Does this remind anyone of Capacitor Plague? Look at the resale prices of potentially affected Dells to get an idea of the impact of these kinds of decisions. There will be all of these hardware rev numbers and manufacturers won't be forthcoming with information on which units have which. It's ridiculous.
The capacitor issue was pervasive and took years for the problems to manifest themselves.
Since the failed parts were made by a third-party, many computer makers were hesitant to acknowledge the problem as their responsibility. At the same time, a complete lack of part traceability (due to a gray market for things like capacitors) meant that manufacturers could not easily point fingers, so they kept quiet until more information was available.
This failed chipset is made by Intel, and is used only in Intel systems. The failure was introduced late in the product development cycle, and not enough testing was done on the final silicon (it was assumed that earlier intensive tests were enough). Intel is supporting a full no-questions-asked recall of all boards sold before the product was pulled from the market, and they are working through both major retailers and manufactuers.
In my case, Newegg sent an email guaranteeing an extension of the return period until they release new silicon, and that they will supply me a new replacement board at that time. Most board manufactures have also publicly announced replacement plans for those users who have no easy way to return their board to the original point of purchase (some have even pledged free return shipping as well).
If Intel continues to ship the 67-series chipsets, they should have no further issues if the 3Gbps SATA ports are disabled. Since many manufacturers already have "enthusiast" motherboards with 2-4 additional 6Gbps SATA ports, a quick price cut could make these boards attractive even with half the ports disabled. There could be other flaws in the rest of the chipset, but you take that chance with every new computer you purchase.
A smart phone without a contract is $500. This'll retail for $250 and drop in price.
And an Ipod Touch with 8GB included is just $230, and is just as capable of falling in price (since it is also not a phone).
The Ipod will also get a hardware upgrade yearly that I'm not expecting to see for this NGP (unless they break the "fixed platform spec" mantra successful consoles have followed for the last 30 years).
Likely a lot less. These Android hardware specs were announced several months ago for up coming models. They are clearly running in parallel time tables. By the time the NGP is available, competing hardware with equal or superior specs will already be out for Android.
Only Apple is likely to be caught behind by this, but likely only one generational cycle at worst. So in the grand scheme, this is a complete non-news story.
Thanks to the explosion of Smartphones, Nintendo and Sony no longer have the edge in performance/watt in portable gaming. Since portable platforms are constrained mostly by power, this means any performance edge they enjoyed previously is gone now.
I'm really surprised that Nintendo didn't just jump on the bandwagon and go Tegra 2 (or some other standardized platform) - it would have reduced their own development costs, and guaranteed them good platform support and upgrades. Going with that ancient PICA200 GPU and their own CPU may make for a limited gaming experience, and at $249 MSRP, they can't afford that today.
I have a feeling Sony is going to make the same mistake with the NGP, and it's really all for nothing. Fab processes are the limiting factor these days in power consumption, so you might as well leverage an already efficient design from another company.
I can't thank you enough! I have limited vertical screen real estate, and I really hate how floating menus steal what little I have from me. Sites that have them installed don't get my pageviews.
I really was considering never coming here again until I read your post! Hopefully they will make it permanent.
How is it going to be a full-blown desktop PC if the only app that runs on it is Microsoft Office? What happens when they can't take their favorite program they bought for their desktop and run it on there ARM system? What happens when there is no NetFlix player for it or any of their other favorite apps?
Unless Microsoft has created a free compiler that can convert win32 binaries to ARM binaries Microsoft loses their one big advantage, 30 years of DOS/Windows 3.1/Windows XP/Windows Seven compatibility for legacy software titles.
Unfortunately, the ultimate goal of a translation engine is for it to be a temporary thing while you move to another exclusive platform. This fragmented platform support for the next version of Windows is a poor move in that respect, because it's not making clear what the long-term goal is.
The end result will be code bloat, because Universal Binaries will become the rule rather than the transitional fix they should be.
Debit cards with visa/mc etc logo are the same as credit cards, meaning they have the same fraud protection. CC companies are more of a threat.
This is true...now. But that's a recent change. Fraud on debit cards used to be handled by the bank issuing the card, and they often could do nothing for you (or WOULD do nothing for you). I'm certain that the bank still handles debit card fraud today, but the threat of Visa badgering them means they might actually try to help you.
That said, unless you have an exotic setup like the grandparent with limited funds and no overdraft, you're still better-off with a credit card. This is because the money charged against your credit account has a grace period before you need to pay (and in the case of fraud, you won't have to pay until the case is resolved), whereas money fraudulently removed from your bank account is gone until the fraud is resolved.
I'd personally rather have cash-in-hand if someone raped me online.
Yeah, I did the same thing with this USB mini disk my girlfriend has (it's actually a mini hard disk).
It was really hard to do because the 4-wire lead between the connector and the PCB was only 1" long, and also it was exposed stranded wire that had only been casually coated - there was no actual insulation (cheapass Chinese construction), so I had to collect several rouge strands to prevent a short.
I finally got it soldered and got the data off, and told her she can't use it anymore. I guess I could take a picture if you want to see it:D
Er, no. Net profit is the only real measure of success.
Yes, this is a short-term goal for any newspaper. But you're ignoring the long-term consequences of this move:
1. a reader base that has shrunk by 99% means that high-profile reporters and columnists will likely leave. I don't need to tell you what the long-terms effects of that will be.
2. there's a possibility that the subscriber numbers quoted here will slide as people decide to stop paying for news. It's too early to tell if these numbers are stable, growing or sliding, because we only have one data point.
So, my point is, you can't call it any sort of victory yet. Give it a couple years, and we'll know the real results.
I wouldn't rule out an unmanned space probe launched in the lifetimes of the younger/. audience and headed toward a nearby solar system.
Okay, but now you have three new problems to deal with:
1. We've yet to build electronics that can run for 100 years non-stop, let-alone 100,000 years in the depths of space. The Voyager probes have survived, but that's barely breaking the 30-year mark. If the electronics can't survive, then there's no point in sending it.
2. Our models of this new solar system are crap compared to models of Sol, because our methods to observe planets are very clumsy due to the vast distances. So, the probe will have to anticipate some significant course correction burns during the trip, instead of just selecting one optimal terminal trajectory. This means the probe will have to be massive to carry enough fuel - on a totally different scale from any spacecraft we've ever built. That, or it will have to include exotic (read:not invented yet) propulsion systems.
3. Next, you have the transmission problem. So, you sent your probe, and now it has to send back pretty pictures and tons of data. But to do that, you need POWER. The Voyager probes have already nearly reached the limits of their on-board transmitter, and they've barely left the solar system (a couple thousandths of a light year). If you want to send a signal over 20 light years, you're going to need some impressive power.
Yeah, you could use something more efficient (like a tight laser), but the tighter you make the beam, the more likely we are to miss it. Remember that this space probe will be GUESSING where the earth will be after ~20 years, transmitting from a massive distance away, so wider is better. Really, the only thing that powerful is a star...the same thing we're using to identify a planet 20 light years away.
they were required to know enough to not hand engineers unbuildable designs.
Unbuildable designs and designs that sacrifice function for form are two entirely different problems. The former will get you fired, while the latter can be spun as "art," depending on who you are and what you're building.
Architects make all these buildings with strange forms without taking into consideration things like solar effects, the climate around the building, and cost of maintenance. Cities flock to these idiots because they're guaranteed media attention every time the architect's name is dropped, so the system feeds on itself.
This is hardly a unique event. If you let an architect go nuts trying to make a "modern" and "unique" building, he will inevitably build a magnifying glass.
Architects are rarely versed in function, and are almost always about the form.
Yeah, the larger materials are more resistant to lattice displacement (typical "damage" caused by radiation).
But the larger process nodes are also preferred for space because they are resistant to bit-flips (transient errors). This is because the larger the process node, the more charge required to flip the state of a transistor (without any modification). This means that only the most powerful ionizing strikes will cause a bit flip, and you can remove that possibility with a little shielding.
Yeah, motion control sucks because it has no clear-cut feedback (unlike a joystick or button or mouse or touchscreen). Don't believe me? Swipe your hand, and watch the guy onscreen punch. Then, swipe your hand again and watch him not punch.
What did you do differently? To you, it's like you performed the same movement, but to the game you performed two completely different moves, and one was just outside the control dead-zone. In fact, because humans are so inexact when it comes to movement, you have to build-in a HUGE dead-zone into your motion control movement range, or else you'll be overwhelmed with false positives. But, this just makes it harder to find (and remain in) that control sweet spot.
When you press a button, you see what happens onscreen, and that gives you instant feedback. You just can't make motion controls that simple.
So, you're saying that this happy, confident, outgoing "me" was just covered-up by the confused, scared and lonely "me?" It's hard to believe, but no more so than the change itself.
Your assertion would support the article posted, because then people NEVER change their personality. We can learn to get what we want out of it, if we're willing to modify our behavior. But I have trouble drawing such a stark line between behavior and personality, since I feel like they're chained together. But what the hell do I know, I'm no psychologist:D
I'm a changed person from when I was in high school. Back then, I was an asshole who craved attention - so I egged people on and played the victim card. I was loud and obnoxious, but I actually wasn't very happy.
Fifteen years later, you wouldn't recognize me. I've made an active effort to bury my asshole urges - they're still there, but I don't give in to them very often. Also, I've found reasons to love myself (work out regularly, accomplish career goals, meet new friends, etc.), and that's made me a happier person. It's a lot easier to bury your asshole streak when you have real confidence and a smile on your face.
I don't think your personality is just coded in your genes - I think your personality is partially a survival mechanism developed in-response to the people around you. My sister and I had completely different personalities growing up, but now we're very similar - same genes, but different personalities at different stages of life. I think your genes have an influence, but it is your willpower that makes the final determination - and early in life, when you have no awareness of your "self," you create your personality blindly in response to external stimuli.
If the story is correct, and most people have the same personality as they did when they were 6 years old, I feel sorry for them. When you are 6, you have no idea what is really going on in the world, but you are forced to form a personality anyway. It's sad to think that people feel they cannot change something so important in their lives...because they can, if they really want to.
1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels per frame x 60 = 124,416,000 pixels per second * 3 / 8 = 44.49 MB/s
I think that your calculations are a bit out
I'm sorry, but it's your calculations that are a bit out.
1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels per frame x 60 = 124,416,000 pixels per second, this I agree with.
But then you made a mistake. A pixel is represented by 24 bits, or three bytes. When you multiply by 3, you're converting pixels to bytes - but then you divide by 8 because you think you still need to convert bits to bytes.
I already answered this question in a previous thread, so I will repost it here:
Yeah, funny how it gets a lot easier to run the business when Motorola assumes the 5 billion of debt and sells it to you for $25 million. The success of Iridium Satellite LLC is subsidized by the ashes of the original company.
Proper management made the difference after the sale removed the debt, but even if the company had been properly managed from the beginning, it still would have folded. Even 300k subscribers is not going to pay off that 5 billion monster, not when they're only netting about 14 million a year (when they turn a profit, which they did not for 2010).
I wish them well milking what they can from their cheap windfall. But I laugh at the thought that they might build another multi-billion dollar constellation based off such a pitiful business plan. Yes, their subscribers are GROWING, but only because they can offer such insanely cheap rates without having to pay-off the painful debt.
As soon as they invest in their own new constellation, they will either have to conjure millions of new customers out of thin air, or they will have to raise prices (this will send customers running, so I'm going to go with option one). But since the DoD contracts are already pretty saturated (seriously, does the military need a contract for more than 20k users?), the customer growth would have to come from the commercial or consumer sector. Either way, they are doomed in this approach, and once again, investors are going to be forced to eat the losses and once-again subsidize a "successful" network.
Alan Wake = 960x540 (4xAA) Aliens Vs Predator = 1120x630 (custom AA) Alone in the Dark = 1040x600 (2xAA) Call of Duty: Modern Warfare = 1024x600 (2xAA) Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 = 1024x600 (2xAA) Call of Duty: World at War = 1024x600 (2x AA) Darksiders = 1152x648 (no AA) Don King Prizefighter = 1024x630 (2xAA) Far Cry 2 = 1280x696 (2xAA, black borders) Final Fantasy XIII = 1024x576 (2xAA) Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2 = 1024x576 (2xAA) MK vs DC = 1040x624 (2xAA) Overlord II = 1280x612 (custom edge blur, black borders) Saint's Row 2 = 640p (2xAA) Splinter Cell: Conviction = 1024X576 (2xAA) Split-Second = 1280x672 (2xAA) Star Ocean 4 = 1248x702 (2xAA + edge blur/DOF, in field), ~936x512 (no AA, in battle) Wanted = 1120x640 (no AA)
It seems to be a prevailing trend that games either get more complex and lose resolution, or else they end up looking dated (just look at Red Dead Redemption, which looks the same as anything released on the PC in 2006).
It's time for a hardware upgrade, damn it. People are buying 1080p TVs left and right, but hardly any new games do more than 720p, let alone reach that benchmark.
And just upgraded the whole console, while they were at it.
I'm astounded that Natal is being released as a mid-life upgrade for a console that can't even run new games at 720p. They should have waited a couple years and released something entirely new.
That was for x87 FP though. While it's important in that a lot of code out there might still use it, for performance on any Intel architecture, you're supposed to use SSE (scalar SSE if you're not doing SIMD). I would like to see SSE performance broken down to SP vs DP. I suspect, from what little I know of the vector pipeline, that it'd be pretty much exactly half the performance.
No. The Multimedia benchmark in the Sandra suite is all SSE. See their FAQ here.
The following is their only Double test:
Q: What is the SSE2 Whetstone benchmark? A: With the introduction of SSE2 and its support for double floats (64-bit) it is now possible to write code that does not use the legacy FPU at all. This version shows that the full Whetstone benchmark can be implemented using SSE2 and thus take advantage of the SIMD mode of operation.
And if you want further proof, here is another page posting unabridged benchmark results, which indicate clearly that the Double benchmark uses iSSE2 (you can see the same ~5.5x drop in performance as with the other benchmark I linked). PcPer was just incredibly lazy marking their benchmark graphs.
Atom sucks at double precision. You can deny it all you want, but the benchmarks ring true. I can't say I'm surprised - double performance is one of the first things to go when you're targeting low-power.
If that's the case, Atom is a horrible choice for the CPU. Atom's strongest feature is its 128-bit vector (SSE) unit for SIMD FLOPS.
But it's a poor choice for high-precision scientific calculations. The vector unit on the Atom is optimized for 32-bit Floats, and when you switch-up to Doubles, the performance drops off the map.
See this performance comparison (Processor Multimedia). The dual-core Atom 1.6 is actually faster than the dual-core Athlon 64 1.6 when running SSE 32-bit Floats (this is due to the dual 64-bit SSE units on the Athlon 64, and poor scheduling on AMD's part). But when you transition to Double precision, the performance on the Athlon 64 only drops by roughly 2x, whereas the Atom sees a 5-6x performance drop!
This means you have very little flexibility in workloads you can use - if you're not using 32-bit precision, you've wasted your money.
The in-order (albeit SMT-enabled), 2-issue integer/LDST/Conditional pipeline is lackluster at best from either a performance or a performance/watt standpoint.
It's not so bad if you're running a highly-multithreaded program on the system. The Atom uses the SMT to great advantage, in most cases seeing a %30 performance increase. But yeah, for single-threaded code, the Atom is a joke.
And the pipelines are severely limited. I was surprised to learn that only one pipeline can perform a Load/Store, making it even less likely that you will see anywhere near 2 operations per-cycle.
I was under the impression that, despite all the hubub about "design wins" from last year, very few Tegra devices have been produced, and the highest-profile one (Zune HD) is not running Android.
having a large case actually makes it harder to move the air since there's more volume to be moved.
No. It is easier to move a volume of air through an unconstrained space than it is through a constrained space. Just try breathing through a 2-inch PVC pipe and then a garden hose, and tell me you're getting the same amount of air for the same amount of work performed by your lungs. Ducting is essential to cooling inside of a case (thus the enclosed space), but wider-open ducts are way less of an impediment.
Small cases also have the disadvantage that the airflow is rarely straight-through: there are often very tight turns inside the case required to pack so many components inside. Every time the airstream has to turn, it slows down. An open mid-tower ATX case has very few blockages between the front and back, so airflow is much less impeded.
The low volume of a mini-ITX case allows it to exchange it's hot air for cool air much faster even with low RPM quiet fans.
That logic is terrible. Just because you can replace the air inside of a case faster with air outside does not mean you are cooling things faster. It's not the air volume of the case that matters, but the continuous air flow that cools things down. The size of the case has NOTHING to do with cooling potential, so your sentence shows you have no clue what you are talking about.
As far as airflow goes: smaller cases are typically limited because they cannot use larger fans - and since quiet operation is usually the goal for these things, you are severely limited by how much airflow you can push through while maintaining silence.
Most MiniITX cases use 60mm to 80mm fans for airflow, as-opposed to the much more efficient 120mm (and larger) fans used on quiet ATX cases. It's a well-known fact that the larger an axial fan gets, it can generate more CFM per watt / per decibel. Smaller cases just can't leverage that fact, and so they are limited to low-wattage operation only.
I'm not trying to disrespect your setup, but PLEASE don't spread bullshit you know isn't true. The only reason your MiniITX system is silent is because you started by paying extra for (or compromising on) low-power components (like your mobile core 2 duo, which is slower than desktop equivalents, and costs more). You really can't build anything like a powerful gaming system or a 6-core processing behemoth, and expect it to remain silent inside of a MiniITX case (it's going to sound like a wind tunnel). But you have the potential to do this in a full-sized case.
Slashdot Mirror
The capacitor issue was pervasive and took years for the problems to manifest themselves.
Since the failed parts were made by a third-party, many computer makers were hesitant to acknowledge the problem as their responsibility. At the same time, a complete lack of part traceability (due to a gray market for things like capacitors) meant that manufacturers could not easily point fingers, so they kept quiet until more information was available.
This failed chipset is made by Intel, and is used only in Intel systems. The failure was introduced late in the product development cycle, and not enough testing was done on the final silicon (it was assumed that earlier intensive tests were enough). Intel is supporting a full no-questions-asked recall of all boards sold before the product was pulled from the market, and they are working through both major retailers and manufactuers.
In my case, Newegg sent an email guaranteeing an extension of the return period until they release new silicon, and that they will supply me a new replacement board at that time. Most board manufactures have also publicly announced replacement plans for those users who have no easy way to return their board to the original point of purchase (some have even pledged free return shipping as well).
If Intel continues to ship the 67-series chipsets, they should have no further issues if the 3Gbps SATA ports are disabled. Since many manufacturers already have "enthusiast" motherboards with 2-4 additional 6Gbps SATA ports, a quick price cut could make these boards attractive even with half the ports disabled. There could be other flaws in the rest of the chipset, but you take that chance with every new computer you purchase.
And an Ipod Touch with 8GB included is just $230, and is just as capable of falling in price (since it is also not a phone).
The Ipod will also get a hardware upgrade yearly that I'm not expecting to see for this NGP (unless they break the "fixed platform spec" mantra successful consoles have followed for the last 30 years).
Thanks to the explosion of Smartphones, Nintendo and Sony no longer have the edge in performance/watt in portable gaming. Since portable platforms are constrained mostly by power, this means any performance edge they enjoyed previously is gone now.
I'm really surprised that Nintendo didn't just jump on the bandwagon and go Tegra 2 (or some other standardized platform) - it would have reduced their own development costs, and guaranteed them good platform support and upgrades. Going with that ancient PICA200 GPU and their own CPU may make for a limited gaming experience, and at $249 MSRP, they can't afford that today.
I have a feeling Sony is going to make the same mistake with the NGP, and it's really all for nothing. Fab processes are the limiting factor these days in power consumption, so you might as well leverage an already efficient design from another company.
I can't thank you enough! I have limited vertical screen real estate, and I really hate how floating menus steal what little I have from me. Sites that have them installed don't get my pageviews.
I really was considering never coming here again until I read your post! Hopefully they will make it permanent.
How is it going to be a full-blown desktop PC if the only app that runs on it is Microsoft Office? What happens when they can't take their favorite program they bought for their desktop and run it on there ARM system? What happens when there is no NetFlix player for it or any of their other favorite apps?
Unless Microsoft has created a free compiler that can convert win32 binaries to ARM binaries Microsoft loses their one big advantage, 30 years of DOS/Windows 3.1/Windows XP/Windows Seven compatibility for legacy software titles.
I'm sure they'll include a translator.
Unfortunately, the ultimate goal of a translation engine is for it to be a temporary thing while you move to another exclusive platform. This fragmented platform support for the next version of Windows is a poor move in that respect, because it's not making clear what the long-term goal is.
The end result will be code bloat, because Universal Binaries will become the rule rather than the transitional fix they should be.
Debit cards with visa/mc etc logo are the same as credit cards, meaning they have the same fraud protection. CC companies are more of a threat.
This is true...now. But that's a recent change. Fraud on debit cards used to be handled by the bank issuing the card, and they often could do nothing for you (or WOULD do nothing for you). I'm certain that the bank still handles debit card fraud today, but the threat of Visa badgering them means they might actually try to help you.
That said, unless you have an exotic setup like the grandparent with limited funds and no overdraft, you're still better-off with a credit card. This is because the money charged against your credit account has a grace period before you need to pay (and in the case of fraud, you won't have to pay until the case is resolved), whereas money fraudulently removed from your bank account is gone until the fraud is resolved.
I'd personally rather have cash-in-hand if someone raped me online.
Yeah, I did the same thing with this USB mini disk my girlfriend has (it's actually a mini hard disk).
It was really hard to do because the 4-wire lead between the connector and the PCB was only 1" long, and also it was exposed stranded wire that had only been casually coated - there was no actual insulation (cheapass Chinese construction), so I had to collect several rouge strands to prevent a short.
I finally got it soldered and got the data off, and told her she can't use it anymore. I guess I could take a picture if you want to see it :D
No way man, the only proper name ould be "Wii Wii"
Er, no. Net profit is the only real measure of success.
Yes, this is a short-term goal for any newspaper. But you're ignoring the long-term consequences of this move:
1. a reader base that has shrunk by 99% means that high-profile reporters and columnists will likely leave. I don't need to tell you what the long-terms effects of that will be.
2. there's a possibility that the subscriber numbers quoted here will slide as people decide to stop paying for news. It's too early to tell if these numbers are stable, growing or sliding, because we only have one data point.
So, my point is, you can't call it any sort of victory yet. Give it a couple years, and we'll know the real results.
I wouldn't rule out an unmanned space probe launched in the lifetimes of the younger /. audience and headed toward a nearby solar system.
Okay, but now you have three new problems to deal with:
1. We've yet to build electronics that can run for 100 years non-stop, let-alone 100,000 years in the depths of space. The Voyager probes have survived, but that's barely breaking the 30-year mark. If the electronics can't survive, then there's no point in sending it.
2. Our models of this new solar system are crap compared to models of Sol, because our methods to observe planets are very clumsy due to the vast distances. So, the probe will have to anticipate some significant course correction burns during the trip, instead of just selecting one optimal terminal trajectory. This means the probe will have to be massive to carry enough fuel - on a totally different scale from any spacecraft we've ever built. That, or it will have to include exotic (read:not invented yet) propulsion systems.
3. Next, you have the transmission problem. So, you sent your probe, and now it has to send back pretty pictures and tons of data. But to do that, you need POWER. The Voyager probes have already nearly reached the limits of their on-board transmitter, and they've barely left the solar system (a couple thousandths of a light year). If you want to send a signal over 20 light years, you're going to need some impressive power.
Yeah, you could use something more efficient (like a tight laser), but the tighter you make the beam, the more likely we are to miss it. Remember that this space probe will be GUESSING where the earth will be after ~20 years, transmitting from a massive distance away, so wider is better. Really, the only thing that powerful is a star...the same thing we're using to identify a planet 20 light years away.
they were required to know enough to not hand engineers unbuildable designs.
Unbuildable designs and designs that sacrifice function for form are two entirely different problems. The former will get you fired, while the latter can be spun as "art," depending on who you are and what you're building.
Architects make all these buildings with strange forms without taking into consideration things like solar effects, the climate around the building, and cost of maintenance. Cities flock to these idiots because they're guaranteed media attention every time the architect's name is dropped, so the system feeds on itself.
This is hardly a unique event. If you let an architect go nuts trying to make a "modern" and "unique" building, he will inevitably build a magnifying glass.
Architects are rarely versed in function, and are almost always about the form.
Yeah, the larger materials are more resistant to lattice displacement (typical "damage" caused by radiation).
But the larger process nodes are also preferred for space because they are resistant to bit-flips (transient errors). This is because the larger the process node, the more charge required to flip the state of a transistor (without any modification). This means that only the most powerful ionizing strikes will cause a bit flip, and you can remove that possibility with a little shielding.
In her blog post, she recommends three things at the end of the article:
Buy your geek a Radeon graphics card.
Buy your geek a triple-monitor setup so he can run Eyefinity.
Buy your geek an unlocked Phenom II Black.
Quite the savvy saleswoman, this one.
.
Yeah, motion control sucks because it has no clear-cut feedback (unlike a joystick or button or mouse or touchscreen). Don't believe me? Swipe your hand, and watch the guy onscreen punch. Then, swipe your hand again and watch him not punch.
What did you do differently? To you, it's like you performed the same movement, but to the game you performed two completely different moves, and one was just outside the control dead-zone. In fact, because humans are so inexact when it comes to movement, you have to build-in a HUGE dead-zone into your motion control movement range, or else you'll be overwhelmed with false positives. But, this just makes it harder to find (and remain in) that control sweet spot.
When you press a button, you see what happens onscreen, and that gives you instant feedback. You just can't make motion controls that simple.
So, you're saying that this happy, confident, outgoing "me" was just covered-up by the confused, scared and lonely "me?" It's hard to believe, but no more so than the change itself.
Your assertion would support the article posted, because then people NEVER change their personality. We can learn to get what we want out of it, if we're willing to modify our behavior. But I have trouble drawing such a stark line between behavior and personality, since I feel like they're chained together. But what the hell do I know, I'm no psychologist :D
I'm a changed person from when I was in high school. Back then, I was an asshole who craved attention - so I egged people on and played the victim card. I was loud and obnoxious, but I actually wasn't very happy.
Fifteen years later, you wouldn't recognize me. I've made an active effort to bury my asshole urges - they're still there, but I don't give in to them very often. Also, I've found reasons to love myself (work out regularly, accomplish career goals, meet new friends, etc.), and that's made me a happier person. It's a lot easier to bury your asshole streak when you have real confidence and a smile on your face.
I don't think your personality is just coded in your genes - I think your personality is partially a survival mechanism developed in-response to the people around you. My sister and I had completely different personalities growing up, but now we're very similar - same genes, but different personalities at different stages of life. I think your genes have an influence, but it is your willpower that makes the final determination - and early in life, when you have no awareness of your "self," you create your personality blindly in response to external stimuli.
If the story is correct, and most people have the same personality as they did when they were 6 years old, I feel sorry for them. When you are 6, you have no idea what is really going on in the world, but you are forced to form a personality anyway. It's sad to think that people feel they cannot change something so important in their lives...because they can, if they really want to.
1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels per frame
x 60 = 124,416,000 pixels per second
* 3 / 8 = 44.49 MB/s
I think that your calculations are a bit out
I'm sorry, but it's your calculations that are a bit out.
1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels per frame
x 60 = 124,416,000 pixels per second, this I agree with.
But then you made a mistake. A pixel is represented by 24 bits, or three bytes. When you multiply by 3, you're converting pixels to bytes - but then you divide by 8 because you think you still need to convert bits to bytes.
The actual numbers are:
(124,416,000 pixels / second) * (24 bits / pixel) * (1 byte / 8 bits) = 373,248,000 bytes/s = 355.96MB/s
I already answered this question in a previous thread, so I will repost it here:
Yeah, funny how it gets a lot easier to run the business when Motorola assumes the 5 billion of debt and sells it to you for $25 million. The success of Iridium Satellite LLC is subsidized by the ashes of the original company.
Proper management made the difference after the sale removed the debt, but even if the company had been properly managed from the beginning, it still would have folded. Even 300k subscribers is not going to pay off that 5 billion monster, not when they're only netting about 14 million a year (when they turn a profit, which they did not for 2010).
I wish them well milking what they can from their cheap windfall. But I laugh at the thought that they might build another multi-billion dollar constellation based off such a pitiful business plan. Yes, their subscribers are GROWING, but only because they can offer such insanely cheap rates without having to pay-off the painful debt.
As soon as they invest in their own new constellation, they will either have to conjure millions of new customers out of thin air, or they will have to raise prices (this will send customers running, so I'm going to go with option one). But since the DoD contracts are already pretty saturated (seriously, does the military need a contract for more than 20k users?), the customer growth would have to come from the commercial or consumer sector. Either way, they are doomed in this approach, and once again, investors are going to be forced to eat the losses and once-again subsidize a "successful" network.
Here's the master list.
Here's a short list of recent games:
Alan Wake = 960x540 (4xAA)
Aliens Vs Predator = 1120x630 (custom AA)
Alone in the Dark = 1040x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: World at War = 1024x600 (2x AA)
Darksiders = 1152x648 (no AA)
Don King Prizefighter = 1024x630 (2xAA)
Far Cry 2 = 1280x696 (2xAA, black borders)
Final Fantasy XIII = 1024x576 (2xAA)
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2 = 1024x576 (2xAA)
MK vs DC = 1040x624 (2xAA)
Overlord II = 1280x612 (custom edge blur, black borders)
Saint's Row 2 = 640p (2xAA)
Splinter Cell: Conviction = 1024X576 (2xAA)
Split-Second = 1280x672 (2xAA)
Star Ocean 4 = 1248x702 (2xAA + edge blur/DOF, in field), ~936x512 (no AA, in battle)
Wanted = 1120x640 (no AA)
It seems to be a prevailing trend that games either get more complex and lose resolution, or else they end up looking dated (just look at Red Dead Redemption, which looks the same as anything released on the PC in 2006).
It's time for a hardware upgrade, damn it. People are buying 1080p TVs left and right, but hardly any new games do more than 720p, let alone reach that benchmark.
And just upgraded the whole console, while they were at it.
I'm astounded that Natal is being released as a mid-life upgrade for a console that can't even run new games at 720p. They should have waited a couple years and released something entirely new.
That was for x87 FP though. While it's important in that a lot of code out there might still use it, for performance on any Intel architecture, you're supposed to use SSE (scalar SSE if you're not doing SIMD). I would like to see SSE performance broken down to SP vs DP. I suspect, from what little I know of the vector pipeline, that it'd be pretty much exactly half the performance.
No. The Multimedia benchmark in the Sandra suite is all SSE. See their FAQ here.
The following is their only Double test:
Q: What is the SSE2 Whetstone benchmark?
A: With the introduction of SSE2 and its support for double floats (64-bit) it is now possible to write code that does not use the legacy FPU at all. This version shows that the full Whetstone benchmark can be implemented using SSE2 and thus take advantage of the SIMD mode of operation.
And if you want further proof, here is another page posting unabridged benchmark results, which indicate clearly that the Double benchmark uses iSSE2 (you can see the same ~5.5x drop in performance as with the other benchmark I linked). PcPer was just incredibly lazy marking their benchmark graphs.
Atom sucks at double precision. You can deny it all you want, but the benchmarks ring true. I can't say I'm surprised - double performance is one of the first things to go when you're targeting low-power.
If that's the case, Atom is a horrible choice for the CPU. Atom's strongest feature is its 128-bit vector (SSE) unit for SIMD FLOPS.
But it's a poor choice for high-precision scientific calculations. The vector unit on the Atom is optimized for 32-bit Floats, and when you switch-up to Doubles, the performance drops off the map.
See this performance comparison (Processor Multimedia). The dual-core Atom 1.6 is actually faster than the dual-core Athlon 64 1.6 when running SSE 32-bit Floats (this is due to the dual 64-bit SSE units on the Athlon 64, and poor scheduling on AMD's part). But when you transition to Double precision, the performance on the Athlon 64 only drops by roughly 2x, whereas the Atom sees a 5-6x performance drop!
This means you have very little flexibility in workloads you can use - if you're not using 32-bit precision, you've wasted your money.
The in-order (albeit SMT-enabled), 2-issue integer/LDST/Conditional pipeline is lackluster at best from either a performance or a performance/watt standpoint.
It's not so bad if you're running a highly-multithreaded program on the system. The Atom uses the SMT to great advantage, in most cases seeing a %30 performance increase. But yeah, for single-threaded code, the Atom is a joke.
And the pipelines are severely limited. I was surprised to learn that only one pipeline can perform a Load/Store, making it even less likely that you will see anywhere near 2 operations per-cycle.
I was under the impression that, despite all the hubub about "design wins" from last year, very few Tegra devices have been produced, and the highest-profile one (Zune HD) is not running Android.
So what exactly is this port targeting?
having a large case actually makes it harder to move the air since there's more volume to be moved.
No. It is easier to move a volume of air through an unconstrained space than it is through a constrained space. Just try breathing through a 2-inch PVC pipe and then a garden hose, and tell me you're getting the same amount of air for the same amount of work performed by your lungs. Ducting is essential to cooling inside of a case (thus the enclosed space), but wider-open ducts are way less of an impediment.
Small cases also have the disadvantage that the airflow is rarely straight-through: there are often very tight turns inside the case required to pack so many components inside. Every time the airstream has to turn, it slows down. An open mid-tower ATX case has very few blockages between the front and back, so airflow is much less impeded.
The low volume of a mini-ITX case allows it to exchange it's hot air for cool air much faster even with low RPM quiet fans.
That logic is terrible. Just because you can replace the air inside of a case faster with air outside does not mean you are cooling things faster. It's not the air volume of the case that matters, but the continuous air flow that cools things down. The size of the case has NOTHING to do with cooling potential, so your sentence shows you have no clue what you are talking about.
As far as airflow goes: smaller cases are typically limited because they cannot use larger fans - and since quiet operation is usually the goal for these things, you are severely limited by how much airflow you can push through while maintaining silence.
Most MiniITX cases use 60mm to 80mm fans for airflow, as-opposed to the much more efficient 120mm (and larger) fans used on quiet ATX cases. It's a well-known fact that the larger an axial fan gets, it can generate more CFM per watt / per decibel. Smaller cases just can't leverage that fact, and so they are limited to low-wattage operation only.
I'm not trying to disrespect your setup, but PLEASE don't spread bullshit you know isn't true. The only reason your MiniITX system is silent is because you started by paying extra for (or compromising on) low-power components (like your mobile core 2 duo, which is slower than desktop equivalents, and costs more). You really can't build anything like a powerful gaming system or a 6-core processing behemoth, and expect it to remain silent inside of a MiniITX case (it's going to sound like a wind tunnel). But you have the potential to do this in a full-sized case.