Although Microsoft has inadvertently promoted unhealthy diets for a long time, it started in recent times to convince their Fat customers to try the new Ntfs(tm) diet.
Some Tech Guy: I've tried Ntfs for quite some time now and it really works! I've eliminated most of my unsightly clusters in just three weeks!
Some Tech Guy 2: Stay fit, not fat! You too can lose all of that data! Switch to Ntfs now!
France Telecom has done some fun R&D to display pixilated images from your cellphone on your shirt or sleeve. These raver garments can even be used as a standalone device that can animate based on sounds and gestures.
I dunno, but it's not my style to put pictures of animated drunk people on my shirt....
Oh, you mean pixellated.
(Previous comment might sound snobbish, but I learned the meaning of aforementioned word the hard way -- after the graduate aptitude test I took, where the friggin' word showed up. Not fun.)
Idle wrote the book for the new musical and collaborated on the music and lyrics with John Du Prez, whose film scores include the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" series
Teenage Mutant Ninja Dark Knights! Teenage Mutant Ninja Dark Knights! Teenage Mutant Ninja Dark Knights! Heroes and a crack king, Python-Power!
They're the Camelot's fearsome fighting team! They're heroes on a mock horse and they're green! When the evil Frenchmen attack These Arthur boys will never say "Ni!"
Offtopic?! Is the moderator on crack? It's funny, dammit.
Seriously, though, losing a PhD is a very big thing, and it just might make a person go insane to do things like, well, make nuclear bombs. The guy already proved that he is capable of evil schemes -- he did cheat, after all.
Actually, they're replacing Yoda too. Everyone thought the CG thing was too lame. Shh, don't tell anyone, but they say they're going to use a hand-controlled puppet instead.
...26 percent of game players are women 18 or older, while 21 percent are boys 6 to 17"
I didn't notice the beginning quote on first reading (browser broke the lines up), so I thought I read 21% are boys 6 to 17 inches.
I don't know if I should be scared that they're measuring boys' things (They're that big nowadays? WTF?), or that they're measuring boys' heights (They're that small nowadays? WTF?).
Re:Unless you already bought one
on
OpenGL 1.5
·
· Score: 3, Informative
> Sure, if you already HAVE a fancy-schmancy GeForceFX/Radeon 9500+ level card.
I think this concerns those guys who got the top-of-the-line cards just now, anyway. *Of course* they'll be concerned if the card they just bought becomes useless this soon. I'm pointing out that it's (probably) not the case with OpenGL 1.5 -- it seems that most of it can be implemented on existing 1.4 hardware. I'm not so sure though; haven't read the specs yet.
> No chance:-) It's difficult enough to decode the time-encrusted x86 instruction set for efficient hardware execution by a flexible CPU.
That's because x86 uses a general instruction set. The reason why graphics cards have attained a faster rate of speedup than Moore's Law is because graphics uses very specialized instructions, with a lot of room for optimization.
We'll probably never get the syntactical form of the high-level language understood on the card anytime soon, but for the bytecode form of the high-level language (ala Java), it's a very good possibility... and it's less ambitious (more feasible) than that of the Java-chips....
Re:Somewhat old, it's been there since Monday...
on
OpenGL 1.5
·
· Score: 1
I would have, but I never submitted stories before, and who knows if I'll get accepted anyway? Besides, it's only now that I have no classes so I can participate in Slashdot discussions.:) (It just so happened that I teach CG, so...)
Re:What I always wondered
on
OpenGL 1.5
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
> I've heard the comments before that Direct3D/Quickdraw3D are "high-level" standards, and OpenGL is a "low level" standard
Yep, Direct3D does try to bring in the programmer at the higher level, and it does limit the programmer if they're programming anything other than games. That's because Direct3D (and DirectX in general) is meant for games in the first place; other media-intensive apps are somewhat secondary, although they can be done in DirectX, and for that particular application you have DirectShow (which used to be separate from DirectX, FYI, but is now part of it. I don't know why, but Microsoft said so.)
I think Direct3D is more of that two-level standard you're trying to elaborate on. In fact, for a while Direct3D really is defined like that--it used to have a "retained mode" for high-level apps and an "immediate mode" for low-level ones. (They've since unified it into one immediate mode and did away with retained mode altogether.)
The primary users of OpenGL, on the other hand, have been on the field for ages already, which means that they probably have all of the higher level stuff as part of their intellectual property. Using another vendor's API for what they already have is generally a dumb thing to do (lost productivity due to the fact that most of their apps are written in their old, working libraries already, and rewriting them in Direct3DX is tedious and error-prone). Besides, OpenGL clearly defined itself as a standard for displaying high-performance graphics, and helping the programmer on his other tasks (representing models, parameterizing the effects he can do in his engine, etc.) isn't really part of that goal.
Oops, check my response to Anonymous Coward on the other subthread.:) Sorry for the misinformation. Apple did have non-power-of-two textures through the multivendor GL_EXT_texture_rectangle extension; I was just pointing out that they didn't bother using this for their desktop.:)
You're right about the hack-nature of what I proposed though. In practice, however, you only lose very little texture memory, if you have a good tiler. Besides, I believe that non-power-of-two textures will suffer some memory loss as well in two ways:
(1) If the card vendor gets lazy and implements non-power-of-two textures as power-of-two textures. I've seen this happen with DirectX 7 on a GeForce 2 before--damn texture loader forced a power-of-two memory space for my proportional-width font characters, which is why I had to make my own tiler in the first place!:)
(2) If the bitmap word spans on the card force a power-of-two texture width, which will accumulate if you have a large amount of small textures.
Oops, sorry for the apparent misinformation. I'm aware of those extensions--what I meant in my previous post is that Apple can always introduce their Apple-specific extensions into their desktop, but they haven't done so already.:)
These are valid concerns. I'm surprised the guy got marked as a troll.
> - What still remains before we can say OpenGL is back toward its original goal [...] every card uses a different opengl "extention" to do the exact same goal.)
Well, I must say that OpenGL never really swayed from its original goal. OpenGL follows a pseudo-Bazaar philosophy--let vendors push for features they want, and if they get a massive following then it's good enough to put into the standard. I say pseudo-Bazaar because, unlike open source, this process happens somewhat too slowly for it to be competitive with DirectX.
> - What still remains that DirectX excels at that OpenGL is lagging behind at
The only thing that DirectX seems to excel at right now is standardized support for a lot of graphics programming constructs, i.e. its D3DX library (especially those mesh/skinning functions, quaternion arithmetic and the myriad transformation matrix builders it has by default--can anyone say D3DXMatrixShadow?:))
However, we can also say that DirectX contains too many features that won't be used by many (and in fact some of them do get dropped in subsequent API releases) OpenGL, on the other hand, tries to promote a *clean* standard, not a super-bleeding-edge standard that contains a lot of cruft. That is also the reason why OpenGL lacks the utility functions I mentioned in the above paragraph; many developers have a (portable) base of utilities that works well for them, and all they want is a (portable) API to display their graphics, not something like DirectX which coerces you to use the Microsoft-only stuff for mostly everything (including the math, which should be something the programmer himself should handle).
> - What of the things in the above two lists will be fixed by OpenGL 2.0, when/if it is adopted.
OpenGL 2 is a draft (and therefore moving) standard, and it will be largely up to the ARB to define what is being used by most applications to be declared fit for the standard. It doesn't necessarily mean it will beat DirectX in terms of functionality, but it will surely be a cleaner, more general standard that vendors will be happy to adhere to.
> That's _thee_ key feature Apple needed to do the fully OpenGL desktop,
But there have always been tools to circumvent the power-of-two limitation. You can always use only part of a texture on a primitive (triangle, quad, etc.). There are tools to tile non-power-of-two textures on a power-of-two texture to minimize memory usage.
At least in game dev, it didn't really prove to be useful. (Except for those artist whiners who insist that they can use any size image that comes out of Photoshop. *laugh* just kidding guys... I hear ye)
I'm just thinking that Apple wouldn't be making the late introduction of non-power-of-two textures into OpenGL as a plausible excuse for not making the desktop fully-OpenGL already. Besides, they can always introduce Apple-specific extensions--why didn't they do that already? Methinks they're just lazy.:)
Oh, not necessarily. The OGL shading language is just a high-level version of the shading extensions that have previously existed. I'm pretty sure drivers will adapt by simply compiling the code before passing it to the card. The other extensions mentioned (like the ARB_vertex_buffer_object and ARB_occlusion_query) have been extensions to 1.4 for a while now, and my GeForce FX 5600 supports them already.:)
Now if the cards can accept the high-level language itself... that would be interesting (and perhaps will make for a bigger, hotter video card...)
Somewhat old, it's been there since Monday...
on
OpenGL 1.5
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
But I'm happy to see that they're finally putting a high-level alternative to the ARB_vertex_program and ARB_fragment_program extensions. I've been dabbling in these extensions and it's been a huge pain. Also just in time for the class I'm teaching next semester.
I wonder when these will become standard (not just as an ARB extension but as an ARB required feature). Hopefully in 2.0? It will save a lot of calls, at the very least--just check the version number of the GL implementation, no more searching extension strings...:)
> > The nature of "peer-to-peer" file sharing sites like eDonkey, Gnutella, KaZaA, etc., open your computer to destructive viruses and worms and annoying pop-ups.
> The nature of peer-to-peer is NOT to "open the computer to destructive viruses and worms and annoying pop-ups." This is a common misconception.
Technically, the former statement is correct. The nature of file sharing programs DOES allow viruses to propagate. You simply misparsed the statement -- it's not _its_ nature per se, but the nature of the program (as a tool to share files) _allows_ the viruses to propagate as a side-effect.
> > Network users have a back door to your hard drive while you're online, thereby seeing your personal, private information, such as bank records, social security number, etc.
> Please show evidence of this. I do not have any knowledge of this.
Actually, anything that exposes your IP address can potentially gain a backdoor to your computer as long as there's a security vulnerability in your OS or whatnot. I agree, however, that the way it's phrased does spread a lot of FUD.
Hmm, the single-user license for Office (excluding OEM) already allows the use of two simultaneous copies of Office on separate computers, one for his workstation and another for his personal-use computer (e.g. laptop).
Apparently, licensing in bulk used to remove that right, and now they're putting it back in. In effect, they're simply shifting the favor back to its original, equitable state.
No matter how the matrix is implemented, as a good simulation (an escape from the real world, so to speak) or a bad simulation (a prison intended to keep people from the real world), it still takes away the aspect of control from a person. Or, in more revolutionary terms, it takes away your freedom.
The article above, however, takes a weird turn and ends with the following quote:
"If the Matrix weren't a kind of enslavement--and it still involved interacting with other real people--then maybe it wouldn't be so bad after all."
I don't buy into the latter completely, because there are many levels of enslavement. Voluntarily putting yourself in the Matrix, or any simulation for that matter, is a form of voluntary enslavement--you are letting the machine take control of your life. That may be okay, as long as you are made fully aware of the reasons for your submission (as what Cypher did). But hiding that very fact from people and not allowing them to choose is what makes the Matrix inherently evil -- the choice is gone.
The John had a.plan update before which pointed out that NVidia's card is actually cranking out more precision by default compared to ATI. That could explain why ATI runs faster by default. When he used an NVidia-specific rendering path (where the precision is more or less the same as ATI's), the NVidia card actually ran faster.
Is this somehow related to the discrepancies in this fairy demo?
Isn't it possible to get a Flash animation to run malicious code? I'm not sure about its destructive abilities, but I'm pretty sure you can launch a client-side denial-of-service attack using a really large Flash file with lots of extraneous links. Combine that with existing Javascript vulnerabilities and you've got one pretty good trojan. (I imagine a cache flush and a self-reload might even do the trick...)
All I'm saying is that it's a practical decision. Whoever modded me as flamebait only succeeds in exhibiting typical Microsoft-bashing childishness and ignores the fact that I'm inciting a technical discussion.
> Hell, they stopped censoring their games back in 1994
I didn't say anything about censorship. I just said Nintendo wouldn't like the idea. And verify your facts -- Nintendo didn't STOP censoring games, they simply limited their censorship policies and they strongly advise parents to look at ESRB ratings. And you won't see uncensored licensed triple-X games there (that includes both sexual and violent content), like you see on the Playstation. (And no, BMX XXX is NOT a triple-X title as the name suggests.)
It also seems that the GameCube also doesn't have a stencil buffer and doesn't support DOT3 bump mapping (the specs doesn't say so, and it seems to be using older ATI tech; please correct me if I'm wrong), so it would suffer the same problem as with the PS2 when it comes to Doom III.
If it's only for the console rights, then id should take the deal. The game can't be ported to the Playstation 2 anyway (it doesn't have a stencil buffer, which Doom III requires for its shadow volumes). That leaves only the GameCube and XBox, and I highly doubt that Nintendo, with its reputation as a for-kids console maker, would like the idea of making Doom III (which is likely to be the goriest first-person shooter ever created) available on their console anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Some Tech Guy: I've tried Ntfs for quite some time now and it really works! I've eliminated most of my unsightly clusters in just three weeks!
Some Tech Guy 2: Stay fit, not fat! You too can lose all of that data! Switch to Ntfs now!
Oh, you mean pixellated.
(Previous comment might sound snobbish, but I learned the meaning of aforementioned word the hard way -- after the graduate aptitude test I took, where the friggin' word showed up. Not fun.)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Dark Knights!
Teenage Mutant Ninja Dark Knights!
Teenage Mutant Ninja Dark Knights!
Heroes and a crack king, Python-Power!
They're the Camelot's fearsome fighting team!
They're heroes on a mock horse and they're green!
When the evil Frenchmen attack
These Arthur boys will never say "Ni!"
Offtopic?! Is the moderator on crack? It's funny, dammit.
Seriously, though, losing a PhD is a very big thing, and it just might make a person go insane to do things like, well, make nuclear bombs. The guy already proved that he is capable of evil schemes -- he did cheat, after all.
Actually, they're replacing Yoda too. Everyone thought the CG thing was too lame. Shh, don't tell anyone, but they say they're going to use a hand-controlled puppet instead.
Now _that_ can't be smart.
...26 percent of game players are women 18 or older, while 21 percent are boys 6 to 17"
I didn't notice the beginning quote on first reading (browser broke the lines up), so I thought I read 21% are boys 6 to 17 inches.
I don't know if I should be scared that they're measuring boys' things (They're that big nowadays? WTF?), or that they're measuring boys' heights (They're that small nowadays? WTF?).
> Sure, if you already HAVE a fancy-schmancy GeForceFX/Radeon 9500+ level card.
:-) It's difficult enough to decode the time-encrusted x86 instruction set for efficient hardware execution by a flexible CPU.
I think this concerns those guys who got the top-of-the-line cards just now, anyway. *Of course* they'll be concerned if the card they just bought becomes useless this soon. I'm pointing out that it's (probably) not the case with OpenGL 1.5 -- it seems that most of it can be implemented on existing 1.4 hardware. I'm not so sure though; haven't read the specs yet.
> No chance
That's because x86 uses a general instruction set. The reason why graphics cards have attained a faster rate of speedup than Moore's Law is because graphics uses very specialized instructions, with a lot of room for optimization.
We'll probably never get the syntactical form of the high-level language understood on the card anytime soon, but for the bytecode form of the high-level language (ala Java), it's a very good possibility... and it's less ambitious (more feasible) than that of the Java-chips....
I would have, but I never submitted stories before, and who knows if I'll get accepted anyway? Besides, it's only now that I have no classes so I can participate in Slashdot discussions. :) (It just so happened that I teach CG, so...)
> I've heard the comments before that Direct3D/Quickdraw3D are "high-level" standards, and OpenGL is a "low level" standard
Yep, Direct3D does try to bring in the programmer at the higher level, and it does limit the programmer if they're programming anything other than games. That's because Direct3D (and DirectX in general) is meant for games in the first place; other media-intensive apps are somewhat secondary, although they can be done in DirectX, and for that particular application you have DirectShow (which used to be separate from DirectX, FYI, but is now part of it. I don't know why, but Microsoft said so.)
I think Direct3D is more of that two-level standard you're trying to elaborate on. In fact, for a while Direct3D really is defined like that--it used to have a "retained mode" for high-level apps and an "immediate mode" for low-level ones. (They've since unified it into one immediate mode and did away with retained mode altogether.)
The primary users of OpenGL, on the other hand, have been on the field for ages already, which means that they probably have all of the higher level stuff as part of their intellectual property. Using another vendor's API for what they already have is generally a dumb thing to do (lost productivity due to the fact that most of their apps are written in their old, working libraries already, and rewriting them in Direct3DX is tedious and error-prone). Besides, OpenGL clearly defined itself as a standard for displaying high-performance graphics, and helping the programmer on his other tasks (representing models, parameterizing the effects he can do in his engine, etc.) isn't really part of that goal.
Oops, check my response to Anonymous Coward on the other subthread. :) Sorry for the misinformation. Apple did have non-power-of-two textures through the multivendor GL_EXT_texture_rectangle extension; I was just pointing out that they didn't bother using this for their desktop. :)
:)
You're right about the hack-nature of what I proposed though. In practice, however, you only lose very little texture memory, if you have a good tiler. Besides, I believe that non-power-of-two textures will suffer some memory loss as well in two ways:
(1) If the card vendor gets lazy and implements non-power-of-two textures as power-of-two textures. I've seen this happen with DirectX 7 on a GeForce 2 before--damn texture loader forced a power-of-two memory space for my proportional-width font characters, which is why I had to make my own tiler in the first place!
(2) If the bitmap word spans on the card force a power-of-two texture width, which will accumulate if you have a large amount of small textures.
Oops, sorry for the apparent misinformation. I'm aware of those extensions--what I meant in my previous post is that Apple can always introduce their Apple-specific extensions into their desktop, but they haven't done so already. :)
These are valid concerns. I'm surprised the guy got marked as a troll.
:))
> - What still remains before we can say OpenGL is back toward its original goal [...] every card uses a different opengl "extention" to do the exact same goal.)
Well, I must say that OpenGL never really swayed from its original goal. OpenGL follows a pseudo-Bazaar philosophy--let vendors push for features they want, and if they get a massive following then it's good enough to put into the standard. I say pseudo-Bazaar because, unlike open source, this process happens somewhat too slowly for it to be competitive with DirectX.
> - What still remains that DirectX excels at that OpenGL is lagging behind at
The only thing that DirectX seems to excel at right now is standardized support for a lot of graphics programming constructs, i.e. its D3DX library (especially those mesh/skinning functions, quaternion arithmetic and the myriad transformation matrix builders it has by default--can anyone say D3DXMatrixShadow?
However, we can also say that DirectX contains too many features that won't be used by many (and in fact some of them do get dropped in subsequent API releases) OpenGL, on the other hand, tries to promote a *clean* standard, not a super-bleeding-edge standard that contains a lot of cruft. That is also the reason why OpenGL lacks the utility functions I mentioned in the above paragraph; many developers have a (portable) base of utilities that works well for them, and all they want is a (portable) API to display their graphics, not something like DirectX which coerces you to use the Microsoft-only stuff for mostly everything (including the math, which should be something the programmer himself should handle).
> - What of the things in the above two lists will be fixed by OpenGL 2.0, when/if it is adopted.
OpenGL 2 is a draft (and therefore moving) standard, and it will be largely up to the ARB to define what is being used by most applications to be declared fit for the standard. It doesn't necessarily mean it will beat DirectX in terms of functionality, but it will surely be a cleaner, more general standard that vendors will be happy to adhere to.
> That's _thee_ key feature Apple needed to do the fully OpenGL desktop,
:)
But there have always been tools to circumvent the power-of-two limitation. You can always use only part of a texture on a primitive (triangle, quad, etc.). There are tools to tile non-power-of-two textures on a power-of-two texture to minimize memory usage.
At least in game dev, it didn't really prove to be useful. (Except for those artist whiners who insist that they can use any size image that comes out of Photoshop. *laugh* just kidding guys... I hear ye)
I'm just thinking that Apple wouldn't be making the late introduction of non-power-of-two textures into OpenGL as a plausible excuse for not making the desktop fully-OpenGL already. Besides, they can always introduce Apple-specific extensions--why didn't they do that already? Methinks they're just lazy.
> Now I need to buy another video card.
:)
Oh, not necessarily. The OGL shading language is just a high-level version of the shading extensions that have previously existed. I'm pretty sure drivers will adapt by simply compiling the code before passing it to the card. The other extensions mentioned (like the ARB_vertex_buffer_object and ARB_occlusion_query) have been extensions to 1.4 for a while now, and my GeForce FX 5600 supports them already.
Now if the cards can accept the high-level language itself... that would be interesting (and perhaps will make for a bigger, hotter video card...)
But I'm happy to see that they're finally putting a high-level alternative to the ARB_vertex_program and ARB_fragment_program extensions. I've been dabbling in these extensions and it's been a huge pain. Also just in time for the class I'm teaching next semester.
:)
I wonder when these will become standard (not just as an ARB extension but as an ARB required feature). Hopefully in 2.0? It will save a lot of calls, at the very least--just check the version number of the GL implementation, no more searching extension strings...
> > The nature of "peer-to-peer" file sharing sites like eDonkey, Gnutella, KaZaA, etc., open your computer to destructive viruses and worms and annoying pop-ups.
> The nature of peer-to-peer is NOT to "open the computer to destructive viruses and worms and annoying pop-ups." This is a common misconception.
Technically, the former statement is correct. The nature of file sharing programs DOES allow viruses to propagate. You simply misparsed the statement -- it's not _its_ nature per se, but the nature of the program (as a tool to share files) _allows_ the viruses to propagate as a side-effect.
> > Network users have a back door to your hard drive while you're online, thereby seeing your personal, private information, such as bank records, social security number, etc.
> Please show evidence of this. I do not have any knowledge of this.
Actually, anything that exposes your IP address can potentially gain a backdoor to your computer as long as there's a security vulnerability in your OS or whatnot. I agree, however, that the way it's phrased does spread a lot of FUD.
You would be annoyed if someone digged up your grave. It's disrespectful considering our current social norms.
But imagine a few years into the future, and someone digs up your corpse, and people there think it's ok.
Hmmm.
Hmm, the single-user license for Office (excluding OEM) already allows the use of two simultaneous copies of Office on separate computers, one for his workstation and another for his personal-use computer (e.g. laptop).
Apparently, licensing in bulk used to remove that right, and now they're putting it back in. In effect, they're simply shifting the favor back to its original, equitable state.
At least MS is getting a clue.
A nice treatise of what's wrong with being in the Matrix can be found in the Philosophy section of the movie:
p hil_pryor.html
http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/rl_cmp/new_
No matter how the matrix is implemented, as a good simulation (an escape from the real world, so to speak) or a bad simulation (a prison intended to keep people from the real world), it still takes away the aspect of control from a person. Or, in more revolutionary terms, it takes away your freedom.
The article above, however, takes a weird turn and ends with the following quote:
"If the Matrix weren't a kind of enslavement--and it still involved interacting with other real people--then maybe it wouldn't be so bad after all."
I don't buy into the latter completely, because there are many levels of enslavement. Voluntarily putting yourself in the Matrix, or any simulation for that matter, is a form of voluntary enslavement--you are letting the machine take control of your life. That may be okay, as long as you are made fully aware of the reasons for your submission (as what Cypher did). But hiding that very fact from people and not allowing them to choose is what makes the Matrix inherently evil -- the choice is gone.
The John had a .plan update before which pointed out that NVidia's card is actually cranking out more precision by default compared to ATI. That could explain why ATI runs faster by default. When he used an NVidia-specific rendering path (where the precision is more or less the same as ATI's), the NVidia card actually ran faster.
Is this somehow related to the discrepancies in this fairy demo?
Reaction #1: The Wachowskis are definitely clued. Karma++.
Reaction #2: It's waaay into the future and they're still using SSH?!
Isn't it possible to get a Flash animation to run malicious code? I'm not sure about its destructive abilities, but I'm pretty sure you can launch a client-side denial-of-service attack using a really large Flash file with lots of extraneous links. Combine that with existing Javascript vulnerabilities and you've got one pretty good trojan. (I imagine a cache flush and a self-reload might even do the trick...)
> OMF YOU IDIOT - QUAKE 1 WAS THE BASE! HOW COME SO MANY PEOPLE GET THIS WRONG!??!?"
All your Quake 1 are belong to us.
All I'm saying is that it's a practical decision. Whoever modded me as flamebait only succeeds in exhibiting typical Microsoft-bashing childishness and ignores the fact that I'm inciting a technical discussion.
> Hell, they stopped censoring their games back in 1994
I didn't say anything about censorship. I just said Nintendo wouldn't like the idea. And verify your facts -- Nintendo didn't STOP censoring games, they simply limited their censorship policies and they strongly advise parents to look at ESRB ratings. And you won't see uncensored licensed triple-X games there (that includes both sexual and violent content), like you see on the Playstation. (And no, BMX XXX is NOT a triple-X title as the name suggests.)
It also seems that the GameCube also doesn't have a stencil buffer and doesn't support DOT3 bump mapping (the specs doesn't say so, and it seems to be using older ATI tech; please correct me if I'm wrong), so it would suffer the same problem as with the PS2 when it comes to Doom III.
If it's only for the console rights, then id should take the deal. The game can't be ported to the Playstation 2 anyway (it doesn't have a stencil buffer, which Doom III requires for its shadow volumes). That leaves only the GameCube and XBox, and I highly doubt that Nintendo, with its reputation as a for-kids console maker, would like the idea of making Doom III (which is likely to be the goriest first-person shooter ever created) available on their console anyway.