That's only true if you're running a 60Hz low-mid res display, say 1920x1200(~2.3 megapixels) or less. Though, even then the actual retail price of such a card, most of the time , will probably closer to $250 than $150.
If you want to run 120Hz, or run 2560x(1600|1440)(~3.7-4.1 megapixels), or run 3+ monitors in an eyefinity configuration(~4-24.5 megapixels), then you need all the power you can get.
Yes, but the GGP was addressing someone complaining about the cost of the card, not someone who's running a fucking surround-video in their replica Cessna cockpit. Anyone who's dishing out for high end displays isn't going to (justifiably) complain about the price of the card(s) needed to drive them. For everyone else, like the OP, a $150 GPU will play almost any game on their standard 1920x1080 60Hz display with decent performance settings just fine.
It's a right, but it doesn't have to be. That's the problem -- once people have power, they don't want to give it up; the common man included. Maybe it's time to say "Hey, giving us all the right to vote isn't working out so well." I'm not saying it's the only answer, but we already take away people's right to vote (felons), and that's far more arbitrary and capricious. I think, at the very least, it's worth studying, and it should be relatively easy to trial in a setting with no real-world implications. Even if it's found to be inferior, I believe a government based on reason and science would be more successful than one where decisions are made based on nothing and everything all at once, which is what we have. It's telling that we don't trust democracy for *anything* of real importance, except securing against tyranny, and I think there may be more effective protections, especially considering its failure in that regard.
Am I expected to just intuitively "feel" where all the controls and options are now? I don't understand why you are doing this.
Speaking as someone who has never owed a smart phone I have always found them restrictive and confusing. The encroaching presence of fatuous smartphone UIs onto my desktop annoys and increasingly frustrates me.
Not that I'm a fan of the new interface(s), at all, but the above is a pretty weak argument against change. Don't make a new way -- I already know how to do things this old way! Why do we need calculators when slide rules are just fine? Why do we have GUIs when the command line is so much more flexible? Horses don't run out of gas! Get off my lawn!
Would you rather get tazed, or subjected to the mysterious treatment behind door number 3? Maybe it's better, but I can think of lots of worse things as well. That's the predicament in voting for a 3rd party. It's a known quantity of shit versus an unknown quantity of an unknown substance. And the way many people see it (though not necessarily me) is that if a new "alternative" candidate was better than the one he's trying to replace, then he should have no problem clinching the nomination of a mainstream party in lieu of the incumbent/status-quo candidate.
Anyway, the problem likely isn't the parties, it's the voters. Shocking heresy, I know, but it's hard to get elected without votes, and voters don't magically become better decision makers just because they select someone of a different party. A combination of a qualification process + random sampling of a subset of eligible voters could allow for better choices, though disenfranchisement would need to be closely guarded against by making the qualification process as accessible (from an economic perspective) as possible. I realize it sounds elitist, but cognitive impairment and level of education are demonstrably linked to susceptibility to fraud and scams. We don't trust someone with dementia to drive, for example, or to practice medicine, so why do we trust their opinion on who should run the country, or how? On the contrary, we entrust their children and/or advocates to make decisions on their behalf. And that's not to pick on the elderly -- there are plenty of centenarians who are sharp as a tack -- just an example of a common issue that affects people across socioeconomic boundaries. Being "stupid" in the traditional sense (or intellectually lazy, or lacking in impulse control) is just as much of a liability. To counter the potential for abuse would require extensive protections, but I don't think that's an insurmountable problem, and it's important to remember that our existing system is not at all immune to abuse.
I don't know about modding the Intel CPU, but I removed the heat spreader on my nVidia GPU (GTX460) and replaced the shite putty they used with some quality paste which lowered temps by 20C, and it wasn't terribly difficult. Tedious and delicate, yes, but not difficult. (Though to be fair, it appeared that the putty had contracted as it dried/cured/whatever, and was not making good contact between surfaces, which apparently was a relatively common problem.)
It is NOT semantics, it is a meaningless argument over the words used to define something that is not clearly definable.
From your own fucking link: Also, a representative democracy may or may not be a constitutional republic. For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."
Which is what? Society has failed to collapse in spite of widespread use of spankings? I'd like to see data on whether successful people were or were not spanked in childhood. Whether or not it's traumatizing to a child is more or less irrelevant if that trauma shapes them into responsible adults IMO, especially when "trauma" is defined so broadly that it encompasses any negative association with a behavior. The whole point is to modify behavior. I'll concede that spanking is likely overused, and that I've probably used it when it wasn't necessary, but I still assert that it is sometimes the only valid option.
Yes, and in the real world it's still less evil. If your choice is between less or more, not none or some, then picking more because they're both evil anyway does not a rational choice make.
You think Apple pays high margins for their components?!? Hilarious. They negotiate for the lowest possible margins and pass the savings on to Steve Jobs^w^w their bank account. Although I'll give Tim some credit: finally returning value to shareholders was long overdue.
I agree, but I've been displeased with AMD's performance per dollar when I was looking to upgrade. Additionally, within the lifecycle of DDR2, I was able to upgrade from C2D to C2Q without swapping motherboards. Graphics cards hadn't (and in most cases still haven't) come close to exhausting the available bandwidth in PCIe 2.0, so that was a non-issue. I agree that it's half luck, but nonetheless, buying an obsolete (or soon to be obsolete) architecture is dooming oneself to failure.
Maybe with AMD. Intel seems to keep their prices about the same or only slightly discounted to discourage the practice you describe. Core2Quads seem to be gone from inventory now, but last I checked a Q9650 was *still* more expensive than a Sandy Bridge i7 2600k, and an i7-860 is still ~$300 where you can find it. And DDR2 is now twice as expensive now as when I bought it last. And if any of those last-gen components fail, you're up the proverbial shit creek without a paddle overpaying for replacement old components or buying into a new architecture with a shortened lifetime. The best long-term strategy seems to be to buy the first of a new socket change, which has the *potential* to yield >1 tick-tock cycle. Sometimes it won't work out, but buying the old socket (and RAM bus, and IDE bus, and graphics bus) over the newer is *guaranteed* to not work out, and you won't get stuck trying to find old components at a reasonable price if anything breaks. Also FWIW, LGA775 was around for quite a while, as was AMD's previous socket (forget what it's called). While a LGA775 P4 motherboard wasn't forward compatible with a C2D, C2D was forward compatible with C2Q, which was nice.
Not that I particularly care, but I'm guessing they would probably object to being slaughtered. Either way, they're delicious. I do wish other meats like mutton were more widely available in the US though, just for a change of pace.
Well, the same goes for the medical industry as well. New treatments and insights are happening all the time. That said, I'd still prefer a doctor with a couple decades of experience to put it in context over the fresh-faced med school grad. Obviously I'm going to avoid someone who claims he can cure my cancer by balancing my humors through bloodletting, but fortunately those people are few and far between. Same goes for anyone who can't use PHP to code your shitty web 2.0 app.
Age discrimination is easy, and will never go away. All you have to do is point out that, of two candidates with equal qualifications and experience in your brand new scripting quasi-language, candidate B was willing to do the job for less pay, move halfway across the country, and work OT for comp time that he'll never be able to use before he moves on or we lay him off. (And oh yeah, unused comp time is paid at the regular rate.)
In other words, all you have to do is craft your requirements in such a way as to give no advantage to the experienced candidate, and then the playing field is level. And guess which candidates are desperate to bend over backwards to land their first job and start paying off their student loans?
His point wasn't that they didn't exist, but that the quantity was smaller. And since PCs didn't exist (for all intents and purposes) in the 70s, let alone smart phones and programmable appliances, his point is probably correct. With the explosion of hardware, it logically follows that there are more people to program them, unless you're arguing that there was a glut of software developers back in the 60s and 70s working 2-man projects with a gaggle of developers writing KLOCs of NOOPs.
Why? If you've waited this long, just hold out for Haswell. Intel has already confirmed they're changing the socket, so really that gives you the best odds of an upgrade path in the future should they decide to keep LGA1150 around for Skylake (the successor to Haswell). At the very least you're stuck with yet another obsoleted socket, but with a likely impressive performance upgrade over Ivy Bridge. By buying in now, you've already lost 1 year on current performance levels going forward... the best time to buy in would have been with Sandy Bridge.
And you and I both (should) know that warrants are just a formality. It's good that they're explicitly required, but it only protects against egregious abuse. Your car will still testify against you in a court of law.
Slashdot Mirror
We wanted to include Media Player for everyone without everyone incurring the cost even if they don't even have an optical drive.
Translation: Windows just entered the Day 1 DLC bonanza.
That's only true if you're running a 60Hz low-mid res display, say 1920x1200(~2.3 megapixels) or less. Though, even then the actual retail price of such a card, most of the time , will probably closer to $250 than $150.
If you want to run 120Hz, or run 2560x(1600|1440)(~3.7-4.1 megapixels), or run 3+ monitors in an eyefinity configuration(~4-24.5 megapixels), then you need all the power you can get.
Yes, but the GGP was addressing someone complaining about the cost of the card, not someone who's running a fucking surround-video in their replica Cessna cockpit. Anyone who's dishing out for high end displays isn't going to (justifiably) complain about the price of the card(s) needed to drive them. For everyone else, like the OP, a $150 GPU will play almost any game on their standard 1920x1080 60Hz display with decent performance settings just fine.
It's a right, but it doesn't have to be. That's the problem -- once people have power, they don't want to give it up; the common man included. Maybe it's time to say "Hey, giving us all the right to vote isn't working out so well." I'm not saying it's the only answer, but we already take away people's right to vote (felons), and that's far more arbitrary and capricious. I think, at the very least, it's worth studying, and it should be relatively easy to trial in a setting with no real-world implications. Even if it's found to be inferior, I believe a government based on reason and science would be more successful than one where decisions are made based on nothing and everything all at once, which is what we have. It's telling that we don't trust democracy for *anything* of real importance, except securing against tyranny, and I think there may be more effective protections, especially considering its failure in that regard.
Am I expected to just intuitively "feel" where all the controls and options are now? I don't understand why you are doing this.
Speaking as someone who has never owed a smart phone I have always found them restrictive and confusing. The encroaching presence of fatuous smartphone UIs onto my desktop annoys and increasingly frustrates me.
Not that I'm a fan of the new interface(s), at all, but the above is a pretty weak argument against change. Don't make a new way -- I already know how to do things this old way! Why do we need calculators when slide rules are just fine? Why do we have GUIs when the command line is so much more flexible? Horses don't run out of gas! Get off my lawn!
Would you rather get tazed, or subjected to the mysterious treatment behind door number 3? Maybe it's better, but I can think of lots of worse things as well. That's the predicament in voting for a 3rd party. It's a known quantity of shit versus an unknown quantity of an unknown substance. And the way many people see it (though not necessarily me) is that if a new "alternative" candidate was better than the one he's trying to replace, then he should have no problem clinching the nomination of a mainstream party in lieu of the incumbent/status-quo candidate.
Anyway, the problem likely isn't the parties, it's the voters. Shocking heresy, I know, but it's hard to get elected without votes, and voters don't magically become better decision makers just because they select someone of a different party. A combination of a qualification process + random sampling of a subset of eligible voters could allow for better choices, though disenfranchisement would need to be closely guarded against by making the qualification process as accessible (from an economic perspective) as possible. I realize it sounds elitist, but cognitive impairment and level of education are demonstrably linked to susceptibility to fraud and scams. We don't trust someone with dementia to drive, for example, or to practice medicine, so why do we trust their opinion on who should run the country, or how? On the contrary, we entrust their children and/or advocates to make decisions on their behalf. And that's not to pick on the elderly -- there are plenty of centenarians who are sharp as a tack -- just an example of a common issue that affects people across socioeconomic boundaries. Being "stupid" in the traditional sense (or intellectually lazy, or lacking in impulse control) is just as much of a liability. To counter the potential for abuse would require extensive protections, but I don't think that's an insurmountable problem, and it's important to remember that our existing system is not at all immune to abuse.
I can't be the only one who just threw up in their mouth a little after reading that.
I don't know about modding the Intel CPU, but I removed the heat spreader on my nVidia GPU (GTX460) and replaced the shite putty they used with some quality paste which lowered temps by 20C, and it wasn't terribly difficult. Tedious and delicate, yes, but not difficult. (Though to be fair, it appeared that the putty had contracted as it dried/cured/whatever, and was not making good contact between surfaces, which apparently was a relatively common problem.)
It is NOT semantics, it is a meaningless argument over the words used to define something that is not clearly definable.
From your own fucking link: Also, a representative democracy may or may not be a constitutional republic. For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."
Which is what? Society has failed to collapse in spite of widespread use of spankings? I'd like to see data on whether successful people were or were not spanked in childhood. Whether or not it's traumatizing to a child is more or less irrelevant if that trauma shapes them into responsible adults IMO, especially when "trauma" is defined so broadly that it encompasses any negative association with a behavior. The whole point is to modify behavior. I'll concede that spanking is likely overused, and that I've probably used it when it wasn't necessary, but I still assert that it is sometimes the only valid option.
I assumed that the north pole would be far enough away from polite society to let loose, but apparently I've just made an ass of myself once again.
Yes, and in the real world it's still less evil. If your choice is between less or more, not none or some, then picking more because they're both evil anyway does not a rational choice make.
Most people don't buy TVs at monitor sizes, so I don't think there's that much overlap.
You think Apple pays high margins for their components?!? Hilarious. They negotiate for the lowest possible margins and pass the savings on to Steve Jobs^w^w their bank account. Although I'll give Tim some credit: finally returning value to shareholders was long overdue.
I agree, but I've been displeased with AMD's performance per dollar when I was looking to upgrade. Additionally, within the lifecycle of DDR2, I was able to upgrade from C2D to C2Q without swapping motherboards. Graphics cards hadn't (and in most cases still haven't) come close to exhausting the available bandwidth in PCIe 2.0, so that was a non-issue. I agree that it's half luck, but nonetheless, buying an obsolete (or soon to be obsolete) architecture is dooming oneself to failure.
Maybe with AMD. Intel seems to keep their prices about the same or only slightly discounted to discourage the practice you describe. Core2Quads seem to be gone from inventory now, but last I checked a Q9650 was *still* more expensive than a Sandy Bridge i7 2600k, and an i7-860 is still ~$300 where you can find it. And DDR2 is now twice as expensive now as when I bought it last. And if any of those last-gen components fail, you're up the proverbial shit creek without a paddle overpaying for replacement old components or buying into a new architecture with a shortened lifetime. The best long-term strategy seems to be to buy the first of a new socket change, which has the *potential* to yield >1 tick-tock cycle. Sometimes it won't work out, but buying the old socket (and RAM bus, and IDE bus, and graphics bus) over the newer is *guaranteed* to not work out, and you won't get stuck trying to find old components at a reasonable price if anything breaks. Also FWIW, LGA775 was around for quite a while, as was AMD's previous socket (forget what it's called). While a LGA775 P4 motherboard wasn't forward compatible with a C2D, C2D was forward compatible with C2Q, which was nice.
Not that I particularly care, but I'm guessing they would probably object to being slaughtered. Either way, they're delicious. I do wish other meats like mutton were more widely available in the US though, just for a change of pace.
Well, the same goes for the medical industry as well. New treatments and insights are happening all the time. That said, I'd still prefer a doctor with a couple decades of experience to put it in context over the fresh-faced med school grad. Obviously I'm going to avoid someone who claims he can cure my cancer by balancing my humors through bloodletting, but fortunately those people are few and far between. Same goes for anyone who can't use PHP to code your shitty web 2.0 app.
Age discrimination is easy, and will never go away. All you have to do is point out that, of two candidates with equal qualifications and experience in your brand new scripting quasi-language, candidate B was willing to do the job for less pay, move halfway across the country, and work OT for comp time that he'll never be able to use before he moves on or we lay him off. (And oh yeah, unused comp time is paid at the regular rate.)
In other words, all you have to do is craft your requirements in such a way as to give no advantage to the experienced candidate, and then the playing field is level. And guess which candidates are desperate to bend over backwards to land their first job and start paying off their student loans?
His point wasn't that they didn't exist, but that the quantity was smaller. And since PCs didn't exist (for all intents and purposes) in the 70s, let alone smart phones and programmable appliances, his point is probably correct. With the explosion of hardware, it logically follows that there are more people to program them, unless you're arguing that there was a glut of software developers back in the 60s and 70s working 2-man projects with a gaggle of developers writing KLOCs of NOOPs.
Why? If you've waited this long, just hold out for Haswell. Intel has already confirmed they're changing the socket, so really that gives you the best odds of an upgrade path in the future should they decide to keep LGA1150 around for Skylake (the successor to Haswell). At the very least you're stuck with yet another obsoleted socket, but with a likely impressive performance upgrade over Ivy Bridge. By buying in now, you've already lost 1 year on current performance levels going forward... the best time to buy in would have been with Sandy Bridge.
Either way, the party don't stop.
Well, I wouldn't say nobody, but the SNR was very low at the time.
A separate, smaller, lightweight reserve battery that can be carried by hand and easily replaced.
Or some really long cords.
And you and I both (should) know that warrants are just a formality. It's good that they're explicitly required, but it only protects against egregious abuse. Your car will still testify against you in a court of law.