Dr. Tyler; Captain America

sounds like a buying opportunity to me!

get a job with the government; they'll pay for your certs. most entry level tech support jobs don't pay too poorly (i think people at my office start out around 40k) and they'll pay for your certs, which opens you up to automatic promotion within your company or set you up with a competitive resume to apply outside of it. i didn't have any certs when i got my job; all i did was throw around a few phrases that implied i knew what i was talking about in the interview. what i'd do if i were you is to look at contracting companies (NOT TEMP COMPANIES, big difference) that deal with local/state/federal government and get on board with them. just hound them until they interview you; it's actually very easy, from my experience with the dolts we hire, to get on with these companies once you finally get the interview. job security is meh, especially on a contractors' basis, but if it's between shelling out fricking 25 grand or rolling the dice with your company losing the contract, it's no contest.

make sure you're running this on an administrator account. if the operating system is a problem, that'd be an easy solution (to explain, anyway), but i've seen errors like that pop up when a user has UAC on or is using a limited account. try that, and if not, it sounds like you have bigger issues anyways. good luck.

dude, they stole my keyboard. it's a war zone in here.

i'm getting paid 55k to sit on my ass and pretend to fix computers that i don't actually have the permissions to fix. i think the defense department could tighten up shop a little bit.

what operating system are you using

i love poker, but i'm pretty bad at it. i've got a winrate of, give or take, -2 big bets per 100 hands. maybe it's because i overvalue top pair, maybe it's because i'm not too keen at math, but over my lifetime, i've lost money and i'm finally going to go broke if you don't stake me. this is due directly to my bad decisions. there are other people in my industry that are making a decent amount of money, but i've shown that i cannot sustain my bankroll because i kinda suck at it. someone plz paypal me $2000. [email protected]

here's a tough one. maroney's obviously been an awful fantasy player this year, considering i fucking drafted him in the first round, and he's no guarantee to play this week (although he's been practicing -- albeit limitedly), but he's got the potential to blow up and drop like 400 yards on the terrible browns defense. jacobs is no guarantee to get the majority of the carries, but he's probably at least going to split time with ward, and he's going to play this week. he was also supposed to be pretty good this year, obviously, if he didn't get a papercut on his god damned finger and crumble like a coffee cake in week one. WHO WOULD YOU PICK!?

Pens need to keep playing D like this if they've got any hope in the playoffs.

It really depends on what you're doing. If you're browsing the internet and typing in Word, no, you won't notice a difference. However, you won't really notice the difference between one gig and two, either. But, if you're playing games, you will notice the difference. On the other hand, either way, you're going to bottleneck. A computer is only as good as its weakest part, so you have to keep that in mind. Core 2 Duo is, by far, the best line of processor out there. But there's no point in getting an extremely expensive system that has a shitty video card, or 512mb of RAM, or a Sempron or something. FYI: Turion's are notebook CPUs. If you're looking for a notebook that can game, be prepared to drop 3k, because you're not going to be able to play anything worth a shit on integrated GPU anyway.

I haven't had a single problem with Firefox 2. I've used it on four different machines.

You're probably right, I'm not going to argue with it because mine was based entirely on assumption. All I know is that I remember thinking I was gonna go and grab an Xbox because I wanted to mod it and I went home thinking it was way too expensive for my tastes. I have no reason to believe your pricing info is wrong though. I don't ever remember seeing it at $150, but that's entirely anecdotal. Again, though, my scenario for Sony seizing the market is based entirely on speculation; if they don't drop the process size further and they don't drop their prices down, they're obviously going to lose. It was a huge mistake to release the PS3 when they couldn't even turn a profit on it, and that alone makes them deserve to lose this generation's console war. But, this isn't a hopeless scenario for Sony, either, because there's a very real possibility that a year from now, they could be dominating the market if they play their cards right.

-- The problem there is that there's no such thing as a future-proof system. It took less than a year for the 360 to become pretty much old tech, at least when compared to the PS3 and PC platforms. -- $500 is derived from the fact that nobody's going to buy a system that costs more than it. Really, it's obviously lower, as in approximately what the 360 currently costs. That was simply a rhetorical device. -- Also, Ripper, you completely misinterpreted the Intel model. They essentially benefited from the fact that they could run simultaneous development teams that ran with one radical departure from the norm (the failed Pentium 4/Pentium D model that AMD feasted upon) and one incremental vehicle that eventually became so cost-efficient and effective that they could afford to put out chips like the e6600 that outperform $1000 AMD chips. AMD and Intel previously weren't selling such expensive chips for their health, that was literally what it was costing them to make the damn things. Intel's price war, indeed, has to do with cutting prices so dramatically that they bump AMD out of the market, but they're still able to pull a small profit out of it because the cost of producing them dropped exponentially with the smaller process. -- Sony may make this a moot point anyway if 65nm is their final step; I'm speculating entirely on the idea that if they're willing to look into smaller process size once, they might do it again in a year. -- The XB was always the stronger system, but they could never really reach parity; it was still $300 and $250 when PS2 was $200 and $150. I doubt XB360 is going to drop similarly, unless they don't ever plan on fully integrating HD-DVD support, in which case PS3 will win the HD gaming crown and create their own niche market.

Another FWIW: Blu-Ray beating HD-DVD will play a huge role in the race in the next year or so, if the trend continues. Not saying it will or not, but there's a fairly significant market of people who are buying the PS3 because it's the cheapest Blu-Ray player on the market. And, oh yeah, it can play games 'n' shit.

Just based on how Intel has taken control of the processor market, you can sort of see where the situation is going if Sony is smart. Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, is slow to adapt to the times; I'm not saying you should upgrade a console, necessarily, because that would be stupid for game development and whatnot. But, when you look at how Intel has been able to slash prices so absurdly to try to force AMD out of the market, it's been effective and they're still making a decent profit off of it. The key to their dominance has been switching over to a 65nm process, which essentially made it cheaper to make chips that are just as powerful as the 90nm ones that AMD was putting out. If Sony continues that trend and IBM makes a 45nm cell processor to put in the next gen of PS3s (Intel has the 45nm's in production right now, ready to drop in Q1 2008, so I can't imagine IBM is too far behind -- about a year, perhaps, which was the basis of my prediction), they're going to be able to drop the price below that magic $500 mark. As the rest of the components -- specifically Blu-Ray -- age and cheapen as well, you'll probably see the XB360 and PS3 at financial parity, and ultimately, the stronger system is going to win. You might be right in that the XB360 will have a larger established customer base by then, but I'm pretty confident that PS3 will have a longer shelf life than XB360, just based on the technology. For what it's worth, the XB360 is based on computer technology that's been obsolete for a while now. The cell processor can still hold its own against the latest gen, albeit it'll probably fail against the higher end chips, like all consoles.

Generally, it's very smart to shop around between TigerDirect, NewEgg, FrozenCPU (for more specialty/cooling parts), and ZipZoomFly to find the best deal. They usually have sales that are exclusive to the store.

Give it about a year and Sony will probably be back on top. I didn't see the article posted here, but this is a significant development for Sony: http://www.dailytech.com/IBM+Shrinks+Cell+...article6454.htm Give it a few more months, and those 65nm processes will start using a 45nm process. The cell engine will become cheaper and cheaper for Sony to produce, and as BluRay becomes cheaper to produce as well, they'll be able to drop the price of the system some and make a larger profit off of it. I expect XB360 to stay up with the shrinking processor game, but at the same time, eventually the power of the cell processor is going to win the day for this gen.

www.newegg.com

My point is that basically, stuff is getting so cheap nowadays that you can afford to go with a reasonably priced 2gb ddr2-800 kit and a bit of a "slower" processor and still get outstanding performance. It's not a situation where it has to be one to the exclusion of the other; if you're running games, 2GB will be absolutely fine. You'll rarely come across an app that will bottleneck at 2GB; normally, the GPU will be the bottleneck. If you're building now, get an 8800 GTS. If you're waiting a few months, go for the 8800 still (it'll drop in price once ATI's next gen drops) or if you want to go top of the line, go for either ATI's newest offerings (going to be the x2900 series) or the next Nvidia offerings (8950 will be the highest, probably). You can run a 1.88 ghz C2D e4300 at 3.15 ghz without breaking a sweat, and I highly recommend it.

Get an e4300 and overclock it. Seriously, these chips are so ridiculously overclockable, you can hit speeds of up to 3.2ghz on stock vcores by just upping the FSB. I just built an e4300 rig with a Gigabyte GA-965p-DS3 motherboard and this thing frickin' flies. Also, RAM isn't that important, no matter what anyone tells you. Try to get a midpriced DDR2-800 kit, two gigs or so, and spend the money you save on a beefy graphics card (NV 8800 GTS 320mb is the value leader right now) if you want this for gaming. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16819115013 -- C2D e4300, if you wait until the end of April, the price will drop to about $130. I highly reccomend the 4300 versus the 6300, since the 6300's multiplier is lower, which means you have to buy more expensive RAM if you want it to hit its potential. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820231098 -- G.SKILL 2GB of DDR2-800. Cheap stuff, but good timings and very good overclocking ability. Overclockers love this shit. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16813128012 -- GA-965P-DS3 I love this motherboard. Pretty cheap 965p board, and it overclocks like a mother. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814130038 -- EVGA 8800 GTS. VERY fast card, you won't need anything better right now unless you're running absurd resolutions, like 1900x1200 or something. All of this stuff is pretty much on sale, and I used this exact setup on a build last week. Throw a Thermalright Ultra-120 HSF on that 4300 and you can OC it to 3.2 without even hitting 50 degrees C. It's amazing that you can build such a good computer for so cheap nowadays, I'd highly reccomend everyone who has the ability to upgrade to do it in the next year as dual cores get even cheaper. Quad cores nowadays are highly, highly unnecessary, but since they're the market standard, the dual cores are dropping in price.

Roethlisberger also threw at least one good pass. Can't really say the same for Rexie, except maybe in garbage time.

Honestly, I think the coaching staff is more to blame than the D itself for the coverage. It was completely a schematic choice, and it was a poor one. As you saw, Harrison and Wayne were largely bottled up on the outsides. The cover two was working to an extent, but a LB simply cannot cover as much ground as a DB, and when you're hemorrhaging yards like that on D -- ESPECIALLY on third down -- it seems logical to everyone but Ron Rivera that you should lock up the slot in man coverage. Additionally, it's always been the book on Manning that if you get pressure on him, he will suffer. Thus, when he played the Ravens, he was terrible. In the beginning of the Pats game, he was getting pressured and was ineffective. Then, they backed off and he played better. The Bears, meanwhile, were effective when they blitzed him as well! Even the dimbulb announcers could see that. You don't blitz on every play, granted, but you've got to find a way to put pressure on Peyton and their D-Line wasn't getting it done. So, what do you do? Nothing? Sounds brilliant! I can see why Ron Rivera is one of the most sought after assistants in the game; his schemes are so dumb, they're brilliant!

The strangest thing about the Bears D is that they refused to go to a nickel to cover the slot. Inevitably, every time the Colts went three wide or put Dallas Clark in the slot, they'd drop their OLB to cover him or bring the safety up, which would open the flat for Addai to get a medium/large gainer. It was frustrating to watch, because their scheme completely did them in. Once Indy got to the 2Q, the Bears D was already playing passive and catching tackles. It was an overall poor effort by an inferior team. In retrospect, it was reminiscent of how they tried to cover Steve Smith in the NFC Divisional loss last year. Instead of adjusting to what was going on around them, they continued to single cover him and play a straight cover two. That worked real well last time; why not try it again?!

You're ignoring the fact he forgot how to take a snap from center.

What game were YOU watching? The first ball was forced into double coverage and was a wobbler. The entire group I was watching the game with muttered some variation of "that's a pick" the second he released the ball for the Sanders interception. It wasn't even a good play by Sanders; Berrian was running past the coverage, and Grossman hurled a punt. It was reminiscent of when Bubby Brister used to quarterback the Steelers. What a wretched game. The first quarter had it shaping up to be an exciting, anything-can-happen type of game, but it turned into one of the biggest snoozefests this side of Oak-TB. Grossman was pathetic. How do you fumble two snaps in the biggest game of your life? I mean, really! It's not that hard to receive the ball from center; even I can do it. Even in the rain. Not that hard.