"The complexity of these systems are not to be underestimated, and reading this article as "Some more CO2 might be good for us!", or at least reading it as a excuse not to do anything (like all those SUV owner might), would be bad."
So if I understand your point, we're not to draw conclusions from this data because it's "too complicated", UNLESS of course it already confirms pseudo-religious convictions that the sky is falling? Is that about right?
You've neatly categorized why it's quite important to get there FIRST.
"There are a lot of uses for a low gravity, low temperature* (half the time, anyway), high sunlight satellite."
There are precisely two places on the moon where you can have all of those things, all of the time: - solar power AT ALL TIMES - low temp AT ALL TIMES (by digging a shallow hole, or finding a handy crater)...and that would be the poles.
First there gets his pick of 1 of 2 sites, or if he's resource and capability-rich, he could grab both. Second to arrive *might* get the leftovers, or nothing. Third+ gets nothing, save through departure of first or second, be it by bankruptcy or other (ahem) more direct actions.
"Certainly, if the numbers show that plant biomass is up, then biomass could very well be up, but is that a good thing?...This does not take in to account bioDIVERSITY."
You mean, of course, aside from the statement: "The extent AND DIVERSITY of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century." ?
Perhaps if you read more closely, the conclusions would make more sense?
That was my first question when I heard how tiny the 'ovens' are...to get the soil into an oven aperture of 2mm is a non-trivial task, and already makes significant assumptions about the viscosity and granularity of the soil. I don't get that. I am not a space scientist, but mentally grabbing a small shovelful of soil from a number of different soils here on earth (let's even limit ourselves to the most dessicated soils) and trying to dump them into a hole the size of a pen-ink tube and successfully GET something into it?
It amazes me how many people assert someone's innocence, based on their (real or imaginary) self-identification with the victim AND ALMOST NO OTHER FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE. "He's a linux guy, he can't have done this."
Why? Is it so impossible to conceive that someone who in generally similar to oneself in one or more categories, somehow has a wire crossed and goes nuts? Is it that self-reference? That we fear we could do such a thing, or deny it entirely?
We really are mostly cavemen with a teeny-tiny veneer of intellect and civilization over a superstitions, animalistic core.
I entirely agree with you, I was merely discussing the relatively anti-Occam interpretation of the data in the blurb. It seemed to strongly imply that 11% of people were changing their habits ONLY because of the surveillance, and NOT because they had something to hide.
"This is the perfect argument against the standard 'I have nothing to hide' argumentation. Surveillance is not only bad because someone might discover some embarrassment. It changes people. 11% at least."
What a silly interpretation of simple data.
Could it be that 11% have something to hide?
Taking a random review of the people I know well, I'd say this is understating it.
Interestingly, D&D4th edition is coming out in what, a week?
This is a radical departure from the previous iterations of the PnP game, making it much more CRPG-like. Not worse, just significantly different. So will the online game be running the PnP rules, while the PnP game is running MMO-style rules?
Naomi Klein is an idiot, and her editors at Rolling Stone are likewise idiots for printing this crap.
1) The subtitling: 'With the help of U.S. defense contractors, China is building the prototype for a high-tech police state. It is ready for export.'...well, yeah, but let's phrase it more accurately and a little less hysterically: China is building a high tech police state, US megacorps are helping. First, why would we call it the 'prototype' for a police state? China IS, WAS, & WILL BE a police state, not some tentative experiment into police statery. And all the players in this article are giant international megacorps - I'm guessing that there are probably other megacorps from other countries that are also involved wherever they can be. It's a BILLION-consumer market...any publicly held company would be ROASTED by its shareholders for not jumping in where they can. I'm not making a judgment on the morality of the companies involved, but Ms. Klein's phrasing and approach is so (anti)US-centric, it borders on mendacity. Ironically, Klein herself has railed against the US embargo against Cuba. So which is it, Ms Klein? I don't want to make you sound like simply an anti-American hypocrite, but when we are confronted with a socialist, anti-democratic state, are we supposed to deal with them or not?
2) "Remember how we've always been told that free markets and free people go hand in hand? That was a lie. It turns out that the most efficient delivery system for capitalism is actually a communist-style police state, fortressed with American "homeland security" technologies, pumped up with "war on terror" rhetoric." What? How in the hell does one connect Adam Smith's capitalism - which requires free information to consumers, and consumers that are able to choose freely - with a communist-style police state?
Naomi Klein may be staggeringly well-connected, and seems to have come from one of those 'classic' affluent Socialist families (ironic?) in which she would have been fed the creed that capitalism=oppression to the point where it's simply a bedrock assertion, I guess. Wealth, privilege, education, and access to the corridors of a media that likes your message doesn't intrinsically increase the wattage of a low-candlepower bulb, apparently.
"country" - perhaps they mean the OTHER meaning of country, ala 'area'? Maybe they don't mean the precise "nation/state" that you're debating.
And instead of "first royal dynasty" I'm sure it would have been so much more accurate for them to say "...the region's furthest-back prehistorical group that we've found to date who were probably related, probably over a series of generations, and clearly either had the power to command significant time and effort from others or were so well-liked that this was done spontaneously on their behalf - comparable to saying that they are the oldest extant analogue to a royal dynasty that we've found in this region, except we can't say that because some internet wanker would call us to task for using shorthand language, entirely missing the significance of what we found."
So your point, to summarize, is: "it's ok for the Democrats, because I agree with them."
That's supposed to be persuasive?
Please note a couple of additional points: - there is a significant number of people who, while recognizing that the climate is changing, don't accept that this logically proves this change is anthropogenic, alterable on a human scale, nor even necessarily bad in the largest view. It's warming? I can throw chart after chart of paleoclimatological data at you that shows that the BULK of earth's history has been significantly warmer and that we're in a cool period. To assume that this anthropophilic climate would remain so forever (when has the climate ever NOT changed, by the way?) is like predicting the day's temperature based on the fact it just got cooler when the sun went behind a cloud. Sea levels are going to rise and flood [insert endangered city/country here]? Aside from the very basic point that over time, the likelihood pretty much any city being wiped out is eventually 100% precisely because NO city was founded with its location planned based on epochal condition changes - they are where they are because of needs of human CONVENIENCE. If that means they eventually will flood, that shouldn't surprise anyone. Finally, I'd contend particularly that many of these endangered places DIDN'T EVEN EXIST AS HUMAN-HABITABLE 1000 or 2000 years ago. Look at historical sea-level data....http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Sea_level_temp_140ky.gif - frankly, I don't see ANY reason to blame that on humans. Why don't we ask the inhabitants of Acre, which used to be the major port for the Eastern Med (in medieval times) which is now what, 5 miles inland?
- to instantly swallow all claims of anthropogenic climate change but then somehow neglect realities of geopolitics is simply mendacious. No WMDs, no immediate threat to the US, I still believe that destroying the Hussein regime was a legitimate geopolitical move, although the follow-through was indeed completely botched. No argument there. And as far as what threats 'neo-cons' or conservatives in general have preferred to focus on, why don't we just meet and discuss it on the observation deck of the World Trade Center in NY? Personally, yes, I'd rather deal with the real and imminent threat of people who have stated that they would like to murder me, than the vague and unproved assertions of a bunch of long-haired hippies who've been insisting since the 70's that "if we don't do something now!!!" we're all going to die from overpopulation, lack of clean water, too many landfills, guns, lack of food, and happened now to land on a new issue with slightly more traction because of a much-hated, incompetent Republican administration: global ice ages, er, warming, er climate change.
"I don't think Republicans are entirely to blame, they've just corned the market on fear and have become great at selling it"
Wow, your charity at not ENTIRELY blaming Republicans is admirable.
Perhaps the idea that Dems are just as adept at selling different 'scare stories' is "An Inconvenient Truth"?
Republicans have sold security fears for decades. Dems have tended to prefer to sell class envy, but they haven't shied away from scare stories - for the last 30 years, focussed on environmental chicken littling.
"...And isn't that called "theft?" Or, at least violation of personal property under UK law?..."
Not if you're self-selecting.
Look, many of the comments above talk about how unreasonable this is, forgetting apparently that this is not the street, this is not a grocery store, this is not a school - this is a place that you PAY to ENTER, cognizant of all the rules and restrictions for being there. If you don't like the policy, DON'T GO. For that sense, if I were them, I'd just install frequency-specific jammers and drop the stupid check-in policy and wardens.
Personally, I think the policy is faintly stupid. Well-meaning, sure, but I guess it would be nice if people could just exercise a little self-control instead.
You get 1000 sqm, as does everyone else in the region.
You each have a child...whups - now your plots are each 500 sqm, as each child is now 'entitled' to their 'fair share', right? Oh, and the people on either side of you decided that they are going to each have 9 kids. Since your utopian idea requires that it be reasonably close to where you were born, suddenly your plot of land is now 150 sqm. Gee, too bad if you built a house on one of those portions that isn't yours anymore. Your child decides to a have some kids, so he or she is faced with everyone's share dropping to 140 sqm, or killing you so it all stays even.
So your utopian fantasy requires state control over who can reproduce and how many children they can have? Sounds a lot like a police state to me.
Interestingly, I was 10 when the 1st Star Wars (later called #4) came out. Having easy access to a friend's family's theater, I saw it 80-something times, bought the album, books, and got anything 'Star Wars' for probably 2 Christmases and birthdays following.
Empire Strikes Back I liked a great deal, saw it maybe 30 times.
Return of the Jedi I thought was fairly weak, saw it perhaps a handful of times.
Phantom Menace was a return after a long dry spell, but nevertheless disappointing...again, saw it a handful of times.
Attack of the Clones, horrid, I saw it once. Remember almost nothing from the film.
Revenge of the Sith, saw it once out of compulsion, I just remember finding it ridiculous and I don't remember anything from it.
Information brokers - what Google is, essentially - are going to need to figure out what they're trying to do.
If they continually ACT as if they are responsible for the content that's connected by them, then they are going to be continually TREATED that way.
Nobody would even consider suing a phone book for the number they listed for a mass murderer.
Politicians (apparently across the world) don't understand that Google is little more than a well-linked phone book, and that despite all the cool stuff you can get, ISP's are not much more than a phone company.
This will continue to bite them in the ass until they say "Look, we're data-neutral. We don't give a crap what we index, if it's out there, we index it. You don't like it? You're going to punish us for what we link to? Fine, we'll just stop serving IP's from your country."
Summary for those not reading the article: "We blame the Americans, again."
Note: and for the many, many comments talking about how everyone in America is fat and people in the rest of the world aren't - that would be because in just about every category, Americans live in better circumstances and more ease than anyone else on the planet. Of course, now that your standards of living are (finally) reaching that of the US, you're all starting to have problems with obesity too.
By the way, obese people burn more energy, sure, but they also pay more for food, clothing, and increased wear-and-tear on everything they own. So they pay for it. The minute resources become so rare that the cost to being obese will be prohibitive, obesity will go away...Adam Smith wins again.
The summary, even leaving aside its tone, is flawed in that it seems to presuppose this is by choice.
I think people underestimate the amount of poverty - even in the US, where the official definition of poor still most often includes obesity, a car, 2 televisions, airconditioning, and other things seen as luxuries across most of the world.
If you have a family of 4, and are making a combined income of ~$30k/year, and have payments to make for housing/car/food/medical, you might be stretching to pay the PHONE bill much less have luxury money to spend on frivolities like a web connection. And yes, they are frivolities: if all of your friends are in similar financial circumstances, you have even less incentive because they aren't going to be online EITHER. Finally, even the web is squeezing these folks out - browsing by modem SUCKS, and it seems that more and more sites are building fancy flash front-ends that take minutes to d/l at modem speeds.
While I understand it might be your particular hobby, it's not the case for most others.
I used to upgrade my computers every 3 years, which would roughly give me a 3x improvement in raw processing power (not to mention video, etc.).
IBM AT, 486-33DX, P-90, (AMD)P300, (AMD)P1.2GHz, P4 2.7 GHz.
That last one is something like 4-5 years old now (I forget) and it's only reaching the end of it's value as a cutting-edge game machine. I haven't found a lot of persuasive evidence that I need to upgrade, except now that Age of Conan is coming out, as well as some shooters I'm looking forward to.
So no, I don't see much of a compelling argument to upgrade hardware recently at all, much less push the envelope trying to overclock for that 4% performance gain.
So the point is, make sure you have your linux bootable cd available when you install the XP3 patch, so that if this is the issue you can successfully boot up, go in, delete that offending file, and you'll be good to go!
Slashdot Mirror
Damn you Americans and your crappy Imperial System.
Sensible people the world over have switched to The metric system, which is based on powers of 10:
Metric truckloads, which is (for example) 1000x a metric buttload.
Phht. I saw something on a forum yesterday that refuted just that fact.
"The complexity of these systems are not to be underestimated, and reading this article as "Some more CO2 might be good for us!", or at least reading it as a excuse not to do anything (like all those SUV owner might), would be bad."
So if I understand your point, we're not to draw conclusions from this data because it's "too complicated", UNLESS of course it already confirms pseudo-religious convictions that the sky is falling? Is that about right?
You've neatly categorized why it's quite important to get there FIRST.
...and that would be the poles.
"There are a lot of uses for a low gravity, low temperature* (half the time, anyway), high sunlight satellite."
There are precisely two places on the moon where you can have all of those things, all of the time:
- solar power AT ALL TIMES
- low temp AT ALL TIMES (by digging a shallow hole, or finding a handy crater)
First there gets his pick of 1 of 2 sites, or if he's resource and capability-rich, he could grab both.
Second to arrive *might* get the leftovers, or nothing.
Third+ gets nothing, save through departure of first or second, be it by bankruptcy or other (ahem) more direct actions.
"Certainly, if the numbers show that plant biomass is up, then biomass could very well be up, but is that a good thing?...This does not take in to account bioDIVERSITY."
You mean, of course, aside from the statement: "The extent AND DIVERSITY of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century." ?
Perhaps if you read more closely, the conclusions would make more sense?
That was my first question when I heard how tiny the 'ovens' are...to get the soil into an oven aperture of 2mm is a non-trivial task, and already makes significant assumptions about the viscosity and granularity of the soil. I don't get that. I am not a space scientist, but mentally grabbing a small shovelful of soil from a number of different soils here on earth (let's even limit ourselves to the most dessicated soils) and trying to dump them into a hole the size of a pen-ink tube and successfully GET something into it?
Well, that seems pretty darn unlikely.
It amazes me how many people assert someone's innocence, based on their (real or imaginary) self-identification with the victim AND ALMOST NO OTHER FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE. "He's a linux guy, he can't have done this."
Why? Is it so impossible to conceive that someone who in generally similar to oneself in one or more categories, somehow has a wire crossed and goes nuts? Is it that self-reference? That we fear we could do such a thing, or deny it entirely?
We really are mostly cavemen with a teeny-tiny veneer of intellect and civilization over a superstitions, animalistic core.
I entirely agree with you, I was merely discussing the relatively anti-Occam interpretation of the data in the blurb. It seemed to strongly imply that 11% of people were changing their habits ONLY because of the surveillance, and NOT because they had something to hide.
...to teach it to eat, and to incorporate the new DARPA tech for UAVs, where they can seek out and hang on power lines to recharge their batteries.
Then humans are entirely superfluous and can be gotten rid of. Accountants will rejoice.
"This is the perfect argument against the standard 'I have nothing to hide' argumentation. Surveillance is not only bad because someone might discover some embarrassment. It changes people. 11% at least."
What a silly interpretation of simple data.
Could it be that 11% have something to hide?
Taking a random review of the people I know well, I'd say this is understating it.
Interestingly, D&D4th edition is coming out in what, a week?
This is a radical departure from the previous iterations of the PnP game, making it much more CRPG-like. Not worse, just significantly different. So will the online game be running the PnP rules, while the PnP game is running MMO-style rules?
Naomi Klein is an idiot, and her editors at Rolling Stone are likewise idiots for printing this crap.
1) The subtitling: 'With the help of U.S. defense contractors, China is building the prototype for a high-tech police state. It is ready for export.'...well, yeah, but let's phrase it more accurately and a little less hysterically: China is building a high tech police state, US megacorps are helping. First, why would we call it the 'prototype' for a police state? China IS, WAS, & WILL BE a police state, not some tentative experiment into police statery. And all the players in this article are giant international megacorps - I'm guessing that there are probably other megacorps from other countries that are also involved wherever they can be. It's a BILLION-consumer market...any publicly held company would be ROASTED by its shareholders for not jumping in where they can. I'm not making a judgment on the morality of the companies involved, but Ms. Klein's phrasing and approach is so (anti)US-centric, it borders on mendacity. Ironically, Klein herself has railed against the US embargo against Cuba. So which is it, Ms Klein? I don't want to make you sound like simply an anti-American hypocrite, but when we are confronted with a socialist, anti-democratic state, are we supposed to deal with them or not?
2) "Remember how we've always been told that free markets and free people go hand in hand? That was a lie. It turns out that the most efficient delivery system for capitalism is actually a communist-style police state, fortressed with American "homeland security" technologies, pumped up with "war on terror" rhetoric." What? How in the hell does one connect Adam Smith's capitalism - which requires free information to consumers, and consumers that are able to choose freely - with a communist-style police state?
Naomi Klein may be staggeringly well-connected, and seems to have come from one of those 'classic' affluent Socialist families (ironic?) in which she would have been fed the creed that capitalism=oppression to the point where it's simply a bedrock assertion, I guess. Wealth, privilege, education, and access to the corridors of a media that likes your message doesn't intrinsically increase the wattage of a low-candlepower bulb, apparently.
I'm pretty sure you're just being a pedant.
"country" - perhaps they mean the OTHER meaning of country, ala 'area'? Maybe they don't mean the precise "nation/state" that you're debating.
And instead of "first royal dynasty" I'm sure it would have been so much more accurate for them to say "...the region's furthest-back prehistorical group that we've found to date who were probably related, probably over a series of generations, and clearly either had the power to command significant time and effort from others or were so well-liked that this was done spontaneously on their behalf - comparable to saying that they are the oldest extant analogue to a royal dynasty that we've found in this region, except we can't say that because some internet wanker would call us to task for using shorthand language, entirely missing the significance of what we found."
So your point, to summarize, is: "it's ok for the Democrats, because I agree with them."
That's supposed to be persuasive?
Please note a couple of additional points:
- there is a significant number of people who, while recognizing that the climate is changing, don't accept that this logically proves this change is anthropogenic, alterable on a human scale, nor even necessarily bad in the largest view. It's warming? I can throw chart after chart of paleoclimatological data at you that shows that the BULK of earth's history has been significantly warmer and that we're in a cool period. To assume that this anthropophilic climate would remain so forever (when has the climate ever NOT changed, by the way?) is like predicting the day's temperature based on the fact it just got cooler when the sun went behind a cloud. Sea levels are going to rise and flood [insert endangered city/country here]? Aside from the very basic point that over time, the likelihood pretty much any city being wiped out is eventually 100% precisely because NO city was founded with its location planned based on epochal condition changes - they are where they are because of needs of human CONVENIENCE. If that means they eventually will flood, that shouldn't surprise anyone. Finally, I'd contend particularly that many of these endangered places DIDN'T EVEN EXIST AS HUMAN-HABITABLE 1000 or 2000 years ago. Look at historical sea-level data....http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Sea_level_temp_140ky.gif - frankly, I don't see ANY reason to blame that on humans. Why don't we ask the inhabitants of Acre, which used to be the major port for the Eastern Med (in medieval times) which is now what, 5 miles inland?
- to instantly swallow all claims of anthropogenic climate change but then somehow neglect realities of geopolitics is simply mendacious. No WMDs, no immediate threat to the US, I still believe that destroying the Hussein regime was a legitimate geopolitical move, although the follow-through was indeed completely botched. No argument there. And as far as what threats 'neo-cons' or conservatives in general have preferred to focus on, why don't we just meet and discuss it on the observation deck of the World Trade Center in NY? Personally, yes, I'd rather deal with the real and imminent threat of people who have stated that they would like to murder me, than the vague and unproved assertions of a bunch of long-haired hippies who've been insisting since the 70's that "if we don't do something now!!!" we're all going to die from overpopulation, lack of clean water, too many landfills, guns, lack of food, and happened now to land on a new issue with slightly more traction because of a much-hated, incompetent Republican administration: global ice ages, er, warming, er climate change.
"I don't think Republicans are entirely to blame, they've just corned the market on fear and have become great at selling it"
Wow, your charity at not ENTIRELY blaming Republicans is admirable.
Perhaps the idea that Dems are just as adept at selling different 'scare stories' is "An Inconvenient Truth"?
Republicans have sold security fears for decades.
Dems have tended to prefer to sell class envy, but they haven't shied away from scare stories - for the last 30 years, focussed on environmental chicken littling.
"...And isn't that called "theft?" Or, at least violation of personal property under UK law?..."
Not if you're self-selecting.
Look, many of the comments above talk about how unreasonable this is, forgetting apparently that this is not the street, this is not a grocery store, this is not a school - this is a place that you PAY to ENTER, cognizant of all the rules and restrictions for being there. If you don't like the policy, DON'T GO. For that sense, if I were them, I'd just install frequency-specific jammers and drop the stupid check-in policy and wardens.
Personally, I think the policy is faintly stupid. Well-meaning, sure, but I guess it would be nice if people could just exercise a little self-control instead.
What a naive idea.
OK, let's imagine the locale where you were born.
You get 1000 sqm, as does everyone else in the region.
You each have a child...whups - now your plots are each 500 sqm, as each child is now 'entitled' to their 'fair share', right?
Oh, and the people on either side of you decided that they are going to each have 9 kids.
Since your utopian idea requires that it be reasonably close to where you were born, suddenly your plot of land is now 150 sqm. Gee, too bad if you built a house on one of those portions that isn't yours anymore. Your child decides to a have some kids, so he or she is faced with everyone's share dropping to 140 sqm, or killing you so it all stays even.
So your utopian fantasy requires state control over who can reproduce and how many children they can have? Sounds a lot like a police state to me.
Interestingly, I was 10 when the 1st Star Wars (later called #4) came out. Having easy access to a friend's family's theater, I saw it 80-something times, bought the album, books, and got anything 'Star Wars' for probably 2 Christmases and birthdays following.
Empire Strikes Back I liked a great deal, saw it maybe 30 times.
Return of the Jedi I thought was fairly weak, saw it perhaps a handful of times.
Phantom Menace was a return after a long dry spell, but nevertheless disappointing...again, saw it a handful of times.
Attack of the Clones, horrid, I saw it once. Remember almost nothing from the film.
Revenge of the Sith, saw it once out of compulsion, I just remember finding it ridiculous and I don't remember anything from it.
Nice job George.
Information brokers - what Google is, essentially - are going to need to figure out what they're trying to do.
If they continually ACT as if they are responsible for the content that's connected by them, then they are going to be continually TREATED that way.
Nobody would even consider suing a phone book for the number they listed for a mass murderer.
Politicians (apparently across the world) don't understand that Google is little more than a well-linked phone book, and that despite all the cool stuff you can get, ISP's are not much more than a phone company.
This will continue to bite them in the ass until they say "Look, we're data-neutral. We don't give a crap what we index, if it's out there, we index it. You don't like it? You're going to punish us for what we link to? Fine, we'll just stop serving IP's from your country."
Summary for those not reading the article: "We blame the Americans, again."
Note: and for the many, many comments talking about how everyone in America is fat and people in the rest of the world aren't - that would be because in just about every category, Americans live in better circumstances and more ease than anyone else on the planet. Of course, now that your standards of living are (finally) reaching that of the US, you're all starting to have problems with obesity too.
By the way, obese people burn more energy, sure, but they also pay more for food, clothing, and increased wear-and-tear on everything they own. So they pay for it. The minute resources become so rare that the cost to being obese will be prohibitive, obesity will go away...Adam Smith wins again.
The summary, even leaving aside its tone, is flawed in that it seems to presuppose this is by choice.
I think people underestimate the amount of poverty - even in the US, where the official definition of poor still most often includes obesity, a car, 2 televisions, airconditioning, and other things seen as luxuries across most of the world.
If you have a family of 4, and are making a combined income of ~$30k/year, and have payments to make for housing/car/food/medical, you might be stretching to pay the PHONE bill much less have luxury money to spend on frivolities like a web connection. And yes, they are frivolities: if all of your friends are in similar financial circumstances, you have even less incentive because they aren't going to be online EITHER. Finally, even the web is squeezing these folks out - browsing by modem SUCKS, and it seems that more and more sites are building fancy flash front-ends that take minutes to d/l at modem speeds.
"...overclocking is what it's all about..."
While I understand it might be your particular hobby, it's not the case for most others.
I used to upgrade my computers every 3 years, which would roughly give me a 3x improvement in raw processing power (not to mention video, etc.).
IBM AT, 486-33DX, P-90, (AMD)P300, (AMD)P1.2GHz, P4 2.7 GHz.
That last one is something like 4-5 years old now (I forget) and it's only reaching the end of it's value as a cutting-edge game machine. I haven't found a lot of persuasive evidence that I need to upgrade, except now that Age of Conan is coming out, as well as some shooters I'm looking forward to.
So no, I don't see much of a compelling argument to upgrade hardware recently at all, much less push the envelope trying to overclock for that 4% performance gain.
And what street corner would this be, and any idea when?
So the point is, make sure you have your linux bootable cd available when you install the XP3 patch, so that if this is the issue you can successfully boot up, go in, delete that offending file, and you'll be good to go!
Yeah, I "seek" a couple of hours with a compliant Eva Mendez, I've probably got better odds than them.