When your chosen platform can't do something, just redefine the goal and then hate on anyone who doesn't accept that definition. So any game I can't get on Linux is a "watt-sucking/heat-sink-busting" game? Well then count me in as wanting to play those! Of games I've played lately that don't run on Linux Skyrim has topped the list, 200 hours in it so far. It is an extremely entertaining game, I have gotten my money's worth and more out of it. Also on the list would be Xcom, Torchlight 2, Deus Ex, Fallen Enchantress, Shogun 2 Total War, Terraia and so on. Now if those are all "watt-sucking/heat-sink-busting" games according to you, fine, but I don't care I liked them, a lot, and want to play them. Crysis? Not on the list, I didn't care for it, so I haven't bought any of the sequels.

Frankly the measure of how good the platform is for gaming isn't how many games you can find for it, it is how many games that you want to play run on it. That'll vary person to person. However trying to point to a bunch of little indy or half-finished OSS titles isn't going to make many gamers happy. Sorry, but I want Skyrim, it is all kinds of worth it and not just for the graphics (though when yo uload up some mods those are pretty impressive too). I don't want Vega Strike.

If you want higher resolutions and frame rates, you need more powerful GPUs to handle it. For example moving to 2560x1600 or to 120fps doubles the pixel requirement over 1920x1080@60fps. So whatever amount of power you needed to achieve 1080p60, double that for either of those targets. 4k will require a quadrupling, and 120fps 4k would require 8x the power.

All this is assuming you are getting 60fps in the first place. Now maybe you are fine with trading off lower frame rates, or lower resolutions, that's all up to you. If 720p30 is your target, you can get away with a whole lot less power. However that doesn't mean that nobody wants to target higher resolutions or frame rates.

There are also other visual quality settings to consider, like anti-aliasing and so on that can require more power. Depending on what you are targeting with that, you can need a lot of power.

Personally I really find frame rates much below 60 pretty annoying in most games. I really like the feeling of fluidity you get. 120 fps is even better, but the monitor I normally use doesn't handle that. Well maintaining that 60fps at a 2.5k resolution is not a trivial feat. I don't think a $250 graphics card would do that for most games.

Seriously, for some people, gaming is their hobby and that kind of money is not that much when you talk what people spend on hobbies. My coworker just bought himself like a $2000 turbo for his car, to replace (or augment, I'm not sure) the one that's already there. He has no need for it, but he likes playing with his car.

Now that you, and most others, don't want to spend that kind of money is understandable and not problematic. There's a reason why companies have a lineup of stuff and why the high end stuff is just for those with plenty of money. It also doesn't scale linearly since the higher end something is, the less units get sold, and so the more the fixed costs influence the unit cost.

However don't hate on it. That you don't wish to spend that kind of money doesn't mean that nobody should. Also you should be glad people do: The expensive parts fund the cheap parts. They can recover more R&D costs on these units, letting them sell lower end parts for less, since lower end parts are the same tech, just less of it.

When you post stuff like that, and fanboys mod it to +5, it looks really silly. The reason isn't because it is not true, but because it is not impressive. Yes, Linux has a few games for it including some older Source games. Yay. Trying to imply that because it has Steam it has games is silly. Roughly 6 of my 163 Steam games will run on Linux and most of those are the older Source engine games.

Having Steam doesn't mean you get games. It means there's a platform to sell games on that many Linux users will hate on (costs money, has DRM, no source code). The games themselves have to be ported and so far, not much of that has been going on.

It does not strengthen your point when you go and make a rather silly argument. The "but it has Steam!" argument that keeps getting trotted out when someone comments on Linux and gaming reminds me of Mac users back in the 90s pointing to the 10 or so old titles you could find in the store as proof that there were plenty of games on the Mac.

Linux gaming is not in a good state currently, and trying to mask that is silly.

In those places, a $100 bill would work as well or better than a passport for getting through checkpoint guards. The idea that someone would bother with your passport number in trying to forge a passport to get through there is rather laughable, since they didn't even bother to check said number to see if it was legit.

At a border with better security? Not going to work. Passports have a lot more security to them than that, particularly now.

Basically if places have weak security, the have weak security. Someone isn't going to bother to try to get a legit name and number to forge a passport. If they have tight security, then it wouldn't do any good as they check the other features, which wouldn't match.

See if the point of someone having your information is to, well, be able to access your information then it needs to be stored in that format. A password can be hashed, but something like name and address needs to be stored in text. Encrypting it is the kind of thing that does a limited amount of good. They may well encrypt it on disk, but the software that accesses it still needs to be able to decrypt it, wouldn't be of much use if it couldn't. So if someone busts in through a problem in the software, they can get your data.

It is easy to get mad and say companies should "do something" but ask yourself what that something is, I mean really analyze the problem, and then try and come up with a solution that works. It is harder.

We deal with that kind of thing at work. Securing data isn't just a magic switch you can flick. Like our new storage array has self-encrypting drives. Great, we can, with no performance loss, encrypt everything on it... However that only really helps against it getting stolen, or if we forgot to wipe the disks when we decommission it. Being that all data is encrypted, the unit has the password (it is a power-on kind of thing) so if you bust in over the network, well then you can get at the data unencrypted.

For more sensitive stuff you can take it a step further, use Sophos (ya that is what they bought, no not my choice) full disk or file container encryption. That means that if a system with it is lost, nobody can get the data. However, when that system is online and the FS mounted, again a break in can get at the data.

The only way to stop network breakins from being a possible compromise is to take the systems entirely off the Internet. Not only is that unfeasible in normal cases, but it is impossible if you are talking the system that is to handle talking to the users online.

I can't come up with a way that you can have a system where the data is secure, even if the system gets compromised. Of course you try and stop systems from getting compromised, but the idea that data should be stored somehow that even if a system gets broken in to you can't get at it is rather silly.

For example the powers that be at work decided that the important thing was 3 of the 4 groups (upper, lower, numbers, and punctuation are the groups), and length, with 14+ being what makes it happy. So you input a short phrase like "I like puppies" it'll call it strong and take it. However if you input "@la2wo!d?o-z4" it'll call it weak because it is too short. Input something like "niecrlazleswiariucriuml7priu8roab7iuyluc0oawr1u5pl" and it'll reject it because there are only 2 of the 4 groups).

There's no further analysis, it is just a length and groups thing, with rather poorly defined groups.

Also in terms of strength, while there's no perfect one, measuring bits of entropy, which you can do, is pretty good. However few sites use anything that advanced.

I'd say I'm a pretty security aware individual, what with working in IT and all that. I do defense in depth on computer and physical security, I'm proactive about things, etc. Seems to have worked, I've never had a system owned.

So I never reuse passwords, right?

Wrong, I do all the time. Almost every forum online I have the same password for, and it is a weak one. Why? Because I don't care. Oh no, someone might hack my forum account and... I dunno, post something as me! Whatever would I do? I'm not going to bother to generate a great, unique, password for every site.

However my bank account? Random password (I don't seem to have trouble remembering them), long, and it requires two factor authentication. That protects my finances, and those matter. So security on that is pretty high.

The idea that everyone is going to have a high security password for every site and not reuse it is silly. There are plenty of things where if your account got compromised, you just don't care so much.

Also it can make sense to group systems. All my systems at home use a single password. There is no reason for them not to. They are all in the same security context, basically. It is no different than at work where my single account gets me access to any domain system.

The director. Not sure why he likes it so much but it is added in, mechanically, by him shining lights at the cameras. They really need to hire someone to poke him with a sharp stick when he tries to do that. I'm not sure why he likes it so much, but he does. In behind the scenes stuff he talks about how much he likes the look of it.

But that's why it is there, one of the very primary creative forces in the movie really likes it.

It's an interesting part of human psychology I never studied, and I don't know how much research has been done on it. However you see it with relative frequency. Someone will decide something is offensive to a given group without themselves being part of that group.

The two issues people seem to be being offended on behalf of women for are the fact that Uhura wasn't a very "strong woman" character, in particular with her somewhat self centered reaction to Spock's attitude toward death, and to the fact that Kirk leers at Alice Eve's character and we see her in her undergarments.

I don't really get it myself. Ya the Uhura thing was maybe a little silly and "girly" but it was done first to set up Spock's reaction with regards to emotions and second because they wanted a lover's quarrel for comic relief (which the audience I saw it with found quite funny at least).

It is just something you'll encounter from time to time: Someone will find something offensive for you on your behalf, even when they are not in that group. I think perhaps some of the male reviews are worrying too much about if the portrayal of women was "correct" for whatever definition of "correct" they have whereas the women watching the movie are just concerned about if they are enjoying the time they spend watching it.

The problem isn't people not liking the movie, it is people hating on it, often without even seeing it, because they feel like they SHOULDN'T like it. It is similar to the hipster attitude: Star Trek can't be good because it's popular and popular can't be good. The Onion had a hilariously spot on piece on the first one called "Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'." There was plenty of that happening. Trekkies hating on it as being "not Star Trek" or getting mad because it was "mainstream" without any real criticism of the movie, just that it wasn't ok to like because of what it was.

I can respect anyone who says "I don't care for this," but doesn't hate on it, they just don't care for it because it doesn't match their taste.

I can also respect someone who dumps on something, but has a well reasoned argument as to what they see is wrong with it. A great example are the Plinkett reviews on the Star Wars prequel. Mike Strokua presents plenty of reasons as to why they really aren't good movies, not just ones he doesn't care for.

I cannot respect people who hate on things for silly reasons, and who act like you are one of the unwashed masses if you happen to like it. That somehow liking that which is mainstream is bad and means you can't have any taste.

I encounter it with music all the time. I have a more refined taste than many and a lot more knowledge. I was a classical and jazz player for many years (about 10) and, well, if you play them for that long you either grow to enjoy them or you stop. My MP3 library is filled with Orff, Ravel, Bach, Motzart, Ellington, Bassie, Coltraine, Ferguson, and so on. I've also a good bit of theoretical music training, understanding of what actually makes music what it is, and a good bit of acoustics knowledge to boot. I can, should I wish, analyze a song on a fairly technical level.

However I also find I have a lot of enjoyment of new music, including some popular music. One such piece is Party Rock Anthem. It is no great masterpiece but I enjoy it. It is catchy and fun. I like to listen to it. It is also, of course, extremely popular. Something like 500m views on Youtube, where many haven't even heard of the composers I mentioned previously.

For that, I garner a sneer from some other "music lovers," as though you cannot possibly like the "trash" of the masses and still enjoy great works of the past. I say bullshit, you can like what you like, and you can appreciate things in different ways.

So the GP was very accurate, and there's been a lot of that shit in this thread. People whining it isn't "real" sci-fi. That it is dumb because of the actions, that it isn't good Star Trek, etc, etc. I say screw you, it was a fun movie. Not the best I've ever seen, but I enjoyed it. ...Though on the topic of sound the fucking theatres need to stop abusing the volume dial! I am seriously bringing my SPL meter next time and if it is exceeding maximum levels, I am going to try and get them in trouble. Movies are supposed to be loud for big hits, not all the damn time. 105dB for big brad band hits, 115dB for LFE explosions, 75dB, or less, for dialogue and standard effects. Not loud, louder and loudest!

Star Trek has a rating of 95% (94% with top critics) on Rotten Tomatoes. That puts it waaay up there. So if critic reviews are the "objective" measure, then it was very good. Or maybe we say "power to the people" and look at sales numbers. In that case it grossed $385 million, costing able $150 to make thus making it a success commercially. This is theatre numbers, not including rentals and DVD sales.

This also puts it over the gross for any other Star Trek movie, including the original motion picture, when adjusted for inflation. So by that "objective" measure it is also the best, since people spent the most on it in real dollars (meaning inflation adjusted).

As the parent says, it is fine not to like a movie. Your tastes are your tastes but stop trying to pretend like they are in any way, shape, or form "objective". They are subjective, that is what likes and dislikes are by definition. Particularly since if you put any numbers to it. Star Trek did really well. Film critics liked it, audiences liked it, that makes it good if you want to use metrics to define that.

Gravity is not the best example. The reason is that we really DON'T understand gravity very well. We know that there is a force that we call gravity that causes objects to attract. However we don't have a solid idea how it actually works. We can't get it to unify with the other forces, there are indications that our best theory on it (general relativity) is incomplete and so on.

The FACT of gravity, that objects attract or on a more human scale that shit falls down. We observe this all the time, there's not really a question that there is this force. However the THEORY of gravity, meaning the explanation for what it is and how it works, is something that is not solid.

Now one can of course argue this to global warming as well. There is the fact that average global temperature has been rising, outside of known cycles. There is then the theory as to why, in particular that the primary or exclusive cause is increased atmospheric CO2 levels due to human emissions. One can accept the fact but argue the theory.

Just saying, maybe pick a better example.

The question isn't people running the reds, it is traffic collisions. Cutting down on people running reds isn't useful when it leads to more collisions due to hard braking, which it does. The point of traffic laws is, or at least is supposed to be, safety.

The #1 thing you can do to reduce collisions in an intersection is lengthen the yellow. Go ask AAA, they've got plenty of data on it.

Shit like this, and this is not the first time it happens, proves that traffic cameras are 100% NOT about safety, they are about money.