That actually has more to do with latency than number of updates. Latency determines how long until you feel an action from that was updated to the server. If everyone has 200ms ping, then someone shoots you, and that shot is updated to the server 100ms later, then you feel the hit 100ms after that, for a total of 200ms. Within that 200ms, you'd have ample time to hide behind a box or the corner of a wall, but the server would still say you were hit (because 200ms ago you weren't behind that box or wall on your enemies computer). This retroactive update is how modern systems work, and it reduces apparent shooting lag.
Sidenote: This began the misconception that lag time benefited the lagger, or that laggy players lag the whole server, neither of which is true. The quicker your ping time, the faster your shots or actions will register on the server. If a high ping bastard and low ping bastard shoot each other at the same exact moment, the LPB will have his shot register first, and the HPB will die.
Originally, shots and hits were always done actively at the time it reached the server. So if you had 400ms ping, you'd see your gun shoot 400ms after you fired it. This made lag almost unbearable for most high ping players, because if they shot at you, they'd almost always miss, because by the time their shot registered, you would've moved out of the spot you were standing a split second ago.
As for the article, it's dealing solely with player movement on MMORPGS, which is determined by the rate of updates (how many packets get sent out per second). Player action updates are always triggered at the time of action (such as casting a spell), however, movement is an ongoing process. Basically your client updates the server around a dozen times a second with position and velocity information, because of your movement. However, it always assumes you'll stick to that velocity (moving forward? dead reckoning predicts you move forward some more) in between updates. If you deviate from your predicted movement along a velocity, you need to send an update to the server. This new method will predict what movement you'll take, rather than always assuming a straight line from your current movement.
My student ACM account doesn't have subscription to access the article, so I'm not entirely sure, but this is my take on what it does: For instance, if you're moving forward, and there's something in front of you, the neural net will attempt to determine that you'll probably move in a different direction, and send that as your predicted velocity. If it turns out you don't move that direction, you'll simply have to send another update. If you do move that direction (which statistically you should), then there will be no need for an update, thereby saving bandwidth. These predictions and updates happen at a rate which makes it seem like your player is moving smoothly, when in reality, there's a bunch of micro deviations and stuttering.
Just because its commissioned by eBay doesn't mean the company (the largest independent polling company in Canada) made a loaded survey, especially when AT&T is also a client of theirs. If the survey turned out to be negative for eBay, they could simply not release the information.
games that I already played on the PC several years ago?
Somehow I doubt you played Portal, TF2, and Ep2 a few years ago, since those are 3 new games. You talk about price, but what I'm seeing is three new games for the price of one (I paid $45), plus a decent engine (Source SDK has new shader improvements) with plenty of mods. Peggle is also a great addition, since I'm a fan of pachinko and have played the demo version before.
You may think you're getting ripped off because HL2 and Ep1 is packaged with it. That's a bonus, not what you're paying for.
Why are we trying to reduce the cost of Asian providers when the US' is still overpriced, unreliable, and underserved?
Last time I checked, Japan and SK had amazing speeds (10-100mbit) for very affordable prices. It's still a matter of government intervention, not corporate meddling.
They found SIX separate undocumented plane crash sites while searching for Fosset... why is it they can find these plane crashes while searching for Fosset, but couldn't find any of those before hand?
It's also quite illogical to ask "who" didn't get attention -- if they got attention, then we'd know who they were.
People who are dismissing as just a wall of monitors are mistaken. It takes dozens of computers to run that resolution, which is no trivial task. This is not a theater system, so complaining about seams misses the point entirely. If they were just looking for a semi-large seamless screen, any shmuck could just use a single projector.
This system allows groups of researchers to review large amounts of visual data in both macro and micro scale. If you want to see the micro scale, you simply walk up to an individual monitor. Review can be done simultaneously among many people.
For a seamless, 100 million pixel projection screen (this is also not trivial, as removing seams requires real time brightness and color correction along edges) can be viewed here. In comparison, an IMAX theater uses a very large single projector unit weighing nearly 2 tons.
A 7Mb/s connection isn't a bad deal at $60 in the US. I bet my roommates and I pay over 40 for our cable host (not my choice) at only 2Mb/s shared (it might be more, but I've never seen it go over that). Companies up the charges after the first 3-6 discounted months on annual subs.
I looked at the company's site, and they don't do annual subscription deals, so I think they might have a hard time convincing new buyers, but it looks good for those wanting to jump ship off of restrictive providers.
The free Ubuntu CD they give to their customers is kind of... uh... weird. I guess if someone couldn't download an OS or get a friend to burn a CD it'd be nifty, though rare.
Re:Back in the days when the grass was greener...
on
Failing Our Geniuses
·
· Score: 1
Alright, this is gonna fairly anti-climatic:
I've been two 2 different elementary schools in separate districts, and both had similar systems. Group selection was based on academics, not behavior (though they were highly corollary). I'm not that old, either, so I don't get why you think "nowadays" that such a system wouldn't be accepted. My schools were diverse Southern California schools (euro-ams were minorities). This system is also similar for math placements when moving on to junior high (do you end up in remedial math or pre-algebra?).
The real question is, "Do the groups actually work?" My answer? Hell no.
I started in the top groups, which are dependent on teacher recommendations and test scores. I always ended up in the bottom group by the end of the year. I was also placed in a special class for a year, which took half of the day. Special class in this case wasn't for advanced students, but the other kind of special. Yep, I was in a group for the underdeveloped, despite also being accepted into the gifted students program. How that works, I still have no idea.
And so did being in stupid class or the bottom group leave me behind? Yeah, it left me lacking in academic support (which I wouldn't have anyways), though they sure were a lot nicer there (I got rewarded in jelly beans, hell yeah!)
Did being in the A group boost me ahead? No way. (I get to read Lord of the Flies and do multiplication early, imma be a genius! Or not). "A" group all the way through elementary is always half a step ahead. This is a linear progression -- the same linear progression you'd have if you were in a hypothetical F group (always half a step behind). You're not moving any faster.
This has little to do with the TFA. The kids in the TFA are years ahead of their peers. Unless we we're doing calculus before our 10th birthday, I don't think this shit applies to us. So, now back to your regularly scheduled arguments.
They won't drop out for quite awhile, but Sun was visiting universities (including mine), and their presentations were emphasizing a shift to services. Their long term goals are for support on top of open source software (they believe in house developers will become a liability for businesses, who in turn will shift their development to large businesses like Sun).
If IBM sells more Solaris servers, Sun wins long term software support and IBM wins hardware sales and support, and both extend their brands. Of course, having their own line of hardware keeps a steady stream of support business; but I think they'd move their hardware business over to smaller niche markets or consolidate it with a larger company in a fiscal heartbeat. Sun is looking at every way to capture more developers.
They seriously don't mean to use it as patrol? Someone can just walk up to it and smash its sensors with a rock. You can't argue that it was acting in self defense, unless they want to argue that a machine has human rights. What're you gonna do when a couple of kids start messing with it? It might be useful for entry or defensive situations, and attacking enemies engaged in combat (i.e. people shooting other people), but sending it out onto the streets seems like a giant waste of resources.
I used to make long distance calls for free when I was a teen by using a ad->minutes phone service. I think it was around 1:10 ad to talk ratio, so I'd call my friends after 5 minutes of ads. You had to press a button when each ad was done, so you can't set the phone down and walk away. Most of the ads were people talking about ordering food (Omaha steaks, etc.) and some other vague websites and products I don't remember. I don't eat meat anymore, and don't remember anything else about it, so either the advertising was ineffective or they brainwashed me pretty clean.
If you've ever played an older online FPS before, like Q2, before broadband and clientside fire became standard, firing was delayed by your ping (it took my railgun almost 1 second to fire). That was much better than playing my voodoo2 on half life, where I got 4 FPS intermittently, but where my shots were instant (from the client's perspective). It's much easier to play with a steady FPS than it is to play with unresponsive servers (As someone else has stated, it's not possible to have blazing FPS and an unresponsive client, unless there's some skewed prioritization. You're looking at a fluke if that happens).
its a bit odd that $299 gets you a computer that is that crap.
This one is finally the laptop I want: small, lightweight, and not bloated. I don't want to spend 1-2k USD on a mini laptop, and I don't want to spend 500 USD on a bulky laptop, even if it's faster and has extras like Vista (no thanks).
For it's size and weight, this is an excellent buy. Usually we'd be paying more for such a small size. You don't need speed on a a lightweight portable -- save the speed for a desktop (if you want to use your laptop as a desktop, that's a whole different issue).
Guitar hero is not really a competitive game, as players are really just playing against a preset sequence, not eachother. It's impressive for a while, but it's more similar to rodeo than head to head competition.
Fight Night is hardly competitor quality, especially for a fighting game. I'm assuming it's on the list because of corporate meddling. They could've at least chose a fighting game actively played in leagues, like Super Smash Brothers.
World of Warcraft is not balanced enough nor does it have the gameplay for competitive PVP. PVP might be fun, but at a competitive level, class imbalance (which rotates every patch), UI modding, combat skills (especially engineering), terrain imbalance (no projectile clipping), and itemization all play a large factor at an advanced level. Blizzard can make very competitive RTS, but WoW just isn't even close to that caliber.
Seems like a computer's ability to compute probability should win in the long haul. Dealing with bluffing seems moot when you can compute cash flow stakes using something like a markov chain.
It's really not up to Wikipedia to correct another sources mistakes, only to note the conflict, unless verified by other sources. Though it's not on article space, it's a poor show.
But getting to the main point, it's a bad idea to discredit Britannica when it's a source used throughout Wikipedia itself as a tertiary source.
There's still growth, the article just doesn't state exactly how much - probably ~0.65% annually, from the information given..
Anyways, as the article states, papers aren't always the best indication of actual information output. It's common practice for researchers to "recycle" papers, adding a bit of new information on top of the bulk of previous published work. It's in a researcher's best interest to limit the amount of both papers AND information, as to keep a steady stream of output (and keep their job). Tracking citation count seems more accurate in representing useful information output. It'd be even more accurate if we could somehow track actual implementation and use of the information.
Just because a domain is currently using a parked page doesn't mean their intent is to sell domains or leave the parking page up forever. If a site is on hiatus, then parking pages can serve as a source of revenue or at least a traffic redirection.
I have domains I currently use for email but don't have corresponding websites.
Is it secure? The article doesn't state enough to be sure. Simply changing the code after each use does not provide any security. There's a few ways this could provide pretty good security, but the article fails to mention any.
This product falls under (cryptographic) snake-oil.
CPU bottlenecks between processors can produce 10 fps differences depending on the game, more than enough to see. Often the game will choke and produce slowdowns with differences greater than double between two comparative processors.
Click if you want a current example The bottleneck for the higher resolutions is the videocard. You'd see an even larger difference between FPS in CPU intesive games like BF2, and in future games that'll require more processing. Other benchmarks (such as Tom's Hardware's CPU chart) show a 25% FPS difference between AMD's top of the line and Intel's top of the line. Currently AMD is king, and in a few games the difference is noticeable.
Claiming that rich gamers are buying AMD for the underdog factor is stupid, even if there were only 1% differences between the CPU. They buy what's the best. I buy what's fastest for the price, and AMD still wins for the most part in that category.
The performance difference for games is not noticable by human beings.
You obviously don't play many games. Or at least not ones that require movement and aiming.
The difference between 24 frames per second (FPS) and 60 FPS is enormous, and easily visible. The difference between 60 FPS and 80 FPS (usually corresponding to the monitor's refresh rate) is also noticable if you play enough games. Even if vertical refresh limited, FPS is noticible past 60. Past around 80 fps, the lag becomes indistinguishable for everyone; however, newer games will bring the average gamer's video card and CPU to their knees and back in the 20-40 fps range.
I'm using 60Hz for my CRT monitor's refresh rate right now. I can easily see waves of darkness flicker on the screen while typing this post. At 75hz, the flickering disappears.
The misconception that 24 fps is all we need comes from film. There's differences between film and other media, though.
He hasn't made any good scifi (and arguably anything good) since Alien. This whole thing sounds hokey and the work of some disconnected-from-reality assumptions about what gamers and sci-fi goers want. I wouldn't trust a traditional director with a game, ever.
The best gains Wine had were on PC Mark 2k4 testing. If you actually looked at the benchmark, you can see Wine did poorly on the graphical part, however every other part, except HDD usage, Wine exceeded windows.
Slashdot Mirror
That actually has more to do with latency than number of updates. Latency determines how long until you feel an action from that was updated to the server. If everyone has 200ms ping, then someone shoots you, and that shot is updated to the server 100ms later, then you feel the hit 100ms after that, for a total of 200ms. Within that 200ms, you'd have ample time to hide behind a box or the corner of a wall, but the server would still say you were hit (because 200ms ago you weren't behind that box or wall on your enemies computer). This retroactive update is how modern systems work, and it reduces apparent shooting lag.
Sidenote: This began the misconception that lag time benefited the lagger, or that laggy players lag the whole server, neither of which is true. The quicker your ping time, the faster your shots or actions will register on the server. If a high ping bastard and low ping bastard shoot each other at the same exact moment, the LPB will have his shot register first, and the HPB will die.
Originally, shots and hits were always done actively at the time it reached the server. So if you had 400ms ping, you'd see your gun shoot 400ms after you fired it. This made lag almost unbearable for most high ping players, because if they shot at you, they'd almost always miss, because by the time their shot registered, you would've moved out of the spot you were standing a split second ago.
As for the article, it's dealing solely with player movement on MMORPGS, which is determined by the rate of updates (how many packets get sent out per second). Player action updates are always triggered at the time of action (such as casting a spell), however, movement is an ongoing process. Basically your client updates the server around a dozen times a second with position and velocity information, because of your movement. However, it always assumes you'll stick to that velocity (moving forward? dead reckoning predicts you move forward some more) in between updates. If you deviate from your predicted movement along a velocity, you need to send an update to the server. This new method will predict what movement you'll take, rather than always assuming a straight line from your current movement.
My student ACM account doesn't have subscription to access the article, so I'm not entirely sure, but this is my take on what it does:
For instance, if you're moving forward, and there's something in front of you, the neural net will attempt to determine that you'll probably move in a different direction, and send that as your predicted velocity. If it turns out you don't move that direction, you'll simply have to send another update. If you do move that direction (which statistically you should), then there will be no need for an update, thereby saving bandwidth. These predictions and updates happen at a rate which makes it seem like your player is moving smoothly, when in reality, there's a bunch of micro deviations and stuttering.
Just because its commissioned by eBay doesn't mean the company (the largest independent polling company in Canada) made a loaded survey, especially when AT&T is also a client of theirs. If the survey turned out to be negative for eBay, they could simply not release the information.
Somehow I doubt you played Portal, TF2, and Ep2 a few years ago, since those are 3 new games. You talk about price, but what I'm seeing is three new games for the price of one (I paid $45), plus a decent engine (Source SDK has new shader improvements) with plenty of mods. Peggle is also a great addition, since I'm a fan of pachinko and have played the demo version before.
You may think you're getting ripped off because HL2 and Ep1 is packaged with it. That's a bonus, not what you're paying for.
Why are we trying to reduce the cost of Asian providers when the US' is still overpriced, unreliable, and underserved?
Last time I checked, Japan and SK had amazing speeds (10-100mbit) for very affordable prices. It's still a matter of government intervention, not corporate meddling.
They found SIX separate undocumented plane crash sites while searching for Fosset... why is it they can find these plane crashes while searching for Fosset, but couldn't find any of those before hand?
It's also quite illogical to ask "who" didn't get attention -- if they got attention, then we'd know who they were.
People who are dismissing as just a wall of monitors are mistaken. It takes dozens of computers to run that resolution, which is no trivial task. This is not a theater system, so complaining about seams misses the point entirely. If they were just looking for a semi-large seamless screen, any shmuck could just use a single projector.
This system allows groups of researchers to review large amounts of visual data in both macro and micro scale. If you want to see the micro scale, you simply walk up to an individual monitor. Review can be done simultaneously among many people.
For a seamless, 100 million pixel projection screen (this is also not trivial, as removing seams requires real time brightness and color correction along edges) can be viewed here. In comparison, an IMAX theater uses a very large single projector unit weighing nearly 2 tons.
The sister screen at UCI can be viewed at here.
A 7Mb/s connection isn't a bad deal at $60 in the US. I bet my roommates and I pay over 40 for our cable host (not my choice) at only 2Mb/s shared (it might be more, but I've never seen it go over that). Companies up the charges after the first 3-6 discounted months on annual subs.
I looked at the company's site, and they don't do annual subscription deals, so I think they might have a hard time convincing new buyers, but it looks good for those wanting to jump ship off of restrictive providers.
The free Ubuntu CD they give to their customers is kind of... uh... weird. I guess if someone couldn't download an OS or get a friend to burn a CD it'd be nifty, though rare.
Alright, this is gonna fairly anti-climatic:
I've been two 2 different elementary schools in separate districts, and both had similar systems. Group selection was based on academics, not behavior (though they were highly corollary). I'm not that old, either, so I don't get why you think "nowadays" that such a system wouldn't be accepted. My schools were diverse Southern California schools (euro-ams were minorities). This system is also similar for math placements when moving on to junior high (do you end up in remedial math or pre-algebra?).
The real question is, "Do the groups actually work?" My answer? Hell no.
I started in the top groups, which are dependent on teacher recommendations and test scores. I always ended up in the bottom group by the end of the year. I was also placed in a special class for a year, which took half of the day. Special class in this case wasn't for advanced students, but the other kind of special. Yep, I was in a group for the underdeveloped, despite also being accepted into the gifted students program. How that works, I still have no idea.
And so did being in stupid class or the bottom group leave me behind? Yeah, it left me lacking in academic support (which I wouldn't have anyways), though they sure were a lot nicer there (I got rewarded in jelly beans, hell yeah!)
Did being in the A group boost me ahead? No way. (I get to read Lord of the Flies and do multiplication early, imma be a genius! Or not). "A" group all the way through elementary is always half a step ahead. This is a linear progression -- the same linear progression you'd have if you were in a hypothetical F group (always half a step behind). You're not moving any faster.
This has little to do with the TFA. The kids in the TFA are years ahead of their peers. Unless we we're doing calculus before our 10th birthday, I don't think this shit applies to us. So, now back to your regularly scheduled arguments.
They won't drop out for quite awhile, but Sun was visiting universities (including mine), and their presentations were emphasizing a shift to services. Their long term goals are for support on top of open source software (they believe in house developers will become a liability for businesses, who in turn will shift their development to large businesses like Sun).
If IBM sells more Solaris servers, Sun wins long term software support and IBM wins hardware sales and support, and both extend their brands. Of course, having their own line of hardware keeps a steady stream of support business; but I think they'd move their hardware business over to smaller niche markets or consolidate it with a larger company in a fiscal heartbeat. Sun is looking at every way to capture more developers.
They seriously don't mean to use it as patrol? Someone can just walk up to it and smash its sensors with a rock. You can't argue that it was acting in self defense, unless they want to argue that a machine has human rights. What're you gonna do when a couple of kids start messing with it? It might be useful for entry or defensive situations, and attacking enemies engaged in combat (i.e. people shooting other people), but sending it out onto the streets seems like a giant waste of resources.
I used to make long distance calls for free when I was a teen by using a ad->minutes phone service. I think it was around 1:10 ad to talk ratio, so I'd call my friends after 5 minutes of ads. You had to press a button when each ad was done, so you can't set the phone down and walk away. Most of the ads were people talking about ordering food (Omaha steaks, etc.) and some other vague websites and products I don't remember. I don't eat meat anymore, and don't remember anything else about it, so either the advertising was ineffective or they brainwashed me pretty clean.
If you've ever played an older online FPS before, like Q2, before broadband and clientside fire became standard, firing was delayed by your ping (it took my railgun almost 1 second to fire). That was much better than playing my voodoo2 on half life, where I got 4 FPS intermittently, but where my shots were instant (from the client's perspective). It's much easier to play with a steady FPS than it is to play with unresponsive servers (As someone else has stated, it's not possible to have blazing FPS and an unresponsive client, unless there's some skewed prioritization. You're looking at a fluke if that happens).
For it's size and weight, this is an excellent buy. Usually we'd be paying more for such a small size. You don't need speed on a a lightweight portable -- save the speed for a desktop (if you want to use your laptop as a desktop, that's a whole different issue).
Seems like a computer's ability to compute probability should win in the long haul. Dealing with bluffing seems moot when you can compute cash flow stakes using something like a markov chain.
It's really not up to Wikipedia to correct another sources mistakes, only to note the conflict, unless verified by other sources. Though it's not on article space, it's a poor show. But getting to the main point, it's a bad idea to discredit Britannica when it's a source used throughout Wikipedia itself as a tertiary source.
There's still growth, the article just doesn't state exactly how much - probably ~0.65% annually, from the information given..
Anyways, as the article states, papers aren't always the best indication of actual information output. It's common practice for researchers to "recycle" papers, adding a bit of new information on top of the bulk of previous published work. It's in a researcher's best interest to limit the amount of both papers AND information, as to keep a steady stream of output (and keep their job). Tracking citation count seems more accurate in representing useful information output. It'd be even more accurate if we could somehow track actual implementation and use of the information.
Just because a domain is currently using a parked page doesn't mean their intent is to sell domains or leave the parking page up forever. If a site is on hiatus, then parking pages can serve as a source of revenue or at least a traffic redirection.
I have domains I currently use for email but don't have corresponding websites.
Is it secure? The article doesn't state enough to be sure. Simply changing the code after each use does not provide any security. There's a few ways this could provide pretty good security, but the article fails to mention any.
This product falls under (cryptographic) snake-oil.
Cubic Zarconia "Trust me, she'll know"
Small Diamond "Hey, it's still a diamond"
Flawless Diamond "Will you marry me?"
The Rock "It's huge!"
CPU bottlenecks between processors can produce 10 fps differences depending on the game, more than enough to see. Often the game will choke and produce slowdowns with differences greater than double between two comparative processors.
Click if you want a current example The bottleneck for the higher resolutions is the videocard. You'd see an even larger difference between FPS in CPU intesive games like BF2, and in future games that'll require more processing. Other benchmarks (such as Tom's Hardware's CPU chart) show a 25% FPS difference between AMD's top of the line and Intel's top of the line. Currently AMD is king, and in a few games the difference is noticeable.
Claiming that rich gamers are buying AMD for the underdog factor is stupid, even if there were only 1% differences between the CPU. They buy what's the best. I buy what's fastest for the price, and AMD still wins for the most part in that category.
The difference between 24 frames per second (FPS) and 60 FPS is enormous, and easily visible. The difference between 60 FPS and 80 FPS (usually corresponding to the monitor's refresh rate) is also noticable if you play enough games. Even if vertical refresh limited, FPS is noticible past 60. Past around 80 fps, the lag becomes indistinguishable for everyone; however, newer games will bring the average gamer's video card and CPU to their knees and back in the 20-40 fps range.
I'm using 60Hz for my CRT monitor's refresh rate right now. I can easily see waves of darkness flicker on the screen while typing this post. At 75hz, the flickering disappears.
The misconception that 24 fps is all we need comes from film. There's differences between film and other media, though.
He hasn't made any good scifi (and arguably anything good) since Alien. This whole thing sounds hokey and the work of some disconnected-from-reality assumptions about what gamers and sci-fi goers want. I wouldn't trust a traditional director with a game, ever.
There were two small sections of two games on the bottom. Both games are very easy to install (Quake and UT).
Most of the benchmarking is done by industrial software programs (raw operations), not videogames.
The best gains Wine had were on PC Mark 2k4 testing. If you actually looked at the benchmark, you can see Wine did poorly on the graphical part, however every other part, except HDD usage, Wine exceeded windows.