Have a drivers license? Registered to vote? Registered for the draft? I rest my case. Whats one more little card we have to carry around going to matter?
The actual costs of a port are QA, Support, Marketing, Distribution, etc. These costs are not reduced by any "easy porting" solution
I disagree, I think some of those costs are reduced or not increased by opening the game to a larger market. After all, you won't be doing any OS dependent marketing as long as you can assure that the game is the same on both platforms (which is only made easier by identical APIs). Increase in distribution cost will be negligable, any company that orders the Windows version of Quake3 is also likely to order the Linux version (lesser quantities of course) and they can be shipped on the same truck. Also, I believe Linux now has a larger market share than MacOS? Many companies produce games for the Mac. Honestly I don't know the first thing about Mac's equivalent to DirectX, but I'd bet there is one. So then why are these companies not also producing games for Linux? APIs are my guess. I also know for a fact that the Mac version of Half-Life was canceled because Valve didn't want to rewrite one of the Windows APIs from the ground up on Mac (I wish I could remember which one).
Only a small amount of the money spent on a project goes into initial development (or porting).
I find this a little difficult to believe. It doesn't seem plausible to me that John Carmack could afford to collect Ferrari's if he only pulled in a negligable chunk of pie. Can you provide me with some numbers?
The idea is not to try an emulate Windows. Making a DirectX API under Linux cuts the time required to port apps from Windows to Linux to almost nothing. That will make game developers take a much more serious look at porting their games to Linux. "Hey, if we spend 5 days we can port this thing and open it up to a larger market and make more money."
I for one hope this effort is successful. Linux is great, but a lot of what I do with my computers is entertainment, and Windows is presently beating Linux in that department. Take that away, and I'll never boot Windows again, and I know there are others out there with the same view. Get more games on Linux and you'll see a great many of them make the switch.
Not originally, it was changed to that after the effect was discovered and came into wide spread use. As odd as it seems today, rocket-jumping in multiplayer was for a time, considered cheating.
I believe the point of the death penalty is not to punish, it is prevent the same person from repeating the same attrocities, because this person proven himself impervious to punishment. Bin Laden is such a person. The death penalty is a tactic of cutting losses by gambling, we wager that by killing one we save more than one.
You're right about it not detering future terrorists, except if it comes under extensive use, which is undesirable and threat in and of itself (terrorism becomes the subject of a new McCarthyism(sp?)).
That's not justice.
I believe those people who lost loved ones in New York deserve to feel better, and deserve revenge. Bin Laden has done so much harm and so little to benefit society, and stands to do so much more, that the benefit of killing him would greatly outweigh almost any cost. I fear the day he acquires a nuclear weapon, and unfortunately, there is no doubt in my mind that day will come. Our only hope is to eradicate him and his follows before that happens. Also, there is no place left in the world where Bin Laden can get justice in court or otherwise. He has so enraged and polarized the world that in all places he is held as hero or evil incarnate. Try to hold him in jail and his followers terrorize you until he is released.
The ideal solution to defeating Bin Laden is to unite all Muslim leaders against him, have them tell his followers that he's twisted the word of the Koran beyond recognition for his own evil purposes. I believe that is the only way to truely defeat his organization and prevent its coming back, but death is the only solution fast enough and causing enough disarray to greatly delay or prevent further attrocities.
I used to be proud of the fact that my country had done away with capital punishment
Don't take this the wrong way, I honestly want to hear the reasoning of someone against the death penalty on this: Why should we allow Bin Laden to live when it is obvious he is willing to kill us? This seems to me to be a situation of kill or be killed, and please don't answer on religious grounds.
That's all well and good but irrelevant. My point was that no one with any sort of crediblity has called the original attack a Muslim attack, and rightly so. Saying such would imply that all Muslims are behind the attacks and against the US, which is untrue. Bin Laden used the words "act of God" if the translation I heard was correct, Bush and other leaders all used a variety of terms equivalent to "terrorist attacks", many Muslims who have been given the chance to speak out on TV have avidly declared that this is against their beliefs, and I don't believe I've heard any Taliban perspective on the action.
The Athlon can do up to 4 FlOps per cycle. On a 1 GHz machine that'd be 4 GigaFlOpS or 4000 MegaFlOps. See execution pipelines section of this document.
Well I think that point is debatable. Bin Laden probably realizes he doesn't speak for all Muslims, on the other hand I'm sure he'd like to. I'm also not sure I've heard either he or someone acting of the same extremist version of the Muslim faith say that this was a Muslim action as oppose to an Al-Queda(sp?) action. Telling someone who wishes to kill you that you speak for a large group of people who are overwhelmingly against your cause isn't the way to win them over(friend of my enemy is my enemy), and I'm sure Bin Laden knows it. Of course I'm refering to his call to all Muslims, not those already following him. In Bin Ladens mind the Muslims who don't follow him have probably been victomized by western culture, to the point where they have no way to liberate themselves (and thereby join him), which is where he sees himself coming in. All this is just my speculations.
It has been stressed repeatedly by all parties involved that this is not a Muslim attack, it was terrorist attack by extremists who happen to be Muslim and contort its teachings to justify their actions. Making such a sweeping generalization as you just did is very dangerous, you run a very high risk of targeting innocent people. (and no, I'm not Muslim, nor even religious)
With that out of the way, I agree with the rest of your statement. To Tony Blair and everyone in the UK, I believe I speak for all of us in the US when I say thank you for your support.
Another point I don't believe has been mentioned was what if you want to perform action A and B at the same time but they require the same finger to be on different buttons, or one button to be pressed by two fingers. This situation occurs almost every second of every FPS game, and although some of these conflicts exist with present devices, they would pale in comparison with those introduced by this technology.
The driving factor behind this technology is maximum use out of limited buttons, by sacrificing movement complexity (and therefore increasing time required) and simultanious actions. Gamers don't need a small limit on the number of buttons they use, and they definitely need minimum time and simultanious actions. For these reasons, I believe this technology is exactly the opposite of what you'd want in a game controller.
As a university student majoring in Computer Science, I have been made to take classes such as Greek Mythology and American History. I'm not paying my tuition every semester so that they can waste my time (and money!) teaching me things that I'll never use in my career and that I either could've learned in high school or on my own if the need arises. I'm paying them, if I want to learn about history, I'll tell them so. It shouldn't be the other way around.
The main benefits of course being that the transfer happens instantaneously and since trillions of atoms can be jostled at the same time, one could send as much information as the recieving end could sort through.
Not only that, but would it even be possible intercept the communication? Quantum packet sniffers anyone? And consider applying this technology to the current internet: once you establish a connection with a remote machine, no more data has to flow through the intermediaries which allowed you to find that machine (which clears up a host of other hacks/attacks).
Well, looks like we need to come up with another color. To me, this doesn't appear to fall under either BlackHAT or WhiteHAT activity. Perhaps Red/White/BlueHAT?
About a week ago, I saw for the first time a vending machine would will take student ID cards instead of cash. My university has a "snack" account plan on which you can charge some purchases made from the university on this account, all you need is your student ID card. Are these cashless machines common in any other areas? I hadn't ever seen one until recently.
One example, not too long ago, someone posted instructions which would allow Hotmail users to read emails belonging to other Hotmail users. What purpose was served by posting this stuff in a public forum?
The purpose was to force Hotmail to fix the vulnerablity. It worked. The reason it worked was because the Joe Blow User found out about the vulnerablity due to the coverage, and took appropriate action. Different people take different actions, but the end result gave Hotmail a clear message: fix it, or you won't have enough business to sustain your operation. Often these security holes are considered too obscure and therefore not a threat. All you have to do it get the message out to a couple blackhats and average users, and walla, it becomes a serious threat even to those who would rather not deal with it.
We had already known hotmail security was breached. Did the poster think that someone might just use it to illegally break into another person's hotmail account?
Yes, the poster knew all too well that the blackhats would find and exploit the vulnerablity if it were made public, and they would run amuck if it were not fixed, as such he/she made it so public that Hotmail is left with no choice but to fix it. The same principle is the reason we invest in the stock market: We give up a little bit of something now, to get more back later. That something is money or security depending on your favorite paradigm.
Anyone who makes a "virus kit" or anything similar should also be imprisoned and fined. Figuring out how to breach security in software and letting the authors know so they can fix it is one thing, and its a good thing to do. But actually writing a program to exploit shortcomings in programs has nothing other than malice written all over it.
Some authors will refuse to patch the software until something is actually exploiting it vulnerablities. *cough*Microsoft*cough* See also this comment.
No, its saying, "Hey, you broke in, nice job. We'll pay you if you continue trying and tell us about security holes before anyone else finds them." My high school had me doing the same thing my junior and senior years, and their security got really hard to circumvent after a while.
The way I heard it that quote ended after "the big city". There are people that just write things these days and attribute them to Nostradamus, you can't believe anything attributed to him any more.
Check this(the first post of the thread) out. The message is general and the date is a few days off, so its likely just a coincidence, but it's spooky nonetheless.
The explosions destroyed steel beams probably several inches think, blew through countless feet of concrete, and in addition was subjected to the sudden stop of most plane crashes. They are designed to survive crashes, but they can only be protected so far. In a significant number of normal plane crashes (ones that don't explode and don't fall quite a distance after said explosion) the boxes do not survive or are never recovered. They are stored in the tail of the plane because statistically that is the section of the plane most likely to survive, but everything I've heard says that the planes were completely shattered into small pieces. I give it 10,000 to 1 odds that they'll never find them.
Slashdot Mirror
Have a drivers license? Registered to vote? Registered for the draft? I rest my case. Whats one more little card we have to carry around going to matter?
I disagree, I think some of those costs are reduced or not increased by opening the game to a larger market. After all, you won't be doing any OS dependent marketing as long as you can assure that the game is the same on both platforms (which is only made easier by identical APIs). Increase in distribution cost will be negligable, any company that orders the Windows version of Quake3 is also likely to order the Linux version (lesser quantities of course) and they can be shipped on the same truck.
Also, I believe Linux now has a larger market share than MacOS? Many companies produce games for the Mac. Honestly I don't know the first thing about Mac's equivalent to DirectX, but I'd bet there is one. So then why are these companies not also producing games for Linux? APIs are my guess. I also know for a fact that the Mac version of Half-Life was canceled because Valve didn't want to rewrite one of the Windows APIs from the ground up on Mac (I wish I could remember which one).
Only a small amount of the money spent on a project goes into initial development (or porting).
I find this a little difficult to believe. It doesn't seem plausible to me that John Carmack could afford to collect Ferrari's if he only pulled in a negligable chunk of pie. Can you provide me with some numbers?
I for one hope this effort is successful. Linux is great, but a lot of what I do with my computers is entertainment, and Windows is presently beating Linux in that department. Take that away, and I'll never boot Windows again, and I know there are others out there with the same view. Get more games on Linux and you'll see a great many of them make the switch.
Not originally, it was changed to that after the effect was discovered and came into wide spread use. As odd as it seems today, rocket-jumping in multiplayer was for a time, considered cheating.
I believe the point of the death penalty is not to punish, it is prevent the same person from repeating the same attrocities, because this person proven himself impervious to punishment. Bin Laden is such a person. The death penalty is a tactic of cutting losses by gambling, we wager that by killing one we save more than one.
You're right about it not detering future terrorists, except if it comes under extensive use, which is undesirable and threat in and of itself (terrorism becomes the subject of a new McCarthyism(sp?)).
That's not justice.
I believe those people who lost loved ones in New York deserve to feel better, and deserve revenge. Bin Laden has done so much harm and so little to benefit society, and stands to do so much more, that the benefit of killing him would greatly outweigh almost any cost. I fear the day he acquires a nuclear weapon, and unfortunately, there is no doubt in my mind that day will come. Our only hope is to eradicate him and his follows before that happens. Also, there is no place left in the world where Bin Laden can get justice in court or otherwise. He has so enraged and polarized the world that in all places he is held as hero or evil incarnate. Try to hold him in jail and his followers terrorize you until he is released.
The ideal solution to defeating Bin Laden is to unite all Muslim leaders against him, have them tell his followers that he's twisted the word of the Koran beyond recognition for his own evil purposes. I believe that is the only way to truely defeat his organization and prevent its coming back, but death is the only solution fast enough and causing enough disarray to greatly delay or prevent further attrocities.
Don't take this the wrong way, I honestly want to hear the reasoning of someone against the death penalty on this: Why should we allow Bin Laden to live when it is obvious he is willing to kill us? This seems to me to be a situation of kill or be killed, and please don't answer on religious grounds.
That's all well and good but irrelevant. My point was that no one with any sort of crediblity has called the original attack a Muslim attack, and rightly so. Saying such would imply that all Muslims are behind the attacks and against the US, which is untrue. Bin Laden used the words "act of God" if the translation I heard was correct, Bush and other leaders all used a variety of terms equivalent to "terrorist attacks", many Muslims who have been given the chance to speak out on TV have avidly declared that this is against their beliefs, and I don't believe I've heard any Taliban perspective on the action.
The Athlon can do up to 4 FlOps per cycle. On a 1 GHz machine that'd be 4 GigaFlOpS or 4000 MegaFlOps. See execution pipelines section of this document.
Well I think that point is debatable. Bin Laden probably realizes he doesn't speak for all Muslims, on the other hand I'm sure he'd like to. I'm also not sure I've heard either he or someone acting of the same extremist version of the Muslim faith say that this was a Muslim action as oppose to an Al-Queda(sp?) action. Telling someone who wishes to kill you that you speak for a large group of people who are overwhelmingly against your cause isn't the way to win them over(friend of my enemy is my enemy), and I'm sure Bin Laden knows it. Of course I'm refering to his call to all Muslims, not those already following him. In Bin Ladens mind the Muslims who don't follow him have probably been victomized by western culture, to the point where they have no way to liberate themselves (and thereby join him), which is where he sees himself coming in. All this is just my speculations.
It has been stressed repeatedly by all parties involved that this is not a Muslim attack, it was terrorist attack by extremists who happen to be Muslim and contort its teachings to justify their actions. Making such a sweeping generalization as you just did is very dangerous, you run a very high risk of targeting innocent people. (and no, I'm not Muslim, nor even religious)
With that out of the way, I agree with the rest of your statement. To Tony Blair and everyone in the UK, I believe I speak for all of us in the US when I say thank you for your support.
Another point I don't believe has been mentioned was what if you want to perform action A and B at the same time but they require the same finger to be on different buttons, or one button to be pressed by two fingers. This situation occurs almost every second of every FPS game, and although some of these conflicts exist with present devices, they would pale in comparison with those introduced by this technology.
The driving factor behind this technology is maximum use out of limited buttons, by sacrificing movement complexity (and therefore increasing time required) and simultanious actions. Gamers don't need a small limit on the number of buttons they use, and they definitely need minimum time and simultanious actions. For these reasons, I believe this technology is exactly the opposite of what you'd want in a game controller.
As a university student majoring in Computer Science, I have been made to take classes such as Greek Mythology and American History. I'm not paying my tuition every semester so that they can waste my time (and money!) teaching me things that I'll never use in my career and that I either could've learned in high school or on my own if the need arises. I'm paying them, if I want to learn about history, I'll tell them so. It shouldn't be the other way around.
Not only that, but would it even be possible intercept the communication? Quantum packet sniffers anyone? And consider applying this technology to the current internet: once you establish a connection with a remote machine, no more data has to flow through the intermediaries which allowed you to find that machine (which clears up a host of other hacks/attacks).
Well, looks like we need to come up with another color. To me, this doesn't appear to fall under either BlackHAT or WhiteHAT activity. Perhaps Red/White/BlueHAT?
About a week ago, I saw for the first time a vending machine would will take student ID cards instead of cash. My university has a "snack" account plan on which you can charge some purchases made from the university on this account, all you need is your student ID card. Are these cashless machines common in any other areas? I hadn't ever seen one until recently.
Perhaps, but not all of them belong there either. The city I live in uses a .org: http://www.hamilton-city.org/.
I always liked PCMCIA - People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms.
If we are forced to change our lifestyle, they've won.
The purpose was to force Hotmail to fix the vulnerablity. It worked. The reason it worked was because the Joe Blow User found out about the vulnerablity due to the coverage, and took appropriate action. Different people take different actions, but the end result gave Hotmail a clear message: fix it, or you won't have enough business to sustain your operation. Often these security holes are considered too obscure and therefore not a threat. All you have to do it get the message out to a couple blackhats and average users, and walla, it becomes a serious threat even to those who would rather not deal with it.
We had already known hotmail security was breached. Did the poster think that someone might just use it to illegally break into another person's hotmail account?
Yes, the poster knew all too well that the blackhats would find and exploit the vulnerablity if it were made public, and they would run amuck if it were not fixed, as such he/she made it so public that Hotmail is left with no choice but to fix it. The same principle is the reason we invest in the stock market: We give up a little bit of something now, to get more back later. That something is money or security depending on your favorite paradigm.
Some authors will refuse to patch the software until something is actually exploiting it vulnerablities. *cough*Microsoft*cough* See also this comment.
No, its saying, "Hey, you broke in, nice job. We'll pay you if you continue trying and tell us about security holes before anyone else finds them." My high school had me doing the same thing my junior and senior years, and their security got really hard to circumvent after a while.
The way I heard it that quote ended after "the big city". There are people that just write things these days and attribute them to Nostradamus, you can't believe anything attributed to him any more.
Not only that... read the 7th post... HOLY SHIT.
Check this(the first post of the thread) out. The message is general and the date is a few days off, so its likely just a coincidence, but it's spooky nonetheless.
The explosions destroyed steel beams probably several inches think, blew through countless feet of concrete, and in addition was subjected to the sudden stop of most plane crashes. They are designed to survive crashes, but they can only be protected so far. In a significant number of normal plane crashes (ones that don't explode and don't fall quite a distance after said explosion) the boxes do not survive or are never recovered. They are stored in the tail of the plane because statistically that is the section of the plane most likely to survive, but everything I've heard says that the planes were completely shattered into small pieces. I give it 10,000 to 1 odds that they'll never find them.