I'm assuming that this "film coating" is the same tech we heard about a while back that causes the DVD disc to corrode into uselessness shortly after the film is exposed to reader light...
Is anyone else worried that this film might "rub off" onto your DVD tray, and get onto one of your other discs afterward? I'd certainly be pissed to discover that the rental DVD I purchased destroyed the discs I already own... I don't think there's a conspiracy here, but I don't think this film is a good thing, either.
To be honest, if I want to rent a DVD, I go to blockbuster, or Hollywood Video if there's one near by. It's cheap, it's pretty painless, and there's no risk of the disc destroying my setup
One thing that is VERY nice about DVD rentals is that you can watch the movie one year or eight years after the video store acquired it, and -- provided the disc is readable -- you get the same experience... digitally identical playback, every time, unlike VHS, which corroded and is useless after a few years.
I know this is a technical publisher, so this is mildly offtopic. It says so in my subject header. Obviously, that means you don't need to waste mod points here =) (though responses would be much appreciated).
Introductory short story: I tried switching to Linux for a month, just to see if I could handle it... I reformatted my system and for one month I left Mandrake 8.1 on my system... I wanted to network all of my systems eventually, get a small server or something running... but problems set in immediately, things I could handle in Windows, but things I had no idea how to tackle with Linux. Those Linux-for-Dummies were no help; the fixes I applied only caused my system to stop booting. I tried posting to various help boards from my friends PC, but nothing came of it beyond insults and various "newbie" wisecracks.
Dealing with the community was too stressful. A book for people like me would be nice. A Windows-to-Linux book written for someone who knows how to do some more complicated things with their computer, but isn't interested in coding or otherwise designing new software. A book that says "so you've been using/fixing/installing/coping with Windows for years? Here's how to do all that stuff in Linux." A book written for someone on the level of an MCSE, perhaps?
Anyone got any thoughts on this (beyond the "blow-it-out-your-ass-newbie-scum!" comments =))
Also, as a quick aside, does anyone know of a Linux-for-Artists book? (yes, I know of Gimp, and no, I don't think it's a viable substitute to the software I currently use).
This story was front page on k5 a few days ago; I only post this notice because there was some interesting commentary along the lines of what we're already seeing here now. You might want to surf over there and see what the folks at k5 have been saying.
Contrary to my earlier post, I WILL pay for Napster if it meets my criteria because of programs that I DIDN'T want, like
eZula, OnFlow, WebEnhancer, Cydoor Technologies, etc. If Napster is good enough, sufficient people might go over to it for that reason (and the fact that it lets you stay legal, of course). Admittedly, Napster doesn't do movies, so people will still need those programs for their pr0n, but maybe Napster will SHARE harddrive space with the other programs. Either way, don't count Napster out just yet... time will tell on that one.
I know this is a common sentiment, but allow me to voice why I won't be subscribing to Napster any time soon:
If I'm going to be paying a monthly fee for Napster, I'll be expecting a certain level of performance from the service; even if I'm only paying $4.95/month, that's $60/year that I -- a poor college student and a member of the target demographic -- won't have any more. I'm going to expect Napster to deliver, and I don't think it is going to be able to meet my expectations.
The first thing I'm going to expect is constant uptime. The old Napster delivered this perfectly; I don't think I ever got a "cannot connect" message from Napster. However, even though I could always get on, the selection of files was hardly constant: at times I would go on and have millions of files at my finger tips, from thousands of users; other times I'd find a few hundred users with perhaps half a million files.
This is significant because of my second expectation: redundancy. When I search for a file, I will expect to have at least 20 different copies of the song to choose from -- thus enabling me to download the song even if the first 15 users give me the busy signal. I want to be able to download the same song (down to the bit) from no less than 20 locations; the more, the merrier.
This is part of another expectation I have: quality files. I don't want to download a copy of Nirvana's _Smells Like Teen Spirit_ only to find that I downloaded a 128kbit song that's missing the last 5 seconds -- the last 5 seconds might only be fade-time, but it's the principle of the thing. What if I wanted to download a song that goes straight to the last second with no fade-time? I want only complete songs, at nothing less than 256kbit encoding. People on 56k modems might settle for 128kbit (I always settled for 160kbit) but I have faster-than-god 'net access at school, and I'm planning on using it.
My fourth expectation is speed; I want to be able to download all of my files at no less than 200k/second. I don't care how Napster pulls it off, it's what I'm expecting (my basis for these expectations follows shortly). I expect that kind of speed at all times; 100k/second is acceptable at peak usage, say 6pm - 9pm, but at all other times I damn well better be seeing 200k/second.
My fifth expectation is to be able to download songs the day they are released on CD. I will expect to have nearly immediate access to all new music that hits the market. If there are going to be delays between release dates and availability on Napster, they won't be getting my patronage. If there are going to be certain bands/lables that I can't download on Napster, I want to know about it BEFORE I sign up; I want it spelled out for me in BIG, BOLD, AOL FRIENDLY LETTERING. I want to see a sign that says "these bands will be inaccessable to you: ------ ".
For my sixth and final expectation, I expect to be able to burn these songs onto any CD any number of times at full quality. Period. No exceptions. No DRM bullocks. I expect this to work this way.
I don't think these expectations are unreasonable. Here's why: this is no different from what I can do now.
At any given time, day or night, peak usage or not, all of the above expectations are met by the various file sharing programs I use. I can't always get a complete copy of whatever song I want on the first try, but I can download seven different versions of the same song in just 10 minutes to make sure I got my 256kbit, COMPLETE, error-free copy of said song. I can get these songs the date they are released (sometimes several days/weeks before). I can burn them onto 10000 CDs if I feel like it, at full quality, and no one will think twice. I can almost always find a host that'll give me 200k/second or higher (I get max out between 400 - 700k/second on gnutella, because my school has the fattest pipe I've ever SEEN). If any of these things aren't available to me under my current setup, that's fine; I'm not paying for any of it. But Napster wants my money, so they damn well better deliver. If I can't get something AS GOOD as what I have now, I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing and Napster will be $5/month poorer because of it.
I want to be legal about my downloading (not that I'm downloading anything illegally, of course... it's all backup, of course, of course... yeah, that's the ticket!), but if Napster isn't going to give me high-quality service, I'll go about my legal compliance by some OTHER method.
(Just don't get me started about LEECHES on the new Napster... )
Under the DVD options it asks for the decryption type. The options it offers are DeCSS or RSA. Does this mean that DeCSS is incorporated into the software? If it does, would that make this software illegal? Also, what was the license on DeCSS?
Just wondering.
~A.
Who's paying for the government's war?
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It costs industry sudden a sudden boom in production, and larger profits. To produce the bombs, drones, machines, etc, costs cold, hard cash. The industry makes money. The top 1% of American wealth gets wealthier. War is good for buisness.
It costs the media a sudden wave of new stories, specials, and "plot developments" that are garaunteed to boost ratings and draw in marketing dollars. War is good for buisness.
It costs the military "bragging rights" ("imagine what would have happened if we weren't there on foreign soil to protect you") and a continually larger budget for at least the next decade. After all, we need to keep the military maintained just in case we have another incident like this any time soon, so make sure 50% of next year's budget goes to the military. War is good for buisness.
It costs the government the critical eye of the public; after all, when there's a war going on, we can't get too petty and start demanding the government preserve every little tiny right we have, no matter how significant it may seem. War takes top priority, so when little things like national ID systems get installed, we'll be too busy worrying about the war to care. So now that everyone is looking elsewhere, the lawmakers can get away with things they couldn't do during peace time. Meanwhile, the RIAA and their ilk are getting the laws and actions passed that they wanted (think Ukraine; the RIAA's "no blame" ammendment to the Patriot act; etc.) The lawmakers get paid with campaign contributions that they won't even need -- after all, any president who leads a successful war is almost always looked on favourably, and reelection is easy (the best we can do this time around is hope for a "like father like son" situation). Any Congresspeople who support the war effort will be repaid in kind. War is good for buisness.
... said David J. Farber, a professor of computer science at the University of Pennsylvania and the former chief technologist of the Federal Communications Commission "If you're willing to bootleg music, you're willing to bootleg anything."
While I can't state that this isn't true for some people (trading one blanket statement for another would make me a hypocrite) I CAN state that the majority of people I know aren't going to fill that statement. My friends and I certainly do bootleg our music; it's difficult to find one band that produces an album that has more quality than filler on it, so we pick and choose the songs we enjoy and download those individually. If an album comes out by a band we particularly like, we'll buy the album, but for the most part, we pirate our music.
However, we don't pirate our software (except for a few big titles... as 3D art students, we have to share SOME titles, if we expect to have any chance at all in the industry when we graduate; hell, we talked to one of the VPs of Alias|Wavefront and he said that piracy creates industry demand for their software, sort of a roundabout way of saying "we're turning a blind eye to this"). Take a look at my collection some time; over 85% of my 300+ software titles / games are legally purchased originals. The others are either backups (yeah, I DO use those) or pirates of majour titles (a certain office suite that I need to use to communicate with the college's financial department, for example).
My friends are the same way. We don't, by and large, pirate software; sometimes we share, and if it's good enough, we'll buy it (that's how I came around to Baldur's Gate and Quake III). Music is one thing; software is a different story altogether.
I know people who feel the same way about movies; they pirate movies, since we have faster-than-god internet access at school, but if it's a good movie they'll go out and buy the DVD or the VHS. The only thing we really pirate and NEVER purchase is pr0n =)
I think Prof. Farber is trying to suggest that music piracy is a "gateway drug" for kids, but I don't really see any evidence of this. As someone (the article? don't remember) states, software piracy is down in recent years, even though CD burners are cheaper and broadband access is more widespread.
What is interesting (and potentially frightening) to see is this "war on piracy" turning into the next "war on drugs"... something to keep an eye on, I think.
Merry Xmas*,
~Aaron
(yeah, I'm an atheist, but I still celebrate Xmas, because it's a social holiday, too; so to all non-christian geeks out there, have a good one!)
I'm running the program in Win2k right now on my 950 Duron/256MB SDRAM/32MB GeForce2 box, and the slowdown is pretty mild. To be certain, Internet Explorer scrolls down in spurts instead of smoothly like it did before, but beyond that I really can't complain.
Uses for it? None as of yet. But that probably has to do with the fact that I just became aware of its existence about twenty minutes ago. This is one of those things that I'll keep running in the background and FIND uses for. Some time, maybe a week from now, I'll be working with a program and say "hey, transparency might help me out here," so I'll fire up my little 54K download here and get it running, and BOOM! there it is. Who care's if its not practical yet. Just wait until you need it; then you'll see just how practical it can be. Besides, for 54K what's not to like?
~Forager
Quick after thought: I've already got it running, making my taskbar semi-transparent; I have it set on the left side of my screen, so when it pops up to announce a window update it gets annoying if it's directly over my text or whatever; on 30% opacity, it's much less annoying. Little things like this will make me glad I spent all 20 seconds (56k connection here, people) of my life it took to download this utility.
Oh, the possibilities!
on
MAME On Xbox
·
· Score: 5, Informative
This is dated July 20th, 2001; it was, needless to say, done on a development box. Anyone know the difficulties between running it on a dev box vs running it on the actual consumer box?
Thought this paragraph was interesting:
So I've found the computer I want to put in the M.A.M.E. cabinet I am still trying to find time to construct, it's going to be an XBox, it's got a built-in hard drive, Ethernet connection, and supports analogue & digital controlllers, and only costs a few hundred American dollars, plus it already supports a standard TV signal so I can wire up any decent TV instead of an expensive Wells Gardner monitor.
What I'm curious to know is how many other people will find applications like this? Hook up a USB keyboard and mouse, you could have a $300 linux box, or a $300 quake server, or a $300 mail server, or a $300 SETI@home bean counter. Point is, the potential for the XBOX BEYOND its original purpose is pretty big, if only people can get around Microsoft's software.
Re:Why dedicated games machines? (rebuttal redux)
on
Gamecube Hits US Early
·
· Score: 2
#1: Mario 64 was hailed as The Greatest Game of All Time... when it was released...
Evidence? Nintendo Power? Gamepro? Give me a break. Everyone has learned to take those articles with a brick of salt. Ditto for PC publications, who continue to acclaim Half-Life as The Greatest Game of All Time. Whatever. There is no such thing. Besides, you speak of the days when PCs were coming into their prime.
Secondly, if you've outgrown these sorts of games... why do you have an emulator on your system so that you can play them?
Because Miyamoto Shigeru is a god, and because Zelda64 is hands down the best adventure game I've ever played. Also, because my N64 is getting old (blowing on cartridges is a bitch and a half), and the games run better on my PC than they do on my N64.
#2: "... I'll play an RPG adventure, maybe something along the lines of Shenmue."
Yeah, I saw that; it brought back memories of the days of Elderscrolls: Daggerfall or -- more recently -- Ultima IX. Personally, I'm waiting for Elderscrolls III: Morrowwind. That way I can expand on what the game shipped as, by making my own stuff or downloading other people's work.
#3:... the idea of something like Shenmue or Zelda being developed for the PC... is laughable
You're saying you can't have epics on the PC? Bullshit. Elderscrolls III: Morrowind; Baldur's Gate 2; Neverwinter Nights; Dungeonsiege; Fallout; Deus Ex. Or how about a game recognized by and played by millions? Doom. Microsoft Flight Simulator. Half-Life. Everquest. Myst.
But I'll say this: The idea of something like Asheron's Call or Everquest being developed for the console is laughable. Consoles weren't designed for MMORPGs (which, I admit, I don't play; I prefer their infintely more creative textual ancestors, MUDs/MUCKs/MUSHs/MOOSs that you can play on any PC with a modem, period). Sure, a MMORPG might have been released for a console, but I can't even recall the title, and I don't know anyone who plays it; on the otherhand, millions of people know what Everquest is, and some even play it.
#4: blah blah blah computers are better
Terribly mature.
That's just the way it goes.
My summer job is in a computer shop; I build computers for people who have "run the old computer into the ground" and want a new system. Over the summer we found that: a) most people who were upgrading were doing so because the barebones machine they bought last year isn't up to their standards; b) many of these people were interested in the "phenomenon" of PC gaming; c) most of these people were willing to pay $1500-1700 to get a machine two-three times better than a $1200 machine. 90% of the systems I built had GeForce2's on them.
#5: Wow, you must only associate with computer geeks.
Insults do not an argument make, grasshopper. Ignoring that, most of my associates are fellow college students, like myself. We're real people on real bugdets with real space constraints. And we're also the real people that make up a sizable chuck of the target demographic. If we can purchase computers that essentially do everything, we both: a) save the cost of a TV, DVD player, surround sound system, console game system, cable bill (no one has time for TV), and a stand for all of this. Say that ammounts to $1000, in total. In its place we purchase a $1800 system (and a desk for it) that plays games, has a surround sound system, a DVD player, and all that great stuff (I can name at least 4 people who did this, none of them computer geeks) We spent the extra $700, but we needed to buy the computer anyway (internet access, email, reports, etc), so really we saved a few bucks. Also, we don't have to find spaces to put all of that extra stuff; we have it all in our computer. Floorspace saved. It's practical. It's easy for the average consumer to understand.
blah blah blah my computer is awesome
Relative to my peer's systems, it's actually pretty average (950 Duron, GeForce2, 256MB SDRAM) but it still cranks out sweet graphics. I'm getting a GeForce III this Christmas, bit of a splurge, but I've held out for it. Just wait for HALO; compare the XBox version to the PC version... One might sell more, but check the quality. People have a habit of buying an inferior product if it's marketed better (*cough*Windows*cough*)
#6:blah blah blah I love PCs
Gloss over the LAN party argument, don't even grant me a conciet; that's fine, we both know who made the better case.
Most of the rest of the world doesn't [care if you prefer PCs], and it sounds like you have a serious case of denial. I agree that some things about PC games are awesome -- I'm looking forward to Neverwinter Nights and Warcraft III as much as the next guy. However, 90% of the games I buy are for consoles, and that's pretty representative of typical behavior.
I certainly accept that most of the world uses consoles, but I certainly will not grant you that this makes them better. Again, refer to the Windows - Linux duel. Which is a superior product, and why? The same goes for PCs v. consoles. Simply put, the PC offers better opportunities to gamers, but it isn't going to ever be half as successful as consoles. Why? For the same reason Windows always beats Linux. It all comes down to the end user. Arguments like yours, where you ignore, trivialise, or ridicule the points given if they significantly hurt your argument (I notice you essentially ignored my three counterpoints, and made a "blah blah blah" case out of three of my rebuttals to your claims), people who resort to personal insult when they see their insecurities coming forth (I won't beat around the bush: your insecurity = the fact that you know, deep down inside, that I COULD be right; else why resort to personal attacks?) people who blindly accept that "because everyone uses it, it must be good," etc. All of that stuff keeps the gamer in question from experiencing the realisation of true gaming potential.
I'm looking forward to Neverwinter Nights and Warcraft III... However, 90% of the games I buy are for consoles, and that's pretty representative of typical behavior.
No, really most people don't fit into that demographic (upper-middle class? upper class?). Most people fit into my demograpic, the lower-middle class, people with money to spend, but not much. Almost everyone I know puts their money into either consoles or PCs, not both. (side note: Every single Mac user I know is a console gamer) The majourity of these people are PC gamers, as a result.
~Aaron,
Going to play some Counterstrike, or some Threshold MUD, or some Serious Sam, or (most likely) to work on my finals;)
The reason most PC gamers don't own joypads is because PC gamers have long since matured past the simple platform jumper game style that consoles are so condusive to. The reason you don't see Mario64 on the PC isn't because of the lack of controlers to support it, but rather because most PC gamers have no interest in mindless platform-jumping games any more. Besides, speaking from experience, I use Project64 to emulate my old N64 games at higher resolutions and higher framerates on my PC, and the controls (keyboard) have never been a problem for me.
When I want to play a game, I want the most intuitive, powerful controls I can get. Thus far, the keyboard (100 or more buttons!) + mouse combination seems to work best.
Reason #2: Gameplay
If you like FPSs or strategy games, stick to the PC.
While console games do offer more choices than just simple platform-jumpers and fighting games, the range of genres simply isn't there. And when other genres try to move to the console, the control issue pops up. FPS, RPGs (Final Fantasy is not an RPG), MMORPGs, MUD/MUCK/MUSH/MOOs, RTS, TBS, sports games, puzzle games, and yes, even platform-jumpers are all available to PC gamers. On a computer you can play the Quake series, the Need for Speed series, the Diablo series, the Baldur's Gate series, the Myth series, the Rainbow Six series, the Unreal series, the Descent series (Freespace, too), the Myst series, the Tribes series, MS Flight Simulator, the Ultima Series, Elite Force, Half-Life, Deus Ex, Age of Empires, Homeworld, Starcraft... and on and on. These are all games from genres that still have not translated well over to the console. You can't pull off something on a console that requires any kind of controls more complex than up, down, left right, b, a, start. Keyboards and mice (!) are so much more condusive to ease of use and intuitivity of interface.
Reason #3: Audience
Only a few PC game companies, like Blizzard, have a large enough audience to justify multi-million-dollar budgets.
One of the things my English teacher always stated was that when you assert something you need to answer the question "So what?"
So what? So, as you say "only a few PC game companies" have huge budgets (somehow I doubt that's true). So what? What does that mean? Are you implying that low-budget operations can't produce hugely wonderful games? Well, since there are quite a few very great games out for the PC that come from various great companies (Bioware, Raven, id, Blizzard, Ion Storm, Monolith, Red Storm, Lucasarts, Gearbox, Legend, Croteam, Bethesda, etc) and by your statement "only a few" developement houses can afford to spend lots of money on games, one of two things has to be true: either you're wrong, and great number of companies DO have multi-million dollar budgets to spend on game developement; or you're wrong in your implication, and having a large budget has nothing to do with making a great game. Either way, you're still wrong.
Reason #4: Graphics
Console games look better, despite the fact that PCs are more powerful.
When they first come out, yes. This is true. (PC gamers who disagree, shut up, you know it's true; the XBox is glorious). But what happens when 6-12 months from now graphics on computers are on par or better than these presently new consoles? Unless you're a Playstation gamer who upgraded to a PS2, none of your old games carry over to a new system, so when M$ releases the XBox^2 in 2-3 years, you may not have a library of games ready for you yet. But PC games always look and play better on a new system. That's the rule. So while PCs are upgrading (I upgrade mine twice a year, usually at $100 a pop, but see my Counterpoint #1 for an explaination of why this is a justifiable expense for me. Either way, 6 months from now the PC will be on par with the XBox. Gawd help us a year from now.
Furthermore, graphics are a subjective thing... but when I run Zelda64 at 1024x768 @ 60FPS in 32 bit colour on my 21 inch monitor, I get goosebumps. Quake III STILL sends shivers down my spine. And the new games coming out for Christmas are even scarier in their detail. Try that with your TV and its pithy resolutions and low colour depths.
Reason #5: Experience
Most people I know don't have surround sound systems. Most people I know only have a DVD player for their computer. Most people I know have 19" monitors or larger.
I have a highback, Italian-leather executive chair that I got when I first built my PC. I have an Ottoman beside me right now. I have a Soundblaster audio card and two sets of speakers (two subs, for satellites) that give me over 700 watts of sound, 200 of which is bass. Yes, I get true surround sound. I have a DVD player. I also download DivX movies. I have a 21" monitor. My roomate and I are going to bring a couch down next quarter. My multi-media experience is excessive (and probably every bit as nice as what you can get with your own setup).
Reason #6: Party Gaming
Both console "parties" and LAN parties are niche events. But answer me this: when have you ever had a console party where more than 4 people played at once? Ever been to one with, I don't know, say 200 people playing all at once? Or even just 64? 32? LAN parties are insane, just because of the number of people playing at once. Even with 32 people in one game, you've exceded the console potential by 8 times. LAN parties are an experience. And the nice thing about multi-play (which you conveniently glossed over) on a PC is that you don't have to have your friends in the room to play. If I feel like playing a little Tribes 2 at 3am on a Monday night I can usually find a match online. It's not the same as playing in person, but it's better than playing by yourself. Try THAT with a console.
PC Counterpoint #1: Multipurpose Machine
PCs are not just designed for one purpose. They have MANY purposes. One of which is video games. Another of which is Internet browsing. Another of which is art work. Yes, the wonderful PC, which so many people in America own (it has a broader installed user base than any console you can name). Well, for the price of a relatively cheap upgrade, you can be set to play games on your system for the next 2 or 3 years. And since this cheap upgrade will increase the performance of other applications you run, you're obviously getting more bang for your buck. If I'm going to spend $1800 on a system for Internet access and word processing and such, why not spend $2100 or $2200 and get a sweet gaming system? Don't tell me it doesn't happen every day.
Also, I'm an artist. I'm an art student, learning 3D animation and film/video work. Why in the world would I want to spend an extra $300 on a console? I've spent the last 3 years tweaking my machine to perfection; I've spent nearly $4000 and hundreds of man hours on this bad boy. Why whore myself out to Ninetendo or Microsoft? I'm sticking with what I have and what will play my old (and new) games.
Any game company with common sense offers a free demo of its game. I can procure any one of these, for free, over the internet. That way I get to sample the game and decide if it is for me. Try getting that for your console.
Oh, and don't tell me you need high speed net access. I still, to this day, download that stuff using Getright on a 56k connection.
PC Counterpoint #3: Replay Value
I just beat Quake III on the hardest difficulty. I know all the maps that shipped with the game by heart. I guess I'll just have to buy a new game.
Half-Life is almost 3 years old. No one plays that any more!
Is there ANY quality content out there for Star Craft?
Serious Sam is SOOOO hard to make levels for!
PC game companies are SOOO closed, they NEVER release developement kits or anything! What? No, I don't have a copy of the Half-Life SDK in my hand! No, Valve never mailed that to me personally when they first released it! No, I've NEVER had any contact with the developers!
/me switches out of sarcasm mode.
Face it. PC games are the king of replay value. You just can't beat them. Once you buy a PC game, you are (usually) buying several years of entertainment. And, if you're like me, you're also buying the right to make mods and levels for your favourite games in this bunch. I used to design sequels to Mega Man when I was 10, just because I loved that so much. But now I actually CAN make things for my games. You just simply can't top that.
Conclusion:
Both of the solutions (PCs, consoles) have their strengths, but for me, PCs simply can't be beat. There is almost nothing a console can do that a PC can't do as well or better. It's a personal choice, but for me there are too many more reasons to go PC than console, so in the end, PC gaming rules the day.
I'm not buying an XBox, or a Gamecube, or a PS2. The only situation that MIGHT cause me to buy an XBox is a pricetag of $200 that comes bundled with HALO. That, I would consider buying, and only if they DO NOT release HALO for the PC. =)
Since neutrinos are so small, most of the time they passed through the nucleus without affecting it. The frequency of collisions told scientists about the electromagnetic forces that affect how neutrinos behave -- the so-called weak forces. The scientists found slightly fewer interactions with one of the weak forces than had been predicted by the Standard Model, physicists' current description of fundamental forces and particles. Since the model is very precise, scientists concluded that the difference was significant. (emphasis mine)
This is what I love about science. Here we have the Standard Model, formed from exhaustively detailed tests over the last 30 years. As the article states, the model is very precise, and slight deviations are significant issues. However, rather than scrap the entire idea, or announce that the tests were probably flawed, or decry the scientists who performed the tests as heathens and radicals, here we see that the community will embrace this new data and reform the model in such a way as to make it work.
This is the beauty of science. If something doesn't work out the way it was supposed to, if a theory doesn't fit with the cold, hard data, the majourity of scientists will go out of their way to fix the theory (not the data). Scientists are always going out of their way to keep each other in check; at any given time one scientist may be checking some prominent theory or another. It keeps them honest, and while the system isn't fool proof, it's damn tight.
The Matrix plot, such as it was, was a paper-thin claptrap to frame the fusion of high technology and chop-socky, and chop socky still has better fight scenes. I honestly don't know why people like the Matrix so much. It was a bad, bad movie with some okay fight scenes.
The problem with movies today is that every great plot has been done already. Shakespeare pretty much used them all up about 400 years ago. And even his pieces were just rehashes of older stories. As far as basic underlying plot lines go (everything else is just details, after all) there is no plot that hasn't been done before. Any plot you summarize in one sentence will sound familiar, because it has been done already, again and again and again.
But the beauty of the Matrix lies in the details. Matrix is a work of cinematographic beauty; not only is the camera work amazing, but the way the special effects blend with the real footage. A lot of people I've talked to (film professors, movie buffs, Joe Sixpacks) agree that if we could do these things in the real world, this is how it would look. The way things were visually concieved for The Matrix made it beautiful.
What The Matrix did, really, was show us the same old story in such a way as to fool us into thinking we hadn't seen it before. It took something old and tired and made it look good again. The fight choreography was perfect, the cinematography was superb, and the special effects were on a level we've never seen before.
Admittedly, Katz is milking The Matrix for all its worth, but it really was a valuable movie. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Keep in mind that when I was renaming my autoexec.bat and config.sys files I was probably wearing my Ninja-Turtles pajamas and drinking from tupperware cups with plastic spill-guards on them =) Also, at this point I had not even heard of the internet (that would happen a few years later, around the time Doom II was released). I did things the only way I knew how: DOS shell to rename autoexec.bat and config.sys so I could play Wolfenstein. When I was done, redo the changes so dad can use his mouse in Windows (one of the reasons why I was encouraged to learn to use a CLI before I was old enough to cross the street by myself). Ah, memories...
If I never have to rename my autoexec.bat and config.sys files to play Wolfenstein again, I could die a happy man. You know, there's a reason they called it the dosHELL.exe =)
Here's the text of the new article direct from the source:
Thanks to the millions of people who e-mailed me about this.
Do we title this: We TOLD You So!
or do we title it: Maybe we were right about him?
or do we title it: AMD Won't Burn a hole in your wallet, or your motherboard?
or do we title it: AMD Slaps Around Little Tom-Tom? as Van Smith put it?
Well whatever you want to call it, there is a new video out on the internet showing what REALLY happens to an AthlonXP (or MP) when your heat sink falls off, or when your fans fails. Now I'm not saying that Tom Pabst is completely wrong, but let's just say this makes his testing methods look a little 'suspect' at best. Here's a quote from Van Smith:
A video has appeared on the Internet countering a huge dose of FUD my former employer inexplicably dumped on his readership a couple of months back. The new video, with AMD credits all over it, is entitled "How an Athlon(tm) MP 1.2GHz Really Copes with Heat Emergencies." The piece demonstrates the AMD Palomino Athlon subjected to brutal circumstances such as heat sink removal while playing Quake III and boot up attempts when a CPU cooler is not attached. In all scenarios, the Palomino comes out unscathed. A similar though much less thorough test came out with unsurprisingly different results at Tom's Hardware. Ouch! Looks like dispensing bad medicine can result in a mouthful of looser teeth. Good job Ben & Joe, perhaps you can also give THG a crash course in analyzing computer technology.
The video also presents the much more realistic situation when the CPU fan fails. In that case the Palomino continued to play Quake III for several minutes before shutting down. Again the chip was undamaged.
This video may look like it's from AMD, but I'm pretty sure it's not, even if it makes a great case. The original download site appears to be down, so I mirrored it onto AMDZone right here.
Update: One of our readers e-mailed me to give me his first hand experience with the thermal control capabilities of the AthlonXP:
I installed my amp1800 (sic) with the heat sink rotated 180 deg. and after 3 hours of trying, incessantly, and not being able to boot I found the problem, I rotated the heat sink and all is fine. I must say, I was sweating bullets when I found the problem.
No fried chip, no smell of burned silicon. Looks like the thermal diode is working.
Since XP is (essentially) the home user version of Windows2000, it should work perfectly. One of my former coworkers was running Redhat 7, Windows 2000, and the WinXP Beta on his laptop last time I talked to him. They all worked just fine for him. I personally run Win2000 and Win98 (gaming reasons) without any trouble, but not Linux (at this point). My guess would be WinXP would run just fine with Linux.
If this really is true, if broadband is dead, it's no surprise. You can't successfully sell a product if you don't offer it to a wide audience. My neighbourhood is right in the center of a non-broadband zone. If I lived 4000 feet to the south, I could have cable. If I lived 2000 feet to the north, I could have DSL. East and west, go about a mile each and I get DSL. Go an extra 5 miles east, and I get my choice of DSL or cable. I live in a large, higher-income neighbourhood, lots of people willing and able to sign up for broadband. But no one seems to want to provide it. It's the provider's own damn fault, these financial losses.
Then again, now I'm a college student at a small southern art school, where I share an OC12 connection with 200 other students in my dorm. 3.1 megabits/sec right now... ah, such is the life =)
Well, mark me off as redundant, but sex-in-space is something I think NASA needs to study sooner or later. It's been said a hundred times that the long trips to Mars and back will be difficult on the travelers (imagine a year-long roadtrip, if you will) without adding sexual frustration into the mix. And if we're going to have people living permanently in space, if we're going to set up truly long-term stations, we need to have a sexual outlet for those persons who choose to travel out so far.
Obviously pr0n is not the way to study sex-in-space. But it does need to be researched. Pregnancy, and zero-g's effects on the birth development process. And child-bearing, and the birthing process itself (it's a stretch, but imagine the results if NASA discovered that child-bearing in space was 10 times less painful for the mother; or that a child concieved, carried, and born in space was less likely to develope cancer). Fact of the matter is that NASA's prudish attitude toward sex (they NEVER talk about it) is not getting any valuable scientific research done, research that should be done if we are going to establish permanent residence in reduced- and zero-g environments.
Ok, as I have noted, the previous posters seem torn between the idea that this is the RIGHT course of action (catchphrases: "Muslim terrorists guests of the Taliban", "righteous war", "exact justice") and the idea that this is WRONG (catchphrases: "stirring the rubble," "emotional revenge tactics"). No one seems to be thinking about the ramifications of what could materialize from these attacks, however.
This is an act of war by the US. Should we declare all-out war, Afghanistan will most likely declare war in response. Now, while Afghanistan cannot possibly face down the US, there is a possibility that the terrorists housed within the nation's borders could inflict more massive casualties on US territory. Perhaps another attack like the ones of 11 September, perhaps an Anthrax attack, perhaps a suitcase nuclear strike (not unrealistic)... and so forth.
"Senators close to the investigation of the terror attacks advised Americans to be especially vigilant about more danger at home, once military action began." - Salon.com
And this is really how the next "war" could be brought about. While we are attacking the Afghans on their turf, the US could become the target of even more terrorist attacks. The possibilities for civilian casualties could very well be greater now than in previous modern wars. But this is meaningless speculation.
So what would be a more intelligent course of action for the US? Surgical strikes. Special-ops style strikes against strategic targets. Find bin Laden and capture him. No assasinations ("guilty until proven innocent"), no carpet bombings ("shifting the rubble from the right side of the street to the left side"), no huge deployments of troops ("another Vietnam"). Surgical special-ops strikes; get in, get the target, get out: take out the radar facility; capture the suspect; find the leaders; etc. Doing nothing would equate to victory for the terrorists. But overreacting would be very little different.
The Taliban promises to "fight to the last breath." This is a hopeless battle for them; with the way that America will be attacking (air strikes, long distance attacks) there will not be much opportunity for them to fight back. They did not declare that the war will be fought on Afghan soil, however. While I am certainly not going to accuse the Taliban of carrying out terrorist attacks, there is a possibility that more attacks will be carried out IN THEIR NAME. The US could be facing a major battle here. It would be best that posters not forget that in their responses.
It's funny you ask about developing for the PSX2. The school I'm attending offers game developement as a majour, and part of that course involves design for console systems. About four years ago the GD department purchased about 30 of the PSX developement stations for use in the program. What's really great about this, however, is that any student who is attending the school can sign out one of the boxes, just like a library; that is, any student can just waltz on in, present their id, sign on the line, and waltz on out with a PSX developement box to play with. Of course, the program has since STOPPED using those boxes, so they pretty much lie dormant most of the time.
The other problem with the boxes is that no one here knows how to program for them. We're an ART school, and our game design courses are more focussed on the artistic side of game developement, not the technical side. SCAD turns out GD theorists, level designers (we're the only art school in the country that offers a Master of Architecture), texture artists, modelers and animators (some students have gone on to work for Digital Anvil, Square, etc).
We've got something of a predicament here; we have a GREAT art department, but sadly we have no programmers here, and so the potential of those 30 boxes are more or less wasted.
This post is something of a followup to the topic: What should artists in a position like ours be doing? The potential for some beautiful stuff is there; any recommendations on a way to learn basic PSX programming to utilise that potential? Remember, you're speaking to an artist here; I know nothing of programming beyond very basic VB stuff =)
This post will probably never see +2, but any responses are appreciated.
Does the govt really think that crypto export restrictions have prevented terrorists from having strong crypto?
::flamesuit on:: Actually, that's probably not the reason the gov't wants to ban crypto. Think about it for a second:
Every day thousands of geeks and perhaps dozens of terrorists send back and forth messages that have been encrypted. The geek messages may be frivolous, just simple messages about life and groceries and the kids and other trivial things. Even if they have a right to, there's no real reason for geeks to encode these things. Big Brother doesn't give a rats ass about what you're writing.
Now, make it illegal to encrypt messages (example) and this flow of messages from the geeks will cut of SLIGHTLY. However slight, the decrease in the number of encrypted messages intercepted per day could drop, thus translating into fewer messages that need to be decrypted and thus translating into faster processing time for the NSA (or whoever).
Do I support this? No. But I don't think the/. crowd is being fair with this one. The idea isn't to stop the criminals from using crypto; it's to make it a slightly faster process to DEcrpyt their stuff.
Give the gov't some credit. They're not stupid. Just misguided and corrupt.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm assuming that this "film coating" is the same tech we heard about a while back that causes the DVD disc to corrode into uselessness shortly after the film is exposed to reader light ...
... digitally identical playback, every time, unlike VHS, which corroded and is useless after a few years.
Is anyone else worried that this film might "rub off" onto your DVD tray, and get onto one of your other discs afterward? I'd certainly be pissed to discover that the rental DVD I purchased destroyed the discs I already own... I don't think there's a conspiracy here, but I don't think this film is a good thing, either.
To be honest, if I want to rent a DVD, I go to blockbuster, or Hollywood Video if there's one near by. It's cheap, it's pretty painless, and there's no risk of the disc destroying my setup
One thing that is VERY nice about DVD rentals is that you can watch the movie one year or eight years after the video store acquired it, and -- provided the disc is readable -- you get the same experience
~Aaron.
I know this is a technical publisher, so this is mildly offtopic. It says so in my subject header. Obviously, that means you don't need to waste mod points here =) (though responses would be much appreciated).
... I reformatted my system and for one month I left Mandrake 8.1 on my system ... I wanted to network all of my systems eventually, get a small server or something running... but problems set in immediately, things I could handle in Windows, but things I had no idea how to tackle with Linux. Those Linux-for-Dummies were no help; the fixes I applied only caused my system to stop booting. I tried posting to various help boards from my friends PC, but nothing came of it beyond insults and various "newbie" wisecracks.
Introductory short story: I tried switching to Linux for a month, just to see if I could handle it
Dealing with the community was too stressful. A book for people like me would be nice. A Windows-to-Linux book written for someone who knows how to do some more complicated things with their computer, but isn't interested in coding or otherwise designing new software. A book that says "so you've been using/fixing/installing/coping with Windows for years? Here's how to do all that stuff in Linux." A book written for someone on the level of an MCSE, perhaps?
Anyone got any thoughts on this (beyond the "blow-it-out-your-ass-newbie-scum!" comments =))
Also, as a quick aside, does anyone know of a Linux-for-Artists book? (yes, I know of Gimp, and no, I don't think it's a viable substitute to the software I currently use).
Let the flames begin!
~A.
This story was front page on k5 a few days ago; I only post this notice because there was some interesting commentary along the lines of what we're already seeing here now. You might want to surf over there and see what the folks at k5 have been saying.
2
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/1/26/112847/74
Cheers,
-Aaron.
Contrary to my earlier post, I WILL pay for Napster if it meets my criteria because of programs that I DIDN'T want, like ... time will tell on that one.
eZula, OnFlow, WebEnhancer, Cydoor Technologies, etc. If Napster is good enough, sufficient people might go over to it for that reason (and the fact that it lets you stay legal, of course). Admittedly, Napster doesn't do movies, so people will still need those programs for their pr0n, but maybe Napster will SHARE harddrive space with the other programs. Either way, don't count Napster out just yet
I know this is a common sentiment, but allow me to voice why I won't be subscribing to Napster any time soon:
... it's all backup, of course, of course ... yeah, that's the ticket!), but if Napster isn't going to give me high-quality service, I'll go about my legal compliance by some OTHER method.
... )
If I'm going to be paying a monthly fee for Napster, I'll be expecting a certain level of performance from the service; even if I'm only paying $4.95/month, that's $60/year that I -- a poor college student and a member of the target demographic -- won't have any more. I'm going to expect Napster to deliver, and I don't think it is going to be able to meet my expectations.
The first thing I'm going to expect is constant uptime. The old Napster delivered this perfectly; I don't think I ever got a "cannot connect" message from Napster. However, even though I could always get on, the selection of files was hardly constant: at times I would go on and have millions of files at my finger tips, from thousands of users; other times I'd find a few hundred users with perhaps half a million files.
This is significant because of my second expectation: redundancy. When I search for a file, I will expect to have at least 20 different copies of the song to choose from -- thus enabling me to download the song even if the first 15 users give me the busy signal. I want to be able to download the same song (down to the bit) from no less than 20 locations; the more, the merrier.
This is part of another expectation I have: quality files. I don't want to download a copy of Nirvana's _Smells Like Teen Spirit_ only to find that I downloaded a 128kbit song that's missing the last 5 seconds -- the last 5 seconds might only be fade-time, but it's the principle of the thing. What if I wanted to download a song that goes straight to the last second with no fade-time? I want only complete songs, at nothing less than 256kbit encoding. People on 56k modems might settle for 128kbit (I always settled for 160kbit) but I have faster-than-god 'net access at school, and I'm planning on using it.
My fourth expectation is speed; I want to be able to download all of my files at no less than 200k/second. I don't care how Napster pulls it off, it's what I'm expecting (my basis for these expectations follows shortly). I expect that kind of speed at all times; 100k/second is acceptable at peak usage, say 6pm - 9pm, but at all other times I damn well better be seeing 200k/second.
My fifth expectation is to be able to download songs the day they are released on CD. I will expect to have nearly immediate access to all new music that hits the market. If there are going to be delays between release dates and availability on Napster, they won't be getting my patronage. If there are going to be certain bands/lables that I can't download on Napster, I want to know about it BEFORE I sign up; I want it spelled out for me in BIG, BOLD, AOL FRIENDLY LETTERING. I want to see a sign that says "these bands will be inaccessable to you: ------ ".
For my sixth and final expectation, I expect to be able to burn these songs onto any CD any number of times at full quality. Period. No exceptions. No DRM bullocks. I expect this to work this way.
I don't think these expectations are unreasonable. Here's why: this is no different from what I can do now.
At any given time, day or night, peak usage or not, all of the above expectations are met by the various file sharing programs I use. I can't always get a complete copy of whatever song I want on the first try, but I can download seven different versions of the same song in just 10 minutes to make sure I got my 256kbit, COMPLETE, error-free copy of said song. I can get these songs the date they are released (sometimes several days/weeks before). I can burn them onto 10000 CDs if I feel like it, at full quality, and no one will think twice. I can almost always find a host that'll give me 200k/second or higher (I get max out between 400 - 700k/second on gnutella, because my school has the fattest pipe I've ever SEEN). If any of these things aren't available to me under my current setup, that's fine; I'm not paying for any of it. But Napster wants my money, so they damn well better deliver. If I can't get something AS GOOD as what I have now, I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing and Napster will be $5/month poorer because of it.
I want to be legal about my downloading (not that I'm downloading anything illegally, of course
(Just don't get me started about LEECHES on the new Napster
~A.
Under the DVD options it asks for the decryption type. The options it offers are DeCSS or RSA. Does this mean that DeCSS is incorporated into the software? If it does, would that make this software illegal? Also, what was the license on DeCSS?
Just wondering.
~A.
It costs industry sudden a sudden boom in production, and larger profits. To produce the bombs, drones, machines, etc, costs cold, hard cash. The industry makes money. The top 1% of American wealth gets wealthier. War is good for buisness.
It costs the media a sudden wave of new stories, specials, and "plot developments" that are garaunteed to boost ratings and draw in marketing dollars. War is good for buisness.
It costs the military "bragging rights" ("imagine what would have happened if we weren't there on foreign soil to protect you") and a continually larger budget for at least the next decade. After all, we need to keep the military maintained just in case we have another incident like this any time soon, so make sure 50% of next year's budget goes to the military. War is good for buisness.
It costs the government the critical eye of the public; after all, when there's a war going on, we can't get too petty and start demanding the government preserve every little tiny right we have, no matter how significant it may seem. War takes top priority, so when little things like national ID systems get installed, we'll be too busy worrying about the war to care. So now that everyone is looking elsewhere, the lawmakers can get away with things they couldn't do during peace time. Meanwhile, the RIAA and their ilk are getting the laws and actions passed that they wanted (think Ukraine; the RIAA's "no blame" ammendment to the Patriot act; etc.) The lawmakers get paid with campaign contributions that they won't even need -- after all, any president who leads a successful war is almost always looked on favourably, and reelection is easy (the best we can do this time around is hope for a "like father like son" situation). Any Congresspeople who support the war effort will be repaid in kind. War is good for buisness.
So when was cost ever an issue?
~A.
While I can't state that this isn't true for some people (trading one blanket statement for another would make me a hypocrite) I CAN state that the majority of people I know aren't going to fill that statement. My friends and I certainly do bootleg our music; it's difficult to find one band that produces an album that has more quality than filler on it, so we pick and choose the songs we enjoy and download those individually. If an album comes out by a band we particularly like, we'll buy the album, but for the most part, we pirate our music.
However, we don't pirate our software (except for a few big titles
My friends are the same way. We don't, by and large, pirate software; sometimes we share, and if it's good enough, we'll buy it (that's how I came around to Baldur's Gate and Quake III). Music is one thing; software is a different story altogether.
I know people who feel the same way about movies; they pirate movies, since we have faster-than-god internet access at school, but if it's a good movie they'll go out and buy the DVD or the VHS. The only thing we really pirate and NEVER purchase is pr0n =)
I think Prof. Farber is trying to suggest that music piracy is a "gateway drug" for kids, but I don't really see any evidence of this. As someone (the article? don't remember) states, software piracy is down in recent years, even though CD burners are cheaper and broadband access is more widespread.
What is interesting (and potentially frightening) to see is this "war on piracy" turning into the next "war on drugs"... something to keep an eye on, I think.
Merry Xmas*,
~Aaron
(yeah, I'm an atheist, but I still celebrate Xmas, because it's a social holiday, too; so to all non-christian geeks out there, have a good one!)
Please, Jon, stop being so funny! I just had surgery; jokes like you are dangerous to my health! Tom Cruise in Top Dog, right?
Taco, Hemos: are you guys actually paying Katz for this? This is exactly why I wouldn't pay for slashdot.
Forager
I'm running the program in Win2k right now on my 950 Duron/256MB SDRAM/32MB GeForce2 box, and the slowdown is pretty mild. To be certain, Internet Explorer scrolls down in spurts instead of smoothly like it did before, but beyond that I really can't complain.
Uses for it? None as of yet. But that probably has to do with the fact that I just became aware of its existence about twenty minutes ago. This is one of those things that I'll keep running in the background and FIND uses for. Some time, maybe a week from now, I'll be working with a program and say "hey, transparency might help me out here," so I'll fire up my little 54K download here and get it running, and BOOM! there it is. Who care's if its not practical yet. Just wait until you need it; then you'll see just how practical it can be. Besides, for 54K what's not to like?
~Forager
Quick after thought: I've already got it running, making my taskbar semi-transparent; I have it set on the left side of my screen, so when it pops up to announce a window update it gets annoying if it's directly over my text or whatever; on 30% opacity, it's much less annoying. Little things like this will make me glad I spent all 20 seconds (56k connection here, people) of my life it took to download this utility.
This is dated July 20th, 2001; it was, needless to say, done on a development box. Anyone know the difficulties between running it on a dev box vs running it on the actual consumer box?
Thought this paragraph was interesting:
So I've found the computer I want to put in the M.A.M.E. cabinet I am still trying to find time to construct, it's going to be an XBox, it's got a built-in hard drive, Ethernet connection, and supports analogue & digital controlllers, and only costs a few hundred American dollars, plus it already supports a standard TV signal so I can wire up any decent TV instead of an expensive Wells Gardner monitor.
What I'm curious to know is how many other people will find applications like this? Hook up a USB keyboard and mouse, you could have a $300 linux box, or a $300 quake server, or a $300 mail server, or a $300 SETI@home bean counter. Point is, the potential for the XBOX BEYOND its original purpose is pretty big, if only people can get around Microsoft's software.
~Aaron.
/.'s stupid "lameness filter" won't let me post the other page. Here's google's cache:
w ww.farces.com/farces/999462920/index.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:R7VWyB6BrGM:
~Aaron.
#1: Mario 64 was hailed as The Greatest Game of All Time ... when it was released ...
... why do you have an emulator on your system so that you can play them?
... the idea of something like Shenmue or Zelda being developed for the PC ... is laughable
... One might sell more, but check the quality. People have a habit of buying an inferior product if it's marketed better (*cough*Windows*cough*)
... However, 90% of the games I buy are for consoles, and that's pretty representative of typical behavior.
;)
Evidence? Nintendo Power? Gamepro? Give me a break. Everyone has learned to take those articles with a brick of salt. Ditto for PC publications, who continue to acclaim Half-Life as The Greatest Game of All Time. Whatever. There is no such thing. Besides, you speak of the days when PCs were coming into their prime.
Secondly, if you've outgrown these sorts of games
Because Miyamoto Shigeru is a god, and because Zelda64 is hands down the best adventure game I've ever played. Also, because my N64 is getting old (blowing on cartridges is a bitch and a half), and the games run better on my PC than they do on my N64.
#2: "... I'll play an RPG adventure, maybe something along the lines of Shenmue."
Yeah, I saw that; it brought back memories of the days of Elderscrolls: Daggerfall or -- more recently -- Ultima IX. Personally, I'm waiting for Elderscrolls III: Morrowwind. That way I can expand on what the game shipped as, by making my own stuff or downloading other people's work.
#3:
You're saying you can't have epics on the PC? Bullshit. Elderscrolls III: Morrowind; Baldur's Gate 2; Neverwinter Nights; Dungeonsiege; Fallout; Deus Ex. Or how about a game recognized by and played by millions? Doom. Microsoft Flight Simulator. Half-Life. Everquest. Myst.
But I'll say this: The idea of something like Asheron's Call or Everquest being developed for the console is laughable. Consoles weren't designed for MMORPGs (which, I admit, I don't play; I prefer their infintely more creative textual ancestors, MUDs/MUCKs/MUSHs/MOOSs that you can play on any PC with a modem, period). Sure, a MMORPG might have been released for a console, but I can't even recall the title, and I don't know anyone who plays it; on the otherhand, millions of people know what Everquest is, and some even play it.
#4: blah blah blah computers are better
Terribly mature.
That's just the way it goes.
My summer job is in a computer shop; I build computers for people who have "run the old computer into the ground" and want a new system. Over the summer we found that: a) most people who were upgrading were doing so because the barebones machine they bought last year isn't up to their standards; b) many of these people were interested in the "phenomenon" of PC gaming; c) most of these people were willing to pay $1500-1700 to get a machine two-three times better than a $1200 machine. 90% of the systems I built had GeForce2's on them.
#5: Wow, you must only associate with computer geeks.
Insults do not an argument make, grasshopper. Ignoring that, most of my associates are fellow college students, like myself. We're real people on real bugdets with real space constraints. And we're also the real people that make up a sizable chuck of the target demographic. If we can purchase computers that essentially do everything, we both: a) save the cost of a TV, DVD player, surround sound system, console game system, cable bill (no one has time for TV), and a stand for all of this. Say that ammounts to $1000, in total. In its place we purchase a $1800 system (and a desk for it) that plays games, has a surround sound system, a DVD player, and all that great stuff (I can name at least 4 people who did this, none of them computer geeks) We spent the extra $700, but we needed to buy the computer anyway (internet access, email, reports, etc), so really we saved a few bucks. Also, we don't have to find spaces to put all of that extra stuff; we have it all in our computer. Floorspace saved. It's practical. It's easy for the average consumer to understand.
blah blah blah my computer is awesome
Relative to my peer's systems, it's actually pretty average (950 Duron, GeForce2, 256MB SDRAM) but it still cranks out sweet graphics. I'm getting a GeForce III this Christmas, bit of a splurge, but I've held out for it. Just wait for HALO; compare the XBox version to the PC version
#6:blah blah blah I love PCs
Gloss over the LAN party argument, don't even grant me a conciet; that's fine, we both know who made the better case.
Most of the rest of the world doesn't [care if you prefer PCs], and it sounds like you have a serious case of denial. I agree that some things about PC games are awesome -- I'm looking forward to Neverwinter Nights and Warcraft III as much as the next guy. However, 90% of the games I buy are for consoles, and that's pretty representative of typical behavior.
I certainly accept that most of the world uses consoles, but I certainly will not grant you that this makes them better. Again, refer to the Windows - Linux duel. Which is a superior product, and why? The same goes for PCs v. consoles. Simply put, the PC offers better opportunities to gamers, but it isn't going to ever be half as successful as consoles. Why? For the same reason Windows always beats Linux. It all comes down to the end user. Arguments like yours, where you ignore, trivialise, or ridicule the points given if they significantly hurt your argument (I notice you essentially ignored my three counterpoints, and made a "blah blah blah" case out of three of my rebuttals to your claims), people who resort to personal insult when they see their insecurities coming forth (I won't beat around the bush: your insecurity = the fact that you know, deep down inside, that I COULD be right; else why resort to personal attacks?) people who blindly accept that "because everyone uses it, it must be good," etc. All of that stuff keeps the gamer in question from experiencing the realisation of true gaming potential.
I'm looking forward to Neverwinter Nights and Warcraft III
No, really most people don't fit into that demographic (upper-middle class? upper class?). Most people fit into my demograpic, the lower-middle class, people with money to spend, but not much. Almost everyone I know puts their money into either consoles or PCs, not both. (side note: Every single Mac user I know is a console gamer) The majourity of these people are PC gamers, as a result.
~Aaron,
Going to play some Counterstrike, or some Threshold MUD, or some Serious Sam, or (most likely) to work on my finals
Reason #1: Controls
... and on and on. These are all games from genres that still have not translated well over to the console. You can't pull off something on a console that requires any kind of controls more complex than up, down, left right, b, a, start. Keyboards and mice (!) are so much more condusive to ease of use and intuitivity of interface.
The reason most PC gamers don't own joypads is because PC gamers have long since matured past the simple platform jumper game style that consoles are so condusive to. The reason you don't see Mario64 on the PC isn't because of the lack of controlers to support it, but rather because most PC gamers have no interest in mindless platform-jumping games any more. Besides, speaking from experience, I use Project64 to emulate my old N64 games at higher resolutions and higher framerates on my PC, and the controls (keyboard) have never been a problem for me.
When I want to play a game, I want the most intuitive, powerful controls I can get. Thus far, the keyboard (100 or more buttons!) + mouse combination seems to work best.
Reason #2: Gameplay
If you like FPSs or strategy games, stick to the PC.
While console games do offer more choices than just simple platform-jumpers and fighting games, the range of genres simply isn't there. And when other genres try to move to the console, the control issue pops up. FPS, RPGs (Final Fantasy is not an RPG), MMORPGs, MUD/MUCK/MUSH/MOOs, RTS, TBS, sports games, puzzle games, and yes, even platform-jumpers are all available to PC gamers. On a computer you can play the Quake series, the Need for Speed series, the Diablo series, the Baldur's Gate series, the Myth series, the Rainbow Six series, the Unreal series, the Descent series (Freespace, too), the Myst series, the Tribes series, MS Flight Simulator, the Ultima Series, Elite Force, Half-Life, Deus Ex, Age of Empires, Homeworld, Starcraft
Reason #3: Audience
Only a few PC game companies, like Blizzard, have a large enough audience to justify multi-million-dollar budgets.
One of the things my English teacher always stated was that when you assert something you need to answer the question "So what?"
So what? So, as you say "only a few PC game companies" have huge budgets (somehow I doubt that's true). So what? What does that mean? Are you implying that low-budget operations can't produce hugely wonderful games? Well, since there are quite a few very great games out for the PC that come from various great companies (Bioware, Raven, id, Blizzard, Ion Storm, Monolith, Red Storm, Lucasarts, Gearbox, Legend, Croteam, Bethesda, etc) and by your statement "only a few" developement houses can afford to spend lots of money on games, one of two things has to be true: either you're wrong, and great number of companies DO have multi-million dollar budgets to spend on game developement; or you're wrong in your implication, and having a large budget has nothing to do with making a great game. Either way, you're still wrong.
Reason #4: Graphics
Console games look better, despite the fact that PCs are more powerful.
When they first come out, yes. This is true. (PC gamers who disagree, shut up, you know it's true; the XBox is glorious). But what happens when 6-12 months from now graphics on computers are on par or better than these presently new consoles? Unless you're a Playstation gamer who upgraded to a PS2, none of your old games carry over to a new system, so when M$ releases the XBox^2 in 2-3 years, you may not have a library of games ready for you yet. But PC games always look and play better on a new system. That's the rule. So while PCs are upgrading (I upgrade mine twice a year, usually at $100 a pop, but see my Counterpoint #1 for an explaination of why this is a justifiable expense for me. Either way, 6 months from now the PC will be on par with the XBox. Gawd help us a year from now.
Furthermore, graphics are a subjective thing... but when I run Zelda64 at 1024x768 @ 60FPS in 32 bit colour on my 21 inch monitor, I get goosebumps. Quake III STILL sends shivers down my spine. And the new games coming out for Christmas are even scarier in their detail. Try that with your TV and its pithy resolutions and low colour depths.
Reason #5: Experience
Most people I know don't have surround sound systems. Most people I know only have a DVD player for their computer. Most people I know have 19" monitors or larger.
I have a highback, Italian-leather executive chair that I got when I first built my PC. I have an Ottoman beside me right now. I have a Soundblaster audio card and two sets of speakers (two subs, for satellites) that give me over 700 watts of sound, 200 of which is bass. Yes, I get true surround sound. I have a DVD player. I also download DivX movies. I have a 21" monitor. My roomate and I are going to bring a couch down next quarter. My multi-media experience is excessive (and probably every bit as nice as what you can get with your own setup).
Reason #6: Party Gaming
Both console "parties" and LAN parties are niche events. But answer me this: when have you ever had a console party where more than 4 people played at once? Ever been to one with, I don't know, say 200 people playing all at once? Or even just 64? 32? LAN parties are insane, just because of the number of people playing at once. Even with 32 people in one game, you've exceded the console potential by 8 times. LAN parties are an experience. And the nice thing about multi-play (which you conveniently glossed over) on a PC is that you don't have to have your friends in the room to play. If I feel like playing a little Tribes 2 at 3am on a Monday night I can usually find a match online. It's not the same as playing in person, but it's better than playing by yourself. Try THAT with a console.
PC Counterpoint #1: Multipurpose Machine
PCs are not just designed for one purpose. They have MANY purposes. One of which is video games. Another of which is Internet browsing. Another of which is art work. Yes, the wonderful PC, which so many people in America own (it has a broader installed user base than any console you can name). Well, for the price of a relatively cheap upgrade, you can be set to play games on your system for the next 2 or 3 years. And since this cheap upgrade will increase the performance of other applications you run, you're obviously getting more bang for your buck. If I'm going to spend $1800 on a system for Internet access and word processing and such, why not spend $2100 or $2200 and get a sweet gaming system? Don't tell me it doesn't happen every day.
Also, I'm an artist. I'm an art student, learning 3D animation and film/video work. Why in the world would I want to spend an extra $300 on a console? I've spent the last 3 years tweaking my machine to perfection; I've spent nearly $4000 and hundreds of man hours on this bad boy. Why whore myself out to Ninetendo or Microsoft? I'm sticking with what I have and what will play my old (and new) games.
PC Counterpoint #2: Demoing Games
www.fileplanet.com
www.download.com
www.gamespot.com
Any game company with common sense offers a free demo of its game. I can procure any one of these, for free, over the internet. That way I get to sample the game and decide if it is for me. Try getting that for your console.
Oh, and don't tell me you need high speed net access. I still, to this day, download that stuff using Getright on a 56k connection.
PC Counterpoint #3: Replay Value
I just beat Quake III on the hardest difficulty. I know all the maps that shipped with the game by heart. I guess I'll just have to buy a new game.
Half-Life is almost 3 years old. No one plays that any more!
Is there ANY quality content out there for Star Craft?
Serious Sam is SOOOO hard to make levels for!
PC game companies are SOOO closed, they NEVER release developement kits or anything! What? No, I don't have a copy of the Half-Life SDK in my hand! No, Valve never mailed that to me personally when they first released it! No, I've NEVER had any contact with the developers!
/me switches out of sarcasm mode.
Face it. PC games are the king of replay value. You just can't beat them. Once you buy a PC game, you are (usually) buying several years of entertainment. And, if you're like me, you're also buying the right to make mods and levels for your favourite games in this bunch. I used to design sequels to Mega Man when I was 10, just because I loved that so much. But now I actually CAN make things for my games. You just simply can't top that.
Conclusion:
Both of the solutions (PCs, consoles) have their strengths, but for me, PCs simply can't be beat. There is almost nothing a console can do that a PC can't do as well or better. It's a personal choice, but for me there are too many more reasons to go PC than console, so in the end, PC gaming rules the day.
I'm not buying an XBox, or a Gamecube, or a PS2. The only situation that MIGHT cause me to buy an XBox is a pricetag of $200 that comes bundled with HALO. That, I would consider buying, and only if they DO NOT release HALO for the PC. =)
And that's all I have to say about that.
~Aaron
Since neutrinos are so small, most of the time they passed through the nucleus without affecting it. The frequency of collisions told scientists about the electromagnetic forces that affect how neutrinos behave -- the so-called weak forces. The scientists found slightly fewer interactions with one of the weak forces than had been predicted by the Standard Model, physicists' current description of fundamental forces and particles. Since the model is very precise, scientists concluded that the difference was significant. (emphasis mine)
This is what I love about science. Here we have the Standard Model, formed from exhaustively detailed tests over the last 30 years. As the article states, the model is very precise, and slight deviations are significant issues. However, rather than scrap the entire idea, or announce that the tests were probably flawed, or decry the scientists who performed the tests as heathens and radicals, here we see that the community will embrace this new data and reform the model in such a way as to make it work.
This is the beauty of science. If something doesn't work out the way it was supposed to, if a theory doesn't fit with the cold, hard data, the majourity of scientists will go out of their way to fix the theory (not the data). Scientists are always going out of their way to keep each other in check; at any given time one scientist may be checking some prominent theory or another. It keeps them honest, and while the system isn't fool proof, it's damn tight.
Sometimes it's great to be a geek.
~Aaron.
The Matrix plot, such as it was, was a paper-thin claptrap to frame the fusion of high technology and chop-socky, and chop socky still has better fight scenes. I honestly don't know why people like the Matrix so much. It was a bad, bad movie with some okay fight scenes.
The problem with movies today is that every great plot has been done already. Shakespeare pretty much used them all up about 400 years ago. And even his pieces were just rehashes of older stories. As far as basic underlying plot lines go (everything else is just details, after all) there is no plot that hasn't been done before. Any plot you summarize in one sentence will sound familiar, because it has been done already, again and again and again.
But the beauty of the Matrix lies in the details. Matrix is a work of cinematographic beauty; not only is the camera work amazing, but the way the special effects blend with the real footage. A lot of people I've talked to (film professors, movie buffs, Joe Sixpacks) agree that if we could do these things in the real world, this is how it would look. The way things were visually concieved for The Matrix made it beautiful.
What The Matrix did, really, was show us the same old story in such a way as to fool us into thinking we hadn't seen it before. It took something old and tired and made it look good again. The fight choreography was perfect, the cinematography was superb, and the special effects were on a level we've never seen before.
Admittedly, Katz is milking The Matrix for all its worth, but it really was a valuable movie. Of course, that's just my opinion.
~Forager
Keep in mind that when I was renaming my autoexec.bat and config.sys files I was probably wearing my Ninja-Turtles pajamas and drinking from tupperware cups with plastic spill-guards on them =) Also, at this point I had not even heard of the internet (that would happen a few years later, around the time Doom II was released). I did things the only way I knew how: DOS shell to rename autoexec.bat and config.sys so I could play Wolfenstein. When I was done, redo the changes so dad can use his mouse in Windows (one of the reasons why I was encouraged to learn to use a CLI before I was old enough to cross the street by myself). Ah, memories ...
~Aaron.
If I never have to rename my autoexec.bat and config.sys files to play Wolfenstein again, I could die a happy man. You know, there's a reason they called it the dosHELL.exe =)
~Aaron.
Here's the original Tom's article.
Here's the text of the new article direct from the source:
Thanks to the millions of people who e-mailed me about this.
Do we title this: We TOLD You So!
or do we title it: Maybe we were right about him?
or do we title it: AMD Won't Burn a hole in your wallet, or your motherboard?
or do we title it: AMD Slaps Around Little Tom-Tom? as Van Smith put it?
Well whatever you want to call it, there is a new video out on the internet showing what REALLY happens to an AthlonXP (or MP) when your heat sink falls off, or when your fans fails. Now I'm not saying that Tom Pabst is completely wrong, but let's just say this makes his testing methods look a little 'suspect' at best. Here's a quote from Van Smith:
A video has appeared on the Internet countering a huge dose of FUD my former employer inexplicably dumped on his readership a couple of months back. The new video, with AMD credits all over it, is entitled "How an Athlon(tm) MP 1.2GHz Really Copes with Heat Emergencies." The piece demonstrates the AMD Palomino Athlon subjected to brutal circumstances such as heat sink removal while playing Quake III and boot up attempts when a CPU cooler is not attached. In all scenarios, the Palomino comes out unscathed. A similar though much less thorough test came out with unsurprisingly different results at Tom's Hardware. Ouch! Looks like dispensing bad medicine can result in a mouthful of looser teeth. Good job Ben & Joe, perhaps you can also give THG a crash course in analyzing computer technology.
The video also presents the much more realistic situation when the CPU fan fails. In that case the Palomino continued to play Quake III for several minutes before shutting down. Again the chip was undamaged.
This video may look like it's from AMD, but I'm pretty sure it's not, even if it makes a great case. The original download site appears to be down, so I mirrored it onto AMDZone right here.
Other mirrors: Mirror.
Update: One of our readers e-mailed me to give me his first hand experience with the thermal control capabilities of the AthlonXP:
I installed my amp1800 (sic) with the heat sink rotated 180 deg. and after 3 hours of trying, incessantly, and not being able to boot I found the problem, I rotated the heat sink and all is fine. I must say, I was sweating bullets when I found the problem.
No fried chip, no smell of burned silicon. Looks like the thermal diode is working.
(end article)
~Aaron.
Since XP is (essentially) the home user version of Windows2000, it should work perfectly. One of my former coworkers was running Redhat 7, Windows 2000, and the WinXP Beta on his laptop last time I talked to him. They all worked just fine for him. I personally run Win2000 and Win98 (gaming reasons) without any trouble, but not Linux (at this point). My guess would be WinXP would run just fine with Linux.
~Forager
If this really is true, if broadband is dead, it's no surprise. You can't successfully sell a product if you don't offer it to a wide audience. My neighbourhood is right in the center of a non-broadband zone. If I lived 4000 feet to the south, I could have cable. If I lived 2000 feet to the north, I could have DSL. East and west, go about a mile each and I get DSL. Go an extra 5 miles east, and I get my choice of DSL or cable. I live in a large, higher-income neighbourhood, lots of people willing and able to sign up for broadband. But no one seems to want to provide it. It's the provider's own damn fault, these financial losses.
Then again, now I'm a college student at a small southern art school, where I share an OC12 connection with 200 other students in my dorm. 3.1 megabits/sec right now... ah, such is the life =)
~Aaron.
Obviously pr0n is not the way to study sex-in-space. But it does need to be researched. Pregnancy, and zero-g's effects on the birth development process. And child-bearing, and the birthing process itself (it's a stretch, but imagine the results if NASA discovered that child-bearing in space was 10 times less painful for the mother; or that a child concieved, carried, and born in space was less likely to develope cancer). Fact of the matter is that NASA's prudish attitude toward sex (they NEVER talk about it) is not getting any valuable scientific research done, research that should be done if we are going to establish permanent residence in reduced- and zero-g environments.
~Aaron.
This is an act of war by the US. Should we declare all-out war, Afghanistan will most likely declare war in response. Now, while Afghanistan cannot possibly face down the US, there is a possibility that the terrorists housed within the nation's borders could inflict more massive casualties on US territory. Perhaps another attack like the ones of 11 September, perhaps an Anthrax attack, perhaps a suitcase nuclear strike (not unrealistic) ... and so forth.
"Senators close to the investigation of the terror attacks advised Americans to be especially vigilant about more danger at home, once military action began." - Salon.com
And this is really how the next "war" could be brought about. While we are attacking the Afghans on their turf, the US could become the target of even more terrorist attacks. The possibilities for civilian casualties could very well be greater now than in previous modern wars. But this is meaningless speculation.
So what would be a more intelligent course of action for the US? Surgical strikes. Special-ops style strikes against strategic targets. Find bin Laden and capture him. No assasinations ("guilty until proven innocent"), no carpet bombings ("shifting the rubble from the right side of the street to the left side"), no huge deployments of troops ("another Vietnam"). Surgical special-ops strikes; get in, get the target, get out: take out the radar facility; capture the suspect; find the leaders; etc. Doing nothing would equate to victory for the terrorists. But overreacting would be very little different.
The Taliban promises to "fight to the last breath." This is a hopeless battle for them; with the way that America will be attacking (air strikes, long distance attacks) there will not be much opportunity for them to fight back. They did not declare that the war will be fought on Afghan soil, however. While I am certainly not going to accuse the Taliban of carrying out terrorist attacks, there is a possibility that more attacks will be carried out IN THEIR NAME. The US could be facing a major battle here. It would be best that posters not forget that in their responses.
~Aaron
It's funny you ask about developing for the PSX2. The school I'm attending offers game developement as a majour, and part of that course involves design for console systems. About four years ago the GD department purchased about 30 of the PSX developement stations for use in the program. What's really great about this, however, is that any student who is attending the school can sign out one of the boxes, just like a library; that is, any student can just waltz on in, present their id, sign on the line, and waltz on out with a PSX developement box to play with. Of course, the program has since STOPPED using those boxes, so they pretty much lie dormant most of the time.
The other problem with the boxes is that no one here knows how to program for them. We're an ART school, and our game design courses are more focussed on the artistic side of game developement, not the technical side. SCAD turns out GD theorists, level designers (we're the only art school in the country that offers a Master of Architecture), texture artists, modelers and animators (some students have gone on to work for Digital Anvil, Square, etc).
We've got something of a predicament here; we have a GREAT art department, but sadly we have no programmers here, and so the potential of those 30 boxes are more or less wasted.
This post is something of a followup to the topic: What should artists in a position like ours be doing? The potential for some beautiful stuff is there; any recommendations on a way to learn basic PSX programming to utilise that potential? Remember, you're speaking to an artist here; I know nothing of programming beyond very basic VB stuff =)
This post will probably never see +2, but any responses are appreciated.
~Aaron.
aabdel20@NOSPAM.student.scad.edu
Does the govt really think that crypto export restrictions have prevented terrorists from having strong crypto?
/. crowd is being fair with this one. The idea isn't to stop the criminals from using crypto; it's to make it a slightly faster process to DEcrpyt their stuff.
::flamesuit on:: Actually, that's probably not the reason the gov't wants to ban crypto. Think about it for a second:
Every day thousands of geeks and perhaps dozens of terrorists send back and forth messages that have been encrypted. The geek messages may be frivolous, just simple messages about life and groceries and the kids and other trivial things. Even if they have a right to, there's no real reason for geeks to encode these things. Big Brother doesn't give a rats ass about what you're writing.
Now, make it illegal to encrypt messages (example) and this flow of messages from the geeks will cut of SLIGHTLY. However slight, the decrease in the number of encrypted messages intercepted per day could drop, thus translating into fewer messages that need to be decrypted and thus translating into faster processing time for the NSA (or whoever).
Do I support this? No. But I don't think the
Give the gov't some credit. They're not stupid. Just misguided and corrupt.