Come on. For three years now, people have known that uttering the words "Five hundred ninety-nine US Dollars" during the big unveil is a kiss of death. Did you really have to go and blow it like that?
Most TVs (or, more precisely, monitors) do indeed have built-in smoothing. The problem is, it's crap. Seriously, it's nothing like 2xSaI, not that the SaI family of algorithms would work anyway, because there's a fundamental problem with HD resolutions that runs much deeper.
480 content does not scale neatly to 720 or 1080, nor does 720 scale well to 1080, because the ratios between these resolutions do not lend themselves well to scaling. To be more specific, it increases by a ratio of 1:1.5 with each step, rather than a more sensible 1:2, and this throws off fine details. This isn't so much a problem when dealing with actual photography, where the eye is so overloaded with fine detail that it doesn't notice the problems with scaling. Games won't be at that stage for a long time, however, and especially with older games, where pixel-width lines and details were critical to many games' art styles, it's much more problematic. Even the simple problem of walking across a screen becomes a problem when the widths of the lines keep changing to accomodate the upscaling problem.
The cynic in me wonders if that's the reason these resolutions were chosen for HD in the first place: to limit the potential of scaling and therefore drive people to unnecessarily upgrade their content.
There's a lot people are bandying about that's off-base, no doubt. But IMHO, there's really only one off-base thing about the iSlate that matters: the assertion that it exists at all.
There will be no second coming of Newton, folks. It failed. So have pretty much all other tablet initiatives, of which the one we currently call "tablet computing" was not the first. They sound neat and shiny on paper, but they just aren't practical, and Apple -having tried it before, keep in mind- knows this.
This assumes that the crime took place in Britain: a laughable proposal. It is true that the person doing the deed was in Britain at the time, but the damages were done on US soil. As others have mentioned, if you were to stand just on one side of your country's border and shoot into a neighboring country, killing someone on the other side, the crime would be said to have taken place there. Same story here: the damage was done on US soil, therefore the crime took place in the US. That the criminal happened to be in a different nation at the time is irrelevant.
Audiophiles have convinced themselves for decades that most listeners cannot discern excellent from mediocre music, but that they, of course, are not like the unwashed masses.
Fixed that for you. Any perceived difference between lossless compression and correctly-done lossy compression is almost entirely due to the placebo effect.
Just like a browser is not the Internet, telnetd is not telnet.
As you say, telnetd -the daemon which lets you log in over telnet- is disabled on most machines, and for good reason. But this is not the only thing telnet can be used for. In fact, almost all standard Internet protocols -HTTP, NNTP, IRC, both POP and IMAP, SMTP, and so on- can be used through a telnet client, and this is by design: there's no way for the server to necessarily tell that you are using a telnet client as opposed to any other kind. This doesn't give you a shell login (though it may give you other kinds of logins, as defined by the protocol you're using) but it does let you use the protocols in the usual ways.
I could use telnet to access almost any Web server. Doing this is not necessarily convenient, but it makes for a great debugging tool. It can also, on occasion, be used for exploits in buggy servers.
The real problem is one of marketing. It's not just a complete failure to market -though frankly many third parties are failing to market their Wii games at all- but also that the few who do market are going about it the wrong way.
The Wii's market is largely driven by the blue ocean: new gamers who have not been subjected to the marketer-conditioning that makes veteran gamers believe graphics matter. It also contains veteran gamers who have recovered from such conditioning or who never succumbed to it. This means that you cannot market a game to them with shiny trailers and awesome screenshots, the way you do on the HD consoles, because the Wii audience doesn't care about graphics. What they want to know about a game is something that trailers and screenshots cannot tell them: is the game fun?
How do you market a game to such gamers? Nintendo hit the nail right on the head with its Wii _____ series, though given its failure to market its other games this way I have doubts that Nintendo actually knows what it has accomplished here. You take some of your focus off of the pretty pictures and put it on the player: on people having fun with the game. This is what impresses the Wii audience.
Does it work? Let's first look at the Wii _____ series, which is perhaps the most famous for this marketing style. Most of this generation's best-selling games are there, but let us examine Wii Music: the weakest game of the series, sales-wise. This game was reviled in the gaming press and released into an extremely hostile market, yet it still broke 2.5 million copies: a figure that surpasses even LittleBigPlanet, the biggest success of the "casual HD" market. For all that Wii Music had against it, it still made insane money, largely because of its marketing. Let us also consider Mario Kart Wii: one of the few games to be marketed this way despite not being in the Wii _____ series. It is one of only 20 games in history to break 15 million copies sold, and the only one from this generation that wasn't in the Wii _____ series. It far outstrips its own predecessors sales-wise, having successfully broken into the Wii's player base. Coincidence? I believe not.
So, then, how do you market other games on the Wii? It's simple, if not necessarily easy: convince the Wii audience that the game is fun by focusing on the player. Is it truly so hard for third-parties (and most of Nintendo's own dev teams) to do this? Can it really be that the people playing these games just aren't visibly having any fun? And if that's the case, then what does it say about the games themselves?
In order to make the comparison valid, they should have used the same codec throughout, be that Ogg or AAC+ or whatever they could settle on using. Bitrate is not an objective measure of quality: in fact, the only thing it measures objectively is file size. What makes one codec better than another is how low the bitrate can go while still sounding good. Because different codecs perform differently at the Bitrate Limbo, you need to use the same codec throughout a study, or at least test each codec at all the bitrates you're working with, in order to get a valid set of data to examine the differences.
There is no doubt in my mind that the concept here happens to be correct: that all but the most egregious differences in compression are imperceptible to most people, and that many of those who claim they can tell the difference are experiencing nothing more than the placebo effect. But this study does nothing to establish or disprove that assertion, because its methodology was fundamentally flawed.
Miguel de Icaza is indeed a Microsoft apologist. This is not necessarily a bad thing, in and of itself, but as far as it goes, Stallman has him pegged.
As to the article itself, the reasons for the open-source community not to trust Microsoft are many and varied. The attacks they have repeatedly launched on the community are well-documented, with many more that were not actually launched but were known planned. They continue to espouse models which are antithetical to the OSS mindset, often with an eye toward undermining important infrastructure on which the community is built. Their actions speak a lot louder than their words.
Perhaps someday, Microsoft will prove to my satisfaction (and that of many others in the community) that they can be trusted. It could happen; the small overtures they have made are indeed steps in the right direction, and should be encouraged. But they have a very long way to go, and if de Icaza wants to gain any more traction in the community he is first going to have to accept that Microsoft is not in the position of an accused on trial; it is in the position of an ex-con trying to reintegrate. If de Icaza can start arguing from that position, he might find that he begins to hold more traction.
As a possible suggestion for a place to start, perhaps he could tell us of his own experiences with beginning to trust Microsoft. How did MS manage to win de Icaza's trust back in 2004?
The thing is, cellular networks were originally designed to be used by carphones, whose manufacturers had the good sense to set up as hands-free (and, in most cases, passenger-side) from the very beginning. Under those circumstances, the phones were quite safe.
It was not until the advent of handheld cell phones that the distracted-driving phenomenon became an issue, and even then probably only because the cell phone makers made the unfortunate mistake of relying on users' common sense to not use these devices while driving. Since common sense apparently cannot be relied upon, and the phenomenon has grown to the point of becoming a legitimate public-safety issue, some form of safety measure is needed.
Bottom line: if you are not calling emergency services, you do not need to use your cell phone while driving, ever. If some truly pressing need occurs, you still have three options: you can pull over, you can get a passenger to handle the call for you, or you can set your phone to hands-free and toss it into the passenger seat. Hang up and drive.
Honestly, I'd think that a technological solution would be better than a legislative one, though likely the two would have to do hand-in-hand. My first thought was a motion-based lockout: phones detect when they are moving at faster than 20MPH (the current world record for distance running being about 18MPH) and disconnecting existing calls and refusing to make new ones until they were moving more slowly than that again. The reason for my 20MPH limit is that the current world record for distance running is about 18MPH, and so allowing for some later room for growth, this still provides a reasonable point as which a person with a phone moving that fast must be in a vehicle. Unfortunately, the problems with this include passengers in cars and other vehicles: too many babies get thrown out with the bathwater.
However, what if a page were to be taken from the RFID industry: three RFID-like chips (not actually RFID, and probably not even unique) with a range of 1.5-2 feet, would be installed in three places: the floor under the driver's seat, the ceiling over the driver's seat, and the steering wheel. When a cell phone is about to make or receive a call it checks for the presence of this chip, and likewise periodically checks during conversations. If it detects the presence of a chip within range and the call is not to 911 or another emergency-services number, then it disconnects the call and disallows the sending of messages. No new calls may be made except to emergency services, nor may any text messages be sent, until the phone is out of range of the chips. Incoming calls and messages would silently be saved to voicemail and inbox, just as though the phone were off. Take the phone out of range, and they start showing up again.
The point to this would be to keep the phone away from the driver while still allowing passengers to make and receive calls. A hands-free phone could still be placed on the passenger seat and operated from there if needed, but there would be no practical way for the driver to reach the phone, which is the whole point of the exercise: hang up and drive.
Apple is off-base because they had a superior technology that was robust enough to at least be able to survive something as basic as a filename change. But it seems that, as has been typical for them over the last decade or so, they've gone with cheap-over-good yet again.
This is why I got off the wagon. If I'm not going to get anything better from a Mac than anything else, then I'll at least get my money's worth out of another system.
Pain serves a useful biological function: it allows living things to know when they have been injured.
Now, admittedly, cattle are not the brightest animals in the evolutionary tree. Nevertheless, they still know enough to stay away from things that hurt them. Removing the ability to do that can't possibly be good for their safety.
Forgive me if I'm wrong. I'm fairly sure I have at least a basic grasp of the idea of statistical sampling, as used to infer the traits of a large population using a smaller representative sample from that population. But don't you still need a sample size bigger than two to make inferences about all of humanity?
Should such anonymity-busting court rulings include a provision for penalties if the plaintiff does not follow through with legal action after outing their target?
I'm inclined to say yes. The blog was a clear attempt to defame the model, and the model could and should have pursued the case. Instead, they entered into a bad-faith legal proceeding, and this should carry penalties for not only wasting the court's time, but for causing anonymity to be broken without just cause. The blogger will no doubt face just consequences for her actions because of this -not through the legal system but through basic causality- and I have no sympathy for her personally. What I have a problem with is that the legal system was abused to make this happen, and that's just wrong. The model, too, should face consequences for involving the legal system in what could have been a justified case of restitution for wrong done, but was instead just petty vengeance.
Google is innocent. It followed proper procedures for dealing with a court order that it had no way of knowing was part of a bad-faith proceeding, and for disclosing to the blogger that this could happen.
I wonder: ozone is known to be created by electric discharges through the air, and a lot of these "new" atmospheric phenomena appear to be related to such discharges. Might this be some sort of failsafe mechanism that could repair a damaged ozone layer, somehow suppressed by a healthier ozone layer but re-emerging when damage occurs?
So it should be noted that a potential skew is that from the surveyed five thousand, Xbox users play their console more than Wii or PS3 users. While this certainly wouldn't explain the skewed percentages, it indicates the consoles are in higher use causing potentially more wear and tear.
One might indeed think this at first glance, but there's a problem with it. What actually fails most of the time on 360s -the cause of the infamous Red Ring of Death- is the graphics card, which isn't a moving part. Because of that, the concept of wear and tear doesn't apply to it, yet it fails before the wear and tear on the console's moving parts ever becomes a factor. Thus, while your statistic might be interesting if true, it isn't relevant.
The study was poorly done anyway, not so much because of the methods as the measurement used: lifetime failure rates, which will over time hit 100% on any console it's applied to. A more useful approach would have been to study how many consoles failed within specific time periods after purchase: 0-6 months, 7-12 months, 13-18 months, and so on. However, while this particular set of numbers is pretty meaningless, it doesn't change what we already knew: that the 360's failure rate is abysmally high.
So do they split into three parallel beams, thus covering a wider area than a single beam could along? And do they do the whole sinusoidal-oscillation thing if combined with a Wave Beam?
To be truly evil, someone must have sought to do harm by planning to commit some morally wrong action with no prompting from others (whether this person successfully executes his or her plan is beside the point). The evil person must have tried to carry out this plan with the hope of "causing considerable harm to others," Bringsjord says. Finally, "and most importantly," he adds, if this evil person were willing to analyze his or her reasons for wanting to commit this morally wrong action, these reasons would either prove to be incoherent, or they would reveal that the evil person knew he or she was doing something wrong and regarded the harm caused as a good thing.
This sounds to me more like cruelty, which is certainly a kind of evil, but by no means the only one. It's also more than a little cartoonish: this is someone who appears to do harm simply for the sake of causing harm (i.e. for the lulz?), rather than the more carefully rationalized evil seen as realistic today. How useful will that really turn out to be?
Even if the Slim materializes, I strongly believe that it will retail for the same price as the current PS3 (which may get a fire-sale price just to get rid of the things). Sony can't afford any other move with all the red ink they're bleeding; they need to start making money now, and a Slim can only provide them a profit if the cost savings from making it are not passed on to consumers.
I also doubt there will be any BC. While it would provide the PS3 with a source of good games -its own predecessors- Sony's own arrogance will block the move. They've spent too much time arguing that people don't want to play older games anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on. For three years now, people have known that uttering the words "Five hundred ninety-nine US Dollars" during the big unveil is a kiss of death. Did you really have to go and blow it like that?
Most TVs (or, more precisely, monitors) do indeed have built-in smoothing. The problem is, it's crap. Seriously, it's nothing like 2xSaI, not that the SaI family of algorithms would work anyway, because there's a fundamental problem with HD resolutions that runs much deeper.
480 content does not scale neatly to 720 or 1080, nor does 720 scale well to 1080, because the ratios between these resolutions do not lend themselves well to scaling. To be more specific, it increases by a ratio of 1:1.5 with each step, rather than a more sensible 1:2, and this throws off fine details. This isn't so much a problem when dealing with actual photography, where the eye is so overloaded with fine detail that it doesn't notice the problems with scaling. Games won't be at that stage for a long time, however, and especially with older games, where pixel-width lines and details were critical to many games' art styles, it's much more problematic. Even the simple problem of walking across a screen becomes a problem when the widths of the lines keep changing to accomodate the upscaling problem.
The cynic in me wonders if that's the reason these resolutions were chosen for HD in the first place: to limit the potential of scaling and therefore drive people to unnecessarily upgrade their content.
There's a lot people are bandying about that's off-base, no doubt. But IMHO, there's really only one off-base thing about the iSlate that matters: the assertion that it exists at all.
There will be no second coming of Newton, folks. It failed. So have pretty much all other tablet initiatives, of which the one we currently call "tablet computing" was not the first. They sound neat and shiny on paper, but they just aren't practical, and Apple -having tried it before, keep in mind- knows this.
You imply that church charity is abused.
You imply that it isn't. They all are, from time to time.
This assumes that the crime took place in Britain: a laughable proposal. It is true that the person doing the deed was in Britain at the time, but the damages were done on US soil. As others have mentioned, if you were to stand just on one side of your country's border and shoot into a neighboring country, killing someone on the other side, the crime would be said to have taken place there. Same story here: the damage was done on US soil, therefore the crime took place in the US. That the criminal happened to be in a different nation at the time is irrelevant.
Fixed that for you. Any perceived difference between lossless compression and correctly-done lossy compression is almost entirely due to the placebo effect.
Just like a browser is not the Internet, telnetd is not telnet.
As you say, telnetd -the daemon which lets you log in over telnet- is disabled on most machines, and for good reason. But this is not the only thing telnet can be used for. In fact, almost all standard Internet protocols -HTTP, NNTP, IRC, both POP and IMAP, SMTP, and so on- can be used through a telnet client, and this is by design: there's no way for the server to necessarily tell that you are using a telnet client as opposed to any other kind. This doesn't give you a shell login (though it may give you other kinds of logins, as defined by the protocol you're using) but it does let you use the protocols in the usual ways.
I could use telnet to access almost any Web server. Doing this is not necessarily convenient, but it makes for a great debugging tool. It can also, on occasion, be used for exploits in buggy servers.
The real problem is one of marketing. It's not just a complete failure to market -though frankly many third parties are failing to market their Wii games at all- but also that the few who do market are going about it the wrong way.
The Wii's market is largely driven by the blue ocean: new gamers who have not been subjected to the marketer-conditioning that makes veteran gamers believe graphics matter. It also contains veteran gamers who have recovered from such conditioning or who never succumbed to it. This means that you cannot market a game to them with shiny trailers and awesome screenshots, the way you do on the HD consoles, because the Wii audience doesn't care about graphics. What they want to know about a game is something that trailers and screenshots cannot tell them: is the game fun?
How do you market a game to such gamers? Nintendo hit the nail right on the head with its Wii _____ series, though given its failure to market its other games this way I have doubts that Nintendo actually knows what it has accomplished here. You take some of your focus off of the pretty pictures and put it on the player: on people having fun with the game. This is what impresses the Wii audience.
Does it work? Let's first look at the Wii _____ series, which is perhaps the most famous for this marketing style. Most of this generation's best-selling games are there, but let us examine Wii Music: the weakest game of the series, sales-wise. This game was reviled in the gaming press and released into an extremely hostile market, yet it still broke 2.5 million copies: a figure that surpasses even LittleBigPlanet, the biggest success of the "casual HD" market. For all that Wii Music had against it, it still made insane money, largely because of its marketing. Let us also consider Mario Kart Wii: one of the few games to be marketed this way despite not being in the Wii _____ series. It is one of only 20 games in history to break 15 million copies sold, and the only one from this generation that wasn't in the Wii _____ series. It far outstrips its own predecessors sales-wise, having successfully broken into the Wii's player base. Coincidence? I believe not.
So, then, how do you market other games on the Wii? It's simple, if not necessarily easy: convince the Wii audience that the game is fun by focusing on the player. Is it truly so hard for third-parties (and most of Nintendo's own dev teams) to do this? Can it really be that the people playing these games just aren't visibly having any fun? And if that's the case, then what does it say about the games themselves?
In order to make the comparison valid, they should have used the same codec throughout, be that Ogg or AAC+ or whatever they could settle on using. Bitrate is not an objective measure of quality: in fact, the only thing it measures objectively is file size. What makes one codec better than another is how low the bitrate can go while still sounding good. Because different codecs perform differently at the Bitrate Limbo, you need to use the same codec throughout a study, or at least test each codec at all the bitrates you're working with, in order to get a valid set of data to examine the differences.
There is no doubt in my mind that the concept here happens to be correct: that all but the most egregious differences in compression are imperceptible to most people, and that many of those who claim they can tell the difference are experiencing nothing more than the placebo effect. But this study does nothing to establish or disprove that assertion, because its methodology was fundamentally flawed.
Miguel de Icaza is indeed a Microsoft apologist. This is not necessarily a bad thing, in and of itself, but as far as it goes, Stallman has him pegged.
As to the article itself, the reasons for the open-source community not to trust Microsoft are many and varied. The attacks they have repeatedly launched on the community are well-documented, with many more that were not actually launched but were known planned. They continue to espouse models which are antithetical to the OSS mindset, often with an eye toward undermining important infrastructure on which the community is built. Their actions speak a lot louder than their words.
Perhaps someday, Microsoft will prove to my satisfaction (and that of many others in the community) that they can be trusted. It could happen; the small overtures they have made are indeed steps in the right direction, and should be encouraged. But they have a very long way to go, and if de Icaza wants to gain any more traction in the community he is first going to have to accept that Microsoft is not in the position of an accused on trial; it is in the position of an ex-con trying to reintegrate. If de Icaza can start arguing from that position, he might find that he begins to hold more traction.
As a possible suggestion for a place to start, perhaps he could tell us of his own experiences with beginning to trust Microsoft. How did MS manage to win de Icaza's trust back in 2004?
The thing is, cellular networks were originally designed to be used by carphones, whose manufacturers had the good sense to set up as hands-free (and, in most cases, passenger-side) from the very beginning. Under those circumstances, the phones were quite safe.
It was not until the advent of handheld cell phones that the distracted-driving phenomenon became an issue, and even then probably only because the cell phone makers made the unfortunate mistake of relying on users' common sense to not use these devices while driving. Since common sense apparently cannot be relied upon, and the phenomenon has grown to the point of becoming a legitimate public-safety issue, some form of safety measure is needed.
Bottom line: if you are not calling emergency services, you do not need to use your cell phone while driving, ever. If some truly pressing need occurs, you still have three options: you can pull over, you can get a passenger to handle the call for you, or you can set your phone to hands-free and toss it into the passenger seat. Hang up and drive.
Honestly, I'd think that a technological solution would be better than a legislative one, though likely the two would have to do hand-in-hand. My first thought was a motion-based lockout: phones detect when they are moving at faster than 20MPH (the current world record for distance running being about 18MPH) and disconnecting existing calls and refusing to make new ones until they were moving more slowly than that again. The reason for my 20MPH limit is that the current world record for distance running is about 18MPH, and so allowing for some later room for growth, this still provides a reasonable point as which a person with a phone moving that fast must be in a vehicle. Unfortunately, the problems with this include passengers in cars and other vehicles: too many babies get thrown out with the bathwater.
However, what if a page were to be taken from the RFID industry: three RFID-like chips (not actually RFID, and probably not even unique) with a range of 1.5-2 feet, would be installed in three places: the floor under the driver's seat, the ceiling over the driver's seat, and the steering wheel. When a cell phone is about to make or receive a call it checks for the presence of this chip, and likewise periodically checks during conversations. If it detects the presence of a chip within range and the call is not to 911 or another emergency-services number, then it disconnects the call and disallows the sending of messages. No new calls may be made except to emergency services, nor may any text messages be sent, until the phone is out of range of the chips. Incoming calls and messages would silently be saved to voicemail and inbox, just as though the phone were off. Take the phone out of range, and they start showing up again.
The point to this would be to keep the phone away from the driver while still allowing passengers to make and receive calls. A hands-free phone could still be placed on the passenger seat and operated from there if needed, but there would be no practical way for the driver to reach the phone, which is the whole point of the exercise: hang up and drive.
Apple is off-base because they had a superior technology that was robust enough to at least be able to survive something as basic as a filename change. But it seems that, as has been typical for them over the last decade or so, they've gone with cheap-over-good yet again.
This is why I got off the wagon. If I'm not going to get anything better from a Mac than anything else, then I'll at least get my money's worth out of another system.
Pain serves a useful biological function: it allows living things to know when they have been injured.
Now, admittedly, cattle are not the brightest animals in the evolutionary tree. Nevertheless, they still know enough to stay away from things that hurt them. Removing the ability to do that can't possibly be good for their safety.
Forgive me if I'm wrong. I'm fairly sure I have at least a basic grasp of the idea of statistical sampling, as used to infer the traits of a large population using a smaller representative sample from that population. But don't you still need a sample size bigger than two to make inferences about all of humanity?
Any sufficiently far-left philosophy is indistinguishable from a far-right philosophy.
The reverse is also true.
Dude, have you been reading too much timecube.com or something?
I'm inclined to say yes. The blog was a clear attempt to defame the model, and the model could and should have pursued the case. Instead, they entered into a bad-faith legal proceeding, and this should carry penalties for not only wasting the court's time, but for causing anonymity to be broken without just cause. The blogger will no doubt face just consequences for her actions because of this -not through the legal system but through basic causality- and I have no sympathy for her personally. What I have a problem with is that the legal system was abused to make this happen, and that's just wrong. The model, too, should face consequences for involving the legal system in what could have been a justified case of restitution for wrong done, but was instead just petty vengeance.
Google is innocent. It followed proper procedures for dealing with a court order that it had no way of knowing was part of a bad-faith proceeding, and for disclosing to the blogger that this could happen.
I wonder: ozone is known to be created by electric discharges through the air, and a lot of these "new" atmospheric phenomena appear to be related to such discharges. Might this be some sort of failsafe mechanism that could repair a damaged ozone layer, somehow suppressed by a healthier ozone layer but re-emerging when damage occurs?
So it should be noted that a potential skew is that from the surveyed five thousand, Xbox users play their console more than Wii or PS3 users. While this certainly wouldn't explain the skewed percentages, it indicates the consoles are in higher use causing potentially more wear and tear.
One might indeed think this at first glance, but there's a problem with it. What actually fails most of the time on 360s -the cause of the infamous Red Ring of Death- is the graphics card, which isn't a moving part. Because of that, the concept of wear and tear doesn't apply to it, yet it fails before the wear and tear on the console's moving parts ever becomes a factor. Thus, while your statistic might be interesting if true, it isn't relevant.
The study was poorly done anyway, not so much because of the methods as the measurement used: lifetime failure rates, which will over time hit 100% on any console it's applied to. A more useful approach would have been to study how many consoles failed within specific time periods after purchase: 0-6 months, 7-12 months, 13-18 months, and so on. However, while this particular set of numbers is pretty meaningless, it doesn't change what we already knew: that the 360's failure rate is abysmally high.
So do they split into three parallel beams, thus covering a wider area than a single beam could along? And do they do the whole sinusoidal-oscillation thing if combined with a Wave Beam?
Here's a hint: "Think of the Children!" is the new way to instantly lose political arguments.
From the article:
This sounds to me more like cruelty, which is certainly a kind of evil, but by no means the only one. It's also more than a little cartoonish: this is someone who appears to do harm simply for the sake of causing harm (i.e. for the lulz?), rather than the more carefully rationalized evil seen as realistic today. How useful will that really turn out to be?
The facet mains, there is is no prostitute for care full proof reading. /with apologies to Taylot Mali
Even if the Slim materializes, I strongly believe that it will retail for the same price as the current PS3 (which may get a fire-sale price just to get rid of the things). Sony can't afford any other move with all the red ink they're bleeding; they need to start making money now, and a Slim can only provide them a profit if the cost savings from making it are not passed on to consumers.
I also doubt there will be any BC. While it would provide the PS3 with a source of good games -its own predecessors- Sony's own arrogance will block the move. They've spent too much time arguing that people don't want to play older games anymore.