Stop thinking in such abstract terms, it doesn't suit you. Just ask yourself: in a progression of infinite doublings, will there ever be a point where you cannot double any further? The answer is a definite no.
By the way, it's just "Enterprise". No "ST". They didn't want to alienate non-geeks by including the words "Star Trek" in the title. I guess that goes well with that wonky intro music.
Not that kind of motion blur. I'm not referring to smudgy video. When I say motion blur, I just mean combining multiple frames into one, as a way of "temporal resolution" (framerate) with the limited refresh rate a monitor or television screen can offer.
Motion blur in GTA has nothing to do with the kind of motion blur I'm talking about.
The function doesn't take real world problems into account.
Of course not, and I addressed that in my post. As I understood it, the asymptote he was talking about was in the moore's law function, not in real world transistor count. Subtle difference, but that's what were talking about.
I'm not saying they screwed up the nVidia will screw up the GeForce FX. All I'm saying is that of course the GeForce FX will, for the most part, be more powerful than the Radeon 9700. The 9700 was released 3 months ago, and the FX isn't even out yet. That's the way the industry works.
Uhh, it's not a logarithmic function, it's an exponential function. Exponential functions have no asymptote. Think about what you're saying exactly. Why should the number of transistors ever level off if the function specifies that it DOUBLE every year.
I'm not saying moore's law will last forever, but that's because of the physical limitations, not because the actual function hits an asymptote.
Aside from all the other things being mentioned here, another thing to take into account is motion blur. When you watch a movie at 24 fps, or television at 30 fps, motion blur makes sure you don't miss anything between frames. If the action is moving fast enough, it will appear as a blur in a single frame, so you're not missing anything "between" frames. Not so in a videogame. In a videogame, if the action is moving too fast there will be "gaps". So even though, technically the eye can't see anything above a certain frame rate, you can't really directly compare television or movies to video games as far as framerate is concerned.
I'm not really sure how it was slowly discarded, but I'm sure you'd agree that the CONSTITUTION and it's amendments have withstood the test of time much better than laws not in the constitution.
The mess is only because they didn't include the 11th amendment.
read this
here's the most interesting part:
Jefferson and Madison proposed an 11th Amendment to the Constitution that would "ban monopolies in commerce," making it illegal for corporations to own other corporations, banning them from giving money to politicians or trying to influence elections in any way, restricting corporations to a single business purpose, limiting the lifetime of a corporation to something roughly similar to that of productive humans (20 to 40 years back then), and requiring that the first purpose for which all corporations were created be "to serve the public good."
The amendment didn't pass because many argued it was unnecessary: Virtually all states already had such laws on the books from the founding of this nation until the Age of the Robber Barons.
If only they had included this we really wouldn't be having any of these problems we're having now.
Yes, it's fair use when you use a snippet of text. And yes, this is a gray area. But it's ALSO fair use to give a photocopy of an ENTIRE article to a friend.
But do you really object because it's "illegal"? I mean, the site was being slashdotted, I'm sure they'd appreciate the load being lightened. I think you're just saying that because you were shot down for claiming the poster who posted the article was a troll.
Since when does OfB.biz have the power to write laws? That's not a law, that's just a copyright statement. Umm, as I'm sure you know, the New York Times also has a copyright statement. Regardless of what the New York Times says, I can still give a photocopy of an article to my friend.
Yes, and I suppose only the people with children should have to pay for PUBLIC school, and only the people who visit parks should have to pay for them.
They can still compare the kind of things you look at within a single session. If you browse more than one catergory of product in a single session, they can, I guess, link the two.
Why not? I understand that you cannot subtract infinity from infinity, but an infinite repeating decimal? Sure, you absolutely can subtract infinitely repeating decimals..333333333... -.333333333 = 0 whether you say so or not.
"Even better, why do people always scream and moan about it?"
First of all, I didn't hear anyone screaming or moaning. It was an intelligent article about the true nature of EQ. And yes, it's no surprise that most people are greedy, but despite most people's greediness, there is still such a thing as a product worth buying. People scream and moan, as you put it, in order to inform people that this game is built from the ground up just to suck time and money out of people, instead of, gasp, crazy idea, to be fun. Yes, games are supposed to be built from the ground up to be fun. The screaming and moaning is to inform people.
And the difference is, this isn't just a bad game. Sometimes (too often) games are made that just aren't fun. But this game is designed deliberately to not be fun and to suck money out of people. This is why the games as a service business model sucks.
Re:Ya, right...and the DMCA will have been repeall
on
Christmas in 2050
·
· Score: 1
The difference between 2002 and 2050 will be much more drastic than 1950 and now. Despite the fact that 2002-2050 is only 48 years, and 1950-2002 is 52. MUCH MORE DRASTIC.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop thinking in such abstract terms, it doesn't suit you. Just ask yourself: in a progression of infinite doublings, will there ever be a point where you cannot double any further? The answer is a definite no.
By the way, it's just "Enterprise". No "ST". They didn't want to alienate non-geeks by including the words "Star Trek" in the title. I guess that goes well with that wonky intro music.
Sorry, that should say "...as a way of adding 'temporal resolution'"
Not that kind of motion blur. I'm not referring to smudgy video. When I say motion blur, I just mean combining multiple frames into one, as a way of "temporal resolution" (framerate) with the limited refresh rate a monitor or television screen can offer.
Motion blur in GTA has nothing to do with the kind of motion blur I'm talking about.
The function doesn't take real world problems into account.
Of course not, and I addressed that in my post. As I understood it, the asymptote he was talking about was in the moore's law function, not in real world transistor count. Subtle difference, but that's what were talking about.
I'm not saying they screwed up the nVidia will screw up the GeForce FX. All I'm saying is that of course the GeForce FX will, for the most part, be more powerful than the Radeon 9700. The 9700 was released 3 months ago, and the FX isn't even out yet. That's the way the industry works.
Uhh, it's not a logarithmic function, it's an exponential function. Exponential functions have no asymptote. Think about what you're saying exactly. Why should the number of transistors ever level off if the function specifies that it DOUBLE every year.
I'm not saying moore's law will last forever, but that's because of the physical limitations, not because the actual function hits an asymptote.
I'll still bet money the GF FX will be the dominant card come final release.
They better hope so. The 9700 was released, what, 3 months ago?
Aside from all the other things being mentioned here, another thing to take into account is motion blur. When you watch a movie at 24 fps, or television at 30 fps, motion blur makes sure you don't miss anything between frames. If the action is moving fast enough, it will appear as a blur in a single frame, so you're not missing anything "between" frames. Not so in a videogame. In a videogame, if the action is moving too fast there will be "gaps". So even though, technically the eye can't see anything above a certain frame rate, you can't really directly compare television or movies to video games as far as framerate is concerned.
I'm not really sure how it was slowly discarded, but I'm sure you'd agree that the CONSTITUTION and it's amendments have withstood the test of time much better than laws not in the constitution.
That idea is well illustrated in the first few chapters (don't remember exactly which ones) of the selfish gene, richard dawkins.
Blew my mind.
read this
here's the most interesting part:
If only they had included this we really wouldn't be having any of these problems we're having now.
By the way: the MTA has a new (and easier) domain name. Try mta.info . It works
subway
Yes, it's fair use when you use a snippet of text. And yes, this is a gray area. But it's ALSO fair use to give a photocopy of an ENTIRE article to a friend.
But do you really object because it's "illegal"? I mean, the site was being slashdotted, I'm sure they'd appreciate the load being lightened. I think you're just saying that because you were shot down for claiming the poster who posted the article was a troll.
Since when does OfB.biz have the power to write laws? That's not a law, that's just a copyright statement. Umm, as I'm sure you know, the New York Times also has a copyright statement. Regardless of what the New York Times says, I can still give a photocopy of an article to my friend.
It's called fair use.
You still haven't quoted me any law.
It's illegal? Really, I find that interesting. Can you point out which law which declares this illegal?
Yes, and I suppose only the people with children should have to pay for PUBLIC school, and only the people who visit parks should have to pay for them.
Just to point out, no patent was awarded for the airplane.
They can still compare the kind of things you look at within a single session. If you browse more than one catergory of product in a single session, they can, I guess, link the two.
Why not? I understand that you cannot subtract infinity from infinity, but an infinite repeating decimal? Sure, you absolutely can subtract infinitely repeating decimals. .333333333... - .333333333 = 0 whether you say so or not.
x=.999999999...
.999999999 = 9
10x=9.99999999...
10x - x = 9.99999999 -
9x = 9
x = 1
"Even better, why do people always scream and moan about it?"
First of all, I didn't hear anyone screaming or moaning. It was an intelligent article about the true nature of EQ. And yes, it's no surprise that most people are greedy, but despite most people's greediness, there is still such a thing as a product worth buying. People scream and moan, as you put it, in order to inform people that this game is built from the ground up just to suck time and money out of people, instead of, gasp, crazy idea, to be fun. Yes, games are supposed to be built from the ground up to be fun. The screaming and moaning is to inform people.
And the difference is, this isn't just a bad game. Sometimes (too often) games are made that just aren't fun. But this game is designed deliberately to not be fun and to suck money out of people. This is why the games as a service business model sucks.
The difference between 2002 and 2050 will be much more drastic than 1950 and now. Despite the fact that 2002-2050 is only 48 years, and 1950-2002 is 52. MUCH MORE DRASTIC.
That's BT as in British Telecom. Not BBC. Perhaps you meant country.
Well, an "A-T" pair is different than a "T-A" pair. The other strand is really there just for structural integrity.