Yeah, but that's what makes it exciting... by engaging, you have something to lose (or win). WoW PvP, by contrast, even if you lose you still get your gold star so you can grind PvP to get store goodies.
Absolutely 100% incorrect. I sometimes go months playing without ever being in a gang and I get by just fine. I know plenty of hardcore pvp players who solo 90% of the time as well.
You'll only survive/be able to stay in your corp, of course, if you do exactly what your commanding officer says
This is most often because your commanding officer knows a lot more about what's going on than you do. He's the one commanding the 100+ (sometimes 300+) ship fleet with reports coming in from a dozen scouts from as many systems about enemy placements and movements while making decisions on how to apply his fleet (of which you are a member), you aren't. That's in a battle. Otherwise, it's no different than any guild in any other game.
Can a handful of Level 5 players in WoW PvP gang up on a Level 60/70 (whatever the max is now) and kill him? Well, it's possible in EVE. If you can fly a frigate and power on a webifier or warp scrambler (if not possible as soon as you create your toon, within an hour of toon creation you can), you can be useful in a gang killing other players who have been playing for years. A huge corporation/alliance in EVE (Goons) once started out this way. The even had videos of large gangs of them teaming up in the noobships (wimpiest, crappiest ships in the game) and killing other players. The largest/most powerful alliance in EVE tried to destroy them and drive them out of the game and, instead, they've become also one of the most powerful alliances in the game. There is no game that has the drama of EVE;)
Plus, you can gain skills even when you aren't online. The only thing that really requires you to log in are to change skills and to make ISK.
I've played for two years now and can't even use anything beyond the basic mining equipment (which I got the skills for when I created my toon). I've never mined other than the one part of the tutorial that tells you to do it. I have *no* idea where everybody gets the idea that you have to mine when you play EVE.
Well... it's mostly because you need to learn a lot in order to be effective... traversal velocities (how to maximize your own vs. the enemy and how to minimize those of your enemy to you), tracking speeds, explosion velocities, optimal and falloff ranges, ship agility/mass, capacitor and shield regeneration rates (R= 1-(1/cosh(tau*t))), etc. You just have to know a lot to play effectively.
"Why are my guns not hitting this frigate orbiting me?" "Why are my missiles hitting but only doing 0.1 point of damage to the target?" etc.
Those are inexperienced players, then... buy cheap +2 implants (can get the money for those from just a few missions) for your combat clone, have a learning clone with +4/+5 implants you switch to when you want to take a break. Sure, you slow down a little but it isn't that bad.
This depended a lot. Anybody who was in a high-end guild didn't think about death at all. It was routine to die quite a lot every week. With the 96% XP return on resurrection from a cleric, raid all week, spend a few hours to recover all lost XP on the weekend during non-raid times and go again. I lost *levels* in raids and didn't sweat it. Lots of other people, however, couldn't take even getting killed once.
You can always work back up... if you don't have a ship, you can get a newbie ship from the game for free... it sucks mightily but you *can* start making money with it again. The only time/effort you ever can lose from training is if you don't have an up-to-date med clone, and then you can lose training points. Otherwise, once you learn a skill, it's yours to keep forever.
Ah... I didn't know PCMark was a real application and not a synthetic benchmark. Synthetic benchmarks tend to try to get the absolute peak performance, so it would make sense to optimize that way. Shrink-wrapped applications don't do those kinds of optimizations, but I *have* worked on plenty of codes in HPC that do things like check for what CPU it's on so it can make use of tiling algorithms to efficiently use L1 cache architecture. Some distributed computing projects do this as well.
Either way, that's not an excuse. As Ars points out, if it is just checking for something like SSE2 the Nano has that. If you want to make an optimized code path it should be based on if a feature is reported as present or not, not who made the CPU.
Not true at all... you may also want to know who made it. The chip implementation may give better performance of, say, integer or floating point divide on AMD than it does on Intel, so if AMD, use divide but on Intel, you may want to use inverse + multiply. Some sequences of instructions on Intel may be faster than the same exact sequence on AMD because the Intel made chip may have any number of implementation differences... more rename buffers so it can stall less, more decode resources for wider simultaneous execution, or any number of other things. If you're *really* out to test performance (and need that performance) you *will* optimize on a clock count basis and to know that, you have to know the implementation specifics of *the* processor you're on.
Dan doesn't seem to know much about batteries. Check out batter power discharge curves and such... http://www.mpoweruk.com/performance.htm Remaining power is estimated based on the charge of the battery. If you notice on those graphs, when you get out to the end of the stored charge, it drops off very quickly, which is why the gauge goes from half to empty quickly.
How does correcting an unfair imbalance equal hamstringing?
Yeah, but did you move the bar up or did you move the bar down in your efforts to 'correct' an unfair imbalance?
We could make is so that no one is taught to read. It corrects the imbalance between those who have a hard time learning to read and those who have no problem reading. Is it is 'good' correction? Probably not.
As others have said, boys and girls tend to learn better in different environments. Forcing boys to learn 'like a girl does' handicaps him. Forcing a girl to learn 'like a boy does' handicaps her. The solution has been to make the classrooms more suitable for girls at the expense of boys, including medication to enforce behavior more appropriate to girl-friendly environments. While this may be a 'win' for girls, it has definitely been at the expense of enabling boys to reach their potential.
There are plenty of other manufacturors who make boards that run fine with Linux. Buy those boards instead of trying to buy the cheapest boards in the list (which generally aren't considered very good anyway) at whatever online store you're shopping at. Foxconn has no obligation to support anything they don't think they'll make a profit doing. Get over it. You aren't entitled to have every motherboard on the market support your favorite flavor of OS. Vote with your money.
Do your research before buying (search online forums using Google, etc.) to see if a particular board you want to buy has been used by someone else successfully to run whatever it is you want to run. I've done this for every purchase I've made for the past 20 years, particularly with respect to Linux.
There's no excuse for your not doing your due diligence before you buy. File this under "Yo Fault".
The whole Microsoft wanting to buy Yahoo is really about the pay-per-click patent that Yahoo picked up when they bought out Overture years ago. It's the big companies with spare cash that can cruise around looking for obvious patents to snap up when they need some legal tire iron to beat over the heads of their competitors.
The advantage with this scheme is that Microsoft will have it for free the instant this goes into effect... there's no way to prevent it.
Remember, we had plenty of innovation (in the real sense, not the Microsoft meaning) in computing before software patents, that will still happen.
Yes, it was a different world back then, too. Today, it'll just be easier for anyone with resources to make use of your IP. Sure, OSS benefits greatly (and also has nothing to lose but all to gain) but so do the big companies. No more licensing, no more delays, just throw people at it as soon as they hear about it. Just remember... any idea you come up with after this (if it goes into effect) is Microsoft's (or any other big company that you don't like).
But... ideas are worthless unless they can be materialized in atoms. If you can easily reproduce it (like copying a file), it's worthless.
Well... this is interesting, we'll have to see how it plays out.
On the one hand, if the tag is true and that there will be no software patents, startups are effectively dead as well. Many startups use a patent as collateral for investors in order to get started. No patents mean that anybody (provided you have the resources - time, or a flock of programmers) can now reverse engineer what you've done and use it and you have no protection against that happening. Since you cannot protect your idea, your idea no longer has value to investors -- you have no collateral for investors to use to secure investment monies. Microsoft, for instance, will be able to not pay any licenses to the 'little guy' in order to use any new IP. Copyright only protects the source, not the algorithm. As long as anyone wants to write their own source, they have your IP. The flip side is that the big companies can't keep any other company (large or small) from making use of its IP. So, the death of startups based on new ideas and the proliferation of anyone with the resources using any idea from anyone else. Pretty high stakes.
The other side is that any company with the resources will simply make physical products instead of software. This could herald in the return of cartridge based systems and set-top boxes and the return to hardware based solutions. Since it's a physical product, the barrier to creating new hardware is pretty high (not everyone can manufacture their own cartridges or fab their own chips). Plus, because the algorithm is now implemented using atoms instead of ideas, electrons, and magnetic fields, it can now be patented... since atoms are seen to be more valuable than ideas.
What people don't understand is that IP does have value. The idea of a plow and what that idea enables is far more (incredibly more) valuable than the steel that's used to make the plow. Just because something isn't made of atoms does not mean it has no value.
This was what I was thinking... does this cover any sort of compression or transformation of data (converting format A to format B, for example)? What about taking two input streams and combining them into one type processing?
Yeah... it's much better to have RAM in your system that isn't storing anything at all (or providing any benefit) and just consuming power. Caching is very cheap and if something else needs the RAM, the cached data can just be repurposed with little overhead (as long as it wasn't written to).
I don't get this from people... Whether I'm using Linux or Windows, I'd prefer for *all* of my RAM to be used *all* of the time, even if it is just caching stuff that it thinks I'll need but I won't. A cache should be able to drop untouched memory and give it quickly to any application that needs it. You should be pissed at an OS that *doesn't* use all your RAM all the time because it isn't doing its primary job... efficient use of resources.
Welcome to class based systems... All that time invested in a single toon and as soon as the nerfbat swings, you're hosed. Your only solution is to have a toon for every possible combination of race/class so you can switch whenever the flavor-of-the-month changes.
I had a few who had 'books' that they wrote and kept a copy at Kinkos. They'd tell you to run down to Kinkos and get a copy and you only paid what it cost you at Kinkos (your choice of binding/etc. or not, as you preferred).
Yeah, some people see the eye-candy animated window redraws and such as being 'slow', too, when they're used to no-eye-candy redraws on their other machine. Obviously, since the machine is animating graphics slowly (at speeds that humans can see), everything is slow.
I'm giving Vista a spin right now (installed it last Friday night) and so far, I haven't had any problems. SP1 seemed to have fixed games graphics speed (I get similar performance as I had on XP) and the rest of my issues are just finding things because they've moved... well... when you have a new UI, things move to different places and such... otherwise it'd be the old UI.
I haven't had enough time to really get the feel for Vista, yet, so maybe there is still time for me to start hating it.
So... what would this mean for companies with architects, mechanical engineers, and anyone else who use computers to model/design parts for everything from automobiles to buildings?
Slashdot Mirror
Every MMO designer has forgotten to include that... I played WoW for four months and quit because it was too much of a grind-fest.
Yeah, but that's what makes it exciting... by engaging, you have something to lose (or win). WoW PvP, by contrast, even if you lose you still get your gold star so you can grind PvP to get store goodies.
Absolutely 100% incorrect. I sometimes go months playing without ever being in a gang and I get by just fine. I know plenty of hardcore pvp players who solo 90% of the time as well.
Can a handful of Level 5 players in WoW PvP gang up on a Level 60/70 (whatever the max is now) and kill him? Well, it's possible in EVE. If you can fly a frigate and power on a webifier or warp scrambler (if not possible as soon as you create your toon, within an hour of toon creation you can), you can be useful in a gang killing other players who have been playing for years. A huge corporation/alliance in EVE (Goons) once started out this way. The even had videos of large gangs of them teaming up in the noobships (wimpiest, crappiest ships in the game) and killing other players. The largest/most powerful alliance in EVE tried to destroy them and drive them out of the game and, instead, they've become also one of the most powerful alliances in the game. There is no game that has the drama of EVE ;)
Plus, you can gain skills even when you aren't online. The only thing that really requires you to log in are to change skills and to make ISK.
I've played for two years now and can't even use anything beyond the basic mining equipment (which I got the skills for when I created my toon). I've never mined other than the one part of the tutorial that tells you to do it. I have *no* idea where everybody gets the idea that you have to mine when you play EVE.
Well... it's mostly because you need to learn a lot in order to be effective... traversal velocities (how to maximize your own vs. the enemy and how to minimize those of your enemy to you), tracking speeds, explosion velocities, optimal and falloff ranges, ship agility/mass, capacitor and shield regeneration rates (R= 1-(1/cosh(tau*t))), etc. You just have to know a lot to play effectively.
"Why are my guns not hitting this frigate orbiting me?"
"Why are my missiles hitting but only doing 0.1 point of damage to the target?"
etc.
Those are inexperienced players, then... buy cheap +2 implants (can get the money for those from just a few missions) for your combat clone, have a learning clone with +4/+5 implants you switch to when you want to take a break. Sure, you slow down a little but it isn't that bad.
This depended a lot. Anybody who was in a high-end guild didn't think about death at all. It was routine to die quite a lot every week. With the 96% XP return on resurrection from a cleric, raid all week, spend a few hours to recover all lost XP on the weekend during non-raid times and go again. I lost *levels* in raids and didn't sweat it. Lots of other people, however, couldn't take even getting killed once.
You can always work back up... if you don't have a ship, you can get a newbie ship from the game for free... it sucks mightily but you *can* start making money with it again. The only time/effort you ever can lose from training is if you don't have an up-to-date med clone, and then you can lose training points. Otherwise, once you learn a skill, it's yours to keep forever.
Ah... I didn't know PCMark was a real application and not a synthetic benchmark. Synthetic benchmarks tend to try to get the absolute peak performance, so it would make sense to optimize that way. Shrink-wrapped applications don't do those kinds of optimizations, but I *have* worked on plenty of codes in HPC that do things like check for what CPU it's on so it can make use of tiling algorithms to efficiently use L1 cache architecture. Some distributed computing projects do this as well.
Not true at all... you may also want to know who made it. The chip implementation may give better performance of, say, integer or floating point divide on AMD than it does on Intel, so if AMD, use divide but on Intel, you may want to use inverse + multiply. Some sequences of instructions on Intel may be faster than the same exact sequence on AMD because the Intel made chip may have any number of implementation differences... more rename buffers so it can stall less, more decode resources for wider simultaneous execution, or any number of other things. If you're *really* out to test performance (and need that performance) you *will* optimize on a clock count basis and to know that, you have to know the implementation specifics of *the* processor you're on.
Dan doesn't seem to know much about batteries. Check out batter power discharge curves and such...
http://www.mpoweruk.com/performance.htm Remaining power is estimated based on the charge of the battery. If you notice on those graphs, when you get out to the end of the stored charge, it drops off very quickly, which is why the gauge goes from half to empty quickly.
Yeah, but did you move the bar up or did you move the bar down in your efforts to 'correct' an unfair imbalance?
We could make is so that no one is taught to read. It corrects the imbalance between those who have a hard time learning to read and those who have no problem reading. Is it is 'good' correction? Probably not.
As others have said, boys and girls tend to learn better in different environments. Forcing boys to learn 'like a girl does' handicaps him. Forcing a girl to learn 'like a boy does' handicaps her. The solution has been to make the classrooms more suitable for girls at the expense of boys, including medication to enforce behavior more appropriate to girl-friendly environments. While this may be a 'win' for girls, it has definitely been at the expense of enabling boys to reach their potential.
There are plenty of other manufacturors who make boards that run fine with Linux. Buy those boards instead of trying to buy the cheapest boards in the list (which generally aren't considered very good anyway) at whatever online store you're shopping at. Foxconn has no obligation to support anything they don't think they'll make a profit doing. Get over it. You aren't entitled to have every motherboard on the market support your favorite flavor of OS. Vote with your money.
Do your research before buying (search online forums using Google, etc.) to see if a particular board you want to buy has been used by someone else successfully to run whatever it is you want to run. I've done this for every purchase I've made for the past 20 years, particularly with respect to Linux.
There's no excuse for your not doing your due diligence before you buy. File this under "Yo Fault".
The advantage with this scheme is that Microsoft will have it for free the instant this goes into effect... there's no way to prevent it.
Yes, it was a different world back then, too. Today, it'll just be easier for anyone with resources to make use of your IP. Sure, OSS benefits greatly (and also has nothing to lose but all to gain) but so do the big companies. No more licensing, no more delays, just throw people at it as soon as they hear about it. Just remember... any idea you come up with after this (if it goes into effect) is Microsoft's (or any other big company that you don't like).
But... ideas are worthless unless they can be materialized in atoms. If you can easily reproduce it (like copying a file), it's worthless.
Well... this is interesting, we'll have to see how it plays out.
On the one hand, if the tag is true and that there will be no software patents, startups are effectively dead as well. Many startups use a patent as collateral for investors in order to get started. No patents mean that anybody (provided you have the resources - time, or a flock of programmers) can now reverse engineer what you've done and use it and you have no protection against that happening. Since you cannot protect your idea, your idea no longer has value to investors -- you have no collateral for investors to use to secure investment monies. Microsoft, for instance, will be able to not pay any licenses to the 'little guy' in order to use any new IP. Copyright only protects the source, not the algorithm. As long as anyone wants to write their own source, they have your IP. The flip side is that the big companies can't keep any other company (large or small) from making use of its IP. So, the death of startups based on new ideas and the proliferation of anyone with the resources using any idea from anyone else. Pretty high stakes.
The other side is that any company with the resources will simply make physical products instead of software. This could herald in the return of cartridge based systems and set-top boxes and the return to hardware based solutions. Since it's a physical product, the barrier to creating new hardware is pretty high (not everyone can manufacture their own cartridges or fab their own chips). Plus, because the algorithm is now implemented using atoms instead of ideas, electrons, and magnetic fields, it can now be patented... since atoms are seen to be more valuable than ideas.
What people don't understand is that IP does have value. The idea of a plow and what that idea enables is far more (incredibly more) valuable than the steel that's used to make the plow. Just because something isn't made of atoms does not mean it has no value.
This was what I was thinking... does this cover any sort of compression or transformation of data (converting format A to format B, for example)? What about taking two input streams and combining them into one type processing?
Yeah... it's much better to have RAM in your system that isn't storing anything at all (or providing any benefit) and just consuming power. Caching is very cheap and if something else needs the RAM, the cached data can just be repurposed with little overhead (as long as it wasn't written to).
I don't get this from people... Whether I'm using Linux or Windows, I'd prefer for *all* of my RAM to be used *all* of the time, even if it is just caching stuff that it thinks I'll need but I won't. A cache should be able to drop untouched memory and give it quickly to any application that needs it. You should be pissed at an OS that *doesn't* use all your RAM all the time because it isn't doing its primary job... efficient use of resources.
Yeah... keep it up and Alaska will split into two states and move Texas from the #2 state to the #3 state in area. ;)
Welcome to class based systems... All that time invested in a single toon and as soon as the nerfbat swings, you're hosed. Your only solution is to have a toon for every possible combination of race/class so you can switch whenever the flavor-of-the-month changes.
I had a few who had 'books' that they wrote and kept a copy at Kinkos. They'd tell you to run down to Kinkos and get a copy and you only paid what it cost you at Kinkos (your choice of binding/etc. or not, as you preferred).
Yeah, some people see the eye-candy animated window redraws and such as being 'slow', too, when they're used to no-eye-candy redraws on their other machine. Obviously, since the machine is animating graphics slowly (at speeds that humans can see), everything is slow.
I'm giving Vista a spin right now (installed it last Friday night) and so far, I haven't had any problems. SP1 seemed to have fixed games graphics speed (I get similar performance as I had on XP) and the rest of my issues are just finding things because they've moved... well... when you have a new UI, things move to different places and such... otherwise it'd be the old UI.
I haven't had enough time to really get the feel for Vista, yet, so maybe there is still time for me to start hating it.
I hope they've learned a bit over time. Should be a good game, though.
It's actually just "science" in general. All science observes nature and tries to 'figure it out'.
So... what would this mean for companies with architects, mechanical engineers, and anyone else who use computers to model/design parts for everything from automobiles to buildings?