Yeah, but the newspapers should be questioning that press release too -- not simply regurgitating it. This is often the case on the evening news -- no substance to the reporting. If you want to put something in the newspaper word-for-word for public view -- take out an add or some page space -- that's how it works. The rest is open for distillation and questioning. News organizations do their readers a disservice when they present information with NO context. I think what we're seeing here is that blogs and newspapers aren't that dissimilar -- and that one competing with the other is a good thing. IMHO - the press is WAY to full of itself to to a decent job anymore and needs something to kick it in the pants. Blogs may be it, or at least a start. I like the idea of having news stories with relevant links embedded in the stories -- like how the author got his information or relevant links. I don't get this in the newspaper -- I can't becasue the format is so limiting. News organizations will need to get their own blogs and begin reporting in new ways. Your information is only as good as the person you're getting it from -- it comes down to who do you trust? The one article that someone has summed up for me, or a blog with links to information I can see for myself? Oh, and I'd disagree that blogs are necessarily 3rd or 4th hand sources -- frankly the good ones have more cred and better insiders than some news organizations (who aren't necessarily reporting things as even "secondhand" either). Do I sound bitter? Sorry, I've just been at to many events that have been covered by the press in rediculous fashion, focusing on the sensationalism of the events and not the issues. You know, the kind you read about (or see on TV) the next day and go "That's NOT what happened!" Blogs are the way for the common man to participate in this process and correct these events with firsthand knowledge (not necessarily 2nd or 3rd or 4th..).
Wow! You sound like my (soon-to-be) ex-wife -- only she doesn't play video games. She just plays god. If she played games instead maybe we'd still be married.
Now my daughter plays anything -- she's seen to much of her Daddy and (older) brother playing not to get in on the action. I think we're still at it's another one of those "not a girl thing to do" stereotypes that will wear off (and it slowly is) as video games become more the norm in our daily lives. Think: video games as a mark of conservative society! Well, more like: video games as a new common social watering hole.
I think this is becoming increasingly poular, with at least some part of the downtown area of cities being covered. I live in Riverside, California (by no means a huge metropolitan mecca) and they've had the whole downtown area blanketed for a couple years now (less than a square mile of space, I'd say). I know several other cities in the area that have constructed similar open-networks in their downtown business/government districts.
Abolutely agree. Lego Star Wars has become a staple at my house for my son (4 yrs old) and I. It's about all I let him play, but he loves it and we have a great time together. I'll also agree with some of those "other" parents who say too much of anything is bad -- we try to limit our kids TV time, simply because it's too easy to watch TV. They get plenty of it -- it's good to encourage other activities. But I still love the social aspects of gaming -- I think it's one of the best elements video games have to offer.
No. The frequency shifts because the train is moving toward you -- regardless of your head position. Turning your head may slightly alter the amplitude of the frequency you hear, but it does not "shift" it as with the Doppler effect (frequency shift). Rather, there is may be a delay and attenuation of the signal as the sound travels through your head more than if it were in free air. This is referred to as a Head Related Transfer Function (HRTF) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrtf .
What you're talking about are two seperate markets. There certainly is a demand for home-theater style gaming, but there also is a demand for more portable entertainment as well.
I'm sorry, but there definitely appears to be a Microsoft bias in Japan -- the primary reason the units sell so poorly there. It also doensn't help that the 360 doesn't have a killer app yet. The popularity of the Nintendo DS in Japan can be traced to the popularity of portable gaming in general in Japan. Far, far more popular than it has EVER been in the US. This is also evidenced by the cell phones available in Asia and the content available for them (much more games, video services, and advanced feature phones).
I blame this on the more suburban to rural nature of the US: due to our lower population density we spend less time in areas where portable gaming/media would be used -- like public transportation (which I see as the #1 place for portable entertainment).
Oh, and convergence? It's coming -- everywhere. CES this last year had more companies making HTPCs than ever, and they were commanding ungodly prices ($7-10k). Oh and selling as fast as these companies could make them. Microsofts 360 is a great convergence device -- if you also happen to own a XP Media Center PC in your home. Otherwise it's somewhat crippled as a convergence device. It's a shame, really, but it WILL happen -- the costs of hardware and software will dictate it. Cell phones are following a similar path -- they are frankly converging at a far faster pace than either Apple or Nintendo. Both of these companies have enjoyed success not because they make convergence devices, but becasue they make a device that does one thing well -- music for the ipod and games for the DS -- and does it with style.
Also, Nintendo is not transitioning from settop box to portable. They have entries in BOTH those markets (just like Sony).
Uhh..dude, there's over 35 million people in California. More than any other state. I think they do have the jobs where the people are. And there's more to California than just jobs. It's getting away from your job that's the best in Califonia -- as in you can go to almost any type of environment you want to in a few hours (ocean, forests, deserts, mountains, lakes) any time of the year. Having lived in many other (...cold...) places in the US, it's easy to see California's attaction..
Thanks for the thoughtful, informative explanation. It's good to see sometimes there are valid reasons why I read/. and that not everyone is a hopeless troll.
Nah, we just have to make them look like the first-amendment eating, goose-stepping morons that they are. The more publicity about this, the better. Maybe Google's records will finally show these idiots that the internet is STILL run on porn, and if you're a parent with any sort of brain in your head you'll pay attention to what your kids are doing -- rather than locking it down for everyone else. God, I hate this "American Fundamental Values" crap. Why is it that when something becomes fundamental, it sucks (fundamentalist religions, fundamental values...)? When will these guys wake up and realize we don't all have the same "values"? Wedge issue? I'll give them a wedge right up their...
You're missing the point -- RTFA -- he worked for the attorney! This is like someone in your attorney's office finding something and accusing you of a crime! It might be true, but you are still wrong. This guy should have done this anonymously -- then he wouldn't have gotten caught up in this. The key is wether they were actively assisting Diebold in commiting a crime (in progress), which we can't tell from this article. Sounds to me like it was already committed (voting machines were already in place), and Attorney was advising them. If he's working for the attorney, he's screwed. I'm sure that area will be a key point in the trial. Diebold sucks, but this wan't the way to do it.
Please expalin how this heat is bypassing the skins surface and occuring "within the volume of the brain"? This seems counter-intuitive -- electromagnetic waves DO penetrate from the outside in. Check your chicken the next time you put it in a microwave. Does the middle get hot first?
Also, as you state, wifi antennas (and cell phone antennas) are NOT focused. They are omnidirectional and typically have an a profile at least as big as a wavelength (c=2.4GHz x wavelength -> 3e8/2.4e9 = wavelength = 0.125m), or 1.25cm, if not several multiples of that.
This guy is doing the students at his school a disservice. Heck, my entire city has free wi-fi now in the downtown area. I think it's an excellent public service.
Actually, you just made the argument for why these CAN BE rights, and why they have limits. In every example you have shown it infringing upon the rights of others -- which is by definition the LIMIT of those rights. Why I would say health care is not a RIGHT is because it is actively taking from those who have to give to those who have not. While this is not necessarily wrong, it cannot be conffered as a RIGHT. I guess I'd like to clarify we're talking NATURAL RIGHTS here -- not government invented rights. Governments can call anything a right (like taxes), that doesn't make it a recognized NATURAL right. Rights are not all-encompassing and without limits. Your RIGHTS stop the minute they infringe on mine (to a point -- that's what we have court systems for).
This is VERY similar to how stup-up DC-DC converters work, and it's really only good for small voltage gains. The grandparent of this is wrong -- is is VERY HARD to step up DC voltage to greater levels directly. Usually it is converted to AC, run through a transformer to step up the voltage, and then rectified back to DC again. VERY inefficient.
Current low voltage systems used in homes (12V lighting systems) use switching power supplies to provide 12V AC power (not DC).
Other Info: Wall-warts are the most popular power supply for many reasons -- the biggest is that evey power supply for every consumer electronics device must go through UL/CE testing, which can be expensive and a pain in the ass. This can be further complicated by placing the power supply inside the device, as then the entire device must be sent for certification. If the supply is external to the device, just the supply must be certified. This allows for far cheaper (and various) supplies to be used without holding up production of a product.
Another Note: Just visited some friends at Harmon Kardon (who own seem to own half the audio companies in the world) and discovered they are actively working to move wall-warts back into the products (certification costs be damned) because of consumer backlash over all the bricks laying around. Seems they've been working on some pretty efficient supplies (switching , of course) and since they will soon be switching all audio over to class D they don't have to worry about supply noise as much (as long as all the switchers are synched).
There are a few AC/DC supply companies that seem to try to be standardizing things (iGo for example), but to be honest this is one of the last things on manufacturers minds. Easier to buy the cheapest supply available and change the plug to whatever fits. DC voltage (as stated here) is too lossy for long cable runs. Small tranformers all about really is the most efficient way to do it.
I haven't seen this point made yet, but the adoption of HDTV sets will drive the sales of higher res recorded formats. I don't know how many of you have watched a standard definition picture (480i or 480p)on a large format capable device (1080i or better) but it looks TERRIBLE! Without using VERY good scalars it looks like crap. Example: take that computer monitor you're staring at now and blow up a standard def TV stream to full screen. Look good? No. Right now, it takes $10k+ scalars to achieve decent image quality -- and they still have artifacts. The question is: good enough? I suspect it will be for most, but there will be plenty of early adopters who want more -- and will pay the premiums. Higher-res formats are necessary -- scalars are more of a patch.
I also welcome the higher data contents these discs will be capable of. $24 wholesale means these will sell for $30 -- certainly a premium price, but as evidenced by the surviving (albeit struggling) high-end audio market -- there will be adopters. Much more so with video, I think, because the differences are that much more striking.
Not a Bubble? Check housing prices...
on
The New Boom
·
· Score: 1
Guess the author hasn't looked at housing costs in Silicon Valley since the "bubble" burst. They NEVER went down. When you're paying $750k for a 3 bedroom ranch home in Cupertino (cheap!) you are living in a bubble. It WILL burst someday, I just worry it will be an earthquake that will do it (and I'll move back right afterward!)
Hate to break it to you, but you BARELY have an HD capable monitor. Try looking at it (as I stated in my poset) at the HDTV standard of 1080i (or 1080p). It looks horrible. That's why you never see standard def material being presented on diplays capable of 1080i (which I notice yours is NOT). I've sat in development meeting with Mistubishi in their US displays division (rear-projection TVs) -- they are sweating bullets about it because of the huge library of standard def material that looks like garbage on the latest high-def displays.
"Unless companies are somehow *forced* to stop producing DVD's, Blu-Ray AND HD-DVD are going to become the video equivalents of SuperAudio and DVD Audio"
Totally disagree with this. The adoption of higher definition pre-recorded video formats like blu-ray and HD-DVD will directly relate to the adoption of higher definition televisions and penetration of other higher resolution formats in the market (HDTV). Have you tried watching standard def video on a 1080i (or even 1080p) sceen format? It looks AWFUL! Everyone is going to start wondering what they ponied up all this money for on HDTVs when the movies (DVDs and VCRs -- all standard def formats) look like SH!TE. Higher resoltions like 1080i are here to stay -- they will help drive the high-def prerecorded market. Its just a matter of time. Sony getting their foot in the door with a blu-ray player (and the capability to create high-def CONTENT for it) in so many muti-millions of homes with the PS3 --- genius. Like watching sports games in high-def -- at that point it sells itself.
"One common misconception is that technological innovations will come along and solve our problems as resources begin to run out."
How is this a misconception? Innovation DOES arise in times of need -- that's what drives innovation: a need. In every case this has happened. Show me 1 example where it hasn't ultimately worked out. It's not the first try. Almost nothing ever is perfect the first try. That's why it's innovation -- it keeps changing.
"A great example is insecticides. There's no denying that they've increased food output in many nations, but many of the first insecticides that were used were highly toxic and are still being cleaned up today."
That is a great example. You admit as much that they work! That they may be highly toxic or have other side effects is another issue! Not only have we learned from that, but we've continued to innovate so we have less toxic pesticides available -- in addition to other means of insect control (like using other insects). Innovation takes time, and lots of trial and error, but it ALWAYS works. It's not just technology that solves problems -- it's thinking, and applying old things in new ways.
And this article doesn't even go near the gateway aspect of videogames. Why I never started drinking and smoking dope until I started playin'. Now it's all been downhill. After that last all-night coke binge playing Sonic the Hedgehog I figured enough was enough...it was time to turn my life around. And it all started with a few mushrooms and a crazy guy called Mario....
Exactly! The US has a huge amount of people voting as well (100+ million) -- electronic voting allows decreased costs (know how much the paperwork for voting takes to publish and distribute every election?) and a highly accurate vote count. I've used electronic voting in the last few elections here in California (and used again last week) -- no paper trail, simple touch-screen voting process -- easy to read, choose, and verify (it reviews my selections at the end). Having used electronic systems for tests, company questionaires, and other data-recording purposes I have no problem or discomfort with this. 0.5% of the voting machines have problems? Now I'll admit that 0.5% of 175 million is still a pretty big number (I work in the semiconductor industry -- we strive for 0.001% failure rate or better) it's miniscule compared to the failure rate of paper ballots.
I'd say the whole concern is media hype, but reading here on slashdot (which I would have thought to be less technophobic) proves otherwise. Maybe we're just more paranoid?
I notice we tend to be looking at this from a North American point of view - and the fact is we're about 2 years behind cell phones in Asia (in particular), where they already have larger hard drives (and cameras and video and 3D stereo setups....) in their phones. Apple is trying to find other ways to license the iTunes name (can't blame them) -- and as someone else pointed out -- Apple DIDN'T design this phone. It's a Motorola product. Apple is trying to establish its software in a space it sees as an increasing market (cell phone mp3 players). The 100 song limit was meant to keep it from competing with small flash players (like the nano), but you can bet this is something for the first revs. In a way that in itself sabotaged it, but it was strategically more important to get the iTunes software into some other medium (cell phones). The failure was on the part of Motorola.
Also I find the basic premise of this statement to be flawed:
"So, logically, if people's only experience with iTunes comes by way of the ROKR and that experience is a negative one, logically that's going to lead customers to respond by going elsewhere for music and for a portable music player."
I don't think the iTunes part of the ROCKR is the problem with the phone. The interface seems to work (like an iPod interface) fairly well for playing music. The problem comes from a clunky phone with a 100 song limit. While fine for the casual user, anybody who's used any sort of portable music player will tell you 100 songs goes pretty quick. I hate to break it to all those who love having seperate devices, but convergence is coming FAST and Apple is just trying to keep on the boat.
I'd have to conclude that the popularity of the iPod itself as a stand-alone music player has reached it's peak. Apple will need to find new ways to distinguish its product (like video in the latest iPods) as cell phones continue their pace toward hand-held computers. iTunes can still lead the way as a service for distributing content -- something that won't change.
Yeah -- not sure where this comment stemmed from. Seems like a basic lack of understanding of the performance limitations of analog, 50 year old TV technology versus computer monitors -- and the entirely different markets they serve and exist in. Sure, large screen displays with resolutions approaching and even matching those that computer monitors have displayed for years, but this is an achievement of monumental proportions. To transmit that amount of data through the air (with all the applicable standards, technical issues, and infrastructure required) is quite a feat. We're not talking the 6ft. from your GPU to your monitor here, we're talking broadcast.
The reason that we have TVs at all is because of "big business". The reason we have HD content at all (and TVs) is because of "big business". Indie content is great, but is it driving the production of HD displays? No -- it's a fortunate byproduct riding on the coattails of an indusrty created by "big business".
This sounds like a kid gamer mindlessly spouting the evils of "big business" (and frankly not the point of the article). When he grows up maybe he'll realize that even "big business" can be for good or evil -- it's up to the people who run it.
I'm also detecting a little bit of anti-console bias here. Not the first time someone starts bashing consoles for "inferior graphics capability". Who cares about gameplay? Or the technical limitations of 90% of the worlds TVs.
You're missing the point and making mine. You're right, I AM happy with xbox graphics, particularly on my big-screen TV. And you're also right, a good video card and controls DO make the game, although I'd hardly say they define the gaming experience. Gameplay defines the experience. Not vids. They help, but some of the best games I've ever played had shite graphics. Todays consoles have weaker GPUs in them that look (and control) great because the games are made for the console. Yeah, Doom 3 never crashes on the xbox. And at 10 feet away, you tell me the difference between 720p and 1080p. I've played on incredible systems, but wouldn't spend the money on one because the return on investment just wasn't there! As for controls, I only really find FPS (well, and strategy games with millions of keyboard shortcuts) desireable for computer playing. If you're into playing games with people physically at your home (not LAN), then console is the way to go.
Good to know that $150 is "junk" cards now. Let's me know where this is coming from. What's that extra $100 getting me again? I still seem to be able to play all the games I love (latest ones at that) with my junk, just not a the highest settings.
Thanks for the transistor count -- interesting if ultimately irrelevant -- although it provides a nice foil for what an amazing amount of WASTE must be in GPUs. What would you rather have again? Good CPU or good GPU?
Because for $300 with a console you get much more than just a video card. You get a video card, an OS, a hard drive (or flash drive), network card, power supply, case, controllers, video cables, and games developed specifically for that platform. Dropping $250 for just a video card that allows you to play games on your computer which already contaons all the above items IS insane. Console games look BETTER at the end of the console lifecycle. Computer games always seem to be developed for the latest equipment, which is a double-edged sword -- it'll look great on brand-new top of the line equipment, but old hardware falls by the wayside. That's what makes consoles such a good deal -- you hardware investment isn't just "adequate" for the latest games -- it was designed for them in the first place. I've never spent more than $150 on a video card, and have been quite happy with the performance of most all computer games I play (Doom 3, HalfLife 2, GuilWars, etc.). At that price point it still makes sense to me -- $250 and up is nuts. Oh, and that means dropping those performance levels down to "colsole-like" levels to get good framerates. Console-gameing is a different experience. I don't have friends come over for beers and Madden around my computer display -- they sit around my big-screen with the Xbox. Does it look crappy on the big-screen? Nope. I prefer it to my computer display, in fact, despite the higher rez on the computer. Oh, and I sit farther back -- so the rez doesn't matter as much (though widescreen is nice) and I've got less eyestrain than getting blasted by my monitor. Yeah, $250-$300 and I'm not buying a new video card, I'm buying the bones of a full on computer. Hmmm -- $250 -- that's about the same as a pentium 4, 3.4GHz processor. What's worth more for your money? Transistor count anyone?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but the newspapers should be questioning that press release too -- not simply regurgitating it. This is often the case on the evening news -- no substance to the reporting. ..).
If you want to put something in the newspaper word-for-word for public view -- take out an add or some page space -- that's how it works. The rest is open for distillation and questioning. News organizations do their readers a disservice when they present information with NO context.
I think what we're seeing here is that blogs and newspapers aren't that dissimilar -- and that one competing with the other is a good thing. IMHO - the press is WAY to full of itself to to a decent job anymore and needs something to kick it in the pants. Blogs may be it, or at least a start. I like the idea of having news stories with relevant links embedded in the stories -- like how the author got his information or relevant links. I don't get this in the newspaper -- I can't becasue the format is so limiting. News organizations will need to get their own blogs and begin reporting in new ways. Your information is only as good as the person you're getting it from -- it comes down to who do you trust? The one article that someone has summed up for me, or a blog with links to information I can see for myself?
Oh, and I'd disagree that blogs are necessarily 3rd or 4th hand sources -- frankly the good ones have more cred and better insiders than some news organizations (who aren't necessarily reporting things as even "secondhand" either).
Do I sound bitter? Sorry, I've just been at to many events that have been covered by the press in rediculous fashion, focusing on the sensationalism of the events and not the issues. You know, the kind you read about (or see on TV) the next day and go "That's NOT what happened!" Blogs are the way for the common man to participate in this process and correct these events with firsthand knowledge (not necessarily 2nd or 3rd or 4th
Wow! You sound like my (soon-to-be) ex-wife -- only she doesn't play video games. She just plays god. If she played games instead maybe we'd still be married.
Now my daughter plays anything -- she's seen to much of her Daddy and (older) brother playing not to get in on the action. I think we're still at it's another one of those "not a girl thing to do" stereotypes that will wear off (and it slowly is) as video games become more the norm in our daily lives. Think: video games as a mark of conservative society! Well, more like: video games as a new common social watering hole.
I think this is becoming increasingly poular, with at least some part of the downtown area of cities being covered. I live in Riverside, California (by no means a huge metropolitan mecca) and they've had the whole downtown area blanketed for a couple years now (less than a square mile of space, I'd say). I know several other cities in the area that have constructed similar open-networks in their downtown business/government districts.
Abolutely agree. Lego Star Wars has become a staple at my house for my son (4 yrs old) and I. It's about all I let him play, but he loves it and we have a great time together. I'll also agree with some of those "other" parents who say too much of anything is bad -- we try to limit our kids TV time, simply because it's too easy to watch TV. They get plenty of it -- it's good to encourage other activities.
But I still love the social aspects of gaming -- I think it's one of the best elements video games have to offer.
No. The frequency shifts because the train is moving toward you -- regardless of your head position. Turning your head may slightly alter the amplitude of the frequency you hear, but it does not "shift" it as with the Doppler effect (frequency shift). Rather, there is may be a delay and attenuation of the signal as the sound travels through your head more than if it were in free air. This is referred to as a Head Related Transfer Function (HRTF) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrtf .
What you're talking about are two seperate markets. There certainly is a demand for home-theater style gaming, but there also is a demand for more portable entertainment as well.
I'm sorry, but there definitely appears to be a Microsoft bias in Japan -- the primary reason the units sell so poorly there. It also doensn't help that the 360 doesn't have a killer app yet. The popularity of the Nintendo DS in Japan can be traced to the popularity of portable gaming in general in Japan. Far, far more popular than it has EVER been in the US. This is also evidenced by the cell phones available in Asia and the content available for them (much more games, video services, and advanced feature phones).
I blame this on the more suburban to rural nature of the US: due to our lower population density we spend less time in areas where portable gaming/media would be used -- like public transportation (which I see as the #1 place for portable entertainment).
Oh, and convergence? It's coming -- everywhere. CES this last year had more companies making HTPCs than ever, and they were commanding ungodly prices ($7-10k). Oh and selling as fast as these companies could make them. Microsofts 360 is a great convergence device -- if you also happen to own a XP Media Center PC in your home. Otherwise it's somewhat crippled as a convergence device. It's a shame, really, but it WILL happen -- the costs of hardware and software will dictate it. Cell phones are following a similar path -- they are frankly converging at a far faster pace than either Apple or Nintendo. Both of these companies have enjoyed success not because they make convergence devices, but becasue they make a device that does one thing well -- music for the ipod and games for the DS -- and does it with style.
Also, Nintendo is not transitioning from settop box to portable. They have entries in BOTH those markets (just like Sony).
Uhh..dude, there's over 35 million people in California. More than any other state. I think they do have the jobs where the people are.
And there's more to California than just jobs. It's getting away from your job that's the best in Califonia -- as in you can go to almost any type of environment you want to in a few hours (ocean, forests, deserts, mountains, lakes) any time of the year. Having lived in many other (...cold...) places in the US, it's easy to see California's attaction..
Thanks for the thoughtful, informative explanation. It's good to see sometimes there are valid reasons why I read /. and that not everyone is a hopeless troll.
Agreed. This is called phase shift. Doppler effect is frequency shift.
Nah, we just have to make them look like the first-amendment eating, goose-stepping morons that they are.
The more publicity about this, the better. Maybe Google's records will finally show these idiots that the internet is STILL run on porn, and if you're a parent with any sort of brain in your head you'll pay attention to what your kids are doing -- rather than locking it down for everyone else.
God, I hate this "American Fundamental Values" crap. Why is it that when something becomes fundamental, it sucks (fundamentalist religions, fundamental values...)? When will these guys wake up and realize we don't all have the same "values"? Wedge issue? I'll give them a wedge right up their...
You're missing the point -- RTFA -- he worked for the attorney! This is like someone in your attorney's office finding something and accusing you of a crime! It might be true, but you are still wrong. This guy should have done this anonymously -- then he wouldn't have gotten caught up in this.
The key is wether they were actively assisting Diebold in commiting a crime (in progress), which we can't tell from this article. Sounds to me like it was already committed (voting machines were already in place), and Attorney was advising them. If he's working for the attorney, he's screwed.
I'm sure that area will be a key point in the trial.
Diebold sucks, but this wan't the way to do it.
Please expalin how this heat is bypassing the skins surface and occuring "within the volume of the brain"? This seems counter-intuitive -- electromagnetic waves DO penetrate from the outside in. Check your chicken the next time you put it in a microwave. Does the middle get hot first?
Also, as you state, wifi antennas (and cell phone antennas) are NOT focused. They are omnidirectional and typically have an a profile at least as big as a wavelength (c=2.4GHz x wavelength -> 3e8/2.4e9 = wavelength = 0.125m), or 1.25cm, if not several multiples of that.
This guy is doing the students at his school a disservice. Heck, my entire city has free wi-fi now in the downtown area. I think it's an excellent public service.
Actually, you just made the argument for why these CAN BE rights, and why they have limits. In every example you have shown it infringing upon the rights of others -- which is by definition the LIMIT of those rights. Why I would say health care is not a RIGHT is because it is actively taking from those who have to give to those who have not. While this is not necessarily wrong, it cannot be conffered as a RIGHT.
I guess I'd like to clarify we're talking NATURAL RIGHTS here -- not government invented rights. Governments can call anything a right (like taxes), that doesn't make it a recognized NATURAL right.
Rights are not all-encompassing and without limits. Your RIGHTS stop the minute they infringe on mine (to a point -- that's what we have court systems for).
This is VERY similar to how stup-up DC-DC converters work, and it's really only good for small voltage gains. The grandparent of this is wrong -- is is VERY HARD to step up DC voltage to greater levels directly. Usually it is converted to AC, run through a transformer to step up the voltage, and then rectified back to DC again. VERY inefficient. Current low voltage systems used in homes (12V lighting systems) use switching power supplies to provide 12V AC power (not DC). Other Info: Wall-warts are the most popular power supply for many reasons -- the biggest is that evey power supply for every consumer electronics device must go through UL/CE testing, which can be expensive and a pain in the ass. This can be further complicated by placing the power supply inside the device, as then the entire device must be sent for certification. If the supply is external to the device, just the supply must be certified. This allows for far cheaper (and various) supplies to be used without holding up production of a product. Another Note: Just visited some friends at Harmon Kardon (who own seem to own half the audio companies in the world) and discovered they are actively working to move wall-warts back into the products (certification costs be damned) because of consumer backlash over all the bricks laying around. Seems they've been working on some pretty efficient supplies (switching , of course) and since they will soon be switching all audio over to class D they don't have to worry about supply noise as much (as long as all the switchers are synched). There are a few AC/DC supply companies that seem to try to be standardizing things (iGo for example), but to be honest this is one of the last things on manufacturers minds. Easier to buy the cheapest supply available and change the plug to whatever fits. DC voltage (as stated here) is too lossy for long cable runs. Small tranformers all about really is the most efficient way to do it.
I haven't seen this point made yet, but the adoption of HDTV sets will drive the sales of higher res recorded formats. I don't know how many of you have watched a standard definition picture (480i or 480p)on a large format capable device (1080i or better) but it looks TERRIBLE! Without using VERY good scalars it looks like crap. Example: take that computer monitor you're staring at now and blow up a standard def TV stream to full screen. Look good? No. Right now, it takes $10k+ scalars to achieve decent image quality -- and they still have artifacts. The question is: good enough? I suspect it will be for most, but there will be plenty of early adopters who want more -- and will pay the premiums. Higher-res formats are necessary -- scalars are more of a patch. I also welcome the higher data contents these discs will be capable of. $24 wholesale means these will sell for $30 -- certainly a premium price, but as evidenced by the surviving (albeit struggling) high-end audio market -- there will be adopters. Much more so with video, I think, because the differences are that much more striking.
Guess the author hasn't looked at housing costs in Silicon Valley since the "bubble" burst. They NEVER went down. When you're paying $750k for a 3 bedroom ranch home in Cupertino (cheap!) you are living in a bubble. It WILL burst someday, I just worry it will be an earthquake that will do it (and I'll move back right afterward!)
Hate to break it to you, but you BARELY have an HD capable monitor. Try looking at it (as I stated in my poset) at the HDTV standard of 1080i (or 1080p). It looks horrible. That's why you never see standard def material being presented on diplays capable of 1080i (which I notice yours is NOT). I've sat in development meeting with Mistubishi in their US displays division (rear-projection TVs) -- they are sweating bullets about it because of the huge library of standard def material that looks like garbage on the latest high-def displays.
"Unless companies are somehow *forced* to stop producing DVD's, Blu-Ray AND HD-DVD are going to become the video equivalents of SuperAudio and DVD Audio"
Totally disagree with this. The adoption of higher definition pre-recorded video formats like blu-ray and HD-DVD will directly relate to the adoption of higher definition televisions and penetration of other higher resolution formats in the market (HDTV). Have you tried watching standard def video on a 1080i (or even 1080p) sceen format? It looks AWFUL! Everyone is going to start wondering what they ponied up all this money for on HDTVs when the movies (DVDs and VCRs -- all standard def formats) look like SH!TE.
Higher resoltions like 1080i are here to stay -- they will help drive the high-def prerecorded market. Its just a matter of time. Sony getting their foot in the door with a blu-ray player (and the capability to create high-def CONTENT for it) in so many muti-millions of homes with the PS3 --- genius. Like watching sports games in high-def -- at that point it sells itself.
"One common misconception is that technological innovations will come along and solve our problems as resources begin to run out."
How is this a misconception? Innovation DOES arise in times of need -- that's what drives innovation: a need. In every case this has happened. Show me 1 example where it hasn't ultimately worked out. It's not the first try. Almost nothing ever is perfect the first try. That's why it's innovation -- it keeps changing.
"A great example is insecticides. There's no denying that they've increased food output in many nations, but many of the first insecticides that were used were highly toxic and are still being cleaned up today."
That is a great example. You admit as much that they work! That they may be highly toxic or have other side effects is another issue! Not only have we learned from that, but we've continued to innovate so we have less toxic pesticides available -- in addition to other means of insect control (like using other insects).
Innovation takes time, and lots of trial and error, but it ALWAYS works. It's not just technology that solves problems -- it's thinking, and applying old things in new ways.
And this article doesn't even go near the gateway aspect of videogames. Why I never started drinking and smoking dope until I started playin'. Now it's all been downhill. After that last all-night coke binge playing Sonic the Hedgehog I figured enough was enough...it was time to turn my life around. And it all started with a few mushrooms and a crazy guy called Mario....
Exactly! The US has a huge amount of people voting as well (100+ million) -- electronic voting allows decreased costs (know how much the paperwork for voting takes to publish and distribute every election?) and a highly accurate vote count. I've used electronic voting in the last few elections here in California (and used again last week) -- no paper trail, simple touch-screen voting process -- easy to read, choose, and verify (it reviews my selections at the end). Having used electronic systems for tests, company questionaires, and other data-recording purposes I have no problem or discomfort with this. 0.5% of the voting machines have problems? Now I'll admit that 0.5% of 175 million is still a pretty big number (I work in the semiconductor industry -- we strive for 0.001% failure rate or better) it's miniscule compared to the failure rate of paper ballots. I'd say the whole concern is media hype, but reading here on slashdot (which I would have thought to be less technophobic) proves otherwise. Maybe we're just more paranoid?
I notice we tend to be looking at this from a North American point of view - and the fact is we're about 2 years behind cell phones in Asia (in particular), where they already have larger hard drives (and cameras and video and 3D stereo setups....) in their phones. Apple is trying to find other ways to license the iTunes name (can't blame them) -- and as someone else pointed out -- Apple DIDN'T design this phone. It's a Motorola product. Apple is trying to establish its software in a space it sees as an increasing market (cell phone mp3 players). The 100 song limit was meant to keep it from competing with small flash players (like the nano), but you can bet this is something for the first revs. In a way that in itself sabotaged it, but it was strategically more important to get the iTunes software into some other medium (cell phones). The failure was on the part of Motorola. Also I find the basic premise of this statement to be flawed: "So, logically, if people's only experience with iTunes comes by way of the ROKR and that experience is a negative one, logically that's going to lead customers to respond by going elsewhere for music and for a portable music player." I don't think the iTunes part of the ROCKR is the problem with the phone. The interface seems to work (like an iPod interface) fairly well for playing music. The problem comes from a clunky phone with a 100 song limit. While fine for the casual user, anybody who's used any sort of portable music player will tell you 100 songs goes pretty quick. I hate to break it to all those who love having seperate devices, but convergence is coming FAST and Apple is just trying to keep on the boat. I'd have to conclude that the popularity of the iPod itself as a stand-alone music player has reached it's peak. Apple will need to find new ways to distinguish its product (like video in the latest iPods) as cell phones continue their pace toward hand-held computers. iTunes can still lead the way as a service for distributing content -- something that won't change.
Yeah -- not sure where this comment stemmed from. Seems like a basic lack of understanding of the performance limitations of analog, 50 year old TV technology versus computer monitors -- and the entirely different markets they serve and exist in. Sure, large screen displays with resolutions approaching and even matching those that computer monitors have displayed for years, but this is an achievement of monumental proportions. To transmit that amount of data through the air (with all the applicable standards, technical issues, and infrastructure required) is quite a feat. We're not talking the 6ft. from your GPU to your monitor here, we're talking broadcast. The reason that we have TVs at all is because of "big business". The reason we have HD content at all (and TVs) is because of "big business". Indie content is great, but is it driving the production of HD displays? No -- it's a fortunate byproduct riding on the coattails of an indusrty created by "big business". This sounds like a kid gamer mindlessly spouting the evils of "big business" (and frankly not the point of the article). When he grows up maybe he'll realize that even "big business" can be for good or evil -- it's up to the people who run it. I'm also detecting a little bit of anti-console bias here. Not the first time someone starts bashing consoles for "inferior graphics capability". Who cares about gameplay? Or the technical limitations of 90% of the worlds TVs.
You're missing the point and making mine. You're right, I AM happy with xbox graphics, particularly on my big-screen TV. And you're also right, a good video card and controls DO make the game, although I'd hardly say they define the gaming experience. Gameplay defines the experience. Not vids. They help, but some of the best games I've ever played had shite graphics. Todays consoles have weaker GPUs in them that look (and control) great because the games are made for the console. Yeah, Doom 3 never crashes on the xbox. And at 10 feet away, you tell me the difference between 720p and 1080p. I've played on incredible systems, but wouldn't spend the money on one because the return on investment just wasn't there! As for controls, I only really find FPS (well, and strategy games with millions of keyboard shortcuts) desireable for computer playing. If you're into playing games with people physically at your home (not LAN), then console is the way to go. Good to know that $150 is "junk" cards now. Let's me know where this is coming from. What's that extra $100 getting me again? I still seem to be able to play all the games I love (latest ones at that) with my junk, just not a the highest settings. Thanks for the transistor count -- interesting if ultimately irrelevant -- although it provides a nice foil for what an amazing amount of WASTE must be in GPUs. What would you rather have again? Good CPU or good GPU?
Because for $300 with a console you get much more than just a video card. You get a video card, an OS, a hard drive (or flash drive), network card, power supply, case, controllers, video cables, and games developed specifically for that platform. Dropping $250 for just a video card that allows you to play games on your computer which already contaons all the above items IS insane.
Console games look BETTER at the end of the console lifecycle. Computer games always seem to be developed for the latest equipment, which is a double-edged sword -- it'll look great on brand-new top of the line equipment, but old hardware falls by the wayside. That's what makes consoles such a good deal -- you hardware investment isn't just "adequate" for the latest games -- it was designed for them in the first place.
I've never spent more than $150 on a video card, and have been quite happy with the performance of most all computer games I play (Doom 3, HalfLife 2, GuilWars, etc.). At that price point it still makes sense to me -- $250 and up is nuts. Oh, and that means dropping those performance levels down to "colsole-like" levels to get good framerates.
Console-gameing is a different experience. I don't have friends come over for beers and Madden around my computer display -- they sit around my big-screen with the Xbox. Does it look crappy on the big-screen? Nope. I prefer it to my computer display, in fact, despite the higher rez on the computer. Oh, and I sit farther back -- so the rez doesn't matter as much (though widescreen is nice) and I've got less eyestrain than getting blasted by my monitor.
Yeah, $250-$300 and I'm not buying a new video card, I'm buying the bones of a full on computer. Hmmm -- $250 -- that's about the same as a pentium 4, 3.4GHz processor. What's worth more for your money? Transistor count anyone?