They have already mentioned that they want to do that, and if the hard disk is now standard, then my guess is that PVR capability would be made standard as well.
Will it have a memory stick slot so you can take your show straight from the PS3/PVR and put the on the PSP?
The smarter thing to do is to just use wireless networking to transfer the file at the PSP's 802.11b speed. I expect Sony to do this.
Any chance that the PS3 will play UMD movies so you don't have to buy two versions?
Given their high-definition hype, and the sub-DVD resolution of UMD, I don't expect them to support UMD play on a TV through any means. Also, it seems that 802.11b would not be fast enough to stream UMD, so it all comes down to whether the PSP is a Hi-Speed USB device.
Isn't that just a matter of light (or gravity, information, etc) taking time to travel? To a guy with a stopwatch, the flash and the stopping of the watch appear simultaneous, but from a different perspective, you may see the flash occur well before the watch is stopped. I don't see any problem unless the effect is preceding the cause somewhere. (And I don't just mean being observed before the cause.)
Then you have a problem in how do you measure time.
If you want to put the solar system, for example, into a Newtonian physics model, you first have to pick some sort of reference point to measure everything relative to, some unit of length, and you need to orient your coordinate system. From then on, if Newtonian physics were to hold, you'd be able to accurately predict the position of everything in terms of the original reference point.
I'm not going to insist on some sort of "temporal ether" if relativity holds. But I do think you ought to be able to pick some reference clock and use it to measure velocities. Or better, measure velocities relative to another reference velocity, which you set as 1 VU (velocity unit). Then you don't need time as a base measurement, because it's based around length and velocity. One second might be 1 m/VU (the time it takes one meter to be traveled by an object moving at 1 VU).
The ultimate goal is a model that is accurate and that represents the universe in a single undistorted state at any single instant. I see this as simpler.
I would like to see how do you would explain the fact that one event happens before, or after some other event is dependent on the point of view of the observer.
I would go back to the understanding that all events take place at a single point in time regardless of where you are. That is, an event from one light-year away that was observed just now actually took place a year ago.
Doing good things does not give you the right to do bad things without being criticised for it. What's so difficult to understand about that?
I don't see anyone failing to understand that. The strong language used against the Red Cross did more than criticize a specific action; it characterized them as malevolent. In this case, pointing out their humantarian mission demonstrates a contradiction to the characterization and shows that further information is needed before their motives/actions can be understood. In this case, Total Wimp even provided that information.
I don't know. Mach number is clearly dimensionless...but it gets larger in magnitude when you go faster, so it is a speed in a way. It's a dimensionless speed? That seems contradictory.
If I were to ask how many inches tall you are, the answer would be a dimensionless number. That is because my question defines a new property, "height in inches", calculated from a physical property: height_in_inches(x) = height(x)/in. This defined property isn't very useful, of course.
The mach number is useful because it's based on two properties: mach(x) = speed(x)/speed(sound in x's medium). Kinetic energy is another such useful property to define, in this case because it does not scale linearly with velocity.
Calling the mach number a "speed" is exactly the kind of confusion that I believe is occuring when anyone refers to the "speed of time".
dx/dt = v and dt/dt = 1. But if dx/dt = v, dt/dx = 1/v. It stands to reason that if I move along at 1 m/s, with each step, I move through time at 1 s/m. Aha! Movement through time!
All you did was set a value v for velocity and divide the "speed of time" by it. Since the speed of time is constant, you reported (dt/dt)/v = 1/v = 1 s/m. But that is just the number of seconds each meter of travel takes at your given speed of v = 1 m/s.
Also, dx/dx = 1, does this mean I can't move through space?
Nobody ever claimed anything that implies dx/dx is not constant. Rate of movement is dx/dt, not dx/dx. I think that any explanation of physics involving speed of time either started out as nonsense (the equations were nonsense), or it was translated to English incorrectly and does not convey the intended meaning. It's like you used Babelfish and picked Physics -> English then put the result back in, choosing English -> Physics. I'm saying that this is one of those cases where the original meaning is lost.
All well and good, except that we've already proved in practice that time has a different rate of passage for different people.
Not only that, but I can underclock and overclock my computer, which changes the speed of time for it...
Seriously, what ever happened to understanding this effect as a change in the rate objects "run" at rather than a change in the speed at which they "move through time"?
In this case it was a conscious decision to create cheap relatively low-end hardware instead of expensive high-end hardware. It's not like they had set out to create a really powerful graphics chip, and then realized that their product costed more and was less powerful than the competition, so they had to spin things, like you imply.
And in the processor war, at the time you mention it was Intel that had the more expensive and less powerful processor, so they had to generate spin.
Um, take a closer look and then don't overreact. They broke thier list down into genres and came up with three games for each genre. If you think Gun belongs on the list, then it would have to be better than one of the three games in the FPS category. Is it better than Brothers in Arms, Battlefield 2, or F.E.A.R.? Alternatively, if you categorize it as Action/Adventure, it has to be better than Resident Evil 4, God of War, or Shadow of the Colossus.
For the "other" category, they listed six titles. If Nintendogs doesn't belong on that list, then name six games better than it that aren't Action/Adventure, RPG, FPS, Driving, Fighting, Platforming, Strategy, or Sports.
[...] slashdot readers like the conclusions in this [article]
Why? What do you think we find so appealing about this conclusion? It means that we have to have a regulatory system in place for which there isn't one ideal, objective way to run it, so there will always be debate over the regulations. It will always be possible to accuse the regulator of colluding to favor one company or another, and it will be hard to gauge what is fair.
But we need regulation. It's much better than the alternative. I'm just accepting the harsh reality that we can't just let every person and every corporation do whatever they want and expect it to magically work out. I suggest that you are the one picking your conclusions by aesthetics rather than merit, not me.
But it was in a lab where nerdy people might place their nerdy possessions. Do you really think that Otacon wouldn't have a Mario figurine? He's Otacon! And MGS has a longstanding pattern of doing unexpected goofy things at otherwise serious moments, anyway.
Mario in MGS... out of place is all I can say, even for that second he's visible.
... What?
MGS has already been like that. References to other games from the company (a Policenauts poster, for example), a PSX development kit in the lab, and Psycho Mantis will read your save game files from other Konami games and comment on them. MGS3 has gaming magazines with covers featuring MGS3, even though the game takes place in 1964. MGS has always had a sense of humor that involves breaking the fourth wall and making references outside the game. It's like an inside joke between you and the game that the characters are oblivious to. It's great!
It just makes sense to update those for the system it's on. Have you seen the MGS4 trailer and its mention of the Cell processor? I guess people are more likey to notice that stuff (or they only complain about it) when Nintendo does it because they are already "known for" doing it.
I hate how people seem to dislike most large corporations for the sake of them being large.
And who does that? People that dislike most large corporations do so because most large coporations, in my opinion and theirs, do bad things. People that disagree with this view put forward the notion that we just hate the corporations for being large, because it's much easier to demonstrate a fault in that position.
To debate ethically, they should actually address the criticism made of large corporations.
Claiming it works one place better than others is FUD when it isn't true. There's no double standard there.
But file transfers DO work better in the official Windows IM clients than in the third-party Open Source clients. The official clients know how to receive and send file transfers to both current and prior versions of the software. Gaim doesn't. This is an issue that needs to be addressed before I feel safe recommending Gaim to someone.
When I've seen UPnP work correctly maybe I'll reconsider. Since I know how it works though, I know that it will only work in a limited number of scenarios, and unless you're a home user who doesn't care about security risks, you're unlikely to fall into one of those categories.
You just described most IM users. UPnP is going to work for the vast majority of IM users behind NATs since they will be behind consumer-level NATs provided by their ISP's. And remember that only one of the two users needs a way of accepting an incoming connection. MSN Messenger is going to just work for file transfers. Gaim needs to do that as well.
Read my comment. See any of those claims from me? No, right? Well then what the hell are you bitching at me for then? All I said was that IM sucks on both platforms, and that to say one was worse than the other is FUD. When we don't have to be stuck with some cripped single company implementation, maybe things will get better. Until there are standards though, everything will continue to suck.
I was responding to a lot of posts under this same article, not addressing you specifically. But I found your claim of FUD particularly odd. As I said, the official clients have better file transfer support. In some cases, file transfer is not even implemented in Gaim. At least the official ICQ client has a chance of working. That's gotta be worth something.
(As an aside, Firefox *is* better than IE)
Ah, common ground. I just hope nobody refuses to try Firefox because they were told that some other Open Source software was good, and then found out that features they use were missing or poorly implemented.
FUD? You claim that file transfers don't work on Windows, and you dare to call the same claim against Gaim "FUD"? The cases in which Gaim works are a very small subset of the cases in which a Windows IM client works. If you're behind a NAT, you just need to forward a port. And look at the article: in MSN Messenger, uPNP is used automatically to set up a file transfer from behind a NAT.
But in Gaim, only certain versions of file transfer protocols on certain IM networks are implemented. Starting with Gaim 1.4.0, I can now send files to people using ICQ 5.02 and newer... Too bad nobody uses that version of ICQ. I use Gaim, because it's the best option I've got, but it sucks due to its lack of support for the most basic IM feature beyond sending messages, which is file transfers. I've been able to recieve file transfers from AIM and Yahoo users before, but I've never been able to send them. I get a moving progress bar for the file transfer progress, and it appears to complete succesfully, but they never actually get the file.
Many comments I've seen in this article hurt the credibility of the Open Source community. OpenOffice is better than Microsoft Office. Firefox is better than Internet Explorer, and FreeBSD and Linux are both better than Windows, honestly. And when I tell someone that, I don't want them automatically distrusting me because they saw someone incorrectly claiming that their Windows file transfers don't work, or claiming that a client with missing features is actually better because of it. Or as some have arrogantly claimed, "It's no big deal, you should just use FTP anyway."
Yeah, Mario can kill anyone he wants! Mario stomps heads ALL the time and doesn't even think twice about it. Mario is so crazy and awesome that he flips out ALL the time. I heard that Mario was standing on a steel girder. And when some ape dropped a barrel, Mario totally demolished the whole level.
And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Slashdot Mirror
They have already mentioned that they want to do that, and if the hard disk is now standard, then my guess is that PVR capability would be made standard as well.
The smarter thing to do is to just use wireless networking to transfer the file at the PSP's 802.11b speed. I expect Sony to do this.
Given their high-definition hype, and the sub-DVD resolution of UMD, I don't expect them to support UMD play on a TV through any means. Also, it seems that 802.11b would not be fast enough to stream UMD, so it all comes down to whether the PSP is a Hi-Speed USB device.
3DO. It had a headphone jack at the bottom of each controller.
Those toads are eating the crop!
That's what happens when you introduce a foreign species into an ecology that can't handle it.
Hahahahahahaha!
Isn't that just a matter of light (or gravity, information, etc) taking time to travel? To a guy with a stopwatch, the flash and the stopping of the watch appear simultaneous, but from a different perspective, you may see the flash occur well before the watch is stopped. I don't see any problem unless the effect is preceding the cause somewhere. (And I don't just mean being observed before the cause.)
If you want to put the solar system, for example, into a Newtonian physics model, you first have to pick some sort of reference point to measure everything relative to, some unit of length, and you need to orient your coordinate system. From then on, if Newtonian physics were to hold, you'd be able to accurately predict the position of everything in terms of the original reference point.
I'm not going to insist on some sort of "temporal ether" if relativity holds. But I do think you ought to be able to pick some reference clock and use it to measure velocities. Or better, measure velocities relative to another reference velocity, which you set as 1 VU (velocity unit). Then you don't need time as a base measurement, because it's based around length and velocity. One second might be 1 m/VU (the time it takes one meter to be traveled by an object moving at 1 VU).
The ultimate goal is a model that is accurate and that represents the universe in a single undistorted state at any single instant. I see this as simpler.
I would go back to the understanding that all events take place at a single point in time regardless of where you are. That is, an event from one light-year away that was observed just now actually took place a year ago.
I don't see anyone failing to understand that. The strong language used against the Red Cross did more than criticize a specific action; it characterized them as malevolent. In this case, pointing out their humantarian mission demonstrates a contradiction to the characterization and shows that further information is needed before their motives/actions can be understood. In this case, Total Wimp even provided that information.
If I were to ask how many inches tall you are, the answer would be a dimensionless number. That is because my question defines a new property, "height in inches", calculated from a physical property: height_in_inches(x) = height(x)/in. This defined property isn't very useful, of course.
The mach number is useful because it's based on two properties: mach(x) = speed(x)/speed(sound in x's medium). Kinetic energy is another such useful property to define, in this case because it does not scale linearly with velocity.
Calling the mach number a "speed" is exactly the kind of confusion that I believe is occuring when anyone refers to the "speed of time".
All you did was set a value v for velocity and divide the "speed of time" by it. Since the speed of time is constant, you reported (dt/dt)/v = 1/v = 1 s/m. But that is just the number of seconds each meter of travel takes at your given speed of v = 1 m/s.
Nobody ever claimed anything that implies dx/dx is not constant. Rate of movement is dx/dt, not dx/dx. I think that any explanation of physics involving speed of time either started out as nonsense (the equations were nonsense), or it was translated to English incorrectly and does not convey the intended meaning. It's like you used Babelfish and picked Physics -> English then put the result back in, choosing English -> Physics. I'm saying that this is one of those cases where the original meaning is lost.
Not only that, but I can underclock and overclock my computer, which changes the speed of time for it...
Seriously, what ever happened to understanding this effect as a change in the rate objects "run" at rather than a change in the speed at which they "move through time"?
It's a joke about Cheney not having a heart in the figurative sense. Look up the word heartless.
Sure the Earth will reach 510 F. You weren't taking into account the heat generated by those 4.5 million 360's that are going to sell.
In this case it was a conscious decision to create cheap relatively low-end hardware instead of expensive high-end hardware. It's not like they had set out to create a really powerful graphics chip, and then realized that their product costed more and was less powerful than the competition, so they had to spin things, like you imply.
And in the processor war, at the time you mention it was Intel that had the more expensive and less powerful processor, so they had to generate spin.
Um, take a closer look and then don't overreact. They broke thier list down into genres and came up with three games for each genre. If you think Gun belongs on the list, then it would have to be better than one of the three games in the FPS category. Is it better than Brothers in Arms, Battlefield 2, or F.E.A.R.? Alternatively, if you categorize it as Action/Adventure, it has to be better than Resident Evil 4, God of War, or Shadow of the Colossus.
For the "other" category, they listed six titles. If Nintendogs doesn't belong on that list, then name six games better than it that aren't Action/Adventure, RPG, FPS, Driving, Fighting, Platforming, Strategy, or Sports.
And set the inbox as your "sent mail" folder.
Why? What do you think we find so appealing about this conclusion? It means that we have to have a regulatory system in place for which there isn't one ideal, objective way to run it, so there will always be debate over the regulations. It will always be possible to accuse the regulator of colluding to favor one company or another, and it will be hard to gauge what is fair.
But we need regulation. It's much better than the alternative. I'm just accepting the harsh reality that we can't just let every person and every corporation do whatever they want and expect it to magically work out. I suggest that you are the one picking your conclusions by aesthetics rather than merit, not me.
But it was in a lab where nerdy people might place their nerdy possessions. Do you really think that Otacon wouldn't have a Mario figurine? He's Otacon! And MGS has a longstanding pattern of doing unexpected goofy things at otherwise serious moments, anyway.
... What?
MGS has already been like that. References to other games from the company (a Policenauts poster, for example), a PSX development kit in the lab, and Psycho Mantis will read your save game files from other Konami games and comment on them. MGS3 has gaming magazines with covers featuring MGS3, even though the game takes place in 1964. MGS has always had a sense of humor that involves breaking the fourth wall and making references outside the game. It's like an inside joke between you and the game that the characters are oblivious to. It's great!
It just makes sense to update those for the system it's on. Have you seen the MGS4 trailer and its mention of the Cell processor? I guess people are more likey to notice that stuff (or they only complain about it) when Nintendo does it because they are already "known for" doing it.
And who does that? People that dislike most large corporations do so because most large coporations, in my opinion and theirs, do bad things. People that disagree with this view put forward the notion that we just hate the corporations for being large, because it's much easier to demonstrate a fault in that position.
To debate ethically, they should actually address the criticism made of large corporations.
The GameCube version does have a QWERTY layout, and it's the default! (press Z to toggle between QWERTY and alphabetic layouts)
The Bible warns about pillows! From Ezekiel 13:18-20:
As you can see, pillows aren't Christian-kosher.
But file transfers DO work better in the official Windows IM clients than in the third-party Open Source clients. The official clients know how to receive and send file transfers to both current and prior versions of the software. Gaim doesn't. This is an issue that needs to be addressed before I feel safe recommending Gaim to someone.
You just described most IM users. UPnP is going to work for the vast majority of IM users behind NATs since they will be behind consumer-level NATs provided by their ISP's. And remember that only one of the two users needs a way of accepting an incoming connection. MSN Messenger is going to just work for file transfers. Gaim needs to do that as well.
I was responding to a lot of posts under this same article, not addressing you specifically. But I found your claim of FUD particularly odd. As I said, the official clients have better file transfer support. In some cases, file transfer is not even implemented in Gaim. At least the official ICQ client has a chance of working. That's gotta be worth something.
Ah, common ground. I just hope nobody refuses to try Firefox because they were told that some other Open Source software was good, and then found out that features they use were missing or poorly implemented.
FUD? You claim that file transfers don't work on Windows, and you dare to call the same claim against Gaim "FUD"? The cases in which Gaim works are a very small subset of the cases in which a Windows IM client works. If you're behind a NAT, you just need to forward a port. And look at the article: in MSN Messenger, uPNP is used automatically to set up a file transfer from behind a NAT.
But in Gaim, only certain versions of file transfer protocols on certain IM networks are implemented. Starting with Gaim 1.4.0, I can now send files to people using ICQ 5.02 and newer... Too bad nobody uses that version of ICQ. I use Gaim, because it's the best option I've got, but it sucks due to its lack of support for the most basic IM feature beyond sending messages, which is file transfers. I've been able to recieve file transfers from AIM and Yahoo users before, but I've never been able to send them. I get a moving progress bar for the file transfer progress, and it appears to complete succesfully, but they never actually get the file.
Many comments I've seen in this article hurt the credibility of the Open Source community. OpenOffice is better than Microsoft Office. Firefox is better than Internet Explorer, and FreeBSD and Linux are both better than Windows, honestly. And when I tell someone that, I don't want them automatically distrusting me because they saw someone incorrectly claiming that their Windows file transfers don't work, or claiming that a client with missing features is actually better because of it. Or as some have arrogantly claimed, "It's no big deal, you should just use FTP anyway."
Yeah, Mario can kill anyone he wants! Mario stomps heads ALL the time and doesn't even think twice about it. Mario is so crazy and awesome that he flips out ALL the time. I heard that Mario was standing on a steel girder. And when some ape dropped a barrel, Mario totally demolished the whole level.
And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's front-lit. Viewing at an angle does NOT make it dimmer.