1) Games do not use Real Physics, they fake it. If they didn't fake it, you wouldn't want to play it.
Games also do not use Real Graphics (whatever that would be. Raytracing, presumably) - instead they fake it. And yet they still benefit a hell of a lot from GPU cards.
This card does not force physics to be realistic - there's nothing stopping a developer making cars that go at 600 MPH, or having characters leap a tall building in a single bound. It just enables things like that to be done much easier, and more convincingly.
2) Processors are currently faster then what programs can use(If programmed correctly). It is going to take a few years before games keep up with Processors.
Only because of your GPU. Go on, take that baby out of there and fire up Doom 3. Whoops! Where'd your framerate go? The reason most games fly on current hardware is because they offload most of the work to the GPU. The major tasks outside of graphics are physics and AI - and the physics are getting increasingly more complex as games become more realistic. Those lovely flying ragdoll bodies have to be calculated somewhere, y'know.
3) Why not just have two general purpose processors. Multithreading is getting pretty common. What would the added advantage between having a seperate processor just for Physics,then having two general usage processors?
Again, the same could be said about a GPU. This does bring up an interesting point, however. If this takes off it won't be long before you have a GPU, soundcard (with hardware 3D audio), PPU, probably some kind of AI hardware card... how long before someone goes "Hey! I know! Why don't we combine all these things into a generic processor.. I know.. we could call it a.. uh.. CPU!"
Not really. You could have said the exact same thing about graphics with the advent of hardware 3D accelerators, yet games certainly haven't all ended up looking the same. If anything they're able to look *more* varied now thanks to the extra power allowing neat tricks like cell shading and real time effects.
In the same way GPUs (initially, at least) sped up all the graphics things that all 3D games have in common (triangles, texturing, lighting, etc), this will presumably speed up all the physics things all games have in common (collisions, velocities, etc)
That doesn't necessarily mean they all have to act the same. As a programmer you still get to determine exactly what happens when something collides, or how it behaves when it's crushed. It's just that you have access to much more power, and in the same way that gets us neat tricks on GPUs I think we'd see the same with these PPUs.
The important thing is that this takes care of all the low level stuff, giving the developers more time and power to spend on the higher level areas where they can really be creative.
Incidentally, am I the only one here saying "about time" with this? I had this idea the moment I saw the first Voodoo card. I'd have done something with it, but I figured it was so damn obvious everyone else would've thought of it too. That, and I'm just plain lazy:)
Or the show is written such that as a character turns their back to the camera to go to the fridge they say "I'm just gonna grab a ________. I love the taste!" and the product name is pulled in.
This is called product placement and it's already at epidemic proportions. To pick just one random example, Neo in The Matrix doesn't just have a generic or fictional mobile (cellphone).. oh no.. he has a Nokia mobile - a Nokia 8110i (IIRC), to be specific. And the movie makes damn sure you know it, too.
Next time you watch a movie, just assume that any time you see a brand name or identifiable product that it's been put there deliberately (it almost certainly has, especially if it's in the foreground).. you'll be horrified at how widespread it is.
Hey, just give it 6 buttons (4 face, 2 shoulder, not counting start & select) like the DS, and at least a 320*240 rez and I'm happy.
All the best old systems will fit into that spec, especially the SNES. That was my biggest disappointment with the GP32, that they chose to only give it two front buttons instead of 4, so even if anyone does ever get a SNES emulator up to full speed on it, only the simpler games will actually be playable without using silly button combos.
Which is going to be heavier. This removable hard drive or the XBox2 controller... ^_^ Pah! You kids don't know the meaning of heavy. When I were a lad I had t' play games with t' Jaguar controller in each hand for 23 hours a day. And they were made of solid iron.
That's the whole problem though, their inherent buoyancy keeps them afloat, preventing the flushing action of the ad blocker getting them out of the bowl of your browser.
The title page for Jobo AG's international site is pretty funny. At least it is to me, as a Brit.
The V symbol the woman is making there, with her fingers outwards (i.e. fingernails towards the viewer) is a symbol used by Brits which is generally considered only marginally less offensive than the more widely recognised one finger symbol.
I doubt anyone's dumb enough to actually be offended by this, but it's not the world's greatest P.R. either.
There is even a school of thought that says without Christianity a lot of Scientific discoveries would have been a really late in coming
Like heliocentricism, for example? Oh, wait.. wrong way round, the church battled that one for 300 years, finally pardoning Galileo for his 'crimes' in 1992.
Okay, how about something really simple - the lightning conductor. Oh, no, wait.. churches originally considered lightning conductors blasphemy as they attempted to counter god's will - some went as far as to blame them for earthquakes.
What a crappy article. It's riddled with errors - the PS2 has lost harddrive support in it's redesign, not the Xbox, the original gameboy used Z80 not ARM and more. Best one has to be their claim that Nokia systems run on "Sybian". No. They run on "Symbian". Sybian is something VERY different, as you'll find if you do a google search for it...
*sigh* This is a flawed usage of Ockham's (also commonly spelt "Occam's", but either is valid) razor. Think about it.. which is the simpler, and therefore "more valid theory"
1. An aeroplane stays aloft by burning fuel to provide rotational force to propellors or turbines whick pull or push it through the air at a velocity great enough to create a pressure difference enough to counteract the force of gravity.
or
2. God's will keeps it up.
The critical part in Ockham's Razor is *all other things being equal*, so for example, if you have two hypothesis (borrowed from another Slashdotter, can't recall who, but thanks whoever)
1. An object at rest stays at rest unless a force acts on it.
or
2. An object at rest stays at rest unless a force acts on it and there is a full moon.
In this case all other things are equal - the second one just has unnecessary complexity added. Ockham's Razor would direct you to case 1, which would be the correct choice.
I just looked at that website in your sig. That's the most terrifying thing I've seen in a long time, and I'm NOT talking about the prospect of being "left behind when the rapture comes"
You've opened my eyes to an entire new level of human fear, ignorance and barbarism. The cartoons linked to from that site are most revealing of the hateful and xenophobic mindset of fundamentalist religions.
Of course, there is only one true form of Christianity, accepted by all - as you would expect from the true and incorruptable word of god. Just ask the Roman Catholics.... er.. or the Protestants.. or the Christian Scientists.. or the Jehova's Witnesses.. or the Methodists, or... the Unitarianists...
I think it takes more faith to believe in the (ever changing) beliefs of science
Yes. Science changes a lot. Where do those changes come from? - within science. It's self-correcting. Always seeking to better itself.. if a problem is found, or a better understanding of something is found, it updates itself. Religion, on the other hand is almost never self correcting, and only accepts change when it's absolutely forced into it (The Roman Catholic church officially accepted that the earth goes around the sun in.. wait for it... 1992)
To use a software analogy, science much like open source - a program might be pretty good, but if a way is found to improve it, or to fix a flaw in it, it will be done by the community. This is far from the situation theists often claim of science twisting and turning, snaking away from being pinned down to any one definition.
Well, anyways, if you get really sick, you sit and pray and see how religion works for you. Me.. I'd go to the hospital and take my chances with all that science mumbo jumbo.
Oh dear. I wasn't going to respond to the rest of your post, but actually, it's so poorly argued that I think I will.
You are completely missing the difference between artificially creating something (a flying pig image in photoshop) and setting up an accurate physical simulation, and leaving it to run it's course. In fact, by your standards, a computer can never accurately represent, recreate, or simulate anything that happens in the real world - after all, it's all just man made, having been put there by a programmer, and therefore has as much relation to the real world as an image of a flying pig.
I don't think I even need to continue. You've just wiped out the entire field of computer simulation in one fell swoop. Your argument is patently ridiculous.. and before you even suggest it, no, I am not asserting that just because one form of computer simulation is accurate and valid all of them are. I am merely asserting that there is nothing inherently wrong or flawed with simulating real world conditions inside of a computer - i.e. it's not "bound to be wrong, just because it's a computer simulation". Several decades of computer simulation would appear to support my view.
Re:virus?http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/team/vi
on
Digital Life and Evolution
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And by the way, Darwin himself, at the end of his life, denied evolution as the explanation for how we got here.
No, he didn't. And even if he had, what difference would it make? Evolution is a fact, not Darwin's opinion.
If Einstein had renounced his theories on his deathbed would relativity be any less true?
Slashdot Mirror
1) Games do not use Real Physics, they fake it. If they didn't fake it, you wouldn't want to play it.
Games also do not use Real Graphics (whatever that would be. Raytracing, presumably) - instead they fake it. And yet they still benefit a hell of a lot from GPU cards.
This card does not force physics to be realistic - there's nothing stopping a developer making cars that go at 600 MPH, or having characters leap a tall building in a single bound. It just enables things like that to be done much easier, and more convincingly.
2) Processors are currently faster then what programs can use(If programmed correctly). It is going to take a few years before games keep up with Processors.
Only because of your GPU. Go on, take that baby out of there and fire up Doom 3. Whoops! Where'd your framerate go?
The reason most games fly on current hardware is because they offload most of the work to the GPU. The major tasks outside of graphics are physics and AI - and the physics are getting increasingly more complex as games become more realistic.
Those lovely flying ragdoll bodies have to be calculated somewhere, y'know.
3) Why not just have two general purpose processors. Multithreading is getting pretty common. What would the added advantage between having a seperate processor just for Physics,then having two general usage processors?
Again, the same could be said about a GPU. This does bring up an interesting point, however. If this takes off it won't be long before you have a GPU, soundcard (with hardware 3D audio), PPU, probably some kind of AI hardware card...
how long before someone goes "Hey! I know! Why don't we combine all these things into a generic processor.. I know.. we could call it a.. uh.. CPU!"
Not really.
:)
You could have said the exact same thing about graphics with the advent of hardware 3D accelerators, yet games certainly haven't all ended up looking the same. If anything they're able to look *more* varied now thanks to the extra power allowing neat tricks like cell shading and real time effects.
In the same way GPUs (initially, at least) sped up all the graphics things that all 3D games have in common (triangles, texturing, lighting, etc), this will presumably speed up all the physics things all games have in common (collisions, velocities, etc)
That doesn't necessarily mean they all have to act the same. As a programmer you still get to determine exactly what happens when something collides, or how it behaves when it's crushed. It's just that you have access to much more power, and in the same way that gets us neat tricks on GPUs I think we'd see the same with these PPUs.
The important thing is that this takes care of all the low level stuff, giving the developers more time and power to spend on the higher level areas where they can really be creative.
Incidentally, am I the only one here saying "about time" with this? I had this idea the moment I saw the first Voodoo card. I'd have done something with it, but I figured it was so damn obvious everyone else would've thought of it too. That, and I'm just plain lazy
I don't know, but apparently our editors isn't editing. Guess that's because our children isn't learning though.
Someone mod this guy up!
:)
I just read the rules for Kniggits The two handed rock-paper-scissors attack system is pure genius!
I'm looking forward to giving this one a shot, thanks
"Oh, forget it! Anyways.. uh.. who was that band you went to see last night"
"No, Yes"
"Who?"
"No, though I did see them live once"
"Um.. who?"
"Yeah, they were pretty good"
"So who was it you saw last night?"
"Yes"
"Who, damnnit?"
"No, Yes. Then I came home and watched THEM! and a couple of episodes of Dr Who before I read that article about the software by the WHO"
"Um.. I think something's broken in your head. I'm going over here now."
You evolved from a dinosaur? :(
Damn, my ape based genetic heritage seems so dull and inadequate all of a sudden
Or the show is written such that as a character turns their back to the camera to go to the fridge they say "I'm just gonna grab a ________. I love the taste!" and the product name is pulled in.
This is called product placement and it's already at epidemic proportions. To pick just one random example, Neo in The Matrix doesn't just have a generic or fictional mobile (cellphone).. oh no.. he has a Nokia mobile - a Nokia 8110i (IIRC), to be specific. And the movie makes damn sure you know it, too.
Next time you watch a movie, just assume that any time you see a brand name or identifiable product that it's been put there deliberately (it almost certainly has, especially if it's in the foreground).. you'll be horrified at how widespread it is.
Hey, just give it 6 buttons (4 face, 2 shoulder, not counting start & select) like the DS, and at least a 320*240 rez and I'm happy.
All the best old systems will fit into that spec, especially the SNES.
That was my biggest disappointment with the GP32, that they chose to only give it two front buttons instead of 4, so even if anyone does ever get a SNES emulator up to full speed on it, only the simpler games will actually be playable without using silly button combos.
Which is going to be heavier. This removable hard drive or the XBox2 controller... ^_^
Pah! You kids don't know the meaning of heavy.
When I were a lad I had t' play games with t' Jaguar controller in each hand for 23 hours a day.
And they were made of solid iron.
That's the whole problem though, their inherent buoyancy keeps them afloat, preventing the flushing action of the ad blocker getting them out of the bowl of your browser.
They, for many, welcome their new ape-descended unthawing scientist overlords.
(and yes, I do know we've been around rather more than 32,000 years)
The title page for Jobo AG's international site is pretty funny. At least it is to me, as a Brit.
The V symbol the woman is making there, with her fingers outwards (i.e. fingernails towards the viewer) is a symbol used by Brits which is generally considered only marginally less offensive than the more widely recognised one finger symbol.
I doubt anyone's dumb enough to actually be offended by this, but it's not the world's greatest P.R. either.
There is even a school of thought that says without Christianity a lot of Scientific discoveries would have been a really late in coming
Like heliocentricism, for example? Oh, wait.. wrong way round, the church battled that one for 300 years, finally pardoning Galileo for his 'crimes' in 1992.
How about evolution.. oh, wait, no.. the fundamentalists and literalists won't have any of that.
Okay, how about something really simple - the lightning conductor. Oh, no, wait.. churches originally considered lightning conductors blasphemy as they attempted to counter god's will - some went as far as to blame them for earthquakes.
What a crappy article. It's riddled with errors - the PS2 has lost harddrive support in it's redesign, not the Xbox, the original gameboy used Z80 not ARM and more.
Best one has to be their claim that Nokia systems run on "Sybian". No. They run on "Symbian". Sybian is something VERY different, as you'll find if you do a google search for it...
A large sea of frozen ice??
As opposed to the other kinds of ice
Vanilla Ice?
er.... I'll get my coat..
Slashdot Leads in Story Duplicating!
Bzzzt! You just lost this argument by invoking Hitler's law - any mention of Godwin reders the argument invalid.
Urrm... hang on a sec..
Why don't we all just have a nice cup of tea and a sit down before this gets out of hand?
any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional
This is covered in TFA under the section titled "QUESTION #1:WHAT GOOD IS HALF AN EYE?"
*sigh*
This is a flawed usage of Ockham's (also commonly spelt "Occam's", but either is valid) razor.
Think about it.. which is the simpler, and therefore "more valid theory"
1. An aeroplane stays aloft by burning fuel to provide rotational force to propellors or turbines whick pull or push it through the air at a velocity great enough to create a pressure difference enough to counteract the force of gravity.
or
2. God's will keeps it up.
The critical part in Ockham's Razor is *all other things being equal*, so for example, if you have two hypothesis (borrowed from another Slashdotter, can't recall who, but thanks whoever)
1. An object at rest stays at rest unless a force acts on it.
or
2. An object at rest stays at rest unless a force acts on it and there is a full moon.
In this case all other things are equal - the second one just has unnecessary complexity added. Ockham's Razor would direct you to case 1, which would be the correct choice.
I just looked at that website in your sig. That's the most terrifying thing I've seen in a long time, and I'm NOT talking about the prospect of being "left behind when the rapture comes"
You've opened my eyes to an entire new level of human fear, ignorance and barbarism. The cartoons linked to from that site are most revealing of the hateful and xenophobic mindset of fundamentalist religions.
Of course, there is only one true form of Christianity, accepted by all - as you would expect from the true and incorruptable word of god. Just ask the Roman Catholics.... er.. or the Protestants.. or the Christian Scientists.. or the Jehova's Witnesses.. or the Methodists, or... the Unitarianists...
I think it takes more faith to believe in the (ever changing) beliefs of science
Yes. Science changes a lot.
Where do those changes come from? - within science. It's self-correcting. Always seeking to better itself.. if a problem is found, or a better understanding of something is found, it updates itself. Religion, on the other hand is almost never self correcting, and only accepts change when it's absolutely forced into it (The Roman Catholic church officially accepted that the earth goes around the sun in.. wait for it... 1992)
To use a software analogy, science much like open source - a program might be pretty good, but if a way is found to improve it, or to fix a flaw in it, it will be done by the community. This is far from the situation theists often claim of science twisting and turning, snaking away from being pinned down to any one definition.
Well, anyways, if you get really sick, you sit and pray and see how religion works for you. Me.. I'd go to the hospital and take my chances with all that science mumbo jumbo.
Oh dear. I wasn't going to respond to the rest of your post, but actually, it's so poorly argued that I think I will.
You are completely missing the difference between artificially creating something (a flying pig image in photoshop) and setting up an accurate physical simulation, and leaving it to run it's course. In fact, by your standards, a computer can never accurately represent, recreate, or simulate anything that happens in the real world - after all, it's all just man made, having been put there by a programmer, and therefore has as much relation to the real world as an image of a flying pig.
I don't think I even need to continue. You've just wiped out the entire field of computer simulation in one fell swoop. Your argument is patently ridiculous.. and before you even suggest it, no, I am not asserting that just because one form of computer simulation is accurate and valid all of them are. I am merely asserting that there is nothing inherently wrong or flawed with simulating real world conditions inside of a computer - i.e. it's not "bound to be wrong, just because it's a computer simulation". Several decades of computer simulation would appear to support my view.
And by the way, Darwin himself, at the end of his life, denied evolution as the explanation for how we got here.
No, he didn't.
And even if he had, what difference would it make? Evolution is a fact, not Darwin's opinion.
If Einstein had renounced his theories on his deathbed would relativity be any less true?