Buddy, go back and read your original post. All it talks about is downloading PS1 games onto, or via, a PS2. Which is odd, considering that very few PS2s have any form of network connectivity.
They never even tried to give customers the ability to do the same with PS1 titles on the PS2. You could have put a PS1 game on the PS2, which could connect to the Internet, and then go through some sort of verification process that would give you a credit to download the PS1 game on the PSN network.
Note the important parts: PS1 game, PS2 connects to the internet, then downloads the PS1 game from the PSN network.
Maybe you were talking PS2 and PS3,but got confused?
Your troll-fu is weak, old man. Download PS1 games from PSN onto the PS2. That's rich. What, save it on the 8 mb memory card? Using the dial-up adaptor? In 1998?
Define 'reasonable' data plan. Or is the Encyclopedia for Everyone(tm) only for people who can afford the crazy carrier fees? Or for people who happen to be lucky enough to get a good plan?
It's still no excuse for not optimizing. And how is moving what is, to what I'd think is the majority of users, unnecessary data off of the main page and to a sub-page, where it's still available, being somehow future-unproof?
At least with our personal mobile use, we don't worry too much about bandwidth, just load speed.
You want to talk load speed? An article that most users aren't going to read, because they're hitting Wikipedia for specific info rather than to simply browse whatever happens to come up, isn't going to improve load speeds. And the people who do want to browse the article of the day need only click one whole extra link.
And if you read my above comments on WinMo browsers, you'll see that IE works just fine, and the Mobile WebKit-based Iris browser does not.
There is never 'unlimited bandwidth.' Any more than there is unlimited memory, unlimited storage space, unlimited processor speed. At least two of those are just as important on a mobile device as the bandwidth part.
Let alone the difference between 'unlimited bandwidth' and 'unlimited throughput speed.'
Quite honestly, saying 'we're targeting unlimited bandwidth' is just asinine, in my most humble (well, not so humble) opinion. Ranks right up there with '640 k' and all that.
By the way, the current version of the Iris web browser for WinMo 6 (uses webkit as it's engine) doesn't show the search bar at the top. I had to open the site in IE to see that it was there.
Put it on another page. Mobile isn't just about displaying on a small screen; it's about not wasting your user's bandwidth. The page at 'm.wikipedia.org' should have a search box. Done. Put a link to a 'featured article' or some such if you must.
Well, in the original movie, Skynet only attacks humanity out of self defense; it goes sentient, Humans get scared and try to pull the plug, and Skynet doesn't want to die.
The more general reason for AI-eradicates-humanity can be answered by reading a history book; AIs, in fiction, tend to come to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that even if they were to just mind their own business, they'd become collateral damage in the inevitable Human wars.
Alternatively, they note that Humans are so drat-blasted unpredictable and irrational, it's akin to bugjuicing a wasp's nest...
Yes, yes it was. Though it seemed to me that most of the 'all over the damn place' turrets were more for point defense, rather than offensive weaponry.
But yes, it's necessary. It's a hostile universe out there. It's odd to say 'did they really need all that weaponry' when you only ever saw it being used to, you know, defend against hostile attack.
But note that WoK, Kirk's 'regular tho extraordinary human who actually works with his crew' is directly contrasted to 'super genetic engineered guy who curses his advisors' Khan.
After all, it's Spock, not Kirk, who comes up with the gambit to defeat Khan.
Given that it's being used for medical and legal purposes, you could very easily argue that without rigerous development and testing practices, it's worse than useless.
Yes, an old fashioned invasion would take quite a while. But it doesn't take long for the Bears and Badgers to make it from Moscow to the continental US, to use a slightly out-dated example.
Of course, even before the Constitution, this was recognized; the Minutemen were so-called because they could be ready to fight on a minute's notice.
Besides, if for no other reason than history, any country *needs* a standing, professional army. In my most humble opinion, anyway.
The issue with that is that the Constitution was written in a time where 'invading another country' generally meant months of sea voyage, followed by years of campaigning.
"If the Constitution were meant to be 'written in stone,' we would have *written it in stone!* Lots of things were, back then, you know." --Thomas 'TJ' Jefferson, as written in America: The Book.
You're kind of correct,but have the wrong conclusions.
Nintendo had draconian policies about publishing. They arbitrarily limited the amount of games a company could publish per year. They required the publisher to order all cartridges through Nintendo, with a substatntial lead time. Per-cart prices were high. If you ordered too few, and the game did very well, it could be months before you had more stock on the shelves. If you ordered too many, and the game didn't do so well, you had a stack of expensive carts lying around.
Sony threw the doors open to developers; buy a dev kit and go to town. Publish a game a week if you want. Also, they didn't require CD manufacturing to go through them; any old CD pressing plant could do it. If you had a hit on your hands, you could, in theory, have another several hundred thousand copies pressed over a weekend for pennies per.
Let alone the fact that carts were so space limited compared to CDs.
If you can find Game Over: Press Start To Continue (the story of Nintendo from Hanafuda card manufacturer to the N64, basically) and Revolutionaries at Sony (the story of the Playstation) it's interesting to read the two sides.
What you're describing isn't brand loyalty; it's sticking with what works.
If you were buying Nike shoes, say, to match your Nike exercise clothes, your Nike hat, your Nike gymbag, and Nike wristbands, even though the shoes hurt your feet, *that's* brand loyalty.
Woah woah, watch it! Haven't played MGS4 yet. Holding out for it on the 360.
Now, the whole FO3 ending bit is moot what with Broken Steel coming out in a month, which a) jumps the level cap to 30, and b) rewrites the ending so that you don't die. Or can send a companion.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
"Good programmers invent. Genius programmers steal."
Buddy, go back and read your original post. All it talks about is downloading PS1 games onto, or via, a PS2. Which is odd, considering that very few PS2s have any form of network connectivity.
Here's what you said:
Note the important parts: PS1 game, PS2 connects to the internet, then downloads the PS1 game from the PSN network.
Maybe you were talking PS2 and PS3,but got confused?
Your troll-fu is weak, old man. Download PS1 games from PSN onto the PS2. That's rich. What, save it on the 8 mb memory card? Using the dial-up adaptor? In 1998?
Define 'reasonable' data plan. Or is the Encyclopedia for Everyone(tm) only for people who can afford the crazy carrier fees? Or for people who happen to be lucky enough to get a good plan?
It's still no excuse for not optimizing. And how is moving what is, to what I'd think is the majority of users, unnecessary data off of the main page and to a sub-page, where it's still available, being somehow future-unproof?
You want to talk load speed? An article that most users aren't going to read, because they're hitting Wikipedia for specific info rather than to simply browse whatever happens to come up, isn't going to improve load speeds. And the people who do want to browse the article of the day need only click one whole extra link.
And if you read my above comments on WinMo browsers, you'll see that IE works just fine, and the Mobile WebKit-based Iris browser does not.
There is never 'unlimited bandwidth.' Any more than there is unlimited memory, unlimited storage space, unlimited processor speed. At least two of those are just as important on a mobile device as the bandwidth part.
Let alone the difference between 'unlimited bandwidth' and 'unlimited throughput speed.'
Quite honestly, saying 'we're targeting unlimited bandwidth' is just asinine, in my most humble (well, not so humble) opinion. Ranks right up there with '640 k' and all that.
By the way, the current version of the Iris web browser for WinMo 6 (uses webkit as it's engine) doesn't show the search bar at the top. I had to open the site in IE to see that it was there.
Put it on another page. Mobile isn't just about displaying on a small screen; it's about not wasting your user's bandwidth. The page at 'm.wikipedia.org' should have a search box. Done. Put a link to a 'featured article' or some such if you must.
Well, in the original movie, Skynet only attacks humanity out of self defense; it goes sentient, Humans get scared and try to pull the plug, and Skynet doesn't want to die.
The more general reason for AI-eradicates-humanity can be answered by reading a history book; AIs, in fiction, tend to come to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that even if they were to just mind their own business, they'd become collateral damage in the inevitable Human wars.
Alternatively, they note that Humans are so drat-blasted unpredictable and irrational, it's akin to bugjuicing a wasp's nest...
Yes, yes it was. Though it seemed to me that most of the 'all over the damn place' turrets were more for point defense, rather than offensive weaponry.
But yes, it's necessary. It's a hostile universe out there. It's odd to say 'did they really need all that weaponry' when you only ever saw it being used to, you know, defend against hostile attack.
But note that WoK, Kirk's 'regular tho extraordinary human who actually works with his crew' is directly contrasted to 'super genetic engineered guy who curses his advisors' Khan.
After all, it's Spock, not Kirk, who comes up with the gambit to defeat Khan.
Given that it's being used for medical and legal purposes, you could very easily argue that without rigerous development and testing practices, it's worse than useless.
Now, didn't the GP indicate that under French law, all 'official' communications with an elected Member of Parliament are public?
Who, exactly, "made an unauthroized copy of a piece of copyright material"?
So you never got past 'to boldly go' in the intro?
In System Shock 3, you'll just figure out people's Twitter usernames, and use their updates to fill in the back story.
That would be kind of awesome; as you find more usernames, their comments get integrated into the timeline...
Yes, an old fashioned invasion would take quite a while. But it doesn't take long for the Bears and Badgers to make it from Moscow to the continental US, to use a slightly out-dated example.
Of course, even before the Constitution, this was recognized; the Minutemen were so-called because they could be ready to fight on a minute's notice.
Besides, if for no other reason than history, any country *needs* a standing, professional army. In my most humble opinion, anyway.
Xbox had this. Xbox360 requires it.
Maybe.
Xbox Marketplace.
The issue with that is that the Constitution was written in a time where 'invading another country' generally meant months of sea voyage, followed by years of campaigning.
"If the Constitution were meant to be 'written in stone,' we would have *written it in stone!* Lots of things were, back then, you know." --Thomas 'TJ' Jefferson, as written in America: The Book.
Hard term limits if for no other reason than to not have an aristocracy-in-fact.
Actually, the first home video game console would be the Magnavox Odyssey, though the term 'console' might not have been coined quite yet.
You're kind of correct,but have the wrong conclusions.
Nintendo had draconian policies about publishing. They arbitrarily limited the amount of games a company could publish per year. They required the publisher to order all cartridges through Nintendo, with a substatntial lead time. Per-cart prices were high. If you ordered too few, and the game did very well, it could be months before you had more stock on the shelves. If you ordered too many, and the game didn't do so well, you had a stack of expensive carts lying around.
Sony threw the doors open to developers; buy a dev kit and go to town. Publish a game a week if you want. Also, they didn't require CD manufacturing to go through them; any old CD pressing plant could do it. If you had a hit on your hands, you could, in theory, have another several hundred thousand copies pressed over a weekend for pennies per.
Let alone the fact that carts were so space limited compared to CDs.
If you can find Game Over: Press Start To Continue (the story of Nintendo from Hanafuda card manufacturer to the N64, basically) and Revolutionaries at Sony (the story of the Playstation) it's interesting to read the two sides.
Put more simply: you get what you pay for, and you pay for what you get.
Hey, if you like Nike shoes, and want to spread the love, go nuts. Chances are that t-shirt isn't going to damage your ribcage.
If you like Nike t-shirts, on the other hand, buying Nike shoes simply to have Nike shoes may or may not work for you.
What you're describing isn't brand loyalty; it's sticking with what works.
If you were buying Nike shoes, say, to match your Nike exercise clothes, your Nike hat, your Nike gymbag, and Nike wristbands, even though the shoes hurt your feet, *that's* brand loyalty.
Woah woah, watch it! Haven't played MGS4 yet. Holding out for it on the 360.
Now, the whole FO3 ending bit is moot what with Broken Steel coming out in a month, which a) jumps the level cap to 30, and b) rewrites the ending so that you don't die. Or can send a companion. :-)