Sell enough and the per-unit loss for a per-unit cost approaches infinity.
Umm...I think you got your terms mixed up a bit. If you sell an infinite number of xboxes at a per-unit cost of $126, your per-unit loss is still $126 (per-unit cost and per-unit loss are one and the same here). Now, your overall loss will approach infinity with a per-unit loss as you sell more and more xboxes, which is what I think you meant.
I'm a practicing Christian (Burn karma burn...), but find so-called 'fundamentalists' like Jack Thompson to be the most irritating creatures on this earth, with the exception of wasps.
I find it interesting that you are a practicing Christian but that you find wasps the most irritating creatures on this earth.
That kind of reminds me of the Sprint commercial:
"It's my little way of sticking it to the man" says a top executive to his underling, explaining why he likes a particular Sprint cell phone plan in a nicely played spot.
All that said, though, from what I've seen of F1 engine design the car would never make it anyway since it's unlikely to be able to run upside down without major design changes. Assuming no gravity feeding and a fuel tank that works in any orientation, I think you'd be able to do it.
I just wanted to reiterate this to make sure everyone saw the point that the parent made. I hadn't even though of this, but the parent poster is correct: cars use gravity for things other than sticking to the road, and no amount of downforce will make gravity inverse. This is probably why we haven't seen any cars shooting down a path upside down.
At the speed where an F1 car is generating "2.5 times its weight in downforce", there is a LOT of drag, which means there is a LOT of power needed to maintain the speed.
I think you'll find if you do the math, you won't have a problem maintaining the speed. First, the article quoted said that an F1 car could generate 3.5g of lateral force. This means that the tires are gripping the ground at 3.5g, which is after the coefficient of friction between the tires/road has been factored in. If the car is turned upside down, that is now more than 1.5g of force the tires are able to apply (3.5g - (2 * (coeff. of friction * g)). Even if we assumed the tires can only produce 1 g of force, this would mean that the drag on the car at that speed would have to be equal to the force of gravity. This point is also called its terminal velocity. So you are basically arguing, at an absolute worst case, that the terminal velocity of an F1 car is about 200mph. Since a skydiver's terminal velocity is about 200mph with his arms tucked in, I'd venture to guess that an F1 car has a higher terminal velocity.
Remember, this is assuming that we can only generate 1g of lateral force. In reality, this number will be at least 1.5g and probably closer to 2g.
Plus they had "War" in quoation marks meaning that the answer had "war" in it.
Actually, it was "World". The exact answer:
This role-playing game out in 2004 returns to the "World" of Azeroth, where heroes like Leeroy Jenkins do battle.
And I think you will find that most teens (at least that I knew) sexually experimented far less, and intoxicated themselves far less then they wanted to. Due to a combination of non-oblivious parents, laws, girls not experimenting with them, and a sense of responisbility. (Emphasis mine)
This is clearly the reason why we (Slashdotters) didn't experiment sexually when we were younger. Therefore, we need to figure out a way to prevent beer and drugs (and mature video games) from experimenting with the younger generation and all will be solved!
Now tell me again why I should believe they can't crank out another one a year after XII, let alone two.
I'm not disputing this. I'm merely saying that a year after XII will be at least a year after the release of the PS3, assuming that both XII and the PS3 release as expected (both in early/middle 2006).
Somewhat off topic, but has anyone else seen the new ads for the xbox 360? I've seen two of them -- one with the jumprope and the other with the water balloons. I was amazed at the jump rope one, and the water balloon one really made me want to go have a water balloon war (except for the fact it's about 40 degrees out right now), but what does either really have to do with the xbox 360? I guess nothing, but since I'm talking about it here it must have done it's job...those darn marketing folks messing with my head again!
Instead, I find it likely that Squaresoft will unveil Final Fantasy XIII around the time of the PS3 release...
While it may be likely that FFXIII is "unveiled" at the time of the PS3 release, it probably wouldn't be released for another year or two after that, so it probably won't drive too many console sales initially. Since FFXII isn't due out until the second half of 2006 in the US, I find it highly unlikely that FFXIII would be released within 2 years of that date. And even then, I would take those dates with a grain of thought. After all, Square Enix originally said that FFXII would be released in "the second half of the fiscal year ending March 2004" and it looks like they'll be off by 2 years (assuming a March 2006 release for the Japanese version).
Oh thank goodness I was beginning to think I was the only one.
I would say you must be new here, but since your UID is 5 digits, you can't be that new (unless you bought it on ebay, of course). Therefore, you must be using sarcasm, as every time Halo or any other FPS on a console is brought up, there are at least 50 postings about "Does it come with a mouse and keyboard?" or "I can't play FPS's with my thumbs." In fact, I think it is even more common than the "Does it run on linux" comments when discussing a PC game/application.
But as long as there are quality games and they aren't losing money who cares if they are #1 or #6?
The shareholders will. If the difference is between being #3 (or #6 as you say) and making $10M in profit and being #1 and making $100M in profit, then you can be sure that the shareholders will care. Now, what is more likely the case is that Nintendo knows that in order to get close to #1 or #2 they would have to spend too much money in marketing. Therefore, the profit wouldn't be any greater (or perhaps even less) than where they are now. Remember, Nintendo is a business just like Sony and MS, and they are going to try and make the most profit that they can. If that means that they stay back in #3 instead of selling their console at a big loss and being #2 or #1, then that's what they'll do.
In addition to that, as an xbox owner I have never really seen any big titles for the Xbox.
Sure...because Halo: CE and Halo 2 weren't big titles for the xbox, nor was Fable, KOTOR, DOA3, etc.
Sure there is Halo 3 for the 360 but At the rate Halo 2 was going, it won't be anything more than a good game.
Halo 2 is the most popular game on the xbox, so I'd say that the rate that Halo 2 was going would bode well for Halo 3. Even if Halo 2 was a disappointment to some, that doesn't mean that the next game in the series will be bad. See Zelda, Zelda 2, and Zelda: A Link to the Past for a good example.
Halo 3 is not the 'killer app' it used to be. Halo 2 didn't sell more xboxes.
As someone has already posted, this isn't a very good argument as most of the people who bought Halo 2 already had an XBox because of the original Halo. That's like saying GTA:SA didn't sell more PS2's...it probably didn't, but that's because most people already had a PS2 because of GTA or GTA:VC. You can't expect games that come out late in a generation's lifespan to be console movers. You better believe, however, that Halo3 and the next GTA will be huge "Killer Apps" when they are released for the next generation.
Having said that, Halo 2 was still a killer app, because it increased the subscription numbers of XBox live significantly (I couldn't find a specific reference to the approximate numbers, if someone can find one please link it!).
>sarcasm<The other variable is of course the Phantom -- if it comes out this generation, then it'll fit the new company coming to market, and will of course blow the other three away.>/sarcasm<
Oops...I apologize for my poor syntax there...it should have been:
<sarcasm>The other variable is of course the Phantom -- if it comes out this generation, then it'll fit the new company coming to market, and will of course blow the other three away.</sarcasm>
History pop quiz: What video game company has managed to dominate three console generations (~5 years)?
By my reckoning, nobody. (Atari: 2600 era. Nintendo: NES and to some degree SNES. Sony: PS1 & PS2.)
Yes, but there is one other pattern you should see with that list. Each time the previous generation's champion was displaced, it was by a company that was releasing their first console. I'm sure others can come up with other reasons why this is the case, but the first one that comes to my mind is that gamers generally have brand loyalty when it comes to consoles (note all the fanboys that grace/. and other forums constantly). Someone who owns a Gamecube this generation is more likely to buy the Revolution next generation, as is someone who owns a PS2 is likely to get the PS3. Part of this is due to backwards compatibility, but a large portion of it has to do with the types of games on the system.
If it's the same group of companies producing consoles each generation, then there won't be a lot of switching between the ranks. People who were happy with their previous console will stick with the same company more often than not. However, when a new company comes into the game, you are going to get people to switch who think the new console fits their gaming preferences better, and you are also going to get people who didn't own a console to buy this new console as well.
Therefore, I think this next generation will, barring Sony self-destructing or the Revolution's controller being an unprecedented success, end up being just like the last generation -- with the PS3 in the lead, the XBox 360 in a closer second (because of the first-to-market), and the Revolution a somewhat distant third.
>sarcasm<The other variable is of course the Phantom -- if it comes out this generation, then it'll fit the new company coming to market, and will of course blow the other three away.>/sarcasm<
I specifically didn't purchase Madden '06 this year for the XBox for two reasons:
1) I was too busy playing WoW so I didn't mind waiting until November so I could get it for the XBox360.
2) I don't care whether the NFL is actually in season while I'm playing an NFL game. Just like I'll play a baseball game during the winter, or a hockey game in the summer (although the hockey season lasts so late sometimes it feels like summer before it's over).
Additionally, for my patience, I'll have the option of turning off the QB Vision "feature." Having not played the game yet, I don't know if I'll like it or not, but based on the reactions I read, it'll probably be a nice option to be able to play without it.
Because when you're rushing a console release, it's a whole lot easier for the devs to kick out a bunch of clones then produce some brand new quality titles?
While you could consider many of them "clones" (aren't nearly all games today clones of older games?), many of them are more than just ports from the current-gen systems. For example, Madden '06's engine was rewritten for the XBox360 (I'd post the link from the gamespot article but it's blocked at work), and I'm pretty sure I remember reading something similar for the 2K series of sports games.
At least in the US, this is not the case (although with Bush it is becoming more and more so). The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the rights of one over the needs/rights of many. You can see this in many forms of the government.
A good example is the criminal judicial system. The system is set up to prevent an innocent person from being found guilty, sometimes at the expense of a guilty person going free. In the minds of the Founding Fathers, it was more important to not falsely imprison one person than it was to let a few guilty people free.
Perhaps the only contradiction to that principle in the Constitution is eminent domain, which has become an increasingly hot topic of recent months.
I'd say "no" too until I saw some good 10-digit figures in my bank account.
Me too! I want my balances to go out to 8 decimal places as well, because I hate knowing that I'm losing small fractions of a penny when they compute.5% interest on my $75!
splurge the income tax refund check then (nothing better than having the US taxpayers subsidise my gaming habit).
I'd hate to rain on your parade, but you do realize that the money you get back as an income tax refund was your money to begin with, right? It's not the US taxpayers' money, it's one US taxpayer's money (i.e. yours).
Not only that, but you're also giving the government a no-interest loan in the amount that you overpaid...if you really like the idea of having money around April, why not just put some money into a savings account every paycheck and then take it out in April...that way you at least have earned some interest on it.
Agreed. An exponential algorithm will always be "harder" as N increases. That doesn't necesarily mean that a polynomial-time algorithm is necessarily fast, as an O(n^googol) algorithm is still polynomial-time but would be pretty difficult to solve for most meaningful values of n.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm...I think you got your terms mixed up a bit. If you sell an infinite number of xboxes at a per-unit cost of $126, your per-unit loss is still $126 (per-unit cost and per-unit loss are one and the same here). Now, your overall loss will approach infinity with a per-unit loss as you sell more and more xboxes, which is what I think you meant.
I find it interesting that you are a practicing Christian but that you find wasps the most irritating creatures on this earth.
That kind of reminds me of the Sprint commercial:
"It's my little way of sticking it to the man" says a top executive to his underling, explaining why he likes a particular Sprint cell phone plan in a nicely played spot.
"But you are the man," says the underling.
"I know."
"So you're sticking it to yourself."
"Maybe."
I just wanted to reiterate this to make sure everyone saw the point that the parent made. I hadn't even though of this, but the parent poster is correct: cars use gravity for things other than sticking to the road, and no amount of downforce will make gravity inverse. This is probably why we haven't seen any cars shooting down a path upside down.
I think you'll find if you do the math, you won't have a problem maintaining the speed. First, the article quoted said that an F1 car could generate 3.5g of lateral force. This means that the tires are gripping the ground at 3.5g, which is after the coefficient of friction between the tires/road has been factored in. If the car is turned upside down, that is now more than 1.5g of force the tires are able to apply (3.5g - (2 * (coeff. of friction * g)). Even if we assumed the tires can only produce 1 g of force, this would mean that the drag on the car at that speed would have to be equal to the force of gravity. This point is also called its terminal velocity. So you are basically arguing, at an absolute worst case, that the terminal velocity of an F1 car is about 200mph. Since a skydiver's terminal velocity is about 200mph with his arms tucked in, I'd venture to guess that an F1 car has a higher terminal velocity.
Remember, this is assuming that we can only generate 1g of lateral force. In reality, this number will be at least 1.5g and probably closer to 2g.
So you would recommend letting them hit you intead of dodging them?
Actually, it was "World". The exact answer:
This role-playing game out in 2004 returns to the "World" of Azeroth, where heroes like Leeroy Jenkins do battle.
One merely needs to look at the White House to find the answer to that question!
This is clearly the reason why we (Slashdotters) didn't experiment sexually when we were younger. Therefore, we need to figure out a way to prevent beer and drugs (and mature video games) from experimenting with the younger generation and all will be solved!
I'm not disputing this. I'm merely saying that a year after XII will be at least a year after the release of the PS3, assuming that both XII and the PS3 release as expected (both in early/middle 2006).
Somewhat off topic, but has anyone else seen the new ads for the xbox 360? I've seen two of them -- one with the jumprope and the other with the water balloons. I was amazed at the jump rope one, and the water balloon one really made me want to go have a water balloon war (except for the fact it's about 40 degrees out right now), but what does either really have to do with the xbox 360? I guess nothing, but since I'm talking about it here it must have done it's job...those darn marketing folks messing with my head again!
While it may be likely that FFXIII is "unveiled" at the time of the PS3 release, it probably wouldn't be released for another year or two after that, so it probably won't drive too many console sales initially. Since FFXII isn't due out until the second half of 2006 in the US, I find it highly unlikely that FFXIII would be released within 2 years of that date. And even then, I would take those dates with a grain of thought. After all, Square Enix originally said that FFXII would be released in "the second half of the fiscal year ending March 2004" and it looks like they'll be off by 2 years (assuming a March 2006 release for the Japanese version).
Don't obscure mahjong games sell really well in Japan?
I would say you must be new here, but since your UID is 5 digits, you can't be that new (unless you bought it on ebay, of course). Therefore, you must be using sarcasm, as every time Halo or any other FPS on a console is brought up, there are at least 50 postings about "Does it come with a mouse and keyboard?" or "I can't play FPS's with my thumbs." In fact, I think it is even more common than the "Does it run on linux" comments when discussing a PC game/application.
The shareholders will. If the difference is between being #3 (or #6 as you say) and making $10M in profit and being #1 and making $100M in profit, then you can be sure that the shareholders will care. Now, what is more likely the case is that Nintendo knows that in order to get close to #1 or #2 they would have to spend too much money in marketing. Therefore, the profit wouldn't be any greater (or perhaps even less) than where they are now. Remember, Nintendo is a business just like Sony and MS, and they are going to try and make the most profit that they can. If that means that they stay back in #3 instead of selling their console at a big loss and being #2 or #1, then that's what they'll do.
Sure...because Halo: CE and Halo 2 weren't big titles for the xbox, nor was Fable, KOTOR, DOA3, etc.
Sure there is Halo 3 for the 360 but At the rate Halo 2 was going, it won't be anything more than a good game.
Halo 2 is the most popular game on the xbox, so I'd say that the rate that Halo 2 was going would bode well for Halo 3. Even if Halo 2 was a disappointment to some, that doesn't mean that the next game in the series will be bad. See Zelda, Zelda 2, and Zelda: A Link to the Past for a good example.
As someone has already posted, this isn't a very good argument as most of the people who bought Halo 2 already had an XBox because of the original Halo. That's like saying GTA:SA didn't sell more PS2's...it probably didn't, but that's because most people already had a PS2 because of GTA or GTA:VC. You can't expect games that come out late in a generation's lifespan to be console movers. You better believe, however, that Halo3 and the next GTA will be huge "Killer Apps" when they are released for the next generation.
Having said that, Halo 2 was still a killer app, because it increased the subscription numbers of XBox live significantly (I couldn't find a specific reference to the approximate numbers, if someone can find one please link it!).
Oops...I apologize for my poor syntax there...it should have been:
<sarcasm>The other variable is of course the Phantom -- if it comes out this generation, then it'll fit the new company coming to market, and will of course blow the other three away.</sarcasm>
By my reckoning, nobody. (Atari: 2600 era. Nintendo: NES and to some degree SNES. Sony: PS1 & PS2.)
Yes, but there is one other pattern you should see with that list. Each time the previous generation's champion was displaced, it was by a company that was releasing their first console. I'm sure others can come up with other reasons why this is the case, but the first one that comes to my mind is that gamers generally have brand loyalty when it comes to consoles (note all the fanboys that grace /. and other forums constantly). Someone who owns a Gamecube this generation is more likely to buy the Revolution next generation, as is someone who owns a PS2 is likely to get the PS3. Part of this is due to backwards compatibility, but a large portion of it has to do with the types of games on the system.
If it's the same group of companies producing consoles each generation, then there won't be a lot of switching between the ranks. People who were happy with their previous console will stick with the same company more often than not. However, when a new company comes into the game, you are going to get people to switch who think the new console fits their gaming preferences better, and you are also going to get people who didn't own a console to buy this new console as well.
Therefore, I think this next generation will, barring Sony self-destructing or the Revolution's controller being an unprecedented success, end up being just like the last generation -- with the PS3 in the lead, the XBox 360 in a closer second (because of the first-to-market), and the Revolution a somewhat distant third.
>sarcasm<The other variable is of course the Phantom -- if it comes out this generation, then it'll fit the new company coming to market, and will of course blow the other three away.>/sarcasm<
To prevent us from completely destroying your company's image, you must pay me.... 3 treeeeeelion dollars! You have my instructions, I bid you adieu.
I specifically didn't purchase Madden '06 this year for the XBox for two reasons:
1) I was too busy playing WoW so I didn't mind waiting until November so I could get it for the XBox360.
2) I don't care whether the NFL is actually in season while I'm playing an NFL game. Just like I'll play a baseball game during the winter, or a hockey game in the summer (although the hockey season lasts so late sometimes it feels like summer before it's over).
Additionally, for my patience, I'll have the option of turning off the QB Vision "feature." Having not played the game yet, I don't know if I'll like it or not, but based on the reactions I read, it'll probably be a nice option to be able to play without it.
While you could consider many of them "clones" (aren't nearly all games today clones of older games?), many of them are more than just ports from the current-gen systems. For example, Madden '06's engine was rewritten for the XBox360 (I'd post the link from the gamespot article but it's blocked at work), and I'm pretty sure I remember reading something similar for the 2K series of sports games.
At least in the US, this is not the case (although with Bush it is becoming more and more so). The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the rights of one over the needs/rights of many. You can see this in many forms of the government.
A good example is the criminal judicial system. The system is set up to prevent an innocent person from being found guilty, sometimes at the expense of a guilty person going free. In the minds of the Founding Fathers, it was more important to not falsely imprison one person than it was to let a few guilty people free.
Perhaps the only contradiction to that principle in the Constitution is eminent domain, which has become an increasingly hot topic of recent months.
Me too! I want my balances to go out to 8 decimal places as well, because I hate knowing that I'm losing small fractions of a penny when they compute .5% interest on my $75!
I'd hate to rain on your parade, but you do realize that the money you get back as an income tax refund was your money to begin with, right? It's not the US taxpayers' money, it's one US taxpayer's money (i.e. yours).
Not only that, but you're also giving the government a no-interest loan in the amount that you overpaid...if you really like the idea of having money around April, why not just put some money into a savings account every paycheck and then take it out in April...that way you at least have earned some interest on it.
Agreed. An exponential algorithm will always be "harder" as N increases. That doesn't necesarily mean that a polynomial-time algorithm is necessarily fast, as an O(n^googol) algorithm is still polynomial-time but would be pretty difficult to solve for most meaningful values of n.