Yeah! Those published manuscripts in the Library of Congress are forgeries! He didn't just change his mind 30 years later; it never happened! He makes millions by lying and claiming that he wrote it in college! Nobody would go see them otherwise! Luke's hand was chopped off on the moon landing set in Utah! OJ's wife was killed by a wookie! The bible code was written on Alderan! The holocaust never happened, and was a media manipulation by Ewoks! Slurm comes from a slug's ass!
As far as journalism goes, you belong at the New York Times. Please note that that stopped being a compliment a little over a year ago.
On the bright side, the modern multiple hundred million dollar blockbuster budget now accounts for something called "makeup." In other news, vericose veins defeated with "nylons;" ice truck obviated by "refrigerators." And now, back to your moving daugerrotype.
Given that essentially everyone else's tests say the opposite, I think it would be appropriate for you to make yours public. As far as the hyperthreading, maybe that's because they're not using the hyperthreaded build? Who can tell? They don't give adequate data on their testing rig. We can't even tell if those two databases were built in the same compiler.
In the future, if you want to talk about your tests, either let us see them, or please spend your time walking. My tests show you're a twelve foot tall green woman with sticks for hair. Tests can show anything until the rest of the people on the web can say "well, there's your error, you're testing a children's book instead of the other slashdot user."
This guy is just like the media. He is looking for controversy.
Actually, he never said any of this. The media said it. It's not that he's like the media. It's that it's the media you're listening to. Insert Chris Rock joke about looking over one's shoulder at the MAC machine here.
Sorry, consumer, but it's time you had a bit of your own medicine. MyISAM is fast. InnoDB is not. MyISAM isn't ACID. InnoDB is. The speed advantage of InnoDB over Postgres is modest at best. Don't get me wrong, I use MySQL too. But, don't complain about other people making excuses on half truths until you know you're personally working from fact.
Very poor object oriented language. Not everything is an object, no multiple inheritance, use destructors and you get segfaults, etc... They improved a lot with v5 but still.
Not everything should be an object. Welcome to the real world; most of us don't want to be forced into things like that. Multiple inheritance is moot because this is an interface inheritance language. Also, you don't get destructors in segfaults unless your code is crap. Makes one wonder why you think PHP is poor, if you can't even pull off simple usage.
What do you expect to happen? well, an exception obviously. NOT, php guesses you really meant to create an object, assign it to $x and that the object has an attribute a. It does not even issue a warning in the logs. Makes it really fun to debug some programs.
1) You can make that issue a warning, if you'd bother to read the manual. 2) It's not PHP's fault that you don't understand PHP. 3) It's funny how people will say Lanugage X is bad for having Feature 1, but other people will say that Language Y is bad for not having Feature 1. Here's a hint: we don't all want the same things you do. Don't confuse a language being not what you personally want for a language being bad.
References are just weird. And they are so different from version 4.0 to version 5.0 that it made it imposible to upgrade for an existing project
References aren't weird, and their differences between 4 and 5 aren't honestly that big. Most of my PHP/FI code still works in 6 Alpha. Exactly one of my projects needed changes to account for how references now work.
arrays are passed by value, but objects are passed by reference, WTF?
Read the manual. It explains why. (Hint: it's because there's no such thing as a UDT.)
For fck sake, the php tutorial teaches how to write cross site script vulnerable code which is what Rasmus is complaining about.
Wow, a link that points to nothing at all, and a lack of an explanation. Gee, an introductory tutorial isn't focussed on security. Maybe that's because they're teaching the language first?
and I am not sure why me showing some Callgrind profiles and stating that MySQL is particular good at these things is frontpage slashdot material.
Because operating systems, programming languages and video games aren't the only things zealots go into blind rages over? Welcome to Slashdot. I notice that someone seems to have stolen several digits from your user ID; someone that old should be used to the volume of stupid that goes through this site by now.
"You have to filter everything and then poke a few holes to let things through, "Lerdorf advised.
He *just* learned that?
No, he's been saying that for ten years. Are you really that hard up for criticisms?
From someone who obviously is suprised that to secure something you need to make a safe-house and then be strict about what gets in
Where do you get that? He's surprised about something he himself said? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, senator.
And then, my personal favorite:
This guy is an idiot.... He *just* learned that? Oh my, that's scary.... From someone who obviously is suprised that to secure something you need to make a safe-house... Maybe by the next conference he'll grow up... Lerdorf merely publicly demonstrated his own immaturity.
Nor was this a "slam".
Though not for lack of trying.
I find it amusing that you see fit to look down your nose at one of the inventors of one of the most successful programming languages of our day in this fashion, based on questionable readings of what he said and some pointless attacks, then not only do you have the gall to say that you're not trying to slam him, but are willing further to call him immature.
I'm curious: do you have any credentials to your name, or are you the type who likes to criticise actual successful people from the sidelines?
Perhaps you didn't read my entire post. I certainly did see the sarcasm, which is why I wrote "Just because you meant it as a joke doesn't mean that saying it isn't a serious problem." I'm the first guy on the barrel telling inappropriate jokes, except about what I do for a living. You don't see me cracking wise about how Nintendo games are really a (insert paranoid theory here.) Why? Because some people take jokes seriously, when given by authorities.
Saying it's a joke makes it more serious, not less so. Glib disregard for your authority - as a neuroscientist teaching other neuroscientists - is frankly terrifying.
No self respecting school gives out an honorary doctorate for a donation. For donations, one gets buildings (or in extreme cases, campuses) named after one's self. A doctorate is a measure of competence. The only situation under which an honorary doctorate should be given out is for an individual who has displayed an extreme competency in a field. Thus, a president who achieved strong ends in foreign policy might get an honorary doctorate in political science. To give a doctorate out in exhange for a donation would be horrific, would ruin the reliability of said university, and is a good way to get a president / provost / chair thrown out on their ear.
What may be confusing you is the complete lack of standards that many scientific fields, both comp sci (here) and neurophysiology (there) currently have to measure competency. When Bill Gates was given his honorary doctorate, well, it seemed like common sense. If you ask why, you look like a jackass: he is Bill Gates after all, and most people will argue that he has had a profound impact (regardless of good or bad, folks, let's not turn this into a flame war) on computing.
This is actually a serious problem.
The person who invented the alkaline hood was a seventeen year old fry cook. In the late 1970s, places like fast food joints had a serious problem: if one of those giant friers caught fire, it was just damned difficult to put out. Fire extinguisher, pah, and unfortunately, fast food doesn't attract the best or the brightest, so many people tried taking it out with water. Brilliant. It was some highschool kid taking a chemistry course who figured out that all you do is dump a bunch of alkalines on the grease, and wham, problem solved. Why? Because the alkalines turned the grease into soap, the fire sped the reaction up, and the soap doesn't burn. Yank the cord, a bunch of white powder drops down, and wham. Common sense, after a fashion; people advocate throwing baking soda on grease fires for the same reason. But this kid turned it into a reliable piece of safety equipment. Needless to say, he patented it, OSHA required it, and this kid was worth nine digits in just a few years.
Do we give him an honorary medical degree?
Now, before you yell "of course not," possibly after spitting soda or coffee on your keyboard (sorry,) let's think this through, yes?
When one asks why Bill Gates has an honorary degree, and keeps asking until an actual answer is had, two responses tend to come about. One is that he made a huge impact on computing that everyone who uses a computer is familiar with, or two, that he got stinking rich. The same is true in both cases of this kid: he had a huge impact on the resteraunt industry with which everyone who works at a resteraunt is familiar, and he got stinking rich. Bill didn't discover any fundamental algorithms or solve any capital-d Difficult problems. He's a pretty decent hacker (look at his Basic ROM before you disagree based on his employees' work, please) who happens to be a highly successful businessperson.
But we're not giving honorary degrees to Sam Walton, or to Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan, or to Larry Ellison. Nobody's chasing around the Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Astors or Rockefellers of this world around with a piece of paper stamped Ph.D.
There are three fundamental reasons that a university chooses to dole out an honorary degree. Mind you, this doesn't conflict with the single basis I gave earlier. If you want to find a way to flatter someone, you choose some physically adequate feature as a basis. Universities are very good at finding justifications ignorant of their motivations. Anyway, those three fundamental reasons are:
the individual has done something so spectacular that a university feels the need to say thank you. This is spectacularly rare. You see it for people like Louis Pasteur, Noam Chomsky (you should see his stack of honoraries) and Thomas Kuhn. This is for the half dozen Dijkstras that are alive at any given ti
Interestingly, a large number of students it seems coming into CS programs at the undergraduate level want to program games, but have no idea how much math and algorithm development goes on when one is crafting new material.
Interesting: people are going to school for things they don't already know, requiring their professors to teach them things that are part of their curriculum.... wait, why is that interesting again?
It's also not particularly difficult to create a system wherein things like this cannot happen. Get a thirty thousand dollar automated backup vault, and when it comes time to move the backups, pretend they're money. Draw big green dollar signs on some bags and put the tapes in those, then send them around in an armored car. It's not like Chase is running short on armored cars.
You don't see Chase accidentally burying bags full of money, now, do you?
Nah. The reason for the confusion is that Rare was semi-owned by Nintendo, and so a lot of developers who were angry that Rare was getting good-buddy support from Nintendo accused Nintendo of second-party publishing Rare preferentially, when they wouldn't do that for anyone else.
First, this is not a weak correlation; 212 vs. 37 vs. 1 is a significant difference in almost any context, and yes, we've all known some really dumb people, but unless those people are severely retarded, they're still a hell of a lot smarter than the smartest chimp or monkey.
The germane issue here is best represented in the phrase "correlation does not imply causation." Indeed that there is a correlation is unimportant; this is the sort of logic that leads to people believing that the thing keeping the monkeys dumb is the hair on their bodies. Before you get all rankled, please remember that in the four measley monkey types that were tested, hair density and intelligence are in fact correlated far more strongly than this particular gene.
Before you cry foul and say that because this is a gene that suddenly the correlation actually is important, please read up on the fallacy of the undistributed middle. All humans carry many encodings of this protien. Humans are intelligent. To suggest from those two things that things carrying encodings of this protien are suddenly smart is naïve in the extreme. Humans carry hundreds of encodings of HSV1 in our genome which cannot infect monkeys. Does that mean herpes made us smart?
No.
Correlation is unimportant; displaying it is an exercise in wasted time. Dicto simpliciter, sir, dicto simpliciter. You make the baby sonolumuinescence cry. I want to knock you down and tattoo "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" on your spine and "post hoc ergo propter hoc" on your ribcage.
If she can handle walking the Great Wall of China, she can handle walking the Great Hall to the Manager's Office. Salespeople crying ageism need a quick lesson in job security. My grandmother agrees; I just IMed her.
a) How difficult would it be to transition from the homebrew SDK to the official one? Would it be worth doing any real work to begin with before transitioning?
Well it's like transitioning from OS/2 to Windows. It has the same general list of stuff, targetting the same general hardware, but the names of API functions and the order they want arguments in is different. It's not challenging, but it's a big hassle.
Would it be worth any real work? Depends. If you follow GoF Strategy Pattern and wrap dealing with the SDK, then you can pretty cleanly replace your stubs and not worry about becoming bug central. If it's a system you haven't done yet, then yes, it would be useful to do it in the homebrew SDK just to learn the machine. If the game industry is new to you, having a functional demo on real hardware makes getting investment much easier, so it might be useful for those reasons too.
If on the other hand you're a pro gamedev from a different platform, then you won't have a hard time getting money, the machine's gonna be stuff you already know, and so for them, no, it's probably not worth the hassle, and just wait a week until Nintendo sends you a kit.
Different strokes for different folks. For non-pros, the homebrew SDK is a minor miracle.
b) Is the official SDK significantly better to be worth using?
Well, you can't sell games make in the homebrew SDK at Walmart. :D In response to your real question, yes there are a few things that the real SDK does significantly better - the homebrew SDK doesn't do NiFi at all, for example, and its sound stuff is acceptable whereas the real SDK's sound stuff is quite nice. What you really want to know is "is the homebrew SDK good enough?" On almost every front, yes. WLAN is still a hassle, but thanks to my bounty which led to Steve's work, the Internet is within your grasp using normal TCP and UDP.
You not only need cart manufacturing, you need a license from Nintendo.
Which they will happily give to anyone who can afford manufacturing. Takes about a week. Ask Sandy Hatcher at NOA for details.
You _need_ a devkit
No, you don't. The devkit is built on CodeWarrior. Nintendo allows GCC and RVCT binaries instead. There is no requirement to use any official tools except when working with the Wifi Connection. Of course, since in context I was talking about an amateur, this doesn't actually matter.
(with compiler/linker and binary signing tools)
Uh, developers don't get signing tools; if they did the signature would long since be leaked. We get DSes that don't make the signature check in the first place, instead.
and you _need_ a marketing/packaging company.
There is no requirement to have a marketing company, whether or not it's good business sense, and Nintendo handles the packaging whether you want them to or not.
Unless you have a million lying around, this is _well_ beyond your average homebrew and indie effort.
Actually, the minimum run of demo carts is currently 1700 units. You can have your game manufactured for roughly the price of a Honda.
In fact, the license from Nintendo is one of the most expensive components
There is no fee for the license at all. It's the SDK which costs money. Warioworld tells you it's $10k, but Nintendo almost always cuts a major break on the price.
and usually why you go through a licensed publisher to get the appropriate licensing
Wrong. It's about the price of manufacturing, like I said.
The marketing and manufacturing of the cart is also higly expensive
Marketing costs on a AAA game are generally in the neighborhood of $300k. Manufacturing is generally closer to $5m. Please stop pretending to know things you don't actually know.
Nintendo and other manufacturers also require a minimum run of 10,000 units.
On the DS it's 1700. On the GameCube it's 450. On the Gameboy Advance it's 500. These numbers are publically available on warioworld.com. On the Playstation 2 it's 2000. On the XBox it's 1500. On the XBox 360 it's 2500. On the PSP it's 3000. Please stop pretending to know things you don't actually know.
To actually do all this from scratch, is pretty rare.
True. So what? We're talking about a few guys making a demo on a machine, not how to publish. Way to get off on a tangent about nothing.
Btw - the NDA for Nintendo doesnt bind you to not giving the price per cart
Yes, it does. I suspect you don't actually have a copy, but in case you do, look at page six line 34. Why would you pretend to know something like this?
last time I checked its not even posted on the devsite (warioworld)
Correct, because it's a protected trade secret, and they give different prices to different developers, which is why the NDA forbids you from discussing it.
Devkits, and components are, not manufacturing carts for sell through.
This is true, but of course, has nothing to do with a few guys making a demo on hardware.
There is no Myth here - access to game development is not easy if you are not well financially backed
No business is easy without money. The game business isn't any different. What you're failing to comprehend is that investment just isn't that hard to come by. I got into the industry on a demo I wrote in three weeks of my spare time, by shopping around for some investor who wanted into the game industry and believed in my product. It took me about a month to find him.
I don't understand why you're trying to tell me about my j
Slashdot Mirror
No! Damn kids! Get the hell back on my grass!
None of it was planned. It was all marketing hype
Yeah! Those published manuscripts in the Library of Congress are forgeries! He didn't just change his mind 30 years later; it never happened! He makes millions by lying and claiming that he wrote it in college! Nobody would go see them otherwise! Luke's hand was chopped off on the moon landing set in Utah! OJ's wife was killed by a wookie! The bible code was written on Alderan! The holocaust never happened, and was a media manipulation by Ewoks! Slurm comes from a slug's ass!
As far as journalism goes, you belong at the New York Times. Please note that that stopped being a compliment a little over a year ago.
... beer think?
On the bright side, the modern multiple hundred million dollar blockbuster budget now accounts for something called "makeup." In other news, vericose veins defeated with "nylons;" ice truck obviated by "refrigerators." And now, back to your moving daugerrotype.
Given that essentially everyone else's tests say the opposite, I think it would be appropriate for you to make yours public. As far as the hyperthreading, maybe that's because they're not using the hyperthreaded build? Who can tell? They don't give adequate data on their testing rig. We can't even tell if those two databases were built in the same compiler.
In the future, if you want to talk about your tests, either let us see them, or please spend your time walking. My tests show you're a twelve foot tall green woman with sticks for hair. Tests can show anything until the rest of the people on the web can say "well, there's your error, you're testing a children's book instead of the other slashdot user."
This guy is just like the media. He is looking for controversy.
Actually, he never said any of this. The media said it. It's not that he's like the media. It's that it's the media you're listening to. Insert Chris Rock joke about looking over one's shoulder at the MAC machine here.
Sorry, consumer, but it's time you had a bit of your own medicine. MyISAM is fast. InnoDB is not. MyISAM isn't ACID. InnoDB is. The speed advantage of InnoDB over Postgres is modest at best. Don't get me wrong, I use MySQL too. But, don't complain about other people making excuses on half truths until you know you're personally working from fact.
Java programmer?
Very poor object oriented language. Not everything is an object, no multiple inheritance, use destructors and you get segfaults, etc... They improved a lot with v5 but still.
Not everything should be an object. Welcome to the real world; most of us don't want to be forced into things like that. Multiple inheritance is moot because this is an interface inheritance language. Also, you don't get destructors in segfaults unless your code is crap. Makes one wonder why you think PHP is poor, if you can't even pull off simple usage.
What do you expect to happen? well, an exception obviously. NOT, php guesses you really meant to create an object, assign it to $x and that the object has an attribute a. It does not even issue a warning in the logs. Makes it really fun to debug some programs.
1) You can make that issue a warning, if you'd bother to read the manual.
2) It's not PHP's fault that you don't understand PHP.
3) It's funny how people will say Lanugage X is bad for having Feature 1, but other people will say that Language Y is bad for not having Feature 1. Here's a hint: we don't all want the same things you do. Don't confuse a language being not what you personally want for a language being bad.
References are just weird. And they are so different from version 4.0 to version 5.0 that it made it imposible to upgrade for an existing project
References aren't weird, and their differences between 4 and 5 aren't honestly that big. Most of my PHP/FI code still works in 6 Alpha. Exactly one of my projects needed changes to account for how references now work.
arrays are passed by value, but objects are passed by reference, WTF?
Read the manual. It explains why. (Hint: it's because there's no such thing as a UDT.)
For fck sake, the php tutorial teaches how to write cross site script vulnerable code which is what Rasmus is complaining about.
Wow, a link that points to nothing at all, and a lack of an explanation. Gee, an introductory tutorial isn't focussed on security. Maybe that's because they're teaching the language first?
I'd like to know what this vulnerability is.
I think the eternal problem with MySQL is that everyone thinks that just because "SQL" is in the name it's a relational database. It's not.
MyISAM maybe. Welcome to 2003. SAP neé InnoDB is a fine database.
and I am not sure why me showing some Callgrind profiles and stating that MySQL is particular good at these things is frontpage slashdot material.
Because operating systems, programming languages and video games aren't the only things zealots go into blind rages over? Welcome to Slashdot. I notice that someone seems to have stolen several digits from your user ID; someone that old should be used to the volume of stupid that goes through this site by now.
By the way, thanks for PHP.
"You have to filter everything and then poke a few holes to let things through, "Lerdorf advised.
... He *just* learned that? Oh my, that's scary. ... From someone who obviously is suprised that to secure something you need to make a safe-house ... Maybe by the next conference he'll grow up ... Lerdorf merely publicly demonstrated his own immaturity.
He *just* learned that?
No, he's been saying that for ten years. Are you really that hard up for criticisms?
From someone who obviously is suprised that to secure something you need to make a safe-house and then be strict about what gets in
Where do you get that? He's surprised about something he himself said? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, senator.
And then, my personal favorite:
This guy is an idiot.
Nor was this a "slam".
Though not for lack of trying.
I find it amusing that you see fit to look down your nose at one of the inventors of one of the most successful programming languages of our day in this fashion, based on questionable readings of what he said and some pointless attacks, then not only do you have the gall to say that you're not trying to slam him, but are willing further to call him immature.
I'm curious: do you have any credentials to your name, or are you the type who likes to criticise actual successful people from the sidelines?
We had to punch the holes with teeth pulled from passing dogs.
Perhaps you didn't read my entire post. I certainly did see the sarcasm, which is why I wrote "Just because you meant it as a joke doesn't mean that saying it isn't a serious problem." I'm the first guy on the barrel telling inappropriate jokes, except about what I do for a living. You don't see me cracking wise about how Nintendo games are really a (insert paranoid theory here.) Why? Because some people take jokes seriously, when given by authorities.
Saying it's a joke makes it more serious, not less so. Glib disregard for your authority - as a neuroscientist teaching other neuroscientists - is frankly terrifying.
What may be confusing you is the complete lack of standards that many scientific fields, both comp sci (here) and neurophysiology (there) currently have to measure competency. When Bill Gates was given his honorary doctorate, well, it seemed like common sense. If you ask why, you look like a jackass: he is Bill Gates after all, and most people will argue that he has had a profound impact (regardless of good or bad, folks, let's not turn this into a flame war) on computing.
This is actually a serious problem.
The person who invented the alkaline hood was a seventeen year old fry cook. In the late 1970s, places like fast food joints had a serious problem: if one of those giant friers caught fire, it was just damned difficult to put out. Fire extinguisher, pah, and unfortunately, fast food doesn't attract the best or the brightest, so many people tried taking it out with water. Brilliant. It was some highschool kid taking a chemistry course who figured out that all you do is dump a bunch of alkalines on the grease, and wham, problem solved. Why? Because the alkalines turned the grease into soap, the fire sped the reaction up, and the soap doesn't burn. Yank the cord, a bunch of white powder drops down, and wham. Common sense, after a fashion; people advocate throwing baking soda on grease fires for the same reason. But this kid turned it into a reliable piece of safety equipment. Needless to say, he patented it, OSHA required it, and this kid was worth nine digits in just a few years.
Do we give him an honorary medical degree?
Now, before you yell "of course not," possibly after spitting soda or coffee on your keyboard (sorry,) let's think this through, yes?
When one asks why Bill Gates has an honorary degree, and keeps asking until an actual answer is had, two responses tend to come about. One is that he made a huge impact on computing that everyone who uses a computer is familiar with, or two, that he got stinking rich. The same is true in both cases of this kid: he had a huge impact on the resteraunt industry with which everyone who works at a resteraunt is familiar, and he got stinking rich. Bill didn't discover any fundamental algorithms or solve any capital-d Difficult problems. He's a pretty decent hacker (look at his Basic ROM before you disagree based on his employees' work, please) who happens to be a highly successful businessperson.
But we're not giving honorary degrees to Sam Walton, or to Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan, or to Larry Ellison. Nobody's chasing around the Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Astors or Rockefellers of this world around with a piece of paper stamped Ph.D.
There are three fundamental reasons that a university chooses to dole out an honorary degree. Mind you, this doesn't conflict with the single basis I gave earlier. If you want to find a way to flatter someone, you choose some physically adequate feature as a basis. Universities are very good at finding justifications ignorant of their motivations. Anyway, those three fundamental reasons are:
Interestingly, a large number of students it seems coming into CS programs at the undergraduate level want to program games, but have no idea how much math and algorithm development goes on when one is crafting new material.
... wait, why is that interesting again?
Interesting: people are going to school for things they don't already know, requiring their professors to teach them things that are part of their curriculum.
You'd lose that bet. Natrium doesn't do things because other people tell him to.
He would have to find it (I'm guessing the the dump(s) for NYC are pretty big)
New York's dump is so big that its capital is named Trenton.
It's also not particularly difficult to create a system wherein things like this cannot happen. Get a thirty thousand dollar automated backup vault, and when it comes time to move the backups, pretend they're money. Draw big green dollar signs on some bags and put the tapes in those, then send them around in an armored car. It's not like Chase is running short on armored cars.
You don't see Chase accidentally burying bags full of money, now, do you?
False dismissivity is the sad refuge of those without enough character to admit when they were wrong.
Nah. The reason for the confusion is that Rare was semi-owned by Nintendo, and so a lot of developers who were angry that Rare was getting good-buddy support from Nintendo accused Nintendo of second-party publishing Rare preferentially, when they wouldn't do that for anyone else.
then... maybe it just makes us superprimates at best ?????
That you're only just now figuring that out suggests that perhaps you're not one of us at all.
First, this is not a weak correlation; 212 vs. 37 vs. 1 is a significant difference in almost any context, and yes, we've all known some really dumb people, but unless those people are severely retarded, they're still a hell of a lot smarter than the smartest chimp or monkey.
The germane issue here is best represented in the phrase "correlation does not imply causation." Indeed that there is a correlation is unimportant; this is the sort of logic that leads to people believing that the thing keeping the monkeys dumb is the hair on their bodies. Before you get all rankled, please remember that in the four measley monkey types that were tested, hair density and intelligence are in fact correlated far more strongly than this particular gene.
Before you cry foul and say that because this is a gene that suddenly the correlation actually is important, please read up on the fallacy of the undistributed middle. All humans carry many encodings of this protien. Humans are intelligent. To suggest from those two things that things carrying encodings of this protien are suddenly smart is naïve in the extreme. Humans carry hundreds of encodings of HSV1 in our genome which cannot infect monkeys. Does that mean herpes made us smart?
No .
Correlation is unimportant; displaying it is an exercise in wasted time. Dicto simpliciter, sir, dicto simpliciter. You make the baby sonolumuinescence cry. I want to knock you down and tattoo "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" on your spine and "post hoc ergo propter hoc" on your ribcage.
If she can handle walking the Great Wall of China, she can handle walking the Great Hall to the Manager's Office. Salespeople crying ageism need a quick lesson in job security. My grandmother agrees; I just IMed her.
a) How difficult would it be to transition from the homebrew SDK to the official one? Would it be worth doing any real work to begin with before transitioning?
:D In response to your real question, yes there are a few things that the real SDK does significantly better - the homebrew SDK doesn't do NiFi at all, for example, and its sound stuff is acceptable whereas the real SDK's sound stuff is quite nice. What you really want to know is "is the homebrew SDK good enough?" On almost every front, yes. WLAN is still a hassle, but thanks to my bounty which led to Steve's work, the Internet is within your grasp using normal TCP and UDP.
Well it's like transitioning from OS/2 to Windows. It has the same general list of stuff, targetting the same general hardware, but the names of API functions and the order they want arguments in is different. It's not challenging, but it's a big hassle.
Would it be worth any real work? Depends. If you follow GoF Strategy Pattern and wrap dealing with the SDK, then you can pretty cleanly replace your stubs and not worry about becoming bug central. If it's a system you haven't done yet, then yes, it would be useful to do it in the homebrew SDK just to learn the machine. If the game industry is new to you, having a functional demo on real hardware makes getting investment much easier, so it might be useful for those reasons too.
If on the other hand you're a pro gamedev from a different platform, then you won't have a hard time getting money, the machine's gonna be stuff you already know, and so for them, no, it's probably not worth the hassle, and just wait a week until Nintendo sends you a kit.
Different strokes for different folks. For non-pros, the homebrew SDK is a minor miracle.
b) Is the official SDK significantly better to be worth using?
Well, you can't sell games make in the homebrew SDK at Walmart.
The homebrew SDK is just fine. Give it a try.
Erm complete BS.
Yeah, I do this for a living, thanks.
You not only need cart manufacturing, you need a license from Nintendo.
Which they will happily give to anyone who can afford manufacturing. Takes about a week. Ask Sandy Hatcher at NOA for details.
You _need_ a devkit
No, you don't. The devkit is built on CodeWarrior. Nintendo allows GCC and RVCT binaries instead. There is no requirement to use any official tools except when working with the Wifi Connection. Of course, since in context I was talking about an amateur, this doesn't actually matter.
(with compiler/linker and binary signing tools)
Uh, developers don't get signing tools; if they did the signature would long since be leaked. We get DSes that don't make the signature check in the first place, instead.
and you _need_ a marketing/packaging company.
There is no requirement to have a marketing company, whether or not it's good business sense, and Nintendo handles the packaging whether you want them to or not.
Unless you have a million lying around, this is _well_ beyond your average homebrew and indie effort.
Actually, the minimum run of demo carts is currently 1700 units. You can have your game manufactured for roughly the price of a Honda.
In fact, the license from Nintendo is one of the most expensive components
There is no fee for the license at all. It's the SDK which costs money. Warioworld tells you it's $10k, but Nintendo almost always cuts a major break on the price.
and usually why you go through a licensed publisher to get the appropriate licensing
Wrong. It's about the price of manufacturing, like I said.
The marketing and manufacturing of the cart is also higly expensive
Marketing costs on a AAA game are generally in the neighborhood of $300k. Manufacturing is generally closer to $5m. Please stop pretending to know things you don't actually know.
Nintendo and other manufacturers also require a minimum run of 10,000 units.
On the DS it's 1700. On the GameCube it's 450. On the Gameboy Advance it's 500. These numbers are publically available on warioworld.com. On the Playstation 2 it's 2000. On the XBox it's 1500. On the XBox 360 it's 2500. On the PSP it's 3000. Please stop pretending to know things you don't actually know.
To actually do all this from scratch, is pretty rare.
True. So what? We're talking about a few guys making a demo on a machine, not how to publish. Way to get off on a tangent about nothing.
Btw - the NDA for Nintendo doesnt bind you to not giving the price per cart
Yes, it does. I suspect you don't actually have a copy, but in case you do, look at page six line 34. Why would you pretend to know something like this?
last time I checked its not even posted on the devsite (warioworld)
Correct, because it's a protected trade secret, and they give different prices to different developers, which is why the NDA forbids you from discussing it.
Devkits, and components are, not manufacturing carts for sell through.
This is true, but of course, has nothing to do with a few guys making a demo on hardware.
There is no Myth here - access to game development is not easy if you are not well financially backed
No business is easy without money. The game business isn't any different. What you're failing to comprehend is that investment just isn't that hard to come by. I got into the industry on a demo I wrote in three weeks of my spare time, by shopping around for some investor who wanted into the game industry and believed in my product. It took me about a month to find him.
I don't understand why you're trying to tell me about my j