Comment Re:only 1000%? (Score 2, Insightful) 14
Actually, no, it's 11 times as many as normal.
"100% higher than normal" = 2 times as many as normal.
"1000% higher than normal" = 11 times as many as normal.
Linux Kernel 2.6.32 Released 195
diegocg writes "Linus Torvalds has officially released the version 2.6.32 of the Linux kernel. New features include virtualization memory de-duplication, a rewrite of the writeback code faster and more scalable, many important Btrfs improvements and speedups, ATI R600/R700 3D and KMS support and other graphic improvements, a CFQ low latency mode, tracing improvements including a 'perf timechart' tool that tries to be a better bootchart, soft limits in the memory controller, support for the S+Core architecture, support for Intel Moorestown and its new firmware interface, run-time power management support, and many other improvements and new drivers. See the full changelog for more details."
DX11 Tested Against DX9 With Dirt 2 Demo 201
MojoKid writes "The PC demo for Codemasters' upcoming DirectX 11 racing title, Dirt 2, has just hit the web and is available for download. Dirt 2 is a highly-anticipated racing sim that also happens to feature leading-edge graphic effects. In addition to a DirectX 9 code path, Dirt 2 also utilizes a number of DirectX 11 features, like hardware-tessellated dynamic water, an animated crowd and dynamic cloth effects, in addition to DirectCompute 11-accelerated high-definition ambient occlusion (HADO), full floating-point high dynamic range (HDR) lighting, and full-screen resolution post processing. Performance-wise, DX11 didn't take its toll as much as you'd expect this early on in its adoption cycle."
Bit-tech also took a look at the graphical differences, arriving at this conclusion: "You'd need a seriously keen eye and brown paper envelope full of cash from one of the creators of Dirt 2 to notice any real difference between textures in the two versions of DirectX."
Comment Re:One simple question (Score 1) 729
But you could never *prove* that the pattern you had found would continue forever... unlike 1/3 where it's quite easy to prove that all digits will be "3".
(Similar to another poster, who mentioned calculating the decimal digits of 1/infinity - they would, of course, all be nought).
And if you really want a reason for calculating digits of pi, I recommend reading "Contact" (a novel) by Carl Sagan. I won't give a spoiler, but essentially: What if we found some pattern in the digits which had some meaning in the context of pi itself? or a message of some sort?
("Contact" does also raise the point of trying not decimal digits, but other bases).
