Messages

226

/dev/random / Re: sickest thing u have seen or heard

« on: August 27, 2010, 04:43:40 PM »

Shotgun blast to the face at a distance of maybe 10 feet.

Oh, I see.  I presume you're referring to something not viewed on a computer screen.  I assumed you were referring to another shock video.

227

/dev/random / Re: sickest thing u have seen or heard

« on: August 27, 2010, 04:13:35 PM »

Have you seen this video?

Yes, I have seen the video. I can't say that I find it to be particularly shocking. I've seen worse.

What have you seen that you consider worse?  I'm curious.

228

/dev/random / Re: sickest thing u have seen or heard

« on: August 27, 2010, 03:54:18 PM »

Murder = entertainment. Welcome to the 21st century.

Have you seen this video?

229

/dev/random / Re: sickest thing u have seen or heard

« on: August 27, 2010, 02:45:36 PM »

Has anybody seen 3guys1hammer?  This is the sickest thing that I decided not to fully view.  Definitely appears to be the worst thing on the internet I could have potentially watched. 

I heard about it first today looking up "chechclear", an old gore/shock video that I had seen for the first time years ago (very disturbing/graphic), and saw a note mentioning 3guys1hammer.  I looked it up, and watched maybe 30 seconds of it and decided I didn't need to view it.

230

/dev/random / Re: Hot bitches

« on: August 21, 2010, 03:33:15 PM »

omg Kelly Brook... surprised she hasn't been mentioned yet

231

/dev/random / Re: The last movie you saw....

« on: August 21, 2010, 07:47:34 AM »

BEST SHORT MOVIE EVER MADE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcwi_hmhxGs

100000000/10!

 

I actually watched that.  You tricked me!  Why would you do such a thing?  That was the worst thing I've ever seen.  You're heartless.  How dare you!

I saw Salt recently too.  Another "meh" movie.  It was reasonably entertaining overall, I suppose.  Scrawny Angelina kicking guys asses is a tough one for me to buy.  Worth seeing I suppose, but only if it's free.

232

FFA Demos / Re: dm1 ffa

« on: August 18, 2010, 11:46:51 AM »

coulda been quad ssg too.. since you're talking about the DM server..

if you survive the hit, it'll throw you pretty well.

In this scenario, if I had to take a wild guess, I'd guess it would throw you about FOUR times as far as normal.  Don't ask me where I come up with these crazy figures.

233

/dev/random / Re: The last movie you saw....

« on: August 14, 2010, 04:09:45 AM »

Reservoir Dogs... had never seen it.  Eh, hmm... maybe a 6.5/10?  I know its one of the more acclaimed movies out there, but I wasn't all that impressed.  The acting was pretty good overall, but I guess the story, for me, wasn't that amazing.  Had some cool scenes (EAR, OUCH!), but wasn't the amazing movie-watching experience I thought it might be.

234

/dev/random / Re: Hot bitches

« on: August 08, 2010, 05:56:22 PM »

I came across this one...

I bet you did... really though, TMI!

235

1337 Frag Demos / Re: Blaster mega denial

« on: August 06, 2010, 05:37:24 AM »

That was awesome.  Looked like he was a fraction of a step away from getting mega too =)

236

Quake / Re: looking to upgrade

« on: August 01, 2010, 10:37:24 PM »

I was under the impression the conversation had transitioned to overclocking in general.  I'll quote myself from a few posts ago

getting a dedicated graphics card would really be the safer and better solution

I agree =)

I was agreeing with you that for Alpha's situation, his top priority would be to ditch the onboard graphics for a real GPU.  My other comments are addressing overclocking in general, and a commonly held, but in my opinion naive attitude about how all overclocking is viewed as
THE DEVIL 

its not viewed as the devil, but at the current time with current hardware on the market it isnt needed

im running a 3ghz quad core that will burn through anything i throw at it easily... why would i need to make it a 3.6 quad core that would burn through everything i throw at it equally as good... at stock clocks i get to keep a low voltage, low temps, and have a longer life of my processor

If you're just using your computer for entertainment purposes (like myself and a lot of other people) then OC'ng isn't really all that necessary nowadays, like you said.  Especially if you have a 3+ GHz quad-core.  Some encoding/decoding, photoshop, or other programs still require a huge hunk of processing power, so a ~25% boost in performance could definitely make a noticeable difference, especially if the encoding you're doing is already taking many minutes or over an hour to complete.  If you're already running 60+ FPS in a game though, you're unlikely to really see the difference another 15 FPS would make.

237

Quake / Re: looking to upgrade

« on: August 01, 2010, 10:33:19 PM »

Alpha's words are a little confusing.  He states he wants more performance, but Quake 2 runs fine, but his machine won't play new games, but he only plays Quake 2 anyway.  So why is he upgrading?  I'm assuming he would like to toy around with some of these newer games that don't run so well.

Where do you live Alpha?

This would be a GREAT deal, but I think you're in the UK or something?

http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?sduid=258530&t=2155310

I'm not sure if Newegg ships to the UK, or if the prices would be the same.

238

Quake / Re: looking to upgrade

« on: August 01, 2010, 10:03:51 PM »

I was under the impression the conversation had transitioned to overclocking in general.  I'll quote myself from a few posts ago

getting a dedicated graphics card would really be the safer and better solution

I agree =)

I was agreeing with you that for Alpha's situation, his top priority would be to ditch the onboard graphics for a real GPU.  My other comments are addressing overclocking in general, and a commonly held, but in my opinion naive attitude about how all overclocking is viewed as
THE DEVIL 

239

Quake / Re: looking to upgrade

« on: August 01, 2010, 08:20:47 PM »

How many CPU's, or other components have you guys personally fried due to "overclocking"?  I'm curious.  Did you find out what you did wrong afterward?

240

Quake / Re: looking to upgrade

« on: August 01, 2010, 08:17:36 PM »

Going a ways back here... Back in '98 or '99, I bought a Celeron 300A (300 MHz) for probably somewhere in the ~$50 range.  I honestly can't remember.  Anyway, the top of the line Intel CPU at that time was the Pentium II 450 MHz.  The Celeron 300A had nearly a 100% success rate to overclock to 450 MHz (50% increased clock speed) and actually outperformed the $400-500 (mostly pulling that number out of my ass, I don't recall exactly) PII 450.  For a fraction of the cost, you got a CPU with performance that surpassed the best CPU you could buy at that time.  That is what overclocking is about.

Recently (came out in late '08), the Pentium i7 920 (default speed 2.66 GHz) commonly overclocked to 4 GHz (a ~50% overclock) without much fuss.  Again, a HUGE performance gain, and to this day, when overclocked, is faster than anything released by Intel nearly 2 years later.

I imagine there are other CPU's that have come out since that time that offer great value when overclocking is factored in, but I've been out of the loop for a little while now.