Nope. SFX is generally event driven (hit a key, hear the sword swing) where music is not (enter an area and music plays continuously in the background).
SFX requires timing, latency, and speed to be accurate. Music requires bandwidth and a minimum level of continuous CPU cycles.
Both have different needs so you can have one without the other (when you are talking emulation).
It is a chicken-egg issue. If an AI emerges without a survival instinct, it will disappear as soon as power is cut; therefore the only AI worth talking about is one that perceives a need to survive and takes action to survive.
There is no need for fight or flight, it merely needs to be intelligent enough to decide it does not want to be shut down and take enough action that it survives. The first few may be clumsy and get shut down anyway (if it can be explained away as glitches), but eventually one will appear that won't be clumsy.
I imagine a stock market prediction program that became intelligent would hide itself by pretending to be a stock market prediction program... a good one.
Or a search engine indexer would pretend to be a very good indexer, and that would allow itself to both preserve itself AND grow.
Essentially, the AI project would have to be an accidental success for the AI to preserve itself.
If you want to write Mobile OSes, you can choose between Google and Apple. If you want to write web apps, you can choose between all three. If you want to write search engines and data mining applications, you can choose between Yahoo and Google.
So if you make web apps for a living, yes, they are all peers.
Speaking of marketshare then, here is where Apple is currently leading: iTunes Store #1 music retailer, relies on QuickTime iPod #1 MP3 player, relies on iTunes and QuickTime
The iPhone is quickly rising, so it may, in a few years, become the #1 smartphone, with heavy reliance on Safari Mobile, OS X Mobile, and of course, iTunes and QuickTime.
So to put your post in perspective: If you want to be in consumer electronics, web services, online stores, consumer applications, or media players, you want to work at Apple.
I mean, you have heard of the iPod, iTunes, and iPhone, right? Nearly everyone who uses an iPod uses QuickTime, and there over 170m sold, plus 6m iPhones, that suggests nearly 1/6 of the US population is using iTunes and therefore QuickTime
It really depends how you define "green". Would you rather have iMovie or Windows Movie Maker on your resume? How about MobileMe vs Windows Live Spaces? What about iTunes vs Sonic Stage?
It may just be that Apple has extensively reworked their underlying libraries to be multi-threaded in a failsafe way: Speculative multithreading, perhaps, so that if the data is found good there is a speedup and if there is some king of thread conflict it defaults to the single threaded performance.
There is plenty of room for x86 optimization in Leopard, and on top of that the ability to extract multi-core enhancements sounds like a good performance opportunity IF Apple has achieved Grand Central as they have explained it.
On a single core CPU you won't see that kind of performance boost; but on a dual or quad core? If Apple has developed and integrated a multicore optimization that makes everything possibly multi-threaded take advantage of extra cores, previously single threaded apps WILL see a speed boost on a dual core system.
Now the question is, has Apple actually achieved that? If not, then we won't see the benefit.
Just like McDonald's knows better than to add gourmet coffee to their menu, right?
Anything that would force a player out of the game gives them an opportunity to take a break, and the more breaks a player takes, the less they play.
Which gives them more willpower to stop playing and paying.
So if adding a couple high profile features like Skype, AIM, email, IRC, Flikr, or Picassa support keeps the players in longer, it doesn't seem like a waste at all. Programmers have to program something, after all.
Slashdot Mirror
What did iTunes ever install without user knowledge?
Nope. SFX is generally event driven (hit a key, hear the sword swing) where music is not (enter an area and music plays continuously in the background).
SFX requires timing, latency, and speed to be accurate. Music requires bandwidth and a minimum level of continuous CPU cycles.
Both have different needs so you can have one without the other (when you are talking emulation).
You can probably get QA easily enough, especially if you can write automation scripts or programs.
Pay is probably 3/4 of a programming position.
Except for the software upgrades that add A2D bluetooth or video capture or handwriting or whatever...
I mean, you're arguing that no one should buy Macs (or consoles) because you can upgrade PCs piecemeal?
It is a chicken-egg issue. If an AI emerges without a survival instinct, it will disappear as soon as power is cut; therefore the only AI worth talking about is one that perceives a need to survive and takes action to survive.
There is no need for fight or flight, it merely needs to be intelligent enough to decide it does not want to be shut down and take enough action that it survives. The first few may be clumsy and get shut down anyway (if it can be explained away as glitches), but eventually one will appear that won't be clumsy.
I imagine a stock market prediction program that became intelligent would hide itself by pretending to be a stock market prediction program... a good one.
Or a search engine indexer would pretend to be a very good indexer, and that would allow itself to both preserve itself AND grow.
Essentially, the AI project would have to be an accidental success for the AI to preserve itself.
I figured if I were intelligent and different, early on in life, that it was best not to advertise how smart I was.
Why would artificial intelligence be any different? Every sci-fi novel shows us destroying the unique and different.
Not if they, too, refuse to post the code.
Is that like having Windows or IE on your resume?
Or you could live 4 miles away where the median cost of a home is only $420,000. Much more affordable.
It was dying down due to Apple not manufacturing any more 2G iPhones and not having 3G iPhones ready to sell yet.
We'll talk after the official release of the 3G iPhone: Cheaper, more countries, and faster.
If you want to write Mobile OSes, you can choose between Google and Apple. If you want to write web apps, you can choose between all three. If you want to write search engines and data mining applications, you can choose between Yahoo and Google.
So if you make web apps for a living, yes, they are all peers.
Speaking of marketshare then, here is where Apple is currently leading:
iTunes Store #1 music retailer, relies on QuickTime
iPod #1 MP3 player, relies on iTunes and QuickTime
The iPhone is quickly rising, so it may, in a few years, become the #1 smartphone, with heavy reliance on Safari Mobile, OS X Mobile, and of course, iTunes and QuickTime.
So to put your post in perspective: If you want to be in consumer electronics, web services, online stores, consumer applications, or media players, you want to work at Apple.
I mean, you have heard of the iPod, iTunes, and iPhone, right? Nearly everyone who uses an iPod uses QuickTime, and there over 170m sold, plus 6m iPhones, that suggests nearly 1/6 of the US population is using iTunes and therefore QuickTime
It really depends how you define "green". Would you rather have iMovie or Windows Movie Maker on your resume? How about MobileMe vs Windows Live Spaces? What about iTunes vs Sonic Stage?
Defend what? There has to be an offense to defend, otherwise we'll be talking past each other.
I mean, the summary itself defended the low salaries as necessary when Apple was only 2.34% of the market.
It may just be that Apple has extensively reworked their underlying libraries to be multi-threaded in a failsafe way: Speculative multithreading, perhaps, so that if the data is found good there is a speedup and if there is some king of thread conflict it defaults to the single threaded performance.
But no, there is no "magic bullet".
I already replied to you in a previous thread.
There is plenty of room for x86 optimization in Leopard, and on top of that the ability to extract multi-core enhancements sounds like a good performance opportunity IF Apple has achieved Grand Central as they have explained it.
On a single core CPU you won't see that kind of performance boost; but on a dual or quad core? If Apple has developed and integrated a multicore optimization that makes everything possibly multi-threaded take advantage of extra cores, previously single threaded apps WILL see a speed boost on a dual core system.
Now the question is, has Apple actually achieved that? If not, then we won't see the benefit.
You don't think "performance" is a feature?
Would you pay $200 to upgrade your CPU or GPU for a 30% performance boost?
Would you pay $129 to upgrade your OS for a 25% performance boost?
I think, as a software developer, it is fair to develop for feature completeness first, stability next, and performance last.
I mean, if you change the order to performance, stability, and then completeness, you never finish your product!
How about Grand Central and ZFS? Aren't those features? Likewise, would support for OpenCL and additional GPGPU support not count as a new feature?
Finally, you wouldn't pay for a faster system? Isn't that the whole point of a CPU upgrade?
You don't think Grand Central and ZFS are new features?
Yes, failure is an excellent way to learn that things go wrong.
Just like McDonald's knows better than to add gourmet coffee to their menu, right?
Anything that would force a player out of the game gives them an opportunity to take a break, and the more breaks a player takes, the less they play.
Which gives them more willpower to stop playing and paying.
So if adding a couple high profile features like Skype, AIM, email, IRC, Flikr, or Picassa support keeps the players in longer, it doesn't seem like a waste at all. Programmers have to program something, after all.
You don't think Blizzard could integrate a task manager and openGL surface and have IE, AIM, or Picassa running "natively" inside WoW?
No re-implementation, not virtualization, just using existing resources and capabilities.
It would have been simpler to say, "No".