Not sure I see the usefulness. Do you have to look at the right side of the screen to move right? Seems like that would obscure your ability to observe and react to things on-screen. Article doesn't seem to want to load, unfortunately. Is this innovative because of the eye-movement tracking? I thought that was already possible for years now. Seems like a weird thing to track to control a videogame character. Work on that brainwave reader instead.
Now if they could -intercept- your eye movement signals before it actually reached your eyes, I could see applications in FPS games...Imagine staring statically at a screen that moved and turned based on where you WANTED to move your eyes, without your eyes actually moving.
The fact that it would cost more does not relate to the fact that it's advertised the way it is.
I'm well-aware of the business model in use, but it doesn't change any of the facts.
I'd frankly rather accept that I'm not going to have 100% of my advertised bandwidth 100% of the time than have arbitrary caps imposed, which is exactly what download caps are: arbitrary. What they're trying to accomplish is prevent the small percentage of heavy users from being able to use the service heavily for as much of the time. But what it accomplishes is preventing heavy users from being able to use the service at all once they hit the cap. That's stupid. What would be more appropriate would be traffic shaping to prioritize VoIP and latency-dependent packets while simultaneously acknowledging that during peak hours, performance may be reduced. Everyone could be happy that way.
It's also an example of overselling. If all your customers can't utilize what they're paying for simultaneously, you've oversold your capacity. It's the ISPs fault, not the customers.
And seriously, attacking the sig instead of paying attention to the content? Nice. Real classy.
If you think stupid Portal jokes that everyone was sick of within 2 weeks of that game being released (as in, almost 3 years ago) count as "content," I have some unfortunate news for you.
Except there's no reason to charge more for more downloaded, because it doesn't cost more to provide it. What costs more money is additional bandwidth, which is entirely different from $X/byte. It's more like $X/byte per second.
It wasn't -1 Disagree. He didn't make any sentiment that the mod was likely disagreeing with, he's just barging in with offtopic anti-American trolling, like every day on Slashdot.
"That's nice, but can you Americans stop bitching about this unrelated thing that isn't a good simile to this story at all?"
I suppose so, yes. I'm in a mid-size tri-city area, there's about 5-6 theatres in the 50-mile radius that I can think of, and most of them aren't huge. And I'm not aware of any 2-D offerings at the same time a new big 3-D movie has been out.
I'm sorry I didn't include it with my original post, but as I mentioned in another, all the movies I've wanted to see recently have been exclusively in 3-D.
So it is with (stereoscopic) 3D as well - don't like it? Don't watch it - there's certainly zero -technical- reason you can't watch just the left view, just the right view, or a per-scene decision (not specced, afaik) of which view to take.
This is not an option afforded to me at the box office. It's wear the uncomfortable glasses to watch the movie with stupid, transparent 3-D effects and an overall dulled picture, or watch it without and enjoy ridiculous, unviewable blur.
It's not that I mind the advancement of technology, but I would prefer it remain optional; a fork, rather than the only path forward, much like your surround sound example.
Additionally, while it may improve, I don't think it's even fair to compare 3-D to surround sound, as there aren't nearly as many arguments regarding the ways in which surround sound degrades the overall experience, whereas there are with 3-D (dulled picture, ghosty 3D-ified images, headaches).
Seeing movies in 3-D now isn't any better than then, it still looks transparent and hurts a lot of people's heads. Not to mention the glasses, and the fact that every movie I want to see recently has been exclusively in obnoxious 3-D, which means even if you don't wear the glasses everything's all fuzzy.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you grasped the theme here.
Nice Reddit referral in the article link there. Is this where we get our news?
Very informative, thank you. If you weren't responding to a post I'd already made in this thread, I'd mod you up.
Not sure I see the usefulness. Do you have to look at the right side of the screen to move right? Seems like that would obscure your ability to observe and react to things on-screen. Article doesn't seem to want to load, unfortunately. Is this innovative because of the eye-movement tracking? I thought that was already possible for years now. Seems like a weird thing to track to control a videogame character. Work on that brainwave reader instead.
Now if they could -intercept- your eye movement signals before it actually reached your eyes, I could see applications in FPS games...Imagine staring statically at a screen that moved and turned based on where you WANTED to move your eyes, without your eyes actually moving.
The fact that it would cost more does not relate to the fact that it's advertised the way it is.
I'm well-aware of the business model in use, but it doesn't change any of the facts.
I'd frankly rather accept that I'm not going to have 100% of my advertised bandwidth 100% of the time than have arbitrary caps imposed, which is exactly what download caps are: arbitrary. What they're trying to accomplish is prevent the small percentage of heavy users from being able to use the service heavily for as much of the time. But what it accomplishes is preventing heavy users from being able to use the service at all once they hit the cap. That's stupid. What would be more appropriate would be traffic shaping to prioritize VoIP and latency-dependent packets while simultaneously acknowledging that during peak hours, performance may be reduced. Everyone could be happy that way.
It's also an example of overselling. If all your customers can't utilize what they're paying for simultaneously, you've oversold your capacity. It's the ISPs fault, not the customers.
And seriously, attacking the sig instead of paying attention to the content? Nice. Real classy.
If you think stupid Portal jokes that everyone was sick of within 2 weeks of that game being released (as in, almost 3 years ago) count as "content," I have some unfortunate news for you.
I'm not going to be buying any more PC games until they're available natively on Linux.
Hold your breath.
Except there's no reason to charge more for more downloaded, because it doesn't cost more to provide it. What costs more money is additional bandwidth, which is entirely different from $X/byte. It's more like $X/byte per second.
That's why caps are horseshit.
The point he's making successfully is..it's not humans now who are causing it, wether it is a good thing or not.
I fail to see how he successfully made that point at all, but thank you for riding this conversation to push your agenda.
What point are you trying to make here?
People aren't generally practicing irresponsible browsing and e-mail habits on a server. I hope.
Not every criticism of America is 'anti-American trolling', you know.
I do know. A lot is. This is Slashdot. I'll continue to get modded down for pointing it out, too.
And nothing of value would have been lost.
That's a bit of a stretch. This last generation could have not existed, but most of the consoles before that were glorious in their own rights.
It wasn't -1 Disagree. He didn't make any sentiment that the mod was likely disagreeing with, he's just barging in with offtopic anti-American trolling, like every day on Slashdot.
"That's nice, but can you Americans stop bitching about this unrelated thing that isn't a good simile to this story at all?"
-1 Internet Tough Guy.
I suppose so, yes. I'm in a mid-size tri-city area, there's about 5-6 theatres in the 50-mile radius that I can think of, and most of them aren't huge. And I'm not aware of any 2-D offerings at the same time a new big 3-D movie has been out.
You think 3D cinema is immersive
Lies and libel.
You were sounding pretty rational until you started flipping out about hating America.
Chill out.
I'm sorry I didn't include it with my original post, but as I mentioned in another, all the movies I've wanted to see recently have been exclusively in 3-D.
So it is with (stereoscopic) 3D as well - don't like it? Don't watch it - there's certainly zero -technical- reason you can't watch just the left view, just the right view, or a per-scene decision (not specced, afaik) of which view to take.
This is not an option afforded to me at the box office. It's wear the uncomfortable glasses to watch the movie with stupid, transparent 3-D effects and an overall dulled picture, or watch it without and enjoy ridiculous, unviewable blur.
It's not that I mind the advancement of technology, but I would prefer it remain optional; a fork, rather than the only path forward, much like your surround sound example.
Additionally, while it may improve, I don't think it's even fair to compare 3-D to surround sound, as there aren't nearly as many arguments regarding the ways in which surround sound degrades the overall experience, whereas there are with 3-D (dulled picture, ghosty 3D-ified images, headaches).
You should consider adjusting the way Slashdot displays threads, since you keep replying to people that weren't talking to you and looking retarded.
Seeing movies in 3-D now isn't any better than then, it still looks transparent and hurts a lot of people's heads. Not to mention the glasses, and the fact that every movie I want to see recently has been exclusively in obnoxious 3-D, which means even if you don't wear the glasses everything's all fuzzy.
Why this push for everything to be 3-D? It was a stupid novelty years ago, and its no less stupid now.
Yeeeeeeaaaaaahhhhh!!!
If wearing golden socks is wrong, I don't wanna be right.