you're just adding to the normal definition ad hoc.
It was a bank. We all realize it wasn't FDIC insured and isn't the same as Bank of America. But go run to your dictionary and look up the word "bank", and you will realize that banks actually preexisted the laws in place today. A bank is where you store your money. In fact, a bank is just where you store anything.
I can have a bank of thumbtacks i my garage. It's a normal word that you should relax about.
The parent is right. Linden is profiting on the insecurities of the system. So long as the customers understand this going in, that's not a problem, but it's a sad hobby. Like gambling. It's not something I'm morally opposed to, but for those that abuse it and get screwed, I'm totally right to say it's a sad thing to do.
If I get a 400 dollar PS3 and a $99 PS2 (read the news more, that's the coming revision), I pay the same price as the $500 PS3 that runs PS2 games fairly well. It seems like Sony is letting me decide if I want the feature. I can also get a sued PS2... or if I'm like most gamers, use the one I already own.
And my PS2 controllers seem to work really well on my PS3. Even on PS3 games. Any PS2 to PC usb adaptor works (you can get 'em for $5). I'll write off the comments about power plugs, etc. If you're this worried about that stuff, just buy the $500 system that is Back Compat. I personally love that I can have a PS2 in a different room from my PS3. It shares the crappy TV with my Wii (and my kids use it more). Very convenient indeed.
Fact is, for many gaming homes, PS2 compatibility is free since they already own the system. The $400 system doesn't have to deal with integration of the components or the components themselves, so it's a great move by Sony to ditch the BC. I really care about BC and got a 60gb. I think it's a great way to differentiate the PS3s. MUCH BETTER THAN OPTIONAL HDD.
Sony has goofed, but it's main goof is letting so many games come out so late. Games are the sole reason why the 360 is the best system, the PS3 second best, and the Wii is... not a bargain if you like a lot of games. That will change to favor the wii a bit, and probably the PS3 too. Not sure if the 360 can be beaten in this department though. Honestly, this is much more important that the stuff you're misinformed about.
I think your negative opinion of the PS3 is largely driven by FUD you have picked up on the internet. Most of what you're saying isn't true. I think that the PS3 + PS2 is actually a better deal than the $500 PS3.
re: privacy. It's not a matter of if you can lose data, it's a matter of how much.
Of course a dedicated bastard can steal data if he works for the company, is entering the data, etc. But the really bad privacy violations lately have been stolen laptops. You reduce the fuck-up potential when you keep data on on internal server. If a laptop is stolen, hopefully is lacks access until work hours (maybe until someone has punched in at work), and once the theft is discovered, the data access is certainly cut off. Better yet, you might have a way of tracing access and you definitely have a way of seeing exactly what was accessed.
So the think client is a huge privacy boon. It's not perfect, but it's better.
You're right. I wasn't thinking about it, but games generally do reduce resolution from what I might use for word processing. I use more than one monitor on my computer, so I'm used to a massive resolution. It's wider than 2600, but I can't tell you exactly what.
It's connected to my thinkpad. The only games I play on it are ancient. And on my PS3, I turn all games down to 720p (there are a couple that can do 1080p) just because I think it looks better.
So I guess there really is no video advantage to using a PC. A graphical advantage in some cases, but not a video advantage.
You're right. boxing has a serious problem and isn't the sport of honor it once was. The problem is that money and power are corrupting, and we aren't as educated a society. You see much the same in all entertainment. Music, football, acting, are all either full of less ethical people or at least the vices are not as concealed.
But even if Boxing is not good, it's not outrageous to be fan in the same way it is outrageous to like real murder. There's a huge distinction. First of all, you box other sportsman who want to box you. It's not criminal or unjust.
You might think a person is lame because they love modern boxing. That they have crude taste. Just as you might think a person has crude taste to have a stretch hummer with gold and diamond covered rims with velvet bumpers. But these people who lack taste are not on the same level as those few people who really dig rape and murder.
Something fundamentally changes when the vices are running over your hooker and stealing her money. I don't want kids playing games like that without, at least, parents being aware of it enough to have a fair chance to raise their kids. I'm not blaming violent games for real violence. I'm just saying there's a reason we treat sport violence as though it's ok.
That's what I was saying. If you look for posts that are critical of the wii or its games, you're often going to find people who are mad about it.
And it's not a pro-nintendo slant. It's an anti-Sony slant.
Nintendo has a lot of crummy practices that we don't bother remembering or worrying about because it's competing against two companies with more recent unethical practices. I know a lot of people cheering the wii to outdo the PS2 are really just wanting to see Sony lose a cap-feather.
Interesting dynamic I think. Me, I love the PS3 console, the 360's games, and the wii's.. erm... um, price.
Society gets to decide what is outrageous. We don't have to follow black and white rules and be logically consistent.
Society is outraged by shotgunning of people. Society is not outraged by two people agreeing to box each other for sport. A few extreme pacifists do say that this is akin to other violence sine you are physically harming another person, and they're right. It's violence, but society isn't outraged by it.
That's why boxing can be an innocent game for kids, because society isn't worried that kids will grown up thinking it's ok to box people who agree to participate for sport. They do frown on kids growing up thinking shooting other peopleis ok, and thus restrict very violent games to parents, so parents can be involved enough to tell kids.. hey, that's a game and this stuff isn't ok in real life.
Frankly, the system seems to work. I think society reinforces the message that boxing is ok and murder isn't. Some parents buy GTA for their kids and don't involved themselves enough to tell the kids that its topics are things that are not OK in real life... and sometimes these kids are sufficiently insulated from society that they don't get that same message... but kids with such awful childhoods aer probably going to be bad guys anyway.
I don't think it's fair to conflate all violence by simplistic definitions. They have to be cultural and based on societal outrage, because that's not informative of the true nature of the activity than rote logic application.
You're right, criticizing Nintendo leads to a lot of flack on slashdot (and in the world in general... people really love that brand).
And surely you're right. Nintendo would publicize much of its environmentalism. But greenpeace is being dishonest here. It's not as though Greepeace is going to go out of their way to learn if Nintendo is a great company. That's because, at root, greenpeace is not about the environment. It's about western style government and corporations. Greenpeace's history shows it is generally focused on government regulation and distortion of truth for political purposes.
It's not as though Nintendo is pretending it is telling you the real story on Nintendo's environmental practices. Greenpeace is pretending it is, but is not doing the work to get the truth because it knows its story is better this way. Greenpeace is the one making the claim and with the responsibility to back it up with research. With, Nintendo, we can assume it is protecting itself and that's not very deceptive or surprising, but with Greenpeace, we are essentially being lied to.
I think you have a very reasonable opinion. But notice that the market is attempting to adjust a bit. The PS3 is starting to allow mouse/keyboard use soon. I assume the xbox will eventually follow. All systems are supporting higher resolutions. 1080p isn't super awesome for a computer monitor, but it's actually a pretty damn nice step up.
The mouse is going to invade console gaming, and people will soon start demanding a hybrid mouse/controller like that one for the PS3 (that doesn't work at all).
I wonder, in ten years, if Windows continues to decline and appliances continue to be more viable, if PC gaming will persist at its amazing quality level. Ten years is an eon in this industry, so nobody can really say. What I can say for sure is that soon, consoles will support the high resolutions of a computer monitor (and I doubt there are specialized monitors at that point, just small TVs), and they will support your keyboard and mouse.
It's important to note that some console games are trying to open up for people like you. Also, I think as consoles merge more with computers, that console games )which are already becoming content saved on an HDD, will become more modable at least in some cases.
Will things be as good as they were with DOOM.wads? Not a chance. Just as you like tinkering around, I wish I could adjust the timing on my Honda Accord the way I could with my Chevelle when I was a kid. Don't be surprised if the average home computers become more like an appliance you can't work on (as easily... like the PSP). There will be enshutiasts who keep throwing advanced motherboards nad processors and custom OSs in their computers... and they will be legitimately useful (like a 67 Chevelle is with a new Chevy motor and a GPS inside). It will just be an expensive hobby instead of a cool feature of computing.
Sounds kinda lame to you? I don't disagree. And it will probably be extremely expensive if I cannot fix my own computer or upgrade it. People whine about having to upgrade video cards. But what happens when you have to migrate to a new appliance that breaks or is obsolete? What happens with Microsoft or Sony really need their old system to be obsolete to increase profits?
The real limitation is that the internet can only handle so much transmission of data at once. We need a faster backbone before my ideas are possible.
As far as data security goes, the most personal stuff I've got is in my gmail account. My most security sensitive information is in my credit card's online bill.
Millions of people accept the security risk. In fact, I don't think most of them even realize or care about the depth of the security risk,
For those who do, it's not as though Linux or Windows would go away... they'd just continually slow down in advancement (as windows and apple OS already is because of new focusing on appliances like the iphone of 360).
You're not raining on my parade. I actually agree with you about these problems. What if my personal computer fit in my pocket and someone stole it? That would really suck! What device most resembles that risk? The popular iphone, of course, with all your pictures and cookies saving passwords on websites such as gmail. And what about credit cards? Someone could steal my credit card and cause some major problems for me... but millions people don't use cash instead. Should these systems need to be biometrically secure? I think we'll start to see clever ways of keeping these systems secure if stolen.
Remember, you're just talking about hurdles to overcome. They probably will be overcome. I'm inclined to agree that this may not be the best idea, but look around. PS3s are competing with computers. iphones are too, PDAs never took off, but if you make a cool PDA and call it an iphone, computer illiterate people buy it up.
I'm not saying that's going to be good for security, I'm just explaining why Apple and MS are not as focused monetarily on producing OSs.
The difference is that Ubuntu is free, of course. And compared with Vista, the next level of Ubuntu isn't as great a drag on my system (I need to use Office, so I'm screwed anyway).
I agree. 2007 had better be better. It's a great time for computing and I forsee massive changes in the operating system market. 90% of what people do with the internet is use the internet. If we start seeing internet applications that don't suck, the compatibility argument that macs and MS rely on becomes weaker. If a system can do flash, it's going to be a valid system for the marketplace.
So as the internet takes over, I see Windows becoming less and less relevant. Hell, I see the PC becoming less and less relevant. If an internet appliance can handle my applications, entertainment, and communciation, I don't need windows anymore (especially if I'm an idiot who is too challenged to run adaware).
I think we'll see iPhones and google devices and PS3 (that are more versatile) take over the living rooms, and the PCs will be left behind. Even offices are better served by internet terminals that leave documents safely on servers and out of the hands of laptop thieves.
That's why Apple is investing in their TV and Phone devices. That's why Microsoft has pours billions into their XBOXs and will start another very soon. Where is that development money coming from? OS development. Vista is not the kind of leap XP was because it would be stupid to keep investing in a model that is on the way out.
I don't think 2008 will see better OS products. But in several years, it won't matter.
You can't run Linux on an XBOX 360, so who cares how many cores the Xenon has in this context? What an odd reply.
The Cell is a very interesting processor, and it's obviously superior to the Xenon in many ways. The fact that the PS3 is the most open mass produced console in recent history is a valid selling point.
If you like games... well I'd advice the new xbox and a long term warranty.
While yeah, there are a ton of Apple fans out there that can take a bit too much pride in their machines, the fact is that this is somewhat unusual.
I've seen tons of mac laptops with cosmetic damage, but it's pretty rare that the operating system on a new mac is unreliable.
If this report represents a widespread issue, that's significant. And partly because macs are supposed to work without any problems. And frankly, there's no excuse for them not to. It's like that Halo 3 and the XBOX 360 lawsuit... it's all Microsoft, so there's no excuse for failure.
With my thinkpad, there are parts from several vendors interoperating and dealing with windows and ubuntu and even my playstation when I stream movies on TVersity.
With a mac, it's all Apple, all the time, so the operating system programmer has far less work to do... at least in my mind. Apple has a very interesting business model that ought to be reliable and usually is, so I think this incident somewhat shows why apple fans are so cocky (I'll stick with my thinkpad).
TFA, my friend, indicates that he went to Japan several times for recording. No idea why this would be necessary, but the cost of flying one guy is trivial for this project.
It's art, not an engineering project (entirely), so I guess a little inefficiency is part of the deal.
"first, we just need to tighten up the graphics a little bit"
EA's leadership has a vested interest in helping microsoft. I wonder if they'd drop Sony products like they dropped Sega. My 360 gets the multiplatform titles, but this is pretty lame for those with only a PS3.
I'm pretty sick of supporting EA. Valve should have used Obsidian or someone who has a nice PS3 game out there. This is 100% Valve's fault. EA is what it is, and we've known it for years.
Well, obviously the AC was being a troll (And a moron), but if this author is willing to share his source with other programmers, I think that's cool of him. This emulator is his own work, and if he doesn't want to open source it, I think that's his right.
Even if that's bad for the community (it obviously is).
We give props to those who share their work precisely because they didn't have to be that generous. It's wrong to condemn those who exercise their rights. After all, if you truly are this dedicated to PSX emulation being open sourced, you would write an emulator and publicize your code. You and I aren't willing to pay that kind of price, so it's unfair to demand that this author do so.
I guess I care a lot less about the PSX emulator because I have so many playstations of various generations that can run these discs. Do you find this useful just because it can run your backups? How much of this stuff is piracy?
Well, I supposed I could've been nicer, but remember that I was replying to a shrieking commenter, so I think I was pretty fair.
And of course computer programs are primitive. 1+1=10 to computers. They have to go through abstractions in order to distinguish beyond "on" and "off." It's not an insult to call them primitive, it's just the way machines are, even though they are far more advanced than they were in the past, etc etc. I can look at context, experience doubt when my "code" is producing unusual results or incoherent, etc. Thus, I can read without each character and variable being absolutely unique.
So I don't think I'm a troll. You have to look at the comment above for context! Aren't you guys listening to anything I'm saying?:(
When UN activists commit rape repeatedly, when Syria is put on the antiproliferation committee int he same week that they are found to be sharing nuclear weapons tech with north korea, when billions of dollars in aid to the Iraqi people are stolen to fund palaces for Saddam and oil for france (killing 200,000 people by starvation), when UN facilities are used to store missiles fired at civilians, and when Iran is on the human rights committee, yeah, I think the UN is systematically opposed to human rights.
Why? Because it recognizes the legitimacy of nations that are illegitimate dictatorships, racist, or sexist to the point where huge segments are enslaved. Only legitimately elected governments should have a voice in international law. The whims of some African tin-pot dictator might be foisted over his own nation out of necessity, but there is no possible justice in allowing his vote to affect the citizens of the entire world. The UN constantly reflects the villians' interests. How many times have terrorists been condemned? How many times has Israel been condemned? While Israel has done bad things, they certainly aren't bad enough to justify the imbalance (it's over 200-1 when you look at UN resolutions). Jews have been hated for a very long time, and all the idiots running bad nations reflect this reality. They hate Jews, and so the UN itself hates Jews. Same applies to many other awful practices.
I think people like you realize that some nations are worse than others in a fundamental way, but believe that the UN is the only way to govern the world. "Give the democratic government of Poland the same voice as dominating and abusive theocratically chosen government of Iran, not because its fair, but because it's necessary to have diplomacy." But look at how bad this is working! No diplomacy is occurring. The UN is exploited by the evil to delay justice through endless procedure. Look at the IAEA... supposedly the enemy of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists... but they are the best friend of Iran, long the world's foremost terrorism supporter. Can you point to some accomplishment to justify all the raping and killing and stealing?
The fact is, some nations are totally illegitimate, but there isn't enough incentive for human rights and democracy because the UN rewards dictators the same (or more) than legit nations. The civilized world should exclude such nations from deliberations that affect us. There can be a forum for the terrorists and despots and rapists to come and tell us their grievances, but they ought have no vote at all. We gain so much if these nations are seen for what they are. What do we give up? IF the UN accomplished good things, then perhaps you would have an argument that the injustice is worth it...
Do you really think I am deluded? I state my arguments. I'm not being jingoistic, I'm using facts and ideas and values that I prefer. You just announce that my ideas are hopeless and not worth discussion. I think that's pathetic, but it's interesting that this is precisely the philosophy I'm asking you to accept as a world policy: if a nation is deluded, exclude them from real discussions. So, are you going to contradict yourself and disagree with me?
We're not alluding to C or fortran or whatever easy ass script language you might have learned in high school. Ww're alluding to math and symbolic logic. The fact that your computer languages are unable to parse between two meanings of = that are basic is just a root problem with machines, not a limitation of the symbols that are easy for people to use in language.
Would you really have us reconsider everything we say so that they can be uniquely expressed to a computer? I have to say "else" if I already said "then"? I can't say this, that, or that?
Realize that computer symbols are based on concepts that have existed for centuries. Great concepts that the computer languages should be do their best to equal. Ordering me to simplify these concepts because your programming language is very primitive and cannot determine the different "=" based on context is ordering me to be primitive myself. And as hard as I could try, I would never lower myself quite that far.
Wrong? What part? He agreed with you that there are problems in Canada. You said wrong, but pretty much restated what he said. His point was that Iran is so much worse on human rights, that a just UN would focus on the really awful things int he world instead of the far more minor problems in Canada.
In international law, one of the more important factors for determining what "torture" is is relativity among nations. If we accept Iran's behavior, and the UN largely does accept it, then the Taser is certainly not legally torture. What consistent method would you use to define torture that gives Iran the ability to censure anyone before censoring themselves?
Of course Canada and the USA have problems that are publicly acknowledged and discussed (that usually boil down to very tough problems like poverty that the government has a hard time actually fixing). It's so stupidly obvious that no one is arguing that these problems don't exist. These problems are used in the UN to provide cover to Iran, Russia, China, and other truly awful nations. It's a red herring meant to get the "sensitive" assholes who are actually populist power mongers or their pawns in rich nations like Canada bitching about Canada's domestic problems instead of focusing on the best place for a human rights activist to fight: the UN itself, Russia, China, etc etc.
The UN is the enemy, more or less, of the human rights activist. Billions of people lack basic human rights, and very few of them are in Canada.
So true. And yet, these people aren't really conservatives, they just think they are. There are many conservatives who are opposed to censorship and government fiddling with what we can say, but there are so many that are.
And of course, many of the most successful censors have been democrats like Tipper Gore. I wonder if she could be called a liberal. I think not. I suppose we can all agree that this isn't much of a partisan issue.
Fact is, they do it because many voters like to vote for politicians that make a lot of noise about protecting the kids. Democracy has become the vehicle that is crushing liberty. There is no better system, but it's a crummy system.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when?
you're just adding to the normal definition ad hoc.
It was a bank. We all realize it wasn't FDIC insured and isn't the same as Bank of America. But go run to your dictionary and look up the word "bank", and you will realize that banks actually preexisted the laws in place today. A bank is where you store your money. In fact, a bank is just where you store anything.
I can have a bank of thumbtacks i my garage. It's a normal word that you should relax about.
The parent is right. Linden is profiting on the insecurities of the system. So long as the customers understand this going in, that's not a problem, but it's a sad hobby. Like gambling. It's not something I'm morally opposed to, but for those that abuse it and get screwed, I'm totally right to say it's a sad thing to do.
$630 dollars huh?
If I get a 400 dollar PS3 and a $99 PS2 (read the news more, that's the coming revision), I pay the same price as the $500 PS3 that runs PS2 games fairly well. It seems like Sony is letting me decide if I want the feature. I can also get a sued PS2... or if I'm like most gamers, use the one I already own.
And my PS2 controllers seem to work really well on my PS3. Even on PS3 games. Any PS2 to PC usb adaptor works (you can get 'em for $5). I'll write off the comments about power plugs, etc. If you're this worried about that stuff, just buy the $500 system that is Back Compat. I personally love that I can have a PS2 in a different room from my PS3. It shares the crappy TV with my Wii (and my kids use it more). Very convenient indeed.
Fact is, for many gaming homes, PS2 compatibility is free since they already own the system. The $400 system doesn't have to deal with integration of the components or the components themselves, so it's a great move by Sony to ditch the BC. I really care about BC and got a 60gb. I think it's a great way to differentiate the PS3s. MUCH BETTER THAN OPTIONAL HDD.
Sony has goofed, but it's main goof is letting so many games come out so late. Games are the sole reason why the 360 is the best system, the PS3 second best, and the Wii is... not a bargain if you like a lot of games. That will change to favor the wii a bit, and probably the PS3 too. Not sure if the 360 can be beaten in this department though. Honestly, this is much more important that the stuff you're misinformed about.
I think your negative opinion of the PS3 is largely driven by FUD you have picked up on the internet. Most of what you're saying isn't true. I think that the PS3 + PS2 is actually a better deal than the $500 PS3.
re: privacy. It's not a matter of if you can lose data, it's a matter of how much.
Of course a dedicated bastard can steal data if he works for the company, is entering the data, etc. But the really bad privacy violations lately have been stolen laptops. You reduce the fuck-up potential when you keep data on on internal server. If a laptop is stolen, hopefully is lacks access until work hours (maybe until someone has punched in at work), and once the theft is discovered, the data access is certainly cut off. Better yet, you might have a way of tracing access and you definitely have a way of seeing exactly what was accessed.
So the think client is a huge privacy boon. It's not perfect, but it's better.
You're right. I wasn't thinking about it, but games generally do reduce resolution from what I might use for word processing. I use more than one monitor on my computer, so I'm used to a massive resolution. It's wider than 2600, but I can't tell you exactly what.
It's connected to my thinkpad. The only games I play on it are ancient. And on my PS3, I turn all games down to 720p (there are a couple that can do 1080p) just because I think it looks better.
So I guess there really is no video advantage to using a PC. A graphical advantage in some cases, but not a video advantage.
You're right. boxing has a serious problem and isn't the sport of honor it once was. The problem is that money and power are corrupting, and we aren't as educated a society. You see much the same in all entertainment. Music, football, acting, are all either full of less ethical people or at least the vices are not as concealed.
But even if Boxing is not good, it's not outrageous to be fan in the same way it is outrageous to like real murder. There's a huge distinction. First of all, you box other sportsman who want to box you. It's not criminal or unjust.
You might think a person is lame because they love modern boxing. That they have crude taste. Just as you might think a person has crude taste to have a stretch hummer with gold and diamond covered rims with velvet bumpers. But these people who lack taste are not on the same level as those few people who really dig rape and murder.
Something fundamentally changes when the vices are running over your hooker and stealing her money. I don't want kids playing games like that without, at least, parents being aware of it enough to have a fair chance to raise their kids. I'm not blaming violent games for real violence. I'm just saying there's a reason we treat sport violence as though it's ok.
That's what I was saying. If you look for posts that are critical of the wii or its games, you're often going to find people who are mad about it.
And it's not a pro-nintendo slant. It's an anti-Sony slant.
Nintendo has a lot of crummy practices that we don't bother remembering or worrying about because it's competing against two companies with more recent unethical practices. I know a lot of people cheering the wii to outdo the PS2 are really just wanting to see Sony lose a cap-feather.
Interesting dynamic I think. Me, I love the PS3 console, the 360's games, and the wii's.. erm... um, price.
Olivia will give you all she has!
You know what? Baloney.
Society gets to decide what is outrageous. We don't have to follow black and white rules and be logically consistent.
Society is outraged by shotgunning of people. Society is not outraged by two people agreeing to box each other for sport. A few extreme pacifists do say that this is akin to other violence sine you are physically harming another person, and they're right. It's violence, but society isn't outraged by it.
That's why boxing can be an innocent game for kids, because society isn't worried that kids will grown up thinking it's ok to box people who agree to participate for sport. They do frown on kids growing up thinking shooting other peopleis ok, and thus restrict very violent games to parents, so parents can be involved enough to tell kids.. hey, that's a game and this stuff isn't ok in real life.
Frankly, the system seems to work. I think society reinforces the message that boxing is ok and murder isn't. Some parents buy GTA for their kids and don't involved themselves enough to tell the kids that its topics are things that are not OK in real life... and sometimes these kids are sufficiently insulated from society that they don't get that same message... but kids with such awful childhoods aer probably going to be bad guys anyway.
I don't think it's fair to conflate all violence by simplistic definitions. They have to be cultural and based on societal outrage, because that's not informative of the true nature of the activity than rote logic application.
You're right, criticizing Nintendo leads to a lot of flack on slashdot (and in the world in general... people really love that brand).
And surely you're right. Nintendo would publicize much of its environmentalism. But greenpeace is being dishonest here. It's not as though Greepeace is going to go out of their way to learn if Nintendo is a great company. That's because, at root, greenpeace is not about the environment. It's about western style government and corporations. Greenpeace's history shows it is generally focused on government regulation and distortion of truth for political purposes.
It's not as though Nintendo is pretending it is telling you the real story on Nintendo's environmental practices. Greenpeace is pretending it is, but is not doing the work to get the truth because it knows its story is better this way. Greenpeace is the one making the claim and with the responsibility to back it up with research. With, Nintendo, we can assume it is protecting itself and that's not very deceptive or surprising, but with Greenpeace, we are essentially being lied to.
I think you have a very reasonable opinion. But notice that the market is attempting to adjust a bit. The PS3 is starting to allow mouse/keyboard use soon. I assume the xbox will eventually follow. All systems are supporting higher resolutions. 1080p isn't super awesome for a computer monitor, but it's actually a pretty damn nice step up.
The mouse is going to invade console gaming, and people will soon start demanding a hybrid mouse/controller like that one for the PS3 (that doesn't work at all).
I wonder, in ten years, if Windows continues to decline and appliances continue to be more viable, if PC gaming will persist at its amazing quality level. Ten years is an eon in this industry, so nobody can really say. What I can say for sure is that soon, consoles will support the high resolutions of a computer monitor (and I doubt there are specialized monitors at that point, just small TVs), and they will support your keyboard and mouse.
It's important to note that some console games are trying to open up for people like you. Also, I think as consoles merge more with computers, that console games )which are already becoming content saved on an HDD, will become more modable at least in some cases.
.wads? Not a chance. Just as you like tinkering around, I wish I could adjust the timing on my Honda Accord the way I could with my Chevelle when I was a kid. Don't be surprised if the average home computers become more like an appliance you can't work on (as easily... like the PSP). There will be enshutiasts who keep throwing advanced motherboards nad processors and custom OSs in their computers... and they will be legitimately useful (like a 67 Chevelle is with a new Chevy motor and a GPS inside). It will just be an expensive hobby instead of a cool feature of computing.
Will things be as good as they were with DOOM
Sounds kinda lame to you? I don't disagree. And it will probably be extremely expensive if I cannot fix my own computer or upgrade it. People whine about having to upgrade video cards. But what happens when you have to migrate to a new appliance that breaks or is obsolete? What happens with Microsoft or Sony really need their old system to be obsolete to increase profits?
The real limitation is that the internet can only handle so much transmission of data at once. We need a faster backbone before my ideas are possible.
As far as data security goes, the most personal stuff I've got is in my gmail account. My most security sensitive information is in my credit card's online bill.
Millions of people accept the security risk. In fact, I don't think most of them even realize or care about the depth of the security risk,
For those who do, it's not as though Linux or Windows would go away... they'd just continually slow down in advancement (as windows and apple OS already is because of new focusing on appliances like the iphone of 360).
You're not raining on my parade. I actually agree with you about these problems. What if my personal computer fit in my pocket and someone stole it? That would really suck! What device most resembles that risk? The popular iphone, of course, with all your pictures and cookies saving passwords on websites such as gmail. And what about credit cards? Someone could steal my credit card and cause some major problems for me... but millions people don't use cash instead. Should these systems need to be biometrically secure? I think we'll start to see clever ways of keeping these systems secure if stolen.
Remember, you're just talking about hurdles to overcome. They probably will be overcome. I'm inclined to agree that this may not be the best idea, but look around. PS3s are competing with computers. iphones are too, PDAs never took off, but if you make a cool PDA and call it an iphone, computer illiterate people buy it up.
I'm not saying that's going to be good for security, I'm just explaining why Apple and MS are not as focused monetarily on producing OSs.
And of course, had he not run, Bill Clinton would have had a very difficult, if impossible, time winning an election.
Very strange system we've got, where our president can receive such a low percentage of the vote.
I do in fact love Feisty and am not a gibbon fan.
The difference is that Ubuntu is free, of course. And compared with Vista, the next level of Ubuntu isn't as great a drag on my system (I need to use Office, so I'm screwed anyway).
I agree. 2007 had better be better. It's a great time for computing and I forsee massive changes in the operating system market. 90% of what people do with the internet is use the internet. If we start seeing internet applications that don't suck, the compatibility argument that macs and MS rely on becomes weaker. If a system can do flash, it's going to be a valid system for the marketplace.
So as the internet takes over, I see Windows becoming less and less relevant. Hell, I see the PC becoming less and less relevant. If an internet appliance can handle my applications, entertainment, and communciation, I don't need windows anymore (especially if I'm an idiot who is too challenged to run adaware).
I think we'll see iPhones and google devices and PS3 (that are more versatile) take over the living rooms, and the PCs will be left behind. Even offices are better served by internet terminals that leave documents safely on servers and out of the hands of laptop thieves.
That's why Apple is investing in their TV and Phone devices. That's why Microsoft has pours billions into their XBOXs and will start another very soon. Where is that development money coming from? OS development. Vista is not the kind of leap XP was because it would be stupid to keep investing in a model that is on the way out.
I don't think 2008 will see better OS products. But in several years, it won't matter.
You can't run Linux on an XBOX 360, so who cares how many cores the Xenon has in this context? What an odd reply.
The Cell is a very interesting processor, and it's obviously superior to the Xenon in many ways. The fact that the PS3 is the most open mass produced console in recent history is a valid selling point.
If you like games... well I'd advice the new xbox and a long term warranty.
While yeah, there are a ton of Apple fans out there that can take a bit too much pride in their machines, the fact is that this is somewhat unusual.
I've seen tons of mac laptops with cosmetic damage, but it's pretty rare that the operating system on a new mac is unreliable.
If this report represents a widespread issue, that's significant. And partly because macs are supposed to work without any problems. And frankly, there's no excuse for them not to. It's like that Halo 3 and the XBOX 360 lawsuit... it's all Microsoft, so there's no excuse for failure.
With my thinkpad, there are parts from several vendors interoperating and dealing with windows and ubuntu and even my playstation when I stream movies on TVersity.
With a mac, it's all Apple, all the time, so the operating system programmer has far less work to do... at least in my mind. Apple has a very interesting business model that ought to be reliable and usually is, so I think this incident somewhat shows why apple fans are so cocky (I'll stick with my thinkpad).
TFA, my friend, indicates that he went to Japan several times for recording. No idea why this would be necessary, but the cost of flying one guy is trivial for this project.
It's art, not an engineering project (entirely), so I guess a little inefficiency is part of the deal.
"first, we just need to tighten up the graphics a little bit"
EA's leadership has a vested interest in helping microsoft. I wonder if they'd drop Sony products like they dropped Sega. My 360 gets the multiplatform titles, but this is pretty lame for those with only a PS3.
I'm pretty sick of supporting EA. Valve should have used Obsidian or someone who has a nice PS3 game out there. This is 100% Valve's fault. EA is what it is, and we've known it for years.
Well, obviously the AC was being a troll (And a moron), but if this author is willing to share his source with other programmers, I think that's cool of him. This emulator is his own work, and if he doesn't want to open source it, I think that's his right.
Even if that's bad for the community (it obviously is).
We give props to those who share their work precisely because they didn't have to be that generous. It's wrong to condemn those who exercise their rights. After all, if you truly are this dedicated to PSX emulation being open sourced, you would write an emulator and publicize your code. You and I aren't willing to pay that kind of price, so it's unfair to demand that this author do so.
I guess I care a lot less about the PSX emulator because I have so many playstations of various generations that can run these discs. Do you find this useful just because it can run your backups? How much of this stuff is piracy?
Well, I supposed I could've been nicer, but remember that I was replying to a shrieking commenter, so I think I was pretty fair.
:(
And of course computer programs are primitive. 1+1=10 to computers. They have to go through abstractions in order to distinguish beyond "on" and "off." It's not an insult to call them primitive, it's just the way machines are, even though they are far more advanced than they were in the past, etc etc. I can look at context, experience doubt when my "code" is producing unusual results or incoherent, etc. Thus, I can read without each character and variable being absolutely unique.
So I don't think I'm a troll. You have to look at the comment above for context! Aren't you guys listening to anything I'm saying?
When UN activists commit rape repeatedly, when Syria is put on the antiproliferation committee int he same week that they are found to be sharing nuclear weapons tech with north korea, when billions of dollars in aid to the Iraqi people are stolen to fund palaces for Saddam and oil for france (killing 200,000 people by starvation), when UN facilities are used to store missiles fired at civilians, and when Iran is on the human rights committee, yeah, I think the UN is systematically opposed to human rights.
Why? Because it recognizes the legitimacy of nations that are illegitimate dictatorships, racist, or sexist to the point where huge segments are enslaved. Only legitimately elected governments should have a voice in international law. The whims of some African tin-pot dictator might be foisted over his own nation out of necessity, but there is no possible justice in allowing his vote to affect the citizens of the entire world. The UN constantly reflects the villians' interests. How many times have terrorists been condemned? How many times has Israel been condemned? While Israel has done bad things, they certainly aren't bad enough to justify the imbalance (it's over 200-1 when you look at UN resolutions). Jews have been hated for a very long time, and all the idiots running bad nations reflect this reality. They hate Jews, and so the UN itself hates Jews. Same applies to many other awful practices.
I think people like you realize that some nations are worse than others in a fundamental way, but believe that the UN is the only way to govern the world. "Give the democratic government of Poland the same voice as dominating and abusive theocratically chosen government of Iran, not because its fair, but because it's necessary to have diplomacy." But look at how bad this is working! No diplomacy is occurring. The UN is exploited by the evil to delay justice through endless procedure. Look at the IAEA... supposedly the enemy of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists... but they are the best friend of Iran, long the world's foremost terrorism supporter. Can you point to some accomplishment to justify all the raping and killing and stealing?
The fact is, some nations are totally illegitimate, but there isn't enough incentive for human rights and democracy because the UN rewards dictators the same (or more) than legit nations. The civilized world should exclude such nations from deliberations that affect us. There can be a forum for the terrorists and despots and rapists to come and tell us their grievances, but they ought have no vote at all. We gain so much if these nations are seen for what they are. What do we give up? IF the UN accomplished good things, then perhaps you would have an argument that the injustice is worth it...
Do you really think I am deluded? I state my arguments. I'm not being jingoistic, I'm using facts and ideas and values that I prefer. You just announce that my ideas are hopeless and not worth discussion. I think that's pathetic, but it's interesting that this is precisely the philosophy I'm asking you to accept as a world policy: if a nation is deluded, exclude them from real discussions. So, are you going to contradict yourself and disagree with me?
1+1=2, knucklehead.
We're not alluding to C or fortran or whatever easy ass script language you might have learned in high school. Ww're alluding to math and symbolic logic. The fact that your computer languages are unable to parse between two meanings of = that are basic is just a root problem with machines, not a limitation of the symbols that are easy for people to use in language.
Would you really have us reconsider everything we say so that they can be uniquely expressed to a computer? I have to say "else" if I already said "then"? I can't say this, that, or that?
Realize that computer symbols are based on concepts that have existed for centuries. Great concepts that the computer languages should be do their best to equal. Ordering me to simplify these concepts because your programming language is very primitive and cannot determine the different "=" based on context is ordering me to be primitive myself. And as hard as I could try, I would never lower myself quite that far.
Wrong? What part? He agreed with you that there are problems in Canada. You said wrong, but pretty much restated what he said. His point was that Iran is so much worse on human rights, that a just UN would focus on the really awful things int he world instead of the far more minor problems in Canada.
In international law, one of the more important factors for determining what "torture" is is relativity among nations. If we accept Iran's behavior, and the UN largely does accept it, then the Taser is certainly not legally torture. What consistent method would you use to define torture that gives Iran the ability to censure anyone before censoring themselves?
Of course Canada and the USA have problems that are publicly acknowledged and discussed (that usually boil down to very tough problems like poverty that the government has a hard time actually fixing). It's so stupidly obvious that no one is arguing that these problems don't exist. These problems are used in the UN to provide cover to Iran, Russia, China, and other truly awful nations. It's a red herring meant to get the "sensitive" assholes who are actually populist power mongers or their pawns in rich nations like Canada bitching about Canada's domestic problems instead of focusing on the best place for a human rights activist to fight: the UN itself, Russia, China, etc etc.
The UN is the enemy, more or less, of the human rights activist. Billions of people lack basic human rights, and very few of them are in Canada.
nothing in the summary indicated that England = the UK.
This was like saying "Chevies from Michigan suck. Canadians are complaining about the North American automaker's reliability."
So true. And yet, these people aren't really conservatives, they just think they are. There are many conservatives who are opposed to censorship and government fiddling with what we can say, but there are so many that are.
And of course, many of the most successful censors have been democrats like Tipper Gore. I wonder if she could be called a liberal. I think not. I suppose we can all agree that this isn't much of a partisan issue.
Fact is, they do it because many voters like to vote for politicians that make a lot of noise about protecting the kids. Democracy has become the vehicle that is crushing liberty. There is no better system, but it's a crummy system.