Diversity is way overstated. In America, if you go into an immigrant family's apartment, you're likely to see a PS2, a Dell computer, etc. Some people go to bars and drink with the good ol' boys, and some people go to coffee shops to blog, but there's not any crucial difference in what people want to do and buy.
The most crucial differences I have seen is what people in these groups are afraid of. Conservative Christians are afraid of Muslim terrorists and declining morality; young liberals worry about global warming; moderates worry about polarization; the underemployed worry about immigrants. I think it's important to understand that while the groups may find each others' fears unreasonable, all of these fears came about as a result of real concern that these problems would destroy the America that everyone basically wants.
It's hard for politics to be united since everyone wants government to solve problems, so it's natural to argue about our fears, but I think it's short-sighted to believe that this political split is indicative of a really fundamental split. We still have plenty in common, at least until the rising geek girl population leads to speciation, but that's another topic.
As for the statement that people are less and less willing to sacrifice for our country, I don't believe that's true. I do think that the political leaders on both sides have done a poor job of asking for sacrifices that the population is willing to make.
Yep, real good. I filled out that form months ago. No response.
You're accusing me of levelling a bunch of blame, which is nonsense. I subscribe to the service because I like it, and I'll continue to do so. I just feel that this is an area where improvement could be made. I filled out that form with a detailed and thoughtful description of the problem, which belies your assumption that I'm putting all the blame on Apple.
No, I don't know what's going on inside these companies, but nobody does. It's still a legitimate complaint, and it's frustrating because I don't believe there is any good reason why this is occuring. It'd be nice to see an explanation or solution from someone, and I do believe that Apple could provide at least a better explanation. Early on when some episodes were corrupted, they did a good job handling that, sending out an e-mail that at least informed us that they were aware of the problem and working on a solution (which was eventually offered). When episodes are very late, there isn't any indication that anyone has even noticed.
I don't think Apple is doing it on purpose, no, but I don't think they are trying hard enough. If you were going to sign a deal with Comedy Central to redistribute their shows, would you sign a deal that allowed Comedy Central to deliver the shows whenever it pleases? If Apple signed such a deal, then that was a mistake. They should at least be able to apply some pressure.
Anyway, your theory isn't very good. If they were trying to figure out how old the shows could be, we wouldn't see the bizarre and random schedule that I'm referring to. That is, Tuesday night's show will show up early Wednesday morning, and then Thursday's show will show up sometime on Saturday, and then Wednesday's show finally checks in two weeks later. This is not some kind of strategy; it's just flakiness, and it's the kind of thing that could be resolved in mere minutes with a phone call from the right people.
If nothing else I'd appreciate a simple contact on the Comedy Central side, so that I can at least complain to someone who can do something. Apple shouldn't be saying "gee, that problem with our service is someone else's problem. Sux2bU."
I'm talking about TV shows. The Daily Show obviously doesn't take months to process, because sometimes the episodes show up within hours of the air time, but other times they are very late. There seems to be no consistency in the process. People on BitTorrent can provide content from a TV show within minutes of its broadcast, and there's no technical reason Apple can't do the same.
Here's a complaint, while we're on the subject. Apple doesn't care about making episodes available ON TIME. It's not possible to plan an evening of iTunes-provided TV watching for a show, because there's no guarantee that any reasonably-recent episode will be made available at any particular time. I've seen episodes of shows that run on a daily schedule show up more than a week late, with no explanation.
Apple support will not respond to this issue, blaming "content providers", but it's Apple's store and Apple's responsibility.
Got a laugh out of that... I can imagine in how. "Oh, man, where did I put my nails? I've got the hammer here, but I can't find the nails! If I don't nail these batteries to the wall right away, I'll lose them for months!"
Maybe it doesn't make sense for organized people like yourself, but personally my problem with rechargables has always been figuring out where I left the charger, which has invariably moved by the time the batteries run dry. And by the time I locate the charger, I've forgotten where I put the discharged batteries.
Integrating the cell and the charger in a single unit has some advantages.
If you aren't well-versed enough on this issue to know that the taxes on blank media under discussion were created by governments, not business deals, and represent a completely unfair entitlement to content providers, then you seem a little unqualified to even discuss this issue.
Question: why are content providers entitled to special (that is, beyond the limits of traditional law) government enforcement for their DRM schemes?
I concur with the importance that you place on small groups when it comes to artistic endeavors, but that age is far from over -- it's just moved to the portable market. Pick up a DS and something like Trauma Center -- the game's technical complexity is about a tenth that of notepad.exe. Forget 3D as it doesn't even have moving backgrounds.
The DS is full of games like this, as was the GBA (the WarioWare games are a great example). The inherent hardware limitations along with the strong portable market preference for "fun" games is going to keep this creative streak going for a long time yet.
Well, to be fair, the bandwidth is probably minimal and, in cold seasons, the power consumption will just turn into heat and make itself slightly useful.
From the summary, it sounds like this will be something you can download if you want to, just like it is on the PC. I don't think people who don't run Folding@Home are often attacked for being horrible people who support cancer.
This is a lie. Stop repeating it. If anything is "just slightly improved", it's the $300 XBox which lacks the hard drive of the previous version and has only marginally better graphics and an anemic idea of backwards compatibility.
If you're opposed to swinging a controller around, the Wii is probably the wrong console for you, yes. If you watch videos of Wii games they are all very heavy on the controller-swinging. Zelda is unlikely to be any different, and all the demos shown have used the nunchuck's analog stick for movement. The Wiimote itself doesn't have an analog stick and the motion sensing probably doesn't make a good control for character movement.
If you look at the DS, there are some games that don't use the touchscreen and some games that don't require it, but many major titles require touchscreen use and offer no alternative. The Wii is going to be the same way, so don't expect to be able to escape the motion control.
Re:still supprised at the $250 price tag.
on
The Wii Takes NYC
·
· Score: 1
There is no wired Wiimote. The Wiimote has been wireless only from day one. Nobody has ever even suggested that a wired Wiimote would even exist.
Also, the Wii comes with wireless networking built-in. I don't think that's true of the XBox 360 Core. And don't forget that the Wii has backwards-compatibility which XBox Core does not.
Wii Sports doesn't cost anything to make, so it probably doesn't affect the price.
This is the launch price, but if you wait a while they'll probably drop to $200.
Re:Months Of Wii Hype Go Up In Flames
on
The Wii Takes NYC
·
· Score: 1
Massive backlashing on the NET? OMFG!!! We'd better call the army in to defend Nintendo headquarters!
Almost everyone was expecting a price in the 150 to 200 dollar range
Everyone stupid, maybe. Besides, not too many people were expecting a pack-in game.
The way this reads in the real world is on the top-left corner of USA Today's front page this morning. "Wii to launch at $250, half the price of the cheapest PS3."
Where are all of these 'innovative' games that are going to rock the console world?
Right now, they are on the Nintendo DS.
Re:A Big Thank You To All The "A 600 Dollar System
on
PS3 Problems Parried
·
· Score: 2, Informative
But if you are spending $500 in the first place, you must be doing so because you believe in Sony's vision of Blu-Ray and HD as the future even if it's more expensive than we've seen in the past. Once sold on the $500 system, the $600 one seems more future-proof with HDMI and a bigger hard drive. Sure, you can upgrade the $500 one in some ways, but you'll never get HDMI and the cost (and trouble) of the upgrade narrows the price difference anyway.
I think you're describing the plot of Cars. The plotline you set out can't be considered to fit any other Pixar film.
Also, I don't think it's realistic to consider the Cars characters to be one-word cultural stereotypes as all the characters turn out to have more to them (which was basically the plot). Though I must admit that the trailer for Ratatouille was the best part of Cars, your synopsis is a little unfair.
You make good points, but you have a slightly incomplete notion of compression and "lossless" formats.
Sound is an analog phenomenon by nature, and with a good microphone the amount of information we could extract, were we interested, is really incredible. Consider though that 6-channel, 96kHz, 24-bit digital encoding (for instance) is 1.7 megabytes per second. I am not even remotely kidding -- that's 13.824 megabit. A five-minute tune isn't 30MB, it's over 500MB. (We're sticking to SI units here, as is standard).
In digital recording, we're taking quantized samples of an analog phenomenon at regular intervals. This is inherently lossy compression. (Analog recording is inherently lossy also, but that's another issue).
If we want 30MB songs instead, we could use a very simple method of lossy compression -- we could throw away half the samples, two-thirds of the channels, and a third of the sample detail. Then we'd have CD-quality audio. Trouble is, this is very crude; we've thrown away useful detail, like the subtle, soulful sound of a sax, while keeping the same level of detail in silent passages or for simpler waveforms. We've cut the bitrate, but lost too much sound.
Another thing that we could do is use sophisticated mathematical algorithms to analyze the sound in detail and figure out which bits to throw away. We might have problems if our algorithm is poor and throws out something we want, but after years of refinement we've developed algorithms that are far better than simple bit-tossing. In all blind testing, this gives much better results; you may hate a 128kb/s MP3, but try listening to an 8-bit 11khz recording sometime (88kb/s... for mono!)
What we DO need to do is use higher bitrates. MP3 can be encoded pretty well, but nowadays there's no reason to cut the bitrate so much. If we used the bitrate of a CD (1.4 megabit) and our better "lossy" compression formats, we'd get way better sound than we get from a "lossless" regular CD.
Slashdot Mirror
Diversity is way overstated. In America, if you go into an immigrant family's apartment, you're likely to see a PS2, a Dell computer, etc. Some people go to bars and drink with the good ol' boys, and some people go to coffee shops to blog, but there's not any crucial difference in what people want to do and buy.
The most crucial differences I have seen is what people in these groups are afraid of. Conservative Christians are afraid of Muslim terrorists and declining morality; young liberals worry about global warming; moderates worry about polarization; the underemployed worry about immigrants. I think it's important to understand that while the groups may find each others' fears unreasonable, all of these fears came about as a result of real concern that these problems would destroy the America that everyone basically wants.
It's hard for politics to be united since everyone wants government to solve problems, so it's natural to argue about our fears, but I think it's short-sighted to believe that this political split is indicative of a really fundamental split. We still have plenty in common, at least until the rising geek girl population leads to speciation, but that's another topic.
As for the statement that people are less and less willing to sacrifice for our country, I don't believe that's true. I do think that the political leaders on both sides have done a poor job of asking for sacrifices that the population is willing to make.
Yep, real good. I filled out that form months ago. No response.
You're accusing me of levelling a bunch of blame, which is nonsense. I subscribe to the service because I like it, and I'll continue to do so. I just feel that this is an area where improvement could be made. I filled out that form with a detailed and thoughtful description of the problem, which belies your assumption that I'm putting all the blame on Apple.
No, I don't know what's going on inside these companies, but nobody does. It's still a legitimate complaint, and it's frustrating because I don't believe there is any good reason why this is occuring. It'd be nice to see an explanation or solution from someone, and I do believe that Apple could provide at least a better explanation. Early on when some episodes were corrupted, they did a good job handling that, sending out an e-mail that at least informed us that they were aware of the problem and working on a solution (which was eventually offered). When episodes are very late, there isn't any indication that anyone has even noticed.
I don't think Apple is doing it on purpose, no, but I don't think they are trying hard enough. If you were going to sign a deal with Comedy Central to redistribute their shows, would you sign a deal that allowed Comedy Central to deliver the shows whenever it pleases? If Apple signed such a deal, then that was a mistake. They should at least be able to apply some pressure.
Anyway, your theory isn't very good. If they were trying to figure out how old the shows could be, we wouldn't see the bizarre and random schedule that I'm referring to. That is, Tuesday night's show will show up early Wednesday morning, and then Thursday's show will show up sometime on Saturday, and then Wednesday's show finally checks in two weeks later. This is not some kind of strategy; it's just flakiness, and it's the kind of thing that could be resolved in mere minutes with a phone call from the right people.
If nothing else I'd appreciate a simple contact on the Comedy Central side, so that I can at least complain to someone who can do something. Apple shouldn't be saying "gee, that problem with our service is someone else's problem. Sux2bU."
I'm talking about TV shows. The Daily Show obviously doesn't take months to process, because sometimes the episodes show up within hours of the air time, but other times they are very late. There seems to be no consistency in the process. People on BitTorrent can provide content from a TV show within minutes of its broadcast, and there's no technical reason Apple can't do the same.
Here's a complaint, while we're on the subject. Apple doesn't care about making episodes available ON TIME. It's not possible to plan an evening of iTunes-provided TV watching for a show, because there's no guarantee that any reasonably-recent episode will be made available at any particular time. I've seen episodes of shows that run on a daily schedule show up more than a week late, with no explanation.
Apple support will not respond to this issue, blaming "content providers", but it's Apple's store and Apple's responsibility.
Got a laugh out of that... I can imagine in how. "Oh, man, where did I put my nails? I've got the hammer here, but I can't find the nails! If I don't nail these batteries to the wall right away, I'll lose them for months!"
Maybe it doesn't make sense for organized people like yourself, but personally my problem with rechargables has always been figuring out where I left the charger, which has invariably moved by the time the batteries run dry. And by the time I locate the charger, I've forgotten where I put the discharged batteries.
Integrating the cell and the charger in a single unit has some advantages.
Heck, Ebert gave three and a half stars to Episode One. The man has been a sucker for Star Wars from day one.
Yes. Interesting... and preposterous.
If you aren't well-versed enough on this issue to know that the taxes on blank media under discussion were created by governments, not business deals, and represent a completely unfair entitlement to content providers, then you seem a little unqualified to even discuss this issue.
Question: why are content providers entitled to special (that is, beyond the limits of traditional law) government enforcement for their DRM schemes?
Cry bias all you want, but Zune's lack of ability to play PlaysForSure content is completely preposterous. This is the absolute, objective truth.
I concur with the importance that you place on small groups when it comes to artistic endeavors, but that age is far from over -- it's just moved to the portable market. Pick up a DS and something like Trauma Center -- the game's technical complexity is about a tenth that of notepad.exe. Forget 3D as it doesn't even have moving backgrounds.
The DS is full of games like this, as was the GBA (the WarioWare games are a great example). The inherent hardware limitations along with the strong portable market preference for "fun" games is going to keep this creative streak going for a long time yet.
Well, to be fair, the bandwidth is probably minimal and, in cold seasons, the power consumption will just turn into heat and make itself slightly useful.
From the summary, it sounds like this will be something you can download if you want to, just like it is on the PC. I don't think people who don't run Folding@Home are often attacked for being horrible people who support cancer.
satellites don't use light for communication
I'm going to go with "yes they do" on this one.
something that is just slightly improved
This is a lie. Stop repeating it. If anything is "just slightly improved", it's the $300 XBox which lacks the hard drive of the previous version and has only marginally better graphics and an anemic idea of backwards compatibility.
If you're opposed to swinging a controller around, the Wii is probably the wrong console for you, yes. If you watch videos of Wii games they are all very heavy on the controller-swinging. Zelda is unlikely to be any different, and all the demos shown have used the nunchuck's analog stick for movement. The Wiimote itself doesn't have an analog stick and the motion sensing probably doesn't make a good control for character movement.
If you look at the DS, there are some games that don't use the touchscreen and some games that don't require it, but many major titles require touchscreen use and offer no alternative. The Wii is going to be the same way, so don't expect to be able to escape the motion control.
There is no wired Wiimote. The Wiimote has been wireless only from day one. Nobody has ever even suggested that a wired Wiimote would even exist.
Also, the Wii comes with wireless networking built-in. I don't think that's true of the XBox 360 Core. And don't forget that the Wii has backwards-compatibility which XBox Core does not.
You'd need the nunchuck for Zelda.
Wii Sports doesn't cost anything to make, so it probably doesn't affect the price.
This is the launch price, but if you wait a while they'll probably drop to $200.
Massive backlashing on the NET? OMFG!!! We'd better call the army in to defend Nintendo headquarters!
Almost everyone was expecting a price in the 150 to 200 dollar range
Everyone stupid, maybe. Besides, not too many people were expecting a pack-in game.
The way this reads in the real world is on the top-left corner of USA Today's front page this morning. "Wii to launch at $250, half the price of the cheapest PS3."
Where are all of these 'innovative' games that are going to rock the console world?
Right now, they are on the Nintendo DS.
But if you are spending $500 in the first place, you must be doing so because you believe in Sony's vision of Blu-Ray and HD as the future even if it's more expensive than we've seen in the past. Once sold on the $500 system, the $600 one seems more future-proof with HDMI and a bigger hard drive. Sure, you can upgrade the $500 one in some ways, but you'll never get HDMI and the cost (and trouble) of the upgrade narrows the price difference anyway.
I think you're describing the plot of Cars. The plotline you set out can't be considered to fit any other Pixar film.
Also, I don't think it's realistic to consider the Cars characters to be one-word cultural stereotypes as all the characters turn out to have more to them (which was basically the plot). Though I must admit that the trailer for Ratatouille was the best part of Cars, your synopsis is a little unfair.
You make good points, but you have a slightly incomplete notion of compression and "lossless" formats.
Sound is an analog phenomenon by nature, and with a good microphone the amount of information we could extract, were we interested, is really incredible. Consider though that 6-channel, 96kHz, 24-bit digital encoding (for instance) is 1.7 megabytes per second. I am not even remotely kidding -- that's 13.824 megabit. A five-minute tune isn't 30MB, it's over 500MB. (We're sticking to SI units here, as is standard).
In digital recording, we're taking quantized samples of an analog phenomenon at regular intervals. This is inherently lossy compression. (Analog recording is inherently lossy also, but that's another issue).
If we want 30MB songs instead, we could use a very simple method of lossy compression -- we could throw away half the samples, two-thirds of the channels, and a third of the sample detail. Then we'd have CD-quality audio. Trouble is, this is very crude; we've thrown away useful detail, like the subtle, soulful sound of a sax, while keeping the same level of detail in silent passages or for simpler waveforms. We've cut the bitrate, but lost too much sound.
Another thing that we could do is use sophisticated mathematical algorithms to analyze the sound in detail and figure out which bits to throw away. We might have problems if our algorithm is poor and throws out something we want, but after years of refinement we've developed algorithms that are far better than simple bit-tossing. In all blind testing, this gives much better results; you may hate a 128kb/s MP3, but try listening to an 8-bit 11khz recording sometime (88kb/s... for mono!)
What we DO need to do is use higher bitrates. MP3 can be encoded pretty well, but nowadays there's no reason to cut the bitrate so much. If we used the bitrate of a CD (1.4 megabit) and our better "lossy" compression formats, we'd get way better sound than we get from a "lossless" regular CD.
Nonsense. It sounds like the perfect way to play Punch-Out.
You're defending a vaporware console that "runs linux" by bringing up the Indrema? Perhaps this is irony, but I'm not a Qualified Ironist (IANAQI).