Not really. Radeon 7770 is about the same, maybe a little better than the 9800 GTX. As for most cards, yes.
Not only are the games cheap, there is no compromise on idle power draw. Your system can be silent and cheap to run when it's not doing work, while having enough power to game or do whatever you want in the duty cycle. It is a great time to upgrade either CPU or GPU.
After five years, it's really not that expensive to upgrade a lot of stuff if your mobo was cutting edge at the time you bought it. Memory is now cheap and very useful - no slowdowns with lots of tabs and VMs open. A new CPU is probably 4 times faster than your old one, and also inexpensive. It won't be top of the line, but it may hold its own with a mid-range solution. And you've probably already bought an SSD for a boot drive because it was stupid not to.
At that point, for half the price of a new PC (as you haven't upgraded case, PSU, mobo or heat sink) you've just made yourself a non-upgradable, but respectable mid-range computer that will last another 5 years or longer depending on duty. Even your GPU is not wasted, because if you want to make a new machine you can just put your old GPU back in it and migrate the new GPU to the new PC.
Some games hit the CPU much heavier these days than they used to. Many games really don't perform well if they aren't given multi-core CPUs with reasonable speed.
One thing to bear in mind with gaming benchmarks - they are performed running just the game, to keep everything else equal. In real world use it's nice to have the flexibility not to have to close down your browser and other applications, especially if you aren't the only user logged into the system. For that reason, you want more cores than you need just for the game. Maybe a quad core if you want dual core performance, or hex core if you want quad. And given how games have adapted to using multiple cores, it would pay to get more cores than you need if you are going to futureproof.
You don't want the DONKEY. You want an advanced recon model, the one that pairs Data Acquisition Technology with the Autonomous Sumpter System. Included of course are HUD sunglasses.
I'd rather not look this gift horse in the mouth. (Though in Soviet Russia, gift horse looks you in mouth.)
Who is doing this explaining of morals in the absence of the church? I don't see a lot of this going on. I see a generation of youth who get whatever morality they have from the media they consume, living with one parent who is working hard to pay the bills and glad to hand their children over to the media babysitter. If that media glamorizes crime, violence and evil (because selling that is profitable), then that is what they often decide to do. After all, if there is no real meaning of life, why not do what you enjoy (even if it means making the lives of others hell)?
BTW I'm atheist, not Christian - but I see where society is headed and I don't like it.
One additional comment - at the younger levels, you do not need a genius to teach a genius, provided that the teacher is smart enough to recognize a smart child and teach to his level. At higher levels this is certainly true though, whether that genius is present in person or as an author of a work (book, web page, video, game), the child learning autodidactically. Also, being able to break a given problem or skill down into all the component skills necessary to solve that problem, and teaching them in order - that in itself requires above average intelligence. Much more than is probably thought.
I'm honestly not sure that the system is actually designed to discourage this (though it certainly feels like it). It's just an unintended consequence of the relatively low IQ levels of the teachers and administrators who design such systems, and the teachers who are actually doing the teaching. IQ, intelligence, call it what you will - is distributed in something approximated by a bell curve. If you had the brains to be doing advanced geometry and algebra at age 8, you are very, very likely to be smarter than virtually everyone involved in designing, administering and implementing education at any given primary or secondary school. You have an IQ that is high enough to be very rare.
There are lots of sad corollaries to this fact. Firstly, there are no resources to design an education system around a student that is 1/500, 1/1000, let alone 1/10000 in terms of rarity in the population. As soon as we approach the inverse of school population, there may not even be any student in the school who is that smart.
Secondly, it takes a smart person to understand statistics, the concept of distributions and the like. Even understanding my first two paragraphs is above the head of the average person. Due to influence of PC, its component blank slatism and the like, the number of people who both can and would even want to understand IQ, bell curves and the implications of the distribution of intelligence is even less. The ramification of this is that the vast majority of people automatically assume that anything they can't understand is either wrong or crazy, and impossible for anyone else to understand. It is insulting for many people to realize that there are problems that are too difficult for them to ever solve, but that others can solve with varying amounts of difficulty (or ease). They have an in-built chip on their shoulder towards these concepts. Most people also assume that they are smart enough to figure out who is smarter than they are, despite not realizing that there is a class of problems for which they will never, ever solve or perhaps even understand the solution, and so are incapable of judging those who will solve such things.
Then you have the problem of recruiting teachers who are capable of teaching a very bright child, if that is what you want your school system to do. There aren't any. The vast majority of the very small relative number of bright people in a given country are taking advantage of the exploitation of IQ by companies. Those who aren't duped by graduate schools into pursuing graduate education with no monetary payoff are busy earning lots of money, with job security and great working conditions. Why would they want to teach a bunch of relative dullards, when the pay is not there and the working conditions are crap? They are off doing medicine, engineering, law, business and the like.
So what do you get when your average teacher does not (want to) realize that any kid in class is smarter than they are, and can do mental gymnastics that they will never, ever achieve? And does not have the resources to allocate to it? And do not have teachers capable of teaching them? You get the current education system.
If you want to give a smart kid the opportunities to learn, you must do as the parents of the boy in this article did. You must school him yourself until he hits the point where he can autodidactically learn anything he wants to, and then give him the resources to pursue that. There is no substitute for a smart, motivated parent, involved in his child's education.
He's half right; the article is obviously referring to an analogue of acceleration. If m:distance, m/s:velocity, m/s/s:acceleration;
GWhr:energy, GW:power, GW/hr: increase in power per unit time
Those efficient Germans must be rapidly ramping up their technology. At the rate they're going, they'll be able to power their whole country (423GW on average) within 19 hours!
In an ideal world I would tend to agree. However, that does limit the number of people who can vote to maybe 10% of people, if that. It's a hard sell.
Because they've had this "dream" pounded into their heads since the day of their birth by their equally-brainwashed mothers.
Because if your daughter is going to have kids, you want her to shack up with some loser who can't make a commitment in front of all his friends and family, and her friends and family. After that loser cuts and runs, your daughter will be trying to keep her kids clothed, fed, educated and inadequately protected by herself - and doing a half ass job of all of it. Unless your daughter is an amazon and has been training martial arts since age 5, she won't stand a chance vs the average male with bad intentions.
And sure, there are people out there whose commitment isn't worth the paper it's written on. In the old days before easy travel around the country (and world), they were shunned in the community and this had some effect. Now a woman needs to learn how to gauge whether her mate will honor his commitments. It's harder for sure. But marriage as an institution is still definitely a valuable institution for women, primarily those who will be having children. Such a woman is foolish in general for forsaking it. And a parent is foolish for not inculcating a desire for marriage in his/her daughter, especially knowing how silly some young women can be and the irrevocability of decisions such as having children to a non-committal loser.
Same deal with the perceived need to have kids. Gotta get those buns in the oven, you know. How many times have you seen mummy's little girl pushing along a wee toy pram with a wee baby doll in it? Who brought that damned and damning prop into the kid's life?
Honestly, what is the big problem with having kids? If we didn't have kids our species would die off. And anyone who has had kids knows that boys and girls are different, and on average have very different drives.
You've never heard of the term "clucky"? There is an instinct to want to have kids, too. May not be present in all animals though, just as there are some humans with an instinct for sex but no instinct to have children.
I would like to see XKCD's working out on both his "Tr0ub4dor&3" password and his "correctbatteryhorsestaple" password. What is the N and what is the L, and how did he come to that conclusion?
Nevertheless, using an English dictionary as a source of easily remembered, huge L is a good idea. Unfortunately most of the world limits passwords to something in the 8-20 character range, making this idea something of a Dvorak keyboard layout in terms of its superiority but general impracticality - as the world has standardized on a potentially inferior password creation idea. It's got more chance of catching on than Dvorak though, because there is no cost to each individual website or application enabling long passwords.
That being said, anyone using the password generation feature of a password manager will always have more bits per number of characters than the XKCD scheme.