Re:I think that M$ has Missed the Point
on
Microsoft Freon
·
· Score: 1
All very good points, but will the average consumer go for a 3 year cycle? It may please hard core gamers who like to stay on the bleeding edge, but the console market's bread and butter isn't the hardcore gamer, who probably stays on the bleeding edge with their PC on a 2 or 3 year product cycle that costs more, but the money conscious persons who want to play games, but can't afford to keep up with a PC. Ideally for the consumers, there wouldn't be any noticeable upgrade cycle, like with TV's and VCR's. I suspect that if M$ tries a three year strategy, what they'll do is alienate the mainstream consumers. One possible solution would be legacy compatibility, but that raises problems if they try to maintain it for more than one generation back. A three year with legacy might actually be feasible, but I have my reservations. For instance, a lot of the success of a console relies on the fact that each generation the graphics jump jump in quality, driving sales and user base; necessary ingredients in convincing developers to make games for you. I don't see M$ being able to make drastic enough leaps in graphics quality every 3 years to overcome their own inertia. Remember, the entire business strategy is to overcome the chicken and the egg problem: how do you get market share without games, and how do you convince developers to make games without market share? So far, M$ has done this with a pile of money. This strategy isn't really sustainable, though, and the console market traditionally relies on cheap hardware and graphical leaps (giving users a good reason to upgrade, if only for the wow factor).
I suppose it could succeed, but I'm still willing to bet that a serious user could get a better value and/or more performance from separate console and set top box. Just like the current consoles and DVD players. The PS2 DVD player is crap. The Panasonic Q (gamecube compat, Japan only), is just decent. The XBox DVD player, besides costing extra, is also definitely not top of the line.
BlackGriffen
Re:I think that M$ has Missed the Point
on
Microsoft Freon
·
· Score: 2
Luddite, huh? You, sir, are a troll. I never said that I was opposed to the idea, I said it wouldn't succeed. That would make me a nay-sayer, and a skeptic.
Let met put it to you this way, where has the combination TV VCR gone? Unless there is some financial or technological advantage of integrating two things with separate functions, attempting to strap a vacuum cleaner to the refrigerator does not make for a successful product just because you have integrated the functions of two devices.
Now go back to your cave, and try to come up with a better insult next time, troll.
France actually tried this. I believe it was during the revolution when they cooked up the metric system, they also cooked up a calendar system. I assume that it was metric (I haven't ever seen it), but it was the one bit of the metric system that flopped.
BlackGriffen
I think that M$ has Missed the Point
on
Microsoft Freon
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The entire point of the console market is as follows:
one: cheap two: uniform hardware (or as close to it as possible) three: a long upgrade cycle (about 5 years) four: sell hardware at a loss or paper thin margins to make money back on software
My guess is that this will turn out to be the jack of all trades, but master of none. If they sell this thing cheap enough to be a successful console, then they'll lose money for every set top boxer. If they sell it at a respectable profit, it won't be a successful console. Granted, they could simply make it X-Box compatible, but then anyone willing to spring for a set top will probably buy them separately to get better features, or taylor their setup to their own needs. Not to mention the households like mine that have a dedicated gaming TV (nothing spectacular, really) so that other people can watch movies et al whilst the gamers game.
I was just wondering if this ruling would apply in the general sense of antitrust violations. Obviously, IANAL, but I do have an imagination and can think of possible ramifications.
But then you seem to be the arrogant jag off type who can't see an honest question for what it is.
Will this apply outside of the telecom industry? Some of my favorite oranizations, RIAA, MPAA, and M$ could probably all be open to lawsuits if this ruling is as broad as I hope it is.
is that the beam travels in a straight line, the bullet does not. If the military is using them, then more power to them, but I'd bet they're only doing it at short range. Unless maybe they are the range finders? At any rate, for any appreciable range, you would have to tip the muzzle of the gun up so that the beam would completely miss the target. Unless, of course, they are adjusting the beam alignment in the field, but again this sounds far fetched.
Mozilla is at the core of NS nowadays, right? IIRC, AOL plans on replacing IE with NS as the default web browser (since, uh, they own it). That right there would catapult the NS/Mozilla user base in to the multi-millions, and possibly force web authors to use the actual standards.
have you seen the graphics on the GBA? It could easily handle almost any SNES game natively (screen size issues aside, that might cause problems with some games). I guess it would be like trying to port an application without access to the original source code.
Should people start lobbying the states/federal government to impose another penalty on M$: a boycott of Microsoft products? All the government agencies are big customers, after all, and hold enormous influence over the purchasing decisions of many other clients. Even if the states fail to get stiffer penalties, they could still hit Microsoft where it counts: right in the pocket book.
Does anyone else think we should start lobbying for this?
In this case, it's all about staying power (pun not intended), or stamina. The rabbit was quicker, but he got up to speed, got arrogant, and stopped. The tortoise just kept making progress until he won.
There is no way that Nintendo is going to let an exclusive property of theirs, made by a subsidiary (Retro isn't a second party any more, Nintendo holds a majority share now), to be published for another system when it poses a draw for gamers. These are good reasons to get a Cube, alongside Metroid:
Mario Sunshine Zelda Smash Bros. Melee Resident Evil 0 Eternal Darkness (and Too Human later) StarFox Adventures etc
It's old, it's cliche, it's the fable of the Tortoise and the Hair. In this case it doesn't matter who gets there first, what matters is who gets there and stays there. Remember Leif Ericson? First European in America (that we know of)? Columbus may not have stayed, but the conquistadores, and later the English and French, did.
There's no way, if Windows was open source, that people would be able to find the flaws for themselves and patch the code. After all, only a malicious hacker would want to look at Windows source code;), and only a fool would try to step through that labyrinth that would make Daudalus green with envy...
I disagree wholeheartedly. I understand them all, and I found them hilarious. It's the realization that you know enough to find them funny and, well, that you find them funny that is the real "you are a nerd" type revelation that can cut the ego.
"Nintendo continues to be somewhat wishy-washy on their online plans( if they plan on offering anything at all )"
Nintendo has pretty much announced their online plans already. IIRC, it is going to include release of the broadband adaptor and modem adaptor for $35 each. I'm not certain of this either, but the press release describing Nintendo's plan seems to imply that they will be letting the game developers use their (the developer's, that is) own server to run the games, royalty free. For more, check out sights like cube.ign.com and www.planetgamecube.com.
"As Einstein famously postulated, 'The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.'"
That's a completely different assumption than the one you mentioned (you mentioned E&M specifically, not all the laws of physics), and it isn't one that needs to be true. For instance, Newton's laws only hold for non-accelerating reference frames. Start considering linearly accelerating frames, or those god-awful rotating frames, and they have to be patched up. If the laws oh physics were completely different in different reference frames, then it would just be a matter of picking different frames, seeing how they differ, and try to figure out if there is some relationship between choice of frame and how the laws are varying. Note: Einsten actually set up any frame of reference as valid in general relativity; the laws of physics just need to be patched up a bit.
Without that assumption science does not become untenable. It simply means that physicists will have their work cut out for them as they try to figure out if there is a system behind the variance in the laws.
There is one thing I will grant you: scientists believe that their job isn't pointless (i.e. that there is some kind of order in this world). I think that the evidence in favor of this assumption is pretty good, wouldn't you? After all, if there wasn't any order, then it probably wouldn't be possible for us to even exist.
Oh, so what was Isaac Newton doing? It couldn't be science, by your definition, since his knowledge of E&M was at best the rudimentary "rub the rod, and hair stands on end."
Tell me, how do you know the electricity and magnetism exist? Taking the above as a postulate requires a lot of other postulates: Electromagnetic fields exist, there are particles that are tied to it, etc.
Science won't collapse if what you describe occurred. Scientists will simply have to change their assumptions. Consider, for instance, that before Newton came along, the sky was governed by a "divine force" and not gravity. Newton is the one who said, "Gravity works over long distances." We don't take these things on faith, though, we assume them because that is always how they have been. Does that mean that the "laws" of physics will always be constant? Heck no. Consider, for instance, the astronomers who claimed to have found evidence that the fine structure constant (involved in E&M) might have had a different value in the past. What effect would that have? None: the theory would simply change.
AFAIAC, you're putting the cart before the horse. I start from, "I exist, and my senses are basically accurate," and reach what you call a postulate as an empirical conclusion. You start a highly complex concept, and try to prove that, "I exist and my senses work."
I'm interested in hearing more about this since my quantum is fairly sketchy.
What exactly is causation? The best formulation I can come up with is that the state of the universe in one moment is related to the state in the previous moment. It turns out that this is only true on average. Ever hear of virtual particles? You can literally have mack-truck anti-mack-truck pairs appearing and disappearing on short enough time scales. The uncertainty principle requires it to be so, in fact. It just so happens that this "quantum foam" averages out over long times and large distances.
As for repeatability, the uncertainty principle screws that up, too. Consider double slit diffraction of an electron beam. Strictly speaking, if repeatability and particle theory are correct, then it should be just like pouring sand through a pair of slits. Strangely, it turns out that it's just like putting a wave through the slits. Even if only done one electron at a time, there will still be "bright spots" and "dim ones." Thus the experiment is only repeatable on the average over a large number of particles.
You're confusing "science" with "current theory." The one assumption a scientist makes is that what his senses are telling him is "basically" accurate. That is: an external reality that matters exists. Science is the process of refining the current theory so that it matches observations and measurements better and better; as well as making predictions using the theory to give us an idea about which experiments will bear fruit.
The assumption you mention is current theory that happens to fit current observations. When/if observations start contradicting this assumption, the model will be changed. Consider relativity: for a long time it was assumed that time was constant among reference frames. Einstein used the postulate you mentioned to derive a system where time was observer dependent (special relativity). It just so happens that his predictions bore fruit and now match up with a mountain of experimental evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
All very good points, but will the average consumer go for a 3 year cycle? It may please hard core gamers who like to stay on the bleeding edge, but the console market's bread and butter isn't the hardcore gamer, who probably stays on the bleeding edge with their PC on a 2 or 3 year product cycle that costs more, but the money conscious persons who want to play games, but can't afford to keep up with a PC. Ideally for the consumers, there wouldn't be any noticeable upgrade cycle, like with TV's and VCR's. I suspect that if M$ tries a three year strategy, what they'll do is alienate the mainstream consumers. One possible solution would be legacy compatibility, but that raises problems if they try to maintain it for more than one generation back. A three year with legacy might actually be feasible, but I have my reservations. For instance, a lot of the success of a console relies on the fact that each generation the graphics jump jump in quality, driving sales and user base; necessary ingredients in convincing developers to make games for you. I don't see M$ being able to make drastic enough leaps in graphics quality every 3 years to overcome their own inertia. Remember, the entire business strategy is to overcome the chicken and the egg problem: how do you get market share without games, and how do you convince developers to make games without market share? So far, M$ has done this with a pile of money. This strategy isn't really sustainable, though, and the console market traditionally relies on cheap hardware and graphical leaps (giving users a good reason to upgrade, if only for the wow factor).
I suppose it could succeed, but I'm still willing to bet that a serious user could get a better value and/or more performance from separate console and set top box. Just like the current consoles and DVD players. The PS2 DVD player is crap. The Panasonic Q (gamecube compat, Japan only), is just decent. The XBox DVD player, besides costing extra, is also definitely not top of the line.
BlackGriffen
Luddite, huh? You, sir, are a troll. I never said that I was opposed to the idea, I said it wouldn't succeed. That would make me a nay-sayer, and a skeptic.
Let met put it to you this way, where has the combination TV VCR gone? Unless there is some financial or technological advantage of integrating two things with separate functions, attempting to strap a vacuum cleaner to the refrigerator does not make for a successful product just because you have integrated the functions of two devices.
Now go back to your cave, and try to come up with a better insult next time, troll.
BlackGriffen
France actually tried this. I believe it was during the revolution when they cooked up the metric system, they also cooked up a calendar system. I assume that it was metric (I haven't ever seen it), but it was the one bit of the metric system that flopped.
BlackGriffen
The entire point of the console market is as follows:
one: cheap
two: uniform hardware (or as close to it as possible)
three: a long upgrade cycle (about 5 years)
four: sell hardware at a loss or paper thin margins to make money back on software
My guess is that this will turn out to be the jack of all trades, but master of none. If they sell this thing cheap enough to be a successful console, then they'll lose money for every set top boxer. If they sell it at a respectable profit, it won't be a successful console. Granted, they could simply make it X-Box compatible, but then anyone willing to spring for a set top will probably buy them separately to get better features, or taylor their setup to their own needs. Not to mention the households like mine that have a dedicated gaming TV (nothing spectacular, really) so that other people can watch movies et al whilst the gamers game.
BlackGriffen
"Will this apply outside the telecom industry?"
I was just wondering if this ruling would apply in the general sense of antitrust violations. Obviously, IANAL, but I do have an imagination and can think of possible ramifications.
But then you seem to be the arrogant jag off type who can't see an honest question for what it is.
BlackGriffen
Will this apply outside of the telecom industry? Some of my favorite oranizations, RIAA, MPAA, and M$ could probably all be open to lawsuits if this ruling is as broad as I hope it is.
BlackGriffen
is that the beam travels in a straight line, the bullet does not. If the military is using them, then more power to them, but I'd bet they're only doing it at short range. Unless maybe they are the range finders? At any rate, for any appreciable range, you would have to tip the muzzle of the gun up so that the beam would completely miss the target. Unless, of course, they are adjusting the beam alignment in the field, but again this sounds far fetched.
BlackGriffen
Mozilla is at the core of NS nowadays, right? IIRC, AOL plans on replacing IE with NS as the default web browser (since, uh, they own it). That right there would catapult the NS/Mozilla user base in to the multi-millions, and possibly force web authors to use the actual standards.
Who knows, maybe that's just wishful thinking.
BlackGriffen
have you seen the graphics on the GBA? It could easily handle almost any SNES game natively (screen size issues aside, that might cause problems with some games). I guess it would be like trying to port an application without access to the original source code.
BlackGriffen
Should people start lobbying the states/federal government to impose another penalty on M$: a boycott of Microsoft products? All the government agencies are big customers, after all, and hold enormous influence over the purchasing decisions of many other clients. Even if the states fail to get stiffer penalties, they could still hit Microsoft where it counts: right in the pocket book.
Does anyone else think we should start lobbying for this?
BlackGriffen
In this case, it's all about staying power (pun not intended), or stamina. The rabbit was quicker, but he got up to speed, got arrogant, and stopped. The tortoise just kept making progress until he won.
BlackGriffen
There is no way that Nintendo is going to let an exclusive property of theirs, made by a subsidiary (Retro isn't a second party any more, Nintendo holds a majority share now), to be published for another system when it poses a draw for gamers. These are good reasons to get a Cube, alongside Metroid:
Mario Sunshine
Zelda
Smash Bros. Melee
Resident Evil 0
Eternal Darkness (and Too Human later)
StarFox Adventures
etc
BlackGriffen
It's old, it's cliche, it's the fable of the Tortoise and the Hair. In this case it doesn't matter who gets there first, what matters is who gets there and stays there. Remember Leif Ericson? First European in America (that we know of)? Columbus may not have stayed, but the conquistadores, and later the English and French, did.
BlackGriffen
"I leave it was an exercise to the reader to show why Wolfram's supporters shouldn't rely on these points (although Wolfram himself apparently does)."
:D
Do you write textbooks?
BlackGriffen
"Well thought out review [kurzweilai.net]"
;)
What, the above review wasn't
BlackGriffen
That was one of my poor attempts at sarcasm. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough about it.
There's no way, if Windows was open source, that people would be able to find the flaws for themselves and patch the code. After all, only a malicious hacker would want to look at Windows source code ;), and only a fool would try to step through that labyrinth that would make Daudalus green with envy...
BlackGriffen
I disagree wholeheartedly. I understand them all, and I found them hilarious. It's the realization that you know enough to find them funny and, well, that you find them funny that is the real "you are a nerd" type revelation that can cut the ego.
BlackGriffen
"Nintendo continues to be somewhat wishy-washy on their online plans( if they plan on offering anything at all )"
.
Nintendo has pretty much announced their online plans already. IIRC, it is going to include release of the broadband adaptor and modem adaptor for $35 each. I'm not certain of this either, but the press release describing Nintendo's plan seems to imply that they will be letting the game developers use their (the developer's, that is) own server to run the games, royalty free. For more, check out sights like cube.ign.com and www.planetgamecube.com
BlackGriffen
Is it a complex vector space? Or do they insist on real numbers?
BlackGriffen
This is where you got me off on E&M:
"As Einstein famously postulated, 'The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference
for which the equations of mechanics hold good.'"
BlackGriffen
That's a completely different assumption than the one you mentioned (you mentioned E&M specifically, not all the laws of physics), and it isn't one that needs to be true. For instance, Newton's laws only hold for non-accelerating reference frames. Start considering linearly accelerating frames, or those god-awful rotating frames, and they have to be patched up. If the laws oh physics were completely different in different reference frames, then it would just be a matter of picking different frames, seeing how they differ, and try to figure out if there is some relationship between choice of frame and how the laws are varying. Note: Einsten actually set up any frame of reference as valid in general relativity; the laws of physics just need to be patched up a bit.
Without that assumption science does not become untenable. It simply means that physicists will have their work cut out for them as they try to figure out if there is a system behind the variance in the laws.
There is one thing I will grant you: scientists believe that their job isn't pointless (i.e. that there is some kind of order in this world). I think that the evidence in favor of this assumption is pretty good, wouldn't you? After all, if there wasn't any order, then it probably wouldn't be possible for us to even exist.
BlackGriffen
Oh, so what was Isaac Newton doing? It couldn't be science, by your definition, since his knowledge of E&M was at best the rudimentary "rub the rod, and hair stands on end."
Tell me, how do you know the electricity and magnetism exist? Taking the above as a postulate requires a lot of other postulates: Electromagnetic fields exist, there are particles that are tied to it, etc.
Science won't collapse if what you describe occurred. Scientists will simply have to change their assumptions. Consider, for instance, that before Newton came along, the sky was governed by a "divine force" and not gravity. Newton is the one who said, "Gravity works over long distances." We don't take these things on faith, though, we assume them because that is always how they have been. Does that mean that the "laws" of physics will always be constant? Heck no. Consider, for instance, the astronomers who claimed to have found evidence that the fine structure constant (involved in E&M) might have had a different value in the past. What effect would that have? None: the theory would simply change.
AFAIAC, you're putting the cart before the horse. I start from, "I exist, and my senses are basically accurate," and reach what you call a postulate as an empirical conclusion. You start a highly complex concept, and try to prove that, "I exist and my senses work."
BlackGriffen
What exactly is causation? The best formulation I can come up with is that the state of the universe in one moment is related to the state in the previous moment. It turns out that this is only true on average. Ever hear of virtual particles? You can literally have mack-truck anti-mack-truck pairs appearing and disappearing on short enough time scales. The uncertainty principle requires it to be so, in fact. It just so happens that this "quantum foam" averages out over long times and large distances.
As for repeatability, the uncertainty principle screws that up, too. Consider double slit diffraction of an electron beam. Strictly speaking, if repeatability and particle theory are correct, then it should be just like pouring sand through a pair of slits. Strangely, it turns out that it's just like putting a wave through the slits. Even if only done one electron at a time, there will still be "bright spots" and "dim ones." Thus the experiment is only repeatable on the average over a large number of particles.
BlackGriffen
You're confusing "science" with "current theory." The one assumption a scientist makes is that what his senses are telling him is "basically" accurate. That is: an external reality that matters exists. Science is the process of refining the current theory so that it matches observations and measurements better and better; as well as making predictions using the theory to give us an idea about which experiments will bear fruit.
The assumption you mention is current theory that happens to fit current observations. When/if observations start contradicting this assumption, the model will be changed. Consider relativity: for a long time it was assumed that time was constant among reference frames. Einstein used the postulate you mentioned to derive a system where time was observer dependent (special relativity). It just so happens that his predictions bore fruit and now match up with a mountain of experimental evidence.
BlackGriffen