Most of the time (At least in the DirectX world), copies of loaded textures are stored in RAM anyway, in case the device is lost (window resize or switch from fullscreen windowed). This is part of the "managed" video memory pool. Thus any time the texture is modified (or cached out of video memory) it can be cached back in.
Consequently, as long as the app is coded properly (Again, in the DX world, I'm guessing that most probably are - It's easy to create a managed pool texture), and the driver handles it properly, you wouldn't need to distinguish between the "video memory" copy and the "system memory" copy. So you wouldn't be losing any RAM space. Plus there's no mem copy back to the card (or, more importantly, FROM the card) when the texture changes.
How can it be that this country's "moral compass" is so screwed up that it's okay for the president to start a war in a country (which never attacked us or even threatened to attack) that leaves 100,000 civilians and 1,000 US soldiers (and rising) dead, while it's grounds for impeachment to have oral sex in the oval office? When did sexuality become so forbidden that the Statue of Justice was covered up solely because it had an exposed female breast? When was it that personal freedoms and the right for each person to follow their own beliefs and define their own sense of right and wrong fell to making sure that everyone followed the hard-core Christian rules of life (as opposed to the reasonable "help your neighbor and love them as yourselves" Christian rules of life), even if these rules are not compatible with their own beliefs? Since when did we go from "equal rights" to "equal rights to everybody but homosexuals?"
How can it be that people believe that Bush will do a better job of keeping America safe? This seems incredible, considering he already had his shot to protect this country in September of 2001 and he failed it. It is interesting that New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington DC, the three areas of the country that were directly affected by the attacks on September 11th, all voted for Kerry. Yet many people feel that Bush is the person to keep them safer. Why? What has he done to earn this reputation? Certainly, it's not that he went maverick and attacked a sovereign nation with no ties to our attackers. Maybe it's how we gave up on the search for Bin Laden, who was known to be our enemy to attack someone else who didn't attack us. Terrorists, by definition, exist to instill terror into the hearts of a populace, and they did it. Mission accomplished. Our country has been irrevocably scared, and that fear has been used, abused, and manipulated by our administration to keep us under control, and to convince us that it is necessary give up some of our vital, fundamental American freedoms (via the PATRIOT Act, for instance) to keep us "safe." No society should ever have to give up its freedoms. In fact, every republic and democracy in history that has fallen did so because they gave up their freedom for security.
How can it be that the people of this country believe that a man who reduced limitations on mercury emissions (which cause birth defects in surrounding areas), who opened up old-growth forests for clear-cutting, and who gives tax breaks to people who buy gas-guzzling SUVs is helping the environment? Perhaps it's that he called the bills by names which imply that they are good measures, when they are not.
How can it be that a person who changed his mind repeatedly on everything from education to stem cell research to whether Osama Bin Laden was really important, who kept reading a children's book for a photo opportunity even after learning that America was under attack, and who skipped out on the Vietnam war in a sneaky (but sadly legal) way could paint Kerry as being a flip-flopping weakling with a bad war record? And how are the people gullible enough to believe that Kerry did not rightly and justly deserve the three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and various other ribbons that he won in that terrible war? With everyone from his swift boat giving first-hand reports of how heroic and noble he was during the war, how can people believe such things?
How can it be that people have become so resistant to ideas that are not their own? When did "Freedom of Speech" become "Freedom to say only good things about the US government?" Why do people immediately label dissenters as Un-American, when speaking out against the government is one of the greatest freedoms that our country allows us? Since when did "liberal" become an insult? If it weren't for liberals, minimum wage would be lower, blacks and women would still be unable to vote, and slavery would still exist. Liberals are the people who have fought for progress in this country (by sheer Webster Dictionary
You're implying that all people who do not have alot of money are not hard workers. You're implying that everyone out there can "invest more in his education" if they want to.
I earn more money than my neighbor and his wife combined. However, both of them work harder and longer day-to-day than I do. While it's true that I have a higher education level (college graduate) than they do, I did not really work very hard at school, either. But when they were in school (before a lack of funding caused them to drop out), they worked really hard at it and got great grades.
Who do you think deserves the good car more, me (the slacker) or them (the hard workers)? In my mind, at least, the answer is not "me."
Point is, just because somebody makes more and can afford more does not mean that they WORK more. There's a big distinction there.
I think the idea is that the people who make less (note: not who WORK less) should be able to get the same GOOD healthcare and same SAFE car as the person who makes more, not the other way around.
Alternately, a 10 year term would mean that they could have a full 10 years of trying to push whatever legislation they want through the door. I, personally, could not have abided for a full ten years of George W. I've barely been able to stand four, and I'm going to do everything in my power (which is limited, at best) to make sure the number remains "four" and not "eight."
Just because you give them more time at president, does not mean that they will suddenly "do good." I don't feel that anything W. does now would be any different from what he'd do if he were guaranteed more time in office. I think he'd just do more of it.
Slashdot Mirror
In a nutshell:
The UE3 engine is heavily built around pixel shaders. Everything it does is based around shader support.
The Wii is not capable of doing pixel shaders. The hardware can't do it. Period.
Take away the shader support, and UE3 becomes no different than UE2. Note that UE2 does, in fact, support the Wii platform.
This is a hardware issue, it has pretty much nothing to do with Epic.
If only Windows Vienna and Windows Fiji were the same product, that argument would make sense.
Fiji is Vista++, Vienna is "The Magicks of the Future!!!!!".
Most of the time (At least in the DirectX world), copies of loaded textures are stored in RAM anyway, in case the device is lost (window resize or switch from fullscreen windowed). This is part of the "managed" video memory pool. Thus any time the texture is modified (or cached out of video memory) it can be cached back in.
Consequently, as long as the app is coded properly (Again, in the DX world, I'm guessing that most probably are - It's easy to create a managed pool texture), and the driver handles it properly, you wouldn't need to distinguish between the "video memory" copy and the "system memory" copy. So you wouldn't be losing any RAM space. Plus there's no mem copy back to the card (or, more importantly, FROM the card) when the texture changes.
I think it's that Americans as a whole don't notice what's going on in their (our) government. It's a sad state of affairs, really.
But yeah, I'm glad he's gone, too. Maybe we can finally uncover the statue of Justice.
How can it be that this country's "moral compass" is so screwed up that it's okay for the president to start a war in a country (which never attacked us or even threatened to attack) that leaves 100,000 civilians and 1,000 US soldiers (and rising) dead, while it's grounds for impeachment to have oral sex in the oval office? When did sexuality become so forbidden that the Statue of Justice was covered up solely because it had an exposed female breast? When was it that personal freedoms and the right for each person to follow their own beliefs and define their own sense of right and wrong fell to making sure that everyone followed the hard-core Christian rules of life (as opposed to the reasonable "help your neighbor and love them as yourselves" Christian rules of life), even if these rules are not compatible with their own beliefs? Since when did we go from "equal rights" to "equal rights to everybody but homosexuals?"
How can it be that people believe that Bush will do a better job of keeping America safe? This seems incredible, considering he already had his shot to protect this country in September of 2001 and he failed it. It is interesting that New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington DC, the three areas of the country that were directly affected by the attacks on September 11th, all voted for Kerry. Yet many people feel that Bush is the person to keep them safer. Why? What has he done to earn this reputation? Certainly, it's not that he went maverick and attacked a sovereign nation with no ties to our attackers. Maybe it's how we gave up on the search for Bin Laden, who was known to be our enemy to attack someone else who didn't attack us. Terrorists, by definition, exist to instill terror into the hearts of a populace, and they did it. Mission accomplished. Our country has been irrevocably scared, and that fear has been used, abused, and manipulated by our administration to keep us under control, and to convince us that it is necessary give up some of our vital, fundamental American freedoms (via the PATRIOT Act, for instance) to keep us "safe." No society should ever have to give up its freedoms. In fact, every republic and democracy in history that has fallen did so because they gave up their freedom for security.
How can it be that the people of this country believe that a man who reduced limitations on mercury emissions (which cause birth defects in surrounding areas), who opened up old-growth forests for clear-cutting, and who gives tax breaks to people who buy gas-guzzling SUVs is helping the environment? Perhaps it's that he called the bills by names which imply that they are good measures, when they are not.
How can it be that a person who changed his mind repeatedly on everything from education to stem cell research to whether Osama Bin Laden was really important, who kept reading a children's book for a photo opportunity even after learning that America was under attack, and who skipped out on the Vietnam war in a sneaky (but sadly legal) way could paint Kerry as being a flip-flopping weakling with a bad war record? And how are the people gullible enough to believe that Kerry did not rightly and justly deserve the three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and various other ribbons that he won in that terrible war? With everyone from his swift boat giving first-hand reports of how heroic and noble he was during the war, how can people believe such things?
How can it be that people have become so resistant to ideas that are not their own? When did "Freedom of Speech" become "Freedom to say only good things about the US government?" Why do people immediately label dissenters as Un-American, when speaking out against the government is one of the greatest freedoms that our country allows us? Since when did "liberal" become an insult? If it weren't for liberals, minimum wage would be lower, blacks and women would still be unable to vote, and slavery would still exist. Liberals are the people who have fought for progress in this country (by sheer Webster Dictionary
You're implying that all people who do not have alot of money are not hard workers. You're implying that everyone out there can "invest more in his education" if they want to. I earn more money than my neighbor and his wife combined. However, both of them work harder and longer day-to-day than I do. While it's true that I have a higher education level (college graduate) than they do, I did not really work very hard at school, either. But when they were in school (before a lack of funding caused them to drop out), they worked really hard at it and got great grades. Who do you think deserves the good car more, me (the slacker) or them (the hard workers)? In my mind, at least, the answer is not "me." Point is, just because somebody makes more and can afford more does not mean that they WORK more. There's a big distinction there. I think the idea is that the people who make less (note: not who WORK less) should be able to get the same GOOD healthcare and same SAFE car as the person who makes more, not the other way around.
Alternately, a 10 year term would mean that they could have a full 10 years of trying to push whatever legislation they want through the door. I, personally, could not have abided for a full ten years of George W. I've barely been able to stand four, and I'm going to do everything in my power (which is limited, at best) to make sure the number remains "four" and not "eight." Just because you give them more time at president, does not mean that they will suddenly "do good." I don't feel that anything W. does now would be any different from what he'd do if he were guaranteed more time in office. I think he'd just do more of it.