That's true, but I don't think it changes enough to make a difference for this point. They're sending entangled photons and then sending quantum information about how to read them after, rather than preparing them ahead of time. But both ways they're having to transfer entangled photons over a distance, and I think they're doing it the same way in both.
This has been done before. TFA notes that there was a previous record of doing the EXACT SAME THING but over a shorter distance of 16 km.
The only story here is managing to do it over a long distance.
Doesn't that inherently imply that there ARE problems? There's difficulty in doing it over larger and larger distances, related to the beams. It just seems obvious, like, DUH they're having problems doing it over longer and longer distances. That is the WHOLE POINT. That's what they're getting better at.
And you're missing the point of Quantum Teleportation. It IS NOT teleportation. They're fundamentally different things. Don't confuse yourself just because of a word. Context means everything. The channel isn't lossy because transferring the qubits isn't the quantum teleportation! That is just a set-up for the quantum teleportation. Once both parties A and B have entangled photons, THEN the quantum teleportation begins.
Classical information can never be transmitted using entanglement. So don't think this was EVER about communicating information; its not and you can't. So saying its a "lossy channel" doesn't even make sense. You don't use this to transfer information. The only current practical purpose of transmitting quantum data, which is otherwise just uncontrollable garbage, is for the purposes of encryption, where using a qubit as the nonce ensures that no man-in-the-middle attacks can be made, as any other party attempting to access the quibits would necessarily ruin the entanglement, and make it obvious that it was insecure.
So it sounds like the information is not teleported until Bob and Alice have successfully received a pair of entangled photons. Losses simply interfere with Bob's ability to receive entangled photons (Charlie and Alice are in the same physical location).
Its sad, how even among/. you find so many people clearly believing lots of blatant misconceptions about quantum physics.:/
I mean, shit is definitely complicated, took me awhile to wrap my head around. But don't make assumptions or draw conclusions until you understand something, is that so hard?
No, its quantum teleportation. Quit trying to simplify this, it isn't simple. If you try to simplify it so much, try to find a common metaphor in classical physics, it isn't going to work. You're going to miss a detail and make an assumption. The only thing that this is, is quantum teleportation. It isn't teleportation. It isn't replication.
Quantum Teleportation is very different from Teleportation.
Nope, nope nope nope, a million times wrong. Sorry buddy, I like believing that quantum physics is magic that lets us break all the rules too, but thats just silly. We know better. If you're going to try to understand it, really read up on it, don't just form opinions and ideas from hearsay. As you yourself said, he is very sure of himself, but you are very unsure. You don't know what you're talking about.
Quantum mechanics cannot violate causality or locality, and cannot, by law, transmit classical information at faster-than-light speed.
I tried to find the site I read awhile ago that explained it all in depth, but google failed me, sorry. Read around, there's no point in me trying to write pages of explanation about a very complicated subject on a/. post.
You're misunderstanding how that experiment works. Its very, very complicated, and took me a long time to understand too, so don't feel bad.
But it isn't that you're later making a choice which effects that past; that IS NOT POSSIBLE.
Instead, it is merely that you are filtering out which photons would have taken one path or the other by knowing which path they take.
Photons exist which are constantly part of the interference pattern and not part of the pattern. We are merely choosing to filter out certain photons at a time.
You're massively oversimplifying. They ARE transmitting information at faster-than-light speed, but only quantum information. Also, in order to verify it, you have to transmit a couple bits of classical information as well, which must cross the intervening distance. No part of quantum teleportation will violate locality or causality, and you should know that by now. It still teleports, its your fault for misunderstanding what that implies.
I want Ansibles really badly too, but Quantum Teleportation by definition cannot transmit classical information. Ever. Its a pipedream (and one which would violate causality and locality out the wazoo).
The only thing you can quantum teleport is quantum information, which is next to useless for anything except a special kind of cryptography
(which is actually useful. But thats all).
Lol, you've completely misunderstood. He doesn't mean "conventional" like, traditional. He means "Classical Information", which is contrasted with "Quantum Information".
Everything you've ever considered "information" is really in the subset "Classical Information" . That classical information has to be transferred somehow, and we have several means to do so; the so-called "conventional" methods of transport. This new method of quantum teleportation is un-conventional. Sadly, quantum teleportation CANNOT transmit Classical Information; by the laws of physics. So you HAVE to use, by definition, a conventional method to transfer classical information.
Quake 3, in browser, runs better than this. And this is Wolfenstein.
However, Quake 3 in browser requires you to install a plugin with software libraries. Quake 3 or Doom II the normal games require you to install the game software and data to your machine.
This is being scripted inside of a webpage, and run inside your existing browser code. They're limited on what they can do, and it runs like ass, but it works on any computer, regardless of OS, and there's nothing to install, patch, update, or configure. It just runs.
Maybe try understanding the "why" before you just complain. There's advantages and disadvantages to every approach. They specifically chose these advantages regardless of the disadvantages of speed and texture size. (yes, the aliasing is terrible, wall textures look like butt).
If you want to play the better, hard-coded version, go play the better, hard-coded version. It seems obvious.
Lol, your understanding of computer architecture is quaint. Software that doesn't use GPU libraries won't take advantage of your fancy GPU, no matter how fancy it is. lololol. Never heard of "CPU Bound" programs?
Also, quad-core means *nothing* for gaming. LITERALLY nothing. You'd do just as well with a single-core processor of the same specifications.
Okay, I agree with you, but where the fuck have you been? Every website on the goddamned internet right now that has adult content has to have one of those age restriction things. They've always been pointless. Its always been such that any kid can enter 1900 and get in. Where have you been?
I'm pretty sure there's some dumb legislation that requires it.
I just wish we could be smart enough that we could set your age as a browser setting, and websites could automatically query for it like a cookie without having to give me those damn boxes over and over and over.
Id Tech 5 is actually an amazing engine and set of tools, allowing multiple artists to modify the same map at the same time without messing each other up, with full version control over art assets. You don't know how much that speeds up development vs the ANCIENT tools that come with source. Source is waaaaay out of date, but it works fine for what Valve is doing, so they just keep patching it. But Source can't handle things like megatexturing that id tech 5 does well. Unreal Engine 3.999 by Epic is on the same level as Id Tech 5, as is frostbite 2, and just about nothing else. These are bleeding-edge engines, and no, we haven't seen many games with them yet; but they JUST CAME OUT. AAA games, the kind that would licence these engines, take years to develop, so it won't be until years that we'll start seeing these engines. Not to mention, consoles are holding back PC development, there's no point in making a more powerful engine if it can't run on console too.
At this point, Id isn't concerned so much about making amazing games, nor is Epic. Before Gears of War, epic was just kicking out another Unreal Tournament after Unreal Tournament. They all played pretty much the same. Pretty limited game too, fun, but just multiplayer, that's all. But that was the point. Id and Epic are spending so long working on these engines, they don't have time for games as much, and they don't care to. They make their games as tech demos, to show off the engine to other companies. You go back throughout time, all the games by Id, look at quake 2 (half-life was made with that engine, MUCH more of a "game" in the traditional sense, with a proper story, vs quake2's simple action) you have quake 3 (other games like Jedi Outcast or Star Trek Elite Force were made with that engine, again, MUCH more of traditional "games" with a full story and campaign, vs quake 3's simple multiplayer).
Thats just their business model, man. And somebody's gotta make those engines, most game companies just want to make games. They don't have the time or the money or the interest to roll their own engine for every game.
^^^^ This. Also, they can't force you to buy a 13-song CD full of crap with 2 good hits anymore, now that digital distribution and singles sales are so popular. ITunes forced everybody to give up on that one, and now you can buy just the one or two songs you want for.99 cents. They're hurting because they can't take advantage of consumers anymore. That isn't our fault, thats their fault. Its hostile business! They're trying to squeeze their customers instead of trying to serve them. The same thing is happening with video games, they cost waaaaay too much, the pricing is entirely off. They need to make a decision, either we're buying games as a product for $60, which is a lot, in which case we're free to own the game for life, play it offline, no DRM, and we can resell if we want to, because its our property now. OR games are a service, in which case they have DRM, they have limits, they can't be sold or transferred, fine, but then at MOST they're worth about $15-20. You can't have your cake and eat it too, industry! Pick one.
The sad part is, they don't realize its in their own best interest. As soon as companies realize that the business models are broken (see Valve) and they improve them, they'll start PRINTING MONEY. Seriously, consumers are CRYING OUT right now, please, LET me give you money, LET me purchase your products. But companies like the RIAA don't hear it, they just keep going for the stick over the carrot.
Well, Polaroid kept choosing the stick over the carrot when everybody wanted digital cameras. That worked out real good for them. The RIAA is going the same way, they can't adapt to new business models, they're going to die. Its just sad how they're taking the whole industry down with them trying to keep an infeasible business model afloat.
this isn't surprising, though. Skype's protocol has been cracked (and those cracks have been published) so that anyone could write a program to talk to the Skype supernodes (any normal Skype client that allows incoming connections can be promoted to a supernode) and to perform this kind of search. The problem here lies in how much Skype supernodes trust any client that knows how to speak its language. The author considered that part of the Skype client to be sufficiently crack-proof, but he was wrong.
QFT. I remember reading about the potential security exploits of skype some 5 years ago. If you speak skype to a node, it'll be happy to handle your requests with almost zero authentication, and it doesn't log it either. So you could extremely easily turn someone's skype box into a zombie to route your nefarious actions through. They'd have no clue you were doing it, no proof you did, and all evidence would show their IP was responsible. Perfect scapegoats.
said it best, http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
Seriously. They are *trying* to make piracy superior to their own products.
This is no different from the camera industry resisting digital cameras, guess what? You don't make the rules. The consumers do. Lots of businessmen seem to have forgotten that they serve the market, not the other way around. The first company to release TV shows the day they air, for about $1-$5 (maybe based on SD vs HD you charge more?) with no DRM and fast downloads, and its yours, on your computer, watch it when you want.. is going to make billions.
Digital media have next to no distribution cost. You sell more and more copies for less, and you make more. Valve just realized this, have you noticed all the steam sales? It seems every day now a game is on sale for $5. Not a crappy, old, DOS game from somebody's garage sale, but fairly new and impressive AAA games are selling for $2-10. That seems absurd, when they retail for $50-60. BUT YOU MAKE MORE MONEY. Because PEOPLE ACTUALLY BUY THEM when the price is FAIR.
Requiring a cable subscription to use hulu is no different than video game companies requiring you to be always online and connected to their service. You're making the pirated version BETTER, you're actively hamstringing YOUR OWN PRODUCT. This is the stupidest thing you could possibly do in business, but out of a sense of "justice" we all have to become internet police and "get those damn pirates!". Its not good for anybody.
Also, you can get pretty far on WINE.
That said, I agree, the industry needs to break Windows hold as the gaming monopoly. It does NOTHING to help gaming. Games for Windows Live is HATED by everybody who has to use it, Steam and fuck, even Origin are better. GFWL is directly worse than Xbox Live, and there's no excuse for that. Windows still barely even realizes you have games installed, there's a "games" section of the control panel now, but it only picks up some of your games, gives you a really bad benchmark score, and launches those games for you. Thats IT.
I'd like to see a special mode for games which allows you to run them fullscreen-windowed automatically. Default Windows behavior for fullscreen apps is terrible. You're going to force a context switch and a cache just because I alt+tab? Ugh. And it could go so much further than that, it could integrate services for developers to patch your games into the OS, it could launch a thinner version of the OS so that you can play your game on higher settings as long as you dedicated your machine to gaming temporarily, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Sorry, but Windows being the only machine you can play PC games on is a mistake, not a feature, and won't last. We just need the ball to start rolling, and you can bet your ass if Steam is on Linux, games will be on linux.
Thats true, except that think about it, not at all a problem. Somebody creates the fork, ButtCoin 2.0. Which nobody is using. So they say, hey, you can generate coins even faster and easier than BitCoin! Well, you get a few script kiddies who rush to get the coins, but it doesn't matter. The real investors and businessess stay on BitCoin because its better business sense in the long run, those ButtCoins are going to devalue pretty fast. So what do you do? You'd have to somehow improve on BitCoins in order to have a fork actually take over and make people move currencies. There's no inherent incentive. And, most importantly, there's no inherent value to the coins. BitCoins are only valuable if people use them, ButtCoins would be the same. With nobody using ButtCoins, nobody would care about generating ButtCoins. BitCoins are worth switching to because they offer value over the Dollar, they can't be inflated by a government, and they can be anonymously traded electronically easily. Unless you can come up with a major feature over BitCoins, your ButtCoins are pointless. (Aptly named). You could make the mining slower, but then good luck convincing people to mine so that your network can perform transactions. Maybe you get some people to switch for the long haul, but not enough to create value, so same problem.
Governments are free to print extra money all they want, and devalue the currency far beyond what is necessary just to prevent counterfeiting. At least with bitcoins, you know how much its being inflated at a given rate, and no one party is able to say, spend billions bailing out a particular company they're fond of.
Bitcoin mining isn't just wasting GPU time so that occasionally you can get a small amount of money for fun.
Mining is using your computer as part of the distributed bitcoin bank software system. You're providing value in that you're taking part in the internet service which allows instantaneous, safe transfer of bitcoins. Without machines running the mining program, there wouldn't be cryptography on the purchases. So they absolutely DO provide value.
Look at it this way, what if a company offered to pay anybody $5 / hr if you run their distributed program on your computer for awhile for them? Are you providing value? You're just sitting there with your computer running something, and you're getting paid for it. But you ARE providing value, you're sharing the power and the value of the machine that you have and aren't currently using with people who need to rent out that computing power on the cheap.
His argument was that minimizing developer time (a feature of high level languages) could in itself lead to more efficient code by using existing versions of algorithms rather than rolling your own, which takes longer. I just wanted to point out that it had nothing to do with high or low level languages, any can use libraries with algorithms that have been vetted, so his point was moot. Yes, some languages have some features over others. That's tangential.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, sending *classical information about how to read them afterwards, not quantum.
That's true, but I don't think it changes enough to make a difference for this point. They're sending entangled photons and then sending quantum information about how to read them after, rather than preparing them ahead of time. But both ways they're having to transfer entangled photons over a distance, and I think they're doing it the same way in both.
This has been done before. TFA notes that there was a previous record of doing the EXACT SAME THING but over a shorter distance of 16 km.
The only story here is managing to do it over a long distance.
Doesn't that inherently imply that there ARE problems? There's difficulty in doing it over larger and larger distances, related to the beams. It just seems obvious, like, DUH they're having problems doing it over longer and longer distances. That is the WHOLE POINT. That's what they're getting better at.
And you're missing the point of Quantum Teleportation. It IS NOT teleportation. They're fundamentally different things. Don't confuse yourself just because of a word. Context means everything. The channel isn't lossy because transferring the qubits isn't the quantum teleportation! That is just a set-up for the quantum teleportation. Once both parties A and B have entangled photons, THEN the quantum teleportation begins.
Classical information can never be transmitted using entanglement. So don't think this was EVER about communicating information; its not and you can't. So saying its a "lossy channel" doesn't even make sense. You don't use this to transfer information. The only current practical purpose of transmitting quantum data, which is otherwise just uncontrollable garbage, is for the purposes of encryption, where using a qubit as the nonce ensures that no man-in-the-middle attacks can be made, as any other party attempting to access the quibits would necessarily ruin the entanglement, and make it obvious that it was insecure.
So it sounds like the information is not teleported until Bob and Alice have successfully received a pair of entangled photons. Losses simply interfere with Bob's ability to receive entangled photons (Charlie and Alice are in the same physical location).
^^^ This.
Its sad, how even among /. you find so many people clearly believing lots of blatant misconceptions about quantum physics. :/
I mean, shit is definitely complicated, took me awhile to wrap my head around. But don't make assumptions or draw conclusions until you understand something, is that so hard?
No, its quantum teleportation. Quit trying to simplify this, it isn't simple. If you try to simplify it so much, try to find a common metaphor in classical physics, it isn't going to work. You're going to miss a detail and make an assumption. The only thing that this is, is quantum teleportation. It isn't teleportation. It isn't replication.
Quantum Teleportation is very different from Teleportation.
Nope, nope nope nope, a million times wrong. Sorry buddy, I like believing that quantum physics is magic that lets us break all the rules too, but thats just silly. We know better. If you're going to try to understand it, really read up on it, don't just form opinions and ideas from hearsay. As you yourself said, he is very sure of himself, but you are very unsure. You don't know what you're talking about.
/. post.
Quantum mechanics cannot violate causality or locality, and cannot, by law, transmit classical information at faster-than-light speed.
I tried to find the site I read awhile ago that explained it all in depth, but google failed me, sorry. Read around, there's no point in me trying to write pages of explanation about a very complicated subject on a
You're misunderstanding how that experiment works. Its very, very complicated, and took me a long time to understand too, so don't feel bad. But it isn't that you're later making a choice which effects that past; that IS NOT POSSIBLE. Instead, it is merely that you are filtering out which photons would have taken one path or the other by knowing which path they take. Photons exist which are constantly part of the interference pattern and not part of the pattern. We are merely choosing to filter out certain photons at a time.
You're massively oversimplifying. They ARE transmitting information at faster-than-light speed, but only quantum information. Also, in order to verify it, you have to transmit a couple bits of classical information as well, which must cross the intervening distance. No part of quantum teleportation will violate locality or causality, and you should know that by now. It still teleports, its your fault for misunderstanding what that implies.
I want Ansibles really badly too, but Quantum Teleportation by definition cannot transmit classical information. Ever. Its a pipedream (and one which would violate causality and locality out the wazoo).
The only thing you can quantum teleport is quantum information, which is next to useless for anything except a special kind of cryptography
(which is actually useful. But thats all).
Lol, you've completely misunderstood. He doesn't mean "conventional" like, traditional. He means "Classical Information", which is contrasted with "Quantum Information".
Everything you've ever considered "information" is really in the subset "Classical Information" . That classical information has to be transferred somehow, and we have several means to do so; the so-called "conventional" methods of transport. This new method of quantum teleportation is un-conventional. Sadly, quantum teleportation CANNOT transmit Classical Information; by the laws of physics. So you HAVE to use, by definition, a conventional method to transfer classical information.
Quake 3, in browser, runs better than this. And this is Wolfenstein.
However, Quake 3 in browser requires you to install a plugin with software libraries. Quake 3 or Doom II the normal games require you to install the game software and data to your machine.
This is being scripted inside of a webpage, and run inside your existing browser code. They're limited on what they can do, and it runs like ass, but it works on any computer, regardless of OS, and there's nothing to install, patch, update, or configure. It just runs.
Maybe try understanding the "why" before you just complain. There's advantages and disadvantages to every approach. They specifically chose these advantages regardless of the disadvantages of speed and texture size. (yes, the aliasing is terrible, wall textures look like butt).
If you want to play the better, hard-coded version, go play the better, hard-coded version. It seems obvious.
Lol, your understanding of computer architecture is quaint. Software that doesn't use GPU libraries won't take advantage of your fancy GPU, no matter how fancy it is. lololol. Never heard of "CPU Bound" programs?
Also, quad-core means *nothing* for gaming. LITERALLY nothing. You'd do just as well with a single-core processor of the same specifications.
Okay, I agree with you, but where the fuck have you been? Every website on the goddamned internet right now that has adult content has to have one of those age restriction things. They've always been pointless. Its always been such that any kid can enter 1900 and get in. Where have you been?
I'm pretty sure there's some dumb legislation that requires it.
I just wish we could be smart enough that we could set your age as a browser setting, and websites could automatically query for it like a cookie without having to give me those damn boxes over and over and over.
iD is a company based in Dallas, led by John Carmack, which makes games, like doom.
Bethesda is a subsidiary of ZeniMax, based out of Bethesda, Maryland, which publishes games.
Bethesda was never known as "iD". Id is still known as Id. So I have no idea what you're talking about.
Id Tech 5 is actually an amazing engine and set of tools, allowing multiple artists to modify the same map at the same time without messing each other up, with full version control over art assets. You don't know how much that speeds up development vs the ANCIENT tools that come with source. Source is waaaaay out of date, but it works fine for what Valve is doing, so they just keep patching it. But Source can't handle things like megatexturing that id tech 5 does well. Unreal Engine 3.999 by Epic is on the same level as Id Tech 5, as is frostbite 2, and just about nothing else. These are bleeding-edge engines, and no, we haven't seen many games with them yet; but they JUST CAME OUT. AAA games, the kind that would licence these engines, take years to develop, so it won't be until years that we'll start seeing these engines. Not to mention, consoles are holding back PC development, there's no point in making a more powerful engine if it can't run on console too.
At this point, Id isn't concerned so much about making amazing games, nor is Epic. Before Gears of War, epic was just kicking out another Unreal Tournament after Unreal Tournament. They all played pretty much the same. Pretty limited game too, fun, but just multiplayer, that's all. But that was the point. Id and Epic are spending so long working on these engines, they don't have time for games as much, and they don't care to. They make their games as tech demos, to show off the engine to other companies. You go back throughout time, all the games by Id, look at quake 2 (half-life was made with that engine, MUCH more of a "game" in the traditional sense, with a proper story, vs quake2's simple action) you have quake 3 (other games like Jedi Outcast or Star Trek Elite Force were made with that engine, again, MUCH more of traditional "games" with a full story and campaign, vs quake 3's simple multiplayer).
Thats just their business model, man. And somebody's gotta make those engines, most game companies just want to make games. They don't have the time or the money or the interest to roll their own engine for every game.
^^^^ This. Also, they can't force you to buy a 13-song CD full of crap with 2 good hits anymore, now that digital distribution and singles sales are so popular. ITunes forced everybody to give up on that one, and now you can buy just the one or two songs you want for .99 cents. They're hurting because they can't take advantage of consumers anymore. That isn't our fault, thats their fault. Its hostile business! They're trying to squeeze their customers instead of trying to serve them. The same thing is happening with video games, they cost waaaaay too much, the pricing is entirely off. They need to make a decision, either we're buying games as a product for $60, which is a lot, in which case we're free to own the game for life, play it offline, no DRM, and we can resell if we want to, because its our property now. OR games are a service, in which case they have DRM, they have limits, they can't be sold or transferred, fine, but then at MOST they're worth about $15-20. You can't have your cake and eat it too, industry! Pick one.
The sad part is, they don't realize its in their own best interest. As soon as companies realize that the business models are broken (see Valve) and they improve them, they'll start PRINTING MONEY. Seriously, consumers are CRYING OUT right now, please, LET me give you money, LET me purchase your products. But companies like the RIAA don't hear it, they just keep going for the stick over the carrot.
Well, Polaroid kept choosing the stick over the carrot when everybody wanted digital cameras. That worked out real good for them. The RIAA is going the same way, they can't adapt to new business models, they're going to die. Its just sad how they're taking the whole industry down with them trying to keep an infeasible business model afloat.
this isn't surprising, though. Skype's protocol has been cracked (and those cracks have been published) so that anyone could write a program to talk to the Skype supernodes (any normal Skype client that allows incoming connections can be promoted to a supernode) and to perform this kind of search. The problem here lies in how much Skype supernodes trust any client that knows how to speak its language. The author considered that part of the Skype client to be sufficiently crack-proof, but he was wrong.
QFT. I remember reading about the potential security exploits of skype some 5 years ago. If you speak skype to a node, it'll be happy to handle your requests with almost zero authentication, and it doesn't log it either. So you could extremely easily turn someone's skype box into a zombie to route your nefarious actions through. They'd have no clue you were doing it, no proof you did, and all evidence would show their IP was responsible. Perfect scapegoats.
said it best, http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones Seriously. They are *trying* to make piracy superior to their own products.
This is no different from the camera industry resisting digital cameras, guess what? You don't make the rules. The consumers do. Lots of businessmen seem to have forgotten that they serve the market, not the other way around. The first company to release TV shows the day they air, for about $1-$5 (maybe based on SD vs HD you charge more?) with no DRM and fast downloads, and its yours, on your computer, watch it when you want.. is going to make billions.
Digital media have next to no distribution cost. You sell more and more copies for less, and you make more. Valve just realized this, have you noticed all the steam sales? It seems every day now a game is on sale for $5. Not a crappy, old, DOS game from somebody's garage sale, but fairly new and impressive AAA games are selling for $2-10. That seems absurd, when they retail for $50-60. BUT YOU MAKE MORE MONEY. Because PEOPLE ACTUALLY BUY THEM when the price is FAIR.
Requiring a cable subscription to use hulu is no different than video game companies requiring you to be always online and connected to their service. You're making the pirated version BETTER, you're actively hamstringing YOUR OWN PRODUCT. This is the stupidest thing you could possibly do in business, but out of a sense of "justice" we all have to become internet police and "get those damn pirates!". Its not good for anybody.
You have Saturday and Sunday listed as "relax and rest". Uh, ISN'T THAT WHAT ENTERTAINMENT IS FOR? You're missing the ENTIRE point.
DUUUUH we're going to have other things to do in our lives during the week.
You overlooked the fact that it's useless for a gamer.... still.
I'm just gonna leave this right here: http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/25/steam-for-linux/
Also, you can get pretty far on WINE.
That said, I agree, the industry needs to break Windows hold as the gaming monopoly. It does NOTHING to help gaming. Games for Windows Live is HATED by everybody who has to use it, Steam and fuck, even Origin are better. GFWL is directly worse than Xbox Live, and there's no excuse for that. Windows still barely even realizes you have games installed, there's a "games" section of the control panel now, but it only picks up some of your games, gives you a really bad benchmark score, and launches those games for you. Thats IT.
I'd like to see a special mode for games which allows you to run them fullscreen-windowed automatically. Default Windows behavior for fullscreen apps is terrible. You're going to force a context switch and a cache just because I alt+tab? Ugh. And it could go so much further than that, it could integrate services for developers to patch your games into the OS, it could launch a thinner version of the OS so that you can play your game on higher settings as long as you dedicated your machine to gaming temporarily, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Sorry, but Windows being the only machine you can play PC games on is a mistake, not a feature, and won't last. We just need the ball to start rolling, and you can bet your ass if Steam is on Linux, games will be on linux.
Even worse, I'd say there isn't even room for one. Even bitcoins are still fairly experimental.
Thats true, except that think about it, not at all a problem. Somebody creates the fork, ButtCoin 2.0. Which nobody is using. So they say, hey, you can generate coins even faster and easier than BitCoin! Well, you get a few script kiddies who rush to get the coins, but it doesn't matter. The real investors and businessess stay on BitCoin because its better business sense in the long run, those ButtCoins are going to devalue pretty fast. So what do you do? You'd have to somehow improve on BitCoins in order to have a fork actually take over and make people move currencies. There's no inherent incentive. And, most importantly, there's no inherent value to the coins. BitCoins are only valuable if people use them, ButtCoins would be the same. With nobody using ButtCoins, nobody would care about generating ButtCoins. BitCoins are worth switching to because they offer value over the Dollar, they can't be inflated by a government, and they can be anonymously traded electronically easily. Unless you can come up with a major feature over BitCoins, your ButtCoins are pointless. (Aptly named). You could make the mining slower, but then good luck convincing people to mine so that your network can perform transactions. Maybe you get some people to switch for the long haul, but not enough to create value, so same problem.
Governments are free to print extra money all they want, and devalue the currency far beyond what is necessary just to prevent counterfeiting. At least with bitcoins, you know how much its being inflated at a given rate, and no one party is able to say, spend billions bailing out a particular company they're fond of.
Bitcoin mining isn't just wasting GPU time so that occasionally you can get a small amount of money for fun.
Mining is using your computer as part of the distributed bitcoin bank software system. You're providing value in that you're taking part in the internet service which allows instantaneous, safe transfer of bitcoins. Without machines running the mining program, there wouldn't be cryptography on the purchases. So they absolutely DO provide value.
Look at it this way, what if a company offered to pay anybody $5 / hr if you run their distributed program on your computer for awhile for them? Are you providing value? You're just sitting there with your computer running something, and you're getting paid for it. But you ARE providing value, you're sharing the power and the value of the machine that you have and aren't currently using with people who need to rent out that computing power on the cheap.
His argument was that minimizing developer time (a feature of high level languages) could in itself lead to more efficient code by using existing versions of algorithms rather than rolling your own, which takes longer. I just wanted to point out that it had nothing to do with high or low level languages, any can use libraries with algorithms that have been vetted, so his point was moot. Yes, some languages have some features over others. That's tangential.