Verno wrote on Dec 20, 2012, 10:45:
I'd suggest posting on the Verizon Direct forum at DSLR.
DangerDog wrote on Dec 20, 2012, 14:05:It doesn't, it optimizes them... what ever that means.
I thought I read that you shouldn't defrag SSD drives
Creston wrote on Dec 16, 2012, 00:58:It started in 1978 with the 8086 and each change after that "extended" on that, the 86 just means compatible with the last processor so now its just x86, which means the whole family. To say they are vastly different is not rally true since i686 is a i386 with major "additions". Code for i386 will run on i686 but code for i686 will not run on i386 because it doesn't have the things(registers) the code is trying to use. So the answer to your original question is yes, i386 is compatible with i686 but to make your i686 code run on a i386 requires alot of thinking and dumbed down machine code.Beelzebud wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 15:01:
What do you mean by compatible? An i386 and an i686 can both flip bits and run code, but they have vastly different architectures.
I'll admit that I have zero knowledge of processors. I was under the impression, however, we still considered modern day processors to be of the i386 variety? Or am I getting confused with x86?
kanniballl wrote on Dec 13, 2012, 07:44:wow, and I thought Kryptonians didn't grow facial hair.crypto wrote on Dec 12, 2012, 18:37:
For the first time, I'm wondering how superman shaves his face...
Some depictions, like the ABC series "Lois and Clark," had him using his heat ray vision to burn them off (like a laser). Either bouncing it off a regular mirror, or a special high-tech/alien mirror that could withstand his beam.
Another option I guess is the "Hancock" route. In that film, the hero's fingernails were so strong and sharp that he used them to shave.
There have been other suggestions when this concept comes up from time to time, usually involving Superman's 3 physical vulnerabilities: Kryptonite, Red Sunlight, and Magic.
jdreyer wrote on Dec 12, 2012, 16:22:nin wrote on Dec 12, 2012, 12:10:So why am I finding myself to be so skeptical about the Superman movie? I loved Watchmen and the The Dark Knight trilogy...
But did you like Stupid Punch and 300?
I agree though: Hopefully with the Nolans involved, it'll be better.
And I would have liked 300 a lot more if it hadn't been shot like a music video. And while I think we're in the minority, I enjoyed Watchmen, too. I think, given the source material, it was about the best it could be done. (That's not a glowing endorsement, but I can't see it being done better.)
Snyder is much better as a director when working with other's material. Sucker Punch is by far his worst movie, and the idea and screenplay were his. He did help write the 300 screenplay, but of course it's based on Miller's work. With Dark Knight scribe Goyer and with Nolan on as producer, I have high hopes for Man of Steel. The trailer showed just enough footage to have me asking questions about what's going on without really giving any of the story away, so ideal as far as trailers go.
Watchmen is probably my favorite hero movie. I love the stakes, the mystery, the philosophy, the distinct characters, the history it created, the fact that it's 'R'. It felt real, despite its fantastic propositions. I had never read the novel, so knew nothing going in, and was subsequently blown away.
Cutter wrote on Dec 8, 2012, 03:05:Oh, yeah right "look at me, I'm a bird I can fly but no, I'm going to drive cuz I'm fucking awesome! way better then some bipedal hominid."crypto wrote on Dec 8, 2012, 00:19:
now I hate birds even more....
No you don't.