The current high-end of GPUs gives you as much as you'd need for an enjoyable experience. Beyond that and it's not like you will get nothing, it's just that you will notice less benefit.
Pushing pixels is not the be-all and end-all of GPUs. A faster GPU can compute more shadows, more reflections, caustics, subsurface scattering and all those other beautiful things that are slowly pushing us out of the uncanny valley.
Or as Chris Angelini, editorial director for Tom's Hardware Guide, put it, 'The current high-end of GPUs gives you as much as you'd need for an enjoyable experience. Beyond that and it's not like you will get nothing, it's just that you will notice less benefit.'
Or as Bill Gates may or may not have said, "640k ought to be enough for everyone."
Timothy asked yesterday what/.'ers are doing for Halloween and said "Maybe one year Alek Komarnitsky will switch to Hallowe'en instead of Christmas, and offer a webcam-equipped remote-controllable haunt." Turns out he actually has been doing that since 2005
Well, shows what you know with all your fancy book-learnin'.
While you may be correct if you go by the dictionary definition of ultrasonics, the adult human ear - my adult human ear, certainly - is incapable of hearing anything over around 15kHz. Freakin' 8kHz in my case:(
I generated an 18kHz tone in Audacity, played it through my 10-year-old Dell desktop's built-in speaker, and my phone's mic picked up the spike clearly from a few feet away in a mildly noisy office. None of the younger humans around me heard it, but I started hearing some low-frequency grumbling from them around 12kHz so had to abandon the experiment.
The article also seems to suggest that infections can come in that way, which is complete nonsense.
The headline implies it, but the summary and article are less ambiguous on the matter. It's post-infection communication.
if you didn't understand what the GP meant by "Learning" and "Reading" then your English is just not up to the task.
Of course I understood it, but it still took me slightly longer to interpret it than some less ambiguous choice of words would have, just like the headline.
You seem to be treating English as a language free of ambiguity that only has one definition per word, this is horribly, horribly wrong.
I'm doing exactly the opposite of that!
you're taking words out of context to make a point
Yes, yes I am! My point is that the words don't have a context until you've successfully parsed them, which is made harder by the use of ambiguous words - especially multiple ambiguous words strung together like that.
Who said anything about banning? I'm just suggesting that people who write headlines for online news sites take a little more care and don't string potentially ambiguous words together.
No issues for me understanding what they meant with that headline. And I'm not even a native English speaker.
Well, good for you. Maybe it helps that you're not a native English speaker, and are less familiar with the alternate meanings of some words. I happen to have a very good handle on the written word, so maybe that's why I'm overly sensitive to these things.
My point is not that the headline is more likely to be misread than read correctly (although I suspect this particular one might be), but that ambiguity can and should be avoided regardless.
Slashdot Mirror
there is certainly not an opening for a virus to infect some other machine using just audio signals.
No-one's saying there is.
Assad does not need chemical weapons to kill the uprising.
Are you sure? He seems to be making a bit of a chore out of it so far.
You do realize that MOST headlines are written to be a play on words.
I'd dispute that. This one certainly wasn't.
You also seem to have forgotten that some words can also be adjectives.
No I didn't.
Top (adj.? v.?)
See? Admittedly I did forget it could be a noun.
The current high-end of GPUs gives you as much as you'd need for an enjoyable experience. Beyond that and it's not like you will get nothing, it's just that you will notice less benefit.
Pushing pixels is not the be-all and end-all of GPUs. A faster GPU can compute more shadows, more reflections, caustics, subsurface scattering and all those other beautiful things that are slowly pushing us out of the uncanny valley.
Or as Chris Angelini, editorial director for Tom's Hardware Guide, put it, 'The current high-end of GPUs gives you as much as you'd need for an enjoyable experience. Beyond that and it's not like you will get nothing, it's just that you will notice less benefit.'
Or as Bill Gates may or may not have said, "640k ought to be enough for everyone."
Timothy asked yesterday what /.'ers are doing for Halloween and said "Maybe one year Alek Komarnitsky will switch to Hallowe'en instead of Christmas, and offer a webcam-equipped remote-controllable haunt." Turns out he actually has been doing that since 2005
That's our Timothy - never knowingly up-to-date.
Well, shows what you know with all your fancy book-learnin'.
While you may be correct if you go by the dictionary definition of ultrasonics, the adult human ear - my adult human ear, certainly - is incapable of hearing anything over around 15kHz. Freakin' 8kHz in my case :(
I generated an 18kHz tone in Audacity, played it through my 10-year-old Dell desktop's built-in speaker, and my phone's mic picked up the spike clearly from a few feet away in a mildly noisy office. None of the younger humans around me heard it, but I started hearing some low-frequency grumbling from them around 12kHz so had to abandon the experiment.
The article also seems to suggest that infections can come in that way, which is complete nonsense.
The headline implies it, but the summary and article are less ambiguous on the matter. It's post-infection communication.
You made it very badly.
I doubt you'd even need a special mic - obviously (allegedly) the receiving computer can record the sound.
Like that'll ever happen. He's clearly an awesome driver and knows it.
if you didn't understand what the GP meant by "Learning" and "Reading" then your English is just not up to the task.
Of course I understood it, but it still took me slightly longer to interpret it than some less ambiguous choice of words would have, just like the headline.
You seem to be treating English as a language free of ambiguity that only has one definition per word, this is horribly, horribly wrong.
I'm doing exactly the opposite of that!
you're taking words out of context to make a point
Yes, yes I am! My point is that the words don't have a context until you've successfully parsed them, which is made harder by the use of ambiguous words - especially multiple ambiguous words strung together like that.
Wait til you hear how Avril Lavigne negotiated the 2010 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
Note to mods though: "Insightful" does not mean "told me something I didn't know."
Ambiguity fail.
Sentence fragment.
So much so, that it really is impossible to avoid.
Of course it isn't.
Ambiguous:
Prostitues appeal to Pope
Less ambiguous:
Prostitues make appeal to Pope
Who said anything about banning? I'm just suggesting that people who write headlines for online news sites take a little more care and don't string potentially ambiguous words together.
Learning (v.? n.?) reading (v.? n.?) comprehension helps too.
Gah!
No issues for me understanding what they meant with that headline. And I'm not even a native English speaker.
Well, good for you. Maybe it helps that you're not a native English speaker, and are less familiar with the alternate meanings of some words. I happen to have a very good handle on the written word, so maybe that's why I'm overly sensitive to these things.
My point is not that the headline is more likely to be misread than read correctly (although I suspect this particular one might be), but that ambiguity can and should be avoided regardless.
Hacker (n.) Spoofs (n.? v.?) Track (n.? v.?) Plays (n.? v.?) To (prep.) Top (adj.? v.?) Music (n.) Charts (n.? v.?)
He can always go back to preventing World War Three.
It's funny cos it's true.
French toast please.
But this onetime alternative is showing signs that it's past its prime, especially if you want to use the service with a third-party client.
However Gmail has been steadily moving towards a more traditional email experience.
Maybe this just means I'm old, but I thought using a third-party client was the traditional email experience.
I bet you're a real hit with the ladies.
There's no reason to put one in "that's" either.
Hur hur, yeah, stupid scientists with their "degrees" and their "experiments."
What a bunch of losers.
GimBall is a new flying robot that can collide with objects seamlessly.
I do not think that means what you think it means.
What makes you think I was trying to refute anything?
I refer you to the original question:
Should you get a ticket just for having your cellphone in the car because it has the capability to text and check the internet?
And the first word of my reply:
No
No, but you'll quite rightly get one over here (UK) if you're holding it in your hand while driving.