Because you might want to release the game one day? Then you have to pay for both the engine and royalties.
Release, or release commercially? You're entirely free to develop and release completely free games with UDK, you know, you do not need to pay anything then.
No. The usual NPC chatter is mostly text-only, but all the story-mode chatter on the other hand is fully voiced. Ergo, you probably wouldn't be entirely satisfied, if you really are as picky about it as you claim. I hope this answers your question to your satisfaction.
I have two major concerns about this, neither of which are safety-related.
First, as I mentioned above, it would have to be absolutely clear that I alone control the data on it. If I'm involved in an automobile accident, for example, I don't want to be arrested for obstruction of justice if I decide to delete the video.
Google cannot go around your local laws. And what you're talking about is all about the law: if it is illegal to delete the evidence then it is, there's nothing Google can do about it.
As a lesser but still valid concern, what about copyright? I'm sure that movie theaters would have a cow if you wore them in.
Most movie-theaters these days seem to employ Cinavia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia ) or similar, meaning that Google Glass - built-in software will just be able to disable recording when it detects a Cinavia-protected content.
What if I'm just lounging around the house and happen to have the television on or a song playing on the Nexus Q, am I going to be sued by Sony or making illegal copies of copyrighted material?
Probably yes. Blame the silly copyright laws.
Are they going to build in a kill switch for Google Glass controlled by your content-protected television? Etc.
That will be tough to do. Cinavia works in a cinema just fine, but at home you may be trying to record something completely different while you have your TV turned-on, and POOF, you won't be able to record anything until you turn it off. There would have to be a way of identifying the source of the Cinavia - signal and then the object in question would have to be blurred out -- something the glasses most likely won't have the processing grunt to do -- as even if the TV was in your view it could very well not be the object you're trying to record; there could e.g. be your child playing on the floor near the TV, doing something hilarious, and you want to record that but you can't just somehow disable the TV in the background at that moment.
The thing with fining companies is that there is no guarantee that the company will change its behaviour. Naming and shaming doesn't really work either, there's just so many different ways of spinning PR around that your average Joe won't be any smarter in the end, and besides, naming and shaming still doesn't protect e.g. credit card data. What I mean is that FTC levying fines is merely a slap on the wrist and doesn't actually help the customers themselves. Wouldn't it then be more productive if the companies in question were instead forced to hire an FTC-appointed network security inspector and apply any and all changes the inspector tells them to at their own cost? It would still be a hassle for the company, it would be an indirect fine, it would be a punishment for them, and in the end it would actually, really serve a proper function in protecting their customers. (Tbh, I don't think FTC has the power to do this kind of a thing, but that could likely be fixed via a new law.)
Do you have any actual evidence that this is completely stopping them from collaborating in any way
If you'd bother to read the comments you'd quite clearly see I never said NVIDIA cannot collaborate in any way or form. I merely responded to the Anonymous Commenter's claim that there is absolutely nothing preventing NVIDIA from collaborating which fairly obviously is incorrect. I also did comment that NVIDIA should open up as much as possible, but expecting NVIDIA to open up everything is most likely impossible for them to do, atleast for current hardware.
The thing is that NVIDIA quite possibly use licensed code in their drivers, code that they do not own copyright over, and thus they cannot contribute any such parts. Yes, it is a mere assumption on my part, but given how old a company NVIDIA is they most likely are bogged down by several decades-old contracts they themselves would like to get rid of already; Intel has the advantage here that they entered the game with enormous amounts of IC - design experience in-hand and they could glean a lot of insight and knowledge from F/OSS - projects into all kinds of things, projects that simply weren't there back when NVIDIA started. We also do not know how much of the actual in-depth design NVIDIA has licensed from some 3rd party, and they may well even be disallowed from telling us such details at all due to contracts.
As for my opinion on contributing to Nouveau -- even though you didn't ask for my opinion: I personally would prefer NVIDIA to just release proper programming specs instead for whatever parts they can. While contributing to Nouveau would benefit Linux-users, releasing proper programming specs would get the other alternative OSes up to speed much faster than if they had to study Nouveau source-code first and then try to implement it themselves.
Open up the hardware such that proper drivers can be written for any card (recent or not) and platform w/o the need of binary blobs.
That shouldn't be an impossible task given how much weight NVidia has towards third parties.
People keep spouting these things without actually taking into account that NVIDIA most likely has all sorts of contracts and license agreements they just can't break. Yes, it's fun to bash NVIDIA and try to paint them as some sort of a big, black demon worth all the hatred in the world, but in the end that doesn't actually *help* anyone, least of all F/OSS movement. Intel has the advantage in that that they entered the GPU-market a lot later than NVIDIA et.al., so they could avoid many of the mistakes their competitors did and they also have the whole, complete chain needed to produce and ship GPUs all by themselves and that really makes the comparison feel more like apples and oranges than anything directly comparable.
NVIDIA could possibly open up future hardware, but they'd still possibly have to then develop some areas completely from scratch in order to not run afoul of their previous engagements and such a move obviously would cost them huge amounts of time and money. And well, Linux-users simply ain't worth that. All this is to say that NVIDIA should open up as much as they can, that I agree with, but that it is also highly unlikely they could open it all up even if they wanted to.
Linux is so GOD DAMN GOOD that it can actually transcend time and space: it has all along already been year of the Linux Desktop, we just don't know about it because Linux is already living in the future while we are in its past;)
While there are plenty of things I personally do not like about Windows 8 -- first and foremost Secure boot -- I still cannot help but feel that Microsoft's new direction will translate to various kinds of benefits for the general populace. Microsoft is now pushing for better integration of the hardware with the OS, for cleaner default installations and for innovation in the hardware, the only downside for the general populace being slightly higher prices on their new computers. One can hope that instead of rushing to the bottom the manufacturers will in the future try to focus on producing higher quality hardware and stop with their bloatware-installations and insanely crappy "feature software."(1) There are better ways of offering new software and getting people to buy stuff than just stuffing the computer full of pre-installed trialware, like e.g. why not ASK the user what kind of software they might need on their newly-installed device or what they plan on doing with it, and then OFFER to install trial-versions so they can try and see if the software does what they need?
(1): a girlfriend just recently bought herself a new laptop from ASUS and I went there to help her set it up. Well, not surprisingly it was chock-full of all kinds of crapware, and ASUS's own software was actually the worst of all. One example of such software from ASUS is ASUS Update: it is nothing more than an application that checks ASUS's website for new driver releases for the laptop, but it is chock-full of spelling mistakes, it's dog-slow, it tries its god damn best to stick out of the desktop like a needle in the eye and so on. Heck, it was trying to install a 500 kilobyte update for 30 minutes before I got fed up with waiting, killed it and installed the update manually, which only took 3 seconds! Another thing I noticed was that the application kept one of the cores at 100% usage at all times, even when it was not doing anything, but when I minimized the application the CPU usage dropped to about 12%: looks like a rather clear case of the application just redrawing its own window all the time as fast as it can, with or without any reason whatsoever for that. It really baffles me how on Earth can ASUS think this is good for their image or for their customers.
No, I don't watch Rocky and I don't know who Ivan Drago is.
Your anti-US screed is totally pointless and tiresome and comes apropos of nothing.
Yet you do not provide any actual counter-arguments. It *is* a known fact that both Stuxnet and Flame were written by the U.S., and it *is* a known fact that they recorded huge amounts of personal data and resorted to illegal means for doing that and they targeted entities that were not located on U.S. soil. So pray tell, what in my post is inaccurate?
Blocking -- or atleast trying to block -- Pirate Bay and similar websites is just a temporary measure, there's bound to be worse stuff coming. As I already mentioned on my Google+ - page about the recent confirmation of the Flame-malware being written by the U.S. government and the U.S. government basically saying they have the right to target, track, spy and eliminate anyone they want, anywhere in the world, at any time, and even using illegal means to do so is all right, and that no other country in the world has any say in that, it doesn't seem to me all too far-fetched that with enough lobbying from RIAA/MPAA the U.S. government will write similar malware that targets pirates -- both the ones posting copyright-infringing material and the ones downloading such.
TL;DR The internet is dominated by sexist men, which discourages women from getting involved in related fields.
That is exactly what I was planning to comment here, you just were faster at it. Men should just see the insane amount of flak and belittling us women get whenever anything even remotely technical is discussed, not to mention the awkward sexual advances even before they've even seen how you look like. Similarly, the better you look the more flak and belittling you're bound to get.
I'm not saying this is the primary reason for declining enrollments, but I am saying that this is definitely one of the biggest reasons. If men/industry leaders want more female participants then for f*ck's sake stop treating women like they're delicate little flowers who can't understand anything or who need pampering all the god damn time.
Actually, yes, using the work of others and claiming it is done by you, and then using that as a stepping-stone to advance your powers is a form of corruption. It does not mean that the person is easily bought, but it does show that the person is dishonest and not a character fit for being a prime minister.
It's just what everyone already knew - Google+ is one more Google service and will continue to exist and act as a data source to better target their advertisements. Big deal.
Indeed. Personally I use Google+ nowadays on a daily basis and I know full well that Google collects some data for marketing purposes. They sell the data in large batches per demographic and anonymizes the data first, and in exchange I get to use an extremely handy platform that isn't crowded with the "Mememememe" - or "I have a 5 seconds attention span" - crowd. Sounds like a good deal to me, atleast.
If it opened a pandoras box, then all hell on earth would break out.. all manner of terrible things would be unleashed upon the world.
Having a few problems with your phone is not a pandoras box.. at best, you could say it opened a can of worms.
Actually, Pandora's box, when used as a figure of speech, refers to something holding secrets one doesn't wish to reveal to the world at large, ie. this obviously has nothing to do with Pandora's box at all; there are no secrets being revealed here. It's not even a can of worms as that, too, refers to more-or-less the same thing. This is just sloppy work by Sony and there's plenty of other expressions to use for that.
As an aside it is quite astounding that Slashdot editors don't even know how to use popular figures of speech like this properly. Heck, my native language isn't English and yet even I know full-well how to use the expression "opening the Pandora's box."
So a single Ivy Bridge system, which takes up much less rack space, no cluster network ports, outperforms and costs less than the ARM cluster. Is that the definition of a no-brainer?
No, that's the definition of "clearly not as interesting or cool a setup as a cluster of Pandaboards";)
You don't buy a 12-core at 3.5GHz because you're going to saturate it, you buy it because at that speed, clicking something will complete all computations
That actually very much depends on whether these computations are single-threaded or not. If they are single-threaded then no matter how many cores you throw at them they'll still complete in the same amount of time, only clock speed matters in such case.
Oh right, you are always supposed to run all games full screen and not task switch out of them (otherwise your GPU will have to dump the game rendering data to make room for composting and such).
I always run games in maximized windows, ie. not fullscreen, and I constantly tab out and back in. No issues whatsoever. Maybe it's just your GPU that's the problem?
As an IT guy, I wouldn't consider for a second walking out with data that's not mine. What the hell is wrong with the rest of you?
I agree with you here. I would never even dream of copying sensitive data, installing backdoor access or stealing actual physical hardware, that's hideously selfish and if I knew of someone having done that I'd be the first to report that person to authorities, even if it was one of my own family members. But alas, as disgusting as I find such behaviour I also am not surprised in the least; majority of people are willing to screw over anyone and anything -- even their own morals and ethics! -- in order to gain something and even more so if the gain could be monetary. Mankind in general is not to be trusted.
>>>It's a scientific fact that global warming is real. There is no debate, and no controversy
How come it's getting colder over the last decade with record levels of snowfall and cooler-than-normal summers? (I had heard by 2010 we wouldn't even know what snow is in Great Britain.)
Over here in Finland it is actually getting a lot warmer than it used to. For several years now the temperature can be above zero even in January, but when I was a child that would have been totally unheard of; back then the temperature could drop as low as -35 degrees Celsius where I lived in.
Slashdot Mirror
With a completely free game, how does one recoup the $99 per platform per year fee for a developer certificate?
I do not understand what you don't understand about "do not need to pay anything."
Because you might want to release the game one day? Then you have to pay for both the engine and royalties.
Release, or release commercially? You're entirely free to develop and release completely free games with UDK, you know, you do not need to pay anything then.
1. Record innernets radio with streamripper
What, someone still uses these kinds of things with ads and music you can't skip if you don't like it? That's like SO 90s.
Does GW2 have 100% spoken dialogs?
No. The usual NPC chatter is mostly text-only, but all the story-mode chatter on the other hand is fully voiced. Ergo, you probably wouldn't be entirely satisfied, if you really are as picky about it as you claim. I hope this answers your question to your satisfaction.
I have two major concerns about this, neither of which are safety-related.
First, as I mentioned above, it would have to be absolutely clear that I alone control the data on it. If I'm involved in an automobile accident, for example, I don't want to be arrested for obstruction of justice if I decide to delete the video.
Google cannot go around your local laws. And what you're talking about is all about the law: if it is illegal to delete the evidence then it is, there's nothing Google can do about it.
As a lesser but still valid concern, what about copyright? I'm sure that movie theaters would have a cow if you wore them in.
Most movie-theaters these days seem to employ Cinavia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia ) or similar, meaning that Google Glass - built-in software will just be able to disable recording when it detects a Cinavia-protected content.
What if I'm just lounging around the house and happen to have the television on or a song playing on the Nexus Q, am I going to be sued by Sony or making illegal copies of copyrighted material?
Probably yes. Blame the silly copyright laws.
Are they going to build in a kill switch for Google Glass controlled by your content-protected television? Etc.
That will be tough to do. Cinavia works in a cinema just fine, but at home you may be trying to record something completely different while you have your TV turned-on, and POOF, you won't be able to record anything until you turn it off. There would have to be a way of identifying the source of the Cinavia - signal and then the object in question would have to be blurred out -- something the glasses most likely won't have the processing grunt to do -- as even if the TV was in your view it could very well not be the object you're trying to record; there could e.g. be your child playing on the floor near the TV, doing something hilarious, and you want to record that but you can't just somehow disable the TV in the background at that moment.
The thing with fining companies is that there is no guarantee that the company will change its behaviour. Naming and shaming doesn't really work either, there's just so many different ways of spinning PR around that your average Joe won't be any smarter in the end, and besides, naming and shaming still doesn't protect e.g. credit card data. What I mean is that FTC levying fines is merely a slap on the wrist and doesn't actually help the customers themselves. Wouldn't it then be more productive if the companies in question were instead forced to hire an FTC-appointed network security inspector and apply any and all changes the inspector tells them to at their own cost? It would still be a hassle for the company, it would be an indirect fine, it would be a punishment for them, and in the end it would actually, really serve a proper function in protecting their customers. (Tbh, I don't think FTC has the power to do this kind of a thing, but that could likely be fixed via a new law.)
Do you have any actual evidence that this is completely stopping them from collaborating in any way
If you'd bother to read the comments you'd quite clearly see I never said NVIDIA cannot collaborate in any way or form. I merely responded to the Anonymous Commenter's claim that there is absolutely nothing preventing NVIDIA from collaborating which fairly obviously is incorrect. I also did comment that NVIDIA should open up as much as possible, but expecting NVIDIA to open up everything is most likely impossible for them to do, atleast for current hardware.
The thing is that NVIDIA quite possibly use licensed code in their drivers, code that they do not own copyright over, and thus they cannot contribute any such parts. Yes, it is a mere assumption on my part, but given how old a company NVIDIA is they most likely are bogged down by several decades-old contracts they themselves would like to get rid of already; Intel has the advantage here that they entered the game with enormous amounts of IC - design experience in-hand and they could glean a lot of insight and knowledge from F/OSS - projects into all kinds of things, projects that simply weren't there back when NVIDIA started. We also do not know how much of the actual in-depth design NVIDIA has licensed from some 3rd party, and they may well even be disallowed from telling us such details at all due to contracts.
As for my opinion on contributing to Nouveau -- even though you didn't ask for my opinion: I personally would prefer NVIDIA to just release proper programming specs instead for whatever parts they can. While contributing to Nouveau would benefit Linux-users, releasing proper programming specs would get the other alternative OSes up to speed much faster than if they had to study Nouveau source-code first and then try to implement it themselves.
I see why you're writing as an AC.
because nothing prevents nVidia from collaborating
Copyright, patent and contract laws quite likely do. Oh, but let's not let real-life facts bother us, eh? Ignorance is a bliss and all that.
Open up the hardware such that proper drivers can be written for any card (recent or not) and platform w/o the need of binary blobs.
That shouldn't be an impossible task given how much weight NVidia has towards third parties.
People keep spouting these things without actually taking into account that NVIDIA most likely has all sorts of contracts and license agreements they just can't break. Yes, it's fun to bash NVIDIA and try to paint them as some sort of a big, black demon worth all the hatred in the world, but in the end that doesn't actually *help* anyone, least of all F/OSS movement. Intel has the advantage in that that they entered the GPU-market a lot later than NVIDIA et.al., so they could avoid many of the mistakes their competitors did and they also have the whole, complete chain needed to produce and ship GPUs all by themselves and that really makes the comparison feel more like apples and oranges than anything directly comparable.
NVIDIA could possibly open up future hardware, but they'd still possibly have to then develop some areas completely from scratch in order to not run afoul of their previous engagements and such a move obviously would cost them huge amounts of time and money. And well, Linux-users simply ain't worth that. All this is to say that NVIDIA should open up as much as they can, that I agree with, but that it is also highly unlikely they could open it all up even if they wanted to.
A sexy work environment, is a productive work environment.
...if you work at an artificial insemination clinic or are otherwise in need of more male bodily fluids, that is.
Linux is so GOD DAMN GOOD that it can actually transcend time and space: it has all along already been year of the Linux Desktop, we just don't know about it because Linux is already living in the future while we are in its past ;)
While there are plenty of things I personally do not like about Windows 8 -- first and foremost Secure boot -- I still cannot help but feel that Microsoft's new direction will translate to various kinds of benefits for the general populace. Microsoft is now pushing for better integration of the hardware with the OS, for cleaner default installations and for innovation in the hardware, the only downside for the general populace being slightly higher prices on their new computers. One can hope that instead of rushing to the bottom the manufacturers will in the future try to focus on producing higher quality hardware and stop with their bloatware-installations and insanely crappy "feature software."(1) There are better ways of offering new software and getting people to buy stuff than just stuffing the computer full of pre-installed trialware, like e.g. why not ASK the user what kind of software they might need on their newly-installed device or what they plan on doing with it, and then OFFER to install trial-versions so they can try and see if the software does what they need?
(1): a girlfriend just recently bought herself a new laptop from ASUS and I went there to help her set it up. Well, not surprisingly it was chock-full of all kinds of crapware, and ASUS's own software was actually the worst of all. One example of such software from ASUS is ASUS Update: it is nothing more than an application that checks ASUS's website for new driver releases for the laptop, but it is chock-full of spelling mistakes, it's dog-slow, it tries its god damn best to stick out of the desktop like a needle in the eye and so on. Heck, it was trying to install a 500 kilobyte update for 30 minutes before I got fed up with waiting, killed it and installed the update manually, which only took 3 seconds! Another thing I noticed was that the application kept one of the cores at 100% usage at all times, even when it was not doing anything, but when I minimized the application the CPU usage dropped to about 12%: looks like a rather clear case of the application just redrawing its own window all the time as fast as it can, with or without any reason whatsoever for that. It really baffles me how on Earth can ASUS think this is good for their image or for their customers.
Do you watch Rocky 4 and root for Ivan Drago?
No, I don't watch Rocky and I don't know who Ivan Drago is.
Your anti-US screed is totally pointless and tiresome and comes apropos of nothing.
Yet you do not provide any actual counter-arguments. It *is* a known fact that both Stuxnet and Flame were written by the U.S., and it *is* a known fact that they recorded huge amounts of personal data and resorted to illegal means for doing that and they targeted entities that were not located on U.S. soil. So pray tell, what in my post is inaccurate?
Blocking -- or atleast trying to block -- Pirate Bay and similar websites is just a temporary measure, there's bound to be worse stuff coming. As I already mentioned on my Google+ - page about the recent confirmation of the Flame-malware being written by the U.S. government and the U.S. government basically saying they have the right to target, track, spy and eliminate anyone they want, anywhere in the world, at any time, and even using illegal means to do so is all right, and that no other country in the world has any say in that, it doesn't seem to me all too far-fetched that with enough lobbying from RIAA/MPAA the U.S. government will write similar malware that targets pirates -- both the ones posting copyright-infringing material and the ones downloading such.
TL;DR The internet is dominated by sexist men, which discourages women from getting involved in related fields.
That is exactly what I was planning to comment here, you just were faster at it. Men should just see the insane amount of flak and belittling us women get whenever anything even remotely technical is discussed, not to mention the awkward sexual advances even before they've even seen how you look like. Similarly, the better you look the more flak and belittling you're bound to get.
I'm not saying this is the primary reason for declining enrollments, but I am saying that this is definitely one of the biggest reasons. If men/industry leaders want more female participants then for f*ck's sake stop treating women like they're delicate little flowers who can't understand anything or who need pampering all the god damn time.
Actually, yes, using the work of others and claiming it is done by you, and then using that as a stepping-stone to advance your powers is a form of corruption. It does not mean that the person is easily bought, but it does show that the person is dishonest and not a character fit for being a prime minister.
It's just what everyone already knew - Google+ is one more Google service and will continue to exist and act as a data source to better target their advertisements. Big deal.
Indeed. Personally I use Google+ nowadays on a daily basis and I know full well that Google collects some data for marketing purposes. They sell the data in large batches per demographic and anonymizes the data first, and in exchange I get to use an extremely handy platform that isn't crowded with the "Mememememe" - or "I have a 5 seconds attention span" - crowd. Sounds like a good deal to me, atleast.
If it opened a pandoras box, then all hell on earth would break out.. all manner of terrible things would be unleashed upon the world.
Having a few problems with your phone is not a pandoras box.. at best, you could say it opened a can of worms.
Actually, Pandora's box, when used as a figure of speech, refers to something holding secrets one doesn't wish to reveal to the world at large, ie. this obviously has nothing to do with Pandora's box at all; there are no secrets being revealed here. It's not even a can of worms as that, too, refers to more-or-less the same thing. This is just sloppy work by Sony and there's plenty of other expressions to use for that.
As an aside it is quite astounding that Slashdot editors don't even know how to use popular figures of speech like this properly. Heck, my native language isn't English and yet even I know full-well how to use the expression "opening the Pandora's box."
So a single Ivy Bridge system, which takes up much less rack space, no cluster network ports, outperforms and costs less than the ARM cluster. Is that the definition of a no-brainer?
No, that's the definition of "clearly not as interesting or cool a setup as a cluster of Pandaboards" ;)
but I'd personally avoid CPUs with built-in graphics and coprocessors.
I'm curious now, what CPU would you buy then? All modern ARM SoCs and x86-compatible CPUs from both Intel and AMD feature built-in graphics.
You don't buy a 12-core at 3.5GHz because you're going to saturate it, you buy it because at that speed, clicking something will complete all computations
That actually very much depends on whether these computations are single-threaded or not. If they are single-threaded then no matter how many cores you throw at them they'll still complete in the same amount of time, only clock speed matters in such case.
Oh right, you are always supposed to run all games full screen and not task switch out of them (otherwise your GPU will have to dump the game rendering data to make room for composting and such).
I always run games in maximized windows, ie. not fullscreen, and I constantly tab out and back in. No issues whatsoever. Maybe it's just your GPU that's the problem?
Would you both giving the DVD's back, trash them, hold onto to them for unknown reasons or publish them for the world?
Not being a dishonest, selfish little prick I'd just trash them.
As an IT guy, I wouldn't consider for a second walking out with data that's not mine. What the hell is wrong with the rest of you?
I agree with you here. I would never even dream of copying sensitive data, installing backdoor access or stealing actual physical hardware, that's hideously selfish and if I knew of someone having done that I'd be the first to report that person to authorities, even if it was one of my own family members. But alas, as disgusting as I find such behaviour I also am not surprised in the least; majority of people are willing to screw over anyone and anything -- even their own morals and ethics! -- in order to gain something and even more so if the gain could be monetary. Mankind in general is not to be trusted.
>>>It's a scientific fact that global warming is real. There is no debate, and no controversy
How come it's getting colder over the last decade with record levels of snowfall and cooler-than-normal summers? (I had heard by 2010 we wouldn't even know what snow is in Great Britain.)
Over here in Finland it is actually getting a lot warmer than it used to. For several years now the temperature can be above zero even in January, but when I was a child that would have been totally unheard of; back then the temperature could drop as low as -35 degrees Celsius where I lived in.