Well, great, but the majority of console titles are not turn based strategy.. They're FPS and action titles. You can only compensate for latency just so much.. You can 'hide' it with client side prediction (which can introduce other playability problems), but at best you'll only approach the minimum pkt latency of the network, plus any additional buffering done to the audio/video itself. Something like rockband is a simplistic model where the input needs syncing with an existing, known timebase (recorded music), however, the above latencies still apply. Simple offsets like this don't apply to other games.
Have you actually looked at so-called HD 1080p mpeg streams? Unless a very high bitrate is used, it looks terrible compared to locally rendered graphics. Also console games are 60p (well they strive for it). TV is half of that at best. Most people do notice. They just don't care if the latest cat meme. They will care when their games show up as a mess of macroblocked garbage every time they pan, scroll, or do anything that requires an instantaneous full screen update.
No, the lag is caused by the network and any buffering done to the video. It is in addition to whatever the controllers and display (most TV panels are terrible with this) have already added. Because the output is not known, the video can't be multipass encoded. This forces the provider to use an ABR method (at best) which will add additional latency due to the buffering required, else CBR is used, which again requires higher bitrate for a given output. Sure, it won't matter much to slow moving turn-based games, but that certainly isn't the dominant market for consoles. Simply changing the input mode on the controller (from velocity to position) isn't going to make this go away.
What else would you suppose they use? Email on a phone? That's fine for short messages, but who wants to be stuck writing documents of any length on a phone?
Of course not, but if you don't care about the trustworthiness of the vendor or OS, the trustworthiness of the patches is irrelevant as is the debate over patch control, at least as far as security goes.
High and mighty? wtf? I just said that in my experience testing and updating 1 service pack a year is a lot easier than queuing up a half dozen 'batch tuesdays' worth of patches to test every month. The other nice thing about them is they weren't forced. Obviously, my solution for win10 only works well for personal machines, or maybe a small office.
Overall, I agree with your post, but good luck managing all those patches. Don't be angry with me. Be angry with microsoft, and possibly the vendors of whatever other software that requires IE6 (wtf?). I get the bind you're in, but it sounds like your customer's software needs replacing.
Windows is a monolithic mess, and managing patches for it has always been difficult. A lot of these patches require newer updates anyway, so it's just easier to delay, test, and then iterate mass-deployment rather than manage on a per patch basis. In the past, I'd just wait for the service pack and install that when the time came rather than dealing with the individual updates, unless I really needed a fix RTFN. Then MS killed the service packs. I guess this is a return to that, with more frequency.
If this is an issue about trusting individual patches, it's a fool's game. If you can't trust the patches, why are you trusting the OS and its vendor? MS has made it clear that they intend to market collected data on its users for profit. If you intend to use windows anyway, then keep that in mind when deciding your operating strategy. Use a util like OOSU to disable the crap, a start replacement that does not preload the shellexperiencehost/searchui processes (like startisback), build a custom whitelist for windows firewall, and do a system image before every monthly update in case something breaks. It's that or stick with an ancient version of windows or use another OS.
I suppose choice is good, but why does KDE need to do this? We already have unity and the like.
KDE is not a hipster interface. As we already have a plethora of vertical curve minimalist window managers for the pros, KDE fits the middle ground windows-centric power-user perfectly.
No, you're defending the positions of those who are, however, and they have not provided facts or reasoned arguments for their positions. Since you defend them, it should be easy for you.
What do you want evidence of? shitty blog/video posts with bad argumentation and hypocritical statements? Try feminist frequency's videos for starters. Of course I am sure you are already aware of the content..
Great, but we must hold you to the same standard, yes? Since the social justice crowd initiated this, they can go first. If they're going to accuse whole groups of mass oppression in various communities, they should bring forth some evidence beyond "outcome is not equal, therefore bigotry = true".
Religion? I would say gamergate has nothing on third wave feminism and black lives matter. They are the progressive counterparts to Ken Hovind and his banana. Unlike Hovind, though, their broken arguments and hypocrisy are still taken seriously.
Is it 'screaming abuse' or simply criticism of stupid arguments from a lot of people all at once because they're hot on the topic? The long stream of responses is how twitter works. The point of twitter is to have a one-to-many interaction. These people are using the wrong medium if they don't like that. If they want the communication to remain one way, they should stick to blogs and turn the comments off.
No, free speech adherents think everyone has a right to speak their mind and support systems that allow this free exchange. The progressive censorship crowd thinks that society (or in this case, twitter/social media sites) should be responsible for shielding them from criticism while they remain free to lambast and police everyone else. Unfortunately, twitter has chosen the latter path with their 'trust and safety' council.
Then what are you doing on twitter if you don't want to communicate? The whole point of twitter is to communicate to large numbers of people, not to build a one way pulpit and echochamber. All of this filtering negates the point of the site and will eventually kill it.
I say, just use the simplest tool fit for the job, nothing more.
So give them a pencil and a pad of paper, right? Simpler is not always better. Even for someone who hunts and pecks, a keyboard with properly designed local software is a lot more productive for most people than laggy, underpowered touchscreen devices coupled with badly designed SaaS interfaces.
If it works for you, fantastic. But don't kid yourself... you use it because it's what you know and you're comfortable with it. People hate change, because change forces cognitive dissonance, meaning you have to focus more on the task rather than the work you're trying to get done until the new system is committed to muscle memory. That means many people hate change even if it's change for the better, let alone if it's just change for change's sake.
That's just it. The foisting of mobile interfaces on everyone is a case of change for change's sake. This is an appeal to novelty. Newer isn't always better. Changing a long held process better come with some serious improvements in performance out the other end. This is not likely the case for desktop->mobile for all but the simplest and least time consuming tasks.
KDEPIM/KMail frankly seems targeted specifically at the poweruser, maintaining over many years its rather plain and arguably retro interface.
If 'power user' in this case means 'not technical but very proficient at using the computer', then there is no problem here. The last thing linux (or anything really) needs is yet another one of those stupid hipster interfaces with oversized widgets, wasted whitespace, reduced functionality, and 'cloud integration' user-hostility disguised as we-care-about-you plastered all over it.
1. Promises != reality. Their patch engine is broken if it can't scale from a machine up to date 24hours ago to fresh RTM installs. 2. End users don't have a "support rep". They just get the patched shoved onto their machines breaking their workflows. Again, you're talking as someone working at a large company. You're big enough to get concessions. Most MS users are not. Having the ability to rollback problematic patches is necessary so these people can use their machines as intended.
Roughly one infection every 12 days? I don't think patching is going to help you. At that rate, I'd be suspicious of your users. Do they have any admin capability? Is software controlled? Do you forbid personal devices from touching company networks? Do you run a firewall and proxy to restrict web access? Do you monitor those things to make sure they're actually doing their job?
most of these policies became SOP because of these inherent flaws in windows going back to the 90s. If patching isn't going to help this, then what's the point of patching at all? Assuming the machines are admin'd properly (users not running as admin should be enough for sane systems), such malware would have to abuse vulnerabilities to escalate.
1. The problem is forced updates that impose user-hostile changes to TOS. MS has broken whatever limited trust they had from users. A decade ago, they would've labeled such user-hostile software as malware. Just because they document their changes doesn't mean they're magically ok either. 2. The problem is that microsoft isn't a fan of 'sustainable' either, so sticking to documented interfaces doesn't guarantee a thing. Many times, the 'undocumented' approach is the only solution that works at all. 3. Backwards compatibility is what keeps windows relevant. Maybe you're used to working for a fortune 100 that can bankroll brand new equipment every five years, but the average sysadmin or individual does not have the funds for that. Throwing out perfectly good hardware (or software) because of a shitty software update is unacceptable. So is slowly removing sane ways to manage/roll back these problematic updates.
Make sure you click on or tab to the element you're working with to be sure the keypress is registered correctly. This has been this way since the beginning. Why is it suddenly a problem now?
Slashdot Mirror
It will have a place until usb flash becomes cheap enough to replace them as throwaways.
The reason they do that is because morons keep clicking those vids..
Well, great, but the majority of console titles are not turn based strategy.. They're FPS and action titles. You can only compensate for latency just so much.. You can 'hide' it with client side prediction (which can introduce other playability problems), but at best you'll only approach the minimum pkt latency of the network, plus any additional buffering done to the audio/video itself. Something like rockband is a simplistic model where the input needs syncing with an existing, known timebase (recorded music), however, the above latencies still apply. Simple offsets like this don't apply to other games.
Have you actually looked at so-called HD 1080p mpeg streams? Unless a very high bitrate is used, it looks terrible compared to locally rendered graphics. Also console games are 60p (well they strive for it). TV is half of that at best. Most people do notice. They just don't care if the latest cat meme. They will care when their games show up as a mess of macroblocked garbage every time they pan, scroll, or do anything that requires an instantaneous full screen update.
No, the lag is caused by the network and any buffering done to the video. It is in addition to whatever the controllers and display (most TV panels are terrible with this) have already added. Because the output is not known, the video can't be multipass encoded. This forces the provider to use an ABR method (at best) which will add additional latency due to the buffering required, else CBR is used, which again requires higher bitrate for a given output. Sure, it won't matter much to slow moving turn-based games, but that certainly isn't the dominant market for consoles. Simply changing the input mode on the controller (from velocity to position) isn't going to make this go away.
What else would you suppose they use? Email on a phone? That's fine for short messages, but who wants to be stuck writing documents of any length on a phone?
Heavily compressed mpeg streams of last gen ps3 graphics and 100ms+ lag on controls.. I'll pass.
Of course not, but if you don't care about the trustworthiness of the vendor or OS, the trustworthiness of the patches is irrelevant as is the debate over patch control, at least as far as security goes.
High and mighty? wtf? I just said that in my experience testing and updating 1 service pack a year is a lot easier than queuing up a half dozen 'batch tuesdays' worth of patches to test every month. The other nice thing about them is they weren't forced. Obviously, my solution for win10 only works well for personal machines, or maybe a small office.
Overall, I agree with your post, but good luck managing all those patches. Don't be angry with me. Be angry with microsoft, and possibly the vendors of whatever other software that requires IE6 (wtf?). I get the bind you're in, but it sounds like your customer's software needs replacing.
Windows is a monolithic mess, and managing patches for it has always been difficult. A lot of these patches require newer updates anyway, so it's just easier to delay, test, and then iterate mass-deployment rather than manage on a per patch basis. In the past, I'd just wait for the service pack and install that when the time came rather than dealing with the individual updates, unless I really needed a fix RTFN. Then MS killed the service packs. I guess this is a return to that, with more frequency.
If this is an issue about trusting individual patches, it's a fool's game. If you can't trust the patches, why are you trusting the OS and its vendor? MS has made it clear that they intend to market collected data on its users for profit. If you intend to use windows anyway, then keep that in mind when deciding your operating strategy. Use a util like OOSU to disable the crap, a start replacement that does not preload the shellexperiencehost/searchui processes (like startisback), build a custom whitelist for windows firewall, and do a system image before every monthly update in case something breaks. It's that or stick with an ancient version of windows or use another OS.
I suppose choice is good, but why does KDE need to do this? We already have unity and the like.
KDE is not a hipster interface. As we already have a plethora of vertical curve minimalist window managers for the pros, KDE fits the middle ground windows-centric power-user perfectly.
No, you're defending the positions of those who are, however, and they have not provided facts or reasoned arguments for their positions. Since you defend them, it should be easy for you.
What do you want evidence of? shitty blog/video posts with bad argumentation and hypocritical statements? Try feminist frequency's videos for starters. Of course I am sure you are already aware of the content..
Great, but we must hold you to the same standard, yes? Since the social justice crowd initiated this, they can go first. If they're going to accuse whole groups of mass oppression in various communities, they should bring forth some evidence beyond "outcome is not equal, therefore bigotry = true".
Religion? I would say gamergate has nothing on third wave feminism and black lives matter. They are the progressive counterparts to Ken Hovind and his banana. Unlike Hovind, though, their broken arguments and hypocrisy are still taken seriously.
Phone numbers are typically public information.
Is it 'screaming abuse' or simply criticism of stupid arguments from a lot of people all at once because they're hot on the topic? The long stream of responses is how twitter works. The point of twitter is to have a one-to-many interaction. These people are using the wrong medium if they don't like that. If they want the communication to remain one way, they should stick to blogs and turn the comments off.
No, free speech adherents think everyone has a right to speak their mind and support systems that allow this free exchange. The progressive censorship crowd thinks that society (or in this case, twitter/social media sites) should be responsible for shielding them from criticism while they remain free to lambast and police everyone else. Unfortunately, twitter has chosen the latter path with their 'trust and safety' council.
You expect us to believe the shitty sob stories from her and her supporters, don't you? You know, the whole 'listen and believe' routine?
Just repeating the same lie a thousand times doesn't make it true.
Take your own advice.
That is not how the word is used when discussing 'online violence.' It is equated with real-life physical violence.
Then what are you doing on twitter if you don't want to communicate? The whole point of twitter is to communicate to large numbers of people, not to build a one way pulpit and echochamber. All of this filtering negates the point of the site and will eventually kill it.
Regardless what the law says, it's not possible for mean words on the internet to be 'violent' by any rational definition.
How can someone be violent on a website?
I say, just use the simplest tool fit for the job, nothing more.
So give them a pencil and a pad of paper, right? Simpler is not always better. Even for someone who hunts and pecks, a keyboard with properly designed local software is a lot more productive for most people than laggy, underpowered touchscreen devices coupled with badly designed SaaS interfaces.
If it works for you, fantastic. But don't kid yourself... you use it because it's what you know and you're comfortable with it. People hate change, because change forces cognitive dissonance, meaning you have to focus more on the task rather than the work you're trying to get done until the new system is committed to muscle memory. That means many people hate change even if it's change for the better, let alone if it's just change for change's sake.
That's just it. The foisting of mobile interfaces on everyone is a case of change for change's sake. This is an appeal to novelty. Newer isn't always better. Changing a long held process better come with some serious improvements in performance out the other end. This is not likely the case for desktop->mobile for all but the simplest and least time consuming tasks.
KDEPIM/KMail frankly seems targeted specifically at the poweruser, maintaining over many years its rather plain and arguably retro interface.
If 'power user' in this case means 'not technical but very proficient at using the computer', then there is no problem here. The last thing linux (or anything really) needs is yet another one of those stupid hipster interfaces with oversized widgets, wasted whitespace, reduced functionality, and 'cloud integration' user-hostility disguised as we-care-about-you plastered all over it.
1. Promises != reality. Their patch engine is broken if it can't scale from a machine up to date 24hours ago to fresh RTM installs.
2. End users don't have a "support rep". They just get the patched shoved onto their machines breaking their workflows. Again, you're talking as someone working at a large company. You're big enough to get concessions. Most MS users are not. Having the ability to rollback problematic patches is necessary so these people can use their machines as intended.
Roughly one infection every 12 days? I don't think patching is going to help you. At that rate, I'd be suspicious of your users. Do they have any admin capability? Is software controlled? Do you forbid personal devices from touching company networks? Do you run a firewall and proxy to restrict web access? Do you monitor those things to make sure they're actually doing their job?
most of these policies became SOP because of these inherent flaws in windows going back to the 90s. If patching isn't going to help this, then what's the point of patching at all? Assuming the machines are admin'd properly (users not running as admin should be enough for sane systems), such malware would have to abuse vulnerabilities to escalate.
1. The problem is forced updates that impose user-hostile changes to TOS. MS has broken whatever limited trust they had from users. A decade ago, they would've labeled such user-hostile software as malware. Just because they document their changes doesn't mean they're magically ok either.
2. The problem is that microsoft isn't a fan of 'sustainable' either, so sticking to documented interfaces doesn't guarantee a thing. Many times, the 'undocumented' approach is the only solution that works at all.
3. Backwards compatibility is what keeps windows relevant. Maybe you're used to working for a fortune 100 that can bankroll brand new equipment every five years, but the average sysadmin or individual does not have the funds for that. Throwing out perfectly good hardware (or software) because of a shitty software update is unacceptable. So is slowly removing sane ways to manage/roll back these problematic updates.
Since this isn't merely about browsing but active use of a browser as an application platform, it makes sense to only use the mouse when necessary.
Make sure you click on or tab to the element you're working with to be sure the keypress is registered correctly. This has been this way since the beginning. Why is it suddenly a problem now?
Yet others assumed the browser/html = the internet.