Actually, the reason I think it will sell as a PC is precisely because it isn't a x86. Lots of linux people geek out at the Cell processor, mostly because it is different. If Sony supoorted a usb tv tuner and Myth, there is a nice HTPC to be had at a cheap price.
Plus, the PS3 can play some nice games, why wouldn't a box with PS3 guts not play games well? It's powerful hardware that has yet to be optimized. Open up that platform to open-source and find out what the hardware can really do.
I think Sony's big problem is that even if they cut prices by $100 on their consoles (which translates into an additional $100 lost on every console) it probably still won't move enough units to substantially increase sales of games or increase uptake on Blu-ray (which is what they are really after).
The PS3 just isn't an compelling enough product for consumers even if Sony is taking a bath on each product sold. I think Sony's solution should be to segment their market. Sony should keep trying to sell the PS3 as as game console/Blu-ray player on one hand, but also take the innards of the PS3, put it in a different box, load up a copy of linux and sell it with a keyboard and mouse at whatever it cost them to build the thing and a create a unique low budget computer. This might be totally against the Sony culture and they might not sell a ton, but at the very least, they could keep the assembly line moving and not lose quite so much money as they are now.
I don't think you need a better argument than Microsoft is the "800-pound gorilla." That's pretty much all they have had going for them for quite some time and they appear to be a bit more than mildly successful...
The only valid arguement for peak oil is that the Saudis have been lying through their teeth about their reserves
I don't buy this because if they Saudis had a low supply, they then haven't been working in their own best economic interest. In general, the Saudis serve as the moderating force on OPEC. Usually, they are the ones pushing for increased oil production (translating in lower cost per barrel). The question is, why do the Saudis do this?
Ultimately it is in the Saudis best interest to keep the world economies dependant on oil so as to maintain a long-term demand for their product. The Saudis don't like oil price spikes, such as we have seen over the past few years, because it changes consumer patterns and pushes them away from oil consumption (i.e. americans selling their SUVs for hybrids) and thus hurts their long-term profits. The Saudis wouldn't have this long-term goal of keeping demand up, unless they had a long-term supply.
In contrast to this, if the Saudis had a short supply, then it would be in the Saudis best interest to raise the price to $100 a barrel, disregard long-term consumer patters (as they wouldn't have enough supply to meet it anyway) and get as much as they could while the getting is good.
In short, the actions of the Saudis to create a relatively low price and abundant supply to met world demand points to a large supply of Saudi reserves.
I have to assume by your comment that you do not live in the US ("When your "big W"). That, or you do not accept responsibility for your part in the US democracy.
But, I just have to say this: piss off.
I'm no Bush supporter. I think he's a moron. I objected to the Iraq war before it went all to shit and I object to most of his foreign policies. Ultimately, I think his presidency is a complete and utter disaster.
However. I also object to the other in the world especially the EU from pointing fingers at the US for our foreign policies. Let take Iran as an example:
EU: Are you developing nukes?
Iran: Well...yes.
EU: Please stop
Iran: Mmmm....Maybe.
(a few months later)
EU: I see that you are still developing nukes
Iran: Yes
EU: We are very disappointed... if you don't stop we will have to take futher measures.
(a few months later)
EU: I see that you are still developing nukes...
Iran: Yes
EU: Did we mention that we are very disappointed?
Iran: Yes
EU: Will you please stop?
Iran: Mmmm....maybe
EU: Great! I think we are making progress!!!
In short, my argument is as such: US foreign policy is crap because we are all guns and no diplomacy. EU policy is for shit because they are ultimately a bunch of pussies and are unable and unwilling to actually take any sort of action should diplomacy fail. Because the EU is unwilling to ever use force, their diplomacy carries no effect. Diplomacy with Iran would have worked, had the rest of the world had the sactions threatened against Iran actually been enforced by Russia and the EU. Instead, Iran has the world by the balls because they know that most of the world is too cowardly to actually follow through with the threats set forth in their negotiations.
Ahh... I understand. I think the prius is this way too. It's a bit shitty of the manufacturer to not only not support mp3 integration, but also make it frustratingly difficult to change to a stereo that allows for integration.
You may want something like this http://www.autotoys.com/x/catalog/MAZDA_6_2003_RAD IO_DASH_KIT_p_5251.html/. I'm in no way supporting this product, as I just googled "mazda 6 aftermarket stereo" and that's what came up. Anyway, I'd think with something like this, and a decent looking aftermarket stereo, you might have a decent install. With the Alpine units, the ipod cable comes out of the back of the stereo, so I run my cable behind the dash, through the center console and into a center console storage bin. With this setup, the iPod is completely out of sight..which helps me avoid the "hack job" look.
I've installed my own stereos and I can say that installing aftermarket stereos correctly is stupidly simple to do. But I have heard of people running into electrical issues with aftermarket stereo installation.
I personally believe that this is more of a function of the quality of labor (i.e. 18 year old Best Buy employees earning $10/hr) than issues with the stereo or it's complexity.
As far as the look of aftermarket stereos, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Granted, I personally think they are all stupendously ugly, but that's my trade-off for quality iPod integration.
It is amazing how attractive iPods, HD Tv's and iMacs can appear, while auto electronics are still unforgivably ugly.
In the case of the article, I believe golden age is right. With the current state of the market, every type of gamer can find their fair share of games.
You are absolutely right! I can play adventure games to my heart's content!
No? Oh right, that was that other "golden age" when LucasArts actually made interesting games rather than repeatedly dropping Star Wars turds.
Why oh why do I get sucked into arguments with trolls? Your vapid disingenous arguments are now clear to both me and to anyone who may read this. I will no longer spend my time or effort in clarifying the vast amounts of misconceptions and factual errors that you have brought up.
You deftly proved that you are indeed a moron. Let me count the ways:
OK, Californian, explain how all of Schwarznazi's ballot initiatives went down in defeat last year. False. his bond initiatives passed.
Then pretend that Californians don't vote for Schwarznazi because he's a Hollywood star, like Governor Reagan. Again false. Have you ever seen our previous gov? Gray Davis? He is as far from Hollywood as you could imagine. Let's also count every other govenor of California besides Reagan and Arnold as none of them were Hollywood stars. Furthermore other Hollywood stars (Warren Beatty and Rob Reiner) contemplated running against Arnold, but decided that their campaigns would ultimately be unwinnable due to Arnold's ratings and popularity. Apparently for them, being a star would do nothing to help their campaign.
For bonus points, ignore how Schwarznazi ran away from Bush like every other Republican running in a competitive election since Bush's disapproval ratings have risen to match his deficits. Again wrong. Arnold distanced himself from Bush even before Arnold actually got in office, at a time when Bush's ratings weren't so measely. Furthermore, do you think that Bush is unpopular because of the deficits?!?!? Have you heard of this quagmire called "Iraq?"
You Republicans have nothing but spin and fantasyland. Hollywood is Republican utopia. Here, you have out done yourself as you are wrong on two counts. One, I'm not a Republican and two, if you believe that Hollywood Republican Utopia you have to be completely and utterly insane. But, I suppose that one ought not expect much from a poster who refers to a politician as "Schwarnazi." If you truly had meaningful points to make that were actually backed by facts, you probably wouldn't have to resort to lowbrow namecalling. At the very least come up with a name that is unique and clever.
As of right now, the parent is currently modded +4 Insightful. What the F#ck?
Do any of you who modded up the parent live in California? Do you have any notion of any of the the policies that Arnold has set forth? Do you have any insight into the fact that although Arnold ran as a Republican, he is exceptionally moderate in his policies, so much so that he is currently beating his democratic challenger by double digits in a heavily left leaning state?
Do you understand that Arnold is moderate enough that he stays away from any connection to our current president and his staff even after repeated requests by our federal administration to do public events and fundraisers? Do you understand that in many instances Arnold is more liberal than our past democratic gov?
Actually, what is really interesting here is how well the Schwarzenegger camp was able to define the issue as "hacking" for the public.
Most likely, as soon as the comments by Schwarzenegger were leaked to the press, the Schwarzenegger camp knew who and how the issue was leaked. The normal response would have been "Crap, they swiped this stuff straight off our website, we are idiots."
Instead, the Schwarzenegger camp first defines the issue by saying "Dear Lord, we've been hacked!!!" But they don't say by who, so that at least intially, no one can disagree with the labeling of the problem as "hacking."
This subsequently puts the Dems in a very awkward situation. They can either: 1. Fess up to swiping (and leaking ) the conversation so that they can clear up the fact that it wasn't hacking, or they can 2. Stay quiet and let the "investigation" move forward until Ponch and Jon come knocking on their door. Either way the Dems lose.
This turned from dynamite to a windfall for the Republicans, and the Schwarzenegger camp was politically brillant in the way they handled the issue.
First Global warming, and now this...
on
Duke in Trouble?
·
· Score: 3, Funny
My children's children's children have absolutely nothing to look forward too...
I actually saw Steve Jobs today on the Apple Campus. I didn't talk to him or anything, I was just waiting in line at Caffe Mac, and he was next to me in the trademark black shirt and blue jeans. He isn't looking thin and gaunt in person. Maybe there is something up with the lighting or something when he presented, I don't know.
And just because most game engines haven't been rewritten for multicores yet doesn't mean multicores don't offer better performance for game engines.
Currently, Multicores do not offer better performance. That's the whole damn issue. We have two cores readily available, but software isn't taking advantage of it. At the present time more than two cores is just a waste of money for gamers.
I will say it again. As a gamer, if you want to get the most for your money, focus of faster cores, not more of them. Better yet, focus on a good GPU, as that's the thing that is really being taxed.
Not to say that dual cores are bad, they just aren't currently being used effectively. If dual cores are currently being used effectively, 4 or 8 will be essentially worthless....for a gamer.
The article will point out to you the benefits of single core in gaming. Furthermore the article doesn't even scratch the surface of cost/benefit analysis. If you are gaming, it's better to spend your pennies on faster cpus rather than more of them as gaming currently does not take much advantage of multi-core scenerios.
We are all dumber having read the putrid waste that spews forth from your keyboard.
But do we really have a need for 64 bit? Tell me what apps do you know of that are successfully using 64 bit? That is, your application runs much quicker/better in 64 bit rather than 32?
64 bit might be good in the future, but for now, 64 bit was a coup for AMD because AMD marketing made 64-bit a big deal in the first place...
I think the question should be which do you need more: Faster cores, or more of them? Because, if you are a company with limited research capability (ok, well Intel has a pretty high limit...) you have to focus on one or the other.
With the current state of technology, faster cores makes a bigger impact than more cores. I rather have two exceptionally fast cores than 8 slowpokes. Then again, I mostly tax my computer through gaming. Servers will want more cores, but I do think that most desktop users will find more use out of faster cores, rather than more.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the reason I think it will sell as a PC is precisely because it isn't a x86. Lots of linux people geek out at the Cell processor, mostly because it is different. If Sony supoorted a usb tv tuner and Myth, there is a nice HTPC to be had at a cheap price. Plus, the PS3 can play some nice games, why wouldn't a box with PS3 guts not play games well? It's powerful hardware that has yet to be optimized. Open up that platform to open-source and find out what the hardware can really do.
I think Sony's big problem is that even if they cut prices by $100 on their consoles (which translates into an additional $100 lost on every console) it probably still won't move enough units to substantially increase sales of games or increase uptake on Blu-ray (which is what they are really after).
The PS3 just isn't an compelling enough product for consumers even if Sony is taking a bath on each product sold. I think Sony's solution should be to segment their market. Sony should keep trying to sell the PS3 as as game console/Blu-ray player on one hand, but also take the innards of the PS3, put it in a different box, load up a copy of linux and sell it with a keyboard and mouse at whatever it cost them to build the thing and a create a unique low budget computer. This might be totally against the Sony culture and they might not sell a ton, but at the very least, they could keep the assembly line moving and not lose quite so much money as they are now.
I don't think you need a better argument than Microsoft is the "800-pound gorilla." That's pretty much all they have had going for them for quite some time and they appear to be a bit more than mildly successful...
Dude, I gotta meet chicks like those!!!
I don't buy this because if they Saudis had a low supply, they then haven't been working in their own best economic interest. In general, the Saudis serve as the moderating force on OPEC. Usually, they are the ones pushing for increased oil production (translating in lower cost per barrel). The question is, why do the Saudis do this?
Ultimately it is in the Saudis best interest to keep the world economies dependant on oil so as to maintain a long-term demand for their product. The Saudis don't like oil price spikes, such as we have seen over the past few years, because it changes consumer patterns and pushes them away from oil consumption (i.e. americans selling their SUVs for hybrids) and thus hurts their long-term profits. The Saudis wouldn't have this long-term goal of keeping demand up, unless they had a long-term supply.
In contrast to this, if the Saudis had a short supply, then it would be in the Saudis best interest to raise the price to $100 a barrel, disregard long-term consumer patters (as they wouldn't have enough supply to meet it anyway) and get as much as they could while the getting is good.
In short, the actions of the Saudis to create a relatively low price and abundant supply to met world demand points to a large supply of Saudi reserves.
Oh yeah, we ran out of oil a long time ago, I personal drive a go-cart, powered by my own sense of self-satisfaction.
But, I just have to say this: piss off.
I'm no Bush supporter. I think he's a moron. I objected to the Iraq war before it went all to shit and I object to most of his foreign policies. Ultimately, I think his presidency is a complete and utter disaster.
However. I also object to the other in the world especially the EU from pointing fingers at the US for our foreign policies. Let take Iran as an example:
EU: Are you developing nukes?
Iran: Well...yes.
EU: Please stop
Iran: Mmmm....Maybe.
(a few months later)
EU: I see that you are still developing nukes
Iran: Yes
EU: We are very disappointed... if you don't stop we will have to take futher measures.
(a few months later)
EU: I see that you are still developing nukes...
Iran: Yes
EU: Did we mention that we are very disappointed?
Iran: Yes
EU: Will you please stop?
Iran: Mmmm....maybe
EU: Great! I think we are making progress!!!
In short, my argument is as such: US foreign policy is crap because we are all guns and no diplomacy. EU policy is for shit because they are ultimately a bunch of pussies and are unable and unwilling to actually take any sort of action should diplomacy fail. Because the EU is unwilling to ever use force, their diplomacy carries no effect. Diplomacy with Iran would have worked, had the rest of the world had the sactions threatened against Iran actually been enforced by Russia and the EU. Instead, Iran has the world by the balls because they know that most of the world is too cowardly to actually follow through with the threats set forth in their negotiations.
You may want something like this http://www.autotoys.com/x/catalog/MAZDA_6_2003_RAD IO_DASH_KIT_p_5251.html/. I'm in no way supporting this product, as I just googled "mazda 6 aftermarket stereo" and that's what came up. Anyway, I'd think with something like this, and a decent looking aftermarket stereo, you might have a decent install. With the Alpine units, the ipod cable comes out of the back of the stereo, so I run my cable behind the dash, through the center console and into a center console storage bin. With this setup, the iPod is completely out of sight..which helps me avoid the "hack job" look.
I do have to say though, it's the 2006 Alpine models that have good iPod integration. The 2005 models were really hideous as far as integration goes.
I personally believe that this is more of a function of the quality of labor (i.e. 18 year old Best Buy employees earning $10/hr) than issues with the stereo or it's complexity.
As far as the look of aftermarket stereos, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Granted, I personally think they are all stupendously ugly, but that's my trade-off for quality iPod integration.
It is amazing how attractive iPods, HD Tv's and iMacs can appear, while auto electronics are still unforgivably ugly.
I am amazed that you are letting the cost of a $180.00 part affect your decisions regarding a $25,000 car.
Just get an aftermarket stereo. Here's my recommendation: http://www.crutchfield.com/S-MEZTmbfCxvl/cgi-bin/P rodView.asp?g=266150&I=500CDE9852&search=alpine+cd e/
It's only $180. I can attest from personal experience that the 2006 model works quite well. The 2005 models, however, were plain horrific.
You are absolutely right! I can play adventure games to my heart's content!
No? Oh right, that was that other "golden age" when LucasArts actually made interesting games rather than repeatedly dropping Star Wars turds.
Why oh why do I get sucked into arguments with trolls? Your vapid disingenous arguments are now clear to both me and to anyone who may read this. I will no longer spend my time or effort in clarifying the vast amounts of misconceptions and factual errors that you have brought up.
OK, Californian, explain how all of Schwarznazi's ballot initiatives went down in defeat last year. False. his bond initiatives passed.
Then pretend that Californians don't vote for Schwarznazi because he's a Hollywood star, like Governor Reagan. Again false. Have you ever seen our previous gov? Gray Davis? He is as far from Hollywood as you could imagine. Let's also count every other govenor of California besides Reagan and Arnold as none of them were Hollywood stars. Furthermore other Hollywood stars (Warren Beatty and Rob Reiner) contemplated running against Arnold, but decided that their campaigns would ultimately be unwinnable due to Arnold's ratings and popularity. Apparently for them, being a star would do nothing to help their campaign.
For bonus points, ignore how Schwarznazi ran away from Bush like every other Republican running in a competitive election since Bush's disapproval ratings have risen to match his deficits. Again wrong. Arnold distanced himself from Bush even before Arnold actually got in office, at a time when Bush's ratings weren't so measely. Furthermore, do you think that Bush is unpopular because of the deficits?!?!? Have you heard of this quagmire called "Iraq?"
You Republicans have nothing but spin and fantasyland. Hollywood is Republican utopia. Here, you have out done yourself as you are wrong on two counts. One, I'm not a Republican and two, if you believe that Hollywood Republican Utopia you have to be completely and utterly insane. But, I suppose that one ought not expect much from a poster who refers to a politician as "Schwarnazi." If you truly had meaningful points to make that were actually backed by facts, you probably wouldn't have to resort to lowbrow namecalling. At the very least come up with a name that is unique and clever.
Do any of you who modded up the parent live in California? Do you have any notion of any of the the policies that Arnold has set forth? Do you have any insight into the fact that although Arnold ran as a Republican, he is exceptionally moderate in his policies, so much so that he is currently beating his democratic challenger by double digits in a heavily left leaning state?
Do you understand that Arnold is moderate enough that he stays away from any connection to our current president and his staff even after repeated requests by our federal administration to do public events and fundraisers? Do you understand that in many instances Arnold is more liberal than our past democratic gov?
Most likely, as soon as the comments by Schwarzenegger were leaked to the press, the Schwarzenegger camp knew who and how the issue was leaked. The normal response would have been "Crap, they swiped this stuff straight off our website, we are idiots."
Instead, the Schwarzenegger camp first defines the issue by saying "Dear Lord, we've been hacked!!!" But they don't say by who, so that at least intially, no one can disagree with the labeling of the problem as "hacking."
This subsequently puts the Dems in a very awkward situation. They can either: 1. Fess up to swiping (and leaking ) the conversation so that they can clear up the fact that it wasn't hacking, or they can 2. Stay quiet and let the "investigation" move forward until Ponch and Jon come knocking on their door. Either way the Dems lose.
This turned from dynamite to a windfall for the Republicans, and the Schwarzenegger camp was politically brillant in the way they handled the issue.
My children's children's children have absolutely nothing to look forward too...
I mean really... GASP!!!
Old Guy (to young NASA punk): Sonny, I am going to teach you how to get to the moon! First off, we'll need a really big sound stage...
I actually saw Steve Jobs today on the Apple Campus. I didn't talk to him or anything, I was just waiting in line at Caffe Mac, and he was next to me in the trademark black shirt and blue jeans. He isn't looking thin and gaunt in person. Maybe there is something up with the lighting or something when he presented, I don't know.
And just because most game engines haven't been rewritten for multicores yet doesn't mean multicores don't offer better performance for game engines.
Currently, Multicores do not offer better performance. That's the whole damn issue. We have two cores readily available, but software isn't taking advantage of it. At the present time more than two cores is just a waste of money for gamers.
I will say it again. As a gamer, if you want to get the most for your money, focus of faster cores, not more of them. Better yet, focus on a good GPU, as that's the thing that is really being taxed.
Not to say that dual cores are bad, they just aren't currently being used effectively. If dual cores are currently being used effectively, 4 or 8 will be essentially worthless....for a gamer.
Please begin your education by reading this: Single Vs. Dual Core
The article will point out to you the benefits of single core in gaming. Furthermore the article doesn't even scratch the surface of cost/benefit analysis. If you are gaming, it's better to spend your pennies on faster cpus rather than more of them as gaming currently does not take much advantage of multi-core scenerios.
We are all dumber having read the putrid waste that spews forth from your keyboard.
64 bit might be good in the future, but for now, 64 bit was a coup for AMD because AMD marketing made 64-bit a big deal in the first place...
With the current state of technology, faster cores makes a bigger impact than more cores. I rather have two exceptionally fast cores than 8 slowpokes. Then again, I mostly tax my computer through gaming. Servers will want more cores, but I do think that most desktop users will find more use out of faster cores, rather than more.
Right! Just like 64 bit!(cough)