The Mansion of E has an awesome story. The author spent 9 years covering a 20 hour period, and did an excellent job in the process. Quite the feat. http://mansionofe.comicgenesis.com/
As an avid nVidia fan, I do hope they will share their findings with AMD(and Intel if applicable) to prevent anti-trust monopolies and to encourage even more innovation.
It appears as though authentication was bypassed via a malicious email(probably from an SQL injection attack). Then, sensitive data that was NOT encrypted(but should have been) was obtained(Bank Account Numbers, SSN's, etc.). Did you read the article?
This engine is now sporting the best real-time lighting tech available, as well as one of the most usable programming, mapping, and scripting systems to date. A single person can build a AAA quality game. And I doubt Epic is currently targeting OpenGL and Linux.:(
I realize this isn't a game, but it will be the basis for a multitude of future games.
The massive majority of Apple users aren't even aware of what Unix is, much less that a secondary Unix environment exists...
It's rather naive to consider it a large share of the *nix market when it isn't being used in that market. It would be far more intelligent to consider the number who utilize the core *nix features in counting the *nix market share number.
Also, the XNU kernel has enough changes for me to believe that it isn't even close to a Unix compatible setup. The Unix setup is more of an addition/emulation with it's own environment(from my observations of the file system and process structure). For goodness sake, X11 applications have to run on their own X Server which passes it's output back to the terrible X Server(if it could be called one) that Apple hosts on the Grand Central Dispatch emulation layer on the XNU kernel. As a Unix environment, it's the last thing I would ever voluntarily choose to use. I would rather use Cygwin or MinGW instead...
If your laptop is having issues playing high-bitrate 1080-60p videos, then you might want to re-examine your disks IO rates and throughput consistency. It's likely that the bitrate is higher than what your drive can deliver, possibly because the drive is heavily fragmented and latency has increased. It's also possible that your laptop is severely clocking down your FSB, which would also potentially introduce problems. Almost any Dual-Core computer from the last 6 years could easily handle a 1080-60p video with a 30-40mbps stream with ease, and I'm being generously high on that bitrate number.
On the subject of PS3 playback, I cannot accept it as a legitimate decoding platform until it NATIVELY supports h.264 Hi10p and the Matroska video container. Why?
Matroska has the highest level of flexibility and the widest support for not just video and audio codecs, but also integrated SSA and the highly-superior ASS format subtitle support.
h.264 Hi10p not only expands the color depth, decreasing banding and increasing quality, but also produces a smaller file at the same bitrate compared to it's 8bit counter-part. In case this seems impossible, the increased depth improves the results for motion vector and qpel search, increases the quality of DCT's, and matches the CABAC encoder algorithm in such a way that the final losslessly compressed file is smaller.
Since half of the current non-commercial video content is delivered in this way, it's kinda important.
Also, the PS3 Media Server should not be considered in this discussion, as the video is decoded and rendered on the hostPC and the output is streamed to the PS3.
I never argued against better text rendering, as it does improve the look. I was arguing against the halfway approach taken on the hardware acceleration side.
On this then, our opinions differ, as across the hundreds of LCD screens I have used, any non-native resolution looks horrendous to me. I use AA to resolve aliasing and transparent texture flicker creating a precise and crisp image.
And that is my complaint. LCD displays are notorious for their terrible up-scaling, and that has not changed. The rendered image will be blurry, this is a side effect of attempting to interpolate framebuffer information. At it's best, it will be a bi-cubic or bi-linear upscale. And that looks hideous. The point of this screen resolution is clarity, and framebuffer up-scaling is in direct opposition with this concept and unacceptable for the extremely high price-point of the device.
Mac OSX has never been a gaming platform. Still, it would be wiser to let the other available technology catch up. This is a mismatched display/GPU solution, and time should be a serious factor here. This just provides more evidence as to why the Macbook series is considered by most geeks to be an extremely expensive Facebook platform.
Despite that, putting a GTX 680M in this system is not an impossible task, especially for the "innovation" and "quality" expected from Apple. If the clock speed is sufficiently cut, and the vcore with it, the GTX 680M would provide the necessary power to drive a 2880x1800 screen in the area of gaming. It might be time for Apple to consider a more aggressive and efficient cooling setup, as my understanding of their current setup is quite humorous in nature, not unlike that of the Xbox 360. It is important to note that the GPU is not always tasked at 100%. The cooling fans would only need to provide extra noise and extra airflow under a game execution scenario. If one is going to select a 2880x1800 resolution framebuffer, then one must also select sufficient hardware. It's quite the cop-out.
(To save extraneous conversation, I do realize there is a cooling fan in the MBP, and that there is a front/bottom to hinge airflow pattern. When the system is disassembled, the cooling equipment is rather sparse and even with a fan seems far more passive in nature.)
If they matched a competent GPU with that 2880x1800 resolution, then I might agree with you despite the fanboi troll speak you are spewing, BUT a GT 650M is a despicably under-powered GPU for such a large framebuffer. At least have some pride and use a 680M. Good luck driving even a mediocre level of shader computation against that resolution. But hey, it makes Facebook and Word look pretty!
Not in the simulated sense, but in the motion smoothing sense. My apologies for picking the wrong descriptive adjective. I should have called it motion smoothing.
I meant to say that I hate the inertia/momentum effect. It gets in my way, as I tend to use the system as fast as possible which requires a precise and accurate display of the content. Smoothing effects do help build a flow during use, but inertia will break that flow slowing the user down some as they compensate.
I was specifically targeting new games. OS X has always been a few years behind on most titles that are ported except mainly Starcraft 2. Obviously, with boot camp, this can be dodged, but it doesn't change the fact that even the GPU is a few years behind in the quality vs price ratio.
It's pretty good for a laptop with a 1680x1050 resolution screen, it's a terrible idea for a 2880x1800 resolution screen. Both Supreme Commander 2 and Quake 3 are absurdly old. Both have little in the way of shader content, relying mostly on polygon fill rate and texture fill rate. This is sounding strangely similar to Apple's phone and tablet series.
While such a high DPI looks great, there was this disconnect in the selection of a GPU. A 650M is capable of driving the Compositing of the desktop and that is about it. When it comes to shader processing on such a high number of fragments, the user will suffer. Granted, Apple has NEVER been known for giving a singular crap about gaming, but I feel they could have done a LITTLE better for the price.
Re:"I'm still waiting for my under $50 Macbook."
on
The $45 Windows Laptop
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I have used it. It was inaccurate and clunky. I have NEVER needed to rotate a photograph inaccurately in increments smaller than 90 degrees. When I need to rotate something precisely, I enter the numeric value or use a mouse, where I have support for my wrist to allow precise control.
The zoom functionality works well when the application supports smooth zooming. Otherwise, it's just as clunky trying to pick one of 3 locked percentages. This is a functionality support issue.
The scrolling drives me nuts. I HATE physics emulated scrolling. A simple friction slowdown is far more controllable and intuitive TO ME.
I realize Apple user's quite enjoy their trackpad. I simply wanted to point out that there are some of us who find it gets in our way. It's not universally better, it's suited to it's target audience: you.
Since I was not raised on the theory of evolution, I have more of an inclination to question it than someone who has only been taught the theory of evolution. I do not disagree with the currently observed results of micro-evolution, but there are far less factual observations of macro-evolution and far more theoretical thought-experiment paths. I was discussing this with someone else. There is an article discussing a test run to see if atmospheric gas from long ago would produce something else if held under the same circumstances as earth: high hydrogen content, barren surface of rock, and a long period of UV exposure. The method to test this? Take a small container of gas with high hydrogen content, and bombard it with electricity for a short period of time. Seems to contradict the base tenants of science. For this kind of reason, I question this theory. You did call a fact a theory: "Evolutionary *theory* explains how this is so. To disagree with this *fact* in this day and age amounts to sheer willful ignorance, does it not?" Those two terms seem to be interchangeable in alot of scientific debates or articles I've seen to this day. Combining a fact with a theory, does not create a fact. All evidence has to be factual for something to be labeled as a fact. Even if a single portion of it is theoretical, it is to be called a theory.
I believe I was thinking of Richard Dawkins.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, while occasionally sarcastic, is actually well mannered whenever I have seen him speak or discuss.
Also, only the Westborough Baptist Church is proud and stupid enough to consider themselves God's chosen purpose for the universe. All the Christians I know, see themselves as servants, not chosen ones.
Let me see if I can properly convey the concept in my head:
If people are perfect, they would be identical copies with no flaws and no variations(because beauty would need to be a consistent level of perfection...i.e. identical).
Post death, everything is perfect. For perfection to exist in everything, it must also exist in human emotion. This means a constant level of happiness is required, as this would satisfy the definition of perfection in everything. So, boredom would not exist. Since it is a non-human construct, Heaven can create whatever rules of existence that it wishes to, possibly changing a person's version of happiness to fit the situation. Since we are discussing an omnipotent being in this context, then his omnipotence allows him to define this as he wishes. Still, in the Bible, heaven is constructed as a place where there is perfection from sin, not perfection of the individual. The flaws and sickness issues of the human will be solved. Still discussing an omnipotent being here, so he can do as he wishes, such as re-write the laws of human emotion.
Si. Contrary to the opinion of the moderator haunting my every post in a crusade of self justice(and completely missing the real content), this was in fact my troll post, one done in response to a rather terse and sarcastic post by h4rr4r. I decided to take the "superiority complex" path of conversation for the fun of it. It provided mild entertainment while I tested a rather lengthy Perl script I was developing. In contrast, the comment this moderator marked as trolling, was in fact a serious question of scientific integrity. He seems blind to that though... I must say, I prefer reddit discussions. Crowdsourced rating's provide a balance and objective conversation, not the weighted opinion-based voting system of slashdot. I shall resign to only reading the articles from this point forward.
Since the issue doesn't affect my daily life, I have no qualms. If it interfered with my daily tasks in some way, then I would question the validity of the problem.
A flat earth was a completely wrong conclusion that had been proven wrong long before it was theorized.
Both knowing the earth was spherical, and calculating it's circumference, as Eratosthenes did, was a significant step towards the correct conclusion that could only be proven through advances in technology: The earth bulges, but even then, it's surface is a complex texture.
Who are you to say that your opinion is the only correct one? Who are you to say that your conclusions are the only possible set of results?
Reality does that, because science works. Science doesn't deal in opinions. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.
This was targeted at the original author and his haughty attitude of omnipotent knowledge and superiority that he displayed.
Now, none of my content was targeted towards those who live under the influence of science, be it technology, knowledge, or curiosity. It was targeted at the scientists themselves, who have shown a trend of self invoked superiority. I hope this clarifies the scope and target of my discussion. Science has produced many solid pieces of information(but which are still open for failure, as all things are), and it has proven useful, to the point that I trust technology, a car, modern medicine, etc. to function. That was not my point at all, neither did I attack the intelligence of the scientific community as you claim. I attacked their misplaced self-confidence. This same self confidence leads some scientists to consider their theories as fact. They gain a sense of superiority, and condescend on any who disagree. This is the character of a child. I respect someone who holds their own work in a humble fashion. I abhor the proud. They cast a dark spot upon our culture, and the entirety of the human race.
I am glad that one person has successfully read and interpreted my post.
Exactly. Theories should bide their time, and when they are proven wrong or replaced, they should step down(so to speak). My issue is thus: many scientists sit beside a theory treating it as a solidified law. This confidence is misplaced, and leads to false theories being propagated for extended periods of time.
As for Faith, I personally have Faith in the creation of the Earth by God. I have no desire to debate that here, as every religious debate I have ever been in quickly descends into foolish name calling and character attacks. I have purposefully abstracted religion out of this discussion.
I mentioned nothing about religion or prayer, neither did I deny the research of science. I simply questioned the omnipotent persona science likes to frequently portray. Did you take the time to comprehend my original piece of literature? Or did you simplify my comment into the common vernacular in the same lewd manner in which you responded?
Yet so many scientists refuse to question their own theories and postulates. I see far too many thought exercises and far too little research. It seems that personality attack and condescension have become a required character trait of scientists. I have no respect for someone with a foul mouth and snark responses.
Slashdot Mirror
The Mansion of E has an awesome story. The author spent 9 years covering a 20 hour period, and did an excellent job in the process. Quite the feat.
http://mansionofe.comicgenesis.com/
As an avid nVidia fan, I do hope they will share their findings with AMD(and Intel if applicable) to prevent anti-trust monopolies and to encourage even more innovation.
It appears as though authentication was bypassed via a malicious email(probably from an SQL injection attack). Then, sensitive data that was NOT encrypted(but should have been) was obtained(Bank Account Numbers, SSN's, etc.). Did you read the article?
This engine is now sporting the best real-time lighting tech available, as well as one of the most usable programming, mapping, and scripting systems to date. A single person can build a AAA quality game. And I doubt Epic is currently targeting OpenGL and Linux. :(
I realize this isn't a game, but it will be the basis for a multitude of future games.
The massive majority of Apple users aren't even aware of what Unix is, much less that a secondary Unix environment exists...
It's rather naive to consider it a large share of the *nix market when it isn't being used in that market. It would be far more intelligent to consider the number who utilize the core *nix features in counting the *nix market share number.
Also, the XNU kernel has enough changes for me to believe that it isn't even close to a Unix compatible setup. The Unix setup is more of an addition/emulation with it's own environment(from my observations of the file system and process structure). For goodness sake, X11 applications have to run on their own X Server which passes it's output back to the terrible X Server(if it could be called one) that Apple hosts on the Grand Central Dispatch emulation layer on the XNU kernel. As a Unix environment, it's the last thing I would ever voluntarily choose to use. I would rather use Cygwin or MinGW instead...
If your laptop is having issues playing high-bitrate 1080-60p videos, then you might want to re-examine your disks IO rates and throughput consistency. It's likely that the bitrate is higher than what your drive can deliver, possibly because the drive is heavily fragmented and latency has increased. It's also possible that your laptop is severely clocking down your FSB, which would also potentially introduce problems. Almost any Dual-Core computer from the last 6 years could easily handle a 1080-60p video with a 30-40mbps stream with ease, and I'm being generously high on that bitrate number.
On the subject of PS3 playback, I cannot accept it as a legitimate decoding platform until it NATIVELY supports h.264 Hi10p and the Matroska video container. Why? Matroska has the highest level of flexibility and the widest support for not just video and audio codecs, but also integrated SSA and the highly-superior ASS format subtitle support. h.264 Hi10p not only expands the color depth, decreasing banding and increasing quality, but also produces a smaller file at the same bitrate compared to it's 8bit counter-part. In case this seems impossible, the increased depth improves the results for motion vector and qpel search, increases the quality of DCT's, and matches the CABAC encoder algorithm in such a way that the final losslessly compressed file is smaller. Since half of the current non-commercial video content is delivered in this way, it's kinda important.
http://x264.nl/x264/10bit_02-ateme-why_does_10bit_save_bandwidth.pdf
Also, the PS3 Media Server should not be considered in this discussion, as the video is decoded and rendered on the hostPC and the output is streamed to the PS3.
I never argued against better text rendering, as it does improve the look. I was arguing against the halfway approach taken on the hardware acceleration side.
On this then, our opinions differ, as across the hundreds of LCD screens I have used, any non-native resolution looks horrendous to me. I use AA to resolve aliasing and transparent texture flicker creating a precise and crisp image.
...For games you just turn down the resolution.
And that is my complaint. LCD displays are notorious for their terrible up-scaling, and that has not changed. The rendered image will be blurry, this is a side effect of attempting to interpolate framebuffer information. At it's best, it will be a bi-cubic or bi-linear upscale. And that looks hideous. The point of this screen resolution is clarity, and framebuffer up-scaling is in direct opposition with this concept and unacceptable for the extremely high price-point of the device.
Mac OSX has never been a gaming platform. Still, it would be wiser to let the other available technology catch up. This is a mismatched display/GPU solution, and time should be a serious factor here. This just provides more evidence as to why the Macbook series is considered by most geeks to be an extremely expensive Facebook platform. Despite that, putting a GTX 680M in this system is not an impossible task, especially for the "innovation" and "quality" expected from Apple. If the clock speed is sufficiently cut, and the vcore with it, the GTX 680M would provide the necessary power to drive a 2880x1800 screen in the area of gaming. It might be time for Apple to consider a more aggressive and efficient cooling setup, as my understanding of their current setup is quite humorous in nature, not unlike that of the Xbox 360. It is important to note that the GPU is not always tasked at 100%. The cooling fans would only need to provide extra noise and extra airflow under a game execution scenario. If one is going to select a 2880x1800 resolution framebuffer, then one must also select sufficient hardware. It's quite the cop-out.
(To save extraneous conversation, I do realize there is a cooling fan in the MBP, and that there is a front/bottom to hinge airflow pattern. When the system is disassembled, the cooling equipment is rather sparse and even with a fan seems far more passive in nature.)
If they matched a competent GPU with that 2880x1800 resolution, then I might agree with you despite the fanboi troll speak you are spewing, BUT a GT 650M is a despicably under-powered GPU for such a large framebuffer. At least have some pride and use a 680M. Good luck driving even a mediocre level of shader computation against that resolution. But hey, it makes Facebook and Word look pretty!
Not in the simulated sense, but in the motion smoothing sense. My apologies for picking the wrong descriptive adjective. I should have called it motion smoothing.
I meant to say that I hate the inertia/momentum effect. It gets in my way, as I tend to use the system as fast as possible which requires a precise and accurate display of the content. Smoothing effects do help build a flow during use, but inertia will break that flow slowing the user down some as they compensate.
I was specifically targeting new games. OS X has always been a few years behind on most titles that are ported except mainly Starcraft 2. Obviously, with boot camp, this can be dodged, but it doesn't change the fact that even the GPU is a few years behind in the quality vs price ratio. It's pretty good for a laptop with a 1680x1050 resolution screen, it's a terrible idea for a 2880x1800 resolution screen. Both Supreme Commander 2 and Quake 3 are absurdly old. Both have little in the way of shader content, relying mostly on polygon fill rate and texture fill rate. This is sounding strangely similar to Apple's phone and tablet series.
While such a high DPI looks great, there was this disconnect in the selection of a GPU. A 650M is capable of driving the Compositing of the desktop and that is about it. When it comes to shader processing on such a high number of fragments, the user will suffer. Granted, Apple has NEVER been known for giving a singular crap about gaming, but I feel they could have done a LITTLE better for the price.
I have used it. It was inaccurate and clunky. I have NEVER needed to rotate a photograph inaccurately in increments smaller than 90 degrees. When I need to rotate something precisely, I enter the numeric value or use a mouse, where I have support for my wrist to allow precise control.
The zoom functionality works well when the application supports smooth zooming. Otherwise, it's just as clunky trying to pick one of 3 locked percentages. This is a functionality support issue.
The scrolling drives me nuts. I HATE physics emulated scrolling. A simple friction slowdown is far more controllable and intuitive TO ME.
I realize Apple user's quite enjoy their trackpad. I simply wanted to point out that there are some of us who find it gets in our way. It's not universally better, it's suited to it's target audience: you.
Since I was not raised on the theory of evolution, I have more of an inclination to question it than someone who has only been taught the theory of evolution. I do not disagree with the currently observed results of micro-evolution, but there are far less factual observations of macro-evolution and far more theoretical thought-experiment paths. I was discussing this with someone else. There is an article discussing a test run to see if atmospheric gas from long ago would produce something else if held under the same circumstances as earth: high hydrogen content, barren surface of rock, and a long period of UV exposure. The method to test this? Take a small container of gas with high hydrogen content, and bombard it with electricity for a short period of time. Seems to contradict the base tenants of science. For this kind of reason, I question this theory. You did call a fact a theory: "Evolutionary *theory* explains how this is so. To disagree with this *fact* in this day and age amounts to sheer willful ignorance, does it not?" Those two terms seem to be interchangeable in alot of scientific debates or articles I've seen to this day. Combining a fact with a theory, does not create a fact. All evidence has to be factual for something to be labeled as a fact. Even if a single portion of it is theoretical, it is to be called a theory.
I believe I was thinking of Richard Dawkins.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, while occasionally sarcastic, is actually well mannered whenever I have seen him speak or discuss.
Also, only the Westborough Baptist Church is proud and stupid enough to consider themselves God's chosen purpose for the universe. All the Christians I know, see themselves as servants, not chosen ones.
Let me see if I can properly convey the concept in my head: If people are perfect, they would be identical copies with no flaws and no variations(because beauty would need to be a consistent level of perfection...i.e. identical). Post death, everything is perfect. For perfection to exist in everything, it must also exist in human emotion. This means a constant level of happiness is required, as this would satisfy the definition of perfection in everything. So, boredom would not exist. Since it is a non-human construct, Heaven can create whatever rules of existence that it wishes to, possibly changing a person's version of happiness to fit the situation. Since we are discussing an omnipotent being in this context, then his omnipotence allows him to define this as he wishes. Still, in the Bible, heaven is constructed as a place where there is perfection from sin, not perfection of the individual. The flaws and sickness issues of the human will be solved. Still discussing an omnipotent being here, so he can do as he wishes, such as re-write the laws of human emotion.
Si. Contrary to the opinion of the moderator haunting my every post in a crusade of self justice(and completely missing the real content), this was in fact my troll post, one done in response to a rather terse and sarcastic post by h4rr4r. I decided to take the "superiority complex" path of conversation for the fun of it. It provided mild entertainment while I tested a rather lengthy Perl script I was developing. In contrast, the comment this moderator marked as trolling, was in fact a serious question of scientific integrity. He seems blind to that though... I must say, I prefer reddit discussions. Crowdsourced rating's provide a balance and objective conversation, not the weighted opinion-based voting system of slashdot. I shall resign to only reading the articles from this point forward.
Since the issue doesn't affect my daily life, I have no qualms. If it interfered with my daily tasks in some way, then I would question the validity of the problem.
A flat earth was a completely wrong conclusion that had been proven wrong long before it was theorized.
Both knowing the earth was spherical, and calculating it's circumference, as Eratosthenes did, was a significant step towards the correct conclusion that could only be proven through advances in technology: The earth bulges, but even then, it's surface is a complex texture.
So...how was this detour related to my response?
Reality does that, because science works. Science doesn't deal in opinions. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.
This was targeted at the original author and his haughty attitude of omnipotent knowledge and superiority that he displayed.
Now, none of my content was targeted towards those who live under the influence of science, be it technology, knowledge, or curiosity. It was targeted at the scientists themselves, who have shown a trend of self invoked superiority. I hope this clarifies the scope and target of my discussion. Science has produced many solid pieces of information(but which are still open for failure, as all things are), and it has proven useful, to the point that I trust technology, a car, modern medicine, etc. to function. That was not my point at all, neither did I attack the intelligence of the scientific community as you claim. I attacked their misplaced self-confidence. This same self confidence leads some scientists to consider their theories as fact. They gain a sense of superiority, and condescend on any who disagree. This is the character of a child. I respect someone who holds their own work in a humble fashion. I abhor the proud. They cast a dark spot upon our culture, and the entirety of the human race.
I am glad that one person has successfully read and interpreted my post. Exactly. Theories should bide their time, and when they are proven wrong or replaced, they should step down(so to speak). My issue is thus: many scientists sit beside a theory treating it as a solidified law. This confidence is misplaced, and leads to false theories being propagated for extended periods of time. As for Faith, I personally have Faith in the creation of the Earth by God. I have no desire to debate that here, as every religious debate I have ever been in quickly descends into foolish name calling and character attacks. I have purposefully abstracted religion out of this discussion.
I mentioned nothing about religion or prayer, neither did I deny the research of science. I simply questioned the omnipotent persona science likes to frequently portray. Did you take the time to comprehend my original piece of literature? Or did you simplify my comment into the common vernacular in the same lewd manner in which you responded?
Yet so many scientists refuse to question their own theories and postulates. I see far too many thought exercises and far too little research. It seems that personality attack and condescension have become a required character trait of scientists. I have no respect for someone with a foul mouth and snark responses.
Senseless comment with no relation to the topic at hand. The appearance of foolishness pervades your character.