um, Direct3D? OpenGL? Nobody, strictly speaking, targets any video card. They target specific APIs, and it's up to video card vendors to cater to those APIs. Just because NVIDIA is the only card today to support Shader Model 3.0 doesn't mean that vendors writing games for SM 3.0 are only supporting NVIDIA. Just means that ATI doesn't support SM 3.0 yet, but their next gen chip will, and then those games will run the same code as the NVIDIA cards do.:P
I didn't mention anything concerning the visibility of the sign when approaching it, you just assumed it was 5 times bigger than normal and had 74 flashing lights on it. That's neither here nor there anyways. 40-50% of cars on the road here are going 10km/h over the limit anyways, it's quite easy to not notice that the limit's just gone down 10km/h if you, for whatever reason, miss the sign. You're off base, give it up. I'm done anyways, waste of time.
as I just said, I had only *just* went into an 80km/h zone from a 90km/h zone and could still plainly see the sign from where I was pulled over. FYI, the ticket was thrown out anyway because of the proximity to the sign:P Again, making out like I was crazy out of control when I was simply going 90km/h instead of 80km/h is pretty dumb. But go right ahead and exaggerate all you like.
yeah, going 90km/h because my cruise control was set for the 90km/h zone that I just left, because it simply slipped my mind as I passed the 80km/h sign, which I could still see from the spot the cop pulled me over, sure makes me an idiotic maniac who's driving way too fast. Yep, getting a speeding ticket must mean I was going double the limit! Moron.
Although DUI is mentioned, it's really got next to nothing to do with the story in question. The story's got to do with being convicted of something/anything because of evidence provided by an unknown method. Nobody's trying to defend drinking and driving, exactly. It's about whether or not the method of producing evidence is sound. Which I would say is exactly why the poster of the story mentions other things such as radar guns...
this is the first thing that popped into my head as I was reading through the post, and then it was mentioned near the end, hehe. Wonder if this might be successful with them speeding tickets, hehe.
how do people get jobs writing anything when they don't even know the difference between 'loose' and 'lose' or 'to' and 'too' or that all sentences should end with some form of puncuation? Article's somewhat interesting as far as the information goes, but this guy can't write worth a damn.
there is a reason I only counted vehicle cost and fuel consumed;) I'm well aware that if you start looking at every single aspect it gets very complicated to calculate. You'd also have to take into account that some repairs and parts may cost absolutely nothing except downtime because they'd be covered by the manufacturer's warranty. Warranty period lengths are also different, etc, etc. All I was concerned with was if vehicle cost and fuel cost made any arguments for going one way or the other. And in this case it didn't make sense to get the more expensive fuel effecient car because it would be more expensive overall for too long a period of time. Yes, potential repairs, warranty and non-warranty, insurance, and lots of other variables would all affect the bottom-line. But it's too hard to predict all of that, whereas average fuel consumption and average miles travelled were relatively accurate data to go by.
Yeah, *I* am wrong. What on earth makes you think engines are perfectly effecient? Nobody's talking about things that don't exist. It's a plain and simple fact, it takes more fuel to take your car and go from 0mph to 60mph in 10 seconds than it does to do it in 20 seconds. Take any car out there, the exact same thing applies. Your theoretical ideal doesn't apply, and you know it doesn't. Why you even spoke up is beyond me. Unless you honestly don't know that you are in fact wrong.
Excellent point. One I put a bit of thought into not that long ago. My girlfriend's family were contemplating a new car for the three girls to commute to school and back with, and were thinking of getting a Chevy Cavalier. I thought they might want to consider one of those new Smart Fortwo cars, since it would be great on fuel. I forget the exact figures now, but the Smart is supposed to get about 70mpg and the Cavailer about half that. They ended up getting the Cavailer simply because they needed to shuttle three people back and forth from school quite often. Anyways, after doing the math, using the manufacturer's figures, it didn't make much sense to get the Smart even if there would only be two of them going back and forth.
The Smart Fortwo was $16,500 + $1,000 "destination fee," so $17,500. And the Cavalier was $11,995. Not worrying about taxes on top of that, or insurance or anything else except vehicle cost, fuel cost, and fuel effeciency, and the trip from home to school and back 5 times a week... It would have taken over 6.5 years for Smart+fuel to intersect with and start getting cheaper than the Cavalier+fuel line on the graph. I was quite surprised, 6.5+ years. Perhaps it would have been cheaper sooner than that when taking into account other trips, because that math considered nothing else except the trips to school and back home 5 times a week. But even then, it would still be cheaper to own the Cavalier for a long time.
how can otherwise bright people get so thick when it comes to cars? Doesn't matter that engines these days are more effecient than they were 30 years ago. The EXACT SAME PHYSICS still applies to the situation. It takes more energy to accelerate quicker than it does to accelerate slower. Nothing is going to change that fact. It takes more energy to go from 0-60mph than it does to go from 15-60mph. Nothing is going to change that. The fact that you got roughly 25mpg in both of your tests is mere coincidence. You didn't drive the exact same routes at the exact same acceleration/deceleration rates in the exact same environmental conditions, etc, etc. Why do you think brand new Corvettes lock you out of gears 2 and 3 unless you're punching it? Because it forces you to accelerate more gently and thus save fuel. This is how they avoided even higher gas guzzler taxes. Forcing you to shift from 1st to 4th gear unless you're trying to get away from Sheriff Roscoe at the time.
All the same guidelines you heard before still apply now. Accelerating more gently saves fuel. Cruising at slower speeds saves fuel. And on and on. Physics still applies today just as much as it did back in the day, believe it or not. And no amount of advancement in engine technology is going to change that.
like anyone gives a damn if you post something first or second or 98th or 1929129th. Every single one is special. That is to say, none of them are. So, eat a sandwich.
manufacturer's stated response times are meaningless. Go look at the articles on tom's hardware about it. Black -> white time means pretty much nothing, intermediate-colour-one -> intermediate-colour-two time is what matters. And it's guaranteed that's nowhere near the manufacturer's stated response time. I've never seen any LCD TV without motion blurring.
12/16ms optimal response time, yeah, which usually means from absolute black to absolute white. From any of the intermediate colours to another intermediate colour the times are going to be drastically slower. http://www.tomshardware.com/ has a couple of articles related to LCD response time and why the manufacturer's stated time is useless, since it is so far away from the response time of the display in practice.
BeyondTV does custom padding by individual show. You can adjust any recording to start/finish x amount of minutes early/late. Great for football games, add an hour just in case it goes long, which happens often. Or for things like ER starting at 9:59, just adjust the other recording to end a minute early. Or just throw in another PVR-250 card so it can start recording the next show while still recording the previous show.
If/When Valve goes out of business...
on
Review: Half-Life 2
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
there's nothing stopping them from releasing Steam updates beforehand that get rid of the need to contact the Steam servers, and make all the games true stand-alone games. They could be around a long time. They could be gone in three years. Who knows. But there's certainly nothing stopping them from patching Steam before they have to pack it in. There *is* a backup utility built in now, and it will make CD or DVD sized backups for you. I'm actually curious to try it out now and see if a restore from the backups currently needs to contact the servers before you can play or not. But certainly if Valve is going to go by the wayside they'll be able to patch Steam so it's not reliant on Steam servers any longer.
Slashdot Mirror
um, Direct3D? OpenGL? Nobody, strictly speaking, targets any video card. They target specific APIs, and it's up to video card vendors to cater to those APIs. Just because NVIDIA is the only card today to support Shader Model 3.0 doesn't mean that vendors writing games for SM 3.0 are only supporting NVIDIA. Just means that ATI doesn't support SM 3.0 yet, but their next gen chip will, and then those games will run the same code as the NVIDIA cards do. :P
I didn't mention anything concerning the visibility of the sign when approaching it, you just assumed it was 5 times bigger than normal and had 74 flashing lights on it. That's neither here nor there anyways. 40-50% of cars on the road here are going 10km/h over the limit anyways, it's quite easy to not notice that the limit's just gone down 10km/h if you, for whatever reason, miss the sign. You're off base, give it up. I'm done anyways, waste of time.
as I just said, I had only *just* went into an 80km/h zone from a 90km/h zone and could still plainly see the sign from where I was pulled over. FYI, the ticket was thrown out anyway because of the proximity to the sign :P Again, making out like I was crazy out of control when I was simply going 90km/h instead of 80km/h is pretty dumb. But go right ahead and exaggerate all you like.
thanks for ignoring "It's about whether or not the method of producing evidence is sound." and making it your argument against what I just said, heh.
yeah, going 90km/h because my cruise control was set for the 90km/h zone that I just left, because it simply slipped my mind as I passed the 80km/h sign, which I could still see from the spot the cop pulled me over, sure makes me an idiotic maniac who's driving way too fast. Yep, getting a speeding ticket must mean I was going double the limit! Moron.
Although DUI is mentioned, it's really got next to nothing to do with the story in question. The story's got to do with being convicted of something/anything because of evidence provided by an unknown method. Nobody's trying to defend drinking and driving, exactly. It's about whether or not the method of producing evidence is sound. Which I would say is exactly why the poster of the story mentions other things such as radar guns...
this is the first thing that popped into my head as I was reading through the post, and then it was mentioned near the end, hehe. Wonder if this might be successful with them speeding tickets, hehe.
mantle makes you repeat yourself
nobody mentions the Tarzan yell let out by one of the wookies?!
how do people get jobs writing anything when they don't even know the difference between 'loose' and 'lose' or 'to' and 'too' or that all sentences should end with some form of puncuation? Article's somewhat interesting as far as the information goes, but this guy can't write worth a damn.
yeah, that's the ticket. It's not to test equipment before the next Big Brother steps at all.
and that has what, exactly, to do with vehicle cost and fuel cost? heh.
there is a reason I only counted vehicle cost and fuel consumed ;) I'm well aware that if you start looking at every single aspect it gets very complicated to calculate. You'd also have to take into account that some repairs and parts may cost absolutely nothing except downtime because they'd be covered by the manufacturer's warranty. Warranty period lengths are also different, etc, etc. All I was concerned with was if vehicle cost and fuel cost made any arguments for going one way or the other. And in this case it didn't make sense to get the more expensive fuel effecient car because it would be more expensive overall for too long a period of time. Yes, potential repairs, warranty and non-warranty, insurance, and lots of other variables would all affect the bottom-line. But it's too hard to predict all of that, whereas average fuel consumption and average miles travelled were relatively accurate data to go by.
Yeah, *I* am wrong. What on earth makes you think engines are perfectly effecient? Nobody's talking about things that don't exist. It's a plain and simple fact, it takes more fuel to take your car and go from 0mph to 60mph in 10 seconds than it does to do it in 20 seconds. Take any car out there, the exact same thing applies. Your theoretical ideal doesn't apply, and you know it doesn't. Why you even spoke up is beyond me. Unless you honestly don't know that you are in fact wrong.
transportation is transportation :P
Excellent point. One I put a bit of thought into not that long ago. My girlfriend's family were contemplating a new car for the three girls to commute to school and back with, and were thinking of getting a Chevy Cavalier. I thought they might want to consider one of those new Smart Fortwo cars, since it would be great on fuel. I forget the exact figures now, but the Smart is supposed to get about 70mpg and the Cavailer about half that. They ended up getting the Cavailer simply because they needed to shuttle three people back and forth from school quite often. Anyways, after doing the math, using the manufacturer's figures, it didn't make much sense to get the Smart even if there would only be two of them going back and forth. The Smart Fortwo was $16,500 + $1,000 "destination fee," so $17,500. And the Cavalier was $11,995. Not worrying about taxes on top of that, or insurance or anything else except vehicle cost, fuel cost, and fuel effeciency, and the trip from home to school and back 5 times a week... It would have taken over 6.5 years for Smart+fuel to intersect with and start getting cheaper than the Cavalier+fuel line on the graph. I was quite surprised, 6.5+ years. Perhaps it would have been cheaper sooner than that when taking into account other trips, because that math considered nothing else except the trips to school and back home 5 times a week. But even then, it would still be cheaper to own the Cavalier for a long time.
how can otherwise bright people get so thick when it comes to cars? Doesn't matter that engines these days are more effecient than they were 30 years ago. The EXACT SAME PHYSICS still applies to the situation. It takes more energy to accelerate quicker than it does to accelerate slower. Nothing is going to change that fact. It takes more energy to go from 0-60mph than it does to go from 15-60mph. Nothing is going to change that. The fact that you got roughly 25mpg in both of your tests is mere coincidence. You didn't drive the exact same routes at the exact same acceleration/deceleration rates in the exact same environmental conditions, etc, etc. Why do you think brand new Corvettes lock you out of gears 2 and 3 unless you're punching it? Because it forces you to accelerate more gently and thus save fuel. This is how they avoided even higher gas guzzler taxes. Forcing you to shift from 1st to 4th gear unless you're trying to get away from Sheriff Roscoe at the time. All the same guidelines you heard before still apply now. Accelerating more gently saves fuel. Cruising at slower speeds saves fuel. And on and on. Physics still applies today just as much as it did back in the day, believe it or not. And no amount of advancement in engine technology is going to change that.
haha, and now I notice that it was the Taco that put this one up. Invasion...body snatchers...
the last few days have seen some pretty lame stories being accepted, that's for sure.
like anyone gives a damn if you post something first or second or 98th or 1929129th. Every single one is special. That is to say, none of them are. So, eat a sandwich.
manufacturer's stated response times are meaningless. Go look at the articles on tom's hardware about it. Black -> white time means pretty much nothing, intermediate-colour-one -> intermediate-colour-two time is what matters. And it's guaranteed that's nowhere near the manufacturer's stated response time. I've never seen any LCD TV without motion blurring.
12/16ms optimal response time, yeah, which usually means from absolute black to absolute white. From any of the intermediate colours to another intermediate colour the times are going to be drastically slower. http://www.tomshardware.com/ has a couple of articles related to LCD response time and why the manufacturer's stated time is useless, since it is so far away from the response time of the display in practice.
one field is still different from the next in regular video, in effect it still is 50/60fps, it's just that only half the frame has been updated.
BeyondTV does custom padding by individual show. You can adjust any recording to start/finish x amount of minutes early/late. Great for football games, add an hour just in case it goes long, which happens often. Or for things like ER starting at 9:59, just adjust the other recording to end a minute early. Or just throw in another PVR-250 card so it can start recording the next show while still recording the previous show.
there's nothing stopping them from releasing Steam updates beforehand that get rid of the need to contact the Steam servers, and make all the games true stand-alone games. They could be around a long time. They could be gone in three years. Who knows. But there's certainly nothing stopping them from patching Steam before they have to pack it in. There *is* a backup utility built in now, and it will make CD or DVD sized backups for you. I'm actually curious to try it out now and see if a restore from the backups currently needs to contact the servers before you can play or not. But certainly if Valve is going to go by the wayside they'll be able to patch Steam so it's not reliant on Steam servers any longer.