Sure they downloaded the megaman 9 demo for each system, but that's 3 different file types on 3 different servers isn't it?
I don't know much about networks, so if the following is wrong or just nonsense, ignore it.
Seems like that would answer which console itself downloaded the fastest, but that would be of purely academic value if the file types and servers themselves had a bigger and different effect. If the PS3 can download from a given server faster than the 360, that's nice, but if downloading something from XBLA is itself much faster than PSN, that really has no effect and doesn't matter to people like me. The test under discussion tells in the real world which console is faster at downloading, which is more interesting to me.
Once again, I don't know much about networks, so maybe that's nonsense, if so just disreguard.
Mega Man 9 demo, PS3: 63 MB -Mega Man 9 demo, Xbox 360: 88.7 MB -Mega Man 9 game, Wii: 8.3 MB
Of course, he does account for that. He was following their discovery chronologically rather than a more straightforward story. First they downloaded the game and timed it, got some odd results, looked further, and realized the difference in sizes.
Such a discovery calls for some long division, which yielded the following results:
-Mega Man 9 download speed on PS3:.44 MB per second (1st place) -Mega Man 9 download speed on Xbox 360:.26 MB per second (3rd place) -Mega Man 9 download speed on Wii:.31 MB per second (2nd place)
It doesn't matter that the file sizes were different, that was accounted for.
Furthermore, all three systems appear to have been tested on each connection, not a PS3 on one connection, a 360 at another house, etc.
Lastly the blog calls for more results. The most valid criticism of the findings is not the methodology but the low numbers, and the author appears to acknowledge that and is trying to do something about that.
But by all means, heap abuse on him for daring to try to compare consoles quantitatively.
If you want to get people interested in helping our environment (or at least doing less harm to it than they are now), coming up with idiotic ideas like a wallet that burns your hand or a printer that you have to move by hand and produces unreadable and short-lived text is only detrimental to your cause.
The moving by hand bit is odd, but could just be a gimmie to simplify the design and also increase the odds of winning this competition. The coffee grounds for printing part is what's interesting, and on the extreme off-chance that it can actually be used for real printing, it won't be long before someone puts it into an automatic printer and sells it.
As far as unreadable and short lived text, the thing doesn't actually exist yet, but you're telling me it's completely impossible that it will ever work right? Did I miss something, the coffee ink doesn't have to move faster than the speed of light to be readable, does it? I'll agree it PROBABLY won't ever make good printing, but don't act like it's impossible, because you have as much proof of that as the designers do that it will work great: none.
Using your own HAND to move the print head? At that point, I might as well go back to using my old electric blue IBM typewriter.
Which runs on espresso grinds?
Something tells me that if this actually works, their next model will not be hand-powered, and you'll have forgotten you called it stupid. And jumping the shark? Please. If in 5 years they come out with a real one, and it both saves me the hassle of buying ink cartridges AND does something usefull with the coffee grounds, it really shouldn't matter if it comes from misplaced environmentalism.
Anyway, what's wrong with the "green frenzy"? It's better than, say, the "What is brittney going to do next" frenzy.
Disclaimer: I doubt that this will actually work, so you're probably safe.
The kind that is completely impractical and stupid.
Kind of like these stupid Wright bros who have the ridiculous notion that they can build a flying machine. Claptrap I say!
Semi-serious point: While I am not going to be putting up any venture capital for this project, and all technology/ science must be met with skepticism, calling it completely impractial and stupid at this point is calling it too early. Lets wait until the tech either peters or pans out. If no further proof of concept is forthcoming, we can ignore it. If we call it stupid now, and several months later they make a laserprinter with it and the only difference is that one has a faint aroma of coffee, then you've basically called yourself completely stupid.
A thousand times no, there's fewer good puns with that than "bit." Quit is okay as far as the pun test goes.
Quata (from quaternary data) also works, though it is of course less accurate. Small price to pay though, you can get puns off of "quarter" and/or "water."
I think we need to establish from the get-go that no matter what we call it, the most important thing is that computer teachers in high schools can make lame puns for their students to groan about.
For what? Being in charge when the government decided we needed better bandwidth? For having not already taken steps to put this type of bandwidth in on the company's own dime?
Sending more spam in the name of eliminating spam is not eliminating spam.
I could see similar arguments made before vaccinations became commonplace: "injecting bits of viruses into people is not eliminating viruses." Of course, they do work. Similarly, vaccinating spam might work.
While it could increase burden on servers, if it cuts down on the amount of people responding to spam, there will inevitably be less spammers and less spam.
How about we simply improve our educational system and teach marketing majors a bit more about business ethics and ethical advertising?
I don't think an ethics class and ethics advertising is going to make spamming unprofitable, nor is it going to make people any less greedy.
Seriously you should not comment on something that you obviously know nothing.
I said "I don't know, is it possible that if someone were to break a window that the cage would suddenly be useless?" and "Is it possible to build a faraday cage that would ONLY block cell phone transmissions and not play havoc with the other communications?"
What part of my post sounded to you like I was stating a falsehood rather than asking for information?
Seriously you should not comment on anything until you learn some manners or bother with reading comprehension.
Again with the SWAT thing, if they want to disable phones inside a meth lab, I don't think the guys inside with AK's are going to simply sit still while you paint the house!
Gonna have to call foul here, although you did the disclaimer at the end, you extended my basic argument and made it sound like I was proposing something ridiculous there !:-P
Yes, but I'm not in a prison, prisoners aren't supposed to have cell phones, and a guard should hear any prisoner who is.
I can understand if we were talking about cell phones in, say, major city areas, or out in the woods, but this is a very specific context. So I'll ask again, what danger is there?
Prisons are big, and I would guess that the materials and paint that would work would be pretty expensive.
There is also undoubtedly a lot of restrictions on what you can construct one out of to prevent prisoners from breaking pieces off and stabbing each other with them. Installation at least would be a major hassle, there's probably some type of security clearance construction workers working on active prisons have to have, and this would be a major job. And probably there would be at least one tinfoil hat lawsuit claiming the faraday cage was doing something with radiation and making prisoners sick.
I don't know, is it possible that if someone were to break a window that the cage would suddenly be useless?
This jammer could be turned on and off, giving you more flexibility, wheras a permanent cage couldn't. There are situations where you might want to allow the use of cell phones.
And, most importantly, guards do use radios and possibly other types of wireless communications. Is it possible to build a faraday cage that would ONLY block cell phone transmissions and not play havoc with the other communications?
All in all, I think this jammer would be safer, cheaper, and more effective than what you're suggesting. Just my non-expert opinion.
Do you really expect the police to understand something like this? These are the guys who got to where they are by brute force - not by understanding things.
That's why they hire people who do understand these things to do it for them. Prison guards probably also don't understand the video monitoring systems they use, but that doesn't keep them from using them after they've been setup. It obviously doesn't take a genius to press a button to jam cell phone signals.
The specific gripe the bot company appeals on doesn't matter much to me, they would appeal any decision that told them they couldn't sell their product, that's what companies do.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure they downloaded the megaman 9 demo for each system, but that's 3 different file types on 3 different servers isn't it?
I don't know much about networks, so if the following is wrong or just nonsense, ignore it.
Seems like that would answer which console itself downloaded the fastest, but that would be of purely academic value if the file types and servers themselves had a bigger and different effect. If the PS3 can download from a given server faster than the 360, that's nice, but if downloading something from XBLA is itself much faster than PSN, that really has no effect and doesn't matter to people like me. The test under discussion tells in the real world which console is faster at downloading, which is more interesting to me.
Once again, I don't know much about networks, so maybe that's nonsense, if so just disreguard.
Mega Man 9 demo, PS3: 63 MB -Mega Man 9 demo, Xbox 360: 88.7 MB -Mega Man 9 game, Wii: 8.3 MB
Of course, he does account for that. He was following their discovery chronologically rather than a more straightforward story. First they downloaded the game and timed it, got some odd results, looked further, and realized the difference in sizes.
It doesn't matter that the file sizes were different, that was accounted for.
Furthermore, all three systems appear to have been tested on each connection, not a PS3 on one connection, a 360 at another house, etc.
Lastly the blog calls for more results. The most valid criticism of the findings is not the methodology but the low numbers, and the author appears to acknowledge that and is trying to do something about that.
But by all means, heap abuse on him for daring to try to compare consoles quantitatively.
Of course, it is the designers who have made the improbable claims, so it is up to them to prove them.
I think we can all agree to that.
If you want to get people interested in helping our environment (or at least doing less harm to it than they are now), coming up with idiotic ideas like a wallet that burns your hand or a printer that you have to move by hand and produces unreadable and short-lived text is only detrimental to your cause.
The moving by hand bit is odd, but could just be a gimmie to simplify the design and also increase the odds of winning this competition. The coffee grounds for printing part is what's interesting, and on the extreme off-chance that it can actually be used for real printing, it won't be long before someone puts it into an automatic printer and sells it.
As far as unreadable and short lived text, the thing doesn't actually exist yet, but you're telling me it's completely impossible that it will ever work right? Did I miss something, the coffee ink doesn't have to move faster than the speed of light to be readable, does it? I'll agree it PROBABLY won't ever make good printing, but don't act like it's impossible, because you have as much proof of that as the designers do that it will work great: none.
I too had a chilling sense of proving my own point unintentionally. Weird huh? Wonder where that was coming from.
Oops, forgot to make a 1, 2, ??? profit joke.
If they need to try to Idiot-proof a system take out the "Idiot".
In other words: don't hire idiots.
If these companies hire more technology inclined workers (people who read /.)...
In other words: hire idiots.
Using your own HAND to move the print head? At that point, I might as well go back to using my old electric blue IBM typewriter.
Which runs on espresso grinds?
Something tells me that if this actually works, their next model will not be hand-powered, and you'll have forgotten you called it stupid. And jumping the shark? Please. If in 5 years they come out with a real one, and it both saves me the hassle of buying ink cartridges AND does something usefull with the coffee grounds, it really shouldn't matter if it comes from misplaced environmentalism.
Anyway, what's wrong with the "green frenzy"? It's better than, say, the "What is brittney going to do next" frenzy.
Disclaimer: I doubt that this will actually work, so you're probably safe.
The kind that is completely impractical and stupid.
Kind of like these stupid Wright bros who have the ridiculous notion that they can build a flying machine. Claptrap I say!
Semi-serious point: While I am not going to be putting up any venture capital for this project, and all technology/ science must be met with skepticism, calling it completely impractial and stupid at this point is calling it too early. Lets wait until the tech either peters or pans out. If no further proof of concept is forthcoming, we can ignore it. If we call it stupid now, and several months later they make a laserprinter with it and the only difference is that one has a faint aroma of coffee, then you've basically called yourself completely stupid.
I like the sound of 'quigit'.
A thousand times no, there's fewer good puns with that than "bit." Quit is okay as far as the pun test goes.
Quata (from quaternary data) also works, though it is of course less accurate. Small price to pay though, you can get puns off of "quarter" and/or "water."
I think we need to establish from the get-go that no matter what we call it, the most important thing is that computer teachers in high schools can make lame puns for their students to groan about.
Why didn't I think of that? Tornadoes, in retrospect, seem like the PERFECT place to put my ordered data.
what useful things have they ever done other than bring up heresy?
Annoyed creationists for the purposes of... well, humor mostly.
Sounds bonus worthy to me.
For what? Being in charge when the government decided we needed better bandwidth? For having not already taken steps to put this type of bandwidth in on the company's own dime?
Sending more spam in the name of eliminating spam is not eliminating spam.
I could see similar arguments made before vaccinations became commonplace: "injecting bits of viruses into people is not eliminating viruses." Of course, they do work. Similarly, vaccinating spam might work.
While it could increase burden on servers, if it cuts down on the amount of people responding to spam, there will inevitably be less spammers and less spam.
How about we simply improve our educational system and teach marketing majors a bit more about business ethics and ethical advertising?
I don't think an ethics class and ethics advertising is going to make spamming unprofitable, nor is it going to make people any less greedy.
my school district did the same thing, and it works great.
Really? Sounds ridiculous to me.
Sounds to ME like there's a testable hypothesis here, which someone should think about testing rather than just saying it SOUNDS ridiculous.
Send the evidence to MI:6, and wait for James Bond to kill them.
(Note that there must be a hot chick involved in some way for this to work.)
Seriously you should not comment on something that you obviously know nothing.
I said "I don't know, is it possible that if someone were to break a window that the cage would suddenly be useless?" and "Is it possible to build a faraday cage that would ONLY block cell phone transmissions and not play havoc with the other communications?"
What part of my post sounded to you like I was stating a falsehood rather than asking for information?
Seriously you should not comment on anything until you learn some manners or bother with reading comprehension.
Again with the SWAT thing, if they want to disable phones inside a meth lab, I don't think the guys inside with AK's are going to simply sit still while you paint the house!
Gonna have to call foul here, although you did the disclaimer at the end, you extended my basic argument and made it sound like I was proposing something ridiculous there ! :-P
Oh, for some reason I thought it was just jails... Sorry... now it does make sense.
Yes, but I'm not in a prison, prisoners aren't supposed to have cell phones, and a guard should hear any prisoner who is.
I can understand if we were talking about cell phones in, say, major city areas, or out in the woods, but this is a very specific context. So I'll ask again, what danger is there?
Prisons are big, and I would guess that the materials and paint that would work would be pretty expensive.
There is also undoubtedly a lot of restrictions on what you can construct one out of to prevent prisoners from breaking pieces off and stabbing each other with them. Installation at least would be a major hassle, there's probably some type of security clearance construction workers working on active prisons have to have, and this would be a major job. And probably there would be at least one tinfoil hat lawsuit claiming the faraday cage was doing something with radiation and making prisoners sick.
I don't know, is it possible that if someone were to break a window that the cage would suddenly be useless?
This jammer could be turned on and off, giving you more flexibility, wheras a permanent cage couldn't. There are situations where you might want to allow the use of cell phones.
And, most importantly, guards do use radios and possibly other types of wireless communications. Is it possible to build a faraday cage that would ONLY block cell phone transmissions and not play havoc with the other communications?
All in all, I think this jammer would be safer, cheaper, and more effective than what you're suggesting. Just my non-expert opinion.
...from inside a prison, on a cell phone they're not supposed to have? Hmm...
Do you really expect the police to understand something like this? These are the guys who got to where they are by brute force - not by understanding things.
That's why they hire people who do understand these things to do it for them. Prison guards probably also don't understand the video monitoring systems they use, but that doesn't keep them from using them after they've been setup. It obviously doesn't take a genius to press a button to jam cell phone signals.
What danger is there? Doesn't the jammer just mess with the frequencies used by cell phones?
Didn't I read about this in "The Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson? I'm sure there are other scifi examples. Welcome to the future...
Our vending machine cameras show you were actually reading "Cosmopolitan" magazine.
By the way, taking that quiz must have given you a terrible thirst, why not have a coke?
The specific gripe the bot company appeals on doesn't matter much to me, they would appeal any decision that told them they couldn't sell their product, that's what companies do.