Y2HH

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Nov 2, 2012 -> 11:29 AM) So first I need to upgrade to a 64-bit Windows 7 (I run Vista right now), and THEN I need to go buy 8 GB of RAM? God damnit, I'm going to use up all my Xmas funds to do all that. Ha. Pretty much this, also, your processor (and bios) has to support 64 bit systems in the first place. With the necessary upgrades you'd probably need, the previous poster is right, you'd probably be able to buy a newer machine with all of these things for less than the upgrades would cost. My recommendation would be to just live with what you have for now, so doing stuff will take a bit longer than on another system, it won't kill you. Save up for a fully upgraded machine instead of wasting money upgrading this one.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Nov 1, 2012 -> 10:02 PM) Yeah, I can get 8 GB off Amazon for like $100-115. I am just wondering if you guys think it will really make much of a difference in my video editting or not. Being a college kid, being able to afford it means asking for it for Xmas. Yes, memory makes a huge difference in video editing to a point. If you currently only have 4 gigs, doubling it will make video editing much faster/smoother. You have to remember that a large chunk of your current memory is already being used by the OS and other minor programs you may have running in the background. Having more than about 3 gigs also requires a 64 bit operating system, as part of that 4 gig barrier is taken up by gfx memory, too. For others above, older memory tends to cost much more than newer memory, as it's not made in large quantities, if at all anymore. For example, modern 1333mhz+ memory will be way cheaper than older 600mhz memory chips.

QUOTE (Brian @ Oct 24, 2012 -> 04:42 PM) A few times I have noticed my iPhone 5 not catching my at home wifi automatically and I have to go select it in settings. There is a known wifi bug in ios 6, slated to be fixed in ios 6.0.1. That said, the wifi bug is a pretty major oversight, because they changed something from 5 to 6 in the wifi code base, as devices that were working fine started having similar issues after updating. IMO, Apple has started making some major rush to market gaffes as of late, whether this has to do with new leadership or not I have no idea. Wasn't a fan of the minor spec bump of the iPad or the iPad mini running on 2 year old hardware. Then again the mini has a specific target audience I don't fall in, but the resolution was underwhelming IMO. I disliked reading on non retina displays.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 08:40 PM) Especially because you are spot on your argument. It used to be that software was ahead of hardware. Now its the opposite. Aside from most graphically intense of games and video editing, modern software doesn't come close to stressing processors unless somethings wrong with the application, especially when it comes to discussing tablets. A lot of people still have iPad2's, because they can still browse the web and read email just fine...which is what 99% of the world uses tablets for.

Breaking News: Donald Trump is an idiot.

QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 06:05 PM) uh oh, someones disagreeing with Y2HH about technology It's not a disagreement.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 05:47 PM) We're clearly talking about tablets and in tablets processors do matter. The difference between a 2 year old dual core and a Tegra 3 should be pretty noticeable. Again, they only matter to the point of necessity for the application at hand, INCLUDING tablets. The A5X in the iPad3 is *still* more than adequate for any software that exists, and will remain so for some time. That said, being that the new iPad with the A6X is the SAME PRICE, you'd obviously get that if you were in the market for a tablet, instead. But the point remains, for those that already own an A5X iPad, I would NOT recommend they upgrade for horsepower they don't yet need, and won't need for some time. Since nothing has yet crushed the A5X, the A6X remains unnecessary. A processor, for tablets in specific, are usually good for 2-3 years from release for the most avid of game players. The A5X is less than one year old.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 06:30 PM) I don't know if I call that being a horrible consumer. To someone who has an iPad 3 or the original new iPad, it doesn't make sense to make the jump to the newer new iPad. Now if you're choosing between the iPad 3 and iPad 4 and you have neither, then you should buy the iPad 4 and that would make you a horrible consumer. And the Galaxy Note II > iPad Mini. This is more in line with what I actually said.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 05:43 PM) So you're saying that you don't ever want to future-proof yourself and just buy whatever fits right now? That's called being a horrible consumer. No, that's not what I said at all.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 05:03 PM) Processors matter. Processors matter is a poor generalization. Of course they matter, but only so much, and only in specific instances. What are we talking about here? Let's take a timex watch for a quick illustration. It requires a 2mhz chip to operate every function on that specific device AT FULL SPEED. You dont need a quad core i7 in a timex. Simply saying "processors matter" with zero context is a meaningless statement. Tablets/phablets/phones only need so much horsepower to perform all the functions they can possibly perform. If we're talking about a workstation that has to render a 15 minute 1080P Pixar scene...ok, processors matter...and you have a point. If we're talking about a scaled down tablet designed for light web browsing, some reading and email...you don't.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:09 PM) Apple's Nexus 7 and iPad mini comparison was awful. Different price range ($200 vs. $320), different screen size. But Apple conveniently forgets to mention that you know...the Nexus 7 has a higher resolution on a smaller screen (50 more PPI), a quad core processor, and once again, is $130 cheaper. You can trick the average consumer, but you can't trick the people who know the specs. ...and once again specs mean almost nothing, which is a point you seem to continue to miss. They're not "tricking" anybody with spec sheets, as the device will perform just fine/as advertised. Aside from the most rabid of tech aficionados, spec sheets mean NOTHING to the consumer, and even to those of us that actually understand them. The ONLY question you should have about a device is can it do what YOU need it to do? If the answer is yes, the specs are fine...it's that simple. You don't need a quad core ivy bridge, 8 gigs of ram and 3 terabytes of disk if all you're going to do is browse the web and read email. This same logic applies to consumer devices like iPads, Nexus Tablets, Samsung Tab's, etc. Take the iPad34 (just released today) for a perfect illustration of this. It's 2 times faster than the iPad3 "New iPad"...the only problem is, the new iPad wasn't slow, and NOTHING available for it runs slow. Software MIGHT begin to supersede it's ability in another 2 years...but right now, it doesn't matter that the A6X iPad3/New iPad exists...the spec bump is absolutely meaningless in terms of necessary horsepower for the foreseeable future. By the time software makes the iPad3 slow, the iPad6 will be out. As for my opinion on the mini iPad: Meh. Overpriced, low resolution garbage. It's targeted at a person that wants to browse the web, read email, and have Apples app store at their avail in a smaller form factor than the current line of iPad3's, etc. That's all it is. If it's not for you, don't buy it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 09:49 AM) You do not need to be rich to run for local elections. My FIL has held local elected office for most of his adult life (and now has a full-time position). They were minor positions, but they can still have an impact if you want them to. However, if you're a staunchly conservative person and live in a strongly democratic area, well, that's democracy. I wouldn't expect my politics to be very successful in Alabama. No, but you do need to get on on the democratic ticket, which you cannot, it's already taken.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 09:43 AM) Making a joke about Walter Mondale, a 56 year old former Vice President, being young and inexperienced was a real election issue? I can get with you on the binders point, I guess... but it was just such an odd moment and just kinda puts an exclamation point on an idea that Romney is out of touch. But you can make the argument that bayonets and horses has to do with illustrating someone's fundamental understanding of how means of national defense changes over time. Just like firing Big Bird is supposed to be a symbol of not paying for things we can't afford, they do play to a larger point about the election. I'll admit, I'm totally biased in this election - but the thing that I have not seen from Romney is any sense about what he would actually do, because he's been very good - in the debates at least - of taking three sides on every issue. Obama has done this too, at times, but at least he has a record to run on. What I don't get about you is why you're in the bag for Obama. Who was against gay marriage until it suited him to be for it. How does that fact NOT annoy you? He's an opportunist...and you let him be.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 09:40 AM) I guess you can't vote for local and state politicians in Bridgeport? Weird! edit: or run for elected position yourself! Without that D next to your name, there is no point. If I was rich, I'd do exactly this, because I'd have the money/time to burn to do this. I'm not.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 09:40 AM) I guess you can't vote for local and state politicians in Bridgeport? Weird! I live in Clearing, so no, I can't. And not to spoil the ending for you...but the democrat will win, regardless if they even campaign or not. Hell, if a dead body could get a D next to his name on that ticket, they'd win.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 09:36 AM) hi kap! You don't necessarily need a third party to shift ideology. Look at the success the Tea Party had in shaping Republican ideas these past several years. You want more progressive (or conservative or whatever) politicians? Start local, start at the state level and begin building a bench of qualified, experienced politicians that share your positions. I'm still not sure if I'll vote for Obama or not, but I have that 'luxury' being in Illinois. A protest vote for the President could assuage my conscience, but it won't really send any message. And that's a big problem. You're vote, by and large, doesn't matter here. And start local with what? I can't form a political party that share my positions. That's not even a suggestion, so much as it is a brushoff because you have nothing to actually say here. That's like say, oh wow, you don't like Google, go build your own search engine! People that make suggestions like this should f***ing stab themselves in the neck.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 09:35 AM) No, that's what the smarmy liberals in this country do. Obama says stupid s*** all the time but conservative point it out, they don't make a joke about it. Thanks Jon Stewart. Jon Stewart is a comedian, the problem is a lot of people take him as a journalist. He's not.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 09:25 AM) If we're borrowing money, we're borrowing money. That malnourished kid isn't suffering because PBS also receives funding. If anything, PBS is likely the only source of educational programming that child has access to. While PBS and NPR would survive without the CPB and larger public stations like WBEZ and WTTW would continue on, many smaller stations would go under, depriving many Americans of access to some of the only decent programming on TV. Romney is mocked because his plan is a joke and his numbers are nonsense. He refuses to release any details except for cutting PBS. This is the new modern American attitude that got us where we are. Beneath a mount of unsustainable debt. We shouldn't be borrowing money for these things, that's the f***ing point. Keep racking up that credit card debt, citizen...you're doing an awesome job...just like the government you elect. That malnourished kid SHOULDN'T f***ING GOD DAMN EXIST IN THIS COUNTRY. That's the point. Spend the money we were going to give to PBS on feeding that kid. And while you're at it, buy him/her a stack of educational books. They don't need PBS to learn.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 09:25 AM) Romney is mocked because his plan is a joke and his numbers are nonsense. He refuses to release any details except for cutting PBS. There is no denying that. But even if his numbers weren't nonsense, he'd be mocked. Because that's what we do now.

To make it a finer point, it's not that we're mocking one or the other. Both parties take part in this kind of nonsense. They take something Romney or Obama said, ignoring their boarder point, and focus on the words they happened to use, even if they KNOW what they meant/how they meant it. This is what "political discourse" is today...then again, it's always been this way, I'm simply old enough to realize that now. That doesn't mean I have to accept it, just because it's long been accepted by people of the past. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class disappear...regardless of Democrats or Republicans having control. And the entire time, the politicians are part of the rich getting richer. Because, you know, they care about you. Keep voting them in, sheep. I'm not saying don't vote. Vote. Just don't vote for democrats or republicans. Start showing both parties how badly they're wrecking the place and SHOW them that a third party CAN and will take them down. Nope. Instead, what we get is more of the same.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 09:16 AM) And why was he being mocked? Because that's the only specific he's actually bothered to mention. He's mocked because democrats want to ignore the boarder point he made. And in this case, he actually DOES have a valid point. We are borrowing and spending on things like PBS that don't actually need help. It's corporate welfare. Sesame Street alone is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. But that malnourished kid that hardly eats when schools out...f*** him/her, we need to to fund Big Bird.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 09:12 AM) I find it to be fundamentally good, even if the jokes that come out are about smaller things. It's political discourse either way. You want politics to be in the mainstream. The catch is, politics are difficult to talk about and sometimes you need little quips if you want to keep things fresh. The nitty gritty is confusing, frustrating, and gets boring after it has been rehashed too much. You can only talk about it so much. You start dropping "big bird," "binders full of women," etc. and you not only keep the campaign in people's minds, you encourage people to find the source of these things. How many times are you going to read "binders full of women" on facebook before you figure out where it came from? You might read the context and find it very troubling that Romney specifically sought out some special woman as if he were trying to fill a quota or you might be so pleased that the guy you heard was anti-woman was trying to keep female company in his workplace. Our society values fun and that's awesome. Not only do we encourage open discussion about politics, we discuss it so much that we have to digress into humor to keep it fresh. We can make fun of people protected by the Secret Service and not find the Secret Service knocking at our door. I also don't think that all of these things are trivial when you look into them. "47%" - this was a huge thing going around and what an important thing to talk about. Am I in the 47%? What did he say about them? Do I like a system that results in such a number being able to be thrown around? "Big Bird" - Romney wants to cut PBS. By itself, this may be very important to some people and to others they will find it troubling that that is the largest specific budget cut he had shared to that point. "Binders full of women" - I touched on this. This will inform your opinion of that candidate's gender views one way or the other. "horses and bayonets" - This throws a wrench in the way we judge our military. It's an apt point that our military strength isn't so easily counted in numbers of things or dollars spent. It may also characterize one person as out of touch with the needs of our military if you see it that way. I think it summarized the debate very well as the two agreed on most everything, but at this moment and others it seemed they agreed because one person was simply learning from the other. These are the things that encourage discussion, turnout, thought, you name it. You might not like that everyone that participates in these catchphrases and buzzwords knows much, but they will know MORE as more of these things happen. To think that these things are the only things being talked about after the debates is also an oversimplification -- yet I'm happy that for the low-information folks, they're at least thinking SOMETHING about the debates and the election. Like I said, disingenuous at best. Romney doesn't want to cut PBS and only PBS, he wants to cut spending in areas that can easily sustain themselves without public funds, because...well...we don't have money as it is for basic services such as the homeless, starving children, or health care. Maybe when those far more important problems are solved we can start funding things like PBS again. THAT was his point. His point wasn't that he wants to cut Big Birds head off as you -- and many others -- keep making it sound.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 09:11 AM) Serious question, don't we expect workforce participation to be dropping off with the baby boomers bubble? No, not at all. Population growth should nullify that in every regard. There are more people in the workforce now, in spite of the retiring boomers. For every boomer that retires, they're SHOULD be 8 people to replace them. So again. No, we shouldn't be seeing workforce participation dropping.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 09:08 AM) There is substantive criticism behind mocking Mitt's Big Bird and binders and "we have less ships than 1916!" Most of that is taking what he said out of context, or misunderstanding what he meant when he said it in the first place, and then trying to criticize it. It's twisted logic at best, and disingenuous in the least. What it actually is, is exactly what I said it was: People screaming look at me in an era of media attention...but not actually adding anything to the conversation. Exactly like what we have going on right here, right now.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 09:00 AM) I'm sorry but this is a total crock of bulls***. There actually was some definite substantive things being discussed in that debate, and I think it gave people who paid attention a good idea about the differences between the two candidates. The foreign policy debate is likely to be the most substantial in all the debates on a general sense, because there is a less of an opportunity for posturing. What does anyone remember from the 80 debates: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" What does anyone remember from the 84 debates: "My candidate's youth and inexperience" What does anyone remember from the 88 debates: "You are no Jack Kennedy" We remember one liners because they are one liners, and just because we remember a specific quote, it doesn't mean that people who watch debates don't take away things of value, or even a general sense of where the candidates stand. The problem isn't the debates, its the fact that over the last twenty plus years that the reporting has become all about the horserace and not about the policy differences themselves. How do we fix it? Start consuming the media that focuses on the substance and not the style. Sorry we disagree that it's a crock of bulls***. But, we agree on the bolded part -- which is exactly WHY my post isn't bulls***, but truth. There IS substantive issues to discuss from these debates, and my entire point of that post was simple: nobody is f***ing discussing them, because they're too busy discussing Big Bird, etc. So, while trying to dismiss my post as bulls***, you actually proved it was true.