Yeah really good point.
Also, just because his views are that the Koran or the Bible are just books, it doesn't mean someone with other views is automatically a complete moron and idiot. While I do agree with him that people should relax when it comes to burning books (in fact, usually those that are burning books/flags/whatever have nothing constructive to say and are basically just real-life trolls who should be ignored), him pointing it out does not help. It doesn't change a thing and it's only like preaching to your own choir.
If a nurse is dumb enough to connect a spinal anesthetic to an intravenous drip, then the problem is larger than the tubes themselves.
I'm pretty sure that nurse Dumb would not pay attention and connect the blue to the red tube anyway.
No I'm not saying that. First of all, what I am saying goes both ways ofcourse.
The thing is that lately, whenever someone voices insults towards a specific group of people, the general opinion is that this person should be allowed to do so because it's "free speech". To use freedom of opinion and freedom of speech as a way to warrant insults, then IMO that's abuse of those rights. Freedom of speech does not mean it's (ethically) alright to simply go and intentionally insult someone.
I do, however, feel that being insulted is a choice people make. If you feel insulted by someone, you choose to be insulted. The problem that arises here is that religious people are far easier to insult than most atheists. Extremist muslims are the easiest to insult. They're insulted by things we deem unharmful, and thus we tend to scrub away their feelings by saying it's our right to say those things.
In essence, that's fine and they're probably right that we shouldn't be convicted for such things (to name an extreme case) but does it really help? Is it smart? I don't think it is.
Now what you are saying is a good example of selectiveness. When a Theo van Gogh calls Muslims goat fuckers, then it's said he's allowed to do so because he's exercising his right of freedom of speech. When criticism is voiced towards Israel, you're suddenly anti-semitic and it's all wrong, wrong, wrong.
And then I wonder where the use is in such technological advancements. Yes, RFID does have it's practical uses, but it doesn't belong in a debit card. From a user's point of view, all it does is save me from taking it out of my wallet and swiping the card through a reader or inserting it in a chip reading slot. In all cases I still have to enter a PIN code or something like that I assume. So is the marginal increase in usability really worth the risk of someone hacking my RFID chip? Are we really becoming that lazy?
I agree with you that gamers don't have any ideological reasons for choosing a team in a (multiplayer) videogame, but that argument could be used for both sides of the discussion. If gamers don't care, then why should the label "Taliban" be put on there? Why can't they just be called "Terrorists" like they are in Counter-Strike? I think that's the big difference. MoH uses an existing religious group that's active in a current day conflict causing more real-life death and grief every day. Counter-Strike and, more recently, Modern Warfare use fictional terrorists. I think there is a big difference.
Now I'm not one to say that the new Medal of Honor game is outrageous and insulting to US marines or their families, but EA should have known they entered a sticky gray area of ethics. If it were up to me, I would've decided against the game because of these kinds of discussions. On the other hand, it gives a lot of exposure to the game and exposure, even when it's negative, really helps driving sales forward in the end.
Slightly OT maybe, but it's the same with free speech. People say that free speech is a right we all have and should exercise. I agree, but to the extend that expressing (for example) anti-islamic sentiments and opinions isn't illegal. At the same time, I do think people should take the opinions of others into account as well. Saying that Mohammed the prophet is a goat fucker is not illegal, but I damn well know that it's insulting to a great amount of muslims. Therefore, I decide to respect their views and not make blunt statements like that. We should strike a careful balance there.
To bring it back to videogames, I think it's the same thing. Electronic Arts isn't doing anything illegal and is not trying to insult people on purpose, but at the same time, I'm hoping they have been carefully considering the possible ramifications all along and will deal with them in a commendable way.
Seems like a sensible solution. I was thinking the same kind of thing.
2 hours may seem a little long IMO. Buy a cup of coffee, get 30 mins of free WiFi. Should be enough to get your coffee downed.
If enough friends of yours tag photos with just your name, then by getting their locations (location of residency) I'm sure it isn't too hard to determine which of the 15 John Doe's you are with some form of triangulation or trilateration.
I dunno, but if they set up this NASA game like Animal Crossing then people might enjoy it. I'm baffled by the fact that people find Animal Crossing interesting and challenging to play, but apparently people do, so NASA games still have a chance.
The whole thread that sprang from this post reeks of sadness. Look at all these nerds worship Google. Everyone just look at some AC's post a bit up the page. There's a copyright notification for NAMCO Bandai in the Google page. It makes it kind of obvious that Google licensed Pacman from NAMCO Bandai.
I'm thinking they're doing the iPad critics a disfavor here. I'm a nay-sayer as well, but not because I don't own one. They make it sound like critics are jealous (caused by statements like the iPad is sexy, critics are not). It's also not like I don't buy an iPad because of an identity statement. I simply stack up the costs against the benefits the device will offer me and based on my findings I've concluded that the device is not for me. A device like the ExoPC is much more to my liking, albeit still a bit expensive (in an absolute amount of money way).
No it's not. It takes the game engine 60+ ms before it starts sending data that's updated with the new action to the screen. So on top of that 60ms, we have another 40 - 80ms of display lag. All of Eurogamer's Digital Foundry tests were done using a CRT monitor that has no lag of it's own.
Also, it doesn't matter which part of the lag comes from game code being processed and which part comes from your LCD crystals needing time to get updated. For the user, the lag he experiences is the combination of the two.
In the Digital Foundry blog, input lag is defined as the time between button press and when that action is visible on-screen. This is especially important and interesting in the context of OnLive, because other factors weigh in there as well (like network lag). Even if the delay caused by the OnLive servers themselves is 0.00001 ms, then 200ms added by the network makes things very unresponsive.
To be honest, that's quite the hardcore specialist's attitude towards framerate. Calling 60fps "unplayable" goes even further. I think that's an elitist attitude. 60fps is well playable. Maybe higher framerates are preferable, but 60fps is decent, even for multiplayer. I remember playing Quake 3 with 25 fps on my Voodoo 2 and it was awesome.
It's all quite besides the point though. Your sibling post already indicated that most games require at least 4 frames (at 60fps) before input is translated to the screen. That's still 60 - 70ms. I doubt that rendering at 100 frames per second will reduce the 60ms input lag. Add 40ms LCD display lag and BAM, you've got an 100ms delay. Quite a different story from 5ms, no?
My initial post was to point out that under normal circumstances, a 5ms input delay is impossible because it simply takes longer to render a single frame at 60fps.
It's not about consoles only. Your PC has the same problem. An average input lag of 5ms is impossible because when you take a game that renders at 60fps, every frame is roughly 16ms on the screen. If you push a button, then your action won't be visible until the next frame. So I'd say that at 60fps you'd have an average input lag of 8ms and that's not taking into account factors like game code processing the input and updating the gamestate or the lag caused by your LCD display.
(Older) PC games can be run at higher framerates because the hardware can handle it, so that might potentially decrease that 8ms average, but 5ms is only achieved with a 100fps framerate (when you assume 5ms as average, if you assume it's the slowest it'll ever be then you need 200fps).
Again, your LCD display has an inherent delay of 40 - 80 ms as well. The idea that 40ms input lag turns a game unplayable is a grave error. I mean, the article already points out that 60ms is basically as low as input lag on a non-LCD screen goes.
Less than 5ms is nonsense (a simple framerate calculation , but Digital Foundry did quite a few input lagtests.
Anywhere from 60ms to over 100ms is common. Apparently gamers start to notice input lag at 166ms. Also, input lag and network lag shouldn't be confused with each other. The ping values you see in your game aren't 1-on-1 comparable to the input lag rates reported here.
To be honest, the 150ms input lag surprises me in a positive way. It's much lower than I had expected. For a game like UT3, 150ms is probably way too much and apparently that's one of the faster games, so OnLive's input latency is probably still too high for most games.
Bobby Kotick's ultimate goal isn't an open platform. His goal is a platform that's very much closed off, but where he determines the rules instead of Microsoft. The reason he roots for the PC as a platform to do this on is because it's the only platform that is open enough for him to start up his own walled garden.
It's bad news all-round. If every publisher started up it's own variant of XBox Live, you'd have to pay subscription fees for every publisher, maybe for every game. You'd be working yourself into serious debts if you want to sustain (multiplayer) access to a variety of games from different publishers.
They send an e-mail and expect to be acted upon it within 48 hours? Wow, I'd feel truly fucked if I were out for a weekend enjoying the sun rather than checking my e-mail....
Everyone seems to forget one thing about this blog: it doesn't say that Flash is the holy grail for video streaming and that we should all flock to using Flash and put a ban on the HTML5 codec. No, the author of the blog applauds the efforts being put into HTML5 but warns that the video tag simply isn't finished yet. The moral of the story is that while HTML5's video codec is a great start, it's way too soon to put a ban on Flash because it still offers a lot of functionality that HTML5 does not. There still is valid use for Flash over HTML5.
So you spent 45 years of your life living in relative poverty so you don't have to work for another 20 years?
Sorry, but I'm enjoying my luxury at 26 years old and I enjoy my job so I don't mind going on with that another 40 years. Oh, I don't live on credit either.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah really good point.
Also, just because his views are that the Koran or the Bible are just books, it doesn't mean someone with other views is automatically a complete moron and idiot. While I do agree with him that people should relax when it comes to burning books (in fact, usually those that are burning books/flags/whatever have nothing constructive to say and are basically just real-life trolls who should be ignored), him pointing it out does not help. It doesn't change a thing and it's only like preaching to your own choir.
I also wasn't aware that the speed at which a page is rendered was the bottleneck for current day browsers?
In euroland we pay €60 a year for XBox Live Gold, which amounts to 76 US dollars.
GameCube sold for a profit as well.
Who knows... so far you seem to be doing quite well.
If a nurse is dumb enough to connect a spinal anesthetic to an intravenous drip, then the problem is larger than the tubes themselves.
I'm pretty sure that nurse Dumb would not pay attention and connect the blue to the red tube anyway.
So true. All the people that claim they would buy software if it was DRM free are just sitting on their high horse. It just doesn't happen.
No I'm not saying that. First of all, what I am saying goes both ways ofcourse.
The thing is that lately, whenever someone voices insults towards a specific group of people, the general opinion is that this person should be allowed to do so because it's "free speech". To use freedom of opinion and freedom of speech as a way to warrant insults, then IMO that's abuse of those rights. Freedom of speech does not mean it's (ethically) alright to simply go and intentionally insult someone.
I do, however, feel that being insulted is a choice people make. If you feel insulted by someone, you choose to be insulted. The problem that arises here is that religious people are far easier to insult than most atheists. Extremist muslims are the easiest to insult. They're insulted by things we deem unharmful, and thus we tend to scrub away their feelings by saying it's our right to say those things.
In essence, that's fine and they're probably right that we shouldn't be convicted for such things (to name an extreme case) but does it really help? Is it smart? I don't think it is.
Now what you are saying is a good example of selectiveness. When a Theo van Gogh calls Muslims goat fuckers, then it's said he's allowed to do so because he's exercising his right of freedom of speech. When criticism is voiced towards Israel, you're suddenly anti-semitic and it's all wrong, wrong, wrong.
And then I wonder where the use is in such technological advancements. Yes, RFID does have it's practical uses, but it doesn't belong in a debit card. From a user's point of view, all it does is save me from taking it out of my wallet and swiping the card through a reader or inserting it in a chip reading slot. In all cases I still have to enter a PIN code or something like that I assume. So is the marginal increase in usability really worth the risk of someone hacking my RFID chip? Are we really becoming that lazy?
I agree with you that gamers don't have any ideological reasons for choosing a team in a (multiplayer) videogame, but that argument could be used for both sides of the discussion. If gamers don't care, then why should the label "Taliban" be put on there? Why can't they just be called "Terrorists" like they are in Counter-Strike? I think that's the big difference. MoH uses an existing religious group that's active in a current day conflict causing more real-life death and grief every day. Counter-Strike and, more recently, Modern Warfare use fictional terrorists. I think there is a big difference.
Now I'm not one to say that the new Medal of Honor game is outrageous and insulting to US marines or their families, but EA should have known they entered a sticky gray area of ethics. If it were up to me, I would've decided against the game because of these kinds of discussions. On the other hand, it gives a lot of exposure to the game and exposure, even when it's negative, really helps driving sales forward in the end.
Slightly OT maybe, but it's the same with free speech. People say that free speech is a right we all have and should exercise. I agree, but to the extend that expressing (for example) anti-islamic sentiments and opinions isn't illegal. At the same time, I do think people should take the opinions of others into account as well. Saying that Mohammed the prophet is a goat fucker is not illegal, but I damn well know that it's insulting to a great amount of muslims. Therefore, I decide to respect their views and not make blunt statements like that. We should strike a careful balance there.
To bring it back to videogames, I think it's the same thing. Electronic Arts isn't doing anything illegal and is not trying to insult people on purpose, but at the same time, I'm hoping they have been carefully considering the possible ramifications all along and will deal with them in a commendable way.
Seems like a sensible solution. I was thinking the same kind of thing.
2 hours may seem a little long IMO. Buy a cup of coffee, get 30 mins of free WiFi. Should be enough to get your coffee downed.
rofl, I expected the above post to be rated "redundant", considering I was labeling Slashdot readers as nerds.
If enough friends of yours tag photos with just your name, then by getting their locations (location of residency) I'm sure it isn't too hard to determine which of the 15 John Doe's you are with some form of triangulation or trilateration.
I dunno, but if they set up this NASA game like Animal Crossing then people might enjoy it. I'm baffled by the fact that people find Animal Crossing interesting and challenging to play, but apparently people do, so NASA games still have a chance.
The whole thread that sprang from this post reeks of sadness. Look at all these nerds worship Google. Everyone just look at some AC's post a bit up the page. There's a copyright notification for NAMCO Bandai in the Google page. It makes it kind of obvious that Google licensed Pacman from NAMCO Bandai.
I'm thinking they're doing the iPad critics a disfavor here. I'm a nay-sayer as well, but not because I don't own one. They make it sound like critics are jealous (caused by statements like the iPad is sexy, critics are not). It's also not like I don't buy an iPad because of an identity statement. I simply stack up the costs against the benefits the device will offer me and based on my findings I've concluded that the device is not for me. A device like the ExoPC is much more to my liking, albeit still a bit expensive (in an absolute amount of money way).
I didn't even know this and I bet a lot of other people don't know this either, hence the situation mindwhip described still holds up.
No it's not. It takes the game engine 60+ ms before it starts sending data that's updated with the new action to the screen. So on top of that 60ms, we have another 40 - 80ms of display lag. All of Eurogamer's Digital Foundry tests were done using a CRT monitor that has no lag of it's own.
Also, it doesn't matter which part of the lag comes from game code being processed and which part comes from your LCD crystals needing time to get updated. For the user, the lag he experiences is the combination of the two.
In the Digital Foundry blog, input lag is defined as the time between button press and when that action is visible on-screen. This is especially important and interesting in the context of OnLive, because other factors weigh in there as well (like network lag). Even if the delay caused by the OnLive servers themselves is 0.00001 ms, then 200ms added by the network makes things very unresponsive.
To be honest, that's quite the hardcore specialist's attitude towards framerate. Calling 60fps "unplayable" goes even further. I think that's an elitist attitude. 60fps is well playable. Maybe higher framerates are preferable, but 60fps is decent, even for multiplayer. I remember playing Quake 3 with 25 fps on my Voodoo 2 and it was awesome.
It's all quite besides the point though. Your sibling post already indicated that most games require at least 4 frames (at 60fps) before input is translated to the screen. That's still 60 - 70ms. I doubt that rendering at 100 frames per second will reduce the 60ms input lag. Add 40ms LCD display lag and BAM, you've got an 100ms delay. Quite a different story from 5ms, no?
My initial post was to point out that under normal circumstances, a 5ms input delay is impossible because it simply takes longer to render a single frame at 60fps.
It's not about consoles only. Your PC has the same problem. An average input lag of 5ms is impossible because when you take a game that renders at 60fps, every frame is roughly 16ms on the screen. If you push a button, then your action won't be visible until the next frame. So I'd say that at 60fps you'd have an average input lag of 8ms and that's not taking into account factors like game code processing the input and updating the gamestate or the lag caused by your LCD display.
(Older) PC games can be run at higher framerates because the hardware can handle it, so that might potentially decrease that 8ms average, but 5ms is only achieved with a 100fps framerate (when you assume 5ms as average, if you assume it's the slowest it'll ever be then you need 200fps).
Again, your LCD display has an inherent delay of 40 - 80 ms as well. The idea that 40ms input lag turns a game unplayable is a grave error. I mean, the article already points out that 60ms is basically as low as input lag on a non-LCD screen goes.
Less than 5ms is nonsense (a simple framerate calculation , but Digital Foundry did quite a few input lag tests.
Anywhere from 60ms to over 100ms is common. Apparently gamers start to notice input lag at 166ms. Also, input lag and network lag shouldn't be confused with each other. The ping values you see in your game aren't 1-on-1 comparable to the input lag rates reported here.
To be honest, the 150ms input lag surprises me in a positive way. It's much lower than I had expected. For a game like UT3, 150ms is probably way too much and apparently that's one of the faster games, so OnLive's input latency is probably still too high for most games.
Bobby Kotick's ultimate goal isn't an open platform. His goal is a platform that's very much closed off, but where he determines the rules instead of Microsoft. The reason he roots for the PC as a platform to do this on is because it's the only platform that is open enough for him to start up his own walled garden.
It's bad news all-round. If every publisher started up it's own variant of XBox Live, you'd have to pay subscription fees for every publisher, maybe for every game. You'd be working yourself into serious debts if you want to sustain (multiplayer) access to a variety of games from different publishers.
They send an e-mail and expect to be acted upon it within 48 hours? Wow, I'd feel truly fucked if I were out for a weekend enjoying the sun rather than checking my e-mail....
Everyone seems to forget one thing about this blog: it doesn't say that Flash is the holy grail for video streaming and that we should all flock to using Flash and put a ban on the HTML5 codec. No, the author of the blog applauds the efforts being put into HTML5 but warns that the video tag simply isn't finished yet. The moral of the story is that while HTML5's video codec is a great start, it's way too soon to put a ban on Flash because it still offers a lot of functionality that HTML5 does not. There still is valid use for Flash over HTML5.
So you spent 45 years of your life living in relative poverty so you don't have to work for another 20 years? Sorry, but I'm enjoying my luxury at 26 years old and I enjoy my job so I don't mind going on with that another 40 years. Oh, I don't live on credit either.