You may be right, but I'm not sure Microsoft is willing to invest as much in DirectX physics as AGEIA / NVIDIA have invested into PhysX. I just wouldn't be surprised if DirectX physics ended up as rather limited compared to dedicated commercial physics engines.
Looking at the EULA once again, I see that I am off on some of the details: Credit whenever in-game physics is mentioned must be given in the context of press releases rather than advertisements. For advertisements, the requirement is instead that the NVIDIA and PhysX by NVIDIA logos "appear on title marketing feature list with a specific call-out of PhysX Technology".
6. Attribution Requirements and Trademark License. You must provide attribution to NVIDIA, PhysX® by NVIDIA, and the NVIDIA PhysX SDK. A: You will include a reference to the PhysX SDK and NVIDIA in any press releases for such Game that relate to NVIDIA, or in-game physics, and will identify NVIDIA as the provider of the "Physics Engine" (or such other term or phrase as indicated by NVIDIA from time to time). B: For Games and Demos that incorporate the PhysX SDK or portions thereof, the NVIDIA and PhysX by NVIDIA logos must appear: a. on the back cover of the instruction manual or similar placement in an electronic file for the purpose of acknowledgement/copyright/trademark notice; b. on external packaging; c. during opening marquee or credits with inclusion of âoePhysX by NVIDIAâ; d. must appear on title marketing feature list with a specific call-out of PhysX Technology e. on the credit screen; and f. in the âoeAboutâ or âoeInfoâ box menu items (or equivalent) of all Physics Games or Applications using any portion of the PhysX SDK. C: Provide a quote citing the Licenseeâ(TM)s integration of the PhysX SDK into the Game or Application for NVIDIAâ(TM)s use in press materials and website. D: Refer to NVIDIAâ(TM)s PhysX SDK in all press coverage referring to the use of a physics engine in the development of any Game or Application.
Bullet is looking pretty good for game development, though it seems it has trouble handling small objects and that may be a problem for my particular purposes. I still want to give it a try.
I don't like splash screens, but I wouldn't object to giving credit to nVidia in my software's documentation. Instead, my objection is to giving them credit in advertisements for my own product.
"Is nVidia a charity whose job it is to provide free physics engines at no benefit to them?"
No. That's just your silly straw man. I just don't like the fact that credit must be given whenever the product's physics capabilities are mentioned.
Besides, I'm simply telling you why I've personally chosen to avoid PhysX. I do still have the right to decide whether to agree to the terms of a given contract, don't I?
I'm currently avoiding PhysX due to the fact that the license requires that credit be given to nVidia/PhysX in any advertisement that mentions the advertised product's physics capabilities. It's a real shame, because I hear that PhysX has pretty robust physics implementation.
The current state of physics acceleration reminds me of the days when hardware-accelerated 3D graphics (except for high-end OpenGL stuff) were only supported through manufacturer-specific APIs. Hopefully, DirectX physics will be good enough that PhysX will ultimately become mostly irrelevant to game developers -- I'm just not convinced that Microsoft can pull it off.
1. Quality of schooling is far more important than time spent in school. Before you even think of fixing the latter, how about fixing the former? 2. Forcing kids to spend more time in school will only help to increase the divide between students and educators. 3. More of a good thing isn't always better. To take a hint from our friend Jack: "All work" isn't really any better than "all play". Let's not make school more important than the student.
Re:Question about the first clip
on
Carl Sagan Sings
·
· Score: 1
According to YouTube, it's from "The Persistence of Memory". See here.
"The online backlash against DRM has gotten a bit excessive..."
DRM is still popular among game publishers, which leads me to believe there hasn't been enough of a backlash. Geeks like us know about DRM and can choose to avoid it when told of a product that has it, but your Average Joe won't know the difference until it bites him in the ass, and by then it's too late for him to demand a refund. Right now software publishers can sell me a game as part of a retail transaction and then impose additional terms, after the sale, at the point of installation. I see that as a kind of fraud, and say there hasn't been enough of a backlash.
Ah. I see now. It's just people being silly for no good reason. In that case, I'm not sure which is worse: that there's more than one company doing this, or that there's actually a company out there that wishes to secure a competitive advantage by monopolizing the silly practice.
This is rather like a "patent by trademark claim": claim a trademark on the sound of a duck call to ensure your customers are the only ones allowed to attract ducks through the use of duck calls while on tour. It's a trademark claim being used to prevent a practical use of an old invention.
"If X is the new innovative piece of code within a program, a competitor can buy the program, fire up a debugger, and look at the disassembled code for X. Once he understands how it works (reverse engineering), he can then recreate that code in a higher language, say C. Copyright does not work here. Then there are cases where the code is not that hard, and you can copy the idea by just looking at the end product."
Exactly. Show me somebody who's implemented a software algorithm from its description in a patent document and I'll show you a pig that can carry a family of six aloft across the Atlantic.
So in nature, in order for thinking people to pursue their lives, they need freedom to think and act, which includes the freedom to create and sell services on non-net-neutrality networks.
You could make a similar argument for why it is important for an ISP's customers to be free to connect to other computers through protocols of their choice without interference. After all, in order for thinking people to pursue their lives they need freedom to communicate and interact with others, which includes the freedom to communicate with others without having their connections crippled by ISPs.
Of course, neither your position nor my own is really supported by an appeal to nature, for nature is not concerned with fairness or justice. Besides... the fact is that nature personified would be far more cruel than it is just.
Couldn't they instead perform a kind of load-balancing based on the actual bandwidth being consumed by each customer, regardless of protocol or destination? As far as I'm concerned, that's the only way to do QOS without violating the principle of network neutrality.
I've often wondered what would become of online multiplayer games if Player A were allowed to sue Player B for stealing his items while playing "in character" according to the rules of the game. It occurs to me such a thing would be very bad for the viability of online role-playing. As far as online games are concerned, I feel it's better if disputes over virtual property are left to be resolved within the virtual world itself, according to its own rules.
I downloaded PDFCreator to give it a spin, but after learning about the toolbar and reading your post I've deleted it without completing the installation.
Wikipedia has further [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDFCreator]details[/url]:
Starting with version 0.9.8, PDFCreator has included a toolbar application, PDFForge Toolbar. Users have reported that this software changes their computer settings. PDFCreator's end-user-license-agreement states that the software will "modify your Microsoft Internet Explorer and/or Mozilla Firefox browser settings for the default search engine, address bar search, "DNS error" page, "404 error" page, and new tab page to facilitate more informative responses as determined by The Toolbar". All instances of "page not found - 404 errors" redirect to a malicious search site. Choosing to not install the toolbar installs it regardless. Some reviewers have termed the toolbar as "malware" and PDFForge has received criticism for including this toolbar with PDFCreator.[8][9][10]
Writing in May 2009 Steven Avery stated:
"PDFCreator, formerly a respected open source product, is causing havoc with a malware install toolbar. Amazingly SourceForge hasn't done anything about this yet and still lists the software, and for many their trust level is shaken as well.[10]"
It has been reported that it is possible to deselect the Browser Addon during installation and that the PDFForge Toolbar can be uninstalled separately.[citation needed]
I don't know if I should be saddened by the fact that all these stories about Apple Store rejections mean more publicity for a company such as Apple (under the principle that no publicity is bad publicity), or be pleased by the fact that the danger of developing for a closed platform is being so widely exposed.
You may disagree all you want to but you would still be wrong. I was involved in a lawsuit 3 years ago that says otherwise. Scans are considered original works and are copywritable.
You say here the court ruled that the works in question constituted a copyrighted collection. That doesn't mean the individual scans are protected by copyright, but that the collection itself is so protected. From your own description of the case, your assertion that copying the scans or text of public domain works constitutes copyright infringement remains altogether unsupported.
Slashdot Mirror
Scientist: "I have combined the DNA of the world's most evil animals to make the most evil creature of them all."
Evil Creature: "It turns out it's man!"
(The Scary Door)
You may be right, but I'm not sure Microsoft is willing to invest as much in DirectX physics as AGEIA / NVIDIA have invested into PhysX. I just wouldn't be surprised if DirectX physics ended up as rather limited compared to dedicated commercial physics engines.
As you say, time will tell.
Looking at the EULA once again, I see that I am off on some of the details: Credit whenever in-game physics is mentioned must be given in the context of press releases rather than advertisements. For advertisements, the requirement is instead that the NVIDIA and PhysX by NVIDIA logos "appear on title marketing feature list with a specific call-out of PhysX Technology".
Bullet is looking pretty good for game development, though it seems it has trouble handling small objects and that may be a problem for my particular purposes. I still want to give it a try.
I don't like splash screens, but I wouldn't object to giving credit to nVidia in my software's documentation. Instead, my objection is to giving them credit in advertisements for my own product.
"Is nVidia a charity whose job it is to provide free physics engines at no benefit to them?"
No. That's just your silly straw man. I just don't like the fact that credit must be given whenever the product's physics capabilities are mentioned.
Besides, I'm simply telling you why I've personally chosen to avoid PhysX. I do still have the right to decide whether to agree to the terms of a given contract, don't I?
I'd prefer something open, but at least a Microsoft API might be compatible across different brands of hardware.
I'm currently avoiding PhysX due to the fact that the license requires that credit be given to nVidia/PhysX in any advertisement that mentions the advertised product's physics capabilities. It's a real shame, because I hear that PhysX has pretty robust physics implementation.
The current state of physics acceleration reminds me of the days when hardware-accelerated 3D graphics (except for high-end OpenGL stuff) were only supported through manufacturer-specific APIs. Hopefully, DirectX physics will be good enough that PhysX will ultimately become mostly irrelevant to game developers -- I'm just not convinced that Microsoft can pull it off.
1. Quality of schooling is far more important than time spent in school. Before you even think of fixing the latter, how about fixing the former?
2. Forcing kids to spend more time in school will only help to increase the divide between students and educators.
3. More of a good thing isn't always better. To take a hint from our friend Jack: "All work" isn't really any better than "all play". Let's not make school more important than the student.
According to YouTube, it's from "The Persistence of Memory". See here.
Isn't the McKinnon case more like charging him to buy the lock that had been missing when he walked in?
Rather like the lock company demanding he reimburse them the cost of redesigning their badly designed locks?
"Do programmers deserve their own holiday ahead of other professions? Should the rest of the world follow suit?"
Yes. Every conceivable profession should have its own holiday, on its own day, and each of these holidays should apply to all workers alike.
"Stevens! Where have you been? I'm still waiting on that documentation!"
"Oh? I'm just here to pick up my mail. Don't you know? Today is Auto Mechanics Day."
"I want that documentation by tomorrow!"
"Oh boy. I'm so sorry, but tomorrow is Plumber's Day!"
"The online backlash against DRM has gotten a bit excessive..."
DRM is still popular among game publishers, which leads me to believe there hasn't been enough of a backlash. Geeks like us know about DRM and can choose to avoid it when told of a product that has it, but your Average Joe won't know the difference until it bites him in the ass, and by then it's too late for him to demand a refund. Right now software publishers can sell me a game as part of a retail transaction and then impose additional terms, after the sale, at the point of installation. I see that as a kind of fraud, and say there hasn't been enough of a backlash.
Ah. I see now. It's just people being silly for no good reason. In that case, I'm not sure which is worse: that there's more than one company doing this, or that there's actually a company out there that wishes to secure a competitive advantage by monopolizing the silly practice.
This is rather like a "patent by trademark claim": claim a trademark on the sound of a duck call to ensure your customers are the only ones allowed to attract ducks through the use of duck calls while on tour. It's a trademark claim being used to prevent a practical use of an old invention.
"If X is the new innovative piece of code within a program, a competitor can buy the program, fire up a debugger, and look at the disassembled code for X. Once he understands how it works (reverse engineering), he can then recreate that code in a higher language, say C. Copyright does not work here. Then there are cases where the code is not that hard, and you can copy the idea by just looking at the end product."
I missed the part where that's a bad thing.
Exactly. Show me somebody who's implemented a software algorithm from its description in a patent document and I'll show you a pig that can carry a family of six aloft across the Atlantic.
You could make a similar argument for why it is important for an ISP's customers to be free to connect to other computers through protocols of their choice without interference. After all, in order for thinking people to pursue their lives they need freedom to communicate and interact with others, which includes the freedom to communicate with others without having their connections crippled by ISPs.
Of course, neither your position nor my own is really supported by an appeal to nature, for nature is not concerned with fairness or justice. Besides... the fact is that nature personified would be far more cruel than it is just.
There's nothing in nature that says ISPs cannot be forbidden from treating them differently. So what's your point?
Couldn't they instead perform a kind of load-balancing based on the actual bandwidth being consumed by each customer, regardless of protocol or destination? As far as I'm concerned, that's the only way to do QOS without violating the principle of network neutrality.
I've often wondered what would become of online multiplayer games if Player A were allowed to sue Player B for stealing his items while playing "in character" according to the rules of the game. It occurs to me such a thing would be very bad for the viability of online role-playing. As far as online games are concerned, I feel it's better if disputes over virtual property are left to be resolved within the virtual world itself, according to its own rules.
I downloaded PDFCreator to give it a spin, but after learning about the toolbar and reading your post I've deleted it without completing the installation.
Wikipedia has further [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDFCreator]details[/url]:
I don't know if I should be saddened by the fact that all these stories about Apple Store rejections mean more publicity for a company such as Apple (under the principle that no publicity is bad publicity), or be pleased by the fact that the danger of developing for a closed platform is being so widely exposed.
You say here the court ruled that the works in question constituted a copyrighted collection. That doesn't mean the individual scans are protected by copyright, but that the collection itself is so protected. From your own description of the case, your assertion that copying the scans or text of public domain works constitutes copyright infringement remains altogether unsupported.
You damn robots! Stay off my lawn!