Seriously, you say Crysis in benchmarks averages about 35 on the same hardware but I guarantee you, owning the same CPU and gfx card (actually a 9800 but it's exactly the same, Nvidia just changed the number!) that you can't run Crysis at High/1680x1050 and get 35fps.
Crysis benchmarks are all flawed. It's incredible the number of sites that just use the included benchmark runs even though Crytek go to pains to point out that their benchmarks don't indicate actual game performance, they should only be used to judge relative GPU performance.
For the record, you can get 35fps avg / 30fps min at 1366x768, all high settings w/2x AA (AA is almost free so may as well use it) on your hardware. I can't remember what the 1680x1050 average is but the min can go as low as 15.
DLC isn't the main thing for FO3, user mods are. The reason I bought it on PC, in fact the reason I upgraded my graphics card is just so that I can spend the next three years or so playing user-made FO3 mods.
The mods are what made Oblivion and Morrowind into timeless classics.
Just because your phone runs at a higher clock speed doesn't mean it's more powerful than a PS2. No phone, not even an N96 or an iPhone, is currently more powerful than a PS2, though no doubt they'll get there within a couple of years.
The PS2 is a weird system, I'd recommend reading this technical overview of the Emotion Engine. There's also a link in there to another Ars article comparing the PS2 to PC style platforms.
I think that article shows why Sony thought the Cell was a good idea for the PS3. The PS2 gets most of its power from two vector units so having a PPC core linked with seven directly programmable vector units (one of the two VUs in the EE was linked into the geometry unit) probably seemed like a natural progression.
None of what you said justified killing a person in the same way you would kill an animal. Sure, if you're being attacked and you have a gun then you have a right to shoot. It's not OK to shoot an unarmed robber in the back as they are trying to escape - not that you directly said that, but it did seem implied what with the animal comparison.
A guy in the UK called Tony Martin turned into a tabloid hero for doing that, the press went mental when he got sent down for murder. But still, a jury of twelve peers decided that it was murder.
So yea, if shoot em if you got em, but only for defense.
Um, you support communism and at the same time support the supremacy of personal property rights? That's a giant logic fail, and I say that as a lapsed Marxist Trot. I'm not convinced that a socialist gun policy can support widespread ownership of firearms. Organised workers militias I support but widespread handgun ownership just makes it too easy for people to kill each other.
In fact classical liberalism is incompatible with socialism. Perhaps you should pay more attention to the magazine you work for, or are they as politically incoherent as you?
Because criminals aren't animals. You're making the PETA mistake of equating human and animal rights.
Farmers here in the UK have guns, a lot of people in the UK countryside will have either had experience shooting things like rabbits or at least know people who do it. Guns in the city, however, are verboten.
I found this comment to be amusing. I recalled reading their 4870 X2 review not too long ago. You'll notice cards of vastly different performance levels showing similar speeds until AA & AF get cranked up, a clear indication of the benchmarks being CPU bound. This isn't commented on at all in their summary!
Admittedly there aren't any games in Linux that could stress a card like that but things like that should at least be acknowledged. Whilst it's great that they're testing these cards in Linux they really do need to improve their methodology.
For the record, I really did sign up as soon as user accounts were created - can you believe this site used to run on the honour system? You just put your name in and that's what appeared. It was only when trolls started posting as other users that user accounts were introduced.
I dropped offline for a few years (I think I may have spent a whole year continuously offline!) and had a taste of real life (it's grim and amazing, I recommend it to anyone who feels they've grown up in front of a screen) but eventually ended up back here. I comment far more these days than I ever did when/. was first about, I think it's because the quality of the users has fallen so much (that's the real decline of/. btw, the stories have always been old or dupes or silly) that even a dumbass like me can seem insightful.
And yes, I did read your sig. Your comment didn't seem particularly witty though, so I took it seriously.
I see no analysis as to why the filesystems perform the way they do. Why does XFS perform so well on a 4GB sequential read and so badly on an 8GB read? Why did they include cpu / gfx bound frame/sec benchmarks? In the few application benchmarks where there was more than a tiny fraction of percent difference there's no discussion as to whether that difference is actually significant.
Cogent argue that under the terms of the contract they passed. They kept the link open at their end because as far as they were concerned they had passed and Sprint was simply following its end of the bargain. They're arguing that they don't have to pay because if Sprint really didn't think they had passed, they could have severed the link at their end.
The confusion is because both sides measured the performance in different ways. From Sprints' complaint:
Cogent unreasonably claimed that the amount of interconnection traffic satisfied the utilization threshold requirement in the Trial Agreement because the port utilization peak figures for each of the ten ports (used to calculate billing) exceeded the average utilization criteria across all ports. Cogent ignored that Paragraph 5.E. required a sustained threshold average utilization across all ports for the entire period, and instead focused on snapshot figures based on the commercial pricing model of peak usage. As a result, Cogent argued that it was entitled to settlement-free peering with Sprint.
I find it hard to believe that Cogent walked away from negotiations with the wrong idea about how the test was going to be measured. In any business negotiations both sides go to great pains to make sure everyone understands what's being agreed because otherwise it winds up in court like this. If the judge takes the view that Cogent was mislead (deliberate or not) then this becomes a big PITA for Sprint.
Ono uses statistical data from CDNs to be a little bit smarter about picking peers in certain cases. In most cases the random solution is fine; your client can just randomly pick peers then stick with fast ones and drop slow ones. Ono aims to improve performance in certain cases where that strategy isn't very good.
Just in case anyone reading doesn't notice, Ono aims to find peers that are close to you on the network. That doesn't necessarily mean close to you geographically and so doesn't answer this ask/..
If your ISPs international pipe is flooded then bittorrent will automatically prefer local peers as they'll be the only people who can send you data at a fast enough rate. If you notice local peers who you're not connected to then it's most likely just because they've already reached their connection limit.
Most bittorent clients will connect to many peers and try to saturate your downstream bandwidth. They don't care where in the world those peers are as long as they're fast. If, in your part of the world, local peers are faster then that means you should just automatically connect to more local peers.
Disclaimer: I did not RTFA and now practically nothing about TCP/IP:-)
And yet you still got modded +5 insightful, only on/.....
Although seriously, your moderation was deserved. The Register is from the "Aliens ate my babies!" school of tabloid journalism, someone could just walk in off the street and show more insight, as proven by you!
Re:So are you a peadophile, or do you bait them?
on
Google's Gatekeepers
·
· Score: 1
Paedophilia (a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children)... It's not bigoted to oppose that, but it's ignorant to assume that the majority of paedophiles actually want to do that.
OK, so maybe boys too. That's what paedophilia is about, unless you want to change its definition to mean something other than sex with children. I think that's what most people understand a paedophile to be and trying to change the definition of that word, well, I reckon it'd be a teensy bit harder than rehabilitating the word hacker.
Honestly though, you use it in its commonly accepted form right at the start of your reply indicating that you understand it to mean that. How do you square the circle of being sexually attracted to children whilst saying a paedophile doesn't really want to do it? It rather sounds like saying the majority of gay men don't really want to have sex with other men.
I'm really trying to understand what you're saying but it really doesn't compute. That site is full of descriptions of little girls in overtly sexualised language. Just click on some of those thanksgiving posts and it's all stories about how the paedo in question spent the holiday oogling little girls. Also within a few clicks are classic arguments about how animals fuck their young so it's OK for humans too.
I appreciate that a lot of paedophiles don't actually make contact with children and instead stick to images and fantasy, (methinks that's where you're coming from) but I'm sure you appreciate that there's something fundamentally broken about that outlook. You're condemning yourself to a life of permanent sexual frustration as you're placing your ultimate fantasy out of reach. Is that really what you want? Don't you want a strong intelligent woman who can be at least your equal or maybe even your better?
I'm an uncle, three nephews and a niece. Whenever I'm around them and their friends I'm the cool twenty-something uncle with all the latest games and cool music from people and clubs they've never heard of. Obviously that means some of their little female friends flirt and try to act older than they are because that's how kids are, but to actually take advantage of that, that'd just be weird.
So yea, you and your subculture: weeeeeeeeeeeeird.
Re:So are you a peadophile, or do you bait them?
on
Google's Gatekeepers
·
· Score: 1
Just making certain, with things like this it's best to be crystal clear. I knew I'd get modded flamebait for that comment from some stupid arse who clearly didn't read your post.
Anyway, after actually considering this I'm going to support your right to free speech. Tbh, making those sorts of statements in public should be enough to get a surveillance warrant (in much the same way as admitting any crime should be enough to allow the police to start watching you) so I guess paedophiles at forums like that are at least out in the open.
As to whether Google should index your site, well, Google is a private company and is free to do whatever they want. I support them in their no-platform policy for paedophiles and actually wish they would take a stance on more issues, e.g. violent fascism (which they already block in Germany due to the law there). Sure, you've got your right to free speech; nobody should be stopping you posting your protected speech on the web. That doesn't mean that anyone has to support you though, it's also right that companies like Google and other organisations should take a stand against you. In fact this shows Google is an ethical company, just their ethics are different than yours.
Even though there's no prohibition against what you're saying, Google is taking a stand against you and that's something everyone who isn't a paedophile rightfully supports. I mean, civil rights? The right to bone tiny little girls?
It's not bigoted to oppose that.
So are you a peadophile, or do you bait them?
on
Google's Gatekeepers
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Those are the only two groups posting at that site. From the content of your post I'd hazard you're a paedophile.
I'm aware of the certification, and admittedly the NT/VMS comparison was out of whack (maybe I should have come up with a car analogy?) but the basic point I'm making is sound. An average Mac user could not easily go over to another Unix as the whole Mac OS experience is about the proprietary stuff Apple have built on top of their Unix base.
I've used Linux and Windows extensively, my main experience of Macs comes from using them in education. I stand by my assertion that Mac OS is easier for people who are used to using Windows. I've tried to do the Linux conversion on Windows users with varying degrees of success but Windows to Mac is a lot easier. I think it's less to do with GUI similarities than it is to do with the fact that both Apple and Microsoft test their GUIs so much.
Also calling Mac OS Unix is like calling Windows NT VMS. Sure, you can do Unix stuff on it as that's what it was built on but what makes it Mac OS is all the proprietary stuff Apple have built on top of it.
So, as well as being rude and a coward you're also wrong.
No, you're trolling because the tone of your post seems designed simply to get maximum responses by aggressively attacking a strawman.
In fact I wasn't defending string theory at all, just the phrase paradigm shift. My point about Structure still stands and, troll or not, you'd be better off for reading it.
Therefore, if you're currently a PC gamer in Windows, it's easier to move to (or dual boot) Linux than it is to buy a Mac.
Ignoring any time considerations, of course. Realistically someone could more easily go from actually using Windows to actually using Mac OS X without ripping all their hair out or trying to kill themselves. The transition from Windows to any Unix type OS is hard.
I also find your assertion that Linux desktops outnumber Macs outside of NA a little odd. That's definitely not true here in the UK or I bet the rest of Western Europe, as much as I'd like it to be.
I find that odd. I first noticed that SD looks awful when I started playing video games at 640x480 and above just over a decade ago. That's only slightly higher than SD resolution but the difference between interlaced and progressive is massive to me. When I got my first 3Dfx card and started getting used to 1024x768 I found it difficult to sit down and watch TV due to the low resolution and the interlacing, I just found the picture terrible. These days I'll only watch SD after it's been through a decent post-processor to clean it up a little bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, you say Crysis in benchmarks averages about 35 on the same hardware but I guarantee you, owning the same CPU and gfx card (actually a 9800 but it's exactly the same, Nvidia just changed the number!) that you can't run Crysis at High/1680x1050 and get 35fps.
Crysis benchmarks are all flawed. It's incredible the number of sites that just use the included benchmark runs even though Crytek go to pains to point out that their benchmarks don't indicate actual game performance, they should only be used to judge relative GPU performance.
For the record, you can get 35fps avg / 30fps min at 1366x768, all high settings w/2x AA (AA is almost free so may as well use it) on your hardware. I can't remember what the 1680x1050 average is but the min can go as low as 15.
DLC isn't the main thing for FO3, user mods are. The reason I bought it on PC, in fact the reason I upgraded my graphics card is just so that I can spend the next three years or so playing user-made FO3 mods.
The mods are what made Oblivion and Morrowind into timeless classics.
Just because your phone runs at a higher clock speed doesn't mean it's more powerful than a PS2. No phone, not even an N96 or an iPhone, is currently more powerful than a PS2, though no doubt they'll get there within a couple of years.
The PS2 is a weird system, I'd recommend reading this technical overview of the Emotion Engine. There's also a link in there to another Ars article comparing the PS2 to PC style platforms.
I think that article shows why Sony thought the Cell was a good idea for the PS3. The PS2 gets most of its power from two vector units so having a PPC core linked with seven directly programmable vector units (one of the two VUs in the EE was linked into the geometry unit) probably seemed like a natural progression.
None of what you said justified killing a person in the same way you would kill an animal. Sure, if you're being attacked and you have a gun then you have a right to shoot. It's not OK to shoot an unarmed robber in the back as they are trying to escape - not that you directly said that, but it did seem implied what with the animal comparison.
A guy in the UK called Tony Martin turned into a tabloid hero for doing that, the press went mental when he got sent down for murder. But still, a jury of twelve peers decided that it was murder.
So yea, if shoot em if you got em, but only for defense.
Um, you support communism and at the same time support the supremacy of personal property rights? That's a giant logic fail, and I say that as a lapsed Marxist Trot. I'm not convinced that a socialist gun policy can support widespread ownership of firearms. Organised workers militias I support but widespread handgun ownership just makes it too easy for people to kill each other.
In fact classical liberalism is incompatible with socialism. Perhaps you should pay more attention to the magazine you work for, or are they as politically incoherent as you?
Because criminals aren't animals. You're making the PETA mistake of equating human and animal rights.
Farmers here in the UK have guns, a lot of people in the UK countryside will have either had experience shooting things like rabbits or at least know people who do it. Guns in the city, however, are verboten.
I found this comment to be amusing. I recalled reading their 4870 X2 review not too long ago. You'll notice cards of vastly different performance levels showing similar speeds until AA & AF get cranked up, a clear indication of the benchmarks being CPU bound. This isn't commented on at all in their summary!
Admittedly there aren't any games in Linux that could stress a card like that but things like that should at least be acknowledged. Whilst it's great that they're testing these cards in Linux they really do need to improve their methodology.
Jealousy is a lovely thing, isn't it?
For the record, I really did sign up as soon as user accounts were created - can you believe this site used to run on the honour system? You just put your name in and that's what appeared. It was only when trolls started posting as other users that user accounts were introduced.
I dropped offline for a few years (I think I may have spent a whole year continuously offline!) and had a taste of real life (it's grim and amazing, I recommend it to anyone who feels they've grown up in front of a screen) but eventually ended up back here. I comment far more these days than I ever did when /. was first about, I think it's because the quality of the users has fallen so much (that's the real decline of /. btw, the stories have always been old or dupes or silly) that even a dumbass like me can seem insightful.
And yes, I did read your sig. Your comment didn't seem particularly witty though, so I took it seriously.
I see no analysis as to why the filesystems perform the way they do. Why does XFS perform so well on a 4GB sequential read and so badly on an 8GB read? Why did they include cpu / gfx bound frame/sec benchmarks? In the few application benchmarks where there was more than a tiny fraction of percent difference there's no discussion as to whether that difference is actually significant.
Not at all enlightening.
Whoops, meant to include the complaint.
Cogent argue that under the terms of the contract they passed. They kept the link open at their end because as far as they were concerned they had passed and Sprint was simply following its end of the bargain. They're arguing that they don't have to pay because if Sprint really didn't think they had passed, they could have severed the link at their end.
The confusion is because both sides measured the performance in different ways. From Sprints' complaint:
Cogent unreasonably claimed that the amount of interconnection traffic satisfied the
utilization threshold requirement in the Trial Agreement because the port utilization peak figures
for each of the ten ports (used to calculate billing) exceeded the average utilization criteria across
all ports. Cogent ignored that Paragraph 5.E. required a sustained threshold average utilization
across all ports for the entire period, and instead focused on snapshot figures based on the
commercial pricing model of peak usage. As a result, Cogent argued that it was entitled to
settlement-free peering with Sprint.
I find it hard to believe that Cogent walked away from negotiations with the wrong idea about how the test was going to be measured. In any business negotiations both sides go to great pains to make sure everyone understands what's being agreed because otherwise it winds up in court like this. If the judge takes the view that Cogent was mislead (deliberate or not) then this becomes a big PITA for Sprint.
So yea, a balls-up for both parties.
Ono uses statistical data from CDNs to be a little bit smarter about picking peers in certain cases. In most cases the random solution is fine; your client can just randomly pick peers then stick with fast ones and drop slow ones. Ono aims to improve performance in certain cases where that strategy isn't very good.
Just in case anyone reading doesn't notice, Ono aims to find peers that are close to you on the network. That doesn't necessarily mean close to you geographically and so doesn't answer this ask /..
If your ISPs international pipe is flooded then bittorrent will automatically prefer local peers as they'll be the only people who can send you data at a fast enough rate. If you notice local peers who you're not connected to then it's most likely just because they've already reached their connection limit.
Most bittorent clients will connect to many peers and try to saturate your downstream bandwidth. They don't care where in the world those peers are as long as they're fast. If, in your part of the world, local peers are faster then that means you should just automatically connect to more local peers.
Your lawn? ;)
Disclaimer: I did not RTFA and now practically nothing about TCP/IP :-)
And yet you still got modded +5 insightful, only on /.....
Although seriously, your moderation was deserved. The Register is from the "Aliens ate my babies!" school of tabloid journalism, someone could just walk in off the street and show more insight, as proven by you!
Paedophilia (a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children) ... It's not bigoted to oppose that, but it's ignorant to assume that the majority of paedophiles actually want to do that.
OK, so maybe boys too. That's what paedophilia is about, unless you want to change its definition to mean something other than sex with children. I think that's what most people understand a paedophile to be and trying to change the definition of that word, well, I reckon it'd be a teensy bit harder than rehabilitating the word hacker.
Honestly though, you use it in its commonly accepted form right at the start of your reply indicating that you understand it to mean that. How do you square the circle of being sexually attracted to children whilst saying a paedophile doesn't really want to do it? It rather sounds like saying the majority of gay men don't really want to have sex with other men.
I'm really trying to understand what you're saying but it really doesn't compute. That site is full of descriptions of little girls in overtly sexualised language. Just click on some of those thanksgiving posts and it's all stories about how the paedo in question spent the holiday oogling little girls. Also within a few clicks are classic arguments about how animals fuck their young so it's OK for humans too.
I appreciate that a lot of paedophiles don't actually make contact with children and instead stick to images and fantasy, (methinks that's where you're coming from) but I'm sure you appreciate that there's something fundamentally broken about that outlook. You're condemning yourself to a life of permanent sexual frustration as you're placing your ultimate fantasy out of reach. Is that really what you want? Don't you want a strong intelligent woman who can be at least your equal or maybe even your better?
I'm an uncle, three nephews and a niece. Whenever I'm around them and their friends I'm the cool twenty-something uncle with all the latest games and cool music from people and clubs they've never heard of. Obviously that means some of their little female friends flirt and try to act older than they are because that's how kids are, but to actually take advantage of that, that'd just be weird.
So yea, you and your subculture: weeeeeeeeeeeeird.
Just making certain, with things like this it's best to be crystal clear. I knew I'd get modded flamebait for that comment from some stupid arse who clearly didn't read your post.
Anyway, after actually considering this I'm going to support your right to free speech. Tbh, making those sorts of statements in public should be enough to get a surveillance warrant (in much the same way as admitting any crime should be enough to allow the police to start watching you) so I guess paedophiles at forums like that are at least out in the open.
As to whether Google should index your site, well, Google is a private company and is free to do whatever they want. I support them in their no-platform policy for paedophiles and actually wish they would take a stance on more issues, e.g. violent fascism (which they already block in Germany due to the law there). Sure, you've got your right to free speech; nobody should be stopping you posting your protected speech on the web. That doesn't mean that anyone has to support you though, it's also right that companies like Google and other organisations should take a stand against you. In fact this shows Google is an ethical company, just their ethics are different than yours.
Even though there's no prohibition against what you're saying, Google is taking a stand against you and that's something everyone who isn't a paedophile rightfully supports. I mean, civil rights? The right to bone tiny little girls?
It's not bigoted to oppose that.
Those are the only two groups posting at that site. From the content of your post I'd hazard you're a paedophile.
I'm aware of the certification, and admittedly the NT/VMS comparison was out of whack (maybe I should have come up with a car analogy?) but the basic point I'm making is sound. An average Mac user could not easily go over to another Unix as the whole Mac OS experience is about the proprietary stuff Apple have built on top of their Unix base.
I've used Linux and Windows extensively, my main experience of Macs comes from using them in education. I stand by my assertion that Mac OS is easier for people who are used to using Windows. I've tried to do the Linux conversion on Windows users with varying degrees of success but Windows to Mac is a lot easier. I think it's less to do with GUI similarities than it is to do with the fact that both Apple and Microsoft test their GUIs so much.
Also calling Mac OS Unix is like calling Windows NT VMS. Sure, you can do Unix stuff on it as that's what it was built on but what makes it Mac OS is all the proprietary stuff Apple have built on top of it.
So, as well as being rude and a coward you're also wrong.
No, you're trolling because the tone of your post seems designed simply to get maximum responses by aggressively attacking a strawman.
In fact I wasn't defending string theory at all, just the phrase paradigm shift. My point about Structure still stands and, troll or not, you'd be better off for reading it.
Therefore, if you're currently a PC gamer in Windows, it's easier to move to (or dual boot) Linux than it is to buy a Mac.
Ignoring any time considerations, of course. Realistically someone could more easily go from actually using Windows to actually using Mac OS X without ripping all their hair out or trying to kill themselves. The transition from Windows to any Unix type OS is hard.
I also find your assertion that Linux desktops outnumber Macs outside of NA a little odd. That's definitely not true here in the UK or I bet the rest of Western Europe, as much as I'd like it to be.
Stolen CC details. They'll have access to all the deep sea cables, they're probably running all the botnets from down there.
I realise you're trolling, but I suggest you read Structure by Khun.
I find that odd. I first noticed that SD looks awful when I started playing video games at 640x480 and above just over a decade ago. That's only slightly higher than SD resolution but the difference between interlaced and progressive is massive to me. When I got my first 3Dfx card and started getting used to 1024x768 I found it difficult to sit down and watch TV due to the low resolution and the interlacing, I just found the picture terrible. These days I'll only watch SD after it's been through a decent post-processor to clean it up a little bit.