I was kinda hoping that we'd left behind the desperate need for games to be propped up on their graphics. Can we not hope that actual good games will be released? Of course, we don't need new consoles for that either. I'm tempted to get the PS4, but I'm definitely going to wait until there's a sufficient library of games, and perhaps a version 2.0 with any niggles or bugs ironed out.
My PC is a higher spec than either console already, so I'm mostly hoping that developers just release games on more platforms, in a hope to get more money;)
Yes, I completely agree. And really, to defend their decision, it makes much more sense to give over 2% of your GPU to the task than adding a specialized piece of hardware which would likely increase the cost by a disproportionate amount.
Never heard of Magnus Carlsen before today, likely because he isn't shoved in my face every day, and wasn't recently caught drunk driving. Comparing anyone to Bieber is quite an insult I'd say.
Also any ranking of intelligence depends on how you define "intelligent", problem solving alone is too limited since an Octopus can work out how to open a screw top lid much faster than any other animal. You simply can't compare such alien intelligences as Dolphins, Dogs, Octopus, Humans, they all have very different bodies and all perceive the world around them with very different senses.
Quiet, if my wife hears about this, my only useful skill might become void and I'll find myself replaced with an Octopus.
No, that's still not right. What you are saying would imply that if I played a continuous tone for 4 minutes, then hit stop, the dolphin would somehow only hear one minute of continuous tone.
If I'm only generating X amount of sound 'information' and transmit it through any medium (assuming no loss) what will arrive at the receiver will still be X amount of information. All that changes when you compare air to water is the transmit time from when I start transmitting to when they start receiving.
A comparable bandwidth analogy would be the whole pod of dolphins talking over each other and each dolphin being capable of processing information coming from a number of different sources simultaneously, like having 4 people talking at you at the same time and discerning each independently.
As for drag, again the analogy is flawed. You could imagine a machine gun firing bullets at a set rate. The bullets at the front hit the air and are affected by drag. But they then create a slipstream effect for bullets following behind. Thus after traveling a certain distance, there will be a level of compression and the bullets will hit a target closer together in time, than they did when they were fired (not quite, but somewhat similar to a doppler effect). But sound is not affected by this (to the best of my knowledge) so despite that it is moving 4 times faster in water, the tail end of the sound waves travelling faster than the front, compressing the data stream.
Well, I think the issue is that when the time comes to build a Galactic Superhighway, they won't be saying "So long, and thanks for all the fish" and more likely to say "Well, you're on your own now"
Bullshit. What has the speed got to do with it? That's latency, not bandwith. They still only have to process the sound at the same speed as it is generated elsewhere. The only difference is the time between when it was emitted and when they receive it is shorter than in air.
Here's another example. The time difference between us hearing something and us seeing something is:
the speed of light / speed of sound at sea level = 880 991.09 (Thanks Google)
So do we need massive brains because we have to process visual data that travels almost a million times faster than sound?
Carnivore meat tastes quite different to herbivore/omnivore meat. We don't eat cat and dog because they generally don't taste as nice as pig or cow. And for farming purposes, you can more easily trace the food you feed pigs and cattle than the food you'd feed carnivores (it adds another processing step) so it makes commercial farming of these animals more difficult, and less efficient.
You word your reply like I'm limited to 10% of the BW. I have an equal share in the bandwith. You don't set up an All-you-can-eat diner and then expect the people who eat more to have to pay more than those who choose to eat less.
What happens when the heavy users call the ISP's bluff, and stop using 100GB a month, and everybody only signs up to 5GB. What happens then when they havea shortfall in revenue and cannot operate?
Can you first prove that a customer logging 100GB of data a month is causing network degradation? The argument that those who use it more should pay more for upkeep I think would work for things that experience wear and tear from sue, but I find that hard to believe for things like network equipment.
Either they are equipped to provide the service they offer, or they are not equipped. This business of oversubscribing, or under developing their network to maximise profits is understandable (if abhorrent) for a For-Profit company, but for a coop, the whole point is that everyone gets together to share the cost of something they couldn't afford alone.
I was watching Bones, catching up on the current season. They tried to link Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to why computers cannot provide the same insights that a human does (The Episode where VAL was pitted against Sweets to provide a profile of the killer). My wife (if she ever came to/.) would attest to my dismay at the blatant misuse.
I'm the other way around. I'm what you might call a 2-pump-chump, and putting on the condom greatly increases the duration of sex for me. The thicker the better. Sometimes wearing two or even three does the job for me!
What you are missing is intent. The guy who gets drunk and kills people, never really meant for it to happen. Why should you punish someone for something what, when you really thing about it, was just an accident.
The amount of planning and execution that went into the lulzsec attacks shows that it was planned meticulously. It is impossible to ignore how this vicious criminal had clear intent to embarrass high ranked people.
Slashdot Mirror
I was kinda hoping that we'd left behind the desperate need for games to be propped up on their graphics. Can we not hope that actual good games will be released? Of course, we don't need new consoles for that either. I'm tempted to get the PS4, but I'm definitely going to wait until there's a sufficient library of games, and perhaps a version 2.0 with any niggles or bugs ironed out.
My PC is a higher spec than either console already, so I'm mostly hoping that developers just release games on more platforms, in a hope to get more money ;)
Yes, I completely agree. And really, to defend their decision, it makes much more sense to give over 2% of your GPU to the task than adding a specialized piece of hardware which would likely increase the cost by a disproportionate amount.
Probably because it's the right tool for the job.
Never heard of Magnus Carlsen before today, likely because he isn't shoved in my face every day, and wasn't recently caught drunk driving. Comparing anyone to Bieber is quite an insult I'd say.
I read that as "The body of a 12-year old" as being one of the ingredients.
I thought it was Dice's job to introduce me to non-nerdy news?
They weren't around back then to install a backdoor into the manuscript, or to pay off the writer to weaken the encryption.
What's a datacap?
You'll have to excuse my "someone on the internet is wrong" attitude.
Also any ranking of intelligence depends on how you define "intelligent", problem solving alone is too limited since an Octopus can work out how to open a screw top lid much faster than any other animal. You simply can't compare such alien intelligences as Dolphins, Dogs, Octopus, Humans, they all have very different bodies and all perceive the world around them with very different senses.
Quiet, if my wife hears about this, my only useful skill might become void and I'll find myself replaced with an Octopus.
No, that's still not right. What you are saying would imply that if I played a continuous tone for 4 minutes, then hit stop, the dolphin would somehow only hear one minute of continuous tone.
If I'm only generating X amount of sound 'information' and transmit it through any medium (assuming no loss) what will arrive at the receiver will still be X amount of information. All that changes when you compare air to water is the transmit time from when I start transmitting to when they start receiving.
A comparable bandwidth analogy would be the whole pod of dolphins talking over each other and each dolphin being capable of processing information coming from a number of different sources simultaneously, like having 4 people talking at you at the same time and discerning each independently.
As for drag, again the analogy is flawed. You could imagine a machine gun firing bullets at a set rate. The bullets at the front hit the air and are affected by drag. But they then create a slipstream effect for bullets following behind. Thus after traveling a certain distance, there will be a level of compression and the bullets will hit a target closer together in time, than they did when they were fired (not quite, but somewhat similar to a doppler effect). But sound is not affected by this (to the best of my knowledge) so despite that it is moving 4 times faster in water, the tail end of the sound waves travelling faster than the front, compressing the data stream.
You could start by dropping the "S"
Well, I think the issue is that when the time comes to build a Galactic Superhighway, they won't be saying "So long, and thanks for all the fish" and more likely to say "Well, you're on your own now"
Bullshit. What has the speed got to do with it? That's latency, not bandwith. They still only have to process the sound at the same speed as it is generated elsewhere. The only difference is the time between when it was emitted and when they receive it is shorter than in air.
Here's another example. The time difference between us hearing something and us seeing something is:
the speed of light / speed of sound at sea level =
880 991.09 (Thanks Google)
So do we need massive brains because we have to process visual data that travels almost a million times faster than sound?
Carnivore meat tastes quite different to herbivore/omnivore meat. We don't eat cat and dog because they generally don't taste as nice as pig or cow. And for farming purposes, you can more easily trace the food you feed pigs and cattle than the food you'd feed carnivores (it adds another processing step) so it makes commercial farming of these animals more difficult, and less efficient.
You word your reply like I'm limited to 10% of the BW. I have an equal share in the bandwith. You don't set up an All-you-can-eat diner and then expect the people who eat more to have to pay more than those who choose to eat less.
What happens when the heavy users call the ISP's bluff, and stop using 100GB a month, and everybody only signs up to 5GB. What happens then when they havea shortfall in revenue and cannot operate?
Can you first prove that a customer logging 100GB of data a month is causing network degradation? The argument that those who use it more should pay more for upkeep I think would work for things that experience wear and tear from sue, but I find that hard to believe for things like network equipment.
Either they are equipped to provide the service they offer, or they are not equipped. This business of oversubscribing, or under developing their network to maximise profits is understandable (if abhorrent) for a For-Profit company, but for a coop, the whole point is that everyone gets together to share the cost of something they couldn't afford alone.
Maybe I'm not understanding this the right way.
Pfft, wake me when they have an artificial eukaryotic cell with four asses.
When one letter of your acronym is itself an acronym, well son, you done fucked up good.
I know the feeling. I have the same problem when watching porn.
Perhaps the 300 was used the same as 555 is used for phone numbers. To deliberately not point to anybody's IP address.
I was watching Bones, catching up on the current season. They tried to link Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to why computers cannot provide the same insights that a human does (The Episode where VAL was pitted against Sweets to provide a profile of the killer). My wife (if she ever came to /.) would attest to my dismay at the blatant misuse.
I'm the other way around. I'm what you might call a 2-pump-chump, and putting on the condom greatly increases the duration of sex for me. The thicker the better. Sometimes wearing two or even three does the job for me!
What you are missing is intent. The guy who gets drunk and kills people, never really meant for it to happen. Why should you punish someone for something what, when you really thing about it, was just an accident.
The amount of planning and execution that went into the lulzsec attacks shows that it was planned meticulously. It is impossible to ignore how this vicious criminal had clear intent to embarrass high ranked people.
This cannot go unpunished.
(do I need sarcasm tags?)
Perhaps in a relative scale, but in an absolute scale, there are more horses in use today than 100 years ago.