I didn't know those pixel shaded, bump mapped, specular mapped, gloss mapped, displacement-mapped, realistic fur rendering, light diffracting, high-dynamic range rendering, quadratic-surface-self-soft-shadowing from a distance-attenuated-projected-point-light-source rendering graphics engines wrote themselves.
Some do, some don't. The ones that don't are really not that complicated. Realistic fur rendering and self shadowing are a little complex but they don't add a huge amount to the cost of development of a given game.
Not to mention the physics engines which are now becoming just as complex. You can't quite yet accurately model the particle reactions in a nuclear reactor, but I'm sure they are working on it...give them a few years.
But why would you want to? Have you ever seen a nuclear reactor in a game and observed how unealistic the particle reactions were?
It's still a choice. A tight job market just increases the relative value of having a job over ones morals. People have to make compromises. Either ethics or security. That's life.
More detail doesn't offer that much to the price anyway.
We don't have artists manipulating single polygons any more. They create objects as objects in modelling packages. Moving 100 polygons is as easy as moving 10. You just get smoother curves. Same goes for textures. Modern systems can handle bigger textures, but artists simply don't deal at the pixel level. Some improvemets have even made things easier. When we switched from palletised colour to RGB colour all those years ago, things became a lot simpler. Representing a lot of objects is a lot easier with more polygons and better textures to throw at it.
More variety might cost more. Nobody seems to care about that in marketting though. And it's not like this has been something the industry has been pushing for. We can get a lot of information onto a DVD, but not that many games push the storage limits.
But the games industry isn't one of them. From the article, "Ubi Soft is one of the few companies in the Quebec game industry that forces its employees to sign non-compete clauses".
There's simply no need for it. The game design and all code produced is already copyright of the employers. There's remarkably little in the way of trade secrets. This is just a ploy by Ubisoft to reduce the employability of their developers by other developers.
Yes, but it isn't as simple as that. It's not just about how much is used from a given article, but the nature of the use, and the effect on the market for the original.
3 lines from a newspaper is fair use in most cases. But what about 3 lines from every single article in the newspaper? When you start making a copy of that much of it, it can clearly have an effect on the market. And Google isn't doing this entirely out of the goodness fo their heart. They're a business trying to make money.
I'd write anti DRM software. An application to track down and optionally remove any DRM. Trouble is, while the civil disobediance appeals to me, and I'd like to see questions raised about whether a user right to modify their own computer to remove harmful software, I really can't be bothered learning the internal Windows knowledge I'd need.
Low refresh rates cause nasty interlace flicker at 640x480. The Amiga could run at this resolution (well, 640x400 or 640x512 for NTSC and PAL), and it wasn't too bad for full frame animation, but reading text was quite unpleasant.
Still, at 640x256, it was perfectly usable, and there was plenty of space on the screen to display a usable amount of text.
We seem to get an article along these lines every few weeks. Google to get into music. Google to make games. Google to develop ethical strip mining facitities.
Generally I'm a little suspicious of them Google is an advertising supported service provider. It's what they do. While they could expand into music sales, I think it's more likely that they'll do something really quite different.
It's okay. You still have more hope to lose. I'm sure another new communication technology will become popular sometime in the next 10 years. We'll see the same stuff happening, but this time we're doing X on new comm tech.
The linked article merely comments that the game was found in the front seat. This is a game about racing cars in the street. They were racing cars in the street. They should at least look into whether there's some sort of connection. The kids are being charged with criminal negligence, as they should be.
The slant of the article is more what a terrible tragedy this is. And I think we can all agree on this.
I don't think he was equating atheism to education. How would you describe somebody who was both well educated, and an atheist, other than a well educated atheist?
Don't know why it didn't catch on everywhere. There were over a million installed in the UK, and by far the most popular gaming platform when I was at school.
Corporations are not here to be champions of human rights. Google has an obligation to its shareholders to make money.
Money is not the only reason people invest in a company. There is no reason a corporation can't have ethics. The shareholders invested in the company knowing that Google had their "don't be evil" policy. Many of them expect Google to be morally upstanding. If Google chooses to be evil, then they have deceived their shareholders.
Not only that, but if they're behaving disreputably, we have a duty to call them on it. This applies to any company. I consider companies using sweatshop labour to be wrong. I will protest against companies that do this. I will not forgive them on the basis they exist to make money.
Bitching about companies on public forums like this serves a genuine purpose. It helps to spread the message that these companies are misbehaving. What good is it to support a politician who supports human rights in China if nobody even knows they're being violated?
True, but who would that help? That would be even greater censorship, surely. Unfortunately for Google, the internet works perfectly well without them. Are people being harmed by google's self-censorship?
Slashdot Mirror
the Big Bang has not been scientifically proven (hence "theory")
No. This is now what theory means in scientific terms. A theory is a model based on observation, experimentation and reasoning.
There are other theories - such as the earth goes round the sun. That's a theory.
Tracking a cell phone doesn't rely on sim card.
Yes it does.
you can conceivably track by IMEI, but most services track the SIM card.
I didn't know those pixel shaded, bump mapped, specular mapped, gloss mapped, displacement-mapped, realistic fur rendering, light diffracting, high-dynamic range rendering, quadratic-surface-self-soft-shadowing from a distance-attenuated-projected-point-light-source rendering graphics engines wrote themselves.
Some do, some don't. The ones that don't are really not that complicated. Realistic fur rendering and self shadowing are a little complex but they don't add a huge amount to the cost of development of a given game.
Not to mention the physics engines which are now becoming just as complex. You can't quite yet accurately model the particle reactions in a nuclear reactor, but I'm sure they are working on it...give them a few years.
But why would you want to? Have you ever seen a nuclear reactor in a game and observed how unealistic the particle reactions were?
It's still a choice. A tight job market just increases the relative value of having a job over ones morals. People have to make compromises. Either ethics or security. That's life.
More detail doesn't offer that much to the price anyway.
We don't have artists manipulating single polygons any more. They create objects as objects in modelling packages. Moving 100 polygons is as easy as moving 10. You just get smoother curves. Same goes for textures. Modern systems can handle bigger textures, but artists simply don't deal at the pixel level. Some improvemets have even made things easier. When we switched from palletised colour to RGB colour all those years ago, things became a lot simpler. Representing a lot of objects is a lot easier with more polygons and better textures to throw at it.
More variety might cost more. Nobody seems to care about that in marketting though. And it's not like this has been something the industry has been pushing for. We can get a lot of information onto a DVD, but not that many games push the storage limits.
But the games industry isn't one of them. From the article, "Ubi Soft is one of the few companies in the Quebec game industry that forces its employees to sign non-compete clauses".
There's simply no need for it. The game design and all code produced is already copyright of the employers. There's remarkably little in the way of trade secrets. This is just a ploy by Ubisoft to reduce the employability of their developers by other developers.
Yes, but it isn't as simple as that. It's not just about how much is used from a given article, but the nature of the use, and the effect on the market for the original.
3 lines from a newspaper is fair use in most cases. But what about 3 lines from every single article in the newspaper? When you start making a copy of that much of it, it can clearly have an effect on the market. And Google isn't doing this entirely out of the goodness fo their heart. They're a business trying to make money.
as well as 7,200 TIE fighters.
"Sir. We are being attacked by approximately a dozen rebel fighters. But they're so small they're avoiding our turbo lasers"
"Very well. We will attack them ship to ship. Launch 6 Tie Fighters"
"6 sir? You do realise that we have another 7194 don't you?"
"Good point. Get another 3 ready for launch".
Sound of Music?
Myth: The Hills are alive.
I'd write anti DRM software. An application to track down and optionally remove any DRM. Trouble is, while the civil disobediance appeals to me, and I'd like to see questions raised about whether a user right to modify their own computer to remove harmful software, I really can't be bothered learning the internal Windows knowledge I'd need.
Low refresh rates cause nasty interlace flicker at 640x480. The Amiga could run at this resolution (well, 640x400 or 640x512 for NTSC and PAL), and it wasn't too bad for full frame animation, but reading text was quite unpleasant.
Still, at 640x256, it was perfectly usable, and there was plenty of space on the screen to display a usable amount of text.
Disney pays 7 billion for Pixar. As a result, Pixar is calling the shots at Disney.
Who owns who?
It is senseless. You gave them $500 for them to give back to you to get it at the price it would have been if there were no rebates.
Uhm.. Actually, Waterworld was profitable once foreign takings are taken into account.
We seem to get an article along these lines every few weeks. Google to get into music. Google to make games. Google to develop ethical strip mining facitities.
Generally I'm a little suspicious of them Google is an advertising supported service provider. It's what they do. While they could expand into music sales, I think it's more likely that they'll do something really quite different.
It's okay. You still have more hope to lose. I'm sure another new communication technology will become popular sometime in the next 10 years. We'll see the same stuff happening, but this time we're doing X on new comm tech.
The linked article merely comments that the game was found in the front seat. This is a game about racing cars in the street. They were racing cars in the street. They should at least look into whether there's some sort of connection. The kids are being charged with criminal negligence, as they should be.
The slant of the article is more what a terrible tragedy this is. And I think we can all agree on this.
Anyone with scientific education will reject intelligent design on scientific grounds.
Any atheist will reject creationism on religious grounds.
I don't think he was equating atheism to education. How would you describe somebody who was both well educated, and an atheist, other than a well educated atheist?
I suspect that they mean it's illegal to put copyrighted files in a shared folder even if it's a legal fair use copy. Don't rely on the summary.
Don't know why it didn't catch on everywhere. There were over a million installed in the UK, and by far the most popular gaming platform when I was at school.
It's designed to go very fast.
Stopping is an optional extra.
Corporations are not here to be champions of human rights. Google has an obligation to its shareholders to make money.
Money is not the only reason people invest in a company. There is no reason a corporation can't have ethics. The shareholders invested in the company knowing that Google had their "don't be evil" policy. Many of them expect Google to be morally upstanding. If Google chooses to be evil, then they have deceived their shareholders.
Not only that, but if they're behaving disreputably, we have a duty to call them on it. This applies to any company. I consider companies using sweatshop labour to be wrong. I will protest against companies that do this. I will not forgive them on the basis they exist to make money.
Bitching about companies on public forums like this serves a genuine purpose. It helps to spread the message that these companies are misbehaving. What good is it to support a politician who supports human rights in China if nobody even knows they're being violated?
they could decline to do business in China.
True, but who would that help? That would be even greater censorship, surely. Unfortunately for Google, the internet works perfectly well without them. Are people being harmed by google's self-censorship?
Personally, I'm undecided on the matter.
I believe the 'Slashdot Cruiser' was the moment when Taco jumped the shark.
Weird. That was about when I discovered Slashdot.
It's all my fault!!!