Ahhh, yes, I remember trying to reinstall the most recent audigy drivers after a fresh CD install as well.:)
Those bastards really hide the older driver versions well.... I don't even remember where I found the intermediate version which allowed me to install the newest version.
While your understanding is correct (individual fields have half the vertical resolution but the combined result has the same resolution-- the tradeoff is the temporal artifacts since resolution in that domain is essentially halved), my understanding is that typically 1080p sets also have higher screen resolution. Again, I'm not an expert but as I understand it 1080i sets are usually 720p with 720 lines of vertical native resolution vs. 1080p with 1080 lines vertical native res.
Point taken. Rare, where oh where did you go wrong? Didn't a bunch of developers leave Rare around that time, form Free Radical, and make those TimeSplitters games? They were fun although I never owned a PS2 so I didn't play them too much.
But yeah, since the N64 Rare has been more or less dead to me. I tried to but really couldn't care less about the Microsoft buyout nor this recent departure. As you said the real talent, or at least their inspiration, left long ago. I can see how BFD could be seen as a symbol of their drastic downward turn, but I like to think of it as their last hurrah.
Sorry to drift slightly off-topic, but why do people always bash Conker's Bad Fur Day? It seems like no one played it since it came out so late in the N64's lifetime, thus it's OK to just write it off as a Banjo clone with potty humor...
...Well it is, more or less, but it's also an awesome game! Of RARE's three N64 platformer titles it is easily the best. Also, probably my favorite ending to a game, ever. Right up there next to Planescape: Torment. (Seriously-- and if you're interested, don't spoil it, you've got to play it through yourself!)
If you loved Banjo-Kazooie but were a bit disappointed by the less-than-inspired Banjo-Tooie, you really need to give Conker's Bad Fur Day a try. If you're not sold by the time you reach the giant singing poo-blob boss, then I guess you just wouldn't understand true genius if it poked you in the eye with a sharp stick.
From what I got from a quick glimpse at the article, your program should be allocating upload bandwidth to some peer, making the decision based upon the tit-for-tat ratio or reverting to basic Azureus behavior if there isn't an intelligent choice. In other words, the client is not completely selfish in that the allocated upload bandwidth should always be saturated, just saturated as intelligently as possible
Have you done much testing using more realistic upload caps? 100 MB upload is nice but a 30 K limit is the reality for 99% of people using bittorrent. I'm testing your client now and performance seems to be rather negatively impacted by the upload decisions. For one, it is nowhere near saturating my allocated upload bandwidth (22 K/sec, a bit miserly, I know). I've got plenty of pieces to send, but I'm getting an average upload rate of about 13 K/sec, with frequent dips and spikes. A bit ago I checked and it wasn't sending anything at all for a good 30 seconds!
Perhaps your program would benefit from finer-grained control over upload capacity or maybe you could use a few peers as `sponges' to soak up extra bandwidth. An unused 10 K/sec of upload capacity isn't much when you have 100 M, but it's a very significant chunk to the majority of users.
Overall it's an interesting idea but I can't help but feel it is irrelevant to the vast majority of bittorrent users. It seems to have too difficult a time getting usable data regarding peers and spends too much time switching around peers trying to find a `good' one. Overall, the ranking process seems overly complicated and ineffective. My intuition is that something simpler would work better in practice. Again, interesting idea, but the implementation doesn't seem too useful in low upload capacity situations like mine.
Gah, I already moderated a bunch of posts but I just have to respond to this. A lot of people missed Conker's Bad Fur Day as it was one of the last few titles to be released for the N64... But! it was also one of the best, definitely in the top 5 for me.
Rare perfected and expanded upon their platformer formula which had already provided some great games for the system (Banjo-Kazooie/Tooie), throwing in a good helping of brilliant (and very adult at times) humor. Also, probably the best ending to a video game ever. I won't spoil anything, but if anyone reading this was a fan of the N64 and did not play this game (through to the end), you really owe it to yourself to check it out.
creating prioritized vertical slices that iterate on the most critical elements and features
But can I synergize with my results-driven knowledge base while partnering with self-managed teams, increasing single-source responsibility while undergoing a complete paradigm shift?
Couple things:
Hassle and risk?
Took me about 15 minutes to add the rockbox firmware to my iPod. As far as risk, no one has broken their iPod yet with Rockbox, and I can't imagine how they would... If something truly 'bad' happens, you can always use the iPod restore utility, even if the firmware is completely junked, since that functionality is built in to a read-only portion of the hardware.
As far as comparing it to iPodLinux, the two projects have very different goals. iPodLinux wants to take a general operating system and cram it onto a music player with as much original functionality as possible, whereas Rockbox is designed from the bottom up as a replacement firmware for music players that has better support for more formats with more features and eventually, a better interface (the most lacking aspect of Rockbox ATM).
Also, it's strange that this article mentions Rockbox only in the context of iPods, considering that it was originally designed with Archos and iRiver players in mind, and has only been working on iPods for a couple months. Hence, many things which work nicely for other targets are still quite broken on iPod.
It does have a very active dev community (I can cvs update every 3 or 5 days and see a new major feature working) and is a lot of fun to tinker with, but as far as a 'better' replacement for the iPod firmware, I really wouldn't say it's quite there yet.
Re:Doomsday can come only from governments
on
Forecasting Doomsday
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
A problem I see with your idea is that it again concentrates too much power into the hands of the few-- this time those who would prevent an otherwise reasonable law. You say it should be difficult for any but the most basically agreed-upon laws to pass at a Federal level. I would think that it would be virtually impossible to pass any laws at any level with your system, seeing as how the guy with the most guns relative to those around him is probably not going to have a problem with legalized murder.
Of course, you could account for this by thresholding the required vote at some reasonable percentage; you could build in systems of checks and balances to distribute the power as evenly as possible. There are lots of ways one could augment this system to make it more reasonable, but the more you do so, the more similar your system begins to look to the one we already have.
Human history has seen the rise and fall of many cultures and societies with wildly different values and structure. Like socialism, libertarianism, and many other alternative methods of social organization, the primary force which prevents our current society from functioning at its highest effeciency is not some fundamental flaw in its underlying logic, it's our own damned human nature.
Bah, I had a great 'crocodile tears' quote to throw in here, but now I can't find it.
"A method for processing digital signals, where the digital signals have first values, second values and other values, to reduce the amount of data utilized to represent the digital signals and to form statistically coded signals such that the more frequently occurring values of digital signals are represented by shorter code lengths and the less frequently occurring values of digital signals are represented by longer code lengths,..."
Deep Blue can support far greater search depths than your average electronic chess board / program. Also, I never claimed I routinely or easily beat Deep Blue. I was just trying to point out that the algorithm is very simple and easy to exploit if you understand it. I routinely beat my electronic chess board on the hardest setting.
Deep Blue beat Kasparov in a tournament one time, after Kasparov beating it the year before. Also, in the match Deep Blue won (1997), it was not a completely shutout. Deep Blue won most, but Kasparov won a game as well.
Actually, if you understand chess search algorithms it is not too difficult to "pwn" the computer at the hardest settings. It is interesting you mention chess, as there is no fast, "human-like" algorithm which can mimic a grandmaster-level human player; there are only brute-force algorithms which rely on searching millions of permutations of possibilities and pick the best one making very simplifying assumptions regarding how you will react to plays.
And for the record, I, for one, would love to play a computer bot which always beat me, as long as it did so in a very "human-like" manner and by playing it, I could become better against human opponents as well.
Find an independent consumer review site and read reviews written by actual consumers, who have actually owned and used the product in question for a reasonable period. Don't fall for the recycled marketing buzz "reviews" by some "professional" sites/reviewers, which seem to never be more than a cursory overview of available features, by someone who will never own or use the product. And don't bother with the OMG NEWEGG ROCKS I JUST GOT THIS CAMERA AND IT OWNZ!!! reviews by noobs who haven't even taken it out of the box. Find some people who've actually had it for a while.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahhh, yes, I remember trying to reinstall the most recent audigy drivers after a fresh CD install as well. :)
Those bastards really hide the older driver versions well.... I don't even remember where I found the intermediate version which allowed me to install the newest version.
While your understanding is correct (individual fields have half the vertical resolution but the combined result has the same resolution-- the tradeoff is the temporal artifacts since resolution in that domain is essentially halved), my understanding is that typically 1080p sets also have higher screen resolution. Again, I'm not an expert but as I understand it 1080i sets are usually 720p with 720 lines of vertical native resolution vs. 1080p with 1080 lines vertical native res.
Glad I'm not the only one :)
Point taken. Rare, where oh where did you go wrong? Didn't a bunch of developers leave Rare around that time, form Free Radical, and make those TimeSplitters games? They were fun although I never owned a PS2 so I didn't play them too much.
But yeah, since the N64 Rare has been more or less dead to me. I tried to but really couldn't care less about the Microsoft buyout nor this recent departure. As you said the real talent, or at least their inspiration, left long ago. I can see how BFD could be seen as a symbol of their drastic downward turn, but I like to think of it as their last hurrah.
Sorry to drift slightly off-topic, but why do people always bash Conker's Bad Fur Day? It seems like no one played it since it came out so late in the N64's lifetime, thus it's OK to just write it off as a Banjo clone with potty humor...
...Well it is, more or less, but it's also an awesome game! Of RARE's three N64 platformer titles it is easily the best. Also, probably my favorite ending to a game, ever. Right up there next to Planescape: Torment. (Seriously-- and if you're interested, don't spoil it, you've got to play it through yourself!)
If you loved Banjo-Kazooie but were a bit disappointed by the less-than-inspired Banjo-Tooie, you really need to give Conker's Bad Fur Day a try. If you're not sold by the time you reach the giant singing poo-blob boss, then I guess you just wouldn't understand true genius if it poked you in the eye with a sharp stick.
From what I got from a quick glimpse at the article, your program should be allocating upload bandwidth to some peer, making the decision based upon the tit-for-tat ratio or reverting to basic Azureus behavior if there isn't an intelligent choice. In other words, the client is not completely selfish in that the allocated upload bandwidth should always be saturated, just saturated as intelligently as possible
Have you done much testing using more realistic upload caps? 100 MB upload is nice but a 30 K limit is the reality for 99% of people using bittorrent. I'm testing your client now and performance seems to be rather negatively impacted by the upload decisions. For one, it is nowhere near saturating my allocated upload bandwidth (22 K/sec, a bit miserly, I know). I've got plenty of pieces to send, but I'm getting an average upload rate of about 13 K/sec, with frequent dips and spikes. A bit ago I checked and it wasn't sending anything at all for a good 30 seconds!
Perhaps your program would benefit from finer-grained control over upload capacity or maybe you could use a few peers as `sponges' to soak up extra bandwidth. An unused 10 K/sec of upload capacity isn't much when you have 100 M, but it's a very significant chunk to the majority of users.
Overall it's an interesting idea but I can't help but feel it is irrelevant to the vast majority of bittorrent users. It seems to have too difficult a time getting usable data regarding peers and spends too much time switching around peers trying to find a `good' one. Overall, the ranking process seems overly complicated and ineffective. My intuition is that something simpler would work better in practice. Again, interesting idea, but the implementation doesn't seem too useful in low upload capacity situations like mine.
Of course if you want something that just screams "I am the ubergeek" you could hack a wiimote to control your mouse like these guys.
Gah, I already moderated a bunch of posts but I just have to respond to this. A lot of people missed Conker's Bad Fur Day as it was one of the last few titles to be released for the N64... But! it was also one of the best, definitely in the top 5 for me.
;)
Rare perfected and expanded upon their platformer formula which had already provided some great games for the system (Banjo-Kazooie/Tooie), throwing in a good helping of brilliant (and very adult at times) humor. Also, probably the best ending to a video game ever. I won't spoil anything, but if anyone reading this was a fan of the N64 and did not play this game (through to the end), you really owe it to yourself to check it out.
P.S. TFA is load of shit-- just my opinion
But can I synergize with my results-driven knowledge base while partnering with self-managed teams, increasing single-source responsibility while undergoing a complete paradigm shift?
I didn't think so.
Couple things:
Hassle and risk?
Took me about 15 minutes to add the rockbox firmware to my iPod. As far as risk, no one has broken their iPod yet with Rockbox, and I can't imagine how they would... If something truly 'bad' happens, you can always use the iPod restore utility, even if the firmware is completely junked, since that functionality is built in to a read-only portion of the hardware.
As far as comparing it to iPodLinux, the two projects have very different goals. iPodLinux wants to take a general operating system and cram it onto a music player with as much original functionality as possible, whereas Rockbox is designed from the bottom up as a replacement firmware for music players that has better support for more formats with more features and eventually, a better interface (the most lacking aspect of Rockbox ATM).
Also, it's strange that this article mentions Rockbox only in the context of iPods, considering that it was originally designed with Archos and iRiver players in mind, and has only been working on iPods for a couple months. Hence, many things which work nicely for other targets are still quite broken on iPod.
It does have a very active dev community (I can cvs update every 3 or 5 days and see a new major feature working) and is a lot of fun to tinker with, but as far as a 'better' replacement for the iPod firmware, I really wouldn't say it's quite there yet.
A problem I see with your idea is that it again concentrates too much power into the hands of the few-- this time those who would prevent an otherwise reasonable law. You say it should be difficult for any but the most basically agreed-upon laws to pass at a Federal level. I would think that it would be virtually impossible to pass any laws at any level with your system, seeing as how the guy with the most guns relative to those around him is probably not going to have a problem with legalized murder.
Of course, you could account for this by thresholding the required vote at some reasonable percentage; you could build in systems of checks and balances to distribute the power as evenly as possible. There are lots of ways one could augment this system to make it more reasonable, but the more you do so, the more similar your system begins to look to the one we already have.
Human history has seen the rise and fall of many cultures and societies with wildly different values and structure. Like socialism, libertarianism, and many other alternative methods of social organization, the primary force which prevents our current society from functioning at its highest effeciency is not some fundamental flaw in its underlying logic, it's our own damned human nature.
Bah, I had a great 'crocodile tears' quote to throw in here, but now I can't find it.
Gee, where have I seen that before?
Deep Blue can support far greater search depths than your average electronic chess board / program. Also, I never claimed I routinely or easily beat Deep Blue. I was just trying to point out that the algorithm is very simple and easy to exploit if you understand it. I routinely beat my electronic chess board on the hardest setting.
Deep Blue beat Kasparov in a tournament one time, after Kasparov beating it the year before. Also, in the match Deep Blue won (1997), it was not a completely shutout. Deep Blue won most, but Kasparov won a game as well.
Actually, if you understand chess search algorithms it is not too difficult to "pwn" the computer at the hardest settings. It is interesting you mention chess, as there is no fast, "human-like" algorithm which can mimic a grandmaster-level human player; there are only brute-force algorithms which rely on searching millions of permutations of possibilities and pick the best one making very simplifying assumptions regarding how you will react to plays.
And for the record, I, for one, would love to play a computer bot which always beat me, as long as it did so in a very "human-like" manner and by playing it, I could become better against human opponents as well.
Find an independent consumer review site and read reviews written by actual consumers, who have actually owned and used the product in question for a reasonable period. Don't fall for the recycled marketing buzz "reviews" by some "professional" sites/reviewers, which seem to never be more than a cursory overview of available features, by someone who will never own or use the product. And don't bother with the OMG NEWEGG ROCKS I JUST GOT THIS CAMERA AND IT OWNZ!!! reviews by noobs who haven't even taken it out of the box. Find some people who've actually had it for a while.
I, for one, thought it was funny.