Yeah it's pretty much frequency-dependant. My A64 3200+ (2.0GHz winchester): 94 seconds.
It might have made a difference of a second or two if I killed all the other programs vying for processor time though. Not really worth the trouble though.
Oh please. The reason it made the front page is because it's a major switch to Firefox. Doesn't matter who switches, just that some large organization made the switch.
Oh pfeh. If the government wanted to track browsing habits, they could just collate data from server logs to get a much better picture of how who went where when for why.
The "principle" of the matter is that this is little more than an "OMG GOVERNMENT" not-news item intended for fear-mongering from an organization that's supposed to be better than this.
Flawed analogy. Here you have the capacity to specifically configure your browser to ask you if you want the cookie installed. Most people just opt for letting everything install behind their back.
You wouldn't have bugs placed in your house if you denied the NSA access to your house, logically-speaking.
Except we're talking fault here. Whose fault is it anyway?
Some argue that it's the video game's fault for inciting such reactions. I'm arguing that it's the gamer's fault for letting him/herself get caught up in it in the first place.
For fault to be anything other than on the immediate person.
The analogy was given elsewhere that one should be shot up against their will with heroin, and thus it wouldn't be that person's fault for being addicted to the stuff, which is true. You've got a classic case of assault there. In the case of a video game, however, the fault is pinned squarely on the person whose brain is producing the effects forming the addiction.
It's like if you pull the trigger on a gun, and kill someone. You can't reasonably claim that the gun made you pull the trigger.
Except in the case of video games, as with all other "addictions" that don't rely on foreign substances, it's completely your fault.
Why?
Simple. There's no foreign substance being ingested, inhaled or injected. If there are any chemicals being consumed within your body perpetuating the "addiction", they're also chemicals being produced entirely within your body. That's assuming it's a chemical addiction in the first place.
If it's merely psychological, then only you hold responsibility for what goes on in your head.
Fundamentally, it's a lack of willpower to quit. How is a game at fault for the gamer lacking the willpower to quit playing? The psychological dependancy is created entirely within the gamer's mind; unlike a real drug, there is no chemical being injected. No outside force is directly causing these effects.
Recall that for some time after 9/11 America was so bloodthirsty for revenge that the little offenses (that we'd normally get our collective panties in a twist over) didn't matter. Collateral damage was a non-issue; the US military had free reign to drop whatever the hell they wanted to whenever the hell they wanted to, and nobody was going to stop them. In fact, we were encouraging them.
Our revolution wasn't as great an offense to the British as the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were to us, so it's not a particularly fair comparison.
China's last experiment with self-sufficiency was by all accounts a complete disaster, with upwards of 35 million dead. I wouldn't be surprised if this attempt results in another spectacular failure.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why I just bought a laptop from Falcon Northwest.
One pixel dies/gets stuck and I can overnight the thing back to them at no added cost to me.
If Bloomberg were really serious, IT would've gotten rid of Solitaire years ago. It's not like he just now got elected, ya know...
Yeah it's pretty much frequency-dependant. My A64 3200+ (2.0GHz winchester): 94 seconds.
It might have made a difference of a second or two if I killed all the other programs vying for processor time though. Not really worth the trouble though.
AMD processors cost less and perform better at lower clockspeeds. The Athlon64s also put out a lot less heat than the P4's.
I think that about sums it up.
Cost.
Except that Kerry won Wisconsin in 2004.
The Maginot Line was no analogous firewall. It was more like a sieve.
Oh please. The reason it made the front page is because it's a major switch to Firefox. Doesn't matter who switches, just that some large organization made the switch.
Two words are all that's necessary.
Marketing campaign.
No, the last thing AMD needs to do is waste money and time pointlessly redefining itself.
Oh pfeh. If the government wanted to track browsing habits, they could just collate data from server logs to get a much better picture of how who went where when for why.
The "principle" of the matter is that this is little more than an "OMG GOVERNMENT" not-news item intended for fear-mongering from an organization that's supposed to be better than this.
Flawed analogy. Here you have the capacity to specifically configure your browser to ask you if you want the cookie installed. Most people just opt for letting everything install behind their back.
You wouldn't have bugs placed in your house if you denied the NSA access to your house, logically-speaking.
Use it to teach kids and young adults just how ridiculous a notion the socialist welfare state really is.
But that still requires money out of my pocket. A net loss for me.
I want to see a net gain.
Quite. If they want to know this stuff so badly, they can compensate me with the only thing that will work: money.
No money, no info. It's that simple.
I wouldn't mind all the spam I get if I got paid to receive it, ya know?
Mirrors aren't that expensive.
By restricting your contributing base to historians and your editing base to linguists, perhaps?
So therefore it's not silly for the editors to post dupes of dupes? They still generate discussion.
Except we're talking fault here. Whose fault is it anyway?
Some argue that it's the video game's fault for inciting such reactions. I'm arguing that it's the gamer's fault for letting him/herself get caught up in it in the first place.
For fault to be anything other than on the immediate person.
The analogy was given elsewhere that one should be shot up against their will with heroin, and thus it wouldn't be that person's fault for being addicted to the stuff, which is true. You've got a classic case of assault there. In the case of a video game, however, the fault is pinned squarely on the person whose brain is producing the effects forming the addiction.
It's like if you pull the trigger on a gun, and kill someone. You can't reasonably claim that the gun made you pull the trigger.
Except in the case of video games, as with all other "addictions" that don't rely on foreign substances, it's completely your fault.
Why?
Simple. There's no foreign substance being ingested, inhaled or injected. If there are any chemicals being consumed within your body perpetuating the "addiction", they're also chemicals being produced entirely within your body. That's assuming it's a chemical addiction in the first place.
If it's merely psychological, then only you hold responsibility for what goes on in your head.
Fundamentally, it's a lack of willpower to quit. How is a game at fault for the gamer lacking the willpower to quit playing? The psychological dependancy is created entirely within the gamer's mind; unlike a real drug, there is no chemical being injected. No outside force is directly causing these effects.
Not necessarily.
Recall that for some time after 9/11 America was so bloodthirsty for revenge that the little offenses (that we'd normally get our collective panties in a twist over) didn't matter. Collateral damage was a non-issue; the US military had free reign to drop whatever the hell they wanted to whenever the hell they wanted to, and nobody was going to stop them. In fact, we were encouraging them.
Our revolution wasn't as great an offense to the British as the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were to us, so it's not a particularly fair comparison.
So where'd you get your numbers?
China's last experiment with self-sufficiency was by all accounts a complete disaster, with upwards of 35 million dead. I wouldn't be surprised if this attempt results in another spectacular failure.