Just wondering if the greater number of titles for the Wii is dragging down the average?
Indeedy, do. Although, the problem is more that the Wii has a lot of so-so multi-system titles like Happy Feet, Open Season, SpongeBob SquarePants: Creature from the Krusty Krab, Cars, Barnyard, and Avatar: The Last Airbender. Not only do these games smack of little more than attempts to cash in on major franchises, but their cross-platform nature means that they aren't very well tuned for the Wii's new motion sensing abilities.
Of course the real question is how many PS3 where bought by people that are going to play them?
Very few. But in its defense, the systems *are* getting in the hands of players in the end. So the PS3 game sales are just a bit delayed.
The worst launch lineup of the 'next-gen' systems is actually the Wii, which has averaged only a 71.3 over its 20 launch titles.
That would be because the THQ conversions from the previous gen are dragging them down. Not to mention the Vivendi (Ice Age) and Ubisoft (Open Season) titles that are similar conversions. Most launches put their best foot forward, but Nintendo allowed a few tag-alongs to immediately fill out their software library. The result is that there's a lot of great stuff for the Wii, but there's also plenty of so-so conversion stuff that appeals to a very specific market.
Of course, life would be better if movie and TV conversions were done better to begin with. Anyone remember when Capcom did the Duck Tales and Chip and Dale games for the NES? Now THOSE were great games first, but with quality TV tie-ins that tried to be true to the source material. Alas, once Capcom started chucking out unsuitable tie-ins of The Little Mermaid and other Disney properties, it was all over.:(
Back on topic, these numbers don't really mean anything. If a store sells 2 HDTVs a year, but 3,000 DVDs, the averages will still say that the HDTVs are making them more money. For that sort of situation, you need a weighted average to find the profits compared to the number of units sold. It's the same thing here. A smaller launch lineup is going to have a better average than a larger, more varied lineup. Something which 1Up themselves admit when discussing the N64.
So I wouldn't take these metrics as anything more than a cutsie invention. They certainly have little to do with the success or failure of a console launch.
See that DVI, HDMI, or SVideo port on the back of your computer? See that DVI, HDMI, or SVideo port on the side of your new TV? Got any bright ideas?;)
We live in a world that is no longer as 9 to 5 as it once was (more like 24/7 in three shifts), and people are surprised that television viewers would rather decouple their viewing from "Prime Time Weeknights"? I'm not surprised at all. DVDs laid the groundwork for viewers watching the television they want when they want. Then shows like 24 and Lost further laid the groundwork for story arcs that take advantage of that medium. (i.e. Can't keep with Jack every week? Keep up with him on DVD!)
Now the Internet is threatening to combine the convenience and timeliness of broadcast TV with the time shifting and long-term storage capabilities of DVDs. The result can only be a positive change in the way we view entertainment.
They were selling 1,000 XBox 360s for only $100 a piece. The deal started at exactly 2PM EST, the exact period of time Amazon went down. Entire forums of people were sitting and refreshing the pages. It was pretty easy to gauge what the cause was.:-/
You can't lend movies to friends this way, play it in your van on the way to grandma's, play it again at grandma's when the kids want to see it again
Yet. Future iterations of online content will almost definitely allow for either media to be burned, USB key copies to be made, or copies to be made to other receivers over WiFi. So when your car is parked in the garage, you'll be able to switch out the kid's movies with the latest ones you've downloaded online. Making it happen is all a matter of consumer demand.
you can't have a copy of a movie on your shelf for later whenever you feel like watching it and wherever.
iTunes already allows this. When you download a movie, you're purchasing a permanent copy. You can space shift it to any computer, and that computer will be able to play the film as long as you provide your iTunes credentials.
The TV Shows on the 360 are similarly permanent. Only the Movies are on a rental basis, as Microsoft probably doesn't feel that the market has accepted the idea of "owning" a digital download yet. (They're probably right. I can't bring myself to purchase a movie on iTunes, but I've rented from MovieLink before.)
The God's honest truth is that the general bandwidth available and the 360 hard disk size conspire against downloadable HDTV content. If you're using this service, you're basically trying a beta service that going to have difficulities until the consumer infrastructure is updated.
That said, this is the future. Pure and simple. IMHO, Bluray and HDDVD disks will not gain traction in this generation, and will end up losing to download services like iTunes and 360 Videos. So keep an eye on this space, but expect a few bumps until the technology is ready.
(Not that Bluray and HDDVD isn't without their own bumps...)
I'm curious about its absorbtion of Gamma and X-Ray radiation. If it truly does absorb all wavelengths, we might be able to make thinner, more effective radiation shields for reactors and space travel.
Did the United Force Air Force somehow "borrow" the Japanese experimental data and design schematics to develop the American version of an unmanned space plane?
The Airforce has data from the X-15, the SR-71, the Space Shuttle, the Delta Clipper, and pretty much everything from the X-30 through somewhere in the X-40's. They don't need the Japanese design. What they need is funding, commitment, and trust. Three things that the executive branch of the US Government fails in spades to provide.
That's pretty much it. The so-called "analysts" are regularly baffled by Google, primarily because they don't seem to understand them. Google does things according to what makes the most sense from a logical perpective, not necessarily what makes them the most money in the short term. (Or at least, what seems to make them the most money.) These analysts don't understand that mode of thinking, and expect Google to fit in the same box as everyone else.
Computers do NOT do that for firmware except for a few high-end motherboards. In this situation, firmware is exactly what's being updated.
However, there is a catch to this particular story. According to the reports, Nintendo is telling Wii owners that it's not the firmware update itself or anything the owner did. Some of the units apparently have defects. When the firmware update is applied, it's exasperating the defect, causing strange behavior. The reports of the problem seem to confirm this, as the system doesn't completely brick. (i.e. it still boots into the menus) But since it is unable to play games, it might as well be bricked.
Your numbers are incorrect. (Probably just out of date.)
The PS3 shipped 80,000 units in Japan, and another 200,000 to 400,000 to the U.S. (No one is entirely sure of the exact number.) The Wii shipped over a million units to the U.S. with some reports saying it was as high as 1.2 million.
According to Sony, the PS3 is expected to ship about 2 million unitsworldwide by the end of the year. They admit that their figures are "more of a target" though. According to Nintendo, they are committed to bringing at least4 million units worldwide by the end of the year.
there were usually 1 or 2 copies of Zelda (which I heard shiped 1 for every system, which means that some of the "Moms" who bought the system didn't buy a game) and nothing else. In contrast, last year when I checked out the XBox 360 sections (and the PS3 sections this weekend) there was (at least) one of every item/game on the shelf.
It's kind of weird, because I'm seeing the exact opposite in the stores around me. All the stores have mild stocks of various Wii games and accessories, while practically no one carries the PS3 games. I keep trying to figure out why that is, but I'm wondering if the retailers don't want to commit shelf space to the PS3 until it's more readily available.
Isn't that what the next generation of anything is? If it's something different then it's something different.
I can't really say that's true. Going from the first-gen (2600, Intellivision) to the Super Systems (Colecovision, 5200) felt very different. Going from the Super Systems to the NES and Master System felt like a major overhaul in console gaming. Then going to the Genesis/SNES felt like a tremendous leap in the complexity and detail of games. Going to the N64/Playstation was an entirely new experience in 3D.
It was only this last generation of the PS2/XBox/Gamecube (sorry Dreamcast, we knew you well) that felt like just a graphical upgrade. Which wasn't all that bad for the last generation, as the first 3D generation was kind of weak with what the hardware was capable of. (Though honestly, the Gamecube could have been so much more.) I personally skipped owning any of the current gen consoles as nothing really appealed to me enough to make a purchase. Still, my relatives had a PS2 and they enjoyed it.
But with all the hype surrounding this generation, all the competitors are promising us the moon and more. Especially Sony, who has been telling people to get another job so they can afford the PS3. Just what exactly is so great about the PS3 that we should all go work our tails off to get it? With that kind of hubris, I was at least expecting a unique experience, even if the console doesn't appeal directly to me. (And I'm boycotting Sony anyway.) Finding that Sony's next-gen offering costs three times as much for nothing more than the same experience, but prettier, does little to improve my opinion of Sony.
That being said, some people will like the PS3. For some of them, a PS2 with HD is exactly what they're hoping for. For them, the PS3 will be a great system. (Especially since they have deep enough pockets to invest in HD in the first place.) But IMHO, the mass appeal of the PS2 is missing. Unless the price of HD equipment (of which the PS3 is an example of) comes back out of the stratosphere, the average joe is not going to see much value in the PS3. Certainly not the value that the PS2 provided.
I managed to play the PS3 in a few stores yesterday. Despite all the hype, the expense, and the motion sensing controller, it really felt like nothing more than a souped up PS2. The games I played didn't really feel different than the last-gen stuff, and the motion controller was used more as a gimmick (e.g. NBA Live '07) rather than an integral part of the experience. (Though in its defense, Sony kind of screwed their partners by introducing it so late.)
Basically, if all you want is a PS2 with HDTV graphics and sound, you'll love the PS3. (Assuming you get past the sticker shock.) If you were truly hoping for a new and unique experience, you may have your hopes set a bit too high.
Hopefully, the situation will change as Sony and their partners have more time to work with the hardware, but they're currently lagging out of the gate.
The PS3 requires a rather complex series of steps to setup an operating system
Strange wording, but fair enough.
the Windows setup is incompatable with this method.
Getting weirder. Perhaps he's referring to the boot process?
Believe me, I already tried to install Vista on mine.
Wait, you tried what?
I hope you realize that Post-NT versions of Windows are compiled only for x86. The Cell processor is based on the Power/PowerPC architecture. You'd have about as much luck running Windows on a G5 Mac as you would on the PS3.:-/
And what's with the qvga desktop resolution, bad videocard drivers?
You could send him an eBay question to find out for sure, but I'm guessing it's because he needed a lower resolution to make the desktop visible on the video. If I'm not mistaken, Youtube videos are qvga (or at least close) making a qvga desktop a better choice. Had he shown a 1080i desktop, all you would have seen was a few splotches on a huge field of blue.
The initiator in the Gun Type bomb was a set of Beryllium Spheres (IIRC) that would produce a massive flood of neutrons when crushed. Strictly speaking, it wasn't required for the device to operate. The spheres were only added as insurance of the bomb's detonation. Given that they hadn't tested the Gun Type bomb (they only tested the implosion device) they wanted to be as confident as possible of its detonation.
Despite their simple design and high reliability, Gun Type weapons were retired due to safety concerns. It was found that once a device was assembled and ready to detonate, it was difficult to prevent accidental detonation under warzone delivery conditions. If the gunpowder ignites for any reason, the bomb will detonate. Not good at all.:(
Because a terrorist dirty bomb is unlikely to cause many deaths, many do not consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction. Its purpose would presumably be to create psychological, not physical, harm through ignorance, mass panic, and terror (for this reason they are sometimes called "weapons of mass disruption").
Basically, they're ineffective as a weapon to cause death and destruction. Especially in urban areas where the street cleaning and drainage infrastructure is designed to flush away dirt and disease. It would actually do a *bit* more harm in farmland, but only if the authorities didn't know of the radiological dispersal.
That's why the Nazis never detonated a dirty bomb as an alternative to a nuclear weapon, and why they remain nothing more than tools of panic today.
I hope you realize that there is a world of difference between a confinment fusion reactor and an Atomic triggered Hydrogen Bomb. One does not in any way, shape, or form imply the other.
It's pretty much the same with our current fission reactors. There is no way that the design of the reactors would ever blow up like an Atomic warhead, because the warheads are explicitly designed to go super-critical in a very particular fashion, with the intent of burning the maximum amount of fuel possible in the shortest period possible.
There are actually shaped charges on the outside of the weapon to trigger this event. These charges *must* be properly aligned, or the weapon will never reach super-criticality. That's why the heros in the movie The Peacemaker removed one of the charges from the weapon. Without it, the normal explosives would detonate harmlessly. (There is another type of bomb that slams two carefully shaped, barely sub-critical pieces of Uranium together REALLY, REALLY, REALLY hard. Again, you have the same problem of the design having to be precise.)
About all you can get from a fission reactor is the raw materials to make a weapon. And even then, it's best if the reactor is configured to produce the materials you need. It's pretty much the same way with a fusion plant. You can use or produce materials useful in nuclear weapons, but the reactor will be nowhere close to a weapon itself. The key safety issue is thus to ensure that sufficient safeguards exist to prevent the release of any poisonous radioisotopes back into the environment. (If the fusion reaction is completely clean, then this isn't a concern.) We wouldn't want another Chernobyl, which happened mostly because there weren't sufficient safeguards, and the ones that existed had been explicitly disabled (with authorization!) by untrained personnel.
The irony? They wanted to test the reactor to see if it would fail properly without the safeguards installed. Guess they got their answer.:-/
Slashdot Mirror
16. The Wii had 21.
Indeedy, do. Although, the problem is more that the Wii has a lot of so-so multi-system titles like Happy Feet, Open Season, SpongeBob SquarePants: Creature from the Krusty Krab, Cars, Barnyard, and Avatar: The Last Airbender. Not only do these games smack of little more than attempts to cash in on major franchises, but their cross-platform nature means that they aren't very well tuned for the Wii's new motion sensing abilities.
Very few. But in its defense, the systems *are* getting in the hands of players in the end. So the PS3 game sales are just a bit delayed.
That would be because the THQ conversions from the previous gen are dragging them down. Not to mention the Vivendi (Ice Age) and Ubisoft (Open Season) titles that are similar conversions. Most launches put their best foot forward, but Nintendo allowed a few tag-alongs to immediately fill out their software library. The result is that there's a lot of great stuff for the Wii, but there's also plenty of so-so conversion stuff that appeals to a very specific market.
Of course, life would be better if movie and TV conversions were done better to begin with. Anyone remember when Capcom did the Duck Tales and Chip and Dale games for the NES? Now THOSE were great games first, but with quality TV tie-ins that tried to be true to the source material. Alas, once Capcom started chucking out unsuitable tie-ins of The Little Mermaid and other Disney properties, it was all over.
Back on topic, these numbers don't really mean anything. If a store sells 2 HDTVs a year, but 3,000 DVDs, the averages will still say that the HDTVs are making them more money. For that sort of situation, you need a weighted average to find the profits compared to the number of units sold. It's the same thing here. A smaller launch lineup is going to have a better average than a larger, more varied lineup. Something which 1Up themselves admit when discussing the N64.
So I wouldn't take these metrics as anything more than a cutsie invention. They certainly have little to do with the success or failure of a console launch.
See that DVI, HDMI, or SVideo port on the back of your computer? See that DVI, HDMI, or SVideo port on the side of your new TV? Got any bright ideas? ;)
We live in a world that is no longer as 9 to 5 as it once was (more like 24/7 in three shifts), and people are surprised that television viewers would rather decouple their viewing from "Prime Time Weeknights"? I'm not surprised at all. DVDs laid the groundwork for viewers watching the television they want when they want. Then shows like 24 and Lost further laid the groundwork for story arcs that take advantage of that medium. (i.e. Can't keep with Jack every week? Keep up with him on DVD!)
Now the Internet is threatening to combine the convenience and timeliness of broadcast TV with the time shifting and long-term storage capabilities of DVDs. The result can only be a positive change in the way we view entertainment.
They were selling 1,000 XBox 360s for only $100 a piece. The deal started at exactly 2PM EST, the exact period of time Amazon went down. Entire forums of people were sitting and refreshing the pages. It was pretty easy to gauge what the cause was. :-/
Yet. Future iterations of online content will almost definitely allow for either media to be burned, USB key copies to be made, or copies to be made to other receivers over WiFi. So when your car is parked in the garage, you'll be able to switch out the kid's movies with the latest ones you've downloaded online. Making it happen is all a matter of consumer demand.
iTunes already allows this. When you download a movie, you're purchasing a permanent copy. You can space shift it to any computer, and that computer will be able to play the film as long as you provide your iTunes credentials.
The TV Shows on the 360 are similarly permanent. Only the Movies are on a rental basis, as Microsoft probably doesn't feel that the market has accepted the idea of "owning" a digital download yet. (They're probably right. I can't bring myself to purchase a movie on iTunes, but I've rented from MovieLink before.)
The God's honest truth is that the general bandwidth available and the 360 hard disk size conspire against downloadable HDTV content. If you're using this service, you're basically trying a beta service that going to have difficulities until the consumer infrastructure is updated.
That said, this is the future. Pure and simple. IMHO, Bluray and HDDVD disks will not gain traction in this generation, and will end up losing to download services like iTunes and 360 Videos. So keep an eye on this space, but expect a few bumps until the technology is ready.
(Not that Bluray and HDDVD isn't without their own bumps...)
I'm curious about its absorbtion of Gamma and X-Ray radiation. If it truly does absorb all wavelengths, we might be able to make thinner, more effective radiation shields for reactors and space travel.
The Airforce has data from the X-15, the SR-71, the Space Shuttle, the Delta Clipper, and pretty much everything from the X-30 through somewhere in the X-40's. They don't need the Japanese design. What they need is funding, commitment, and trust. Three things that the executive branch of the US Government fails in spades to provide.
That's pretty much it. The so-called "analysts" are regularly baffled by Google, primarily because they don't seem to understand them. Google does things according to what makes the most sense from a logical perpective, not necessarily what makes them the most money in the short term. (Or at least, what seems to make them the most money.) These analysts don't understand that mode of thinking, and expect Google to fit in the same box as everyone else.
Or even three years ago.
How about four?
Yawn. That's so 1960's.
Computers do NOT do that for firmware except for a few high-end motherboards. In this situation, firmware is exactly what's being updated.
However, there is a catch to this particular story. According to the reports, Nintendo is telling Wii owners that it's not the firmware update itself or anything the owner did. Some of the units apparently have defects. When the firmware update is applied, it's exasperating the defect, causing strange behavior. The reports of the problem seem to confirm this, as the system doesn't completely brick. (i.e. it still boots into the menus) But since it is unable to play games, it might as well be bricked.
Your numbers are incorrect. (Probably just out of date.)
The PS3 shipped 80,000 units in Japan, and another 200,000 to 400,000 to the U.S. (No one is entirely sure of the exact number.) The Wii shipped over a million units to the U.S. with some reports saying it was as high as 1.2 million.
According to Sony, the PS3 is expected to ship about 2 million units worldwide by the end of the year. They admit that their figures are "more of a target" though. According to Nintendo, they are committed to bringing at least 4 million units worldwide by the end of the year.
It's kind of weird, because I'm seeing the exact opposite in the stores around me. All the stores have mild stocks of various Wii games and accessories, while practically no one carries the PS3 games. I keep trying to figure out why that is, but I'm wondering if the retailers don't want to commit shelf space to the PS3 until it's more readily available.
I can't really say that's true. Going from the first-gen (2600, Intellivision) to the Super Systems (Colecovision, 5200) felt very different. Going from the Super Systems to the NES and Master System felt like a major overhaul in console gaming. Then going to the Genesis/SNES felt like a tremendous leap in the complexity and detail of games. Going to the N64/Playstation was an entirely new experience in 3D.
It was only this last generation of the PS2/XBox/Gamecube (sorry Dreamcast, we knew you well) that felt like just a graphical upgrade. Which wasn't all that bad for the last generation, as the first 3D generation was kind of weak with what the hardware was capable of. (Though honestly, the Gamecube could have been so much more.) I personally skipped owning any of the current gen consoles as nothing really appealed to me enough to make a purchase. Still, my relatives had a PS2 and they enjoyed it.
But with all the hype surrounding this generation, all the competitors are promising us the moon and more. Especially Sony, who has been telling people to get another job so they can afford the PS3. Just what exactly is so great about the PS3 that we should all go work our tails off to get it? With that kind of hubris, I was at least expecting a unique experience, even if the console doesn't appeal directly to me. (And I'm boycotting Sony anyway.) Finding that Sony's next-gen offering costs three times as much for nothing more than the same experience, but prettier, does little to improve my opinion of Sony.
That being said, some people will like the PS3. For some of them, a PS2 with HD is exactly what they're hoping for. For them, the PS3 will be a great system. (Especially since they have deep enough pockets to invest in HD in the first place.) But IMHO, the mass appeal of the PS2 is missing. Unless the price of HD equipment (of which the PS3 is an example of) comes back out of the stratosphere, the average joe is not going to see much value in the PS3. Certainly not the value that the PS2 provided.
I managed to play the PS3 in a few stores yesterday. Despite all the hype, the expense, and the motion sensing controller, it really felt like nothing more than a souped up PS2. The games I played didn't really feel different than the last-gen stuff, and the motion controller was used more as a gimmick (e.g. NBA Live '07) rather than an integral part of the experience. (Though in its defense, Sony kind of screwed their partners by introducing it so late.)
Basically, if all you want is a PS2 with HDTV graphics and sound, you'll love the PS3. (Assuming you get past the sticker shock.) If you were truly hoping for a new and unique experience, you may have your hopes set a bit too high.
Hopefully, the situation will change as Sony and their partners have more time to work with the hardware, but they're currently lagging out of the gate.
Getting weirder. Perhaps he's referring to the boot process?
Wait, you tried what?
I hope you realize that Post-NT versions of Windows are compiled only for x86. The Cell processor is based on the Power/PowerPC architecture. You'd have about as much luck running Windows on a G5 Mac as you would on the PS3.
You could send him an eBay question to find out for sure, but I'm guessing it's because he needed a lower resolution to make the desktop visible on the video. If I'm not mistaken, Youtube videos are qvga (or at least close) making a qvga desktop a better choice. Had he shown a 1080i desktop, all you would have seen was a few splotches on a huge field of blue.
The initiator in the Gun Type bomb was a set of Beryllium Spheres (IIRC) that would produce a massive flood of neutrons when crushed. Strictly speaking, it wasn't required for the device to operate. The spheres were only added as insurance of the bomb's detonation. Given that they hadn't tested the Gun Type bomb (they only tested the implosion device) they wanted to be as confident as possible of its detonation.
:(
Despite their simple design and high reliability, Gun Type weapons were retired due to safety concerns. It was found that once a device was assembled and ready to detonate, it was difficult to prevent accidental detonation under warzone delivery conditions. If the gunpowder ignites for any reason, the bomb will detonate. Not good at all.
Basically, they're ineffective as a weapon to cause death and destruction. Especially in urban areas where the street cleaning and drainage infrastructure is designed to flush away dirt and disease. It would actually do a *bit* more harm in farmland, but only if the authorities didn't know of the radiological dispersal.
That's why the Nazis never detonated a dirty bomb as an alternative to a nuclear weapon, and why they remain nothing more than tools of panic today.
Gah! You had to post that while I was typing. :-P
A couple of things:
1. We already rely on large corporations for our power. What exactly would change?
2. I presume that the initial reactor at least would be intended to meet Google's growing demand for power. Nuts to the rest of us.
I hope you realize that there is a world of difference between a confinment fusion reactor and an Atomic triggered Hydrogen Bomb. One does not in any way, shape, or form imply the other.
:-/
It's pretty much the same with our current fission reactors. There is no way that the design of the reactors would ever blow up like an Atomic warhead, because the warheads are explicitly designed to go super-critical in a very particular fashion, with the intent of burning the maximum amount of fuel possible in the shortest period possible.
There are actually shaped charges on the outside of the weapon to trigger this event. These charges *must* be properly aligned, or the weapon will never reach super-criticality. That's why the heros in the movie The Peacemaker removed one of the charges from the weapon. Without it, the normal explosives would detonate harmlessly. (There is another type of bomb that slams two carefully shaped, barely sub-critical pieces of Uranium together REALLY, REALLY, REALLY hard. Again, you have the same problem of the design having to be precise.)
About all you can get from a fission reactor is the raw materials to make a weapon. And even then, it's best if the reactor is configured to produce the materials you need. It's pretty much the same way with a fusion plant. You can use or produce materials useful in nuclear weapons, but the reactor will be nowhere close to a weapon itself. The key safety issue is thus to ensure that sufficient safeguards exist to prevent the release of any poisonous radioisotopes back into the environment. (If the fusion reaction is completely clean, then this isn't a concern.) We wouldn't want another Chernobyl, which happened mostly because there weren't sufficient safeguards, and the ones that existed had been explicitly disabled (with authorization!) by untrained personnel.
The irony? They wanted to test the reactor to see if it would fail properly without the safeguards installed. Guess they got their answer.
That's a big ten-four on that one. It's been decades since NASA last had such incredible leadership.