The problem here is that Google did not post something, it was posted on a Google hosted discussion group/forum, and Google was fined for it. This would be like setting a fine on the phone company because two people planned a crime while talking on the phone.
Google left, or is leaving China because they are expected to actively screen and monitor the contents of their services, which not only is it against the wishes of the Google executives, but it would also increase cost of operations, and open themselves up for lawsuits or legal action if they missed something.
There was a ruling back in the 1990s where if an ISP provides content monitoring, it is also responsible for taking down content that infringes on copyright, while if the ISP does NOT monitor/censor the content, the ISP is not legally responsible for content posted, though may be required to remove infringing content. As a result, at the time, AOL got into trouble while Netcom and others did not.
The whole idea of Net Neutrality is that ISPs should just act as "wire providers", and are not responsible for the content that goes over their equipment, but only as long as they do not get in the way. Brazil expects wire providers to monitor and censor content it seems, which is what many will find problematic.
In some ways I agree, but the technology is still in rapid advancement mode for flat panel displays. You have the increase in refresh rates going on right now, with the move from 60Hz to 120Hz to 240Hz going on right now, and it really IS better to have a display that can refresh the screen faster than the image changes. With that said, I agree that we have a problem where resolutions are NOT increasing, and there are also two different aspect ratios that are being pushed, which adds to the problem. Do you have a 1920x1080, or a 1920x1200 display for example, and many applications do not scale themselves for the different resolutions, so you may find some things get distorted. Once we hit 240Hz and things stabilize(not much point going beyond 240Hz), then we may see a push for higher resolutions again, but for now, the technology of the panels themselves is evolving, and most people want higher quality displays with zero dead pixels FIRST.
Now, this will also open the door for a lot of problems going forward when it comes to how to make things look correct on a screen once resolutions start to climb again if vendors start to push unusual aspect ratios. Again, will 1920x1200 become the norm for computer displays with 1920x1080 being the norm for TV displays? Once an aspect ratio REALLY becomes established(remember, 4:3 was the accepted ratio until wide screen displays started to dominate), we will be safe to go with higher quality displays that meet that ratio. We all know the old 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024, and 1600x1200 for 4:3 displays. We need to see wide screen really continue that trend of more mainstream displays, and those that really are high quality displays. But, until the aspect ratio becomes more standardized, it will be a risk for display manufacturers to push displays other than 1920x1080 or 1920x1200.
For those who want to see things be "open" so that multiple providers can use the same wires, you need to have an infrastructure in place that has not been paid for ONLY by private companies, and that is where the problems come from. For DSL service here in the USA, much of the copper infrastructure for the telephone system was subsidized by the US government in the push to put telephone coverage in EVERY house. This is why for DSL, you CAN have multiple providers in a given area in the USA. For cable and fiber on the other hand, the US government has avoided getting involved in ANYTHING of a technical nature for a long time now, so we won't see fiber or cable going to every house for Internet, and it becomes more difficult for the government to force private companies to do things with lines that have been placed and maintained by private companies.
The USA is a BIG country with a lot of very rural areas, and without government involvement, it is not going to be profitable to run high speed Internet to many rural areas, just due to the maintenance costs compared to how much money they can really charge for the service in those rural areas($50/month in West Virginia is too much for many people just for Internet access for example). In smaller countries like Japan, it becomes easier to bring high speed to EVERY home, just because the country is so small in comparison. What some people don't realize is that New York State alone is larger than many countries, and the state government is BROKE, with no money to spend on projects. The FEDERAL government is also broke, but just keeps printing money and spending, so they act like someone with an Amex platinum card who go on a spending spree for one month, and then end up in debt for the rest of their lives.
There are different things to consider. On the AMD side of things, which everyone is using for comparison, you can often drop a new CPU into pretty much any AM2+ or AM3 motherboard with just a firmware update. You don't need to replace the RAM or motherboard, and you get the benefits of the new CPU. Going to a new MEMORY type would require a new motherboard, but with all of the new AMD processors, they support BOTH DDR2 and DDR3 memory.
There really is no good excuse for needing an all new chipset for each new generation of processor UNLESS there is a very fundamental change going on. The move from DDR1 to DDR2 to DDR3 for example might be required if the CPU does not support the older memory types(meaning you WANT to prevent users from using a chip in a system that will NEVER support it). Moving to an integrated memory controller, or adding additional pins for more banks of memory MIGHT be an excuse, though these days, extra "reserved" pins should have been put into the socket specification for this, with backwards compatibility so you could drop it into an older system with a degradation in performance(you lose the extra memory controller functionality). Adding graphics to the processor SHOULD work the same way, where the graphics on the processor would not be used if you plug the processor into a system without support for it. Again, looking forward at future needs when designing a new socket would make sense, so you just have a bunch of pins on the CPU that are "reserved" for future use, then, a new CPU would just switch off features the motherboard would not support.
AMD will be moving to a new socket type in the next year or so, due to things like adding the extra pins on the CPU for graphics, a 3, 4, 6, or whatever channel memory controller, or other functions being a part of their plans for the future. But, that next socket should be good to go for the next few generations after that, and for all we know, it may even support current DDR3 processors(DDR2 would probably be dropped since new motherboards would probably not have DDR2 memory support with the new socket).
So, if AMD can do it, people would expect that 'the leader' in the industry SHOULD be able to do it as well.
Low end systems become even cheaper to produce when the chipset on the motherboard does not need to include graphics support. Also, if your add-in video card fails, you can always run off integrated until you can replace it. You are right about a 'proper' video card being a better choice overall, but if you look at those $400 to $500 computer towers being sold all over the place, not a single one has a dedicated video card.
Now, AMD is moving forward with their Fusion project, which will add a GPU to some processors, but since AMD has Hybrid CrossfireX, the GPU portion on the CPU COULD be made to work with an add-in Radeon video card for extra graphics processing power. Intel on the other hand does not make stand-alone graphics products, and they also have zero experience with multi-GPU technologies to do something similar. NVIDIA has SLI, but without a CPU, they are not a part of this discussion.
The big problem that Intel has is that their graphics technology is sub-standard, so at best, it is still about 'integrated graphics' for the performance levels. Intel also loves forcing people to upgrade motherboards CONTINUALLY, because Intel isn't just the CPU manufacturer, they are the chipset manufacturer as well. In general, Intel may have a performance lead at the high end, but due to the long-term costs, those looking for a mid-range system can still find AMD products worth using. The fact that you can start with a basic system with a dual core processor, and with just a BIOS update, you will be able to drop in a six code Phenom 2 without ANY other changes.
DDO was a normal pay to play MMORPG up until the Free to Play option was added back in September. With that in mind, I don't see that DDO would lose the free to play option after all the good it did for the game in terms of profitability. There are potential problems, but after thinking about it, there really is more chance for this being a positive for the game rather than a negative. At the very least, DDO MAY get a better working budget, rather than having LotR getting the most attention.
Rendering when you have a powerful graphics chip should not take all that much CPU power, since the rendering is offloaded. Now, keep in mind that since 3D displays with the glasses are a new technology, the current hardware is not really designed for it, so you are putting a huge burden on the system to make it work. With a new graphics chip that is designed with 3D output in mind, that additional processing drain will disappear with proper hardware support for 3D displays.
The purpose of these sort of contests isn't to come up with a REAL game, but it is more about the encouragement of being creative in game design and implementation. Remember, those who compete will probably end up working in the industry if they are lucky, and the more they focus on game design and implementation, the better they will be when the time comes for them to make a commercially viable game. The game industry really has been suffering from a shortage of NEW games that are not just a modern clone of older games, and that is a big problem.
How much true originality is there is all of the shooters and World War 2 games you see that are out there? Or RTS games that are more of the same stuff we have seen from the old Warcraft days(original RTS)? Technically games are getting better, but for gameplay, there is a huge shortage of NEW ideas, and that is what needs to be encouraged, new ideas. The reason the game industry as a whole feels a bit stale on the PC is because so few are focused on making something that is really original.
Many people willingly work in less than great conditions for pay, and you can't know if people are being forced to work long hours, or if they WANT to work the longer hours for more pay. Forcing them to work the long shifts isn't the same thing as people wanting to work long shifts.
This is where you fail to understand the basics of international trade. What is a "fair wage" here in the USA would make people feel wealthy in China and other countries. Forcing people to work long hours may not be considered acceptable, but what if the workers WANT to work more hours for more money? If money is tight, you work the extra hours for the money, it is that simple. The cost of living and the acceptable wage for an area is also a key factor in what is acceptable. A mouse can be sold here for $5, so with that sort of low price, how much do you think it should cost in materials and labor for production for that mouse?
That doesn't work since a Big Mac isn't considered the "normal" food over there. Then again, the price over here has gone up by so much that there isn't much point to going to McDonalds when you can get better food for less.
With the cost of living and such over there, that may very well be like getting paid $100/day here. For someone 16-17 years old without any work experience, that isn't all that bad. Of course, I don't know the true cost of living there, but people need to stop using the exchange rates in the wrong way. If the average daily pay for an adult is $1/day but that lets someone live an average standard of living for that country, that isn't really horrible. On the flip side, if the standard of living were to go up, that would be better as well. But still, someone putting together mice and keyboards should NOT make so much that they are considered very wealthy for where they live either. I don't agree with the 15 hour work day stuff, but if the level of pay is acceptable to the people doing the work, then the only thing we can really say is that the working CONDITIONS are what we should be looking at, where there should be good airflow and it should not be too hot or cold.
Even here in the USA, some people would be happy to work for $10/hour, while for other people, they would require much more than that. Just because a wage is too low for YOU does not mean that it is too low for everyone. The cost of living is a big part of that.
For anyone with even a reasonable grasp of possibilities, the idea that aliens would automatically have the same drives as people, or even other creatures on this planet is foolish, and that is being nice about it. There is a tendency in science fiction as well as by many who claim to be looking for other life out there that there will be more of a similarity between us and alien life than differences. Even the idea that aliens would need water(H2O), or that they use what is to us the visible light spectrum, or hearing just assumes that too much of what we have here on Earth would be typical of what we might find out there is a flawed expectation.
What can we expect? The unexpected of course. They may exist based on elements we just wouldn't expect to be the building blocks of life. For all we know, there could be aluminum based life out there that could thrive in environments we would find so toxic, we just wouldn't bother looking. Their motivations, if they have any at all, might be based on the ability to see the future, so they only do things that in the long run would not hurt them(a good reason to avoid this planet). They may emit some sort of radiation that is just felt by others of their kind, not sight, not sound, but a radiation that humans would not perceive, or might be harmful to us. Or they may have some other way to sense things around them that humans just couldn't see, and as a result, have not discovered yet. And, they could reproduce automatically without the need for a mate, where variation might just happen due to exposure to others without any "act of reproduction" at all. Greed, hostility, love, hate may not apply to how things are on other planets, but other things that we do NOT understand might come into play. There might be an automatic instinct to just be closer to other beings, or to attack if something gets close...we just don't know.
So, just because the majority of humans are idiots does not mean that aliens would have the same problems. I will say that with the way that nations currently work on this planet, we are due for a meltdown, because those who really are intelligent tend to be less appreciated than the idiots who get political influence and shouldn't be in any sort of a leadership position.
There are different ways that 3D is implemented, and that is a real key to why 3D hasn't done very well overall. In most "3D" movies, you have one object here or there that "pops out" at you, and as a result, it is seen as a cheap gimmick that does nothing to enhance the watching of a movie. Avatar on the other hand, used 3D throughout the entire movie to enhance the overall appearance, and didn't really have things that really jumped out at you. For those with various types of vision problems, it is very possible that you would get less out of GOOD 3D compared to others without those problems in the same way that those without good hearing would not notice the difference between a good surround sound system and a bad system.
Now, 3D as it was done in Avatar just enhanced the overall look of the movie, even though it does not ADD to the movie. It is like the difference between mono and stereo when it comes to a radio broadcast where you either notice the enhanced display or you don't. It was one thing about Avatar that I found was good was how EVERY scene had increased depth compared to a 2D presentation.
That was my exact thought when I read this. There will always be people who are obsessed with money....now, give me a Radeon 5970 setup with the Samsung MD230 as a monitor, and I wouldn't notice much pain.
The PC as it stands will always have more potential in terms of what you can do with it, and as such, games can be made to scale higher than a console. That is really a key to why a well written PC game will ALWAYS offer more than a console game. The Radeon 5870 and even a Geforce 8800(by whatever name NVIDIA has renamed it to these days) are better than what you see in the PS3(which DOES have better hardware than the XBOX 360). So, anyone programming for the PC KNOWS that the graphics settings, detail, textures, etc could be made better. Within six months of a console release, a new video card for the PC will be released that will be at least as powerful as well.
When it comes to CPU power, PCs again have greater potential, so that isn't an issue either. For controls, not everything needs to be about a joystick, since the mouse can emulate MUCH of that feel, or just provide support for it. The keyboard on a PC provides many more keys than a console could hope for, so more complexity can be provided(not always a good thing though). The big thing is that PCs evolve much faster than consoles, so at any time a console has an advantage, within two years PCs will have caught up.
The only down side on PCs is that Intel Graphics have held the industry back. If customers actually knew how bad Intel graphics are compared to Geforce and Radeon graphics, customers would know to avoid machines with the sub-standard graphics in them. So, developers have had to program either to just put in requirements that you need a DirectX 9, 10, or 11 compliant video card which excludes the worst Intel graphics, or to scale their titles to allow for the best graphics detail to be turned off(toned down) for those with Intel graphics. That isn't really a negative since anyone who really cares about playing games SHOULD know to buy a computer that has at least acceptable graphics performance for their needs.
When it comes to DRM, the worse the copy protection, the higher the piracy rate will be, it is really very simple. EA dropped SecuROM for that reason, it upset too many people and caused too many problems. EA is actually switching to a different approach, which is to provide additional content to those who have purchased and registered the game. Mass Effect 2 for example has had a number of additional content releases that are not included with the base game, but are downloaded, with additional free downloads being provided for those who registered. Dragon Age also has free downloads for those who purchased and registered the game. So, buying the original game gives you more content than the pirated version. That is an incentive to buying the original, rather than using DRM to punish people who legally buy the game.
What type of device, tablet or netbook? Do you want a DVD drive to be a standard way to install software, or do you need to download EVERYTHING? Do you REALLY need a special tablet edition of software when the screen or keyboard are big enough to work more naturally?
There are some very basic concepts that people should know prior to making such "public" comments. First off is that a poor teacher in the early part of the education process will often turn students AWAY from certain subjects. Yes, this means that all those liberal arts focused elementary school teachers are HURTING the students by not having any interest or skill in math and science. It is far better to let someone dedicated to a subject and with a love of the subject teach that subject starting at an early age. So, dedicated math teachers for ALL grades, not just "middle school" and higher. The same goes for science, and all other subjects, we need to put an end to the old idea of a one room schoolhouse where one person is teaching ALL subjects to a class.
So, if you eliminate all the BAD teaching of math in the early years, you will find that students will respond to math better, no matter if they start sooner, or later. Logic may not really develop until around the age of 12, but learning approaches to problem solving early can help quite a bit. If you also start teaching ways to come up with solutions to problems from an early age, then children MAY start looking for new solutions at younger ages as well. Having students memorize things and recite them on demand may have its place, but nothing beats having students come up with their own solutions to problems.
I know there are SOME people out there who have $1000 to spend on just a CPU, but until these come down a long way in terms of price, it is WAY out of my price range.
So, the author decides to post about experiences with those six devices, leaving out MANY other devices. The old Palm Treo is very dated at this point, but still good for comparison purposes. How about the Palm Pre, or any of the other lesser known phones that have a keyboard? You may as well just go into your local hardware store and compare surge protectors and then claim it is news, without mentioning that a hardware store isn't going to give enough of a selection to make any sort of comparison meaningful.
There are some tasks that are very much serial, and these will not benefit from the additional cores, but there are MANY things that can benefit from the additional cores. It is NOT easier or cheaper to throw more hardware at a problem when processors are not getting all that much faster at this point, but are moving to more cores. Really, it comes down to how much understanding of multi-threading the software designers have when they design an application. You will always have some people out there who can't design with running things in parallel, and if they are the ones in charge of the overall program design, then you won't see much of an improvement to adding cores. The thing is, the longer people work on writing multi-threaded applications, the less difficult it will be.
The basic idea here is that if your task CAN be broken up into tasks that can be run in parallel, then adding more cores will improve performance until number of cores = number of threads. This means that quad core, or maybe six cores is the limit for the moment. Now, for games, more cores means that AI can become more complex, or there can be more computer controlled enemies to deal with. In games like The Witcher, a major reason for slowdowns is the number of NPCs that may be wandering around at any given time. If the game were multi-threaded with each NPC getting its own thread, you have a great example where 12 cores would probably be a great improvement. Software rendering, ray tracing and such would also see a benefit to more cores.
It will take some time for old software engines to fall out of use and new one be developed to take their place. Remember, most people DO look for ways to re-use existing code, but a fresh design WILL provide benefits.
The ability to duplicate a printed work in minutes, rather than days/weeks/months is also a modern concept. Think about it, before the printing press, it took a lot of effort to duplicate a printed work, then the printing press allowed a single setup to make as many copies as desired, but after the fact, for someone else to make a copy would require the configuration work on a new printing press to make multiple copies. And now, with photocopier technology, you can take the work of others and just read it into a computer, and then make as many as you want from there.
And that is where the need for copyright comes from, the EASY duplication of the work of others. If it takes an author a year to write a book, and a publisher several months to prepare and print, how long would it take for someone who buys just one copy of a book to reproduce all that effort by others?
The issue of needing copyright today is caused by how easy it is to duplicate things today compared to how things were in the past. Prior to the printing press for example, a duplicate needed to be done by hand, which would take a lot of time. In that situation where a lot of time would be needed to copy a printed work, there would be less concern.
The printing press then came on the scene, and suddenly, it opened the door to some problems. Still, the idea of an author earning credit for their work had to be there. Also, the printing press itself, and the work to print something wasn't terribly easy. Due to the difficulty to make a book, those investing in the printing equipment started to get some rights if they were paying the author for the publishing rights.
And, how much paper does it take, and how much cost was there. The original author still deserved SOMETHING...the idea that others should be able to make money on the work of someone else is what copyright is all about. The author writes something, and no matter how far down the line something goes, the author should always get SOME portion of the profits.
And that is really what is going on today, who makes money on the work of others? Pirated music, or movies gives nothing back to the people who have made them, and there is no skill required to duplicate ANYTHING anymore.
So, back to some of the things you have said...
Artists would need to survive on merit...does that mean that they would need to keep performing concerts, while their songs are sold in a store for a profit for the rest of eternity? So, other people keep making money on a recording the original artist made, and that artist is expected not to make money on that same recording? If the world can enjoy listening to a recorded track for all eternity, shouldn't the original recording artist also deserve SOMETHING for each copy since people still listen to it?
An artist who makes one song that does not sell well doesn't deserve to just get money for nothing, but if you like a song enough to keep listening to it, shouldn't the artist who performed get something? Basically, it should be up to the artist to decide the reproduction rules on their work since skill isn't needed for reproduction of music.
Basically, I am an advocate of those who create things getting paid for what they have made, and I am against corporate entities who make money off artists and don't give the artists their fair share of the proceeds. For music, if 10,000,000 people want to download a music track at $1 per copy, at least 10 cents of each dollar should go to the artist. For movies, it is a bit tough, since the cost to make a movie is so high, it may take 10,000,000 sales at $20 each just to break even on the production costs. At that point, can you say that any illegal copies are acceptable if something you enjoy ended up causing a net loss to make it?
Things would be a bit different if it cost $1000 for the equipment needed to do reproductions plus a lot more for materials and such, but let's face it, technology has allowed for cheap reproduction, and those who create WOULD be screwed without some protections in place to make sure they get properly compensated.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem here is that Google did not post something, it was posted on a Google hosted discussion group/forum, and Google was fined for it. This would be like setting a fine on the phone company because two people planned a crime while talking on the phone.
Google left, or is leaving China because they are expected to actively screen and monitor the contents of their services, which not only is it against the wishes of the Google executives, but it would also increase cost of operations, and open themselves up for lawsuits or legal action if they missed something.
There was a ruling back in the 1990s where if an ISP provides content monitoring, it is also responsible for taking down content that infringes on copyright, while if the ISP does NOT monitor/censor the content, the ISP is not legally responsible for content posted, though may be required to remove infringing content. As a result, at the time, AOL got into trouble while Netcom and others did not.
The whole idea of Net Neutrality is that ISPs should just act as "wire providers", and are not responsible for the content that goes over their equipment, but only as long as they do not get in the way. Brazil expects wire providers to monitor and censor content it seems, which is what many will find problematic.
In some ways I agree, but the technology is still in rapid advancement mode for flat panel displays. You have the increase in refresh rates going on right now, with the move from 60Hz to 120Hz to 240Hz going on right now, and it really IS better to have a display that can refresh the screen faster than the image changes. With that said, I agree that we have a problem where resolutions are NOT increasing, and there are also two different aspect ratios that are being pushed, which adds to the problem. Do you have a 1920x1080, or a 1920x1200 display for example, and many applications do not scale themselves for the different resolutions, so you may find some things get distorted. Once we hit 240Hz and things stabilize(not much point going beyond 240Hz), then we may see a push for higher resolutions again, but for now, the technology of the panels themselves is evolving, and most people want higher quality displays with zero dead pixels FIRST.
Now, this will also open the door for a lot of problems going forward when it comes to how to make things look correct on a screen once resolutions start to climb again if vendors start to push unusual aspect ratios. Again, will 1920x1200 become the norm for computer displays with 1920x1080 being the norm for TV displays? Once an aspect ratio REALLY becomes established(remember, 4:3 was the accepted ratio until wide screen displays started to dominate), we will be safe to go with higher quality displays that meet that ratio. We all know the old 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024, and 1600x1200 for 4:3 displays. We need to see wide screen really continue that trend of more mainstream displays, and those that really are high quality displays. But, until the aspect ratio becomes more standardized, it will be a risk for display manufacturers to push displays other than 1920x1080 or 1920x1200.
For those who want to see things be "open" so that multiple providers can use the same wires, you need to have an infrastructure in place that has not been paid for ONLY by private companies, and that is where the problems come from. For DSL service here in the USA, much of the copper infrastructure for the telephone system was subsidized by the US government in the push to put telephone coverage in EVERY house. This is why for DSL, you CAN have multiple providers in a given area in the USA. For cable and fiber on the other hand, the US government has avoided getting involved in ANYTHING of a technical nature for a long time now, so we won't see fiber or cable going to every house for Internet, and it becomes more difficult for the government to force private companies to do things with lines that have been placed and maintained by private companies.
The USA is a BIG country with a lot of very rural areas, and without government involvement, it is not going to be profitable to run high speed Internet to many rural areas, just due to the maintenance costs compared to how much money they can really charge for the service in those rural areas($50/month in West Virginia is too much for many people just for Internet access for example). In smaller countries like Japan, it becomes easier to bring high speed to EVERY home, just because the country is so small in comparison. What some people don't realize is that New York State alone is larger than many countries, and the state government is BROKE, with no money to spend on projects. The FEDERAL government is also broke, but just keeps printing money and spending, so they act like someone with an Amex platinum card who go on a spending spree for one month, and then end up in debt for the rest of their lives.
There are different things to consider. On the AMD side of things, which everyone is using for comparison, you can often drop a new CPU into pretty much any AM2+ or AM3 motherboard with just a firmware update. You don't need to replace the RAM or motherboard, and you get the benefits of the new CPU. Going to a new MEMORY type would require a new motherboard, but with all of the new AMD processors, they support BOTH DDR2 and DDR3 memory.
There really is no good excuse for needing an all new chipset for each new generation of processor UNLESS there is a very fundamental change going on. The move from DDR1 to DDR2 to DDR3 for example might be required if the CPU does not support the older memory types(meaning you WANT to prevent users from using a chip in a system that will NEVER support it). Moving to an integrated memory controller, or adding additional pins for more banks of memory MIGHT be an excuse, though these days, extra "reserved" pins should have been put into the socket specification for this, with backwards compatibility so you could drop it into an older system with a degradation in performance(you lose the extra memory controller functionality). Adding graphics to the processor SHOULD work the same way, where the graphics on the processor would not be used if you plug the processor into a system without support for it. Again, looking forward at future needs when designing a new socket would make sense, so you just have a bunch of pins on the CPU that are "reserved" for future use, then, a new CPU would just switch off features the motherboard would not support.
AMD will be moving to a new socket type in the next year or so, due to things like adding the extra pins on the CPU for graphics, a 3, 4, 6, or whatever channel memory controller, or other functions being a part of their plans for the future. But, that next socket should be good to go for the next few generations after that, and for all we know, it may even support current DDR3 processors(DDR2 would probably be dropped since new motherboards would probably not have DDR2 memory support with the new socket).
So, if AMD can do it, people would expect that 'the leader' in the industry SHOULD be able to do it as well.
Low end systems become even cheaper to produce when the chipset on the motherboard does not need to include graphics support. Also, if your add-in video card fails, you can always run off integrated until you can replace it. You are right about a 'proper' video card being a better choice overall, but if you look at those $400 to $500 computer towers being sold all over the place, not a single one has a dedicated video card.
Now, AMD is moving forward with their Fusion project, which will add a GPU to some processors, but since AMD has Hybrid CrossfireX, the GPU portion on the CPU COULD be made to work with an add-in Radeon video card for extra graphics processing power. Intel on the other hand does not make stand-alone graphics products, and they also have zero experience with multi-GPU technologies to do something similar. NVIDIA has SLI, but without a CPU, they are not a part of this discussion.
The big problem that Intel has is that their graphics technology is sub-standard, so at best, it is still about 'integrated graphics' for the performance levels. Intel also loves forcing people to upgrade motherboards CONTINUALLY, because Intel isn't just the CPU manufacturer, they are the chipset manufacturer as well. In general, Intel may have a performance lead at the high end, but due to the long-term costs, those looking for a mid-range system can still find AMD products worth using. The fact that you can start with a basic system with a dual core processor, and with just a BIOS update, you will be able to drop in a six code Phenom 2 without ANY other changes.
I use an air conditioner vent mount for my GPS, no need for a suction cup.
DDO was a normal pay to play MMORPG up until the Free to Play option was added back in September. With that in mind, I don't see that DDO would lose the free to play option after all the good it did for the game in terms of profitability. There are potential problems, but after thinking about it, there really is more chance for this being a positive for the game rather than a negative. At the very least, DDO MAY get a better working budget, rather than having LotR getting the most attention.
Rendering when you have a powerful graphics chip should not take all that much CPU power, since the rendering is offloaded. Now, keep in mind that since 3D displays with the glasses are a new technology, the current hardware is not really designed for it, so you are putting a huge burden on the system to make it work. With a new graphics chip that is designed with 3D output in mind, that additional processing drain will disappear with proper hardware support for 3D displays.
The purpose of these sort of contests isn't to come up with a REAL game, but it is more about the encouragement of being creative in game design and implementation. Remember, those who compete will probably end up working in the industry if they are lucky, and the more they focus on game design and implementation, the better they will be when the time comes for them to make a commercially viable game. The game industry really has been suffering from a shortage of NEW games that are not just a modern clone of older games, and that is a big problem.
How much true originality is there is all of the shooters and World War 2 games you see that are out there? Or RTS games that are more of the same stuff we have seen from the old Warcraft days(original RTS)? Technically games are getting better, but for gameplay, there is a huge shortage of NEW ideas, and that is what needs to be encouraged, new ideas. The reason the game industry as a whole feels a bit stale on the PC is because so few are focused on making something that is really original.
Many people willingly work in less than great conditions for pay, and you can't know if people are being forced to work long hours, or if they WANT to work the longer hours for more pay. Forcing them to work the long shifts isn't the same thing as people wanting to work long shifts.
With the way the dollar has been losing value, it won't be much longer before our wages here seem so low that we will be seen that way.
This is where you fail to understand the basics of international trade. What is a "fair wage" here in the USA would make people feel wealthy in China and other countries. Forcing people to work long hours may not be considered acceptable, but what if the workers WANT to work more hours for more money? If money is tight, you work the extra hours for the money, it is that simple. The cost of living and the acceptable wage for an area is also a key factor in what is acceptable. A mouse can be sold here for $5, so with that sort of low price, how much do you think it should cost in materials and labor for production for that mouse?
That doesn't work since a Big Mac isn't considered the "normal" food over there. Then again, the price over here has gone up by so much that there isn't much point to going to McDonalds when you can get better food for less.
With the cost of living and such over there, that may very well be like getting paid $100/day here. For someone 16-17 years old without any work experience, that isn't all that bad. Of course, I don't know the true cost of living there, but people need to stop using the exchange rates in the wrong way. If the average daily pay for an adult is $1/day but that lets someone live an average standard of living for that country, that isn't really horrible. On the flip side, if the standard of living were to go up, that would be better as well. But still, someone putting together mice and keyboards should NOT make so much that they are considered very wealthy for where they live either. I don't agree with the 15 hour work day stuff, but if the level of pay is acceptable to the people doing the work, then the only thing we can really say is that the working CONDITIONS are what we should be looking at, where there should be good airflow and it should not be too hot or cold.
Even here in the USA, some people would be happy to work for $10/hour, while for other people, they would require much more than that. Just because a wage is too low for YOU does not mean that it is too low for everyone. The cost of living is a big part of that.
For anyone with even a reasonable grasp of possibilities, the idea that aliens would automatically have the same drives as people, or even other creatures on this planet is foolish, and that is being nice about it. There is a tendency in science fiction as well as by many who claim to be looking for other life out there that there will be more of a similarity between us and alien life than differences. Even the idea that aliens would need water(H2O), or that they use what is to us the visible light spectrum, or hearing just assumes that too much of what we have here on Earth would be typical of what we might find out there is a flawed expectation.
What can we expect? The unexpected of course. They may exist based on elements we just wouldn't expect to be the building blocks of life. For all we know, there could be aluminum based life out there that could thrive in environments we would find so toxic, we just wouldn't bother looking. Their motivations, if they have any at all, might be based on the ability to see the future, so they only do things that in the long run would not hurt them(a good reason to avoid this planet). They may emit some sort of radiation that is just felt by others of their kind, not sight, not sound, but a radiation that humans would not perceive, or might be harmful to us. Or they may have some other way to sense things around them that humans just couldn't see, and as a result, have not discovered yet. And, they could reproduce automatically without the need for a mate, where variation might just happen due to exposure to others without any "act of reproduction" at all. Greed, hostility, love, hate may not apply to how things are on other planets, but other things that we do NOT understand might come into play. There might be an automatic instinct to just be closer to other beings, or to attack if something gets close...we just don't know.
So, just because the majority of humans are idiots does not mean that aliens would have the same problems. I will say that with the way that nations currently work on this planet, we are due for a meltdown, because those who really are intelligent tend to be less appreciated than the idiots who get political influence and shouldn't be in any sort of a leadership position.
There are different ways that 3D is implemented, and that is a real key to why 3D hasn't done very well overall. In most "3D" movies, you have one object here or there that "pops out" at you, and as a result, it is seen as a cheap gimmick that does nothing to enhance the watching of a movie. Avatar on the other hand, used 3D throughout the entire movie to enhance the overall appearance, and didn't really have things that really jumped out at you. For those with various types of vision problems, it is very possible that you would get less out of GOOD 3D compared to others without those problems in the same way that those without good hearing would not notice the difference between a good surround sound system and a bad system.
Now, 3D as it was done in Avatar just enhanced the overall look of the movie, even though it does not ADD to the movie. It is like the difference between mono and stereo when it comes to a radio broadcast where you either notice the enhanced display or you don't. It was one thing about Avatar that I found was good was how EVERY scene had increased depth compared to a 2D presentation.
That was my exact thought when I read this. There will always be people who are obsessed with money....now, give me a Radeon 5970 setup with the Samsung MD230 as a monitor, and I wouldn't notice much pain.
The PC as it stands will always have more potential in terms of what you can do with it, and as such, games can be made to scale higher than a console. That is really a key to why a well written PC game will ALWAYS offer more than a console game. The Radeon 5870 and even a Geforce 8800(by whatever name NVIDIA has renamed it to these days) are better than what you see in the PS3(which DOES have better hardware than the XBOX 360). So, anyone programming for the PC KNOWS that the graphics settings, detail, textures, etc could be made better. Within six months of a console release, a new video card for the PC will be released that will be at least as powerful as well.
When it comes to CPU power, PCs again have greater potential, so that isn't an issue either. For controls, not everything needs to be about a joystick, since the mouse can emulate MUCH of that feel, or just provide support for it. The keyboard on a PC provides many more keys than a console could hope for, so more complexity can be provided(not always a good thing though). The big thing is that PCs evolve much faster than consoles, so at any time a console has an advantage, within two years PCs will have caught up.
The only down side on PCs is that Intel Graphics have held the industry back. If customers actually knew how bad Intel graphics are compared to Geforce and Radeon graphics, customers would know to avoid machines with the sub-standard graphics in them. So, developers have had to program either to just put in requirements that you need a DirectX 9, 10, or 11 compliant video card which excludes the worst Intel graphics, or to scale their titles to allow for the best graphics detail to be turned off(toned down) for those with Intel graphics. That isn't really a negative since anyone who really cares about playing games SHOULD know to buy a computer that has at least acceptable graphics performance for their needs.
When it comes to DRM, the worse the copy protection, the higher the piracy rate will be, it is really very simple. EA dropped SecuROM for that reason, it upset too many people and caused too many problems. EA is actually switching to a different approach, which is to provide additional content to those who have purchased and registered the game. Mass Effect 2 for example has had a number of additional content releases that are not included with the base game, but are downloaded, with additional free downloads being provided for those who registered. Dragon Age also has free downloads for those who purchased and registered the game. So, buying the original game gives you more content than the pirated version. That is an incentive to buying the original, rather than using DRM to punish people who legally buy the game.
What type of device, tablet or netbook? Do you want a DVD drive to be a standard way to install software, or do you need to download EVERYTHING? Do you REALLY need a special tablet edition of software when the screen or keyboard are big enough to work more naturally?
There are some very basic concepts that people should know prior to making such "public" comments. First off is that a poor teacher in the early part of the education process will often turn students AWAY from certain subjects. Yes, this means that all those liberal arts focused elementary school teachers are HURTING the students by not having any interest or skill in math and science. It is far better to let someone dedicated to a subject and with a love of the subject teach that subject starting at an early age. So, dedicated math teachers for ALL grades, not just "middle school" and higher. The same goes for science, and all other subjects, we need to put an end to the old idea of a one room schoolhouse where one person is teaching ALL subjects to a class.
So, if you eliminate all the BAD teaching of math in the early years, you will find that students will respond to math better, no matter if they start sooner, or later. Logic may not really develop until around the age of 12, but learning approaches to problem solving early can help quite a bit. If you also start teaching ways to come up with solutions to problems from an early age, then children MAY start looking for new solutions at younger ages as well. Having students memorize things and recite them on demand may have its place, but nothing beats having students come up with their own solutions to problems.
I know there are SOME people out there who have $1000 to spend on just a CPU, but until these come down a long way in terms of price, it is WAY out of my price range.
So, the author decides to post about experiences with those six devices, leaving out MANY other devices. The old Palm Treo is very dated at this point, but still good for comparison purposes. How about the Palm Pre, or any of the other lesser known phones that have a keyboard? You may as well just go into your local hardware store and compare surge protectors and then claim it is news, without mentioning that a hardware store isn't going to give enough of a selection to make any sort of comparison meaningful.
There are some tasks that are very much serial, and these will not benefit from the additional cores, but there are MANY things that can benefit from the additional cores. It is NOT easier or cheaper to throw more hardware at a problem when processors are not getting all that much faster at this point, but are moving to more cores. Really, it comes down to how much understanding of multi-threading the software designers have when they design an application. You will always have some people out there who can't design with running things in parallel, and if they are the ones in charge of the overall program design, then you won't see much of an improvement to adding cores. The thing is, the longer people work on writing multi-threaded applications, the less difficult it will be.
The basic idea here is that if your task CAN be broken up into tasks that can be run in parallel, then adding more cores will improve performance until number of cores = number of threads. This means that quad core, or maybe six cores is the limit for the moment. Now, for games, more cores means that AI can become more complex, or there can be more computer controlled enemies to deal with. In games like The Witcher, a major reason for slowdowns is the number of NPCs that may be wandering around at any given time. If the game were multi-threaded with each NPC getting its own thread, you have a great example where 12 cores would probably be a great improvement. Software rendering, ray tracing and such would also see a benefit to more cores.
It will take some time for old software engines to fall out of use and new one be developed to take their place. Remember, most people DO look for ways to re-use existing code, but a fresh design WILL provide benefits.
The ability to duplicate a printed work in minutes, rather than days/weeks/months is also a modern concept. Think about it, before the printing press, it took a lot of effort to duplicate a printed work, then the printing press allowed a single setup to make as many copies as desired, but after the fact, for someone else to make a copy would require the configuration work on a new printing press to make multiple copies. And now, with photocopier technology, you can take the work of others and just read it into a computer, and then make as many as you want from there.
And that is where the need for copyright comes from, the EASY duplication of the work of others. If it takes an author a year to write a book, and a publisher several months to prepare and print, how long would it take for someone who buys just one copy of a book to reproduce all that effort by others?
The issue of needing copyright today is caused by how easy it is to duplicate things today compared to how things were in the past. Prior to the printing press for example, a duplicate needed to be done by hand, which would take a lot of time. In that situation where a lot of time would be needed to copy a printed work, there would be less concern.
The printing press then came on the scene, and suddenly, it opened the door to some problems. Still, the idea of an author earning credit for their work had to be there. Also, the printing press itself, and the work to print something wasn't terribly easy. Due to the difficulty to make a book, those investing in the printing equipment started to get some rights if they were paying the author for the publishing rights.
And, how much paper does it take, and how much cost was there. The original author still deserved SOMETHING...the idea that others should be able to make money on the work of someone else is what copyright is all about. The author writes something, and no matter how far down the line something goes, the author should always get SOME portion of the profits.
And that is really what is going on today, who makes money on the work of others? Pirated music, or movies gives nothing back to the people who have made them, and there is no skill required to duplicate ANYTHING anymore.
So, back to some of the things you have said...
Artists would need to survive on merit...does that mean that they would need to keep performing concerts, while their songs are sold in a store for a profit for the rest of eternity? So, other people keep making money on a recording the original artist made, and that artist is expected not to make money on that same recording? If the world can enjoy listening to a recorded track for all eternity, shouldn't the original recording artist also deserve SOMETHING for each copy since people still listen to it?
An artist who makes one song that does not sell well doesn't deserve to just get money for nothing, but if you like a song enough to keep listening to it, shouldn't the artist who performed get something? Basically, it should be up to the artist to decide the reproduction rules on their work since skill isn't needed for reproduction of music.
Basically, I am an advocate of those who create things getting paid for what they have made, and I am against corporate entities who make money off artists and don't give the artists their fair share of the proceeds. For music, if 10,000,000 people want to download a music track at $1 per copy, at least 10 cents of each dollar should go to the artist. For movies, it is a bit tough, since the cost to make a movie is so high, it may take 10,000,000 sales at $20 each just to break even on the production costs. At that point, can you say that any illegal copies are acceptable if something you enjoy ended up causing a net loss to make it?
Things would be a bit different if it cost $1000 for the equipment needed to do reproductions plus a lot more for materials and such, but let's face it, technology has allowed for cheap reproduction, and those who create WOULD be screwed without some protections in place to make sure they get properly compensated.