Can someone please explain overclocking to me? Why are processors sold at a slower speed than they can actually perform at? Why don't they ship from the factory at their fastest speed?
It's amazing to me that they can make a machine who's parts are GLOWING they are so hot and the metal still functions without failing.
I agree with your assessment.
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
I watched the first couple of episodes of lost years ago, and gave up.
It was clear, as you noted, that this was one of those series where "the truth is out there (just around the corner)" but in fact there is no truth and nothing is going to be resolved.
>They are going after dumb people who set up a bank account to launder a couple thousand dollars?
>But they're not going after institutional traders who now offer co-location services with >enhanced market data feeds, fueling high frequency trading? They are not going after the >banking cartels who manipulate the whole economy? They are not going after Paypal for >among numerous things) blatantly lying about international exchange rates? or on and on and >on from examples of large, institutionalized financial fraud?
Well of course! The dumb people don't have money for attorneys and politicians. So the FBI will go after the dumb people and then claim they did something about the problem.
If it is a truism that DRM is futile because it will always be defeated, then it is also a truism that Security is futile because it will always be defeated.
There are things you can do to "keep the honest people honest", but there is little you can do against those who are determined to do bad things.
That may be, but sometimes there just are no second chances, and it's a shame more people don't consider the consequences of their actions before they act.
But they don't have to turn to a life of crime. Someone has to cook the french fries, after all.
I used to be entirely against Facebook. Did not have an account, did not want an account. I thought I did not have lots of "long lost friends" that I needed or wanted to keep in touch with. Everyone I wanted to communicate with I did communicate with.
Plus I had a personal web site that I could upload content to if I wanted to share things with people via the web.
Finally I signed up. I'm glad I did.
Facebook is different from having a web page.
First of all, it's far easier to manage (though more simplistic and limited in capability) than a web page.
Second of all, your friends are all notified as soon as you update your Facebook page. There are tools that allow people to be notified when a web page is updated, but I don't use any of them, and odds are my friends don't, either.
But there are two important things that Social Networking has done for me:
First of all, I realized that there were a lot more people out there that I have known in my life that I would like to keep in touch with than I realized. I'm interested, even in a voyeuristic way, in how some of my old acquaintances turned out.
But secondly, by having a group of friends that frequently spout off even mundane bits of trivia puts those people in my focus of attention and keeps them there. For example, prior to social networks, I could have easily corresponded with friends through email. But I hardly ever write letters. And so people slowly fade apart over time. But social networks like Facebook allow me to receive and make informal correspondence with people much more easily and frequently. Friendships don't seem to fade so easily when people post little trinkets every day or so. And I can easily drop a simple comment, or even just click the "like" button, to let my friends know I read what they said and I am with them.
You know what else I have found?
People are a lot more polite on Facebook. When your friends are actually people you know and who know you, you are careful about what you write because you are sensitive to your friends' and family's feelings.
The lack of anonymity on Facebook contributes to this.
Reasonable-quality audio/video recording equipment is becoming nearly ubiquitous, being embedded in cell phones.
Yet the only "footage" that is available is grainy and poor quality.
As the quality and availability of audio/video recording equipment grows, one would expect the quality of "sighting" recordings to increase, but they aren't.
>Nuclear weapons have turned into something of a penis waving contest.
It would seem to me that you are completely incorrect. Having nuclear weapons is basically your best way to keep the US from interfering overtly with your country.
This sort of thing is sad, but should not be shocking.
It is a difficult thing for most people to kill other people. A large part of military training, from what I understand, is breaking down these inhibitions. Dehumanize "the enemy" so that you can get your troops to at least accept killing as part of their job. If you are really good, you can build an esprit d'corps, where not only do your soldiers become willing to accept doing their job, but they also take pride in it.
They not only feel fighting is necessary, but RIGHT. They are not just willing to fight, they are EAGER to fight.
It may be a disgusting perversion of the humanity of our kind to create people with this mindset, but it has been found, through ages of warfare, to be effective and necessary.
Having watched the video, I see no malice on the part of the soldiers involved. The soldiers involved seem passionate about their task, and they seem confident in their assessment of their enemies, and they are eager to kill them. The entire attack seems to have been a mistake - BUT THE SOLDIERS MAKING THE MISTAKE DON'T SEEM TO REALIZE IT.
Moreover, these soldiers must know that everything is being recorded.
Honestly when I watch this movie I am filled with a sense of wonder that soldiers can be as restrained as they are, and do not seek vengeance and/or retribution more often and engage in blatant, willful acts of violence.
I believe these sort of games provide a sense of accomplishment that many people find addictive, in spite of the fact that in reality they have accomplished nothing. It FEELS like you have accomplished something, and you feel compelled to continue on to accomplish even more.
You could say this is a hallmark of a great game. It compels the player to play more.
Not really responding to the parent here, it was just a good point to jump in on the same sentiment expressed throughout.
Basically, what the study is doing, and what you say the Germans and Dutch are doing, is making the roads more dangerous, so that, out of fear, people slow down.
But the fact is, you are making the roads more dangerous! How can this be a good thing?
Why not build roads that are conducive to high speed AND safety?
After reading this article, I went and watched it instantly on Netflix.
Man, what garbage.
Travolta just doesn't strike me as an alien bad guy. His black sidekick doesn't either. I just kept seeing retarded-acting Klingons.
The idea that after 1000 years of disuse they found working flight simulators and Harrier fighter planes, and electricity and fuel that had not jellied or evaporated away, and learned how to use it in a week was just absolutely beyond any ability to suspend disbelief. Total shark-jump at that point.
I just bought a new gaming PC. I took my old PC and hooked it up to my TV.
The TV is a giant projection TV I got from my father-in-law when he upgraded to LCD TVs. It has an HDMI port on it.
I got a cable to convert DVI to HDMI and used that to go from the PC to the TV, and another cable that takes stereo out from my PC and coverts it into left and right RCA for the sound input on the TV.
For Christmas, at the company party, I won a Microsoft wireless keyboard/mouse, and VX3000 Life Cam kit. Unfortunately the wireless range on the mouse and keyboard is not good enough to reach to the couch.
Other than that, it works great.
We can surf the web and watch Netflix "Watch Now" or other web content on the big-screen TV. Plus I can watch ripped movies (from my own collection, of course) right from my PC.
We just canceled cable TV because we never watch it anymore. I just have the cable for internet access.
>Your mother is not an idiot, you need to learn how to give clear instructions. If you gave me those instructions, >I wouldn't have a clue what you're talking about (and I have a Computer Science BSc), >largely because "start bar" isn't a term; it doesn't exist. The notifcation area (as it's >called in Windows terminology) is where you should have been directing her.
The problem is, my mother would not know what a taskbar or notification area is, either. In which case I would have ended up describing them, which would have led me back to the start bar description. You have to imagine you are describing the thing to a child, or someone who has never seen a computer before. Telling such a person to click on the correct term is useless if the correct term is not self-describing in nature.
>Had you given her the location of the clock ("bottom right of the screen" ought to do it, that's where it usually is) >then told her to look slightly to the left for an icon of a little man, your encounter could have lasted all of ten seconds.
That is precisely how I ended up resolving the situation. And in fact, though I did not type it out in my dialog, the clock is what I started with. I kept saying, "Do you see the clock?" No, she did not see the clock. It's possible her taskbar is set to auto-hide, I don't know.
>Instead, you got frustrated with your inability to give basic instructions and projected it as being dimwitted onto her.
Anyone familiar with a Windows XP computer should be familiar with the blue bar with the word START on one end. When dealing with someone who knows nothing of proper computer terminology, I would think these basic instructions were pretty self-describing. Even if I were not talking about a computer, if someone told me about a "start bar" I would assume this meant a bar that had something to do with starting.
>You gave your mother instructions with the term "start" in it, which is natually going to be associated >with the big button that says "start", and so she followed said instructions and ended up pretty much where she should have on the basis of them.
Of course, there was also that other word "bar" immediately following the word "start" which would, one would think, give the visual connotation of a bar with the word start on it, and that it was the bar under discussion and not the word "start".
>I run into this attitude all the time within the technical community; people who can't communicate properly >blaming their own inability to verbalise accurately on others "stupidity" or "incompetence". It doesn't give us a good name, please stop doing it.
So how would you have communicated the steps differently from what I did?
And again, calling it a taskbar would only have led to me having to describe what a taskbar was, which would have led me to the start bar description anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Can someone please explain overclocking to me? Why are processors sold at a slower speed than they can actually perform at? Why don't they ship from the factory at their fastest speed?
It's amazing to me that they can make a machine who's parts are GLOWING they are so hot and the metal still functions without failing.
I watched the first couple of episodes of lost years ago, and gave up.
It was clear, as you noted, that this was one of those series where "the truth is out there (just around the corner)" but in fact there is no truth and nothing is going to be resolved.
As I understand it, evaporation drives hurricanes. With an oil slick over the gulf, maybe it will hinder evaporation and thus hinder hurricanes?
The service ceiling of the ASM-135 ASAT is 135 miles.
The orbit of geosynchronous satellites is about 26,000 miles.
>They are going after dumb people who set up a bank account to launder a couple thousand dollars?
>But they're not going after institutional traders who now offer co-location services with
>enhanced market data feeds, fueling high frequency trading? They are not going after the
>banking cartels who manipulate the whole economy? They are not going after Paypal for
>among numerous things) blatantly lying about international exchange rates? or on and on and
>on from examples of large, institutionalized financial fraud?
Well of course! The dumb people don't have money for attorneys and politicians. So the FBI will go after the dumb people and then claim they did something about the problem.
Of course we lost it.
If it is a truism that DRM is futile because it will always be defeated, then it is also a truism that Security is futile because it will always be defeated.
There are things you can do to "keep the honest people honest", but there is little you can do against those who are determined to do bad things.
But will it blend?
I'm curious: If the British call "flashlights" "torches", what do they call the a big stick with fire burning at one end?
>...Then a life of crime is all that awaits.
That may be, but sometimes there just are no second chances, and it's a shame more people don't consider the consequences of their actions before they act.
But they don't have to turn to a life of crime. Someone has to cook the french fries, after all.
I used to be entirely against Facebook. Did not have an account, did not want an account. I thought I did not have lots of "long lost friends" that I needed or wanted to keep in touch with. Everyone I wanted to communicate with I did communicate with.
Plus I had a personal web site that I could upload content to if I wanted to share things with people via the web.
Finally I signed up. I'm glad I did.
Facebook is different from having a web page.
First of all, it's far easier to manage (though more simplistic and limited in capability) than a web page.
Second of all, your friends are all notified as soon as you update your Facebook page. There are tools that allow people to be notified when a web page is updated, but I don't use any of them, and odds are my friends don't, either.
But there are two important things that Social Networking has done for me:
First of all, I realized that there were a lot more people out there that I have known in my life that I would like to keep in touch with than I realized. I'm interested, even in a voyeuristic way, in how some of my old acquaintances turned out.
But secondly, by having a group of friends that frequently spout off even mundane bits of trivia puts those people in my focus of attention and keeps them there. For example, prior to social networks, I could have easily corresponded with friends through email. But I hardly ever write letters. And so people slowly fade apart over time. But social networks like Facebook allow me to receive and make informal correspondence with people much more easily and frequently. Friendships don't seem to fade so easily when people post little trinkets every day or so. And I can easily drop a simple comment, or even just click the "like" button, to let my friends know I read what they said and I am with them.
You know what else I have found?
People are a lot more polite on Facebook. When your friends are actually people you know and who know you, you are careful about what you write because you are sensitive to your friends' and family's feelings.
The lack of anonymity on Facebook contributes to this.
I have an Ubisoft game called Silent Hunter III. It came with a nice small pamphlet for a manual.
The modding community created an expansion package called The Gray Wolves Expansion.
The manual for it is, literally, a book. It comes in PDF format.
I'm quite content with the PDF manual.
Reasonable-quality audio/video recording equipment is becoming nearly ubiquitous, being embedded in cell phones.
Yet the only "footage" that is available is grainy and poor quality.
As the quality and availability of audio/video recording equipment grows, one would expect the quality of "sighting" recordings to increase, but they aren't.
I think that's very telling.
I have had good success with Design Data Manager.
This tools is primarily for managing CAD documents, but can also deal with other kinds of data.
http://www.designdatamanager.com/
Research is great, and I think NASA should do it, and I hope they continue to do it.
But not at the expense of actually doing things.
The way I'm reading the spin is we basically canceled our space program so that we can think about having another one some day.
That's fucking depressing.
Those soldiers did not have it.
You obviously do.
Now you know the difference.
>Nuclear weapons have turned into something of a penis waving contest.
It would seem to me that you are completely incorrect. Having nuclear weapons is basically your best way to keep the US from interfering overtly with your country.
I watched the entire video.
This sort of thing is sad, but should not be shocking.
It is a difficult thing for most people to kill other people. A large part of military training, from what I understand, is breaking down these inhibitions. Dehumanize "the enemy" so that you can get your troops to at least accept killing as part of their job. If you are really good, you can build an esprit d'corps, where not only do your soldiers become willing to accept doing their job, but they also take pride in it.
They not only feel fighting is necessary, but RIGHT. They are not just willing to fight, they are EAGER to fight.
It may be a disgusting perversion of the humanity of our kind to create people with this mindset, but it has been found, through ages of warfare, to be effective and necessary.
Having watched the video, I see no malice on the part of the soldiers involved. The soldiers involved seem passionate about their task, and they seem confident in their assessment of their enemies, and they are eager to kill them. The entire attack seems to have been a mistake - BUT THE SOLDIERS MAKING THE MISTAKE DON'T SEEM TO REALIZE IT.
Moreover, these soldiers must know that everything is being recorded.
Honestly when I watch this movie I am filled with a sense of wonder that soldiers can be as restrained as they are, and do not seek vengeance and/or retribution more often and engage in blatant, willful acts of violence.
I believe these sort of games provide a sense of accomplishment that many people find addictive, in spite of the fact that in reality they have accomplished nothing. It FEELS like you have accomplished something, and you feel compelled to continue on to accomplish even more.
You could say this is a hallmark of a great game. It compels the player to play more.
Not really responding to the parent here, it was just a good point to jump in on the same sentiment expressed throughout.
Basically, what the study is doing, and what you say the Germans and Dutch are doing, is making the roads more dangerous, so that, out of fear, people slow down.
But the fact is, you are making the roads more dangerous! How can this be a good thing?
Why not build roads that are conducive to high speed AND safety?
After reading this article, I went and watched it instantly on Netflix.
Man, what garbage.
Travolta just doesn't strike me as an alien bad guy. His black sidekick doesn't either. I just kept seeing retarded-acting Klingons.
The idea that after 1000 years of disuse they found working flight simulators and Harrier fighter planes, and electricity and fuel that had not jellied or evaporated away, and learned how to use it in a week was just absolutely beyond any ability to suspend disbelief. Total shark-jump at that point.
I just bought a new gaming PC. I took my old PC and hooked it up to my TV.
The TV is a giant projection TV I got from my father-in-law when he upgraded to LCD TVs. It has an HDMI port on it.
I got a cable to convert DVI to HDMI and used that to go from the PC to the TV, and another cable that takes stereo out from my PC and coverts it into left and right RCA for the sound input on the TV.
For Christmas, at the company party, I won a Microsoft wireless keyboard/mouse, and VX3000 Life Cam kit. Unfortunately the wireless range on the mouse and keyboard is not good enough to reach to the couch.
Other than that, it works great.
We can surf the web and watch Netflix "Watch Now" or other web content on the big-screen TV. Plus I can watch ripped movies (from my own collection, of course) right from my PC.
We just canceled cable TV because we never watch it anymore. I just have the cable for internet access.
>Your mother is not an idiot, you need to learn how to give clear instructions. If you gave me those instructions,
>I wouldn't have a clue what you're talking about (and I have a Computer Science BSc),
>largely because "start bar" isn't a term; it doesn't exist. The notifcation area (as it's
>called in Windows terminology) is where you should have been directing her.
The problem is, my mother would not know what a taskbar or notification area is, either. In which case I would have ended up describing them, which would have led me back to the start bar description. You have to imagine you are describing the thing to a child, or someone who has never seen a computer before. Telling such a person to click on the correct term is useless if the correct term is not self-describing in nature.
>Had you given her the location of the clock ("bottom right of the screen" ought to do it, that's where it usually is)
>then told her to look slightly to the left for an icon of a little man, your encounter could have lasted all of ten seconds.
That is precisely how I ended up resolving the situation. And in fact, though I did not type it out in my dialog, the clock is what I started with. I kept saying, "Do you see the clock?" No, she did not see the clock. It's possible her taskbar is set to auto-hide, I don't know.
>Instead, you got frustrated with your inability to give basic instructions and projected it as being dimwitted onto her.
Anyone familiar with a Windows XP computer should be familiar with the blue bar with the word START on one end. When dealing with someone who knows nothing of proper computer terminology, I would think these basic instructions were pretty self-describing. Even if I were not talking about a computer, if someone told me about a "start bar" I would assume this meant a bar that had something to do with starting.
>You gave your mother instructions with the term "start" in it, which is natually going to be associated
>with the big button that says "start", and so she followed said instructions and ended up pretty much where she should have on the basis of them.
Of course, there was also that other word "bar" immediately following the word "start" which would, one would think, give the visual connotation of a bar with the word start on it, and that it was the bar under discussion and not the word "start".
>I run into this attitude all the time within the technical community; people who can't communicate properly
>blaming their own inability to verbalise accurately on others "stupidity" or "incompetence". It doesn't give us a good name, please stop doing it.
So how would you have communicated the steps differently from what I did?
And again, calling it a taskbar would only have led to me having to describe what a taskbar was, which would have led me to the start bar description anyway.
I thought I might have moved it to the top of her screen when I set up the system, but could not remember.