Come on, we've heard the hype from Sony before with their PS2, which was a nice system but not all it way hyped to be. OK PS3 will be an interesting piece of cheap hardware but do we have to see a round of flawed comparrisons that measure a single metrics as Sony try to promote themselves to an audience only too eagre to lap it all up. Take it all with a pinch of salt.
Well the consequences of being hit by a lama are not as severe as billions of deaths and an potential ice age. When you multiply the risk by the consequences maybe there's room for some prudent concern over this rock. Divide by the cost of doing something about it to figure out if you should take action. Right now they're observing to see if they can reduce the error in the projected orbit to see if it really is on target for Earth. That seems like the right course of action. I'm not losing sleep over this yet but I want to know where that rock is headed.
I happen to have filed some of those graphics patents, and I know about several other engineers in the same position. They are NOT licensed they are SOLD. Not only are my patents and those of others appearing on USPTO assigned to Microsoft, (patents which were filed while at SGI), but I have also been asked to assign other patents not yet awarded to Microsoft. So I DO know the facts, you DON'T. Microsoft has been SOLD these patents, not licensed.
SGI sued NVIDIA primarily over their use of an on chip cache (texture cache I think), not because of some theft of brain trust. Now I'm no hardware GURU but caches have been around for a while, their use in a graphics ASIC might not be considered by some to be all that innovative effort or deserving of 20 years of monopoly protection. You decide for yourself, but don't worry SGI probably won't sue another company for using this idea in future, Microsoft has probably been sold this one too!
Since this trailer was in front of the Star Wars AOTC movie I saw (in California) I'd guess that the web release merely coincides with the theatrical release of the trailer, which in turn is released to advertise with AOTC rather than steal any thunder.
I'm glad we agree none of your responses have been meaningful. You think you can run around insulting people with impunity then sulk when you receive similar treatment. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.
Oh, I see you disagree with me so I should go find a better source for my opinion?
I form my opinion from my life experience and varied information and sources. I don't need someone to tell me what my opinion is and because it doesn't conform to your narrow view of the world doesn't mean I should therefore go and find someone to tell me what to think.
You obviously missed the part where he couldn't resist tarring Fox news with the same brush. You have heard of the NYT haven't you? The whole article backs up my statement you idiot. It is in context or did the opinion passed of as the comments of someone els totally escape you. Why don't you exercise some critical judgement next time instead of plucking out the snippets you like to read in an article.
And I don't get my opinions from slashdot you patronizing dumb ass.
Oh so CNN run by Ted Turner is right wing in your opinion?
You're obviously not from America. Then again your rhetoric is typical of the American kneejerk left, I point out the blindingly obvious, the bias in the NYT and you're calling me a nutcase. What happend to all that intelligence the left wing insist they have? Is "nutcase" what passes for reasoned debate in your part of the world?
Go read Bernie Goldberg's book "Bias". I don't care about Fox, but the other major news outlets in the USA are unadulteratedly left wing, they are biased news sources and the fact remains that the NYT is a left wing mouth piece. If you don't understand American domestic politics then don't even try to debate this because you have no basis for informed comment.
If you can't see through this article then you're the nut. Did you miss the part of the article where the "reporter" who tarred Fox with the same brush as all these web sites spreading unadulterated rubbish? Yea, the NYT is REAL objective there. The interesting part here is the story is completely unrelated, the guy just couldn't help himself, he had to drag Fox into the preamble and didn't have the balls to make the statement himself. He wrote the criticism, but he hides behind an anecdote about some foreigner he met, just incase we might think he's expressing an opinion. Ofcourse it IS an opinion, but this is the game that get's played. A selective quote from someone he "interviewed" and he thinks he can say anything and appear objective. Then morons like you call anyone who points this out a "nutcase".
Well I preffer real journalism to this crap, and I really object to some biased reported taking shots at a news outlet that he could take lessons from.
Maybe I should have said "I ran into a stranger the other day who said the NYT was a left wing mouthpiece and THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN is a propagandist not a reporter.", it isn't honest but it's the kind of shit you like to swallow.
BILL O'REILLY: And I want to ask you flat out. Do you think President Clinton's an honest man? RATHER: Yes, I think he's an honest man. O'REILLY: Do you really? RATHER: I think -- I do. I think he's an honest man. O'REILLY: Even when he lied to Jim Lehrer's face about the (unintelligible)? RATHER: Listen, who among us have not lied about something? O'REILLY: Well, I didn't lie to anybody's face on national television. I don't think you have. Have you? RATHER: I don't think I ever have. I hope I never have. But look, it's one thing-- O'REILLY: How can you say he's an honest guy, then? RATHER: Well, because I think he is. I think at core, he's an honest person. I know that you have a different view. I know that you consider it sort of astonishing anybody would say so. But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things. --Dan Rather on O'Reilly Factor May 15, 2001
The people who control the media, and in particular Dan Rather Biased and anchors like him think they are elites. They don't report the news, they advocate and promote an agenda. Their contempt (and yours) for anyone with a view they don't find politically correct is manifestly obvious. But of course you're only to happy to have a biased news media which agrees with your agenda, and are able ot point to Fox as right wing merely by contrast to the crap the alphabet channels put out.
If you think they give you the real deal you are a fool. It would never occur to you that their daily censorship of diverse views merely serves the hateful.
No I prefer a diverse media that isn't censored. The NYT is a joke as are most of the other media outlets. The NYT complaining about Fox is the pot calling the kettle black.
This is how he starts! The NYT is totally biased towards the left. More biased left than Fox is right. The guy is even too cowardly to criticize Fox himself. He attacks Fox by quoting from a foreign resident who's political leanings we know nothing of then goes on to complain about the excesses of the Internet. What a hypocrite. If it wasn't for the internet and alternative news sources we'd only ever get the pap that the NYT and it's liberal elites and their ilk want to give us.
"untreated, unfiltered information"? Shock horror, maybe he'd preffer that The New York Times gets to filter our information for us? This is the biggest sin of liberal mouth pieces like the NYT, ommission. Read that paper and there's stuff you'll just never hear about, points of view they don't want you to hear.
This guy testified in favor of M$ at their DOJ trial about how they aren't monopoly wielding thugs. By his own admission they killed his company because they couldn't control his technology, even if they wanted to and didn't want to give him control of the name space. Let's face it this guy wanted a names monopoly of his own so he piggybacked the Microsoft browser monopoly to get there, zero competition for browser keywords. Microsoft is replacing their technology with a system where a URL which fails initiates a search on the Microsoft search engine, so they have "100% control". It's clearly a case of eliminating the competition through abandonment as their only route to market. I don't have any sympathy for this guy in light of his testimony. He didn't give a crap when Microsoft were destroying other companies with proven illegal methods. Now when they come for him he complains, he deserves it more than Netscape et.al. I do think something should be done about this though, it is a clear case of Microsoft destroying competition by tying their own search engine to their browser and killing RealNames to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on, we've heard the hype from Sony before with their PS2, which was a nice system but not all it way hyped to be. OK PS3 will be an interesting piece of cheap hardware but do we have to see a round of flawed comparrisons that measure a single metrics as Sony try to promote themselves to an audience only too eagre to lap it all up. Take it all with a pinch of salt.
He still has the cost of the stock, overheads and tax to pay. Doesn't sound very profitable to me.
Well the consequences of being hit by a lama are not as severe as billions of deaths and an potential ice age. When you multiply the risk by the consequences maybe there's room for some prudent concern over this rock. Divide by the cost of doing something about it to figure out if you should take action. Right now they're observing to see if they can reduce the error in the projected orbit to see if it really is on target for Earth. That seems like the right course of action. I'm not losing sleep over this yet but I want to know where that rock is headed.
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/3d.html
It seems that this requires windows JUST so you can copy a few files over from the installation.
Why can't they make these available as another download or even part of the Linux download?
Erasing screwed up moderation selection.
Where did I say they should be allowed to do this? By all accounts they aren't being allowed to do this.
1) There's nothing wrong with a consistently conservative estimate.
2) If you underreport earnings you are actually undervalued. You may iron out the noise but you have sandbagged real money on the books for a quarter.
Anonymous,
I happen to have filed some of those graphics patents, and I know about several other engineers in the same position. They are NOT licensed they are SOLD. Not only are my patents and those of others appearing on USPTO assigned to Microsoft, (patents which were filed while at SGI), but I have also been asked to assign other patents not yet awarded to Microsoft. So I DO know the facts, you DON'T. Microsoft has been SOLD these patents, not licensed.
SGI sued NVIDIA primarily over their use of an on chip cache (texture cache I think), not because of some theft of brain trust. Now I'm no hardware GURU but caches have been around for a while, their use in a graphics ASIC might not be considered by some to be all that innovative effort or deserving of 20 years of monopoly protection. You decide for yourself, but don't worry SGI probably won't sue another company for using this idea in future, Microsoft has probably been sold this one too!
Take your own advice, learn the facts.
SGI used to tell their employees that they filed patents purely as a defense (they had been sued).
Then SGI sued NVIDIA because they were losing in the market.
Then SGI sold all their graphics patents to Microsoft because they needed cash.
Patents are an asset, once they are aquired they can be abused and sold irrespective of what the original intent was.
Since this trailer was in front of the Star Wars AOTC movie I saw (in California) I'd guess that the web release merely coincides with the theatrical release of the trailer, which in turn is released to advertise with AOTC rather than steal any thunder.
So what's the definition of efficiency for cooling devices?
What constitutes "work done" in this case.
Real physicists only please.
I'm glad we agree none of your responses have been meaningful. You think you can run around insulting people with impunity then sulk when you receive similar treatment. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.
I don't disagree with you on that one. All anchors are full of themselves, but Dan Rather is a hypocritite and a fool.
Oh, I see you disagree with me so I should go find a better source for my opinion?
I form my opinion from my life experience and varied information and sources. I don't need someone to tell me what my opinion is and because it doesn't conform to your narrow view of the world doesn't mean I should therefore go and find someone to tell me what to think.
And your contribution is better how?
The 16 sample AA shown here looks nice and there's a bit of detail on a few of the features like the hardware displacement mapping. Very nice looking.
w z? cid=3&aid=425&page=1
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/articles.h
You obviously missed the part where he couldn't resist tarring Fox news with the same brush. You have heard of the NYT haven't you? The whole article backs up my statement you idiot. It is in context or did the opinion passed of as the comments of someone els totally escape you. Why don't you exercise some critical judgement next time instead of plucking out the snippets you like to read in an article.
And I don't get my opinions from slashdot you patronizing dumb ass.
Oh so CNN run by Ted Turner is right wing in your opinion?
You're obviously not from America. Then again your rhetoric is typical of the American kneejerk left, I point out the blindingly obvious, the bias in the NYT and you're calling me a nutcase. What happend to all that intelligence the left wing insist they have? Is "nutcase" what passes for reasoned debate in your part of the world?
Go read Bernie Goldberg's book "Bias". I don't care about Fox, but the other major news outlets in the USA are unadulteratedly left wing, they are biased news sources and the fact remains that the NYT is a left wing mouth piece. If you don't understand American domestic politics then don't even try to debate this because you have no basis for informed comment.
If you can't see through this article then you're the nut. Did you miss the part of the article where the "reporter" who tarred Fox with the same brush as all these web sites spreading unadulterated rubbish? Yea, the NYT is REAL objective there. The interesting part here is the story is completely unrelated, the guy just couldn't help himself, he had to drag Fox into the preamble and didn't have the balls to make the statement himself. He wrote the criticism, but he hides behind an anecdote about some foreigner he met, just incase we might think he's expressing an opinion. Ofcourse it IS an opinion, but this is the game that get's played. A selective quote from someone he "interviewed" and he thinks he can say anything and appear objective. Then morons like you call anyone who points this out a "nutcase".
Well I preffer real journalism to this crap, and I really object to some biased reported taking shots at a news outlet that he could take lessons from.
Maybe I should have said "I ran into a stranger the other day who said the NYT was a left wing mouthpiece and THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN is a propagandist not a reporter.", it isn't honest but it's the kind of shit you like to swallow.
BILL O'REILLY: And I want to ask you flat out. Do you think President Clinton's an honest man?
RATHER: Yes, I think he's an honest man.
O'REILLY: Do you really?
RATHER: I think -- I do. I think he's an honest man.
O'REILLY: Even when he lied to Jim Lehrer's face about the (unintelligible)?
RATHER: Listen, who among us have not lied about something?
O'REILLY: Well, I didn't lie to anybody's face on national television. I don't think you have. Have you?
RATHER: I don't think I ever have. I hope I never have. But look, it's one thing--
O'REILLY: How can you say he's an honest guy, then?
RATHER: Well, because I think he is. I think at core, he's an honest person. I know that you have a different view. I know that you consider it sort of astonishing anybody would say so. But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things.
--Dan Rather on O'Reilly Factor May 15, 2001
The people who control the media, and in particular Dan Rather Biased and anchors like him think they are elites. They don't report the news, they advocate and promote an agenda. Their contempt (and yours) for anyone with a view they don't find politically correct is manifestly obvious. But of course you're only to happy to have a biased news media which agrees with your agenda, and are able ot point to Fox as right wing merely by contrast to the crap the alphabet channels put out.
If you think they give you the real deal you are a fool. It would never occur to you that their daily censorship of diverse views merely serves the hateful.
No I prefer a diverse media that isn't censored. The NYT is a joke as are most of the other media outlets. The NYT complaining about Fox is the pot calling the kettle black.
This is how he starts! The NYT is totally biased towards the left. More biased left than Fox is right. The guy is even too cowardly to criticize Fox himself. He attacks Fox by quoting from a foreign resident who's political leanings we know nothing of then goes on to complain about the excesses of the Internet. What a hypocrite. If it wasn't for the internet and alternative news sources we'd only ever get the pap that the NYT and it's liberal elites and their ilk want to give us.
"untreated, unfiltered information"? Shock horror, maybe he'd preffer that The New York Times gets to filter our information for us? This is the biggest sin of liberal mouth pieces like the NYT, ommission. Read that paper and there's stuff you'll just never hear about, points of view they don't want you to hear.
This guy testified in favor of M$ at their DOJ trial about how they aren't monopoly wielding thugs. By his own admission they killed his company because they couldn't control his technology, even if they wanted to and didn't want to give him control of the name space. Let's face it this guy wanted a names monopoly of his own so he piggybacked the Microsoft browser monopoly to get there, zero competition for browser keywords. Microsoft is replacing their technology with a system where a URL which fails initiates a search on the Microsoft search engine, so they have "100% control". It's clearly a case of eliminating the competition through abandonment as their only route to market. I don't have any sympathy for this guy in light of his testimony. He didn't give a crap when Microsoft were destroying other companies with proven illegal methods. Now when they come for him he complains, he deserves it more than Netscape et.al. I do think something should be done about this though, it is a clear case of Microsoft destroying competition by tying their own search engine to their browser and killing RealNames to do it.