The first time you load each game, it will load slowly.
If you close and reload a game, it will load quickly.
If you close a game, load another game, then load the first game it will load slowly again.
Um, not necessarily. It doesn't need to load the entire 5Gb of the game in order to provide good caching response. If you played the entire game, then exited, played the entirety of another game and *then* came back to the first then, yes, it *might* load slowly again.
However, if you load a game, play a level (or even a few), exit play another game for a level and went back to the first it is highly probable that your previous session will still be cached, but loading the next level *might* be slow (depending on what textures and other data are needed to load). 8Gb is actually quite a lot of data as far as individual programs/games go, so 8 or even 16gb of cache goes a long way towards speeding load times as well as accessing textures on the fly.
That said, there are many games and applications that just routinely hammer the drive. Which is why on my system I have a SSD for certain games and a caching HDD for others. There is practically no noticeable difference playing games from different drives as long as you understand what each program/games needs are and store it appropriately. How do you determine this prior to installing? Good luck with that. I haven't been able to determine beforehand where to install so I move things around as needed when I notice too much latency. Personally, anything that is twitchy I put on the SSD just, well just because.
The UK handgun ban is largely irrelevant given how rare UK handgun ownership was to begin with. Even if it was then looking at how gun crime stats change immediately after a ban rather than over a longer period and in context of other events is pointless.
I went back 30 years prior to the ban (when the Home Office still had those records). The only drastic increase both prior and since was in 1997-2002. Their violent crime literally doubled in 5 years. Prior to '97 their crime increase was marginal to nonexistent, pretty much in line with population increase. There was no reason for the explosion of crime in that period. It was pretty much unprecedented.
They have since brought their crime back down to at or below 1997 levels (as a percentage of pop), but the gun ban did not work as intended. There were numerous MPs that were absolutely livid about the statistical numbers when they came out in 2002, but nothing ever came of it and any attempts to reverse the ban were defeated.
Yes, UK gun ownership was always low and gun murder (actually murder in general) low as well. The fact that it doubled immediately after the ban, while I cannot claim causation, cannot be dismissed lightly and putting the UK as a good example of gun control at work is disingenuous at best. To this day they are still dealing with massive numbers of illegal guns in the hands of criminals.
I had a brief look at the stats - i live in the uk, where pistols are completely illegal to own, and shotgun and rifle possession is rare and heavily regulated. Policemen carry a truncheon! Murder rates in the uk are 1.2(per 100k population per year) Murder rates in the US are 4.7(ditto) Simple?
You left out the fact that after 1997, when the UK implemented its handgun ban, murders with handguns doubled over the next 5 years (not that they were all that high to begin with). Violent crime doubled and violent crime with firearms (not including air-weapons) quadrupled. (Home Office Statistical Bulletin Jan 2002). The UK has *always* had low murder rates both prior to and after your ban, but it took close to 12 years after your ban was put in place to get your murder rates back down to where they started prior to 1997. That is not exactly a shining example of gun control done right. That is also not mentioning the fact that the UK press estimates 4-5 million illegal guns on the streets in the UK as well as the fact that they did a survey and 1 in 5 Brits know where to get a gun if they need one. Again, not the shining example of working gun control.
How do you know it's not government cheese?
Because it just sits there all day, doing nothing and is of no real use....errr hmmm, you may have a point there.
Not only silly FUCKING annoying. The dogs tail sets of the Kinect all the time and worse when I was playing Skyrim **FUCKING DIALOGUE** activated commands in the game.
All I want from Kinect is a Gesis style visualizer for music with interaction.
Saw this little idea on another site (wish I could take credit for it, but meh). Sony creates new ad campaign. Ad starts out with "XBox, Off!"
Troll level - Over 9000!!
and a couple ex-girlfriends
Speaking of your ex-gf, how IS your sister doing
Hey, you leave my wif...err sister out of this.
I think it will be *least* popular in West Virginia...don't ask, don't tell XD
Hey, I have relatives in West Virginia you insensitive clod!
This weird criminal somehow has 50 GB * 1,000,000 = 47.6 petabytes of enterprise storage? Without getting one dollar? How is this paid for? Not to mention all the data traffic back and forth which will be even more expensive?
Depending on the backend SAN he has, you can use thin-provisioning since there will not be a demand from all users for the entirety of their storage immediately. He can install 50 or so TB, provision that out then add the rest as needed, when needed. The user will see 50gb available but until they actually upload a certain percentage of that they don't actually have that amount of storage. Since the vast majority won't be uploading that in the near term he can do this until there is a demand for it.
Even adding in duplication for backups that only means 100TB. 100TB SAN is not that expensive actually. Since this is storage and not active access you can load it up with inexpensive 1TB SATA disks vs FC.