How come this is on Slashdot before news about Flash Player 9 for Linux?
Let's see now.. It's the world's most widely used internet browser. It's probably the most commonly used application in the world. It marks the date when Microsoft finally started to worry about Firefox. It is a huge improvement over IE6. Yeah, I guess that makes this news more important, despite the fact that Slashdot is more Linux oriented.
Last but not least, your complaint is ignorant because not only is there no such thing as a race for news, but a lot of people might find the IE vs FF wars more interesting, too. You know, almost 90 percent of the world's users browse with IE, so there's a pretty good chance that at least a few Slashdot users will enjoy this story.
Well, that would not happen because of mother nature, but because we engineered it ourselves. I'm trying to prove that the scientist is wrong; he claims this will happen from natural selection.
I never stated that either. My point was that he can't complain about viruses on Windows computers now that he's helped spreading it. Excuse me for not being clear enough.
Now I come to think about the PC guy in the Mac commercials who whines about viruses on Windows systems. Steve Jobs is so keen on pointing out that Mac is free from viruses (and Windows is not), but this blunder has got to shut him up about that for a while.
I'm sure he's got a point to prove it somehow, but even if it's true, it's not going to happen. We're only decades away from engineering our own children and it's gonna come sooner or later, whether we want it or not. It's a big what-if today, but a lot of things can happen in a thousand years. Opinions change all the time and the temptation of creating the perfect child is not going anywhere.
Secondly, communications have helped us making the world just a little bit smaller. Obviously, black people can now impregnate a white woman, or a Swedish guy impregnating an Asian female. Races have become mixed now that our neighbors can be of the same race or something totally different. Point is, we're setting our differences aside and see that we're all of the same kind. No matter if you're tall, short, bald, hairy, black, white, asian, ugly or beautiful, there's always someone tall, bald and ugly black guy mating with a short, hairy, white and beautiful woman (no pun intended).
Flame me if you want, but if anyone can prove me wrong on this one, I'd welcome all kinds of opinions, because this is a very interesting subject indeed!
That's partially incorrect. Microsoft is actually releasing DirectX 9.L, which will have features of DirectX 10 and also allow DX10 games under Windows XP. How advanced 9.L will be is not public info yet.
As a single card, the X1950 Pro is a real winner. It's a single slot card with plenty of DX9 shading power and performance, easily besting the GeForce 7900 GS in practically all our benchmarks--typically by 15% to 25%. If you're only interested in buying a single $200 graphics card, the X1950 Pro is the way to go. Note also, that it will support the GPU-accelerated Folding@Home project.
It's actually a superb choice according to all web sites that have had this card benchmarked, but it also makes me wonder why people are ready to piss away money on DX9 hardware now that DX10 is just around the corner.
On-topic: we should expect price cuts from Nvidia now that the X1950 Pro is the better choice, and also because the G80 is here very soon.
..multiple Christian organizations have begun filing lawsuits against people who believe in evolution. The lawsuits will be sponsored by the International Music Industry, who still want people to buy CDs instead of downloading evil binary files, which then can be decoded and produce so called digital music.
How does a seasoned animator view this sort of push ahead in technology? If so much of the creative process is made so easy, where's the need for traditional animators spending exponentially larger amounts of time to create work of equal or lesser quality?
Technology usually advances so that it is not only more advanced, but also more efficient. It's fairly obvious that Hollywood studios (just an example) would want cheap CGI, and since there's a need for this to happen, there's also someone working on making that happen.
A skilled animator shouldn't be worried, however. Creativity is hard to replace with software and someone will always have to create whatever's portraited. How it's done and how fast is a different question.
For tech firms like Intel, AMD, Nvidia and ATI, there are two main ways of promoting your products:
#1 To create the fastest product. It makes people talk about it and therefore a lot of people end up buying that particular product, just lower-end.
#2 Media exposure. It's simple and we all know it works, but it's also expensive.
Some of you may disagree about #1, but think about it for a second. A majority of all reviews online and offline first and foremost cover the high-end products even though only a few of us can afford it. This is why the market offers products like Crossfire, SLI, FX and Extreme.
I absolutely agree that a small screen can reduce productivity for all natural reasons, but if you already have something like 19 inches, that's when you won't need more for most tasks you get in touch with.
I'm personally using Dell's 30" screen and I've actually got two of them at home. I've noticed that for regular tasks, the screen is simply too big because you're forced to move your head all the time.
Most people haven't experienced it yet, but applications are better fit in smaller windows, so browsing a web site like Slashdot is not pretty on a 30". That's why I have a smaller 20" screen next to my 30", because it does best what my big screen can't, and that is browsing web sites and other applications with similar needs.
I believe that two small screens increase productivity FAR MORE than a larger one with the same desktop area. Multitasking on a single monitor is difficult and not as difficult on two monitors because it's more natural to split two tasks on two monitors instead of just one giant.
Firstly, can I just say that stating that "the shift isn't as major as Intel's move from NetBurst to Core 2" is like... er... comparing a decent incremental car improvement with swapping a bicylce for a car. Or something. I'm not saying Core2Duo isn't great tech, but look; Netburst was shit. Everyone knows it.
We all know that already. The point is that AMD needs that kind of jump to get ahead of the competition like it was half a year ago.
I would say that if the writer's point of view is that AMD needs an equally big advancement in tech and it's dead on right. Why? Simply because the lead that AMD had was erased by so much, and AMD will need so much to recover if it wants the top position back.
I think the question is obvious and pointless. Of course we can live without it, but what we all have in common is that we're paying for what we're getting. Nintendo isn't launching a high-end station and this reflects the price of the console too. So a person who is willing to piss away $500 on a graphics card is also more likely going to need HDTV resolution on a gaming console, while a guy who spends $100 on a GeForce 6600GT can settle for less.
No one really needs anything. We don't need to play games. We don't need fast cars. We don't need a THz CPU. But when it all comes down to it, it just shows that what we're getting is what we're ready to pay for. If nVidia can ship and sell expensive graphics cards and if Sony can sell the PS3, then there's surely a request for HDTV, but certainly no need.
I have a vague idea about how they conducted this study.
1) www.mirc.com 2) install 3)/s irc.efnet.org 4)/j world-of-warcraft 5)/say So how many of you guys are women? 6) count the results
Seriously, though. I don't doubt these results at all, but I would love to see the figures of hours spent per week and compare it between the sexes. The results would surely favor men to be the biggest users.
So does anyone know how many female gamers we have in a game like World of Warcraft? I'm sure the numbers stated above are taken from flash based games and alike.
I've been running FireFox 2 since its first release, but I haven't noticed any changes to the UI as advertised. What's new compared to the older release candidate?
I can't believe why so many Slashdotters are complaining about the decision to limit internet access for a product that isn't activated/paid. Do you get better treatment at Wal-Mart for walking out with products that you ignored to pay for?
Microsoft is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on development and marketing of Vista, so it is only fair to ensure that piracy isn't as ongoing as it is today.
After all, it's your free choice to select from many other fully functional operating systems if you refuse to use Vista. Or even stick to a fully functional Windows XP.
This news was announced October 2. I checked the Swedish news papers who are very accurate when it comes to Noble prize awards (it's a Swedish prize after all).
On October 3, they will announce the winner(s) in physics, followed by chemistry the day after. Prize in economy, October 9.
Does the blog provide good information and sufficient media (i.e. pictures)? Yes.
Should Slashdot wait/hope for another source like an official news paper to bring up this story instead of delivering the news as fast as possible? Possibly, but not in this case.
If only companies who advertise on sites like Yahoo Mail realized that less is more, we wouldn't have this kind of problem.
Why not pay five times more to get ten times the attention? It's common sense: put your cheap ad on page 23 of a news paper, filled with tons of other ads and you end up paying for very little attention.
I personally notice the ads on Slashdot every time I visit this page, but if it was filled up, it would just blur into the rest of the page and become less valuable.
It's not that simple and your theory is incorrect. CPUs and GPUs are not built the same way. CPUs handle instructions that the GPU can't process and vice versa. Additionally, games and 3D apps are written for GPUs. If your statement was true, we would already have laptops without any GPUs.
Last but not least, a GPU and a CPU means you get two powerful units while a single CPU with 80 cores is still just one powerful unit. Intel won't get ahead of themselves beyond what Moore's Law tells us and since today's graphics cards are almost falling behind tomorrow's games..... Umm, well, it speaks for itself.
[..]but how long before we see this resolution in a mobile phone?
I do realize that the future will bring us things that we simply cannot understand the use of today, such as computers exceeding today's super computers. But I doubt that just because the tech is going to be there, that we will see 160 MP consumer cams. Eventually, people will stop hearing megapixel and instead listen to other intuitive features. Maybe built-in software with 3D depth readability and such?
Scanners are about the same. Back when we had 300 DPI scanners, it was all about DPI. Now that scanners can make the balls of a fly look hairy with perception, there's no need for more.
OT: If you're thinking that 160 MP is a lot, how about 4 GP? You can check the proof right here.
Slashdot Mirror
That's where you're wrong. Here's what news really means (snapped @ Dictionary.com):
A report of a recent event; intelligence; information.
I don't see your explanation anywhere saying:
A report of an event which must be presented immediately and ahead of news less important to a specific, ignorant user on Slashdot.
How come this is on Slashdot before news about Flash Player 9 for Linux?
Let's see now.. It's the world's most widely used internet browser. It's probably the most commonly used application in the world. It marks the date when Microsoft finally started to worry about Firefox. It is a huge improvement over IE6. Yeah, I guess that makes this news more important, despite the fact that Slashdot is more Linux oriented.
Last but not least, your complaint is ignorant because not only is there no such thing as a race for news, but a lot of people might find the IE vs FF wars more interesting, too. You know, almost 90 percent of the world's users browse with IE, so there's a pretty good chance that at least a few Slashdot users will enjoy this story.
Well, that would not happen because of mother nature, but because we engineered it ourselves. I'm trying to prove that the scientist is wrong; he claims this will happen from natural selection.
I never stated that either. My point was that he can't complain about viruses on Windows computers now that he's helped spreading it. Excuse me for not being clear enough.
Now I come to think about the PC guy in the Mac commercials who whines about viruses on Windows systems. Steve Jobs is so keen on pointing out that Mac is free from viruses (and Windows is not), but this blunder has got to shut him up about that for a while.
I'm sure he's got a point to prove it somehow, but even if it's true, it's not going to happen. We're only decades away from engineering our own children and it's gonna come sooner or later, whether we want it or not. It's a big what-if today, but a lot of things can happen in a thousand years. Opinions change all the time and the temptation of creating the perfect child is not going anywhere.
Secondly, communications have helped us making the world just a little bit smaller. Obviously, black people can now impregnate a white woman, or a Swedish guy impregnating an Asian female. Races have become mixed now that our neighbors can be of the same race or something totally different. Point is, we're setting our differences aside and see that we're all of the same kind. No matter if you're tall, short, bald, hairy, black, white, asian, ugly or beautiful, there's always someone tall, bald and ugly black guy mating with a short, hairy, white and beautiful woman (no pun intended).
Flame me if you want, but if anyone can prove me wrong on this one, I'd welcome all kinds of opinions, because this is a very interesting subject indeed!
That's partially incorrect. Microsoft is actually releasing DirectX 9.L, which will have features of DirectX 10 and also allow DX10 games under Windows XP. How advanced 9.L will be is not public info yet.
As a single card, the X1950 Pro is a real winner. It's a single slot card with plenty of DX9 shading power and performance, easily besting the GeForce 7900 GS in practically all our benchmarks--typically by 15% to 25%. If you're only interested in buying a single $200 graphics card, the X1950 Pro is the way to go. Note also, that it will support the GPU-accelerated Folding@Home project.
It's actually a superb choice according to all web sites that have had this card benchmarked, but it also makes me wonder why people are ready to piss away money on DX9 hardware now that DX10 is just around the corner.
On-topic: we should expect price cuts from Nvidia now that the X1950 Pro is the better choice, and also because the G80 is here very soon.
..multiple Christian organizations have begun filing lawsuits against people who believe in evolution. The lawsuits will be sponsored by the International Music Industry, who still want people to buy CDs instead of downloading evil binary files, which then can be decoded and produce so called digital music.
How does a seasoned animator view this sort of push ahead in technology? If so much of the creative process is made so easy, where's the need for traditional animators spending exponentially larger amounts of time to create work of equal or lesser quality?
Technology usually advances so that it is not only more advanced, but also more efficient. It's fairly obvious that Hollywood studios (just an example) would want cheap CGI, and since there's a need for this to happen, there's also someone working on making that happen.
A skilled animator shouldn't be worried, however. Creativity is hard to replace with software and someone will always have to create whatever's portraited. How it's done and how fast is a different question.
Next week's headlines: McDonalds aquire McAfee.
For tech firms like Intel, AMD, Nvidia and ATI, there are two main ways of promoting your products:
#1 To create the fastest product. It makes people talk about it and therefore a lot of people end up buying that particular product, just lower-end.
#2 Media exposure. It's simple and we all know it works, but it's also expensive.
Some of you may disagree about #1, but think about it for a second. A majority of all reviews online and offline first and foremost cover the high-end products even though only a few of us can afford it. This is why the market offers products like Crossfire, SLI, FX and Extreme.
I absolutely agree that a small screen can reduce productivity for all natural reasons, but if you already have something like 19 inches, that's when you won't need more for most tasks you get in touch with.
I'm personally using Dell's 30" screen and I've actually got two of them at home. I've noticed that for regular tasks, the screen is simply too big because you're forced to move your head all the time.
Most people haven't experienced it yet, but applications are better fit in smaller windows, so browsing a web site like Slashdot is not pretty on a 30". That's why I have a smaller 20" screen next to my 30", because it does best what my big screen can't, and that is browsing web sites and other applications with similar needs.
I believe that two small screens increase productivity FAR MORE than a larger one with the same desktop area. Multitasking on a single monitor is difficult and not as difficult on two monitors because it's more natural to split two tasks on two monitors instead of just one giant.
Firstly, can I just say that stating that "the shift isn't as major as Intel's move from NetBurst to Core 2" is like... er... comparing a decent incremental car improvement with swapping a bicylce for a car. Or something. I'm not saying Core2Duo isn't great tech, but look; Netburst was shit. Everyone knows it.
We all know that already. The point is that AMD needs that kind of jump to get ahead of the competition like it was half a year ago.
I would say that if the writer's point of view is that AMD needs an equally big advancement in tech and it's dead on right. Why? Simply because the lead that AMD had was erased by so much, and AMD will need so much to recover if it wants the top position back.
Do Gamers Really Need HDTV?
I think the question is obvious and pointless. Of course we can live without it, but what we all have in common is that we're paying for what we're getting. Nintendo isn't launching a high-end station and this reflects the price of the console too. So a person who is willing to piss away $500 on a graphics card is also more likely going to need HDTV resolution on a gaming console, while a guy who spends $100 on a GeForce 6600GT can settle for less.
No one really needs anything. We don't need to play games. We don't need fast cars. We don't need a THz CPU. But when it all comes down to it, it just shows that what we're getting is what we're ready to pay for. If nVidia can ship and sell expensive graphics cards and if Sony can sell the PS3, then there's surely a request for HDTV, but certainly no need.
I have a vague idea about how they conducted this study.
/s irc.efnet.org /j world-of-warcraft /say So how many of you guys are women?
1) www.mirc.com
2) install
3)
4)
5)
6) count the results
Seriously, though. I don't doubt these results at all, but I would love to see the figures of hours spent per week and compare it between the sexes. The results would surely favor men to be the biggest users.
So does anyone know how many female gamers we have in a game like World of Warcraft? I'm sure the numbers stated above are taken from flash based games and alike.
I've been running FireFox 2 since its first release, but I haven't noticed any changes to the UI as advertised. What's new compared to the older release candidate?
No, but your brain would certainly need one. Your joke isn't ready for release yet.
What? A prequel? That means outdated technology? How on earth do they expect Star Trek fans to enjoy a film where space ships can only go to warp 5?
I can't believe why so many Slashdotters are complaining about the decision to limit internet access for a product that isn't activated/paid. Do you get better treatment at Wal-Mart for walking out with products that you ignored to pay for?
Microsoft is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on development and marketing of Vista, so it is only fair to ensure that piracy isn't as ongoing as it is today.
After all, it's your free choice to select from many other fully functional operating systems if you refuse to use Vista. Or even stick to a fully functional Windows XP.
This news was announced October 2. I checked the Swedish news papers who are very accurate when it comes to Noble prize awards (it's a Swedish prize after all).
On October 3, they will announce the winner(s) in physics, followed by chemistry the day after. Prize in economy, October 9.
Is the story interesting?
Yes.
Does the blog provide good information and sufficient media (i.e. pictures)?
Yes.
Should Slashdot wait/hope for another source like an official news paper to bring up this story instead of delivering the news as fast as possible?
Possibly, but not in this case.
If only companies who advertise on sites like Yahoo Mail realized that less is more, we wouldn't have this kind of problem.
Why not pay five times more to get ten times the attention? It's common sense: put your cheap ad on page 23 of a news paper, filled with tons of other ads and you end up paying for very little attention.
I personally notice the ads on Slashdot every time I visit this page, but if it was filled up, it would just blur into the rest of the page and become less valuable.
It's not that simple and your theory is incorrect. CPUs and GPUs are not built the same way. CPUs handle instructions that the GPU can't process and vice versa. Additionally, games and 3D apps are written for GPUs. If your statement was true, we would already have laptops without any GPUs.
Last but not least, a GPU and a CPU means you get two powerful units while a single CPU with 80 cores is still just one powerful unit. Intel won't get ahead of themselves beyond what Moore's Law tells us and since today's graphics cards are almost falling behind tomorrow's games..... Umm, well, it speaks for itself.
[..]but how long before we see this resolution in a mobile phone?
I do realize that the future will bring us things that we simply cannot understand the use of today, such as computers exceeding today's super computers. But I doubt that just because the tech is going to be there, that we will see 160 MP consumer cams. Eventually, people will stop hearing megapixel and instead listen to other intuitive features. Maybe built-in software with 3D depth readability and such?
Scanners are about the same. Back when we had 300 DPI scanners, it was all about DPI. Now that scanners can make the balls of a fly look hairy with perception, there's no need for more.
OT: If you're thinking that 160 MP is a lot, how about 4 GP? You can check the proof right here.