上海夜网VZ

No Image

High performance and less waiting time

first_imgMicrosoft’s Xbox Series X.Jordan Novet | CNBC Green is the characteristic color of the Xbox, and it appears around the vent holes of the Series X.Jordan Novet | CNBC I spent less time waiting for games to load, and switching between games was faster. The Series X contains a solid-state drive that reads data more quickly than the hard-disk drive in the One X.That faster storage enables a feature Microsoft calls Quick Resume, which is great for going back and forth between games. For example, when I paused car-racing game “Forza Horizon 4” and opened third-person shooter title “Gears 5,” which I had been playing a day earlier, a “Quick Resume” notification appeared in the upper right corner of the screen, and I was dropped right back to where I was in “Gears.” – Advertisement – Screenshot There are thousands of games to choose from, spanning four console generations all the way back to the original 2001 Xbox, Microsoft says.The wide selection is one advantage the Series X has over the PlayStation 5. While most PlayStation 4 games can be played on Sony’s new consoles, games built for older PlayStations won’t be available. Microsoft has a feature called Smart Delivery that lets you open games you own for older machines on the Series X in an optimized format and not have to buy them for a second time.You can also see Smart Delivery in action if you have Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass subscription, which provides over 100 console games for $10 a month.A Game Pass Ultimate subscription, which costs $15 a month, turns on another perk: You can play games from Game Pass on Android devices. Microsoft wants to provide something similar on iOS.I don’t have a very fast home internet connection, and my phone can’t access 5G. As a result, streaming games from the cloud is choppy, if not downright unplayable. So I still prefer a console or PC. Things might look different in a couple of years. Microsoft has packed formidable power into the Xbox Series X, the $500 video game console it’s bringing to the market on Tuesday. Games perform better on this machine than on all previous Xboxes as well as on many PCs.The Series X has a sleek design — a black rectangular slab with a green-shaded concave vent on one end. It’s coming out at about the same time as Sony’s $500 PlayStation 5. For Xbox devotees, the Series X will likely be quite appealing, especially as the coronavirus pandemic shows no sign of letting up, leaving consumers with plenty of free time at home.Microsoft says the Series X improves gaming in a few ways. They were evident to me as I tested the console and compared it with the Xbox One X from 2017.- Advertisement –center_img The buttons on the shoulder of the Xbox Series X controller feature tiny tactile bumps that can give you a stronger grip.Jordan Novet | CNBC The Whitewater Falls scenic location in “Forza Horizon 4” looks more realistic on the Xbox Series X than on the Xbox One X.- Advertisement – The Series X also has four times the processing power of the One X, as well as double the graphics performance and 33% more memory. To take advantage of those resources, Microsoft software engineers have optimized “Forza Horizon 4,” “Gears 5” and other games, and developers at third-party studios are doing the same.I saw slight performance improvements in “Forza Horizon 4,” “Gears 5” and “The Touryst,” a puzzle game from Germany’s Shin’en Multimedia. In Forza, I parked my Lamborghini beside a waterfall, and the scene looked more realistic on the Series X than on the One X.The Series X can deliver 4K gaming at 60 frames per second, but I have a 1080p television. In “Gears 5,” I saw higher frames per second as my character ran around. The game looked more impressive.The Series X and the One X each include 1TB of storage onboard, but the Series X has a little more storage space you can actually use: 802GB vs. 781GB, according to one study. That means more space for games if you don’t want to spend more for detachable storage. Remote play, Microsoft’s term for streaming games from my console instead of a distant data center, is a different story.If I’m home and someone else is using the television, I can still play on my phone without losing much performance. I bought a $9 adjustable plastic clip that attaches to my Xbox controller and holds my phone in place directly above it. I’ve played that way for hours. This feature works through the Xbox app for Android and iOS, and it’s available on the Xbox One, not just the new Xbox consoles.Microsoft has refined the design of the Xbox controller. The new version includes welcome changes and still feels familiar. The left and right buttons and triggers now sport a matte finish that I prefer to the old glossy buttons, and they now have tiny tactile bumps. When the playing gets intense, it’s helpful to have the extra friction. Your fingers are less likely to accidentally slip and cause a wrong move.A new share button for capturing screenshots sits in the middle of the controller. The D-pad is now a full circle instead of a plus sign, making it easier to move diagonally. Pushing down on the D-pad feels a little more precise and makes a more high-pitched clicking sound. And the port on the front of the controller now connects over the reversible USB-C instead of the older micro-USB.Altogether, I like Xbox’s new gaming hardware. The Series X isn’t a huge advancement from the One X, but for more serious gamers the performance gains will probably be worth it. If you have an older Xbox One or an Xbox 360, it may make sense to upgrade to the Series X. You could opt for the $300 Series S, but it has no disk drive, and the performance won’t be as impressive.WATCH: Microsoft’s Xbox, cloud segments remain standouts: CFRA Research – Advertisement –last_img read more


No Image

Execution to euthanasia: Liberal worm turns

first_imgNZ Herald 5 January 2018Family First Comment: Superb commentary from Dr Paul Moon… “One of the arguments in the 20th century that convinced many people of the error of executions was that occasionally, mistakes were made in judging someone guilty, and when it came to the death penalty, one mistake was one mistake too many. Recent overseas examples of people suffering from mental illness who have sought a termination of their lives (and been granted their wish by the medical profession), only to have a last-minute change of heart, shows that the risk of error when it comes to euthanasia is very real. Do we still hold to the view that one mistake is one too many? New Zealand finally dispensed with the death penalty because when knee-jerk emotional instincts were set aside, the moral, social, and ethical arguments against legal killings proved overwhelming. It will be a test to see if the country retains that perspective as the advocates of euthanasia push for what would amount to a reversal of this enlightened trajectory.”www.protect.org.nz – Make a submission today! Dr Paul Moon is Professor of History at Auckland University of Technology.Even as the noose was being placed around Walter Boulton’s neck on February 18, 1957, New Zealanders were growing increasingly uncomfortable with the notion of capital punishment. It was a sentiment no doubt strengthened by reports that instead of Boulton’s neck snapping immediately, he was left in agony while the rope slowly strangled him to death. In 1961, on the back of growing public opinion which saw the state sanction of killing as unenlightened, Parliament abolished the death penalty (except for the crime of treason, for which the option of execution remained until 1989, when this exemption was also removed).It is useful to reflect on the progress of death penalty abolitionists in New Zealand in the 20th century, and while it might be simplistic to transpose all their arguments to the current euthanasia debate, there are some significant themes that apply in both areas. During a 1941 parliamentary debate on the death penalty, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Rex Mason, described the state’s right to administer the death penalty as uncivilised and “backward”. Four years later, another Labour MP emphasised New Zealand’s reputation as a “progressive country” when arguing against capital punishment.As concerns over the morality of the state killing certain categories of its citizens mounted, abolitionists pointed out that the death penalty had detrimental psychological effects on those administering it. The testimony of some of those present at these killings highlighted the cold-bloodedness of the process, and the effects it left on them for life. One prison psychologist wrote of the feeling of “complete revulsion” at witnessing someone having their life terminated, despite the fact that the law had warranted it. Every execution needed an executioner, and those who took on that role also became victims in a way.Death penalty proponents, on the other hand, responded by suggesting that a life spent in prison could be worse than the death penalty, and that while people might oppose the state killing the worst of its criminals, it was sometimes a “practical” undertaking — a means of protecting society from the worst of its underbelly. However, by the 1950s, such “rational” arguments were increasingly crashing into the reality of society ending the lives of some of its members. The fact that prohibitions on public executions had long been in force was the giveaway clue that while the principle might have made sense, the practice of legally approved killings remained as abhorrent as ever.How the liberal worm has turned since. The same arguments used by progressives for the abolition of the death penalty in the 20th century have been misappropriated by those advocating for a new age of state-sanctioned killing — this time wrapped up in the euphemism of euthanasia, or the even more morbidly saccharine and utterly misleading “death with dignity”. In cases of euthanasia, it may be a doctor rather than a hangman carrying out the killing, but there is no reason to think the psychological effects on those involved in euthanasia will be any less severe, or that the fragile value we place on human life will not again be degraded. And the principle of the state giving permission for lives to be terminated on the basis of their being “worthy” and “unworthy” applies to both areas. The distinction is only that in capitalpunishment cases, death was the consequence of the state deeming that the life of a person (usually a murderer) was not worth continuing, while in euthanasia, it is the state backing the individual’s determination that their own life no longer has worth for physical or psychological reasons.One of the arguments in the 20th century that convinced many people of the error of executions was that occasionally, mistakes were made in judging someone guilty, and when it came to the death penalty, one mistake was one mistake too many. Recent overseas examples of people suffering from mental illness who have sought a termination of their lives (and been granted their wish by the medical profession), only to have a last-minute change of heart, shows that the risk of error when it comes to euthanasia is very real. Do we still hold to the view that one mistake is one too many? New Zealand finally dispensed with the death penalty because when knee-jerk emotional instincts were set aside, the moral, social, and ethical arguments against legal killings proved overwhelming. It will be a test to see if the country retains that perspective as the advocates of euthanasia push for what would amount to a reversal of this enlightened trajectory.last_img read more


No Image

Football News Telangana boys win Futsal Under 13 National Championship 2019

first_img For all the Latest Sports News News, Football News News, Download News Nation Android and iOS Mobile Apps. New Delhi: The Under 13 team of Telangana on Saturday have been crowned as the Futsal U-13 national football champion after defeating Maharashtra at Kochi’s Rajeev Gandhi International Stadium. The Finals was played between Telangana and Maharashtra for the title and the result of the game was concluded through a penalty shootout. The championship was organised by Futsal Association of India (FAI).In the very first five minutes of the game, team of Maharashtra took a lead by scoring one goal, then, it was Aryan R who equalised the score with a stunning goal.In the end, the match ended with both the team with one goal each on the scorecard which lead to a penalty shootout.Telangana converted all of their penalty kicks into goal, courtesy to Lokesh V, Vamshi Krishna and Pratham Joshi while their goalkeeper Dhanvi Tejas managed to save two penalty kicks.Telangana boys maintained their dominance throughout the tournament by defeating each and every one of their opponents.The team of Telangana during the group stage defeated Maharashtra 1-0, drew the match with Assam, defeated Delhi 5-1 and Andhra Pradesh in the final group stage match by 3-0.Then, in the semis, Telangana boys beat Gujarat 3-0 with the help of two goals by Jason Powell and one by Piyush TP. last_img read more


No Image

Former NBA player Lorenzen Wright’s ex-wife pleads guilty in his murder case

first_imgThe plea, according the Commercial Appeal, citing prosecutor Paul Hagerman, was agreed to by members of the Wright family.Once Sherra Wright entered her plea, Judge Lee Coffee told Wright she would have an effective sentence of 30 years at 30 percent release eligibility, the report noted.If she does serve just 30 percent of the potential sentence, it would be a total of nine years. Sherra Wright’s trial in the case involving the 2010 shooting death of ex-husband was slated to begin Sept. 16.Wright and co-defendant Billy Ray Turner were charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder of Lorenzen Wright, who played 13 seasons in the NBA after starring collegiately at Memphis. Former University of Memphis star and longtime NBA player Lorenzen Wright’s ex-wife, Sherra, took some responsibility for Wright’s murder in an unscheduled hearing Thursday in Memphis, the Commercial Appeal reported.Sherra Wright pleaded guilty to facilitation to commit first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder in a Memphis courtroom.last_img read more


No Image

NIHs new clinical trial policy kicks in despite concerns from basic behavioral

first_img NIH’s new clinical trial policy kicks in despite concerns from basic behavioral researchers The basic research study that produced this brain scan of a child looking in a mirror could now be considered a clinical trial by the National Institutes of Health.  Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country By Jocelyn KaiserJan. 23, 2018 , 12:35 PM Email Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwecenter_img Thierry Berrod, Mona Lisa Production/Science Source Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Scientists who conduct basic behavioral research are bracing for a policy kicking in this week that will impose new rules on their federally funded studies, many of which the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, will now consider clinical trials. Although many researchers maintain that the policy makes no sense and will hinder their work, recent revisions by NIH officials have eased some fears.“There’s still a problem, but the problem is less dire than the original set of concerns that we had,” says cognitive psychologist Jeremy Wolfe of the Harvard University–affiliated Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who is also the immediate past president of the Federation of Associations in Behavioral & Brain Sciences (FABBS) in Washington, D.C.The changes, which take effect for proposals with due dates of 25 January or later, are part of a new clinical trials definition that NIH released in 2014 but only began implementing last year. That was when scientists who use tools such as MRI scans to explore how the normal brain works realized that their studies, which they never thought of as clinical trials because they don’t test drugs or other treatments, fell under the new definition. The change imposed several new requirements on researchers, such as submitting proposals in response to a formal funding opportunity for clinical trials and registering the studies in clinicaltrials.gov, the federal trials database. Researchers and university groups have since flooded NIH with emails and comments, especially after NIH published a set of case studies confirming that basic studies would be included. More than 3500 scientists signed an open letter last September asking NIH to delay the policy.Michael Lauer, NIH deputy director for extramural research, has since made several revisions to the case studies. For example, pilot studies with a few healthy volunteers that are used to design a more formal study may not be considered clinical trials (see case #18f here).In an interview with Wolfe published yesterday in Nature Human Behavior, Lauer says basic science grants will likely go to the same peer-review panels as before, not clinical trial panels. And a 1-hour online course may be sufficient to meet new training requirements. These and other answers “address many of the problems in perfectly sensible ways,” Wolfe says. The same journal issue contains several letters from other researchers for and against the policy.The controversy is not over, however. “The definition is still murky in areas … and relies primarily on one person at NIH, Mike Lauer, to make the call” on which studies are included, says Paula Skedsvold, executive director of FABBS. Wolfe says the coalition hopes NIH will work out a separate registration and reporting option for “mechanistic studies.” It would allow basic researchers to be more transparent without confusing the public by filling clinicaltrials.gov with studies that aren’t testing treatments, he says.Meanwhile, FABBS is talking to staff on key committees in Congress about their complaints. “Our communities of scientists continue to call for a return to the historically clear distinction between basic science and clinical trials,” Skedsvold says. One possibility is that lawmakers will insert a provision in a spending bill that would stop NIH from moving forward with the policy.last_img read more