There are plenty of other "gimmicky" things that Nintendo has released that quickly went no where. Anyone else remember the Virtual Boy? Or the Power Glove?
As I've mentioned elsewhere, these devices were poor because the technology sucked and they brought nothing to the games. The wiimote, OTOH, looks to be a genuinely interesting innovation in 3D control (in the console arena, anyway), facilitated by significantly improved motion sensing technology.
It's still way too early for either critics or fanboys of the Wii to declare any sort of victory. It is a bit tiring to hear fanboy after fanboy laud over how Nintendo can do no wrong, and how the Wii will conquer all. As interesting as I think the Wii is (and I will probably buy one at launch), I think it's silly for anyone to be convinced of its success, especially with all the risk involved. Some of the naysayers aren't really even critics, they're just being skeptical (which I think is quite acceptable), yet the Nintendo fanboy reaction and response is often quite overwhelming.
I completely agree. But I really don't think the wiimote, or Nintendo's 'non-gamer' strategy are reasons to be skeptical. It all comes down to one thing: the software. The real question is, will fun, quality games come out for the Wii that will be able to leverage it's capabilities, while appealing to Nintendo's target market. If, like the DS, the answer ends up being 'yes', I think Nintendo has a real shot and revitalizing a (IMHO) stagnating market. Otherwise, it's unclear to me what could happen to this next generation, as, even in the absence of a successful Nintendo, I think we'll see a decline in Sony's market share, while MS's 360 is languishing in mediocrity.
What do you mean by "interested"? Do you mean in the same way that Square was "interested" in the Gamecube, so they decided to release a throwaway game that most people didn't like for it, while continuing to release their major games only on the PS2?
No, I don't mean that at all, but that's a really nice straw man you set up, there! Well done!
The marketshare of the previous system has a massive impact on developers' perceptions of the new system. Only three companies have had huge losses of marketshare between generations:
Yes, you're right... only three of the *biggest companies in videogaming history*. Gee, that's not significant at all...
There are no indications that Sony has yet made any mistakes regarding the PS3 that are quite of the magnitude of any of these.
Other than coming out a nearly a year late with a product that's at least a hundred dollars more expensive than it's nearest competitor while tying it down to a media format that has the potential to completely flop in the marketplace while adding frankly unneeded expense. Did I mention that the product is also tied to hardware with very low yields, and exceedingly high development complexity? Heck, I haven't even touched on their apparent disdain for their customers (rootkit, anyone?)...
But, you're right, that doesn't necessarily spell immediate disaster for Sony, and I'm sure the PS3 will see some success in the market place (probably on par with or moderately better than the 360). But I really think Nintendo has a chance to significantly increase their market share this time around, both by cutting into the Sony/Microsoft customer base, *and* by expanding the market itself.
The pedigree for the Wiimote consists of the Power Glove and the Philips CDi remote, neither of which were ever considered laudatory efforts.
Both of which were primitive technology compared to what we have today being used with platforms that really didn't benefit from the device. In this world of 3D gaming and high quality motion sensors, something like the Wiimote makes a *lot* more sense.
I fail to see how that addresses the point that their "gimmicky" device, as it was originally declared, has ended up a smashing success, that has won over their naysayers while actively *expanding* their market to non-gamers, just as they had hoped.
Put another way, the success of the GBA doesn't explain why the DS has gone from "gimmicky" to cool, and has gone from a device that a GBA owner might buy to something a DS owners' mom wants.
And they've also been forced to do other questionable things simply because of the position they're in, such as making a gimmicky controller in an attempt to tap the non-gamer market.
Yeah, no kidding! It's like that other gimmicky thing they came up with that was supposed to appeal to non-gamers... the, whatsitcalled, the... DS! Yeah, that's it! Man, where's that ridiculous thing, now, I wonder...
Assuming Flash isn't all spaghetti code it should really be a matter of just rebuilding with a 64-bit compiler against 64-bit libraries.
Yeah, it's rarely that simple. Many people use ints where they should be using function-specific types (eg, size_t, time_t, etc). Not to mention the old standby of casting an int to a pointer or vice-versa.
Mine isn't the largest of homes, about mid-sized in my region at 2700 square feet.
Jesus Christ, that's *mid-sized*?!? Where do you live, McMansion-ville?
You know the best way to save money? Get a *reasonably sized home*. Cooling and lighting 2700 square feet is going to cost a ton regardless of how efficient everything is.
It wasn't called data mining because what you did isn't what's described in the article. To quote:
"the program then delivers a list of possible crystal structures for any mixture of elements whose structure is unknown. "
They *then* used quantum modeling software much like what you've described in order to test those structures:
"The team can then run that list of possibilities through a second algorithm that uses quantum mechanics to calculate precisely which structure is the most stable energetically -- a standard technique in the computer modeling of materials."
So, no, quantum modeling isn't new. Using computers to mine our current knowledge base in order to select new crystalline structures is. But, hey, way to not RTFM.;)
Umm, these things aren't supposed to be used to play WoW or download MP3s. They're supposed to be used as a learning and communications tool. You know, browsing the web, chatting, writing documents, that sort of thing. WTF do they need a multi-ghz processor and a tonne of storage for?
If you actually believe this, you clearly don't understand the role of labeling, in particular taxonomies, in the role of science. Words in science have significance because they play a role in expressing our knowledge. Otherwise, why bother with *any* kind of classification? Who cares about different kinds of stars or birds or clouds? What difference does it make? They're all labels, right?
Agreed, and there shouldn't be. The inclined, eccentric orbit of Pluto combined with it's size make it pretty obvious it's a different class of object. The only reason there's a vote at all is because this has become a political issue, rather than a scientific one, which was exactly what I was objecting to int he first place.
Yes, but I don't know that anyone has clearly resolved why Pluto's orbit is so ecliptic (I realize good theories exist), and our study of extrasolar planets has shown that highly ecliptic orbits are nothing unusual.
Yes, but *no other planetary object* has such a highly elliptic, inclined orbit. Pluto is the only one. I think that's sufficient reason to believe that it belongs to another class of objects (Kuiper belt objects, to be precise).
Also, Saturn's moon Titan is bigger than the planet Mercury, so size is proving a purely arbitrary thing in this argument.
If Titan were orbiting the sun instead of Saturn, it would probably be classified as a planet. It's not, so it's a moon.
Pluto has a atmosphere during parts of its year, and most likely has or has had a crust, mantle, and core. I might be wrong, but that knocks Ceres out of the running, which I wouldn't call a planet.
Sure, but it puts planets like Titan back in. Moreover, comets are certainly "active", and have an atmosphere of sorts. So it appears your definition doesn't work either.
I think a combination of size, and orbital plane and center are sufficient. If the object is >= mercury (there may be a more scientific way to select a size limit) and orbits the sun in a roughly circular fashion on the same plane as the other planets, it's a planet. What's so hard about this?
Look, this is about *facts*, and it's a fact that Pluto is quite clearly not a member of the class of objects occupied by the other 8 planets. The fact is that our previous classification was wrong, and that it should now be changed to reflect our new understanding of the universe. This is the way science works, and ridiculous publicity stunts like what you suggest do nothing but compromise scientific objectivity, lowering it to simple public opinion.
Exactly! It's like saying "I learned the earth is the center of the universe and I see no reason to unlearn it." It's plain and simply factually *wrong*, and people who react this way betray an alarming inability to accept new facts, instead clinging onto their pre-existing notions with near *religious* ferver.
"Microsoft's Zune media player is going to have features such as creating mobile social networks and streaming music to nearby friends or strangers"
I thought, how on earth will MS get away with allowing people to share music with one another, given the way they've bowed to industry pressure regarding HDCP on 32-bit Vista? Then I read the article, which only mentions "promotional copies of songs, albums and playlists,". This is hardly the same thing as unfettered sharing, and seems pretty limiting... practically pointless, IMHO.
ESR said it himself: "I view comprising (sic) with the proprietary codec vendors as a tactical move designed to get us larger end user market shares, so that in the end we can push more things to the open." (emphasis mine) In the end, this is about stopping the software vendors and media conglomerates from tying up the PC with DRM, patents, and so forth.
No, it means using TrueCrypt with a hidden volume. If they ask for the password to your encrypted volume, give it to them, but don't tell them about the hidden volume. Voila, problem solved!
Personally, a word processor that has NO features is perfect. put on the screen EXACTLY what I type, dont screw with my margins, dont adjust my tabstops, etc... Fun part is they make it intentionally hard to disable all that useless crap.
Reminds me why I love working with LaTeX so much.:) Sure, there's often some upfront investment to get the layout right, but once that's out of the way you can just bang out the content and trust LaTeX to do the right thing.
Well, unless you're educated in eating a vegetarian diet, it can be very easy to become deficient in certain important nutrients. Getting enough protein, for example, can be tricky, and vitamin B12 is naturally only found in animal products (though it can be acquired in certain fortified foods, as well, not to mention vitamin suppliments).
Point being, people can't just magically switch to a vegetarian diet. It takes education and a fair bit of work to do it properly, which is why I always groan when I hear about people deciding to "become vegetarian" without doing any research beforehand.
Not to mention you'll be able to play the free demo version to your hearts content before deciding to actually buy it.
Yes, and then half way through, buy it again. Look, it's simple: all those people claiming "great, you get to try it, and if you like it you can buy the rest!" don't really get it. As you point out, you can *already* try before you buy. So, clearly, that isn't the point. The point is to nail people a second time, plain and simple. I just hope, as others have pointed out, that this will be made explicit to purchasers, because otherwise this could turn some people off of XBLA (after all, why would you buy a game if, half way through, you might be asked to turn around and bend over again?)
Indian food. Mmm... I think they're the only culture that's managed to make vegetarian food actually taste good. Nothing like a nice curried channa or dahl. *drool* Granted, they may still use curd or paneer, so it's not necessarily strict vegetarian, but it's close enough for most people.
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of other "gimmicky" things that Nintendo has released that quickly went no where. Anyone else remember the Virtual Boy? Or the Power Glove?
As I've mentioned elsewhere, these devices were poor because the technology sucked and they brought nothing to the games. The wiimote, OTOH, looks to be a genuinely interesting innovation in 3D control (in the console arena, anyway), facilitated by significantly improved motion sensing technology.
It's still way too early for either critics or fanboys of the Wii to declare any sort of victory. It is a bit tiring to hear fanboy after fanboy laud over how Nintendo can do no wrong, and how the Wii will conquer all. As interesting as I think the Wii is (and I will probably buy one at launch), I think it's silly for anyone to be convinced of its success, especially with all the risk involved. Some of the naysayers aren't really even critics, they're just being skeptical (which I think is quite acceptable), yet the Nintendo fanboy reaction and response is often quite overwhelming.
I completely agree. But I really don't think the wiimote, or Nintendo's 'non-gamer' strategy are reasons to be skeptical. It all comes down to one thing: the software. The real question is, will fun, quality games come out for the Wii that will be able to leverage it's capabilities, while appealing to Nintendo's target market. If, like the DS, the answer ends up being 'yes', I think Nintendo has a real shot and revitalizing a (IMHO) stagnating market. Otherwise, it's unclear to me what could happen to this next generation, as, even in the absence of a successful Nintendo, I think we'll see a decline in Sony's market share, while MS's 360 is languishing in mediocrity.
What do you mean by "interested"? Do you mean in the same way that Square was "interested" in the Gamecube, so they decided to release a throwaway game that most people didn't like for it, while continuing to release their major games only on the PS2?
No, I don't mean that at all, but that's a really nice straw man you set up, there! Well done!
The marketshare of the previous system has a massive impact on developers' perceptions of the new system. Only three companies have had huge losses of marketshare between generations:
Yes, you're right... only three of the *biggest companies in videogaming history*. Gee, that's not significant at all...
There are no indications that Sony has yet made any mistakes regarding the PS3 that are quite of the magnitude of any of these.
Other than coming out a nearly a year late with a product that's at least a hundred dollars more expensive than it's nearest competitor while tying it down to a media format that has the potential to completely flop in the marketplace while adding frankly unneeded expense. Did I mention that the product is also tied to hardware with very low yields, and exceedingly high development complexity? Heck, I haven't even touched on their apparent disdain for their customers (rootkit, anyone?)...
But, you're right, that doesn't necessarily spell immediate disaster for Sony, and I'm sure the PS3 will see some success in the market place (probably on par with or moderately better than the 360). But I really think Nintendo has a chance to significantly increase their market share this time around, both by cutting into the Sony/Microsoft customer base, *and* by expanding the market itself.
So, presumably you bring this up because you feel this isn't true for the Wii, despite big players like EA being interested?
The pedigree for the Wiimote consists of the Power Glove and the Philips CDi remote, neither of which were ever considered laudatory efforts.
Both of which were primitive technology compared to what we have today being used with platforms that really didn't benefit from the device. In this world of 3D gaming and high quality motion sensors, something like the Wiimote makes a *lot* more sense.
I fail to see how that addresses the point that their "gimmicky" device, as it was originally declared, has ended up a smashing success, that has won over their naysayers while actively *expanding* their market to non-gamers, just as they had hoped.
Put another way, the success of the GBA doesn't explain why the DS has gone from "gimmicky" to cool, and has gone from a device that a GBA owner might buy to something a DS owners' mom wants.
And they've also been forced to do other questionable things simply because of the position they're in, such as making a gimmicky controller in an attempt to tap the non-gamer market.
Yeah, no kidding! It's like that other gimmicky thing they came up with that was supposed to appeal to non-gamers... the, whatsitcalled, the... DS! Yeah, that's it! Man, where's that ridiculous thing, now, I wonder...
Assuming Flash isn't all spaghetti code it should really be a matter of just rebuilding with a 64-bit compiler against 64-bit libraries.
Yeah, it's rarely that simple. Many people use ints where they should be using function-specific types (eg, size_t, time_t, etc). Not to mention the old standby of casting an int to a pointer or vice-versa.
Mine isn't the largest of homes, about mid-sized in my region at 2700 square feet.
Jesus Christ, that's *mid-sized*?!? Where do you live, McMansion-ville?
You know the best way to save money? Get a *reasonably sized home*. Cooling and lighting 2700 square feet is going to cost a ton regardless of how efficient everything is.
Kinda like good ol' Toejam and Earl! :)
It wasn't called data mining because what you did isn't what's described in the article. To quote:
;)
"the program then delivers a list of possible crystal structures for any mixture of elements whose structure is unknown. "
They *then* used quantum modeling software much like what you've described in order to test those structures:
"The team can then run that list of possibilities through a second algorithm that uses quantum mechanics to calculate precisely which structure is the most stable energetically -- a standard technique in the computer modeling of materials."
So, no, quantum modeling isn't new. Using computers to mine our current knowledge base in order to select new crystalline structures is. But, hey, way to not RTFM.
Also good if you plan to make an apple pie. And it also works on freshly peeled potatos.
Umm, these things aren't supposed to be used to play WoW or download MP3s. They're supposed to be used as a learning and communications tool. You know, browsing the web, chatting, writing documents, that sort of thing. WTF do they need a multi-ghz processor and a tonne of storage for?
If you actually believe this, you clearly don't understand the role of labeling, in particular taxonomies, in the role of science. Words in science have significance because they play a role in expressing our knowledge. Otherwise, why bother with *any* kind of classification? Who cares about different kinds of stars or birds or clouds? What difference does it make? They're all labels, right?
Agreed, and there shouldn't be. The inclined, eccentric orbit of Pluto combined with it's size make it pretty obvious it's a different class of object. The only reason there's a vote at all is because this has become a political issue, rather than a scientific one, which was exactly what I was objecting to int he first place.
Yes, but I don't know that anyone has clearly resolved why Pluto's orbit is so ecliptic (I realize good theories exist), and our study of extrasolar planets has shown that highly ecliptic orbits are nothing unusual.
Yes, but *no other planetary object* has such a highly elliptic, inclined orbit. Pluto is the only one. I think that's sufficient reason to believe that it belongs to another class of objects (Kuiper belt objects, to be precise).
Also, Saturn's moon Titan is bigger than the planet Mercury, so size is proving a purely arbitrary thing in this argument.
If Titan were orbiting the sun instead of Saturn, it would probably be classified as a planet. It's not, so it's a moon.
Pluto has a atmosphere during parts of its year, and most likely has or has had a crust, mantle, and core. I might be wrong, but that knocks Ceres out of the running, which I wouldn't call a planet.
Sure, but it puts planets like Titan back in. Moreover, comets are certainly "active", and have an atmosphere of sorts. So it appears your definition doesn't work either.
I think a combination of size, and orbital plane and center are sufficient. If the object is >= mercury (there may be a more scientific way to select a size limit) and orbits the sun in a roughly circular fashion on the same plane as the other planets, it's a planet. What's so hard about this?
Look, this is about *facts*, and it's a fact that Pluto is quite clearly not a member of the class of objects occupied by the other 8 planets. The fact is that our previous classification was wrong, and that it should now be changed to reflect our new understanding of the universe. This is the way science works, and ridiculous publicity stunts like what you suggest do nothing but compromise scientific objectivity, lowering it to simple public opinion.
Because we were wrong.
;)
Exactly! It's like saying "I learned the earth is the center of the universe and I see no reason to unlearn it." It's plain and simply factually *wrong*, and people who react this way betray an alarming inability to accept new facts, instead clinging onto their pre-existing notions with near *religious* ferver.
Yes, that last bit was flamebait.
Funny, after first reading:
"Microsoft's Zune media player is going to have features such as creating mobile social networks and streaming music to nearby friends or strangers"
I thought, how on earth will MS get away with allowing people to share music with one another, given the way they've bowed to industry pressure regarding HDCP on 32-bit Vista? Then I read the article, which only mentions "promotional copies of songs, albums and playlists,". This is hardly the same thing as unfettered sharing, and seems pretty limiting... practically pointless, IMHO.
ESR said it himself: "I view comprising (sic) with the proprietary codec vendors as a tactical move designed to get us larger end user market shares, so that in the end we can push more things to the open." (emphasis mine) In the end, this is about stopping the software vendors and media conglomerates from tying up the PC with DRM, patents, and so forth.
:)
Or, at least, that's the theory.
No, it means using TrueCrypt with a hidden volume. If they ask for the password to your encrypted volume, give it to them, but don't tell them about the hidden volume. Voila, problem solved!
Personally, a word processor that has NO features is perfect. put on the screen EXACTLY what I type, dont screw with my margins, dont adjust my tabstops, etc... Fun part is they make it intentionally hard to disable all that useless crap.
:) Sure, there's often some upfront investment to get the layout right, but once that's out of the way you can just bang out the content and trust LaTeX to do the right thing.
Reminds me why I love working with LaTeX so much.
Care to back that up with a bit of fact?
Well, unless you're educated in eating a vegetarian diet, it can be very easy to become deficient in certain important nutrients. Getting enough protein, for example, can be tricky, and vitamin B12 is naturally only found in animal products (though it can be acquired in certain fortified foods, as well, not to mention vitamin suppliments).
Point being, people can't just magically switch to a vegetarian diet. It takes education and a fair bit of work to do it properly, which is why I always groan when I hear about people deciding to "become vegetarian" without doing any research beforehand.
Not to mention you'll be able to play the free demo version to your hearts content before deciding to actually buy it.
Yes, and then half way through, buy it again. Look, it's simple: all those people claiming "great, you get to try it, and if you like it you can buy the rest!" don't really get it. As you point out, you can *already* try before you buy. So, clearly, that isn't the point. The point is to nail people a second time, plain and simple. I just hope, as others have pointed out, that this will be made explicit to purchasers, because otherwise this could turn some people off of XBLA (after all, why would you buy a game if, half way through, you might be asked to turn around and bend over again?)
You *do* realize the BGH is used in milk cows, not beef cows, right?
Indian food. Mmm... I think they're the only culture that's managed to make vegetarian food actually taste good. Nothing like a nice curried channa or dahl. *drool* Granted, they may still use curd or paneer, so it's not necessarily strict vegetarian, but it's close enough for most people.