In other words how many false positives were output along with this?
And how many false negatives?
One successful detection of an outbreak is meaningless. This is like how everybody claimed frogs had predicted the earthquake in China a few years ago.
To judge the success of this system, we need three pieces of information:
* How many outbreaks has this system actually flagged?
* How many outbreaks has this system missed (false negatives)?
* How many outbreaks has this system flagged that turned out not to be (false positives)?
I think it really depends on the game. I've seen this go both way where the i7s significantly outperform the i5s, and vice versa. The other advantage of a faster CPU is that it will open up so that the graphics card is sure to be performing at full potential.
This site shows the i7 leading the i5 in most games by a tiny-to-small margin
http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules... (random site I found on Google search):
Ultimately I think the big win for the i5 is you get nearly identical performance of an i7 (for a game), but for a much greater value. I have never read, other than your comment, that hyper-threading is a performance hit. I would love if you could point to some post / site with more info backing that claim. Cheers.
I think his point is that fingerprint and DNA false positives dont lead to a suspect that looks like what a witness saw. Whereas facial regonition false positives almost guarantee that the person will at least look similar to what the witness saw. Thus for facial recognition, the witness-as-a-confirmation is not as compelling. It's almost the same piece of evidence, rather than two corroborating pieces.
Don't you remember? It was right there in the article.
The Swedish Chef has started a new crypto currency.
I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.