That makes no sense to me, but you should know that they have the British Army on their side:
The firm said today that the British Army will adopt SCO's Unix platform, server solutions and services to keep its helicopters trim and ship shape.
The project is worth £3.5 million with a rollout finished by the end of next year.
The article talks about possible solutions to the problem of "repeatability" while still avoiding the problem of cheating in the way alleged here. I don't remember it mentioning this possible solution though: How about if the camera was controlled by a mathematical function of a seed given by hand. Like you'd seed a PRNG.
This way you could repeat the benchmarks by giving the same seed. Generate a 'default one' at each new install (this to ensure clueless reviewers get a new seed). Make it easy to enter a new one or generate a random one.
The explosion of possible views (if implemented correctly) would make it all but impossible to cheat in the way alleged, no?
"* either control over your reverse DNS (for full opportunism) or the ability to write to some forward domain (for initiator-only)
* (for full opportunism) a static IP"
Don't know about the US, but over here >90% of all cable/DSL is on dhcp and I'm fairly sure you don't control your reverse-DNS.
I'm not sure of the role the static IP plays in this, but it would be nice if it could be hacked around so that dhcp-assigned IPs could be used too (scripting updates to DNS on change of IP is easy). Maybe put them (a range of IPs instead of one) in a lower security class if need be.
Well, it has completely taken over the game-dev market. There's a looooot av gamers in the world (and yes, many of them actually come in contact with the format the games use, since modding and mucking about with games is also very popular)
These firms are and represent the scum of the earth. Why? Because they take money from their clients in cases where they know they have no legal standing. They're just bullies for hire, and quite possibly they even fool their clients into thinking they have a real complaint. Scum.
If hacking is outlawed (and talking about it), only outlaws will know how to hack.
Which of course is the whole point of making ever more laws. But ah, someone else can put it better than me:
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
I'm no big Ayn Rand fun, but it got some things right.
I found the concept of BitTorrent pretty cool; as a normal user you only share what you're currently downloading! Clients download in "segments" from multiple other clients in a distributed fashion.
There are problems; The space for the file "must" be preallocated. If you end after getting 50% there's no guarantee that you've got anything like a usable file (you can't expect even streamable files to work), and the fact that there are fewer and fewer sources to get data from as you approach the end of the file, this because clients usually close down when they've completed the download, thereby never giving the others a chance to download from the complete file.
BitTorrent is good for files that are mostly interesting for a short period of time, like for instance recorded TV-shows.
The one thing that is needed is some way to punish nodes that close down as soon as they've completed their download.
If I might go ahead and speculate (which I love to do:-), then I'd say that Stellar Deep is Brian wanting to do something really big, but understanding intellectually that it's almost impossible to pull off.
He's not out to create something as grand E&B, but he's trying to compress the essence of what makes those games fun, into one small product just large enough to realistically be pulled off by his small team.
The problem might be that in his mind the game is still a little too large, and as more and more features are peeled off, the whole might not look as interesting any more. There's a certain reality to being a small developer that you must face.
But I think it's great that he's trying. He's out there doing what I'm only dreaming about, doodling away my time with books and mailinglist, deluding myself into thinking that maybe one day, the game of my dreams will "spring" from my fingertips.
Surely there are some more illuminated people in the game industry that are more worthy of interviews?
Why the either-that-or-that position? I've read the interview now, and others, and Brian comes across as one who Gets It. That's actually enough for me to find an interview with him interesting. You can pick up Game Design: Secret of the Sages
and read stuff by Spector, Molyneux, Wright, Gilbert, etc. I've done so, and I'll tell you what; They mostly say the same thing!
I think Brian is cool because he understands the reason for writing portable software, for instance, which was hardly mentioned by any of the "luminaries" in your list.
While Spector and the rest still work with giant teams and foster (well, their companies certainly do) this aura of "they're gods that should be looked up to", Brian is out there doing things mostly on his own.
I'd like a little less focus on the "man" and a little more focus on what the "man" says.
In my mind it was. One could make the case that it could bump the min-specs, but personally, I could live with that if you count all the pros of going 3D for objects.
If you base what NWN is by playing just the OC then your missing the point of NWN.
No, I'm not. I'm aware that there's a lot of apologetics out there who'll say that "SP isn't the point" or "the OC isn't the point" or "MP with people you don't know isn't the point" or "MP without a gamemaster isn't the point"... but I'm sorry, I bought an actual GAME, not a license for a 3D engine with scripting.
I was after a greate SP experience (as promised by the PR!) and fun multiplayer gaming -- out of the box. You know, the one I bought so that I could play the game as soon as I got home?
The article is thoroughly slashdot'ed now. Any word on their Stellar Deep and why it's been "hidden" on the site? I get the feeling that maybe they announced it a little too early.
Follow the link and you'll see references to othergames that may or may not be in production.
Personally I didn't find Candy Cruncher all that fun.
Been there, done that, and the game is even WORSE in multiplayer. Boooooring.
"everyone" says that MP is what NWN is about. They're wrong as far as I am concerened. I've played BG1+ToSC, BG2+ToB, IWD1+HoW and IWD2 with friends, and we've never had such fun with NWN. We tried it. Played into the second chapter.. and it was just so incredibly boring.
I don't like saying that, but it's the truth. I've player BG/IWD/PS:T for _months_ _effective_ time, but NWN had me tired after a few days. It's all so bland, bland, bland.
Though I'm actually hopeful that the coming expansions might but the Game back in NWN.
Personally, I think there's a market for a new Infinity Engine. The problem with IE is that it's hell to work with -- the scripting was written by someone with no prior experience (or a diabolical sadistic humor) -- and the use of classic 2d-animation for characters and items was a mistake from the beginning, and the way multiplayer got hacked in... anyway, over the years the engine got almost impossible to work with, as more and more cruft collected.
However, the concept works and will work in the future! It just needs to be done right for once. NWN ("Aurora engine") isn't the improved IE, it's something else completely. Some like it that way, but I and many with me still prefer the older kind of IE gameplay.
lionheart might be it, but somehow... I don't know, I doubt it.
I think the next great innovation may come out of from an independent developer, one who grew up with the IE games and wants to do it right. There was a fork in the road, and the sign said "3D, action and spiffy effects" in one direction, and "storytelling, interaction and AI" on the other. Bioware went one way, I want to explore the other.
Then you really don't understand Christianity at all I'm afraid...
Oh, I understand it very well, as far as any collective delusion can be understood. I tasted it, educated myself, and then walked away.
Suppose you are married man. You are supposed to love your wife.
Yes?
Now imagine that instead of being with and spending time with your wife, you spend time looking looking at pornography.
You can replace pornography with anything above. The key is moderation. I've already acknowledged in my original post that there'll always be a small small percentage that cannot handle $some_random_topic. If you recall, I made the point that a) This isn't very likely to help those who have a real problem and b) This isn't directed at those who have a _real_ problem, this is directed at every "man" out there.
Are you telling me you don't even smell a whiff or moral betrayal? That it is perfectly ok to bring sexual images of other people into your home?
YES! Sheesh. The logical conclusion is that fantasies (you know, the things in your head) are "moral betrayal". If you see a beautiful woman and think of her sexually, then you should feel shame, is that your position? I'm sorry, but I don't understand why it would be "moral betrayal" -- that's just typical moralistic bullshit of the kind one usually get from people whose mind are infected with religion.
Are you saying that your wife should be perfectly fine with the idea of you viewing pornography,
I'm saying that if she isn't fine with it, then that is her problem. Her problem is your problem, so you work it out. You deal. Maybe you don't like it when she goes to church, so you decide that you don't get porn and she doesn't get church.
Personally, I couldn't live with a person who didn't at least understand my need for graphic sexuality, and in fact I would much prefer it if she too liked it! Sex and fantasies are so much better when you have someone to share them with:-)
I'm a sexual animal, and I like it. I don't feel ashamed of it at all, and I strongly recent the implication that this is my problem.
and that any objection she may have is because she is "programmed" to feel that way?
I was talking of the person watching porn and then feeling bad about it. Why does he/she feel bad? Why, because he/she has _learned_ that they _should_ feel bad!
I don't think you have really thought about the ramifications of allowing pornography in a relationship
I don't think you've even presented any evidence at all that there are some special ramifications to expect, other than one or two people enjoying something in a sexual context. Ohh, sex is BAD?! Oh, I get it... more of that religious moralistic hogwash.
but the fact is that it is something that can really damage a relationship.
I know something else which can damage a relationship; lying and hiding things for each other, pushing guilt and not giving your partner a personal life.
I think you're seeing the world through glasses with a deep shade of cultural bias.
Here, let me help you; Everything you feel is bad with porn, think "practice religion" instead, and you have something close to my view. Now, do you still feel that, if my partner had that problem, _she_ should be the one to change? If not, then I suggest you're a hypocrite, unless you can provide some very strong evidence that porn is different from other percieved problems.
I don't have anything against it, but the whole concept is stupid. This is just a new vehicle of self-deceit. This "solution" creates one more thing for people to "fail" at, which will make them feel even worse about themselves!
What is needed is for people to come to the insight that the problem isn't the "looking at porn" part, the problem is the "feeling guilt about it afterwards" part, a guilt that only exists because you've been _programmed_ to feel it! Guilt and fear is the core fuel of Christianity.
I repeat, the solution isn't the add layers, the solution is to _remove_ layers. In this case, remove the belief that looking at something will harm you. Get a fucking grip!
There's a small percentage that cannot handle porn and get addicted, just like there are people who cannot handle gambling or alcohol. Will this help these people? I think not. They'll just use it to deceive themselves and their family, thereby prolonging the time till they get _real_ help.
Yes it dows. It's not a different problem. I can only read the description; "how to better utilize available bandwidth", which is exactly what the FAQ describes how to do (that is, making sure the ACKs get through so that uploading doesn't kill your downloads, which gives better utilization).
If the article _IS NOT_ about "how to better utilize available bandwidth" then I guess you have a point, but then I can only suggest you address the submitter and ask him to properly describe his submissions in the future.
Some people really jump at the chance to buy individual tracks. I don't. When I buy CDs I buy them because they represent a piece of art, as a whole, that I think I'll enjoy. I want all the songs. Buying a single track is like buying a single chapter off a book, as far as I'm concerened. This might be a genre thing, but I'm completely uninterested in purchasing individual tracks.
In fact, I feel pretty unenthusiastic about the whole "buy to download"-thing. I can only see myself using it if I can get my downloads in an unencumbered format (vorbis, or one of the lossless ones -- MY CHOICE!) and get whole albums _very_ cheaply. The delivery system ("site") would have to be good too. No horrible MTV-wannabe flash/javascript/java-hell. It cannot be "IE only".
I don't know where I'm going with this, but to say that I'm not very interested in this development.
I want to buy a cheap physical media in attractive packaging with good content. Figure out how to manufacture-on-demand instead. Make sure things never leave the catalogue. Give me a good price, and I won't download the stuff.
I destroyed the LCD of my fathers cheapo Satellite by more or less sitting on it (oops!). He replaced the screen, but about year later he had the thing in the back of his van and a toolbox or something came down on top of it. It still works if you hook it up to an external monitor, but he bought a new laptop anyway. Cheap plastic crap that Satellite CDS-stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
It's all so confusing.
That makes no sense to me, but you should know that they have the British Army on their side:
The firm said today that the British Army will adopt SCO's Unix platform, server solutions and services to keep its helicopters trim and ship shape. The project is worth £3.5 million with a rollout finished by the end of next year.
The Meta-level Compilation groups Stanford Checker is doing the same thing for linux (and others). Faschinating tech in my mind.
You mean Fermat's Enigma? My review here.
The article talks about possible solutions to the problem of "repeatability" while still avoiding the problem of cheating in the way alleged here. I don't remember it mentioning this possible solution though: How about if the camera was controlled by a mathematical function of a seed given by hand. Like you'd seed a PRNG.
This way you could repeat the benchmarks by giving the same seed. Generate a 'default one' at each new install (this to ensure clueless reviewers get a new seed). Make it easy to enter a new one or generate a random one.
The explosion of possible views (if implemented correctly) would make it all but impossible to cheat in the way alleged, no?
How sad, 600+ posts and you're the only one [that I can see] mentioning PS:T?
PS:T is a kick in the butt of the it's about non-linearity and Games aren't about story crowds.
The magic is where story and freedom meets.
Problem is, the requirements include:
"* either control over your reverse DNS (for full opportunism) or the ability to write to some forward domain (for initiator-only)
* (for full opportunism) a static IP"
Don't know about the US, but over here >90% of all cable/DSL is on dhcp and I'm fairly sure you don't control your reverse-DNS.
I'm not sure of the role the static IP plays in this, but it would be nice if it could be hacked around so that dhcp-assigned IPs could be used too (scripting updates to DNS on change of IP is easy). Maybe put them (a range of IPs instead of one) in a lower security class if need be.
Well, it has completely taken over the game-dev market. There's a looooot av gamers in the world (and yes, many of them actually come in contact with the format the games use, since modding and mucking about with games is also very popular)
And it's _vorbis_.
Another proper response is to register sucks-sites for both the prosecuting party and their lawyers.
Remember, Gifford-Krass-Grohsprinkle sucks.
These firms are and represent the scum of the earth. Why? Because they take money from their clients in cases where they know they have no legal standing. They're just bullies for hire, and quite possibly they even fool their clients into thinking they have a real complaint. Scum.
See also MichaelSavageSucks.com also nastygramed by radio show lawyers
If hacking is outlawed (and talking about it), only outlaws will know how to hack.
Which of course is the whole point of making ever more laws. But ah, someone else can put it better than me:
I'm no big Ayn Rand fun, but it got some things right.
I found the concept of BitTorrent pretty cool; as a normal user you only share what you're currently downloading! Clients download in "segments" from multiple other clients in a distributed fashion.
There are problems; The space for the file "must" be preallocated. If you end after getting 50% there's no guarantee that you've got anything like a usable file (you can't expect even streamable files to work), and the fact that there are fewer and fewer sources to get data from as you approach the end of the file, this because clients usually close down when they've completed the download, thereby never giving the others a chance to download from the complete file.
BitTorrent is good for files that are mostly interesting for a short period of time, like for instance recorded TV-shows.
The one thing that is needed is some way to punish nodes that close down as soon as they've completed their download.
If I might go ahead and speculate (which I love to do :-), then I'd say that Stellar Deep is Brian wanting to do something really big, but understanding intellectually that it's almost impossible to pull off.
He's not out to create something as grand E&B, but he's trying to compress the essence of what makes those games fun, into one small product just large enough to realistically be pulled off by his small team.
The problem might be that in his mind the game is still a little too large, and as more and more features are peeled off, the whole might not look as interesting any more. There's a certain reality to being a small developer that you must face.
But I think it's great that he's trying. He's out there doing what I'm only dreaming about, doodling away my time with books and mailinglist, deluding myself into thinking that maybe one day, the game of my dreams will "spring" from my fingertips.
Surely there are some more illuminated people in the game industry that are more worthy of interviews?
Why the either-that-or-that position? I've read the interview now, and others, and Brian comes across as one who Gets It. That's actually enough for me to find an interview with him interesting. You can pick up Game Design: Secret of the Sages
and read stuff by Spector, Molyneux, Wright, Gilbert, etc. I've done so, and I'll tell you what; They mostly say the same thing!I think Brian is cool because he understands the reason for writing portable software, for instance, which was hardly mentioned by any of the "luminaries" in your list.
While Spector and the rest still work with giant teams and foster (well, their companies certainly do) this aura of "they're gods that should be looked up to", Brian is out there doing things mostly on his own.
I'd like a little less focus on the "man" and a little more focus on what the "man" says.
In my mind it was. One could make the case that it could bump the min-specs, but personally, I could live with that if you count all the pros of going 3D for objects.
Feel free to expand on the "NOT" part.
If you base what NWN is by playing just the OC then your missing the point of NWN.
No, I'm not. I'm aware that there's a lot of apologetics out there who'll say that "SP isn't the point" or "the OC isn't the point" or "MP with people you don't know isn't the point" or "MP without a gamemaster isn't the point"... but I'm sorry, I bought an actual GAME, not a license for a 3D engine with scripting.
I was after a greate SP experience (as promised by the PR!) and fun multiplayer gaming -- out of the box. You know, the one I bought so that I could play the game as soon as I got home?
The article is thoroughly slashdot'ed now. Any word on their Stellar Deep and why it's been "hidden" on the site? I get the feeling that maybe they announced it a little too early.
Follow the link and you'll see references to other games that may or may not be in production.
Personally I didn't find Candy Cruncher all that fun.
Been there, done that, and the game is even WORSE in multiplayer. Boooooring.
"everyone" says that MP is what NWN is about. They're wrong as far as I am concerened. I've played BG1+ToSC, BG2+ToB, IWD1+HoW and IWD2 with friends, and we've never had such fun with NWN. We tried it. Played into the second chapter.. and it was just so incredibly boring.
I don't like saying that, but it's the truth. I've player BG/IWD/PS:T for _months_ _effective_ time, but NWN had me tired after a few days. It's all so bland, bland, bland.
Though I'm actually hopeful that the coming expansions might but the Game back in NWN.
Personally, I think there's a market for a new Infinity Engine. The problem with IE is that it's hell to work with -- the scripting was written by someone with no prior experience (or a diabolical sadistic humor) -- and the use of classic 2d-animation for characters and items was a mistake from the beginning, and the way multiplayer got hacked in... anyway, over the years the engine got almost impossible to work with, as more and more cruft collected.
However, the concept works and will work in the future! It just needs to be done right for once. NWN ("Aurora engine") isn't the improved IE, it's something else completely. Some like it that way, but I and many with me still prefer the older kind of IE gameplay.
lionheart might be it, but somehow... I don't know, I doubt it.
I think the next great innovation may come out of from an independent developer, one who grew up with the IE games and wants to do it right. There was a fork in the road, and the sign said "3D, action and spiffy effects" in one direction, and "storytelling, interaction and AI" on the other. Bioware went one way, I want to explore the other.
Oh, I understand it very well, as far as any collective delusion can be understood. I tasted it, educated myself, and then walked away.
Yes?
You can replace pornography with anything above. The key is moderation. I've already acknowledged in my original post that there'll always be a small small percentage that cannot handle $some_random_topic. If you recall, I made the point that a) This isn't very likely to help those who have a real problem and b) This isn't directed at those who have a _real_ problem, this is directed at every "man" out there.
YES! Sheesh. The logical conclusion is that fantasies (you know, the things in your head) are "moral betrayal". If you see a beautiful woman and think of her sexually, then you should feel shame, is that your position? I'm sorry, but I don't understand why it would be "moral betrayal" -- that's just typical moralistic bullshit of the kind one usually get from people whose mind are infected with religion.
I'm saying that if she isn't fine with it, then that is her problem. Her problem is your problem, so you work it out. You deal. Maybe you don't like it when she goes to church, so you decide that you don't get porn and she doesn't get church.
Personally, I couldn't live with a person who didn't at least understand my need for graphic sexuality, and in fact I would much prefer it if she too liked it! Sex and fantasies are so much better when you have someone to share them with :-)
I'm a sexual animal, and I like it. I don't feel ashamed of it at all, and I strongly recent the implication that this is my problem.
I was talking of the person watching porn and then feeling bad about it. Why does he/she feel bad? Why, because he/she has _learned_ that they _should_ feel bad!
I don't think you've even presented any evidence at all that there are some special ramifications to expect, other than one or two people enjoying something in a sexual context. Ohh, sex is BAD?! Oh, I get it... more of that religious moralistic hogwash.
I know something else which can damage a relationship; lying and hiding things for each other, pushing guilt and not giving your partner a personal life.
I think you're seeing the world through glasses with a deep shade of cultural bias.
Here, let me help you; Everything you feel is bad with porn, think "practice religion" instead, and you have something close to my view. Now, do you still feel that, if my partner had that problem, _she_ should be the one to change? If not, then I suggest you're a hypocrite, unless you can provide some very strong evidence that porn is different from other percieved problems.
I don't have anything against it, but the whole concept is stupid. This is just a new vehicle of self-deceit. This "solution" creates one more thing for people to "fail" at, which will make them feel even worse about themselves!
What is needed is for people to come to the insight that the problem isn't the "looking at porn" part, the problem is the "feeling guilt about it afterwards" part, a guilt that only exists because you've been _programmed_ to feel it! Guilt and fear is the core fuel of Christianity.
I repeat, the solution isn't the add layers, the solution is to _remove_ layers. In this case, remove the belief that looking at something will harm you. Get a fucking grip!
There's a small percentage that cannot handle porn and get addicted, just like there are people who cannot handle gambling or alcohol. Will this help these people? I think not. They'll just use it to deceive themselves and their family, thereby prolonging the time till they get _real_ help.
"I'd think (and sorry but a raided 7.2k would get better rates than 10k single, while probably not costing much more)."
This preview says otherwise:
"Yes, you're reading that right, this drive IS beating RAIDed ATA100 drives! it's a slim margin, but still"
"Time to get out a maginifying glass"
You could do that. Or you could just select your desired magnification from the zoom-selector at the bottom of your Opera window. :-)
Yes it dows. It's not a different problem. I can only read the description; "how to better utilize available bandwidth", which is exactly what the FAQ describes how to do (that is, making sure the ACKs get through so that uploading doesn't kill your downloads, which gives better utilization).
If the article _IS NOT_ about "how to better utilize available bandwidth" then I guess you have a point, but then I can only suggest you address the submitter and ask him to properly describe his submissions in the future.
The Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HOWTO discuss how to achieve the same thing on linux using QoS. See section 9.2.2.2(Sample configuration)
Some people really jump at the chance to buy individual tracks. I don't. When I buy CDs I buy them because they represent a piece of art, as a whole, that I think I'll enjoy. I want all the songs. Buying a single track is like buying a single chapter off a book, as far as I'm concerened. This might be a genre thing, but I'm completely uninterested in purchasing individual tracks.
In fact, I feel pretty unenthusiastic about the whole "buy to download"-thing. I can only see myself using it if I can get my downloads in an unencumbered format (vorbis, or one of the lossless ones -- MY CHOICE!) and get whole albums _very_ cheaply. The delivery system ("site") would have to be good too. No horrible MTV-wannabe flash/javascript/java-hell. It cannot be "IE only".
I don't know where I'm going with this, but to say that I'm not very interested in this development.
I want to buy a cheap physical media in attractive packaging with good content. Figure out how to manufacture-on-demand instead. Make sure things never leave the catalogue. Give me a good price, and I won't download the stuff.
I destroyed the LCD of my fathers cheapo Satellite by more or less sitting on it (oops!). He replaced the screen, but about year later he had the thing in the back of his van and a toolbox or something came down on top of it. It still works if you hook it up to an external monitor, but he bought a new laptop anyway. Cheap plastic crap that Satellite CDS-stuff.
(We're not this stupid in real life :-)