Easy: Start copying all your MP3's over night, and when you wake up, it's done. Is that bothersome? Then, when you rip/download a CD, you transfer that CD only to your device, which takes about two, three minutes. If you're too lazy for that, well, I can't help you.
"If you have played any games which require actual teamwork and are tired of straight up twitch deathmatch then this isn't for you."
Or, wait three months after UT2003 is released, and start downloading the dozens of team-based mods. Guaranteed to feature more levelse and inovations combined than any one single other game you buy. =)
As for the miracles of Jesus, I have to agree. I don't know enough about the other religions to know wether they have similar statements. But still, this doesn't make it true. People have eyewitness accounts of Elvis (after his presumed death) and UFO's as well. And I'm quite sure that you could find at least a few references in other religions to eye witness accounts of miracles. And if I remember correctly (which I probably don't) weren't all the eye witness accounts of Jesus life written down a couple of hundred years after he died? And Christianity hasn't always been a 'volunteer' religion, mind. Well, officially, it might have, but that doesn't exactly count. It's been about as 'volunteer' as the Romans, or the Greek, or the Mayans (AFAIK).
Ah, but this still doesn't prove anything. I mean, you can find the same thing in a lot of religions, such as the Romans, Mayan, Islamic and quite a bit of others. If all of these religions, including Christianity, point to a book as fact simply because people believed in it there and then, why is Christianity the religion I should believe in?
After all, the Egyptians thought that the Pharaoh was the son of the hawk god Horus, and they believed this while the Pharaoh was still alive. And guess what, they wrote this down in Holy Writings(TM)! So, should I believe in their religion as much as Christianity?
Well, in the case of Morrowind, the game was being simultaneously developed on both the XBox and PC. Admittedly, it demanded quite a bit from your PC, but on the other hand it didn't run all that smoothly on an XBox. Regarding GTA3. Yes, I'm compairing a port. And GTA3 _is_ a bad port. It uses a game engine that works on both platforms (Tony Hawk 3 for PS2, GameCube and PC uses the same graphics engine). Perhaps you have a point in not comparing the two on their respective platforms, but why not? I mean, most of the ports (aspecially when using the same engine) looks quite good both on different consoles and the PC. My point was, that games that can run on a PIII 500 MHz system flawlessly has about the same amount of polygons and textures on screen as a PS2 game. And this was my point, that while a console might blow away a PC with a few years behind it, it doesn't compare very well to a pretty decent system.
On the other hand, a one-year-old decent PC blows away all consoles. I mean, compare Morrowind on a pretty good PC (1.8 GHz, 256 MB RAM, GeForce3 etc) PC and XBox. you get the same graphics, but higher FPS on the PC. And you get to run it in resolutions higher than 640x480, without having to sacrifice FPS. Another example: The PS2 hit 'GTA3' was just released on PC, and games that were released a year ago on the PC shows better graphics in general.
OK, I'll just be thinking out loud here. Now, distributed PS3... Let's say that they actually do this. The machine would probably deal with every one else's games when I'm not playing, so it'll never be turned of or at least in some kind of semi-sleep mode. And then when I'm playing, there'll be other machines on the network that'll be used to render it. OK, fair enough. I mean, if my machine is just standing there over night, why not let someone else use it to enhance their gaming experience?
But what if, by some strange twist of Fate, there would be few (or at least not enough) PS3's available on the network. I suppose that Sony could then have huge "rendering farms" around the world, sort of how massive multiplayer online games work today: Some servers in Europe, some in Asia etc. If 'only' these were available, perhaps the games would "only" run in 30 fps, instead of 50 fps. Or perhaps the rendering distance in the game world would be a bit shorter, but never so short that it bothers gameplay.
Of course, I have no idea whatsoever how the actual data works in a console (or anything, for that matter) so I'm not so sure that it'd be able to send enough data to other clients and then recieve them back again. Perhaps one of/.'s programmers could fill me in on this?
Slashdot Mirror
Easy:
Start copying all your MP3's over night, and when you wake up, it's done. Is that bothersome?
Then, when you rip/download a CD, you transfer that CD only to your device, which takes about two, three minutes. If you're too lazy for that, well, I can't help you.
From their FAQ:
"Q:Can I move the locations of the keys?
A:Not on our initial models."
So it sounds like it just might show up in future releases.
"If you have played any games which require actual teamwork and are tired of straight up twitch deathmatch then this isn't for you."
Or, wait three months after UT2003 is released, and start downloading the dozens of team-based mods. Guaranteed to feature more levelse and inovations combined than any one single other game you buy. =)
As for the miracles of Jesus, I have to agree. I don't know enough about the other religions to know wether they have similar statements. But still, this doesn't make it true. People have eyewitness accounts of Elvis (after his presumed death) and UFO's as well. And I'm quite sure that you could find at least a few references in other religions to eye witness accounts of miracles.
And if I remember correctly (which I probably don't) weren't all the eye witness accounts of Jesus life written down a couple of hundred years after he died?
And Christianity hasn't always been a 'volunteer' religion, mind. Well, officially, it might have, but that doesn't exactly count. It's been about as 'volunteer' as the Romans, or the Greek, or the Mayans (AFAIK).
Ah, but this still doesn't prove anything. I mean, you can find the same thing in a lot of religions, such as the Romans, Mayan, Islamic and quite a bit of others.
If all of these religions, including Christianity, point to a book as fact simply because people believed in it there and then, why is Christianity the religion I should believe in?
After all, the Egyptians thought that the Pharaoh was the son of the hawk god Horus, and they believed this while the Pharaoh was still alive. And guess what, they wrote this down in Holy Writings(TM)! So, should I believe in their religion as much as Christianity?
Have you been reading too much Transmetropolitan again?
Ah, so your descision of computer purchase was decided because you didn't want to belong to a certain sub culture?
Here's at tip: Stop caring what other people think. You don't have to 'join' them, become one of them, you know.
Well, in the case of Morrowind, the game was being simultaneously developed on both the XBox and PC. Admittedly, it demanded quite a bit from your PC, but on the other hand it didn't run all that smoothly on an XBox.
Regarding GTA3. Yes, I'm compairing a port. And GTA3 _is_ a bad port. It uses a game engine that works on both platforms (Tony Hawk 3 for PS2, GameCube and PC uses the same graphics engine). Perhaps you have a point in not comparing the two on their respective platforms, but why not? I mean, most of the ports (aspecially when using the same engine) looks quite good both on different consoles and the PC.
My point was, that games that can run on a PIII 500 MHz system flawlessly has about the same amount of polygons and textures on screen as a PS2 game. And this was my point, that while a console might blow away a PC with a few years behind it, it doesn't compare very well to a pretty decent system.
On the other hand, a one-year-old decent PC blows away all consoles. I mean, compare Morrowind on a pretty good PC (1.8 GHz, 256 MB RAM, GeForce3 etc) PC and XBox. you get the same graphics, but higher FPS on the PC. And you get to run it in resolutions higher than 640x480, without having to sacrifice FPS.
Another example: The PS2 hit 'GTA3' was just released on PC, and games that were released a year ago on the PC shows better graphics in general.
First of all, please excuse the English.
/.'s programmers could fill me in on this?
OK, I'll just be thinking out loud here.
Now, distributed PS3... Let's say that they actually do this. The machine would probably deal with every one else's games when I'm not playing, so it'll never be turned of or at least in some kind of semi-sleep mode. And then when I'm playing, there'll be other machines on the network that'll be used to render it. OK, fair enough. I mean, if my machine is just standing there over night, why not let someone else use it to enhance their gaming experience?
But what if, by some strange twist of Fate, there would be few (or at least not enough) PS3's available on the network.
I suppose that Sony could then have huge "rendering farms" around the world, sort of how massive multiplayer online games work today: Some servers in Europe, some in Asia etc. If 'only' these were available, perhaps the games would "only" run in 30 fps, instead of 50 fps. Or perhaps the rendering distance in the game world would be a bit shorter, but never so short that it bothers gameplay.
Of course, I have no idea whatsoever how the actual data works in a console (or anything, for that matter) so I'm not so sure that it'd be able to send enough data to other clients and then recieve them back again. Perhaps one of
Again, please excuse the English.