We aren't talking indie developers here, we're talking big budget media operations. That's the difference. Companies want profits. Individuals want pocket money, or to raise themselves up a bit. Again, it's the opportunity cost, which may be zero for an indie developer, who develops in his spare time but for a game company spending X on his Linux development to net 2X, is much less than spending X on his Windows/xbox development to net 10X.
It's probably true to say that the different UI paradigms available on a portable device as compared to a desktop or console, are so different that you'd only be carrying over the art and media if you were hoping to write something common to both.
My point was that those 2% are not on the whole gamers, by definition, because if they were they wouldn't be running Linux. It's the difference between shipping 1,000 units and shipping 1,000,000.
XBox 360 doesn't require C#. That's just XNA. In terms of W7 and 360, you'd develop against a D3D pathway of course. In fact I'm not even sure what D3D support there is in WP 7. But anyway if you're using abstraction, it shouldn't really matter as long as the principles and functionality available are the same across platforms.
Actually I found it harder to implement the GL pathway than I did the D3D one for my current project (it used to be that D3D was far harder to use than GL). Tool support is much better with D3D at present as well, as is documentation. Overall I'd say it's definitely a path of least resistance, on the desktop at least.
I like Core GL though, don't get me wrong. I just think GL suffers from having to include so much legacy support. Time for a new API?
What % of desktops are Linux? 2%? It's not worth the development effort for a mainstream consumer product, especially given that a fair number of that 2% aren't gamers anyway (if they were, they'd be on Windows!).
It does, to an extent. If I was writing cross-platform (actually I am doing this right now), I would be working from an abstract interface in any case, so it's not such a critical decision to initially make (i.e. develop with D3D, because it's less buggy and works and then write a GL pathway).
But then the issue is whether or not it's worth investing and supporting the GL pathway. This is a decision each individual company will make based on potential sales. I'm not so sure it's worth investing in Linux in this respect and the Mac ships with NVIDIA card, doesn't it (I don't own one), which may explain why their support for GL is much better than ATI's.
Until graphics card manufacturers take Linux seriously, these problems are always going to occur. That's why it's stupid to use the argument that OpenGL is better than D3D because it's cross-platform. It's only cross-platform insofar as there is actually an implementation on Linux. After that, I'm wondering if it's better to use D3D and Wine instead of native GL!
eg the UKMO successfully predicted the cold December, and warned clients (eg govt) about it; but the media are very bad at handling probabilistic forecasts, which longer-range forecasts have to be. "60% chance of good summer" turns into "Barbecue summer coming!"
Oh dear, you seem confused. The "barbecue summer" headlines come from Met Office press releases(courtesy of Vicki Pope), which they no longer give, because they're more often than not wrong, which means that by implication, their models are more often than not wrong. It's insulting to the intelligence of the average man in the street to say he "doesn't understand a probabilistic forecast". Arrogant nonsense.
At the same time they say they were warning Government of a very cold December, they were posting up 60% chance of a warm and wet winter on their website (to the public). The question is why?
In terms of skill, I think Accuweather is something like 85%. Whereas the Met Office is about 60%. That's a big difference.
Are you suggesting I do a survey of rejected papers? Rejected papers aren't by definition published, so this would be impossible. My reasoning is entirely based on the fact that not many do get published, yet there is great uncertainty in the field as a whole and a well recognised publication bias in many journals (google the term).
How does the IPCC control every single scientist with expertise in climate?
I'm not suggesting every single one is. Lindzen, Spencer, for example, aren't. What I'm suggesting is that the "gate-keepers" keep skeptics out of the system as far as they can. Obviously fewer scientists write skeptical papers. They are less likely to get funding for that kind of research for starters and if they want their work published (scientists are esteemed by citation), they can't really be seen to be rocking the boat. There are a few notable exceptions, but in general the CRU emails show this to be the case.
Yep. You're right. A group of fringe wackos whom nobody takes seriously somehow managed to control an entire branch of scienc
Pretty much, yes.
because a conspiracy theory is the only way to explain the lack of debate
Not all conspiracy theories are wrong. But just in case you weren't aware, even the IPCC admits it isn't about the environment, it's about wealth redistribution:
“We must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore” – Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC official.
Don't you feel a little foolish now? I would if I were you.
show me the research that says we're entering a cooling period
I wonder how many papers about that have been rejected because they aren't "on message"? Probably quite a few.
Joe Bastardi isn't "oil backed"
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Since when is Bastardi oil company backed? He makes a living giving forecasts. People pay him for forecasts because other organisations (like the UK Met Office) have their heads so far up Global Warming's arse, their medium and long term predictions are no better than chance. If his forecasts were crap, he'd be out of a job and his company would have folded. These other tax-payer funded organisations have no such worries, which is why they can afford to spend their time spreading propaganda, rather than actually coming up with good forecasting models.
I was talking about the total energy in the ocean, which pretty much all comes from the atmosphere.
What rubbish! When you get sunburn, is that caused by the heat of the atmosphere, or is it caused by the radiation from the sun falling directly onto your skin?
No they don't, but feel free to add a link to a credible source to prove your point.
Since there's no magical heat source at the bottom of the ocean
Are you seriously suggesting El Nino, La Nina, the AMO and AO are all caused by the atmosphere?
Physically impossible. There's no way the sun is going to heat up the oceans first
Who said the Sun heats up the oceans first? It heats up the oceans and the oceans release heat to the atmosphere. What do you think Earth's temperature would be without the latent heat storage of all of those trillions of tons of water?
Also, the Sun's output has been remarkably constant over the past period.
It certainly hasn't, unless you're just measuring incoming radiation. You have to measure cosmic ray flux, magnetic flux and a whole lot of other things too. Solar and the PDO correlate far better with temperature than CO2 does.
Not true at all. Most of us understand rational arguments. For example, if there were no climate scientists and politicians stood up and all agreed that we needed to cut our use of oil and gas for energy security and because it's harming us to send so much of our wealth to despotic countries in return for oil, we'd all applaud (indeed I made this very point to my MP). The problem with the fossil fuel problem as "hysteria" is that (1) it shows contempt for the intelligence of the average man in the street, (2) it undermines public confidence in the scientific method and science in general and (3) it advances the cause non-liberals who see liberal democracy as a block on solving environmental problems and who openly call for totalitarianism (Plato's "rule by disinterested philosopher Kings"), in a kind of eco-fascist utopia. The latter is truly frightening, by the way.
Exactly, and given that the heat capacity of the oceans is 1000x the heat capacity of the atmosphere, it seems to me that the relationship between the two is ocean -> atmosphere, not atmosphere -> ocean. So I conclude then, given your comment on thermal inertia, that the temperature rise we're seeing today was deposited into the ocean by the Sun approximately 100 years ago and is therefore ****-all to do with man-made Co2.
Slashdot Mirror
So why do they need real profiles to do that? Most dating sites use fakes to lure you in - err...... I mean to lure in their potential customers.
I'm sure you could generate 340,000,000 unique fake profiles using Perlin Noise and an appropriate seed.
We aren't talking indie developers here, we're talking big budget media operations. That's the difference. Companies want profits. Individuals want pocket money, or to raise themselves up a bit. Again, it's the opportunity cost, which may be zero for an indie developer, who develops in his spare time but for a game company spending X on his Linux development to net 2X, is much less than spending X on his Windows/xbox development to net 10X.
It's not just hostile, it's not commercially worth the opportunity cost.
It's probably true to say that the different UI paradigms available on a portable device as compared to a desktop or console, are so different that you'd only be carrying over the art and media if you were hoping to write something common to both.
My point was that those 2% are not on the whole gamers, by definition, because if they were they wouldn't be running Linux. It's the difference between shipping 1,000 units and shipping 1,000,000.
That's like asking "which non-cross-platform environments are cross-platform". There aren't any, by definition.
XBox 360 doesn't require C#. That's just XNA. In terms of W7 and 360, you'd develop against a D3D pathway of course. In fact I'm not even sure what D3D support there is in WP 7. But anyway if you're using abstraction, it shouldn't really matter as long as the principles and functionality available are the same across platforms.
Actually I found it harder to implement the GL pathway than I did the D3D one for my current project (it used to be that D3D was far harder to use than GL). Tool support is much better with D3D at present as well, as is documentation. Overall I'd say it's definitely a path of least resistance, on the desktop at least.
I like Core GL though, don't get me wrong. I just think GL suffers from having to include so much legacy support. Time for a new API?
What % of desktops are Linux? 2%? It's not worth the development effort for a mainstream consumer product, especially given that a fair number of that 2% aren't gamers anyway (if they were, they'd be on Windows!).
It does, to an extent. If I was writing cross-platform (actually I am doing this right now), I would be working from an abstract interface in any case, so it's not such a critical decision to initially make (i.e. develop with D3D, because it's less buggy and works and then write a GL pathway).
But then the issue is whether or not it's worth investing and supporting the GL pathway. This is a decision each individual company will make based on potential sales. I'm not so sure it's worth investing in Linux in this respect and the Mac ships with NVIDIA card, doesn't it (I don't own one), which may explain why their support for GL is much better than ATI's.
We're talking desktop here, not hand-held. The point is that card manufacturers put a huge amount of resource into D3D, and far less into OpenGL.
As far as I know, it needs the card manufacturers to commit. I don't believe they "open source" all of their low level specs.
Until graphics card manufacturers take Linux seriously, these problems are always going to occur. That's why it's stupid to use the argument that OpenGL is better than D3D because it's cross-platform. It's only cross-platform insofar as there is actually an implementation on Linux. After that, I'm wondering if it's better to use D3D and Wine instead of native GL!
Oh dear, you seem confused. The "barbecue summer" headlines come from Met Office press releases(courtesy of Vicki Pope), which they no longer give, because they're more often than not wrong, which means that by implication, their models are more often than not wrong. It's insulting to the intelligence of the average man in the street to say he "doesn't understand a probabilistic forecast". Arrogant nonsense.
At the same time they say they were warning Government of a very cold December, they were posting up 60% chance of a warm and wet winter on their website (to the public). The question is why?
In terms of skill, I think Accuweather is something like 85%. Whereas the Met Office is about 60%. That's a big difference.
Of course it would! By definition, they wouldn't include in their reports any papers or language that contradict their agenda.
Are you seriously so naive?
A shocking admission.
Are you suggesting I do a survey of rejected papers? Rejected papers aren't by definition published, so this would be impossible. My reasoning is entirely based on the fact that not many do get published, yet there is great uncertainty in the field as a whole and a well recognised publication bias in many journals (google the term).
I'm not suggesting every single one is. Lindzen, Spencer, for example, aren't. What I'm suggesting is that the "gate-keepers" keep skeptics out of the system as far as they can. Obviously fewer scientists write skeptical papers. They are less likely to get funding for that kind of research for starters and if they want their work published (scientists are esteemed by citation), they can't really be seen to be rocking the boat. There are a few notable exceptions, but in general the CRU emails show this to be the case.
Pretty much, yes.
Not all conspiracy theories are wrong. But just in case you weren't aware, even the IPCC admits it isn't about the environment, it's about wealth redistribution:
Don't you feel a little foolish now? I would if I were you.
I wonder how many papers about that have been rejected because they aren't "on message"? Probably quite a few.
Since when is Bastardi oil company backed? He makes a living giving forecasts. People pay him for forecasts because other organisations (like the UK Met Office) have their heads so far up Global Warming's arse, their medium and long term predictions are no better than chance. If his forecasts were crap, he'd be out of a job and his company would have folded. These other tax-payer funded organisations have no such worries, which is why they can afford to spend their time spreading propaganda, rather than actually coming up with good forecasting models.
Are you suggesting that the correlation between temperature and the well-mixed gas CO2 doesn't hold in the US, but does everywhere else?
Is that not a big enough sample for you? There are more weather stations in the US than there are in the rest of the world combined.
What rubbish! When you get sunburn, is that caused by the heat of the atmosphere, or is it caused by the radiation from the sun falling directly onto your skin?
Credible source.
Are you seriously suggesting El Nino, La Nina, the AMO and AO are all caused by the atmosphere?
Who said the Sun heats up the oceans first? It heats up the oceans and the oceans release heat to the atmosphere. What do you think Earth's temperature would be without the latent heat storage of all of those trillions of tons of water?
It certainly hasn't, unless you're just measuring incoming radiation. You have to measure cosmic ray flux, magnetic flux and a whole lot of other things too. Solar and the PDO correlate far better with temperature than CO2 does.
Not true at all. Most of us understand rational arguments. For example, if there were no climate scientists and politicians stood up and all agreed that we needed to cut our use of oil and gas for energy security and because it's harming us to send so much of our wealth to despotic countries in return for oil, we'd all applaud (indeed I made this very point to my MP). The problem with the fossil fuel problem as "hysteria" is that (1) it shows contempt for the intelligence of the average man in the street, (2) it undermines public confidence in the scientific method and science in general and (3) it advances the cause non-liberals who see liberal democracy as a block on solving environmental problems and who openly call for totalitarianism (Plato's "rule by disinterested philosopher Kings"), in a kind of eco-fascist utopia. The latter is truly frightening, by the way.
Exactly, and given that the heat capacity of the oceans is 1000x the heat capacity of the atmosphere, it seems to me that the relationship between the two is ocean -> atmosphere, not atmosphere -> ocean. So I conclude then, given your comment on thermal inertia, that the temperature rise we're seeing today was deposited into the ocean by the Sun approximately 100 years ago and is therefore ****-all to do with man-made Co2.