Example: My mom is currently working on her Master's at Seton Hall (no Jersey jokes, please;)), and that degree will be worth something, even though she's doing it entirely online. Seton Hall is a well-recognized university that has a good reputation in its brick-and-mortar variety.
Meanwhile, getting a degree from a crappy school won't mean shit, even if you attend every single class in person.
a) Can have other processes running besides the game, and the "second" core can handle them while the "first" is taking care of the game. b) Future games will make extensive use of multiple cores. Not many right now (Quake 4 is about the only good example), but future-proofing is good.
Other points: a) More than anything, I'd say HL2 is CPU-intensive than GPU-intensive. b) The exact parts doesn't matter, I was merely pointing out that a good system doesn't have to cost $2000. Substitute in a C2D for an AX2 if you'd like, or replace the video card. Point is, $700 is perfectly reasonable for a good gaming system. c) Personally, I'm more of a fan of getting a $120 GPU every 12 months or so, than buying a $200 GPU every 12-16 months.
Even if you don't build your own, that doesn't mean you have to get ripped off. If you're paying $2000 for a PC and it's not top-of-the-line (at this point meaning quad-core and/or 1-2 $400+ graphics cards), then you're overpaying for what you get.
On Dell's site I put together a machine just now with essentially the same parts as the build above, and it was close to $1200. If you really want your 4GB of RAM (and I'm telling you it's not necessary), then it's still only $1450. I'm a big advocate of building my own machine, cause honestly it's that much cheaper, and I can leave out any parts I don't want. Paying Dell $40 to upgrade from a CD burner to a DVD burner? No thanks, I'd rather just pay $30 for the DVD burner alone.
No need to spend 2 grand. A decent gaming PC costs $600-1000. Not top-of-the-line, but CERTAINLY good enough to play WoW, CS:Source, etc with a decent resolution, and decent settings.
Core 2 Duo 6300 - $180 Mobo - $130 2GB RAM - $160 7600GT - $120 320GB HD - $90 DVD burner - $30 Case - $40 PSU - $40
$790 for the parts listed above, if you buy from Newegg. And you could DEFINITELY cut back in some areas, like getting 1GB of RAM, or getting a different video card, like a 7600GS.
Here's the other factor: if you're going to spend money for a gaming platform, why buy a one-trick pony? Yes, the Wii, Xbox360, etc all have web browsers and such, but a computer (whether it's running Windows, Linux, Mac OS, whatever) is so much more versatile. I can build a gaming machine today for $800, and 2-3 years from now I can buy a new gaming machine, and use the current one as a server.
My freshman CS professor is from the Czech Republic, and he said back home there was this guy sitting by a mall entrance spamming people's phones with what amounted to a really sketchy personal ad. He said it was about the creepiest thing he's ever seen.
Within most games (but especially FPSs) I think the main problem lies within pacing. Some people just play through games fast, others don't. When Half-life 2: Episode 1 came out, Valve said it would take 4-6 hours to play through. It took me 8 (cause I like to explore), while I heard of some people getting through their first time in ~3 hours. Not on purpose, but just because of how they play. So while the people who played through in 3 hours might feel cheated, I felt I got more than my money's worth (especially since I did a second run with commentary on).
How do you sell a game at profit, while making the customers happy?
For gaming, yes, but I think he's more referring to the other components (RAM, vid. card).
He's probably like me, with a second-gen P4 running 533MHz FSB. This is as opposed to current P4s which run at 800MHz+ on the FSB. This was back in the days before AMD started selling Athlon 64s.
First time through: P4 2.8 (but the old P4s with 533MHz FSB, back when your processor was still being made), 512MB RAM (DDR333), GeForce4 MX440. I played that game running a DX7-compliant card, at 640x480. The draw distance for models was like 10ft, so the scene when you crossed the antlion-infested desert while picking up faraway objects with the grav. gun was WICKED annoying.
Now I have the same processor and mobo, but with 1GB RAM (still DDR333), and a 6600GT. I 3 1024x768.:)
Try installing AMD's dual-core drivers, if you haven't already. I don't have dual-core myself, but I hear that it can be an issue for some programs.
Barring that, try turning off the dual-core from the BIOS. Most people's systems work fine with all programs running dual-cores, but turning off the feature is not an uncommon fix if your machine isn't running right.
Well, those are actually two genres I listen to quite a bit, and I probably haven't bought more than 3 tapes (I started buying CDs in about 6th grade), so it's not an issue, I was just saying that the feature is there.
Even if we aren't signing that one, I thought that we'd signed at least one other treaty at some point in our history banning landmines. But even if I'm wrong on that one, the other reasons for my objection to private use and ownership still stand.
I have a very good division of where it should be legal: any item that is better suited for defensive use and not offensive use, and is suitable for personal and/or home defense, and must be activated by the user at the time of use, should be legal. It's not perfect, but I feel it's pretty good. Explanation:
By my definition, mines would not be legal, because although they are suited for defensive use, they are meant to be planted far in advance, and are ultimately activated by the victim, not the user. This means that anyone walking on to your property, even with good and legal cause, is in danger. If you are present, you are responsible for ensuring that your defense system works, with no false positives or false negatives. Plus, mines are already outlawed by several treaties, which we are, as citizens of a signing country, obligated to follow.
Sandbagged foxholes are already perfectly legal, unless your neighborhood has weird rules on what can and can't go in. In most towns they're not specifically banned, and therefore perfectly fine.
AA batteries are not meant for personal/home defense, but rather for a much larger scale operation.
I think that full-autos should be legal, from the Glock 18 to the Ma Deuce. They have a valid use in defense of the home, as they have an easy learning curve, and are able to quickly put down a bad guy.
Even those restrictions I'm still thinking over for one main reason: if we ever had a tyrannical government and needed to revolt, how well would we do against them with only personal firearms, if the government had access to heavy artillery and the like? I know that this is an unlikely scenario, but who ever thought that the U.S.'s first revolution would actually succeed?
For the viewpoints of another person with similar (but slightly more restrictive) thoughts on gun laws, check out this site.
The simple fact of the matter is that by increasing the prices of anything, you're allowing less access to that item to the lower classes. Several people have already said that they don't own any firearms because they can't afford them, and yet you want to make them more expensive. Instead of "when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns," now it's "when guns are expensive, only the rich will have guns." This is class discrimination at its worst. Instead of depriving the poor of education, or jobs, you're depriving them of safety, and of life.
This is the main reason why banning "Saturday Night Specials" is a bad idea. Ok, no, we shouldn't allow firearms that are so cheaply made that the user is at serious risk every time the thing is loaded, fired, or looked at. But that's the realm of the FTC, which already holds companies accountable if their products are not designed safely. But that doesn't mean that well-made, inexpensive firearms shouldn't exist.
Kel-Tec is a very good example of the kind of manufacturer that I want around. They make well-designed firearms that are both reliable and inexpensive, so that the poor can actually afford them (MSRP is $300 new, and usual retail is around $260; compare that to the average pistol, which on average starts at $700). Not only that, middle-class people can afford to buy a backup pistol just in case their primary fails.
Russell, I suggest you look at this site. After you're done with that page, read the rest of the articles there; it should take less than an hour, depending on your reading speed. Really, firearms enable the average person to stand their ground against any adversary, whether it's a mugger, a burgler, or a tyrannical government.
Your main point is that all gun owners should be responsible for the actions of a few. Since many have already brought up the points I wanted to bring up on this, I will just say one more: instead of punishing all of the people who haven't yet been convicted of a crime, how about we start punishing the people who actually were convicted? It seems to me that keeping criminals off of the streets would be far more effective than attempting to keep all firearms off of the streets. It doesn't have to be complicated: if you commit a crime, you go to jail. If you have never committed a crime, you're free. There's no need to enable more crimes to happen by effectively disarming the citizens, and uneffectively disarming the criminals. If they don't follow the "Don't hurt people" laws, is there any reason to believe they'll follow the "Don't own a gun" laws?
Slashdot Mirror
It's called a joke. Laugh, or move on. ;)
I've seen special controllers for people with one hand/arm, etc.
;)
You mis-spelled "Wii-mote".
because they throw a crappy Celeron in it and then put in a crappy motherboard, knowing that the customer is only looking at the clock speed
:)
Fixed.
Example: My mom is currently working on her Master's at Seton Hall (no Jersey jokes, please ;)), and that degree will be worth something, even though she's doing it entirely online. Seton Hall is a well-recognized university that has a good reputation in its brick-and-mortar variety.
Meanwhile, getting a degree from a crappy school won't mean shit, even if you attend every single class in person.
At my school (UNH), it's known as ECE - Electrical and Computer Engineering. CE == Civil Eng.
In my day we didn't even have the 228! The Glock and the USP were the only two pistols, and M4s had scopes!
Benefits of dual-core for a gamer:
a) Can have other processes running besides the game, and the "second" core can handle them while the "first" is taking care of the game.
b) Future games will make extensive use of multiple cores. Not many right now (Quake 4 is about the only good example), but future-proofing is good.
Other points:
a) More than anything, I'd say HL2 is CPU-intensive than GPU-intensive.
b) The exact parts doesn't matter, I was merely pointing out that a good system doesn't have to cost $2000. Substitute in a C2D for an AX2 if you'd like, or replace the video card. Point is, $700 is perfectly reasonable for a good gaming system.
c) Personally, I'm more of a fan of getting a $120 GPU every 12 months or so, than buying a $200 GPU every 12-16 months.
Even if you don't build your own, that doesn't mean you have to get ripped off. If you're paying $2000 for a PC and it's not top-of-the-line (at this point meaning quad-core and/or 1-2 $400+ graphics cards), then you're overpaying for what you get.
On Dell's site I put together a machine just now with essentially the same parts as the build above, and it was close to $1200. If you really want your 4GB of RAM (and I'm telling you it's not necessary), then it's still only $1450. I'm a big advocate of building my own machine, cause honestly it's that much cheaper, and I can leave out any parts I don't want. Paying Dell $40 to upgrade from a CD burner to a DVD burner? No thanks, I'd rather just pay $30 for the DVD burner alone.
So when three people who actually use the OS tell you something, you don't believe them, but you believe every word from the mainstream media?
Wow...
No need to spend 2 grand. A decent gaming PC costs $600-1000. Not top-of-the-line, but CERTAINLY good enough to play WoW, CS:Source, etc with a decent resolution, and decent settings.
Core 2 Duo 6300 - $180
Mobo - $130
2GB RAM - $160
7600GT - $120
320GB HD - $90
DVD burner - $30
Case - $40
PSU - $40
$790 for the parts listed above, if you buy from Newegg. And you could DEFINITELY cut back in some areas, like getting 1GB of RAM, or getting a different video card, like a 7600GS.
Here's the other factor: if you're going to spend money for a gaming platform, why buy a one-trick pony? Yes, the Wii, Xbox360, etc all have web browsers and such, but a computer (whether it's running Windows, Linux, Mac OS, whatever) is so much more versatile. I can build a gaming machine today for $800, and 2-3 years from now I can buy a new gaming machine, and use the current one as a server.
My freshman CS professor is from the Czech Republic, and he said back home there was this guy sitting by a mall entrance spamming people's phones with what amounted to a really sketchy personal ad. He said it was about the creepiest thing he's ever seen.
There's a difference between "not allowed to" and "won't".
Within most games (but especially FPSs) I think the main problem lies within pacing. Some people just play through games fast, others don't. When Half-life 2: Episode 1 came out, Valve said it would take 4-6 hours to play through. It took me 8 (cause I like to explore), while I heard of some people getting through their first time in ~3 hours. Not on purpose, but just because of how they play. So while the people who played through in 3 hours might feel cheated, I felt I got more than my money's worth (especially since I did a second run with commentary on).
How do you sell a game at profit, while making the customers happy?
Penny Arcade still has my favorite take on this:
For gaming, yes, but I think he's more referring to the other components (RAM, vid. card).
He's probably like me, with a second-gen P4 running 533MHz FSB. This is as opposed to current P4s which run at 800MHz+ on the FSB. This was back in the days before AMD started selling Athlon 64s.
First time through: P4 2.8 (but the old P4s with 533MHz FSB, back when your processor was still being made), 512MB RAM (DDR333), GeForce4 MX440. I played that game running a DX7-compliant card, at 640x480. The draw distance for models was like 10ft, so the scene when you crossed the antlion-infested desert while picking up faraway objects with the grav. gun was WICKED annoying.
:)
Now I have the same processor and mobo, but with 1GB RAM (still DDR333), and a 6600GT. I 3 1024x768.
Try installing AMD's dual-core drivers, if you haven't already. I don't have dual-core myself, but I hear that it can be an issue for some programs.
Barring that, try turning off the dual-core from the BIOS. Most people's systems work fine with all programs running dual-cores, but turning off the feature is not an uncommon fix if your machine isn't running right.
Well, those are actually two genres I listen to quite a bit, and I probably haven't bought more than 3 tapes (I started buying CDs in about 6th grade), so it's not an issue, I was just saying that the feature is there.
Unless you have a good tape player that senses the volume of the recording and continues playing when you hit the end of a song... ;)
His point wasn't that they weren't using his wireless, but rather that their use of Limewire over his wireless was accidental.
OMG!! Don't copy that floppy!! What are you DOING?
Well, all I know is that a metric shitload == 1.1 regular shitloads.
Even if we aren't signing that one, I thought that we'd signed at least one other treaty at some point in our history banning landmines. But even if I'm wrong on that one, the other reasons for my objection to private use and ownership still stand.
I have a very good division of where it should be legal: any item that is better suited for defensive use and not offensive use, and is suitable for personal and/or home defense, and must be activated by the user at the time of use, should be legal. It's not perfect, but I feel it's pretty good. Explanation:
By my definition, mines would not be legal, because although they are suited for defensive use, they are meant to be planted far in advance, and are ultimately activated by the victim, not the user. This means that anyone walking on to your property, even with good and legal cause, is in danger. If you are present, you are responsible for ensuring that your defense system works, with no false positives or false negatives. Plus, mines are already outlawed by several treaties, which we are, as citizens of a signing country, obligated to follow.
Sandbagged foxholes are already perfectly legal, unless your neighborhood has weird rules on what can and can't go in. In most towns they're not specifically banned, and therefore perfectly fine.
AA batteries are not meant for personal/home defense, but rather for a much larger scale operation.
I think that full-autos should be legal, from the Glock 18 to the Ma Deuce. They have a valid use in defense of the home, as they have an easy learning curve, and are able to quickly put down a bad guy.
Even those restrictions I'm still thinking over for one main reason: if we ever had a tyrannical government and needed to revolt, how well would we do against them with only personal firearms, if the government had access to heavy artillery and the like? I know that this is an unlikely scenario, but who ever thought that the U.S.'s first revolution would actually succeed?
For the viewpoints of another person with similar (but slightly more restrictive) thoughts on gun laws, check out this site.
The simple fact of the matter is that by increasing the prices of anything, you're allowing less access to that item to the lower classes. Several people have already said that they don't own any firearms because they can't afford them, and yet you want to make them more expensive. Instead of "when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns," now it's "when guns are expensive, only the rich will have guns." This is class discrimination at its worst. Instead of depriving the poor of education, or jobs, you're depriving them of safety, and of life.
This is the main reason why banning "Saturday Night Specials" is a bad idea. Ok, no, we shouldn't allow firearms that are so cheaply made that the user is at serious risk every time the thing is loaded, fired, or looked at. But that's the realm of the FTC, which already holds companies accountable if their products are not designed safely. But that doesn't mean that well-made, inexpensive firearms shouldn't exist.
Kel-Tec is a very good example of the kind of manufacturer that I want around. They make well-designed firearms that are both reliable and inexpensive, so that the poor can actually afford them (MSRP is $300 new, and usual retail is around $260; compare that to the average pistol, which on average starts at $700). Not only that, middle-class people can afford to buy a backup pistol just in case their primary fails.
Russell, I suggest you look at this site. After you're done with that page, read the rest of the articles there; it should take less than an hour, depending on your reading speed. Really, firearms enable the average person to stand their ground against any adversary, whether it's a mugger, a burgler, or a tyrannical government.
Your main point is that all gun owners should be responsible for the actions of a few. Since many have already brought up the points I wanted to bring up on this, I will just say one more: instead of punishing all of the people who haven't yet been convicted of a crime, how about we start punishing the people who actually were convicted? It seems to me that keeping criminals off of the streets would be far more effective than attempting to keep all firearms off of the streets. It doesn't have to be complicated: if you commit a crime, you go to jail. If you have never committed a crime, you're free. There's no need to enable more crimes to happen by effectively disarming the citizens, and uneffectively disarming the criminals. If they don't follow the "Don't hurt people" laws, is there any reason to believe they'll follow the "Don't own a gun" laws?