You can also script "ipod style" rotating dials in javascript. Scripting images to work like form elements is so not impressive by anyone's definition.
AMD claims the Intel compiler INTENTIONALLY singles out AMD and compiles cumbersome, slow code for AMD CPU's.
Intel claims it does not.
But from everything I can see on this board... AMD has been extremely vague about whether or not the slower compile paths apply to "non-Intel chips in general" or "specifically to AMD chips". (The latter would indeed be grounds for a lawsuit).
But let's be clear: Intel would be perfectly within their rights to make a generic non-Intel option which functions at the level of the safest (albeit slowest) common denominator. To begin to optimize and troubleshoot for alternate (competitor's) chips would be an absurd project for Intel to invest resources in. The question is this: Is AMD uniquely singled out here by the Intel compiler? (By name?) Or does the Intel compiler check the CPUID for a simple boolean of Intel or non-Intel.
I've read all the linked articles here and I have to say that no one has provided a shred of evidence that Intel specifically cripples AMD chips. I'm no fan of Intel, but I have to say it sounds like they are simply:
a) writing enhanced code for their products. b) ensuring cross-product compatibility at the lowest possible denominator.
Does this lowest possible denominator suck *so* badly that it is malicious? That may be a good question that a jury will have to answer.
Its not as if a CPUID represents any kind of legal trademark. As I understand its simply a bit set to 1. I'd love to see Intel try to claim that they own a trademark on that particular numeric value in that particular memory address.
Has anyone ever been sued for electronic-identifier infringement? In this particular case it would be seen as "performance enhancing code".
So why on Earth doesn't AMD just burn the Intel CPUID directly to AMD CPU's?
Secondly... population growth is slowing as an aggregate, but it is not slowing in the most critical regions of the world like northern India and central Africa. And to say that famine is always political is flat wrong. Drought and disease often result in huge population movements which invariably become political issues, but drought and disease are certainly huge dangers to overpopulated areas and potential causes of mass fatality.
Thirdly -- improving literacy at a basic level alone doesn't make a nation capable of innovation. The rift between educated and uneducated *is* increasing.
This seems to be more of a reflection of third world population growth than on innovation.
A similar statement could read: "the percentage of educated people in the world is decreasing". (or more directly: the percentage of people *capable* of making innovations is decreasing).
Population growth in poor and developing nations (and the word "developing" is unfortunately only used out of political correctness) is out of control and is at a dangerous tipping point where we could conceivably see mass famines (as in 'millions dead') any year where drought, blight or oppression get ugly.
Innovation is alive and well within the population that can innovate.
Poverty and illiteracy (as a percentage of population) are growing at a furious pace.
Uh...No. How stupid do *you* have to be to raise your hand and volunteer for a reduced set of civil rights.
What we are talking about here is Copyright and you apparently don't understand even the basic principles of that right.
We are free to write anything, make anything, say anything and create anything we want.
For centuries the act of "creating" consisted of taking existing creations and modifying and improving them.
The wheel became the pully, the gear and ultimately the printing press. The wall became the crossbeam, the arch, the buttress and the cathedral. We live in a world where creations are in fact synergies of other creations.
Now the latest set of creators would like to use money, lawmaking, threats, evangelism and prosecution to make you believe that their simple act of "pulling the ladder up behind them" is in fact a moral action.
If you don't believe me, think about just how many anime DVDs have you purchased recently compared to the number of shows you've downloaded for free.... and there you have it. The old "you *would* have bought it if you hadn't downloaded it" argument.
As if the only two options are 'getting it for free', or 'paying for it'.
Personally for me, I can easily say that if I hadn't downloaded "______" for free, I'd probably have... gee I don't know... watched TV, surfed porn, ordered a pizza, gone out for a beer, played Halo, taken my girlfriend to dinner, smoked a joint or any number of other things (which don't include paying for "______").
Anyone care to take a guess at what a successful ruling would mean to AMD in terms of compensatory damages?
Given that AMD has a market cap of less than 7 Billion (compared to Intel's $160 Billion) an award based upon lost marketshare could represent an unprecedented windfall for AMD.
Anybody out there have any idea what the pricetag to Intel might look like?
First off: What was the name of the doctor? You mean to tell me this scientific breakthrough is being reported to the press, and the name of the scientist wasn't reported?
Secondly: Brought back to life with an electric shock? What is this Young Frankenstein? You have to be kidding me.
Thirdly: Its being reported where? Can we get some additional sources please? It did happen in the U.S. afterall.... and the last words are "... said one battlefield doctor."
Huh? You're a journalist reporting on a major scientific breakthrough and THAT'S YOUR ONE QUOTE!? Not even a name!? You've got to be kidding me.
Either this is absolute hogwash, or this journalist has the reporting skills of a nine year old.
Either way... I'll wait for better coverage before I get excited.
You claim that a commercial transaction of copyrighted material which does not benefit the work's creator is THEFT???
Maybe Half.com and Ebay should be shut down for copyright infringement?
There is a long and very established history of consumer behaviours which do not pass capital to the original producer of the good. In fact the passing of 'royalties' to the original producer of the work is an EXTREMELY recent invention.
The failure of revenue flow to the original producer of a product is a failure of his/her business model.
It is not the responsibility of the consumer to alter their behaviour to preserve flawed business models.
> The world has never been a rosy happy-joy socialist utopia.
You are missing the point though.
You're suggesting that Lessig et al are a bunch of "we want free stuff" whiners. This isn't about free stuff. Its about having stuff stolen from us.
In other words: No one is making the claim that information was historically 100% free. The claim that is being made is that our freedoms are *decreasing*
For example:
The copyright on a recorded work used to last only a couple decades before it reverted to the public domain. (ie: all of our rights to it were only restricted for a short period of time). Now its obvious that most copyrights will never return to the public domain. (ie: all of our rights to it are now restricted forever). That ultimately represents a theft from the public. What was promised to us by the original framers of copyright law has been taken away from us by modern media giants.
Why, you ask, should we *ever* get access to those rights?
Because the story of science, of culture and of humanity is the building of current efforts on top of past accomplishments. It is how our world got to be the way it is.
All current technologies and creations are but midway points on the road to greater creations.
Anyone who doesn't understand that has never created anything.
Yes and no. The Labor Theory of Value is an economic term and not a legal one. If a man takes twice as long as another man to produce an identical item. (And let's say those items are exactly identical down to a molecular level for the sake of argument). Both items are usually (yes, there are rare exceptions as with some works of art) worth the same amount.
Theoretically a gamer could acquire that item quickly -- or never at all.
Markets determine prices. Not labor. Its sale price on eBay is a good metric.
The article failed to mention that Qiu Chengwei scored a +5 critical hit when he stabbed Mr. Zhu in the chest.
It should also be mentioned that while Mr. Zhu's death was of course due to stabbing -- other factors included his low armor class and a failed saving throw.
Rumours are currently spreading that Mr. Chengwei was wearing +3 boots of stealth when he broke into Mr. Zhu's apartment giving him a distinct melee advantage.
Don't we hear this argument every time a new generation of consoles comes out?
Besides, until console gaming develops active mod communities (don't hold your breath), text chat (which would basically re-create the PC experience) and mouse support (ditto)... the console will always be an inferior platform.
Thumbstick control will *never* have the accuracy of mouse control. VOIP support results in chaos when used in a MMO environment. And modding is limited since a PC is usually required to create the mod.
The answer is no. Consoles will not be killing pc games any time soon.
This patent addresses the difference between "task completion" and "the style or flair" with which the game is played.
However, the style or flair with which a player performs a task in a game that only normally rewards successful completion of the task is often what makes a game more interesting for a player and observers.
To be clear though, style or flair, is simply *another* generally assigned "task" or series of "tasks". Each individual "trick" or the amount of air you get with a jump, or the amount of skid you get on a turn, is an optional "task" available to the player at all times.
From a programming perspective Microsoft has patented optional micro-tasks available to the player at any given time.
From a non-programming perspective, Microsoft has patented "style" -- an essential element to the sports of figure-skating, gymnastics, free-style skiing and dozens of other sports.
Microsoft is using nothing more than semantics to portray what they've done as something 'new'. If the goal of games is to mimic our real-world actions, we should be wary of allowing patents which incorporate new and more accurate reflections of reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Guess what. You conceive it. You develop it. You own it.
Better burn those card catalogs.
You can also script "ipod style" rotating dials in javascript.
Scripting images to work like form elements is so not impressive by anyone's definition.
If only you could mod an entire article Retarded
AMD claims the Intel compiler INTENTIONALLY singles out AMD and compiles cumbersome, slow code for AMD CPU's.
Intel claims it does not.
But from everything I can see on this board... AMD has been extremely vague about whether or not the slower compile paths apply to "non-Intel chips in general" or "specifically to AMD chips". (The latter would indeed be grounds for a lawsuit).
But let's be clear: Intel would be perfectly within their rights to make a generic non-Intel option which functions at the level of the safest (albeit slowest) common denominator. To begin to optimize and troubleshoot for alternate (competitor's) chips would be an absurd project for Intel to invest resources in. The question is this: Is AMD uniquely singled out here by the Intel compiler? (By name?) Or does the Intel compiler check the CPUID for a simple boolean of Intel or non-Intel.
I've read all the linked articles here and I have to say that no one has provided a shred of evidence that Intel specifically cripples AMD chips. I'm no fan of Intel, but I have to say it sounds like they are simply:
a) writing enhanced code for their products.
b) ensuring cross-product compatibility at the lowest possible denominator.
Does this lowest possible denominator suck *so* badly that it is malicious? That may be a good question that a jury will have to answer.
Why can't AMD CPU's contain an Intel CPUID ?
Its not as if a CPUID represents any kind of legal trademark. As I understand its simply a bit set to 1. I'd love to see Intel try to claim that they own a trademark on that particular numeric value in that particular memory address.
Has anyone ever been sued for electronic-identifier infringement? In this particular case it would be seen as "performance enhancing code".
So why on Earth doesn't AMD just burn the Intel CPUID directly to AMD CPU's?
How fast *is* the thing in PC terms?
(how much would an equivalent PC cost?)
First off
Secondly
Thirdly -- improving literacy at a basic level alone doesn't make a nation capable of innovation. The rift between educated and uneducated *is* increasing.
This seems to be more of a reflection of third world population growth than on innovation.
A similar statement could read: "the percentage of educated people in the world is decreasing". (or more directly: the percentage of people *capable* of making innovations is decreasing).
Population growth in poor and developing nations (and the word "developing" is unfortunately only used out of political correctness) is out of control and is at a dangerous tipping point where we could conceivably see mass famines (as in 'millions dead') any year where drought, blight or oppression get ugly.
Innovation is alive and well within the population that can innovate.
Poverty and illiteracy (as a percentage of population) are growing at a furious pace.
How fucking stupid do you have to be...
Uh...No. How stupid do *you* have to be to raise your hand and volunteer for a reduced set of civil rights.
What we are talking about here is Copyright and you apparently don't understand even the basic principles of that right.
We are free to write anything, make anything, say anything and create anything we want.
For centuries the act of "creating" consisted of taking existing creations and modifying and improving them.
The wheel became the pully, the gear and ultimately the printing press. The wall became the crossbeam, the arch, the buttress and the cathedral. We live in a world where creations are in fact synergies of other creations.
Now the latest set of creators would like to use money, lawmaking, threats, evangelism and prosecution to make you believe that their simple act of "pulling the ladder up behind them" is in fact a moral action.
It is not.
If you don't believe me, think about just how many anime DVDs have you purchased recently compared to the number of shows you've downloaded for free. ... and there you have it. The old "you *would* have bought it if you hadn't downloaded it" argument.
... gee I don't know ... watched TV, surfed porn, ordered a pizza, gone out for a beer, played Halo, taken my girlfriend to dinner, smoked a joint or any number of other things (which don't include paying for "______").
As if the only two options are 'getting it for free', or 'paying for it'.
Personally for me, I can easily say that if I hadn't downloaded "______" for free, I'd probably have
But hey... that's just me.
Anyone care to take a guess at what a successful ruling would mean to AMD in terms of compensatory damages?
Given that AMD has a market cap of less than 7 Billion (compared to Intel's $160 Billion) an award based upon lost marketshare could represent an unprecedented windfall for AMD.
Anybody out there have any idea what the pricetag to Intel might look like?
This sounds very, very questionable. I call BS.
... and the last words are "... said one battlefield doctor."
First off: What was the name of the doctor?
You mean to tell me this scientific breakthrough is being reported to the press, and the name of the scientist wasn't reported?
Secondly: Brought back to life with an electric shock?
What is this Young Frankenstein? You have to be kidding me.
Thirdly: Its being reported where?
Can we get some additional sources please? It did happen in the U.S. afterall.
Huh? You're a journalist reporting on a major scientific breakthrough and THAT'S YOUR ONE QUOTE!? Not even a name!? You've got to be kidding me.
Either this is absolute hogwash, or this journalist has the reporting skills of a nine year old.
Either way... I'll wait for better coverage before I get excited.
Oh... er...sorry... is that *not* what we're talking about here?
Which was one of the greatest games ever.
Come on BioWare... stop milking this old engine (and its so-streamlined-it-sucks interface)
Bring us Baldur's Gate III !!!
Until then there's always The Elder Scrolls: OBLIVION to look forward to...
You claim that a commercial transaction of copyrighted material which does not benefit the work's creator is THEFT???
Maybe Half.com and Ebay should be shut down for copyright infringement?
There is a long and very established history of consumer behaviours which do not pass capital to the original producer of the good. In fact the passing of 'royalties' to the original producer of the work is an EXTREMELY recent invention.
The failure of revenue flow to the original producer of a product is a failure of his/her business model.
It is not the responsibility of the consumer to alter their behaviour to preserve flawed business models.
They'll need a base on each moon to begin the UCP
teleportation experiments...
> The world has never been a rosy happy-joy socialist utopia.
You are missing the point though.
You're suggesting that Lessig et al are a bunch of "we want free stuff" whiners. This isn't about free stuff. Its about having stuff stolen from us.
In other words: No one is making the claim that information was historically 100% free. The claim that is being made is that our freedoms are *decreasing*
For example:
The copyright on a recorded work used to last only a couple decades before it reverted to the public domain. (ie: all of our rights to it were only restricted for a short period of time). Now its obvious that most copyrights will never return to the public domain. (ie: all of our rights to it are now restricted forever). That ultimately represents a theft from the public. What was promised to us by the original framers of copyright law has been taken away from us by modern media giants.
Why, you ask, should we *ever* get access to those rights?
Because the story of science, of culture and of humanity is the building of current efforts on top of past accomplishments. It is how our world got to be the way it is.
All current technologies and creations are but midway points on the road to greater creations.
Anyone who doesn't understand that has never created anything.
Yes and no. The Labor Theory of Value is an economic term and not a legal one. If a man takes twice as long as another man to produce an identical item. (And let's say those items are exactly identical down to a molecular level for the sake of argument). Both items are usually (yes, there are rare exceptions as with some works of art) worth the same amount.
Theoretically a gamer could acquire that item quickly -- or never at all.
Markets determine prices. Not labor. Its sale price on eBay is a good metric.
The article failed to mention that Qiu Chengwei scored a +5 critical hit when he stabbed Mr. Zhu in the chest.
It should also be mentioned that while Mr. Zhu's death was of course due to stabbing -- other factors included his low armor class and a failed saving throw.
Rumours are currently spreading that Mr. Chengwei was wearing +3 boots of stealth when he broke into Mr. Zhu's apartment giving him a distinct melee advantage.
> We all have a right to our opinion
Ah good.
My opinion is that you're an uneducated ass.
The discussion on this board only proves in spades that the Palestinian Israeli conflict isn't the result of politics....
Its the result of stupidity.
And apparently there's plenty to go around.
Right wing Christians, anti-semites, devout Jews, propagandists, and finger pointers spouting agendas, inflammatory flamebait and half-truths.
Realize, please, all of you, that none of you represents a solution.
That at least would be a good first step.
Don't we hear this argument every time a new generation of consoles comes out?
Besides, until console gaming develops active mod communities (don't hold your breath), text chat (which would basically re-create the PC experience) and mouse support (ditto)... the console will always be an inferior platform.
Thumbstick control will *never* have the accuracy of mouse control. VOIP support results in chaos when used in a MMO environment. And modding is limited since a PC is usually required to create the mod.
The answer is no. Consoles will not be killing pc games any time soon.
To be clear though, style or flair, is simply *another* generally assigned "task" or series of "tasks". Each individual "trick" or the amount of air you get with a jump, or the amount of skid you get on a turn, is an optional "task" available to the player at all times.
From a programming perspective Microsoft has patented optional micro-tasks available to the player at any given time.
From a non-programming perspective, Microsoft has patented "style" -- an essential element to the sports of figure-skating, gymnastics, free-style skiing and dozens of other sports.
Microsoft is using nothing more than semantics to portray what they've done as something 'new'. If the goal of games is to mimic our real-world actions, we should be wary of allowing patents which incorporate new and more accurate reflections of reality.