1) this is for a *Mac* port of DivX. Most mac users could care less if their media codec was open-sourced. 2) Making it a Quicktime plugin gives excellent integration into Mac OS, because users don't have to learn anything new- it's embedded in the already existing Quicktime Player.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, it would also be cross-compatible with the Windows version of Quicktime.
Hmm, actually string theory is a good bit simpler than other theories with the goal of unification of physics. String Theory requires 7 or 8 dimensions, I think, while other theories postulate something like 26 dimensions! Which is simpler, eh? And in truth, we don't have a lot of evidence for string theory. As Michio Kaku said in Hyperspace, string theory is 21st century physics that we have the honor of looking at right now, or something to that effect.
Actually, it goes the other way around: brand new games come out that do things nobody has ever seen before, but run mediocre on the current "high-end" hardware. Processor manufacturers, graphics card companies, etc, scramble to bring out new hardware that will drive the new games adequately. That's way I see it, at least, and here's why: New games aren't programmed to neatly mesh with the features of the latest graphics cards. The programmers do all the crazy, wacked out stuff they have time to in the game, and the graphics cards play catchup. I think the obvious example here is John Carmack, who is in the unique position to tell the graphics card makers what kind of features they should build into their next products, which are usually things that Carmack would like to exploit in his next engine.
There used to be a program for the older versions of Mac OS called At Ease, which basically made it very hard to do anything bad to the computer (ie you couldn't change any settings, etc.) I'm not sure what it did in the way of actual security from outside threats... Granted, Mac OS users look at all the carnage being wrought in Windows-land by virii/trojans/worms and laugh, because doesn't affect them one bit. There are very few Mac viruses.
Perhaps Bill and his friends over at Microsoft should look into making some kind of added-security shell to Windows to put onto your average school or office PC, to prevent people from doing idiotic things. Or at least add a few extra warning labels, and make it so you can't just press return to confirm.
"Do you want to run this suspicious-looking.vbs file?"
"Are you sure you want to run this suspcicious-looking file? Microsoft Corporation does not insure that this file will not harm your computer?"
etc, etc...
Quake 2 is cool while watching the opening movie (which does btw, kick ass), it makes you think the game has a cool storyline, when in actuality it's the same old thing. But hell, you don't play a first person shooter for the storyline. (unless you're playing Marathon, but that's something else again)
I totally agree. The various "spiky bits" were one of the primary elements that made Doom/Doom II the great games they were. Although what Quake lost in not having all those sprites, it made up in having true 3d and better lighting.
I think Final Doom was just new levels using the Doom II extras (new monsters, guns, etc), only released on consoles (PSX and N64 i think, maybe Saturn). There was also Ultimate Doom, which was Doom #1 with an extra episode. It was pretty good, actually, if you hadn't already bought Doom.
It's probably just complex stencil shadows. You know how you can do rudimentary 1-bit stencil buffer shadows on certain vid cards in Quake 3? I'm betting that's what it is. Given that the X-box will have an NV25, who knows what obscure gl-extensions it has?
On the same token, it really annoyed me how in The Matrix, every time they showed one of those sweet cell phones, the framerate would slow down just long enough so that you could read the "Nokia" label.
I tend to agree, though I think that rap is more mainstream than techno these days. At least where I live, I hear a lot more rap than electronica. Almost all my friends like rap, but few like any kind of techno.
As far as playability, the scales certainly turn in the dance scene. Granted, most of what I hear at dances is "popular" techno, like Prodigy, Crystal Method, Fatboy Slim; granted, those are the bands that paved the way for all the wannabe techno around these days, but that doesn't make them bad.
We can both blame and praise the internet for this. There's tons of crap techno bands on mp3.com, but there's a few great ones too, like 303infinity and DJ Xealot. In the end though, the net is good for all music, I think; the more artists, the better.
I think you're misconstruing what he said. For on thing, why should buying quake, for 10 bucks no less, be a burden? It would probably be possible to get the.PAK files separately. I think...
I pressed a button that said "you are 1 point beneath your current threshold" and the preceding message popped up. Did I do that? If i did, sorry. I'm kinda new here.
Whoa... was that really John Carmack? It sounds like he knows what he's talking about, so i guess so. Of course, the companies which previously only made "consumer" graphics cards (read: nVidia and 3dfx) have themselves entered the high end grahpics card market. nVidia has the Quadro, and 3dfx (yes I know is actually Quantum3D making the cards) has the 8-32 vsa-100 chip implementation. Never mind that thse cards are simply outgrowths of their consumer cards; they are still designed for the high-end market. I guess it is for the greater good that consumer graphics cards with workstation performance are being offered in the workstation markets. After all, most innovation does seem to come from the consumer market. A [failed] attempt to sound as smart as John Carmack.:)
The funny thing is we are hitting a goofy barrier like that again. The US gov't calls any computer that can do a gigaflop a "supercomputer;" Apple's G4 and Sony's Playstation2 can do just that. Of course, the classification was made a good 10 years or so ago. It basically adds up to silly marketing for Apple. On the subject of nanocomputers, I would have to agree that they are a bit scarier than quantum computers. A quantum computer could tell that 2+2 *probably* equals 4, but given the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, it's hard to say. And solve problems that conventional computers can't. A nanocomputer would tackle conventional tasks, and do them really really fast. How similar to today's computers would a nanocomputer be in basic architecture? I have read a lot of people saying that sooner or later, the microprocessor will not be able to continue on it's current path, i.e. getting faster while getting smaller and cheaper. I think the reason given was that the transistors wouldn't be able to get any smaller. Does this factor into nanocomputers at all? Or are they built differently enough so that it doesn't matter?
Slashdot Mirror
reasons why they want a quicktime plugin:
1) this is for a *Mac* port of DivX. Most mac users could care less if their media codec was open-sourced.
2) Making it a Quicktime plugin gives excellent integration into Mac OS, because users don't have to learn anything new- it's embedded in the already existing Quicktime Player.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, it would also be cross-compatible with the Windows version of Quicktime.
It makes perfect sense, really.
Hmm, actually string theory is a good bit simpler than other theories with the goal of unification of physics. String Theory requires 7 or 8 dimensions, I think, while other theories postulate something like 26 dimensions! Which is simpler, eh? And in truth, we don't have a lot of evidence for string theory. As Michio Kaku said in Hyperspace, string theory is 21st century physics that we have the honor of looking at right now, or something to that effect.
The nailgun in Quake! err... maybe not...
Actually, it goes the other way around: brand new games come out that do things nobody has ever seen before, but run mediocre on the current "high-end" hardware. Processor manufacturers, graphics card companies, etc, scramble to bring out new hardware that will drive the new games adequately.
That's way I see it, at least, and here's why: New games aren't programmed to neatly mesh with the features of the latest graphics cards. The programmers do all the crazy, wacked out stuff they have time to in the game, and the graphics cards play catchup.
I think the obvious example here is John Carmack, who is in the unique position to tell the graphics card makers what kind of features they should build into their next products, which are usually things that Carmack would like to exploit in his next engine.
There used to be a program for the older versions of Mac OS called At Ease, which basically made it very hard to do anything bad to the computer (ie you couldn't change any settings, etc.) I'm not sure what it did in the way of actual security from outside threats... Granted, Mac OS users look at all the carnage being wrought in Windows-land by virii/trojans/worms and laugh, because doesn't affect them one bit. There are very few Mac viruses. Perhaps Bill and his friends over at Microsoft should look into making some kind of added-security shell to Windows to put onto your average school or office PC, to prevent people from doing idiotic things. Or at least add a few extra warning labels, and make it so you can't just press return to confirm. "Do you want to run this suspicious-looking .vbs file?"
"Are you sure you want to run this suspcicious-looking file? Microsoft Corporation does not insure that this file will not harm your computer?"
etc, etc...
Quake 2 is cool while watching the opening movie (which does btw, kick ass), it makes you think the game has a cool storyline, when in actuality it's the same old thing. But hell, you don't play a first person shooter for the storyline. (unless you're playing Marathon, but that's something else again)
I totally agree. The various "spiky bits" were one of the primary elements that made Doom/Doom II the great games they were. Although what Quake lost in not having all those sprites, it made up in having true 3d and better lighting.
I think Final Doom was just new levels using the Doom II extras (new monsters, guns, etc), only released on consoles (PSX and N64 i think, maybe Saturn). There was also Ultimate Doom, which was Doom #1 with an extra episode. It was pretty good, actually, if you hadn't already bought Doom.
It's probably just complex stencil shadows. You know how you can do rudimentary 1-bit stencil buffer shadows on certain vid cards in Quake 3? I'm betting that's what it is. Given that the X-box will have an NV25, who knows what obscure gl-extensions it has?
On the same token, it really annoyed me how in The Matrix, every time they showed one of those sweet cell phones, the framerate would slow down just long enough so that you could read the "Nokia" label.
I tend to agree, though I think that rap is more mainstream than techno these days. At least where I live, I hear a lot more rap than electronica. Almost all my friends like rap, but few like any kind of techno.
As far as playability, the scales certainly turn in the dance scene. Granted, most of what I hear at dances is "popular" techno, like Prodigy, Crystal Method, Fatboy Slim; granted, those are the bands that paved the way for all the wannabe techno around these days, but that doesn't make them bad.
We can both blame and praise the internet for this. There's tons of crap techno bands on mp3.com, but there's a few great ones too, like 303infinity and DJ Xealot. In the end though, the net is good for all music, I think; the more artists, the better.
I think you're misconstruing what he said. For on thing, why should buying quake, for 10 bucks no less, be a burden? It would probably be possible to get the .PAK files separately. I think...
I pressed a button that said "you are 1 point beneath your current threshold" and the preceding message popped up. Did I do that? If i did, sorry. I'm kinda new here.
Sounds interesting. Where might I procure a copy?
Whoa... was that really John Carmack? It sounds like he knows what he's talking about, so i guess so. Of course, the companies which previously only made "consumer" graphics cards (read: nVidia and 3dfx) have themselves entered the high end grahpics card market. nVidia has the Quadro, and 3dfx (yes I know is actually Quantum3D making the cards) has the 8-32 vsa-100 chip implementation. Never mind that thse cards are simply outgrowths of their consumer cards; they are still designed for the high-end market. I guess it is for the greater good that consumer graphics cards with workstation performance are being offered in the workstation markets. After all, most innovation does seem to come from the consumer market. A [failed] attempt to sound as smart as John Carmack. :)
The funny thing is we are hitting a goofy barrier like that again. The US gov't calls any computer that can do a gigaflop a "supercomputer;" Apple's G4 and Sony's Playstation2 can do just that. Of course, the classification was made a good 10 years or so ago. It basically adds up to silly marketing for Apple. On the subject of nanocomputers, I would have to agree that they are a bit scarier than quantum computers. A quantum computer could tell that 2+2 *probably* equals 4, but given the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, it's hard to say. And solve problems that conventional computers can't. A nanocomputer would tackle conventional tasks, and do them really really fast. How similar to today's computers would a nanocomputer be in basic architecture? I have read a lot of people saying that sooner or later, the microprocessor will not be able to continue on it's current path, i.e. getting faster while getting smaller and cheaper. I think the reason given was that the transistors wouldn't be able to get any smaller. Does this factor into nanocomputers at all? Or are they built differently enough so that it doesn't matter?