I assume he was referring to the 30" lcd's that run at 2560x1600 resolution... which are awesome for the record
*drools on keyboard*
Wow! Seriously, wow! How much does something like that cost? This seems like you're way beyond gaming rig here -- and, if you're really talking about running 2 or 3 of these for a gaming machine (like some people are), well, then I strongly suspect you don't really care that your video card(s) cost. You've already spent a small fortune on monitors.
It makes me laugh that most sites reviewed it on a single screen system, most at 1080p. Most of the current top-end cards can easily do modern games at maximum detail even on 30" screens.
If they're both at 1080p, then the size of the screen doesn't matter, does it? It doesn't take more memory if the pixels are bigger but the same in number.
Or, are you talking about running at resolutions higher than 1920x1080? I didn't think you could easily get monitors at much higher resolution.
and it is a slightly different paradigm (functional, prototype-based) than traditional c++/java/VB that professionals are used to
Except that's not really obvious when you're reading about the language -- it's got more traditional procedural syntax and structures. One doesn't tend to think of a language with a "while" loop as being functional.
Maybe one of the reasons "amateurs" don't use it the way you think they should is that the people who built the language have done a piss-poor job of conveying to people how it's actually "supposed" to be used. Or, they've been gradually slapping more into the language than the original thing we think of as "javascript".
I'll definitely concede you can do more in javascript than most people realize... I saw some javascript code a couple years in which someone implemented closures, and I had to do some looking to understand what it was doing.
It's just never really been obvious that javascript was a functional language since it's basically borrowed most of C's syntax. So, as languages go, it's a bit of a hodge-podge.
10 or 15? Sprint charges a quarter to send and receive, even within your family plan, so if my wife texts me, and i reply, it costs a buck.
Really? That is expensive, but I don't keep close tabs on the price to be honest.
I don't text, but my wife does a little... we've looked at it, and for our phone carrier we just worked out that unless she's going to routinely text more than x messages, the cheapest texting plan isn't worth it since she'd pay less every month on average since she doesn't text that much. So, she pays for the 5-10 text messages she gets/send each month.
I basically view it as a scam that they overcharge for. I refuse to believe the incremental cost of an SMS is actually anything more than, well, zero actually.
Unfortunately, the carriers continue to charge stupid money for something that should have gotten cheaper over the years.
I think most of us have known for years that the amount we get charged for cell phone SMS and data plans is really out of whack.
How is something with a limit of 140 chars or so worth the 10 or 15 cents they charge you for it?
They've been advertising broadband and cell for the last decade as "look at all the shiny things you can do", but the price never goes down, and they keep lowering the cap on what you can use.
They've bet the farm selling telecom services, but they can't actually afford for you to use them the way they advertise them. Or, at least, we can't afford to use them the way they're advertised.
Call me a hater - but the idea of spending $7-800 on a CPU that will never ever make a difference in your gameplay, video editing, internet surfing, facebooking, etc... Where is the value proposition?
Possibly not for the home user.
But, I know I'm involved in a project where we're looking at having dual 8-core CPUs in each of four machines so we can get the scaling we want.
For most home users, they've not really been at a point of having their CPU saturated in quite a while... web surfing and Facebook are long since past the point of really needing more CPU speed.
Actually, I would not have a problem with this...if it meant that nobody could be sued for downloading
I sure as hell would.
I buy a lot of music on CD, don't down muskc, and I'm sure as hell not willing to pay a $10 monthly 'tax' on my internet connection so these greedy bastards can double-dip. I can guarantee, the artists I'm listening to don't get paid for in this scheme.
If they introduce this, I'm going to download so much &%^$*() music it's not even funny. They're already charging me a 'levy' on blank CDs -- if this comes in, and it's not optional, then I'm getting my moneys worth and downloading a shitload of music.
Taxing everybody's internet connection to pay for the proportion of people who actually download is bullshit. If you want to be able to voluntarily pay it, go ahead. But making it mandatory for everybody is a friggin' bad idea.
Well, if the people making it aren't opposed to it, how is it leeching? It sounds more like taking something freely given.
The whole point of open source and the GNU license is that other people get to benefit from the work applied to it.
Seriously, why is it leeching if it's done with the knowledge and permission of Red Hat? I'm sure they take enhancements that happen against the rest of the user-land and kernel stuff -- it's a two-way street.
Well, as it's a story about the American Department of Homeland Security, it's pertinent.
And, in theory in the US, the Constitution should prevent this kind of thing from happening. Hell, I'm not even an American, and I'm outraged by this.
I live in the UK and we have NO rights anymore as our pussy-whipped government refuse to go against what the almighty King Europe tell us to do.
Subjugated by one King or another, what's the difference? Just because you guys have lost all of your freedoms, doesn't mean the rest of us are keen to.
IIRC, A lawyer, in a previous article where Texas courts are being used, posted the Texas courts are preferred because they have lots of experience in highly technical matters. I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, it doesn't appear to be a case of Libel Tourism; rather shopping for true legal and technical expertise.
I sorta get the impression that it's because they've got rules that make them a favorable venue, and because they'll let any lawyer, from anywhere file a suit. Here's what wikipedia says.
So, if they're taking law suits from any jurisdiction, then I would say this is a lot more like Libel Tourism than any actual 'expertise'.
I wonder if he DOES apply for a job, if he'll even THINK of using an automated resume distribution system.
Highly doubtful... from TFA:
"If I send out spam e-mails, that's a violation of my probation. End of story," he said. "I'm being very careful. If I send out an e-mail, I'm not even going probably to CC it. I'll send a unique e-mail to each person."
I suspect being in prison was enough for him to decide he doesn't want to go back and run afoul of his parole.
Oh no! Somewhere that laws are not uniform and/or uniformly enforced?
So, you're in favor of something like Libel Tourism where you shop for a jurisdiction that will let you do what almost every other jurisdiction would laugh you out of court for? Or is this special because it's Texas?
From the number of stories I see where Texas is the venue for such a law suit, I find it hard to believe that either party has much, if any, actual presence in Texas. At which point, it's hard not to conclude they have really lax rules about who is allowed to use their court system.
We need the USPTO to stop giving out obvious patents that aren't really anything more than "with a computer".
We need to stop letting everybody start legal proceedings in Texas just because it's a favorable venue. Way too many of these stories by patent trolls seem to be out of that jurisdiction.
Slashdot Mirror
*drools on keyboard*
Wow! Seriously, wow! How much does something like that cost? This seems like you're way beyond gaming rig here -- and, if you're really talking about running 2 or 3 of these for a gaming machine (like some people are), well, then I strongly suspect you don't really care that your video card(s) cost. You've already spent a small fortune on monitors.
I can only guess at what something like that would cost and where you'd buy it.
I've never seen such a beast. That's not to say they don't exist, but it seems a fairly exotic thing.
If they're both at 1080p, then the size of the screen doesn't matter, does it? It doesn't take more memory if the pixels are bigger but the same in number.
Or, are you talking about running at resolutions higher than 1920x1080? I didn't think you could easily get monitors at much higher resolution.
Except that's not really obvious when you're reading about the language -- it's got more traditional procedural syntax and structures. One doesn't tend to think of a language with a "while" loop as being functional.
Maybe one of the reasons "amateurs" don't use it the way you think they should is that the people who built the language have done a piss-poor job of conveying to people how it's actually "supposed" to be used. Or, they've been gradually slapping more into the language than the original thing we think of as "javascript".
I'll definitely concede you can do more in javascript than most people realize ... I saw some javascript code a couple years in which someone implemented closures, and I had to do some looking to understand what it was doing.
It's just never really been obvious that javascript was a functional language since it's basically borrowed most of C's syntax. So, as languages go, it's a bit of a hodge-podge.
Really? That is expensive, but I don't keep close tabs on the price to be honest.
I don't text, but my wife does a little ... we've looked at it, and for our phone carrier we just worked out that unless she's going to routinely text more than x messages, the cheapest texting plan isn't worth it since she'd pay less every month on average since she doesn't text that much. So, she pays for the 5-10 text messages she gets/send each month.
I basically view it as a scam that they overcharge for. I refuse to believe the incremental cost of an SMS is actually anything more than, well, zero actually.
Unfortunately, the carriers continue to charge stupid money for something that should have gotten cheaper over the years.
I think most of us have known for years that the amount we get charged for cell phone SMS and data plans is really out of whack.
How is something with a limit of 140 chars or so worth the 10 or 15 cents they charge you for it?
They've been advertising broadband and cell for the last decade as "look at all the shiny things you can do", but the price never goes down, and they keep lowering the cap on what you can use.
They've bet the farm selling telecom services, but they can't actually afford for you to use them the way they advertise them. Or, at least, we can't afford to use them the way they're advertised.
Great, now I've got that song stuck in my head ... "he is brave, and mighty, and wise ...".
Well, Shatner knows he's poking fun at himself.
I don't get the impression that Charlie Sheen is actually dialed into the fact that he is, or definitely appears to be, somewhat unhinged of late.
He really seems to have some mental health issues going on at the moment. Or, he's got a remarkably strange strategy to get himself his next gig.
At this point, I'm betting even the non-American crew is aware of Star Trek.
It's been around for almost 45 years at this point.
Ah, OK. Fair enough.
I've long since lost track of sockets/CPU combinations. They change every week or so. :-P
So, have a dual socket of this thing with 6 cores/socket. What's the issue?
Possibly not for the home user.
But, I know I'm involved in a project where we're looking at having dual 8-core CPUs in each of four machines so we can get the scaling we want.
For most home users, they've not really been at a point of having their CPU saturated in quite a while ... web surfing and Facebook are long since past the point of really needing more CPU speed.
I'm hoping you meant "radically" here. Otherwise, what you're saying is bordering on the scary.
I sure as hell would.
I buy a lot of music on CD, don't down muskc, and I'm sure as hell not willing to pay a $10 monthly 'tax' on my internet connection so these greedy bastards can double-dip. I can guarantee, the artists I'm listening to don't get paid for in this scheme.
If they introduce this, I'm going to download so much &%^$*() music it's not even funny. They're already charging me a 'levy' on blank CDs -- if this comes in, and it's not optional, then I'm getting my moneys worth and downloading a shitload of music.
Taxing everybody's internet connection to pay for the proportion of people who actually download is bullshit. If you want to be able to voluntarily pay it, go ahead. But making it mandatory for everybody is a friggin' bad idea.
Well, if the people making it aren't opposed to it, how is it leeching? It sounds more like taking something freely given.
The whole point of open source and the GNU license is that other people get to benefit from the work applied to it.
Seriously, why is it leeching if it's done with the knowledge and permission of Red Hat? I'm sure they take enhancements that happen against the rest of the user-land and kernel stuff -- it's a two-way street.
Do you 'normally' connect to your printer with your watch??
Sure, it's an HP device. But, I find connecting to a printer with a watch to be somewhat on the bizarre end of things. At the very least, uncommon.
No, this was a server wizard. I can only imagine the beard that comes along with this guy.
Kudos to the wise ones who have kept everything going.
Well, as it's a story about the American Department of Homeland Security, it's pertinent.
And, in theory in the US, the Constitution should prevent this kind of thing from happening. Hell, I'm not even an American, and I'm outraged by this.
Subjugated by one King or another, what's the difference? Just because you guys have lost all of your freedoms, doesn't mean the rest of us are keen to.
No no no, you're thinking of Bruce Boxleitner. ;-)
I kid, I kid. He was good in Babylon 5.
Well, I believe it would be unconstitutional, for starters as it would pretty much violate the Fourth Amendment.
No warrant, no probably cause, no judicial oversight. This is a bad idea.
I sorta get the impression that it's because they've got rules that make them a favorable venue, and because they'll let any lawyer, from anywhere file a suit. Here's what wikipedia says.
So, if they're taking law suits from any jurisdiction, then I would say this is a lot more like Libel Tourism than any actual 'expertise'.
Highly doubtful ... from TFA:
I suspect being in prison was enough for him to decide he doesn't want to go back and run afoul of his parole.
So, you're in favor of something like Libel Tourism where you shop for a jurisdiction that will let you do what almost every other jurisdiction would laugh you out of court for? Or is this special because it's Texas?
From the number of stories I see where Texas is the venue for such a law suit, I find it hard to believe that either party has much, if any, actual presence in Texas. At which point, it's hard not to conclude they have really lax rules about who is allowed to use their court system.
No, I'm advocating they stop letting people mess with everybody else using their court system.
Two things ...
We need the USPTO to stop giving out obvious patents that aren't really anything more than "with a computer".
We need to stop letting everybody start legal proceedings in Texas just because it's a favorable venue. Way too many of these stories by patent trolls seem to be out of that jurisdiction.