I'm not going to buy an "expensive" upscaler, but I'd rather use the real consoles. I actually run into emulation errors with games I want to play on a semi-regular basis. I don't think that it's unreasonable to think about buying a scaler, even if it's unreasonable to buy this one.

It would be nice if someone would kick out a television with a fancy scaler built in. AQUOS and Bravia televisions (among others... I have an older example of the former, just barely pre-LED-backlight) have scalers which provide pretty good results for video sources at typical resolutions while also adding minimal latency, which is their primary appeal as compared to other lines — especially since the competition caught up in the black level department. But someone like Vizio (which is commonly favored by gamers due to sharp, clean scaling, if a bit jaggy at times) might consider offering some models with a seriously upgraded scaler and offering them to gamers as a means of improving their old-school gaming experience. Even people who don't own classic consoles, or who keep them in a box in their closet, might consider spending some extra money on such a feature even if they wind up never actually using it.

Not me, but some people :) Never know what the future holds for my TV, though.

But who are you? You don't have a name, or a mother. You're just an anonymous coward. If you really believed what you're saying, you'd log in.

I install Ubuntu and then nvidia won't install until I fucking massage the thing. And that's the selling point of Ubuntu. Give me a break. It's cool how fancy it is, and how it supports stuff, but it's not cool how flaky it is.

This is an awful idea even without the idea of human malice. With it, it's an Orwellian nightmare mated to a Murphyesque fuckup. Cars which depend on communications from other cars cannot in fact be said to be self-driving. They're part of a hive mind, and if there's sickness in that hive, it's going to affect them.

The people believe whatever they're told to believe. Americans were told that cars would bring them freedom, security, and individuality. Instead, the vehicles can be seized at the least pretext without recourse other than waiving of fees (if you are lucky), any attempt to flee a natural disaster will result in joining a traffic jam, and the individuality is just like everyone else's.

I love driving. It is probably my second-favorite activity in the whole wide world, although I've never actually flown anything outside of a simulator, and I have a feeling that would do even better. But frankly, a functional public transportation system would serve most people better. If the auto companies weren't running things in transportation we could at least have a national dialogue about replacing cars with something better, like PRT — which can provide all of the benefits of the personal auto without any of the drawbacks.

If there were any evidence that this saved lives, then that might be a good idea. There isn't. What makes cars more dangerous is more speed — it doesn't necessarily increase the risk of an accident, but it does make an accident more dangerous. What makes cars less dangerous is more safety features. Stuff that keeps cars out of accidents, stuff that reduces the amount of energy transferred to the occupants. Not less safety features. Meanwhile, I want all the safety features for that moment when someone else isn't paying attention.

You seriously haven't noticed American government becoming more authoritarian? You seriously didn't pay attention to the revelations of secret conspiracies to which we've been treated of late? This is all news to you?

That's not science. That's simple observation. There's no hypothesis involved, for one thing, just a statement which happens in this example to be false.

We can change that any time. Don't blame Carter. It's being done deliberately. Ask yourself who stands to gain if the status quo is maintained.

yes, but it's also limited as compared to this $33 phone. It's a feature phone, which today might as well be a dumbphone.

Here's a more technical discussion from NHTSA. At page 74-75, the data elements of the Basic Safety Message I and II are listed. The BSM Part I message doesn't contain the vehicle ID, but it does contain latitude and longitude. The BSM Part II message has the vehicle's VIN. So this is explicitly not anonymous.

Back in the 1980s, when Caltrans was working on something similar, they used a random ID which was generated each time the ignition was switched on. That's all that's needed for safety purposes. This system has a totally unnecessary tracking feature.

Most of this stuff only works if all vehicles are equipped. It also relies heavily on very accurate GPS positions. However, there's no new sensing - no vehicle radar or LIDAR. The head of Google's autonomous car program is on record as being against V2V systems, because they don't provide reliable data for automatic driving and have the wrong sensors.

If something is going to be required, it should be "smart cruise" anti-collision radar. That's already on many high-end cars and has a good track record. It's really good at eliminating rear-end collisions, and starts braking earlier in other situations such as a car coming out of a cross street. Mercedes did a study once that showed that about half of all collisions are eliminated if braking starts 500ms earlier.

V2V communications should be an extension of vehicle radar. It's possible to send data from one radar to another. Identify-Friend-Foe systems do that, as does TCAS for aircraft. The useful data would be something like "Vehicle N to vehicle M. I see you at range 120m, closing rate 5m/sec, bearing 110 relative. No collision predicted". A reply would be "Vehicle M to vehicle N. I see you at range 120m, closing rate 5m/sec, bearing 205 relative. No collision predicted". That sort of info doesn't involve tracking; it's just what's needed to know what the other cars are doing. It's also independent of GPS. Useful additional info would be "This vehicle is a bus/delivery truck, is stopped, and will probably be moving in 5 seconds.", telling you that the big vehicle ahead is about to move and you don't need to change lanes to go around it.

That's not a problem. Selective enforcement, or IOW cops letting people off the hook for minor violations, leads to a lack of respect for the law, and the proliferation of bad laws which always end up used to punish some classes and not others on the basis of prejudice.

If rich mofos were prosecuted for bullshit crimes, you'd see those crimes fall off the books.

You don't get to insult me and then bitch, piss and moan when I return the favor.

I usually only encounter people willing to act like as much of a lame as you have been in this conversation on slashdot, so it's pretty much just here.

Can we please put an end to replies which solely contain corrections like these? They've already waned considerably. Provide a little meaningful information. People make mistakes.

You had me until you got here, and totally failed. Science is about exploring possibilities. There is a very good reason to attempt to turn theories into facts: they might be useful.

Are you really this stupid, or does it just switch on when you hit slashdot?

Right back you.

Yes. It always amazes me, but it seems to actually be the norm. Of course, that's because I discount all the outright hypocritical standards. For instance, I'm not going to bag on Pakistan for terrorism, because the USA is terrorist in many ways, if not most. We just call it something else because we're the biggest bullies on the playground. So when someone from the UK gets on me for free speech or criminal law, I laugh a lot but I don't count it as credible.