There are a lot of casual gamers, who are wives, daughters, sons and other relatives of people. This isn't about "pure" gamers. This is about wife not getting her fix of her sims 3.
You'd have to get used to disorienting "fake zoom" effect and fishbowl effect from widening FoV to see the room. But once you do get used to it, it's going to be a great way to play.
I know one person who played with 120deg horisontal FoV view per monitor on three monitor setup. He basically had a 360 degrees panoramic view compressed into approximately 160-170 degrees around himself. It was almost impossible to surprise him in games where he would hack FoV to be like that. He would see someone approach in his peripheral vision even if you came from behind. It was utterly silly, and for him it was playable enough to be worth it. I could never get over the whole fishbowl look, but it worked for him.
As for the other claims, remember that FoV is actually a function of your screen size and distance from your eyes to display surface. The further away you are, the smaller FoV would look "right" and not get "fishbowled". As a result, most console games, where people sit at TV several meters away can often get away with FoVs as low as 60 degrees and look just right, while many PC games have to go well over 100 degrees for some setups.
Personally mine is around 100-105 degrees horizontal on my current gaming PC.
And it's not just FPS games where this matters. I'm currently playing a third person space shooter called Star Conflict a lot, someone I know who plays it got it to work on a 3 monitor setup with very wide FoV. It gives him a huge horizontal awareness advantage, but since I know this I've learned to hit him from above or below when possible instead. That works in full 3D space of space shooters. Not so much with ones on the surface.
Judging by your response, you do not understand the issue at all. Our peripheral vision and our field of view is in fact irrelevant in the discussion of game balance/fairness.
The point is that it's possible to project a much wider field of view onto the screen, up to full 360, giving you complete awareness of your surroundings. It would be uncomfortable to use initially until you trained yourself for it, but after you train your eyes and brain to accept it, you would become vastly superior in any game where advantage can be gained by flanking or hitting from behind.
Field of view of a player as in comparison to field of view projected on the screen is usually a formula of screen size and distance from your eyes to the screen to create the most "realistic" view, i.e. the field of view that screen covers in front of your eyes equals the natural field of view from your eyes at the distance where your screen is located.
But when you're competitive, and you need to maximize your advantage (i.e. how much of your surroundings you can view at once), you want to use as wide field of view as possible without completely disorienting yourself. If you train yourself, even fully panoramic 360 is doable without massive disorientation. People who play in competitive fields train for thousands of hours.
That is why most games have a fixed maximum field of view, and hacking your client to give wider field of view gives you same cheating ban as wallhacking would.
Most people don't change default settings, which are set to automatic update with no user interaction. The only thing they ever see is request to restart the machine to install updates when updates require it.
That depends. If you can adjust field of view in game, or game automatically adjusts it for you, it's of tremendous advantage as it does in fact give you a wider field of view.
If not, then it is indeed useless.
As a point of comparison: it's considered cheating in most first and third person shooting games multiplayer to increase your FoV beyond certain limit. This is so because it gives you vastly superior awareness of your surroundings, making it much harder to surprise you with flanking. Multi-monitor setups allow for huge fields of view.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying that local fair distribution in certain instances is impossible. It is not. In fact it has been done throughout the history quite a few times. What I'm saying is that it will not survive the test of time because of pressure that human nature, and more specifically greed and desire for control will impose on it. It never has and it never will. In the rare instances when it has survived the test of internal pressure, external pressure typically killed it.
In modern world, where there is massive internal and external pressure driven by globalization, we're unlikely to set any records in terms of fair distribution of work any time soon.
It certainly doesn't mean we should stop trying however! After all, it may only take one long term success to give humanity an example and base a progress of new kind of social world order based on that. But in the current economic and political climate worldwide, that is more of idealism than anything unfortunately.
The answers to all questions you ask, including the last one, lie in history. Read it as I suggested. History shows very well that no belief and no system is monolithic and eternal.
On the other hand, human nature is largely just that. As a result, while levels of technology, and cultural changes may change the expression of the human nature, the base human nature remains the same and it will likely be satisfied in the same way. Before they gave plebs just enough to eat reasonably well, be able to go to the gladiator arena and brothel every once in a while. If you wanted more - you had to learn a trade. When this balance was broken, the riots occurred that almost broke Rome. We still inherit a lot of things from those times, including the concept of power of "veto" - latin for "I forbid". This was the only word that plebeian representative was allowed to say in Roman Senate. Because the higher classes understood the need for curbs on their legislative powers after bloody riots when reins of power were tightened too much.
We're leaning towards the same end today in the Western countries. Some allow for more socialist system, some for less. But in general, the direction is the same. Masses are given food, shelter and base level entertainment even without working. Those who implement less of this typically pay with far more violence on the streets, just as it happened in Rome as pendulum of patricians vs plebeians balance swung back and forth.
As for your last real question (before the inane and self evident "but current short term rhetoric doesn't allow for this"), elite will always have too much power. There is rarely any social cohesion based on equality in real sense rather then for the show in advanced societies - that is a thing of basic ones. As society advances, throughout humans history a class-based society of some sort is produced. This would suggest that it's a human nature to assign such classes and that social cohesion doesn't require equality in the long run, just reasonable levels of both predictability and most importantly hope for social mobility. In Rome, even a slave could, through mastery of notable trade or possessing another valuable skill, free themselves from slavery and even end up as patrons of their town if they became wealthy. Similar path has also been taken in the Western societies to varying degrees.
This has been done before to an extent allowed by the system, for example in Ancient Rome. In Rome, slaves did most of the work, while citizenry were mostly guaranteed livelyhood. Technology levels however were not high enough to support the system, and Rome eventually collapsed after hundreds of years of being one of the most defining and powerful societies in the world.
Or actually study the subject in depth for more understanding on what happens to society when a large amount of people is left without work prospects (as plebeians did in Rome after the rise of slave-based economy). What happened is exactly what is described above - a guarantee for basic needs in life and entertainment to keep the masses pleased.
SLC writes a single cell rather than multiple cells at once. This adds to drive life due to the way NAND flash is written (one cell/set of cells at a time). MLC drives have a far lower useful life expectancy than MLC, and TLC has far lower useful life expectancy than MLC.
SLC drives are usually far more expensive because it's more expensive to make them, and as a result they tend to be built from high quality parts resulting in better performance.
That isn't a failure mode, that is a wear out mode. NAND flash naturally wears itself out into the state where its state can no longer be changed by controller. The drive will remain perfectly readable because reading process is different from writing process.
Urban legend. Clean environment inside drives and in the lab that does data extraction from damaged drive is to maximize performance/chance of recovery.
Hard drive itself can run just fine in dirty environment for a while. It will wear down much faster as it's not designed for such operation, but it will very likely remain operational for weeks at the very least.
So let's get back to the point then. Are you saying that basic infrastructure such as power is fine as long as it works only during the day when it's sunny?
Reality is, it's not. It would certainly prove to be an improvement over status quo in many places in Africa, but it's a far cry from being something that could replace the wired infrastructure that we have in the West today.
And the entire argument in this case is that wireless is somehow about "leapfrogging over" wired network, rather then attempting to dodge the massive cost of having proper infrastructure in place by installing something that possibly, maybe could serve as a bare minimum by Western standards.
Slashdot Mirror
Grandparent is talking about "linux on desktop", not consoles.
There are a lot of casual gamers, who are wives, daughters, sons and other relatives of people. This isn't about "pure" gamers. This is about wife not getting her fix of her sims 3.
I think vertu's actually come with a worldwide consierge service and other similar perks for the ultra rich.
It most certainly is for many of us.
What do you call drone attacks then?
Is that what they call the guys camping in front of apple stores for their new shiny?
They were trying to use Halo 2 to get Vista to sell. That's not a new trick.
Halo and Halo 2 were released on PC later on. It couldn't compete with other big name FPSs and suffered from bad porting, so they gave up on it.
You'd have to get used to disorienting "fake zoom" effect and fishbowl effect from widening FoV to see the room. But once you do get used to it, it's going to be a great way to play.
I know one person who played with 120deg horisontal FoV view per monitor on three monitor setup. He basically had a 360 degrees panoramic view compressed into approximately 160-170 degrees around himself.
It was almost impossible to surprise him in games where he would hack FoV to be like that. He would see someone approach in his peripheral vision even if you came from behind. It was utterly silly, and for him it was playable enough to be worth it. I could never get over the whole fishbowl look, but it worked for him.
As for the other claims, remember that FoV is actually a function of your screen size and distance from your eyes to display surface. The further away you are, the smaller FoV would look "right" and not get "fishbowled". As a result, most console games, where people sit at TV several meters away can often get away with FoVs as low as 60 degrees and look just right, while many PC games have to go well over 100 degrees for some setups.
Personally mine is around 100-105 degrees horizontal on my current gaming PC.
And it's not just FPS games where this matters. I'm currently playing a third person space shooter called Star Conflict a lot, someone I know who plays it got it to work on a 3 monitor setup with very wide FoV. It gives him a huge horizontal awareness advantage, but since I know this I've learned to hit him from above or below when possible instead. That works in full 3D space of space shooters. Not so much with ones on the surface.
Judging by your response, you do not understand the issue at all. Our peripheral vision and our field of view is in fact irrelevant in the discussion of game balance/fairness.
The point is that it's possible to project a much wider field of view onto the screen, up to full 360, giving you complete awareness of your surroundings. It would be uncomfortable to use initially until you trained yourself for it, but after you train your eyes and brain to accept it, you would become vastly superior in any game where advantage can be gained by flanking or hitting from behind.
Field of view of a player as in comparison to field of view projected on the screen is usually a formula of screen size and distance from your eyes to the screen to create the most "realistic" view, i.e. the field of view that screen covers in front of your eyes equals the natural field of view from your eyes at the distance where your screen is located.
But when you're competitive, and you need to maximize your advantage (i.e. how much of your surroundings you can view at once), you want to use as wide field of view as possible without completely disorienting yourself. If you train yourself, even fully panoramic 360 is doable without massive disorientation. People who play in competitive fields train for thousands of hours.
That is why most games have a fixed maximum field of view, and hacking your client to give wider field of view gives you same cheating ban as wallhacking would.
Most people don't change default settings, which are set to automatic update with no user interaction. The only thing they ever see is request to restart the machine to install updates when updates require it.
That depends. If you can adjust field of view in game, or game automatically adjusts it for you, it's of tremendous advantage as it does in fact give you a wider field of view.
If not, then it is indeed useless.
As a point of comparison: it's considered cheating in most first and third person shooting games multiplayer to increase your FoV beyond certain limit. This is so because it gives you vastly superior awareness of your surroundings, making it much harder to surprise you with flanking. Multi-monitor setups allow for huge fields of view.
Most people won't even notice that updates stopped in the first place, nor will care.
Congratulations on coming out of the closet with your inner masochism! May you find a good domina to take care of your needs outside computing!
Warframe is so popular, that it's advertised as a "major game for PS4".
It's pure PvE FPS game that's played in 4 man squads. And it's quite fun.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying that local fair distribution in certain instances is impossible. It is not. In fact it has been done throughout the history quite a few times.
What I'm saying is that it will not survive the test of time because of pressure that human nature, and more specifically greed and desire for control will impose on it. It never has and it never will. In the rare instances when it has survived the test of internal pressure, external pressure typically killed it.
In modern world, where there is massive internal and external pressure driven by globalization, we're unlikely to set any records in terms of fair distribution of work any time soon.
It certainly doesn't mean we should stop trying however! After all, it may only take one long term success to give humanity an example and base a progress of new kind of social world order based on that. But in the current economic and political climate worldwide, that is more of idealism than anything unfortunately.
Windows is actually perfectly fine with XP and 7 being widely used and 7 still selling far more then 8.
It has to after all. Almost no one runs 8. People buying new computers with 8 preinstalled just upgrade to 7.
The answers to all questions you ask, including the last one, lie in history. Read it as I suggested. History shows very well that no belief and no system is monolithic and eternal.
On the other hand, human nature is largely just that. As a result, while levels of technology, and cultural changes may change the expression of the human nature, the base human nature remains the same and it will likely be satisfied in the same way. Before they gave plebs just enough to eat reasonably well, be able to go to the gladiator arena and brothel every once in a while. If you wanted more - you had to learn a trade. When this balance was broken, the riots occurred that almost broke Rome. We still inherit a lot of things from those times, including the concept of power of "veto" - latin for "I forbid". This was the only word that plebeian representative was allowed to say in Roman Senate. Because the higher classes understood the need for curbs on their legislative powers after bloody riots when reins of power were tightened too much.
We're leaning towards the same end today in the Western countries. Some allow for more socialist system, some for less. But in general, the direction is the same. Masses are given food, shelter and base level entertainment even without working. Those who implement less of this typically pay with far more violence on the streets, just as it happened in Rome as pendulum of patricians vs plebeians balance swung back and forth.
As for your last real question (before the inane and self evident "but current short term rhetoric doesn't allow for this"), elite will always have too much power. There is rarely any social cohesion based on equality in real sense rather then for the show in advanced societies - that is a thing of basic ones. As society advances, throughout humans history a class-based society of some sort is produced. This would suggest that it's a human nature to assign such classes and that social cohesion doesn't require equality in the long run, just reasonable levels of both predictability and most importantly hope for social mobility. In Rome, even a slave could, through mastery of notable trade or possessing another valuable skill, free themselves from slavery and even end up as patrons of their town if they became wealthy. Similar path has also been taken in the Western societies to varying degrees.
This has been done before to an extent allowed by the system, for example in Ancient Rome. In Rome, slaves did most of the work, while citizenry were mostly guaranteed livelyhood. Technology levels however were not high enough to support the system, and Rome eventually collapsed after hundreds of years of being one of the most defining and powerful societies in the world.
In fact, Ancient Rome offers a very good view of how we'll likely develop. Simply replace "slave" with "automation and go read something short like this:
http://www.mariamilani.com/ancient_rome/ancient_roman_jobs.htm
Or actually study the subject in depth for more understanding on what happens to society when a large amount of people is left without work prospects (as plebeians did in Rome after the rise of slave-based economy). What happened is exactly what is described above - a guarantee for basic needs in life and entertainment to keep the masses pleased.
SLC writes a single cell rather than multiple cells at once. This adds to drive life due to the way NAND flash is written (one cell/set of cells at a time). MLC drives have a far lower useful life expectancy than MLC, and TLC has far lower useful life expectancy than MLC.
SLC drives are usually far more expensive because it's more expensive to make them, and as a result they tend to be built from high quality parts resulting in better performance.
That isn't a failure mode, that is a wear out mode. NAND flash naturally wears itself out into the state where its state can no longer be changed by controller. The drive will remain perfectly readable because reading process is different from writing process.
Urban legend. Clean environment inside drives and in the lab that does data extraction from damaged drive is to maximize performance/chance of recovery.
Hard drive itself can run just fine in dirty environment for a while. It will wear down much faster as it's not designed for such operation, but it will very likely remain operational for weeks at the very least.
Get an AMD one. Their CPU part is a bit crappy, but GPU is top notch. Many games are actually playable on it because of it.
So let's get back to the point then. Are you saying that basic infrastructure such as power is fine as long as it works only during the day when it's sunny?
Reality is, it's not. It would certainly prove to be an improvement over status quo in many places in Africa, but it's a far cry from being something that could replace the wired infrastructure that we have in the West today.
And the entire argument in this case is that wireless is somehow about "leapfrogging over" wired network, rather then attempting to dodge the massive cost of having proper infrastructure in place by installing something that possibly, maybe could serve as a bare minimum by Western standards.