I notice improved performance up to a few thousand peers. I don't have much experience above that to comment. With modern clients and trackers the torrent organizes itself into sub-torrents. So the swarm is never more than around 100, but the extremely large pool of peers means that you will most likely find a fast peer very close to you... compared to the case were you can't find any peer at all or all the peers are on dialup on the other side of the planet.
I agree that emulation is great, but the real thing is better. As long as the emulation authors and gamers keep at the emulators and demand accuracy of emulation, then there will come a day when the emulators will be as good if not better than the real thing.
I have every NES and SNES rom dumped so far. I have been using emulators since 1997. I also have kept the "real thing" (NES, SNES, etc). Fact is, the SNES emulators still have allot of progress to make before they are accurate enough for my tastes.
The NES emulators, especially FCE Ultra, are so damn close for most games that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference with a blind test (hide the hardware and do a taste test). Well, I could tell the difference. Its mainly due to the visuals, which are still not quite there. Timing is almost perfect though, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
But the SNES. That is night and day, especially when it comes to games that use special cart chips like the FX chip, DSP chip, etc...
I am not against emulation, but I am just saying that people shouldn't throw away the real thing. Even more so with regards to Arcade cabinets.
Legend of Zelda has the slow down in FCEU and other accurate emulators. I don't care what people say, I love the slow down. It only happens in heavily crowded action scenes... which is a GOOD thing! It is the bullet time of the 1980s. Modern 3D FPS games actually program that "feature" into their games and call it "bullet time" or the "matrix effect".
I don't know what NES and SNES emulators you are using, but I can't agree with your claim that the real thing is better.
ZSNES, SNES9x, and FCE Ultra. Easily the best emulators for the SNES and NES.
1) on a computer, you can play at higher resolution. this allows for image processing to reduce pixelation, etc. it really looks a lot better, for SNES and NES. Granted this isn't applicable on a TV screen.
The image processing introduces its own new artifacts, such as blurriness and "triangle" or "diamond" artifacts (scale2x, 2xai), etc... These distort the way the games were designed to look.
Now, straight display to a computer CRT with no image processing is nice, as anybody knows a computer CRT is far higher fidelity than a TV. But thats the only benefit visually, imo.
2) on a computer, you can mix the music at 44.1 kHz sampling rate.
FCE Ultra does a nice job with regards to sound, I have to admit... but SNES9x and ZSNES sound different compared to the real thing. I prefer to go with how the game was designed to sound. SNES9x is the worst. Just run it side-by-side with the real thing. Yeah, its that bad.
3) the emulated NES or SNES will be more powerful than the actual system, even with the emulation overhead. games won't experience slowdown when things become too complicated.
This is not true at all. The good emulators also emulate the slow down, flicker, etc... The timing for games would be totally borked if they didn't do this.
4) emulator gives you many neat tricks: speed up, slow down, save/restore state, play over internet, among others. Speed up, slow down, and save/restore state are all possible with the real thing. You do have to own one of the special cheat carts, but the NES and SNES, I know for sure, had an addon cart that does just that.
Playing over the net is way overrated. Have you even tried it before? The games just weren't designed for internet-level lag.
If you really think that the SNES is emulated perfectly, you truely do NOT know what you are talking about. Just compare, for example, Super Mario Kart on a SNES side-by-side with your favorite emulator. Yup, NOT EVEN CLOSE! The emulator authors themsleves are currently working on perfecting emulation of the DSP chip that resides in games such as Super Mario Kart.
Not to mention that the sound is off in SNES9x and ZSNES. Then there are the resolution/aspect ratio differences, etc...
I guess you have never compared them side-by-side.
Re:need an article to tell me retrogaming was hot
on
Retro Gaming Gets Hot
·
· Score: 1
The 8-sprite slowdown implies that Nintendo is using some kind of low-level emulation of the NES/Famicom. So yeah, they didn't rewrite any of the games, they just wrote an emulator (or maybe used an already existing emulator).
I still have my copy of Secret of Mana and I still have my SNES. Most people trade in their old games and systems for new credit towards buying newer games. Secret of Mana is one of those games you would be crazy to let go.
Why not play the real thing? Classic games won't bite. Emulation is not as good as the real thing. While I appreciate emulation, I have my hacked Xbox with several emulators on it, and I also have an original NES and SNES hooked up to the same TV. Know this: the emulators do not emulate the games perfectly. The NES is better emulated than the SNES, but when you can pickup the real thing with several great games for about $50... why not do it?
If you lack a free video input on your TV, then get one of the A/V multiplexers from Radioshack.
Do society a favor and keep something that is good as opposed to throwing it away. What would society be like if we threw away Chess, classical music, old movies, etc...? We would be a society without history, without culture.
Yeah god forbid that I can view a frickin web page. The site is grosso modo equivalent to a piece of shit. Hell, I have flash installed and the site is unviewable!
Some NES games do not work correctly if the emulator doesn't emulate the flickering. Thats why most emulators do it... so as to keep 100% compatibility.
Some people still play old games. Chess for example has been played for hundreds of years. Quake... well it is only 8 years old, but it still has an active community of players, developers, competitions, etc.
One reason that Quake is still going strong is because it is that Carmack open-sourced the game engine a few years ago. This has made it possible to update the game's technology. Sure it isn't as graphically intensive as modern games, but it isn't bad looking either. The most important thing in Quake is a high frame rate, which is quite easy considering the game's system requirements.
So what are you waiting for? Download Quake! Note that you will need the two retail content ".pak" files to play on most servers. Carmack opened the game engine, not the game content (skins, sounds, levels, textures). However, the eQuake package comes with tons of free content, so you can still play, somewhat, without buying Quake.
Finally, you might ask, "Why play Quake"? Well, why play Chess? Some games are classics, and they are classics because they are fun. Quake is the best game for fast, furious gameplay. Unlike tactical shooters such as Counter-Strike, Quake is more concerned with fun fast paced action than realism. So if you want slow realistic, but sometimes boring gameplay - stay away from Quake.
If you want fast, furious, chaotic and violent gameplay... Quake is your ticket to fun.
That is nothing new. Free NES emulators have been emulating the scanline flicker due to too many sprites for years now! Nintendo is such a hypocrit. They first claim that emulators are illegal, and then they make emulators themselves.
FCE Ultra is the best, most accurate free and open source emulator that I have yet to see. I use it to play NES games on my XBOX. Who needs Nintendo?
In static typing with bounded quantification and intersection types, you don't need to subsume things to a catch-all type. That was my entire point about how a properly designed type system doesn't require you to lose type information. Yes this is done in languages like Java, for example, where you cast many things to the top "Object" type.
In a static typed language you could use a universally quantified type variable S that is a subtype of whatever type T you need to actually get work done.
Hence when you make use of such a type in your code, you don't cast whatever actual type you are using to T, you keep using type S.
I also realize that anybody can make a variant of whatever language they chose to splinter. This has been done with C (objective C, C++, C--,etc) and it has been done with Lisp. However, it is wrong to say that C has templates, just because one of its splinters, C++, has them. The same goes for Lisp.
Lisp is what you get when you take the lambda-calculus and mess things up. Lovely. Why not just code in the lambda-calculus? People have been doing that since the 1930s. Lisp did a bad job of reinventing the wheel.
With bounded type quantification, you do not need to find the type of an object because you never lose the object's type to begin with. Hence you can do static typing, find all of your type errors during compile time, and have no type overhead during runtime.
The fact taht Lisp has GOTO and lacks static typing are actually two reasons why the language is flawed.
...especially when better alternatives exist such as ML and Haskell. Both languages improved functional programming in every aspect. I would even place Haskell above ML, since Haskell is pure via Monads and has a more powerful type system.
Lisp is like the living dead. It is really scary to look at.
What about lambda-calculi and recursive functions? The lambda-calculus was a language for describing algorithms, it had a formal syntax and semantics... so why is it not listed? Does a programming language require a compiler or an interpreter on a physical machine to be considered a programming language?
If all physical computers were somehow destroyed tomorrow, would programming languages cease to exist?
Countable sets exist because any given part of them can be manifested, conceptually. In other words, I have my countable object well-defined and I can conceptually manifest any part of the object given enough time. People have gone further with this as far as finitism, ultra-finitism, etc...
So I think that there is an obvious distinction between something that is well-defined enough to be able to describe in absolute detail any given part of, while it is extremely problematic to have a supposed "mathematical" concept that you cannot describe in absolute detail: you just assume that it exists... but we know that in fact it does not exist in the sense that it is impossible to describe any given part of the object in absolute detail.
Things such as Omega are examples of nonsense objects that classical mathematics lets you prove the existence of. The problem is that most people don't care as long as there are no simple inconsistencies. These higher-order inconsistencies are just as bad.
I see no problem in including any abstract idea as being "mathematical", as long as that idea can be conceptually described in absolute detail.
You are also correct that Geometry is especially problematic when it comes to mathematical constructivism, but this is most likely because geometry was designed based on the physical world. My point of view is that if the reasoning used in a longstanding branch of mathematics is found to be flawed, as mathematicians we cannot look the other way - it must be ejected from math. Just as if a branch of science was found to be unscientific, it should be abandoned.
First of all, strings are by definition, finite. If I had said all strings both finite and infinite, then you would be correct: the set is not countable. However, my intent was to define the free language on the UNICODE alphabet. This is a commonly known as the Jules Richard Paradox. See S.C. Kleene's "Mathematical Logic" textbook for a discussion.
Richard shows that the functions on the naturals are countable because there are countably many definitions, while at the same time he uses diagonalization to show that they are uncountable. A contradiction, paradox, inconsistency.
Note that this is exactly what I did, but with regards to the real numbers.
So, sorry, you are wrong, my paradox works. These inconsistencies have been kicked around for 100 years now. They led to the axiomatization of set theory, which ended in failure due to Skolem's Paradox. However, many people remain uneducated of the "big picture" of things, and therefore continue to have faith in "broken" mathematics.
Ok, well first of all, Cantor's formulation of set theory was far from consistent. You should know that. Various axiomatizations of set theory were made as a means of saving set theory from the simple inconsistencies, but they failed to save it from semantic inconsistencies: see Skolem, a contemporary of Zermelo, Frankel, Godel, Hilbert, etc... Skolem discovered Skolem's Paradox, which states that every model of an axiomatic set theory with a countable number of axioms is itself countable.
So we have a semantic inconsistency: the formalism claims the existence of uncountable things, while the meaning of the entire formal system is itself countable... uh oh! Yup, Skolem didn't like it either and realized that mathematics should turn to more constructive ideals.
Considering that Skolem played such a large part in the create of axiomatic set theory, and then realized its failing... that should say allot.
Set theory _assumes_ the existence of uncountable sets with no justification whatsoever, just like Christians believe that Jesus Christ is a deity. You can prove iteresting things when you start with such assumptions, but it is not math.
Give me a break, just run some searches on "constructive mathematics" or "brouwer intuitionism", etc... in Google and start reading. What I have written is nothing new.
Exactly, I tab based on type of stuff: Daily Video Game Sites, Daily News Sites, Daily Cars Sites, etc... I don't have any metaphor for tabbed browsing other than it gives me a means to group things based on any criteria I choose... you know, allot like filesystem directories:)
I never thought of it as if it were a book. Just like I don't think of directories as "folders".
I try to keep a separate Mozilla window for each "type" of surfing that I am doing. So I might have at most 3 windows open, and each window has many many tabs.
Mozilla is great for this because it also allows for bookmarking multiple tabs. So I can bookmark "Daily Video Game Sites", "Daily News Sites", etc...
It would be nice if Mozilla allowed you to merge two windows together, resulting in one window with all of the tabs of the previous two. Similar operations for ripping a window apart would also be useful.
Just as you organize a filesystem with a hierarchy of folders, you can organize your web browsing with a hierarchy of tabs.
I see no reason why one browser window should be used for each site. That is just silly. Windows are like folders, and tabs are like files. Let the users organize how they see fit.
Slashdot Mirror
I notice improved performance up to a few thousand peers. I don't have much experience above that to comment. With modern clients and trackers the torrent organizes itself into sub-torrents. So the swarm is never more than around 100, but the extremely large pool of peers means that you will most likely find a fast peer very close to you... compared to the case were you can't find any peer at all or all the peers are on dialup on the other side of the planet.
He probably mounts the ISO image file with loopback, and then you can inject files into the image as if it was any other directory/folder.
I agree that emulation is great, but the real thing is better. As long as the emulation authors and gamers keep at the emulators and demand accuracy of emulation, then there will come a day when the emulators will be as good if not better than the real thing.
I have every NES and SNES rom dumped so far. I have been using emulators since 1997. I also have kept the "real thing" (NES, SNES, etc). Fact is, the SNES emulators still have allot of progress to make before they are accurate enough for my tastes.
The NES emulators, especially FCE Ultra, are so damn close for most games that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference with a blind test (hide the hardware and do a taste test). Well, I could tell the difference. Its mainly due to the visuals, which are still not quite there. Timing is almost perfect though, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
But the SNES. That is night and day, especially when it comes to games that use special cart chips like the FX chip, DSP chip, etc...
I am not against emulation, but I am just saying that people shouldn't throw away the real thing. Even more so with regards to Arcade cabinets.
Legend of Zelda has the slow down in FCEU and other accurate emulators. I don't care what people say, I love the slow down. It only happens in heavily crowded action scenes... which is a GOOD thing! It is the bullet time of the 1980s. Modern 3D FPS games actually program that "feature" into their games and call it "bullet time" or the "matrix effect".
I don't know what NES and SNES emulators you are using, but I can't agree with your claim that the real thing is better.
ZSNES, SNES9x, and FCE Ultra. Easily the best emulators for the SNES and NES.
1) on a computer, you can play at higher resolution. this allows for image processing to reduce pixelation, etc. it really looks a lot better, for SNES and NES. Granted this isn't applicable on a TV screen.
The image processing introduces its own new artifacts, such as blurriness and "triangle" or "diamond" artifacts (scale2x, 2xai), etc... These distort the way the games were designed to look.
Now, straight display to a computer CRT with no image processing is nice, as anybody knows a computer CRT is far higher fidelity than a TV. But thats the only benefit visually, imo.
2) on a computer, you can mix the music at 44.1 kHz sampling rate.
FCE Ultra does a nice job with regards to sound, I have to admit... but SNES9x and ZSNES sound different compared to the real thing. I prefer to go with how the game was designed to sound. SNES9x is the worst. Just run it side-by-side with the real thing. Yeah, its that bad.
3) the emulated NES or SNES will be more powerful than the actual system, even with the emulation overhead. games won't experience slowdown when things become too complicated.
This is not true at all. The good emulators also emulate the slow down, flicker, etc... The timing for games would be totally borked if they didn't do this.
4) emulator gives you many neat tricks: speed up, slow down, save/restore state, play over internet, among others.
Speed up, slow down, and save/restore state are all possible with the real thing. You do have to own one of the special cheat carts, but the NES and SNES, I know for sure, had an addon cart that does just that.
Playing over the net is way overrated. Have you even tried it before? The games just weren't designed for internet-level lag.
If you really think that the SNES is emulated perfectly, you truely do NOT know what you are talking about. Just compare, for example, Super Mario Kart on a SNES side-by-side with your favorite emulator. Yup, NOT EVEN CLOSE! The emulator authors themsleves are currently working on perfecting emulation of the DSP chip that resides in games such as Super Mario Kart.
Not to mention that the sound is off in SNES9x and ZSNES. Then there are the resolution/aspect ratio differences, etc...
I guess you have never compared them side-by-side.
The 8-sprite slowdown implies that Nintendo is using some kind of low-level emulation of the NES/Famicom. So yeah, they didn't rewrite any of the games, they just wrote an emulator (or maybe used an already existing emulator).
I still have my copy of Secret of Mana and I still have my SNES. Most people trade in their old games and systems for new credit towards buying newer games. Secret of Mana is one of those games you would be crazy to let go.
Why not play the real thing? Classic games won't bite. Emulation is not as good as the real thing. While I appreciate emulation, I have my hacked Xbox with several emulators on it, and I also have an original NES and SNES hooked up to the same TV. Know this: the emulators do not emulate the games perfectly. The NES is better emulated than the SNES, but when you can pickup the real thing with several great games for about $50... why not do it?
If you lack a free video input on your TV, then get one of the A/V multiplexers from Radioshack.
Do society a favor and keep something that is good as opposed to throwing it away. What would society be like if we threw away Chess, classical music, old movies, etc...? We would be a society without history, without culture.
Yeah god forbid that I can view a frickin web page. The site is grosso modo equivalent to a piece of shit. Hell, I have flash installed and the site is unviewable!
Some NES games do not work correctly if the emulator doesn't emulate the flickering. Thats why most emulators do it... so as to keep 100% compatibility.
Some people still play old games. Chess for example has been played for hundreds of years. Quake... well it is only 8 years old, but it still has an active community of players, developers, competitions, etc.
One reason that Quake is still going strong is because it is that Carmack open-sourced the game engine a few years ago. This has made it possible to update the game's technology. Sure it isn't as graphically intensive as modern games, but it isn't bad looking either. The most important thing in Quake is a high frame rate, which is quite easy considering the game's system requirements.
So what are you waiting for?
Download Quake! Note that you will need the two retail content ".pak" files to play on most servers. Carmack opened the game engine, not the game content (skins, sounds, levels, textures). However, the eQuake package comes with tons of free content, so you can still play, somewhat, without buying Quake.
Join the community!
Finally, you might ask, "Why play Quake"? Well, why play Chess? Some games are classics, and they are classics because they are fun. Quake is the best game for fast, furious gameplay. Unlike tactical shooters such as Counter-Strike, Quake is more concerned with fun fast paced action than realism. So if you want slow realistic, but sometimes boring gameplay - stay away from Quake.
If you want fast, furious, chaotic and violent gameplay... Quake is your ticket to fun.
That is nothing new. Free NES emulators have been emulating the scanline flicker due to too many sprites for years now! Nintendo is such a hypocrit. They first claim that emulators are illegal, and then they make emulators themselves.
FCE Ultra is the best, most accurate free and open source emulator that I have yet to see. I use it to play NES games on my XBOX. Who needs Nintendo?
This post single-handedly tops all of the major news reportings. Thanks for the insight of what it would have been like to be there.
In static typing with bounded quantification and intersection types, you don't need to subsume things to a catch-all type. That was my entire point about how a properly designed type system doesn't require you to lose type information. Yes this is done in languages like Java, for example, where you cast many things to the top "Object" type.
In a static typed language you could use a universally quantified type variable S that is a subtype of whatever type T you need to actually get work done.
Hence when you make use of such a type in your code, you don't cast whatever actual type you are using to T, you keep using type S.
I also realize that anybody can make a variant of whatever language they chose to splinter. This has been done with C (objective C, C++, C--,etc) and it has been done with Lisp. However, it is wrong to say that C has templates, just because one of its splinters, C++, has them. The same goes for Lisp.
Lisp is what you get when you take the lambda-calculus and mess things up. Lovely. Why not just code in the lambda-calculus? People have been doing that since the 1930s. Lisp did a bad job of reinventing the wheel.
With bounded type quantification, you do not need to find the type of an object because you never lose the object's type to begin with. Hence you can do static typing, find all of your type errors during compile time, and have no type overhead during runtime.
The fact taht Lisp has GOTO and lacks static typing are actually two reasons why the language is flawed.
Is this a bug in Mozilla or a bug in Slashdot? I notice it in Mozilla on Windows and on Linux.
...especially when better alternatives exist such as ML and Haskell. Both languages improved functional programming in every aspect. I would even place Haskell above ML, since Haskell is pure via Monads and has a more powerful type system.
Lisp is like the living dead. It is really scary to look at.
What about lambda-calculi and recursive functions? The lambda-calculus was a language for describing algorithms, it had a formal syntax and semantics... so why is it not listed? Does a programming language require a compiler or an interpreter on a physical machine to be considered a programming language?
If all physical computers were somehow destroyed tomorrow, would programming languages cease to exist?
Countable sets exist because any given part of them can be manifested, conceptually. In other words, I have my countable object well-defined and I can conceptually manifest any part of the object given enough time. People have gone further with this as far as finitism, ultra-finitism, etc...
So I think that there is an obvious distinction between something that is well-defined enough to be able to describe in absolute detail any given part of, while it is extremely problematic to have a supposed "mathematical" concept that you cannot describe in absolute detail: you just assume that it exists... but we know that in fact it does not exist in the sense that it is impossible to describe any given part of the object in absolute detail.
Things such as Omega are examples of nonsense objects that classical mathematics lets you prove the existence of. The problem is that most people don't care as long as there are no simple inconsistencies. These higher-order inconsistencies are just as bad.
I see no problem in including any abstract idea as being "mathematical", as long as that idea can be conceptually described in absolute detail.
You are also correct that Geometry is especially problematic when it comes to mathematical constructivism, but this is most likely because geometry was designed based on the physical world. My point of view is that if the reasoning used in a longstanding branch of mathematics is found to be flawed, as mathematicians we cannot look the other way - it must be ejected from math. Just as if a branch of science was found to be unscientific, it should be abandoned.
First of all, strings are by definition, finite. If I had said all strings both finite and infinite, then you would be correct: the set is not countable. However, my intent was to define the free language on the UNICODE alphabet. This is a commonly known as the Jules Richard Paradox. See S.C. Kleene's "Mathematical Logic" textbook for a discussion.
Richard shows that the functions on the naturals are countable because there are countably many definitions, while at the same time he uses diagonalization to show that they are uncountable. A contradiction, paradox, inconsistency.
Note that this is exactly what I did, but with regards to the real numbers.
So, sorry, you are wrong, my paradox works. These inconsistencies have been kicked around for 100 years now. They led to the axiomatization of set theory, which ended in failure due to Skolem's Paradox. However, many people remain uneducated of the "big picture" of things, and therefore continue to have faith in "broken" mathematics.
Ok, well first of all, Cantor's formulation of set theory was far from consistent. You should know that. Various axiomatizations of set theory were made as a means of saving set theory from the simple inconsistencies, but they failed to save it from semantic inconsistencies: see Skolem, a contemporary of Zermelo, Frankel, Godel, Hilbert, etc... Skolem discovered Skolem's Paradox, which states that every model of an axiomatic set theory with a countable number of axioms is itself countable.
So we have a semantic inconsistency: the formalism claims the existence of uncountable things, while the meaning of the entire formal system is itself countable... uh oh! Yup, Skolem didn't like it either and realized that mathematics should turn to more constructive ideals.
Considering that Skolem played such a large part in the create of axiomatic set theory, and then realized its failing... that should say allot.
Set theory _assumes_ the existence of uncountable sets with no justification whatsoever, just like Christians believe that Jesus Christ is a deity. You can prove iteresting things when you start with such assumptions, but it is not math.
Give me a break, just run some searches on "constructive mathematics" or "brouwer intuitionism", etc... in Google and start reading. What I have written is nothing new.
Exactly, I tab based on type of stuff: Daily Video Game Sites, Daily News Sites, Daily Cars Sites, etc... I don't have any metaphor for tabbed browsing other than it gives me a means to group things based on any criteria I choose... you know, allot like filesystem directories :)
I never thought of it as if it were a book. Just like I don't think of directories as "folders".
I try to keep a separate Mozilla window for each "type" of surfing that I am doing. So I might have at most 3 windows open, and each window has many many tabs.
Mozilla is great for this because it also allows for bookmarking multiple tabs. So I can bookmark "Daily Video Game Sites", "Daily News Sites", etc...
It would be nice if Mozilla allowed you to merge two windows together, resulting in one window with all of the tabs of the previous two. Similar operations for ripping a window apart would also be useful.
Just as you organize a filesystem with a hierarchy of folders, you can organize your web browsing with a hierarchy of tabs.
I see no reason why one browser window should be used for each site. That is just silly. Windows are like folders, and tabs are like files. Let the users organize how they see fit.
Are you claiming that Skolem's Paradox is false? You are blinded by your foolishness.