alanschu

Edmonton Oilers of the National Hockey League! They were doing so well...lost starting goalie to injury, and are now rattled and down 2 games to 0 in the finals Slightly on topic...wasn't Wendell Clark gay?

that's part of the perceived lifestyle difference. lesbians don't come across as "flamers" or whatever. they aren't seen as the wild partiers always looking for a different partner each night of the week. that, and guys get off on the possibility of two chicks getting it on. right or not, tis true. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Errr, sorry to nitpick, but try not to have your words under a "quoted by me" quote box. I was kind of confused what was going on. Whether or not it's because of preceived lifestyle differences, or the fact that men find lesbians hawt, there's still greater social acceptance for lesbians than homosexual men. Considering politics is dominated by men, and men typically find lesbianism much more attractive than homosexual males, is it a systemic cause?

Seriously...what are you doing in this thread?

That's just versatile. It's not hardcore!. It can't be...not enough X's. HARDCORE!!!

Well, it's just that you mentioned computationally expensive, requiring large amounts of memory. I find that those don't go together that often. If something takes up large amounts of memory, it's probably done so to reduce computational cost (since reading from memory is fast, and you can store data computed earlier). I've only taken a basic algorithms course, so I'm not an expert, but it seems like many of the computationally expensive algorithms aren't really huge memory hogs. Not compared to the computer ticks anyways. Computer cycles are often orders of magnitude higher than memory usage. This is because time is much more available than memory. You can always wait longer for something to finish. You can't finish if you run out of memory though. If a processor becomes sufficiently fast, the need to store computed data (which is done for speed reasons) becomes less important (depending on the operation). Given the floating point power of the Cell, I wouldn't be too concerned about memory limitations for FP computations. Well, the Dreamcast was before the PS2, as was the Saturn compared to the PSX. IIRC, the Sega Master System was out before the NES too wasn't it? Being first is a bit overrated IMO. The big buzz words I'm hearing (though I don't follow consoles as much anymore) are things like photorealism and magnificent graphics, with "big bux" allocated to graphics. I wouldn't be surprised at all if at half (if not more) of the unified RAM goes towards graphics resources. You talk about the high bandwidth of the eDRAM. I know it has a 256 GB/s internal memory bandwidth, but from what I have read that only really benefits things like Z Buffering and Antialiasing. Just an assurance to make sure that the bottleneck isn't there, so to speak. Not really, as shaders are making additional geometry less important. Half-Life 2 pushes less polygons than Doom 3, and aside from shadows, looks much better (at least in my opinion). The per-pixel effects shifted the focus away from simply more triangles. Besides, in the example you provide, the Cell not being able to access the GDDR3 pool is irrelevant as the RSX would be using it all anyways. There'd be no memory available from the GDDR3 pool.

Conspiracy!!!

BF Skinner is a behavioural psychologist (many consider him to be the biggest name in psychology) who concluded that free will is an illusion. Decisions are made based on conditioning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.F._Skinner

Why would it be in the Antarctic, and not somewhere else?

Meh, I still think familiarity could be classified under social, but whatever. You're going all BF Skinner on me here. I have kind of mixed feelings about the existence of free will.

The Radeon X1900 XTX has THREE X's in it though. And we all know that means hardcore!

Well, 65 million years ago there weren't creatures that knew how to split atoms.

Wouldn't environmental just be included in chemical and social? EDIT: Besides, he wasn't really making a case for free will, as we don't really have much choice over who we fall in love with.

That's what I was thinking. I suppose that there'd be some that would choose it to be a rebel, or maybe they are masochistic or something. But then you wouldn't really get people complaining about being oppressed.

There are lefties who are one step ahead of pro-choice and believing that government has the right to purge the world of unwanted child. I am talking about the really crazy people here... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hmmm.. You're talking about the government deciding on their own whether or not a child should be aborted?

I'd imagine the $20 streamlines the process. You won't have to go hunting. It's also easier to use for the people that don't know how to go and get the stuff for free on their own.

Heh, I was doing a search for Digital Distribution sites and ended up stumbling across that. As soon as I saw unlimited game downloads (among other things) for just $20, I laughed. Riiiight.

Is pro-abortion really that left-wing?

You can't even think of one good use of the Internet? Nothing useful coming from SONAR? RADAR? Jet/Rocket Technology? Not even in fields that weren't necessarily invented as a direct result of the military but still influenced, such as computers, metallurgy, chemistry (the understanding of it). Or technical processes such as interchangeable parts (originally designed to make the creation of firearms simpler), but now is used in pretty much everything. You'd rather the computer you use be created uniquely, from scratch? Or that EKG heart monitor? So that if there's a problem, you have to get the original maker to either fix it, or replace it altogether?

If it's unconscious...how is it a choice? Are you referring to social influences? As for conscious choice, do you think you could right now choose to truly be a homosexual. I guess that depends on how we define homosexuality. It it just our physical actions, or is it more to do with our internal sexual attractions. I suppose I could "choose" to have sex with a man. But if I'm not sexually attracted to him, why would I? If you have sex with a man simply to prove a point, would it make you truly a homosexual? Or just someone that was willing to have sex with a man to try to prove a point?

Just because something is biological doesn't mean it is genetic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Could you elaborate? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Biology is more than just genes that get passed on. And even then, it's still influenced by the environment. Influences outside of pure genetics can influence how the biology of our body operates. Shizophrenia is a neurological disorder, but it's not just genetic (though there is believed to be a genetic component. Twin studies with identical twins only demonstrate a 28% likelihood that one will get it, if the other does have it though). Environmental factors still play a role. But some think it's an issue with the rate at which dopamine is released in your body (as dopamine blockers can reduce the symptoms of schizophrenia). Things such as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome result in biological disabilities, but have little to do with genetics. Going back to schizophrenia, studies have shown that pregnant women close to starvation had a higher chance of having a child that would develop schizophrenia. The same goes for prenatal exposure to infections. Our biology is not a closed-system that has no outside influences with only our genes to show for it. And even if there is a "homosexual gene", there's nothing stopping outside influences that result in that gene leading someone to become a homosexual.

Well, you don't mind using a tool that was created in large part from military funding (the Internet). Does nothing good come from the Internet?

Many homosexuals have had wives. There IS social stigma against homosexuality after all. The "choice" isn't really a choice though. More of a facade.

The comedic points of his two big documentaries has more to do with the giant misleading he does to the viewer. We all got a chuckle out of him asking the bank "Don't you think it's a bit strange to hand out guns at a bank?" What he didn't tell us, was the huge amount of effort it took to convince the bank to actually provide him with the rifle at the bank, rather than at the warehouse no where near the bank like everyone else. Watching him "make fools" out of the bank workers is funny at the moment. Not so funny when you realize that he played them without them knowing it in order to make them look like fools.

I remember Lucius getting on my case about it because I couldn't really explain to him what I was talking about. An open, conscious choice towards homosexuality is likely not the case. For someone to "choose" homosexuality, they'd probably have to have some sort of sexual attraction to the same sex. But how does one "choose" who they find attractive? Just because something is biological doesn't mean it is genetic.