[QUOTE=chalsall;362488]
But perhaps you could let those of us who have decades of experience doing this kind of thing do this kind of thing....[/QUOTE]
What kind of thing?
Butting into a project about which you are clueless?

Not clueless, that's for sure. I'm sure chalsall thinks the same of you. Frankly, I think both of you have valid points.

Challsall,
Can I get the current reccomendations for what ranges we're doing to what bitlevel? I don't use the 'What makes most sense' option, so I have to fine tune my requests a bit. I think currently I have 60M-100M, lowest exponent to 74, but if we're only doing 74 past 63M, I can set multiple configs so it will request... I don't know, 50M-63M to 73, and then 63M-74M to 74 or some such.

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;362499]Challsall, Can I get the current reccomendations for what ranges we're doing to what bitlevel?[/QUOTE]

If you are using MISFIT, please choose option #9 ("Let GPU72 decide.").

If you are using the GPU72 manual assignment forms, the defaults are What Makes Sense at that particular moment.

Edit: I didn't actually answer you. We're currently taking anything available below 60M to 73, and anything above 62M to 74.

[QUOTE=davieddy;362491]I could actually do without the theatrics, I think, Malcolm.

Nichola Murray[/QUOTE]

Sigh.

Please, David. How can you fail to see the irony of the above statement?

[QUOTE=TheMawn;362323]Well I personally only use the one monitor, but it has 27 juicy inches of 1080p goodness. Still I find myself badly wanting a second.[/QUOTE]

I recently upgraded from dual 1080p to this [url=http://www8.hp.com/ca/en/products/monitors/product-detail.html?oid=5181723#!tab=features]2560x1440 beauty[/url] at home and at work. It's the first time I haven't felt the [i]need[/i] for more pixels, but more would be nice...

[QUOTE=kladner;362502]Sigh.

Please, David. How can you fail to see the irony of the above statement?[/QUOTE]
You of all people, Kieran, know perfectly well that any irony was intended.

Perhaps you would skim through this thread, actually started by his holiness by abusing his moderation power for the fiftieth time, and see who has done most to keep it on track, and who has done most to turn it into the tiresome "Let us GPUto72 mob bully David ... we know he will be capable of returning it in spades".

I sense that one of us is resorting to bullying in indesperate fear of being exposed as a fraud.

David

But irony in what direction, and to what end? I cannot speak to what the [STRIKE]gods and demigods[/STRIKE] supermods and mods do. I'm really not sure, though, that any bullying has been one-sided. I've seen quite a bit of pushing and shoving, and have seen support expressed for you.

I think that, to some extent, many people are not as passionate, nor as knowledgeable about this pastime of ours as you, and some others may be.

I cannot argue, nor sometimes even follow the arguments, about appropriate TF levels. It would not really bother me to be taking more exponents to 73 instead of 74. That last bit-level takes a lot more time. But as long as the system is based on running to 74 above some cut-off point, I'm not going to run the lower levels and leave some other poor schmuck to run that last, more expensive level. I've done enough such cleanup work, and would not slough it onto someone else.

The :censored: "argument" is not very hard to follow and it goes in circles like this:
[YOUTUBE]RkP_OGDCLY0[/YOUTUBE]
It is funny to follow once.
Not 24 times, for the Universe's sake, eh? It gets old, really old.

[QUOTE=Batalov;362518]The :censored: "argument" is not very hard to follow and it goes in circles like this:

[Insert silly vid here.]

It is funny to follow once.
Not 24 times, for the Universe's sake, eh? It gets old, really old.[/QUOTE]

Sheesh! The Sopranos with a laugh track. :cmd:

The other way around.
Mr.Show (1995–1998)
Sopranos (1999-2007) is Mr.Show without the laugh track.