Can we have ONE video card news posting discussion without a flood of people preaching how it's supposedly stupid to spend anything more than 100$ on a videocard? Please? People have different needs and expectations.
You're grasping at straws. Try talking to any people who do serious video recording (like actual movies). Try telling them with a straight face that it doesn't matter what FPS they record quick-moving action sequences (where camera is being panned around a lot) with as long as it's above 24 fps and see what kind of reaction you get:)
As for the second video link, if you honest-to-god cannot tell a serious difference between the 2 sequences of Unreal Tournament shown, well... you should be glad I guess, because it means YOU can get away with using a lot cheaper hardware. Me? It pains me to even look at the 24fps video, playing at such a framerate is much worse because it also screws up the precision of player movement.
30fps is a joke and not anywhere near a playable framerate
It is perfectly playable, for anyone with human eyes
I can't believe anyone still tries to bring up the old "human eye doesn't see beyond 30fps so anything higher is useless" mantra. It has been debunked a hundred times.
That there are always people that are too stupid to buy such a thing when you can get a great GPU for 100 dollars?
In other words parent explains why this card is totally useless...
So you are saying that the current 200, 300, 500 and 1000 $ cards offer no value over 100$ ones? That's true I guess, if you are playing games a decade old and/or have a small monitor.
Nokia is betting the house on Meego. Big time. By announcing that Symbian will no longer be the OS choice for their top-end smartphones in the future, Nokia has essentially cannibilized the sales of their upcoming flagship - the Nokia N8. The N8 is actually a very decent device and it's going to be competitively priced, but they have not only failed to gain any major mindshare for it so far via very lackluster pre-launch marketing, they have now essentially buried it by announcing that Symbian is now officially a low-to-mid phone system.
What Nokia needs to do is replace it's top management. Unless some drastical measures are announced within the next 2 weeks (Q2 report coming up), the stockholders are going to be demanding that too (just look at Nokia stock trend over the past 8 years, it's really not particularly pretty). The problem is the arrogance and incompetence of the long-time top company officials like Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo (the CEO). Nokia's current situation is very similar to Ericsson a decade ago. They had a very strong market position, but grew arrogant and slow, while the market churn kept on speeding up.
An individual comes into an unauthorized posession of a development prototype.
Nokia politely asks said invidividual to return their property.
Individual does not respond.
Nokia involves the authorities.
So the phone OS with the biggest worldwide marketshare (and by quite a margin) is a "goner"? Because you said so?
Noone talks and writes to the media about developing for Symbian simply because it isn't sexy.
I can't believe they still haven't fixed zoom. There are only 2 options "zoomed in" and "zoomed out", there is no in-between. There is no clockwise/counter-clockwise gesture to adjust zoom level like in MicroB. Uninstalled.
High frequency trading adds a lot to the market. Just not the way you think it should. I for one like the fact that there is ALWAYS someone buying or selling EVERYTHING. That makes it easier for me to buy and sell. Liquidity is not something that should be overlooked as a great thing to have.
You seem to have bought into the commonly repeated lie about High-Frequency Trading. It's existense is not there to "help you" via providing liquidity to the market. In fact, HFT requires a pretty high level of existing liquidity to work in the first place! If little to no people are trading a specific stock, there is little liquidity and there is no viable way to make money from it via HFT. If a given stock is being traded by institutions utilizing HFT, it means there were no liquidity issues to begin with. If there were, these institutions wouldn't have been able to make money using HFT in the first place!
I did something similar for a friend, helping him pick up women on IRC. The bot learned his usual questions and if they answered about 10 questions, it meant they were interested in him and the bot would forward the conversation to him and he continued it. Another time, I wrote an IRC bot for myself; it would act as a man-in-the-middle to pick up women by getting female nicknames and then forwarding the messages it got to other female-like nicknames it detected. If the conversation went long enough, it forwarded everything to me and I would pick up the chat from there.
Ok, you make 10K per year. Food and rent takes 9.5K. How much money do you have to risk? Hope you didn't want a minimum of comforts or medicine too.
You make 200K per year. Food and rent (even at a much nicer places) take 40K per year. How much money do you have to risk?
Again, I don't see your point. The poor, in your case, can risk 0,5k and the rich in your case, can risk 60k. The amounts gained or lost obvious differ in raw value, but the percentages remain the same. Both as a rich and as a poor person, you simply do not invest what you need for short-term expenses like food and rent.
And who is it who has the excess resources necessary to take a risk? Oh yeah, the rich. If they risk a lot of money, and lose it, they can fall back on their reserves and try again next year. The rest of us can't afford to risk very much, since failure would cost us our livelihood. That's why the rich tend to get richer, and the poor tend to stay poor.
You are full of it. 50% of investment lost is 50% of investment lost and 200% gain is 200% gain to both the rich and the poor.
Without liquidity, we would likely see wild fluctuations in the prices of stocks, creating an even more unstable and unsure environment. Take a read of the wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_liquidity) to get a better understanding. This behaviour can be seen today in exchanges where trading volumes are low and on stocks with low trading volumes (penny stocks, etc). The concept follows over to many things in life. Imagine if you were required to keep any object your purchased for a minimum amount of time before reselling it (house, car, iPod, etc). You would lose control of selling it at a time that works best for you. Very likely, you'd stop buying.
What on earth gives you this idea? Does the fact that I cannot resell a house for say, a year or my car for 6 months suddenly make not need either?
RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000)) requires encryption keys to be handed over, or plaintext provided, on penalty of up to two years imprisonment.
I've always been curious how this works if you simply respond "I don't remember".
wish that radio spectrum wasn't finite and would allow for unlimited bandwidth and removal of traffic caps. However, reality begs to differ with my point of view.
They openly admit they fully expect a 90% drop in userbase. They are however, arguing that since this 10% will now be paying, the end results will be better for their financial success.
regarding what this actually means.
This means that a lot of companies with deep pockets (private equity companies) think that in the long term, Novell has potential for a lot of growth, so they would get nice ROI (return on investment) from a Novell purchase made today. This does not mean that Novell is dead, dying or even on the decline. If this was the case, you would be seeing offers from competitors who would want to swallow a competitor awhole, taking their userbase along.
Slashdot Mirror
Can we have ONE video card news posting discussion without a flood of people preaching how it's supposedly stupid to spend anything more than 100$ on a videocard? Please? People have different needs and expectations.
Something as simple as stirring up some dust can mean death to a cave diver.
OK, stupid question: how/why does stirring up some dust cause death?
You're grasping at straws. Try talking to any people who do serious video recording (like actual movies). Try telling them with a straight face that it doesn't matter what FPS they record quick-moving action sequences (where camera is being panned around a lot) with as long as it's above 24 fps and see what kind of reaction you get :)
As for the second video link, if you honest-to-god cannot tell a serious difference between the 2 sequences of Unreal Tournament shown, well... you should be glad I guess, because it means YOU can get away with using a lot cheaper hardware. Me? It pains me to even look at the 24fps video, playing at such a framerate is much worse because it also screws up the precision of player movement.
It is perfectly playable, for anyone with human eyes
I can't believe anyone still tries to bring up the old "human eye doesn't see beyond 30fps so anything higher is useless" mantra. It has been debunked a hundred times.
http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html
http://kimpix.net/download/60vs24.avi
Crysis Warhead at 1680*1050 at max setting 'enthusiast' or something gives 30+ fps on Windows XP SP2 with my AMD Phenom 9950 X4, 8GB RAM, HD5770...
So you were saying?
I am saying that:
1) 30fps is a joke and not anywhere near a playable framerate
2) 5770 is a 150-200$ videocard.
That there are always people that are too stupid to buy such a thing when you can get a great GPU for 100 dollars?
In other words parent explains why this card is totally useless...
So you are saying that the current 200, 300, 500 and 1000 $ cards offer no value over 100$ ones? That's true I guess, if you are playing games a decade old and/or have a small monitor.
I only spend ~$100 on average on my videocards.
I got a GTS 250 for $100 close to a half-year ago. A friend of mine just got a Radeon 4870 for $100!
Great. Now what does this have to do with anything?
The Asus ARES commands a hefty $1200 MSRP.
What the fuck
I am not really sure what your price expectations are for the fastest videocard ever made, of which the manufacturer makes only 1000 to be sold?
You cherry pick one of the most successful games of all time, Doom 3
What? Doom 3 is nothing of the sort.
To expand a bit.
Nokia is betting the house on Meego. Big time. By announcing that Symbian will no longer be the OS choice for their top-end smartphones in the future, Nokia has essentially cannibilized the sales of their upcoming flagship - the Nokia N8. The N8 is actually a very decent device and it's going to be competitively priced, but they have not only failed to gain any major mindshare for it so far via very lackluster pre-launch marketing, they have now essentially buried it by announcing that Symbian is now officially a low-to-mid phone system.
Disclaimer: I hold Nokia stock
What Nokia needs to do is replace it's top management. Unless some drastical measures are announced within the next 2 weeks (Q2 report coming up), the stockholders are going to be demanding that too (just look at Nokia stock trend over the past 8 years, it's really not particularly pretty). The problem is the arrogance and incompetence of the long-time top company officials like Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo (the CEO). Nokia's current situation is very similar to Ericsson a decade ago. They had a very strong market position, but grew arrogant and slow, while the market churn kept on speeding up.
Easy. NetApp sues a small vendor, wins and then uses this win as leverage in their battle against Oracle.
An individual comes into an unauthorized posession of a development prototype.
Nokia politely asks said invidividual to return their property.
Individual does not respond.
Nokia involves the authorities.
I am failing to find a story in all this.
So the phone OS with the biggest worldwide marketshare (and by quite a margin) is a "goner"? Because you said so? Noone talks and writes to the media about developing for Symbian simply because it isn't sexy.
I can't believe they still haven't fixed zoom. There are only 2 options "zoomed in" and "zoomed out", there is no in-between. There is no clockwise/counter-clockwise gesture to adjust zoom level like in MicroB. Uninstalled.
High frequency trading adds a lot to the market. Just not the way you think it should. I for one like the fact that there is ALWAYS someone buying or selling EVERYTHING. That makes it easier for me to buy and sell. Liquidity is not something that should be overlooked as a great thing to have.
You seem to have bought into the commonly repeated lie about High-Frequency Trading. It's existense is not there to "help you" via providing liquidity to the market. In fact, HFT requires a pretty high level of existing liquidity to work in the first place! If little to no people are trading a specific stock, there is little liquidity and there is no viable way to make money from it via HFT. If a given stock is being traded by institutions utilizing HFT, it means there were no liquidity issues to begin with. If there were, these institutions wouldn't have been able to make money using HFT in the first place!
I did something similar for a friend, helping him pick up women on IRC. The bot learned his usual questions and if they answered about 10 questions, it meant they were interested in him and the bot would forward the conversation to him and he continued it. Another time, I wrote an IRC bot for myself; it would act as a man-in-the-middle to pick up women by getting female nicknames and then forwarding the messages it got to other female-like nicknames it detected. If the conversation went long enough, it forwarded everything to me and I would pick up the chat from there.
And then you woke up.
Ok, you make 10K per year. Food and rent takes 9.5K. How much money do you have to risk? Hope you didn't want a minimum of comforts or medicine too.
You make 200K per year. Food and rent (even at a much nicer places) take 40K per year. How much money do you have to risk?
Again, I don't see your point. The poor, in your case, can risk 0,5k and the rich in your case, can risk 60k. The amounts gained or lost obvious differ in raw value, but the percentages remain the same. Both as a rich and as a poor person, you simply do not invest what you need for short-term expenses like food and rent.
And who is it who has the excess resources necessary to take a risk? Oh yeah, the rich. If they risk a lot of money, and lose it, they can fall back on their reserves and try again next year. The rest of us can't afford to risk very much, since failure would cost us our livelihood. That's why the rich tend to get richer, and the poor tend to stay poor.
You are full of it. 50% of investment lost is 50% of investment lost and 200% gain is 200% gain to both the rich and the poor.
Without liquidity, we would likely see wild fluctuations in the prices of stocks, creating an even more unstable and unsure environment. Take a read of the wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_liquidity) to get a better understanding. This behaviour can be seen today in exchanges where trading volumes are low and on stocks with low trading volumes (penny stocks, etc). The concept follows over to many things in life. Imagine if you were required to keep any object your purchased for a minimum amount of time before reselling it (house, car, iPod, etc). You would lose control of selling it at a time that works best for you. Very likely, you'd stop buying.
What on earth gives you this idea? Does the fact that I cannot resell a house for say, a year or my car for 6 months suddenly make not need either?
This type of trading provides liquidity and makes a market.
The stock market had survived just fine without computers, let alone high-frequency trading.
RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000)) requires encryption keys to be handed over, or plaintext provided, on penalty of up to two years imprisonment.
I've always been curious how this works if you simply respond "I don't remember".
wish that radio spectrum wasn't finite and would allow for unlimited bandwidth and removal of traffic caps. However, reality begs to differ with my point of view.
They openly admit they fully expect a 90% drop in userbase. They are however, arguing that since this 10% will now be paying, the end results will be better for their financial success.
regarding what this actually means. This means that a lot of companies with deep pockets (private equity companies) think that in the long term, Novell has potential for a lot of growth, so they would get nice ROI (return on investment) from a Novell purchase made today. This does not mean that Novell is dead, dying or even on the decline. If this was the case, you would be seeing offers from competitors who would want to swallow a competitor awhole, taking their userbase along.