I used to get single digit latency sometimes on my old ISDN line, with Quake. Most of the servers I went to were sub 20 ms. Unfortunately, every broadband supplier I've used since then has been a lot worse than this... currently the best I see is about 50:P.
Having not read the book, I watched the film when I was 20 or so.
I personally thought it was a great critique of military tactics, and massively colourful too. I guess the colours were more important.
The massive thing about the film was the stupidity of all the setups, the roundness of the characters, and the entire presumptuousness of the plot. That, and everything was colourful. It didn't matter that it was dumb.
My PC CPU regularly hits 100 degrees centigrade. My GPU regularly goes over 90. I've got crap cooling. Nothing breaks.
I've had close to 4 months uptime with this computer, which is about 5 years old. It's an E6850, and a newer GTX460 (used to have an 8800GT), if you're interested.
Nothing should break, ever, when it gets hot. It should just turn off.
That's 15 seconds slower than a human, which is about 10%, if I'm reading the article correctly. There aren't any numbers in it. I'd do better than that.
Try driving a car (or HGV) we may be aware that a bike is there, but it is completely impossible to predict what crazy stunt they will pull next.
What? Motorbike riders are generally the most courteous on the road, IMO... they are just a bit faster than the rest of us. That being said, I think I'm the exception - if I think I'm holding someone up, I'll pull over. I've often done that in my HGV, when there was a queue behind me, and there is somewhere to pull over... an obvious example is the A505 (single carriageway straight for miles at a time)... 40mph limit for trucks, and you can see for miles in every direction (that being said, I rarely actually did just 40mph down there... it's silly).
People have also lost the power to overtake... they can't do it any more. It's not that difficult, but I'm often sat behind a queue of cars sitting nose to tail, obviously getting annoyed with the guy up front. I've overtaken a queue of 10 cars straight in the past, wondering why they're not doing the same thing. Also, they're sitting nose to tail, so that people behind them can't overtake.
It depends on the city. If you are in London, and want to go to the somewhere else in London.... you'd be mad to drive, or get a taxi, especially during rush hour. Public transport will be quicker.
Not cabs. That's much more expensive than driving myself.
No one advocates using cabs exclusively instead of your own car. However, if you're using trains and buses (or walking or cycling) mainly, a cab is a lot cheaper than owning a car for when you don't use the trains and buses. It can also be more cost effective if you use your car only a little... my insurance, tax and MOT alone is over £50 a month, which is low in the UK. I'm not factoring depreciation, either, which most should, but my car is ancient.
The trouble is for people who live in rural areas, and work odd hours. I have temped as a truck driver, and live somewhere that gets 4 buses a day. I've had a permanent job that started at 4am. If you have a 9-5 job, and/or good public transport, then it might be for you. You can't get good public transport everywhere, because where I live, there are only 3 or 4 people on every bus funded by the council anyway. Making it better would be more of a waste.
That being said, when I lived in London, I used public transport exclusively, and got rid of my car, because there was no point. I didn't work weird hours in London, though.
This is also true in more conventional athletic sports--e.g., tennis. The culture of sexism is so ingrained in the male psyche that most men are completely incapable of detecting sexist behavior, whether in others or themselves; and when confronted, the response is predictably some form of vehement outrage and denial. Some then proceed to shift the blame, claiming that others have been indoctrinated by some militant feminist agenda, or worse yet, a nebulous "political correctness."
I've heard plenty of women talking about the attractiveness of male tennis players, sometimes quite graphically. Do you think that is sexism?
What European league do you think MLS is probably equivalent to? Maybe the French league?
Not a chance... do you know how good PSG are currently?
So there actually are no other leagues/teams that can realistically claim to be world's champions.
Some would beg to differ. Have you seen the USA's record?
If you don't like American football and prefer rugby, that's your business, but rugby is actually a pretty crappy sport. If the US cared about it at all, and we do not, we would own the entire world in the sport.
Hahahahaha... oh wait, you're serious, let me laugh even harder.
Well... not really. The Cambridge Rules were a code of rules for football, which has existed in many forms for centuries (interestingly, illegally, too). Since about the 14th century, "foot ball" and "hand ball" were considered different. The current association football rules are just a set of rules for football, just like the Cambridge rules were. Rugby football is derived from football, as is Association football and American football. The Football Association was founded in 1863, 15 years after the first Cambridge rules, and the Rugby Football Union was founded in 1871, so association football can't really be a ripoff of rugby. That being said, the modern rules for association football are wildly different than many earlier rules, probably, but no one knows because none of the early rules were written down. Not even the first Cambridge rules were written down.
To be honest, I don't care what people call their sports... I call "soccer" "football", because I'm English.
Rendition were never competetive, PowerVR are still about, S3 are still about, Matrox are still about, 3dlabs were not gaming cards. Yeah, ok, I'm stretching a bit;)
However, if you do include embedded graphics, there are still plenty of players on the market. Also, this market only lasted 2 years or so, and it was a brand new market, so there were bound to be more competitors. Those that did fall out of the market and survived in some form have gone to the embedded market.
It gets WORSE. Now the new consoles are here, each with 8GB of memory, the average amount of GPU memory needed for 1080P or above is about to rise above 2GB for the first time.
Erm... this doesn't even make sense. At all. Are you claiming that to display 1080P you need a graphics card with 2GB onboard? Are you claiming that the new consoles have 8GB GPU RAM? What?
Besides, the amount of onboard RAM has long been an utterly useless metric for determining graphics performance. Since RAM is so cheap, nVidia and ATI often just drop lots on a crappy architecture, and advertise the RAM.
From a marketplace that used to be served by 6 competing vendors into a duopoly marketplace that is currently served by only 2 vendors --- the pace of innovation has slowed to a crawl.
We're most definitely not in a duopoly marketplace at the moment. There are currently only 2 companies offering high performance 3D consumer priced cards, but there are other companies in the graphics business. The most popular graphics card used by people using Steam is the Intel HD Graphics 3000, for example. Matrox is still about, too, but not competing in consumer 3D.
To be honest, I can't really remember a time in which there were more than 3 (possibly 4) major players in the high end consumer 3D market. Matrox dabbled, but never got close to a cost efficient gaming card, really IMO... the closest they came was the G400 IIRC. That was the era when you could possibly claim there were 4 competing vendors. Soon after, Matrox left the market to concentrate on 2D, and 3dfx dissapeared up their own arse. I'm not sure who the other 2 you are alluding to are.... SiS, VIA?
Handgun offences had dropped by more than a third in the 5 years prior to them being banned, then doubled in the 5 years after the ban. They have since dropped to levels about a quarter higher than they were when they were banned.
Shotgun offences had dropped by about 2/3 in the 5 years prior to the handgun ban, then increased slightly, then decreased slightly. They have since dropped to levels almost identical to when the handgun ban took effect.
Airgun offences were gradually rising prior to the handgun ban, rose quickly in the aftermath of the ban, then dropped by more than 2/3rds in the last 8 years to levels well below when the handgun ban took effect.
So you see, offences with both the types of gun that weren't banned have stayed the same or gone down overall, and offences with the type of gun that was banned have gone up. This is pretty clear.
I personally think profiling would be a good idea but any time it is brought up in America it is shot down.
The reason for it being shot down is you alienate loads and loads of good people.
How would you feel as an American citizen if you were always strip searched every time you boarded a plane, or were followed wherever you go, just because your father was from a worrying country? You'd get bitter. Racial profiling is a somewhat self enforcing problem. Those that are more of a risk are persecuted more, and thus become more of a risk.
Despite what some people would have you believe, "kill as many civilians as possible" is very rarely the point in terrorist attacks. They usually focus on specific things, and targets. The 9/11 attacks were an obvious example of this. The 7/7 bombings in London were aimed at infrastructure of the city, and causing chaos. The recent attacks in Kenya were focused on an expensive mall.
Whereas since banning handguns in the UK, handgun crime has gone up (that is, crimes involving handguns, not possession of one), and all firearm crime has gone up by more. Look at the graph on this page. about 1/2 the way down. Handguns were banned in 1997, when gun crime was on a downward curve.
Also, see this(PDF, sorry about the google cruft, can't be bothered editing) police statistics report. It shows that serious handgun crime more than doubled in the 4 years after they were banned, despite having been dropping for the previous 10 years or so, when they were legal.
I don't own a gun, probably never will, but I dislike the government telling me what I can and can't have based on poor logic. Also, It had been demonstrably shown that in the UK, barring other factors (and I doubt there were _that_ many other factors), banning handguns increased handgun crime.
Yes; we know it is legally defined as copyright infringement.
Why don't we just call it that then? We know exactly what it is, it's got a pretty normal definition. Copyright infringement seems obvious to people who know what it is
Stealing is another matter entirely, which involves taking something from someone else.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a whole load of problems with large scale desalination. It's been done, and is done on a wide scale currently.
There's a reason why cities most on the coast don't use seawater... they use the water from their rivers. It's cheaper, and better generally.
As a poker player, I never release my trump card early in the game.
Somehow, this reminds me of Zapp Brannigan.
I used to get single digit latency sometimes on my old ISDN line, with Quake. Most of the servers I went to were sub 20 ms. Unfortunately, every broadband supplier I've used since then has been a lot worse than this... currently the best I see is about 50 :P.
Why spend $500 on PS4 at home when you can get a cheap client for under $100 and a $10/month subscription to such a cloud service
Because if those were the two options when I bought my PS3, the first would have cost me $500 by now, and the second would have cost me $940 by now.
There are some pictures in the second link in TFS.
Having not read the book, I watched the film when I was 20 or so.
I personally thought it was a great critique of military tactics, and massively colourful too. I guess the colours were more important.
The massive thing about the film was the stupidity of all the setups, the roundness of the characters, and the entire presumptuousness of the plot. That, and everything was colourful. It didn't matter that it was dumb.
My PC CPU regularly hits 100 degrees centigrade. My GPU regularly goes over 90. I've got crap cooling. Nothing breaks.
I've had close to 4 months uptime with this computer, which is about 5 years old. It's an E6850, and a newer GTX460 (used to have an 8800GT), if you're interested.
Nothing should break, ever, when it gets hot. It should just turn off.
That's 15 seconds slower than a human, which is about 10%, if I'm reading the article correctly. There aren't any numbers in it. I'd do better than that.
Try driving a car (or HGV) we may be aware that a bike is there, but it is completely impossible to predict what crazy stunt they will pull next.
What? Motorbike riders are generally the most courteous on the road, IMO... they are just a bit faster than the rest of us. That being said, I think I'm the exception - if I think I'm holding someone up, I'll pull over. I've often done that in my HGV, when there was a queue behind me, and there is somewhere to pull over... an obvious example is the A505 (single carriageway straight for miles at a time)... 40mph limit for trucks, and you can see for miles in every direction (that being said, I rarely actually did just 40mph down there... it's silly).
People have also lost the power to overtake... they can't do it any more. It's not that difficult, but I'm often sat behind a queue of cars sitting nose to tail, obviously getting annoyed with the guy up front. I've overtaken a queue of 10 cars straight in the past, wondering why they're not doing the same thing. Also, they're sitting nose to tail, so that people behind them can't overtake.
It depends on the city. If you are in London, and want to go to the somewhere else in London.... you'd be mad to drive, or get a taxi, especially during rush hour. Public transport will be quicker.
Not cabs. That's much more expensive than driving myself.
No one advocates using cabs exclusively instead of your own car. However, if you're using trains and buses (or walking or cycling) mainly, a cab is a lot cheaper than owning a car for when you don't use the trains and buses. It can also be more cost effective if you use your car only a little... my insurance, tax and MOT alone is over £50 a month, which is low in the UK. I'm not factoring depreciation, either, which most should, but my car is ancient.
The trouble is for people who live in rural areas, and work odd hours. I have temped as a truck driver, and live somewhere that gets 4 buses a day. I've had a permanent job that started at 4am. If you have a 9-5 job, and/or good public transport, then it might be for you. You can't get good public transport everywhere, because where I live, there are only 3 or 4 people on every bus funded by the council anyway. Making it better would be more of a waste.
That being said, when I lived in London, I used public transport exclusively, and got rid of my car, because there was no point. I didn't work weird hours in London, though.
Heh... I call it fireworks night :).
This is also true in more conventional athletic sports--e.g., tennis. The culture of sexism is so ingrained in the male psyche that most men are completely incapable of detecting sexist behavior, whether in others or themselves; and when confronted, the response is predictably some form of vehement outrage and denial. Some then proceed to shift the blame, claiming that others have been indoctrinated by some militant feminist agenda, or worse yet, a nebulous "political correctness."
I've heard plenty of women talking about the attractiveness of male tennis players, sometimes quite graphically. Do you think that is sexism?
What European league do you think MLS is probably equivalent to? Maybe the French league?
Not a chance... do you know how good PSG are currently?
So there actually are no other leagues/teams that can realistically claim to be world's champions.
Some would beg to differ. Have you seen the USA's record?
If you don't like American football and prefer rugby, that's your business, but rugby is actually a pretty crappy sport. If the US cared about it at all, and we do not, we would own the entire world in the sport.
Hahahahaha... oh wait, you're serious, let me laugh even harder.
Well... not really. The Cambridge Rules were a code of rules for football, which has existed in many forms for centuries (interestingly, illegally, too). Since about the 14th century, "foot ball" and "hand ball" were considered different. The current association football rules are just a set of rules for football, just like the Cambridge rules were. Rugby football is derived from football, as is Association football and American football. The Football Association was founded in 1863, 15 years after the first Cambridge rules, and the Rugby Football Union was founded in 1871, so association football can't really be a ripoff of rugby. That being said, the modern rules for association football are wildly different than many earlier rules, probably, but no one knows because none of the early rules were written down. Not even the first Cambridge rules were written down.
To be honest, I don't care what people call their sports... I call "soccer" "football", because I'm English.
Rendition were never competetive, PowerVR are still about, S3 are still about, Matrox are still about, 3dlabs were not gaming cards. Yeah, ok, I'm stretching a bit ;)
However, if you do include embedded graphics, there are still plenty of players on the market. Also, this market only lasted 2 years or so, and it was a brand new market, so there were bound to be more competitors. Those that did fall out of the market and survived in some form have gone to the embedded market.
It gets WORSE. Now the new consoles are here, each with 8GB of memory, the average amount of GPU memory needed for 1080P or above is about to rise above 2GB for the first time.
Erm... this doesn't even make sense. At all. Are you claiming that to display 1080P you need a graphics card with 2GB onboard? Are you claiming that the new consoles have 8GB GPU RAM? What?
Besides, the amount of onboard RAM has long been an utterly useless metric for determining graphics performance. Since RAM is so cheap, nVidia and ATI often just drop lots on a crappy architecture, and advertise the RAM.
From a marketplace that used to be served by 6 competing vendors into a duopoly marketplace that is currently served by only 2 vendors --- the pace of innovation has slowed to a crawl.
We're most definitely not in a duopoly marketplace at the moment. There are currently only 2 companies offering high performance 3D consumer priced cards, but there are other companies in the graphics business. The most popular graphics card used by people using Steam is the Intel HD Graphics 3000, for example. Matrox is still about, too, but not competing in consumer 3D.
To be honest, I can't really remember a time in which there were more than 3 (possibly 4) major players in the high end consumer 3D market. Matrox dabbled, but never got close to a cost efficient gaming card, really IMO... the closest they came was the G400 IIRC. That was the era when you could possibly claim there were 4 competing vendors. Soon after, Matrox left the market to concentrate on 2D, and 3dfx dissapeared up their own arse. I'm not sure who the other 2 you are alluding to are.... SiS, VIA?
Table 2: Notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used, by principal weapon
Air weapons; Shotgun; Handgun
1993 6,337 1,592 4,273
1994 7,165 1,190 3,087
1995 7,568 983 3,319
1996 7,813 933 3,347
1997 7,506 580 2,648
Handguns banned this year, no legislation change with regards to shotguns or Air weapons, AFAIK
1997/98 7,902 565 2,636
1998/99 8,665 642 2,687
1999/00 10,103 693 3,685
2000/01 10,227 608 4,110
2001/02 12,377 712 5,874
2002/03 13,822 672 5,549
2003/04 13,756 718 5,144
2004/05 11,825 597 4,360
2005/06 10,439 642 4,672
2006/07 8,836 612 4,173
2007/08 7,478 602 4,172
2008/09 6,041 618 4,274
2009/10 4,925 584 3,743
2010/11 4,203 608 3,105
Handgun offences had dropped by more than a third in the 5 years prior to them being banned, then doubled in the 5 years after the ban. They have since dropped to levels about a quarter higher than they were when they were banned.
Shotgun offences had dropped by about 2/3 in the 5 years prior to the handgun ban, then increased slightly, then decreased slightly. They have since dropped to levels almost identical to when the handgun ban took effect.
Airgun offences were gradually rising prior to the handgun ban, rose quickly in the aftermath of the ban, then dropped by more than 2/3rds in the last 8 years to levels well below when the handgun ban took effect.
So you see, offences with both the types of gun that weren't banned have stayed the same or gone down overall, and offences with the type of gun that was banned have gone up. This is pretty clear.
I personally think profiling would be a good idea but any time it is brought up in America it is shot down.
The reason for it being shot down is you alienate loads and loads of good people.
How would you feel as an American citizen if you were always strip searched every time you boarded a plane, or were followed wherever you go, just because your father was from a worrying country? You'd get bitter. Racial profiling is a somewhat self enforcing problem. Those that are more of a risk are persecuted more, and thus become more of a risk.
I don't think racial profiling is the answer.
Despite what some people would have you believe, "kill as many civilians as possible" is very rarely the point in terrorist attacks. They usually focus on specific things, and targets. The 9/11 attacks were an obvious example of this. The 7/7 bombings in London were aimed at infrastructure of the city, and causing chaos. The recent attacks in Kenya were focused on an expensive mall.
Whereas since banning handguns in the UK, handgun crime has gone up (that is, crimes involving handguns, not possession of one), and all firearm crime has gone up by more. Look at the graph on this page. about 1/2 the way down. Handguns were banned in 1997, when gun crime was on a downward curve.
Also, see this(PDF, sorry about the google cruft, can't be bothered editing) police statistics report. It shows that serious handgun crime more than doubled in the 4 years after they were banned, despite having been dropping for the previous 10 years or so, when they were legal.
I don't own a gun, probably never will, but I dislike the government telling me what I can and can't have based on poor logic. Also, It had been demonstrably shown that in the UK, barring other factors (and I doubt there were _that_ many other factors), banning handguns increased handgun crime.
Yes; we know it is legally defined as copyright infringement.
Why don't we just call it that then? We know exactly what it is, it's got a pretty normal definition. Copyright infringement seems obvious to people who know what it is
Stealing is another matter entirely, which involves taking something from someone else.
Yeah, when people don't act the way I want them to act I feel justified in stealing from them too.
You are confused about the word stealing. It does not mean what you think it means.
If someone else tells a joke I made, I've not been stolen from.