Don't forget, integrating different functions onto one chip is much easier said than done. Putting RAM on a CPU die isn't that easy, and doesn't work that well, because the process technologies used between them are different. A lot of people think you can just put all kinds of different circuits on a single die (logic, memory, analog, etc.), and that just isn't the case. It can be done, but there's huge tradeoffs involved.
Thanks for the heads up. Everybody thinks it's as easy as shrinking the die, and circuits = same everywhere.
The thing they are not understanding is the architecture and actual structural geometry. Things are made of stuff, which has to be shaped properly, then the data has to circulate and be stored somewhere within a given period of time, and routed around, etc, etc.
"A decade away from now we will likely have massively multi core quantum chips, running at 256 bits or more. To even pretend that that kind of CPU wouldn't easily run ray tracing with 20 of it's cores tied behind it's back is pretty silly. I would shorten the time scale to 5-7 years. But I'm not profit, either, it could happen even sooner! The trend to more and larger multicore chips is pretty inevitable. When everyone's cell phone is a beowulf cluster of 128 bit x86 architecture cpus, a lot of this whole discussion is going to be completely invalid."
Note people like you said the same thing in the Pentium 2 era, and even long before that in the mainframe era, etc, it hasn't happened yet. Then there was the big Pentium 4 slowdown and moore's law slowed to a crawl for a while. We'll see what the future brings, but I really doubt it will be in 7 years, you're forgetting the cost factor and the amount of traces needed.
It will definitely be at least 10 years before integration is necessary, what you're forgetting is the bandwidth requirements and software requirements are going to keep increasing along with CPU power and companies like Nvidia aren't just going to sit on their asses.
"The results demonstrate that democratic economists lean left and republicans lean right. Economics ought to be unbaised."
This is not how people work at all, and cognitive sciences have known this for some time. Almost everyone here I imagine is still under the enlightenment's false view of reason, everyone here should watch this video. Specifically from 15 minutes in to 25 minutes.
"What is Truth?" Asked Pontius Pilate as he washed his hands..."
Existence, if you don't believe existence is truth, you got a problem. So we begin with that, that is Descartes Cogtio. The one truth that cannot be doubted without countradiction - an act of observation is an act of detection, and the only way you could pose the question is if you are able to observe (that is, detect the existence of) yourself.
I know this because I've been doing research into the logic of languages, and one of the things I discovered along the way is that truth is existence "is it there, is it not there?". You can trivially confirm this truth - close you eyes, get in the car, and try to drive, highly likely you won't until you open your eyes and can see where the things that exist are so you can navigate around them.
Even if we were all holograms or trapped in the matrix, existence would still be truth, it would mean that our truth is merely a distortion of what is. As soon as you are able to detect yourself it is game over.
There are other problems like the latency issues. If you have the GPU on the CPU, you still have latency to and from ram, along with other programs, not just the GPU. You have bus competition between two sets of devices in which the memory is shared between programs and the gpu itself which effectively cuts the bandwidth by a decent percentage when the program is running.
... If they plan on using the web's collective wisdom to prevent shitty patents I'm all for it, it would be wonderful to have people around the globe be able to keep the patent trolls at bay.
"I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the lower end GPUs being embedded in the CPU instead of the chipset."
You're still ignoring the memory bandwidth issue, the bandwidth to main memory is still at least 10x worse then on card DDR2 with wide memory interface. Integrated on CPU means that the memory that will be used for the gpu will be main memory which is infinitely slower then on card memory, this is lost on the integrationists.
""In the beginning God created" doesn't exactly place creation 6000 years ago. The young earth theory is a weak extrapolation from incomplete genealogies."
You are completely incorrect, go read what Jesus and the apostles actually believed in the new testament about moses and adam and eve, they conveyed thus:
Romans 5:14
Nevertheless, death ruled from the time of Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the same way Adam did when he disobeyed. He is a foreshadowing of the one who would come.
Death can't reign over non existent allegorical characters, the whole point of christ is to conquer sin:
Romans 5:12
Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death resulted from sin, therefore everyone dies, because everyone has sinned.
Note "sin entered the world through one man and death resulted from sin"
Liberal Christians are some of the most ignorant bunch on the planet.
"Ok so you state that memory bandwidth requirements for GPUs are off the charts. Where do you propose to get more memory bandwidth than on the CPU itself? Seems to me if you want memory bandwidth there is no better place to be than on the cpu die..."
Again you're missing the point, "the jack of all trades, master of none" problem, not to mention the space requirements. GPU's complexity is nothing like the old style co-processor units that were integrated into the core. They require ridiculous amounts of cutting edge ram to get that kind of performance, and they need a lot of ram to output the results of those calculations.
I don't see CPU's integrating 512MB to 2GB of ram in the near term future given heat and die size considerations, and we haven't even touched the extremely low bandwidth between modern cpu's and main memory in PC's (which is much much less then a modern GPU).
The GPU will play it's part for as long as is necessary. I don't rule out that perhaps one day it will be technically feasable but it is nowhere near that day, it's at least a decade or more away.
We've seen this time and time again, processors go through evolutions of integrating and seperating. We went from mainframes to PC's and with the net 'back to mainframes' but notice how each device play's their role, each one didn't totally obsolete the other, they just have become more specialized at their tasks.
"Take a 1999 interview with Gamespy, for instance, in which he lays out the future timeline for the development of 3D game rendering that has turned out to be remarkably prescient in hindsight:
2006-7: CPU's become so fast and powerful that 3D hardware will be only marginally beneficial for rendering, relative to the limits of the human visual system, therefore 3D chips will likely be deemed a waste of silicon (and more expensive bus plumbing), so the world will transition back to software-driven rendering."
I wasn't being dense, I was saying you can't control it anyway because of the fact it has to pass through 3rd parties and you don't get to control which routers your data passes through. Seems like an excellent point IMHO, since routers are technically '3rd parties', whether you acknowledge it or not.
"Not sure why Tim Sweeney gets so much flack, he is the lead developer for a pretty popular 3d rendering engine..."
Just because he's a good programmer doesn't mean his statements about other things will be true, each statement must be taken individually.
Tim sweeney said 10 years or so ago the GPU would be integrated into the CPU, it hasn't happened.
Not only that the bandwidth requirements are off the charts for modern GPU computing. Sometimes I wonder if these programmers are even aware of wtf it is they are saying. I know lots of programmers who know dick all about the relationships in hardware. Tim sweeney borders on being one of those types of programmers. It's like he's so focused on development he's not seeing the forest from the tree's.
Also game engine's are many man projects, tim sweeny would be just one single dude on a team, nothing notable IMHO.
... ago, the man is a moron and out of touch. Now don't take that the wrong way because he's said stupid shit like this before.
He thought that GPU's would become totally integrated into the CPU 10 years ago and it was only "a few years away".
The man is missing the big piece of the puzzle: Memory bandwidth. Without memory bandwidth those amazing graphics are not possible. PC main memory cannot even begin to approach the bandwidth of a dedicated solution. Sometimes I wonder if programmers like these need a lesson about hardware design.
"However, I don't like the idea of my browser sending this info to a THIRD PARTY"
Your data passes through a whole host of third parties before it even gets to the site via routers. Governments or corporations who are involved in the underworld can abuse our rights without our consent and we'd never know it because the network itself is constantly leaving breadcrumbs of data everywhere, and each packet has to be routed and repeated to its destination, not to mention subnet spam, if someone is keen enough to sniff their local subnet, etc.
"(But strangely most Creationists attack the Big Bang with similar vitriol to their attacks on Darwin)."
That's because any 'real' christian (a christian that attempts to subscribe to what is actually said in the bible vs someones made up interpretation of it) cannot accept a billions of years old universe. The problem is modern Christians cherry pick what they believe and ignore in the bible itself. Therefore the allegorists as I like to call them are just the tail end of immature people unable to give up their silly heritage for deism, agnosticism or atheism.
For some reason people need some kind of structure to their social existence that secular world does not offer... i.e. community, etc.
The real secular world is a very harsh, individualistic and selfish place. So can we really blame people looking for community in turning to religion? One only has to look at the vitriol on Slashdot when someone offends another slashdotters cherished values or ideology and the vicious attacks start. The Religious impulse in human still exists, we just feed this impulse with science, ideology, or some other pursuit with which we identify.
"No, it's based on the idea that observation and rational thought are the best instruments we have for analyzing the world around us."
But this supposes a philosophy and conception of what is rational and what is not - i.e. an philosophy of truth. We are once again back to the master concepts by which all other concepts are interpreted and judged.
"If Google does it, they do it because they "probably have to." Luckily, they said they "do no evil" so that means they're absolute good and thus immune to scrutiny."
It's been obvious to anyone with half a brain that google (and most other websites who are able to and have a clue) logs damn near everything. Many are just covert / quiet about it.
Technically makes privacy pretty moot unless we pass laws enforcing companies to build encryption into everything. The truth is the majority of people are not educated enough, nor even have an inkling of an idea of how computers work and that everything they do is recorded, that when you're on the internet you are totally naked.
The nature of networks themselves by having to communicate back and forth with one another in order to 'browse' (really in the ultimate sense sending and receiving files and bits of data). Means you are constantly broadcasting and receiving data, thereby leaving all those breadcrumbs for everyone who has a clue to read about you and compile on you.
The fact is though we have done this to ourselves by adopting technologies and caring more about content and what value it adds to our lives then any amount of the values in regards to privacy we claim to care about... the internet and our lack of encryption/laws, etc, enforcing security of information from the get go proves we don't give a fuck about privacy very much. Simply because it's too inconvenient.
The really hard core about privacy (tor, encryption, etc) are evidence of the common man, and probably common slashdotter's total lack of concern about his or her own privacy. Otherwise we'd be using them and demanding these services but no one wants to expend the political energy an/or the money to pay for them. Hence we don't really give as much of a fuck as we seem to since our actions do not match our words in regards to the amount of whining about privacy we output.
"Unfortunately, way too many people still cling to the idea that our world and all the species on it were created by some mystical being. So how exactly do teach the follies of creationism, when half your class still believes in it?"
The question is why has evolution selected for people that believe in a mystical being? It must have survival advantages that most people at slashdot are unaware of.
I've been reading the literature on this and they think it is an artifact of being able to realize that one is going to die i.e. cognitive sophistication. Thereby the mind builds a buffer against despair, depression and hopelessness. For instance being poor, being ruled by rich people, having your country invaded by an empire, being born with a disease, you suffer an accident, etc, etc.
Lastly, your entire argument assumes naturalism the philosophy which was conceived by men is correct for the how and why the universe exists, and that we even know what the universe is. Everything we think is true is based on some foundational master concepts and philosophies of 'what we believe is', and a philosophy of how we separate truth from error, who has truth from who has only illusions of truth.
As for science only being 'approximations to truth' I call bullshit the whole method of science assumes that detectability/measurability = basic knowledge of a thing. If you can measure it you know absolutely that something is, even if you don't understand that something fully. So science already believes in certain absolutes when it comes to truth itself the truth of detectability (an act of observation IS an act of detection).
Yyu can't even have a single perception if there are no absolutes btw, logical contradiction. Is something there, yes or no? From that simple question we assume that existence exists, otherwise we should throw in the towel.
I've been reading ancient cultures that believed the universe is a living thing and in other eastern cultures they identify god as nature, i.e. god is all that exists, therefore everyone is merely a piece of that one existent god, etc. The identify god with all of existence itself.
Our environment is simply an environnment, we can call it nature, god, energy, whatever but it doesn't mean we understand the nature of deep reality.
From wikipedia:
Philosophical naturalism has been described in various ways. In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature."
This is generally referred to as metaphysical or ontological naturalism. Another basic form, called methodological naturalism, is the epistemology and methodological principle which forms the foundation for the scientific method. It requires that scientific hypotheses are explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.[2] Yet another form of naturalism is the idea that the methods of science should be used in philosophy. Science and philosophy, according to this view, are said to form a continuum and, hence, the same methods apply to both. W.V. Quine and others have advocated this view. Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic.
I doubt this person was mad, depressed perhaps, or overwhelmed by sadness. But insults are the retreat of the ignorant against men they don't know and who's thoughts they don't or cannot understand.
Idea's are certainly NOT cheap, the good ones anyway. Look at human history, for millions of years people believed in many false things until someone with the right ideas came along and expounded new discoveries and truths. You are correct that implementation matters, but you have to have the right ideas before your implementation will mean anything.
"Really, where is this going to take us? I tend to wonder how this is going to change in the future, or will we always just be looking for the next great bit of loot?"
Loot theory taps into human greed, I mean come on this is exactly what happens in the real world - people trying to get rich and outcompete other people for wealth. Why would it not apply to games?
"The first group can't switch and the second just doesn't care - why/how would Chrome change that?"
It's been my opinion that Operating systems should be required to have links to browsers, or all modern browsers pre-installed - i.e. the start page is a "browser chooser".
Slashdot Mirror
"Gah, cues goddamnit!!! Not queues. Cues!!! You'd think Slashdot of all places would get that right"
Give him a break, this is a common error related to how the mind stores information. A little more science and a little more forgiveness is in order.
http://tinyurl.com/564g3c
Don't forget, integrating different functions onto one chip is much easier said than done. Putting RAM on a CPU die isn't that easy, and doesn't work that well, because the process technologies used between them are different. A lot of people think you can just put all kinds of different circuits on a single die (logic, memory, analog, etc.), and that just isn't the case. It can be done, but there's huge tradeoffs involved.
Thanks for the heads up. Everybody thinks it's as easy as shrinking the die, and circuits = same everywhere.
The thing they are not understanding is the architecture and actual structural geometry. Things are made of stuff, which has to be shaped properly, then the data has to circulate and be stored somewhere within a given period of time, and routed around, etc, etc.
"A decade away from now we will likely have massively multi core quantum chips, running at 256 bits or more. To even pretend that that kind of CPU wouldn't easily run ray tracing with 20 of it's cores tied behind it's back is pretty silly. I would shorten the time scale to 5-7 years. But I'm not profit, either, it could happen even sooner! The trend to more and larger multicore chips is pretty inevitable. When everyone's cell phone is a beowulf cluster of 128 bit x86 architecture cpus, a lot of this whole discussion is going to be completely invalid."
Note people like you said the same thing in the Pentium 2 era, and even long before that in the mainframe era, etc, it hasn't happened yet. Then there was the big Pentium 4 slowdown and moore's law slowed to a crawl for a while. We'll see what the future brings, but I really doubt it will be in 7 years, you're forgetting the cost factor and the amount of traces needed.
It will definitely be at least 10 years before integration is necessary, what you're forgetting is the bandwidth requirements and software requirements are going to keep increasing along with CPU power and companies like Nvidia aren't just going to sit on their asses.
"The results demonstrate that democratic economists lean left and republicans lean right. Economics ought to be unbaised."
This is not how people work at all, and cognitive sciences have known this for some time. Almost everyone here I imagine is still under the enlightenment's false view of reason, everyone here should watch this video. Specifically from 15 minutes in to 25 minutes.
See here:
http://www.linktv.org/video/2142
"What is Truth?" Asked Pontius Pilate as he washed his hands..."
Existence, if you don't believe existence is truth, you got a problem. So we begin with that, that is Descartes Cogtio. The one truth that cannot be doubted without countradiction - an act of observation is an act of detection, and the only way you could pose the question is if you are able to observe (that is, detect the existence of) yourself.
I know this because I've been doing research into the logic of languages, and one of the things I discovered along the way is that truth is existence "is it there, is it not there?". You can trivially confirm this truth - close you eyes, get in the car, and try to drive, highly likely you won't until you open your eyes and can see where the things that exist are so you can navigate around them.
Even if we were all holograms or trapped in the matrix, existence would still be truth, it would mean that our truth is merely a distortion of what is. As soon as you are able to detect yourself it is game over.
There are other problems like the latency issues. If you have the GPU on the CPU, you still have latency to and from ram, along with other programs, not just the GPU. You have bus competition between two sets of devices in which the memory is shared between programs and the gpu itself which effectively cuts the bandwidth by a decent percentage when the program is running.
... If they plan on using the web's collective wisdom to prevent shitty patents I'm all for it, it would be wonderful to have people around the globe be able to keep the patent trolls at bay.
"I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the lower end GPUs being embedded in the CPU instead of the chipset."
You're still ignoring the memory bandwidth issue, the bandwidth to main memory is still at least 10x worse then on card DDR2 with wide memory interface. Integrated on CPU means that the memory that will be used for the gpu will be main memory which is infinitely slower then on card memory, this is lost on the integrationists.
""In the beginning God created" doesn't exactly place creation 6000 years ago. The young earth theory is a weak extrapolation from incomplete genealogies."
You are completely incorrect, go read what Jesus and the apostles actually believed in the new testament about moses and adam and eve, they conveyed thus:
Romans 5:14
Nevertheless, death ruled from the time of Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the same way Adam did when he disobeyed. He is a foreshadowing of the one who would come.
Death can't reign over non existent allegorical characters, the whole point of christ is to conquer sin:
Romans 5:12
Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death resulted from sin, therefore everyone dies, because everyone has sinned.
Note "sin entered the world through one man and death resulted from sin"
Liberal Christians are some of the most ignorant bunch on the planet.
"Ok so you state that memory bandwidth requirements for GPUs are off the charts. Where do you propose to get more memory bandwidth than on the CPU itself? Seems to me if you want memory bandwidth there is no better place to be than on the cpu die..."
Again you're missing the point, "the jack of all trades, master of none" problem, not to mention the space requirements. GPU's complexity is nothing like the old style co-processor units that were integrated into the core. They require ridiculous amounts of cutting edge ram to get that kind of performance, and they need a lot of ram to output the results of those calculations.
I don't see CPU's integrating 512MB to 2GB of ram in the near term future given heat and die size considerations, and we haven't even touched the extremely low bandwidth between modern cpu's and main memory in PC's (which is much much less then a modern GPU).
The GPU will play it's part for as long as is necessary. I don't rule out that perhaps one day it will be technically feasable but it is nowhere near that day, it's at least a decade or more away.
We've seen this time and time again, processors go through evolutions of integrating and seperating. We went from mainframes to PC's and with the net 'back to mainframes' but notice how each device play's their role, each one didn't totally obsolete the other, they just have become more specialized at their tasks.
"Take a 1999 interview with Gamespy, for instance, in which he lays out the future timeline for the development of 3D game rendering that has turned out to be remarkably prescient in hindsight:
2006-7: CPU's become so fast and powerful that 3D hardware will be only marginally beneficial for rendering, relative to the limits of the human visual system, therefore 3D chips will likely be deemed a waste of silicon (and more expensive bus plumbing), so the world will transition back to software-driven rendering."
Nuff said.
"Oh, let's not be dense on purpose... "
I wasn't being dense, I was saying you can't control it anyway because of the fact it has to pass through 3rd parties and you don't get to control which routers your data passes through. Seems like an excellent point IMHO, since routers are technically '3rd parties', whether you acknowledge it or not.
"Not sure why Tim Sweeney gets so much flack, he is the lead developer for a pretty popular 3d rendering engine..."
Just because he's a good programmer doesn't mean his statements about other things will be true, each statement must be taken individually.
Tim sweeney said 10 years or so ago the GPU would be integrated into the CPU, it hasn't happened.
Not only that the bandwidth requirements are off the charts for modern GPU computing. Sometimes I wonder if these programmers are even aware of wtf it is they are saying. I know lots of programmers who know dick all about the relationships in hardware. Tim sweeney borders on being one of those types of programmers. It's like he's so focused on development he's not seeing the forest from the tree's.
Also game engine's are many man projects, tim sweeny would be just one single dude on a team, nothing notable IMHO.
... ago, the man is a moron and out of touch. Now don't take that the wrong way because he's said stupid shit like this before.
He thought that GPU's would become totally integrated into the CPU 10 years ago and it was only "a few years away".
The man is missing the big piece of the puzzle: Memory bandwidth. Without memory bandwidth those amazing graphics are not possible. PC main memory cannot even begin to approach the bandwidth of a dedicated solution. Sometimes I wonder if programmers like these need a lesson about hardware design.
"However, I don't like the idea of my browser sending this info to a THIRD PARTY"
Your data passes through a whole host of third parties before it even gets to the site via routers. Governments or corporations who are involved in the underworld can abuse our rights without our consent and we'd never know it because the network itself is constantly leaving breadcrumbs of data everywhere, and each packet has to be routed and repeated to its destination, not to mention subnet spam, if someone is keen enough to sniff their local subnet, etc.
"(But strangely most Creationists attack the Big Bang with similar vitriol to their attacks on Darwin)."
That's because any 'real' christian (a christian that attempts to subscribe to what is actually said in the bible vs someones made up interpretation of it) cannot accept a billions of years old universe. The problem is modern Christians cherry pick what they believe and ignore in the bible itself. Therefore the allegorists as I like to call them are just the tail end of immature people unable to give up their silly heritage for deism, agnosticism or atheism.
For some reason people need some kind of structure to their social existence that secular world does not offer... i.e. community, etc.
The real secular world is a very harsh, individualistic and selfish place. So can we really blame people looking for community in turning to religion? One only has to look at the vitriol on Slashdot when someone offends another slashdotters cherished values or ideology and the vicious attacks start. The Religious impulse in human still exists, we just feed this impulse with science, ideology, or some other pursuit with which we identify.
"No, it's based on the idea that observation and rational thought are the best instruments we have for analyzing the world around us."
But this supposes a philosophy and conception of what is rational and what is not - i.e. an philosophy of truth. We are once again back to the master concepts by which all other concepts are interpreted and judged.
"If Google does it, they do it because they "probably have to." Luckily, they said they "do no evil" so that means they're absolute good and thus immune to scrutiny."
It's been obvious to anyone with half a brain that google (and most other websites who are able to and have a clue) logs damn near everything. Many are just covert / quiet about it.
Technically makes privacy pretty moot unless we pass laws enforcing companies to build encryption into everything. The truth is the majority of people are not educated enough, nor even have an inkling of an idea of how computers work and that everything they do is recorded, that when you're on the internet you are totally naked.
The nature of networks themselves by having to communicate back and forth with one another in order to 'browse' (really in the ultimate sense sending and receiving files and bits of data). Means you are constantly broadcasting and receiving data, thereby leaving all those breadcrumbs for everyone who has a clue to read about you and compile on you.
The fact is though we have done this to ourselves by adopting technologies and caring more about content and what value it adds to our lives then any amount of the values in regards to privacy we claim to care about... the internet and our lack of encryption/laws, etc, enforcing security of information from the get go proves we don't give a fuck about privacy very much. Simply because it's too inconvenient.
The really hard core about privacy (tor, encryption, etc) are evidence of the common man, and probably common slashdotter's total lack of concern about his or her own privacy. Otherwise we'd be using them and demanding these services but no one wants to expend the political energy an/or the money to pay for them. Hence we don't really give as much of a fuck as we seem to since our actions do not match our words in regards to the amount of whining about privacy we output.
"Unfortunately, way too many people still cling to the idea that our world and all the species on it were created by some mystical being. So how exactly do teach the follies of creationism, when half your class still believes in it?"
The question is why has evolution selected for people that believe in a mystical being? It must have survival advantages that most people at slashdot are unaware of.
I've been reading the literature on this and they think it is an artifact of being able to realize that one is going to die i.e. cognitive sophistication. Thereby the mind builds a buffer against despair, depression and hopelessness. For instance being poor, being ruled by rich people, having your country invaded by an empire, being born with a disease, you suffer an accident, etc, etc.
Lastly, your entire argument assumes naturalism the philosophy which was conceived by men is correct for the how and why the universe exists, and that we even know what the universe is. Everything we think is true is based on some foundational master concepts and philosophies of 'what we believe is', and a philosophy of how we separate truth from error, who has truth from who has only illusions of truth.
As for science only being 'approximations to truth' I call bullshit the whole method of science assumes that detectability/measurability = basic knowledge of a thing. If you can measure it you know absolutely that something is, even if you don't understand that something fully. So science already believes in certain absolutes when it comes to truth itself the truth of detectability (an act of observation IS an act of detection).
Yyu can't even have a single perception if there are no absolutes btw, logical contradiction. Is something there, yes or no? From that simple question we assume that existence exists, otherwise we should throw in the towel.
I've been reading ancient cultures that believed the universe is a living thing and in other eastern cultures they identify god as nature, i.e. god is all that exists, therefore everyone is merely a piece of that one existent god, etc. The identify god with all of existence itself.
Our environment is simply an environnment, we can call it nature, god, energy, whatever but it doesn't mean we understand the nature of deep reality.
From wikipedia:
Philosophical naturalism has been described in various ways. In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature."
This is generally referred to as metaphysical or ontological naturalism. Another basic form, called methodological naturalism, is the epistemology and methodological principle which forms the foundation for the scientific method. It requires that scientific hypotheses are explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.[2] Yet another form of naturalism is the idea that the methods of science should be used in philosophy. Science and philosophy, according to this view, are said to form a continuum and, hence, the same methods apply to both. W.V. Quine and others have advocated this view. Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic.
Neener neener god of war still rules!! :P
"'Nuff Said."
I doubt this person was mad, depressed perhaps, or overwhelmed by sadness. But insults are the retreat of the ignorant against men they don't know and who's thoughts they don't or cannot understand.
"The problem is that ideas are cheap"
Idea's are certainly NOT cheap, the good ones anyway. Look at human history, for millions of years people believed in many false things until someone with the right ideas came along and expounded new discoveries and truths. You are correct that implementation matters, but you have to have the right ideas before your implementation will mean anything.
"Really, where is this going to take us? I tend to wonder how this is going to change in the future, or will we always just be looking for the next great bit of loot?"
Loot theory taps into human greed, I mean come on this is exactly what happens in the real world - people trying to get rich and outcompete other people for wealth. Why would it not apply to games?
"The first group can't switch and the second just doesn't care - why/how would Chrome change that?"
It's been my opinion that Operating systems should be required to have links to browsers, or all modern browsers pre-installed - i.e. the start page is a "browser chooser".
What is your idea of a classic this gen?