In fact, pretty much every person who buys a PS3 isn't the intended audience. The Wii is designed and marketed to the casual player, the PS3 to the hardcore player. The games are "shallow" because they need to be easy to play, so anyone can play.
Maxtor gained a bad reputation because their 80GB-160GB Diamondmax (desktop line) drives failed more often than normal. I think it was only the Diamondmax 9 series that were affected. All earlier drives, larger drives and server (maxline series) drives failed no more often than normal. My parents' pc (with an old 40GB Maxtor) and my server's boot drive (even older 20GB Maxtor) are both fine, as are all the other Maxtor disks I still have (1x160GB, 1x250GB, 4x300GB). The Maxtor drives I've had fail were 2x80GB and 3x160GB drives. I'm fairly sure all the failed drives were DM9, and the surviving ones are all not DM9 (an DM8, a few DM10 and a few DM11 I think).
So yeah, their reputation was ruined by one series of drives.
Even adding on 17.5% tax it's only £26. The RRP is £30 for the PC version (though it can be found online for £25+delivery), or £50 (£40 online) for the console versions.
Seems that the PC boxed version is pretty competitive with the steam version, and console gamers get ripped off again:) Anyone who says a console is cheaper than a pc, but has a shelf-full of games, should have "higher initial investment for lower long-term cost" explained to them.
My Asus M2N SLI Deluxe motherboard posts in under 2 seconds.
When I was still using a CRT, the first thing I saw after turning the pc on was grub, halfway through the 10s countdown. Even with my new 22" TFT it's rare for me to even catch a glimpse of the motherboard's POST (or the splash screen covering it anyway). I can be in Windows or Ubuntu within 30s of pressing the power button.
This is much better than a few years ago when my win2k install broke and started taking half an hour to load.
No, not all packets cost the same: if you have a peering agreement with some network, or if the packets come from within your own network, then those packets cost you much less than other 'normal' packets.
If the providers have to pay different rates based on the origin, it's only fair to pass that on to consumers... What's wrong with dividing up the traffic into different tariff zones, and billing each one differently (or shaping them differently in lieu of variable pricing). Even this could be argued to be in network neutrality. The key is not charging more for google (for example)'s packets more than another website's, based purely on the website. Or, alternatively, purposely slowing google's transmissions to your customer because google haven't paid you extra (despite the fact that you're not google's ISP).
Network neutrality means that people only pay for where they connect to the network, and don't have to pay a surcharge for every single site they want to visit, and the site doesn't have to pay every ISP that someone who wants to visit their site could be using.
A neutral network is like the phone system. You pay for calls, getting charged more for longer distance calls. You don't have to pay an extra $5/month for every phone network you want to be able to call. The person you're calling doesn't have to pay your phone carrier so that people on that carrier (including you) can call them.
Cable TV is similar to a non-neutral network, though it's obviously only 1-way. If you don't pay for channels you don't receive them, regardless of whether you watch them or not. Can you imagine an internet like this?
An ISP on a non-neutral internet could force you to use their search instead of google by slowing google down until it takes an hour to load. A neutral ISP is forced to actually make their search engine better than google to get customers to use it. See the difference?
You don't provide any evidence that "upscaling DVD players do it better than TVs do", or that "Upscaling at the source will almost always be better than at the TV". Also, while pc gamers may not have enjoyed that exact resolution (and in fact still don't, pc widescreen monitors are 16:10, that's 16:9), 1280x960 has been a common resolution for at least 5 years (and available long before that), which is between 720p and 1080p. Hell, 1600x1200 has been available on 19"+ CRTs for at least that long as well, but most people didn't buy a pc display that large.
And if you want e-penis, I play console games on a 4' display from a digital projector:)
Especially if accompanied by the word "upscaling".
What's the point of upscaling DVDs to a HD resolution, they'll look just the same as they did on a normal TV of the same size anyway.
And even worse, why buy a £1000 DVD player that can do it, when you could just buy a £50 one and let the TV do it? It's not like there's a TV in existence that can't take the older non-HD signals. I bet you could still replay original black & white transmissions into them if you wanted to.
Most of the people with a HD tv only use it as an e-penis-waving excuse. Playing console games on them, fine, you're finally enjoying the sharp picture that PC gamers have known for years. Only watching SD TV and DVDs? Idiot.
For the AMD Athlon 64 X2 processors, the number does actually mean something.
For a 1MB cache (per core) cpu, it's exactly 2x the clock speed in megahertz. The X2 4000+ is 2000MHz. This continues every 200MHz all the way up to the top cpu, the 6400+ (3200MHz, 1MB cache).
For a 512kB cache (per core) cpu, it's 200 lower than that. The X2 3800+ is 2000MHz as well, but 512kB cache. This continues every 100MHz all the way up the line to the 5400+ (2800MHz, 512kB cache).
For a 256kB cache (per core) cpu, it's 200 lower again. The X2 3600+ is ALSO 2000MHz, but has 256kB cache. There is only one 256kB cache X2 cpu. There is also a X2 3600+ that is 1900MHz and 512kB cache, which still fits the pattern.
The single core Athlon 64s seem to have a similar numbering scheme, but with more factors affecting it, including hypertransport speed (800MHz/1000MHz), and socket (754/939). Some of the cpus were numbered slightly differently, but this is 99% accurate: The base is a 512kB cache socket 754 hypertransport 800MHz 2000MHz cpu, which is rated at 3000. Socket 754 cpus were rated 200 higher for every 200MHz higher cpu speed. 1MB cache versions were mostly 200 higher (one was 300), and 256kB cache versions were 100 lower.
Socket 939 cpus were rated 200 higher than socket 754. (Due to the support for dual-channel ddr, they were better). 1000MHz HT cpus were rated an additional 100 higher for every 200MHz higher cpu speed than the base (2000MHz). The cpus that were 200MHz slower than the base didn't get an additional 100 points deducted though. Again, 1MB cache versions were 200 higher.
This doesn't cover the 1500+, which was only used in a HP Blade PC.
The AM2 cpus were mostly the same as the 1000MHz HT S939s, except for the 4000+, which was a 2600MHz/512kB cache instead of 2400MHz/1MB, and the details above would have scored it at 4100+.
As you can see, the numbers are mostly arbitrary, and mostly derived from the features of the cpus instead of a comparison against intel.
Seems "Extrans (html tags to text)" is what you're after. "Plain old text" converts new-lines to <br/> for you, but allows you to use html for formatting. HTML formatted requires you to type your own <br/>s. Code is like "Extrans" but with a fixed-with font and preserves spaces and tabs.
If you'd read the whole thing, he does find out about the wonderful formula dependency tree. ODF doesn't have one of these, the cell contents are the cell contents and can be changed without editing 3 or 4 other files. Sure, it means that anything loading an ODF spreadsheet has to build it's own formula dependency tree to handle changes, which makes the loading slightly slower, but it means that programs that just want to write to ODF can, without having to build the formula dependency tree, making writing the files faster.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, pretty much every person who buys a PS3 isn't the intended audience. The Wii is designed and marketed to the casual player, the PS3 to the hardcore player. The games are "shallow" because they need to be easy to play, so anyone can play.
Maxtor gained a bad reputation because their 80GB-160GB Diamondmax (desktop line) drives failed more often than normal. I think it was only the Diamondmax 9 series that were affected. All earlier drives, larger drives and server (maxline series) drives failed no more often than normal. My parents' pc (with an old 40GB Maxtor) and my server's boot drive (even older 20GB Maxtor) are both fine, as are all the other Maxtor disks I still have (1x160GB, 1x250GB, 4x300GB). The Maxtor drives I've had fail were 2x80GB and 3x160GB drives. I'm fairly sure all the failed drives were DM9, and the surviving ones are all not DM9 (an DM8, a few DM10 and a few DM11 I think).
So yeah, their reputation was ruined by one series of drives.
Even adding on 17.5% tax it's only £26. The RRP is £30 for the PC version (though it can be found online for £25+delivery), or £50 (£40 online) for the console versions.
:)
Seems that the PC boxed version is pretty competitive with the steam version, and console gamers get ripped off again
Anyone who says a console is cheaper than a pc, but has a shelf-full of games, should have "higher initial investment for lower long-term cost" explained to them.
My Asus M2N SLI Deluxe motherboard posts in under 2 seconds.
When I was still using a CRT, the first thing I saw after turning the pc on was grub, halfway through the 10s countdown. Even with my new 22" TFT it's rare for me to even catch a glimpse of the motherboard's POST (or the splash screen covering it anyway). I can be in Windows or Ubuntu within 30s of pressing the power button.
This is much better than a few years ago when my win2k install broke and started taking half an hour to load.
http://eztvefnet.org/ for TV.
They even have an RSS feed to allow you to automatically download new eps.
... saw that it was a "frist!" poster :(
Exactly.
The computer resources are irrelevant. Graphics and AI both take man-hours to make, so this is a cost/management issue, rather than a technical one.
You have a certain budget. Do you hire more graphics artists and graphics programmers, or AI designers and AI programmers?
Nah, they'd just claim the photo was fake.
Even if you actually took them there half of them would claim you faked it.
Read up on ARP spoofing . The basic theory is that another machine at the same webhost is pretending to be the gateway to the internet, and so all traffic gets to flow through it and it can modify it as it wishes.
If the providers have to pay different rates based on the origin, it's only fair to pass that on to consumers... What's wrong with dividing up the traffic into different tariff zones, and billing each one differently (or shaping them differently in lieu of variable pricing). Even this could be argued to be in network neutrality. The key is not charging more for google (for example)'s packets more than another website's, based purely on the website. Or, alternatively, purposely slowing google's transmissions to your customer because google haven't paid you extra (despite the fact that you're not google's ISP).
Network neutrality means that people only pay for where they connect to the network, and don't have to pay a surcharge for every single site they want to visit, and the site doesn't have to pay every ISP that someone who wants to visit their site could be using.
A neutral network is like the phone system. You pay for calls, getting charged more for longer distance calls. You don't have to pay an extra $5/month for every phone network you want to be able to call. The person you're calling doesn't have to pay your phone carrier so that people on that carrier (including you) can call them.
Cable TV is similar to a non-neutral network, though it's obviously only 1-way. If you don't pay for channels you don't receive them, regardless of whether you watch them or not. Can you imagine an internet like this?
An ISP on a non-neutral internet could force you to use their search instead of google by slowing google down until it takes an hour to load. A neutral ISP is forced to actually make their search engine better than google to get customers to use it. See the difference?
You don't provide any evidence that "upscaling DVD players do it better than TVs do", or that "Upscaling at the source will almost always be better than at the TV". Also, while pc gamers may not have enjoyed that exact resolution (and in fact still don't, pc widescreen monitors are 16:10, that's 16:9), 1280x960 has been a common resolution for at least 5 years (and available long before that), which is between 720p and 1080p. Hell, 1600x1200 has been available on 19"+ CRTs for at least that long as well, but most people didn't buy a pc display that large.
:)
And if you want e-penis, I play console games on a 4' display from a digital projector
Especially if accompanied by the word "upscaling".
What's the point of upscaling DVDs to a HD resolution, they'll look just the same as they did on a normal TV of the same size anyway.
And even worse, why buy a £1000 DVD player that can do it, when you could just buy a £50 one and let the TV do it? It's not like there's a TV in existence that can't take the older non-HD signals. I bet you could still replay original black & white transmissions into them if you wanted to.
Most of the people with a HD tv only use it as an e-penis-waving excuse. Playing console games on them, fine, you're finally enjoying the sharp picture that PC gamers have known for years. Only watching SD TV and DVDs? Idiot.
For the AMD Athlon 64 X2 processors, the number does actually mean something.
For a 1MB cache (per core) cpu, it's exactly 2x the clock speed in megahertz. The X2 4000+ is 2000MHz. This continues every 200MHz all the way up to the top cpu, the 6400+ (3200MHz, 1MB cache).
For a 512kB cache (per core) cpu, it's 200 lower than that. The X2 3800+ is 2000MHz as well, but 512kB cache. This continues every 100MHz all the way up the line to the 5400+ (2800MHz, 512kB cache).
For a 256kB cache (per core) cpu, it's 200 lower again. The X2 3600+ is ALSO 2000MHz, but has 256kB cache. There is only one 256kB cache X2 cpu. There is also a X2 3600+ that is 1900MHz and 512kB cache, which still fits the pattern.
The single core Athlon 64s seem to have a similar numbering scheme, but with more factors affecting it, including hypertransport speed (800MHz/1000MHz), and socket (754/939). Some of the cpus were numbered slightly differently, but this is 99% accurate:
The base is a 512kB cache socket 754 hypertransport 800MHz 2000MHz cpu, which is rated at 3000.
Socket 754 cpus were rated 200 higher for every 200MHz higher cpu speed.
1MB cache versions were mostly 200 higher (one was 300), and 256kB cache versions were 100 lower.
Socket 939 cpus were rated 200 higher than socket 754. (Due to the support for dual-channel ddr, they were better).
1000MHz HT cpus were rated an additional 100 higher for every 200MHz higher cpu speed than the base (2000MHz). The cpus that were 200MHz slower than the base didn't get an additional 100 points deducted though.
Again, 1MB cache versions were 200 higher.
This doesn't cover the 1500+, which was only used in a HP Blade PC.
The AM2 cpus were mostly the same as the 1000MHz HT S939s, except for the 4000+, which was a 2600MHz/512kB cache instead of 2400MHz/1MB, and the details above would have scored it at 4100+.
As you can see, the numbers are mostly arbitrary, and mostly derived from the features of the cpus instead of a comparison against intel.
Windows Update never updates drivers?
They're available on the Windows Update site, but they won't install automatically and they're not selected by default on the website either.
The chicken, obviously.
Wait...
Buttbuttinate :)
Don't be stupid. X times less is a common way of saying 1/X. "3 times less" = "one third".
No, we've seen the Austin Powers films.
Obviously I won't have the keys until it's released, but it looks like we have a deal :)
That will run it plenty, it's only slightly below what I had (before the upgrade I'm doing right now).
I'll have the HL2 + HL2 Ep 1 codes spare, if you want them.
Testing
Testing...
<shock/>
Seems "Extrans (html tags to text)" is what you're after. "Plain old text" converts new-lines to <br/> for you, but allows you to use html for formatting. HTML formatted requires you to type your own <br/>s. Code is like "Extrans" but with a fixed-with font and preserves spaces and tabs.
If you'd read the whole thing, he does find out about the wonderful formula dependency tree. ODF doesn't have one of these, the cell contents are the cell contents and can be changed without editing 3 or 4 other files. Sure, it means that anything loading an ODF spreadsheet has to build it's own formula dependency tree to handle changes, which makes the loading slightly slower, but it means that programs that just want to write to ODF can, without having to build the formula dependency tree, making writing the files faster.
Most people's monitors are excessively bright (especially if they use the same brightness day & night), which causes eye strain.
Don't forget *SameAsUsername*.
I think it was '98 where you could just boot into dos and delete username.pwd to make it so that user "username" had no password.
Security at it's finest.