To follow on this, I invite people to look up the Awesome Games Done Quick/Summer Games Down Quick charity streams. They often include sections by TASbot; a robot that plays tool assisted speedruns on actual consoles, running the actual games from actual game cartridge. ROMs were probably involved somewhere along the lines to create those TAS runs, but that's not what the videos are showing.
Depending on how it's implemented/used, I can definitely see use use for it nowadays.
Example: Their are gaming communities who upload videos where a bunch of people play the same game at once, either through co-op or just racing through the same single player game separately. Currently, they either just jam all the videos in little boxes on one screen at the same time, (usually with the individual games' sounds removed), which can get very crowded, or switch perspective between players, which means you potentially miss a lot. With this you could switch between the two 'traditional' views, and have individual feeds for each player (possibly with their game audio included?).
"During testing the benefits were apparent, though. Even when the actual round-trip time between input and server response was 256 ms, double-blind testers reported both the gameplay responsiveness and graphical quality of the DeLorean system were comparable to a locally played version of the game."
Gameplay responsiveness, sure, but... graphical quality? If I was testing a system like this, I'd be asking about that as a way to identify people who were just agreeing it was better because they thought it was what I wanted to hear. Graphical quality should not be affected by how quickly the streamed game can respond. There's something fishy about this.
I came here to say the same thing. The entire point of proper, fully autonomous vehicles is to take the idiocy of individual drivers out of the equation. Switch seats as much as you want, you aren't the one driving.
You probably already know this, but for the sake of everyone else; while many theoretical situations have ways to "take a third option", this is arguing the metaphor rather than addressing the dilemma. The idea here is to put forth an ethical dilemma between letting many people die through inaction, or taking an action that saves them but killed a few others. The details of the people on each side can be relevant, but the mechanics of how each side would die (and possible specific other ways the situation could be resolved) is not.
This story says it's from the "sounds like Mint works for you" department, and I think that's your answer. If you're going to have to look after them, then it makes sense to go with what you're most familiar with, especially as Mint shouldn't be too alien to XP users.
People no longer have to ask permission to quote from or parody the work of others, such as a news report or a book, as long as it’s “fair dealing” and the source is recognized.
As a Brit who does indeed already back up my media, yeah, it's cool that that's moving from "illegal but unenforceable and unenforced" to "legal", but finally getting proper Fair Use laws? That's major. With the increasing use of digital media as primary, disc ripping is on the decline anyway, while home-grown content creation and mixing is definitely on the rise. That will have a much larger effect on more people, now and moving forwards.
Are you kidding me? The market's flooded with 1080p monitors, and the price almost doubles the moment you go over 1920 x 1200. So come on, details; what monitor have you got, and how much did it cost you?
I'd still have to question the concept that the current market doesn't want that, the WiiU seemed to do it poorly, but it could very well just be that the wii U didn't do it as well as the wii.
If it just wasn't doing as well as the Wii did when it launched, I'd entirely agree; the Wii had one of the best openings for a console ever. The problem is it isn't selling as well as the Wii is now. In fact, the only mainstream gaming system, home or portable, that's selling worse at the moment is the original DS (and only just). Given that it's the newest, most powerful system out there, that's absurd. Currently, for ever 23 people who buy a Wii U, 29 people buy a Wii classic, and well over 200 buy a PS3 or 360. Even in Japan, the Wii U is being outsold almost 2 to 1 by the PS3. These are 6 year old systems, and they're not that much cheaper.
If you feel the market wants the Wii U, then why is everyone buying these other consoles over it?
While you can certainly argue the Wii U isn't in completion with the PS3 or 360... That doesn't alter the fact that it's just plain failing to sell, entirely on its own merits. Currently, its weekly sales are roughly 15% what the original Wii was selling at the same point in it's lifespan. In fact, its weekly sales are less that the Wii is selling now. You're probably right the the XBox One sales will fail to meet predicted sales, but given one MS guy was saying he thinks over a billion consoles will be sold this generation, that's a pretty easy target to miss!
Just one slightly off topic observation to make. Your subject line and first sentence are about how the Wii U doesn't compete with the other consoles, and should be taken on it's own merit... And then your next sentence goes on to compare them. Leading into broad insulting generalizations about the people who buy them. That's... well, that's an interesting approach.
False logic. Yes, SEGA failed because they had a string of failed consoles... But that doesn't mean that's the only path to failure, plenty of other companies have come and gone over the years for all kinds of reasons. Business is tricky like that. And, actually, who said that ditching hardware and focusing on software is a failure anyway? It's what Nintendo is best at, I'd love them to move to cross-platform development. OK, it wasn't the best for SEGA but, again, Nintendo aren't SEGA as there's no reason to think they'd have the same issues.
With that said, you are quite correct that, even if the Wii U doesn't turn itself around, Nintendo have enough money to absorb the loss and move on; 3DS sales won't hurt either. I do have to wonder what they'd have to pull out of the bag with the next home console to have another success, however... Over the past decade or so, Nintendo consoles have traditionally been cheap but underpowered with respect to the competition, with poor third party developer support, and a focus on party games, and the current market doesn't want that. No matter what, Nintendo is going to have to go for something that "doesn't suit them" if they want to carry on in the home market.
The Wii U is not "doing rather well". It's being outsold by the the original Wii, and sales for both are a fraction of the sales for the 360 or PS3. When the Vita is outselling your old console, and your new console is doing worse than that, that's almost the dictionary definition of "in trouble".
As someone who has been a lifelong Nintendo owner, I completely disagree.
Nintendo have had an edge on the competition in terms of games quality historically, but this is something they've lost as the generations have gone on. The problem they have nowadays is the new Smash Bros, Zelda, and Metroid titles are the only things they do have, and you just can't build a console around a handful of titles like that. With the Gamecube it could be argued they'd trimmed off the fat and were left with a relatively small set of universally high quality games, but with the move to the Wii, they started cutting off the meat. The game selection for the Wii U is tiny and doesn't look like getting much bigger any time soon, and those franchises you mentioned are all a long way off from appearing. Likewise, PS3/360 have plenty of quality games... more than Wii, certainly... And unless you're buying everything day one, I'm doubtful they're more expensive either.
I'm genuinely sorry, but the Wii U is lost cause. Wii was a success not because it was a good system, but because it made a grab for none-traditional gaming markets and succeeded... But that market isn't as a rule interested in buying a new system now they've got one. Nintendo tried to reach them again, and the result is flatlining sales, and developer support (which they've desperately needed for a decade now) being lost. The Wii original is currently selling more systems per week than the Wii U everywhere but Japan (with sales there still being low), and the combined weekly sales for the 2 systems are lower than the 360, PS3, or 3DS.
You are right in that Sony and Microsoft are going to struggle this time round... they've both made some very risky choices in how they're focusing the systems abilities and how they're handling used games etc... But Nintendo isn't to thank for that, and they're certainly not going to have an easy ride because of it.
Slashdot Mirror
To follow on this, I invite people to look up the Awesome Games Done Quick/Summer Games Down Quick charity streams. They often include sections by TASbot; a robot that plays tool assisted speedruns on actual consoles, running the actual games from actual game cartridge. ROMs were probably involved somewhere along the lines to create those TAS runs, but that's not what the videos are showing.
"advanced and complex techniques such as shooting in portrait orientation and then stitched the video together in Adobe After Effects"
Was that sarcasm? 'cause it read like sarcasm.
Depending on how it's implemented/used, I can definitely see use use for it nowadays. Example: Their are gaming communities who upload videos where a bunch of people play the same game at once, either through co-op or just racing through the same single player game separately. Currently, they either just jam all the videos in little boxes on one screen at the same time, (usually with the individual games' sounds removed), which can get very crowded, or switch perspective between players, which means you potentially miss a lot. With this you could switch between the two 'traditional' views, and have individual feeds for each player (possibly with their game audio included?).
Hang on a minute:
"During testing the benefits were apparent, though. Even when the actual round-trip time between input and server response was 256 ms, double-blind testers reported both the gameplay responsiveness and graphical quality of the DeLorean system were comparable to a locally played version of the game."
Gameplay responsiveness, sure, but... graphical quality? If I was testing a system like this, I'd be asking about that as a way to identify people who were just agreeing it was better because they thought it was what I wanted to hear. Graphical quality should not be affected by how quickly the streamed game can respond. There's something fishy about this.
I came here to say the same thing. The entire point of proper, fully autonomous vehicles is to take the idiocy of individual drivers out of the equation. Switch seats as much as you want, you aren't the one driving.
Well, he "took the bait" and got a 5: Informative for it. So... zing?
Uh no. By not pulling that lever, you'll fail to stop the death of 300
Semantics. You'll still have their blood on your hands.
Well, yeah. Ethical discussions (indeed, many discussions) are often all about semantics. Semantics matter.
You probably already know this, but for the sake of everyone else; while many theoretical situations have ways to "take a third option", this is arguing the metaphor rather than addressing the dilemma. The idea here is to put forth an ethical dilemma between letting many people die through inaction, or taking an action that saves them but killed a few others. The details of the people on each side can be relevant, but the mechanics of how each side would die (and possible specific other ways the situation could be resolved) is not.
Well, just for fun; answers, no links.
This story says it's from the "sounds like Mint works for you" department, and I think that's your answer. If you're going to have to look after them, then it makes sense to go with what you're most familiar with, especially as Mint shouldn't be too alien to XP users.
Aaand, that wasn't meant to be none-AC, but whatever, I suppose it clears up the issue!
...Yeah, no, I'm not Tom. If I was, I probably wouldn't be asking you to tell everyone why I'm wrong, would I?
So. Plain answers. No random links. Go.
I'm more interested in this part:
People no longer have to ask permission to quote from or parody the work of others, such as a news report or a book, as long as it’s “fair dealing” and the source is recognized.
As a Brit who does indeed already back up my media, yeah, it's cool that that's moving from "illegal but unenforceable and unenforced" to "legal", but finally getting proper Fair Use laws? That's major. With the increasing use of digital media as primary, disc ripping is on the decline anyway, while home-grown content creation and mixing is definitely on the rise. That will have a much larger effect on more people, now and moving forwards.
So just to check; Windows is like malware because it's badly coded, but it's also unlike malware because it's badly coded.
I love Slashdot.
You may think I accidentally copied your joke*. The truth is we made the same joke twice, in quick succession, to get through background noise.
*(despite specifically looking through the replies to see if someone had already done it before I posted... how did I miss this?)
I think it's clear the article summary was sending out two versions of the same sentence one after another to cut through background noise.
Good catch, thanks for that!
As long as you're fixing thing, take "literally" out of there. It's literally the exact wrong way to use it.
I stopped after "literally a dime a dozen". Unless we're talking at a discount book shop closing sale or a car boot, the word is "figuratively".
Are you kidding me? The market's flooded with 1080p monitors, and the price almost doubles the moment you go over 1920 x 1200. So come on, details; what monitor have you got, and how much did it cost you?
I'd still have to question the concept that the current market doesn't want that, the WiiU seemed to do it poorly, but it could very well just be that the wii U didn't do it as well as the wii.
If it just wasn't doing as well as the Wii did when it launched, I'd entirely agree; the Wii had one of the best openings for a console ever. The problem is it isn't selling as well as the Wii is now. In fact, the only mainstream gaming system, home or portable, that's selling worse at the moment is the original DS (and only just). Given that it's the newest, most powerful system out there, that's absurd. Currently, for ever 23 people who buy a Wii U, 29 people buy a Wii classic, and well over 200 buy a PS3 or 360. Even in Japan, the Wii U is being outsold almost 2 to 1 by the PS3. These are 6 year old systems, and they're not that much cheaper.
If you feel the market wants the Wii U, then why is everyone buying these other consoles over it?
While you can certainly argue the Wii U isn't in completion with the PS3 or 360... That doesn't alter the fact that it's just plain failing to sell, entirely on its own merits. Currently, its weekly sales are roughly 15% what the original Wii was selling at the same point in it's lifespan. In fact, its weekly sales are less that the Wii is selling now. You're probably right the the XBox One sales will fail to meet predicted sales, but given one MS guy was saying he thinks over a billion consoles will be sold this generation, that's a pretty easy target to miss!
Just one slightly off topic observation to make. Your subject line and first sentence are about how the Wii U doesn't compete with the other consoles, and should be taken on it's own merit... And then your next sentence goes on to compare them. Leading into broad insulting generalizations about the people who buy them. That's... well, that's an interesting approach.
False logic. Yes, SEGA failed because they had a string of failed consoles... But that doesn't mean that's the only path to failure, plenty of other companies have come and gone over the years for all kinds of reasons. Business is tricky like that. And, actually, who said that ditching hardware and focusing on software is a failure anyway? It's what Nintendo is best at, I'd love them to move to cross-platform development. OK, it wasn't the best for SEGA but, again, Nintendo aren't SEGA as there's no reason to think they'd have the same issues.
With that said, you are quite correct that, even if the Wii U doesn't turn itself around, Nintendo have enough money to absorb the loss and move on; 3DS sales won't hurt either. I do have to wonder what they'd have to pull out of the bag with the next home console to have another success, however... Over the past decade or so, Nintendo consoles have traditionally been cheap but underpowered with respect to the competition, with poor third party developer support, and a focus on party games, and the current market doesn't want that. No matter what, Nintendo is going to have to go for something that "doesn't suit them" if they want to carry on in the home market.
The Wii U is not "doing rather well". It's being outsold by the the original Wii, and sales for both are a fraction of the sales for the 360 or PS3. When the Vita is outselling your old console, and your new console is doing worse than that, that's almost the dictionary definition of "in trouble".
As someone who has been a lifelong Nintendo owner, I completely disagree.
Nintendo have had an edge on the competition in terms of games quality historically, but this is something they've lost as the generations have gone on. The problem they have nowadays is the new Smash Bros, Zelda, and Metroid titles are the only things they do have, and you just can't build a console around a handful of titles like that. With the Gamecube it could be argued they'd trimmed off the fat and were left with a relatively small set of universally high quality games, but with the move to the Wii, they started cutting off the meat. The game selection for the Wii U is tiny and doesn't look like getting much bigger any time soon, and those franchises you mentioned are all a long way off from appearing. Likewise, PS3/360 have plenty of quality games... more than Wii, certainly... And unless you're buying everything day one, I'm doubtful they're more expensive either.
I'm genuinely sorry, but the Wii U is lost cause. Wii was a success not because it was a good system, but because it made a grab for none-traditional gaming markets and succeeded... But that market isn't as a rule interested in buying a new system now they've got one. Nintendo tried to reach them again, and the result is flatlining sales, and developer support (which they've desperately needed for a decade now) being lost. The Wii original is currently selling more systems per week than the Wii U everywhere but Japan (with sales there still being low), and the combined weekly sales for the 2 systems are lower than the 360, PS3, or 3DS.
You are right in that Sony and Microsoft are going to struggle this time round... they've both made some very risky choices in how they're focusing the systems abilities and how they're handling used games etc... But Nintendo isn't to thank for that, and they're certainly not going to have an easy ride because of it.