything about microwaves causing rapid cell division. There's just a mention in the article about "other research [which] shows..." that microwave exposure causes rapid cell growth. The abstract of his article does say that "visual display terminals" (e.g. computer monitors) and several other radiation sources were not correlated with the appearance of eye Cancer. So we can all relax now (ha!)
The main reason why people don't like spam (aside from the general annoyance factor) is that spam has a cost which is borne by the recipient. Spam costs the user both time (time spent downloading unsolicited messages and sending "remove" e-mails) and money (your computer has to be on that much longer, which increases your power bill).
These are some of the same reasons why people dislike banner ads, especially people who use analog modems! It's annoying enough to wait an extra 10-15 seconds for a page to load because of the banner ad. But what's really annoying is being unable to load a page because you get an error from the banner ad server. Compare this to an ad on a billboard near the highway. You're not going to fail to get where you're going because of a billboard, nor will it suck gas out of your car.
I certainly understand the necessity for websites to have a source of income. But banner ads have problems other than just being annoying. Like spam, they also shift costs to the recipient.
Other people have mentioned that they don't mind seeing banner ads on their favorite sites because they want to support those sites. I've also seen services (such as the "This is True" newsletter) which have two versions: a free version with ads, and a subscription version with no ads and more content. So here's one suggestion: some websites could have a public-access version, and a private paid subscription version with no ads and more content. Certainly this would work for the more commercial sites. Smaller "homegrown" sites are less likely to pull this off, but they're more likely to have visitors who tolerate banner ads too.
Okay, so this won't work for every site. But between the problems with banner ads and the numerous ad-blocker technologies out there, you'd think that someone would try to come up with a better way to advertise. As far too many people in this forum have already said, pissing off your customers doesn't help. You have to find ways to work with them.
Isn't that one of the great things about Linux? Many people are running firewalls from an old 486 with mimimal RAM. Sure is much cheaper and "enviromentally friendly" (*groan* hate that phrase) than buying a new NT machine that you can bring to it's knees with check point.
Why do you hate that phrase? The irony of running a second computer (or a computer at all!) for "environmentally friendly" reasons?
Don't laugh too much. One of ATI's big advantages is that they already have an "SLI"-type technology. Although the Radeon is a bit slower than the GeForce 2 (original, not ultra) it has some nice extra features, so they're roughly comparable. But with the ability to put two chips on one board, ATI should have been able to keep up easily, at least for a while.
Now, though, nVidia has access to 3dfx's SLI technology. Dual Geforce 2 Ultras aren't very likely, but how about 2 (or 4?) Geforce 2 MX's on a card? It'll take some time before they can integrate SLI into their present products, maybe it's not even possible, but maybe this buyout will take away one of ATI's big advantages.
No no, they need the oil to generate power to run the computer to find oil to generate power to run the computer to find oil to generate power to run the computer...
I've always argued this point, and I'm glad to see one more argument to back me up. Given time, the earth gradually heals itself, and even adjusts to human intervention and polution.
The article says:
Data unveiled at a conference in Argentina suggest that the global effort to reduce the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)- the main menace to the ozone layer - is succeeding...
The article also says:
The success could be attributed to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, in which most governments pledged to reduce their use of CFCs, he said.
My conclusion:
The funny thing is, this guy could be right, but he sure as hell didn't read the article! The article doesn't support him at all...
Bzzzzt! Thanks for playing. The P60/65 was an evolutionary cul-de-sac. Different socket than Socket 5/7, often with 486-grade parts, fdiv bug, in short, a total disaster.
I didn't say that early Pentiums were upgradeable, I said that was the argument given when they first came out. One of us remembers those old computer magazines:) (I think it was PC Week, specifically, where I remember reading this argument given).
Slashdot Mirror
How to avoid getting robbed:
Be completely broke all the time.
How to avoid getting hit by a car:
Stay inside all the time (preferrably above the ground floor).
How to avoid getting shot at:
Live alone on a desert island.
Have I made my point? No? Then please allow me to restate it: Just because you can do something about it doesn't mean it's okay.
And in case you think I'm overreacting, just remember the position those mail server admins were in. Sure, I can just delete the spam, but think about the guy whose mail server just crashed, and whose boss wants to know what's going on and why it wasn't fixed a week ago...
Hmm.. Who Cares? Probably the 90% of computer users who use a Windows based-OS.
That's not what the original poster said. The original poster was talking about Windows 98/ME. 90% of Windows 98/ME users don't know how to benchmark their computers, and wouldn't want to either. I'm sure lots of NT/2000 users care, especially if they're using Windows as a server. But the average home user of Windows 98/ME doesn't care. Serious gamers and some kinds of professionals care, but that's a very small part of the Windows 98/ME market.
Sorry to reply to myself, but I did some looking around. There's a "suspend to disk" patch (which requires patching the kernel and sysvinit, but not shutdown). Look here for more info on that. This is the same "swsusp" program mentioned previously.
I think this function also requires a patch to the "shutdown" utility. You set the system to hibernate by running shutdown with the "-z" flag.
There are many ways you can reach the goal you want to acheive.
:) It's four (or more) years of very structured and intensive learning, so it's good for learning a specialized area, but it's not the end-all, be-all of everything.
More to the point, College isn't the only place you're allowed to learn
Remember, there are programmers out there right now who predate "Computer Science" as a major (and maybe as a field?)
Because the linux advocates constantly criticise microsofts service packs means of upgrading. Buy windows 2000 and you have to download 1 service pack and thats means its a terrible OS that needs constant patching. Download linux 2.4.0 then 2.4.1 and then 2.4.2 in less than half that timespan and rather than meaning that 2.4.0 was a terrible OS that needs constant patching it is an innovative OS with a rapid turnaround.
Am I the only one who spots the hipocracy here?
You're the only one who sees any hypocracy here, mainly because you're the only one who believes in that statement about Windows 2000 you made. The complaint I keep hearing about MS OSes is that they have bugs, and that you can't download patches for them until the next service pack arrives. Notice the difference between what I heard and what you've claimed. I don't think that anyone actually complains that MS OSes are buggy because you can only download patches as a big service pack. That complaint doesn't even make sense. But people do complain that 1) MS OSes are buggy and 2) They hate waiting for a service pack to get their patches for those bugs. The problem with Windows 2000 is that "it's a terrible OS which needs constant patching" but we can't constantly patch it, because there are no patches for many problems." Also, big service packs tend to create multiple new bugs, but that's another issue.
"Rapid turnaround" is the key here. We all want "rapid turnaround" for bug fixes. If a bug is out there, we want it fixed now! Which OS gives you this, Linux or Windows 2000 (gives you this more often, at least)?
Here's an idea. Want to prove your overclocked system is stable? Set up that box as your primary webserver... and see how long it lasts :)
For goodness sake, they're just replacing the SAT I and ACT with the SAT II. The latter is just more comprehensive (see here for an example of what I mean).
It's not that debates over admissions policies are meaningless. There is a real topic for debate there. But what is it about this particular article that got the debate going again (assuming that everyone read it, that is)?
A quote from the article:
How will they define merit? Will this "holistic" approach consider test scores and gpa's from highschool take differences between schools into account? By no account will that remove bias. Both the schools that grade students and the ways those grades would be weighted in university admissions processes will be biased. That could lead to the wholesale exclusion of students from certain regions from the best schools, due to a lack of any universal ranking factor that disregards the quality of their highschool educational systems.
They're just tweaking the present policy, not completely overhauling it! The SAT I (and ACT) will just be replaced with the SAT II, which is more comprehensive (covers History, various sciences, and other topics taught in high school). I read a similar article in San Diego's Union-Tribune which said the same thing. Thus, the answer to your question is: look at their present policy, just replacing the words "SAT I" with "SAT II". However this slightly revised policy defines merit is the answer you're looking for.
Don't post on slashdot anymore pal. This site is for people with brains in their heads, not prejudism in their heart.
You must be new...
Yeah, but he's obviously learning quickly.
Prejudism?
Amazon is struggling to even stay in business. Do the unions care at all about that? No.
Here's the counterargument:
Alan Barclay want to keep his job so that he can, you know, eat and stuff. Does Amazon care about that? No. Does the union? Yes.
(Yes, I know he's probably highly employable and has another job by now. But the point still stands.)
Actually, I think the moral of the story was supposed to be that people tend to go with whatever is in their best interest. First, the guy had a good deal. So he laughed at the idea of unions. Then he got screwed, so he went with something that might fix his problem: a union. Ironically, this article has very little to do with unions at all. It's more about the tradgedy of those people who believed the hype.
I suspect part of the trick is that they were a dial-up ISP before being a DSL provider. So they probably have both a loyal customer base (dial-up upgraders) and more customer service/technical experience than most others.
This is one thing that always irritates me on /. You have a bunch of people saying that you should just choose the product that works best, regardless of who makes it. Then you have a bunch of people saying that if you don't like the way a certain corporation does business, don't buy their products. These two views are mutually exclusive, yet I hear them both uttered by the same people fairly often.
I think this may be an oversimplification. For one thing, why are those two views mutually exclusive? Doesn't the way a corporation does business affect whether or not the product will work best for me? (i.e. in a year, I'll have to upgrade because everybody else did and they're all using a new file format which isn't supported by my "old" software.)
Also, you realize that people may believe both of those things but prioritize them differently depending on the situation. Are you sure people aren't saying something more like "Use what works best as long as it's not from a company which I don't like", or "You may not agree with me about not liking this or that company, so you might as well use whatever works best for you." Note that in some cases, part of the complexity of the situation may be implied rather than stated outright. When dealing with a computer newbie, for example, people might just say "Use what's best for you" while not worrying about the whole "Don't buy from this or that company" thing. This has nothing to do with people going back on their beliefs. They're just trying to help someone who has limited experience by giving simple advice, so as not to be too confusing. They don't actually bother to say "You're new, so I'll spare you my anti-whoever diatribe."
I used to live in california, and back when there were water shortages there, everyone was asked to put bricks and half milk cartons in their toiet tanks, water their lawns every other day, etc. Later, I learned that agriculture in CA uses 85% of the state's water. So, if every urban person in the whole state (about 30 million people) had cut their water usage in *half* (not bloody likely, or even possible), that would have only made a difference of about 7%.
;) People are still cooling their server rooms, but not as much as before, and just opening the window a crack will cool down the office, unlike in the Summer. Of course, most people probably have the heat on to deal with the cold. :)
I don't buy that. If you make $1 a day, and you spend $1.01 a day, you'll go deeply into debt eventually. If you spend $0.99 a day, you'll save quite a bit eventually. Sometimes it's not about the amount you save as a percentage of the whole, but about whether or not you save more than you spend, or rather, use more electricity than power companies can generate at their normal output levels.
Similarly, a quick look at the laws of thermodynamics tells us that, for example, it takes more energy to cool a room because of a computer than the computer itself gives off. Air conditioning, lighting, and utilities for new residents are some of the reasons behind the brownouts in the golden state. A few idling CPUs and spun-down hard drives, while a Good Thing, wouldn't make much difference.
You're forgetting that a "few idling CPUs and spun-down hard drives" will also reduce the amount of cooling which is needed as well. The energy expense of cooling isn't an argument against power management, it's an argument for power management!
Also, remember that it's Winter here in California. Ever heard of "passive cooling"?
There are some problems with that idea. One is the need for redundancy. If your servers are at maximum load all the time, they're going to crash more, if just for hardware reasons. Therefore, there should be at least enough servers so that if one (or more?) go down, the farm is still serving.
The big problem, however, is this - every server farm has to be powerful enough to handle the maximum load it will ever have to handle. Seems obvious, right? The problem is, of course, that 99% of the time the load isn't that high.
I recently worked at a University which moved from pen-and-paper accounting to inputing accounting data into a massive online database. I suspect that between 9-5, the load on those servers was pretty high, but the rest of the day it was around 0%. That would be fine if they could turn those servers off. I have no idea if they did (or could), though. Has anyone ever worked on a job where "The financial database will be inaccessible from 5pm to 9am"?
You can imagine a similar setup serving a multinational corporation. There might be some load all day as branch offices in other countries submit financial data, but the peak would be 9-5 in whatever timezone HQ was in. For a farm like this, more boxes are needed, even though they're often just sitting around wasting power. Which is why some basic power-saving built in to the hardware (idling the CPUs when not in use at least!) is a good idea.
This is a poor explanation. If microwaves cause unusual growth rates among the melanocytes, then microwave radiation could act as a promoter, not an initiator, of cancer. Ultraviolet light is both a promoter and an initiator, because it is high-enough energy to ionize DNA molecules and cause mutations. Microwaves are non-ionizing, so there is no known mechanism by which they could act as an initiator.
I've seen quite a few posts mentioning this "ionizing radiation" thing. Shall I assume that it's only possible to cause uncontrolled cell division (e.g. Cancer) through damaging DNA directly, and not through indirect molecular mechanisms, such as causing RNA molecules to be built improperly? Is there a biologist out there who can confirm this, since it seems to be a common complaint about this article.
Even if microwave radiation didn't act as an initiator, just promoting the growth of any cancerous cells which develop is still a pretty bad thing. And cancerous cells don't really need an initiator. As long as cell division is an imperfect process, DNA will be damaged. Perhaps a pre-cancerous mass which would otherwise have died out (due to insufficient blood flow or something) could survive with regular exposure to growth-promoting radation? (Okay, that's a complete guess. Still, I probably know more biology than this guy. Not that I know very much either...)
Incidentally, the Stang article doesn't actually say anything about microwaves causing rapid cell division. There's just a mention in the article about "other research [which] shows..." that microwave exposure causes rapid cell growth. The abstract of his article does say that "visual display terminals" (e.g. computer monitors) and several other radiation sources were not correlated with the appearance of eye Cancer. So we can all relax now (ha!)
Would you like to volunteer for an empirical test? ;)
The main reason why people don't like spam (aside from the general annoyance factor) is that spam has a cost which is borne by the recipient. Spam costs the user both time (time spent downloading unsolicited messages and sending "remove" e-mails) and money (your computer has to be on that much longer, which increases your power bill).
These are some of the same reasons why people dislike banner ads, especially people who use analog modems! It's annoying enough to wait an extra 10-15 seconds for a page to load because of the banner ad. But what's really annoying is being unable to load a page because you get an error from the banner ad server. Compare this to an ad on a billboard near the highway. You're not going to fail to get where you're going because of a billboard, nor will it suck gas out of your car.
I certainly understand the necessity for websites to have a source of income. But banner ads have problems other than just being annoying. Like spam, they also shift costs to the recipient.
Other people have mentioned that they don't mind seeing banner ads on their favorite sites because they want to support those sites. I've also seen services (such as the "This is True" newsletter) which have two versions: a free version with ads, and a subscription version with no ads and more content. So here's one suggestion: some websites could have a public-access version, and a private paid subscription version with no ads and more content. Certainly this would work for the more commercial sites. Smaller "homegrown" sites are less likely to pull this off, but they're more likely to have visitors who tolerate banner ads too.
Okay, so this won't work for every site. But between the problems with banner ads and the numerous ad-blocker technologies out there, you'd think that someone would try to come up with a better way to advertise. As far too many people in this forum have already said, pissing off your customers doesn't help. You have to find ways to work with them.
Isn't that one of the great things about Linux? Many people are running firewalls from an old 486 with mimimal RAM. Sure is much cheaper and "enviromentally friendly" (*groan* hate that phrase) than buying a new NT machine that you can bring to it's knees with check point.
Why do you hate that phrase? The irony of running a second computer (or a computer at all!) for "environmentally friendly" reasons?
Don't laugh too much. One of ATI's big advantages is that they already have an "SLI"-type technology. Although the Radeon is a bit slower than the GeForce 2 (original, not ultra) it has some nice extra features, so they're roughly comparable. But with the ability to put two chips on one board, ATI should have been able to keep up easily, at least for a while.
Now, though, nVidia has access to 3dfx's SLI technology. Dual Geforce 2 Ultras aren't very likely, but how about 2 (or 4?) Geforce 2 MX's on a card? It'll take some time before they can integrate SLI into their present products, maybe it's not even possible, but maybe this buyout will take away one of ATI's big advantages.
No no, they need the oil to generate power to run the computer to find oil to generate power to run the computer to find oil to generate power to run the computer...
Oh, and don't forget www.rinkworks.com/stupid (the "Computer Stupidities" site). It's all good, and there are several tech support-related sections.
This guy says:
I've always argued this point, and I'm glad to see one more argument to back me up. Given time, the earth gradually heals itself, and even adjusts to human intervention and polution.
The article says:
Data unveiled at a conference in Argentina suggest that the global effort to reduce the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)- the main menace to the ozone layer - is succeeding...
The article also says:
The success could be attributed to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, in which most governments pledged to reduce their use of CFCs, he said.
My conclusion:
The funny thing is, this guy could be right, but he sure as hell didn't read the article! The article doesn't support him at all...
Bzzzzt! Thanks for playing. The P60/65 was an evolutionary cul-de-sac. Different socket than Socket 5/7, often with 486-grade parts, fdiv bug, in short, a total disaster.
:) (I think it was PC Week, specifically, where I remember reading this argument given).
I didn't say that early Pentiums were upgradeable, I said that was the argument given when they first came out. One of us remembers those old computer magazines