Even now, we could give them freakin' laser technology, which would allow them to jump in, attack the Cylons, and then jump away before those absurdly slow missiles hit.
"Freakin' laser technology?" Seriously, dude. This is Galactica, not Star Trek. The new Galactica has always been based on being (at least somewhat) realistic about space technology. Throwing multi-terawatt laser weapons into the fray (which actually have several tactical disadvantages of their own) would be ending the series with a total Deus Ex Machina.
Of course, I'm somewhat afraid of the glowy people providing the requisite "Gods from the Machine", but we'll just have to see how that plays out.
Why, oh why, would it be bad NOT to claim credit for some research paper?
Because it was supposed to be independent verification of Taleyarkhan's claims. If he really did coauthor the paper, then his research was NOT independently verified. If his research was not independently verified, then funding may have provided on false or misleading data.
The TG16 was often touted as superior due to several mitigating factors:
482 simultaneous colors vs. the SNESes 256
Superior Chroma Encoder chip
Same amount of Video RAM (64 KiB)
Availability of CDROM games (both as an TG16 upgrade and as the TurboDuo)
The greater color palette + better video output + more available data = Better Graphics in many cases. Since the discussion centers around the graphical capabilities of the systems, the TG-16 can (in some ways) be considered superior to the SNES.
However, if you want to talk about overall engineering, I'd give the SNES the title hands down. But that's true (IMHO) of pretty much every console Nintendo has ever made. Their engineering capabilities simply outshine the competition at every turn. Unfortunately, it's not quite enough to ensure Nintendo's dominance in every generation. That comes back to the Good Price + Better Games formula.:)
Cold Fusion is "cold" because it has a relatively low energy input for the energy output. In addition, the apparatus can be initiated at room temperatures. Sonofusion, OTOH, requires a great deal of energy to be poured into the system before obtaining any energy back out. The apparatus also does not "start" at room temperatures, but receives powerful sonic waves to initiate the reaction. If you scaled it up to the size and complexity of Tokamak, you'd end up with a similar energy budget and "extremely hot" design. (Assuming that sonofusion is a viable concept to begin with.)
You need to remember, Tokamak is basically a REALLY LARGE Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor. It uses different technologies to accomplish its goal, but both devices perform plasma confinement to achieve fusion.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." --Hanlon's razor
Television executives have never needed a reason to can shows before. If they don't like it, *poof* it's gone. Even if there is a massive fan outrage, it won't necessarily change the executive decisions. (Witness: Global Frequency, Firefly, Space: Above and Beyond, Sliders)
The official (and very believable) reason for the change in schedule was that SciFi wanted to stagger the shows so that they'd get massive revenues throughout the year rather than only when the Friday Night lineup was running. BSG was their strongest show, so that's the one they put up against the networks.
Seems less like maliciousness to me, and more of a case of killing the Golden Goose.
In 2001, Rusi P. Taleyarkhan shocked the world by claiming he had successfully produced a positive net energy bubble fusion reaction; cold fusion.
WOW, that's a loaded statement. Let me correct a few things:
1. Taleyarkhan didn't report his research until 2002.
2. I have never seen a source that claims that sonofusion is currently net positive. That's an incredibly difficult feat to achieve, and has been an active point of research.
3. Bubble Fusion is NOT Cold Fusion any more than a Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor is. In fact, the reaction is hotter than hades. (About 10 megakelvins, or about as hot as the center of the sun.)
The New York Times reports that a congressional hearing is now under way against Taleyarkhan, even though Purdue University has already cleared the scientist of any wrongdoing.
This is a bit of a misstatement. According to TFA, the Congressional subcommittee that's responsible for funding various scientific endeavors into new energy sources asked Purdue to review its finding. So Purdue reopened the case, and is again putting Taleyarkhan through the wringer.
On a side note, shouldn't this be listed under "Science" rather than "Hardware"?
But Battlestar Galactica will definitely be a better show with an ending. I mean, how long can they put off finding Earth? and, what'll they do after they've found it? That's the end. A couple episodes for epilogue, but that's pretty much it.
Pfff. Shows what you know. Obviously, the super-smart kid will tell them that Earth isn't advanced enough to defend against Cylons, so they'll need to lead the Cylons away from it. Meanwhile, Galactica will send a couple of time-travelling meat-heads to "prepare" Earth by improving its technology. They won't understand Earth customs at all, and hilarity will ensue. Oh, and there will be Nazis. Lots of Nazis. Because you can't have a good show without Nazis.
Seriously, though. Does finding Earth really end the story? What about the Cylons? Will Earth be in a state to defend against the presence of an entire Cylon empire? Even if it is in such a position, wouldn't fighting such an empire take longer than the time provided in an Epilogue?
That's the problem with the whole "finding Earth" thing. No one ever thinks about what's going to happen when they get there. I have a feeling that the writers have come up with something totally outrageous that they'll try and shock us with. But just about nothing they do (save for the complete annihilation of the fleet) will stop there from being a story to tell after Earth is found.
It's sort of like Voyager. B&B constantly operated under the assumption that getting back to Earth would end the show. Why did it need to end the show? Does Star Trek end like Lost in Space now? You find Earth, and live happily ever after? Of course not! There are plenty of stories to tell! New starships to launch, promotions to be deserved, intrigue to be explored!
To continue with the Voyager example, this open door was recognized by the community, and then exploited. Why can't television producers learn to do the same?
Gene Roddenberry was once asked, "Aren't you afraid you'll run out of stories?" To which he replied, "How could I run out of stories? The Galaxy is my background! There are a LOT of stories to be told out there." It took the genius of Beavis and Butthead to shrink the vast reaches of the Galaxy into the "bumpy forehead of the week" show.
Because paper costs money and space is limited. Both of these explanations are superior to yours.
This is merely supposition. In order to claim superiority, you must first prove that supposition true. As I see it, screen space is just as limited as paper space. It may be cheaper, but modern paper was never expensive to begin with.
Believe what you will, but I guarantee that this research will dead-end. We will not be utilizing this development within our lifetimes, if ever.
the Megadrive/Genesis required little modification to continue that backwards compatibility
That's actually not true. The Genesis had a Master System (Zilog Z80) built into it. That's why it could play Master System games with an adapter. When in Genesis mode, the games relied on the Motorola 68000 processor, and used the Zilog for sound processing.
Basically, it's like the Playstation 2 compatibility with the original Playstation. Just throw a copy of the previous hardware in there, and you're good to go.
As for the SG-1000 series (which amusing started with Joysticks and moved to gamepads only after the release of the Famicom/NES), it was a product of the 1980's. Thus the statement that consoles haven't performed upgrades to components since the 1980's.
I wonder if they would have gotten more viewers if the show were on a "major" network as opposed to the SciFi Channel.
Actually, they had a lot more viewers. Right up until the SciFi channel broke up their powerful friday night lineup (BSG->SG1->Atlantis) and tried to launch BSG up against the Big 3 fall lineups. (Urk!) Sorry, SciFi. You're not that big.
The SciFi channel has some of the greatest shows ever made. Yet time and time again they shoot themselves in the foot. Twice. Just to make sure they get both feet. Then they get some prosthetics so they can shoot themselves in the foot again. Twice. Just to be sure.
I know that the 2600 was still being sold in the late 1980s, but that was as a "budget" product and- I assume- reliant mainly on its back catalogue.
Incorrect. Some of the best games for both systems were produced after the crash of '83/'84. For example, ask any 2600 aficionado what the most impressive game for the 2600 was. The almost universal answer would be "Solaris". Most of them will also tell you what a great game it was, too. The truth of the matter was that Tramiel was making most of his money off the 2600. That's why nearly every game that showed up on the 7800 was also released for the 2600.
Even Activision followed this tack by releasing the popular game "Double Dragon" for both the 7800 and the 2600. Nevermind that the 2600 was underpowered for the game, it was going to get made and sold to those 40 million consoles out there. (Of course, I wonder what their excuse was for the terrible state of the 7800 port? Perhaps that they were spending too much time making the 2600 version work? Who knows.)
Intellivision experienced a similar revival in its catalog. Smash hits like Diner, Thin Ice, and Hoverforce were all released after Mattel Electronics bit the dust. INTV Corp bought the rights and continued producing new titles for the console. Today, the INTV Corp games are some of the most expensive titles in the library. Not just because of their rarity, but because they are really good games. Thin Ice even launched the music career of a little known composer by the name of George Sanger. More commonly known in the industry as, "The Fat Man".
The two years that you mention were during that market's heyday.
Actually, no they weren't. Atari's biggest sales were in the early 80's. The market crash happened because everyone was trying to get their own slice of that seemly limitless pie. Billions of dollars were being made by Atari, Intellivision, Activision, Coleco, IMagic, and others. The problem was that the market wasn't limitless. In fact, it was quite a bit smaller than it is today. The resulting glut of product flooding the market created an economic powder keg.
It only took some wonderful mismanagement by ole' Tramiel at Commodore to light the fuse. When the bomb went off, the mismanagement at Atari, Coleco, Mattel, and IMagic dragged them down. Activision was pretty much the only survivor. The rest of the industry was lost or horribly disfigured in the process.
Yes; I originally intended to qualify that with something like "from the mid-80s onwards".
Atari continued to sell 2600s and old Atari computers in the 80's for quite a profit. If they hadn't, Tramiel wouldn't have had the capital to launch projects like the ST, Lynx, and Jaguar.
No. I'm saying that we have thousands of years of printed text to fall back upon. We have over 500 years of typography to rely upon. In that time, we've experimented with nearly every form of text, style, formatting, spelling, and artwork that can be imagined. Typography is practically its own branch of science at this point. Yet in all that time, no one has grasped hold of this method of formatting.
Why?
If you look carefully at the text we produce today, there are actually many similar examples. Poetry regularly follows such patterns, using them to express a certain spoken "tone" within the meter. Computer programs are formatted with patterns of indents to allow the eye to easily scan the listing. Advertisements use such patterns to produce a specific impact.
So there are signs that the concept has been contemplated before. We are, in fact, using similar patterns on a daily basis. So why can't we transfer it to regular text? There must be an overriding reason?
My opinion on what that reason is is detailed in my original post. I'd also like to state that this solution lacks elegance. When you introduce a solution to a problem, you need to make sure that it's easily adoptable. If it requires significant retraining, many will ask themselves, "is it worth the cost?"
Is the new solution truly superior if the supposedly superior solution is more difficult to use than the solution it replaces?
I can also still play Enduro on the Atari 2600 for hours.
You have excellent taste, sir. Enduro was quite possibly the best game ever produced for the 2600. (With maybe the exception of H.E.R.O.) Might I inquire if you're also a fan of the similarly-designed Robot Tank? (Brilliant piece of work, that was.)
...someone would have already invented this "new" method. Unfortunately, it's not better. The text is certainly easier to follow (which proves the research), but that's only half the battle. The formatting implies certain cues such as tone, volume, and emphasis. By reformatting the text, the software loses the original cues and accidentally adds new ones. The new cues may change the overall meaning of the text resulting in a failure to communicate.
They came out much later, so had less time to sell, and did so in the face of an established console with a large established library of games.
The Intellivision was only 2 years later than the 2600. (Its test market was in 1979.) It wasn't discontinued until 1991. That gave it nearly as long to compete as the 2600, yet it only captured about 1/4 the market that the 2600 did.
The Neo Geo was very expensive; it used (IIRC) basically the same technology as arcade games and AFAIK was never intended to be a mass-market console (it couldn't have been at that price anyway).
It wasn't intended to be originally, no, but it was mass-marketed due to demand from fans. Its price was similar to that of the PS3, so if graphics were the only deciding factor, it would seem that the Neo Geo would have been far more popular than it already was?
Of course, it wasn't. Because graphics don't rule the day. SNK was well aware of that sitation, and that's why they had never intended to mass market the system. Thus their business model centered around the Neo Geo being a niche product, rather than Sony's business model which centers around selling over 100x the volume of what the Neo Geo sold.
The 7800 was put on hold after the video game crash; they only revived it after Nintendo had shown that they *could* make a success of their NES, by which time they had a head-start
Nintendo built and released the Famicom before the 7800 was created. Atari had always intended to give Nintendo the runaround so that they could release the 7800 instead. The Tramiel takeover delayed things, but the NES and the 7800 hit the market around the same time. Putting aside Tramiel's attempts to screw himself over, he still had access to the impressive library of games originally created for the 1984 release. Unfortunately, the arcade-style games couldn't hold a candle to the new and innovative gameplay seen on the NES.
Also, regardless of anything else, Atari couldn't sell ice-cream in a heatwave.
That statement belies the fact that Atari sold 40 million 2600's, and probably about as many computer systems. Atari could sell, they just couldn't execute new products after their original line.
I think a lot of people have been saying it for that long. The problem stems from the fact that graphics can have an impact on what you can do with a console. Especially in the early days of game consoles, where the 2600 was limited to two sprites, a 1 pixel ball, two 1 pixel missiles, and a 20x2 by 190 pixel background. Obviously, that was quite limiting. Later consoles touted how many sprites they had, and their hi-res background capabilities.
The upgrade from the NES to the SNES was similar. The SNES allowed for bigger characters, larger games, scaling and rotation effects, and other features that allowed game creators to make games that they couldn't have otherwise.
Unfortunately, the market has become blind to the reasons behind why those graphical upgrades were important. As a result, they're fixated on this idea that we need photo-realistic graphics to have better games. It doesn't work that way. The Atari 7800 had better graphics than the NES. It failed. The Colecovision and Intellivision both had better graphics than the 2600. They didn't capture nearly the market that the 2600 did. The Neo Geo has the best 2D graphics available anywhere. It did not displace the SuperNES. (Though it did do well for itself among hardcore fans of SNK fighting games.) The Playstation was graphically inferior to the N64, yet it was the best selling console to date. The Playstation 2 was graphically inferior to the Gamecube and XBox, yet it was (and still is) the best selling console ever.
History is very clear on this. If you give the market good games at a good price, you will outperform your competition. If you try and push the envelope with the idea that money is no object, you WILL fail. Or at best, only capture a niche in the market.
The note at the end is supposed to point to Red Steel. Excuse my flubby fingers. Here's a wonderful review on Red Steel from IGN to help make up for it:
Did you know that my AMD64 is really just a Pentium III 1.5? I heard it on the Internet, so it must be true!
I wish people would get a grip. Especially since these specs have been know for... oh.... EVER. Get over already, will you? Yeah, it's the first console since the 80's to perform upgrades to components rather than replacing them outright. That's not a big deal. The console still has more than enough power to play games like Zelda, Super Paper Mario, and Red Steel.
Let me put it another way. In the Super Nintendo generation, it was less powerful than the TG16, the 3DO, the Phillips CD-i (pardon me while I die laughing), and the Neo Geo. But it was also worlds less expensive. Its only real competitor in that generation was the Sega Genesis, a console that was less powerful than the Super Nintendo!
The lesson to learn from this is that graphical power != better games. Better games == Better games, and damn the graphical power. The sooner people realize this, the better. (Or should I say, the sooner they get over their insecurity at having purchased a PS3?)
As for the Gamecube "1.5" nonsense, it's two Gamecubes duct taped together. Get it right, will you?
* Critics can shaddup about this one, too. If you can't get past learning the controls, well, that's too bad for you. But many of us actually find the controls to make the game. And the graphics aren't nearly as bad as they're made out to be. Sure, there are some dull hallways and whatnot, but there are also rooms full of steam, radiosity from windows, and other nice effects that help draw you into the game. And drawing me into the game is all I care about.
The "salt" is in the text for encoding, not the MD5 algo itself. The MD5 algo used is the vanilla algo described in RFC1321. In this case, the salting comes from a variety of options such as the web address, whether or not to encode the protocol part of the URL, extra path info, etc. Ram them all into one string using a standardized method, and you've got yourself a salted string for hashing.
The online version is common because these passwords are for websites. So making a web-enabled version is a no-brainer. But the algo is so straightforward that it was pretty easy for the guys who made it to port it to different platforms.
Until some idiot admin leaks, or lets leak, all those oh-so-secret passwords.
I don't think you understand how it works. What you do is you enter the password (it can be the same for all sites), then enter the name of the site (which can be pulled from a bookmarklet). A bit of Javascript on the client then hashes that information using the MD5 algorithm, and spits the result back out as a secure password.
The beauty of this is that no one has your password except you. And if you forget the generated password, you can always regen it by entering the exact same information. However, since hashes can't be reversed, your master password will not be compromised even if a lame admin compromises your generated password on his site.
Use an MD5 password generator. You can use the same password across sites, but it won't get compromised. Ever. There are a few sites like these that can help you generate these passwords:
David Williams about the user-generated content possibilities being added to Shockwave.com and the AddictingGames sites.
How does this differ from WiiCade? Will PS3 games be able to access the PS3 controls like WiiCade games can with the Wii, or will they be entirely keyboard controlled?
Most "rights" are inherent. Such rights can only be taken away, not granted. Thus anything that "manages" my rights, must by definition be taking them away.
Slashdot Mirror
"Freakin' laser technology?" Seriously, dude. This is Galactica, not Star Trek. The new Galactica has always been based on being (at least somewhat) realistic about space technology. Throwing multi-terawatt laser weapons into the fray (which actually have several tactical disadvantages of their own) would be ending the series with a total Deus Ex Machina.
Of course, I'm somewhat afraid of the glowy people providing the requisite "Gods from the Machine", but we'll just have to see how that plays out.
Because it was supposed to be independent verification of Taleyarkhan's claims. If he really did coauthor the paper, then his research was NOT independently verified. If his research was not independently verified, then funding may have provided on false or misleading data.
The greater color palette + better video output + more available data = Better Graphics in many cases. Since the discussion centers around the graphical capabilities of the systems, the TG-16 can (in some ways) be considered superior to the SNES.
However, if you want to talk about overall engineering, I'd give the SNES the title hands down. But that's true (IMHO) of pretty much every console Nintendo has ever made. Their engineering capabilities simply outshine the competition at every turn. Unfortunately, it's not quite enough to ensure Nintendo's dominance in every generation. That comes back to the Good Price + Better Games formula.
Cold Fusion is "cold" because it has a relatively low energy input for the energy output. In addition, the apparatus can be initiated at room temperatures. Sonofusion, OTOH, requires a great deal of energy to be poured into the system before obtaining any energy back out. The apparatus also does not "start" at room temperatures, but receives powerful sonic waves to initiate the reaction. If you scaled it up to the size and complexity of Tokamak, you'd end up with a similar energy budget and "extremely hot" design. (Assuming that sonofusion is a viable concept to begin with.)
You need to remember, Tokamak is basically a REALLY LARGE Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor. It uses different technologies to accomplish its goal, but both devices perform plasma confinement to achieve fusion.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." --Hanlon's razor
Television executives have never needed a reason to can shows before. If they don't like it, *poof* it's gone. Even if there is a massive fan outrage, it won't necessarily change the executive decisions. (Witness: Global Frequency, Firefly, Space: Above and Beyond, Sliders)
The official (and very believable) reason for the change in schedule was that SciFi wanted to stagger the shows so that they'd get massive revenues throughout the year rather than only when the Friday Night lineup was running. BSG was their strongest show, so that's the one they put up against the networks.
Seems less like maliciousness to me, and more of a case of killing the Golden Goose.
WOW, that's a loaded statement. Let me correct a few things:
1. Taleyarkhan didn't report his research until 2002.
2. I have never seen a source that claims that sonofusion is currently net positive. That's an incredibly difficult feat to achieve, and has been an active point of research.
3. Bubble Fusion is NOT Cold Fusion any more than a Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor is. In fact, the reaction is hotter than hades. (About 10 megakelvins, or about as hot as the center of the sun.)
This is a bit of a misstatement. According to TFA, the Congressional subcommittee that's responsible for funding various scientific endeavors into new energy sources asked Purdue to review its finding. So Purdue reopened the case, and is again putting Taleyarkhan through the wringer.
On a side note, shouldn't this be listed under "Science" rather than "Hardware"?
Pfff. Shows what you know. Obviously, the super-smart kid will tell them that Earth isn't advanced enough to defend against Cylons, so they'll need to lead the Cylons away from it. Meanwhile, Galactica will send a couple of time-travelling meat-heads to "prepare" Earth by improving its technology. They won't understand Earth customs at all, and hilarity will ensue. Oh, and there will be Nazis. Lots of Nazis. Because you can't have a good show without Nazis.
Seriously, though. Does finding Earth really end the story? What about the Cylons? Will Earth be in a state to defend against the presence of an entire Cylon empire? Even if it is in such a position, wouldn't fighting such an empire take longer than the time provided in an Epilogue?
That's the problem with the whole "finding Earth" thing. No one ever thinks about what's going to happen when they get there. I have a feeling that the writers have come up with something totally outrageous that they'll try and shock us with. But just about nothing they do (save for the complete annihilation of the fleet) will stop there from being a story to tell after Earth is found.
It's sort of like Voyager. B&B constantly operated under the assumption that getting back to Earth would end the show. Why did it need to end the show? Does Star Trek end like Lost in Space now? You find Earth, and live happily ever after? Of course not! There are plenty of stories to tell! New starships to launch, promotions to be deserved, intrigue to be explored!
To continue with the Voyager example, this open door was recognized by the community, and then exploited. Why can't television producers learn to do the same?
Gene Roddenberry was once asked, "Aren't you afraid you'll run out of stories?" To which he replied, "How could I run out of stories? The Galaxy is my background! There are a LOT of stories to be told out there." It took the genius of Beavis and Butthead to shrink the vast reaches of the Galaxy into the "bumpy forehead of the week" show.
This is merely supposition. In order to claim superiority, you must first prove that supposition true. As I see it, screen space is just as limited as paper space. It may be cheaper, but modern paper was never expensive to begin with.
Believe what you will, but I guarantee that this research will dead-end. We will not be utilizing this development within our lifetimes, if ever.
That's actually not true. The Genesis had a Master System (Zilog Z80) built into it. That's why it could play Master System games with an adapter. When in Genesis mode, the games relied on the Motorola 68000 processor, and used the Zilog for sound processing.
Basically, it's like the Playstation 2 compatibility with the original Playstation. Just throw a copy of the previous hardware in there, and you're good to go.
As for the SG-1000 series (which amusing started with Joysticks and moved to gamepads only after the release of the Famicom/NES), it was a product of the 1980's. Thus the statement that consoles haven't performed upgrades to components since the 1980's.
Actually, they had a lot more viewers. Right up until the SciFi channel broke up their powerful friday night lineup (BSG->SG1->Atlantis) and tried to launch BSG up against the Big 3 fall lineups. (Urk!) Sorry, SciFi. You're not that big.
The SciFi channel has some of the greatest shows ever made. Yet time and time again they shoot themselves in the foot. Twice. Just to make sure they get both feet. Then they get some prosthetics so they can shoot themselves in the foot again. Twice. Just to be sure.
Incorrect. Some of the best games for both systems were produced after the crash of '83/'84. For example, ask any 2600 aficionado what the most impressive game for the 2600 was. The almost universal answer would be "Solaris". Most of them will also tell you what a great game it was, too. The truth of the matter was that Tramiel was making most of his money off the 2600. That's why nearly every game that showed up on the 7800 was also released for the 2600.
Even Activision followed this tack by releasing the popular game "Double Dragon" for both the 7800 and the 2600. Nevermind that the 2600 was underpowered for the game, it was going to get made and sold to those 40 million consoles out there. (Of course, I wonder what their excuse was for the terrible state of the 7800 port? Perhaps that they were spending too much time making the 2600 version work? Who knows.)
Intellivision experienced a similar revival in its catalog. Smash hits like Diner, Thin Ice, and Hoverforce were all released after Mattel Electronics bit the dust. INTV Corp bought the rights and continued producing new titles for the console. Today, the INTV Corp games are some of the most expensive titles in the library. Not just because of their rarity, but because they are really good games. Thin Ice even launched the music career of a little known composer by the name of George Sanger. More commonly known in the industry as, "The Fat Man".
Actually, no they weren't. Atari's biggest sales were in the early 80's. The market crash happened because everyone was trying to get their own slice of that seemly limitless pie. Billions of dollars were being made by Atari, Intellivision, Activision, Coleco, IMagic, and others. The problem was that the market wasn't limitless. In fact, it was quite a bit smaller than it is today. The resulting glut of product flooding the market created an economic powder keg.
It only took some wonderful mismanagement by ole' Tramiel at Commodore to light the fuse. When the bomb went off, the mismanagement at Atari, Coleco, Mattel, and IMagic dragged them down. Activision was pretty much the only survivor. The rest of the industry was lost or horribly disfigured in the process.
Atari continued to sell 2600s and old Atari computers in the 80's for quite a profit. If they hadn't, Tramiel wouldn't have had the capital to launch projects like the ST, Lynx, and Jaguar.
No. I'm saying that we have thousands of years of printed text to fall back upon. We have over 500 years of typography to rely upon. In that time, we've experimented with nearly every form of text, style, formatting, spelling, and artwork that can be imagined. Typography is practically its own branch of science at this point. Yet in all that time, no one has grasped hold of this method of formatting.
Why?
If you look carefully at the text we produce today, there are actually many similar examples. Poetry regularly follows such patterns, using them to express a certain spoken "tone" within the meter. Computer programs are formatted with patterns of indents to allow the eye to easily scan the listing. Advertisements use such patterns to produce a specific impact.
So there are signs that the concept has been contemplated before. We are, in fact, using similar patterns on a daily basis. So why can't we transfer it to regular text? There must be an overriding reason?
My opinion on what that reason is is detailed in my original post. I'd also like to state that this solution lacks elegance. When you introduce a solution to a problem, you need to make sure that it's easily adoptable. If it requires significant retraining, many will ask themselves, "is it worth the cost?"
Is the new solution truly superior if the supposedly superior solution is more difficult to use than the solution it replaces?
You have excellent taste, sir. Enduro was quite possibly the best game ever produced for the 2600. (With maybe the exception of H.E.R.O.) Might I inquire if you're also a fan of the similarly-designed Robot Tank? (Brilliant piece of work, that was.)
...someone would have already invented this "new" method. Unfortunately, it's not better. The text is certainly easier to follow (which proves the research), but that's only half the battle. The formatting implies certain cues such as tone, volume, and emphasis. By reformatting the text, the software loses the original cues and accidentally adds new ones. The new cues may change the overall meaning of the text resulting in a failure to communicate.
The Intellivision was only 2 years later than the 2600. (Its test market was in 1979.) It wasn't discontinued until 1991. That gave it nearly as long to compete as the 2600, yet it only captured about 1/4 the market that the 2600 did.
It wasn't intended to be originally, no, but it was mass-marketed due to demand from fans. Its price was similar to that of the PS3, so if graphics were the only deciding factor, it would seem that the Neo Geo would have been far more popular than it already was?
Of course, it wasn't. Because graphics don't rule the day. SNK was well aware of that sitation, and that's why they had never intended to mass market the system. Thus their business model centered around the Neo Geo being a niche product, rather than Sony's business model which centers around selling over 100x the volume of what the Neo Geo sold.
Nintendo built and released the Famicom before the 7800 was created. Atari had always intended to give Nintendo the runaround so that they could release the 7800 instead. The Tramiel takeover delayed things, but the NES and the 7800 hit the market around the same time. Putting aside Tramiel's attempts to screw himself over, he still had access to the impressive library of games originally created for the 1984 release. Unfortunately, the arcade-style games couldn't hold a candle to the new and innovative gameplay seen on the NES.
That statement belies the fact that Atari sold 40 million 2600's, and probably about as many computer systems. Atari could sell, they just couldn't execute new products after their original line.
I think a lot of people have been saying it for that long. The problem stems from the fact that graphics can have an impact on what you can do with a console. Especially in the early days of game consoles, where the 2600 was limited to two sprites, a 1 pixel ball, two 1 pixel missiles, and a 20x2 by 190 pixel background. Obviously, that was quite limiting. Later consoles touted how many sprites they had, and their hi-res background capabilities.
The upgrade from the NES to the SNES was similar. The SNES allowed for bigger characters, larger games, scaling and rotation effects, and other features that allowed game creators to make games that they couldn't have otherwise.
Unfortunately, the market has become blind to the reasons behind why those graphical upgrades were important. As a result, they're fixated on this idea that we need photo-realistic graphics to have better games. It doesn't work that way. The Atari 7800 had better graphics than the NES. It failed. The Colecovision and Intellivision both had better graphics than the 2600. They didn't capture nearly the market that the 2600 did. The Neo Geo has the best 2D graphics available anywhere. It did not displace the SuperNES. (Though it did do well for itself among hardcore fans of SNK fighting games.) The Playstation was graphically inferior to the N64, yet it was the best selling console to date. The Playstation 2 was graphically inferior to the Gamecube and XBox, yet it was (and still is) the best selling console ever.
History is very clear on this. If you give the market good games at a good price, you will outperform your competition. If you try and push the envelope with the idea that money is no object, you WILL fail. Or at best, only capture a niche in the market.
The note at the end is supposed to point to Red Steel. Excuse my flubby fingers. Here's a wonderful review on Red Steel from IGN to help make up for it:
http://wii.ign.com/articles/747/747541p1.html
Did you know that my AMD64 is really just a Pentium III 1.5? I heard it on the Internet, so it must be true!
I wish people would get a grip. Especially since these specs have been know for... oh.... EVER. Get over already, will you? Yeah, it's the first console since the 80's to perform upgrades to components rather than replacing them outright. That's not a big deal. The console still has more than enough power to play games like Zelda, Super Paper Mario, and Red Steel.
Let me put it another way. In the Super Nintendo generation, it was less powerful than the TG16, the 3DO, the Phillips CD-i (pardon me while I die laughing), and the Neo Geo. But it was also worlds less expensive. Its only real competitor in that generation was the Sega Genesis, a console that was less powerful than the Super Nintendo!
The lesson to learn from this is that graphical power != better games. Better games == Better games, and damn the graphical power. The sooner people realize this, the better. (Or should I say, the sooner they get over their insecurity at having purchased a PS3?)
As for the Gamecube "1.5" nonsense, it's two Gamecubes duct taped together. Get it right, will you?
* Critics can shaddup about this one, too. If you can't get past learning the controls, well, that's too bad for you. But many of us actually find the controls to make the game. And the graphics aren't nearly as bad as they're made out to be. Sure, there are some dull hallways and whatnot, but there are also rooms full of steam, radiosity from windows, and other nice effects that help draw you into the game. And drawing me into the game is all I care about.
The "salt" is in the text for encoding, not the MD5 algo itself. The MD5 algo used is the vanilla algo described in RFC1321. In this case, the salting comes from a variety of options such as the web address, whether or not to encode the protocol part of the URL, extra path info, etc. Ram them all into one string using a standardized method, and you've got yourself a salted string for hashing.
- Browser Extension
- Yahoo! Widget
- JavaScript Edition
- Command-Line Edition
- PHP Edition
- Mobile Edition
- PDF Manual
Certainly. So download the source code and memorize the algorithm. Then you can do the hash in your head.So get a downloadable version and back it up.
The online version is common because these passwords are for websites. So making a web-enabled version is a no-brainer. But the algo is so straightforward that it was pretty easy for the guys who made it to port it to different platforms.
I don't think you understand how it works. What you do is you enter the password (it can be the same for all sites), then enter the name of the site (which can be pulled from a bookmarklet). A bit of Javascript on the client then hashes that information using the MD5 algorithm, and spits the result back out as a secure password.
The beauty of this is that no one has your password except you. And if you forget the generated password, you can always regen it by entering the exact same information. However, since hashes can't be reversed, your master password will not be compromised even if a lame admin compromises your generated password on his site.
Use an MD5 password generator. You can use the same password across sites, but it won't get compromised. Ever. There are a few sites like these that can help you generate these passwords:
s wordComposer/
http://passwordmaker.org/
http://angel.net/~nic/passwdlet.html
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jlpoutre/BoT/Javascript/Pas
How does this differ from WiiCade? Will PS3 games be able to access the PS3 controls like WiiCade games can with the Wii, or will they be entirely keyboard controlled?
Most "rights" are inherent. Such rights can only be taken away, not granted. Thus anything that "manages" my rights, must by definition be taking them away.