Upon reading that again, i realize it doesn't make as much sense as I thought. I'll clarify:
If the PS3, 360, and Wii sold exactly the same numbers as the PS2, XBOX, and GC, the 360 would dominate for a while just because it was on the market first and will benefit from early price drops that keep it competitive. I have no doubt that in the end the PS3 will outsell the 360 and the Wii will at least come close to matching it, but it's going to take a couple of years for them to reach the price points and develop the game libraries that 360 has a head start on.
Years of trends coupled with current market research. The good analysts can be pretty accurate; they've got 20+ years of consumer preferences to reference.
who would have predicted, for instance, the overwhelming popularity of the nintendo DS over the PSP?
Me:)
Nintendo has an established handheld line, Sony just jumped in. Not to mention Sony included features most people didn't care about, like that goofy UMD movie format that costs more than a DVD and is only compatible with the PSP.
Look at current console trends. PS2 has XBOX and GC significantly outsold.
360 has a head start and will enjoy price drop advantages over the PS3, which means the PS3 has to close the gap before it can repeat the PS2's sales dominance. If the Wii performs the same as the GC, it's going to be a year behind the 360. At the end of this cycle of consoles the numbers could be identical, it's just that the 360 is here NOW.
That said, I don't think it's what's keeping people from transitioning to Linux:
It's the reason one of my two Windows systems at home is still running Windows, and a source of frustration for me.
I've moved our laptop from Windows to Ubuntu. It's an old beast that was running W98SE, so it made sense to move to a modern OS. My wife has taken to it and for the most part (we have some problems with Firefox not displaying properly and not downloading necessary extensions, but that's another gripe) is quite happy with it.
I want to migrate her WinME system to Ubuntu as well, but she uses Quicken. I don't care to mess with Wine, so we're sticking with Windows indefinitely.
Here's what I'd need on a Linux financial system:
- Ability to download from my banks. - All the reporting tools of Quicken; seeing where our money goes has changed our spending habits considerably. - The ability to import Quicken data. We have years of it, I'm not willing to throw it out just to go FOSS. - Multi-user friendly. Because we have two PCs with Quicken, our data resides on the file server. I've looked at a couple of FOSS offerings to see if they'd be sufficient, and all but one would not work with two users at all.
Why? The year is pretty much over anyway. 2007 model cars are hitting the streets, Wal*Mart is starting to stock their fall apparel and recreational goods (the day after the first day of summer, for the record) and politicians have already stopped talking about 2006 and started talking about 2008.
Mistake #1: Not digitizing the video and posting it to YouTube and Google Video prior to approaching the police. Preferable with a post to a major forum to get people to download and redistribute it in case it gets taken down by legal threats.
Once something like this hits the internet, it's practically impossible to get rid of.
I just do not get the fond memories some of you guys express for RE1. I hated the game. The voice acting was horrible, the scripting was worse, the game play was decent, and the "scary" moments just weren't. And the camera angles did nothing more than piss me off; I died several times because I simply couldn't see the zombie standing two feet in front of me, because the angle was bad. And then there's the slowest-firing Beretta EVER MADE. Suspension of disbelief was simply impossible.
I've since played RE2 to give it the benefit of the doubt, and found it improved but still unimpressive. It was still tedious and unscary.
I'm interested in RE4, but I have no interest in buying whatever console I'd need to run it:)
They work, are much simpler than essentially passwording the bullets, and have existed for some time.
Something that requires enough battery power to process a print scan, or that may be working fine, enen though the Magic Bracelet Transmitter that goes with it has lost its juice, etc., is going to be down like an uncharged cell phone when you most need it.
As I understand it, the ring/bracelet/whatever works like RFID: only one end is actively powered...the gun. Yes, it's up to you to make sure the gun has a charge.
And scanning prints? What about a weapon you've just dropped in the dirt? What about dirty or oily (or bloody) hands? What about gloves?
Gloves are out. The rest depends on the quality of the scanner. I've seen a fingerprint scanner that would read a gritty, oily fingerprint...it just had to be wiped clean afterward.
What about your spouse needing to use the gun, or your buddy?
Multiple rings, or multiple print records.
What about RF files dampening the signal from a ring? What about having to switch hands for some reason, faster than you can move the ring?
Assuming the ring works in proximity--as opposed to contact--it would work from either hand so long as you were shooting properly. Or do you typically fire one-handed?
It's absurd, costly, unreliable in the extreme, and will do nothing to prevent violent crime.
Seems to me it's not a matter of preventing crime, but preventing accidents.
You've imagined a handful of unlikely events (a buddy needing to use your gun for self-defense in your home) and built straw men out of them by underestimating the technology.
I don't know the statistics off-hand, but it's something like 4 or 5 times more likely that a family member will be shot by your gun than an intruder. If the majority of accidents could be prevented by a self-locking gun, wouldn't you think the technology was worthwhile?
Or would you prefer unlocking a trigger lock when you need the gun?
Besides...calm down. No one is forcing this on you, IT IS AN OPTION FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED IT.
The parent said that MS shouldn't miss 9 out of 40 billion. That's more than 20% (22.5%). I was replying to his statement that 22.5% of their income isn't significant, NOT to the actual numbers.
There's already a simpler solution.
on
Encrypted Ammunition?
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I presume this is to keep unauthorized people from firing your gun, in particular burglars and children. It seems to me they are overcomplicating the matter greatly.
There is already a good system in place that just needs a little improving. I have heard for years about the pistols that won't fire unless they sense the microchip to which they are encoded. This is usually embedded in a ring. Not too long ago I read that someone had developed a pistol grip that sensed palm prints.
I can't read TFA (content filter ate it) but it seems to describe a system by which every bullet must be its own safety. I see no practical uses for this technology when the simple solution is to have the gun do that job. There is a lot more room for components in the firearm itself, why waste time and money trying to secure the bullets?
That game lost me when I realized that there were hordes of Russian troops with indestructible helmets.
Put the game in paintball mode and fire up whatever the mission was in the graveyard. I remember it's got an endless flow of these guys. Just keep shooting their helmets...you can dump hundreds of rounds into one soldier and not kill him.
That and Goldeneye introduced me to what really sucks about FPS on consoles: split screen.
And if I hadn't included the line, you and five other people would have jumped in to point out that I'm an idiot who needs to rtfa because it wasn't ever broadcast on ESPN.
I can see the old-fashioned middle-aged writer on the sports page now:
"First it was poker on ESPN2. This non-sport on a sports channel was tolerated because millions of men reminisced about great poker nights and episodes of Maverick. We didn't really care about the players or the artificial tension, we just watched the games and thought 'I could do that!'
"Then came the spelling bee. A million men sat up from their recliners and muttered a collective 'what the--' when we saw our first spelling bee on a sports channel. The soccer moms had invaded, and we couldn't even get a date. But still we tolerated it.
"Men, it may now be too late to hold our ground. We soon may be forced to retreat from the sports channels and give them over to the rest of the world. You see, I have just gotten wind of plans to air a programming competition on ESPN3. Yes, programming. As in computer programming. As in a room full of geeks pounding out computer code as quickly as they can. First team with a working program wins.
"The geeks have already pushed their way onto TV with their video game tournaments. Some even have the nerve to call themselves 'cyberathletes'. But the games have been at least entertaining; it's like a cheap action movie without all the boring plot. This though...this is different. This is programming. Armchair quarterbacks of America, it's time we stood up to the networks and told them we want no part of the ruination of the sport channels. It's time we demand a return to basics. Football, baseball, basketball, hockey. Maybe a little NASCAR, boxing and some soccer (yes, I said soccer) to pad out the programming. I'm not going to stand for this any more. I want my ESPN!"
(Yes I'm fully aware this wasn't broadcast on ESPN or anything else...relax, it's a bit of speculative humor)
Five states, and only minimal coverage in most of those. They don't even cover Houston, and I live in a little rural Texas town hours from any of the major metros. They're not a viable solution for the vast majority of us. I'm talking about national coverage, not some little startup...you know most of those fail in a few years, right?
1) Cellular coverage is complete and solid. There are still large chunks of rural areas with no service at all.
2) Cellular service becomes reliable. I run into "network busy" at least once a month; I've never had such a problem with my land line.
3) cellular service becomes truly affordable. I can get a land line with unlimited long distance for somewhere around $60-70. If I go with the most basic service, I can get it unlimited local for under $40. My cell phone plan with 600 "any time" minutes costs more than either. First cell company to unlimited minutes for $50 a month wins my cash vote.
4) DSL is available without telephone service. That's where the phone companies like AT&T are already going: they see a severe decline in landline subscriptions coming and are trying to dig into the cable market. "Fiber to the home" is becoming quite the popular phrase.
I'm confused by this post. I just have to ask you to clarify...
Are you saying that MySQL is immoral/evil because they *gasp* charge for some things they invest time and money to develop, or is my sarcasm meter broken?
I'm thinking about motion-sensitive games, FPS in particular.
What I didn't put in my original post that I meant to was a reference to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy--the radio with motion-sensitive controls that required you to sit infuriatingly still in order to not change settings.
I don't know about you, but I have a tendency to move about a fair bit when I'm gaming. It's nothing for me to shift my body 90 degrees in the middle of a firefight because my controls are independent of my movement. I wonder how comfortable this controller is for longer periods of play (>1 hour).
I'm just thinking that it would benefit from a "release" button that would turn off the motion sensitivity while it was held down or toggled on. Something that would allow me to move myself without completely losing my place in the game. It's not easy to explain without being able to get my hands on the controllers and demonstrating what I'm thinking about, sorry it's not terribly clear.
There's a reason all the big OEMs stopped calling them laptops. They really don't intend fo you to put it in your lap. I used to work for notebook support for a company, we actually had some people get burned by the more powerful notebooks because they had them in their laps for too long. It's even in the documentation that they can get too hot to be comfortably used in the lap.
It's only a great failure if you consider completely dominating your market for several years a failure.
Failure in a customer service / product quality sense, not business success. Obviously they dominated the market, but they still failed on several levels to make a good product.
That's exactly what I'm saying. WIndows is the dominant OS in part because of its ease-of-use. I'm convinced that its security issues come from the same thing: security was sacrificed in the name of making it easier to use. It's not incompetence or some global domination conspiracy, it's just bad priorities.
The "Wiimote" (gawd I hate that even worse than "Wii") looks like it will be very cool, but there's one thing I'm curious about:
What about if I don't find it comfortable to keep both hands on the control all the time? Playing Halo on my XBOX or any FPS on my PC, I can always take a hand away from the controls and still be able to at least aim and fire.
And what about those people who would prefer the classic console interface? I know it's got attachments to expand its abilities, but this device doesn't seem to be very ergonomic for use as a "traditional" console controller.
Speaking of ergonomics...has anyone said much about how this affects the user long-term? Seems to me the motions they're describing may not be good for the hand/wrist/arm if repeated. Could Nintendo Thumb be replaced by Nintendo Wrist--a nasty case of carpal tunnel?
(I know how some people respond: "it's no different than your mouse". That's not true. I move my mouse almost entirely with my fingers, turning my wrist only slightly for long movements. I'm not saying this remote is a bad thing, just pointing out some things I haven't seen satisfactorily addressed)
Slashdot Mirror
Upon reading that again, i realize it doesn't make as much sense as I thought. I'll clarify:
If the PS3, 360, and Wii sold exactly the same numbers as the PS2, XBOX, and GC, the 360 would dominate for a while just because it was on the market first and will benefit from early price drops that keep it competitive. I have no doubt that in the end the PS3 will outsell the 360 and the Wii will at least come close to matching it, but it's going to take a couple of years for them to reach the price points and develop the game libraries that 360 has a head start on.
how can you predict consumer preference?
:)
Years of trends coupled with current market research. The good analysts can be pretty accurate; they've got 20+ years of consumer preferences to reference.
who would have predicted, for instance, the overwhelming popularity of the nintendo DS over the PSP?
Me
Nintendo has an established handheld line, Sony just jumped in. Not to mention Sony included features most people didn't care about, like that goofy UMD movie format that costs more than a DVD and is only compatible with the PSP.
Look at current console trends. PS2 has XBOX and GC significantly outsold.
360 has a head start and will enjoy price drop advantages over the PS3, which means the PS3 has to close the gap before it can repeat the PS2's sales dominance. If the Wii performs the same as the GC, it's going to be a year behind the 360. At the end of this cycle of consoles the numbers could be identical, it's just that the 360 is here NOW.
That said, I don't think it's what's keeping people from transitioning to Linux:
It's the reason one of my two Windows systems at home is still running Windows, and a source of frustration for me.
I've moved our laptop from Windows to Ubuntu. It's an old beast that was running W98SE, so it made sense to move to a modern OS. My wife has taken to it and for the most part (we have some problems with Firefox not displaying properly and not downloading necessary extensions, but that's another gripe) is quite happy with it.
I want to migrate her WinME system to Ubuntu as well, but she uses Quicken. I don't care to mess with Wine, so we're sticking with Windows indefinitely.
Here's what I'd need on a Linux financial system:
- Ability to download from my banks.
- All the reporting tools of Quicken; seeing where our money goes has changed our spending habits considerably.
- The ability to import Quicken data. We have years of it, I'm not willing to throw it out just to go FOSS.
- Multi-user friendly. Because we have two PCs with Quicken, our data resides on the file server. I've looked at a couple of FOSS offerings to see if they'd be sufficient, and all but one would not work with two users at all.
Why? The year is pretty much over anyway. 2007 model cars are hitting the streets, Wal*Mart is starting to stock their fall apparel and recreational goods (the day after the first day of summer, for the record) and politicians have already stopped talking about 2006 and started talking about 2008.
Mistake #1: Not digitizing the video and posting it to YouTube and Google Video prior to approaching the police. Preferable with a post to a major forum to get people to download and redistribute it in case it gets taken down by legal threats.
Once something like this hits the internet, it's practically impossible to get rid of.
Yet another benefit to living in Texas. You'd have to pry the guns out of our Senate's cold, dead hands :D
I just do not get the fond memories some of you guys express for RE1. I hated the game. The voice acting was horrible, the scripting was worse, the game play was decent, and the "scary" moments just weren't. And the camera angles did nothing more than piss me off; I died several times because I simply couldn't see the zombie standing two feet in front of me, because the angle was bad. And then there's the slowest-firing Beretta EVER MADE. Suspension of disbelief was simply impossible.
:)
I've since played RE2 to give it the benefit of the doubt, and found it improved but still unimpressive. It was still tedious and unscary.
I'm interested in RE4, but I have no interest in buying whatever console I'd need to run it
How are either of those "good?"
They work, are much simpler than essentially passwording the bullets, and have existed for some time.
Something that requires enough battery power to process a print scan, or that may be working fine, enen though the Magic Bracelet Transmitter that goes with it has lost its juice, etc., is going to be down like an uncharged cell phone when you most need it.
As I understand it, the ring/bracelet/whatever works like RFID: only one end is actively powered...the gun. Yes, it's up to you to make sure the gun has a charge.
And scanning prints? What about a weapon you've just dropped in the dirt? What about dirty or oily (or bloody) hands? What about gloves?
Gloves are out. The rest depends on the quality of the scanner. I've seen a fingerprint scanner that would read a gritty, oily fingerprint...it just had to be wiped clean afterward.
What about your spouse needing to use the gun, or your buddy?
Multiple rings, or multiple print records.
What about RF files dampening the signal from a ring? What about having to switch hands for some reason, faster than you can move the ring?
Assuming the ring works in proximity--as opposed to contact--it would work from either hand so long as you were shooting properly. Or do you typically fire one-handed?
It's absurd, costly, unreliable in the extreme, and will do nothing to prevent violent crime.
Seems to me it's not a matter of preventing crime, but preventing accidents.
You've imagined a handful of unlikely events (a buddy needing to use your gun for self-defense in your home) and built straw men out of them by underestimating the technology.
I don't know the statistics off-hand, but it's something like 4 or 5 times more likely that a family member will be shot by your gun than an intruder. If the majority of accidents could be prevented by a self-locking gun, wouldn't you think the technology was worthwhile?
Or would you prefer unlocking a trigger lock when you need the gun?
Besides...calm down. No one is forcing this on you, IT IS AN OPTION FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED IT.
The parent said that MS shouldn't miss 9 out of 40 billion. That's more than 20% (22.5%). I was replying to his statement that 22.5% of their income isn't significant, NOT to the actual numbers.
I presume this is to keep unauthorized people from firing your gun, in particular burglars and children. It seems to me they are overcomplicating the matter greatly.
There is already a good system in place that just needs a little improving. I have heard for years about the pistols that won't fire unless they sense the microchip to which they are encoded. This is usually embedded in a ring. Not too long ago I read that someone had developed a pistol grip that sensed palm prints.
I can't read TFA (content filter ate it) but it seems to describe a system by which every bullet must be its own safety. I see no practical uses for this technology when the simple solution is to have the gun do that job. There is a lot more room for components in the firearm itself, why waste time and money trying to secure the bullets?
If you wouldn't miss 20+% of your annual income, please forward your Q4 paychecks to my bank account. Thanks.
That game lost me when I realized that there were hordes of Russian troops with indestructible helmets.
Put the game in paintball mode and fire up whatever the mission was in the graveyard. I remember it's got an endless flow of these guys. Just keep shooting their helmets...you can dump hundreds of rounds into one soldier and not kill him.
That and Goldeneye introduced me to what really sucks about FPS on consoles: split screen.
And if I hadn't included the line, you and five other people would have jumped in to point out that I'm an idiot who needs to rtfa because it wasn't ever broadcast on ESPN.
Silence is golden. Make yourself rich.
I can see the old-fashioned middle-aged writer on the sports page now:
"First it was poker on ESPN2. This non-sport on a sports channel was tolerated because millions of men reminisced about great poker nights and episodes of Maverick. We didn't really care about the players or the artificial tension, we just watched the games and thought 'I could do that!'
"Then came the spelling bee. A million men sat up from their recliners and muttered a collective 'what the--' when we saw our first spelling bee on a sports channel. The soccer moms had invaded, and we couldn't even get a date. But still we tolerated it.
"Men, it may now be too late to hold our ground. We soon may be forced to retreat from the sports channels and give them over to the rest of the world. You see, I have just gotten wind of plans to air a programming competition on ESPN3. Yes, programming. As in computer programming. As in a room full of geeks pounding out computer code as quickly as they can. First team with a working program wins.
"The geeks have already pushed their way onto TV with their video game tournaments. Some even have the nerve to call themselves 'cyberathletes'. But the games have been at least entertaining; it's like a cheap action movie without all the boring plot. This though...this is different. This is programming. Armchair quarterbacks of America, it's time we stood up to the networks and told them we want no part of the ruination of the sport channels. It's time we demand a return to basics. Football, baseball, basketball, hockey. Maybe a little NASCAR, boxing and some soccer (yes, I said soccer) to pad out the programming. I'm not going to stand for this any more. I want my ESPN!"
(Yes I'm fully aware this wasn't broadcast on ESPN or anything else...relax, it's a bit of speculative humor)
Five states, and only minimal coverage in most of those. They don't even cover Houston, and I live in a little rural Texas town hours from any of the major metros. They're not a viable solution for the vast majority of us. I'm talking about national coverage, not some little startup...you know most of those fail in a few years, right?
Home telephone service is dying.
Home telephone will die when:
1) Cellular coverage is complete and solid. There are still large chunks of rural areas with no service at all.
2) Cellular service becomes reliable. I run into "network busy" at least once a month; I've never had such a problem with my land line.
3) cellular service becomes truly affordable. I can get a land line with unlimited long distance for somewhere around $60-70. If I go with the most basic service, I can get it unlimited local for under $40. My cell phone plan with 600 "any time" minutes costs more than either. First cell company to unlimited minutes for $50 a month wins my cash vote.
4) DSL is available without telephone service. That's where the phone companies like AT&T are already going: they see a severe decline in landline subscriptions coming and are trying to dig into the cable market. "Fiber to the home" is becoming quite the popular phrase.
I think a blind, retarded, schizophrenic, monkey that just did a few lines of coke could bash on a keyboard and create a better webpage than that.
It's true! I banged my keyboard against my desk until it broke, and a Flash site popped out!
I'm confused by this post. I just have to ask you to clarify...
Are you saying that MySQL is immoral/evil because they *gasp* charge for some things they invest time and money to develop, or is my sarcasm meter broken?
I'm thinking about motion-sensitive games, FPS in particular.
What I didn't put in my original post that I meant to was a reference to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy--the radio with motion-sensitive controls that required you to sit infuriatingly still in order to not change settings.
I don't know about you, but I have a tendency to move about a fair bit when I'm gaming. It's nothing for me to shift my body 90 degrees in the middle of a firefight because my controls are independent of my movement. I wonder how comfortable this controller is for longer periods of play (>1 hour).
I'm just thinking that it would benefit from a "release" button that would turn off the motion sensitivity while it was held down or toggled on. Something that would allow me to move myself without completely losing my place in the game. It's not easy to explain without being able to get my hands on the controllers and demonstrating what I'm thinking about, sorry it's not terribly clear.
Just a quick point:
There's a reason all the big OEMs stopped calling them laptops. They really don't intend fo you to put it in your lap. I used to work for notebook support for a company, we actually had some people get burned by the more powerful notebooks because they had them in their laps for too long. It's even in the documentation that they can get too hot to be comfortably used in the lap.
I for one--
*shoots self before finishing cliched slashdot meme for the thousandth time*
It's only a great failure if you consider completely dominating your market for several years a failure.
Failure in a customer service / product quality sense, not business success. Obviously they dominated the market, but they still failed on several levels to make a good product.
That's exactly what I'm saying. WIndows is the dominant OS in part because of its ease-of-use. I'm convinced that its security issues come from the same thing: security was sacrificed in the name of making it easier to use. It's not incompetence or some global domination conspiracy, it's just bad priorities.
The "Wiimote" (gawd I hate that even worse than "Wii") looks like it will be very cool, but there's one thing I'm curious about:
What about if I don't find it comfortable to keep both hands on the control all the time? Playing Halo on my XBOX or any FPS on my PC, I can always take a hand away from the controls and still be able to at least aim and fire.
And what about those people who would prefer the classic console interface? I know it's got attachments to expand its abilities, but this device doesn't seem to be very ergonomic for use as a "traditional" console controller.
Speaking of ergonomics...has anyone said much about how this affects the user long-term? Seems to me the motions they're describing may not be good for the hand/wrist/arm if repeated. Could Nintendo Thumb be replaced by Nintendo Wrist--a nasty case of carpal tunnel?
(I know how some people respond: "it's no different than your mouse". That's not true. I move my mouse almost entirely with my fingers, turning my wrist only slightly for long movements. I'm not saying this remote is a bad thing, just pointing out some things I haven't seen satisfactorily addressed)