Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Banner advertising on our site currently available from just $5!


1. Learn about the promo. 2. Sign up for GDNet+. 3. Set up your advert!


Pouya

Member Since 06 Feb 2000
Offline Last Active Jan 24 2011 11:00 PM

Topics I've Started

'Undo' feature in Explorer...

17 December 2005 - 08:01 AM

This is not an anti-Windows rant or anything, I just really hate this 'undo' thing in Explorer, and want to know if there's a way to disable it. Ok, so the feature isn't as annoying if you turn off your computer every night. But for my case, I've been logged in since 9/9/05. (Yes, that means my windows box has been up for over 3 months) I just accidentally pressed ctrl-Z while I was doing something. It undid something, probably from a couple of weeks ago. I have no idea what it did, and how I would redo it. There was probably a good reason why I did whatever it was that I did back then, and now Explorer has nicely gone back and undone it for me... You're probably laughing at me right now, but I would really like my files to go back to the state they were before the undo. Right now, Explorer has "Undo Rename" in the menu, and I can't remember the last time I renamed something. Though, I'm quite sure there was a reason behind that rename.

[Canada] What do you think of Harper's latest talk about cancer?

10 December 2005 - 09:23 AM

Stephen Harper promised this morning to develop a nation wade cancer repository. linky if you haven't read it already. The proposal is to put 250 million dollars to make a computer system for keeping records of cancer patients and treatments and allowing doctors to share their experiences with each other. A national cancer database is a good idea in my opinion, but his "promise" is just plain stupid. We already have many of such databases in hospitals (although there's no unique national one) and finding and sharing information has been taking place on these systems all the time. This amount of money is either too much, or too small, depending on how you look at it. If he's promising just the development and maintenance of the system, it's too much money. If he's promising a full research network for researching cancer treatment, it's not enough money (have in mind it's a 5 year plan) and redundant. To me, this sounds like a completely empty promise. Unless someone can convince me that this money is necessary and sufficient for doing this program.

Redirecting mailto: links to webmail?

07 December 2005 - 05:40 AM

Ok, I'll make the problem brief: I hate it when I click on a link and it ends up being a mailto: one and outlook express pops up. The outlook starts bitching at me "hey, why don't you set up your mail account now?" ... well, I don't want to set it up, go away. Is there a way to redirect all such links to like pop up a bew browser window and open a (pre-configured) URL so that I can use the webmail site to compose a reply?

Wow, Americans are against climate talks?

06 December 2005 - 11:14 AM

Atricle So the summary is that Canada is inviting 189 nations for a 2 year sceintific talk on what to do to reduce greenhouse emissions. US rejected participating in it rightaway. As I understand, US was one of the countries who was hit the hardest by the recent global warming issues. 2005 was a record hurricane year, as well as being the warmest one in record, and US was hit really badly by this flood of hurricanes this year. Why would you still go against reducing the greenhouse effects if you were the one who is suffering from it the most? The article also mentions that US is responsible for a quarter of the greehouse gas emissions in the world. I understand that the dependency on oil is extremely difficult to eliminate, and it makes sense that the government doesn't want to jump into replacing it all of a sudden because of the extreme cost of it. But at least you need to start somewhere. Why do they even refuse to get started on it and carry it out over a long term plan?

Small rant about video card benchmarks

21 November 2005 - 12:38 PM

Ok, so some of you might know that benchmarks for a new graphics card was released today. I'm not going to name any cards or manufacturers at all, mostly because I don't care who made which and what the name is. The rant is about the "comparisons" themselves, not the cards. So I'll call this new card A, and the market competitor B. They run some abstract benchmarks, and several different games on each card. Ok, that's fair, you need to look at all the angles of something. Then they try different settings and resolutions for each game, allright, that's fair too, because you need to know whether one of them is significantly better than the other one in a certain task. First problem: They fail to show which one is better at different tasks "Ok, so card B did 5% better than card A when tuning up to maximum aniso, and card A did 2% better when tuning up to maximum AA" I'm sorry, but that doesn't tell me shit. Then they run absolutely useless benchmarks: "We used game X at 2048x1536x32 resolution, with 4x anti aliasing and 16x anisotropic filtering. Card A did 11 frames per second, and card B did 14" What does that tell me? It tells me: Don't run a game at those settings. Could you get any more unrealistic than that? And then most of these benchmarks have stupid conclusions such as "oh card X gives you better bang for your bucks" No, it doesn't. It's like telling me that a Ferrarri gives me a better speed to cost ratio than a Lamborghini. No, they're both total waste of money for me. My Nissan gets me to my destination in exact same time as the other 2 would, and I paid 30 times less money for it. Now, here's what I think they should really write in their articles: - Does the card do my job for me without hiccups? - Is it going to be a pain to install and setup? - Is it going to suck up as much electricity as my microwave oven? - Is it going to annoy the hell out of me by putting flashing stuff all over the place and clogging my systray and memory resources to be "hardcore gamer?" - Can I get a card that does the same task (at realistic settings) for me at a better price? Unfortunately, if the hardware sites wanted to do a proper comparison of the cards, then they wouldn't get all that funding from video card makers for their penis size contests. Oh, one more thing: "But I'm a hardcore gamer and that extra 1.5 fps at high resolution and amx settings is really important to me." No, it's not important to you. You won't even notice it. How about you try to pass grade 8 this time? Ok, I'm done ranting :)

PARTNERS