Abusive? How? What if this guy, I don't know, watches movies on Hulu at 480P? Or Share's linux ISO's? Or watches stuff on youtube, or browses the web (since the whole goddamn thing is now flash laden and thus more bandwidth intensive)? Or plays non-pirated video games?
Really, the ways to use above 1GB are easy. For you to say you only use 1GB a month I can tell is a complete and total lie. You can burn through 1GB through websites and email alone easily. People burned through more than a gig on DIALUP. What you meant was "1GB a day", which is still pretty low and also a lie since people don't tend to use a constant amount of bandwidth.
motherboard or message board? Slashdot is neither.
Re:Used car salesmen use the same thing
on
Cellular Repo Man
·
· Score: 1
This is stupid. Reason: What if you make your payments online? Now you can't even make the payment to keep the laptop working. This will happen a lot, and will basically cause them to cannibalize their own customers.
This isn't an app. It's just linking to TPB. Facebook doesn't have to do anything, and if they do, will draw attention to them as they are not liable for squat.
Windows isn't behind, it's just another OS in the pack with everyone else. It's by far not "better", as there are plenty of pain in the ass issues, but it's still something that I am disgusted is really the only option for FPS gaming.
Vista is not 100% stable, never has been, obviously never will be. Do you think it's magically immune to its own BSOD's? I run Vista 64bit myself, and it's "better than XP", but not stable. Apps still get random errors, etc.
Windows is as stable as it will ever be; at least with Ubuntu you can have a month's uptime and be fine. Now if only Wine was 100% there for gaming (it's getting there).
Please, performance figures show that Larrabee doesn't even stand up to laptop graphics, let alone desktop. Their preaching about ray tracing before we get to ray tracing is to try to take marketshare from both their competitors which is basically not a good idea. It's like threatening someone with a gun, but the gun's not loaded whereas your competitors are ready and loaded. Maybe a more appropriate term is rattling their sabres.
I do believe intel could become competitive in this avenue, but they aren't even close nor do they have the experience to catch up yet. Important word is could. Intel would have to start making real GPU processors to catch up with the way current tech goes.
Since when did people not have a way to get paid without copyright? Why should we give someone a monopoly for being so idiotic that they can't monetize their own creations, and interpret it so loosely as we had for the last 20-25 years?
Oh, right, so they don't innovate again and sit on the one single thing they create is a hit and never make anything else again. Oh, and re-release whatever it is into movies, action figures, tv series, etc, and sue into oblivion anyone who makes anything even close.
Opt-out is a fallacy. The concept of "opt-out" needs to be abandoned by our society as a whole, its shady. It's like you have to opt-out of being charged for services you don't want or never asked for, due to greed/predatory processes.
Well, I agree with you, but "can't afford to prove" is the bigger deal.
Mostly because trying to prove something and failing to do so, incurs a cost that they cannot afford.
I'm waiting for the first person in the US to get a notice and take them to court, but the question of who is liable etc will certainly come into question.
You have interesting arguments here, I do agree with you on just about all of it. I do agree that right now, its more technical limitations than "it will never work", but whether or not I clearly communicated that (I assume not), I was basing my opinion on where we are at now, not where we could be.
Gametap as a service shows that it can be done in the future, etc.
As far as for the cost of a console vs a pc, I didn't really mean it in the price aspect because that adds a bunch of extra unnecessary arguments. What I meant is that you have a set number of copies of a console game. Many pc games are local friendly since they can be installed on the hard drive and connected at the lan. Thus one person with one copy, can play with everyone simultaneously, since you don't need the "cartridge/cd/disc" to play anymore. This is not, absolutely not, piracy. Piracy is an offensive term misconstruing all forms of "IP infringement" (logical fallacy there), copyright infringement, and labeling fair use a part of all of the above. Nothing is being stolen, no copyright is being infringed, mostly because gaming companies are smart enough to encourage this legally. Use the same CD key on all the discs and they will still play local. Plenty of games do this, fear, quake 3, quake 4, UT3, warcraft, starcraft, anything that is typically played at a lan. You'd be surprised how many PC games (especially FPS, strategy) encourage this model and have since the quake 2 days.
Everyone needs the capability (a console), but you're not limited to a set number, only the max that a server is set to handle. I guess the argument isn't 100% solid either way, but I think you may get what I am inferring.
About the internet though I would pay 80$ if I could get 100mb at this point, however (in no surprising fashion) there is no fiber available in my area (northern chicago suburb)...I haven't looked as hard as I could but using the dslreports internet finder thing I saw nothing but a few wireless isp's in the area that offered speeds above comcrap's.
The rest of the world seems to realize that baseless accusations that could end in something being done without anything being done in court, is kind of the problem.
This is RIAA skipping around the legal system because they can't afford to prove what they're accusing.
Fiber is 100mbits where? Japan? Last I heard of promises were 50mbits, and that even that was the language of "up to" not "actual/realistic". Bluray will truly use 50 megabits a second, not "up to 50". Difference there. so I agree, uncapped. However, how often have you heard of an uncapped connection? We've had capped connections longer than the issues of packet shaping. Certainly not getting better.
Meanwhile, I do agree with the rest of what you said. There is no real improvement here in general, I'm just saying being able to play all the games off a local network with only one host would be nice for consoles which aren't really friendly to that idea right now. Mostly because they're more locked down than any other DRM that exists. It's "you want to play more than 4 people/more than one game at once, you need more consoles".
The no piracy claim tells me that this is vaporware, really. Cloud computing as a whole is vaporware and it's own form of not so subtle DRM, remote VM's are not.
No manner of compression will make up for the attempt to do this live. I think a 50MB/above connection might be realistic to keep things smooth, especially in high action scenes with lots of pixels changing every single frame.
I could see: part of things being handled client side and part on the server side but then we just head back to online gaming.
However, even a fiber optics line I'd have my doubts. That is, unless you want to play on a 640x480 screen all day or assume that your internet provider wouldn't packet shape this stuff down to a crawl below VOIP, as someone said a few replies down.
Where I could see this working is in a LAN environment, make some kind of "xbox360server" to host all the games as basically virtual machines across a lan, etc. However, that obviously isn't cloud in the same sense.
Self driving cars on defined tracks? No, we already define where people can drive pretty well, having it be narrowed even further would depend on the implementation.
I guess you are trying to, I don't know, reinvent a railroad?/facepalms, not trying to be ad hominem
It helps to have a scale of difficulty from easy to "mind-bogglingly hard" for AI opponents. It's a well known step of AI testing for game companies to "crank up the AI until the players squeal".
After all, not everyone wants hard, and not everyone wants easy. All the better to let them tune it themselves instead of making "believable AI mistakes", I agree with you that smart scripting is what makes "believable AI" without the mistakes.
I agree lots of people would fail. Hell, lots of people can't even pass the vision part of the test and miraculously still have their license.
We need to raise the bar so that people who have the necessary driving skills can drive. Anyone less is just not capable/qualified. If other countries can do it, we have no excuse to not have it in the US.
Digital cameras didn't just "double". We didn't go from 1 to 2 to 4 to 8. We've gone megapixel by megapixel due to variances in design, different sensors, different CCD's. However after about 22 megapixels right now the costs are not anywhere proportional to the performance increases. That's what I meant. By next year that will probably be 26 or 30.
It's not "the highest we can do", there are well over 50MP professional cameras.
Ha, once again, I agree with you in some ways and disagree in others.
Higher megapixels doesn't necessarily require a bigger CCD, it's just more complicated. However, there is a bigger significance in that shooting shots below the maximum megapixel of a camera shoots much faster, etc. a 25 megapixel camera with shots taken at 23 megapixel will lower some of the strain on the camera and probably make it easier to have smooth shots, etc. Of course newer compression algorithms, better processors will take care of this stuff too.
I do agree there's the separate issue that memory cards cannot write as fast as the pictures are taken but all that requires is a sufficient amount of memory for the camera to catch as a buffer. Adding a 64MB or 128MB ddr2 ram chip (speed-wise) equivalent to a camera for another 10 or 20$ is something that will happen quite soon anyway.
I agree battery life will be an issue but no more or less than it is right now. For extended photo-shoots you're going to need another battery for many years until we get a battery-power revolution (probably the magnetic coil stuff in research).
However, none of these things are reasons that we are incapable to continue moving forward as fast as we have been on megapixels/constant image quality improvement. At least until the gov't cites some kind of national security issue - god forbid people take photos.
Slashdot Mirror
Abusive? How? What if this guy, I don't know, watches movies on Hulu at 480P? Or Share's linux ISO's? Or watches stuff on youtube, or browses the web (since the whole goddamn thing is now flash laden and thus more bandwidth intensive)? Or plays non-pirated video games?
Really, the ways to use above 1GB are easy. For you to say you only use 1GB a month I can tell is a complete and total lie. You can burn through 1GB through websites and email alone easily. People burned through more than a gig on DIALUP. What you meant was "1GB a day", which is still pretty low and also a lie since people don't tend to use a constant amount of bandwidth.
motherboard or message board? Slashdot is neither.
This is stupid. Reason: What if you make your payments online? Now you can't even make the payment to keep the laptop working. This will happen a lot, and will basically cause them to cannibalize their own customers.
Honestly, pure stupidity.
This isn't an app. It's just linking to TPB. Facebook doesn't have to do anything, and if they do, will draw attention to them as they are not liable for squat.
Windows isn't behind, it's just another OS in the pack with everyone else. It's by far not "better", as there are plenty of pain in the ass issues, but it's still something that I am disgusted is really the only option for FPS gaming.
What?
Vista is not 100% stable, never has been, obviously never will be. Do you think it's magically immune to its own BSOD's? I run Vista 64bit myself, and it's "better than XP", but not stable. Apps still get random errors, etc.
Windows is as stable as it will ever be; at least with Ubuntu you can have a month's uptime and be fine. Now if only Wine was 100% there for gaming (it's getting there).
Please, performance figures show that Larrabee doesn't even stand up to laptop graphics, let alone desktop. Their preaching about ray tracing before we get to ray tracing is to try to take marketshare from both their competitors which is basically not a good idea. It's like threatening someone with a gun, but the gun's not loaded whereas your competitors are ready and loaded. Maybe a more appropriate term is rattling their sabres.
I do believe intel could become competitive in this avenue, but they aren't even close nor do they have the experience to catch up yet. Important word is could. Intel would have to start making real GPU processors to catch up with the way current tech goes.
I hear this argument all the time.
Since when did people not have a way to get paid without copyright? Why should we give someone a monopoly for being so idiotic that they can't monetize their own creations, and interpret it so loosely as we had for the last 20-25 years?
Oh, right, so they don't innovate again and sit on the one single thing they create is a hit and never make anything else again. Oh, and re-release whatever it is into movies, action figures, tv series, etc, and sue into oblivion anyone who makes anything even close.
This applies to all of the above categories.
I wish I had read this before the thread became stale.
Plenty of real hardcore and unique lpmuds (tsunami is a wonderful example) were relient on latency. 100MS = dead.
Agreed.
Opt-out is a fallacy. The concept of "opt-out" needs to be abandoned by our society as a whole, its shady. It's like you have to opt-out of being charged for services you don't want or never asked for, due to greed/predatory processes.
Well, I agree with you, but "can't afford to prove" is the bigger deal.
Mostly because trying to prove something and failing to do so, incurs a cost that they cannot afford.
I'm waiting for the first person in the US to get a notice and take them to court, but the question of who is liable etc will certainly come into question.
You have interesting arguments here, I do agree with you on just about all of it. I do agree that right now, its more technical limitations than "it will never work", but whether or not I clearly communicated that (I assume not), I was basing my opinion on where we are at now, not where we could be.
Gametap as a service shows that it can be done in the future, etc.
As far as for the cost of a console vs a pc, I didn't really mean it in the price aspect because that adds a bunch of extra unnecessary arguments. What I meant is that you have a set number of copies of a console game. Many pc games are local friendly since they can be installed on the hard drive and connected at the lan. Thus one person with one copy, can play with everyone simultaneously, since you don't need the "cartridge/cd/disc" to play anymore. This is not, absolutely not, piracy. Piracy is an offensive term misconstruing all forms of "IP infringement" (logical fallacy there), copyright infringement, and labeling fair use a part of all of the above. Nothing is being stolen, no copyright is being infringed, mostly because gaming companies are smart enough to encourage this legally. Use the same CD key on all the discs and they will still play local. Plenty of games do this, fear, quake 3, quake 4, UT3, warcraft, starcraft, anything that is typically played at a lan. You'd be surprised how many PC games (especially FPS, strategy) encourage this model and have since the quake 2 days.
Everyone needs the capability (a console), but you're not limited to a set number, only the max that a server is set to handle. I guess the argument isn't 100% solid either way, but I think you may get what I am inferring.
About the internet though I would pay 80$ if I could get 100mb at this point, however (in no surprising fashion) there is no fiber available in my area (northern chicago suburb)...I haven't looked as hard as I could but using the dslreports internet finder thing I saw nothing but a few wireless isp's in the area that offered speeds above comcrap's.
The rest of the world seems to realize that baseless accusations that could end in something being done without anything being done in court, is kind of the problem.
This is RIAA skipping around the legal system because they can't afford to prove what they're accusing.
Okay, so as a whole with those two, remind me what cannot be achieved by a remote VM? I'm not disagreeing with you, just curious.
Fiber is 100mbits where? Japan? Last I heard of promises were 50mbits, and that even that was the language of "up to" not "actual/realistic". Bluray will truly use 50 megabits a second, not "up to 50". Difference there. so I agree, uncapped. However, how often have you heard of an uncapped connection? We've had capped connections longer than the issues of packet shaping. Certainly not getting better.
Lans' are 100megabits? Wha? You can buy an 8 port gig switch for 40 bucks (25 AR).
Meanwhile, I do agree with the rest of what you said. There is no real improvement here in general, I'm just saying being able to play all the games off a local network with only one host would be nice for consoles which aren't really friendly to that idea right now. Mostly because they're more locked down than any other DRM that exists. It's "you want to play more than 4 people/more than one game at once, you need more consoles".
The no piracy claim tells me that this is vaporware, really. Cloud computing as a whole is vaporware and it's own form of not so subtle DRM, remote VM's are not.
No manner of compression will make up for the attempt to do this live. I think a 50MB/above connection might be realistic to keep things smooth, especially in high action scenes with lots of pixels changing every single frame.
I could see: part of things being handled client side and part on the server side but then we just head back to online gaming.
However, even a fiber optics line I'd have my doubts. That is, unless you want to play on a 640x480 screen all day or assume that your internet provider wouldn't packet shape this stuff down to a crawl below VOIP, as someone said a few replies down.
Where I could see this working is in a LAN environment, make some kind of "xbox360server" to host all the games as basically virtual machines across a lan, etc. However, that obviously isn't cloud in the same sense.
Actually, there are quote a few other options.
You can 1) take it down
2) take them to court
3) get a lawyer to explain how they are incorrect
or 4) other options
The proper way to say it is "it's not open source compatible (gpl/others)", and even OSI knows that.
Just because its close in name, doesn't mean it's still not as proprietary as possible.
This is like putting an open source bumper sticker on a car and saying it's open source.
Really? I noticed they benchmark about 25 different programs or so, if you had read past the first page.
Sheesh, why don't people ever just skip all the shit and go to the conclusion page?
Self driving cars on defined tracks? No, we already define where people can drive pretty well, having it be narrowed even further would depend on the implementation.
I guess you are trying to, I don't know, reinvent a railroad? /facepalms, not trying to be ad hominem
It helps to have a scale of difficulty from easy to "mind-bogglingly hard" for AI opponents. It's a well known step of AI testing for game companies to "crank up the AI until the players squeal".
After all, not everyone wants hard, and not everyone wants easy. All the better to let them tune it themselves instead of making "believable AI mistakes", I agree with you that smart scripting is what makes "believable AI" without the mistakes.
Only if they're having a conversation about beowulf clusters.
I agree lots of people would fail. Hell, lots of people can't even pass the vision part of the test and miraculously still have their license.
We need to raise the bar so that people who have the necessary driving skills can drive. Anyone less is just not capable/qualified. If other countries can do it, we have no excuse to not have it in the US.
Digital cameras didn't just "double". We didn't go from 1 to 2 to 4 to 8. We've gone megapixel by megapixel due to variances in design, different sensors, different CCD's. However after about 22 megapixels right now the costs are not anywhere proportional to the performance increases. That's what I meant. By next year that will probably be 26 or 30.
It's not "the highest we can do", there are well over 50MP professional cameras.
Ha, once again, I agree with you in some ways and disagree in others.
Higher megapixels doesn't necessarily require a bigger CCD, it's just more complicated. However, there is a bigger significance in that shooting shots below the maximum megapixel of a camera shoots much faster, etc. a 25 megapixel camera with shots taken at 23 megapixel will lower some of the strain on the camera and probably make it easier to have smooth shots, etc. Of course newer compression algorithms, better processors will take care of this stuff too.
I do agree there's the separate issue that memory cards cannot write as fast as the pictures are taken but all that requires is a sufficient amount of memory for the camera to catch as a buffer. Adding a 64MB or 128MB ddr2 ram chip (speed-wise) equivalent to a camera for another 10 or 20$ is something that will happen quite soon anyway.
I agree battery life will be an issue but no more or less than it is right now. For extended photo-shoots you're going to need another battery for many years until we get a battery-power revolution (probably the magnetic coil stuff in research).
However, none of these things are reasons that we are incapable to continue moving forward as fast as we have been on megapixels/constant image quality improvement. At least until the gov't cites some kind of national security issue - god forbid people take photos.