You claiming John Titor works (well, will work) for Intel? That would certainly explain a lot.
Next thing you know we will find out that IBM has had this technology for a while and even used it in the 5100.
Lord knows I cant make full use of my Macs without at least one drop out or crash a week.
Allow me to add to the opposing sentiment. I Happen to be a software engineer that uses his PowerBook, and MacBook very heavily. I have had OS X crash (kernel panic) on me exactly once and that was under 10.2. I have experienced look ups less than a half a dozen times, most of which were related to some updates that caused the computer to not wake from sleep correctly. I have experienced a number of program crashes, including in Apple software (amazes me how often Safari crashes, though even that is less than IE and Firefox), but none of these crashes have even slowed my ability to work with any other program on the system.
Attempts to parallelize the operations will give bad results.
I think what you meant was "attempts to parallelize the operations incorrectly may yield incorrect results."
The example that you had given above where you manual converted an algorithm from sequential to potentially parallel processed could easily be handled by a compiler. If your brain can handle the optimization so can a compiler given enough time. When writing in a higher level language (i.e. Not Assembly or Machine Code), like you used in your example, then you should be able to expect the compiler to handle those optimizations. Yes I realize all of this is in theory, but eventually reality has to catch up with theory if we expect to improve.
I hope the state brings charges against the parents for neglect, but thanks them for pointing it out. I think removal of their children and a couple (or more) years in prison would do it.
Move to a neighborhood without a draconian HOA...And use a secure version of Windows, an honest attorney, or a Hooters franchise that doesn't debase women.
Hold on, Secure windows and honest attorneys may be fictitious but I personally own a Home with no HOA (and the home was purchased last year). Maybe debase means something else in your part of the world, but around here with the adulation and adoration that the wait staff at Hooters receive, not to mention the pay, I can't quit consider that debasement, and if I did I would like my company to debase me a little bit.
Not only is it ethical to make mixtapes, being able to do so (i.e, being able to build on previous works) is the entire fucking point of copyright!
I'm guessing you don't completely understand the "fucking point of copyright." Sure "making" mix tapes is protected under copyright law (I always assume US law when I'm talking). The problem is that distribution and public performance are not protected. You do realize that technically, based on prior copyright rulings since fair use is so vague, that a DJ mixing live music is required to pay royalties for to the publishers for any music they use in their mix, unless the music is otherwise licensed. I think you need to look up what does and does no qualify as a derivative work. For example taking a Picture that you did not create, and then adding a circle around it, or even a line through it, does not qualify as a significant enough change to be considered a new work.
I'm not taking any particular stance on this particular issue, just trying to stop the ignorance of some people.
I had more problem's with You Really Got Me being credited to Van Halen
Van Halen's version of "You Really Got Me" is significantly different from the Kinks version. I prefer the Kinks but that's not the version they chose to cover. Also this is not the first time GH had done this since "Higher Ground" was originally a Stevie Wonder song, though the GH version is a Cover of the Chili Peppers version. It would probably have been nice for them to mention the original artists in the game though.
I'm surprised that anyone would be planning a PS3 version of guitar hero...
I agree. Everyone knows it's much smarter to move to a new console and continue your franchise there, regardless of the fact that the new console has no backward compatibility with your previous releases that have built an extremely large fan base. I mean look how well it worked for Odd World Inhabitants.
For those that are not aware Odd World Inhabitants produced to highly acclaimed and successful Playstation games but decided to produce there sequels on XBox. The Sequels sold so poorly that Odd World Inhabitants is no longer a software development company. Just goes to show that burning your fan base is not exactly a bright idea. Making the games cross platform is one thing, ignoring the platform, or successor to, that your fan base was built on is a bad idea.
God, it's fucking horrible the way that poser vomits the end of Symphony of Destruction.
As opposed to how Dave vomits on the end of Symphony of Destruction. If you seriously think Dave can sing you are delusional and really don't have any credibility. I really enjoy megadeth, but it's certainly not for the vocal work.
That being said, the developer of GH has tried to use the original records when they were made available in a format that can be used in guitar hero. This requires the original master tracks. At the bare minimum a master for the Guitar, the Bass/Rythm (in the case of GH2) and a final one for everything else. You are going to have a hard time finding these for records made prior to 10 or so years as these things get lost, destroyed or disposed of. Even if the originals are available they need to get the rights to use those originals from the current rights holder which is often difficult, or expensive, to do.
If I'm paying 3 times the cost of a music CD for the game, I damn well expect real versions of the songs on it. Cheap ass bastards.
Your typical music CD has 10 tracks at most. GH had 50+ tracks and GH 2 had 55+ tracks with a fair number of those being the original records. Purchasing those alone, assuming you bough them separate or in some compilation would cost far more than the game, and that is with out the actual game itself. Not only that some of the songs are actually better when performed by Wave Group than they are by the original artist (more so on GH than GH2). But that last bit is just an opinion
And his answer("Women aren't as good at men at math and science,") was offensive and incorrect
I would accept your statement if you had said it was offensive and incomplete but not incorrect. There are many studies, I'll leave it up too you to research them, that show (I won't use the term prove) that Men and Women excel and different skills. One of those skills is spatial judgement and another is language. The Male brain processes spatial information faster and in more detail that the female brain, while it is the exact opposite for linguistics and communication skills. These studies are not done to degrade any one gender or the other, but to allow us to better understand genders and how to reach maximum potential.
I am all for women attempting to improve in the scientific, mathematic and engineering fields, but I would be lying if I said they had the same potential as their male counter parts. But this is really no different than saying males do not have the same capacity for child birth, because, guess what, regardless of what science comes up with, females will still be better suited for this task. And yes the brain and the uterus are complete comparable as they are both cellular structure formed by information provided by DNA.
If men and women had the same potential there would be know reason for men to carry a Y chromosome. This in itself is an interesting topic since the Y chromosome is both benefit and detriment to Males. because Males contain only a single chromosome of each type they are incapable of regenerative replacement when a sequence is damaged, while women have a back up copy which can be used to repair each other. I'm sure it's ok for me to point out the male weakness, which in this case is very rarely disputed, but you are probably already offended by my support that male and females have different mental capacity, even though it makes logical since regardless of the evidence (which in this case happens to support the idea of gender difference)
The question this women is asking is more like, "Given that there are no inherent disparities in aptitude between men and women, why aren't as many women appearing in engineering positions?"
Maybe what this women is asking is "Given the evidence that there are less women undertaking the work necessary to be successful in engineering fields, is there a genetic or gender specific reason for this."
I don't know about anyone else, but the day Men an Women are identical (as compared to equal) is the day I give up on humanity completely.
You have made it very clear that your issue is not with DRM technology at all but with copyright and contract law. If you want to actually discuss DRM we can continue that here. If you want to discuss copyright law or governmental protections or civil rights or corporate rights we can do that next time that topic comes up. Remember you could always suggest just it as an "ask slashdot", I mean on a slow news day who know what they will be willing to post.
So far you have been unable to stay on topic or even point out how DRM is, or even can, interfere with fair use as defined in copyright law, at least as defined in the US.
And I will only say this one last time. You can't "plug the analog hole" unless you have some way of, not only allowing, but forcing humans to receive and understand digital signals. All sensory input must eventually become an analog signal it humans are expected to be able to receive that input. And what is even worse, no one is being forced to put DRM on their media, even the new HD media specs allow for recordings without DRM. You still have the freedom to support media containing DRM or not, so if there is a market for media that does not contain DRM someone will continue to produce such, or you yourself could fill that hole.
Well I'm not talking about DRM, the technology, I'm talking about DRM, the law (ie. DMCA, the law which protects DRM)... Why aren't you taking into account the DMCA?
First of all there is no DRM law. Second the article was about the technology of DRM not about any law, including the DMCA. The whole premise of the article was if people would have issues with DRM if it did not impede personal copyright.
And also I'm more interested in movies, which it certainly is preventing people from making personal copies of.
Again, I have never found a single DRM scheme that prevented analog copying, including of movies. The closest that has ever been created was a copy protection scheme that existed before digital movie recording and even then was exploiting a limitation on the video recorders of the time.
DVD players and any other "authorized digital player" will prevent you from doing that by plugging the "analog hole" or so it is called.
So what I'm reading from you is that the next stage of RM will be so complete that they won't be able to play sounds through speakers or video though displays. Images and Sounds can always be recorded. Bootlegers had been copying musical and video performance for years without the ability to tap into and particular line outs.
The "new audio format" you buy (ie. online music which is becoming increasingly popular) tomorrow will be useless when the next audio player is released, the day after tomorrow.
First I have never said that I support or purchase products containing DRM. I don't understand how something I buy today would be useless, as in unable to be used, since there has never been an example of this in history. To restrict peoples ability to use older technology, such as last years records, would require legislation, which again is outside the scope of the original topic.
Too summarize, DRM that complete restricted ability of replication would also restrict usage, complete, because if you can use it you can copy it (at least I can). And regardless of legislation, at least as it stands so far, you as a consumer still have the right to chose to either purchase products containing DRM or not.
I still haven't figured out quite how it is legal to prevent us from making our own personal copies of music which we own.
Not trying to repeat myself but so far no DRM has prevent a person from making personal copies of anything, especially music, though it may have limited how you make those copies. Simply running the analog line out from your CD/MP3 player to the line in of any analog audio record will allow you to make the same exact copies you would have been able to make 20 years ago, before direct digital copies were possible. Again being repetative, but this point needs to get across, the copyright legislature does not protect any particular form of reproduction, only that you can legal copy it, for certain purposes, if you can figure out how. And again this is not taking into account the DMCA which is an entirely different issue.
I still stand behind the sculptor analogy, since in 50 years they will be just as easy to copy, and that there will certainly be viable copies of todays media that survives the next 150 years. I have yet to have a well cared for CD stop working as designed (and yes I realize that has only been 10-15 at most).
Who is this "we" you speak of. I know numerous purchasers of music and not a damn one of them cares about DRM. The Majority of the people only want to be able to a) play the CD they bought in their CD player or b) play their iTunes purchase on their iPod (replace iTunes and iPod with what ever service and system you would like). DRM, so far, only effects a small portion of the populous in a way they actually take notice of. Pirates have to work harder to copy media, and a few geeks who have more than 5 MP3 players (though they really only use 1 or 2) are upset that their DRM'd downloads limit the number of copies they can make.
And yes I do avoid purchasing CDs with DRM on them, but I am rare, and even with that I don't think there should be some regulation against it. Next thin you know banks will not be allowed to encrypt your account information because that makes it hard for you to copy (and no the two things are not all that different).
Well, first off, DRM allows for what amounts to unbound copyrights.
How is it that DRM (not the DMCA) has any more effect on a persons copyright than using media that is intrinsically difficult to copy? It sounds as if supports of DRM would have us force sculptors to supply the buyer with a CAD diagram for any sculptor they sell, or authors to include digital versions in every book they produce, so that copying and reproduction will be easy. DRM does not stop someone from making copies, only that it makes it more difficult and therefor less profitable for people to illegally copy and distribute the material. No where in copyright law does it say that your ability to copy has to be easy, or at the highest quality. As of yet I have not seen a form of DRM that stops a person from copying music through the analog output that is passed to there receiver, amplifier or speakers.
Honestly none of this would even been an issue if it were not for the ability to reproduce digital media cheaply and quickly. 100 years ago no one ever said, Hey I really want to copy the pattern of the inside of this 2 ton statue but the sculptor made it very difficult to get inside and should not have had the right to do so.
Secondly, I demand my right to shift materials that I've rightfully purchased onto other media.
Keep demanding it and you may lose that right completely. There is nothing to stop media producers from changing their form of distribution so that their media is no longer sold, but rather licensed. You can even see this trend already happening in the automobile sales market, as leasing is quickly become the only viable option for automobile purchases. Keep fighting the current copyright protection schemes and you might find your self licensing your next audio purchase (possible with the producers right to cancel the license at any time without notice) and not actually owning it (which I believe how most download services work).
the average criminal is too lazy, dumb, and foolish to know how to create income honestly.
Spoke like a true privileged middle class american. Intelligence and drive, though they may have some effect, are not the primary factor in a persons success in a society. The more pertinent factors are a persons aceptance of societal norms, their initial starting situation, and random chance.
The wise know better and are not criminals.
The "wise," or more appropriately, the privileged and lucky, are the ones making the laws or influencing the law makers. When you are in control of the laws you will never be a criminal regardless of how heinous your acts are. But that is after all how organized crime, a driving force behind other crime, is able to operate.
My community is mostly made up of people who provide value to society.
SInce value is a subjective thing I can see how you say that, but I would bet in reality, the crime ridden areas around the corner from you are doing more of the actually work required for you to keep your comfy lifestyle. I happen to live in an area that has no appreciable crime, but I would never delude myself into think that I don't need the lesser privileged people to make sure my streets are clean, my children are educated, my food comes fast and cheap among many other things.
So you think I'll get angry, commenting about how Jobs is restricting the market, right?
I never thought you would get angry since Jobs/Apple are the market, or at least part of it and no neo-libertarian would ever believe that a member of the market (read: non-governmental organization) could restrict the market. The fact that in a free market, the wealthy are the governing bodies is completely beside the point.
What I did expect was for you to figure out a way to point out how you would rather not pay your employees a living wage and spout off about some incentive program (a.k.a. indentured servitude). Or is that coming later?
The fact that apple has the iPhone tied to one (read: not my preferred) carrier is a far more egregious affront to freedom than not letting people install third party software.
I only have a couple comments to make on this. First your assumption that System Analyst's jobs are harder than Programmers only shows that you are neither an analyst or a programmer. That is not meant as a slight. Both of these jobs are equally difficult for equally skilled and talented people. I won't get into the fact that there are far less good analysts compared to good programmers. But all in all the difficulty of the jobs is irrelevant.
One I find more intersting about the numbers, if they are in fact valuable, is that it pays Less Americans more. So the effect of of shoring is not a reduction in expense, as your statistics show the expense has actually gone up, and you are only discussing wages, but that instead the real effect is continued consolidation of wealth in a select number of people. In the end, based on your numbers, we have 60k people out of work while 70k get to split the previous groups wages, on top of there own(assuming, falsely I'm sure, that of the original 130k, 70k change career to be analyst).
No matter how you look at it, there are still 60k less jobs for people who need them to provide for themselves and their families without any net gain for the country, since the overall cost of production has actually gone up.
Even though the parent was modded funny I have to say that he's closer to reality than many people realized. I wish I could find the study, but it was shown once that off shoring can actually cost more than it saves when you add up logistics, and the know fact that you do get what you pay for (pay low and get low quality).
That means you have to do a fair amount of setup and partitioning specifically around that 256KB limit, which wouldn't apply on a multi-core PPC.
IBM has already given one solution to this particular complexity in the form of an advanced compiler that implements software cache among other enhancements to neutralize your arguments. Pay close attention to "Scalar code on SIMD units" which supports your argument that the SPEs can not intrinsically handle scalar operations specifically (though with the right knowledge code can be written to handle them fine with minimal impact on memory), but for an intelligent compiler this is again a non-issue (all vector processors can handle scalar operations, it just might be a waste),with IBM's specific solution being what they call "auto-SIMDization"
Basically what I am saying is if you have an specific example of where SPE programing differ from PPC programming that IBM or a third party has not already supplied a solution to then I would like to hear it. Otherwise I have yet to see any reason to acknowledge Carmack's apparently uneducated statement (which I'm starting to think was taken out of context and wasn't really meant to mean what it has been interpreted to mean). Not only that, if it's the tools he doesn't like then he ought to be the first one to write better tools since those would be useful, and he has the skills, while another 1st person shooter might not be so.
And I will appease you by saying that I do not have a cell processor or emulator to test any of this out on, and am going on my knowledge of software engineering (in may different architectures) and the information I get form IBM and other Cell developers.
OK so I went and refreshed myself on the cell architecture and realized I was going about my argument the wrong way. There is effectively no difference between programming for the CBE and Programing for multiple PPC cores. I know you are going to say that I don't have a clue and that there is alot of difference. If you can design and develop for multi threading and vector processing (though you could skip that as the SPEs are capable of scalar processing as well) then you can develop for the Cell. True there will be some code better suited for the PPE than the SPEs and knowing how to break up the code to use each effectively will take time to learn, but once you start thinking like the CBE it will become second nature (Of course I still say this will be a moot point once the tools catch up since they, such as advance compilers, will determine what is best to run on each processor). The only complaints I have read, from people that have actually programmed for the Cell and aren't just bitching about it, is that the SPEs are in order processors with no branch prediction, etc, that go along with it, but this is place that the tools, again compilers, should be able to pick up the slack (and I should add not much different than the PPC cores used in the XBox 360 and Wii which are also in order).
The only argument I will concede is a slight modification of what you said previously and that is that it may always be harder to get the absolute most out of a Cell like architecture as compared to the more common architectures of the day, but that is only because it has more potential. I think you will get comparable or better performance with no hit to development time. You could always use it like a PPC with multiple associated vector processors, just have people have been doing with Power/Altivec systems for years, and still get a performance increase in AI and Physics processing.
Nicholas Blachford adds detail to what I am trying to say. And though this guy is no John Carmack, he actually details the process rather than just saying "I don't like it."
You would have to read my post about software engineering vs. development to understand a bit more about where I am coming from. I don't like that Sony has changed architecture in every console release, this has been a detriment to what they can achieve, but now they have IBM on board so I doubt the Cell Architecture is going away anytime soon. For now it is harder to program and takes a little more time, but that will change, as it does with every new architecture. As more development tools are available the programming will become easier, as more libraries and engines become available it will become even easier. Once you start thinking parallel you actually see that it is easier than not as it allows better division of code and work. If the next generation of servers, consoles, and consumer electronics are powered by the Cell Processor, as IBM, Sony and Toshiba claim, then you will see the necessary tools and mind shifts happen at a very rapid pace.
As a Software Engineer I grow more an more disgusted with the x86, and to a lesser extent Power, architecture every day. Ah if only I could go back to the CBM days.
Slashdot Mirror
You claiming John Titor works (well, will work) for Intel? That would certainly explain a lot.
Next thing you know we will find out that IBM has had this technology for a while and even used it in the 5100.
The example that you had given above where you manual converted an algorithm from sequential to potentially parallel processed could easily be handled by a compiler. If your brain can handle the optimization so can a compiler given enough time. When writing in a higher level language (i.e. Not Assembly or Machine Code), like you used in your example, then you should be able to expect the compiler to handle those optimizations. Yes I realize all of this is in theory, but eventually reality has to catch up with theory if we expect to improve.
Nyko is releasing an adapter next month that will solve the GH issues, or at least that is what their press release says.
I hope the state brings charges against the parents for neglect, but thanks them for pointing it out. I think removal of their children and a couple (or more) years in prison would do it.
I'm not taking any particular stance on this particular issue, just trying to stop the ignorance of some people.
More likely it is going to separate into "those with lives" and "those without lives."
For those that are not aware Odd World Inhabitants produced to highly acclaimed and successful Playstation games but decided to produce there sequels on XBox. The Sequels sold so poorly that Odd World Inhabitants is no longer a software development company. Just goes to show that burning your fan base is not exactly a bright idea. Making the games cross platform is one thing, ignoring the platform, or successor to, that your fan base was built on is a bad idea.
That being said, the developer of GH has tried to use the original records when they were made available in a format that can be used in guitar hero. This requires the original master tracks. At the bare minimum a master for the Guitar, the Bass/Rythm (in the case of GH2) and a final one for everything else. You are going to have a hard time finding these for records made prior to 10 or so years as these things get lost, destroyed or disposed of. Even if the originals are available they need to get the rights to use those originals from the current rights holder which is often difficult, or expensive, to do. Your typical music CD has 10 tracks at most. GH had 50+ tracks and GH 2 had 55+ tracks with a fair number of those being the original records. Purchasing those alone, assuming you bough them separate or in some compilation would cost far more than the game, and that is with out the actual game itself. Not only that some of the songs are actually better when performed by Wave Group than they are by the original artist (more so on GH than GH2). But that last bit is just an opinion
I am all for women attempting to improve in the scientific, mathematic and engineering fields, but I would be lying if I said they had the same potential as their male counter parts. But this is really no different than saying males do not have the same capacity for child birth, because, guess what, regardless of what science comes up with, females will still be better suited for this task. And yes the brain and the uterus are complete comparable as they are both cellular structure formed by information provided by DNA.
If men and women had the same potential there would be know reason for men to carry a Y chromosome. This in itself is an interesting topic since the Y chromosome is both benefit and detriment to Males. because Males contain only a single chromosome of each type they are incapable of regenerative replacement when a sequence is damaged, while women have a back up copy which can be used to repair each other. I'm sure it's ok for me to point out the male weakness, which in this case is very rarely disputed, but you are probably already offended by my support that male and females have different mental capacity, even though it makes logical since regardless of the evidence (which in this case happens to support the idea of gender difference) Maybe what this women is asking is "Given the evidence that there are less women undertaking the work necessary to be successful in engineering fields, is there a genetic or gender specific reason for this."
I don't know about anyone else, but the day Men an Women are identical (as compared to equal) is the day I give up on humanity completely.
You have made it very clear that your issue is not with DRM technology at all but with copyright and contract law. If you want to actually discuss DRM we can continue that here. If you want to discuss copyright law or governmental protections or civil rights or corporate rights we can do that next time that topic comes up. Remember you could always suggest just it as an "ask slashdot", I mean on a slow news day who know what they will be willing to post.
So far you have been unable to stay on topic or even point out how DRM is, or even can, interfere with fair use as defined in copyright law, at least as defined in the US.
And I will only say this one last time. You can't "plug the analog hole" unless you have some way of, not only allowing, but forcing humans to receive and understand digital signals. All sensory input must eventually become an analog signal it humans are expected to be able to receive that input. And what is even worse, no one is being forced to put DRM on their media, even the new HD media specs allow for recordings without DRM. You still have the freedom to support media containing DRM or not, so if there is a market for media that does not contain DRM someone will continue to produce such, or you yourself could fill that hole.
Too summarize, DRM that complete restricted ability of replication would also restrict usage, complete, because if you can use it you can copy it (at least I can). And regardless of legislation, at least as it stands so far, you as a consumer still have the right to chose to either purchase products containing DRM or not.
I still stand behind the sculptor analogy, since in 50 years they will be just as easy to copy, and that there will certainly be viable copies of todays media that survives the next 150 years. I have yet to have a well cared for CD stop working as designed (and yes I realize that has only been 10-15 at most).
And yes I do avoid purchasing CDs with DRM on them, but I am rare, and even with that I don't think there should be some regulation against it. Next thin you know banks will not be allowed to encrypt your account information because that makes it hard for you to copy (and no the two things are not all that different).
Honestly none of this would even been an issue if it were not for the ability to reproduce digital media cheaply and quickly. 100 years ago no one ever said, Hey I really want to copy the pattern of the inside of this 2 ton statue but the sculptor made it very difficult to get inside and should not have had the right to do so. Keep demanding it and you may lose that right completely. There is nothing to stop media producers from changing their form of distribution so that their media is no longer sold, but rather licensed. You can even see this trend already happening in the automobile sales market, as leasing is quickly become the only viable option for automobile purchases. Keep fighting the current copyright protection schemes and you might find your self licensing your next audio purchase (possible with the producers right to cancel the license at any time without notice) and not actually owning it (which I believe how most download services work).
What I did expect was for you to figure out a way to point out how you would rather not pay your employees a living wage and spout off about some incentive program (a.k.a. indentured servitude). Or is that coming later?
The fact that apple has the iPhone tied to one (read: not my preferred) carrier is a far more egregious affront to freedom than not letting people install third party software.
I only have a couple comments to make on this. First your assumption that System Analyst's jobs are harder than Programmers only shows that you are neither an analyst or a programmer. That is not meant as a slight. Both of these jobs are equally difficult for equally skilled and talented people. I won't get into the fact that there are far less good analysts compared to good programmers. But all in all the difficulty of the jobs is irrelevant.
One I find more intersting about the numbers, if they are in fact valuable, is that it pays Less Americans more. So the effect of of shoring is not a reduction in expense, as your statistics show the expense has actually gone up, and you are only discussing wages, but that instead the real effect is continued consolidation of wealth in a select number of people. In the end, based on your numbers, we have 60k people out of work while 70k get to split the previous groups wages, on top of there own(assuming, falsely I'm sure, that of the original 130k, 70k change career to be analyst).
No matter how you look at it, there are still 60k less jobs for people who need them to provide for themselves and their families without any net gain for the country, since the overall cost of production has actually gone up.
Even though the parent was modded funny I have to say that he's closer to reality than many people realized. I wish I could find the study, but it was shown once that off shoring can actually cost more than it saves when you add up logistics, and the know fact that you do get what you pay for (pay low and get low quality).
Basically what I am saying is if you have an specific example of where SPE programing differ from PPC programming that IBM or a third party has not already supplied a solution to then I would like to hear it. Otherwise I have yet to see any reason to acknowledge Carmack's apparently uneducated statement (which I'm starting to think was taken out of context and wasn't really meant to mean what it has been interpreted to mean). Not only that, if it's the tools he doesn't like then he ought to be the first one to write better tools since those would be useful, and he has the skills, while another 1st person shooter might not be so.
And I will appease you by saying that I do not have a cell processor or emulator to test any of this out on, and am going on my knowledge of software engineering (in may different architectures) and the information I get form IBM and other Cell developers.
OK so I went and refreshed myself on the cell architecture and realized I was going about my argument the wrong way. There is effectively no difference between programming for the CBE and Programing for multiple PPC cores. I know you are going to say that I don't have a clue and that there is alot of difference. If you can design and develop for multi threading and vector processing (though you could skip that as the SPEs are capable of scalar processing as well) then you can develop for the Cell. True there will be some code better suited for the PPE than the SPEs and knowing how to break up the code to use each effectively will take time to learn, but once you start thinking like the CBE it will become second nature (Of course I still say this will be a moot point once the tools catch up since they, such as advance compilers, will determine what is best to run on each processor). The only complaints I have read, from people that have actually programmed for the Cell and aren't just bitching about it, is that the SPEs are in order processors with no branch prediction, etc, that go along with it, but this is place that the tools, again compilers, should be able to pick up the slack (and I should add not much different than the PPC cores used in the XBox 360 and Wii which are also in order).
The only argument I will concede is a slight modification of what you said previously and that is that it may always be harder to get the absolute most out of a Cell like architecture as compared to the more common architectures of the day, but that is only because it has more potential. I think you will get comparable or better performance with no hit to development time. You could always use it like a PPC with multiple associated vector processors, just have people have been doing with Power/Altivec systems for years, and still get a performance increase in AI and Physics processing.
Nicholas Blachford adds detail to what I am trying to say. And though this guy is no John Carmack, he actually details the process rather than just saying "I don't like it."
You would have to read my post about software engineering vs. development to understand a bit more about where I am coming from. I don't like that Sony has changed architecture in every console release, this has been a detriment to what they can achieve, but now they have IBM on board so I doubt the Cell Architecture is going away anytime soon. For now it is harder to program and takes a little more time, but that will change, as it does with every new architecture. As more development tools are available the programming will become easier, as more libraries and engines become available it will become even easier. Once you start thinking parallel you actually see that it is easier than not as it allows better division of code and work. If the next generation of servers, consoles, and consumer electronics are powered by the Cell Processor, as IBM, Sony and Toshiba claim, then you will see the necessary tools and mind shifts happen at a very rapid pace.
As a Software Engineer I grow more an more disgusted with the x86, and to a lesser extent Power, architecture every day. Ah if only I could go back to the CBM days.