LOLZpersonok

I just got a 10 or 12 year old Dell Inspiron 6400. Real beauty this one is. Top-of-the-line Core Duo, 120GB hard drive and 2GB of DDR2 RAM, that ran Windows Vista (but now runs Linux Mint).
Why did I buy it? Well, for one, I'm into buying random junk computers that no one else needs or wants, and secondly, I wanted a knock-around to bring to work with me, instead of risking my MacBook Pro.

A CPU upgrade is actually pretty unlikely in the near future, considering at the very least I'd also need a new motherboard, and more likely need new RAM in addition to the CPU, which would bring my upgrade costs to above $400CAD, not counting any GPU upgrade. I was looking at the 1050 Ti because it's a formidable upgrade to what I've already got, yet it's pretty inexpensive (~$100). I am not wealthy, I'm an unemployed student still living with his parents. 

I guess then I'll probably stop at the 1050 Ti, since my 4.1GHz overclock should be just fine. I was more or less just curious about the 1060, because the 10-series NVIDIA GPUs are pretty powerful and the FX series of CPUs wasn't that amazing. This GTX 750 Ti already handles pretty much all my games well, though not maxed out. Fallout 4 is pretty good right now as it is, but I would like better framerates in Dragon Age Inquisition (they're good, but I want moar).

Well, if it's well constructed and uses good quality parts, there shouldn't be any harm in trying. I mean, the power supply I've been currently using in that machine is 10 years old and has a lot of hours on it, and it seems to be well constructed as well (regardless, I still can't trust it anymore) so perhaps I'll give this Corsair supply a go. Thanks for the suggestion.

Dude 
 

Before anything else, I'd check to make sure the screen's backlight didn't die. Turn it on and shine a bright light on the screen. Do you see anything, even dimly? If there's something there like there should be, but it's really dark, your screen's backlight is probably dead.

Because it's f*kn fun! That's what I did before I actually got a real Windows 9x computer, I ran the old operating systems in a virtual machine.

It's been said before, but I'm going to say it in greater detail. The PS3 would require an intensely powerful PC to emulate it. The reason is because the PS3's hardware (particularly CPU and graphics) are proprietary to Sony and not even remotely related to the x86 architecture I'm sure your PC uses. Take two differing CPU microarchitectures and compare them (in this case, the Cell CPU in the PS3 and x86 in basically every consumer PC). If you wanted to emulate one microarchitecture on another, the more different it is, the more power will be required from the other. It is also more difficult to emulate for the developer, the more different one architecture is from another.
 
Look at the PS2 as an example: By today's standards, the PS2 is much less powerful and less capable than the typical smartphone, let alone the Xbox One or PS4, or even Xbox 360 and PS3. The PS2 has a 294MHz (and later, a 299MHz) single core CPU but my HP laptop has a 2.3GHz quad core CPU that is far newer and far more powerful and capable; however, this laptop can barely emulate the PS2. I also have a machine with a quad core, 4GHz AMD FX CPU and it does a lot better in emulating the PS2, but it's still not ideal. I've discovered that modern Intel CPUs (from around 2011 or later) can emulate the PS2 well, even the newer Pentiums. The reason is because they have a high instruction per clock count, or IPC, where AMD CPUs often have lower IPCs. High clock speed (PCSX2 recommends a processor of at least 2.6GHz, but a 3.8GHz Pentium 4 will not emulate the PS2 well) is still relevant for emulating the PS2, but it isn't everything. PCSX2 spent years in development before PS2 gameplay was actually feasible.
 
Now, think about how much more powerful the PS3 is than the PS2. The PS3 will require magnitudes more power than the PS2 requires in order to be properly emulated. There may be an emulator in existence in some state somewhere, but it will not be functional and if it is, it will not be usable. 
 
It would be easier to emulate an Xbox 360 because its PowerPC architecture is more similar to x86 than Sony's Cell CPU used in the PS3. In fact, a lot of the Xbox 360's early development kits were Apple Power Mac G5 computers. So in theory, if Apple were still building their computers with PowerPC processors, they'd probably be able to emulate the Xbox 360 pretty well. 

It's been said before, but I'm going to say it in greater detail. The PS3 would require an intensely powerful PC to emulate it. The reason is because the PS3's hardware (particularly CPU and graphics) are proprietary to Sony and not even remotely related to the x86 architecture I'm sure your PC uses. Take two differing CPU microarchitectures and compare them (in this case, the Cell CPU in the PS3 and x86 in basically every consumer PC). If you wanted to emulate one microarchitecture on another, the more different it is, the more power will be required from the other. It is also more difficult to emulate for the developer, the more different one architecture is from another.
 
Look at the PS2 as an example: By today's standards, the PS2 is much less powerful and less capable than the typical smartphone, let alone the Xbox One or PS4, or even Xbox 360 and PS3. The PS2 has a 294MHz (and later, a 299MHz) single core CPU but my HP laptop has a 2.3GHz quad core CPU that is far newer and far more powerful and capable; however, this laptop can barely emulate the PS2. I also have a machine with a quad core, 4GHz AMD FX CPU and it does a lot better in emulating the PS2, but it's still not ideal. I've discovered that modern Intel CPUs (from around 2011 or later) can emulate the PS2 well, even the newer Pentiums. The reason is because they have a high instruction per clock count, or IPC, where AMD CPUs often have lower IPCs. High clock speed (PCSX2 recommends a processor of at least 2.6GHz, but a 3.8GHz Pentium 4 will not emulate the PS2 well) is still relevant for emulating the PS2, but it isn't everything. PCSX2 spent years in development before PS2 gameplay was actually feasible.
 
Now, think about how much more powerful the PS3 is than the PS2. The PS3 will require magnitudes more power than the PS2 requires in order to be properly emulated. There may be an emulator in existence in some state somewhere, but it will not be functional and if it is, it will not be usable. 
 
It would be easier to emulate an Xbox 360 because its PowerPC architecture is more similar to x86 than Sony's Cell CPU used in the PS3. In fact, a lot of the Xbox 360's early development kits were Apple Power Mac G5 computers. So in theory, if Apple were still building their computers with PowerPC processors, they'd probably be able to emulate the Xbox 360 pretty well. 

The Roman Empire lasted 507 years and most of its citizens (with the exception of slaves and certain others) were quite well off. Frankly, the Roman Empire was one of the greatest empires to have ever existed.
 
Canada is much closer to Socialism than the US is, but it isn't close enough to be considered Socialist. There are plenty of studies to show that Canada is doing quite well when it comes to many things including (but not limited to) healthcare, education, personal safety, personal and economic freedom and overall quality of life. You can't say that "Canada is a bad country because it's almost Socialist" because it simply is not true. Obviously, things could be better, but there's no country out there that's perfect.
 
I think you should stop thinking in extremes, because the only true extreme country out there is North Korea. Everything in moderation.

Go into the software center and look for Cairo-Dock (Fallback Mode) after you get it, set it up how you like!

I initially signed up because I thought it might be interesting. I didn't know they did giveaways until later on.

I'm so glad I decided not to go into computer science even though that's one of my interests. I went into a media course and they cover everything from game design to film and audio. And, they don't deal with math.

This is one of the reasons I say that TV is a part of the cesspit of the media, along with comments on social media. There's rarely anything good anymore. I guess they have to make these really fake and trashy shows to appeal to a broader audience. Not the nicest thing to say, but it's probably true.

Looking through the replies and all I'm seeing are complaints about being a repost. I don't care, I'm going to go ahead and say I'm totally going to buy this thing when it comes out.

Looking through the replies and all I'm seeing are complaints about being a repost. I don't care, I'm going to go ahead and say I'm totally going to buy this thing when it comes out.

I got a book from Value Village. Because you know, I can't afford new books from a better store.

I don't really need to know how a compiler is made, because I think I've gotten my answer. Thanks.

Given at the frankly pathetic track record of the US government hiding things the chances of they successfully keeping the secret for this many decades is a statistical impossibility. 

The only 'good' reasons are;
The government f*cked up, shot an alien down, and wants to hide the embarrassment.
Aliens are trying to use CIA- like tactics on Earth governments (i.e. trying to manipulate other governments quietly), but some sh*t when down.
The governments only sponsor a 'shield-like' agency that protects earth.
You can't handle the truth type thing.
 
None of these I feel are decent answers. IF Aliens made it to earth at some point, it was some lost motherf*cker who saw a habitable planet to crashland on.
Area 51 is where they (used) to develop and test the ultra secret and hightech weapons. The whole point of Area 51 was to get around the public eye and laws so they could do some rather unethical work, and also keep it hidden from the Russians.
 
If our current understanding of the universe is close to being correct, then it's next to 100% guaranteed that there are other intelligent life forms in this universe. The problem is *if* there are any practical ways to travel interstellar distances. It's very possible there is not, I'm however inclined that 'warp tech' of some kind is possible. 
Another theory is that it's simply easier to build up a solar system than travel. This theory is why there was a lot of hype around the supposed 'ringed' star. It would be one of these cultures developing their system.
A darker theory is that there is a destructive/warlike species (i.e. wraith like), and everyone has gone basically radio silent because of it.
Another theory is a Star-Trek like system exists. If, say the U.S., developed a warp-drive system we could already have contact. I really like thinking about this theory.
There are countless theories out there. It's fun to think about.

Let's keep this simple (ignore this if it kills your beliefs):
 
1.  Space is huge.
 
2.  Anything here on earth can be found anywhere else in abundance.
 
3.  We offer no technological advancement to any technologically advanced life.  We are also still culturally barbaric (a.k.a., we kill each other) to our cores as a global society.
 
There is no reason to visit "Ape World".  Some see our being alone in the universe as a good thing, a place to grow from.  Some are too scared at the realization that they do anything to dismiss the possibility.
 
 

Well, what if we're the most technologically advanced species in the universe ?
I mean, it can be as possible as us being the least advanced.
 
Ooooooor, what if we really are alone ? 

Neil Degrasse Tyson has said that before.  He said during this tangent he has used a bunch of times.  I could not find the exact quote in the video:
 
 
 

Honestly if I had to guess:  I don't think any life out there knows that there is life here.

It's honestly disappointing. Like that one image floating around the Internet that says "born too late to explore the world, born too early to explore the galaxy, but born just in time to explore the dank memes".
 
I agree entirely with that. We might consider ourselves technologically advanced and while we are, I think we're still primitive as a species because we are willing to kill each other over trivial matters such as religion and we treat each other as lesser if they're a woman (in some places), if they're not white or if they're homosexual.