Mystery is the leverage the NSA has. It's kind of hard to say what they would do, but the sky is basically the limit as far as what they could do. I think a couple of guys in a black SUV conspicuously following someone around for a couple of weeks could convince them to go along with it.
I like my 360, the console itself is certainly a huge success. The built-in media playback functionality is a half-assed attempt to sell Media Center PCs. That is what I am commenting on.
I'd like to expand on this a bit. XBMC is truly a wonderful application, it plays everything I have ever thrown at it, and in the past two years or so has been the number one application I have ran on my XBOX.
The xbox 360 media playback is somewhere between pathetic and piss-poor. About the only thing they got right is allowing you to stream MP3's over the network to listen to them in game. I haven't been able to find a linux streaming server that will replicate the functionality of Media Connect so I can stream directly from my file server. Media Center coupled with the Xbox 360 will not playback MP3's in a samba share mounted as a drive. I had to copy my MP3 collection to my workstation and stream from that. Because of that, I haven't gotten the ambition to mirror my digital camera collection to my workstation for streaming.
There is NO video playback without XP Media Center, and I've heard it doesn't support that many formats anyway. I thought Microsoft would have taken a look at XBMC and stolen some of the best features. XBMC can playback media through a number of different formats (I believe nfs, samba, and stream servers) and copes with pretty much everything you throw at it at this point. XBMC can play an ISO of a DVD, fantastic.
Until the 360 can do at least what XBMC can do, it is both a joke and a failure. I really want to disconnect my original xbox, Microsoft needs to come through with a serious media player.
That's easy, I don't want to get shot. That's right, I'm totally chicken-shit, and I admit it. You are too, Mr. Anonymous Coward.
Additionally, I have no motivation to enlist, we're not fighting a World War, we are currently involved in the occupation of a somewhat hostile country. In other words, there is in all likelihood no immediate or future threat to me personally, sitting in my chair in the United States, and until there is, we have career soldiers to fight the battles. The glory and honor of battle is still appealing to some, I've played enough violent video games, played enough paintball, and seen enough violent movies to know I don't want to get out there and do that stuff for real. I get killed much too often, and I like my arms and legs right where they are.
Not much threat of civil war under totalitarian dictatorships.
We did have a plan, invade their country, capture or kill their leaders, and go from there. It's the tried and true gameplan that has been used in pretty much every conflict ever fought. The focus when you start a war is generally on winning, not what to do IF you win.
Did we have a plan for what to do with Germany once we won WWII before we joined the war in Europe? Remember, the military expected Iraq to be much more formidable in the first Gulf war, and expected they would have learned from there mistakes for the Second Gulf War. Not to mention, they knew we were coming months in advance.
In my estimation, the first mistake in fighting a war is assuming you will win. As I've pointed out, lots of people scream withdraw. In this case, withdrawl of US forces will almost certainly lead to a nasty and lenghty civil war, not to mention possible invasion. The question is, how many people that are demanding immediate end to the "war" will freak when civil war erupts, and if left to continue turns into genocide.
Immediate withdrawl is not a plan, the powers that be have given an ounce of thought to what would happen if it we did withdrawl. Keep in mind that the dems are in favor of withdrawl in name only, they voted against it not too long ago.
Maybe we shouldn't have war games, instead we should focus on games where we all paint protest signs, smoke digital pot, and sing anti-war songs to each other. In the game, you could even push for the UN to write a nasty letter to someone, then another if they still don't cooperate. That would be tons of fun... War has been around a hell of a lot longer than you ever have, get used to it.
Incremental improvements in graphics and storage, or steps toward immersion. I have a 360, and thus far I am pretty impressed.
Take Call of Duty. Just looking at it, at first glance, it doesn't seem a whole lot better (Toshiba 27" standard def set circa 2003) than say Brothers in Arms on the original Xbox. Then when you actually play it, it has something most other WWII games lack, a sense of immersion. The particle effects really help with this. The battlefield is chaotic, grenades and bullets kick up snow, dirt, mud, and the smoke grenades are wonderful. The friendly NPC's talk, constantly. Sometimes everything else is just so loud, you can't really make out what they are saying. The surround sound is used to great effect to bring you onto the battlefield. It feels like a battle, not a group of polygons shooting at some other polygons.
There are also tons of characters on screen. I remember a Medal of Honor for the Xbox, the opening was a very well done and immersive D-Day invasion, with stuff going on all around you. Hardly any enemies, and only lasted a minute or two. Call of Duty feels like that all the way through, except while the enviroment is active with particle effects and explosions, there are also 15-30 enemies in front of you, and a bunch of Allies fighting beside you. In most WWII games it has inevitably felt like you were one man taking on the entire German army. Call of Duty has you pinned as a member of a unit.
A friend of mine came over after I got my 360 to check it out. We've been playing games together since the NES. Fired up Call of Duty, he took the first level. The vehicle he was in was attacked, he looks, and over the hill in front of him comes, I'd say 35 or so enemies, in formation. His response, holy shit, it's the whole German army. Throws a grenade, then attempts to shoot all of them with his rifle. He's dead a few seconds later. Eventually he realized he should throw a smoke grenade, then retreat to where the rest of the friendlies are and fight from cover. In short, a hell of a lot more immersive than the last generation.
This generation should be about parallel processing are way toward immersion. Hopefully some developer will come along and realize that graphically, this generation should be an incremental upgrade (whatever you can do with that fancy new GPU). The focus should be on using these multi-core processors to up the ante in physics and AI processing, and adding a bunch of characters to the screen. GTA isn't much of a city with 4 cars and 6 people on the streets. Multiply both of those numbers by 20-40 and we may start to have something truly next generation.
So how would it be used, like a quantum accelerator in the CPU (I guess like a quantum fpu), or perhaps an add-in card, or would it replace the entire architecture?
Seems like that would be great for graphics processing, say real time ray-tracing.
I am aware it is a descending sort, you'll notice the name of the proc in assembly is descendingSort32. I probably should have changed the variable name.
The test computer is a AMD XP 2400+ with 1GB RAM. I reran all of the tests, and was able to get the C++ to edge out the assembly by tweeking some compiler settings. In the end I got 20 seconds (Optimized C++) to 22 seconds (ASM) to 33 seconds (Unoptimized C++).
Looking at it now, I think I could edge out the C++ compiler by changing the inner loop slightly, specifically the way I am using edi, but that is a project for another day.
As far as the speed difference between us, I suspect the compiler you are using may be altering the sort, or is just damn good.
In the end, I think as I said in the OP the best bet is to compile optimized code into assembly and then edit the nested loops. I'm still fairly certain I could beat the compiler.
They do work different in that regard, but the general implementation is the same, in other words they are both very simple ineffecient sorts for the sake of comparison.
I'm sure the built in sorts would be much faster, they almost certainly use quick sorts, and I didn't take the time to write a proper quick sort in assembly. What I did do is write two sorts that operate in exactly the same way, an apples to apples comparison.
Bottom line, my register usage makes all the difference.
http://compucatedsolutions.com/asm.htm contains the C++ and assembly sorts, you'll notice they both operate in exactly the same way. I couldn't manage to get it past the lameness filter.
I ran a basic benchmark to test this theory a couple of weeks ago. I wrote a very basic selection sort in asm, then rewrote it in C++. The asm took 25 seconds to sort 100,000 random 32-bit numbers whereas the C++ took 45.
I would suggest compiling performance sensitive apps to asm, and then optimizing nested loops and some comparison orderings. It is possible to get a lot better performance out of assembly.
More processing power (especially multi-core processing) and RAM is a big improvement. Unfortunately people buy systems for apparent gain, most evident in better graphics.
Personally I would like to see a GTA style game that is actually like a city, with a few hundred NPC's and cars on the streets (gridlock). Keep the engine from the xbox generation, and just add characters. Make use of those fancy multi-threaded processors. Graphics are not everything, and these multi core systems should finally have the horsepower to throw tons of characters on screen. Hopefully next-generation should be able to both.
Really, I forsee the true gaming revolution occuring when engines exist that are basically as good as they can be. In other words, graphics are a non-issue, everything is photorealistic, and improvements are seen entirely in gameplay, physics, and AI complexity.
Slashdot Mirror
Mystery is the leverage the NSA has. It's kind of hard to say what they would do, but the sky is basically the limit as far as what they could do. I think a couple of guys in a black SUV conspicuously following someone around for a couple of weeks could convince them to go along with it.
Please explain how a crypto export ban is designed to control the US population.
I like my 360, the console itself is certainly a huge success. The built-in media playback functionality is a half-assed attempt to sell Media Center PCs. That is what I am commenting on.
I'd like to expand on this a bit. XBMC is truly a wonderful application, it plays everything I have ever thrown at it, and in the past two years or so has been the number one application I have ran on my XBOX.
The xbox 360 media playback is somewhere between pathetic and piss-poor. About the only thing they got right is allowing you to stream MP3's over the network to listen to them in game. I haven't been able to find a linux streaming server that will replicate the functionality of Media Connect so I can stream directly from my file server. Media Center coupled with the Xbox 360 will not playback MP3's in a samba share mounted as a drive. I had to copy my MP3 collection to my workstation and stream from that. Because of that, I haven't gotten the ambition to mirror my digital camera collection to my workstation for streaming.
There is NO video playback without XP Media Center, and I've heard it doesn't support that many formats anyway. I thought Microsoft would have taken a look at XBMC and stolen some of the best features. XBMC can playback media through a number of different formats (I believe nfs, samba, and stream servers) and copes with pretty much everything you throw at it at this point. XBMC can play an ISO of a DVD, fantastic.
Until the 360 can do at least what XBMC can do, it is both a joke and a failure. I really want to disconnect my original xbox, Microsoft needs to come through with a serious media player.
That's easy, I don't want to get shot. That's right, I'm totally chicken-shit, and I admit it. You are too, Mr. Anonymous Coward.
Additionally, I have no motivation to enlist, we're not fighting a World War, we are currently involved in the occupation of a somewhat hostile country. In other words, there is in all likelihood no immediate or future threat to me personally, sitting in my chair in the United States, and until there is, we have career soldiers to fight the battles. The glory and honor of battle is still appealing to some, I've played enough violent video games, played enough paintball, and seen enough violent movies to know I don't want to get out there and do that stuff for real. I get killed much too often, and I like my arms and legs right where they are.
Not much threat of civil war under totalitarian dictatorships.
We did have a plan, invade their country, capture or kill their leaders, and go from there. It's the tried and true gameplan that has been used in pretty much every conflict ever fought. The focus when you start a war is generally on winning, not what to do IF you win.
Did we have a plan for what to do with Germany once we won WWII before we joined the war in Europe? Remember, the military expected Iraq to be much more formidable in the first Gulf war, and expected they would have learned from there mistakes for the Second Gulf War. Not to mention, they knew we were coming months in advance.
In my estimation, the first mistake in fighting a war is assuming you will win. As I've pointed out, lots of people scream withdraw. In this case, withdrawl of US forces will almost certainly lead to a nasty and lenghty civil war, not to mention possible invasion. The question is, how many people that are demanding immediate end to the "war" will freak when civil war erupts, and if left to continue turns into genocide.
Immediate withdrawl is not a plan, the powers that be have given an ounce of thought to what would happen if it we did withdrawl. Keep in mind that the dems are in favor of withdrawl in name only, they voted against it not too long ago.
I for one wish we would pull out of Iraq. They'd fall into a nasty civil war and learn to hate each other for the next thirty years.
What about perjury and selling nuclear secrets to the chinese?
No, but I would like some game developers to wake up and realize that graphics aren't everything.
Maybe we shouldn't have war games, instead we should focus on games where we all paint protest signs, smoke digital pot, and sing anti-war songs to each other. In the game, you could even push for the UN to write a nasty letter to someone, then another if they still don't cooperate. That would be tons of fun... War has been around a hell of a lot longer than you ever have, get used to it.
Incremental improvements in graphics and storage, or steps toward immersion. I have a 360, and thus far I am pretty impressed.
Take Call of Duty. Just looking at it, at first glance, it doesn't seem a whole lot better (Toshiba 27" standard def set circa 2003) than say Brothers in Arms on the original Xbox. Then when you actually play it, it has something most other WWII games lack, a sense of immersion. The particle effects really help with this. The battlefield is chaotic, grenades and bullets kick up snow, dirt, mud, and the smoke grenades are wonderful. The friendly NPC's talk, constantly. Sometimes everything else is just so loud, you can't really make out what they are saying. The surround sound is used to great effect to bring you onto the battlefield. It feels like a battle, not a group of polygons shooting at some other polygons.
There are also tons of characters on screen. I remember a Medal of Honor for the Xbox, the opening was a very well done and immersive D-Day invasion, with stuff going on all around you. Hardly any enemies, and only lasted a minute or two. Call of Duty feels like that all the way through, except while the enviroment is active with particle effects and explosions, there are also 15-30 enemies in front of you, and a bunch of Allies fighting beside you. In most WWII games it has inevitably felt like you were one man taking on the entire German army. Call of Duty has you pinned as a member of a unit.
A friend of mine came over after I got my 360 to check it out. We've been playing games together since the NES. Fired up Call of Duty, he took the first level. The vehicle he was in was attacked, he looks, and over the hill in front of him comes, I'd say 35 or so enemies, in formation. His response, holy shit, it's the whole German army. Throws a grenade, then attempts to shoot all of them with his rifle. He's dead a few seconds later. Eventually he realized he should throw a smoke grenade, then retreat to where the rest of the friendlies are and fight from cover. In short, a hell of a lot more immersive than the last generation.
This generation should be about parallel processing are way toward immersion. Hopefully some developer will come along and realize that graphically, this generation should be an incremental upgrade (whatever you can do with that fancy new GPU). The focus should be on using these multi-core processors to up the ante in physics and AI processing, and adding a bunch of characters to the screen. GTA isn't much of a city with 4 cars and 6 people on the streets. Multiply both of those numbers by 20-40 and we may start to have something truly next generation.
I thought it was still ought-five.
So how would it be used, like a quantum accelerator in the CPU (I guess like a quantum fpu), or perhaps an add-in card, or would it replace the entire architecture?
Seems like that would be great for graphics processing, say real time ray-tracing.
A fully functional web server written in Perl?
I am aware it is a descending sort, you'll notice the name of the proc in assembly is descendingSort32. I probably should have changed the variable name.
The test computer is a AMD XP 2400+ with 1GB RAM. I reran all of the tests, and was able to get the C++ to edge out the assembly by tweeking some compiler settings. In the end I got 20 seconds (Optimized C++) to 22 seconds (ASM) to 33 seconds (Unoptimized C++).
Looking at it now, I think I could edge out the C++ compiler by changing the inner loop slightly, specifically the way I am using edi, but that is a project for another day.
I have posted the assembly the compiler created, http://compucatedsolutions.com/asm.htm, although I really haven't had time to get into it.
As far as the speed difference between us, I suspect the compiler you are using may be altering the sort, or is just damn good.
In the end, I think as I said in the OP the best bet is to compile optimized code into assembly and then edit the nested loops. I'm still fairly certain I could beat the compiler.
The algorithm was written specifically to sort 100,000 unsigned 32-bit integers, no thought or planning was put into any other usage.
They do work different in that regard, but the general implementation is the same, in other words they are both very simple ineffecient sorts for the sake of comparison.
I'm sure the built in sorts would be much faster, they almost certainly use quick sorts, and I didn't take the time to write a proper quick sort in assembly. What I did do is write two sorts that operate in exactly the same way, an apples to apples comparison.
Bottom line, my register usage makes all the difference.
http://compucatedsolutions.com/asm.htm contains the C++ and assembly sorts, you'll notice they both operate in exactly the same way. I couldn't manage to get it past the lameness filter.
I ran a basic benchmark to test this theory a couple of weeks ago. I wrote a very basic selection sort in asm, then rewrote it in C++. The asm took 25 seconds to sort 100,000 random 32-bit numbers whereas the C++ took 45.
I would suggest compiling performance sensitive apps to asm, and then optimizing nested loops and some comparison orderings. It is possible to get a lot better performance out of assembly.
I've had mine running since yesterday morning without a hiccup.
More processing power (especially multi-core processing) and RAM is a big improvement. Unfortunately people buy systems for apparent gain, most evident in better graphics.
Personally I would like to see a GTA style game that is actually like a city, with a few hundred NPC's and cars on the streets (gridlock). Keep the engine from the xbox generation, and just add characters. Make use of those fancy multi-threaded processors. Graphics are not everything, and these multi core systems should finally have the horsepower to throw tons of characters on screen. Hopefully next-generation should be able to both.
Really, I forsee the true gaming revolution occuring when engines exist that are basically as good as they can be. In other words, graphics are a non-issue, everything is photorealistic, and improvements are seen entirely in gameplay, physics, and AI complexity.
Just a cluster of video cards. The only thing that has changed is the GUI.
Because we removed them from power by force. This is a very different situation. We have the bomb in other words.
Yeah cause "boobies" are so hard to find on the net now that the US is in control. In other news, Hustler was just banned.
The Hybrid option is starting to show up on the new Lexus models. I'd image that will trickle down to all the cars in short order.