Because explosive bombs equal marine pollution that kills fishlife. Hey, we have these bombs all over the place in Europe, and it's one of the big killers of digging workers in Germany for example. Shall we start calling German soil "polluted" and victims of those bombs "victims of pollution"?
Translation: there is no problem whatsoever. The area is about size of Germany. If it could be harmed by movement of earth on the bottom of the ocean, reef would not exist today. Ocean waters move far, far greater amounts of the stuff around every day.
That is certainly the attitude of the modern green movement, which has led it to where it is today - whining about things that have no relevance to green ideology.
Pretty much rock, soil and similar things. The stuff you dig up so you can mine. Whatever is there. It's harmless beyond crushing whatever is on the seabed. They're not dumping it over the reef itself, so this is a non-issue.
This entire thing is a great microcosm of what is wrong with green movement today. Instead of fighting for worthy, difficult causes they pick easy causes that have little to no impact of environment but is easy to sell to tabloid-reading mob to foam at. Causes which fall apart when you actually examine them in depth.
I'm getting the feeling that it is you who are unfamiliar with water. Whatever it takes, it dilutes to minuscule particles very quickly. Only solid stuff that does not degrade in salt water quickly such as certain types of plastic gets noticeable, and that just gets stuffed inside one of the ocean's great gyros which are trashed with plastic anyway.
Otherwise you're going to have to conduct a costly chemical analysis looking for particles to notice it. As an example, a motherload of all dumps was taken in the Baltic after WW2, we're talking chemical weapons, biological weapons, explosives, chemical waste on massive scale. The basin has minimal flow into the ocean. Tdoay it's still clean enough that people can swim in it, it's full of fish that is safe to eat (as much as overfishing allows) and so on.
And here you're whining about an area size of a Germany in the middle of the biggest ocean on the planet and about other people not having a clue about water? Really?
No, it's just a hilarious commentary, because everyone except few who appear to be either paid to say so, or have a vested interest in windows failing in desktop market say it's horrible.
And they're not saying it with empty words but with heavy wallets.
Steam is gaming machines. Gaming machines are about the only machines that need frequent hardware refreshing. They also generally don't come with anything less than for last couple of years. So steam tells you approximate percentage of gaming machines that got refreshed during the period that win8 was out. It has little to no relevance outside that.
Well, if you're on a mac, it kinda explains why you're so pro win8. MS sticking to 8 rather than rolling back to 7's UI is about the only chance apple has at becoming relevant on desktop outside US.
Not sure what's unclear. Nukes are generally larger reactors, because it makes sense to make them larger, and over time they have only grown because it makes them more efficient. If you look at reactors being built today, you see the clear trend - they are getting bigger. The new reactor type at Olkiluoto being built by Areva is 1600MW for example. That's a lot of power for a small island nation.
As for geothermal being cheap and you "not having seen the numbers", now would be the time to start googling instead of being lazy and telling others do the footwork for you.
Nukes need scale to make sense. Iceland is among other things likely too small so that powering it with a nuclear plant would create a single point of failure in its power supply.
Then there's the fact that geothermal is very cheap and readily available in Iceland, while requiring little foreign expertise and fuel. Nuclear would require both.
The reason why I give up is because you blindly refuse to see the forest for the trees. "Why doesn't it support feature X that would make it so much easier to load balance?" is the question no one is asking. Because that would increase development costs.
The question everyone was and still is asking is "how can we make development cheaper? How can we make consoles even more like each other and PC?"
I give up. You clearly see yourself as some kind of an expert, while having apparently spent last year living under proverbial rock in terms of gaming news. You grasp at straws like "will this kind of new type of approach be taken and will it change something" when industry specifically pushed for current PC-style system to be implemented as a console.
And that is the real form of death of democracy - complacency. People think that because their parents and grandparents won many right for them to enjoy today, these rights won't be removed tomorrow.
Protection of rights is not a one time thing. It's a process. And masses are slowly being told that they do not deserve these protections, these protections are bad for them and so on by the massive propaganda machine owned by a tiny minority with vested interests in repelling the rights won by our parents and grandparents.
It's sad, but that's how human nature works. Most of us don't even remember the time when people had to fight for their rights on the streets.
1. Pretty much every dev that got the dev kit after specs that included 4GB ram xb1 were released. It was a bit of a storm, as many devs were clearly pushing MS to get 8GB by going public with it. 2. No, I was obviously talking about comparable generations. Cheap attempts at obvious subject change because it wasn't explicitly announced otherwise are indeed cheap. 3. Which is why we can only rely on the devs who have the dev kits. And they were pretty unanimous in pushing for systems that are as close as possible to current PC for practical ease of developing for multiple platforms. This isn't a secret to anyone who has been following news for the last year or so. 4. Where do you get the idea that they will let you code to the metal? Several devs stated that they in fact did want to code closer to the metal after announcement of Mantle, which followed explicit statements from both people with dev kits and demo units from sony and MS there will be no mantle backport and that devs will be coding in direct3d and opengl. P.S. Directx is not a graphics API. Direct3d is. 5. Or you can view it as the glass half full - that powerful PC will enable you to run higher resolutions, with better textures, more graphical options with higher quality settings enabled and so on. All while remaining easier to code this generation, for same reasons why it's fairly easy to code the game for minimal requirements PC setup, and then add features for faster machines to use.
I don't think you understand. Several important developers specifically stated that they will not be able to afford to mess around with ESRAM. That was the reason why XB1 suddenly jumped to 8GB of RAM from 4 it was initially slated to go with.
Also, we are not talking original XBOX. Please do not change the subject. Original XBOX both released and ended its life when console market was something completely different from what it is today, and had a completely different shelf life from its successor and the planned shelf life of current generation. It is completely unfit for any kind of comparison for these reasons.
The comparable generation had powerpc for xbox and cell for ps line.
Finally yes, I am suggesting exactly that because we know from all the developer comments that they are working with similar high-level instruction sets as ones that PC has - xbox uses modified direct3d and playstation uses modified opengl. You don't get to code "to the metal" on either system. And just knowing what you're addressing through high level API will not grant you massive advantages for the system where you already have significant experience coding for. So slight advantage, yes. Massive? Not by a long shot. This is the point of diminishing returns.
Not to mention that PC gets a whole lot more leeway by giving the user control over what kind of quality he wants to display his game in, which also enables a significant shift of responsibility - dev is not directly responsible for crappy FPS if users runs game on low end hardware at too high settings with too many graphical features turned on, and users do not expect it either. Not so on consoles.
This means that on PC, you just make basic things like resolution, anti-aliasing, filtering quality and various features like SSAO, bloom, motion blur, DoF and so on toggleable and leave it to the user to see what works on their specific setup. This is why even smaller devs can make free to play PC games that look incredible - games like Hawken, Warframe and so on. Notably the latter has been ported to PS4.
On a final note, CPU and RAM make some difference in some games. A good example is WoW, which is still played actively by millions of players, which is completely CPU-constrained.
Other games can also be CPU constrained in some cases. The difference is simply not as great as GPU in most cases because most games basically require a certain amount of CPU and beyond that, there's not really much that CPU can be used on beyond certain support tasks for GPU. GPU on the other hand can always be given a task of "render at higher resolution" or "higher level of anistropic filtering" and so on. A good example here is Witcher 2, which actually included and option of "uber rendering" which utterly killed performance on all but highest end machines in exchange for a small improvement in video quality. It's all a matter of choice in PC world.
And then there's the whole "many of PC games never tax the machine to full potential because they are built for previous generation of consoles, which are downright ancient". Again, the constraint there is the lowest common denominator.
Slashdot Mirror
Because explosive bombs equal marine pollution that kills fishlife. Hey, we have these bombs all over the place in Europe, and it's one of the big killers of digging workers in Germany for example. Shall we start calling German soil "polluted" and victims of those bombs "victims of pollution"?
Translation: there is no problem whatsoever. The area is about size of Germany. If it could be harmed by movement of earth on the bottom of the ocean, reef would not exist today. Ocean waters move far, far greater amounts of the stuff around every day.
So wait, this isn't even earth from the ground, it's earth from the seabed that they are... returning to seabed at another location?
Green movement has taken "absurd" to the new heights if this is true.
That is certainly the attitude of the modern green movement, which has led it to where it is today - whining about things that have no relevance to green ideology.
Pretty much rock, soil and similar things. The stuff you dig up so you can mine. Whatever is there. It's harmless beyond crushing whatever is on the seabed. They're not dumping it over the reef itself, so this is a non-issue.
This entire thing is a great microcosm of what is wrong with green movement today. Instead of fighting for worthy, difficult causes they pick easy causes that have little to no impact of environment but is easy to sell to tabloid-reading mob to foam at. Causes which fall apart when you actually examine them in depth.
I'm getting the feeling that it is you who are unfamiliar with water. Whatever it takes, it dilutes to minuscule particles very quickly. Only solid stuff that does not degrade in salt water quickly such as certain types of plastic gets noticeable, and that just gets stuffed inside one of the ocean's great gyros which are trashed with plastic anyway.
Otherwise you're going to have to conduct a costly chemical analysis looking for particles to notice it. As an example, a motherload of all dumps was taken in the Baltic after WW2, we're talking chemical weapons, biological weapons, explosives, chemical waste on massive scale. The basin has minimal flow into the ocean. Tdoay it's still clean enough that people can swim in it, it's full of fish that is safe to eat (as much as overfishing allows) and so on.
And here you're whining about an area size of a Germany in the middle of the biggest ocean on the planet and about other people not having a clue about water? Really?
No, it's just a hilarious commentary, because everyone except few who appear to be either paid to say so, or have a vested interest in windows failing in desktop market say it's horrible.
And they're not saying it with empty words but with heavy wallets.
Should say "they don't come with anything less than 8"
Steam is gaming machines. Gaming machines are about the only machines that need frequent hardware refreshing. They also generally don't come with anything less than for last couple of years. So steam tells you approximate percentage of gaming machines that got refreshed during the period that win8 was out. It has little to no relevance outside that.
In case of win8, they probably just torrented 7 to install on it.
Well, if you're on a mac, it kinda explains why you're so pro win8. MS sticking to 8 rather than rolling back to 7's UI is about the only chance apple has at becoming relevant on desktop outside US.
What, you want to be the sleeping beauty that will never meet her prince?
Not sure what's unclear. Nukes are generally larger reactors, because it makes sense to make them larger, and over time they have only grown because it makes them more efficient. If you look at reactors being built today, you see the clear trend - they are getting bigger. The new reactor type at Olkiluoto being built by Areva is 1600MW for example. That's a lot of power for a small island nation.
As for geothermal being cheap and you "not having seen the numbers", now would be the time to start googling instead of being lazy and telling others do the footwork for you.
Nukes need scale to make sense. Iceland is among other things likely too small so that powering it with a nuclear plant would create a single point of failure in its power supply.
Then there's the fact that geothermal is very cheap and readily available in Iceland, while requiring little foreign expertise and fuel. Nuclear would require both.
To be specific - it chokes on its main thread. Badly. Highly overclocked i5 wipes the floor with i7s because of it.
Load up WoW and try raiding with reasonable amount of add-ons enabled. Watch your CPU choke like a baby who swallowed a lego brick.
BF also tended to use a lot of CPU, but WoW is just unrivalled in eating your CPU alive.
https://www.libreoffice.org/do...
A new engine for Calc - massive parallel calculations of formula cells using GPU via OpenCL are now possible thanks to our new formular interpreter.
Indeed it's openCL.
And it's working even here on slashdot, where people are supposed to be significantly smarter than average.
Which is why drivel like this is being published. It sells.
The reason why I give up is because you blindly refuse to see the forest for the trees. "Why doesn't it support feature X that would make it so much easier to load balance?" is the question no one is asking. Because that would increase development costs.
The question everyone was and still is asking is "how can we make development cheaper? How can we make consoles even more like each other and PC?"
Hence "you are living under proverbial rock".
Well played.
I give up. You clearly see yourself as some kind of an expert, while having apparently spent last year living under proverbial rock in terms of gaming news. You grasp at straws like "will this kind of new type of approach be taken and will it change something" when industry specifically pushed for current PC-style system to be implemented as a console.
We're not going to find common ground.
And that is the real form of death of democracy - complacency. People think that because their parents and grandparents won many right for them to enjoy today, these rights won't be removed tomorrow.
Protection of rights is not a one time thing. It's a process. And masses are slowly being told that they do not deserve these protections, these protections are bad for them and so on by the massive propaganda machine owned by a tiny minority with vested interests in repelling the rights won by our parents and grandparents.
It's sad, but that's how human nature works. Most of us don't even remember the time when people had to fight for their rights on the streets.
Quite the opposite. They would not let you use them as cheap slave labour if educated after you conquer them economically.
1. Pretty much every dev that got the dev kit after specs that included 4GB ram xb1 were released. It was a bit of a storm, as many devs were clearly pushing MS to get 8GB by going public with it.
2. No, I was obviously talking about comparable generations. Cheap attempts at obvious subject change because it wasn't explicitly announced otherwise are indeed cheap.
3. Which is why we can only rely on the devs who have the dev kits. And they were pretty unanimous in pushing for systems that are as close as possible to current PC for practical ease of developing for multiple platforms. This isn't a secret to anyone who has been following news for the last year or so.
4. Where do you get the idea that they will let you code to the metal? Several devs stated that they in fact did want to code closer to the metal after announcement of Mantle, which followed explicit statements from both people with dev kits and demo units from sony and MS there will be no mantle backport and that devs will be coding in direct3d and opengl.
P.S. Directx is not a graphics API. Direct3d is.
5. Or you can view it as the glass half full - that powerful PC will enable you to run higher resolutions, with better textures, more graphical options with higher quality settings enabled and so on. All while remaining easier to code this generation, for same reasons why it's fairly easy to code the game for minimal requirements PC setup, and then add features for faster machines to use.
I don't think you understand. Several important developers specifically stated that they will not be able to afford to mess around with ESRAM. That was the reason why XB1 suddenly jumped to 8GB of RAM from 4 it was initially slated to go with.
Also, we are not talking original XBOX. Please do not change the subject. Original XBOX both released and ended its life when console market was something completely different from what it is today, and had a completely different shelf life from its successor and the planned shelf life of current generation. It is completely unfit for any kind of comparison for these reasons.
The comparable generation had powerpc for xbox and cell for ps line.
Finally yes, I am suggesting exactly that because we know from all the developer comments that they are working with similar high-level instruction sets as ones that PC has - xbox uses modified direct3d and playstation uses modified opengl. You don't get to code "to the metal" on either system. And just knowing what you're addressing through high level API will not grant you massive advantages for the system where you already have significant experience coding for. So slight advantage, yes. Massive? Not by a long shot. This is the point of diminishing returns.
Not to mention that PC gets a whole lot more leeway by giving the user control over what kind of quality he wants to display his game in, which also enables a significant shift of responsibility - dev is not directly responsible for crappy FPS if users runs game on low end hardware at too high settings with too many graphical features turned on, and users do not expect it either. Not so on consoles.
This means that on PC, you just make basic things like resolution, anti-aliasing, filtering quality and various features like SSAO, bloom, motion blur, DoF and so on toggleable and leave it to the user to see what works on their specific setup. This is why even smaller devs can make free to play PC games that look incredible - games like Hawken, Warframe and so on. Notably the latter has been ported to PS4.
On a final note, CPU and RAM make some difference in some games. A good example is WoW, which is still played actively by millions of players, which is completely CPU-constrained.
Other games can also be CPU constrained in some cases. The difference is simply not as great as GPU in most cases because most games basically require a certain amount of CPU and beyond that, there's not really much that CPU can be used on beyond certain support tasks for GPU. GPU on the other hand can always be given a task of "render at higher resolution" or "higher level of anistropic filtering" and so on. A good example here is Witcher 2, which actually included and option of "uber rendering" which utterly killed performance on all but highest end machines in exchange for a small improvement in video quality. It's all a matter of choice in PC world.
And then there's the whole "many of PC games never tax the machine to full potential because they are built for previous generation of consoles, which are downright ancient". Again, the constraint there is the lowest common denominator.