1. $700. That would buy a whole generation of core component upgrades (CPU/video card/RAM) 2. It uses small, noisy fans rather than larger, quiet ones like this case : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811103011 3. Having a sweet looking computer case isn't going to impress anyone any more than having a sweet comic book collection. Save the money for spending things on stuff that actually (theoretically) have a chance of getting you laid, like better clothes or a nicer car. 4. You could buy a vapor chill cooler instead and overclock like mad. This case won't give you any more performance than a standard case.
In short, $700? No Wi Fi? Less space than a server case? Lame.
I'm going to go out on a limb here by/. standards, and say that this is a very good idea that is a neat technical solution to a problem. Google's goal is simple : their core strength is that they are incredibly good at creating and hosting web applications. They have some of the most reliable and least expensive (per unit performance) data centers in the world, and they have some top notch coders that have created some amazing applications. The problem is that web applications have to run in web browsers, 20 or more layers of code away from the processor on the host. There's unbelievable performance slowdowns compared to a native application. Speeding up the browser would make many google applications more responsive and compelling, and google could care less whose browser it is. They are freely licensing the chrome code for inclusion in other browsers.
The problem with Chrome is twofold :
1. It's an unbelievably complex task to make a web browser work with every website. Mozilla and the Microsoft browser team have hundreds of developers that have worked for years on their browsers.
I'm going to go out on a limb here by/. standards, and say that this is a very good idea that is a neat technical solution to a problem. Google's goal is simple : their core strength is that they are incredibly good at creating and hosting web applications. They have some of the most reliable and least expensive (per unit performance) data centers in the world, and they have some top notch coders that have created some amazing applications. The problem is that web applications have to run in web browsers, 20 or more layers of code away from the processor on the host. There's unbelievable performance slowdowns compared to a native application. Speeding up the browser would make many google applications more responsive and compelling, and google could care less whose browser it is. They are freely licensing the chrome code for inclusion in other browsers.
The problem with Chrome is twofold :
1. It's an unbelievably complex task to make a web browser work with every website. Mozilla and the Microsoft browser team have hundreds of developers that have worked for years on their browsers.
2. It's very difficult (and expensive) to get people to change browser. Microsoft wins by default most of the time.
This browser plug-in solves both problems. Now, only websites that the developer knows will render properly in chrome will call on the plug-in. Users will continue to use IE8, oblivious to the fact that some websites are actually being displayed using the chrome browser engine. Google applications will of course all properly render in chrome, and they will be set up to encourage you to download the plugin if you're running internet explorer. Some google apps may even require it, much like you need flash to see youtube videos.
The only problem with the approach is overhead : obviously keeping multiple browser rendering engines running at the same time will eat up a hundred extra megabytes of memory or so. You know, about $3 worth of DRAM.
I haven't gotten any eyestrain or headaches. Have you considered that the distance you sit from the displays affects how many RGB elements your eyes have to saccade over? I mean, ultimately you could have a very small, high resoltion display you sat very close to, or a huge display you sat far away from. I used to use a 52" HDTV as my computer monitor (was at 1920x1080 resolution, and it worked pretty well. I felt like I had plenty of screen space). I didn't get eyestrain from the text being huge - and if I had, I could have sat farther away from the display to eliminate the problem. From the perspective, the only thing that matters is total number of pixels.
I have thought about paying another grand and upgrading to a pair of 30"s like you have. Problem is, my desk is already dominated by these 27"s...30's could fit, but it would be more ridiculous than it already is. In addition, while I have lots of toolbars open at a time, I really don't have a problem fitting everything I am working on onto the screens I already have. I don't see a marginal improvement in workflow with bigger displays - I get the most work done if I focus on one task at a time anyways, and 4 megapixels of total screen area is plenty for that.
The one advantage of 30"s I have heard about is that for some weird reason the panel type for those monster displays is the best available.
This is a neat innovation : tying gaming and exercise together, with rewards in game dependent on how hard you exercise. There's a couple of problems, though : for it to work well, you need good ($$) exercise equipment tied to sensors and properly calibrated for the game ($$$). Second, multiplayer games won't be fair unless all of the players are required to exercise to make things happen in the game. Cheating would be a big problem for home users.
So I'm envisioning a combo video arcade/health club. There would be lots of exercises you could do, on equipment that is tied to games. From hitting up the machine bench press to bikes and treadmills. Hypersonic speakers and big flat panel displays would be used, and players would be issued their own personal (brand new from a box) controller for the games. (Hypersonic speakers create cones of sound that are completely inaudible outside the cone, so you could have a separate sound over each one. The health clubs would be a franchise, and you would be playing on servers that are restricted to club players. The system would somehow measure your level of exertion (by heart rate perhaps? Or a profile created by a trainer) and would properly scale the required minimum effort to make certain things happen in game.
Making it work would be tough, of course. The chief problem is that a club like this would be pretty expensive and complicated to operate, and would have to charge fairly high fees as a result. That in turn would limit the market. Furthermore, there's a network effect : the more clubs that existed, the bigger the playerbase, and so it would be very difficult to get started.
This system, if it's real, is a massive security flaw. Look at how it works. Normally, if you want to lock up nuclear weapons, you need to have the weapons dependent on secret codes, with one copy stored at the authority capable of authorizing a launch (a very limited list of people) and the other copy should be stored inside either a microcontroller inside the warhead itself or inside computers buried in an armored silo. Either way, it's very important to prevent physical access - that's why missile silos have elaborate security systems, and all of the information on how they work is kept a secret. Yes, security through obscurity DOES work as a strategy if your computer system is so obscure almost no ones knows about it. It doesn't work as a strategy if your "obscure" security method is contained in a win32 binary that is publicly distributed.
Anyways, for "perimeter" to work, once the system sends out an arming signal, the codes for launching the missiles has to be distributed over a much larger number of machines. Further, the absence of signals from a machine higher up arm the missiles - basically a negative rather than a positive safety interlock system. Very poor design.
Of course, I've read about a U.S. system where there is a UHF radio antenna on certain missile silos, and if communication is cut to that silo, the antenna becomes active. A RADIO FREQUENCY CODE can now arm the missiles. That's fcking stupid - what if the ancient computer that reads the codes has some kind of buffer overflow bug in it's 30 year old firmware?
The man's 60, and the clock is ticking. The number of good years he has left could be 10 or 20, or it could be 1. If you could do anything you wanted, but were sure to die in a decade or two, would you really spend time programming computers? Programming can be fun, but there's more interesting things to do in life.
WiMAX will be great for mobile devices, where a bit of latency or a dropped connection is better than no internet at all. But does anyone seriously think it'll be replacing the hard line?
The nice thing about using wires or optical fiber is that the signals don't get crossed and it tends to work much more consistently much more of the time.
There are a finite number of atoms in our solar system. Getting much more mass than what is already here will be incredibly difficult (unless wormholes are possible). So some day technology will be advanced to where every atom needs to be in the right place doing the right thing.
Some day, when technology has advanced to the point of optimizing machines to use every last atom to maximum efficiency, tricks like this will be neat.
Thing is, our post-singularity successors won't be amused by this "two atom" claim - you have to use up lots of atoms to hold everything in place and create the conditions necessary. If the "lattice" weren't there, the atoms wouldn't act like a motor. The fields from the lattice atoms are what create the necessary conditions.
Interesting part in the article : the programming team only has slightly over 30 developers. The QA department has 6 times that. One would think that a product so complex would need more coders.
" These close-in attacks cause copious amounts of blood spray and splatter, decapitations and limb dismemberment as well as locational damage where contact is made to the enemy which may reveal skeletal bits and gore."
Sounds like a pretty convincing advertisement for the game! Darn astroturfers....
Seriously, the game is sold on Steam. Will steam sell you the game and let you play online if you have an australian IP address? Do they have to block you from purchasing it or not?
Fact is, it's almost impossible to get an amendment. If you study your history class, you'll notice that big problems could go on for decades before an amendment was passed. It's both a bug and a feature.
Fact is, regeneration of brain cells is very, very, very, very limited. In the case of severe brain injuries, it basically doesn't happen. (the reason recovery is possible is due to rerouting around the damage by cannibalizing existing cells). This depressing fact has been well known to neurologists and neurosurgeons for at least 50 years. Now, as it may turn out, there actually IS a little bit of regeneration. That doesn't change the fact that even if it happens a little bit, for all practical purposes brain damage is still permanent.
That device isn't sophisticated enough to detect arrhythmias. It's heart rate, that's it. And if your child DOES have heart problems, sooner or later he or she will need to see a physician, who will be sure to inform the insurance company of the condition. What I am getting at is that there's no hiding from big brother anyways, so you might as well not worry about the minor infringements of privacy.
Which is rather smart on behalf of Finland. The middle and upper class of the country might gripe at the higher taxes, but what's really important? Letting the wealthier folks blow their money on SUVs and oversized houses or making sure their people don't become drowned by a flood of immigrants.
The plural of anecdote is not data. Just because you are not willing to pay lots of money for a game with high end graphics doesn't mean that the majority of consumers share the same tastes as you.
People spend money on games with better graphics. End of message. It's not for you to decide what people want, it's consumers, and they want games that look more realistic and detailed and immersive. No one is happy with even the current state of the art.
The current economic model for games means that there's a few huge winners, and a lot of games that ultimately lose money. In this environment, the selective pressure is massively against smaller independent studios. A small studio has to publish a hit every time, and this is becoming nearly impossible to do because of the expense involved in making a game with modern graphics. There's only a few success stories, and many failures. EA, on the other hand, can cash in on it's big hits and can afford to finance a variety of game projects, some of which will fail. Still, they want to make money : so EA game projects are going to be lower risk sequels whenever practical.
It's basic economics that created EA and gave it all it's power. We can hate them for what they are, but that doesn't change anything.
I deliberately bought 27" screens for that very reason. I don't consider having dual 1920x1200 displays a ripoff:P. More importantly, the larger physical size of the display versus a smaller number of pixels means that text is by default LARGER and more readable, which is a good thing.
On the other hand, services like GiaKai or OnLive can support old systems via the cloud. The video shows them playing the N64 version of Mario Kart (probably emulated, but still).
If a game needs Windows 95 to run, then GaiKai can run the game in a virtual machine that uses Win 95 or have some of the machines imaged to run a specific OS version. That will be part of the deal : once game developers are ONLY developing for these services, they'll agree on a contract to where their games will be run on a certain minimum spec of hardware and the machines will be imaged with a specific version of an OS that will never be changed or updated. (you protect the machines running the games on an old OS via a firewall or another server that is secure that passes the control commands to the machines running the games)
Err, when I say "sales" I meant total revenue ($$$)
And it's irrelevent to my point, my point was that games aren't totally unique...within a genre there are several nearly interchangable games that most people play, and therefore price competition. Sort of.
Slashdot Mirror
That was a riff on the :
No wi fi? Less space than a Nomad? Lame.
Joke that is floating around on slashdot.
Why this case is a bad idea :
1. $700. That would buy a whole generation of core component upgrades (CPU/video card/RAM)
2. It uses small, noisy fans rather than larger, quiet ones like this case : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811103011
3. Having a sweet looking computer case isn't going to impress anyone any more than having a sweet comic book collection. Save the money for spending things on stuff that actually (theoretically) have a chance of getting you laid, like better clothes or a nicer car.
4. You could buy a vapor chill cooler instead and overclock like mad. This case won't give you any more performance than a standard case.
In short, $700? No Wi Fi? Less space than a server case? Lame.
I'm going to go out on a limb here by /. standards, and say that this is a very good idea that is a neat technical solution to a problem. Google's goal is simple : their core strength is that they are incredibly good at creating and hosting web applications. They have some of the most reliable and least expensive (per unit performance) data centers in the world, and they have some top notch coders that have created some amazing applications. The problem is that web applications have to run in web browsers, 20 or more layers of code away from the processor on the host. There's unbelievable performance slowdowns compared to a native application. Speeding up the browser would make many google applications more responsive and compelling, and google could care less whose browser it is. They are freely licensing the chrome code for inclusion in other browsers.
The problem with Chrome is twofold :
1. It's an unbelievably complex task to make a web browser work with every website. Mozilla and the Microsoft browser team have hundreds of developers that have worked for years on their browsers.
I'm going to go out on a limb here by /. standards, and say that this is a very good idea that is a neat technical solution to a problem. Google's goal is simple : their core strength is that they are incredibly good at creating and hosting web applications. They have some of the most reliable and least expensive (per unit performance) data centers in the world, and they have some top notch coders that have created some amazing applications. The problem is that web applications have to run in web browsers, 20 or more layers of code away from the processor on the host. There's unbelievable performance slowdowns compared to a native application. Speeding up the browser would make many google applications more responsive and compelling, and google could care less whose browser it is. They are freely licensing the chrome code for inclusion in other browsers.
The problem with Chrome is twofold :
1. It's an unbelievably complex task to make a web browser work with every website. Mozilla and the Microsoft browser team have hundreds of developers that have worked for years on their browsers.
2. It's very difficult (and expensive) to get people to change browser. Microsoft wins by default most of the time.
This browser plug-in solves both problems. Now, only websites that the developer knows will render properly in chrome will call on the plug-in. Users will continue to use IE8, oblivious to the fact that some websites are actually being displayed using the chrome browser engine. Google applications will of course all properly render in chrome, and they will be set up to encourage you to download the plugin if you're running internet explorer. Some google apps may even require it, much like you need flash to see youtube videos.
The only problem with the approach is overhead : obviously keeping multiple browser rendering engines running at the same time will eat up a hundred extra megabytes of memory or so. You know, about $3 worth of DRAM.
Note that in the article the screens are OLEDs. Those don't have viewing angle problems at all, unlike LCDs.
I haven't gotten any eyestrain or headaches. Have you considered that the distance you sit from the displays affects how many RGB elements your eyes have to saccade over? I mean, ultimately you could have a very small, high resoltion display you sat very close to, or a huge display you sat far away from. I used to use a 52" HDTV as my computer monitor (was at 1920x1080 resolution, and it worked pretty well. I felt like I had plenty of screen space). I didn't get eyestrain from the text being huge - and if I had, I could have sat farther away from the display to eliminate the problem. From the perspective, the only thing that matters is total number of pixels.
I have thought about paying another grand and upgrading to a pair of 30"s like you have. Problem is, my desk is already dominated by these 27"s...30's could fit, but it would be more ridiculous than it already is. In addition, while I have lots of toolbars open at a time, I really don't have a problem fitting everything I am working on onto the screens I already have. I don't see a marginal improvement in workflow with bigger displays - I get the most work done if I focus on one task at a time anyways, and 4 megapixels of total screen area is plenty for that.
The one advantage of 30"s I have heard about is that for some weird reason the panel type for those monster displays is the best available.
This is a neat innovation : tying gaming and exercise together, with rewards in game dependent on how hard you exercise. There's a couple of problems, though : for it to work well, you need good ($$) exercise equipment tied to sensors and properly calibrated for the game ($$$). Second, multiplayer games won't be fair unless all of the players are required to exercise to make things happen in the game. Cheating would be a big problem for home users.
So I'm envisioning a combo video arcade/health club. There would be lots of exercises you could do, on equipment that is tied to games. From hitting up the machine bench press to bikes and treadmills. Hypersonic speakers and big flat panel displays would be used, and players would be issued their own personal (brand new from a box) controller for the games. (Hypersonic speakers create cones of sound that are completely inaudible outside the cone, so you could have a separate sound over each one. The health clubs would be a franchise, and you would be playing on servers that are restricted to club players. The system would somehow measure your level of exertion (by heart rate perhaps? Or a profile created by a trainer) and would properly scale the required minimum effort to make certain things happen in game.
Making it work would be tough, of course. The chief problem is that a club like this would be pretty expensive and complicated to operate, and would have to charge fairly high fees as a result. That in turn would limit the market. Furthermore, there's a network effect : the more clubs that existed, the bigger the playerbase, and so it would be very difficult to get started.
This system, if it's real, is a massive security flaw. Look at how it works. Normally, if you want to lock up nuclear weapons, you need to have the weapons dependent on secret codes, with one copy stored at the authority capable of authorizing a launch (a very limited list of people) and the other copy should be stored inside either a microcontroller inside the warhead itself or inside computers buried in an armored silo. Either way, it's very important to prevent physical access - that's why missile silos have elaborate security systems, and all of the information on how they work is kept a secret. Yes, security through obscurity DOES work as a strategy if your computer system is so obscure almost no ones knows about it. It doesn't work as a strategy if your "obscure" security method is contained in a win32 binary that is publicly distributed.
Anyways, for "perimeter" to work, once the system sends out an arming signal, the codes for launching the missiles has to be distributed over a much larger number of machines. Further, the absence of signals from a machine higher up arm the missiles - basically a negative rather than a positive safety interlock system. Very poor design.
Of course, I've read about a U.S. system where there is a UHF radio antenna on certain missile silos, and if communication is cut to that silo, the antenna becomes active. A RADIO FREQUENCY CODE can now arm the missiles. That's fcking stupid - what if the ancient computer that reads the codes has some kind of buffer overflow bug in it's 30 year old firmware?
The man's 60, and the clock is ticking. The number of good years he has left could be 10 or 20, or it could be 1. If you could do anything you wanted, but were sure to die in a decade or two, would you really spend time programming computers? Programming can be fun, but there's more interesting things to do in life.
WiMAX will be great for mobile devices, where a bit of latency or a dropped connection is better than no internet at all. But does anyone seriously think it'll be replacing the hard line? The nice thing about using wires or optical fiber is that the signals don't get crossed and it tends to work much more consistently much more of the time.
There are a finite number of atoms in our solar system. Getting much more mass than what is already here will be incredibly difficult (unless wormholes are possible). So some day technology will be advanced to where every atom needs to be in the right place doing the right thing.
Some day, when technology has advanced to the point of optimizing machines to use every last atom to maximum efficiency, tricks like this will be neat.
Thing is, our post-singularity successors won't be amused by this "two atom" claim - you have to use up lots of atoms to hold everything in place and create the conditions necessary. If the "lattice" weren't there, the atoms wouldn't act like a motor. The fields from the lattice atoms are what create the necessary conditions.
Interesting part in the article : the programming team only has slightly over 30 developers. The QA department has 6 times that. One would think that a product so complex would need more coders.
" These close-in attacks cause copious amounts of blood spray and splatter, decapitations and limb dismemberment as well as locational damage where contact is made to the enemy which may reveal skeletal bits and gore."
Sounds like a pretty convincing advertisement for the game! Darn astroturfers....
Seriously, the game is sold on Steam. Will steam sell you the game and let you play online if you have an australian IP address? Do they have to block you from purchasing it or not?
Fact is, it's almost impossible to get an amendment. If you study your history class, you'll notice that big problems could go on for decades before an amendment was passed. It's both a bug and a feature.
But compact fluorescents cost $2, save almost as much power/year, and last about 10 years. They are the most cost effective.
Fact is, regeneration of brain cells is very, very, very, very limited. In the case of severe brain injuries, it basically doesn't happen. (the reason recovery is possible is due to rerouting around the damage by cannibalizing existing cells). This depressing fact has been well known to neurologists and neurosurgeons for at least 50 years. Now, as it may turn out, there actually IS a little bit of regeneration. That doesn't change the fact that even if it happens a little bit, for all practical purposes brain damage is still permanent.
That device isn't sophisticated enough to detect arrhythmias. It's heart rate, that's it. And if your child DOES have heart problems, sooner or later he or she will need to see a physician, who will be sure to inform the insurance company of the condition. What I am getting at is that there's no hiding from big brother anyways, so you might as well not worry about the minor infringements of privacy.
Which is rather smart on behalf of Finland. The middle and upper class of the country might gripe at the higher taxes, but what's really important? Letting the wealthier folks blow their money on SUVs and oversized houses or making sure their people don't become drowned by a flood of immigrants.
The plural of anecdote is not data. Just because you are not willing to pay lots of money for a game with high end graphics doesn't mean that the majority of consumers share the same tastes as you.
People spend money on games with better graphics. End of message. It's not for you to decide what people want, it's consumers, and they want games that look more realistic and detailed and immersive. No one is happy with even the current state of the art.
The current economic model for games means that there's a few huge winners, and a lot of games that ultimately lose money. In this environment, the selective pressure is massively against smaller independent studios. A small studio has to publish a hit every time, and this is becoming nearly impossible to do because of the expense involved in making a game with modern graphics. There's only a few success stories, and many failures. EA, on the other hand, can cash in on it's big hits and can afford to finance a variety of game projects, some of which will fail. Still, they want to make money : so EA game projects are going to be lower risk sequels whenever practical.
It's basic economics that created EA and gave it all it's power. We can hate them for what they are, but that doesn't change anything.
I deliberately bought 27" screens for that very reason. I don't consider having dual 1920x1200 displays a ripoff :P. More importantly, the larger physical size of the display versus a smaller number of pixels means that text is by default LARGER and more readable, which is a good thing.
On the other hand, services like GiaKai or OnLive can support old systems via the cloud. The video shows them playing the N64 version of Mario Kart (probably emulated, but still).
If a game needs Windows 95 to run, then GaiKai can run the game in a virtual machine that uses Win 95 or have some of the machines imaged to run a specific OS version. That will be part of the deal : once game developers are ONLY developing for these services, they'll agree on a contract to where their games will be run on a certain minimum spec of hardware and the machines will be imaged with a specific version of an OS that will never be changed or updated. (you protect the machines running the games on an old OS via a firewall or another server that is secure that passes the control commands to the machines running the games)
Err, when I say "sales" I meant total revenue ($$$) And it's irrelevent to my point, my point was that games aren't totally unique...within a genre there are several nearly interchangable games that most people play, and therefore price competition. Sort of.