There is a fantastic documentary called Cadillac Desert. One of the comments said said the title was mislabeled; it should have been called: "Mulholland's Greed - The rape and pillage of Owen's Lake":-(
You are confusing presentation and representation.
Proof:
1/3 = 0.3333... (By Definition)
3*1/3 = 3*0.333... (Multiply both sides by 3x)
1 = 0.999... (Simply)
QED.
Q. Why? Q. The same way there are TWO different way to present 1/3 (integer fraction) and 0.333 (repeating decimal) which represent the SAME value there are ALSO two different way to present 1 and 0.999.... which represent the SAME value.
1/3 IS EQUAL to 0.333... 1 IS EQUAL to 0.999...
It may appear counter-intuitive but rules of Math are consistent. It appears you failed Calculus.
No it doesn't. Paradox is just another name for when men are not smart enough to understand a 3rd choice due to failing to understand fundamental concepts.
e.g. * Is Light a Particle exclusive-or Wave? Answer: Both. * Zeno's Paradox: In theory you can infinitely sub-divide space, in application you can't. Answer: Both time and space are quantized. (analog)
Going back in time and killing your ancestor, an alleged paradox, isn't. You can't violate the Law of Causality no matter how hard you try. It would _instantly_ cause you to cease to exist. Ergo, there is no paradox.
Thankfully humans aren't smart enough to figure out space-time is relative and thus teleportation/time travel are intimately linked... for now. Just one more technology we'll probably abuse as well, if it isn't weaponized first. Hopefully the species will have grown up a little by the time it gets (re)invented. First Contact in the next decade is going to force us to re-examine a lot of "sacred cows", aka, dogma in Physics (among other things.)
Intel cross licensed the x86 stuff (32-bit) to AMD. AMD cross licensed the AMD64 stuff (64-bit) to Intel.
The longer version:
Intel and AMD got tired of suing each other over patents. They have a LONG history of cross licensing agreements. They renewed it in 2001 and again in 2009.; AMD clarifyied the deal in 2015
It is only natural AMD would use Intel's docs as part of the verification process for the 32-bit stuff.
The Orville even did an episode on that: Majority Rule (aired in 2017) which was a repeat of a Black Mirror episode Nosedive (aired in 2016), which is similar to a Community, App Development and Condiments (aired in 2014)
It's actually worse then that. Security (or the lack of it) -- whether it be public security (prevention of intrusion) or personal security (protecting your rights) -- can be summarized with two phrases and how they are linked:
1. Follow the money, and 2. Rise of Good Enough aka Worse is better
This gives the TL:DR; conclusions;
Security can be measured short-term or long-term, Security is only a means to an end.
That is, for most companies there is (almost) no long-term financial gain but there is a real short-term expense if you take security serious
For example:
* Banks have a lot more to lose if they don't take security serious -- both short term and long term. * Some fly-by-night company may lose short-term (expense), but long term no real benefit if they ignore security.
Let's take a hypothetical case of 2 companies, working on products that have identical features:
Company A = Does the bare MVP (Minimal Viable Product), security issues are largely ignored, or just barely acknowledged. Security is "good enough". Company B = Takes security serious. There code is battle hardened against Fuzz testing.
Company A takes 12 months of development before they ship. Company B takes 24 months of development before they ship.
Q. Which product is going to be more (financially) successful? A. Company's A.
Q. Why? A. The public does not value security -- they don't know how to. Let's pretend there is a buffer overflow problem that company A ignored but company B fixed. What is the probability of it actually happening? Company A said the ratio of risk:expense wasn't worth it while company B valued it.
We saw this _exact_ same thing happen in early Operating Systems when they moved from being single-tasking to multi-tasking would allow programs to stomp over another applications memory. This was inconvenient so eventually hardware was developed to stop this following the Separation of Concerns philosophy. Even today there are good reasons why a program would want to read another process's memory (debugger, automation), and there are bad reasons (malware).
Security is only a means to an end.
This raises the question:
* How do you prioritize security issues? * How do you make sure everyone values security issues? * How do we make sure bad security practices are made a priority and fixed? * How are companies that use bad security practices punished? * When security gets in the way of functionality / performance what needs to change?
If security issues were prioritized over functionality almost NOTHING would ever ship.
Where is the line drawn between idealism and pragmatism?
Security not being taken serious has created all sorts of opportunities to be hacked. We can certainly do better in this area. Education is the key.
I highly would recommend Meditation and/or Fishing to help with your monkey mind -- constantly jumping from thought to thought without taking a moment to analyze where the thought came from; unable to enjoy the moment for what it is.
Ex professional game developer here. (I've shipped games on PS1, PS2, PC, Wii, DS, and helped numerous companies with their PS3 engines and toolchain. Left the professional industry in 2011 for a stable paycheck but I do my own (indie) game programming and design now, am a hardcore gamer, and help fellow game developers with advice.)
Sorry for the LONG read, but think I can lend some information that will be insightful and not inciteful. =P
> why we still haven't seen modders, foss developers and artists get together to build their own games.
We have, but on a limited scale.
TL:DR;
* Tech Hurdle * Too many cooks in the kitchen * Co-dependency upon the Game Engine and everything else * Theory vs Implementation * The "good" modders get "poached"
The LONG answer:
There are numerous reasons for this:
* Tech Hurdle
The first hurdle was the tech hurdle. Up until recently writing a "general purpose engine" was folly. Was the game 2D or 3D? If 3D, you HAD to optimize for indoor or outdoor environments for the most part with various kludges to support the other. If you notice both Unity and Unreal now offer a "2D" mode -- Unity with 2D Game Kit and Unreal with Paper2D
Examples where tech matters:
Trying to do "dense jungle environments" in a 3D shooter was basically a recipe of framerate FAIL until Crysis came along:
Doctor, it hurts when I do this. Don't do that!!
We "solved" this problem by basically throwing more money at hardware (GPU / CPUs)
How does the engine handle the "contradictory" nature of transparency?
* Opaque objects can be rendered front-to-back using the hardware's "Early Z Test". * Transparent objects need to be rendered back-to-front so you get the correct colors.
How does an engine handle thousands of lights?
* Deferred rending "solves" this problem but doesn't work for transparency. DOH!
People are using hybrid approaches of Forward Render vs Deferred Render. If the "big boys" are STILL figuring this out, Unity 2018.1 with their High Definition Render Pipeline (HD RP) (Preview) -- what chance does amateurs have? Yes, we see engines like Irrlicht but that is a steep learning curve for non-technical people.
We've seen SOME limited success. Back when Quake 2 was popular we Cube 2: Sauerbraten as a good example of the community coming together to produce something "good."
Open Source engines have typically performed like crap. I've posted in the past
how Mike Acton reviewed Ogre 1.9's OrgreNode.cpp pointing out its horrible design and performance.
As a result Orge 2.x game up with a gameplan -- they put together a PDF of how OOP screwed their performance over.
Turns out, Mike Acton was right. They ended up with a 5x performance increase by ditching OOP and using DOD.
How many people own Jason's quintessential engine development bookGame Engine Architecture? How many understand it?
* Too many cooks in the kitchen.
C++ is "good" example of "Design by committee." Everybody has their favorite pet peeve bloating the core user experience until it is an over-engineered clusterfuck.
There are STILL gems that don't have any of the bullshit micro-transactions.
Two the more popular ones:
* Minecraft * Terraria
A list of great indy games:
* AM2R * Braid * Castle Crashers * Cave Story * Cuphead * Fez * Inside * Limbo * Path of Exile -- NOTE: They have "ethical micro-transactions": Cosmetic items and stash tabs. * Super Meat Boy * Stardew Valley * The Witness
What changed? The editor has been living under a rock for the past decade and just now realized what games have been doing. i.e. Beginners play Warframe, Vets play FashionFrame, etc.
People will pay Real Money for cosmetic items! News at 11.
Valve's TF2 popularized micro-transactions for cosmetics almost a decade ago when Team Fortress 2 hats became available on May 21, 2009.
That prototype included a lot of the key design elements of what would become LLVM, says Adve. LLVM originally stood for "low level virtual machine," but as LLVM has expanded its capabilities it has left that acryonym behind and is known only by its initials
Anyone who has worked in compilers knows that the "front-end" translates the programming language into a AST (Abstract Syntax Tree), whilst the "back-end" translates the AST into assembly language. LLVM "abstracted" the assembly language into two parts:
The two pieces of the LLVM code generator are the high-level interface to the code generator and the set of reusable components that can be used to build target-specific backends.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, this is nothing new.
There is a fantastic documentary called Cadillac Desert. One of the comments said said the title was mislabeled; it should have been called: "Mulholland's Greed - The rape and pillage of Owen's Lake" :-(
How do you comment without logging in?
Yeah, right
> It is NOT EQUAL to 1.
*facepalm*
False.
You are confusing presentation and representation.
Proof:
Q. Why?
Q. The same way there are TWO different way to present 1/3 (integer fraction) and 0.333 (repeating decimal) which represent the SAME value there are ALSO two different way to present 1 and 0.999.... which represent the SAME value.
1/3 IS EQUAL to 0.333...
1 IS EQUAL to 0.999...
It may appear counter-intuitive but rules of Math are consistent. It appears you failed Calculus.
> Time travel introduces unresolvable paradoxes
No it doesn't. Paradox is just another name for when men are not smart enough to understand a 3rd choice due to failing to understand fundamental concepts.
e.g.
* Is Light a Particle exclusive-or Wave? Answer: Both.
* Zeno's Paradox: In theory you can infinitely sub-divide space, in application you can't. Answer: Both time and space are quantized. (analog)
Going back in time and killing your ancestor, an alleged paradox, isn't. You can't violate the Law of Causality no matter how hard you try. It would _instantly_ cause you to cease to exist. Ergo, there is no paradox.
Thankfully humans aren't smart enough to figure out space-time is relative and thus teleportation/time travel are intimately linked ... for now. Just one more technology we'll probably abuse as well, if it isn't weaponized first. Hopefully the species will have grown up a little by the time it gets (re)invented. First Contact in the next decade is going to force us to re-examine a lot of "sacred cows", aka, dogma in Physics (among other things.)
MS's handling of Skype is "good" example of how to run a product right into the ground:
* Shitty redesigned UI remake that no one asked for, and
* Forced updates that removes features
Q. How could MS screw it up even more?
A. Delete old threads
* https://community.skype.com/t5...
I'm surprised Microsoft hasn't deleted this thread yet:
* https://answers.microsoft.com/...
+1 Classic!
I wonder how long before we get inaudiable malware / trolled -- Alexa add big hairy balls to my shopping list!
Civil Disobediance disagrees with that philosophy.
That said, I mostly agree with your point. i.e. Murdering a murder is the ultimate hypocrisy.
TL:DR; Cross Licensing
Intel cross licensed the x86 stuff (32-bit) to AMD.
AMD cross licensed the AMD64 stuff (64-bit) to Intel.
The longer version:
Intel and AMD got tired of suing each other over patents. They have a LONG history of cross licensing agreements. They renewed it in 2001 and again in 2009.; AMD clarifyied the deal in 2015
It is only natural AMD would use Intel's docs as part of the verification process for the 32-bit stuff.
You can search intel amd cross license agreement for more info. but the agreement are (usually?) confidential.
EA: Exploitative Assholes: noun, A company who takes advantages of teens and adults by pushing addictive gambling behavior.
Anyone have resolution specs on the original and current?
> "Likes" almost became the new "law".
The Orville even did an episode on that: Majority Rule (aired in 2017) which was a repeat of a Black Mirror episode Nosedive (aired in 2016), which is similar to a Community, App Development and Condiments (aired in 2014)
It's actually worse then that. Security (or the lack of it) -- whether it be public security (prevention of intrusion) or personal security (protecting your rights) -- can be summarized with two phrases and how they are linked:
1. Follow the money, and
2. Rise of Good Enough aka Worse is better
This gives the TL:DR; conclusions;
Security can be measured short-term or long-term,
Security is only a means to an end.
That is, for most companies there is (almost) no long-term financial gain but there is a real short-term expense if you take security serious
For example:
* Banks have a lot more to lose if they don't take security serious -- both short term and long term.
* Some fly-by-night company may lose short-term (expense), but long term no real benefit if they ignore security.
Let's take a hypothetical case of 2 companies, working on products that have identical features:
Company A = Does the bare MVP (Minimal Viable Product), security issues are largely ignored, or just barely acknowledged. Security is "good enough".
Company B = Takes security serious. There code is battle hardened against Fuzz testing.
Company A takes 12 months of development before they ship.
Company B takes 24 months of development before they ship.
Q. Which product is going to be more (financially) successful?
A. Company's A.
Q. Why?
A. The public does not value security -- they don't know how to. Let's pretend there is a buffer overflow problem that company A ignored but company B fixed. What is the probability of it actually happening? Company A said the ratio of risk:expense wasn't worth it while company B valued it.
We saw this _exact_ same thing happen in early Operating Systems when they moved from being single-tasking to multi-tasking would allow programs to stomp over another applications memory. This was inconvenient so eventually hardware was developed to stop this following the Separation of Concerns philosophy. Even today there are good reasons why a program would want to read another process's memory (debugger, automation), and there are bad reasons (malware).
Security is only a means to an end.
This raises the question:
* How do you prioritize security issues?
* How do you make sure everyone values security issues?
* How do we make sure bad security practices are made a priority and fixed?
* How are companies that use bad security practices punished?
* When security gets in the way of functionality / performance what needs to change?
If security issues were prioritized over functionality almost NOTHING would ever ship.
Where is the line drawn between idealism and pragmatism?
Security not being taken serious has created all sorts of opportunities to be hacked. We can certainly do better in this area. Education is the key.
Agreed, TINSTAAFL.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't sustainable. :-/
> Be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm sure Apple will capitalize on it.
I can already see the tag llines:
"Apple phones: good enough to be used by the competition for their marketing"
Still doesn't change the fact that someone who spends $34,850 for an Day-Date 40, etc is an idiot, aka, Hipster.
I highly would recommend Meditation and/or Fishing to help with your monkey mind -- constantly jumping from thought to thought without taking a moment to analyze where the thought came from; unable to enjoy the moment for what it is.
Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with Mojang's new textures.
But yeah, why are we being given textures that no one asked for? Glass STILL doesn't tile properly.
At least supposedly ghost blocks should be fixed in 1.13...
Ex professional game developer here. (I've shipped games on PS1, PS2, PC, Wii, DS, and helped numerous companies with their PS3 engines and toolchain. Left the professional industry in 2011 for a stable paycheck but I do my own (indie) game programming and design now, am a hardcore gamer, and help fellow game developers with advice.)
Sorry for the LONG read, but think I can lend some information that will be insightful and not inciteful. =P
> why we still haven't seen modders, foss developers and artists get together to build their own games.
We have, but on a limited scale.
TL:DR;
* Tech Hurdle
* Too many cooks in the kitchen
* Co-dependency upon the Game Engine and everything else
* Theory vs Implementation
* The "good" modders get "poached"
The LONG answer:
There are numerous reasons for this:
* Tech Hurdle
The first hurdle was the tech hurdle. Up until recently writing a "general purpose engine" was folly. Was the game 2D or 3D? If 3D, you HAD to optimize for indoor or outdoor environments for the most part with various kludges to support the other. If you notice both Unity and Unreal now offer a "2D" mode -- Unity with 2D Game Kit and Unreal with Paper2D
Examples where tech matters:
Trying to do "dense jungle environments" in a 3D shooter was basically a recipe of framerate FAIL until Crysis came along:
We "solved" this problem by basically throwing more money at hardware (GPU / CPUs)
How does the engine handle the "contradictory" nature of transparency?
* Opaque objects can be rendered front-to-back using the hardware's "Early Z Test".
* Transparent objects need to be rendered back-to-front so you get the correct colors.
How does an engine handle thousands of lights?
* Deferred rending "solves" this problem but doesn't work for transparency. DOH!
People are using hybrid approaches of Forward Render vs Deferred Render. If the "big boys" are STILL figuring this out, Unity 2018.1 with their High Definition Render Pipeline (HD RP) (Preview) -- what chance does amateurs have? Yes, we see engines like Irrlicht but that is a steep learning curve for non-technical people.
We've seen SOME limited success. Back when Quake 2 was popular we Cube 2: Sauerbraten as a good example of the community coming together to produce something "good."
Open Source engines have typically performed like crap. I've posted in the past
How many people own Jason's quintessential engine development book Game Engine Architecture? How many understand it?
* Too many cooks in the kitchen.
C++ is "good" example of "Design by committee." Everybody has their favorite pet peeve bloating the core user experience until it is an over-engineered clusterfuck.
You'll notice that almost all of the
> Minecraft (win 10)
*facepalm*
You are doing it wrong.
Play the Java version which is free of all that bullshit.
> I just don't get how people can spend so much money on so little real content.
ePenis bragging rights, aka Vanity.
The same morons (*) who pay thousands of dollars for a Rolex watch or a Gucci bag ($2,000+ WTF?)
(*) Paying $20 - $500 for a watch is fine.
Paying $5,000 for a watch is vanity, aka More money then brains.
There are STILL gems that don't have any of the bullshit micro-transactions.
Two the more popular ones:
* Minecraft
* Terraria
A list of great indy games:
* AM2R
* Braid
* Castle Crashers
* Cave Story
* Cuphead
* Fez
* Inside
* Limbo
* Path of Exile -- NOTE: They have "ethical micro-transactions": Cosmetic items and stash tabs.
* Super Meat Boy
* Stardew Valley
* The Witness
What changed? The editor has been living under a rock for the past decade and just now realized what games have been doing. i.e. Beginners play Warframe, Vets play FashionFrame, etc.
People will pay Real Money for cosmetic items! News at 11.
Valve's TF2 popularized micro-transactions for cosmetics almost a decade ago when Team Fortress 2 hats became available on May 21, 2009.
Did you catch that: "and/or" ? ;-)
You are not wrong, but you aren't entirely correct either.
Originally, LLVM stood for Low Level Virtual Machine
PROOF: click!, (Illinois Computer Science magazine), 2013, Volume II, Page 13
Anyone who has worked in compilers knows that the "front-end" translates the programming language into a AST (Abstract Syntax Tree), whilst the "back-end" translates the AST into assembly language. LLVM "abstracted" the assembly language into two parts: