It can, but games aren't designed to use it. Until you start seeing "WiiMote compatible" on games, it's a novelty and not part of the PC gaming experience.
While there may be a few, the vast majority do NOT run at 1080p natively. Not even close. Even many games that are commonly thought to run at 1080p native, such as Gran Turisimo 5, only have certain parts of the game that run at 1080p native (menus, etc).
To be fair, Sega basically did it to themselves. Despite common misconception, Sega was actually doing fairly well with the Dreamcast up until the worst console exploit of all time was unveiled. Just download, burn the game, and pop it in the system. And, even despite that...despite the fact that pirated games were being thrown around by EVERYONE, they were still doing okay. Then Sony put out the PS2 with built in DVD player and, knowing that two other systems were also on the horizon, Sega bowed out.
It was smart for them, especially at the time, because their profit was never on the consoles, it was always on the games. With 3 other players in town, why not just try to go multiplatform? Sega had no reason to try to compete. No one put them out of the console business...in fact, had they stayed they may have shoehorned Microsoft out of the business prematurely or eventually formed a coalition with Nintendo, as they're similar minded companies (games first).
It's a shame, the Dreamcast was a steller system with graphics that were ahead of its time. Sega seems to be doing fine now, so it was probably in their best interest at the time.
Take into consideration, the PS3 and Xbox 360 don't do true 1080p. They upconvert 720p graphics to 1080p. The next generation of consoles will be the jump to true 1080p (which will be lost on over half of HDTV owners, as 720p sets are still today big sellers). If Nintendo made the jump to 1080p, that would be unheard of. I'm expecting the jump to be 720p w/ 1080p upscalling and extra GPU power to render 3D graphics for the controller displays.
I don't agree with the Gamecube. It blew the PS2 out of the water and nearly matched the Xbox in processing power. It was a fantastic system that tanked due to poor leadership at Nintendo. Had Reggie been at the Helm at the time, things may have been different. The only real downside to the GameCube was the disc size; although, I actually applause Nintendo's rationale behind the small discs. Those things were indestructible and Nintendo had always been a cart company. Sony and Sega disc games were prone to getting damaged and skipping, so Nintendo just made a really durable version instead.
They didn't get away with anything on the GameCube. It was a highly competent system that blew the PS2 out of the water and nearly matched the X-Box with processing power. It was a fantastic system that came out at a weird time and just never gained traction. Had Reggie been at the helm when the GameCube launched, we might have seen a different outcome.
Why should console game hardware be vastly superior to PC design? Your TV only does 1080p at best, with the majority of HDTV's out there being 720p. Granted, newer consoles need to allow for higher resolution textures, but when we have videocards pushing 3 monitors at a time these days, we certainly don't need anything that powerful. Not only that, I don't want to have to pay for anything that expensive.
The Wii 2 has to be able to do things your PC can't? The Wii already does that. I don't see your PC using anything like the Wiimote for input. That's the difference. Also, I'm thinking you're going to have a hard time playing a FPS in your lay-z-boy with a PC.
And a modular design would be absurd for a console. You'd end up fragmenting the console user base with too many configurations. Then you'd end up with the inefficiency of PC games, where software vendors have to take a massive array of different configurations into account. The beauty of console games are that you can highly optimize them for a specific hardware set, thereby letting you get away with less powerful hardware. If you look at Nintendo's past, it's riddled with add-ons, ram upgrades, etc. that never caught on. That's because console games want to take the console out of the box and never have to touch it. Once you make the investment, that's it for the lifetime of the console.
There's a number of websites, including Amazon.com, that have a crapload of old expired credit cards of mine on file. I don't care, they're expired and I'm too lazy to delete them. On the plus side, they also have all of my addresses from the past 10 years stored...which has actually been a life saver in the past when I couldn't remember an old address:p
What credibility? They never had any. I know it's popular to make fun of PSN, but there's really a reason. Owning an Xbox and a PS3, I never buy any games with online features I'm interested in on the PS3, due to the fact that a) the servers are not reliable at all, especially with popular new games and b) after a game has been out a month, PS3 servers drop drastically in population while the Xbox counterparts seem to stay healthy well after the fact.
I'm kind of disappointed that I couldn't play Fat Princess the other night, but going into a PS3 I knew that PSN was a free and half assed service. I'm not really surprised or that upset that I can't use it right now.
For $10/m, I get to listen to everything that comes out (within reason) as much as I want. I probably listen to 15-20 new releases a month, plus I get to dig through all sorts of old stuff I've never heard of.
I have a rather enormous music collection at home and it would be impossible, financially and storage wise, for me to buy everything I'm interested in. When I find rarities that I really like, I buy them. If I see something new that I really like, I try to buy it directly from the artist when possible. And, when I do want to listen to an album, it's not always readily accessable due to the size of my collection. $10/m for a subscription service is a really nice compromise.
Do I want to only rent music? No. Do I want to only rent some music? Yes.
....when Apple starts a subscription service. I don't need cloud access nor do I want to take the time to upload my collection to the net. I really don't think they'd want me uploading 200gb of hand ripped audio files, anyway. Until then, I'll just stick with listening to my own music on my mp3 player and streaming everything else via PC/cellphone with my $10/m Rhapsody account.
Not at all. Me and most of the people I know are still quite happy with what their current console can do and aren't really in a hurry to shell out $400-500 on a new system to do the same thing but with better graphics.
Steam could develop a console and possibly push it with success, but if the majority of gamers have made one thing clear, they don't want to sit in front of a PC at a desk to play a game. MMO gamers do it out of necessity. Occasionally I'll buy a PC title and play it through, but it has to be something real special to make me sit at my desk. It's much more comfortable to veg out on the couch and play a game on the big screen.
Obviously, you weren't the target here. I've got an entire room in my house dedicated to music collection (much of it also being oop or rare), so I understand where you're coming from. However, if you have any interest at all in keeping up with modern music (and there is good stuff if you dig), a subscription service is great to let you listen to anything new (within reason). I keep my Rhapsody account going just so I don't have to worry about bringing music to work with me.
Actually, Zune offers one extremely large and distinctive advantage over Apple's ecosystem. It supports subscription based music. I can't remember if it's $12.99 or still $14.99, but you pay your subscription and it's all you can eat music for a month. Basically, for the price of a cd or an album on iTunes you can listen to anything you want (within reason).
For music lovers, there's no reason you wouldn't want this over Apple's model.
It's absolutely nothing like Apple's product or model, that's what makes it so great. Microsoft's WP7 is the first competitor that actually used their own brain and came up with something new and distinctive. Honestly, go out and use a WP7 and see how different it is.
For once? They've done that twice recently, once with the Zune and again with Windows Phone 7. Their biggest problem is having a piss poor marketing department. The Zune was a great player, yet the marketing made it look very unattractive for most. Windows Phone 7 is just suffering from a lack of any kind of decent marketing at all.
IMO, the Microsoft of today is not the Microsoft of yesterday. Windows 7, Windows Phone 7, and Zune are all fantastic platforms that are extremely stable and show a lot of forward thinking with the user interfaces. The tablet market is about to get really stiff with iOS, Honeycomb, and WebOS making a solid splash. If Microsoft can't bring something unique to the table, why lose money trying? They've already learned their lesson on bringing hardware (Xbox 360) and software (Windows Vista) to the market before they're ready for prime time.
Re:Sugar is not only toxic but it's addictive.
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
The big difference is that the sugar in fruit has less of an impact on ones glycemic level. In addiction, it's full of fiber that slows the absorption. Although it's loaded with sugars, it stays at a level that ones liver can keep up with processing. Refined sugar is another issue. It's the quickest sugar to be absorbed to the blood stream and there's rarely any fiber along with it to keep it from spiking your blood sugar and sending your liver into overdrive.
I was a sugar junkie for years. Cutting refined sugars out of my diet made a world of difference to my general well being as well as my complexion. I think that refined sugars (although I try to use better sugar sources, such as agave nectar or turbinado when I really need granulated sugar) can be incorporated into a healthy lifestyle, but sugar definitely is addictive. And there is definitely such a thing as a sugar hangover...
Trust me, MythBusters look like rocket scientists compared to a lot of people developing this stuff. Sometimes experience and common sense will get you a lot farther than book learning...
I have an iPod touch and it's not quite that simple. While the OS is updated, there are still limitations on what you can do with that various update. Certain features aren't supported. Various apps aren't supported depending on your hardware revision. It's more confusing than Android's fragmentation, imo. When you buy an ipod touch, it doesn't state what gen/version you bought on the box. When you buy an Android device, it's pretty straightforward what version of Android you have.
I don't think Google's trying to standardize hardware as much as they're trying to create a hardware baseline for software releases. It makes sense. There's no reason one should expect last years hardware to run next years software. You get caught up in that messy Microsoft sphere if you do that where you have to bloat all your software to make sure it works with old hardware and new hardware alike. This has been Microsoft's approach with Windows Phone 7 and, while WP7 sales have been lackluster, the hardware baseline itself has been working very well for them. There's less emphasis on comparing hardware specs in the phone and more emphasis on picking the model that you like the best, which is the way that the entire industry is moving relatively quickly.
So, I wonder what kind of lobbyist-fueled-by-special-interest-tech-industry is pushing this? Sounds like a republican's wet dream: find a way to get more money out of the middle class and pump some more money into big business by selling millions of cheap to build, overpriced metering devices.
If they want to hire someone to read my odometer once a year when I renew my tag, then that's their up to them. If they think the general public is going to let them start chipping cars, they've got something else coming. That's not going to happen.
This is one of the reasons all the news outlets told people to wait until the smoke settled to donate to the relief effort. Profiteers sit around waiting for these types of disasters. Even if this isn't necessarily profiteer related, you should always know where your money is going when you donate and you never will with these "txt xxxxx to donate $10" numbers, unless they're spearheaded by someone like the Red Cross or another charity that has a plan outlined.
Different strokes for different folks. I can watch VB as a show, but I don't think it's funny at all. I could see someone thinking the same about Archer, as the jokes are all subtle and based on timing.
The two Xtacle episodes were amazing, if you never saw them. The rape ape episode is still probably one of the funniest things I've ever seen in my life.
Slashdot Mirror
It can, but games aren't designed to use it. Until you start seeing "WiiMote compatible" on games, it's a novelty and not part of the PC gaming experience.
While there may be a few, the vast majority do NOT run at 1080p natively. Not even close. Even many games that are commonly thought to run at 1080p native, such as Gran Turisimo 5, only have certain parts of the game that run at 1080p native (menus, etc).
Here's a list of PS3 games and resolutions. I'm only counting a few sports games that honestly run at 1080p.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
To be fair, Sega basically did it to themselves. Despite common misconception, Sega was actually doing fairly well with the Dreamcast up until the worst console exploit of all time was unveiled. Just download, burn the game, and pop it in the system. And, even despite that...despite the fact that pirated games were being thrown around by EVERYONE, they were still doing okay. Then Sony put out the PS2 with built in DVD player and, knowing that two other systems were also on the horizon, Sega bowed out.
It was smart for them, especially at the time, because their profit was never on the consoles, it was always on the games. With 3 other players in town, why not just try to go multiplatform? Sega had no reason to try to compete. No one put them out of the console business...in fact, had they stayed they may have shoehorned Microsoft out of the business prematurely or eventually formed a coalition with Nintendo, as they're similar minded companies (games first).
It's a shame, the Dreamcast was a steller system with graphics that were ahead of its time. Sega seems to be doing fine now, so it was probably in their best interest at the time.
Take into consideration, the PS3 and Xbox 360 don't do true 1080p. They upconvert 720p graphics to 1080p. The next generation of consoles will be the jump to true 1080p (which will be lost on over half of HDTV owners, as 720p sets are still today big sellers). If Nintendo made the jump to 1080p, that would be unheard of. I'm expecting the jump to be 720p w/ 1080p upscalling and extra GPU power to render 3D graphics for the controller displays.
I don't agree with the Gamecube. It blew the PS2 out of the water and nearly matched the Xbox in processing power. It was a fantastic system that tanked due to poor leadership at Nintendo. Had Reggie been at the Helm at the time, things may have been different. The only real downside to the GameCube was the disc size; although, I actually applause Nintendo's rationale behind the small discs. Those things were indestructible and Nintendo had always been a cart company. Sony and Sega disc games were prone to getting damaged and skipping, so Nintendo just made a really durable version instead.
They didn't get away with anything on the GameCube. It was a highly competent system that blew the PS2 out of the water and nearly matched the X-Box with processing power. It was a fantastic system that came out at a weird time and just never gained traction. Had Reggie been at the helm when the GameCube launched, we might have seen a different outcome.
Why should console game hardware be vastly superior to PC design? Your TV only does 1080p at best, with the majority of HDTV's out there being 720p. Granted, newer consoles need to allow for higher resolution textures, but when we have videocards pushing 3 monitors at a time these days, we certainly don't need anything that powerful. Not only that, I don't want to have to pay for anything that expensive.
The Wii 2 has to be able to do things your PC can't? The Wii already does that. I don't see your PC using anything like the Wiimote for input. That's the difference. Also, I'm thinking you're going to have a hard time playing a FPS in your lay-z-boy with a PC.
And a modular design would be absurd for a console. You'd end up fragmenting the console user base with too many configurations. Then you'd end up with the inefficiency of PC games, where software vendors have to take a massive array of different configurations into account. The beauty of console games are that you can highly optimize them for a specific hardware set, thereby letting you get away with less powerful hardware. If you look at Nintendo's past, it's riddled with add-ons, ram upgrades, etc. that never caught on. That's because console games want to take the console out of the box and never have to touch it. Once you make the investment, that's it for the lifetime of the console.
There's a number of websites, including Amazon.com, that have a crapload of old expired credit cards of mine on file. I don't care, they're expired and I'm too lazy to delete them. On the plus side, they also have all of my addresses from the past 10 years stored...which has actually been a life saver in the past when I couldn't remember an old address :p
What credibility? They never had any. I know it's popular to make fun of PSN, but there's really a reason. Owning an Xbox and a PS3, I never buy any games with online features I'm interested in on the PS3, due to the fact that a) the servers are not reliable at all, especially with popular new games and b) after a game has been out a month, PS3 servers drop drastically in population while the Xbox counterparts seem to stay healthy well after the fact.
I'm kind of disappointed that I couldn't play Fat Princess the other night, but going into a PS3 I knew that PSN was a free and half assed service. I'm not really surprised or that upset that I can't use it right now.
For $10/m, I get to listen to everything that comes out (within reason) as much as I want. I probably listen to 15-20 new releases a month, plus I get to dig through all sorts of old stuff I've never heard of.
I have a rather enormous music collection at home and it would be impossible, financially and storage wise, for me to buy everything I'm interested in. When I find rarities that I really like, I buy them. If I see something new that I really like, I try to buy it directly from the artist when possible. And, when I do want to listen to an album, it's not always readily accessable due to the size of my collection. $10/m for a subscription service is a really nice compromise.
Do I want to only rent music? No. Do I want to only rent some music? Yes.
....when Apple starts a subscription service. I don't need cloud access nor do I want to take the time to upload my collection to the net. I really don't think they'd want me uploading 200gb of hand ripped audio files, anyway. Until then, I'll just stick with listening to my own music on my mp3 player and streaming everything else via PC/cellphone with my $10/m Rhapsody account.
Not at all. Me and most of the people I know are still quite happy with what their current console can do and aren't really in a hurry to shell out $400-500 on a new system to do the same thing but with better graphics.
Steam could develop a console and possibly push it with success, but if the majority of gamers have made one thing clear, they don't want to sit in front of a PC at a desk to play a game. MMO gamers do it out of necessity. Occasionally I'll buy a PC title and play it through, but it has to be something real special to make me sit at my desk. It's much more comfortable to veg out on the couch and play a game on the big screen.
Obviously, you weren't the target here. I've got an entire room in my house dedicated to music collection (much of it also being oop or rare), so I understand where you're coming from. However, if you have any interest at all in keeping up with modern music (and there is good stuff if you dig), a subscription service is great to let you listen to anything new (within reason). I keep my Rhapsody account going just so I don't have to worry about bringing music to work with me.
Actually, Zune offers one extremely large and distinctive advantage over Apple's ecosystem. It supports subscription based music. I can't remember if it's $12.99 or still $14.99, but you pay your subscription and it's all you can eat music for a month. Basically, for the price of a cd or an album on iTunes you can listen to anything you want (within reason).
For music lovers, there's no reason you wouldn't want this over Apple's model.
It's absolutely nothing like Apple's product or model, that's what makes it so great. Microsoft's WP7 is the first competitor that actually used their own brain and came up with something new and distinctive. Honestly, go out and use a WP7 and see how different it is.
For once? They've done that twice recently, once with the Zune and again with Windows Phone 7. Their biggest problem is having a piss poor marketing department. The Zune was a great player, yet the marketing made it look very unattractive for most. Windows Phone 7 is just suffering from a lack of any kind of decent marketing at all.
IMO, the Microsoft of today is not the Microsoft of yesterday. Windows 7, Windows Phone 7, and Zune are all fantastic platforms that are extremely stable and show a lot of forward thinking with the user interfaces. The tablet market is about to get really stiff with iOS, Honeycomb, and WebOS making a solid splash. If Microsoft can't bring something unique to the table, why lose money trying? They've already learned their lesson on bringing hardware (Xbox 360) and software (Windows Vista) to the market before they're ready for prime time.
The big difference is that the sugar in fruit has less of an impact on ones glycemic level. In addiction, it's full of fiber that slows the absorption. Although it's loaded with sugars, it stays at a level that ones liver can keep up with processing. Refined sugar is another issue. It's the quickest sugar to be absorbed to the blood stream and there's rarely any fiber along with it to keep it from spiking your blood sugar and sending your liver into overdrive.
I was a sugar junkie for years. Cutting refined sugars out of my diet made a world of difference to my general well being as well as my complexion. I think that refined sugars (although I try to use better sugar sources, such as agave nectar or turbinado when I really need granulated sugar) can be incorporated into a healthy lifestyle, but sugar definitely is addictive. And there is definitely such a thing as a sugar hangover...
Trust me, MythBusters look like rocket scientists compared to a lot of people developing this stuff. Sometimes experience and common sense will get you a lot farther than book learning...
I have an iPod touch and it's not quite that simple. While the OS is updated, there are still limitations on what you can do with that various update. Certain features aren't supported. Various apps aren't supported depending on your hardware revision. It's more confusing than Android's fragmentation, imo. When you buy an ipod touch, it doesn't state what gen/version you bought on the box. When you buy an Android device, it's pretty straightforward what version of Android you have.
I don't think Google's trying to standardize hardware as much as they're trying to create a hardware baseline for software releases. It makes sense. There's no reason one should expect last years hardware to run next years software. You get caught up in that messy Microsoft sphere if you do that where you have to bloat all your software to make sure it works with old hardware and new hardware alike. This has been Microsoft's approach with Windows Phone 7 and, while WP7 sales have been lackluster, the hardware baseline itself has been working very well for them. There's less emphasis on comparing hardware specs in the phone and more emphasis on picking the model that you like the best, which is the way that the entire industry is moving relatively quickly.
So, I wonder what kind of lobbyist-fueled-by-special-interest-tech-industry is pushing this? Sounds like a republican's wet dream: find a way to get more money out of the middle class and pump some more money into big business by selling millions of cheap to build, overpriced metering devices.
If they want to hire someone to read my odometer once a year when I renew my tag, then that's their up to them. If they think the general public is going to let them start chipping cars, they've got something else coming. That's not going to happen.
This is one of the reasons all the news outlets told people to wait until the smoke settled to donate to the relief effort. Profiteers sit around waiting for these types of disasters. Even if this isn't necessarily profiteer related, you should always know where your money is going when you donate and you never will with these "txt xxxxx to donate $10" numbers, unless they're spearheaded by someone like the Red Cross or another charity that has a plan outlined.
Different strokes for different folks. I can watch VB as a show, but I don't think it's funny at all. I could see someone thinking the same about Archer, as the jokes are all subtle and based on timing.
The two Xtacle episodes were amazing, if you never saw them. The rape ape episode is still probably one of the funniest things I've ever seen in my life.
Best case scenario: Hollow Earth theory is correct and we find Hitler riding dinosaurs in the middle of the earth.
Worst case scenario: Earth, quite literally, shoots its load and we're screwed.