The ones I don't understand, are the players who (A) pay 15$/month for something they'd rather skip, and (B) pay some more to get someone to skip it for them. Why? Why not just do something you actually like, instead of something you'd rather skip?
Overall, they like the game, a lot, but there are parts they don't like, so they skip it.
Don't get me wrong, if you're at least having fun, ok, keep paying for it. But if you'd actually pay RL money to skip 90% of the game, then I'll have to say he's right: then why are you playing it in the first place?
It's not 90%. If you could put a percentage on it I would estimate its 1% to 10%.
Then there is the obligatory question: 'Isn't acquiring those items supposed to be fun?' Well it's supposed to be, but it's usually repetitive, boring, and even frustrating. Don't forget that it's in the designers best interest to keep you playing as long as possible since they rely on monthly fees.
The question was very clear. He said *current* movies. He didn't ask when graphic cards would catch up to the movies.
Given that each frame in a pixar movie takes 5-6 hours to render on a single computer, to achieve a smooth 30fps means render time has to decrease by a factor of 0.5 million. If graphics continue to improve at a non-conservative rate of 100% per year, this means 19 years for PCs to reach today's movies.
Of course in this world anything more than 5 years out is too unpredictable to predit, so who knows! Definately not 5 years though =p
"The study also found that online radio stations had 53.5 million listeners this March, up from 45.3 million a year ago. Free streaming of music also saw gains, with a rise of 37 percent, to 46 million listeners."
What the heck is the difference? What kind of music streaming is there other than online radio". Are they talking about the 10 second clips from Amazon or the 30 second clips from iTunes?
I've thought the exact same thing (if I were to sell the computers) but it makes you wonder when virtually every manufacturer does the same. Maybe they are right?
Same here. I'm in Canada. When the web was new it was all ICQ, then a few years ago everyone shifted towards MSN. I keep Yahoo and AIM (through iChat though) open as well because I have a few contacts on there. BTW, iChat is just beautiful.
The article was supposed to be about the case for HD and the case against HD, but it spent most of its time talking about lack of (good) HD support on current generation hardware and software. What a waste of time.
The article also claims that mass market HD is 5 to 10 years away. 10 years???? I don't think so. Lots of companies in Japan are already working with Super HDTV (SHDTV) with 3840 x 2160 resolution.
The author doesn't even acknowledge the fact that developers can very simply support multiple resolutions so that it runs fast on standard TVs and runs beautifully on HD TVs.
I bought a Duron 650 for $80 CDN, overclocked it to 900Mhz using the standard "Chrome Orb" fan that everyone seems to have, and it never (and I do mean never ever) crashes. Windows 2000 of course.
Van
Slashdot Mirror
The ones I don't understand, are the players who (A) pay 15$/month for something they'd rather skip, and (B) pay some more to get someone to skip it for them. Why? Why not just do something you actually like, instead of something you'd rather skip?
Overall, they like the game, a lot, but there are parts they don't like, so they skip it.
Don't get me wrong, if you're at least having fun, ok, keep paying for it. But if you'd actually pay RL money to skip 90% of the game, then I'll have to say he's right: then why are you playing it in the first place?
It's not 90%. If you could put a percentage on it I would estimate its 1% to 10%.
You can't compare a movie to an MMORPG. A movie is two hours. The average MMORPG player spends 20 hours a week for years at at a time.
If you don't find it fun, and you need to be having fun to play, then why are you doing it?
That's easy. To get to the fun part!
Fun is definitely subjective but I think we can all agree that there are aspects that are more fun than others.
Then there is the obligatory question: 'Isn't acquiring those items supposed to be fun?' Well it's supposed to be, but it's usually repetitive, boring, and even frustrating. Don't forget that it's in the designers best interest to keep you playing as long as possible since they rely on monthly fees.
Being tangible isn't a requirement for having value. Very soon this market will be worth more than $1B per year. Seems quite valuable to me.
Spotlight alone was worth the price for me.
The question was very clear. He said *current* movies. He didn't ask when graphic cards would catch up to the movies.
Given that each frame in a pixar movie takes 5-6 hours to render on a single computer, to achieve a smooth 30fps means render time has to decrease by a factor of 0.5 million. If graphics continue to improve at a non-conservative rate of 100% per year, this means 19 years for PCs to reach today's movies.
Of course in this world anything more than 5 years out is too unpredictable to predit, so who knows! Definately not 5 years though =p
Movies weren't designed to be stopped every 20 minutes for commercial breaks. I can't stand watching movies on free TV.
So they are saying that there exist more people that pay for internet radio as opposed to not pay? I don't think that's possible.
From The Article:
"The study also found that online radio stations had 53.5 million listeners this March, up from 45.3 million a year ago. Free streaming of music also saw gains, with a rise of 37 percent, to 46 million listeners."
What the heck is the difference? What kind of music streaming is there other than online radio". Are they talking about the 10 second clips from Amazon or the 30 second clips from iTunes?
I've thought the exact same thing (if I were to sell the computers) but it makes you wonder when virtually every manufacturer does the same. Maybe they are right?
Same here. I'm in Canada. When the web was new it was all ICQ, then a few years ago everyone shifted towards MSN. I keep Yahoo and AIM (through iChat though) open as well because I have a few contacts on there. BTW, iChat is just beautiful.
Oops. Try this instead
http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=1&hl=en
As of a few months ago...
http://www.google.com/complete/search?hl=en
You are just trying to be argumentative. Clearly the parent meant that if you downloaded a copyright song without permission.
You are sick. Even if you believe for a second that the parent might be making it all up, just say nothing.
They could just buy something, review it, then return it within 30 days.
MD is very popular in Japan.
(if you think the Lord of the Rings gets made into movies without Star Wars coming first, you're kidding yourself. Peter Jackson says as much.)
Parent author would probably say that Lord of the Rings sucked too.
The article was supposed to be about the case for HD and the case against HD, but it spent most of its time talking about lack of (good) HD support on current generation hardware and software. What a waste of time.
The article also claims that mass market HD is 5 to 10 years away. 10 years???? I don't think so. Lots of companies in Japan are already working with Super HDTV (SHDTV) with 3840 x 2160 resolution.
The author doesn't even acknowledge the fact that developers can very simply support multiple resolutions so that it runs fast on standard TVs and runs beautifully on HD TVs.
American Football.
Sorry. Here you go... http://www.atechfabrication.com/products/heatsync_ 6000.htm
This is what you need to start out with...
n c_ 6000.htm
http://www.atechfabrication.com/products/heatsy
I bought a Duron 650 for $80 CDN, overclocked it to 900Mhz using the standard "Chrome Orb" fan that everyone seems to have, and it never (and I do mean never ever) crashes. Windows 2000 of course. Van