Its not too much to expect an improvement in battery life with every iteration.
it is if you're also expecting new features that require more electricity.
... or do you expect your products to be designed poorly, thus allowing for "improvements" to be made simply by removing intentionally built-in setbacks?
Technology improves over time. The DSi came out over two years ago... And it's mostly based on the DS which came out more than six years ago. So even though the new system has a more powerful CPU and graphics chip than the older versions of the DS I think it's reasonable to expect that they could have provided that functionality without losing power-efficiency... Or else miniaturize things sufficiently to enable them to put in a battery big enough to provide reasonable play time.
you're an idiot.
There is seriously no need to be a jerk. What is up with this lately? It seems all too common. Stop it.
The idiocy of AC's comment about the kind of batteries used (I wonder if they realize the original GB also took the same "car batteries", using 4 to GG's 6), they do still have a point. For better or for worse, gone are the days of just popping in a fresh set of batteries.
In general, I'd say it's better.
I mean, look at the waste produced from all those disposable batteries. Yes, you could get a charger and a set of Ni-Cad's (and, later on, Ni-MH) - but most people don't bother. They just go to the store and pick up another box of AA's...
Lifetime of the lipo cells is great, too - for their size and weight they provide a whole lot of power.
Back when Palm Pilots were making the transition, I was very hesitant to switch to a model with a built-in rechargeable battery - for pretty much the reasons presented here. (I could swap out a fresh set of AAA's any time I needed to...) But I think once I made the switch, the rechargeables turned out to be very convenient...
Yes but movies can be several things at once, are you going to symlink a movie into 20 different directories? /var/media/video/faye.valentine/pornucopia.25.divx/var/media/video/sasha.grey/pornucopia.25.divx/var/media/video/mff/pornucopia.25.divx/var/media/video/natural.tits/pornucopia.25.divx/var/media/video/redheads/pornucopia.25.divx/var/media/video/rope.bondage/pornucopia.25.divx
That would work but it's a pain in the ass, there must be a better way.
The original question didn't specify that the solution had to be wireless. They were looking into wireless solutions but frankly it seems unlikely they'll be able to do wireless and meet their main requirements:
"We need a quick and low cost way to record votes done by the students in large committees."
If wireless isn't a strict requirement, a wired solution would be much easier to implement affordably.
It's a great mystery. Once, a bold adventurer from the census bureau set out on a perilous quest to learn the answer. He actually was successful in getting a survey form to the great A'tuin, but unfortunately, his quest ended in failure: for when the survey form came back to him, he found that the great A'tuin had filled in the "Sex" question by writing in "yes, please"
This whole thing sounds like pretentious BS to me, and that whole world revolves round having something to look down on.
Bingo. You've just managed to describe pretty much the entire "art" world in one sentence.
I think there's a lot of truth to this, but there's also different ways you can look at it. One could say nothing is achieved in an artistic endeavour if no one appreciates it. And so, in addition to the basic problem of creating the work there's the issue of marketing it - developing in the audience an appreciation for the work, getting them to relate to it in a way that makes it meaningful for them. The work itself generally doesn't mean much, rather it's what the work represents in the mind of the viewer. So if you build some crazy legend around the artist, lay on a bunch of attitude or whatever, that's one way of encouraging the audience to look for the value of the work instead of scanning right over it.
You could take a basic cynical view and call this "elitism" or "self-promotion" - which is a fair description, I think. I see it as the basic process of promoting something that, by itself, has little value.
I examined Ebert's comments back when he made them and thought about them after the initial knee-jerk reaction of "YES THEY ARE!!!!" and, sadly, also agreed.
My reasoning is that video games *contain* art. but can't be considered art as a *whole*.
Think about it. A museum *contains* art. However museums themselves, as a whole, are *not* art. Walking through a museum isn't a piece of art, although there are quite a few pieces of art within it. The art within the museum, however, can be removed from the museum and *still* contain as much of that quality deemed as artistic as they did within the museums. Video games, then, are containers of various bits of art. Be they the graphics, the storylines, the music or what have you are each *individually* easily labeled as art, however the video game as a *whole* was not something I could consider to be art.
The art in a museum is usually just a collection - whatever the curators could get their hands on and thought was worth showing.
The art in a game is used to form a coherent whole - a single work.
That there isn't a conclusive "games are art" argument, but I think it's a flaw in your analogy that's worth recognizing.
Personally I've come to the conclusion that it's meaningless to say "it is art" or "it isn't art" - IMO it's a meaningless distinction that hides the real questions, such as "what does this thing mean to me?" "how much do I enjoy it?" "has my enjoyment of this art been lasting, or has it had some impact on my life?" People answer questions like those (and also other ones like "does my art teacher say this is Fine Art?" or "was the person who made this an Artist who makes Art?" or "has this piece of art existed long enough, and/or achieved a great enough level of respect to be considered Art?") and then classify things as "art" or "not art".
There is a whole world of art hidden from view because it's contained in "products" that people classify as "not art". Personally I am a modeler, and so all the special effects work stuff (especially that of the 70s-80s - effects miniatures, motion control, stop motion, etc.) is, to me, very significant. By my own standard I would not hesitate to call it "art". How about Peter Weller's performance as Robocop? No big deal, right? Just stomping around on-screen acting robotic? But the dude studied pantomime for that. He took details of that physical performance, nuances most people would assume are no-brainers, and busted his ass to do 'em right. (And then, when his plan wasn't compatible with the suit, he and his coach reworked the plan...) That, to me, is amazing. Things like that convince me that the world is stuffed with art, often in places we wouldn't expect it.
Sometimes I think the true purpose of the Turner Prize is not to further the causes of artists, but to troll the readers of knee-jerk British tabloids into having an art debate:)
Pretentious, maybe - but it seems to me that's unavoidable in this discussion.
I mean, arguing about what is "art"... And everyone seems to have their own idea, which they generally justify on the basis of their own sensibilities...
It seems to me people confuse the notion of "art" with the notion of "good art", or "noteworthy art", or even just "art I like". There's also a huge degree of (undeserved?) weight lent to the stuff that gets classified as "art" - all manner of offenses are forgiven because It Is Art and Sophisticated People Are Supposed To Like It.
I mean think about it. How many people would lead off in this kind of discussion by saying "I wouldn't compare video games to works by the great renaissance masters, but..." or something like that? Now, how many of these people do you think made their own mind up about how much respect they give to the great renaissance masters? How many viewed all these works and thought about them, and drew their own conclusions about them, even if those conclusions went against the expectations of their peers and/or teachers? How many look at Mona Lisa, maybe don't like it, and are willing to stand by that conclusion even as everyone around them says it's one of the great masterpieces?
I believe there's a tendency to overvalue those things classified as "art" and undervalue those things seen as "not art" or "lesser art". But what, really, is the relevant distinction? Does such a distinction even exist?
Don't forget roadsigns. They are art! Paint applied to a flat surface for other than the purpose of protecting that surface is the very definition of art.
i imagine someone's found a way to fake priority by treating a group of processes as one process when allocating cpu, because it solves one problem someone was having while causing someone else a problem
the example was forking 20 compile processes. normally that's a big speedup because when one has to pend on some i/o, another can pick up and do some work on your overall compile. with this new scheduling instead of 20 new processes crowding the few existing processes into much less cpu, now the 20 processes only act like one new process
which makes me wonder why you'd fork 20 processes any more, since they'll have only one process' share of the resource
That's not quite right.
Basically, there are lots of conditions that could cause any process to give up its time slice. Your network application may be waiting for packets to process. Your video player may have decoded all the compressed video it needs for the moment, etc. The idea here is that certain programs, even if they're not doing a whole lot of work at any given time, still need frequent service so they can keep doing what they need to do.
If your machine were running 3 processes (in separate groups) and you ran another 20 in a single group, those 20 processes wouldn't wind up limited to 25% of the CPU time. In all likelihood, they'd continue using the lion's share of the machine's resources until the job is done.
What this scheme does do is help out those other three processes: instead of getting 1 time slice each out of every 23 to see if they have work to do, they'll get one out of every four (via group scheduling). If they have a bunch of work to do, this means they'll effectively have higher priority than the individual processes in that big job. But if they're largely idle, the big job will be able to consume the left-over CPU time.
So it's not a perfect system, and it's not any kind of CPU quota system or QoS system, it doesn't really restrict what processes on the system can do. It's a hint for the scheduler, to try and give priority to processes that need it.
It took me weeks of painstaking humor research to come up with that one. Countless variations were formulated, tested, and ultimately rejected. It took many hours of logical deduction and mathematical derivation to attempt to directly solve the problem of writing that joke: finally, I had to take what I'd learned and feed it into a numerical solver engine and let it run for a week - finally, in the end, it did converge on a solution, and I am very grateful all that work was not wasted!
Don't be silly, bashing Microsoft is the only proven way to get modded up on Slashdot. Doesn't even matter if what you say is true or not.
It's really true. I mean, I thought making outrageously disrespectful statements about your mom and her promiscuity would be an easy way to get modded up "funny" - but for some reason people seem to think those statements are true...
They made a key strategic error with the Zune - they didn't realize that no one wanted a "poop brown" media device. Ooops.
Well, what happened was they had to make some last-minute cutbacks to the project and so they weren't able to print on the "wood grain" pattern that would have given it the desired late-1970s charm.
This whole thing has got to be a major setback for the Babylon Project. I know it's kind of a controversial plan, but if it fell through at this point it could leave Shinohara and Hishii in dire straits. They've built a huge chunk of their business on the specialized gear needed for reclamation of Tokyo Bay.
Classic misunderstanding. Nodding from a Japanese person does not indicate agreement - it merely indicates that they are paying attention. It is very common for western companies to misunderstand this. Personally I find this hilarious.
Slashdot Mirror
Its not too much to expect an improvement in battery life with every iteration.
it is if you're also expecting new features that require more electricity.
Technology improves over time. The DSi came out over two years ago... And it's mostly based on the DS which came out more than six years ago. So even though the new system has a more powerful CPU and graphics chip than the older versions of the DS I think it's reasonable to expect that they could have provided that functionality without losing power-efficiency... Or else miniaturize things sufficiently to enable them to put in a battery big enough to provide reasonable play time.
you're an idiot.
There is seriously no need to be a jerk. What is up with this lately? It seems all too common. Stop it.
The idiocy of AC's comment about the kind of batteries used (I wonder if they realize the original GB also took the same "car batteries", using 4 to GG's 6), they do still have a point. For better or for worse, gone are the days of just popping in a fresh set of batteries.
In general, I'd say it's better.
I mean, look at the waste produced from all those disposable batteries. Yes, you could get a charger and a set of Ni-Cad's (and, later on, Ni-MH) - but most people don't bother. They just go to the store and pick up another box of AA's...
Lifetime of the lipo cells is great, too - for their size and weight they provide a whole lot of power.
Back when Palm Pilots were making the transition, I was very hesitant to switch to a model with a built-in rechargeable battery - for pretty much the reasons presented here. (I could swap out a fresh set of AAA's any time I needed to...) But I think once I made the switch, the rechargeables turned out to be very convenient...
Yes but movies can be several things at once, are you going to symlink a movie into 20 different directories?
/var/media/video/faye.valentine/pornucopia.25.divx /var/media/video/sasha.grey/pornucopia.25.divx /var/media/video/mff/pornucopia.25.divx /var/media/video/natural.tits/pornucopia.25.divx /var/media/video/redheads/pornucopia.25.divx /var/media/video/rope.bondage/pornucopia.25.divx
That would work but it's a pain in the ass, there must be a better way.
Don't forget /var/media/video/your.mom/pornucopia.25.divx
Yes, I read the headline. And I read beyond the headline, to the part containing the actual question.
need wireless solution...
use wires.
you're an idiot.
The original question didn't specify that the solution had to be wireless. They were looking into wireless solutions but frankly it seems unlikely they'll be able to do wireless and meet their main requirements:
"We need a quick and low cost way to record votes done by the students in large committees."
If wireless isn't a strict requirement, a wired solution would be much easier to implement affordably.
They never dropped an atomic bomb an anyone?
Well, in WWII they didn't have any atomic bombs to drop. If they had, I think they would have used 'em.
http://bu.mp/
There is your answer
Oh, yeah, "bump"! I love those animated logos of theirs - though I can't say they're exactly appropriate for business use...
What is the sex of the great A'tuin?
It's a great mystery. Once, a bold adventurer from the census bureau set out on a perilous quest to learn the answer. He actually was successful in getting a survey form to the great A'tuin, but unfortunately, his quest ended in failure: for when the survey form came back to him, he found that the great A'tuin had filled in the "Sex" question by writing in "yes, please"
This whole thing sounds like pretentious BS to me, and that whole world revolves round having something to look down on.
Bingo. You've just managed to describe pretty much the entire "art" world in one sentence.
I think there's a lot of truth to this, but there's also different ways you can look at it. One could say nothing is achieved in an artistic endeavour if no one appreciates it. And so, in addition to the basic problem of creating the work there's the issue of marketing it - developing in the audience an appreciation for the work, getting them to relate to it in a way that makes it meaningful for them. The work itself generally doesn't mean much, rather it's what the work represents in the mind of the viewer. So if you build some crazy legend around the artist, lay on a bunch of attitude or whatever, that's one way of encouraging the audience to look for the value of the work instead of scanning right over it.
You could take a basic cynical view and call this "elitism" or "self-promotion" - which is a fair description, I think. I see it as the basic process of promoting something that, by itself, has little value.
I examined Ebert's comments back when he made them and thought about them after the initial knee-jerk reaction of "YES THEY ARE!!!!" and, sadly, also agreed.
My reasoning is that video games *contain* art. but can't be considered art as a *whole*.
Think about it. A museum *contains* art. However museums themselves, as a whole, are *not* art. Walking through a museum isn't a piece of art, although there are quite a few pieces of art within it. The art within the museum, however, can be removed from the museum and *still* contain as much of that quality deemed as artistic as they did within the museums. Video games, then, are containers of various bits of art. Be they the graphics, the storylines, the music or what have you are each *individually* easily labeled as art, however the video game as a *whole* was not something I could consider to be art.
The art in a museum is usually just a collection - whatever the curators could get their hands on and thought was worth showing.
The art in a game is used to form a coherent whole - a single work.
That there isn't a conclusive "games are art" argument, but I think it's a flaw in your analogy that's worth recognizing.
Personally I've come to the conclusion that it's meaningless to say "it is art" or "it isn't art" - IMO it's a meaningless distinction that hides the real questions, such as "what does this thing mean to me?" "how much do I enjoy it?" "has my enjoyment of this art been lasting, or has it had some impact on my life?" People answer questions like those (and also other ones like "does my art teacher say this is Fine Art?" or "was the person who made this an Artist who makes Art?" or "has this piece of art existed long enough, and/or achieved a great enough level of respect to be considered Art?") and then classify things as "art" or "not art".
There is a whole world of art hidden from view because it's contained in "products" that people classify as "not art". Personally I am a modeler, and so all the special effects work stuff (especially that of the 70s-80s - effects miniatures, motion control, stop motion, etc.) is, to me, very significant. By my own standard I would not hesitate to call it "art". How about Peter Weller's performance as Robocop? No big deal, right? Just stomping around on-screen acting robotic? But the dude studied pantomime for that. He took details of that physical performance, nuances most people would assume are no-brainers, and busted his ass to do 'em right. (And then, when his plan wasn't compatible with the suit, he and his coach reworked the plan...) That, to me, is amazing. Things like that convince me that the world is stuffed with art, often in places we wouldn't expect it.
Sometimes I think the true purpose of the Turner Prize is not to further the causes of artists, but to troll the readers of knee-jerk British tabloids into having an art debate :)
And that is a work of art in itself. :)
How do you moderate a post as pretentious?
Pretentious, maybe - but it seems to me that's unavoidable in this discussion.
I mean, arguing about what is "art"... And everyone seems to have their own idea, which they generally justify on the basis of their own sensibilities...
It seems to me people confuse the notion of "art" with the notion of "good art", or "noteworthy art", or even just "art I like". There's also a huge degree of (undeserved?) weight lent to the stuff that gets classified as "art" - all manner of offenses are forgiven because It Is Art and Sophisticated People Are Supposed To Like It.
I mean think about it. How many people would lead off in this kind of discussion by saying "I wouldn't compare video games to works by the great renaissance masters, but..." or something like that? Now, how many of these people do you think made their own mind up about how much respect they give to the great renaissance masters? How many viewed all these works and thought about them, and drew their own conclusions about them, even if those conclusions went against the expectations of their peers and/or teachers? How many look at Mona Lisa, maybe don't like it, and are willing to stand by that conclusion even as everyone around them says it's one of the great masterpieces?
I believe there's a tendency to overvalue those things classified as "art" and undervalue those things seen as "not art" or "lesser art". But what, really, is the relevant distinction? Does such a distinction even exist?
Don't forget roadsigns. They are art! Paint applied to a flat surface for other than the purpose of protecting that surface is the very definition of art.
Well, to the Andy Warhols of the world...
i think that's the wonder of it
because i wonder what it will do, too
albeit, i haven't followed kernel fixes for years
i imagine someone's found a way to fake priority by treating a group of processes as one process when allocating cpu, because it solves one problem someone was having while causing someone else a problem
the example was forking 20 compile processes. normally that's a big speedup because when one has to pend on some i/o, another can pick up and do some work on your overall compile. with this new scheduling instead of 20 new processes crowding the few existing processes into much less cpu, now the 20 processes only act like one new process
which makes me wonder why you'd fork 20 processes any more, since they'll have only one process' share of the resource
That's not quite right.
Basically, there are lots of conditions that could cause any process to give up its time slice. Your network application may be waiting for packets to process. Your video player may have decoded all the compressed video it needs for the moment, etc. The idea here is that certain programs, even if they're not doing a whole lot of work at any given time, still need frequent service so they can keep doing what they need to do.
If your machine were running 3 processes (in separate groups) and you ran another 20 in a single group, those 20 processes wouldn't wind up limited to 25% of the CPU time. In all likelihood, they'd continue using the lion's share of the machine's resources until the job is done.
What this scheme does do is help out those other three processes: instead of getting 1 time slice each out of every 23 to see if they have work to do, they'll get one out of every four (via group scheduling). If they have a bunch of work to do, this means they'll effectively have higher priority than the individual processes in that big job. But if they're largely idle, the big job will be able to consume the left-over CPU time.
So it's not a perfect system, and it's not any kind of CPU quota system or QoS system, it doesn't really restrict what processes on the system can do. It's a hint for the scheduler, to try and give priority to processes that need it.
<tinfoil>Yes... Cameras pointed at the sky... Just make sure there's not a second camera in the opposite end pointing down.</tinfoil>
Or even a giant mirror!
A buck spent on this CAN go to a crook, provided the crook is good at stealing cameras!
Or selling them.
"This looks interesting" is a lot more legitimate a reason than some of the random tax breaks we've pissed our money away on.
So it's "better than bad" and therefore "good"?
Yeah, isn't it great?
It took me weeks of painstaking humor research to come up with that one. Countless variations were formulated, tested, and ultimately rejected. It took many hours of logical deduction and mathematical derivation to attempt to directly solve the problem of writing that joke: finally, I had to take what I'd learned and feed it into a numerical solver engine and let it run for a week - finally, in the end, it did converge on a solution, and I am very grateful all that work was not wasted!
Zune, Zune, Zune.... errrrmmm... oh, that thing!
Yeah, I know what you mean. Sometimes I have trouble remembering all this Microsoft crap, and then suddenly - bing! - it comes to me.
Don't be silly, bashing Microsoft is the only proven way to get modded up on Slashdot. Doesn't even matter if what you say is true or not.
It's really true. I mean, I thought making outrageously disrespectful statements about your mom and her promiscuity would be an easy way to get modded up "funny" - but for some reason people seem to think those statements are true...
They made a key strategic error with the Zune - they didn't realize that no one wanted a "poop brown" media device. Ooops.
Well, what happened was they had to make some last-minute cutbacks to the project and so they weren't able to print on the "wood grain" pattern that would have given it the desired late-1970s charm.
This whole thing has got to be a major setback for the Babylon Project. I know it's kind of a controversial plan, but if it fell through at this point it could leave Shinohara and Hishii in dire straits. They've built a huge chunk of their business on the specialized gear needed for reclamation of Tokyo Bay.
Classic misunderstanding. Nodding from a Japanese person does not indicate agreement - it merely indicates that they are paying attention. It is very common for western companies to misunderstand this. Personally I find this hilarious.
Not if they keep saying "yes" all the time.
It's idiomatic. Get over it.
Well you know what they say, don't you? What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger.
Sometimes it's "That which doesn't kill you, causes permanent cumulative damage." or "That which doesn't kill you now maybe kills you later."
Back in my day, we didn't even have rationing.
You had days?
Just one.