How is this at all surprising? SMS does not guarantee timely delivery nor does it guarantee delivery at all - since when did the GSM specification say SMS will guarantee most of your messages will be delivered? SMS is delivering exactly what it promised to deliver - a stop-gap text messaging system in time for GSM Phase 2; certainly it's poorly design and they probably could have done better in the time allotted, but I think that's a moot point given that GPRS has fairly wide deployment and there are quite a few alternatives to SMS available... mainly being e-mail over a guaranteed delivery transport.
If you want to know more about SMS, you can find out from the ETSI GTS GSM 07.05 specifications (or GSM Suplimentary Services 07.05).
What do you mean by "the version for all the project files is incremented everytime a single file [is] checked-in"? Subversion increments of the global revision number everytime a checkin occurs, much like many other source control systems such as Perforce, but versioning is handled by the user by whatever means they choose (branch from main line with tags for minor revisions would be one way). However, you can always obtain the last revision number of a given file which is probably what you're interested in.
CVS is weak at best with a long standing list of quirks, bugs and missing features. The current architecture and code base is in such state where many opt to not make the attempt at crowbar many of these features and fixes into CVS. In CVS, security is non existant, branching takes up a lot of unnecessary resources and quite a great deal of time, lacks meta data like directory revisioning along with various other usefull items, stores useless CVS data in the repository and has a tendancy towards being slow. The worst, inexcusable, flaw in CVS is the complete lack of atomic commits.
On the flip side, I do not suggest using Subversion for any critical project at this point since they are not feature complete for their first release and their bug list, frankly, scares me.
For those of you in the Southwestern Ontario region, the annual Waterloo Festival for Animated Cinema has titles like ones listed, or rather had in this specific instance.
BS... Anyone who is interested in the truth can look through the security white paper(http://www.blackberry.net/support/pdfs/bb_se curity_technical_wp_exchange_21.pdf). Apparently encrypted text look like clear text and frog51 is more paranoid than the government...
U.S. Army to Reap Benefits of Research In Motion's BlackBerry Wireless Email Solution (Dec 5, 2000) "Government customers need secure wireless email. RIM's BlackBerry solution is the only complete solution that adheres to the government's strict security standards, filling a void in the handheld arena for government customers," said Zaman Khan, Sr. Director of Corporate Development for Intelligent Decisions. "Unlike other wireless solutions, the BlackBerry product offers unlimited email access for a single monthly rate, regardless of the amount of data transmitted. RIM's technology, combined with our integration expertise and innovative services, delivers a secure wireless email solution that allows Army users to keep a constant pulse on the day's activities and respond immediately."
Kasten Chase and Research In Motion to Provide BlackBerry Wireless Email Solution for U.S. Government's Defense Message System (February 8, 2001) ...today announced an agreement focused on providing secure wireless access to the U.S. Government's Defense Message System (DMS) via RIM's BlackBerry(TM) wireless email solution.
...
"We are very pleased to be working with RIM to introduce, for the first time, secure wireless access to the DMS application," said Paul Hyde, chief executive officer at Kasten Chase. "Our RASP Data Security and message handling software integrated with RIM's popular BlackBerry wireless email solution is a very compelling proposition for the existing 300,000 plus DMS users within the U.S. Department of Defense [DoD] and allied countries."
...
DMS is a global messaging system for military and intelligence communities. The system was initially designed for use by the allied countries and has been implemented by governments in the United States, Great Britain and Canada. Within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), the Defense Information System Agency (DISA), began implementing DMS in 1988. DISA's objective is to provide some 2,000,000 defense personnel around the globe with DMS services based on commercial products such as BlackBerry with RASP Data Security and RASP Secure Access.
BlackBerry Wireless Handhelds Meet Important Security Standard for Government Customers (March 20, 2001) ...today announced that the BlackBerry Wireless Handheld(TM) has been awarded the FIPS 140-1Validation for its embedded encryption technology by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
...
Under the Information Technology Management Reform Act, the Secretary of Commerce approves standards and guidelines that are developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for U.S. Federal computer systems. NIST collaborates with national and international standards committees, users, industry groups, consortia, and research and trade organizations to get needed standards developed. These standards and guidelines are issued by NIST as Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) for use government-wide. NIST develops FIPS when there are compelling Federal government requirements such as for security and privacy of sensitive information in Federal computer systems.
Pardon? RIM Blackberry 850s do not have voice capabilities. And what exactly does the 850 have to do with 5810 in terms of coverage and transfer rates? It works with completely different network and radio technology -- GPRS: not Mobitex or DataTAC.
As far as using a 857 inside of a building, I haven't had a problem in any building within a coverage area.
PDA/GSM card combinations tend to make a much larger heavier device than an integrated device. They also don't support voice or GPRS. Then again, I could always just bring my computer along with me... with the monitor... and the keyboard... and mouse... and that external modem....
On the phone side of things -- have you ever seen that Dilbert strip where he's trying to browse the web on a 1x1 character display?
J2ME isn't an OS and isn't being used as an OS on the Blackberry platform. No where on the RIM or Blackberry website does it state or imply this notion.
When's the last time you heard of a Blackberry with primary storage being volatile like a Palm? As far as I've seen, Blackberries use non-volatile memory where loads and stores seem to be atomic operations. If the battery runs out just after you received an e-mail, it will still be there when you charge the device up again. Isn't non-volatile memory wonderful?
If no one has noticed, and I'm certain no one here who has posted has -- Interplay owns the exclusive computer game license to Forgotten Realms, not D&D 2nd or 3rd Edition. So Bioware can either get Interplay's nod to publish the game with someone else, make the game not Forgotten Realms, or the multitude of other options they have.
It won't be the WoD RPG, but possibly could be using the D20 system since WotC bought the rights to the SW RPG and are currently developing the RPG under its own D20 system instead of the WoD D6. Since Bioware has fairly decent relationships with WotC (from using Interplay's AD&D 2nd Ed. licence as well as aquiring a D&D 3rd Ed. licence), it wouldn't be surprizing if they choose to use some of WotC's stuff. Still, since there has been no mention of WotC or a licence it is likely that they will not be using a roll based statistics system.
I posted information on this subject at: RPGs and Bioware
There has been a lot of threads on various boards concerning what the RPG might be like and whether it will be follow certain aspects found in Bioware's AD&D games. There has also been quite a bit of discussion as whether the D20 system is really appropriate to a Star Wars RPG as opposed to a D6 system which was used in WEG before WotC stepped into the picture. This is basically commentary to address such subject matter.
Bioware, The History First off, let's take a look at Bioware: Bioware was the brain child of two Alberta doctors who decided for a variety of reasons to go after a dream founding the game development company we now know. Originally, Dr. Greg Zeschuk and Dr. Ray Muzyka intended on designing a fairly detailed encompassing RPG which had absolutely no relation to AD&D but still held a fantasy like aura. Later, when Black Isle and Interplay became associated with Bioware, the developers suddenly had access to Interplay's aging AD&D licences which had not been used to develop a title of wide success. From this was born the new Infinity Engine and their second title: Baldur's Gate. However, by this time Bioware had already aquired a sizable and strong development team which had experience as a cohesive unit from the development of Shattered Steel. Furthermore they had already established an annimation division which gave Bioware a specialized resource: talented exclusive annimators and modellers. Baldur's Gate was released as their first major title earning them much acclaim and respect as developers. This in term earned them the rights to MDK producing the Omen engine and the suceeding title, MDK 2.
What can be drawn from this is that Bioware is not a single title and single technology company. They are versatile and quite capable of producing a wide variety of games in many differing styles and genres. Baldur's Gate started as a non-AD&D RPG not using a D20 system. While it is indeed a AD&D game and was widely influced by the developer's experiences with pen and paper AD&D 2nd ed. the product should not be taken as the direct result of the AD&D franchise. Furthermore, they proved their ability to produce specific game engines for a widely differing genres with the creation of Shattered Steel, Infinity and Omen. These engines share very little in common but are all well done solid packages. If anything, Bioware's experience with franchises demonstrates an ability to comprehend their subject matter and produce original material which follows in not only the tradition of the franchise, but also with the concept and principles: they know what the point of their subject matter is. In this, one can trust that Bioware will produce a title fitting of Star Wars. Their Star Wars title will be a Star Wars game to the core.
Bioware, Preferences of Design Bioware also has shown a definite preference for design spaces without too many constraints. In Baldur's Gate they choose the least defined area they could find in TSR's Forgotten Realms which allowed them to create as much original material as possible. With MDK 2, the plot only holds basic restrictions in terms of design without any specific problems such as well defined areas (this place must look like this, etc). This holds true with the new SW RPG -- set in the distant past Bioware has a lot of room to move around in. In a way this also helps alleviate any presure to have a title that falls to stigmas... not all Dwarves hate Elves, Elves don't have to be wizards or rangers, not everyone in the Battletech universe is a Mechwarrior and in Star Wars not everyone uses the Force. It is a fair assumption that the title will not be the Jedi versus the non-Jedi Force wielding bad guys -- but such is enivitable to some extent.
Bioware also tends to develop highly personalized titles. By this I mean that their titles have always been from a close perspective in terms of game narration -- Baldur's Gate was a small party of 6 or less, MDK 2 was played as one of the three protagonists and Shattered Steel was first person in all respects. I doubt they were choosen to develop an MMPOG or any similar system. Even Neverwinter Nights is a party based experience even though it has a target of approximately 64 players per server. At the core all of their games are personal stories of greate proportions. This is what their SW title will almost definitely be like... it's also a reason why their is limited competition between Verant's SW RPG and Bioware's: they are targetted at different audiences.
The Engine It was announced that this product will be using a new engine. When Bioware announced Neverwinter Nights it was said to be using the Omen engine which was very heavily modified from MDK 2. Subsequently this will not be an Omen derivative as some have conjectured. With the experience of Omen under the belt as well as an RPG adaptation of the engine, it is fairly certain that the engine will be 3D with a more freeform nature than in Neverwinter Nights (you cannot look up or follow from odd perspectives, etc).
Addressing the cross-platform release of the game (console, PC, Mac), I do not believe there should be any doubt that they will deliver. With the simulataneous parallel development of Neverwinter Nights and the previous development of MDK 2, it should be fairly obvious that they are more than capable of developing on all the mentioned platform proficiently.
D20 and RPGs Just to have it clear at the beginning: it is not certain whether or not Bioware will be using WotC D20 system as seen in their version of the Star Wars RPG or a new statistics system.
Many state that D20 isn't really suited for RPGs and fast paced RPGs because it is tends to involve quite a great more dice rolls and general statistics than a D6 system. However, this does not hold true for computer games at all -- computing a D20 combat sequence is arbitrary. Furthermore, the user can be completely abstracted from the entire statistics systems. AD&D was designed as a highly versatile statistical system which was easily understood primarily based upon 5 percent segments. In AD&D 3rd edition which is very similar to D20, the system has been further generalized providing specifics on handling non-RP situations which was not associated with the fantasy genre. Basically the D20 system provides a set of combat, action and skill rules which can be applied to anything which can be reasonably segmented into 5 percent slice with results having the acompanying degree of error.
It seems ridiculous to consider a +5 light sabre or a 48D8 Sith lord, but it is similarly odd to consider the same situation in terms of statistics. All things being considered, it is just a finite segmented manner of representing statistics rather than developing an overly complex smoothly progressing system in terms of the base units.
Many of the restrictions which are associated with AD&D and the D20 system do not really exist in the computer world. In pen and paper a lot of situations and environments where non-RP elements came into play were very difficult to represent for an unassisted DM. It was not that the rule set did not allow certain actions or environments to look like a certain fashion, it was more that the DM was either not imaginative or capable of generating, tracking and handling the required information.
Consider the timeframe, effort and resources availible to a D20 computer game versus a pen and paper version. A developer spends 2 to 5 years developing a single title which encompasses what is relatively a short timeframe in terms of play time. This same developer has a whole host of designers, artists, developers and SQA working on the project as well as the direct creative assistance of the developers of the original system. A DM, on the other hand has himself and the rule books. It's no particular surprize that many DMs fell into the simple way out in creating almost out of box situations. Without the lengthy combat roles and statistics checks as arbitrary and the time and man hours to create a vibrant environment, I find that the D20 completely acceptable.
Game Play Currently the game is being developed as a single player RPG, but it is fairly certain that a multiplayer element will enter in upon the game. given the shorter development cycle than Neverwinter Nights and the stipulation of a new engine, it is doubted that the RPG will be of the versatile scale of Neverwinter Nights. It is not particularly hard to add in a party like element such as in Baldur's Gate or even cooperative DOOM.
Just as an offhand note, the game play doesn't neccesarily have to be at a slow pace or have an abstracted method of control as in AD&D and many other RPGs. It could just as well involve much more action whether using a high level approach with general commands or a low level approach with more fine control in terms of actions. Even if they decided to use D20 this could be implemented...
Actually, the model has no direct bearing upon the real world and subsequently it makes rigorous proof rather possible. Mathematical proofs do not draw upon this real world you refer to -- they are fundamentally abstract concepts. In application, they can be incorrectly interpretted and assigned, however, if not, then mathematics must be incorrect.
Wouldn't you consider having a computer which is not a Turing machine to be a rather large shift in mathematics? It isn't exactly a trivial change to design a computer which is not a Turing machine while still existing within the realms of known mathematics. Asside from this point, there are problems which are fundamentally unsolveable -- not in terms of polynomial time and feasibility, but problems which are simply not solveable given the correctness of mathematics.
To point out a few errors with your arguement: computers being Turing machines is not an axiom -- it is a given assumption which is clearly stipulated when one considers computability and complexity, imagining any other type of computer would require greater knowledge of the model I currently do not possess. The truth is that computers are currently based upon our mathematical knowledge of the world, but not part of this mathematical knowledge itself. When a FPU fails to return a correct value as defined by mathematics, we call it broken. The entire purpose of this is to have a rapid computational system which is entirely predictable. If a problem is insolveable in mathematics, then how do you propose a system which simulates mathematical models to solve such a problem?
It is no mistake that mathematics and computers are consider so alike in Universities.
Enough Katz bashing: he doesn't know much about mathematics -- deal with it. This book is really along the lines of a brief look and popular introduction of computability and computational complexity theory targeted towards those who do not study this area. It is no particular lie to say that quite a few developers and technophiles are not very knowledgeable in the field of computer science nor proficient with NP problems. Software engineering and computer science are two very distinct fields, not neccessarily overlapping. That being said, the general mass of population has even less knowledge of the limitations of computing.
When's the last time you heard order of complexity or NP completeness discussed when arguing the future of computing? How many people in the world know who Kurt Gödel is or how to determine undecidability? The answer is not all that many, but one cannot expect the everyone to have knowledge of computability and or computation complexity theory no matter how trivial.
If you already have a solid grasp of the fundamentals NP and NP-completeness, know the Church-Turing Hypothesis along with what undecidable and intractable problems are, then you would be best off reading a much more detailed book than this. Computability theory, which discusses effectively unsolveable intractable problems, and computational complexity theory, which discusses solvable intractable problems, both have existed for quite awhile now; this book just introduces some arguments to layman.
I guess the point of the book is to educate those who believe the in the all knowing, all powerfull computer god of some of the fundamental limitations of contemporary computing. Sure, if someone went off and made a computational system so radical that it defied the Church-Turing Hypothesis, then our perspective on some computability and complexity problems may change. Quantum computers will shift computability a bit if they ever become feasible, but that isn't anything new.
Arguing piece meal points of what computers can and cannot do without mathematical thought is just an unequalified statement without significant substance. Where the sciences and arts prove by exhaustion mathematics proves through rigorous analysis. That is to say mathematicians observe and study the results of formal logic and systems they create rather than observing an external continuum for truth. When it has been correctly proven that a problem is unsolveable then it is unsolveable unless our fundamental understanding of mathematics is incorrect. This is a question I'll leave to the reader and those who study number, set theory and topology.
(I thought all CS majors everywhere had to take at least one computability course btw).
Slashdot Mirror
How is this at all surprising? SMS does not guarantee timely delivery nor does it guarantee delivery at all - since when did the GSM specification say SMS will guarantee most of your messages will be delivered? SMS is delivering exactly what it promised to deliver - a stop-gap text messaging system in time for GSM Phase 2; certainly it's poorly design and they probably could have done better in the time allotted, but I think that's a moot point given that GPRS has fairly wide deployment and there are quite a few alternatives to SMS available... mainly being e-mail over a guaranteed delivery transport.
If you want to know more about SMS, you can find out from the ETSI GTS GSM 07.05 specifications (or GSM Suplimentary Services 07.05).
What do you mean by "the version for all the project files is incremented everytime a single file [is] checked-in"? Subversion increments of the global revision number everytime a checkin occurs, much like many other source control systems such as Perforce, but versioning is handled by the user by whatever means they choose (branch from main line with tags for minor revisions would be one way). However, you can always obtain the last revision number of a given file which is probably what you're interested in.
CVS is weak at best with a long standing list of quirks, bugs and missing features. The current architecture and code base is in such state where many opt to not make the attempt at crowbar many of these features and fixes into CVS. In CVS, security is non existant, branching takes up a lot of unnecessary resources and quite a great deal of time, lacks meta data like directory revisioning along with various other usefull items, stores useless CVS data in the repository and has a tendancy towards being slow. The worst, inexcusable, flaw in CVS is the complete lack of atomic commits.
On the flip side, I do not suggest using Subversion for any critical project at this point since they are not feature complete for their first release and their bug list, frankly, scares me.
The Sims help EA? The Sims is just the best selling video game of all time... nothing big.
For those of you in the Southwestern Ontario region, the annual Waterloo Festival for Animated Cinema has titles like ones listed, or rather had in this specific instance.
IBM's SWT developed by OTI would be the library you're thinking of.
BS... Anyone who is interested in the truth can look through the security white paper(http://www.blackberry.net/support/pdfs/bb_se curity_technical_wp_exchange_21.pdf). Apparently encrypted text look like clear text and frog51 is more paranoid than the government...
...today announced an agreement focused on providing secure wireless access to the U.S. Government's Defense Message System (DMS) via RIM's BlackBerry(TM) wireless email solution.
...
...
...today announced that the BlackBerry Wireless Handheld(TM) has been awarded the FIPS 140-1Validation for its embedded encryption technology by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
...
U.S. Army to Reap Benefits of Research In Motion's BlackBerry Wireless Email Solution (Dec 5, 2000)
"Government customers need secure wireless email. RIM's BlackBerry solution is the only complete solution that adheres to the government's strict security standards, filling a void in the handheld arena for government customers," said Zaman Khan, Sr. Director of Corporate Development for Intelligent Decisions. "Unlike other wireless solutions, the BlackBerry product offers unlimited email access for a single monthly rate, regardless of the amount of data transmitted. RIM's technology, combined with our integration expertise and innovative services, delivers a secure wireless email solution that allows Army users to keep a constant pulse on the day's activities and respond immediately."
Kasten Chase and Research In Motion to Provide BlackBerry Wireless Email Solution for U.S. Government's Defense Message System (February 8, 2001)
"We are very pleased to be working with RIM to introduce, for the first time, secure wireless access to the DMS application," said Paul Hyde, chief executive officer at Kasten Chase. "Our RASP Data Security and message handling software integrated with RIM's popular BlackBerry wireless email solution is a very compelling proposition for the existing 300,000 plus DMS users within the U.S. Department of Defense [DoD] and allied countries."
DMS is a global messaging system for military and intelligence communities. The system was initially designed for use by the allied countries and has been implemented by governments in the United States, Great Britain and Canada. Within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), the Defense Information System Agency (DISA), began implementing DMS in 1988. DISA's objective is to provide some 2,000,000 defense personnel around the globe with DMS services based on commercial products such as BlackBerry with RASP Data Security and RASP Secure Access.
BlackBerry Wireless Handhelds Meet Important Security Standard for Government Customers (March 20, 2001)
Under the Information Technology Management Reform Act, the Secretary of Commerce approves standards and guidelines that are developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for U.S. Federal computer systems. NIST collaborates with national and international standards committees, users, industry groups, consortia, and research and trade organizations to get needed standards developed. These standards and guidelines are issued by NIST as Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) for use government-wide. NIST develops FIPS when there are compelling Federal government requirements such as for security and privacy of sensitive information in Federal computer systems.
Pardon? RIM Blackberry 850s do not have voice capabilities. And what exactly does the 850 have to do with 5810 in terms of coverage and transfer rates? It works with completely different network and radio technology -- GPRS: not Mobitex or DataTAC.
As far as using a 857 inside of a building, I haven't had a problem in any building within a coverage area.
The press release and all other material on the RIM sites do not state that the new unit uses, or uses a processor based upon, an Intel 386 processor.
PDA/GSM card combinations tend to make a much larger heavier device than an integrated device. They also don't support voice or GPRS. Then again, I could always just bring my computer along with me... with the monitor... and the keyboard... and mouse... and that external modem....
On the phone side of things -- have you ever seen that Dilbert strip where he's trying to browse the web on a 1x1 character display?
J2ME isn't an OS and isn't being used as an OS on the Blackberry platform. No where on the RIM or Blackberry website does it state or imply this notion.
When's the last time you heard of a Blackberry with primary storage being volatile like a Palm? As far as I've seen, Blackberries use non-volatile memory where loads and stores seem to be atomic operations. If the battery runs out just after you received an e-mail, it will still be there when you charge the device up again. Isn't non-volatile memory wonderful?
If no one has noticed, and I'm certain no one here who has posted has -- Interplay owns the exclusive computer game license to Forgotten Realms, not D&D 2nd or 3rd Edition. So Bioware can either get Interplay's nod to publish the game with someone else, make the game not Forgotten Realms, or the multitude of other options they have.
It won't be the WoD RPG, but possibly could be using the D20 system since WotC bought the rights to the SW RPG and are currently developing the RPG under its own D20 system instead of the WoD D6. Since Bioware has fairly decent relationships with WotC (from using Interplay's AD&D 2nd Ed. licence as well as aquiring a D&D 3rd Ed. licence), it wouldn't be surprizing if they choose to use some of WotC's stuff. Still, since there has been no mention of WotC or a licence it is likely that they will not be using a roll based statistics system. I posted information on this subject at: RPGs and Bioware
Bioware, The History
First off, let's take a look at Bioware: Bioware was the brain child of two Alberta doctors who decided for a variety of reasons to go after a dream founding the game development company we now know. Originally, Dr. Greg Zeschuk and Dr. Ray Muzyka intended on designing a fairly detailed encompassing RPG which had absolutely no relation to AD&D but still held a fantasy like aura. Later, when Black Isle and Interplay became associated with Bioware, the developers suddenly had access to Interplay's aging AD&D licences which had not been used to develop a title of wide success. From this was born the new Infinity Engine and their second title: Baldur's Gate. However, by this time Bioware had already aquired a sizable and strong development team which had experience as a cohesive unit from the development of Shattered Steel. Furthermore they had already established an annimation division which gave Bioware a specialized resource: talented exclusive annimators and modellers. Baldur's Gate was released as their first major title earning them much acclaim and respect as developers. This in term earned them the rights to MDK producing the Omen engine and the suceeding title, MDK 2.
What can be drawn from this is that Bioware is not a single title and single technology company. They are versatile and quite capable of producing a wide variety of games in many differing styles and genres. Baldur's Gate started as a non-AD&D RPG not using a D20 system. While it is indeed a AD&D game and was widely influced by the developer's experiences with pen and paper AD&D 2nd ed. the product should not be taken as the direct result of the AD&D franchise. Furthermore, they proved their ability to produce specific game engines for a widely differing genres with the creation of Shattered Steel, Infinity and Omen. These engines share very little in common but are all well done solid packages. If anything, Bioware's experience with franchises demonstrates an ability to comprehend their subject matter and produce original material which follows in not only the tradition of the franchise, but also with the concept and principles: they know what the point of their subject matter is. In this, one can trust that Bioware will produce a title fitting of Star Wars. Their Star Wars title will be a Star Wars game to the core.
Bioware, Preferences of Design
Bioware also has shown a definite preference for design spaces without too many constraints. In Baldur's Gate they choose the least defined area they could find in TSR's Forgotten Realms which allowed them to create as much original material as possible. With MDK 2, the plot only holds basic restrictions in terms of design without any specific problems such as well defined areas (this place must look like this, etc). This holds true with the new SW RPG -- set in the distant past Bioware has a lot of room to move around in. In a way this also helps alleviate any presure to have a title that falls to stigmas... not all Dwarves hate Elves, Elves don't have to be wizards or rangers, not everyone in the Battletech universe is a Mechwarrior and in Star Wars not everyone uses the Force. It is a fair assumption that the title will not be the Jedi versus the non-Jedi Force wielding bad guys -- but such is enivitable to some extent.
Bioware also tends to develop highly personalized titles. By this I mean that their titles have always been from a close perspective in terms of game narration -- Baldur's Gate was a small party of 6 or less, MDK 2 was played as one of the three protagonists and Shattered Steel was first person in all respects. I doubt they were choosen to develop an MMPOG or any similar system. Even Neverwinter Nights is a party based experience even though it has a target of approximately 64 players per server. At the core all of their games are personal stories of greate proportions. This is what their SW title will almost definitely be like... it's also a reason why their is limited competition between Verant's SW RPG and Bioware's: they are targetted at different audiences.
The Engine
It was announced that this product will be using a new engine. When Bioware announced Neverwinter Nights it was said to be using the Omen engine which was very heavily modified from MDK 2. Subsequently this will not be an Omen derivative as some have conjectured. With the experience of Omen under the belt as well as an RPG adaptation of the engine, it is fairly certain that the engine will be 3D with a more freeform nature than in Neverwinter Nights (you cannot look up or follow from odd perspectives, etc).
Addressing the cross-platform release of the game (console, PC, Mac), I do not believe there should be any doubt that they will deliver. With the simulataneous parallel development of Neverwinter Nights and the previous development of MDK 2, it should be fairly obvious that they are more than capable of developing on all the mentioned platform proficiently.
D20 and RPGs
Just to have it clear at the beginning: it is not certain whether or not Bioware will be using WotC D20 system as seen in their version of the Star Wars RPG or a new statistics system.
Many state that D20 isn't really suited for RPGs and fast paced RPGs because it is tends to involve quite a great more dice rolls and general statistics than a D6 system. However, this does not hold true for computer games at all -- computing a D20 combat sequence is arbitrary. Furthermore, the user can be completely abstracted from the entire statistics systems. AD&D was designed as a highly versatile statistical system which was easily understood primarily based upon 5 percent segments. In AD&D 3rd edition which is very similar to D20, the system has been further generalized providing specifics on handling non-RP situations which was not associated with the fantasy genre. Basically the D20 system provides a set of combat, action and skill rules which can be applied to anything which can be reasonably segmented into 5 percent slice with results having the acompanying degree of error.
It seems ridiculous to consider a +5 light sabre or a 48D8 Sith lord, but it is similarly odd to consider the same situation in terms of statistics. All things being considered, it is just a finite segmented manner of representing statistics rather than developing an overly complex smoothly progressing system in terms of the base units.
Many of the restrictions which are associated with AD&D and the D20 system do not really exist in the computer world. In pen and paper a lot of situations and environments where non-RP elements came into play were very difficult to represent for an unassisted DM. It was not that the rule set did not allow certain actions or environments to look like a certain fashion, it was more that the DM was either not imaginative or capable of generating, tracking and handling the required information.
Consider the timeframe, effort and resources availible to a D20 computer game versus a pen and paper version. A developer spends 2 to 5 years developing a single title which encompasses what is relatively a short timeframe in terms of play time. This same developer has a whole host of designers, artists, developers and SQA working on the project as well as the direct creative assistance of the developers of the original system. A DM, on the other hand has himself and the rule books. It's no particular surprize that many DMs fell into the simple way out in creating almost out of box situations. Without the lengthy combat roles and statistics checks as arbitrary and the time and man hours to create a vibrant environment, I find that the D20 completely acceptable.
Game Play
Currently the game is being developed as a single player RPG, but it is fairly certain that a multiplayer element will enter in upon the game. given the shorter development cycle than Neverwinter Nights and the stipulation of a new engine, it is doubted that the RPG will be of the versatile scale of Neverwinter Nights. It is not particularly hard to add in a party like element such as in Baldur's Gate or even cooperative DOOM.
Just as an offhand note, the game play doesn't neccesarily have to be at a slow pace or have an abstracted method of control as in AD&D and many other RPGs. It could just as well involve much more action whether using a high level approach with general commands or a low level approach with more fine control in terms of actions. Even if they decided to use D20 this could be implemented...
As for everything else, who knows? Here's a bit of reference material where you can get more information:
Bioware Corp
Press Release (Bioware) (Lucasarts)
The Making of a Monster: Creating Baldur's Gate (CGDC 2000 Presentation)
Shadow's of Amen Message Board
Icewind Dale Message Board
Neverwinter Nights Message Board
Slashdot on D20
Open Gaming Foundation
Ryan Dancey Interview
WotC Interview with Ryan Dancey
WotC Star Wars RPG
Eric Noah's Unofficial AD&D 3rd Edition News
Basic Clarifications
This product is being developed by Bioware: not Lucasarts or Black Isle or Interplay
It will feature a new engine not based on Omen
The game is currently being developed as single player
It is unconfirmed whether or not the game will use D20 or not, D20 is currently being used in the yet to be released Star Wars RPG from WotC
Actually, the model has no direct bearing upon the real world and subsequently it makes rigorous proof rather possible. Mathematical proofs do not draw upon this real world you refer to -- they are fundamentally abstract concepts. In application, they can be incorrectly interpretted and assigned, however, if not, then mathematics must be incorrect.
Wouldn't you consider having a computer which is not a Turing machine to be a rather large shift in mathematics? It isn't exactly a trivial change to design a computer which is not a Turing machine while still existing within the realms of known mathematics. Asside from this point, there are problems which are fundamentally unsolveable -- not in terms of polynomial time and feasibility, but problems which are simply not solveable given the correctness of mathematics.
To point out a few errors with your arguement: computers being Turing machines is not an axiom -- it is a given assumption which is clearly stipulated when one considers computability and complexity, imagining any other type of computer would require greater knowledge of the model I currently do not possess. The truth is that computers are currently based upon our mathematical knowledge of the world, but not part of this mathematical knowledge itself. When a FPU fails to return a correct value as defined by mathematics, we call it broken. The entire purpose of this is to have a rapid computational system which is entirely predictable. If a problem is insolveable in mathematics, then how do you propose a system which simulates mathematical models to solve such a problem?
It is no mistake that mathematics and computers are consider so alike in Universities.
Enough Katz bashing: he doesn't know much about mathematics -- deal with it. This book is really along the lines of a brief look and popular introduction of computability and computational complexity theory targeted towards those who do not study this area. It is no particular lie to say that quite a few developers and technophiles are not very knowledgeable in the field of computer science nor proficient with NP problems. Software engineering and computer science are two very distinct fields, not neccessarily overlapping. That being said, the general mass of population has even less knowledge of the limitations of computing. When's the last time you heard order of complexity or NP completeness discussed when arguing the future of computing? How many people in the world know who Kurt Gödel is or how to determine undecidability? The answer is not all that many, but one cannot expect the everyone to have knowledge of computability and or computation complexity theory no matter how trivial. If you already have a solid grasp of the fundamentals NP and NP-completeness, know the Church-Turing Hypothesis along with what undecidable and intractable problems are, then you would be best off reading a much more detailed book than this. Computability theory, which discusses effectively unsolveable intractable problems, and computational complexity theory, which discusses solvable intractable problems, both have existed for quite awhile now; this book just introduces some arguments to layman. I guess the point of the book is to educate those who believe the in the all knowing, all powerfull computer god of some of the fundamental limitations of contemporary computing. Sure, if someone went off and made a computational system so radical that it defied the Church-Turing Hypothesis, then our perspective on some computability and complexity problems may change. Quantum computers will shift computability a bit if they ever become feasible, but that isn't anything new. Arguing piece meal points of what computers can and cannot do without mathematical thought is just an unequalified statement without significant substance. Where the sciences and arts prove by exhaustion mathematics proves through rigorous analysis. That is to say mathematicians observe and study the results of formal logic and systems they create rather than observing an external continuum for truth. When it has been correctly proven that a problem is unsolveable then it is unsolveable unless our fundamental understanding of mathematics is incorrect. This is a question I'll leave to the reader and those who study number, set theory and topology. (I thought all CS majors everywhere had to take at least one computability course btw).