While the Chinese people won't see much of a difference if Google leaves, the Chinese IT folks might have some issues recreating what was once there.
Not really. Do you really think that China is some peasant backwater like Tuvalu? You also forget that baidu.cn has far more market share in China than Google ever has or ever will. In short, China won't care the least from a technical perspective. The only reason they're reacting at all is because it's a spit into the Chinese government's face - and they don't take that too well.
It's actually going to be 15 cents a second, more or less.
Let's assume you want that high speed for... something. Hi-res remote doctor consultations, watching Avatar in HD over the air, using onLive.... you get the idea. Let's say you burned through your allotment already. Let's also assume that you get 3Mbit/sec instead of the full 6Mbit/sec. A 15 minute consultation then will cost you $80, a 5 GB movie $200, and an all-night onLive session will run you a whopping $2500. Somehow, I don't think that whoever buys into this will have thought this through.
Because in this particular case, the set-up is convoluted enough that it smacks of premeditation. Not to mention that being sorry isn't enough to get out of having broken any other law.
I know how funding is allocated, because I work with a guy who does exactly that. The amount of hot air that can be turned into cold, hard cash is astounding. Perlmann certainly has his speech down, and I recognize a lot of his arguments, speech patterns and rhethoric - it's pretty much all bullshit with no hard facts.
I really hope for your sake you have a golden parachute in case of a buy-out. That's the only way you'll make mint with OnLive.
Yes, because clearly you have no idea what you're talking about and are incapable of describing your product properly. All the description of lag that you so quickly dismissed are spot on. There is no magic in computers. And your analogy of streaming video and uploading keyboard inputs is so naive that I know you've never dealt with the insides of a computer, an online game, a webserver or a router.
There is no machine and no algorithm in the world that can predict what I will do for every quarter-second interval for my entire gaming session. As a result, onLive will not be like video. OnLive can work - for a game like Myst. Or maybe Zork. Or one of those terrible interactive movies from the 90s. For UT? Starcraft? Yeah right. I'd like to see an unapproved video that shows that.
"Remember that you don't just have to take ping time in to account with data transfer, but the time it takes to transfer all the data."
Or, as it is known colloquially, LoC/sec - i.e bandwidth. Since when is bandwidth an asinine concept?
There was a great video where the creator of the service presented in front of a university class discussing the technology and overcoming the issues of lag and distance.
Yes, I remember the summary. "We've overcome the limitations of time and space to bring you gaming nirvana." Or some similar bullshit. Their solution is not new, not innovative, and simply consists of throwing huge resources at the fundamental problem: no compression algorithm gives you better than realtime performance, and no prediction algorithm is perfect.
The reason I have decided the system will fail is because it does not address the fundamental problem: the game is severely degraded to the point of being nearly unplayable. Sure, it will work for some people - people who are within 100ms round trip of the servers and with steady bandwidth in the >5Mbit/sec range. But how many are there in that class? Then there's the business model which I find to be disgusting.
You sure you're not Mr BizDev from OnLive? Cuz you really sound like every marketdroid I've ever met. With some extra asshole thrown in, courtesy of the anonymous internet.
The primary market already got its money on the first go-around. The primary market has no right to any income.
People do not buy more "new" games because they've sold more used games.
[Citation needed]
In addition the ones who buy used games are looking for good deals and cheaper-than-retail prices.
People always look for deals. What's your point?
Since Gamestop can *always* undercut retail no matter what retail is priced at, game publishers lose a huge chunk of profit to Gamestop.
You're missing numbers. There's a limit to how low Gamestop can go, as it has retail overhead. Furthermore, your "huge chunk of profit" is complete conjecture. Not to mention that it is complete conjecture over the price of an item YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR.
Again, this is why publishers are willing to price extremely popular games like Bioshock at $5 on Steam, but not at retail
[Citation needed] You're also disregarding instant updates, lack of inventory, and a host of other factors.
Here's the part that you and everyone in your position (yes, I'm quite sure you're an executive or marketdroid for a publisher) is missing: you already got paid when the first person paid for your product. Everything after that IS NOT YOUR PRODUCT anymore. Got that? It ain't yours anymore. Stop trying to fuck the world because your business model sucks arse. If you can't afford to make a game for $30M, then for God's sake don't!
Voting your views rather than those of the people you purport to represent is not democracy. Do what your constituents want or resign.
Really? I didn't see anything about that in my political science courses about the theory of democracy. Do you have a link to support that, or are you just making it up?
From my perspective, if my representative does nothing more than parrot my views (or the average of the views of his constituents), he is completely superfluous and can be replaced by a small perl script. I want him to do the job that I can't: study the matters that come before him in a thorough manner, and decide based on what will benefit overall society the best.
Look at the alternative: instead of adding useless physics to a game that doesn't need it, they could be adding advertisements. Advertising dollars are dollars nonetheless, and I very much prefer a quick splash screen of "powered by PhysX" and some mindless physics interactions than an in-game billboard (possibly even updated over the Internet, shudder).
Web-based TV like Netflix to the computer is already causing me to look at far higher connections than the standard 1.5Mb/167kbit. I'd also argue that if NBC and ESPN wouldn't already screw with net neutrality, the proportion of people getting into web-based TV would be much higher.
The internet connections in most places in the US are completely behind the times. They were useful in 2000, but applications have far outpaced that infrastructure.
The immutable laws of economics? Really? Is that like the immutable law of Homo Oeconomicus that utterly failed to predict the result of certain money sharing experiments? Or the immutable laws that prevented economists the world over from figuring out why people walk (or even run!) up escalators? Or the immutable laws that completely failed to force banks like Bear Stearns to act in their own best long-term interest?
I don't know whether to laugh at your blind faith in economics, or cry at your ignorance of reality. After all, people like you vote for my representatives.
No, what I want to know is why the center of Silicon Valley seems to have the same quality of service as Carson City, Scaguay. If we extend this argument to similar surfaces, I'd expect densely populated areas in the US to have a similar internet infrastructure as densely populated areas in Europe. As far as I can tell, that's not the case.
I'm kinda shocked that it took this long for someone to point out the hypocrisy here. Hutchison is proposing a government-operated space transportation system? Really? Not only is the commercial sector already active in that area, it's a massive expansion of NASA into unknown territory (from cutting-edge research to providing a public service) along with a billion dollar expenditure that really isn't needed.
I'm baffled. Shouldn't his brain implode when considering these options? Wait, you're right. He's a simple politician. For them, that behavior is par for the course.
I was similarly modded into trolldom a short while ago for having the audacity to point to the fact that there is no direct evidence of evolution (I do, however, believe in evolution, just the same).
It couldn't possibly have been that you were merely ignorant, right? I mean, any questioning of your superior intellect and knowledge has to come from rubes who don't have a clue.
You a) never worked in a scientific field and b) have no clue where scientific breakthroughs come from. Here's a clue: every single scientific breakthrough started in the same way: this is strange... I wonder if.... The big "proofs", the big shiny toys, the Nobel prizes are all the culmination of a long process that started with someone, somewhere going down a road that is based on sheer speculation. Many fail, a few succeed, but it all starts the same.
Yes, this is early. Yes, this is largely speculation. However, she does have a protocol, experiments that can produce data that can support her theory and a place where to start.
I'm glad science isn't done by bores like you, because we'd never get anything new.
I'm not sure what the customer base is here outside of law enforcement. Google maybe, or some of the other online ad networks? Who else could possibly a) have the capability to figure out the various network connections without wiretapping, and b) be interested to know that blogger John is Facebook user Jane when John and Jane don't disclose common information?
Either they're talking trivial data mining, or they're talking spooky invasion of privacy. If it's the former, I'm not impressed. If it's the latter.... I better make sure I don't offend whoever is in power.
I'm sorry that you wrote up such a long post. It was pretty much too long after the third sentence. I understand the need for laws that preserve public safety. Your examples drive that point home beautifully.
However, they do not cover the examples I've seen in Irvine: laws that regulate colors of the house, what cars are allowed outside and what kind of landscaping is required. And it's in that context that I made my post.
Context here is everything. I thought it was pretty clear that this discussion is in the context of laws that specify what percentage of your publicly visible lot has to be covered by live vegetation, what colors you can paint your house, what plants are acceptable in your yard, how long the grass can be and what kind of cars can be parked (not stored, parked) outside of a garage.
I.e., laws about aesthetics. As for changing the laws, that requires majority rule. I'm finding that there are enough people agreeing with these sorts of rules that they at least constitute the majority of the votes. I find it easier to just not move to places with an HOA.
The point about communism was more a rhetorical point for the American audience.... in the US, being a communist is frequently only marginally above being a child molester (and only in certain cases). It's not serious, it really doesn't hold up to close scrutiny, but it makes pretty clear what I think of HOAs.
Don't people that want to live in a community with standards that they agree to have the right to do that?
To be really, really blunt: no. A community does not have unlimited rights to regulate themselves. They cannot have standards that conflict with federal and state laws, for one. But it goes beyond that.
Who are you to say, no, you people can't live in a community with your own rules? And if they agree to the rules, and are happy with it, why should you care?
There are two arguments why I should care, and why the type of rules should bother everyone.
Number one, it puts an artificial restrictions on where to live that is impossible to properly analyze without actually moving in. HOAs and similar associations do disclose their rules ahead of time, but the type of enforcement is only discernable once you moved in. The HOA might specify that 40% of the place should be covered with live plants, but how is that calculated? Does a pine tree cover the area of its trunk, or that of the farthest reaching branch? Are they assholes about enforcing the shade of your outside paint? Do they send a fine anytime they disagree with what you do? I can research pretty much anything, but finding that out pretty much living there. Yes, it's a bit like an annoying neighbor, but an annoying neighbor can't fine you. This means that the only guaranteed way to avoid this is to move to a place that doesn't have such an organization. And that becomes harder and harder, to the point that you're pretty much forced to live out in the sticks if you want to avoid it completely.
Two - I thought the US was the land of the free? You know, don't tread on me? Personal responsibility and liberty? There's nothing that reeks more of the Blockleiter than a nosy HOA official. True, they're not looking for jews, but they are looking for communists and people who don't embody the aesthetic ideal of the association leaders.
HOAs to me are the surest sign that fascism is only an election away in the US.
I definitely agree with your idea that no one should be free enough on their property to endanger their neighbors (running a crack house is endangering your neighbors because of all the attendant crime that comes with it). The loud parties at night are also a nuisance for a reason: everyone needs sleep, and it ain't right to force others to stay awake with you.
However, where I have absolutely no patience is when some people try to impose their definition of an eyesore on people who bought their house fair and square. There is no accounting for taste, and what is pretty today could very well be fugly tomorrow. I personally like the fence. Does that mean I get to have final say that everyone should have a fence like it?
Or, to put it another way: how comfortable are you with such ordinances when people start to mandate what you consider eyesores? Remember that next time you're pondering such a law: it can be turned against you in a heartbeat, through nothing but the personal whim and preference of someone who thinks themselves your better. Do you really want that?
Slashdot Mirror
While the Chinese people won't see much of a difference if Google leaves, the Chinese IT folks might have some issues recreating what was once there.
Not really. Do you really think that China is some peasant backwater like Tuvalu? You also forget that baidu.cn has far more market share in China than Google ever has or ever will. In short, China won't care the least from a technical perspective. The only reason they're reacting at all is because it's a spit into the Chinese government's face - and they don't take that too well.
It's actually going to be 15 cents a second, more or less.
Let's assume you want that high speed for... something. Hi-res remote doctor consultations, watching Avatar in HD over the air, using onLive.... you get the idea. Let's say you burned through your allotment already. Let's also assume that you get 3Mbit/sec instead of the full 6Mbit/sec. A 15 minute consultation then will cost you $80, a 5 GB movie $200, and an all-night onLive session will run you a whopping $2500. Somehow, I don't think that whoever buys into this will have thought this through.
What am I, the fucking internet meme police or something?
There, fixed that for you.
Because in this particular case, the set-up is convoluted enough that it smacks of premeditation. Not to mention that being sorry isn't enough to get out of having broken any other law.
You forgot the number one rule of social marketing: don't lie. People don't like to be lied to.
I know how funding is allocated, because I work with a guy who does exactly that. The amount of hot air that can be turned into cold, hard cash is astounding. Perlmann certainly has his speech down, and I recognize a lot of his arguments, speech patterns and rhethoric - it's pretty much all bullshit with no hard facts.
I really hope for your sake you have a golden parachute in case of a buy-out. That's the only way you'll make mint with OnLive.
And it's dead as a doornail. Perlman is looking for the same deal now: a buyout by a major publisher before his business model goes belly-up.
Yes, because clearly you have no idea what you're talking about and are incapable of describing your product properly. All the description of lag that you so quickly dismissed are spot on. There is no magic in computers. And your analogy of streaming video and uploading keyboard inputs is so naive that I know you've never dealt with the insides of a computer, an online game, a webserver or a router.
There is no machine and no algorithm in the world that can predict what I will do for every quarter-second interval for my entire gaming session. As a result, onLive will not be like video. OnLive can work - for a game like Myst. Or maybe Zork. Or one of those terrible interactive movies from the 90s. For UT? Starcraft? Yeah right. I'd like to see an unapproved video that shows that.
"Remember that you don't just have to take ping time in to account with data transfer, but the time it takes to transfer all the data."
Or, as it is known colloquially, LoC/sec - i.e bandwidth. Since when is bandwidth an asinine concept?
There was a great video where the creator of the service presented in front of a university class discussing the technology and overcoming the issues of lag and distance.
Yes, I remember the summary. "We've overcome the limitations of time and space to bring you gaming nirvana." Or some similar bullshit. Their solution is not new, not innovative, and simply consists of throwing huge resources at the fundamental problem: no compression algorithm gives you better than realtime performance, and no prediction algorithm is perfect.
The reason I have decided the system will fail is because it does not address the fundamental problem: the game is severely degraded to the point of being nearly unplayable. Sure, it will work for some people - people who are within 100ms round trip of the servers and with steady bandwidth in the >5Mbit/sec range. But how many are there in that class? Then there's the business model which I find to be disgusting.
You sure you're not Mr BizDev from OnLive? Cuz you really sound like every marketdroid I've ever met. With some extra asshole thrown in, courtesy of the anonymous internet.
None of that income goes to the primary market.
The primary market already got its money on the first go-around. The primary market has no right to any income.
People do not buy more "new" games because they've sold more used games.
[Citation needed]
In addition the ones who buy used games are looking for good deals and cheaper-than-retail prices.
People always look for deals. What's your point?
Since Gamestop can *always* undercut retail no matter what retail is priced at, game publishers lose a huge chunk of profit to Gamestop.
You're missing numbers. There's a limit to how low Gamestop can go, as it has retail overhead. Furthermore, your "huge chunk of profit" is complete conjecture. Not to mention that it is complete conjecture over the price of an item YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR.
Again, this is why publishers are willing to price extremely popular games like Bioshock at $5 on Steam, but not at retail
[Citation needed] You're also disregarding instant updates, lack of inventory, and a host of other factors.
Here's the part that you and everyone in your position (yes, I'm quite sure you're an executive or marketdroid for a publisher) is missing: you already got paid when the first person paid for your product. Everything after that IS NOT YOUR PRODUCT anymore. Got that? It ain't yours anymore. Stop trying to fuck the world because your business model sucks arse. If you can't afford to make a game for $30M, then for God's sake don't!
Voting your views rather than those of the people you purport to represent is not democracy. Do what your constituents want or resign.
Really? I didn't see anything about that in my political science courses about the theory of democracy. Do you have a link to support that, or are you just making it up?
From my perspective, if my representative does nothing more than parrot my views (or the average of the views of his constituents), he is completely superfluous and can be replaced by a small perl script. I want him to do the job that I can't: study the matters that come before him in a thorough manner, and decide based on what will benefit overall society the best.
Is it sad that I want to give you mod points just because you managed to use the correct spelling for "effect" here?
Look at the alternative: instead of adding useless physics to a game that doesn't need it, they could be adding advertisements. Advertising dollars are dollars nonetheless, and I very much prefer a quick splash screen of "powered by PhysX" and some mindless physics interactions than an in-game billboard (possibly even updated over the Internet, shudder).
Web-based TV like Netflix to the computer is already causing me to look at far higher connections than the standard 1.5Mb/167kbit. I'd also argue that if NBC and ESPN wouldn't already screw with net neutrality, the proportion of people getting into web-based TV would be much higher.
The internet connections in most places in the US are completely behind the times. They were useful in 2000, but applications have far outpaced that infrastructure.
The immutable laws of economics? Really? Is that like the immutable law of Homo Oeconomicus that utterly failed to predict the result of certain money sharing experiments? Or the immutable laws that prevented economists the world over from figuring out why people walk (or even run!) up escalators? Or the immutable laws that completely failed to force banks like Bear Stearns to act in their own best long-term interest?
I don't know whether to laugh at your blind faith in economics, or cry at your ignorance of reality. After all, people like you vote for my representatives.
No, what I want to know is why the center of Silicon Valley seems to have the same quality of service as Carson City, Scaguay. If we extend this argument to similar surfaces, I'd expect densely populated areas in the US to have a similar internet infrastructure as densely populated areas in Europe. As far as I can tell, that's not the case.
I'm kinda shocked that it took this long for someone to point out the hypocrisy here. Hutchison is proposing a government-operated space transportation system? Really? Not only is the commercial sector already active in that area, it's a massive expansion of NASA into unknown territory (from cutting-edge research to providing a public service) along with a billion dollar expenditure that really isn't needed.
I'm baffled. Shouldn't his brain implode when considering these options? Wait, you're right. He's a simple politician. For them, that behavior is par for the course.
I was similarly modded into trolldom a short while ago for having the audacity to point to the fact that there is no direct evidence of evolution (I do, however, believe in evolution, just the same).
It couldn't possibly have been that you were merely ignorant, right? I mean, any questioning of your superior intellect and knowledge has to come from rubes who don't have a clue.
Wow, I wish I could be such a narcissist.
You a) never worked in a scientific field and b) have no clue where scientific breakthroughs come from. Here's a clue: every single scientific breakthrough started in the same way: this is strange... I wonder if.... The big "proofs", the big shiny toys, the Nobel prizes are all the culmination of a long process that started with someone, somewhere going down a road that is based on sheer speculation. Many fail, a few succeed, but it all starts the same.
Yes, this is early. Yes, this is largely speculation. However, she does have a protocol, experiments that can produce data that can support her theory and a place where to start.
I'm glad science isn't done by bores like you, because we'd never get anything new.
I'm not sure what the customer base is here outside of law enforcement. Google maybe, or some of the other online ad networks? Who else could possibly a) have the capability to figure out the various network connections without wiretapping, and b) be interested to know that blogger John is Facebook user Jane when John and Jane don't disclose common information?
Either they're talking trivial data mining, or they're talking spooky invasion of privacy. If it's the former, I'm not impressed. If it's the latter.... I better make sure I don't offend whoever is in power.
I'm sorry that you wrote up such a long post. It was pretty much too long after the third sentence. I understand the need for laws that preserve public safety. Your examples drive that point home beautifully.
However, they do not cover the examples I've seen in Irvine: laws that regulate colors of the house, what cars are allowed outside and what kind of landscaping is required. And it's in that context that I made my post.
Context here is everything. I thought it was pretty clear that this discussion is in the context of laws that specify what percentage of your publicly visible lot has to be covered by live vegetation, what colors you can paint your house, what plants are acceptable in your yard, how long the grass can be and what kind of cars can be parked (not stored, parked) outside of a garage.
I.e., laws about aesthetics. As for changing the laws, that requires majority rule. I'm finding that there are enough people agreeing with these sorts of rules that they at least constitute the majority of the votes. I find it easier to just not move to places with an HOA.
The point about communism was more a rhetorical point for the American audience.... in the US, being a communist is frequently only marginally above being a child molester (and only in certain cases). It's not serious, it really doesn't hold up to close scrutiny, but it makes pretty clear what I think of HOAs.
Don't people that want to live in a community with standards that they agree to have the right to do that?
To be really, really blunt: no. A community does not have unlimited rights to regulate themselves. They cannot have standards that conflict with federal and state laws, for one. But it goes beyond that.
Who are you to say, no, you people can't live in a community with your own rules? And if they agree to the rules, and are happy with it, why should you care?
There are two arguments why I should care, and why the type of rules should bother everyone.
Number one, it puts an artificial restrictions on where to live that is impossible to properly analyze without actually moving in. HOAs and similar associations do disclose their rules ahead of time, but the type of enforcement is only discernable once you moved in. The HOA might specify that 40% of the place should be covered with live plants, but how is that calculated? Does a pine tree cover the area of its trunk, or that of the farthest reaching branch? Are they assholes about enforcing the shade of your outside paint? Do they send a fine anytime they disagree with what you do? I can research pretty much anything, but finding that out pretty much living there. Yes, it's a bit like an annoying neighbor, but an annoying neighbor can't fine you. This means that the only guaranteed way to avoid this is to move to a place that doesn't have such an organization. And that becomes harder and harder, to the point that you're pretty much forced to live out in the sticks if you want to avoid it completely.
Two - I thought the US was the land of the free? You know, don't tread on me? Personal responsibility and liberty? There's nothing that reeks more of the Blockleiter than a nosy HOA official. True, they're not looking for jews, but they are looking for communists and people who don't embody the aesthetic ideal of the association leaders.
HOAs to me are the surest sign that fascism is only an election away in the US.
I definitely agree with your idea that no one should be free enough on their property to endanger their neighbors (running a crack house is endangering your neighbors because of all the attendant crime that comes with it). The loud parties at night are also a nuisance for a reason: everyone needs sleep, and it ain't right to force others to stay awake with you.
However, where I have absolutely no patience is when some people try to impose their definition of an eyesore on people who bought their house fair and square. There is no accounting for taste, and what is pretty today could very well be fugly tomorrow. I personally like the fence. Does that mean I get to have final say that everyone should have a fence like it?
Or, to put it another way: how comfortable are you with such ordinances when people start to mandate what you consider eyesores? Remember that next time you're pondering such a law: it can be turned against you in a heartbeat, through nothing but the personal whim and preference of someone who thinks themselves your better. Do you really want that?