IIRC, I think this "reconfigurable processing element" idea was pointed out on AMD's roadmap for something "in the future." Check Anand's recent AMD roadmap article for more information.
...does Mapquest not have to hire two guys to drive around and map out the entire North American road system (just track all the cellphones and map out the roads from there...but beware of underground parking lots and off-road adventures)...okay, maybe they still need the two guys for the boonies.
Kid: Hey mom, I want to get Black and White 2. Is that OK?
Mom: *thinks* B&W2 isn't violent */thinks* Sure! Just put it on your CC.
Kid: *goes on ebworld.com* Hrm...Quake 4 looks cool. I guess mom won't care since they cost the same.
And last I checked, VISA statements doesn't say exactly what you bought in the store, just how much you were charged from that store.
I think I came off a bit too critical with the words "forfeiting parenting altogether." What I mean is that maybe parents don't necessarily intentionally not parent their children, but that their actions may lead to such situations that effectively result in lack of parenting.
Sure, but I think in those cases, the parents already pretty much forfeited parenting all together. So I guess this scheme only addresses those who don't have credit cards and are under 18?
Aren't credit cards obtainable only at the age of 18 or greater? If so, this would satisfy the case of being 18 or older to view the content (granted not all 18 year olds or over have credit cards, but this is Activision's loss).
So, what you're saying is that all countries should only have the same emissions of say, England, or some "middle-sized" country. Well, I think that sounds great! The people in the US better stop driving their gas-guzzling SUVs soon because the US is probably top 5 in the world's population...and I'm sure they're a long way from reducing their emission to the level of that of England. But sarcasm aside, this clearly doesn't work...so maybe a hybrid verson based on a constant factor plus a multiple per capita times land area will work best.
We all know that the outrage has nothing to do with cel-shading itself, given how well Katamari Damacy did. It must also not deal with the expectation that Zelda should somehow be "realistic," since Zelda's roots stem from being cartoony up until the N64 days. Therefore, this must have something to do with some sense of "continuation" or "evolution" with the series itself through the N64 "realism" Zelda. I would go even as far to say that this expectation is the sole reason for the outcry.
I find it funny how some people complain about the $1000 price tag on a moderate PC. These are the same people who seem to overlook a lot of the important, but subtle, details. To illustrate my point, let's compare the subtle differences between a budget PC and an XBox 360 (or any consoles within the last 5 years) that people tend to overlook.
1. Warrantee. That's right, you get a 30-day warrantee on your XBox 360 based on the date of the receipt. On the other hand, you get a 1-3 year warantee on your (retail, which, in most cases costs $10 more, if at all) PC parts. To top that off, if you don't register until your hardware is broken, you can prolong that with an additional year or two in most cases (maybe this part is the same with the consoles...but I don't suggest doing it...yeah...).
2. Sure, some of you may think that your first XBox is still live and kicking after 3 years and that these consoles are made with the best parts possible. Well, tell that to your friend who just got 9 dead pixels on his brand spanking new PSP. So, if your console ever dies, well, tough luck. Get a new one. On the other hand, with your PC you can just slap in a new off-the-shelf part and go. (I know, I know, some of you might be scrounging up ebay for those half-dead consoles in hopes of getting a replacement part...but that's, well, that.)
3. Upgrades. One has to realize that a lot of these prices for PCs represent a WHOLE new PC. But do you really need that new, but does exactly the same, optical drive (remember, PC optical drives don't wear out nearly as fast, since you most likely installed those games onto your hard drives)? Or that new sound card? How about that hard drive? Within consecutive upgrades, most likely not.
4. More upgrades. Within a year after the console's introduction (consoles have 4-year cycles, usually), you'll probably be able to pick up a "budget" video card and CPU that outperforms the console's graphics card and CPU, respectively, for $100 each. And for the next 3 years, you'll have a rig that does more FPS than on the best days of said console.
5. Performance. People always say that their games work great on XBox and PC users always complain about low framerates. Well, guess what? These are actually two separate issues. If you're playing console, you're most likely playing at something close to, or less than, 720x480 resolution. This is almost the same as 640x480 on a PC. When's the last time that you saw a person even using his/her desktop at that resolution (ok, ok, there must be a truckload of them...but they're most likely not gamers)? Let's just see how well the XBox 360 will run at 1080i, which is interlaced (which you can achieve with your 24" Dell LCDs, people)! As for the rest of the PC gaming crowd, I think we've been enjoying our games at at least 800x600 for quite a long time now.
6. Usability. Can a console allow you type documents, edit pictures, compress (your own) videos, pir8 games (ok, maybe they can do this part), hack into CIA mainframes, shoot a flying bird with a.45 while drive at 70mph on a winding cliff-side road, and at the end of the day, to post on slashdot? No. Can a PC do that? Yes...except for the part about shooting the bird. The bottom line is, if you're going to spend another $600 on a PC that can do...what a PC does...on top of a console for those features, you might as well have spent that $1000 to begin with to get a "budget" gaming PC.
So, is PC gaming dying? Yes, if you keep on listening to the drivel all these console marketing people are saying. Are PCs more versatile, more powerful, more dependable, cheaper (amortized) overall, and make you look more like a OMGPWNZ0RZ geek than a pop-culture going-with-the-fad who-likes-to-call-themselves-gamers-but-aren't person? Definitely. Am I a PC gamer who hates the crap re-iterations that EA keeps putting out on consoles? You can bet your ass off that I am.
Not only are the slashdot editors not doing their jobs, neither are the readers! (I'm referring to the double posts...the parent's comments was stated in another ID vs Evolution topic)
I think most of the people involved in the horror stories aren't the designers. Besides, designing is only necessary when there is something new or different. And when was the last time that EA had something new or different?
I think efficiency means the conversion from one form of energy to another (that is not heat, otherwise the discussion is kinda pointless). Going from heat to electricity is one such example. So, converting 40kJ of heat to 20kJ equivalent of electricty with 20kJ still in heat means 50% efficiency. Technically, matter-antimatter reaction is 0% efficiency, since all you get is heat (in the form of photons). But do correct me if I'm wrong.
When the GeForce256 (original GeForce) and Voodoo5 came out, the press were yelling "photo realism" and the players were yelling "we have enough graphics power." When the GeForce2 came out, the press again yelled "photo realism," and the players screamed "we have enough graphics power." When the GeForce3 came...oh nevermind, you get the idea.
The point is, EVERY iteration of hardware, someone yells "photo realism" or "we don't need any more power." Well, the fact is, even with hardware being able to render a billion polyons a second, we still aren't able to get what the Metropolis Light Transport algorithm can do with just 10k polygons. So, to the post about PGR being PR: stop it, they're just textures, and they're not photo realistic (unless you like calling photos in games photo realistic...no puns intended). No, not even close. We're still MANY orders of magnitudes away. We don't even have true real-time area lights yet!
As for the rest of you that keep on yelling "we have enough graphics power:" no, we don't. But neither do we have enough gameplay. But I tend to agree...get the gameplay first, then worry about the graphics. Please, FF series...less movies, more game (same goes to all those eye-candy, no gameplay games out there)!
Re:Why is this even a question anymore?
on
RockStar Speaks
·
· Score: 1
I think the argument hinges on if such misuse of the game is forseeable. Take the example of a chair. Let's assume that the manufacturer says and posts a note on the chair stating that the chair is only for sitting. But if some consumer comes along, stands on the chair, and subsequently the chair breaks, it's still the manufacturer's fault. This is because standing on the chair is forseeable use. On the other hand, if someone throws their baby (for the sake of argument, out of joy) up and down, and the baby hits a ceiling fan that is on, then it's not the manufacturer's fault, because it wasn't forseeable. (These cases are actually real.)
Basically, if this "unlocking the censor flag" is foreseeable (which with the long existance of the modding community, I would think that it is), then Rockstar is to blame for not having removed the content totally.
Sure. But what other mainstream i386 CPUs are out there that isn't AMD? VIA? Your Verilog implementation of the instruction set on your home PC? If that's the case, then both Cyrix and you should help AMD because they're obviously hating VIA and you too. If that's not the case, then AMD is the only major competitor to Intel, and the statement "looks for non-Intel" is EQUIVALENT to "looks for AMD."
The fact is, it is SUFFICIENT to only test for the presence of SSE/SSE2/SSE3 instruction set. Anything more, like "GENU" "INEI" "NTEL", is absolutely unnecessary. Afterall, why would Intel care if the code fails on non-Intel CPUs if ICC is only meant for Intel CPUs (which it isn't)? On the other hand, if the ICC is designed for other CPUs, then Intel obviously would know (afterall, Intel IS licensing the SSE/SSE2/SSE3 instruction set to AMD) the capabilities of said CPUs, in which case they should enable SSE/SSE2/SSE3 for CPUs capable of the instructions. Last I heard, there weren't any problems with AMD's SSE/SSE2/SSE3 implementation. Therefore, the bottom line is this boils down to a Catch22 situation and Intel should know better than to pull such cheap tricks. If Intel is going to assume that any CPU that implements the i386 instruction set does this without major problems, then why would they not assume the same with SSE/SSE2/SSE3?
Furthermore, if you actually read some of the user posts (and their links http://www.swallowtail.org/naughty-intel.html), you would have realized that ICC deliberately produces segfault code when the execution of the code doesn't find an Intel CPU. According to the article, this is with the -xK flag. That is, it produces ONLY SSE code, and NO fallback to i386 code. Yes, that means this code will fail on the original Pentium. However, in this case, Pentium will still try to execute the SSE code (and subsequently craps out), while AMD CPUs will not (and automatically segfaults). This kinda throws the "and then does 'i386' code path, which is less optimal" argument out the window....
What would be interesting to see is all the hardware review sites redo their CPU benchmarks with (hopefully) updated game/SPEC/3DMark/etc... binaries. I wonder what performance gains we'll see from these new binaries. (maybe this is why some of the benchmarks show that Intel CPUs are better?)
The point is that there is a difference between "I only care about myself and I don't care about anyone else (i.e. ignore them)" and "I only care about myself, and I don't care about anyone else, EXCEPT I hate so-and-so, and will do anything to screw them over (NOT ignoring them, but deliberately singling them out)." The latter argument being AMD's claim that of being Intel's stance.
It's more like: "I don't buy a BMW engine, put it in a frame I 'built to their specifications' and then complain to BMW that it does not drive like one of their cars. However, if the engine did a DNA analysis and finds that the owner of the car is cyber-dragon.net and proceeds to max out at 100 horsepower lower, then that'd be something else. That is basically what this complaint boils down to."
I think the key point to remember is that you may not find the job that you want right away (if you do find one you want, then all the power to you!). The following suggestion assumes that you actually want to be challenged in your job, not just being complacent.
I personally think the best way is to find a set of jobs that you may qualify for (say, if a job requires 7 years of experience and you have 5, then go for it...but if you only have 2, then forget it) and in a field you wouldn't mind being in, from both online and offline sources (especially online, since you're a CS person). Then look at the companies these jobs fall under and pick the ones you think has potential for you and the company to grow. Go for those positions.
Remember that a lot of the "juicier" jobs come from internal postings. Those are the ones that you don't see unless you have connections. So the point is to get yourself in the door, and then consider transferring after a few months or so.
As for the senior position, I think you can probably forget about it. No one will hire a fresh Master's student for that position. Of course, if you're someone who's been developing for some large corporation or open source project, then you might land the job.
Err, what? All graphics cards that implement ARB_color_buffer_float has to implement IEEE 32-bit floats, as stipulated by ARB extension specification. (of course, this is assuming that the scientists are using the color buffer to encode information)
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/ogl-sample/registry/AR B/color_buffer_float.txt
Basically, any up-to-date ATi or NVidia gfx cards are capable of true IEEE 32-bit floating point numbers. What really worries me about the research is that they're not using 64-bit!
Now, don't take the title as I'm against indie developers. As a matter of fact, I'm all for it.
But to not tarnish Nintendo's new flagship product by a bunch of poorly polished indie games, I don't think Nintendo will allow any random person to develop for the newest system itself. However, remember that the Nintendo Revolution is backwards compatible? Remember that Nintendo said it's also designed for the indie developers low on budget but big on ideas? Well, if you're an indie developer low on budget, you wouldn't need the power of the core Revolution (by core, I mean the most computationally powerful part of the Revolution). You'd only need, say, the N64 part. Or maybe even the GameCube part. That should more than suffice for indie developers trying to prove a concept (think Alien Hominin while still in the Flash stage). This way, Nintendo could offer NES/SNES/N64/GameCube dev kits for free (or some reasonably low cost), yet keep the core Revolution dev kits at industry prices. In addition, Nintendo could easily "promote" promising developers while still disassociating itself from poorly written games.
Furthermore, Nintendo could allow indie developers to host their own games and forcing them to offer the games for free. That way, Nintendo can't be blamed for allowing the sales for bad games, since whether or not these games are poorly written, they weren't "sold" in the first place. And if a game ends up being successful, Nintendo could buy/negotiate for the idea and (help) produce it for the core Revolution.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC, I think this "reconfigurable processing element" idea was pointed out on AMD's roadmap for something "in the future." Check Anand's recent AMD roadmap article for more information.
By throwing chairs at them?
...does Mapquest not have to hire two guys to drive around and map out the entire North American road system (just track all the cellphones and map out the roads from there...but beware of underground parking lots and off-road adventures)...okay, maybe they still need the two guys for the boonies.
Kid: Hey mom, I want to get Black and White 2. Is that OK?
Mom: *thinks* B&W2 isn't violent */thinks* Sure! Just put it on your CC.
Kid: *goes on ebworld.com* Hrm...Quake 4 looks cool. I guess mom won't care since they cost the same.
And last I checked, VISA statements doesn't say exactly what you bought in the store, just how much you were charged from that store.
I think I came off a bit too critical with the words "forfeiting parenting altogether." What I mean is that maybe parents don't necessarily intentionally not parent their children, but that their actions may lead to such situations that effectively result in lack of parenting.
Sure, but I think in those cases, the parents already pretty much forfeited parenting all together. So I guess this scheme only addresses those who don't have credit cards and are under 18?
Aren't credit cards obtainable only at the age of 18 or greater? If so, this would satisfy the case of being 18 or older to view the content (granted not all 18 year olds or over have credit cards, but this is Activision's loss).
So, what you're saying is that all countries should only have the same emissions of say, England, or some "middle-sized" country. Well, I think that sounds great! The people in the US better stop driving their gas-guzzling SUVs soon because the US is probably top 5 in the world's population...and I'm sure they're a long way from reducing their emission to the level of that of England. But sarcasm aside, this clearly doesn't work...so maybe a hybrid verson based on a constant factor plus a multiple per capita times land area will work best.
I think the easiest way to fix this is to just slap on a £12 tax!
We all know that the outrage has nothing to do with cel-shading itself, given how well Katamari Damacy did. It must also not deal with the expectation that Zelda should somehow be "realistic," since Zelda's roots stem from being cartoony up until the N64 days. Therefore, this must have something to do with some sense of "continuation" or "evolution" with the series itself through the N64 "realism" Zelda. I would go even as far to say that this expectation is the sole reason for the outcry.
I find it funny how some people complain about the $1000 price tag on a moderate PC. These are the same people who seem to overlook a lot of the important, but subtle, details. To illustrate my point, let's compare the subtle differences between a budget PC and an XBox 360 (or any consoles within the last 5 years) that people tend to overlook.
.45 while drive at 70mph on a winding cliff-side road, and at the end of the day, to post on slashdot? No. Can a PC do that? Yes...except for the part about shooting the bird. The bottom line is, if you're going to spend another $600 on a PC that can do...what a PC does...on top of a console for those features, you might as well have spent that $1000 to begin with to get a "budget" gaming PC.
1. Warrantee. That's right, you get a 30-day warrantee on your XBox 360 based on the date of the receipt. On the other hand, you get a 1-3 year warantee on your (retail, which, in most cases costs $10 more, if at all) PC parts. To top that off, if you don't register until your hardware is broken, you can prolong that with an additional year or two in most cases (maybe this part is the same with the consoles...but I don't suggest doing it...yeah...).
2. Sure, some of you may think that your first XBox is still live and kicking after 3 years and that these consoles are made with the best parts possible. Well, tell that to your friend who just got 9 dead pixels on his brand spanking new PSP. So, if your console ever dies, well, tough luck. Get a new one. On the other hand, with your PC you can just slap in a new off-the-shelf part and go. (I know, I know, some of you might be scrounging up ebay for those half-dead consoles in hopes of getting a replacement part...but that's, well, that.)
3. Upgrades. One has to realize that a lot of these prices for PCs represent a WHOLE new PC. But do you really need that new, but does exactly the same, optical drive (remember, PC optical drives don't wear out nearly as fast, since you most likely installed those games onto your hard drives)? Or that new sound card? How about that hard drive? Within consecutive upgrades, most likely not.
4. More upgrades. Within a year after the console's introduction (consoles have 4-year cycles, usually), you'll probably be able to pick up a "budget" video card and CPU that outperforms the console's graphics card and CPU, respectively, for $100 each. And for the next 3 years, you'll have a rig that does more FPS than on the best days of said console.
5. Performance. People always say that their games work great on XBox and PC users always complain about low framerates. Well, guess what? These are actually two separate issues. If you're playing console, you're most likely playing at something close to, or less than, 720x480 resolution. This is almost the same as 640x480 on a PC. When's the last time that you saw a person even using his/her desktop at that resolution (ok, ok, there must be a truckload of them...but they're most likely not gamers)? Let's just see how well the XBox 360 will run at 1080i, which is interlaced (which you can achieve with your 24" Dell LCDs, people)! As for the rest of the PC gaming crowd, I think we've been enjoying our games at at least 800x600 for quite a long time now.
6. Usability. Can a console allow you type documents, edit pictures, compress (your own) videos, pir8 games (ok, maybe they can do this part), hack into CIA mainframes, shoot a flying bird with a
So, is PC gaming dying? Yes, if you keep on listening to the drivel all these console marketing people are saying. Are PCs more versatile, more powerful, more dependable, cheaper (amortized) overall, and make you look more like a OMGPWNZ0RZ geek than a pop-culture going-with-the-fad who-likes-to-call-themselves-gamers-but-aren't person? Definitely. Am I a PC gamer who hates the crap re-iterations that EA keeps putting out on consoles? You can bet your ass off that I am.
I wonder how long it will be before we also start getting "ENLARGE YOUR PENIS..." spam in-game, in addition to the (not-yet-pop-up) advertisements.
Not only are the slashdot editors not doing their jobs, neither are the readers! (I'm referring to the double posts...the parent's comments was stated in another ID vs Evolution topic)
I think most of the people involved in the horror stories aren't the designers. Besides, designing is only necessary when there is something new or different. And when was the last time that EA had something new or different?
I think efficiency means the conversion from one form of energy to another (that is not heat, otherwise the discussion is kinda pointless). Going from heat to electricity is one such example. So, converting 40kJ of heat to 20kJ equivalent of electricty with 20kJ still in heat means 50% efficiency. Technically, matter-antimatter reaction is 0% efficiency, since all you get is heat (in the form of photons). But do correct me if I'm wrong.
We, as a whole, and not just you or I personally. So when (your) grandparent poster said that he doesn't own the light, he is correct.
When the GeForce256 (original GeForce) and Voodoo5 came out, the press were yelling "photo realism" and the players were yelling "we have enough graphics power." When the GeForce2 came out, the press again yelled "photo realism," and the players screamed "we have enough graphics power." When the GeForce3 came...oh nevermind, you get the idea.
The point is, EVERY iteration of hardware, someone yells "photo realism" or "we don't need any more power." Well, the fact is, even with hardware being able to render a billion polyons a second, we still aren't able to get what the Metropolis Light Transport algorithm can do with just 10k polygons. So, to the post about PGR being PR: stop it, they're just textures, and they're not photo realistic (unless you like calling photos in games photo realistic...no puns intended). No, not even close. We're still MANY orders of magnitudes away. We don't even have true real-time area lights yet!
As for the rest of you that keep on yelling "we have enough graphics power:" no, we don't. But neither do we have enough gameplay. But I tend to agree...get the gameplay first, then worry about the graphics. Please, FF series...less movies, more game (same goes to all those eye-candy, no gameplay games out there)!
I think the argument hinges on if such misuse of the game is forseeable. Take the example of a chair. Let's assume that the manufacturer says and posts a note on the chair stating that the chair is only for sitting. But if some consumer comes along, stands on the chair, and subsequently the chair breaks, it's still the manufacturer's fault. This is because standing on the chair is forseeable use. On the other hand, if someone throws their baby (for the sake of argument, out of joy) up and down, and the baby hits a ceiling fan that is on, then it's not the manufacturer's fault, because it wasn't forseeable. (These cases are actually real.)
Basically, if this "unlocking the censor flag" is foreseeable (which with the long existance of the modding community, I would think that it is), then Rockstar is to blame for not having removed the content totally.
Sure. But what other mainstream i386 CPUs are out there that isn't AMD? VIA? Your Verilog implementation of the instruction set on your home PC? If that's the case, then both Cyrix and you should help AMD because they're obviously hating VIA and you too. If that's not the case, then AMD is the only major competitor to Intel, and the statement "looks for non-Intel" is EQUIVALENT to "looks for AMD."
The fact is, it is SUFFICIENT to only test for the presence of SSE/SSE2/SSE3 instruction set. Anything more, like "GENU" "INEI" "NTEL", is absolutely unnecessary. Afterall, why would Intel care if the code fails on non-Intel CPUs if ICC is only meant for Intel CPUs (which it isn't)? On the other hand, if the ICC is designed for other CPUs, then Intel obviously would know (afterall, Intel IS licensing the SSE/SSE2/SSE3 instruction set to AMD) the capabilities of said CPUs, in which case they should enable SSE/SSE2/SSE3 for CPUs capable of the instructions. Last I heard, there weren't any problems with AMD's SSE/SSE2/SSE3 implementation. Therefore, the bottom line is this boils down to a Catch22 situation and Intel should know better than to pull such cheap tricks. If Intel is going to assume that any CPU that implements the i386 instruction set does this without major problems, then why would they not assume the same with SSE/SSE2/SSE3?
Furthermore, if you actually read some of the user posts (and their links http://www.swallowtail.org/naughty-intel.html), you would have realized that ICC deliberately produces segfault code when the execution of the code doesn't find an Intel CPU. According to the article, this is with the -xK flag. That is, it produces ONLY SSE code, and NO fallback to i386 code. Yes, that means this code will fail on the original Pentium. However, in this case, Pentium will still try to execute the SSE code (and subsequently craps out), while AMD CPUs will not (and automatically segfaults). This kinda throws the "and then does 'i386' code path, which is less optimal" argument out the window....
What would be interesting to see is all the hardware review sites redo their CPU benchmarks with (hopefully) updated game/SPEC/3DMark/etc... binaries. I wonder what performance gains we'll see from these new binaries. (maybe this is why some of the benchmarks show that Intel CPUs are better?)
I think you're the one not getting it.
The point is that there is a difference between "I only care about myself and I don't care about anyone else (i.e. ignore them)" and "I only care about myself, and I don't care about anyone else, EXCEPT I hate so-and-so, and will do anything to screw them over (NOT ignoring them, but deliberately singling them out)." The latter argument being AMD's claim that of being Intel's stance.
I think you have the analogy mixed up.
It's more like: "I don't buy a BMW engine, put it in a frame I 'built to their specifications' and then complain to BMW that it does not drive like one of their cars. However, if the engine did a DNA analysis and finds that the owner of the car is cyber-dragon.net and proceeds to max out at 100 horsepower lower, then that'd be something else. That is basically what this complaint boils down to."
I think the key point to remember is that you may not find the job that you want right away (if you do find one you want, then all the power to you!). The following suggestion assumes that you actually want to be challenged in your job, not just being complacent.
I personally think the best way is to find a set of jobs that you may qualify for (say, if a job requires 7 years of experience and you have 5, then go for it...but if you only have 2, then forget it) and in a field you wouldn't mind being in, from both online and offline sources (especially online, since you're a CS person). Then look at the companies these jobs fall under and pick the ones you think has potential for you and the company to grow. Go for those positions.
Remember that a lot of the "juicier" jobs come from internal postings. Those are the ones that you don't see unless you have connections. So the point is to get yourself in the door, and then consider transferring after a few months or so.
As for the senior position, I think you can probably forget about it. No one will hire a fresh Master's student for that position. Of course, if you're someone who's been developing for some large corporation or open source project, then you might land the job.
Err, what? All graphics cards that implement ARB_color_buffer_float has to implement IEEE 32-bit floats, as stipulated by ARB extension specification. (of course, this is assuming that the scientists are using the color buffer to encode information)R B/color_buffer_float.txt
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/ogl-sample/registry/A
Basically, any up-to-date ATi or NVidia gfx cards are capable of true IEEE 32-bit floating point numbers. What really worries me about the research is that they're not using 64-bit!
Now, don't take the title as I'm against indie developers. As a matter of fact, I'm all for it.
But to not tarnish Nintendo's new flagship product by a bunch of poorly polished indie games, I don't think Nintendo will allow any random person to develop for the newest system itself. However, remember that the Nintendo Revolution is backwards compatible? Remember that Nintendo said it's also designed for the indie developers low on budget but big on ideas? Well, if you're an indie developer low on budget, you wouldn't need the power of the core Revolution (by core, I mean the most computationally powerful part of the Revolution). You'd only need, say, the N64 part. Or maybe even the GameCube part. That should more than suffice for indie developers trying to prove a concept (think Alien Hominin while still in the Flash stage). This way, Nintendo could offer NES/SNES/N64/GameCube dev kits for free (or some reasonably low cost), yet keep the core Revolution dev kits at industry prices. In addition, Nintendo could easily "promote" promising developers while still disassociating itself from poorly written games.
Furthermore, Nintendo could allow indie developers to host their own games and forcing them to offer the games for free. That way, Nintendo can't be blamed for allowing the sales for bad games, since whether or not these games are poorly written, they weren't "sold" in the first place. And if a game ends up being successful, Nintendo could buy/negotiate for the idea and (help) produce it for the core Revolution.