I would be very concerned about running a single m3.2xlarge in AWS.
Presuming you're hosting something that you intend to grow, you have no room to manoeuvre when your user growth maxes out. My rule of thumb is to deploy on a large until you max out. Then scale vertically to keep your site operational onto the xlarge, while you put the development into scaling out horizontally. Horizontal scaling will take development effort, often considerable amounts. You keep the 2xlarge in your back pocket for emergencies.
Of course once you have more than one box serving your content, then this is where cloud comes into its own. You ensure your boxes are distributed in different data centres, to increase your availability when disaster strikes - it will! At that point cheap single-box offerings are moot, because its apples and oranges.
Your maths is off. $60 a month is $0.16 / hour (* 12 / (365.25 * 24)).
Also you're using AWS wrong, if you're comparing a by the hour price, with a contract price elsewhere. If you take AWS 1yr contract pricing, then the m3.xlarge will set you back $127pcm or $81 if you commit to 3yrs.
Sure it's more expensive, but not the orders of magnitude more that you claim. AWS is probably not cost-effective for a single box, but that's not the real use-case for cloud computing. If your workload is burstable, then only being active for the hours you need will save. And if you're scaled up to more than a single box, then having your next boxes in a different availability zone to increase your overall reliability is very hard to do outside of cloud . Quality infrastructure costs.
A good question, how can you trust the other end? This still comes down to reputation, doesn't it?
The most extraordinary thing we're seeing with the spying revelations, is the complicity of all three branches of government and the vast majority of the fourth estate in trampling all over our civil liberties. When the system of checks and balances has failed so badly, it makes it nigh on impossible to know who to trust any more except our close friends.
Now that some of the practices have got out, I'm sure the US internet providers are going to see some blow back - their reputation is surely damaged.
While previously globalisation has meant that worldwide trade had been busy merging into just a handful of players in each domain, I hope that scares like the current one, remind us of the need for bio-diversity in our corporate culture. How to enforce that happening is beyond me.
These are similar thoughts to my own. It needs to be about a web of trust, and it might just work.
If more parties are able to come along and say "I trust all these authorities" when it comes to doing business with me, this is the paradigm shift. I don't believe that there is *an* independent authority, I believe we should elect to allow *multiple* authorities to rate the trustworthiness of a certificate.
At the moment, outside of high-end corporate who roll their own, it is the operating system provider making that trust decision for all of us in their selection of root authorities. Now Microsoft, Google and Apple are all on the PRISM slides, and Linux is probably compromised in its own way - not one of them do I want to be the sole gatekeeper of my trust.
So, I believe that the 1st group that should be brought into this system are the banks. This is the group that has the most to lose financially, if you're the victim of fraud. Specifically *your* SSL, should be vouched for by *your* bank - with the condition that the online fraud protection on your bank account is only effective, if you were entering your card details in an SSL session they vouched for.
Now I see a future where we all allow multiple people to vouch for the goodness of certificates and authorities (I think this extends to public keys too) - particularly our social network. Anyone we trust to vouch may approve or *disapprove* any cert. Any time we do anything requiring crypto trust, we should be able to see how all the people we trust feel about it. I have a number of friends I'd really trust to always do a secure key-exchange; I'd boost their scores. Beyond that, the wisdom of crowds is a not a bad fallback.
We have to understand that trust is on an analogue scale. For many things it's fine that we don't have close to 5x 9s of trust. But when we do need to be really certain of who's on the other end, we should be able to push into our social network and see who will vouch for the other parties public key / certificate.
Have the Snowden revelations taught people nothing?
If the powers-that-be want everyone's fingerprints, then they will use one of the many 0-days they have for the device in question (or in Apple's case, they'll just ask nicely), and then modify the software between the scanner and the hashing function, sending what they need back to HQ.
If they can take down Iran's centrifuges, which aren't even connected to the net, of course they can insert dodgy code into firmware.
I strongly suspect that the pre-order numbers for the Xbox One have just made their way through to board level action. We're hearing from everywhere that they are terrible. I don't think Ballmer had enough political capital to survive another disastrous product launch after Zune/Vista/Surface/Win8 et. al. and so had to go.
This claim of ageism is highly skewed. I was 10 in 1981, when the first home computer came out in the UK (ZX81). In other words, still in school - there would have been 8 years ahead of me in the school system still. This defines "The Computer Generation" - people who had computers at home while they were growing up.
Now sure, some adult engineers made the cross-over, or came from a mainframe background, however surely their numbers have to be far fewer than the generation that grew up on computers?
Now I'm 42, and continue to do my best work each year - and my compensation reflects that.
Would make a total BoM today of $97.40 (presuming they can't cost reduce the rest) - with a launch in 2012 some time, they ought to pull this off for their more typical margins.
I'm sat here racking my brain for any other product that is readily available 2nd hand on the high street. Besides the ex-rental in Blockbuster, which is a tiny part of their trade, the best I got is a car analogy (this is Slashdot).
Car dealerships do more trade in 2nd hand cars, than new. However if they are a dealership, then the car manufacturers do make money on the transaction. I believe they all have some sort of 'Approved Used' 2nd hand product, and these funnel money back to the original creator. This is why it costs you a lot more to buy the same 2nd hand car at the dealership, than from the classifieds.
I believe this does make the second hand trade in games unique, and does put the publisher in a uniquely bad position in the world of retail.
There is a place in the world for second-hand stuff, and that place is eBay. Curse however much you like about our economy, but it is built on rampant consumerism. If other industries start finding their new product in direct competition with 2nd hand on the high street, then they will collapse. Games is currently uniquely strong, as the average age keeps getting older each year as Gen X ages.
Of course the best way to tackle the 'issue' of 2nd hand gaming is to bring the price down of new games. If there are more customers (there are), then there is more room to bring the price down. I'm not holding my breath.
These companies are pissed that Gamestop makes money doing something they don't.
Close. The publishing companies are pissed at how Gamestop prioritizes new vs. second hand games in the stores. More shelf space is devoted to second hand games, rather than new games. Additionally sales assistants are trained to offer up the second-hand version if the consumer takes a new version to the counter, as there is more mark-up for Gamestop on the second-hand title.
I'm not going to comment on who is right or wrong here, but I am going to note that pusblishers do not like it. Once Gamestop / EB were their presence on the high street, now their exclusivity has gone, they feel their sales are being diluted. Both companies need business models that work for them, and this is what we are witnessing; the tuning of the parameters to maximize returns. The ones that work out will stay.
This case sounds like the perfect place to serve a DMCA takedown notice and that's all.
As the Google case unfolds with Viacom,, there's a lot to hope precedent gets set, that a prompt response to a valid DMCA takedown notice will get any service company 'off the hook'.
It's those nasty, viscious holders of the copyright to blame again; except this time the're students.
There is enough money floating around in the value of patents, that there should be no public money spent on the patent system. It should all be self funding through a skim off of the royalties charged.
I believe that this is a part of the needed reform of the patent system. As has been said in a number of posts above, patents can be useful when they are protecting methods that are non obvious and have incurred considerable R+D investment. Not having patents would lead to secrecy and duplication of research effort, which will slow down the evolution of technology. I believe that to be bad.
Having the Patent Office associated and incentivized by the revenue stream of patent generation is part of the reforms that are needed.
Inventors must specify the royalty rate they wish to charge for use of their patent (different classifications of use with different rates are acceptable, so long as they are measurable and enforceable)
Patent Office performs more detailed 'prior art' and 'non obviousness' searches (which they are able to do with the increased revenue, and incentivized to do by taking a financial hit when they get it wrong)
Patent Office acts like the music collections agencies, bringing together manufacturers and inventors ensuring they get charged and paid (taking a small cut off the top)
The organization which made the invention, still has to pay itself royalties on the use of the invention
The intention of this is to return patents being something which fosters innovation and technical progress. The ability to use patents to prevent competition is completely removed, a company must license their patent uniformly including to themselves.
There is now greater incentive to work on R+D, as your R+D work can fairly be licensed out and become its own revenue stream. As the innovator you will always have the most intimate knowledge of the field you've innovated in, at least for the first few years, and have a natural technical advantage in that period for your completed product. As the innovation gets to be more mature, then others may find different ways of exploiting your innovation. This will return royalty to you, and fair compensation for your past efforts. Of course if you have continued to innovate in the meantime, you will have invented new methods and have both a new income stream starting up, as well as a new competitive advantage for being able to bring that to market.
Actually this is initially designed for Sony's PlayStation 3.
Games are inherantly very parallel.
Loads of chracters
Loads of animations
Loads of discreet AIs
Loads of polygons
Loads of lights
Loads of sounds
The amount of interaction between individual entities in a game world is very low, and most of a game frame is spent shovelling data asafp to the screen. Once you are in your shovelling phase, then the parallelism will be completely maxed out.
There are some of the smartest programmers around making games. Those who got over the initial pain of the Ps2's 3 core architecture should find it relatively easy to scale up. What is most exciting this time is that the 8 cores appear to be identical, meaning that there will be less restrictions about what you use each for.
The o.p. was scoffing at a 4.6Ghz spec. Whilst maybe overstating the Cell a little with my reply, the escense is that he was an order of magnitude out in his understanding.
It is not just one processor clocked at 4GHz, but is 9 of them. With the power core capable of running dual-threaded, making a total of 10 threads that can run on a single chip.
That is all a lovely idea, and pretty much how Redmond view things working in the corporate environment.
Unfortunately this will not work on campus because Microsoft have deemed, that only XP Professional can log on to a domain. I can't imagine many students (or their colleges) being happy to pay the additional Microsoft licensing fees, so they can enforce GPO's and certificates.
This is a huge shame, and one of the 2 reasons I believe XP Home to be overly crippled (For the record: the other is lack of dual monitor support)
I have just waded through the service pack overview, with a view to how it will impact internal software at my company.
Aside from the potential problems that will be thrown up by 3rd party apps, I believe our internal software should be fine, as it does not access the network, and we do not have NX chips (yet).
However I believe that the area we will have the biggest concern with, is found buried on page 15, and I have not found highlighted so far in any of the summaries I have read, either from them, here or other net commentary. This is in the section discussing the new behavior of Internet Explorer. I quote (empasis theirs):
In Windows XP Service Pack 2, Internet Explorer
requires that all file-type information that is provided by Web servers is consistent. For example, if the MIME type of a file is "text/plain" but the MIME sniff indicates that the file is really an executable file, Internet Explorer renames the file by saving the file in the Internet Explorer cache and changes its extension. (In a MIME sniff, Internet Explorer examines, or sniffs, a file to recognize the bit signatures of certain types of files.)
We have a substantial amount of web content, of which a fair bit uses MIME types. I can see this causing weeks of QA work to ensure that we remain compatible with the market leading browser.
The hardest thing about content development in fact isn't making the content, but managing the content creation process; it's difficult for the producers and art leads to hold it all together.
Whilst all of the points made in the original article are very valid, and explain well why the task of making a game is a very hard endeavour. There is no mention of the commercial realities of making a video game.
That is to say the frequent lack of understanding from the publisher of the development process. The amount of times, we have been feeling pretty good about the development of a title, when the publisher's producer comes in, and demands that the product is changed to add new features, or change the ones that are there. Usually at days or weeks notice of some deadline.
Sure we appreciate that we lose time, and bang our heads against the wall for the points in the article, however added up, it is this reactionary interference which adds up to the greatest amount of wasted time on a project.
To quote John Carmack: Story in games is like story in porn movies, you expect it to be there, but it's really not that important.
Fortunately video games is a large market. Outside of sports, ID is pretty much the market leader in story free games. To compete in that area, you need to be better than ID. Fortunately games players are all different (as the disagreement in this thread shows).
Games with strong stories are playing in a different area of the market to the Quake's etc that ID puts out. A lot of people value a quality story in their games (e.g. Final Fantasy, or Zelda), and those games sell well to those people.
In my experience, it is the 'hardcore gamer' who grew up with 8 bit machines, and the arcades, who values awsome game mechanics. A more casual gamer, does value the story that is told through the game. Quake is certainly not everyone's 'cup of tea'.
I personally hope for a time, when the vast majority of all people's leisure time is spent interacting with one another, and I hope that games of the future will be where that is provided. The people who aren't playing games at the moment, are largely sitting on the couch watching TV, rotting their brains. I believe that to appeal to that mentality of consumer we need to start having more games, which do place the emphasis firmly on story, and less on whether you can jump at just the right pixel to make it through.
I am all for the idea of women's competitions. It will end up bringing more women into 'the sport', which from the article (and like experience) is sorely needed. Giving women a playground, where they can hone their skills, and actually get good against each other is a fantastic way of keeping their interest.
Now the main competitions are not male only - they are open. This means that anyone can enter, including women. Once a girly team is winning their own competitions consistently, then it would be the logical next step to come play with 'the big boys'. This is when gaming will become truely a great pasttime; but we do have a long way to go to get there.
Hopefully at some point in the future, they will be whopping our male asses so hard that we will be clamouring for a male only competition. But until that point happens, bring them on!
I was forwarded this link last week from a Polish friend of mine.
I don't have enough Polish to verify this, but apparently this is genuine, with war-head and all electronics removed. However you are aparently legally able to drive this around, with a special license from the ministry of transport.
Slashdot Mirror
I would be very concerned about running a single m3.2xlarge in AWS.
Presuming you're hosting something that you intend to grow, you have no room to manoeuvre when your user growth maxes out. My rule of thumb is to deploy on a large until you max out. Then scale vertically to keep your site operational onto the xlarge, while you put the development into scaling out horizontally. Horizontal scaling will take development effort, often considerable amounts. You keep the 2xlarge in your back pocket for emergencies.
Of course once you have more than one box serving your content, then this is where cloud comes into its own. You ensure your boxes are distributed in different data centres, to increase your availability when disaster strikes - it will! At that point cheap single-box offerings are moot, because its apples and oranges.
Your maths is off. $60 a month is $0.16 / hour (* 12 / (365.25 * 24)).
Also you're using AWS wrong, if you're comparing a by the hour price, with a contract price elsewhere. If you take AWS 1yr contract pricing, then the m3.xlarge will set you back $127pcm or $81 if you commit to 3yrs.
Sure it's more expensive, but not the orders of magnitude more that you claim. AWS is probably not cost-effective for a single box, but that's not the real use-case for cloud computing. If your workload is burstable, then only being active for the hours you need will save. And if you're scaled up to more than a single box, then having your next boxes in a different availability zone to increase your overall reliability is very hard to do outside of cloud . Quality infrastructure costs.
Gah - clicky error
A good question, how can you trust the other end? This still comes down to reputation, doesn't it?
The most extraordinary thing we're seeing with the spying revelations, is the complicity of all three branches of government and the vast majority of the fourth estate in trampling all over our civil liberties. When the system of checks and balances has failed so badly, it makes it nigh on impossible to know who to trust any more except our close friends.
Now that some of the practices have got out, I'm sure the US internet providers are going to see some blow back - their reputation is surely damaged.
While previously globalisation has meant that worldwide trade had been busy merging into just a handful of players in each domain, I hope that scares like the current one, remind us of the need for bio-diversity in our corporate culture. How to enforce that happening is beyond me.
These are similar thoughts to my own. It needs to be about a web of trust, and it might just work.
If more parties are able to come along and say "I trust all these authorities" when it comes to doing business with me, this is the paradigm shift. I don't believe that there is *an* independent authority, I believe we should elect to allow *multiple* authorities to rate the trustworthiness of a certificate.
At the moment, outside of high-end corporate who roll their own, it is the operating system provider making that trust decision for all of us in their selection of root authorities. Now Microsoft, Google and Apple are all on the PRISM slides, and Linux is probably compromised in its own way - not one of them do I want to be the sole gatekeeper of my trust.
So, I believe that the 1st group that should be brought into this system are the banks. This is the group that has the most to lose financially, if you're the victim of fraud. Specifically *your* SSL, should be vouched for by *your* bank - with the condition that the online fraud protection on your bank account is only effective, if you were entering your card details in an SSL session they vouched for.
Now I see a future where we all allow multiple people to vouch for the goodness of certificates and authorities (I think this extends to public keys too) - particularly our social network. Anyone we trust to vouch may approve or *disapprove* any cert. Any time we do anything requiring crypto trust, we should be able to see how all the people we trust feel about it. I have a number of friends I'd really trust to always do a secure key-exchange; I'd boost their scores. Beyond that, the wisdom of crowds is a not a bad fallback.
We have to understand that trust is on an analogue scale. For many things it's fine that we don't have close to 5x 9s of trust. But when we do need to be really certain of who's on the other end, we should be able to push into our social network and see who will vouch for the other parties public key / certificate.
Have the Snowden revelations taught people nothing?
If the powers-that-be want everyone's fingerprints, then they will use one of the many 0-days they have for the device in question (or in Apple's case, they'll just ask nicely), and then modify the software between the scanner and the hashing function, sending what they need back to HQ.
If they can take down Iran's centrifuges, which aren't even connected to the net, of course they can insert dodgy code into firmware.
I strongly suspect that the pre-order numbers for the Xbox One have just made their way through to board level action. We're hearing from everywhere that they are terrible. I don't think Ballmer had enough political capital to survive another disastrous product launch after Zune/Vista/Surface/Win8 et. al. and so had to go.
This claim of ageism is highly skewed. I was 10 in 1981, when the first home computer came out in the UK (ZX81). In other words, still in school - there would have been 8 years ahead of me in the school system still. This defines "The Computer Generation" - people who had computers at home while they were growing up.
Now sure, some adult engineers made the cross-over, or came from a mainframe background, however surely their numbers have to be far fewer than the generation that grew up on computers?
Now I'm 42, and continue to do my best work each year - and my compensation reflects that.
I imagine a new generation Apple TV with next gen A5 CPU (A6?) and iOS. Already capable of running all the games in the App Store.
I think you're bob on there. Updating the Apple TV Bill of Materials. With the iPhone 4s estimates
Would make a total BoM today of $97.40 (presuming they can't cost reduce the rest) - with a launch in 2012 some time, they ought to pull this off for their more typical margins.
Car dealerships do more trade in 2nd hand cars, than new. However if they are a dealership, then the car manufacturers do make money on the transaction. I believe they all have some sort of 'Approved Used' 2nd hand product, and these funnel money back to the original creator. This is why it costs you a lot more to buy the same 2nd hand car at the dealership, than from the classifieds.
I believe this does make the second hand trade in games unique, and does put the publisher in a uniquely bad position in the world of retail.
There is a place in the world for second-hand stuff, and that place is eBay. Curse however much you like about our economy, but it is built on rampant consumerism. If other industries start finding their new product in direct competition with 2nd hand on the high street, then they will collapse. Games is currently uniquely strong, as the average age keeps getting older each year as Gen X ages.
Of course the best way to tackle the 'issue' of 2nd hand gaming is to bring the price down of new games. If there are more customers (there are), then there is more room to bring the price down. I'm not holding my breath.
Close. The publishing companies are pissed at how Gamestop prioritizes new vs. second hand games in the stores. More shelf space is devoted to second hand games, rather than new games. Additionally sales assistants are trained to offer up the second-hand version if the consumer takes a new version to the counter, as there is more mark-up for Gamestop on the second-hand title.
I'm not going to comment on who is right or wrong here, but I am going to note that pusblishers do not like it. Once Gamestop / EB were their presence on the high street, now their exclusivity has gone, they feel their sales are being diluted. Both companies need business models that work for them, and this is what we are witnessing; the tuning of the parameters to maximize returns. The ones that work out will stay.
As the Google case unfolds with Viacom,, there's a lot to hope precedent gets set, that a prompt response to a valid DMCA takedown notice will get any service company 'off the hook'.
It's those nasty, viscious holders of the copyright to blame again; except this time the're students.
There is enough money floating around in the value of patents, that there should be no public money spent on the patent system. It should all be self funding through a skim off of the royalties charged.
Having the Patent Office associated and incentivized by the revenue stream of patent generation is part of the reforms that are needed.
- Inventors must specify the royalty rate they wish to charge for use of their patent (different classifications of use with different rates are acceptable, so long as they are measurable and enforceable)
- Patent Office performs more detailed 'prior art' and 'non obviousness' searches (which they are able to do with the increased revenue, and incentivized to do by taking a financial hit when they get it wrong)
- Patent Office acts like the music collections agencies, bringing together manufacturers and inventors ensuring they get charged and paid (taking a small cut off the top)
- The organization which made the invention, still has to pay itself royalties on the use of the invention
The intention of this is to return patents being something which fosters innovation and technical progress. The ability to use patents to prevent competition is completely removed, a company must license their patent uniformly including to themselves.There is now greater incentive to work on R+D, as your R+D work can fairly be licensed out and become its own revenue stream. As the innovator you will always have the most intimate knowledge of the field you've innovated in, at least for the first few years, and have a natural technical advantage in that period for your completed product. As the innovation gets to be more mature, then others may find different ways of exploiting your innovation. This will return royalty to you, and fair compensation for your past efforts. Of course if you have continued to innovate in the meantime, you will have invented new methods and have both a new income stream starting up, as well as a new competitive advantage for being able to bring that to market.
Games are inherantly very parallel.
- Loads of chracters
- Loads of animations
- Loads of discreet AIs
- Loads of polygons
- Loads of lights
- Loads of sounds
The amount of interaction between individual entities in a game world is very low, and most of a game frame is spent shovelling data asafp to the screen. Once you are in your shovelling phase, then the parallelism will be completely maxed out.There are some of the smartest programmers around making games. Those who got over the initial pain of the Ps2's 3 core architecture should find it relatively easy to scale up. What is most exciting this time is that the 8 cores appear to be identical, meaning that there will be less restrictions about what you use each for.
The o.p. was scoffing at a 4.6Ghz spec. Whilst maybe overstating the Cell a little with my reply, the escense is that he was an order of magnitude out in his understanding.
It is not just one processor clocked at 4GHz, but is 9 of them. With the power core capable of running dual-threaded, making a total of 10 threads that can run on a single chip.
In short - that's 40GHz to you sir
Unfortunately this will not work on campus because Microsoft have deemed, that only XP Professional can log on to a domain. I can't imagine many students (or their colleges) being happy to pay the additional Microsoft licensing fees, so they can enforce GPO's and certificates.
This is a huge shame, and one of the 2 reasons I believe XP Home to be overly crippled (For the record: the other is lack of dual monitor support)
Instant Messanging is getting to be so passee. I suggest you check out Skype which is a P2P Voice over IP Solution, and quite good.
Instant Messanging is just filling the gap in 'free' communication until we can all talk out loud to our friends using telephony.
Andy
Global Star is Take 2 Interactive's budget label.
The original release was on T2 - now several years later, it's Global Star's job to milk the budget release :-)
Aside from the potential problems that will be thrown up by 3rd party apps, I believe our internal software should be fine, as it does not access the network, and we do not have NX chips (yet).
However I believe that the area we will have the biggest concern with, is found buried on page 15, and I have not found highlighted so far in any of the summaries I have read, either from them, here or other net commentary. This is in the section discussing the new behavior of Internet Explorer. I quote (empasis theirs):
We have a substantial amount of web content, of which a fair bit uses MIME types. I can see this causing weeks of QA work to ensure that we remain compatible with the market leading browser.Oh the pain!!
Whilst all of the points made in the original article are very valid, and explain well why the task of making a game is a very hard endeavour. There is no mention of the commercial realities of making a video game.
That is to say the frequent lack of understanding from the publisher of the development process. The amount of times, we have been feeling pretty good about the development of a title, when the publisher's producer comes in, and demands that the product is changed to add new features, or change the ones that are there. Usually at days or weeks notice of some deadline.
Sure we appreciate that we lose time, and bang our heads against the wall for the points in the article, however added up, it is this reactionary interference which adds up to the greatest amount of wasted time on a project.
Fortunately video games is a large market. Outside of sports, ID is pretty much the market leader in story free games. To compete in that area, you need to be better than ID. Fortunately games players are all different (as the disagreement in this thread shows).
Games with strong stories are playing in a different area of the market to the Quake's etc that ID puts out. A lot of people value a quality story in their games (e.g. Final Fantasy, or Zelda), and those games sell well to those people.
In my experience, it is the 'hardcore gamer' who grew up with 8 bit machines, and the arcades, who values awsome game mechanics. A more casual gamer, does value the story that is told through the game. Quake is certainly not everyone's 'cup of tea'.
I personally hope for a time, when the vast majority of all people's leisure time is spent interacting with one another, and I hope that games of the future will be where that is provided. The people who aren't playing games at the moment, are largely sitting on the couch watching TV, rotting their brains. I believe that to appeal to that mentality of consumer we need to start having more games, which do place the emphasis firmly on story, and less on whether you can jump at just the right pixel to make it through.
Now the main competitions are not male only - they are open. This means that anyone can enter, including women. Once a girly team is winning their own competitions consistently, then it would be the logical next step to come play with 'the big boys'. This is when gaming will become truely a great pasttime; but we do have a long way to go to get there.
Hopefully at some point in the future, they will be whopping our male asses so hard that we will be clamouring for a male only competition. But until that point happens, bring them on!
I don't have enough Polish to verify this, but apparently this is genuine, with war-head and all electronics removed. However you are aparently legally able to drive this around, with a special license from the ministry of transport.
12,300.00zl is approx $3,000 USD - A bargain!
Fancy a drive up to Utah anyone;)