And this was a endocrinologist - a specialist who no doubt took a lot of Biostatistics courses and such, and used a lot of statistics all through his education. And you are telling me that it's not his "job" to know? Wow!
All you said in your original post was "doctor". Now i'm starting to symphise with this doctor. You were probably being as non-specific as you're being here and now spinning this nonsense to make him look bad.
I have no idea what Endocrinology is so I looked it up. Seems to have a lot to do with hormones and how they effect the body. I fail to see how your criticism of his knowledge in statistics has anything to do with this doctors primary job which understanding how hormones effect the body.
Your attitude is a common problem I have found with slashdot users or programmers generally. If you don't understand every single detail of your job even though it has no impact on what you do then somehow you're a complete idiot that needs firing.
I don't see this being a problem. It's not his job to know, just like it is not his job to know how to write the excel spreadsheet to come out with the values he uses to help you.
That being said it wouldn't hurt if everyone had a better understanding of statistics.
You can't just render half a model on both screens, if your person character is 2 million polys you have to render the whole thing.
The only exception to this is when applying level of detail which is normally used only on distant objects because doing so makes the whole model ugly.
What your saying doesn't make sense. Rendering something twice DOES double the workload. You're rendering it twice. You can't share what's being drawn in one viewport in another because both characters are in different positions, the views are different.
The polygon count isn't reduced simply because your screen is smaller. You still have the feed all the coords to the graphics card each frame and split screen doubles that work.
You failed to explain how it is unique to the current consoles.
Rendering split screen takes up a huge amount of resources. Think about it. You're rendering everything twice and then applying lighting shader models to both. If you're trying to push the graphics on a first gen game then you're not going to be able to when you're doing split screen.
Not only this however you have to debug and test the game twice. That's expensive, why bother? You can not compare a NES game which is limited in scope of game play to a game of today. Why did you even bother to mention this?
And doing split screen would increase development time, debugging and testing on the other consoles too.
You mean like the NES right? You realise games like super mario kart were built with their primary goal being split screen right? It's not some kind of feature you can just tack on. It effects everything from sound, input, UI and on.
Religions originally did actually make a lot of sense. It wasn't 'til the whackos and nutcases took control of it and turned it into a tool of oppression.
There are two problems with this statement...
1) Believing in a make believe sky person, for example God(s) qualifies someone as a nutcase to begin with 2) Religion has and always will be used as a tool of oppression
In what way does religion ever make any sense? I could tell you unicorns made the earth and I'd have as much proof as any other religion that makes similar claims.
The GPL terms don't kick in until those 1000 users attempt to re-distribute the code themselves.
So lets assume by "steal" you mean 1000 users take the code, make modifications and then try to sell their copy without source. Now doing so doesn't diminish my enjoyment of said project however it does have negative consequences for the project which will eventually diminish my enjoyment of the project.
Firstly, those 1000 users who distributed their closed source versions haven't given the source to their users. That means the upstream project is loosing potential bug reports, contributors, etc. It also means they might get bombarded by complaints from users who downloaded the stolen version.
Also there is the issue that the BSD doesn't deal with patents in the slightest. Someone could contribute patented code to your project then sue you for violating the patents. That's something the GPL 3, Microsoft's open source license, and many other's cover. That fact that BSD doesn't do this makes it a stupid license to use.
I'm sure there are many other examples, however I'm done wasting time on yet another uninformed BSD user posting as AC.
Why exactly steer clear? The GPL enforcements don't kick in unless you attempt to redistribute your work. That doesn't include private changes between you and/or a client.
Your GPL responsibilities only kick in when you are allowing others to download your web based application scripts. It's the very reason the FSF came up with a new license the AGPL which forces someone that makes private changes to their copy of a project to release them if they're publically online.
This I could understand why you would avoid, however the standard GPL, that doesn't make much sense if you're only using GPL'd software between you and the client hiring you.
The only thing I could possibly think of is that you might somehow be required to give your client the same rights under the GPL that you had however it's pretty much a complete non-issue since php, perl, etc all come with the source included. Also since the goal is working on the client's website and it's one off stuff I doubt you or they care about that. It's never a situation i've ever heard about or run into.
Simply: it spells nothing but trouble to me. Please do discuss, debate, don't just f***ing go all nazi gpl/linux/grandma on this by modding it "troll".
Would you happen to be more clear about what trouble the GPL causes you because at the moment you haven't said anything to support your claims. I don't really understand what you expect us to debate on when you haven't said anything.
The difference is that the repository model used by popular GNU/Linux operating environments is intended for use with free software or at least freely redistributable software. Distros like Fedora and Ubuntu currently lack anything like Steam, a repository of non-free commercial software.
It's true that there is no way to purchase software using the package manager. However, there is no reason that you couldn't integrate the package manager into a purchasing system such as steam.
One way you could do it is by shipping a debian file with the binaries only. When the debian file is installing you can call a script to enter a license key or make it call a DRM server for online activation. I think there are lots of things you could do using the underlying systems on linux which would be more difficult to do on windows if you were writing everything from scratch.
All your steam app would have to worry about is providing a list deb files to only logged in users and not unauthorised users.
Buying was fine for single-player games, but MMORPGs (which are much more entertaining due to the social aspect) need a different business model.
The OnLive service which this article is about charges users a monthy fee to pay for single player games and play them remotely over the internet. It has nothing to do with MMORPGs which you've decided to base your post on.
A typical high end machine will last you 4 years minimum. At $15 a month for 4 years that's $720. You'd be better off just spending the $720 up front on a high end machine or games console.
The end result of using this service for 4 years then cancelling is that you loose all your games and can not resell them.
Everyone in my country has modded xboxes and PS3s. It's not as difficult as you make out. You just pay a little extra to get it chipped and if it ever breaks you just take it back to the shop, no problems. You can get it done anywhere, even the shopping mall sells pirated console games.
So what about online play right? Simple, everyone owns another console for that. You think that consoles are more secure but they're just as much of a joke (if not more so because of their popularity with pirates here).
Do you honestly think that companies would invest money to create DRM if piracy had not become so widespread?
DRM has nothing to do with piracy. It's all about preventing game stores from selling 2nd hand copies and keeping 100% of the money rather then cutting the publisher in.
You simply don't have a clue what you're talking about. Pirates haven't driven PC developers to consoles. Consoles are simply more popular hence the flock of developers looking to cash in. It is simple economics, more market share means more money to be made. It has nothing to do with piracy.
Console games get pirated just as much as PC games, even more so. In my county most people own two xboxes. One for live and one for everything else.
One thing that really jumped out at me was his estimate that preventing 1000 piracy attempts results in only a single additional sale, this supports our intuitive assessment that people who pirate our game aren’t people who would have purchased it had they not been able to get it without paying.
Also this from the same World of Goo blog post..
either way, ricochet shipped with DRM, world of goo shipped without it, and there seems to be no difference in the outcomes.
It's obvious you've never been into an investment meeting with a publisher. The first thing they want to know is market share and ROI, with those things as the major factor it's a no brainer that everyone has moved to consoles. Piracy has nothing to do with it.
Slashdot Mirror
All you said in your original post was "doctor". Now i'm starting to symphise with this doctor. You were probably being as non-specific as you're being here and now spinning this nonsense to make him look bad.
I have no idea what Endocrinology is so I looked it up. Seems to have a lot to do with hormones and how they effect the body. I fail to see how your criticism of his knowledge in statistics has anything to do with this doctors primary job which understanding how hormones effect the body.
Your attitude is a common problem I have found with slashdot users or programmers generally. If you don't understand every single detail of your job even though it has no impact on what you do then somehow you're a complete idiot that needs firing.
In the diagram it labels a wireless antenna. It seems they've already thought it through.
I don't see this being a problem. It's not his job to know, just like it is not his job to know how to write the excel spreadsheet to come out with the values he uses to help you.
That being said it wouldn't hurt if everyone had a better understanding of statistics.
How is that any different from your having to download .NET example?
It's funny when it comes to windows you just hand wave all the issues away but when it comes to a different OS suddenly it's a problem for you.
Double standards.
This works until your family borrows your computer and screws it up.
You can't just render half a model on both screens, if your person character is 2 million polys you have to render the whole thing.
The only exception to this is when applying level of detail which is normally used only on distant objects because doing so makes the whole model ugly.
What your saying doesn't make sense. Rendering something twice DOES double the workload. You're rendering it twice. You can't share what's being drawn in one viewport in another because both characters are in different positions, the views are different.
The polygon count isn't reduced simply because your screen is smaller. You still have the feed all the coords to the graphics card each frame and split screen doubles that work.
Rendering split screen takes up a huge amount of resources. Think about it. You're rendering everything twice and then applying lighting shader models to both. If you're trying to push the graphics on a first gen game then you're not going to be able to when you're doing split screen.
Not only this however you have to debug and test the game twice. That's expensive, why bother? You can not compare a NES game which is limited in scope of game play to a game of today. Why did you even bother to mention this?
You mean like the NES right? You realise games like super mario kart were built with their primary goal being split screen right? It's not some kind of feature you can just tack on. It effects everything from sound, input, UI and on.
It's pretty easy to grasp. They're required to at least program one screen and add multiplayer.
Doing split screen would increase development time, debugging and testing.
I can see this being quite useful when the inevitable zombie / robot invasions happen.
Could be because split screen uses more resources like they state in the article or because split screen needs more development time, etc.
I completely disagree with you here. What I think you're saying is that religion makes people obey the law; or something along these lines.
That's simply not true. Most people in this world are naturally good people and want to do good deeds regardless of what they do or do not believe.
There are two problems with this statement...
1) Believing in a make believe sky person, for example God(s) qualifies someone as a nutcase to begin with
2) Religion has and always will be used as a tool of oppression
In what way does religion ever make any sense? I could tell you unicorns made the earth and I'd have as much proof as any other religion that makes similar claims.
The GPL terms don't kick in until those 1000 users attempt to re-distribute the code themselves.
So lets assume by "steal" you mean 1000 users take the code, make modifications and then try to sell their copy without source. Now doing so doesn't diminish my enjoyment of said project however it does have negative consequences for the project which will eventually diminish my enjoyment of the project.
Firstly, those 1000 users who distributed their closed source versions haven't given the source to their users. That means the upstream project is loosing potential bug reports, contributors, etc. It also means they might get bombarded by complaints from users who downloaded the stolen version.
Also there is the issue that the BSD doesn't deal with patents in the slightest. Someone could contribute patented code to your project then sue you for violating the patents. That's something the GPL 3, Microsoft's open source license, and many other's cover. That fact that BSD doesn't do this makes it a stupid license to use.
I'm sure there are many other examples, however I'm done wasting time on yet another uninformed BSD user posting as AC.
Why exactly steer clear? The GPL enforcements don't kick in unless you attempt to redistribute your work. That doesn't include private changes between you and/or a client.
Your GPL responsibilities only kick in when you are allowing others to download your web based application scripts. It's the very reason the FSF came up with a new license the AGPL which forces someone that makes private changes to their copy of a project to release them if they're publically online.
This I could understand why you would avoid, however the standard GPL, that doesn't make much sense if you're only using GPL'd software between you and the client hiring you.
The only thing I could possibly think of is that you might somehow be required to give your client the same rights under the GPL that you had however it's pretty much a complete non-issue since php, perl, etc all come with the source included. Also since the goal is working on the client's website and it's one off stuff I doubt you or they care about that. It's never a situation i've ever heard about or run into.
Would you happen to be more clear about what trouble the GPL causes you because at the moment you haven't said anything to support your claims. I don't really understand what you expect us to debate on when you haven't said anything.
I simply don't believe this without some proof. That sounds like a violation of copyright law.
It's true that there is no way to purchase software using the package manager. However, there is no reason that you couldn't integrate the package manager into a purchasing system such as steam.
One way you could do it is by shipping a debian file with the binaries only. When the debian file is installing you can call a script to enter a license key or make it call a DRM server for online activation. I think there are lots of things you could do using the underlying systems on linux which would be more difficult to do on windows if you were writing everything from scratch.
All your steam app would have to worry about is providing a list deb files to only logged in users and not unauthorised users.
You're thinking is flawed. The poor people are already living and require that anyway regardless of the decision to use robots or not.
The OnLive service which this article is about charges users a monthy fee to pay for single player games and play them remotely over the internet. It has nothing to do with MMORPGs which you've decided to base your post on.
A typical high end machine will last you 4 years minimum. At $15 a month for 4 years that's $720. You'd be better off just spending the $720 up front on a high end machine or games console.
The end result of using this service for 4 years then cancelling is that you loose all your games and can not resell them.
There's only one person that has control over what goes into wine and that is Alexandre Julliard who maintains the GIT repo.
Also Codeweavers version IS a fork which includes all their own patches.
Everyone in my country has modded xboxes and PS3s. It's not as difficult as you make out. You just pay a little extra to get it chipped and if it ever breaks you just take it back to the shop, no problems. You can get it done anywhere, even the shopping mall sells pirated console games.
So what about online play right? Simple, everyone owns another console for that. You think that consoles are more secure but they're just as much of a joke (if not more so because of their popularity with pirates here).
DRM has nothing to do with piracy. It's all about preventing game stores from selling 2nd hand copies and keeping 100% of the money rather then cutting the publisher in.
You simply don't have a clue what you're talking about. Pirates haven't driven PC developers to consoles. Consoles are simply more popular hence the flock of developers looking to cash in. It is simple economics, more market share means more money to be made. It has nothing to do with piracy.
Console games get pirated just as much as PC games, even more so. In my county most people own two xboxes. One for live and one for everything else.
Also funny you mention world of goo because this is exactly what they said on that 90% figure..
Also this from the same World of Goo blog post..
It's obvious you've never been into an investment meeting with a publisher. The first thing they want to know is market share and ROI, with those things as the major factor it's a no brainer that everyone has moved to consoles. Piracy has nothing to do with it.