Cue the gibs vs jibs Quake/John Carmack pronunciation argument from 1996

There's been an ongoing doctoral study in (at?) the University of Miami for about a decade now, it's a futures market where you can buy and sell futures of whether or not the hurricane will hit a particular region. I think it's still going on, but the idea was to see if the free market could accurately predict weather phenomenon among other things.

Maybe it's a cultural thing, but everyone I know here in America lets phone calls go to VM if it's not from a number they recognize. Even more so if they have google voice because then you don't even have to listen to it.

I'm sure the new Xbox 720 that's coming in fall/winter/xmas 2013 will have a bunch of "hot new titles" which will end up with PC ports... Borderlands 3, Skyrim 2, Quake 5, Halo 5, Gotham Racing 9 etc etc which will all require DX 11.1a because that's what will be the native environment for the Xbox 720 dev kits. The 360 will forever support DX9 which is largely why PCs weren't affected by DX10 etc due to the huge number of console ports. Once DX11 is enshrined as the new console standard, there'll be a bigger rush for computer owners to be in compliance so that they can play the latest and greatest games.

Yes, I pointed out in the very first sentence of the post you replied to that this is what they did with Vista.
 
-1, low content
-1, redundant

And yet in your example, the developers still felt the need to clearly label in ALL CAPS which one was which.

EA and Activision both predate Quake 1 by a number of years. It's not as if the game industry popped up overnight and delivered us the Xbox 360 and PS3, followed shortly by lolcats and image macros on Reddit. Fallout 3 is not built on a new IP, nor is Quake 4 or Skyrim for that matter. John Carmack was making smart commentary about the gaming industry in his .plan files almost two decades ago.
 
I see that you're trying to make a point... but I think you need to reach back about ten years prior to the era you're thinking of.

Supposedly the big draw for Vista was the coming of DX10 and all that entailed. Side by side comparisons of DX9 vs DX10 were so minor the magazines (yes, those still existed in 2006) had to draw red circles around the detail, they made wireframe renders of DiRT so you could see all the extra triangles in the flags and water... that you couldn't see without the help, along with paragraphs explaining how what you couldn't see was so high tech.
 
I certainly can't tell the difference between DX10 and DX11, and 11.1a has got to be so minor as to be ignored by developers -- why would you want to alienate your customer base like that? Like microsoft, they're in the business to make money too. Whatever gains were had with the tessellation improvements in DX10 were offset by the improvements in technology; it's just too hard to tell the difference between DX versions these days.
 
Has rendering technology finally matured?

Slippery Slope Argument.
 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Science Stars are better than NASA's current PR strategy. Go watch SpaceX coverage of a rocket launch, then go watch NASA's coverage some time. Night and day.

Antique vehicles start at 1982 here in Texas (30 years). Cadillacs already had electronic diagnostic software by then (starting in 1979, I think). EFI on other GM vehicles wasn't far behind after the gas crisis. The venerable BMW E30 has had it's computer well mapped, but it's very primitive compared to what is going in to cars now. A ten year old 750i is only worth about $1200, nobody is going to pay a BMW dealership at dealership rates to diagnose it in twenty more years.

I'm not even sure how you could post a story about AMD, what with it's recent decline this entire last decade, and not directly compare them to intel.
 
Are these even desktop or server chips? It's been so long since I bought AMD, I really couldn't tell you which line Piledriver sits in anymore, or if they've consolidated them.
 
The general gist I've read is that AMD is cheaper than Intel, and in the past has been "more green" due to power consumption, but with Ivy Bridge, your bang for the buck and much, much smaller lithography process has given intel the advantage in both areas.

Alternately, a visual inspection is impossible to see any cracks except those on the surface (without specialized x-ray equipment). Second, these are giant parts that must be baked at high temperatures. While I'm sure they're quite good at it, the total number of commercial jetliners flying around using this technology is under a thousand - problems in the construction can crop up over time. As I said, this is the first model. I'm sure the second, and particularly third family of jets will be particularly safe and well designed - for exactly the reasons you pointed out.

Ah, Anonymous Coward, we meet again! This is where I link to two very amusing CF stress test videos
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xreZdUBqpJs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrjId0-K-Ts
 
Hooray for science and/or standardized testing based on Real Science.
 
On that first video, skip ahead to the 5 minute mark where they're just beating the frame against a concrete wall/corner.

First American carrier to use an american-built plane made mostly of composite materials.
 
Don't get me wrong, Carbon Fiber is absurdly strong, and computer models help negate design flaws.... but CF's failure mode tends to be sudden and...explosive. Steel bends long before it breaks, and Aluminum is somewhere in the middle, but CF just.... goes when it fails. I think Airbus has been including CF on their tail fins for a while (with some failures) and the technology is supposedly mature... but it's hard to ignore Aluminum's nearly 100 year reputation. Maybe I'm just getting old.