I don't mean to rub salt in MS' wounds, but this is a very critical thing, if it stays this way. The reason this is important is is means that no Japanese developer can afford to concentrate on primarily 360. And Japanese games are important even outside Japan.
It means that in ways that the 360 is better than PS3 and Revolution (Live? Voice chat?Controllers? ATI graphics?), no Japanese developer will use those features because it would preclude shipping the game on the console that is going to make them the most money.
It pretty much ensures that games like RPGs (big Japanese efforts) or Katamari Damacy (small japanese efforts) will come out on PS3 only or Revolution only. More normal-sized efforts will probabaly be targeted at the least common denominator and will come out on 360.
It just plan makes it near impossible for MS to be truly in the drivers seat.
MS very much has to turn this around, preferably before PS3 and Revolution come out.
I have bought every console since the SNES/TG16/Genesis and I have to say that you seem to have a good grasp on the market for someone who doesn't participate.
I wouldn't say Revolution is woefully underpowered. It's clearly in 3rd place, but it should be pretty good, especially since N supposedly is not going to even do HD. If you confine yourself to 640x480 (852x480 at worst) you don't need as much horsepower and bandwidth as if you want to do 1920x1080. As an advantage, Revolution will be small and unlike Xbox 360 and PS3 should not be incredibly loud and run very hot. And on top if that, it'll likely cost the least. These are pretty good mitigating factors in my book.
That pretty much says that yes, it will be compatible with all those older games. Will they be made available over N's service (as you point out you cannot just insert a cartridge), I dunno. But it is clear N intends to offer as many games as possible, not just a small selection.
Even if you go with just the N-publised games, that's a very broad variety of games. I would say broader than MS or Sony.
It's as balanced as Killer Instinct. You must act first becuase combos are difficult to stop or break. And it has a bug that wipes out your save games!
Calling it perfect is laughable.
I was VERY disappointed in DOA4. It's the worst game I have for 360, and I own Kameo!
(Note I do not support the idea that the 787B won on a freak, it ran a very respectable distance. It was not however leagues beyond any of its competitors as those "ban" conspiracy theorists might make it out to have been.)
Your young upstart comments are ridiculous, by the way. In the 80s and part of the 90s, the Japanese were pouring a lot of money into Le Mans. If Mazda had not won Le Mans with the 787B, Toyota would have with the GT-One, or Nissan with the 300ZX/R390. These companies did excellent jobs campaigning cars, but none did it just offhand and thus embarassed the Europeans with how they could do it so easily.
Additionally, only FIA banned rotaries. Le Mans is not under the governance of FIA, it is governed by the ACO. As such, rotaries were never banned at Le Mans. Additionally, Mazda campaigned a (Renesis) rotary-powered LMP2 prototype as a fully-qualified car in the ACO-governed American Le Mans Series last year and will likely do so this year too.
So I think the major irony here is how you speak out about international auto racing and yet seem to know very little about it.
I've love to see you back up your comment about the RX-7 being the winningest model in major US racing. I watch a LOT of racing. I watch Grand Am, Grand Am Grand Sport/Sport Touring, Trans Am, ALMS, SCCA/Speed World Challenge. Many years I even watch the runoffs. And I've done this for years.
And not only haven't I seen the RX-7 win a lot of races, I'm not sure I've seen a Gen III win any.
I know the older rotaries (RX-3?) were very successful before the classifications were changed to take advantage of the fact that a rotary fires so often and thus produce more power per unit displacement. But I don't recall the Gen III's doing all that well in major racing.
Here's the plot: Person (often young person, as it is used most often in juvenile fiction) thinks he is completely useless, no one even knows he exists, he is in a dusty corner of the world. Person finds out actually he is actually one of the most important people ever (is a prince, a jedi, messiah, etc.) (optionally) Person saves the world.
It's been done successfully a zillion times. It's Star Wars 4, it's Spider Man, it's Harry Potter, it's "the Princess Diaries", it's "The Wild Thornberries", it's nearly every show/cartoon on Disney Channel.
It's easy to do, and the reason it works over and over is that people (again, especially teens) often wonder if they really matter in this world and a story like this says that you might find out tomorrow that you are very important, instead of very unimportant.
This story doesn't work if when you were born someone could have given you a blood test and said "nope, turns out this one is definitely not the one, he doesn't have a high amount of midi-chloreans".
Lucas didn't even understand why his story worked. And that's clearly not the only way. He didn't even understand the character of Han Solo.
He's a dumbass, it's pretty difficult to make apologies for him convincingly. And it's much harder if you don't understand the story either.
My understanding is also that the dual core P4s are just two separate cores in the same chip (on the same die)?
The Intels that are better off together instead of separate are the Yonahs (Core Duos). They can signal to each other a little better, and if you turn off one core (for power), the other can use its cache as additional cache.
But no Intel does as good as job as AMD does right now in terms of interprocessor communication and cache utilization.
Because they are measuring power consumption at the wall. At idle, the CPU is only a small part of the total power consumption, you're mostly measuring the chipset power. And on desktop chipsets. Laptop chipsets not only use less power, but use even less power when they aren't plugged into the wall (by reducing performance somewhat). There is no way to do an accurate on-the-go total system idle power measurement on a laptop by plugging it into a Kill-A-Watt (as much as I may like them) and measuring the draw from the wall socket.
The point of measuring idle power would be to get an idea of how long your batteries would last if you weren't plugged in. These numbers cannot be used to determine that because the chipset is in "plugged into the wall mode" and in fact, as a desktop chipset, it's unclear if it even has a power saving mode.
So I wouldn't place much creedence on the idle test. The full bore is test flawed a lot too, but due to the large size in CPU power consumption a little bit of info sneaks through the noise.
Review sites are going to have to adapt, to measure power consumption in a more useful fashion, especially if they want to evaluate laptops.
BTW, the Intel chip is $70 cheaper. Although I dunno how much that matters since you must buy each chip with its own specific chipset and we don't know how much those cost. If I had to decide, I'd pick whichever total system was cheaper I guess.
By 800MHz HT chips I meant 800FSB HT chips. The standard at the time was 133MHz for a memory bandwidth of 1.0GB/sec. (AMD was stuck at even less!) With the 800FSB (200MHz quad-pumped) chips and dual-channel DDR RAM, Intel opened up the bandwidth floodgates, providing 6.4GB/sec.
This made a huge performance difference in applications that needed bandwidth, like gaming.
Hyperthreading was a help, it wasn't the boost Intel made it out to be, but it was helpful in getting the most out of Intel's long-pipeline chips.
There's a big difference between a dual-stream processor (like SUN's new multi-stream offering) and a true dual-core processor. But a dual-core processor works almost exactly like two separate chips, just in a single package. In fact, for AMD, they are exactly the same, for Intel, the dual-core is a bit better off than the two separate chips since they share cache better than two separate Intel chips (but less well than any AMD offering).
As to the "more under the pedal" stuff of the GP, I can see why you say that, but it's really because the dual-core machine cannot hand all its horsepower to a single process even if it wants to. A single core chip can do so, and will in the case of a single CPU consumptive task. An OS could be designed to never hand over all the CPU to a single task and then a single core would have "more under the pedal" too. But it turns out to generally reduce performance overall.
I have had several single processor machines and several dual processor ones. I have never felt like I would never want to go back to single processor. Dual processor is nice (my current machine is dual core) but until recently, dual processor (core) just didn't make financial sense. A single core has almost always been much more cost effective than two slower processors because the two processor setup not only requires two chips, but also requires specialized motherboards (and recently big power supplies too).
But with affordable dual-core single-chip solutions that fit on run-of-the-mill motherboards it seems pretty likely that I'll have more dual-core machines in the future.
I thought it was great when the smarter part of the PC community refused to play along when Intel offered a poor solution for the customer by trying to make everyone use RDRAM. AMD took the lead on price/performance, and Athlon was the big thing.
When Intel finally freed themselves from the RDRAM shackles, they debuted their 800MHZ HT chips and showed everyone that there it was possible to get higher performance with only moderately higher power levels.
But then when Intel went to their 22-stage pipeline power-hog disasters, the community did the right thing and moved to Athlon 64 and X2. AMD was providing higher performance at much better costs and using less power.
The community's move to AMD's superior solution spurred Intel to make a huge change in their strategy, abandoning NetBurst (P4) and moving to a much better solution.
When the community follows the best solution, the industry has responded.
Which is why I find it baffling that people let the wool be pulled over their eyes on AMD's mobile offerings. They back AMD unconditionally against Intel and make excuses about it too.
Ever since the Pentium M LVs and ULVs, AMD has not been able to keep up on performance/Watt. And if you compare the most recent offerings from both companies it is abundantly clear.
So I say please, make the wise move. Continue to back the company that is making the right moves. And that seems to mean Intel for low-power solutions and AMD for high-performance solutions. It could change at any time, so keeping informed is essential.
Use two busses to talk to the RAM. They copied this from Intel (who didn't invent it themselves). This is the "two bank interleaving".
As to your comment of directly linking core with memory, that either isn't possible, or is already done, depending your particular definitions.
You connect two things with a bus, and SDRAM (including DDR) signalling isn't compatible with the normal addressing in a CPU, so you're always going to need to convert between the two. Given how SDRAM is internally designed, it doesn't make sense to change the interface to the SDRAM, it won't become any more efficient and it'll take more pins.
Don't forget, shiny side out if you're trying to stop them from controlling your mind, shiny side in if you're concerned about them reading it.
Maybe you should use one layer of each just in case.
What I'm really saying is that you're noting a situation, ascribing motives and intents to how it became that way and then railing against those motives. But who are you really arguing against since you created the intents yourself?
It speaks of the dated-ness of Intel's FSB. The problem isn't Intel's FSB, in fact it has more useable bandwidth than AMD's right now (until DDR2 AMDs come out).
The problem Intel has is how the two cores communicate to each other (mostly for cache coherency). Intel's cores do this over the FSB, AMD's do not.
You may say I'm splitting hairs here, that Intel's FSB may have the same or better bandwidth, but it is hogged by inter-CPU communication (unlike AMD who uses HT). But I would beg to differ, if you understand the problem, you realize that once you understand the actual problem, you wouldn't put in a statement like "As I pointed out in a post on Intel's major 2006-2007 weak spot, these four-core processors will be crammed into a socket that's fed by an out-of-date front-side bus."
It isn't a problem with the socket. If Intel fixed their cores to communicate with each other directly instead of over the FSB, they would be in essentially the same position as AMD, and they could do it without changing the socket, since the connections would be internal.
All this FSB stuff is a little bit confusing, because AMD doesn't even actually have an FSB. Athlon has a memory interface and an I/O interface, but no classical FSB. The FSB is normally used to reach the memory controller, and AMD has that on chip.
Fine, if you feel paying $4.50 should be illegal, then you should be equally angry about $0.14 or whatever in China.
$4.50/hour isn't much anywhere in the us (am I off here, isn't min $5.25?) but there are places where you can live on it. Sorry it won't be luxurious or even easy.
It's the going wage in those areas. It is a living wage. It's not worse than paying people $4.50 here.
Also, agent orange breaks down over time. The risk to the healt of the people there now is virtually nil.
You're right about the working conditions, they're bad. It varies from plant to plant as to the actual danger, but they're all more dangerous than in the US. I don't know what to say about it other than the domestic employers don't treat their employees any better. Kinda sucks.
Mark your calendar. They so rarely do anything at all original. This is not only original (as far as major players are concerned) as far as I can see, but seems like a great ide.
Why? Because it costs money. PGP costs money, and since no one uses it, companies don't bundle it.
Perhaps GnuPG? Well, there's the whole problem with the GPL (esp. V3).
Additionally, the changes PGP require to mail are irksome. How you you receive PGP mail over a mailing list? Well, it's a pain, if it works at all.
The funny thing about all this is that the article (even the summary) mentions that the data collected here is only the From:, To: and CC: lines. PGP can't protect those lines (subject either).
Your movies change speed when you watch them and you take the opportunity to knock our video format?
Then you say our reason for interest in HD is because our res is low? How about because people are buying huge houses now (not me, mind you, can't afford it) and have screens large enough that even 576 lines doesn't look great? I'm sitting in front of a TV that if I turned it edge-on would almost bop me in the nose (55" TV at about a 70" viewing distance), and I'm not alone. I've stopped buying DVDs nearly completely (about 3/year) because I don't see the point in owning a movie forever in a format that already looks poor on the TV I have that isn't even full HD res! (I would rent DVDs to watch them, but if I wait a bit longer, the movies will come on HD cable and look a lot better, so I end up watching very little DVD now.)
How about we're interested in HD because we have lots of HD content available? I get 7 free network channels over the air in HD (no dupes), plus I pay for two movie channels which have HD versions and for $8/month a could get 4 more movie channels plus about 3 other channels (mostly sports). Our broadcasters didn't decide to sit HD out like the Beeb did. I don't think BSkyB even has HD yet. It's no mystery to me what HD isn't the same in the UK as in the US, you have very little to watch in it.
Any, look at the excellent DVD FAQ on hometheaterhifi.com. The flags you say indicate to show something as progressive, or to slow it down aren't for that at all, they're for compression improvement. They can be used for such things as you speak of, although they are often missing or wrong, so they aren't used for such things by good players. Good players just reassemble the frames by using pattern matching (and alter soundtrack tempo for you PAL folks).
PAL DVD is still only 720x576. You have increased vertical resolution? Good for you. You're still making 720 pixels stretch across the wide portion of the 1.79:1 aspect of your TV. Whereas with even the lowest form of HDTV you get 852 pixels (do you even consider the 852x480 format in ATSC HD? I don't) and with the lowest format used regularly you get 1280 (x720). That's a huge difference, and in any movie newer than the early 70s, you can see the difference without any effort. For older films, you have to hope they put some care into making the movie instead of shooting on cheap grainy film and blurring it every time it was duped from the master.
Anyway, I've watched PAL (and not under NTSC lights which show the flicker more) and I have to say that I wanted to claw my eyes out. How did people remain sane before the popularity of double scan (100Hz) displays?
Also, I understand why TV had to be 50Hz before, since TV formats were kind of tied to AC power frequencies. But it just seems like the largest form of spite or something to create new 50Hz HD formats. I can't imagine people really like their movies running 4% fast, do they? What was wrong with the original (60Hz) digital HDTV formats? I must be missing something here.
The next Isuzu Vehicross. Nope, it didn't get watered down. There just was no market for it.
Or maybe (given the two seatedness) the next Suzuki X-90, Buick Reatta, Chevy SSR or (2000-era) Ford Thunderbird.
You assume "it would have sold like hotcakes". But that really means that you liked it and perhaps some others too. But that doesn't mean that in its impractical form it would have sold well or even outsold the resulting watered-down product.
DVD's max resolution is 720x480 30 interlaced frames per second. That's 720x240, 60 fields per second. That's 10,368,000 pixels/second.
BluRay goes beyond HDTV (1080i or 720p) to 1080p. That is 1920x1080 60 frames per second. That's 124,416,000 pixels/second.
That's about 1.1x, which is an order of magnitude. That comes in just under the wire as "orders of magnitude" more resolution.
And before you say "my DVD does progressive", it may output progressive, but the data on the disc is interlaces, your DVD is doing an intelligent algorithm to turn 720x480 interlaced 60 fields per second into true 720x480 progressive 24 frames per second. But movie progressive reverse pulldown actually produces even LESS actual data than the DVD can carry, so your DVD player doing this doesn't increase the information carried, just presents it in a much more pleasing manner.
Slashdot Mirror
Xbox 360 cons:
Bust in Japan.
I don't mean to rub salt in MS' wounds, but this is a very critical thing, if it stays this way. The reason this is important is is means that no Japanese developer can afford to concentrate on primarily 360. And Japanese games are important even outside Japan.
It means that in ways that the 360 is better than PS3 and Revolution (Live? Voice chat?Controllers? ATI graphics?), no Japanese developer will use those features because it would preclude shipping the game on the console that is going to make them the most money.
It pretty much ensures that games like RPGs (big Japanese efforts) or Katamari Damacy (small japanese efforts) will come out on PS3 only or Revolution only. More normal-sized efforts will probabaly be targeted at the least common denominator and will come out on 360.
It just plan makes it near impossible for MS to be truly in the drivers seat.
MS very much has to turn this around, preferably before PS3 and Revolution come out.
I have bought every console since the SNES/TG16/Genesis and I have to say that you seem to have a good grasp on the market for someone who doesn't participate.
I wouldn't say Revolution is woefully underpowered. It's clearly in 3rd place, but it should be pretty good, especially since N supposedly is not going to even do HD. If you confine yourself to 640x480 (852x480 at worst) you don't need as much horsepower and bandwidth as if you want to do 1920x1080. As an advantage, Revolution will be small and unlike Xbox 360 and PS3 should not be incredibly loud and run very hot. And on top if that, it'll likely cost the least. These are pretty good mitigating factors in my book.
"Infinitely backward compatible"
That pretty much says that yes, it will be compatible with all those older games. Will they be made available over N's service (as you point out you cannot just insert a cartridge), I dunno. But it is clear N intends to offer as many games as possible, not just a small selection.
Even if you go with just the N-publised games, that's a very broad variety of games. I would say broader than MS or Sony.
DOA4 perfect?
It's as balanced as Killer Instinct. You must act first becuase combos are difficult to stop or break. And it has a bug that wipes out your save games!
Calling it perfect is laughable.
I was VERY disappointed in DOA4. It's the worst game I have for 360, and I own Kameo!
Maybe some day it'll become true.
9 6403660b668a6b83961231a0cc8&p=1850591&postcount=69
But it isn't today. ACO never banned rotaries.
http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?s=0721
(Note I do not support the idea that the 787B won on a freak, it ran a very respectable distance. It was not however leagues beyond any of its competitors as those "ban" conspiracy theorists might make it out to have been.)
Your young upstart comments are ridiculous, by the way. In the 80s and part of the 90s, the Japanese were pouring a lot of money into Le Mans. If Mazda had not won Le Mans with the 787B, Toyota would have with the GT-One, or Nissan with the 300ZX/R390. These companies did excellent jobs campaigning cars, but none did it just offhand and thus embarassed the Europeans with how they could do it so easily.
Additionally, only FIA banned rotaries. Le Mans is not under the governance of FIA, it is governed by the ACO. As such, rotaries were never banned at Le Mans. Additionally, Mazda campaigned a (Renesis) rotary-powered LMP2 prototype as a fully-qualified car in the ACO-governed American Le Mans Series last year and will likely do so this year too.
So I think the major irony here is how you speak out about international auto racing and yet seem to know very little about it.
I've love to see you back up your comment about the RX-7 being the winningest model in major US racing. I watch a LOT of racing. I watch Grand Am, Grand Am Grand Sport/Sport Touring, Trans Am, ALMS, SCCA/Speed World Challenge. Many years I even watch the runoffs. And I've done this for years.
And not only haven't I seen the RX-7 win a lot of races, I'm not sure I've seen a Gen III win any.
I know the older rotaries (RX-3?) were very successful before the classifications were changed to take advantage of the fact that a rotary fires so often and thus produce more power per unit displacement. But I don't recall the Gen III's doing all that well in major racing.
The story of "The Chosen One".
Here's the plot:
Person (often young person, as it is used most often in juvenile fiction) thinks he is completely useless, no one even knows he exists, he is in a dusty corner of the world.
Person finds out actually he is actually one of the most important people ever (is a prince, a jedi, messiah, etc.)
(optionally) Person saves the world.
It's been done successfully a zillion times. It's Star Wars 4, it's Spider Man, it's Harry Potter, it's "the Princess Diaries", it's "The Wild Thornberries", it's nearly every show/cartoon on Disney Channel.
It's easy to do, and the reason it works over and over is that people (again, especially teens) often wonder if they really matter in this world and a story like this says that you might find out tomorrow that you are very important, instead of very unimportant.
This story doesn't work if when you were born someone could have given you a blood test and said "nope, turns out this one is definitely not the one, he doesn't have a high amount of midi-chloreans".
Lucas didn't even understand why his story worked. And that's clearly not the only way. He didn't even understand the character of Han Solo.
He's a dumbass, it's pretty difficult to make apologies for him convincingly. And it's much harder if you don't understand the story either.
My understanding is also that the dual core P4s are just two separate cores in the same chip (on the same die)?
The Intels that are better off together instead of separate are the Yonahs (Core Duos). They can signal to each other a little better, and if you turn off one core (for power), the other can use its cache as additional cache.
But no Intel does as good as job as AMD does right now in terms of interprocessor communication and cache utilization.
Because they are measuring power consumption at the wall. At idle, the CPU is only a small part of the total power consumption, you're mostly measuring the chipset power. And on desktop chipsets. Laptop chipsets not only use less power, but use even less power when they aren't plugged into the wall (by reducing performance somewhat). There is no way to do an accurate on-the-go total system idle power measurement on a laptop by plugging it into a Kill-A-Watt (as much as I may like them) and measuring the draw from the wall socket.
The point of measuring idle power would be to get an idea of how long your batteries would last if you weren't plugged in. These numbers cannot be used to determine that because the chipset is in "plugged into the wall mode" and in fact, as a desktop chipset, it's unclear if it even has a power saving mode.
So I wouldn't place much creedence on the idle test. The full bore is test flawed a lot too, but due to the large size in CPU power consumption a little bit of info sneaks through the noise.
Review sites are going to have to adapt, to measure power consumption in a more useful fashion, especially if they want to evaluate laptops.
BTW, the Intel chip is $70 cheaper. Although I dunno how much that matters since you must buy each chip with its own specific chipset and we don't know how much those cost. If I had to decide, I'd pick whichever total system was cheaper I guess.
By 800MHz HT chips I meant 800FSB HT chips. The standard at the time was 133MHz for a memory bandwidth of 1.0GB/sec. (AMD was stuck at even less!) With the 800FSB (200MHz quad-pumped) chips and dual-channel DDR RAM, Intel opened up the bandwidth floodgates, providing 6.4GB/sec.
This made a huge performance difference in applications that needed bandwidth, like gaming.
Hyperthreading was a help, it wasn't the boost Intel made it out to be, but it was helpful in getting the most out of Intel's long-pipeline chips.
There's a big difference between a dual-stream processor (like SUN's new multi-stream offering) and a true dual-core processor. But a dual-core processor works almost exactly like two separate chips, just in a single package. In fact, for AMD, they are exactly the same, for Intel, the dual-core is a bit better off than the two separate chips since they share cache better than two separate Intel chips (but less well than any AMD offering).
As to the "more under the pedal" stuff of the GP, I can see why you say that, but it's really because the dual-core machine cannot hand all its horsepower to a single process even if it wants to. A single core chip can do so, and will in the case of a single CPU consumptive task. An OS could be designed to never hand over all the CPU to a single task and then a single core would have "more under the pedal" too. But it turns out to generally reduce performance overall.
I have had several single processor machines and several dual processor ones. I have never felt like I would never want to go back to single processor. Dual processor is nice (my current machine is dual core) but until recently, dual processor (core) just didn't make financial sense. A single core has almost always been much more cost effective than two slower processors because the two processor setup not only requires two chips, but also requires specialized motherboards (and recently big power supplies too).
But with affordable dual-core single-chip solutions that fit on run-of-the-mill motherboards it seems pretty likely that I'll have more dual-core machines in the future.
I thought it was great when the smarter part of the PC community refused to play along when Intel offered a poor solution for the customer by trying to make everyone use RDRAM. AMD took the lead on price/performance, and Athlon was the big thing.
When Intel finally freed themselves from the RDRAM shackles, they debuted their 800MHZ HT chips and showed everyone that there it was possible to get higher performance with only moderately higher power levels.
But then when Intel went to their 22-stage pipeline power-hog disasters, the community did the right thing and moved to Athlon 64 and X2. AMD was providing higher performance at much better costs and using less power.
The community's move to AMD's superior solution spurred Intel to make a huge change in their strategy, abandoning NetBurst (P4) and moving to a much better solution.
When the community follows the best solution, the industry has responded.
Which is why I find it baffling that people let the wool be pulled over their eyes on AMD's mobile offerings. They back AMD unconditionally against Intel and make excuses about it too.
Ever since the Pentium M LVs and ULVs, AMD has not been able to keep up on performance/Watt. And if you compare the most recent offerings from both companies it is abundantly clear.
So I say please, make the wise move. Continue to back the company that is making the right moves. And that seems to mean Intel for low-power solutions and AMD for high-performance solutions. It could change at any time, so keeping informed is essential.
Use two busses to talk to the RAM. They copied this from Intel (who didn't invent it themselves). This is the "two bank interleaving".
As to your comment of directly linking core with memory, that either isn't possible, or is already done, depending your particular definitions.
You connect two things with a bus, and SDRAM (including DDR) signalling isn't compatible with the normal addressing in a CPU, so you're always going to need to convert between the two. Given how SDRAM is internally designed, it doesn't make sense to change the interface to the SDRAM, it won't become any more efficient and it'll take more pins.
Another big difference is this team is announcing their results in a technical journal, not in a press conference.
It'll be interesting to see what comes of this.
Don't forget, shiny side out if you're trying to stop them from controlling your mind, shiny side in if you're concerned about them reading it.
Maybe you should use one layer of each just in case.
What I'm really saying is that you're noting a situation, ascribing motives and intents to how it became that way and then railing against those motives. But who are you really arguing against since you created the intents yourself?
It speaks of the dated-ness of Intel's FSB. The problem isn't Intel's FSB, in fact it has more useable bandwidth than AMD's right now (until DDR2 AMDs come out).
The problem Intel has is how the two cores communicate to each other (mostly for cache coherency). Intel's cores do this over the FSB, AMD's do not.
You may say I'm splitting hairs here, that Intel's FSB may have the same or better bandwidth, but it is hogged by inter-CPU communication (unlike AMD who uses HT). But I would beg to differ, if you understand the problem, you realize that once you understand the actual problem, you wouldn't put in a statement like "As I pointed out in a post on Intel's major 2006-2007 weak spot, these four-core processors will be crammed into a socket that's fed by an out-of-date front-side bus."
It isn't a problem with the socket. If Intel fixed their cores to communicate with each other directly instead of over the FSB, they would be in essentially the same position as AMD, and they could do it without changing the socket, since the connections would be internal.
All this FSB stuff is a little bit confusing, because AMD doesn't even actually have an FSB. Athlon has a memory interface and an I/O interface, but no classical FSB. The FSB is normally used to reach the memory controller, and AMD has that on chip.
More Google copycatting. Situation normal.
Fine, if you feel paying $4.50 should be illegal, then you should be equally angry about $0.14 or whatever in China.
$4.50/hour isn't much anywhere in the us (am I off here, isn't min $5.25?) but there are places where you can live on it. Sorry it won't be luxurious or even easy.
She miscarried. The officials say they got medical attention immediately. And there isn't any evidence to the contrary.
It's ridiculous to condemn the US based upon one woman's bald assertion and no actual evidence.
Do you have any evidence to add? Or were you there or something?
It's the going wage in those areas. It is a living wage. It's not worse than paying people $4.50 here.
Also, agent orange breaks down over time. The risk to the healt of the people there now is virtually nil.
You're right about the working conditions, they're bad. It varies from plant to plant as to the actual danger, but they're all more dangerous than in the US. I don't know what to say about it other than the domestic employers don't treat their employees any better. Kinda sucks.
Mark your calendar. They so rarely do anything at all original. This is not only original (as far as major players are concerned) as far as I can see, but seems like a great ide.
Good job Google.
Why? Because it costs money. PGP costs money, and since no one uses it, companies don't bundle it.
Perhaps GnuPG? Well, there's the whole problem with the GPL (esp. V3).
Additionally, the changes PGP require to mail are irksome. How you you receive PGP mail over a mailing list? Well, it's a pain, if it works at all.
The funny thing about all this is that the article (even the summary) mentions that the data collected here is only the From:, To: and CC: lines. PGP can't protect those lines (subject either).
Your movies change speed when you watch them and you take the opportunity to knock our video format?
Then you say our reason for interest in HD is because our res is low? How about because people are buying huge houses now (not me, mind you, can't afford it) and have screens large enough that even 576 lines doesn't look great? I'm sitting in front of a TV that if I turned it edge-on would almost bop me in the nose (55" TV at about a 70" viewing distance), and I'm not alone. I've stopped buying DVDs nearly completely (about 3/year) because I don't see the point in owning a movie forever in a format that already looks poor on the TV I have that isn't even full HD res! (I would rent DVDs to watch them, but if I wait a bit longer, the movies will come on HD cable and look a lot better, so I end up watching very little DVD now.)
How about we're interested in HD because we have lots of HD content available? I get 7 free network channels over the air in HD (no dupes), plus I pay for two movie channels which have HD versions and for $8/month a could get 4 more movie channels plus about 3 other channels (mostly sports). Our broadcasters didn't decide to sit HD out like the Beeb did. I don't think BSkyB even has HD yet. It's no mystery to me what HD isn't the same in the UK as in the US, you have very little to watch in it.
Any, look at the excellent DVD FAQ on hometheaterhifi.com. The flags you say indicate to show something as progressive, or to slow it down aren't for that at all, they're for compression improvement. They can be used for such things as you speak of, although they are often missing or wrong, so they aren't used for such things by good players. Good players just reassemble the frames by using pattern matching (and alter soundtrack tempo for you PAL folks).
PAL DVD is still only 720x576. You have increased vertical resolution? Good for you. You're still making 720 pixels stretch across the wide portion of the 1.79:1 aspect of your TV. Whereas with even the lowest form of HDTV you get 852 pixels (do you even consider the 852x480 format in ATSC HD? I don't) and with the lowest format used regularly you get 1280 (x720). That's a huge difference, and in any movie newer than the early 70s, you can see the difference without any effort. For older films, you have to hope they put some care into making the movie instead of shooting on cheap grainy film and blurring it every time it was duped from the master.
Anyway, I've watched PAL (and not under NTSC lights which show the flicker more) and I have to say that I wanted to claw my eyes out. How did people remain sane before the popularity of double scan (100Hz) displays?
Also, I understand why TV had to be 50Hz before, since TV formats were kind of tied to AC power frequencies. But it just seems like the largest form of spite or something to create new 50Hz HD formats. I can't imagine people really like their movies running 4% fast, do they? What was wrong with the original (60Hz) digital HDTV formats? I must be missing something here.
The next Isuzu Vehicross. Nope, it didn't get watered down. There just was no market for it.
Or maybe (given the two seatedness) the next Suzuki X-90, Buick Reatta, Chevy SSR or (2000-era) Ford Thunderbird.
You assume "it would have sold like hotcakes". But that really means that you liked it and perhaps some others too. But that doesn't mean that in its impractical form it would have sold well or even outsold the resulting watered-down product.
DVD's max resolution is 720x480 30 interlaced frames per second. That's 720x240, 60 fields per second. That's 10,368,000 pixels/second.
BluRay goes beyond HDTV (1080i or 720p) to 1080p. That is 1920x1080 60 frames per second. That's 124,416,000 pixels/second.
That's about 1.1x, which is an order of magnitude. That comes in just under the wire as "orders of magnitude" more resolution.
And before you say "my DVD does progressive", it may output progressive, but the data on the disc is interlaces, your DVD is doing an intelligent algorithm to turn 720x480 interlaced 60 fields per second into true 720x480 progressive 24 frames per second. But movie progressive reverse pulldown actually produces even LESS actual data than the DVD can carry, so your DVD player doing this doesn't increase the information carried, just presents it in a much more pleasing manner.