But you cant really call it a Mac... Your still booting into XP on an intel x86 processor... The only thing that really makes it a Mac is the fact you bought it from apple and there is OSX on it in another partition...
Then why are AMD processors consistantly faster than their Intel counterparts when their clock speed is considerably lower? Throughput, that is why. The fact you still think Hz matters shows how much you truely know about microchip architecture. In my example, what I stated was exactly true for an ideal world. All things being equal a 100Mhz chip performing 30 operations per cycle would perform at the same speed as a 3Ghz chip doing 1 operation per cycle. Both are performing 3 Billion operations in one second worth of time. But you will never see a 100 Mhz chip with 30 operations per cycle in the real world due to the statistical probability of program code order. Programs usualy contain branching statements and dependant variables, thus you wouldnt get more than 9-10 operations before you encounter a conditional statement or a variable dependant on a prior operation. Which is the whole reason the branch look ahead buffer was created. It was designed to predict when a branch statement would occur so it could pre-emt the pipeline and prevent data corruption. That aside, the example was showing in an ideal world that Hz alone means nothing when you comparing processors performing identical tasks. Infact, as an engineer, you can never use Hz for a lone bassis when deciding how effecient a chip for a product will be when speed is of a critical importance. You seem to be confusing Hz for transistor size, which is more of a measure of chip performance.
And those were general purpose chips designed to support the bloat of a mainsream OS. Comparing a chip for console use and a chip for PC/MAC use is not really possible. Its not going to perform the same way because its not doing the same tasks.
Hz measurements are useless anyway. Throughput is what should be measured. What that processor gets done per cycle is what is important. If I have a 100 Mhz processor that gets 30 things done per cycle, it is just as powerful as 3Ghz processor that gets 1 thing done per cycle. Both are doing 3 Billion operations every second, but the 100Mhz processor is probably doing it with less power and less heat.
The problem is the chip companies have gotten into a Hz war, and the customers now believe that is an accurate measure of performance, when it isnt.
Well, you dont need to have played BG1 to play BG2. Although, some of the character references and some allusions to previous adventures might come up during the plot, as well as explaining who exactly your character is. So while playing BG1 will make it easier to understand the plot, its not required playing.
Then while in the interviewing process explain to them in exec-ese why those papers are worthless, you will probably get picked up, and might even get someone else's job after the 1st year.
I had numerous boss battles like that in FFX-2. One took me 40 minutes to beat, not because it was hard, I hardly did damage to him with any of my class types, i just had to keep pinging away until he went down. I eventualy just gave up on the game and traded it in. I hate tedium...
Yep, I believe the original Quake from id software had an observer mode. Though I cant remember if it was part of the 3rd party quakeworld or quake95 that came with the game for net-play.
Were these the guys who did the Crystal or Sonic based fusion?
As I recal, while they are repeatable, neither of them were particularly usefull for creating large scale fusion reactions.
Im not arguing hp/mpg, im just saying, by adding a turbo your not going to get to keep your current fuel economy (this is not fuel efficiency), which it seems everyone else thinks is possible.
-=EXAMPLE=-
A 2.0L I4,which normaly has 150hp at 28-34mpg. Droping in just a turbo will add approx a 40% increase in engine output, placing it at around 210hp. You would be a fool to think you were going to keep that 28-34mpg afterwards without drastic other improvements to the engine and drivetrain. You wont loose fuel economy drastically, but probably about 5-10% (1.7-3.6mpg) in fuel economy. But you are making off with 60 additional hp.
Take a look at the MazdaSpeed 6 and the Mazda 6i Grand Sport. Both are 4cylinder 2.3L engines. The difference is that the MazdaSpeed 6 is turbocharged to 270HP, while the Mazda6i Grand Sport is 160HP. Then check their average fuel economy. The MazdaSpeed 6 gets 19mpg city and 25mpg highway, while the Mazda 6i Grand Sport gets 23mpg city and 32mpg highway. Thats a 4-7mpg difference for practicaly the same body, styling, and weight(200lbs difference, not enough to cause a 4-7mpg varience[I know because the Mazda3 2.3L inline 4 also gets 23-32mpg]). I never said it would be a huge difference, but its obvious that a turbo will decrease fuel economy.
Additionaly, the turbo wont affect city driving much because it usualy kicks in at the higher rpms (unless you use a dual or twin turbo designed for low rpms, which would then have a more negative effect on city mpg). So you are never going to get your rpm benifit until the turbo is fully running (highway speeds) and thats when the fuel consumption will be highest with a turbo (higher compression requires more fuel [explaining the larger difference in the highway mpg rating]).
While you may think you will get better fuel econ, you wont. Not unless you design everything to work with the turbo from the beginning. So just ploping on a turbo to an engine that was not designed to run a turbo from the get go, wont increase your milage. You never get anything for free.
Perhaps I should say, less fuel economical, than fuel efficiency. Perhaps we are both taking efficiency as meaning different things. If the hp/mpg rating is what you are talking about, then technically you would get more hp per mile per gallon of the vehicle, but you are still going to get less miles per gallon in the turbocharged vehicle than if you were to use the non-turbocharged vehicle.
The engine may be more mechanicaly efficient, but it is still consuming more fuel per combustion cycle, making it less fuel efficient. The efficiency is translated into increased HP, not fuel economy. When people talk about fuel efficiency, they are comparing it to a larger non-turbo engine of an equivalent HP (which is why you turbocharge a smaller engine instead of using a larger engine [larger engines have more friction to overcome, and thus would be more mechanically ineficient than a smaller engine with a turbo]). The Turbo engine will be better fuel econ wise than the larger non-turbo engine, but its econ will be less than the same engine with no turbo.
Actualy, there are good reasons to use both. Use the supercharger for low rpms and use the turbo for high rpms. With both you could probably eke out around a 40-50% improvement HP wise, but you will get a drop in fuel econ tho due to more fuel being used during combustion. But diesel engines have a more efficient combustion over gasoline, so the fuel econ hit wouldnt be as bad.
"If a semi truck broadsides me at 50 MPH, will I live?"
No. Most cars pritty much fly apart when an empty 6 ton semi truck broadsides the. Even those with 5 star government side impact ratings. Most accidents are fatal when the speed delta (difference of speed) goes over 35mph.
But the thing is, they are using a VW diesel engine, which I hear can easily get upwards of 50mpg anyway. They probably just added a turbo and a supercharger to get the HP up to make 60 in 4 seconds, or kept the body very very light.
Oh, X3 will play just fine, its just that they dont want to load a security hole onto their system. But if they use the proper protection and take the usual precautions in the first place, it wont ever be an issue. But that still doesnt excuse the copyright protection from providing the security hole.
I know. As you approach the comet, let go of a rover/lander, which will then power off on its own toward the comet to set up for observation. On the probe's fly-by, you launch your detonator/kinetic probe to slam into the commet tearing up the comet a bit. The probe will watch from above, and the rover/lander will watch on the surface. You could even have the rover/lander circle the commet while the probe assaults it, and then have it land and take readings.
It was a good game, but EA pulled all in-game customer support, stoped releasing patches, and never really updated the game much beyond the initial release at all. There were promises made, but they were never kept, and were frequently broken. It was a good game, but it needed love to make it great, and EA never supplied it. Instead EA sucked it dry like a vampire and tossed it to the side when it stopped becomming profitable.
'Recovered' or socially pressured into acting straight? What if they were not completely homosexual to begin with, but were bisexual? It would be a thousand fold easier for a bisexual person to chose to partner with a person of the oposite sex then it would be for a homosexual. Are those issues even brought up on that site?
On a side note. Both sides need to present evidence of their claims during an argument. Claiming your side does not need to present evidence does not provide any weight to your argument and actualy infact detracts from it. Infact dont even pick sides, provide impartial evidence for or against, and then come to a conclusion based upon it. Otherwise the argument will go nowhere, and nothing will come about of it.
True, the average world temperature during the Jurasic was several degrees Celsius above what it is now.
Im sure we are having an effect, I am just not sure how large of an effect we are having. It could be small, or it could be very large. Though cutting emissions and other human sources of greenhouse gasses will definatly not hurt.
Actualy I dont think Tengen had anything to do with the interesting history behind Tetris. It was the fact that Nintendo initialy didnt have any rights to publish it from the then Russian developer of the game. Essentialy it broke down into two corporations who thought they had the rights to publish the game. Nintendo eventualy came out 'victorious' even suposedly with the KGB involved. This was all covered in a short hour long documentary the Discovery channel had on videogames.
No, not always. During beta, and the 1st year (at least), people always asked the Devs to make the character creation program available outside of the game so that people could spec characters, etc. But Cryptic always said they couldn't because it would take alot of work to separate it entirely from the game engine.
My guess it was just done to appease the Korean market, because obviously the western market didnt have enough influence to get it out here 1st. Then again, NCSoft is a Korean company, and they can press Cryptic into doing things a whole lot easier than just the western market.
Science has proven anecdotal evidence is useless...
Joking... Anyway, one of the better parts of the game I found was that you could group with bots in the game inorder to shore up a small party, or for 'solo' play. My only greivance was that the NPC characters were always low level for their areas, or were never adjusted to your character's level to provide adequate support. But then again, this encourages grouping with actual people.
Other than that, it is a fun game, when you have time for it =)
Slashdot Mirror
But you cant really call it a Mac... Your still booting into XP on an intel x86 processor... The only thing that really makes it a Mac is the fact you bought it from apple and there is OSX on it in another partition...
Then why are AMD processors consistantly faster than their Intel counterparts when their clock speed is considerably lower? Throughput, that is why. The fact you still think Hz matters shows how much you truely know about microchip architecture. In my example, what I stated was exactly true for an ideal world. All things being equal a 100Mhz chip performing 30 operations per cycle would perform at the same speed as a 3Ghz chip doing 1 operation per cycle. Both are performing 3 Billion operations in one second worth of time. But you will never see a 100 Mhz chip with 30 operations per cycle in the real world due to the statistical probability of program code order. Programs usualy contain branching statements and dependant variables, thus you wouldnt get more than 9-10 operations before you encounter a conditional statement or a variable dependant on a prior operation. Which is the whole reason the branch look ahead buffer was created. It was designed to predict when a branch statement would occur so it could pre-emt the pipeline and prevent data corruption. That aside, the example was showing in an ideal world that Hz alone means nothing when you comparing processors performing identical tasks. Infact, as an engineer, you can never use Hz for a lone bassis when deciding how effecient a chip for a product will be when speed is of a critical importance. You seem to be confusing Hz for transistor size, which is more of a measure of chip performance.
And those were general purpose chips designed to support the bloat of a mainsream OS. Comparing a chip for console use and a chip for PC/MAC use is not really possible. Its not going to perform the same way because its not doing the same tasks.
Hz measurements are useless anyway. Throughput is what should be measured. What that processor gets done per cycle is what is important. If I have a 100 Mhz processor that gets 30 things done per cycle, it is just as powerful as 3Ghz processor that gets 1 thing done per cycle. Both are doing 3 Billion operations every second, but the 100Mhz processor is probably doing it with less power and less heat.
The problem is the chip companies have gotten into a Hz war, and the customers now believe that is an accurate measure of performance, when it isnt.
Well, you dont need to have played BG1 to play BG2. Although, some of the character references and some allusions to previous adventures might come up during the plot, as well as explaining who exactly your character is. So while playing BG1 will make it easier to understand the plot, its not required playing.
Its a reference to an episode of southpark. Its become the comedic tag used for corporate planning.
Please dont, we already have one EA, we dont need two.
Then while in the interviewing process explain to them in exec-ese why those papers are worthless, you will probably get picked up, and might even get someone else's job after the 1st year.
I had numerous boss battles like that in FFX-2. One took me 40 minutes to beat, not because it was hard, I hardly did damage to him with any of my class types, i just had to keep pinging away until he went down. I eventualy just gave up on the game and traded it in. I hate tedium...
Yep, I believe the original Quake from id software had an observer mode. Though I cant remember if it was part of the 3rd party quakeworld or quake95 that came with the game for net-play.
Were these the guys who did the Crystal or Sonic based fusion? As I recal, while they are repeatable, neither of them were particularly usefull for creating large scale fusion reactions.
Im not arguing hp/mpg, im just saying, by adding a turbo your not going to get to keep your current fuel economy (this is not fuel efficiency), which it seems everyone else thinks is possible.
-=EXAMPLE=-
A 2.0L I4,which normaly has 150hp at 28-34mpg. Droping in just a turbo will add approx a 40% increase in engine output, placing it at around 210hp. You would be a fool to think you were going to keep that 28-34mpg afterwards without drastic other improvements to the engine and drivetrain. You wont loose fuel economy drastically, but probably about 5-10% (1.7-3.6mpg) in fuel economy. But you are making off with 60 additional hp.
Take a look at the MazdaSpeed 6 and the Mazda 6i Grand Sport. Both are 4cylinder 2.3L engines. The difference is that the MazdaSpeed 6 is turbocharged to 270HP, while the Mazda6i Grand Sport is 160HP. Then check their average fuel economy. The MazdaSpeed 6 gets 19mpg city and 25mpg highway, while the Mazda 6i Grand Sport gets 23mpg city and 32mpg highway. Thats a 4-7mpg difference for practicaly the same body, styling, and weight(200lbs difference, not enough to cause a 4-7mpg varience[I know because the Mazda3 2.3L inline 4 also gets 23-32mpg]). I never said it would be a huge difference, but its obvious that a turbo will decrease fuel economy.
Additionaly, the turbo wont affect city driving much because it usualy kicks in at the higher rpms (unless you use a dual or twin turbo designed for low rpms, which would then have a more negative effect on city mpg). So you are never going to get your rpm benifit until the turbo is fully running (highway speeds) and thats when the fuel consumption will be highest with a turbo (higher compression requires more fuel [explaining the larger difference in the highway mpg rating]).
While you may think you will get better fuel econ, you wont. Not unless you design everything to work with the turbo from the beginning. So just ploping on a turbo to an engine that was not designed to run a turbo from the get go, wont increase your milage. You never get anything for free.
Perhaps I should say, less fuel economical, than fuel efficiency. Perhaps we are both taking efficiency as meaning different things. If the hp/mpg rating is what you are talking about, then technically you would get more hp per mile per gallon of the vehicle, but you are still going to get less miles per gallon in the turbocharged vehicle than if you were to use the non-turbocharged vehicle.
The engine may be more mechanicaly efficient, but it is still consuming more fuel per combustion cycle, making it less fuel efficient. The efficiency is translated into increased HP, not fuel economy. When people talk about fuel efficiency, they are comparing it to a larger non-turbo engine of an equivalent HP (which is why you turbocharge a smaller engine instead of using a larger engine [larger engines have more friction to overcome, and thus would be more mechanically ineficient than a smaller engine with a turbo]). The Turbo engine will be better fuel econ wise than the larger non-turbo engine, but its econ will be less than the same engine with no turbo.
Actualy, there are good reasons to use both. Use the supercharger for low rpms and use the turbo for high rpms. With both you could probably eke out around a 40-50% improvement HP wise, but you will get a drop in fuel econ tho due to more fuel being used during combustion. But diesel engines have a more efficient combustion over gasoline, so the fuel econ hit wouldnt be as bad.
"If a semi truck broadsides me at 50 MPH, will I live?"
No. Most cars pritty much fly apart when an empty 6 ton semi truck broadsides the. Even those with 5 star government side impact ratings. Most accidents are fatal when the speed delta (difference of speed) goes over 35mph.
But the thing is, they are using a VW diesel engine, which I hear can easily get upwards of 50mpg anyway. They probably just added a turbo and a supercharger to get the HP up to make 60 in 4 seconds, or kept the body very very light.
Oh, X3 will play just fine, its just that they dont want to load a security hole onto their system. But if they use the proper protection and take the usual precautions in the first place, it wont ever be an issue. But that still doesnt excuse the copyright protection from providing the security hole.
Old:
Chrono Trigger
FF6
New:
Cant decide... alot of good ones, but nothing that says WOW!
I know. As you approach the comet, let go of a rover/lander, which will then power off on its own toward the comet to set up for observation. On the probe's fly-by, you launch your detonator/kinetic probe to slam into the commet tearing up the comet a bit. The probe will watch from above, and the rover/lander will watch on the surface. You could even have the rover/lander circle the commet while the probe assaults it, and then have it land and take readings.
It was a good game, but EA pulled all in-game customer support, stoped releasing patches, and never really updated the game much beyond the initial release at all. There were promises made, but they were never kept, and were frequently broken. It was a good game, but it needed love to make it great, and EA never supplied it. Instead EA sucked it dry like a vampire and tossed it to the side when it stopped becomming profitable.
'Recovered' or socially pressured into acting straight? What if they were not completely homosexual to begin with, but were bisexual? It would be a thousand fold easier for a bisexual person to chose to partner with a person of the oposite sex then it would be for a homosexual. Are those issues even brought up on that site? On a side note. Both sides need to present evidence of their claims during an argument. Claiming your side does not need to present evidence does not provide any weight to your argument and actualy infact detracts from it. Infact dont even pick sides, provide impartial evidence for or against, and then come to a conclusion based upon it. Otherwise the argument will go nowhere, and nothing will come about of it.
True, the average world temperature during the Jurasic was several degrees Celsius above what it is now.
Im sure we are having an effect, I am just not sure how large of an effect we are having. It could be small, or it could be very large. Though cutting emissions and other human sources of greenhouse gasses will definatly not hurt.
Actualy I dont think Tengen had anything to do with the interesting history behind Tetris. It was the fact that Nintendo initialy didnt have any rights to publish it from the then Russian developer of the game. Essentialy it broke down into two corporations who thought they had the rights to publish the game. Nintendo eventualy came out 'victorious' even suposedly with the KGB involved. This was all covered in a short hour long documentary the Discovery channel had on videogames.
I found a link that makes mention of the history here: http://www.videogames.co.nz/showfeature.php?id=78
No, not always. During beta, and the 1st year (at least), people always asked the Devs to make the character creation program available outside of the game so that people could spec characters, etc. But Cryptic always said they couldn't because it would take alot of work to separate it entirely from the game engine.
My guess it was just done to appease the Korean market, because obviously the western market didnt have enough influence to get it out here 1st. Then again, NCSoft is a Korean company, and they can press Cryptic into doing things a whole lot easier than just the western market.
Science has proven anecdotal evidence is useless...
Joking... Anyway, one of the better parts of the game I found was that you could group with bots in the game inorder to shore up a small party, or for 'solo' play. My only greivance was that the NPC characters were always low level for their areas, or were never adjusted to your character's level to provide adequate support. But then again, this encourages grouping with actual people.
Other than that, it is a fun game, when you have time for it =)