My friend bought parts yesterday and is having me put the thing together. The salesmen must have seen him coming, because they sold him an MSI NBox GeForce FX5900, for $530.
This thing looks neat. It has TWO fans and heatsinks, one on the back and one on the front. With real copper. Unfortunately, it wouldn't fit into the case. The heatsink on the back wanted the same space as the motherboard's northbridge heat sink.
Looking in the manual, it seems that the back heatsink was designed to be user removable, without voiding warranty. So I go remove it, damaging one of those pins holding it on. This forced me to repair it so the front heatsink won't fall off.
Did my friend get any money back for not using the back heatsink? Of course not! From the looks of things, I suspect 75% or more users have to remove it. That's not a good design.
I will vote for any left-friendly politician who supports it.
Are you lefty politicians better than ours south of you? Ours usually think that the "D" in front of their names in the congressional roster means "Disney". Frankly, I've got slightly more hope of the "righties" getting it.
I know I'm going to get flamed and mod'ed into oblivion for this, but seriously, what's the big deal about the Matrix? Why do people lash out viciously at movies that actually make an attempt a real depth (LOTR), while simultaneously holding up the Matrix as the cinematic "Gold Standard?" I mean, sure, it's a moderately interesting story, but does it need 6+ hours to be told? Sure, some interesting fights happen along the way, and the effects are great, but are there subtle metaphors, philosophical references, and character dualities (besides Neo obviously) that I'm missing?
Why do people bitch and complain that the LOTR was too much gobbledygook (translation: they didn't understand, and hate movies that challenge them to think about it anywhere beyond the concession stand on their way out), then act like the Matrix is this untouchable masterpiece?
Let's see, Sauron thinks that the ring is now in the hands of Gondor, since one of his lieutenants saw it there. So he sends forth his hordes from Minas Morgul too early.
Pretty much the same results as if Aragorn had shown himself in the Palantir (which may still be in RotK). But with the ring, it's easier to explain to the audience. "He's launched his attack too soon because of Osgiliath. We must not squander this gift fate has given us..."
I've only got 4 FreeBSD boxen running. But it's no skin off my back in install dozens more! Heck, this is easier than collecting boxtops for a secret decoder ring...
In the books, Sauron was defeated by strength of arms. It took both Elendil and Gil-Galad, the two greatest warriors at the time, to defeat Sauron in personal combat. They threw him down, but died in the attempt. Isildur cut the ring off of Sauron's hand AFTER he had been defeated.
The movie version of the ring taking was a bit cheesy, but probably worked better on the screen than Tolkien's expository account would have.
No, we wanted some examples of emotional, philsophical or moral depth in the movie. If you can't see why these are meaningless unanswered questions are "depth", let me translate them into LOTR terms:
1) Barliman Butterbur served ale at the Prancing Pony. Where did he get the ale? 2) The children at Bilbo's birthday party bear a strong resemblance to the children cowering in fear in the caves under Helm's Deep. What is the relationship between hobbit and human children? 3) Elrond says Rivendell does not have the power to hold back both Mordor and Isengard, implying that he had the power to hold back one or the other. Where are all the elvish troops at Rivendell? 4) There is a single dark lord, Sauron, plotting to rule all of Middle Earth. Are there other dark lords? Are there other Middle Earths? 5) Just what does Sauron want? What motivates him to conquer Middle Earth? Did Gandalf insult him back in the first age or something?
So you get this car that suddenly slams on the breaks every eight hours while you're driving down the road in heavy traffic. You can turn this off of course, so what's the big deal?
I know I'm going to get flamed and mod'ed into oblivion for this, but seriously, what's the big deal about LotR?
I'm not going to flame, since it appears that your are serious in your inquiry. But I will correct some of your misconceptions.
What's the big deal? Simply that The Lord of the Rings is one of the major English language novels in the past century. It was loved by millions decades before Peter Jackson decided to make a movie of it. It's a timeless story. Even my mother likes it, and she absolutely abhors fantasy and science fiction.
Then Peter Jackson comes along and makes an excellent cinematic translation of it. This has been attempted before, but each time had fallen far, far short of the novel.
The big deal is that those of us who love The Lord of the Rings are finally seeing it visualized in a truly stunning manner.
Why do people lash out viciously at movies that actually make an attempt a real depth (Matrix), while simultaneously holding up the LotR as the cinematic "Gold Standard?"
Oooh! Value judgements! Can I play too? The first Matrix may have some small depth to it, but the only depth of the second one was how far is had fallen in comparison to the first. While it may have been a "fun" movie to watch, it was incredibly shallow. It was like watching someone else playing a video game. If it hadn't taken itself so seriously, it would have been much better.
On the other hand, not too many people are holding up LOTR as the "gold standard" of cinema. While I'm sure some are, aren't you making the same mistake by trying to place Matrix in that spot instead?
Why do people bitch and complain that the Matrix was too much gobbledygook (translation: they didn't understand, and hate movies that challenge them to think about it anywhere beyond the concession stand on their way out), then act like LotR is this untouchable masterpiece?
I lied. I am going to flame.
Going out past the concession stand after seeing Matrix 2, I definitely was not thinking about the movie. The rewarmed second hand philosophies presented were not worth the effort. If you found it truly worth thinking about, then I suggest you get out into the real world more often. Start reading literature above the level of Marvel Comics. If you were that impressed with the ideas in the Matrix, don't you dare read any of the classic French novelists though, or you might end up in the hospital!
There's this ring. It's evil. It has to be destroyed. That's where we left off after the first one. "Two Towers" and 3 hours later, that's STILL where we are. Still got that ring. Still has to be destroyed.
I bet you hated the Odyssey as well. Chapter one, still not home. Chapter two, still not home. Chapter three, defeated this witch, but still not home. Chapter four, still not home.
Let me summarize what happened, since you were so focused on that ring thing. By the end of the first movie, Frodo goes from being a slacker with a silly grin on his face, to deciding to leave his friends behind for their own safety. Sam goes from being a drinking buddy to being a faithful companion, Legolas and Gimli go from being bitter rivals to close friends. And Boromir could be a complete movie just by himself. I'm sure you get the point by now, without having to delve into the second movie.
If all you think a movie is about is the final climax, you've been watching them all wrong. But then, I suspect you probably read mystery novels last chapter first.
but the LotR seems to shy completely away from them, afraid of challenging (and alienating) their audience.
Every movie doesn't need to be an essay on refried 19th century philosophy. Sometimes just a story about characters and their struggles is good enough. And of course, good acting, storytelling and cinematography are added bonuses.
Not only is it -- strictly speaking -- true, it's also true in incredibly fuzzy ways as well. Bush didn't raise, lower or otherwise alter sales taxes. Period. He has no power to. Period. Because there is no federal sales tax. Period.
You're argument makes as much sense as saying my pay cut at work was partially financed by my landlord's rent increase.
Well it ain't a coma. The videos of her could have been faked, just like the Apollo moonshots could have been faked, but I really doubt it. From what I can see, she is definitely not in a coma. See them for yourself at http://www.terrisfight.org/.
Your hatred of Jeb Bush has zero relevance to Terri's right to live.
the family still makes the final decision in most cases.
There has to be a line somewhere. Not being able to speak isn't it. Not being able to feed oneself isn't it. Being inconvenient to your husband isn't it.
Re:it's pretty obvious...
on
Kylix in Limbo
·
· Score: 1
You forgot: Who needs Kylix when you can write your GUIs in Ruby using wxWindows, GTK, FLTK or QT for FREE?
That's who we need in office, someone who will hire people smarter than him to do a good job.
Um, Carter did the same thing, and his administration resembled a lead balloon. Reagan didn't, and his administration was highly effective (left/right politics aside).
Techies: Generally antisocial people who place more importance on technology than on people. A candidate who promises to take care of all their problems so they can focus on their narrow tech domain will appeal to them.
Scientists: Their livelihoods are generally dependent upon government grants. Democrats are more likely to approve increased government spending than Republicans.
Extra security in airports? Hell no, I use airports! I don't want any damned Ashcroft crony frisking me in no airport. I've got rights dammit! And no cameras at the stoplights to see if I'm speeding, and no sniffing my network to see if I'm sharing music.
But go ahead and slap equally stupid measures on trucks, because I don't drive a truck. It's okay with me...
Slashdot Mirror
You're absolutely right. But that doesn't stop those seeking solutions to problems that don't exist.
...if only for their heat sink designs
My friend bought parts yesterday and is having me put the thing together. The salesmen must have seen him coming, because they sold him an MSI NBox GeForce FX5900, for $530.
This thing looks neat. It has TWO fans and heatsinks, one on the back and one on the front. With real copper. Unfortunately, it wouldn't fit into the case. The heatsink on the back wanted the same space as the motherboard's northbridge heat sink.
Looking in the manual, it seems that the back heatsink was designed to be user removable, without voiding warranty. So I go remove it, damaging one of those pins holding it on. This forced me to repair it so the front heatsink won't fall off.
Did my friend get any money back for not using the back heatsink? Of course not! From the looks of things, I suspect 75% or more users have to remove it. That's not a good design.
I will vote for any left-friendly politician who supports it.
Are you lefty politicians better than ours south of you? Ours usually think that the "D" in front of their names in the congressional roster means "Disney". Frankly, I've got slightly more hope of the "righties" getting it.
I know I'm going to get flamed and mod'ed into oblivion for this, but seriously, what's the big deal about the Matrix? Why do people lash out viciously at movies that actually make an attempt a real depth (LOTR), while simultaneously holding up the Matrix as the cinematic "Gold Standard?" I mean, sure, it's a moderately interesting story, but does it need 6+ hours to be told? Sure, some interesting fights happen along the way, and the effects are great, but are there subtle metaphors, philosophical references, and character dualities (besides Neo obviously) that I'm missing?
Why do people bitch and complain that the LOTR was too much gobbledygook (translation: they didn't understand, and hate movies that challenge them to think about it anywhere beyond the concession stand on their way out), then act like the Matrix is this untouchable masterpiece?
</sarcasm>
Let's see, Sauron thinks that the ring is now in the hands of Gondor, since one of his lieutenants saw it there. So he sends forth his hordes from Minas Morgul too early.
Pretty much the same results as if Aragorn had shown himself in the Palantir (which may still be in RotK). But with the ring, it's easier to explain to the audience. "He's launched his attack too soon because of Osgiliath. We must not squander this gift fate has given us..."
Yeah, I want to know what my Hobbit name is!
It's south of Frogmorton and east of Brockenborings. Don't you have a map? Sheesh.
Ever hear of catheters? Only the best will do for true LOTR fans.
I've only got 4 FreeBSD boxen running. But it's no skin off my back in install dozens more! Heck, this is easier than collecting boxtops for a secret decoder ring...
In the books, Sauron was defeated by strength of arms. It took both Elendil and Gil-Galad, the two greatest warriors at the time, to defeat Sauron in personal combat. They threw him down, but died in the attempt. Isildur cut the ring off of Sauron's hand AFTER he had been defeated.
The movie version of the ring taking was a bit cheesy, but probably worked better on the screen than Tolkien's expository account would have.
No, we wanted some examples of emotional, philsophical or moral depth in the movie. If you can't see why these are meaningless unanswered questions are "depth", let me translate them into LOTR terms:
1) Barliman Butterbur served ale at the Prancing Pony. Where did he get the ale?
2) The children at Bilbo's birthday party bear a strong resemblance to the children cowering in fear in the caves under Helm's Deep. What is the relationship between hobbit and human children?
3) Elrond says Rivendell does not have the power to hold back both Mordor and Isengard, implying that he had the power to hold back one or the other. Where are all the elvish troops at Rivendell?
4) There is a single dark lord, Sauron, plotting to rule all of Middle Earth. Are there other dark lords? Are there other Middle Earths?
5) Just what does Sauron want? What motivates him to conquer Middle Earth? Did Gandalf insult him back in the first age or something?
So you get this car that suddenly slams on the breaks every eight hours while you're driving down the road in heavy traffic. You can turn this off of course, so what's the big deal?
I know I'm going to get flamed and mod'ed into oblivion for this, but seriously, what's the big deal about LotR?
I'm not going to flame, since it appears that your are serious in your inquiry. But I will correct some of your misconceptions.
What's the big deal? Simply that The Lord of the Rings is one of the major English language novels in the past century. It was loved by millions decades before Peter Jackson decided to make a movie of it. It's a timeless story. Even my mother likes it, and she absolutely abhors fantasy and science fiction.
Then Peter Jackson comes along and makes an excellent cinematic translation of it. This has been attempted before, but each time had fallen far, far short of the novel.
The big deal is that those of us who love The Lord of the Rings are finally seeing it visualized in a truly stunning manner.
Why do people lash out viciously at movies that actually make an attempt a real depth (Matrix), while simultaneously holding up the LotR as the cinematic "Gold Standard?"
Oooh! Value judgements! Can I play too? The first Matrix may have some small depth to it, but the only depth of the second one was how far is had fallen in comparison to the first. While it may have been a "fun" movie to watch, it was incredibly shallow. It was like watching someone else playing a video game. If it hadn't taken itself so seriously, it would have been much better.
On the other hand, not too many people are holding up LOTR as the "gold standard" of cinema. While I'm sure some are, aren't you making the same mistake by trying to place Matrix in that spot instead?
Why do people bitch and complain that the Matrix was too much gobbledygook (translation: they didn't understand, and hate movies that challenge them to think about it anywhere beyond the concession stand on their way out), then act like LotR is this untouchable masterpiece?
I lied. I am going to flame.
Going out past the concession stand after seeing Matrix 2, I definitely was not thinking about the movie. The rewarmed second hand philosophies presented were not worth the effort. If you found it truly worth thinking about, then I suggest you get out into the real world more often. Start reading literature above the level of Marvel Comics. If you were that impressed with the ideas in the Matrix, don't you dare read any of the classic French novelists though, or you might end up in the hospital!
There's this ring. It's evil. It has to be destroyed. That's where we left off after the first one. "Two Towers" and 3 hours later, that's STILL where we are. Still got that ring. Still has to be destroyed.
I bet you hated the Odyssey as well. Chapter one, still not home. Chapter two, still not home. Chapter three, defeated this witch, but still not home. Chapter four, still not home.
Let me summarize what happened, since you were so focused on that ring thing. By the end of the first movie, Frodo goes from being a slacker with a silly grin on his face, to deciding to leave his friends behind for their own safety. Sam goes from being a drinking buddy to being a faithful companion, Legolas and Gimli go from being bitter rivals to close friends. And Boromir could be a complete movie just by himself. I'm sure you get the point by now, without having to delve into the second movie.
If all you think a movie is about is the final climax, you've been watching them all wrong. But then, I suspect you probably read mystery novels last chapter first.
but the LotR seems to shy completely away from them, afraid of challenging (and alienating) their audience.
Every movie doesn't need to be an essay on refried 19th century philosophy. Sometimes just a story about characters and their struggles is good enough. And of course, good acting, storytelling and cinematography are added bonuses.
Not only is it -- strictly speaking -- true, it's also true in incredibly fuzzy ways as well. Bush didn't raise, lower or otherwise alter sales taxes. Period. He has no power to. Period. Because there is no federal sales tax. Period.
You're argument makes as much sense as saying my pay cut at work was partially financed by my landlord's rent increase.
"i dont want to be in a coma forever" is it
Well it ain't a coma. The videos of her could have been faked, just like the Apollo moonshots could have been faked, but I really doubt it. From what I can see, she is definitely not in a coma. See them for yourself at http://www.terrisfight.org/.
Your hatred of Jeb Bush has zero relevance to Terri's right to live.
the family still makes the final decision in most cases.
There has to be a line somewhere. Not being able to speak isn't it. Not being able to feed oneself isn't it. Being inconvenient to your husband isn't it.
You forgot: Who needs Kylix when you can write your GUIs in Ruby using wxWindows, GTK, FLTK or QT for FREE?
if they cut sales tax, then lower classes would benefit but not with income tax
Except Bush can't cut the sales tax, because there is no federal sales tax!
To heck with dinosaurs and Greedo shooting first, I want to see Biggs talking with Luke on Tatooine, like in the first theatrical run.
Did you read my disclaimer? Of course not! Let me repeat it: "gross stereotypes".
That's who we need in office, someone who will hire people smarter than him to do a good job.
Um, Carter did the same thing, and his administration resembled a lead balloon. Reagan didn't, and his administration was highly effective (left/right politics aside).
why are so many techies and scientists Democrat?
(gross stereotypes only, YHBW)
Techies: Generally antisocial people who place more importance on technology than on people. A candidate who promises to take care of all their problems so they can focus on their narrow tech domain will appeal to them.
Scientists: Their livelihoods are generally dependent upon government grants. Democrats are more likely to approve increased government spending than Republicans.
Dear Mr. Dean,
I've decided to do my part for your campaign. Enclosed is a copy of FreeBSD that I burned last night from an ISO image.
Bless,
Supporter
Extra security in airports? Hell no, I use airports! I don't want any damned Ashcroft crony frisking me in no airport. I've got rights dammit! And no cameras at the stoplights to see if I'm speeding, and no sniffing my network to see if I'm sharing music.
But go ahead and slap equally stupid measures on trucks, because I don't drive a truck. It's okay with me...
One Republican, nine Democrats. You call this a valid sample?!?!
Let's see the figures for every congressman and senator. Then we might get some numbers that mean something. And even then it's meaningless.