But I obviously want all the games I think I could enjoy, why shouldn't I have them? Me having them don't make it so others can't. No-one loses if I have all of them (except if I don't buy the first either.. but I wonder which loss is actually bigger.)
Gamecube? Xbox? Though not released at that date but current gen wasn't all released at the same date either.
Guess one have to look at Ultra64 as a competitor if one don't look at NGC.
I too would want a PS3, but I won't buy one and wouldn't be able to afford the games so I would need to have it cracked. (Which is probably one huge reason they sell less.)
Anyway, this CEOs claim is obviously bullshit or a translation made by the interviewer/whatever. No-one would make it hard to develop for their system on purpose, but it's a fact that people get the hang of it and as a result of that you may see more advanced titles further into the systems life.
He may have meant that they didn't wanted to cripple it for the sake of making it easier to code for since it would be around for a long time and people would get the hang of it sooner or later anyway.
I think etanol may be a better solution since no matter how you will manufacture the hydrogen you'll still need to put in energy in the process, and that energy has to come somewhere so it's not as simple as some idiots would think that we can just burn the hydrogen, get water and lots of free energy..
With etanol atleast the actual production of the carbohydrates (but also the uhm, "yeasting"?) is manufactured without us putting in any energy since the sun does that for us.
So as long as we don't produce the hydrogen by using renewable energy sources and it's more efficient than growing crops and turning them into etanol I say the later one is 1-up.
I know your etanol production over there is supposed to consume more energy than you get from the etanol though (but I can't see how it have to), which kinda suck but considering current hydrolysis efficiency I guess hydrogen is even worse.
In any case, the best solution is obviously to consume less energy in the first place.
It don't take a genius to understand that if aluminium within the water picks up the oxygen spontaneously the reacting generates energy, and if you want to remove that oxygen you'll have to consume energy. So at best you have got as much energy from creating the aluminiumoxide and water from the hydrogen gas that you put in to make the aluminium.
But then you won't have a 1:1 efficiency, sure, I've heard electrolysis suck TO.
I have no idea about efficiency rates, maybe you get much more energy from letting hydrogen gas react with oxygen than the actual production of the hydrogen gas let off.
I agree with your basic point that portable computing power cost more money, but I hate it when people compared over-clocked stuff to other stuff, because 1) It's not supposed to run at those speeds and may not do it reliable and maybe more importantly 2) The other part can also be over-clocked so who gives a shit, it's still better.
Your CPU is still slower, both per core and from having less cores. I doubt you'd say "oh no thanks I don't want it, I already have a E6400." if someone offered you to switch CPUs.
FFS, the iPhone isn't "free" in Japan, and probably close to no phone is anywhere in the world. The cost is just spread by the subscription fee over a number of months.
I'm sure they would pick one up if it was actually free, I for sure would.
I hate all the morons which says "omg the G1 / iPhone / Nokia N82 / whatever" isn't expensive, I only paid bla bla... Idiots, please go kill yourself.
I also hate all the fucking ads which mentions the price you pay when you receiver the phone and not the total price.
I'm sure you could get a Hummer for $1 to if you accept to pay $2.000.000 / year for the next five years. Omg! Free car! Take one!...
Not weird your economy is fucked up if you can't even understand the freaking phone isn't free.
Except a bad enough environment your bits may end up "halfier" with a less insulated cable.
I'm not suggesting that you need multi-thousand dollar cat 5 cables, and ethernet and tcp do error correction as well, but only an idiot would claim that analog to digital or digital to analog conversion and the analog representation of the digital information can't go wrong.
Except most writable media don't last good at all and gold is much more stable. But yeah, atleast you where correct about the bullshit part, to bad it was yours.
But it's doing DA-conversion when read and AD-conversion back into the electronics and in the end DA-conversion again before you hear it in your speakers.
If you read it digital and it was always of perfect quality which "groves in a freaking disc read by a beam of light" aren't it would be CORRECT digital data.
Red: "On the disc, the data is stored in sectors of 2352 bytes each, read at 75 sectors per second. Onto this the overhead of EFM, CIRC, L2 ECC, and so on, is added, but these are not typically exposed to the application reading the disc."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD-ROM#CD-ROM_format "In order to achieve improved error correction and detection, a CD-ROM has a third layer of Reed-Solomon error correction.[2] A Mode-1 CD-ROM, which has the full three layers of error correction data, contains a net 2048 bytes of the available 2352 per sector. In a Mode-2 CD-ROM, which is mostly used for video files, there are 2336 user-available bytes per sector."
So less bytes / sector for data = more for error correction.
Or like, they could just send the fucking audio data with a checksum over the Interweb for storage on your computer and bit-perfect (atleast assuming you use a filesystem which knows if the files have become corrupt, such as ZFS.)
Slashdot Mirror
I was speaking in general, I'm not stupid enough to over-clock so in my case it win already on stock speed anyway.
But I obviously want all the games I think I could enjoy, why shouldn't I have them? Me having them don't make it so others can't. No-one loses if I have all of them (except if I don't buy the first either.. but I wonder which loss is actually bigger.)
I think what they are trying to say is they don't want just any jackass writing a game for there console. They want a smart jackass
Guess it's the same for Nintendo:
Bob's game
Worked good with the PS2. Price isn't everything, the Wii cost more than the 360 but is much less (computing-wise) capable.
Gamecube? Xbox? Though not released at that date but current gen wasn't all released at the same date either.
Guess one have to look at Ultra64 as a competitor if one don't look at NGC.
I too would want a PS3, but I won't buy one and wouldn't be able to afford the games so I would need to have it cracked. (Which is probably one huge reason they sell less.)
lol, it's funny because it's true.
Anyway, this CEOs claim is obviously bullshit or a translation made by the interviewer/whatever. No-one would make it hard to develop for their system on purpose, but it's a fact that people get the hang of it and as a result of that you may see more advanced titles further into the systems life.
He may have meant that they didn't wanted to cripple it for the sake of making it easier to code for since it would be around for a long time and people would get the hang of it sooner or later anyway.
I think etanol may be a better solution since no matter how you will manufacture the hydrogen you'll still need to put in energy in the process, and that energy has to come somewhere so it's not as simple as some idiots would think that we can just burn the hydrogen, get water and lots of free energy ..
With etanol atleast the actual production of the carbohydrates (but also the uhm, "yeasting"?) is manufactured without us putting in any energy since the sun does that for us.
So as long as we don't produce the hydrogen by using renewable energy sources and it's more efficient than growing crops and turning them into etanol I say the later one is 1-up.
I know your etanol production over there is supposed to consume more energy than you get from the etanol though (but I can't see how it have to), which kinda suck but considering current hydrolysis efficiency I guess hydrogen is even worse.
In any case, the best solution is obviously to consume less energy in the first place.
It don't take a genius to understand that if aluminium within the water picks up the oxygen spontaneously the reacting generates energy, and if you want to remove that oxygen you'll have to consume energy. So at best you have got as much energy from creating the aluminiumoxide and water from the hydrogen gas that you put in to make the aluminium.
But then you won't have a 1:1 efficiency, sure, I've heard electrolysis suck TO.
I have no idea about efficiency rates, maybe you get much more energy from letting hydrogen gas react with oxygen than the actual production of the hydrogen gas let off.
I agree with your basic point that portable computing power cost more money, but I hate it when people compared over-clocked stuff to other stuff, because 1) It's not supposed to run at those speeds and may not do it reliable and maybe more importantly 2) The other part can also be over-clocked so who gives a shit, it's still better.
Your CPU is still slower, both per core and from having less cores.
I doubt you'd say "oh no thanks I don't want it, I already have a E6400." if someone offered you to switch CPUs.
Yeah, because Steve Jobs know much better what you need and want than you do!
Wouldn't surprise me if he has an Intel E8500 or something such, but then he says two years old so who knows.
Yo dawg! I heard you was smoking, so I put a bong in your thong so you can smoke while you smoke!
For me it's to expensive and I want the books for free to be interested.
But one can always whine on DRM even if one don't care for the device =P
Ok, I see, thanks.
127 USB connected iBrators ought to be enough for everyone!
To begin with 1 days interest of x % isn't x/365.
But more importantly 0.51% isn't 0.51.
Well done.
Only if they catch you, and for 10 billion I'd say go for it :)
She should had moved the money to switzerland or something such and left the country. Totally worth it for 10 billion SEK.
FFS, the iPhone isn't "free" in Japan, and probably close to no phone is anywhere in the world. The cost is just spread by the subscription fee over a number of months.
I'm sure they would pick one up if it was actually free, I for sure would.
I hate all the morons which says "omg the G1 / iPhone / Nokia N82 / whatever" isn't expensive, I only paid bla bla... Idiots, please go kill yourself.
I also hate all the fucking ads which mentions the price you pay when you receiver the phone and not the total price.
I'm sure you could get a Hummer for $1 to if you accept to pay $2.000.000 / year for the next five years. Omg! Free car! Take one! ...
Not weird your economy is fucked up if you can't even understand the freaking phone isn't free.
Except a bad enough environment your bits may end up "halfier" with a less insulated cable.
I'm not suggesting that you need multi-thousand dollar cat 5 cables, and ethernet and tcp do error correction as well, but only an idiot would claim that analog to digital or digital to analog conversion and the analog representation of the digital information can't go wrong.
Except most writable media don't last good at all and gold is much more stable. But yeah, atleast you where correct about the bullshit part, to bad it was yours.
But it's doing DA-conversion when read and AD-conversion back into the electronics and in the end DA-conversion again before you hear it in your speakers.
If you read it digital and it was always of perfect quality which "groves in a freaking disc read by a beam of light" aren't it would be CORRECT digital data.
That's the point of an audio CD.
No.
Why post shit like that when you have no idea?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_(audio_CD_standard) Audio-CD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Book_(CD_standard) CD-ROM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD-R#History Orange book (CD-R)
The whole bunch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Books
Red:
"On the disc, the data is stored in sectors of 2352 bytes each, read at 75 sectors per second. Onto this the overhead of EFM, CIRC, L2 ECC, and so on, is added, but these are not typically exposed to the application reading the disc."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD-ROM#CD-ROM_format
"In order to achieve improved error correction and detection, a CD-ROM has a third layer of Reed-Solomon error correction.[2] A Mode-1 CD-ROM, which has the full three layers of error correction data, contains a net 2048 bytes of the available 2352 per sector. In a Mode-2 CD-ROM, which is mostly used for video files, there are 2336 user-available bytes per sector."
So less bytes / sector for data = more for error correction.
There are two different CD modes for audio and data, with different amount of storage and error correction.
Or like, they could just send the fucking audio data with a checksum over the Interweb for storage on your computer and bit-perfect (atleast assuming you use a filesystem which knows if the files have become corrupt, such as ZFS.)