I was doing some looking on Google and I came up with this link. It's pretty informative and goes in depth on what this dude is pretty sure Cell is going to be like. I have no idea whether he's a reputable source or not, so keep that in mind.
Re:If you're fired by an Open Source company...
on
Layoffs at OSDL
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well, there's the difference between 8-14 hours of development per day and 2-3 hours every few days. These people you're referring to probably aren't going to live on the street and eat out of a dumpster just to keep developing.
It's the place thing that bothers me. I mean, sure, that time thing is pretty worrysome, but the location...yeesh. The Universe is pretty big. What are the chances you'd even land on the surface of a planet that is hospitable to human life? With my luck (almost good, but always with some quirk that makes it very, very bad), I'd appear in the center of a star. Or worse yet, New Jersey.
I don't know if it's just your school, but I know the Calc I and II prof I had at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown was way different. He didn't want to just tell you a method and have you figure it out. First he went through why it was necessary to come up with a method for solving a certain type of problem, and then he worked with us to come up with our own way through it. Sometimes it took 2 or 3 classes before we finally figured out how to actually do it (eventually he would give us hints to guide us, but he mostly wanted to see what we were going to come up with on our own). Having had Calc before I went to college, I knew most of the methods, but I didn't know how those methods were discovered in the first place. This made my calc class somewhat difficult (in that I had to show up), but I also learned an awful lot as well.
It's been about 5 years and everything is hazy, but I remember on our final project in calc 1, we had to do a series of somewhat-related problems that lead us to answering the final question, write a paper on it, and show some nice diagrams. I was skimming through the final problem and I realized there was a different - and much easier way to solve it. I did it and showed him and he told me to include it in with the paper, but to do the others as well. The two "math guys" (myself and another) finished our part, and the "paper people" wrote up the paper (which was a bad idea). The math was right, but the paper was messed up. However, by turning in the new method of solving the problem, we got enough bonus points to give us a perfect grade on the final project.
I had him later for a Math History class as well (not just memorizing mathematicians and dates, but also how they determined their methods and why) and we had various problems to solve. There were a few times where I (and others) would do it in a different way to what he had expected us to do it, but that just made him even happier when it happened. He never shut us down on new method we used, even if he was pretty adamant on us at least learning how it was usually done. I still think he was one of the best professors I ever had.
Other than him, though, that whole college sucked. There were a good 4 professors that I had that I thought did an amazing job of teaching. The others were just a big waste of time. I was better off teaching myself from the book and saving myself all the time I would have wasted sitting through their pointless classes.
See, when I mix some cake mix with eggs, oil, and water, I get a thing called "cake batter". I put the cake batter in a pan. I put the pan in the oven.
Now the question is, when does it become a cake? Is it a cake as soon as it enters the oven? Having been in there for 1 nano second and yet to have a chance to rise, I have a tough time calling it a cake. To me, it is still cake batter.
With time, it rises, it turns from a thick liquid-like substance into a moist, fluffy solid. It's slowly becoming a cake. But when is it a cake? Is it a cake only when it out of the oven? Or is it a cake a nanosecond before I do? I would say yes.
Where, then, is the tipping point? I don't know. Do you? I would posit that the best we can get is "pretty close" to knowing when it changes from batter into cake. Just like when a Christian believes that life begins at conception, and a pro-choice believes that it doesn't begin at birth, they're two positions that are taken for the simple reason that they wish to have solid footing beneath them as they argue back and forth (I use the term argue loosely, as they don't really do a whole lot of that, so much as they yell at each other and get angry and don't bother listening). It's not right (imo), but that is the way it is.
Also, I don't know that I can call a newborn baby a person either. There, too, exists a gradient. When does an infant become a person? I'm not sure. I haven't studied cognitive development. I believe that, until a baby has human-specific cognitive abilities, they aren't a person. They're an animal. When that is, I don't know. Again, that's just my opinion. Unlike some people, however, I'm willing to talk AND to listen.
Right now, I don't believe so. But even so, if this helps 1/2 or 1/3 of the people who need replacement organs, then that's still helping a LOT of people. I'm not exactly sure how the organ transplant system works, but they may even take some burden off that. So all-in-all, this is a great benefit, though it may not be the silver bullet that cures all of our organ woes. Maybe with time we'll be able to figure something like that out.
Technically, yes. While the spin is centered on its axis, as it orbits, it is also spinning. Spinning around the sun is a perfectly valid phrase. Think about it; if Earth wasn't spinning at all and revolving around the sun, the phrase "spinning around the sun" wouldn't mean a damn thing. You can't spin on something not set on a point or a line.
Example: I can't run in circles around a dancing monkey and say "I'm spinning around the monkey!" It doesn't make sense. But if I spin in circles AND stagger around the dancing monkey, I would, indeed, be spinning around our furry assed friend.
It never would have been a great idea, as people would have never given up on VHS. There's entirely too much hassle here.
Not to mention the fact they're asking for biometric data. "No, I won't let you have my fingerprint, but I WILL be willing to give you a stool sample."
What do you consider to be kids? I'm talking 6 and 7 year olds. Most responsible parents wouldn't dream of picking them up a PS2 or an XBox. What kid-friendly games are there for those? I can't even think of any. Whereas, on the GC, they can be relatively sure that 90% of the games that come out are extremely kid friendly. I'm not talking about 13 year olds who are finally getting into technology and graphics. I'm talking about wee lil' tykes.
Toward the end of a console's lifecycle, I agree. But at the beginning, when you're trying to discern the best you can what sort of games are coming out for each console, and their quality, then it kind of does. At least for me.
Also, I haven't played Katamari Damacy, but I've heard such good things from just about everyone that I'm considering picking the damn thing up.
Anyway, I don't think either of us are really disagreeing with what the others says in terms of fact or fiction, but we just prize certain things more than the other. I'm down with that. I initially was just saying that those who want a more powerful system obviously aren't going to go for the Revolution (at least, not if they're buying just one console; I'll probably have all of the above).
No, a console doesn't live by its processor power alone. It lives by good games. But in my opinion, games have more potential on faster systems. Whether or not they ever live up to that potential is a different story entirely. There are arguments that say that, as the system limits increase in power, the more time is spent trying to harness that power, and less time spent on producing a quality game. Some games definitely fall into that trap. Some, however, do not.
It's okay that you're a fan of the PS2 and the GC. That was your choice, and there's nothing wrong with that. There is no "right" or "wrong" in this, just personal preference. I like the XBox and the GC, but I despise the PS2...mostly because I couldn't find a single game I overly enjoyed on it (even with its vast library of games). I didn't have that problem with the GC or the XBox, but that's me. Other people measure gaming systems different than you and myself. It's not really a big deal. The only thing that matters is that people relax over the whole issue and just let people play what they want to play. Console fanboys need a swift kick in the nerts.
Absolutely correct. I'm not arguing with that. But, if you can have fun game A, and then make fun game B that is the exact same as fun game A in terms of gameplay style, and an overall look and feel for both games that is quantitatively the same (I realize this is subjective); if all things being equal, but the graphics of game b are better than game a, more people are going to enjoy it. More chrome may equal a fun game, but it doesn't necessarily have to.
Pssh, yeah, memory card. My bad. I meant "video card", but my mind was clearly somewhere else. Also, the fact that these systems have OSes that are tweaked solely for gaming needs helps an awful lot.
Very true, but mostly I was referring to little kids - 4 or 5 or 6 years old. Kids who may have problems playing an RPG, but can handle the simplicity of Mario Tennis quite easily. And then, of course, there's the extremely casual gamer who just wants to play every so often and not screw around trying to become a master before it even becomes fun!
Graphics and processor speed. The PS3 is listed as having, what, 1.8 TFLOPS for it's PowerPC processor? The video card matters an awful lot, but a superbly tweaked system with extremely low latency memory with high bandwidth, a fast central processor and a good memory card...it's going to look great. When I said "powerful gaming experience", I meant something that required a "powerful system". My apologies.
You do realize that their target audience isn't the 14-28 year old demographic anymore, don't you? They put out games for kids - damn fine games, I may add. They focus on pick-up-and-play fun factor more than they do graphics. And what's so wrong with that? Just because it doesn't satisfy YOU doesn't mean that it satisfies no one.
The PS3 looks absolutely amazing (hardware specification wise - that controller looks like I could snap it in half in my hand), and it will appeal to those who want a powerful gaming experience. The XBox360 will as well. In fact, I imagine the market will be split into segments just like it was last time; RPG players on one console, everything else on the other, etc, etc. The sides may swap, but they're both going to have market share. And Nintendo will still be there, filling a certain special niche and filling it admirably. There's nothing wrong with that at all.
In fact, the only way I see Nintendo truly failing is if they try to be something they're not. Embracing their strengths and capitalizing on them is the best way for them to go right now.
Slashdot Mirror
I was doing some looking on Google and I came up with this link. It's pretty informative and goes in depth on what this dude is pretty sure Cell is going to be like. I have no idea whether he's a reputable source or not, so keep that in mind.
m l
http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell0.ht
Well, there's the difference between 8-14 hours of development per day and 2-3 hours every few days. These people you're referring to probably aren't going to live on the street and eat out of a dumpster just to keep developing.
It's the place thing that bothers me. I mean, sure, that time thing is pretty worrysome, but the location...yeesh. The Universe is pretty big. What are the chances you'd even land on the surface of a planet that is hospitable to human life? With my luck (almost good, but always with some quirk that makes it very, very bad), I'd appear in the center of a star. Or worse yet, New Jersey.
I don't know if it's just your school, but I know the Calc I and II prof I had at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown was way different. He didn't want to just tell you a method and have you figure it out. First he went through why it was necessary to come up with a method for solving a certain type of problem, and then he worked with us to come up with our own way through it. Sometimes it took 2 or 3 classes before we finally figured out how to actually do it (eventually he would give us hints to guide us, but he mostly wanted to see what we were going to come up with on our own). Having had Calc before I went to college, I knew most of the methods, but I didn't know how those methods were discovered in the first place. This made my calc class somewhat difficult (in that I had to show up), but I also learned an awful lot as well.
It's been about 5 years and everything is hazy, but I remember on our final project in calc 1, we had to do a series of somewhat-related problems that lead us to answering the final question, write a paper on it, and show some nice diagrams. I was skimming through the final problem and I realized there was a different - and much easier way to solve it. I did it and showed him and he told me to include it in with the paper, but to do the others as well. The two "math guys" (myself and another) finished our part, and the "paper people" wrote up the paper (which was a bad idea). The math was right, but the paper was messed up. However, by turning in the new method of solving the problem, we got enough bonus points to give us a perfect grade on the final project.
I had him later for a Math History class as well (not just memorizing mathematicians and dates, but also how they determined their methods and why) and we had various problems to solve. There were a few times where I (and others) would do it in a different way to what he had expected us to do it, but that just made him even happier when it happened. He never shut us down on new method we used, even if he was pretty adamant on us at least learning how it was usually done. I still think he was one of the best professors I ever had.
Other than him, though, that whole college sucked. There were a good 4 professors that I had that I thought did an amazing job of teaching. The others were just a big waste of time. I was better off teaching myself from the book and saving myself all the time I would have wasted sitting through their pointless classes.
We just have different flavors AND American Idol.
I love devolution.
Personally, I would have to agree with you, and I'm ever so happy you decided to continue with my analogy. Woo!
It's called time.
See, when I mix some cake mix with eggs, oil, and water, I get a thing called "cake batter". I put the cake batter in a pan. I put the pan in the oven.
Now the question is, when does it become a cake? Is it a cake as soon as it enters the oven? Having been in there for 1 nano second and yet to have a chance to rise, I have a tough time calling it a cake. To me, it is still cake batter.
With time, it rises, it turns from a thick liquid-like substance into a moist, fluffy solid. It's slowly becoming a cake. But when is it a cake? Is it a cake only when it out of the oven? Or is it a cake a nanosecond before I do? I would say yes.
Where, then, is the tipping point? I don't know. Do you? I would posit that the best we can get is "pretty close" to knowing when it changes from batter into cake. Just like when a Christian believes that life begins at conception, and a pro-choice believes that it doesn't begin at birth, they're two positions that are taken for the simple reason that they wish to have solid footing beneath them as they argue back and forth (I use the term argue loosely, as they don't really do a whole lot of that, so much as they yell at each other and get angry and don't bother listening). It's not right (imo), but that is the way it is.
Also, I don't know that I can call a newborn baby a person either. There, too, exists a gradient. When does an infant become a person? I'm not sure. I haven't studied cognitive development. I believe that, until a baby has human-specific cognitive abilities, they aren't a person. They're an animal. When that is, I don't know. Again, that's just my opinion. Unlike some people, however, I'm willing to talk AND to listen.
Mayhaps they shouldn't. But they probably should acknowledge the possibility that they could be wrong.
Right now, I don't believe so. But even so, if this helps 1/2 or 1/3 of the people who need replacement organs, then that's still helping a LOT of people. I'm not exactly sure how the organ transplant system works, but they may even take some burden off that. So all-in-all, this is a great benefit, though it may not be the silver bullet that cures all of our organ woes. Maybe with time we'll be able to figure something like that out.
Technically, yes. While the spin is centered on its axis, as it orbits, it is also spinning. Spinning around the sun is a perfectly valid phrase. Think about it; if Earth wasn't spinning at all and revolving around the sun, the phrase "spinning around the sun" wouldn't mean a damn thing. You can't spin on something not set on a point or a line.
Example: I can't run in circles around a dancing monkey and say "I'm spinning around the monkey!" It doesn't make sense. But if I spin in circles AND stagger around the dancing monkey, I would, indeed, be spinning around our furry assed friend.
Why was William the Conquerer standing on your ancestor?!?
I would like a biscuit.
A cookie would work too. I'm not too picky.
It never would have been a great idea, as people would have never given up on VHS. There's entirely too much hassle here.
Not to mention the fact they're asking for biometric data. "No, I won't let you have my fingerprint, but I WILL be willing to give you a stool sample."
Ahh, yes, Div. The loveably surly set-top box.
I'm definitely a fan
my last stage was "reading sci fi and fantasy and playing too much D&D", followed by about 6 years of "video games and porn".
:(
I think I've stagnated
What do you consider to be kids? I'm talking 6 and 7 year olds. Most responsible parents wouldn't dream of picking them up a PS2 or an XBox. What kid-friendly games are there for those? I can't even think of any. Whereas, on the GC, they can be relatively sure that 90% of the games that come out are extremely kid friendly. I'm not talking about 13 year olds who are finally getting into technology and graphics. I'm talking about wee lil' tykes.
So script kiddie-ism is the next stage in my evolution?
...
God I'm depressed now.
Toward the end of a console's lifecycle, I agree. But at the beginning, when you're trying to discern the best you can what sort of games are coming out for each console, and their quality, then it kind of does. At least for me.
Also, I haven't played Katamari Damacy, but I've heard such good things from just about everyone that I'm considering picking the damn thing up.
Anyway, I don't think either of us are really disagreeing with what the others says in terms of fact or fiction, but we just prize certain things more than the other. I'm down with that. I initially was just saying that those who want a more powerful system obviously aren't going to go for the Revolution (at least, not if they're buying just one console; I'll probably have all of the above).
True enough, but a: it's wrong, b: if their address changes and they don't find out about it, they can't even vote, and c: it's still wrong.
No, a console doesn't live by its processor power alone. It lives by good games. But in my opinion, games have more potential on faster systems. Whether or not they ever live up to that potential is a different story entirely. There are arguments that say that, as the system limits increase in power, the more time is spent trying to harness that power, and less time spent on producing a quality game. Some games definitely fall into that trap. Some, however, do not.
It's okay that you're a fan of the PS2 and the GC. That was your choice, and there's nothing wrong with that. There is no "right" or "wrong" in this, just personal preference. I like the XBox and the GC, but I despise the PS2...mostly because I couldn't find a single game I overly enjoyed on it (even with its vast library of games). I didn't have that problem with the GC or the XBox, but that's me. Other people measure gaming systems different than you and myself. It's not really a big deal. The only thing that matters is that people relax over the whole issue and just let people play what they want to play. Console fanboys need a swift kick in the nerts.
God Hates Fanboys
Absolutely correct. I'm not arguing with that. But, if you can have fun game A, and then make fun game B that is the exact same as fun game A in terms of gameplay style, and an overall look and feel for both games that is quantitatively the same (I realize this is subjective); if all things being equal, but the graphics of game b are better than game a, more people are going to enjoy it. More chrome may equal a fun game, but it doesn't necessarily have to.
Pssh, yeah, memory card. My bad. I meant "video card", but my mind was clearly somewhere else. Also, the fact that these systems have OSes that are tweaked solely for gaming needs helps an awful lot.
Very true, but mostly I was referring to little kids - 4 or 5 or 6 years old. Kids who may have problems playing an RPG, but can handle the simplicity of Mario Tennis quite easily. And then, of course, there's the extremely casual gamer who just wants to play every so often and not screw around trying to become a master before it even becomes fun!
Graphics and processor speed. The PS3 is listed as having, what, 1.8 TFLOPS for it's PowerPC processor? The video card matters an awful lot, but a superbly tweaked system with extremely low latency memory with high bandwidth, a fast central processor and a good memory card...it's going to look great. When I said "powerful gaming experience", I meant something that required a "powerful system". My apologies.
You do realize that their target audience isn't the 14-28 year old demographic anymore, don't you? They put out games for kids - damn fine games, I may add. They focus on pick-up-and-play fun factor more than they do graphics. And what's so wrong with that? Just because it doesn't satisfy YOU doesn't mean that it satisfies no one.
The PS3 looks absolutely amazing (hardware specification wise - that controller looks like I could snap it in half in my hand), and it will appeal to those who want a powerful gaming experience. The XBox360 will as well. In fact, I imagine the market will be split into segments just like it was last time; RPG players on one console, everything else on the other, etc, etc. The sides may swap, but they're both going to have market share. And Nintendo will still be there, filling a certain special niche and filling it admirably. There's nothing wrong with that at all.
In fact, the only way I see Nintendo truly failing is if they try to be something they're not. Embracing their strengths and capitalizing on them is the best way for them to go right now.