skywake

I have the Noctua NH-L9i and it's a nice small form factor cooler but I wouldn't overclock with it. It does perform better than the stock cooler does but it's not that much better. Although with this sort of form factor cooler they're all going to be like that. How constrained are you in terms of height? Because there are other options even from Noctua. Just a quick search and I've found the Noctua NH-D9L (90mm dual tower) and the Noctua NH-L9x65 (almost identical to the L9i just 28mm thicker)

I don't know about pricing in other regions but here in Australia the LTT edition fans are only $1 cheaper than the industrial ones. And the industrial ones are higher RPM fans so you might actually want the lower noise, non-industrial fans but in Black. That and the fact that LMG get a bit out of it.... It's also worth adding that in terms of "fan accessories" the LTT ones do have more. For comparisons sake this is what PLE says you get in the box: Industrial NF-F12: Screws Standard NF-F12: Low Noise Adapter, Y cable, screws Linus Ed NF-F12: Low Noise Adapter, Y cable, 30cm Extension, Anti-Vibration mounts, Screws, Badges

It should work. Though I probably wouldn't touch something that was off-brand and N150.

Except that the 3DS launched in 2011 and has been selling 13-14mill globally every year. You can argue that a lot has changed since then if you want but I'm not buying it. There's not much that you can do in terms of gaming on a mobile device now that you couldn't do 5 years ago. And it's still clunky as all hell if you want to play something with any depth to it. People have been saying portable gaming has been doomed since 2007, it's still not dead. Sure, we may get to the point where Nintendo loses their dominance in portable gaming hardware. But I don't think the portable gaming hardware market will die. If someone like Apple or Samsung comes out with a mobile gaming device with buttons? Then I'll start to put a question mark over Nintendo's continued dominance of that space. But no such device has yet been a commercial success. Sony gave it a good shot but even they are giving up on it now. So until then I'll have the same response. Can you play Street Fighter on it without it being a joke? If not then it's not replacing the dedicated portable gaming market that Nintendo has a monopoly on.

What you're after is an access point. I personally have a pair of these for my wireless network: http://www.dlink.com.au/home-solutions/wireless-ac1200-dual-band-gigabit-range-extender Other people will probably recommend gear from Ubiquiti and that stuff is also good. Really just find something that can be an access point that's within whatever budget you want to set yourself. It shouldn't be too hard because there's quite a few on the market. And when you set it up I'd recommend using the same SSID and password as your other access point. That way you should be able to move between the two reasonably easy.

I'll believe this theory when you can play Street Fighter on an iPhone without it being a joke

A lot of Nintendo's relationships with other companies are like this. Even some of the ones they do own they give them a lot of freedom. There was a story a few days ago about what happened with RARE back in the day. After Goldeneye Nintendo wanted them to make another Bond game. RARE wasn't interested and wanted to make their own game. And that's how Perfect Dark was born. It's rumoured that Retro is in the same position currently. You'd assume that Nintendo would want them to be working on another Metroid game. They aren't, they're supposedly working on something entirely different. Purely because they are tired of Metroid and Donkey Kong and wanted to do something different. Same deal with Sakurai a few years back, he was sick of Smash Bros and wanted to make something different. All of a sudden we get a Kid Icarus game for the 3DS.

I'm always confused when people say that they wished Nintendo would go away. Even if you don't like them how would them ceasing to exist benefit you? At the very least more competition in the market is good for consumers. Surely the idea of an expanded market for games is a good idea. Right? Unless you're some sort of "gaming hipster" who only wants "authentic" gaming experiences to exist. It's also worth noting that this is a mobile game. So it shouldn't be surprising that it's not a game for us because it's not supposed to be. Think about it, what are the most successful games on mobile of all time? It's not stuff even remotely like the traditional games we'd buy a dedicated gaming console for. Because even if it was available you wouldn't want to pay money for Mario Kart or Smash Bros on mobile. Instead the most successful mobile games have been stuff like Angry Birds, Candy Crush, Words With Friends, Draw Something and Tiny Tower. The most complex games that have done well are things like Clash of Clans, Sim City and Hearthstone. So a game that effectively looks like Tomodachi-Lite? Well of course that's a thing. And it'll probably do well in spite of the whines from forums like this. As it is this is the only game they've announced. It's also the only game from the first five that will be free to play, the others have a fixed price. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the other games are things like Advance Wars or something similar. I really wouldn't worry about it, IMO Nintendo has already proven that they know how to make good mobile games. Case and point the minigames in NintendoLand, Balloon Trip and DK Crash Course in particular.

For the Dr Who fans out there: ┓┏ 凵 =╱⊿┌┬┐ from this:

The real-world speeds of each spec are something along the lines of: G: 12Mbps N: 30-70Mbps AC: 200-600Mbps But those are single user, best case scenario real world speeds. It gets more complicated than that though because with a lower spec access point higher speed devices won't be able to run ahead. Especially given that higher spec access points, in particular AC, tend to be dual-band. A client with a poor signal will slow down the works. For example, here's a made-up example of how this can actually play out. Lets assume you have an AC1200 laptop, an N600 phone and an N150 Chromecast. All hammering your internet connection at once as can happen. The phone and laptop have fantastic signals, the Chromecast has an average signal and is running at half speed. Here's how that'd play out: 54G: 12, 12 and 6.... shared. You get ~10Mbps usage out of your connection. N300: 30, 30, 15 shared. ~25Mbps N600: 70 and 70 shared, 15Mbps on its own. 85Mbps AC1200: 200, 70 shared, 15Mbps on its own. 150Mbps AC3200: 200, 70 and 15 each on their own. 285Mbps It's also worth noting that there are other things you can do on your network. If you are streaming a game or something from a NAS to a wireless device? That eats into the available bandwidth also. If you are doing stuff like that? You can absolutely slaughter your available bandwidth even if you have enough for your internet connection. So my advice would be that unless you are living alone with a <10Mbps internet connection? Dual band N is a must. If you're also doing stuff across your LAN? Then AC is worth the little bit extra.

- AV200 won't give you the full 60Mbps - AV500 will probably get close enough that it won't matter - AV2 gear will go over and above what you want and will be less susceptible to noise but will cost more So anything with an AV500 spec.

I've always been a dual monitor sort of person. Mostly because with two screens you can have a fullscreen application open on one and still have a second screen for something else. Like having a live event going and having the corresponding twitter feed active on the other screen. Or if you're studying or working from home you can have reference materials on one screen while having a "working space" on the other. That said, I've never used a 4K monitor. But I suspect if I had a 4K monitor I'd still want to run a lot of applications full screen. Obviously the real solution would be to have two monitors with at least one of them running at 4K. Then you could have both

As others have said if someone wants to get in they will. Making fun at the expense of the feds? Posting on a forum like this? I wouldn't worry too much. You're far more at risk if you leave your SSID as "Netgear" or "dlink". WPA computes your key based on your SSID and your password. So if you use one of the most common SSIDs? There are Rainbow Tables you can download which will cover the most common passwords for the most common SSIDs. So if you're worried about security don't use the default SSID and don't use SSIDs like "Home", "Wireless" or "AP1". That's if anyone cares at all, which they probably don't. Unless you have a neighbour who has lost their internet connection of course....

The only reasons you should ever go with water cooling: 1. You're including the GPU in the loop 2. The only air coolers that will fit into your case are designed for HTPCs (ITX/mATX case) 3. You're going to push your CPU to the limit and are getting more than a 240mm radiator 4. You have money to spend and like the aesthetic

I wasn't that interested because I thought I was going to have to pay for shipping if I got them. Then I saw that PLE are going to stock them and that they weren't that much more expensive than the regular Noctua fans. So I'm probably going to tempted get a couple of them now next time I go down to PLE. Why not?

Again, speaking about it as an Australian who has followed quite a few elections with preferential voting. 1. If anything the result is less messy with preferential voting. Elections are far easier to predict because polling companies only need to ask which of the two major parties you prefer. With FPTP the result can be heavily influenced by how much support minor parties can drag away from the majors. It is a more complicated way to count the votes but it's also closer to what the voters want and easier to predict. 2. Your elections are really not that much bigger than ours. The Australian population is a fair bit smaller but we also have compulsory voting. Looking at Wiki your 2011 election had 14.7mill voters, our 2013 election had 12.9mill voters. We have less timezones for sure but I think it's a stretch to say that your elections are that much bigger. 3. Yes there is more data entry with preferential voting. However because of the way the system works the vast majority of seats are called pretty early on in the night. It's not like there aren't trends with how people allocate their preferences. For example Greens voters, who are probably the most influential minor party voters, consistently give around 85% of their preferences the Labor party. The seats that aren't declared on the night are usually just because there isn't much between the two majors. Something which also happens with FPTP. .... that said, every now and then it does get "messy". Denison in 2010 for example, when it's a four-party race things get very interesting. Sometimes the third placed candidate can win. But even in cases like that the end result is something more voters can agree on. Which in the end is the entire point of elections. You want representatives that represent the views of the electorate. And in the Denison example, in the next election that independent got 38% of the primary vote, would have won FPTP and got 65% TPP.

There's a quick post about Canadian result by Australia's resident election expert. His conclusion was that about 1 in 10 seats would have had a different result if Canada had preferential voting. It wouldn't have changed the result that much but it would have given people more confidence in the system. You can read it here: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2015/10/canada-2015-would-preferential-voting-have-made-a-difference.html And you're probably right, because the split in Canada is stronger on the left? You'd assume that the Left would probably benefit the most from it. Which is probably why they're pushing it. The problem with that theory though is that you don't know how people will change their vote if strategic voting disappears. Or who else will emerge. For example in the next Australian election a moderate party named the "Nick Xenophon Team" who have quite a lot of public support. In the last election they ran in the senate in South Australia and the Labor/Liberal/Xen/Green split was 23/27/25/8. You can imagine the chaos if they decided who won the seats for that based on FPTP.

Well no, because what I'm talking about is precisely the same thing. It has been the system for voting in pretty much all Australian elections since the early 1900s. What I was saying was that in practice most seats are still won by the candidate that gets the most votes. From what I can tell in all but one seat at the last Federal Election in Australia the two candidates who were left at the end of the count where the two candidates who had the highest primary vote. It's possible for someone who finished 3rd to win the seat it's just unlikely. Purely because of the maths of it. Take my electorate for example. The guy who ended up winning the seat got 45% of the vote, with a primary vote that high he only needed a small amount of people to preference him to get over 50%. The candidate who finished second got 32% so he would have needed quite a bit more. The third candidate only got 8% of the vote which meant he was far enough back that even getting to 2nd was too much. In the end the conservative candidate won with 55% of voters preferring him over the other candidate left. I'm not saying that the result is always the same as FPTP. I'm just saying that there's not a lot to fear about it given that most of the time it is the same result. It doesn't even have more proportional result so it doesn't fix that problem either. It's really just for the fact that it eliminates the strategic vote that it's a good thing. And because of that people are far more likely to vote for the party they like rather than the party they think will win. And when almost 30% of people are voting for someone other than the major parties? Clearly there are a lot of people who effectively wasted their vote with the election that you just had. That's not a good thing.

The problem is that it's always in the interest of those elected to maintain the system that elected them. No matter how garbage it is. The problem is that preferential voting gives you the freedom to vote for a minor party without having to worry that your vote is being wasted. And the idea that a minor party might win a seat? That scares the crap out of the major partys. But the reality is a bit more mundane. Of the 150 seats in the last Australian election only 11 were contests that didn't involve the two major partys, most of those were won buy the guys who got the highest primary vote. Of the 11 contests that weren't between the two majors 8 were won by candidates who had the highest primary vote, effectively the same result FPTP would have given. The 3 that weren't? They were all independents who got the 2nd highest primary vote but ended up beating a major party candidate, because the people who voted for other party would rather an independent win.

Well that's good news, interesting that it has become a political issue. It's always to save themselves when they push for (or against) that sort of change. But there's no questioning that preferential voting is orders of magnitude better. It's not proportional, it still tends to result in a "two party system" but the end result is a lot closer to what the voters want. As someone in a country who has preferential voting I often am not even that sure about which party I want to put in the top spot. But that's not the point of it, the real power of preferential voting is in the ability to pick who you don't want to vote for. With FPTP you only get the option to pick one party to support. With preferential voting? You could literally make a vote that was "anyone but the conservatives", and that vote would do precisely that regardless of who you put at #1. That's far more powerful than having to pick and possibly getting it wrong.

I think it's worth adding an analogy for people who think that FPTP is a good system. You've got a group of people at a party and you want to decide what takeaway you should get. Because you're such a buzzkill instead of getting a bit of everything you decide to do a show of hands on the options. Here are the results: Fish and Chips: 25% Meatlovers Pizza: 24% Supreme Pizza: 24% Hawaiian Pizza: 21% Chinese: 6% .... Fish and Chips was the most popular option, so you get Fish and Chips. Is that the right choice? Of course it isn't! The vast majority of people wanted some kind of Pizza. There were just more options on the Pizza side of things so the vote was split. It's the same thing with results I posted for the couple of seats earlier.

I was looking at the results in Canada because I like looking at how elections run. Then I realise you guys, like a lot of other places, still use first past the post... why? It's a horrible system. Stop using it. And just to make a point of this here are two seats from the last election in Canada and the last one in Australia. In both cases I'd argue that the result that FPTP would have delivered (or did deliver) was not what the voters wanted. For the Canadian result you can't really guess what the Two Party Preferred result would have been because they don't have preferential voting. But I think it's fairly safe to assume that the Conservatives would have one that seat. Same deal in Australia. In this particular seat the Greens got 20% of the vote which wasn't enough to be in the race for the seat. Those votes then strongly flowed towards the Labor party, as you'd expect. About 80% of the time the result is the same either way. Purely because under FPTP people vote strategically. But sometimes the result is bull, and ontop of that strategic voting means that you're punished for voting for a minor party. Which is also bullshit. So stop using it /Psephological vent

Sorry for the necro but in light of the new video on Vessel I was going to create a topic for this. Searched and found this one! This is actually a pretty legit question that fairly average consumers are going to have to ask themselves. I just looked up the prices of LG's OLEDs in Australia out of curiosity and found out that the 1080p 55" one? Surprisingly it's not that bad. $3000AU! But for that money you could buy a 65" 4K LCD... so it's a tough ask, same size and price I'd go for OLED. But as it is? I'm not sure. Not that I'm about to spend 3 grand on a TV, I'm waiting for the prices to drop even more

I haven't played it, it's not really the sort of game I'm into. That and the fact that it was such a late game in the Wii's library stopped me from trying. Face it, by that point standard def was pretty hard to go back to. Also, from what I do know the New 3DS version is pretty paired back. So if you can get the Wii version. Probably the best way to get it if it's available in your region. Mostly because you get full off-TV play if you buy it that way given that the game supported the Classic Controller. It's also cheaper than what the game costs elsewhere even with the price they're charging. It's $26AU for Wii games in Australia which... would be pretty steep for some of the titles on there. Not Xenoblade. That said, there's currently an offer where you get a discount equal to half the price of Xenoblade Chronicles ($13AU) if you also buy Xenoblade Chronicles X. Which isn't fantastic, but it's something.

Because not every setup cares about WiFi speeds. If you were buying a router like this odds are if you wanted good WiFi you'd buy a bunch of enterprise grade Access Points. It's also worth noting that on their site they talk about it getting over ~900Mbps. Which if true is quite a bit more than you'll get out of even some fairly high end consumer grade gear. The other thing is that it has a very low power consumption and can be powered by PoE. So there are reasons why you'd get this.