It's not speculative, it's an observation of a lot of my friends and acquaintances listening habits. Back at college, people used to swap and download music purely to boast of how much they had. Plenty of people had entire Beatles, Pink Floyd collections yet hadn't listened to them at all.
In fact, some people I know have so much music it is entirely non feasible to listen to, as the duration of the music is longer than the amount of time they have had the music!
I don't "need" to carry around 100GB of music with me - I "like" to have it with me because I listen to a lot of music, it sits in a small DVD case on 25 DVDs alongside my laptop so I can copy stuff off to my MP3 player any time I like.
Just a minute, this debate is about mp3 players, if you choose to carry around 25DVD's at all times that's your problem. Maybe you should think about buying a 100GB+ mp3 player.
Even though I know you won't ever agree, i'm sure in that 100GB of music there are plenty of songs that you can't remember when you last listened to them.
Wrong. I don't watch much TV, I have music on in the background most of the time and generally find an hour or two each day to just sit and listen to some music.
If you have about 100GB of music that equals over 1000 hours of playback. If you listen to only an hour a day, that means to listen to your whole collection would take OVER A YEAR. That means, that there must be some songs you barely ever listen to. Straight from your own mouth!
Who said anything about downloading? Yep, I download from BitTorrent or Usenet occasionally to preview an album - but if it's good, I buy the CD and make my own MP3s, if it's crap then I delete it. MP3s are just a convenience for me, I much prefer the disc to play in a reasonably good hifi - but I've never paid to download music and never will.
Suffice it to say, I don't earn enough to buy the entire catalogue of an artist. I buy what I like, and that's it.
Yeah, sure you bought all that music.. if you dont earn enough to buy an entire back catalogue, you dont earn enough to have 100GB which, is probably over 1000 albums..
My itunes library is around 45GB, thats 22 days 14 hours in playtime.
The best MP3 players in the world can barely manage 30 hours of playback. Anyone thats says they "need" to carry around 100GB of music is talking utter crap.
I'm willing to bet that most people with more than 30GB haven't listened to every song they own. I know I haven't I probably have about 15 or so albums i've never listened to (and im not proud of it) and I know a lot of my friends are similar... but its SO IMPORTANT to carry them around with me at all times.
To be honest I think it's more of an ego thing for people like the parent poster, they need to have as much music as possible with them at all times. These type of people download the entire discography of the doors (about 30 albums) just to say they have it, not because they love the doors..
I think you're underestimating Apple here and giving Nokia slightly too much credit. Ok so Nokia are huge and rich and bigger than any other cell phone maker. Even with their huge spending on R&D they have never made any phone that looks as good or is as user friendly as iphone. I know from past experience with 3 different Nokia models (i'm now an iphone user).
Contrast that to Apple, they come into a market with no experience and make a phone that is streets ahead in terms of design and ease-of-use.
I recently went back home to the UK and while I was there showed my friends from London my iphone, they were all amazed/enthralled and stated their intention to buy one as soon as it was released in Europe.
I even told them, yeah the internet isn't so fast. But guess what??? The average consumer doesn't care about accessing their remote servers by ssh on putty or retrieving their email within microseconds. This is the difference between the typical slashdotter and the actual average end user.
Additionally, Nokia doesn't really have a "cool factor" like Apple does. Remember Razr? Every indie kid in the USA practically bought one of these and guess what, it sucks for internet, disk space, email, camera. But surprise surprise, no one cares, because it works and looks cool. Nokia phones have never looked cool.
In fact I believe that Carmack is more qualified than most. For a start he's a maths genius, having spent his life creating the most advanced graphics engines from scratch. He's single handedly developed many of the graphics techniques that are used in virtually every game.
When someone is that smart, it's clear that if he puts his mind to it, he could easily learn the finer details about rocket science.
Hrmm, Silicon Knights aren't some newbie devs making their first big game. They made one of the most critically successul games for Gamecube, and indeed one of my favorite games of all time: Eternal Darkness 9.4/10 (gamespot).
There may well be other reasons behind this situation but to say its because they aren't experienced devs is very silly and betrays the epic fanboys..
Update: My iphone is alive and well and beeping happily. It just happened to stall for a good 5 minutes in the middle of updating. I'm happy to end this saga:)
Everytime I read another study about how scientists have tried to replicate something humans find easy, and only manage to produce something that performs the task awkwardly, stupidly or otherwise ineptly, I feel vaguely in awe of how amazing the human body is.
Especially considering we appear to be a result of dumb luck and retarded fish monkeys..
Correct me if i'm wrong but a connection of this speed is essentially useless due to the fact that the hard drive wouldn't be able to cope with such an influx of data. In addition, I imagine programs such as IE would just curl up and die if you tried to load websites at that speed.
I have an AI background so I have some sort of an understanding of this and as far as i'm concerned, with the current computing power available it's simply impossible to "simulate the world" to any degree of accuracy. There are too many unknown variables.
Currently some of the most powerful super computers are devoted to predicting JUST the weather yet they still can't get it particularly accurate, especially if you try and predict the weather greater than 7 days in advance. If we can't predict the weather, what makes us think we can predict the world??? Especially years in advance. It's a ridiculous notion.
Another good example is the chinese board game "Go". The best computer players are only as good as good amateur human players. This is due to the high branching factor of the game. The area of the board is very large (more than five times the size of a chess board) and the number of legal moves rarely go below 50 (compare chess, where the average number of moves is 37). Throughout most of the game the number of legal moves stay at around 150-250 per turn (from Wikipedia).
My point is, the world is a bloody complex system and for current technology, essentially impossible. Take into account: The random vagaries of the human mind, the climate, the weather, the earths complex geology, natural disasters, evolution (new bacterium evolves - wipes out humanity), the animal kingdom (random malarial mosquito bites world leader), genetics (two people have sex, produce next Hitler).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, my friend, i'm a big fan of ocremix, especially mutagene and mcvaffe's remixes :)
Yeah i'll concede to that. In fact, I was sort of playing devils advocate, since 16GB isn't really enough for me either (I have a 60GB ipod 6th Gen)
Fair play, you have great music taste. Time to get back to work..
It's not speculative, it's an observation of a lot of my friends and acquaintances listening habits. Back at college, people used to swap and download music purely to boast of how much they had. Plenty of people had entire Beatles, Pink Floyd collections yet hadn't listened to them at all.
In fact, some people I know have so much music it is entirely non feasible to listen to, as the duration of the music is longer than the amount of time they have had the music!
I don't "need" to carry around 100GB of music with me - I "like" to have it with me because I listen to a lot of music, it sits in a small DVD case on 25 DVDs alongside my laptop so I can copy stuff off to my MP3 player any time I like. Just a minute, this debate is about mp3 players, if you choose to carry around 25DVD's at all times that's your problem. Maybe you should think about buying a 100GB+ mp3 player.
Even though I know you won't ever agree, i'm sure in that 100GB of music there are plenty of songs that you can't remember when you last listened to them.
Wrong. I don't watch much TV, I have music on in the background most of the time and generally find an hour or two each day to just sit and listen to some music.
If you have about 100GB of music that equals over 1000 hours of playback. If you listen to only an hour a day, that means to listen to your whole collection would take OVER A YEAR. That means, that there must be some songs you barely ever listen to. Straight from your own mouth!
Who said anything about downloading? Yep, I download from BitTorrent or Usenet occasionally to preview an album - but if it's good, I buy the CD and make my own MP3s, if it's crap then I delete it. MP3s are just a convenience for me, I much prefer the disc to play in a reasonably good hifi - but I've never paid to download music and never will. Suffice it to say, I don't earn enough to buy the entire catalogue of an artist. I buy what I like, and that's it.
Yeah, sure you bought all that music.. if you dont earn enough to buy an entire back catalogue, you dont earn enough to have 100GB which, is probably over 1000 albums..
My itunes library is around 45GB, thats 22 days 14 hours in playtime.
The best MP3 players in the world can barely manage 30 hours of playback. Anyone thats says they "need" to carry around 100GB of music is talking utter crap.
I'm willing to bet that most people with more than 30GB haven't listened to every song they own. I know I haven't I probably have about 15 or so albums i've never listened to (and im not proud of it) and I know a lot of my friends are similar... but its SO IMPORTANT to carry them around with me at all times.
To be honest I think it's more of an ego thing for people like the parent poster, they need to have as much music as possible with them at all times. These type of people download the entire discography of the doors (about 30 albums) just to say they have it, not because they love the doors..
Amazing, thanks for that :)
I loved Rez for the Dreamcast and it was by far one of the best games for the system. Pure genius.
This might be a reason for me to buy the 360. The game is even now a collectors item for the DC, I bought my copy for around £100 (sealed).
To anyone who doesn't get this, the original Rez had a peripheral known as the Rez "Trance Vibrator" and yes it was basically a vibrator..
Ticketless check isn't new i've done this with British Airways for every flight i've taken this year.
I think you're underestimating Apple here and giving Nokia slightly too much credit. Ok so Nokia are huge and rich and bigger than any other cell phone maker. Even with their huge spending on R&D they have never made any phone that looks as good or is as user friendly as iphone. I know from past experience with 3 different Nokia models (i'm now an iphone user). Contrast that to Apple, they come into a market with no experience and make a phone that is streets ahead in terms of design and ease-of-use. I recently went back home to the UK and while I was there showed my friends from London my iphone, they were all amazed/enthralled and stated their intention to buy one as soon as it was released in Europe. I even told them, yeah the internet isn't so fast. But guess what??? The average consumer doesn't care about accessing their remote servers by ssh on putty or retrieving their email within microseconds. This is the difference between the typical slashdotter and the actual average end user. Additionally, Nokia doesn't really have a "cool factor" like Apple does. Remember Razr? Every indie kid in the USA practically bought one of these and guess what, it sucks for internet, disk space, email, camera. But surprise surprise, no one cares, because it works and looks cool. Nokia phones have never looked cool.
I totally agree.
In fact I believe that Carmack is more qualified than most. For a start he's a maths genius, having spent his life creating the most advanced graphics engines from scratch. He's single handedly developed many of the graphics techniques that are used in virtually every game.
When someone is that smart, it's clear that if he puts his mind to it, he could easily learn the finer details about rocket science.
Hrmm, Silicon Knights aren't some newbie devs making their first big game. They made one of the most critically successul games for Gamecube, and indeed one of my favorite games of all time: Eternal Darkness 9.4/10 (gamespot). There may well be other reasons behind this situation but to say its because they aren't experienced devs is very silly and betrays the epic fanboys..
Update: My iphone is alive and well and beeping happily. It just happened to stall for a good 5 minutes in the middle of updating. I'm happy to end this saga :)
Ok I have it now, but rather worryingly, half way through installation the process has stalled and my phone is currently ibricked :(
I just plugged my iphone in as soon as I saw this story and I dont see any update 1.01...
Because it was the highly amusing end to a heated thread..
And I for one welcome our many tentacled, bulging eyed, briny-breathed overlords from the deep!
Where did I leave my copy of the Necronomicon. Just when it would have come in useful!
My post was intended to be funny, not scientifically accurate..hence quoting south park..
Everytime I read another study about how scientists have tried to replicate something humans find easy, and only manage to produce something that performs the task awkwardly, stupidly or otherwise ineptly, I feel vaguely in awe of how amazing the human body is.
Especially considering we appear to be a result of dumb luck and retarded fish monkeys..
There are people who can't walk and chew gum at the same time?!
Wouldn't they have appeared on Ripleys Believe It Or Not?
Correct me if i'm wrong but a connection of this speed is essentially useless due to the fact that the hard drive wouldn't be able to cope with such an influx of data. In addition, I imagine programs such as IE would just curl up and die if you tried to load websites at that speed.
Call me about this again in a few years time..
In actuality, most people stopped using Allofmp3 when it became virtually impossible to pay, some months ago. (when Visa pulled the plug)
The rather more substantial thorn in the record industrys side is now iTunes and Apple.
I have an AI background so I have some sort of an understanding of this and as far as i'm concerned, with the current computing power available it's simply impossible to "simulate the world" to any degree of accuracy. There are too many unknown variables.
Currently some of the most powerful super computers are devoted to predicting JUST the weather yet they still can't get it particularly accurate, especially if you try and predict the weather greater than 7 days in advance. If we can't predict the weather, what makes us think we can predict the world??? Especially years in advance. It's a ridiculous notion.
Another good example is the chinese board game "Go". The best computer players are only as good as good amateur human players. This is due to the high branching factor of the game. The area of the board is very large (more than five times the size of a chess board) and the number of legal moves rarely go below 50 (compare chess, where the average number of moves is 37). Throughout most of the game the number of legal moves stay at around 150-250 per turn (from Wikipedia).
My point is, the world is a bloody complex system and for current technology, essentially impossible. Take into account: The random vagaries of the human mind, the climate, the weather, the earths complex geology, natural disasters, evolution (new bacterium evolves - wipes out humanity), the animal kingdom (random malarial mosquito bites world leader), genetics (two people have sex, produce next Hitler).
I could go one but I think my point is made..