Following key words: >give up >trying >gambling >only >do not spend >quit
You didn't go for anything, you eyed it and carefully prodded it from a distance with a stick.
Most of us can't even do that, we don't have an extra $100,000 post-safetynet stick that we can burn without consequence.
Not to say your stance is wrong. It would be folly to think that the arena of 21st century business is fair, honest, or viable to commoners. You'll never succeed using the "front door". So throwing in your shirt and sticking your neck out for decks stacked this bad is, as you say, a Bad Idea.
If you're gonna try something New And Exciting don't listen to anyone that won't acknowledge the very real chance of customers/clients/required business relations becoming a very underwhelming turnout. Near-zero return can happen on any maneuver.
-AC.Falos
You know this is the same battle cry for every "aggressively scheduled" death-march project? Old devs like me, who have heard this battle cry more times than I can remember, will recognize it for what it is - B.S.
Gamble is gamble. Sure, someone wins the lottery once in a while, but making a huge gamble is NOT the only way to plan for success.
Your idea is no different from "passionate" execs calling for developers to work 12 hours a day for months because "we can't succeed without giving 120%!"
Sorry, have seen these "aggressive" projects crash and burn too many times (along with the fools who heed the battle cry) to NOT realize this is BS. Successful projects come from careful planning and the discipline in not take too large a bite. I went from one successful project to another, to another,..., not by gambling big, but by not taking unjustified chances, and always have a fallback plan.
The GP is right on the money. If you ask the founders of any successful startup, chances are they have failed at least once in the past. Only by knowing when to stop can they try again later. If they had insisted on digging themselves deeper in any one of their past failures, chances are they would be able to try again and eventually succeed.
Beyond that, why do ALL the media outlets take government statements such as "possible object", meaning the analysts can't agree that there is an actual thing there and the spot isn't just a light glare, and instead report "it could be a wing". From 'not sure it exists' to 'it could be the plane'.
Cuz that sell eyeballs? Which is more attract to Joe Public - "It could be a wing!" or "Meh, likely nothing found"?
Do you still have that quaint idea that "news" is for informing people and reporters are supposed to be objective and level-headed, or even, (gasp!) competent in subject knowledge being reported? It hasn't been that way for at least decades already.
Exactly, the correct comparison should be "technical analysis" in stock markets, which can be applied to any stock you like with the same level of (un)success.
Without an underlying theory of how things work, which also needs to be somewhat correct, trying to predict future trends simply by using past data is just dumb curve fitting - with a curve of enough degrees of freedom, you can fit any data, but that doesn't mean its prediction would be any better than random guess.
So what would be the proper way to deal with countries that subsidize their workforces?
You mean, like providing education, health care, law enforcement, etc to the people, so the "workforce" don't have to pay for private teachers, medicine, or private guards? Or infrastructures like roads, mass transit trains, electricity, clean water, broadband internet, etc, so the workforce don't have to live near the company, buy electric generators, etc? Or lower tax rate, which is effectively higher pay?
If IBM employees cannot provide enough economic value to the market for the market to pay the company enough to offset their cost and provide for profits on top of it, then those jobs have no business existing
If companies stop at that, I think most people would be fine with it.
But with the endless chase for ever MORE PROFIT, it is not enough for an employee to generate enough value to offset their own cost + profit, they have to generate more value than their hypothetical offshore counterpart.
So if you cost $100 and generate $120 value, but the other guy in India cost $20 and generated only $25, well, the company can hire 5 India guy to generate $125 for the same cost of $100, so bye bye to your job.
YOU would think that the guy in India is crap, producing only $25 value, less than a quarter of yours, but you are in fact competing with 5 of them, which combined to give more value to the company than you could!
They're constantly looking to move jobs from areas of relatively high pay (USA, England, Australia, etc.) to areas of relatively low pay (India, Philippines, China, etc.) Which is all well and good if the standard of work were maintained - but it's not. They pay peanuts, and they get monkeys - I've worked with some fantastically competent people from India and China, but the salary they'd command back home is more than IBM is prepared to pay.
THIS is the reason offshoring will never give you good results, NOT because of some inherent incompetence of the people in the other country, but because the company is unwilling to pay for good talent!
I have seen this mentality more than I cared to - "offshoring is to cut cost, so we can't pay enough for qualified people!"
I mean, this is CRAZY. All businesses complained about the difficulty in finding talent. Considering that the USA (for example), is only about 5% of world's population, while India and China combined have like 40%, even if the portion of qualified people in those 2 countries are just 1/10 compared to the US, it would mean, but raw numbers, there are almost (80%) just as many qualified people there as in the US!
But of course, being talented as they are (and 10x as rare in their country compared to as in the US), they would command a higher pay relative to their countries average worker, but that "higher" pay would still be significantly LESS than what the same qualified staff in US would be taking.
It would still be a win-win situation, to have a bigger talent pool, just as highly qualified staff, etc, etc. But NO, offshore is a LOW COST resource pool, we CAN'T pay anyone that much more than the average salary! Yeah, the insanity of HR everywhere, we pay the average salary but want the top-tiered employees, and only those with passion, too!
A better representation would be me speaking these phrases to you in person
So, essentially the same TEXT in audio format? Doesn't that simply proved the point that the TEXT is already the, conceivably, most concise and precise representation of your idea?
I've work in visual coding for over a decade (in an integration middleware product line named 'webMethods', that uses a graphical language named 'Flow', Owner: 'Software AG'). Its based on Java, its been successful for the almost the last 2 decades. I've had a job in it for 13 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
And yes, I have used and taught other people to use webMethods in the past, over 10 years ago when it was still "new".
It might be "successful" in the sense that the company is financially successful. But "successful" in the sense it lets you program better than text? Only if you consider taking 5-10 times as long write the same logic compared to writing plain text in Java as "better". Good luck trying to debug a program from its visual representation.
People who learned webMethods before learning Java have trouble understanding basic concepts as exception handling, and have even more trouble with OO concepts such as polymorphism, or even basic Objects, as they cannot see the objects in the visual representation of the logic flow.
So-called "visual programming", which is what you're wanting, is great for relatively simple tasks where you're just stringing together pre-defined blocks of functionality.
THIS. The same reason why picture books only works for story for pre-school kids.
When the thought one wish to express reaches a certain level of complexity, it went beyond what a 2D image can express.
Nah, I'm actually with the poster. I get text-based traditional coding too, but find the ROI (time and effort) quite poor and the work dreary. You have to be either well disciplined, or get the sort of joy banging out code that running get when pushing their body through the next mile.
So one can get 'coding', or get 'running', but find themselves searching for something better. (visual coding/visual abstractions swimming)
Ok, I suppose you also "get" English writing. How about, as an exercise, show us a "better" visual depiction of your own post above without using text?
Or how about the OP posting his question visually using a picture?
Can't do that? Perhaps text IS a very good way to express thought and logic? Good luck on your search for something "better" (whatever that means), the past 2 decades have already been littered with numerous carcasses of "visual programmer" tools that can't do the job.
>How about 100% cheat prevention? When all the computing is done centrally, how could you possibly cheat in the game anymore? Most games have all, or nearly all, of the processing happening on the server as it is. Doesn't stop cheaters. Sure, they can't exactly just memory edit the amount of gold/points/health/whatever they have anymore, but there are an infinite number of other ways to cheat. Think about botters; that doesn't rely on client-side processing. Aimbots in FPS games do not need to rely on client-side processing (from the game, anyways) either; they will detect enemies and simulate mouse movement to auto-aim.
Think again. When all processing is done in the server and only the screen is sent to the client, wall hack becomes impossible. Aimbot? Your aimbot better be able to identify an opponent's head from the displayed graphics. Not the say that's as difficult as in doing so in real video footage, but it raised the bar so high, that anyone able to pull that off would be quite an expert in pattern and facial recognition, and not just a matter of finding the coordinate for the opponent's location in the data stream.
>Plus, it totally eliminated the lag factor in FPS, as only the central server do the processing and rendering. Rubberbanding and blinking/shifting enemies will be eliminated. No it doesn't. In fact, it's going to make it worse. It might *look* different, but the actual effect will be more detrimental to your gameplay. If you have issues with lag with a very, very low amount of information being transferred (ie. position updates), then what the fuck makes you think upping it to uncompressed 1080p video streaming is going to improve it? Instead, it'll be like trying to watch a Youtube video that is constantly trying to buffer. Even if, and I stress "if," it were to stream halfway decently for you, you are still going to be feeling the effects of the lag. Everything will feel sluggish and the controls will always seem to trigger actions that happen much later than when you pressed the button.
You assumed current technology for streaming video is the only solution. But given that the server had all the original 3D information to generate the video frame to begin with, many other techniques becomes available. E.g. Regardless of resolution, the server can just send the polygons need to be drawn to the client side for a frame, and then the changes for the next frame, etc. Which would reduce the data size tremendously. Instead of 1920x1080x24 bits = ~6MB a frame, the position of 10 thousand vertices will only take ~40KB assuming 4 bytes each. Textures can be stored locally, then the 100KB from the server could give enough information to the client to render the image.
As for the control latency, it is there in current FPS anyway, it's just a matter of how well the game masks it. Actually, it is worse in the current FPS, as my movement really have to make it, not only the first hop to the server, but make one more hop to my opponent's machine for me to avoid getting hit from his POV.
If you played FPS then you will know about turning a corner to hide, only 2 seconds later to have the game tell you that you actually got hit and killed before you turned that corner, because your opponent lagged so badly he didn't get the data of your movement until after he already shot you.
>With only 1 copy of the world, then the number of players will only be limited by the number of CPU doing rendering from the POV of each player, and that is probably easier to scale as the rendering process is read-only. So you can have MASSIVE number of players in the same game, imagine hundreds of player all in the same battlefield, and that limit can be increased by a server upgrade instead of waiting 5 years for another console generation. This can already be done and it does not need that the video output be rendered on the server which requires even more massive servers.
This can already be done?? Which FPS running on console give you games with 100+ players in it?
Why to spend power in datacenters when people can use it at home? Other than vendor-lock, is non-sense. Another thing is how scalabe the thing is, etc.
How about 100% cheat prevention? When all the computing is done centrally, how could you possibly cheat in the game anymore?
Plus, it totally eliminated the lag factor in FPS, as only the central server do the processing and rendering. Rubberbanding and blinking/shifting enemies will be eliminated.
The only lag now comes between your end to the server, which, while non-zero, is at least consistent from game to game.
With only 1 copy of the world, then the number of players will only be limited by the number of CPU doing rendering from the POV of each player, and that is probably easier to scale as the rendering process is read-only. So you can have MASSIVE number of players in the same game, imagine hundreds of player all in the same battlefield, and that limit can be increased by a server upgrade instead of waiting 5 years for another console generation.
This is the content of every single (mandatory) security training I've been required to take, over the years. It just seems unbelievable to me, that various government agencies spend so much money in this training, and developing strong security practices, that the NSA, of all agencies, would not be following these procedures.
Maybe, as above posts illustrated, they have heard about Terry's case? Better to have a security breach, and even get fired, because you made such a common mistake, than to refuse and go to jail.
If you've listened to the instruction that goes along with the test, it would be clear what to do.
Stop there. Can you reasonably expect 100% of those 6-7 year olds taking test to pay enough attention when the teacher was giving the instructions? Or are you going to penalize those whose mind wandered for a few minutes with the frustration of totally not able to understand the questions at all for the rest of the test?
We aren't training military recruits here, each question in the test should be clearly understandable, so the student is ONLY being tested on the his/her math understanding, not convoluted English understanding nor attention span for verbal instructions (good luck to those who had hearing issues, now their math scores will hit the bottom as well).
I already use a voice recognition/voice activated app for this. It uses a two word 'trigger' phrase.
When the waitperson is within range, any party at the table faces them and say the trigger phrase: "separate checks."
When the meal is done, multiple bills arrive that are delivered to each dining party, with the amounts for each of their food & beverage items listed, tax and total. Each party can calculate a gratuity based on their own opinion of the individual service they received.
This app also allows for the parties to arrive, and leave, at staggered times.
This is fairly advanced tech, so don't expect to see it on phone/tablets for a while...
But, but, but... Google is doing it on a computer! THAT got to deserve a new patent in the US.
I've racked my brain trying to dream up a smartwatch I'd want, couldn't really hack it.
Maybe Apple will come up with something nice.Or maybe they'll come up with something shiny, magical and overpriced
You lacked imagination.
A watch that links with my phone via bluetooth, which will act as mic+speaker, with headphone plugs, and shows the time and alerts (phone call showing caller, text, reminders, etc) with vibrate option, 2 side buttons to let me take or reject calls, would have removed my need to take the phone out 95% of the time.
Headphone wires going from my wrist, through my sleeve, to my ear is much less troublesome than from my pocket or bag. Bluetooth headsets are ok, but I don't want to risk dropping/misplacing one simply because I took it off for a minute.
Bonus for a tiny camera for doing facetime calls or taking pictures.
That won't do - a malicious scanner will not abide by the standards.
And it is STUPID to make a malicious scanner for the purpose of stealing money from the contact-less payment device.
All payments through these contact-less device has 2 parties, the payer and the payee, in normal case, the transaction will be logged by both and reconciled centrally.
By building a malicious scanner, the clearing center will just get the "deduct money" half of the transaction, and no "receive money" side from any valid merchant. These orphaned transactions will be easily flagged and reversed. And then where will you collect real money from what you "stole" with the malicious scanner?
A much smarter way is to make a malicious wallet, which will pretend to "pay out" whatever amount to valid merchant devices, so you can "buy" whatever you like for free. It won't be caught until the transaction was found out during clearing, but you will be long gone by then.
On the whole, it was no less secure than a lost credit card. And in the same way, some merchant devices (especially those accepting larger payments) will do real time, or near real time, communication with the central server, so it will identify malicious wallet right away.
And that is the crux of the matter. Risk must be quantified in the units that business decisions are made - dollars. Beyond that, risk needs to accurately assessed to the point of what is the likelihood and not what is possible. Once we know the likelihood and the cost, decision makers will be able to make their decisions.
Ah, but here's the problem: It can't be done.
Explain to me how you will....
And that's exactly the point. You bring a problem to management, a problem that they cannot simply ignore. So their CYA response is to ask you to do the impossible just so they can then decide what to do. Now since you cannot accurately quantify the risk, it is your fault if anything bad happens.
Of course, it begs the question that if management can only make decisions if everything has been quantified, then why not just replace them with a computer?
The thing is fraud is just not making a dent in their finances to bother.
Of course, those frauds (only called "Identity Theft" in the US) make dents only in their customers' finances, not the banks' own finances, why should the banks in the US bother?
It's about time that US banks caught up with the rest of the world and put chips on all their cards, then we can finally get rid of the magstripes.
While chip&pin has it's security flaws it's way better than the 20 year old magnetic stripe system, in Australia and most of Europe the only reason they still put the stripes on cards is because the cards have to work when people travel to the US. It's been at least a year since I've seen a reader without chip support in Australia and the only time the magstrip is used is when the chip or contactless read fails.
Part of the fault lies with your country's stores, or bank, or both. My credit card has chip and magstrip, at one time when a newb cashier tried to swipe the card through the magstrip reader (instead of correcting inserting the chip end to another slot to use the chip), the machine told her to use the chip instead, i.e. it refused to accept data from the magstrip for a card with chip.
The only people at risk with a fake card with copied magstrip are people with cards that have no chip, i.e. America tourists. All cards from locals have chips on them.
What would happen if my card's chip really failed so it became unusable? I guess I won't be able to use the card anymore until I get a replacement. Most people here have more than one card in their wallet anyway. Security vs convenience, we picked security here, looks like your country picked convenience.
The death penalty was already taken off the table--solely with the intent of taking away a major incentive for countries to grant Snowden asylum, and in hopes of improving the chances of getting him extradited.
And you believed it? You got to be incredibly naive to believe ANY promise from the US Govt after the number of lies they have told related to this by now.
I don't think Putin is THAT stupid. Of course, whether he cared if Snowden will die in the hands of the US is another thing entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
First line of your post:
>I went for it
Following key words:
>give up
>trying
>gambling
>only
>do not spend
>quit
You didn't go for anything, you eyed it and carefully prodded it from a distance with a stick.
Most of us can't even do that, we don't have an extra $100,000 post-safetynet stick that we can burn without consequence.
Not to say your stance is wrong. It would be folly to think that the arena of 21st century business is fair, honest, or viable to commoners. You'll never succeed using the "front door". So throwing in your shirt and sticking your neck out for decks stacked this bad is, as you say, a Bad Idea.
If you're gonna try something New And Exciting don't listen to anyone that won't acknowledge the very real chance of customers/clients/required business relations becoming a very underwhelming turnout. Near-zero return can happen on any maneuver.
-AC.Falos
You know this is the same battle cry for every "aggressively scheduled" death-march project? Old devs like me, who have heard this battle cry more times than I can remember, will recognize it for what it is - B.S.
Gamble is gamble. Sure, someone wins the lottery once in a while, but making a huge gamble is NOT the only way to plan for success.
Your idea is no different from "passionate" execs calling for developers to work 12 hours a day for months because "we can't succeed without giving 120%!"
Sorry, have seen these "aggressive" projects crash and burn too many times (along with the fools who heed the battle cry) to NOT realize this is BS. Successful projects come from careful planning and the discipline in not take too large a bite. I went from one successful project to another, to another, ..., not by gambling big, but by not taking unjustified chances, and always have a fallback plan.
The GP is right on the money. If you ask the founders of any successful startup, chances are they have failed at least once in the past. Only by knowing when to stop can they try again later. If they had insisted on digging themselves deeper in any one of their past failures, chances are they would be able to try again and eventually succeed.
Beyond that, why do ALL the media outlets take government statements such as "possible object", meaning the analysts can't agree that there is an actual thing there and the spot isn't just a light glare, and instead report "it could be a wing". From 'not sure it exists' to 'it could be the plane'.
Cuz that sell eyeballs? Which is more attract to Joe Public - "It could be a wing!" or "Meh, likely nothing found"?
Do you still have that quaint idea that "news" is for informing people and reporters are supposed to be objective and level-headed, or even, (gasp!) competent in subject knowledge being reported? It hasn't been that way for at least decades already.
Exactly, the correct comparison should be "technical analysis" in stock markets, which can be applied to any stock you like with the same level of (un)success.
Without an underlying theory of how things work, which also needs to be somewhat correct, trying to predict future trends simply by using past data is just dumb curve fitting - with a curve of enough degrees of freedom, you can fit any data, but that doesn't mean its prediction would be any better than random guess.
So what would be the proper way to deal with countries that subsidize their workforces?
You mean, like providing education, health care, law enforcement, etc to the people, so the "workforce" don't have to pay for private teachers, medicine, or private guards? Or infrastructures like roads, mass transit trains, electricity, clean water, broadband internet, etc, so the workforce don't have to live near the company, buy electric generators, etc? Or lower tax rate, which is effectively higher pay?
Where do you draw the line?
If IBM employees cannot provide enough economic value to the market for the market to pay the company enough to offset their cost and provide for profits on top of it, then those jobs have no business existing
If companies stop at that, I think most people would be fine with it.
But with the endless chase for ever MORE PROFIT, it is not enough for an employee to generate enough value to offset their own cost + profit, they have to generate more value than their hypothetical offshore counterpart.
So if you cost $100 and generate $120 value, but the other guy in India cost $20 and generated only $25, well, the company can hire 5 India guy to generate $125 for the same cost of $100, so bye bye to your job.
YOU would think that the guy in India is crap, producing only $25 value, less than a quarter of yours, but you are in fact competing with 5 of them, which combined to give more value to the company than you could!
They're constantly looking to move jobs from areas of relatively high pay (USA, England, Australia, etc.) to areas of relatively low pay (India, Philippines, China, etc.) Which is all well and good if the standard of work were maintained - but it's not. They pay peanuts, and they get monkeys - I've worked with some fantastically competent people from India and China, but the salary they'd command back home is more than IBM is prepared to pay.
THIS is the reason offshoring will never give you good results, NOT because of some inherent incompetence of the people in the other country, but because the company is unwilling to pay for good talent!
I have seen this mentality more than I cared to - "offshoring is to cut cost, so we can't pay enough for qualified people!"
I mean, this is CRAZY. All businesses complained about the difficulty in finding talent. Considering that the USA (for example), is only about 5% of world's population, while India and China combined have like 40%, even if the portion of qualified people in those 2 countries are just 1/10 compared to the US, it would mean, but raw numbers, there are almost (80%) just as many qualified people there as in the US!
But of course, being talented as they are (and 10x as rare in their country compared to as in the US), they would command a higher pay relative to their countries average worker, but that "higher" pay would still be significantly LESS than what the same qualified staff in US would be taking.
It would still be a win-win situation, to have a bigger talent pool, just as highly qualified staff, etc, etc. But NO, offshore is a LOW COST resource pool, we CAN'T pay anyone that much more than the average salary! Yeah, the insanity of HR everywhere, we pay the average salary but want the top-tiered employees, and only those with passion, too!
A better representation would be me speaking these phrases to you in person
So, essentially the same TEXT in audio format? Doesn't that simply proved the point that the TEXT is already the, conceivably, most concise and precise representation of your idea?
I've work in visual coding for over a decade (in an integration middleware product line named 'webMethods', that uses a graphical language named 'Flow', Owner: 'Software AG'). Its based on Java, its been successful for the almost the last 2 decades. I've had a job in it for 13 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
And yes, I have used and taught other people to use webMethods in the past, over 10 years ago when it was still "new".
It might be "successful" in the sense that the company is financially successful. But "successful" in the sense it lets you program better than text? Only if you consider taking 5-10 times as long write the same logic compared to writing plain text in Java as "better". Good luck trying to debug a program from its visual representation.
People who learned webMethods before learning Java have trouble understanding basic concepts as exception handling, and have even more trouble with OO concepts such as polymorphism, or even basic Objects, as they cannot see the objects in the visual representation of the logic flow.
So-called "visual programming", which is what you're wanting, is great for relatively simple tasks where you're just stringing together pre-defined blocks of functionality.
THIS. The same reason why picture books only works for story for pre-school kids.
When the thought one wish to express reaches a certain level of complexity, it went beyond what a 2D image can express.
Nah, I'm actually with the poster. I get text-based traditional coding too, but find the ROI (time and effort) quite poor and the work dreary. You have to be either well disciplined, or get the sort of joy banging out code that running get when pushing their body through the next mile.
So one can get 'coding', or get 'running', but find themselves searching for something better. (visual coding/visual abstractions swimming)
Ok, I suppose you also "get" English writing. How about, as an exercise, show us a "better" visual depiction of your own post above without using text?
Or how about the OP posting his question visually using a picture?
Can't do that? Perhaps text IS a very good way to express thought and logic? Good luck on your search for something "better" (whatever that means), the past 2 decades have already been littered with numerous carcasses of "visual programmer" tools that can't do the job.
You may believe that you 'get code'. But clearly you do not.
This was also my first thought when reading the summary. His question already proved that he doesn't "get code" at all. \
>How about 100% cheat prevention? When all the computing is done centrally, how could you possibly cheat in the game anymore?
Most games have all, or nearly all, of the processing happening on the server as it is. Doesn't stop cheaters. Sure, they can't exactly just memory edit the amount of gold/points/health/whatever they have anymore, but there are an infinite number of other ways to cheat. Think about botters; that doesn't rely on client-side processing. Aimbots in FPS games do not need to rely on client-side processing (from the game, anyways) either; they will detect enemies and simulate mouse movement to auto-aim.
Think again. When all processing is done in the server and only the screen is sent to the client, wall hack becomes impossible. Aimbot? Your aimbot better be able to identify an opponent's head from the displayed graphics. Not the say that's as difficult as in doing so in real video footage, but it raised the bar so high, that anyone able to pull that off would be quite an expert in pattern and facial recognition, and not just a matter of finding the coordinate for the opponent's location in the data stream.
>Plus, it totally eliminated the lag factor in FPS, as only the central server do the processing and rendering. Rubberbanding and blinking/shifting enemies will be eliminated.
No it doesn't. In fact, it's going to make it worse. It might *look* different, but the actual effect will be more detrimental to your gameplay. If you have issues with lag with a very, very low amount of information being transferred (ie. position updates), then what the fuck makes you think upping it to uncompressed 1080p video streaming is going to improve it? Instead, it'll be like trying to watch a Youtube video that is constantly trying to buffer. Even if, and I stress "if," it were to stream halfway decently for you, you are still going to be feeling the effects of the lag. Everything will feel sluggish and the controls will always seem to trigger actions that happen much later than when you pressed the button.
You assumed current technology for streaming video is the only solution. But given that the server had all the original 3D information to generate the video frame to begin with, many other techniques becomes available. E.g. Regardless of resolution, the server can just send the polygons need to be drawn to the client side for a frame, and then the changes for the next frame, etc. Which would reduce the data size tremendously. Instead of 1920x1080x24 bits = ~6MB a frame, the position of 10 thousand vertices will only take ~40KB assuming 4 bytes each. Textures can be stored locally, then the 100KB from the server could give enough information to the client to render the image.
As for the control latency, it is there in current FPS anyway, it's just a matter of how well the game masks it. Actually, it is worse in the current FPS, as my movement really have to make it, not only the first hop to the server, but make one more hop to my opponent's machine for me to avoid getting hit from his POV.
If you played FPS then you will know about turning a corner to hide, only 2 seconds later to have the game tell you that you actually got hit and killed before you turned that corner, because your opponent lagged so badly he didn't get the data of your movement until after he already shot you.
>With only 1 copy of the world, then the number of players will only be limited by the number of CPU doing rendering from the POV of each player, and that is probably easier to scale as the rendering process is read-only. So you can have MASSIVE number of players in the same game, imagine hundreds of player all in the same battlefield, and that limit can be increased by a server upgrade instead of waiting 5 years for another console generation.
This can already be done and it does not need that the video output be rendered on the server which requires even more massive servers.
This can already be done?? Which FPS running on console give you games with 100+ players in it?
Imagine your game not starting because the 'physics' servers are down or you can't connect to them.....
And how is that different from how I cannot play multiplayer BF3 on PS3 when EA's or Sony's servers are down?
Some games are intended to be multiplayer only, you can't play them when the server is down anyway.
Why to spend power in datacenters when people can use it at home? Other than vendor-lock, is non-sense. Another thing is how scalabe the thing is, etc.
How about 100% cheat prevention? When all the computing is done centrally, how could you possibly cheat in the game anymore?
Plus, it totally eliminated the lag factor in FPS, as only the central server do the processing and rendering. Rubberbanding and blinking/shifting enemies will be eliminated.
The only lag now comes between your end to the server, which, while non-zero, is at least consistent from game to game.
With only 1 copy of the world, then the number of players will only be limited by the number of CPU doing rendering from the POV of each player, and that is probably easier to scale as the rendering process is read-only. So you can have MASSIVE number of players in the same game, imagine hundreds of player all in the same battlefield, and that limit can be increased by a server upgrade instead of waiting 5 years for another console generation.
Aren't these reasons good ones?
This is the content of every single (mandatory) security training I've been required to take, over the years. It just seems unbelievable to me, that various government agencies spend so much money in this training, and developing strong security practices, that the NSA, of all agencies, would not be following these procedures.
Maybe, as above posts illustrated, they have heard about Terry's case? Better to have a security breach, and even get fired, because you made such a common mistake, than to refuse and go to jail.
Then just ask "what is 6 minus 5". Why make the question ridiculous?
Because "6 minus 5" is too difficult for the teacher writing the test.
If you've listened to the instruction that goes along with the test, it would be clear what to do.
Stop there. Can you reasonably expect 100% of those 6-7 year olds taking test to pay enough attention when the teacher was giving the instructions? Or are you going to penalize those whose mind wandered for a few minutes with the frustration of totally not able to understand the questions at all for the rest of the test?
We aren't training military recruits here, each question in the test should be clearly understandable, so the student is ONLY being tested on the his/her math understanding, not convoluted English understanding nor attention span for verbal instructions (good luck to those who had hearing issues, now their math scores will hit the bottom as well).
I already use a voice recognition/voice activated app for this. It uses a two word 'trigger' phrase.
When the waitperson is within range, any party at the table faces them and say the trigger phrase: "separate checks."
When the meal is done, multiple bills arrive that are delivered to each dining party, with the amounts for each of their food & beverage items listed, tax and total. Each party can calculate a gratuity based on their own opinion of the individual service they received.
This app also allows for the parties to arrive, and leave, at staggered times.
This is fairly advanced tech, so don't expect to see it on phone/tablets for a while...
But, but, but... Google is doing it on a computer! THAT got to deserve a new patent in the US.
I've racked my brain trying to dream up a smartwatch I'd want, couldn't really hack it.
Maybe Apple will come up with something nice.Or maybe they'll come up with something shiny, magical and overpriced
You lacked imagination.
A watch that links with my phone via bluetooth, which will act as mic+speaker, with headphone plugs, and shows the time and alerts (phone call showing caller, text, reminders, etc) with vibrate option, 2 side buttons to let me take or reject calls, would have removed my need to take the phone out 95% of the time.
Headphone wires going from my wrist, through my sleeve, to my ear is much less troublesome than from my pocket or bag. Bluetooth headsets are ok, but I don't want to risk dropping/misplacing one simply because I took it off for a minute.
Bonus for a tiny camera for doing facetime calls or taking pictures.
That won't do - a malicious scanner will not abide by the standards.
And it is STUPID to make a malicious scanner for the purpose of stealing money from the contact-less payment device.
All payments through these contact-less device has 2 parties, the payer and the payee, in normal case, the transaction will be logged by both and reconciled centrally.
By building a malicious scanner, the clearing center will just get the "deduct money" half of the transaction, and no "receive money" side from any valid merchant. These orphaned transactions will be easily flagged and reversed. And then where will you collect real money from what you "stole" with the malicious scanner?
A much smarter way is to make a malicious wallet, which will pretend to "pay out" whatever amount to valid merchant devices, so you can "buy" whatever you like for free. It won't be caught until the transaction was found out during clearing, but you will be long gone by then.
On the whole, it was no less secure than a lost credit card. And in the same way, some merchant devices (especially those accepting larger payments) will do real time, or near real time, communication with the central server, so it will identify malicious wallet right away.
And that is the crux of the matter. Risk must be quantified in the units that business decisions are made - dollars. Beyond that, risk needs to accurately assessed to the point of what is the likelihood and not what is possible. Once we know the likelihood and the cost, decision makers will be able to make their decisions.
Ah, but here's the problem: It can't be done.
Explain to me how you will ....
And that's exactly the point. You bring a problem to management, a problem that they cannot simply ignore. So their CYA response is to ask you to do the impossible just so they can then decide what to do. Now since you cannot accurately quantify the risk, it is your fault if anything bad happens.
Of course, it begs the question that if management can only make decisions if everything has been quantified, then why not just replace them with a computer?
the path that makes him happy.
The path that makes him happy for a year, or the path the makes him happy for the next decade but not so happy next year?
The thing is fraud is just not making a dent in their finances to bother.
Of course, those frauds (only called "Identity Theft" in the US) make dents only in their customers' finances, not the banks' own finances, why should the banks in the US bother?
It's about time that US banks caught up with the rest of the world and put chips on all their cards, then we can finally get rid of the magstripes.
While chip&pin has it's security flaws it's way better than the 20 year old magnetic stripe system, in Australia and most of Europe the only reason they still put the stripes on cards is because the cards have to work when people travel to the US.
It's been at least a year since I've seen a reader without chip support in Australia and the only time the magstrip is used is when the chip or contactless read fails.
Part of the fault lies with your country's stores, or bank, or both. My credit card has chip and magstrip, at one time when a newb cashier tried to swipe the card through the magstrip reader (instead of correcting inserting the chip end to another slot to use the chip), the machine told her to use the chip instead, i.e. it refused to accept data from the magstrip for a card with chip.
The only people at risk with a fake card with copied magstrip are people with cards that have no chip, i.e. America tourists. All cards from locals have chips on them.
What would happen if my card's chip really failed so it became unusable? I guess I won't be able to use the card anymore until I get a replacement. Most people here have more than one card in their wallet anyway. Security vs convenience, we picked security here, looks like your country picked convenience.
The death penalty was already taken off the table--solely with the intent of taking away a major incentive for countries to grant Snowden asylum, and in hopes of improving the chances of getting him extradited.
http://news.yahoo.com/no-death-penalty-snowden-convicted-us-says-213552147.html
And you believed it? You got to be incredibly naive to believe ANY promise from the US Govt after the number of lies they have told related to this by now.
I don't think Putin is THAT stupid. Of course, whether he cared if Snowden will die in the hands of the US is another thing entirely.
They'll offer the same course again sooner or later; just take it again next time.
"You didn't get your paycheck this month? We will be sending the same check again sooner or later, just cash it next time. Now keep working!"
Yeah, that will work.