The core of the gameplay is going to be people building up their characters and as you move forward, you will have more options unlock with new places to go, new equipment to use and new things to do.
Wow, that doesn't sound generic at all. What exactly are people building their characters up towards? What are they moving forward to?
Please don't make this a generic grinding game that tries to solve Global Warming...
One of the story arcs that will take place over the course of the game's first year is the very real threat of global warming.
Oh crap...
"What do you do when someone is injured in space out on the surface of the moon?" asked Shariff. "One answer is a rover that can be used as an ambulance..."
One option, and this may sound callous, is to leave them. I'm fairly sure that the astronauts would sign waivers that acknowledge the risks of space travel and the costs of rescue missions are generally not feasible. Then again, that wouldn't work well for a plot in a game.
While that is mostly true, it isn't the whole story. They could solely rely on AMD CPUs (which could either cripple NVIDIA or boost AMD or both), or they could try to weasle around the patent issues and make their own CPU.
There is difference between a CPU and a multicore processor.
If that processor is the central processor, it doesn't matter how many cores it has or what its internal architecture is in my opinion. It is still a Central Processing Unit.
(I can't help but get the feeling that you are suggesting that current multicore processors such as the Core and i7 aren't actually CPUs as they also are homogeneous multicore processors)
NVIDIA has their laptop drivers on their website so you no longer have to get outdated ones from your OEM. (Took them long enough.)
Only for some models. My old 6600 Go (a very powerful laptop chip for its time) is still unsupported.
As for battery life, have you checked out NVIDIA integrated vs Intel integrated? The discrete systems do suck more power, but I think the integrated chips for NVIDIA/ATI are still better and don't consume more power than Intel integrated.
I have, and they aren't particularly appealing. Their performance isn't sufficiently better such that I can perform tasks that I otherwise wouldn't be able to, so the gains are effectively worthless to me. The driver support isn't fixed switching to NVIDIA/ATI integrated either (and is sometimes worse). Battery life is probably comparable, but it would need to be clearly superior for me to consider them.
Don't just assume that because it's NVIDIA it's a power hungry monster. Sure the high end graphics cards need their own power substation, but they can do some nice low power stuff when they need to (9400M, Tegra).
I don't assume that, but from what information I have gathered I feel the Intel chips are currently a better fit for my requirements.
That Parallel Computing: Both CPU and GPU Are Doomed article is somewhat confused over the definition of a CPU. They suggest that the CPU and GPU (plus other systems) would be replaced with a single chip that does everything. Doesn't that effectively fit the definition of a unit that processes information centrally (aka CPU)? Sure, the architecture may change, but it is still a CPU.
If you mean as an actual product someone would intentionally seek out then Intel sells 0 GPUs.
I actively seek out Intel graphics when looking at laptops due to the lower power requirements and better driver support (I hate it when NVIDIA and ATI drivers don't install in Windows as I have to contact the OEM for an older version, and I've always had more issues with the same brands on Linux). I know the performance is abysmal in comparison, but I don't care. You don't want Intel graphics, that's fine and I understand why, but that doesn't mean no-one intentionally seeks them out.
They wouldn't be walking away from their standalone CPU business and move to integrated CPU/GPU if they didn't think their old standalone CPU business would suffer from decaying margins.
You seem to be asserting that they would only change business plans if the current plans are losing ground. This is not true. Companies are always looking for ways to make more money and could simply look for something with more potential even if their current approach is still going strong.
And, at the end of the day, what public good came out of this? Oh goody, so now she REALLY knows they don't want her to use a phone in school.
Do you seriously think that is the lesson to be learned here? The lesson should be to respect authority figures and not blatantly lie while disrupting others.
which do you think is riskier from a lawsuit standpoint: 1) giving a student a suspension; or 2) having her arrested?
Option 1 is riskier (especially if it involves touching the student in any way to resolve the issue). You cannot be sued by the other party for calling the cops. You can be charged by the cops for false police reports, but in a situation like this that isn't going to happen (especially if the school safety officer is a cop themselves and makes the call). Also, any misconduct would result in the police being sued, not the school.
Most parents I know are able to say to their supervisor "I have to go pick up my kid early" once in a while.
Judging by the fact that the cop had already dealt with this girl before for her conduct, I wouldn't be surprised if "once in a while" is rather frequently in their case.
That would be even worse, as you could just mod down the person you disa
Yes, there would be room for abuse for people who would normally only comment (I hardly think that adding a comment to a downmod would be worse than a downmod by itself). Although at the moment there isn't much room to do the right thing either. What happens if I see a gem of a comment and mod it up, then scroll down and see something that is plain wrong (or I strongly disagree with)? I can't attempt to debate it without canceling out the up-mod so am only left with the option of ignoring it or down-modding. Normally I ignore but sometimes can't resist the temptation.
Perhaps making modding of a comment and replying directly to that comment mutually exclusive, but otherwise allow both moderating and commenting in the same article?
My ISP (Xnet, in New Zealand) informs the customer by blocking the internet connection and contacting them by phone (I know this as my flatmate managed to get infected at one point). Your described scenario is somewhat hilarious but somewhat scary as it's probably quite plausible depending on the ISP.
The first scenario that comes to mind is that the next generation of bot-ware will listen to your outgoing email traffic and learn your password then configure itself to send email based on that information. Then once again, the problem returns.
The advantage in this instance is that the ISP can easily identify (because the zombie used the user/pass) who has been zombified and inform the customer to get their machine disinfected.
It seems a lot of people aren't happy with my use of the word "flaw". I originally meant to surround it with quotations but forgot to do so before submitting. But for arguments sake, it is possible to consider intended features as a design flaw as the repercussions may not have been well thought out. I don't believe that is the case with this particular feature, however.
Which is exactly my point, I gave an example where "owning" and "being locked out of" aren't mutually exclusive. It was originally meant to be rhetorical.:)
My keys were locked in the car, it wasn't impounded and I didn't need to pay to get campus security to pick the lock for me the next day. That's the situation I was referring to, is the car still no longer mine?
Slashdot Mirror
The core of the gameplay is going to be people building up their characters and as you move forward, you will have more options unlock with new places to go, new equipment to use and new things to do.
Wow, that doesn't sound generic at all. What exactly are people building their characters up towards? What are they moving forward to?
Please don't make this a generic grinding game that tries to solve Global Warming...
One of the story arcs that will take place over the course of the game's first year is the very real threat of global warming.
Oh crap...
"What do you do when someone is injured in space out on the surface of the moon?" asked Shariff. "One answer is a rover that can be used as an ambulance..."
One option, and this may sound callous, is to leave them. I'm fairly sure that the astronauts would sign waivers that acknowledge the risks of space travel and the costs of rescue missions are generally not feasible. Then again, that wouldn't work well for a plot in a game.
I wasn't aware "podcast" was a trademarked term. Others have tried to trademark it, but failed.
Intel needs them for high-end graphics
Not according to Larrabee.
Nvidia needs them for the CPU
While that is mostly true, it isn't the whole story. They could solely rely on AMD CPUs (which could either cripple NVIDIA or boost AMD or both), or they could try to weasle around the patent issues and make their own CPU.
There is difference between a CPU and a multicore processor.
If that processor is the central processor, it doesn't matter how many cores it has or what its internal architecture is in my opinion. It is still a Central Processing Unit.
(I can't help but get the feeling that you are suggesting that current multicore processors such as the Core and i7 aren't actually CPUs as they also are homogeneous multicore processors)
NVIDIA has their laptop drivers on their website so you no longer have to get outdated ones from your OEM. (Took them long enough.)
Only for some models. My old 6600 Go (a very powerful laptop chip for its time) is still unsupported.
As for battery life, have you checked out NVIDIA integrated vs Intel integrated? The discrete systems do suck more power, but I think the integrated chips for NVIDIA/ATI are still better and don't consume more power than Intel integrated.
I have, and they aren't particularly appealing. Their performance isn't sufficiently better such that I can perform tasks that I otherwise wouldn't be able to, so the gains are effectively worthless to me. The driver support isn't fixed switching to NVIDIA/ATI integrated either (and is sometimes worse). Battery life is probably comparable, but it would need to be clearly superior for me to consider them.
Don't just assume that because it's NVIDIA it's a power hungry monster. Sure the high end graphics cards need their own power substation, but they can do some nice low power stuff when they need to (9400M, Tegra).
I don't assume that, but from what information I have gathered I feel the Intel chips are currently a better fit for my requirements.
That Parallel Computing: Both CPU and GPU Are Doomed article is somewhat confused over the definition of a CPU. They suggest that the CPU and GPU (plus other systems) would be replaced with a single chip that does everything. Doesn't that effectively fit the definition of a unit that processes information centrally (aka CPU)? Sure, the architecture may change, but it is still a CPU.
If you mean as an actual product someone would intentionally seek out then Intel sells 0 GPUs.
I actively seek out Intel graphics when looking at laptops due to the lower power requirements and better driver support (I hate it when NVIDIA and ATI drivers don't install in Windows as I have to contact the OEM for an older version, and I've always had more issues with the same brands on Linux). I know the performance is abysmal in comparison, but I don't care. You don't want Intel graphics, that's fine and I understand why, but that doesn't mean no-one intentionally seeks them out.
They wouldn't be walking away from their standalone CPU business and move to integrated CPU/GPU if they didn't think their old standalone CPU business would suffer from decaying margins.
You seem to be asserting that they would only change business plans if the current plans are losing ground. This is not true. Companies are always looking for ways to make more money and could simply look for something with more potential even if their current approach is still going strong.
And, at the end of the day, what public good came out of this? Oh goody, so now she REALLY knows they don't want her to use a phone in school.
Do you seriously think that is the lesson to be learned here? The lesson should be to respect authority figures and not blatantly lie while disrupting others.
which do you think is riskier from a lawsuit standpoint: 1) giving a student a suspension; or 2) having her arrested?
Option 1 is riskier (especially if it involves touching the student in any way to resolve the issue). You cannot be sued by the other party for calling the cops. You can be charged by the cops for false police reports, but in a situation like this that isn't going to happen (especially if the school safety officer is a cop themselves and makes the call). Also, any misconduct would result in the police being sued, not the school.
Confiscating any object from a student shouldn't be allowed.
Not even knives or other potential weapons?
Schools generally already have contact details for enrolled students.
Most parents I know are able to say to their supervisor "I have to go pick up my kid early" once in a while.
Judging by the fact that the cop had already dealt with this girl before for her conduct, I wouldn't be surprised if "once in a while" is rather frequently in their case.
You're heading towards a nanny state when it's the law's responsibility to prevent crime rather than find and prosecute those who commit crimes.
Be careful who you say that to, as a lot of people actually want exactly that. We don't want to give them more fuel to aid their crusade.
Or she has a screwed up son-in-law.
Write coordinates to a ram chip
That's right, store your coordinates to volatile memory when running low on power.
Or perhaps they might pick a random name out of a hat and come up with something along the lines of "Orkut".
That would be even worse, as you could just mod down the person you disa
Yes, there would be room for abuse for people who would normally only comment (I hardly think that adding a comment to a downmod would be worse than a downmod by itself). Although at the moment there isn't much room to do the right thing either. What happens if I see a gem of a comment and mod it up, then scroll down and see something that is plain wrong (or I strongly disagree with)? I can't attempt to debate it without canceling out the up-mod so am only left with the option of ignoring it or down-modding. Normally I ignore but sometimes can't resist the temptation.
;)
Perhaps making modding of a comment and replying directly to that comment mutually exclusive, but otherwise allow both moderating and commenting in the same article?
PS: Thanks for the healthy debate
My ISP (Xnet, in New Zealand) informs the customer by blocking the internet connection and contacting them by phone (I know this as my flatmate managed to get infected at one point). Your described scenario is somewhat hilarious but somewhat scary as it's probably quite plausible depending on the ISP.
The proper response is to post a reply: "I disagree" and then explain why you disagree.
Debate. Don't censor.
And cancel out the other mod points already used in the current article? It's a shame that we can either moderate or comment, but not perform both.
The first scenario that comes to mind is that the next generation of bot-ware will listen to your outgoing email traffic and learn your password then configure itself to send email based on that information. Then once again, the problem returns.
The advantage in this instance is that the ISP can easily identify (because the zombie used the user/pass) who has been zombified and inform the customer to get their machine disinfected.
That was Windows intercepting a program that wanted to access the network without trying to add itself to the firewall exceptions first.
It seems a lot of people aren't happy with my use of the word "flaw". I originally meant to surround it with quotations but forgot to do so before submitting. But for arguments sake, it is possible to consider intended features as a design flaw as the repercussions may not have been well thought out. I don't believe that is the case with this particular feature, however.
Which is exactly my point, I gave an example where "owning" and "being locked out of" aren't mutually exclusive. It was originally meant to be rhetorical. :)
My keys were locked in the car, it wasn't impounded and I didn't need to pay to get campus security to pick the lock for me the next day. That's the situation I was referring to, is the car still no longer mine?