What I'm saying is that there's only certain things that can be improved with better utilization of the CPU, but along with them you have memory constraints - better AI is nice and the GPU is irrelevant to it but when you're bottlenecked by RAM there's really nowhere to go.
It's between in that we're still going to be getting PS3/360 generation centric releases, due to install base and other reasons.
After that, Sony and Microsoft's next consoles will be coming out a few years later - and likely with far better specs.
It's between like the Dreamcast was.
You can consider the DC to have been part of the PS2/GC/Xbox generation but all you end up with is a very bad light cas upon it.
Well, no, that's actually the problem.
The Wii-U will likely be another first-party kind of console. Nintendo's overtures seem to establish little more than them being considered for some multiplatform releases and some token games.
After that, if MS or Sony actually chooses a more modern architecture and abandon the silly experiment that was the Cell, they could easily demolish the Wii-U in specs.
Which isn't getting to the core problem: it's highly doubtful that the Wii-U will sell if it's seen as nothing more than a Nintendo Xbox.
Except they didn't, not really;
all out would be support (not endorsement, but at least supporting the option) for 64x64 and beyond, and plenty of options that would all but necessitate a quad-core or better for even mediocre settings.
The gulf between current PC hardware and console hardware is made up of far more than just processing power, and a game designed to fully utilize good modern PC hardware would not be portable without significant cuts and rewrites.
The 64 player maps aren't even really modeled around 64 players. They're just bigger, but DICE has admitted to not really putting any thought into them beyond that.
Nintendo has been absolutely staunch in their opinion that amateur and non-big-studio developers have little home on their systems without being vetted by a highly regarded professional or at least a middleware studio. There are exceptions but for the most part you need a finished and polished product before they'll consider it for review for the possibility of being considered to be put on Wiiware or DSiware or similar.
It's one of the big things Sony was harping on about when they detailed the costs of making indie titles on the Vita.
What?
They are most certainly being used to a very high caliber.
There's only so much optimization and CPU-centric tasks you can do, and the ones that would benefit most (AI and similar) aren't being targeted at all as a primary concern for future (and Kinect/Move) games.
One of the largest limits on these systems is their low RAM size. And compression can only take you so far; eventually, there's a point where you simply don't have enough.
The Wii-U has a high chance of being another Dreamcast, essentially being "in-between" generations and altogether dropped from the public eye not before long.
Which is sad, because it does a couple of things really well (both primary sticks in the raised/upper/primary position, with proper controller weighting, for instance).
Not much better?
A 4890 with 512MB to 1GB VRAM is a massive improvement over a 256MB 7600GT, especially in the realm of heavily optimized console systems.
Multiple characters were cut from a fighting game due to ram constraints alone.
Carmack has said that the low ram is pretty much a massive bottleneck on current systems, greatly limiting what can be done.
Except you can't, because pretty much every game is designed in such a way as to be mainly playable on consoles without much drop in quality. So average PC hardware, which is tens to hundreds of times more powerful than the current console generation, isn't taken advantage of at all.
Even games like Battlefield 3 are held back by console platforms.
I am asking the OP what he meant by a corporation can only harm you with the help of the government, and if that was _specifically_ related to corporate personhood, or if he was referring to another facet of government 'interference'.
Surprising insofar as you would expect the number to be somewhat less than 30 at the current rate of globalization and consolidation of power, is what I meant.
That's assuming that the 147 number is already taking collusion and parentage and corporate links into account; that is, all 147 are distinct corporations in terms of ruling board members, primary shareholders, etc.
...that was my question, of what he meant;
That is, WAS it that they gave them personhood?
The question had nothing to do with the validity of such an action, but rather clarification on what the OP meant.
Uh...what?
Unless you're talking about how governments gave corporations a form of personhood and thus protection for their 'masters', corporations can easily harm you without government interference.
There are just way too many examples to even bother listing one.
Perhaps you are talking about how a Government's creation of the construct known as "money" or "wealth" enables an entity called a Corporation to consolidate and control said powers and use them in harmful ways? Or how a government allows the creation of a society which could even bear a corporation's existence, thus allowing an entity that can harm to even exist? Other than that, I cannot ascertain what you're getting at.
Give it time.
As an above poster mentioned, it's quite surprising that there's such a high number. It's very likely that the power is really consolidated into a fractional few, especially with all the collusion going on.
The point is that you don't need to have ALL AND ONLY UN or ALL AND ONLY US control of all major cc companies and banks.
There can be a mix between governmental bodies in terms of control, if any.
That's my point. An organization like this really should have had a large number of redundancies - even ones known only at certain levels, high and low - for a leak of data of such magnitude.
It's possible that Daniel really was knowledgeable and smart enough to get to all copies. But I'd sooner believe they were just incompetent.
Both ideas show a scary lack of foresight for an organization like this.
Publish them already.
I simply cannot believe that in all of the Wikileaks organization, not a single copy or backup had been made.
There's got to be something, especially with a bundle of files so damaging that they managed to turn one of your own against you.
I just can't handle the idea of that level of competence in a modern internet organization tasked with anonymizing its sources.
It's too scary.
The problem is that "getting started now" would mean several decades of failures in many areas and is likely to ultimately kill the entire system before ever reaching that tenuous and unpredictable "perfect state" for the free market experiment to begin.
Yes, there is a feedback loop, wherein a College feels free to raise its prices because the student has a portion covered by loans, leading the government to raise its loan amount, leading the College to increase yet again.
No, removing the government loans from the equation will not solve this problem (at least, not entirely) but at the same time it would create several more problems.
The market does not and will not fix itself.
Because they themselves would be liable for anonymous posts they don't respond to, and it's just far easier to ban anonymous posting than to actually moderate comments.
Slashdot Mirror
At best, you can hope for an Xbox->PS2 kind of porting situation.
What I'm saying is that there's only certain things that can be improved with better utilization of the CPU, but along with them you have memory constraints - better AI is nice and the GPU is irrelevant to it but when you're bottlenecked by RAM there's really nowhere to go.
It's between in that we're still going to be getting PS3/360 generation centric releases, due to install base and other reasons. After that, Sony and Microsoft's next consoles will be coming out a few years later - and likely with far better specs. It's between like the Dreamcast was. You can consider the DC to have been part of the PS2/GC/Xbox generation but all you end up with is a very bad light cas upon it.
Well, no, that's actually the problem. The Wii-U will likely be another first-party kind of console. Nintendo's overtures seem to establish little more than them being considered for some multiplatform releases and some token games. After that, if MS or Sony actually chooses a more modern architecture and abandon the silly experiment that was the Cell, they could easily demolish the Wii-U in specs. Which isn't getting to the core problem: it's highly doubtful that the Wii-U will sell if it's seen as nothing more than a Nintendo Xbox.
Except they didn't, not really; all out would be support (not endorsement, but at least supporting the option) for 64x64 and beyond, and plenty of options that would all but necessitate a quad-core or better for even mediocre settings. The gulf between current PC hardware and console hardware is made up of far more than just processing power, and a game designed to fully utilize good modern PC hardware would not be portable without significant cuts and rewrites.
The 64 player maps aren't even really modeled around 64 players. They're just bigger, but DICE has admitted to not really putting any thought into them beyond that.
Nintendo has been absolutely staunch in their opinion that amateur and non-big-studio developers have little home on their systems without being vetted by a highly regarded professional or at least a middleware studio. There are exceptions but for the most part you need a finished and polished product before they'll consider it for review for the possibility of being considered to be put on Wiiware or DSiware or similar. It's one of the big things Sony was harping on about when they detailed the costs of making indie titles on the Vita.
What? They are most certainly being used to a very high caliber. There's only so much optimization and CPU-centric tasks you can do, and the ones that would benefit most (AI and similar) aren't being targeted at all as a primary concern for future (and Kinect/Move) games. One of the largest limits on these systems is their low RAM size. And compression can only take you so far; eventually, there's a point where you simply don't have enough.
The Wii-U has a high chance of being another Dreamcast, essentially being "in-between" generations and altogether dropped from the public eye not before long. Which is sad, because it does a couple of things really well (both primary sticks in the raised/upper/primary position, with proper controller weighting, for instance).
Not much better? A 4890 with 512MB to 1GB VRAM is a massive improvement over a 256MB 7600GT, especially in the realm of heavily optimized console systems.
Multiple characters were cut from a fighting game due to ram constraints alone. Carmack has said that the low ram is pretty much a massive bottleneck on current systems, greatly limiting what can be done.
Except you can't, because pretty much every game is designed in such a way as to be mainly playable on consoles without much drop in quality. So average PC hardware, which is tens to hundreds of times more powerful than the current console generation, isn't taken advantage of at all. Even games like Battlefield 3 are held back by console platforms.
I am asking the OP what he meant by a corporation can only harm you with the help of the government, and if that was _specifically_ related to corporate personhood, or if he was referring to another facet of government 'interference'.
Surprising insofar as you would expect the number to be somewhat less than 30 at the current rate of globalization and consolidation of power, is what I meant. That's assuming that the 147 number is already taking collusion and parentage and corporate links into account; that is, all 147 are distinct corporations in terms of ruling board members, primary shareholders, etc.
...that was my question, of what he meant; That is, WAS it that they gave them personhood? The question had nothing to do with the validity of such an action, but rather clarification on what the OP meant.
Uh...what? Unless you're talking about how governments gave corporations a form of personhood and thus protection for their 'masters', corporations can easily harm you without government interference. There are just way too many examples to even bother listing one. Perhaps you are talking about how a Government's creation of the construct known as "money" or "wealth" enables an entity called a Corporation to consolidate and control said powers and use them in harmful ways? Or how a government allows the creation of a society which could even bear a corporation's existence, thus allowing an entity that can harm to even exist? Other than that, I cannot ascertain what you're getting at.
Give it time. As an above poster mentioned, it's quite surprising that there's such a high number. It's very likely that the power is really consolidated into a fractional few, especially with all the collusion going on.
The point is that you don't need to have ALL AND ONLY UN or ALL AND ONLY US control of all major cc companies and banks. There can be a mix between governmental bodies in terms of control, if any.
That's my point. An organization like this really should have had a large number of redundancies - even ones known only at certain levels, high and low - for a leak of data of such magnitude. It's possible that Daniel really was knowledgeable and smart enough to get to all copies. But I'd sooner believe they were just incompetent. Both ideas show a scary lack of foresight for an organization like this.
False dichotomy. It does not have to be all or nothing.
Publish them already. I simply cannot believe that in all of the Wikileaks organization, not a single copy or backup had been made. There's got to be something, especially with a bundle of files so damaging that they managed to turn one of your own against you. I just can't handle the idea of that level of competence in a modern internet organization tasked with anonymizing its sources. It's too scary.
That is, where does the Onion on his belt and silver liberty dollars figure into this equation?
The problem is that "getting started now" would mean several decades of failures in many areas and is likely to ultimately kill the entire system before ever reaching that tenuous and unpredictable "perfect state" for the free market experiment to begin.
Yes, there is a feedback loop, wherein a College feels free to raise its prices because the student has a portion covered by loans, leading the government to raise its loan amount, leading the College to increase yet again. No, removing the government loans from the equation will not solve this problem (at least, not entirely) but at the same time it would create several more problems. The market does not and will not fix itself.
Because they themselves would be liable for anonymous posts they don't respond to, and it's just far easier to ban anonymous posting than to actually moderate comments.