That's just pure boring. Isn't the whole point of such a car that you drive it yourself for your enjoyment?
I agree. I wouldn't want a driverless car myself.
But I would probably like everyone else to have one. That way, I could keep driving like a maniac while all the other cars get outta my way via their collision avoidance mechanisms.
If you can't manage that, at least bring scantily-clad women to the party... nobody expects them to answer questions about the device, and as a bonus, you'll get a lot of pictures of it.
Even in jest, can we not continue to perpetuate this as a good idea for tech expos. And people wonder why it's hard to get women interested in IT.
Perhaps we could increase the percentage of women interested in IT by having scantily clad men at the booths as well. This works on two fronts (or "y fronts" as I prefer to say) - it turns off some straight guys while attracting some women.
As an Australian, I always find it odd that so much emphasis is placed on these debates. Perhaps it's something that only someone that follows American politics can understand. From the outside it is presented that who-ever does the best stage-show is most likely to get votes.
This strikes me as a very 'consumer friendly' way to pick a politician, but perhaps not the best way to pick the best person for the job. Unless of course normal employment hiring practice in the USA is to stand up and debate the other candidates in all job interviews?
And there's the flaw with this comparison. Sony is not comparing the PSP Go to a DS. It's probably more in line with a ipod touch, if anything. The DS is what you buy your kids. The PSP Go is what you buy yourself.
It doesn't feel natural to me to use a mouse to control and fire a firearm, or a sword and besides, I sit at a chair and push a mouse around all day at work (and sometimes longer) --- it's not something I want to do for leisure.
And there we have it. The control mechanism needs to be suited to the game you're playing - so generally FPS games are most accurate with mouse & keyboard. Generally platformers work best with a joypad. I'd argue arcade driving games also work best with joypad. Driving simulators work best with a steering wheel with force-feedback.
Waggling some nintendo remote in mid-air doesn't feel natural to control a steering wheel either, and it's not accurate, nor realistic.
The problem isn't the controller, it's the game. Boom Blocks would be stupid with a keyboard or joypad, for example. A new control scheme requires the game producers to see it's value and design the game accordingly.
The argument, such as it is, is illustrated nicely here:
http://www.actsofgord.com/Proclamations/chapter0 2. html
Specific quote for you:
Unlike Sega and MS, Sony is an R&D hardware company. They make a lot of things. In designing up the PS2, they spent a lot of cash. Then they spent a hell of a lot more cash to build things like the chip foundries to
produce the chips for the PS2.
In the end before the first PS2 rolled off the production line for
consumers, Sony had spent $2 billion! TWO BILLION!
Then we look at Sony's stock report for Oct-Dec 2000, and there is an
interesting little blurb. It said that had Sony been able to meet demand
with another 1 million PS2 units, they would have pocketed $175 million in
profits. $175 million divided by one million consoles equals $175 per
console profit.
Now, that is a bit high. This assumed that average consumer continue to buy four games per console (so around $24 in royalties), and 2 accessories (about $30 in profit total). That reduces the $175 to about $120. Sony is making $120 profit per system.
Granted, they have to sell nearly 20 million PS2's to pay back the $2 billion
they already spent, but that shouldn't be a problem since they already
passed that.
TomsHW has had some interesting articles in the past - but I can't help feeling that the reviews have somehow lost perspective.
Am I the only one that thinks that the XBox will not be the success that MS would like it to be?
Cheaper than Sony? For how long? Sony probably owns the facilities to manufacture most of the PS[2]. So their costs are mainly in R&D. Any actual sales are profit. MS has to buy chipset from nvidia, gfx processor from nvidia, gawd knows what else from who. Are those rumours of losing money on each XBox true? Ever wonder what happened with Sega V PS?
And how many games producers will really develop for the XBox exclusively? So the choice is: develop a game for XBox, port to PS, port to PC, maybe port to gamecube(?). Or maybe I'll just cut costs and develop a game which shares the main code base with XBox and PC. Just add the frilly bits to suit each machine specifically. (Well, they both share directX and the fundamental instruction set). So by this argument, how many games will actually be produced to exploit the mythical XBox performance?
Cheap game box.. PS2 has my vote. I can't see Sony voluntarily losing the price war. Especially when they can afford to drop the price if they want to. (IM-uninformed-O)
Slashdot Mirror
That's just pure boring. Isn't the whole point of such a car that you drive it yourself for your enjoyment?
I agree. I wouldn't want a driverless car myself.
But I would probably like everyone else to have one. That way, I could keep driving like a maniac while all the other cars get outta my way via their collision avoidance mechanisms.
If you can't manage that, at least bring scantily-clad women to the party... nobody expects them to answer questions about the device, and as a bonus, you'll get a lot of pictures of it.
Even in jest, can we not continue to perpetuate this as a good idea for tech expos. And people wonder why it's hard to get women interested in IT.
Perhaps we could increase the percentage of women interested in IT by having scantily clad men at the booths as well. This works on two fronts (or "y fronts" as I prefer to say) - it turns off some straight guys while attracting some women.
As an Australian, I always find it odd that so much emphasis is placed on these debates. Perhaps it's something that only someone that follows American politics can understand. From the outside it is presented that who-ever does the best stage-show is most likely to get votes.
This strikes me as a very 'consumer friendly' way to pick a politician, but perhaps not the best way to pick the best person for the job. Unless of course normal employment hiring practice in the USA is to stand up and debate the other candidates in all job interviews?
And there's the flaw with this comparison. Sony is not comparing the PSP Go to a DS. It's probably more in line with a ipod touch, if anything.
The DS is what you buy your kids. The PSP Go is what you buy yourself.
It doesn't feel natural to me to use a mouse to control and fire a firearm, or a sword and besides, I sit at a chair and push a mouse around all day at work (and sometimes longer) --- it's not something I want to do for leisure.
And there we have it. The control mechanism needs to be suited to the game you're playing - so generally FPS games are most accurate with mouse & keyboard. Generally platformers work best with a joypad. I'd argue arcade driving games also work best with joypad. Driving simulators work best with a steering wheel with force-feedback.
Waggling some nintendo remote in mid-air doesn't feel natural to control a steering wheel either, and it's not accurate, nor realistic.
The problem isn't the controller, it's the game. Boom Blocks would be stupid with a keyboard or joypad, for example. A new control scheme requires the game producers to see it's value and design the game accordingly.
I bet the publishers feel like real boobs now
The argument, such as it is, is illustrated nicely here:0 2. html
http://www.actsofgord.com/Proclamations/chapter
Specific quote for you:
Unlike Sega and MS, Sony is an R&D hardware company. They make a lot of things. In designing up the PS2, they spent a lot of cash. Then they spent a hell of a lot more cash to build things like the chip foundries to
produce the chips for the PS2.
In the end before the first PS2 rolled off the production line for
consumers, Sony had spent $2 billion! TWO BILLION!
Then we look at Sony's stock report for Oct-Dec 2000, and there is an
interesting little blurb. It said that had Sony been able to meet demand
with another 1 million PS2 units, they would have pocketed $175 million in
profits. $175 million divided by one million consoles equals $175 per
console profit.
Now, that is a bit high. This assumed that average consumer continue to buy four games per console (so around $24 in royalties), and 2 accessories (about $30 in profit total). That reduces the $175 to about $120. Sony is making $120 profit per system.
Granted, they have to sell nearly 20 million PS2's to pay back the $2 billion
they already spent, but that shouldn't be a problem since they already
passed that.
TomsHW has had some interesting articles in the past - but I can't help feeling that the reviews have somehow lost perspective.
Am I the only one that thinks that the XBox will not be the success that MS would like it to be?
Cheaper than Sony? For how long? Sony probably owns the facilities to manufacture most of the PS[2]. So their costs are mainly in R&D. Any actual sales are profit. MS has to buy chipset from nvidia, gfx processor from nvidia, gawd knows what else from who. Are those rumours of losing money on each XBox true? Ever wonder what happened with Sega V PS?
And how many games producers will really develop for the XBox exclusively? So the choice is: develop a game for XBox, port to PS, port to PC, maybe port to gamecube(?). Or maybe I'll just cut costs and develop a game which shares the main code base with XBox and PC. Just add the frilly bits to suit each machine specifically. (Well, they both share directX and the fundamental instruction set). So by this argument, how many games will actually be produced to exploit the mythical XBox performance?
Cheap game box.. PS2 has my vote. I can't see Sony voluntarily losing the price war. Especially when they can afford to drop the price if they want to. (IM-uninformed-O)
Does this sound hypocrytical to anyone else?
/. critisise Opera for offering a free version of their browser because Opera want them to watch adverts in return.
Some people on
The same people are probably putting up with adverts at the top of the screen right now. I don't pay for slashdot. I get an advert.
Okay, so I can expend a little effort and try to blank out the ad. But the site is probably worth clicking on one occasionally. Ditto for Opera.