I think "reading" is referring to actually retrieving something of value from the data. If retransmitting requires some sort of processing to occur, then the processor would have to read the data in order to retransmit it. But if retransmitting can be done at the quantum level (the goal of this as far as I can tell), then there is nothing actually reading the data, it's merely propagated through.
A (rather bad) analogy would be if someone were to speak to you in a language you do not know, and you repeated the words (data) verbatim. You retransmitted the words, but did not need to process them (i.e. read the data). That is, you didn't need to know what the words meant to repeat them.
Thanks for the clarification. That makes a bit more sense.
I'll bet if you also chill your 3 year old to near absolute zero, you can get him to stop fidgeting for much longer than that.
Anyhow... *cough*, I had to follow an extra link to see what this might be good for. Apparently, one could theoretically build a quantum repeater, required for quantum networks, which supposedly would be impervious to hacking, because supposedly one can't read the quantum data without actually changing it's state to some degree.
But then there's this:
Quantum repeaters will be an essential component for long-range quantum information networks because photons degenerate--their quantum state changes--as they travel and need to be regenerated periodically in a way that preserves their original information. No one has been able to make a reliable quantum repeater yet. One of the prerequisites for such a device is a quantum memory that can store photons (and their quantum state) without destroying entanglement. Entanglement, a property important to quantum networks, allows two photons to be linked in such a way that, if someone measures one of the photons, the quantum state of the other becomes known as well. When a photon travels through optical fiber, entanglement degeneration occurs by approximately 300 kilometers.
So, if they could somehow figure out how to build a repeater, doesn't that by definition mean they could read the data, then recreate and retransmit it? Or is the act of repeating and retransmitting the quantum data different than "reading" the data? I don't quite understand how this is supposed to work (not too surprising, I'm not a physicist). Can anyone explain this supposed paradox to me?
One of the big problems facing game programmers today is actually the requirement of an extra layer of abstraction. In order to get a simultaneous release on PS3 and 360 companies have to either a.) write parallel code for different platforms, or b.) create an API to deal with development for both consoles at the same time. Both options are a pain in the ass, and the easier option (adding an extra API) leads to less than optimal code. Of course, you can still improve the API over time, and you still only have to deal with 2 target systems, but its still more difficult than just dealing with a single platform.
Keep in mind that in a game engine API, an abstract interface typically doesn't involve anything more complex than a virtual function call via a C++ abstract interface. As long as your abstraction layer is reasonably high-level, it shouldn't be a real issue, especially with the speed of modern CPUs. You can do whatever per-platform optimizations you can behind that layer. And in fact, a lot of companies will build all their code with a platform-neutral abstraction layer from the beginning specifically to make the code easier to port should the need arise.
My current company's engine works like this, and you couldn't even see the abstraction layer's impact on the game speed in the slightest. It used to be that a virtual function call was something to worry about in game development 10-15 years ago. Nowadays, unless you're literally performing hundreds of thousands of them per game cycle, you'd never even see the difference. People sometimes forget how unbelievably fast modern CPUs are, if only because games are asking them to do so much.
Probably of more importance is optimizing data natively for the platform (i.e., little-ending or big-endian), and optimally splitting up load where possible among the CPUs. Again, this is actually a common problem for all platforms. It's just exacerbated on the PS3 because of the many asymetrical CPU nature of the beast. Powerful, but a bit unwieldy.
Also, it's not as though this is a new problem by any stretch of the imagination. At my last place of employment, our engine was capable of deploying to Xbox, PS2, Gamecube, and PSP. It was an extremely optimized engine as well, with a lot of platform-specific tricks, but all nicely hid behind a lightweight abstraction layer and an automated build process that would export and compile all data. And we certainly weren't the only ones who were building games across three or four platforms.
Re:What's dying is careless programming
on
Is the Gaming PC Dead?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Does someone seriously think the current requirements on some PC games are unavoidable?
If computer hardware stops growing at the same pace we've grown accustomed, what will die isn't PC gaming but game software careless programming.
Just as games in a single console have better graphics as time passes (on the same hardware), even a full stop in PC hardware would just force a cleaning and perfectioning of base algorithms.
Traditionally, this reasoning ends by pointing at the high quality graphics and ridiculously low requirements on the last Blizzard game, but it's been a while since they released a new one. I'd just wait to see the requirements of D3 or SC2 before talking about the effects of a slow down in affordable computer hardware on games quality and future.
Dramatic optimization through a consoles lifespan happens for several reasons:
* It's a consistent piece of hardware, so you can get very specific in your optimizations. * Each new generation means new hardware to learn, so it's an abrupt transition at the beginning of the product cycle. As such, the unoptimized games are easier to spot than on a PC, which is a more consistent upgrade cycle. * You don't need to waste effort on things like scalability or compatibility / fallback coding. * Vendor APIs, compilers, and tools tend to significantly improve over the lifecycle of the console.
It's a little different for PCs, which operate on a more continuous upgrade cycle (witness the slow adoption of Vista and DX10). Also, keep in mind that, by nature, PC programming has to have more layers of abstractions and a heavier-weight OS than a console. As such, consoles will *always* be more easy to optimize than a PC over the long term.
For PC games, the basic problem is one of Moore's Law versus diminishing returns. Once you get the biggest issues (optimization-wise) out of the way, it doesn't make sense to try to spend hundreds of valuable programmer-hours trying to squeeze a percentage point or two of runtime performance out of your engine, when statistically speaking, in the time you took to do this (and not programming other features), the average PC spec just compensated for that optimization. So, your game may run 5% better than your competitors, but in the same time, they may have added some gameplay features your engine lacks, and simply reduced their content budget by that percentage.
Or, it's a question of usability versus optimization. Yes, it would be faster to hard-code the game instead of using a scripting engine, but what would happen to the development timeline? Again, the extra time spent developing the game may have actually accounted for the performance difference within the target market in aggregate.
Computer hardware is not going to just magically stop advancing because you wish it so. But the question of what type of system to target - that's entirely up to the developer. I've seen a number of smaller games running great on very low-spec system (Stardock games, for instance). MMOs tend to take up the middle ground, with a reasonable compromise between visuals and system requirements. And, of course, some PC developers prefer the high-end niche.
Seriously, again? "Not in first place" does not equate to "dead". Yes, PC gaming has waned from it's heyday, but it's still got a solid player base in MMOs, casual gamers, online shooters, RTS games, and simulations.
Bad summary, incidentally. From the article:
I am not saying PC gaming is doomed, because it's not--far from it--but the PC with four GPUs, a 2-kilowatt power supply, 16 gigabytes of memory, and a stack of hard drives is all but distant memory, at least for the PC gamer.
Uh, what? A distant memory? Who would even think this is required for gaming? I've never had a computer even close to that powerful. And I *never* bought ultra top of the line hardware, even when I was very much into PC gaming (and could have afforded it easily). I bought mid-upper tier equipment, as it has the best price/performance ratio.
Nowadays, I play both console games (having a big-screen TV and a comfey couch makes a pretty big difference), and some older games such as Bauldur's Gate that I never played (picked up I & II for cheap on Amazon), as they play well on my moderately-powered laptop.
No, PC gaming isn't king, but it's nowhere near an also-ran either.
Yep, it's always great to talk to someone about shared interest. It's really nothing new in itself as a concept. The only thing "new" is that videogaming, for the first time, is part of the normal, adult lexicon, and so you see it emerging in the workplace now as a discussion topic, even among bosses.
For multiplayer games (play from home at least), I'd have to say the Xbox 360 is king by a healthy margin. It's sort of the place to be to hang out and game with your friends and co-workers when not at the office. Left4Dead and Gears of War 2 seem to be the current multiplayer favorites. A few of us also enjoy N+ co-op every once in a while. But we've played lots of slower online board and card games as well. In addition to video games, a small group of folks gets together after work weekly for board gaming as well.
I think it's a fantastic way to strengthen bonds with co-workers, and is applicable to nearly any business environment. Anyone under 40 is likely to have grown up gaming anyhow. It used to be a lame corporate retreat and "team-building" exercises. Why not have some genuine fun watching each others' back in a frantic game of Left4Dead instead? Makes sense to me.
Wow, this is how far we've come with game AI? I've been doing more elaborate things in CLIPS forward and backwards chaining in my AI class.
Awesome. Let me know when you've integrated it into a complete game, and it's running in real time using less than 5% total CPU load (no spikes) on the target spec machine. You're also responsible for:
* Dynamic pathfinding and waypoints (it's all pointless if the agents can't move well) * Hint nodes and environmental information (finding a good cover location, escape route, etc) * Animation selection and agent movement subsystem (the enemies need to look good too) * Weapon aiming and firing system (AI can't be more than humanly accurate, or it's no fun) * Sensory detection and reaction system (simulating eyes, ears, nose of enemies - how do they detect you?) * Difficulty scaling (AI should get smarter at harder difficulty levels) * Creating a personality trait system (10-20 different enemies with different movement patterns in the game) * Squad controller agent (for your automated teammates) * Anything else the designers want to be able to do that involves moving critters around in the game autonomously
Oh yeah, and it has to be "fun" as well. Finish this on schedule, show me the final product, and then I'll be impressed.
...why *don't* you want to use Word? It has the features you are asking about (minus version control, there are other solutions for that). I've used it for my own book, as well as contributions to about a dozen others I've contributed to. Honestly, it depends on whether you're thinking about self-publishing or working with a publisher. Here's my two bits, from the perspective of working with a publisher:
In particular, the tracking feature is extremely handy (required, actually) when going back and forth with a publisher or technical reviewer. But at least in my case, the other features you asked about didn't come into play for me at all. My publisher only wanted very basic formatting. For instance, there was no need for me to do anything but use the template they supplied. Images were supplied separately in EPS format, and just referenced in the text through a marker (*** Image 03-02.eps ***). They didn't want me to embed them in the document itself. If I wanted a sidebar, I'd just mark it: *** Begin Sidebar *** Each chapter was a separate, numbered document, and I wasn't required to create or maintain a table of contents. Formatting requirements were basic: 12-point Times New Roman for text, Courier 10 pt for the code, double-spacing, as well as some details about how to mark sections and subsections.
Essentially, if you are working with a publisher, they'll probably handle all the formatting and layout issues, and will likely ask you to submit your work in Microsoft Word format. Like it or not, this is what many publishers expect (at least, the two I've worked with). If you're not comfortable using a Microsoft product for whatever reason, then simply use OpenOffice. It's a fine product as well, and should have no problems importing and exporting basic Word documents for when you need to collaborate with the publisher.
Don't over-think this - any of the major word processors used today should be perfectly adequate for your needs.
You're serious??? You would give kids jail time for an administrative prank? For $40? That's sick. Just plain sick. With these kinds of opinions, no wonder we have these kinds of laws.
Costing someone a $40 ticket goes way beyond a "prank". A prank is a practical joke you pull on your friends, and you all laugh about it afterward. This is economic vandalism.
Jail time would be unlikely (hell, you can steal a car and not get jail time if you're a first offender), but I'd certainly advocate some sort of required community service. Maybe 16 hours of picking up trash alongside a road will encourage someone to think a bit more about the consequences of bad choices. We can get creative in the sentencing too.
Then SLOWLY over the years, companies seemed to realize that fans on the internet increased buzz, visibility and mindshare for their products. Now they cater directly to the fan base by pandering at Comic-Con and such.
Yep, you've got it exactly right.
I work for a video game company, and our fan community is something that's actively promoted. We provide kits with official artwork, music tracks & sound effects, links to popular community sites from ours, etc. We employ a full-time community manager to provide a communication link between our fans and our development team. This is all outside the scope of our more traditional marketing department or customer support systems. I don't feel this effort is wasted. It's important to make a connection to your customers - that will help ensure your long-term success, along with the obvious: producing fun, high-quality games.
Because thanks to the internet, we can now get our news from places that are *even more biased* then we could in print or tv. With the click of the back button, you can leave any page or content you disagree with, all the while justifying it by saying "oh they are just biased" then go back to your DailyKos, Digg, or wherever. After all, Digg isn't biased--the people decide what is important. DailyKos tells it like it is. Slashdot is the only place I trust for reporting on Microsoft, everybody else has been bought and paid for, right?
I'm not so sure bias is such a terrible thing. "Objective news" is somewhat of a recent phenomenon, historically speaking, and one I've been thinking is not such a great proposition. The simple fact of the matter is that *no one* is truly objective. I'd much rather have clear, disclosed biases. As per your example, if I get Microsoft news from Slashdot, I'll know there are a large number of Linux fans and users, especially among those who choose the stories. I'd know the news is coming from that perspective, and take one or two grains of salt with the story accordingly.
Moreover, I know there are a great number of highly-skilled and technically-minded people that visit these forums. On highly technical subjects I know little about (say, Linux, for example), I'll tend to believe facts and opinions presented here moreso than any traditional "journalist", who, naturally, wouldn't have the slightest idea about that they're reporting.
Likewise, if I visit DailyKos, or listen to talk radio, I *know* what their political biases are. They don't pretend to be something they're not, so I can filter and process the information appropriately.
AFAIK, this is essentially the script paradigm of AI, which is fine to augment intelligence (we do it all the time), but without learning, it is quite expensive, and susceptible to the Chinese Room argument.
I can only speak for myself, of course, but I never had any qualms about simulating intelligence artificially (aka Chinese Room Argument). Games are, and will be for the foreseeable future, a very limited domain problem, which in turn calls for a domain-specific solution. The notion of whether an AI is actually "intelligent" or "aware" is so far removed from the reality of today's game development, it honestly has never even crossed my mind.
In some sense, the notion of AI in regards to game development is almost a bit misleading. Game developers are not interested in programming artificial intelligence, only replicating its behavior using any practical method available. Don't forget, we're also constrained by CPU power and a real-time environment. If a simple state machine with directed goal-oriented pathing is enough to simulate human-like intelligence in a combat-focused game, then we'll be happy to stop there.
The major difference from an intro-to-AI type of a problem here is that the environment is dynamic. Thus goals that might have been achieved just a few steps ago may now no longer be, and vice versa.
Actually, unless you're talking about an "intro-to-AI" class at a game development studio, I'd venture to say that the primary difference is that game development AI is ultimately a much more pragmatic affair than academic research (although naturally, good developers try to use whatever knowledge they can glean from any source available). The ultimate goal of the AI is to make the game fun for the player to play against, while operating on only a small, real-time slice of the total CPU budget. It's an important distinction to make, and it often answers the question of "why don't they use x or y techniques?" Game programming has real-world problems and constraints, and it's important to be able to peek into an AI brain and understand exactly why some behavior may or may not have been working exactly why you'd expected it to. But it's also perfectly acceptable to alter the world itself in order to enhance the AI (and indirectly, the player experience), something that traditional AI research would typically not consider.
Boiled down simply, yes, this is a dynamic graph traversal problem. I've used systems like that before in games I've worked on to execute intermediate goals, although nothing quite like this. The large problem is not the planning - it's actually perception that's really hard for an AI to do. The article discussed this when talking about the artists having to pepper the level with AI hints. For instance, how does a computer analyze the best location for cover? Typically, it's been a level designer that places tens of thousands of hint nodes all throughout the game to mark points of interest for the AI. I used a node-based approach in a brawling game I worked on, and these nodes would interact with the game engine to convey all sorts of information to the AI. As the environment was dynamically altered, these nodes (which doubled as both pathfinding and status communication nodes) would indicate to the player what was happening in the world.
For instance, a bridge would start shaking as though it were about to collapse. Via the level's automation system, the nodes on which the AI was standing would switch status to "danger", and the AI would know it's top priority was to move off that node. Alternately, pathing nodes could be dynamically switched on and off in order to deal with obstacles in the world coming and going. The AI would continuously re-evaluate the path to the target in the background, based on higher-level goals, so it would just naturally move around obstacles and find alternative paths to other entities, or would alter goals altogether.
So often, there's a whole set of systems built specifically to communicate information to the AI in a non-visual way. Game developers are starting to integrate these sorts of systems at a deeper level into the game engine, so that its simpler to build on top of these low level core systems, and execute more advanced tactical planning. This way, for instance, instead of a scripted event that must be manually hooked up to these informational notes, you can allow the physics engine to alter the world, and the AI will react naturally to that - not just in pathfinding, but perhaps the altered terrain provides new tactical possibilities. From there, it's great to see interesting emergent behavior come out of the simple building-blocks you've put together. The coolest thing for an AI programmers is to see players infer much more about an agent's behavior than you ever programmed into the game.
I have to admit, I do miss AI programming. It's a really exciting field that I believe is going to gain more prominence in the public eye in the future (we're seeing it already in Left4Dead) as game developers look for ways to differentiate their games from their competitors, especially as graphical quality approaches its limits on the current platforms. I can definitely see those extra cores on current and future platforms being put to good use. I would have loved to have this on the last gen of consoles.
The last people we'd expect bribery and government corruption from is China, right?/sarcasm
But... who better to explain how to win a Nobel prize than members of the Nobel selection committee? Obviously, this could be misconstrued as a conflict of interest, but this sounds more like information gathering than anything all that nefarious.
China's government is obviously interested in stepping up it's cultural and political clout in the world. That's what hosting the Olympics are all about for them (and Government sponsorship of athletes ensures they take home more medals than anyone else). The Nobel prizes are very prestigious, and naturally China would like to claim this prestige for its own, and are interested in finding out how they can maximize their chances for winning a prize.
I doubt it's anything more than some bad judgment, but I guess we'll see.
Seeing as you (admittedly) use your laptop primarily as a way to move your hard drive between fixed locations, this obviously wouldn't be very practical for you. I'd guess this is for people who tend to actually use their laptop regularly in remote locations, and would like more screen real-estate as many of us enjoy at the desktop. I think the point is, you get some of the benefits of extra screen space while still remaining fairly portable.
Still, seems pretty gimmicky. Should be interesting to see how it does, though.
This technique has been used for quite a while in console development for the purpose of ordering data on the physical media. The perfect candidate for this is a completely linear level (racing games, snowboarding game, etc), but many games can benefit to some degree. Keeping data stored by locality helps to reduce seek time, and allows faster/smoother streaming.
It's not actually too difficult in concept. Simply play through the game on a dev system, and spit out a table of what files were accessed at what time during which level playthroughs. Many console games pack data into one or several large data data files, with the individual filenames stripped (instead accessed by offsets or other more size-efficient representations). During this conversion process, it's a perfect opportunity to use the processed results from your runthroughs to organize file layout to ensure maximum coherency.
We've recently heard about Bethesda doing this in Oblivion for PS3. In order to reduce seek times, they duplicated data to ensure better locality, thus improving their overall load times.
You mean Lineage II? I'm pretty sure Lineage I & II are straight-up subscription-based games, not micro-transaction games.
And yes, micro-transaction games are insanely popular in Korea at least. There's a lot of casual games you've never heard of too - like a combination online dancing / dating sim game, or odd stuff like that.
Because every time Linux has done something different it's never gained traction. The innovations from Linux don't come from widespread appeal and revolutionary ideas; usually it comes from old-fashioned principles that are being ignored. Windows Server for years was unable to be administered well from the command line, whereas with linux servers the command line was the only way to administer it. Windows ignored user permissions until XP and didn't really start pushing them until Vista, whereas in Linux user permissions have been strict and remained the same for years. Windows goes for flash over performance, Linux makes sure to do both. The strength and innovation in Linux is that it sticks to its principles and makes sure that it does the job right time after time.
I think it would be more accurate to say: Microsoft didn't emphasize the concept of limited user access until XP and more substantially until Vista, but your point is sound.
You do have to look at the two systems' pedigrees, though. Linux was modeled on a multi-user, networked environment (Unix, of course), where user access control is a key component of the architecture from the ground up. Windows was developed as a graphical add-on to a primarily single-user operating system, DOS. The notion of "access rights" was essentially an after-thought. The current flavors of Windows come from the NT branch, not from DOS, so I'm not talking about the underlying technology, of course. In order to adapt NT for the mass-market, Microsoft wanted to ensure a level of compatibility at the API level. As such, their consumer-level OS would set itself up by default as an administrative user so programs could write when and wherever they liked. Restricting this would break compatibility with nearly all existing applications and installers.
So, I'm not so sure it's "flash over performance", but Windows has had different priorities than Linux from the beginning. Backward compatibility has always been a high priority for Windows, and that means Microsoft has to live with its mistakes far longer than others. Linux, being open source along with most of its apps, has the advantage of being able to simply re-compile apps from source. Apple has done a complete re-start of it's product line, so they have the advantage of starting fresh fairly recently. Meanwhile, I can still run most any old Windows or DOS binary on a modern Windows machine, and can expect it will have a very good chance of functioning normally.
I'm not actually a Linux user myself, because both personally (composing and playing music on my computer with Cakewalk) and professionally (game development), the software I use is Windows-based. But I also believe that healthy competition is the best thing for just about any industry. Microsoft sorely needs some tougher competition. Plus, I love the idea of a free software alternative, even though I make a living selling closed-source software myself. As such, I'm a fan of Linux as a concept, even without currently using it.
I'm hoping to be able to learn more about it in the near future, as I'm hoping to port a small game I'm developing in my spare time. I do actually believe we're going to see steady, continued growth in the Linux market, so I think it's worthwhile being prepared.
* All three major consoles are competitive. This is good news, as a massively dominant player tends to get complacent (see Sony/PS2) * Markets continue to open up. Now, smaller, casual, quirky, and retro games are available on all platforms, not just the PC. * Despite predictions of doom, the PC remains strong in the online gaming (MMO and FPS) and casual markets. * Hardcore PC games no longer hold the dominant market position, but it's hyperbole to say it's dead. Fewer PC games from big publishers leaves more room for smaller developers. * Linux still isn't a popular gaming platform, but still enjoys support (directly or indirectly) from some developers. * Most games are still DirectX9/10 switchable (and will be for years to come), thanks to a bone-headed move by MS to limit DX10 to Vista. * Co-operative gaming seems to be having something of a resurgence. I really missed co-op gaming from my Doom II days. Gears of War II reminded me of the fun that can be had in a co-op game with a friend.
Predictions for 2009?
* Sony@Home will flop, but Playstation 3 sales will still likely eat away at Microsoft's lead. * Playstation 2 sales and games will finally start to fall off more seriously near the end of the year. * The Xbox will still dominate among console games with an online component of any sort. * The Wii will remain strong, but sales will probably sag just a bit relative to the other two consoles. * More developers will finally start figuring out how to make games that take good advantage of the Wii's controllers. * Online gaming and interactivity will be the topic of discussion in the press, as a slew of new MMOs are released or are close to release by 2010. * More PC games than ever will be reliant on some online component (some MMOs, some with an integrated online component), in order to combat the effects illegal copying. * Details will be leaked about Microsoft's next console, codenamed "NoMoreScrewupsDamnit"
Do you think that you're immune to RIAA action in the United States just because the media on which you're using for "accidental" copyright infringement was purchased in Canada? While the Canadian tax on media may provide for safe harbor in that country (I don't know that to be the case, but I'll assume it's true for the purpose of this post), saying that having a copy of Britney Spears' latest album (which you had not already purchased) fresh off BitTorrent on a CD is OK because you paid a tax on that CD in Canada is not going to get you very far in an American courtroom. From the MPAA/RIAA's perpsective, copyright infringement is copyright infringement, regardless of whether it takes place on media purchased in the U.S. or in Canada.
From a purely moral standpoint, your argument is solid. The **AAs are in fact compensated when you buy that media in Canada. However, for those Americans with any legal worries, I would suggest that you discuss the implications of putting unlicensed content onto media purchased (and on which the "pircay" tax appropriately was paid) in Canada with an American lawyer before trying to use the Canadian flag to shield your infrignement activities in the USA.
Ok, I'm pretty worried now that someone actually modded that +Interesting instead of +Funny. To set the record straight, I was being facetious. One would normally expect the traffic to flow the other way, correct? My apologies. Next time I'll try to make use of sarcasm tags, perhaps. Sigh...
Forgive me if this has been asked previously: Where does the distinction lie? Can I, as an Alaskan, drive through Canada, purchase said blank media for the purpose of holding copyrighted materials? Am I allowed to transport it outside of Canada, assuming I keep it and don't resell it, or am I obligated to leave it at the border?
Yes, my understanding is that you're allowed to transport it across the border. It's a pretty rare commodity, though, made exclusively in Canada, so when asked "anything to declare", you're under a legal obligation to declare all firearms, produce, and pre-formatted copyright-enabled electronic media. I drive up to Canada for ALL my media. The extra tiny cost is worth that warm fuzzy feeling, knowing that even if I were to *accidentally* put some unlicensed media on those disks, I don't have to worry at all about cheating those RIAA executives out of their second summer home.
Slashdot Mirror
So will this tech be able to build a stronger chess computer? Will I ever be able to win?
Forget chess. We've already beaten grandmasters with computers. The next AI challenge is programming a decent Go player.
I think "reading" is referring to actually retrieving something of value from the data. If retransmitting requires some sort of processing to occur, then the processor would have to read the data in order to retransmit it. But if retransmitting can be done at the quantum level (the goal of this as far as I can tell), then there is nothing actually reading the data, it's merely propagated through.
A (rather bad) analogy would be if someone were to speak to you in a language you do not know, and you repeated the words (data) verbatim. You retransmitted the words, but did not need to process them (i.e. read the data). That is, you didn't need to know what the words meant to repeat them.
Thanks for the clarification. That makes a bit more sense.
I'll bet if you also chill your 3 year old to near absolute zero, you can get him to stop fidgeting for much longer than that.
Anyhow... *cough*, I had to follow an extra link to see what this might be good for. Apparently, one could theoretically build a quantum repeater, required for quantum networks, which supposedly would be impervious to hacking, because supposedly one can't read the quantum data without actually changing it's state to some degree.
But then there's this:
Quantum repeaters will be an essential component for long-range quantum information networks because photons degenerate--their quantum state changes--as they travel and need to be regenerated periodically in a way that preserves their original information. No one has been able to make a reliable quantum repeater yet. One of the prerequisites for such a device is a quantum memory that can store photons (and their quantum state) without destroying entanglement. Entanglement, a property important to quantum networks, allows two photons to be linked in such a way that, if someone measures one of the photons, the quantum state of the other becomes known as well. When a photon travels through optical fiber, entanglement degeneration occurs by approximately 300 kilometers.
So, if they could somehow figure out how to build a repeater, doesn't that by definition mean they could read the data, then recreate and retransmit it? Or is the act of repeating and retransmitting the quantum data different than "reading" the data? I don't quite understand how this is supposed to work (not too surprising, I'm not a physicist). Can anyone explain this supposed paradox to me?
One of the big problems facing game programmers today is actually the requirement of an extra layer of abstraction. In order to get a simultaneous release on PS3 and 360 companies have to either a.) write parallel code for different platforms, or b.) create an API to deal with development for both consoles at the same time. Both options are a pain in the ass, and the easier option (adding an extra API) leads to less than optimal code. Of course, you can still improve the API over time, and you still only have to deal with 2 target systems, but its still more difficult than just dealing with a single platform.
Keep in mind that in a game engine API, an abstract interface typically doesn't involve anything more complex than a virtual function call via a C++ abstract interface. As long as your abstraction layer is reasonably high-level, it shouldn't be a real issue, especially with the speed of modern CPUs. You can do whatever per-platform optimizations you can behind that layer. And in fact, a lot of companies will build all their code with a platform-neutral abstraction layer from the beginning specifically to make the code easier to port should the need arise.
My current company's engine works like this, and you couldn't even see the abstraction layer's impact on the game speed in the slightest. It used to be that a virtual function call was something to worry about in game development 10-15 years ago. Nowadays, unless you're literally performing hundreds of thousands of them per game cycle, you'd never even see the difference. People sometimes forget how unbelievably fast modern CPUs are, if only because games are asking them to do so much.
Probably of more importance is optimizing data natively for the platform (i.e., little-ending or big-endian), and optimally splitting up load where possible among the CPUs. Again, this is actually a common problem for all platforms. It's just exacerbated on the PS3 because of the many asymetrical CPU nature of the beast. Powerful, but a bit unwieldy.
Also, it's not as though this is a new problem by any stretch of the imagination. At my last place of employment, our engine was capable of deploying to Xbox, PS2, Gamecube, and PSP. It was an extremely optimized engine as well, with a lot of platform-specific tricks, but all nicely hid behind a lightweight abstraction layer and an automated build process that would export and compile all data. And we certainly weren't the only ones who were building games across three or four platforms.
Does someone seriously think the current requirements on some PC games are unavoidable?
If computer hardware stops growing at the same pace we've grown accustomed, what will die isn't PC gaming but game software careless programming.
Just as games in a single console have better graphics as time passes (on the same hardware), even a full stop in PC hardware would just force a cleaning and perfectioning of base algorithms.
Traditionally, this reasoning ends by pointing at the high quality graphics and ridiculously low requirements on the last Blizzard game, but it's been a while since they released a new one. I'd just wait to see the requirements of D3 or SC2 before talking about the effects of a slow down in affordable computer hardware on games quality and future.
Dramatic optimization through a consoles lifespan happens for several reasons:
* It's a consistent piece of hardware, so you can get very specific in your optimizations.
* Each new generation means new hardware to learn, so it's an abrupt transition at the beginning of the product cycle. As such, the unoptimized games are easier to spot than on a PC, which is a more consistent upgrade cycle.
* You don't need to waste effort on things like scalability or compatibility / fallback coding.
* Vendor APIs, compilers, and tools tend to significantly improve over the lifecycle of the console.
It's a little different for PCs, which operate on a more continuous upgrade cycle (witness the slow adoption of Vista and DX10). Also, keep in mind that, by nature, PC programming has to have more layers of abstractions and a heavier-weight OS than a console. As such, consoles will *always* be more easy to optimize than a PC over the long term.
For PC games, the basic problem is one of Moore's Law versus diminishing returns. Once you get the biggest issues (optimization-wise) out of the way, it doesn't make sense to try to spend hundreds of valuable programmer-hours trying to squeeze a percentage point or two of runtime performance out of your engine, when statistically speaking, in the time you took to do this (and not programming other features), the average PC spec just compensated for that optimization. So, your game may run 5% better than your competitors, but in the same time, they may have added some gameplay features your engine lacks, and simply reduced their content budget by that percentage.
Or, it's a question of usability versus optimization. Yes, it would be faster to hard-code the game instead of using a scripting engine, but what would happen to the development timeline? Again, the extra time spent developing the game may have actually accounted for the performance difference within the target market in aggregate.
Computer hardware is not going to just magically stop advancing because you wish it so. But the question of what type of system to target - that's entirely up to the developer. I've seen a number of smaller games running great on very low-spec system (Stardock games, for instance). MMOs tend to take up the middle ground, with a reasonable compromise between visuals and system requirements. And, of course, some PC developers prefer the high-end niche.
There, fixed that for you.
Bots are people too, you insensitive clod!
- WoWBot (v2.3.0.284) / Slashdot scanner / (c) 2008 Gold4Cash Corp.
Seriously, again? "Not in first place" does not equate to "dead". Yes, PC gaming has waned from it's heyday, but it's still got a solid player base in MMOs, casual gamers, online shooters, RTS games, and simulations.
Bad summary, incidentally. From the article:
I am not saying PC gaming is doomed, because it's not--far from it--but the PC with four GPUs, a 2-kilowatt power supply, 16 gigabytes of memory, and a stack of hard drives is all but distant memory, at least for the PC gamer.
Uh, what? A distant memory? Who would even think this is required for gaming? I've never had a computer even close to that powerful. And I *never* bought ultra top of the line hardware, even when I was very much into PC gaming (and could have afforded it easily). I bought mid-upper tier equipment, as it has the best price/performance ratio.
Nowadays, I play both console games (having a big-screen TV and a comfey couch makes a pretty big difference), and some older games such as Bauldur's Gate that I never played (picked up I & II for cheap on Amazon), as they play well on my moderately-powered laptop.
No, PC gaming isn't king, but it's nowhere near an also-ran either.
Yep, it's always great to talk to someone about shared interest. It's really nothing new in itself as a concept. The only thing "new" is that videogaming, for the first time, is part of the normal, adult lexicon, and so you see it emerging in the workplace now as a discussion topic, even among bosses.
For multiplayer games (play from home at least), I'd have to say the Xbox 360 is king by a healthy margin. It's sort of the place to be to hang out and game with your friends and co-workers when not at the office. Left4Dead and Gears of War 2 seem to be the current multiplayer favorites. A few of us also enjoy N+ co-op every once in a while. But we've played lots of slower online board and card games as well. In addition to video games, a small group of folks gets together after work weekly for board gaming as well.
I think it's a fantastic way to strengthen bonds with co-workers, and is applicable to nearly any business environment. Anyone under 40 is likely to have grown up gaming anyhow. It used to be a lame corporate retreat and "team-building" exercises. Why not have some genuine fun watching each others' back in a frantic game of Left4Dead instead? Makes sense to me.
Wow, this is how far we've come with game AI? I've been doing more elaborate things in CLIPS forward and backwards chaining in my AI class.
Awesome. Let me know when you've integrated it into a complete game, and it's running in real time using less than 5% total CPU load (no spikes) on the target spec machine. You're also responsible for:
* Dynamic pathfinding and waypoints (it's all pointless if the agents can't move well)
* Hint nodes and environmental information (finding a good cover location, escape route, etc)
* Animation selection and agent movement subsystem (the enemies need to look good too)
* Weapon aiming and firing system (AI can't be more than humanly accurate, or it's no fun)
* Sensory detection and reaction system (simulating eyes, ears, nose of enemies - how do they detect you?)
* Difficulty scaling (AI should get smarter at harder difficulty levels)
* Creating a personality trait system (10-20 different enemies with different movement patterns in the game)
* Squad controller agent (for your automated teammates)
* Anything else the designers want to be able to do that involves moving critters around in the game autonomously
Oh yeah, and it has to be "fun" as well. Finish this on schedule, show me the final product, and then I'll be impressed.
Game AI != Academic Research Projects
...why *don't* you want to use Word? It has the features you are asking about (minus version control, there are other solutions for that). I've used it for my own book, as well as contributions to about a dozen others I've contributed to. Honestly, it depends on whether you're thinking about self-publishing or working with a publisher. Here's my two bits, from the perspective of working with a publisher:
In particular, the tracking feature is extremely handy (required, actually) when going back and forth with a publisher or technical reviewer. But at least in my case, the other features you asked about didn't come into play for me at all. My publisher only wanted very basic formatting. For instance, there was no need for me to do anything but use the template they supplied. Images were supplied separately in EPS format, and just referenced in the text through a marker (*** Image 03-02.eps ***). They didn't want me to embed them in the document itself. If I wanted a sidebar, I'd just mark it: *** Begin Sidebar *** Each chapter was a separate, numbered document, and I wasn't required to create or maintain a table of contents. Formatting requirements were basic: 12-point Times New Roman for text, Courier 10 pt for the code, double-spacing, as well as some details about how to mark sections and subsections.
Essentially, if you are working with a publisher, they'll probably handle all the formatting and layout issues, and will likely ask you to submit your work in Microsoft Word format. Like it or not, this is what many publishers expect (at least, the two I've worked with). If you're not comfortable using a Microsoft product for whatever reason, then simply use OpenOffice. It's a fine product as well, and should have no problems importing and exporting basic Word documents for when you need to collaborate with the publisher.
Don't over-think this - any of the major word processors used today should be perfectly adequate for your needs.
You're serious??? You would give kids jail time for an administrative prank? For $40? That's sick. Just plain sick. With these kinds of opinions, no wonder we have these kinds of laws.
Costing someone a $40 ticket goes way beyond a "prank". A prank is a practical joke you pull on your friends, and you all laugh about it afterward. This is economic vandalism.
Jail time would be unlikely (hell, you can steal a car and not get jail time if you're a first offender), but I'd certainly advocate some sort of required community service. Maybe 16 hours of picking up trash alongside a road will encourage someone to think a bit more about the consequences of bad choices. We can get creative in the sentencing too.
Then SLOWLY over the years, companies seemed to realize that fans on the internet increased buzz, visibility and mindshare for their products. Now they cater directly to the fan base by pandering at Comic-Con and such.
Yep, you've got it exactly right.
I work for a video game company, and our fan community is something that's actively promoted. We provide kits with official artwork, music tracks & sound effects, links to popular community sites from ours, etc. We employ a full-time community manager to provide a communication link between our fans and our development team. This is all outside the scope of our more traditional marketing department or customer support systems. I don't feel this effort is wasted. It's important to make a connection to your customers - that will help ensure your long-term success, along with the obvious: producing fun, high-quality games.
The music biz is part of the old, pre-net generation that's big on control. They fear the Internet because it's something they can't explicitly control (or at least manage) like traditional media. If someone else is using their property, then they should be paying for rights, correct? Then at the same time, they actively pay for promotion of that same property elsewhere. It's this same schizophrenic logic that prompted Toyota to demand fansites cease using company-produced images of their vehicles in wallpapers. At least they eventually figured out it was idiotic to pass up free advertising, especially when they need all the help they can get right now too.
Because thanks to the internet, we can now get our news from places that are *even more biased* then we could in print or tv. With the click of the back button, you can leave any page or content you disagree with, all the while justifying it by saying "oh they are just biased" then go back to your DailyKos, Digg, or wherever. After all, Digg isn't biased--the people decide what is important. DailyKos tells it like it is. Slashdot is the only place I trust for reporting on Microsoft, everybody else has been bought and paid for, right?
I'm not so sure bias is such a terrible thing. "Objective news" is somewhat of a recent phenomenon, historically speaking, and one I've been thinking is not such a great proposition. The simple fact of the matter is that *no one* is truly objective. I'd much rather have clear, disclosed biases. As per your example, if I get Microsoft news from Slashdot, I'll know there are a large number of Linux fans and users, especially among those who choose the stories. I'd know the news is coming from that perspective, and take one or two grains of salt with the story accordingly.
Moreover, I know there are a great number of highly-skilled and technically-minded people that visit these forums. On highly technical subjects I know little about (say, Linux, for example), I'll tend to believe facts and opinions presented here moreso than any traditional "journalist", who, naturally, wouldn't have the slightest idea about that they're reporting.
Likewise, if I visit DailyKos, or listen to talk radio, I *know* what their political biases are. They don't pretend to be something they're not, so I can filter and process the information appropriately.
Dutch?
Not bad. I approve.
AFAIK, this is essentially the script paradigm of AI, which is fine to augment intelligence (we do it all the time), but without learning, it is quite expensive, and susceptible to the Chinese Room argument.
I can only speak for myself, of course, but I never had any qualms about simulating intelligence artificially (aka Chinese Room Argument). Games are, and will be for the foreseeable future, a very limited domain problem, which in turn calls for a domain-specific solution. The notion of whether an AI is actually "intelligent" or "aware" is so far removed from the reality of today's game development, it honestly has never even crossed my mind.
In some sense, the notion of AI in regards to game development is almost a bit misleading. Game developers are not interested in programming artificial intelligence, only replicating its behavior using any practical method available. Don't forget, we're also constrained by CPU power and a real-time environment. If a simple state machine with directed goal-oriented pathing is enough to simulate human-like intelligence in a combat-focused game, then we'll be happy to stop there.
The major difference from an intro-to-AI type of a problem here is that the environment is dynamic. Thus goals that might have been achieved just a few steps ago may now no longer be, and vice versa.
Actually, unless you're talking about an "intro-to-AI" class at a game development studio, I'd venture to say that the primary difference is that game development AI is ultimately a much more pragmatic affair than academic research (although naturally, good developers try to use whatever knowledge they can glean from any source available). The ultimate goal of the AI is to make the game fun for the player to play against, while operating on only a small, real-time slice of the total CPU budget. It's an important distinction to make, and it often answers the question of "why don't they use x or y techniques?" Game programming has real-world problems and constraints, and it's important to be able to peek into an AI brain and understand exactly why some behavior may or may not have been working exactly why you'd expected it to. But it's also perfectly acceptable to alter the world itself in order to enhance the AI (and indirectly, the player experience), something that traditional AI research would typically not consider.
Boiled down simply, yes, this is a dynamic graph traversal problem. I've used systems like that before in games I've worked on to execute intermediate goals, although nothing quite like this. The large problem is not the planning - it's actually perception that's really hard for an AI to do. The article discussed this when talking about the artists having to pepper the level with AI hints. For instance, how does a computer analyze the best location for cover? Typically, it's been a level designer that places tens of thousands of hint nodes all throughout the game to mark points of interest for the AI. I used a node-based approach in a brawling game I worked on, and these nodes would interact with the game engine to convey all sorts of information to the AI. As the environment was dynamically altered, these nodes (which doubled as both pathfinding and status communication nodes) would indicate to the player what was happening in the world.
For instance, a bridge would start shaking as though it were about to collapse. Via the level's automation system, the nodes on which the AI was standing would switch status to "danger", and the AI would know it's top priority was to move off that node. Alternately, pathing nodes could be dynamically switched on and off in order to deal with obstacles in the world coming and going. The AI would continuously re-evaluate the path to the target in the background, based on higher-level goals, so it would just naturally move around obstacles and find alternative paths to other entities, or would alter goals altogether.
So often, there's a whole set of systems built specifically to communicate information to the AI in a non-visual way. Game developers are starting to integrate these sorts of systems at a deeper level into the game engine, so that its simpler to build on top of these low level core systems, and execute more advanced tactical planning. This way, for instance, instead of a scripted event that must be manually hooked up to these informational notes, you can allow the physics engine to alter the world, and the AI will react naturally to that - not just in pathfinding, but perhaps the altered terrain provides new tactical possibilities. From there, it's great to see interesting emergent behavior come out of the simple building-blocks you've put together. The coolest thing for an AI programmers is to see players infer much more about an agent's behavior than you ever programmed into the game.
I have to admit, I do miss AI programming. It's a really exciting field that I believe is going to gain more prominence in the public eye in the future (we're seeing it already in Left4Dead) as game developers look for ways to differentiate their games from their competitors, especially as graphical quality approaches its limits on the current platforms. I can definitely see those extra cores on current and future platforms being put to good use. I would have loved to have this on the last gen of consoles.
The last people we'd expect bribery and government corruption from is China, right? /sarcasm
But... who better to explain how to win a Nobel prize than members of the Nobel selection committee? Obviously, this could be misconstrued as a conflict of interest, but this sounds more like information gathering than anything all that nefarious.
China's government is obviously interested in stepping up it's cultural and political clout in the world. That's what hosting the Olympics are all about for them (and Government sponsorship of athletes ensures they take home more medals than anyone else). The Nobel prizes are very prestigious, and naturally China would like to claim this prestige for its own, and are interested in finding out how they can maximize their chances for winning a prize.
I doubt it's anything more than some bad judgment, but I guess we'll see.
Seeing as you (admittedly) use your laptop primarily as a way to move your hard drive between fixed locations, this obviously wouldn't be very practical for you. I'd guess this is for people who tend to actually use their laptop regularly in remote locations, and would like more screen real-estate as many of us enjoy at the desktop. I think the point is, you get some of the benefits of extra screen space while still remaining fairly portable.
Still, seems pretty gimmicky. Should be interesting to see how it does, though.
I have ADD, you insens... Oooh, shiny...!
This technique has been used for quite a while in console development for the purpose of ordering data on the physical media. The perfect candidate for this is a completely linear level (racing games, snowboarding game, etc), but many games can benefit to some degree. Keeping data stored by locality helps to reduce seek time, and allows faster/smoother streaming.
It's not actually too difficult in concept. Simply play through the game on a dev system, and spit out a table of what files were accessed at what time during which level playthroughs. Many console games pack data into one or several large data data files, with the individual filenames stripped (instead accessed by offsets or other more size-efficient representations). During this conversion process, it's a perfect opportunity to use the processed results from your runthroughs to organize file layout to ensure maximum coherency.
We've recently heard about Bethesda doing this in Oblivion for PS3. In order to reduce seek times, they duplicated data to ensure better locality, thus improving their overall load times.
Liege II
You mean Lineage II? I'm pretty sure Lineage I & II are straight-up subscription-based games, not micro-transaction games.
And yes, micro-transaction games are insanely popular in Korea at least. There's a lot of casual games you've never heard of too - like a combination online dancing / dating sim game, or odd stuff like that.
Because every time Linux has done something different it's never gained traction. The innovations from Linux don't come from widespread appeal and revolutionary ideas; usually it comes from old-fashioned principles that are being ignored. Windows Server for years was unable to be administered well from the command line, whereas with linux servers the command line was the only way to administer it. Windows ignored user permissions until XP and didn't really start pushing them until Vista, whereas in Linux user permissions have been strict and remained the same for years. Windows goes for flash over performance, Linux makes sure to do both. The strength and innovation in Linux is that it sticks to its principles and makes sure that it does the job right time after time.
I think it would be more accurate to say: Microsoft didn't emphasize the concept of limited user access until XP and more substantially until Vista, but your point is sound.
You do have to look at the two systems' pedigrees, though. Linux was modeled on a multi-user, networked environment (Unix, of course), where user access control is a key component of the architecture from the ground up. Windows was developed as a graphical add-on to a primarily single-user operating system, DOS. The notion of "access rights" was essentially an after-thought. The current flavors of Windows come from the NT branch, not from DOS, so I'm not talking about the underlying technology, of course. In order to adapt NT for the mass-market, Microsoft wanted to ensure a level of compatibility at the API level. As such, their consumer-level OS would set itself up by default as an administrative user so programs could write when and wherever they liked. Restricting this would break compatibility with nearly all existing applications and installers.
So, I'm not so sure it's "flash over performance", but Windows has had different priorities than Linux from the beginning. Backward compatibility has always been a high priority for Windows, and that means Microsoft has to live with its mistakes far longer than others. Linux, being open source along with most of its apps, has the advantage of being able to simply re-compile apps from source. Apple has done a complete re-start of it's product line, so they have the advantage of starting fresh fairly recently. Meanwhile, I can still run most any old Windows or DOS binary on a modern Windows machine, and can expect it will have a very good chance of functioning normally.
I'm not actually a Linux user myself, because both personally (composing and playing music on my computer with Cakewalk) and professionally (game development), the software I use is Windows-based. But I also believe that healthy competition is the best thing for just about any industry. Microsoft sorely needs some tougher competition. Plus, I love the idea of a free software alternative, even though I make a living selling closed-source software myself. As such, I'm a fan of Linux as a concept, even without currently using it.
I'm hoping to be able to learn more about it in the near future, as I'm hoping to port a small game I'm developing in my spare time. I do actually believe we're going to see steady, continued growth in the Linux market, so I think it's worthwhile being prepared.
A few observations:
* All three major consoles are competitive. This is good news, as a massively dominant player tends to get complacent (see Sony/PS2)
* Markets continue to open up. Now, smaller, casual, quirky, and retro games are available on all platforms, not just the PC.
* Despite predictions of doom, the PC remains strong in the online gaming (MMO and FPS) and casual markets.
* Hardcore PC games no longer hold the dominant market position, but it's hyperbole to say it's dead. Fewer PC games from big publishers leaves more room for smaller developers.
* Linux still isn't a popular gaming platform, but still enjoys support (directly or indirectly) from some developers.
* Most games are still DirectX9/10 switchable (and will be for years to come), thanks to a bone-headed move by MS to limit DX10 to Vista.
* Co-operative gaming seems to be having something of a resurgence. I really missed co-op gaming from my Doom II days. Gears of War II reminded me of the fun that can be had in a co-op game with a friend.
Predictions for 2009?
* Sony@Home will flop, but Playstation 3 sales will still likely eat away at Microsoft's lead.
* Playstation 2 sales and games will finally start to fall off more seriously near the end of the year.
* The Xbox will still dominate among console games with an online component of any sort.
* The Wii will remain strong, but sales will probably sag just a bit relative to the other two consoles.
* More developers will finally start figuring out how to make games that take good advantage of the Wii's controllers.
* Online gaming and interactivity will be the topic of discussion in the press, as a slew of new MMOs are released or are close to release by 2010.
* More PC games than ever will be reliant on some online component (some MMOs, some with an integrated online component), in order to combat the effects illegal copying.
* Details will be leaked about Microsoft's next console, codenamed "NoMoreScrewupsDamnit"
Do you think that you're immune to RIAA action in the United States just because the media on which you're using for "accidental" copyright infringement was purchased in Canada? While the Canadian tax on media may provide for safe harbor in that country (I don't know that to be the case, but I'll assume it's true for the purpose of this post), saying that having a copy of Britney Spears' latest album (which you had not already purchased) fresh off BitTorrent on a CD is OK because you paid a tax on that CD in Canada is not going to get you very far in an American courtroom. From the MPAA/RIAA's perpsective, copyright infringement is copyright infringement, regardless of whether it takes place on media purchased in the U.S. or in Canada.
From a purely moral standpoint, your argument is solid. The **AAs are in fact compensated when you buy that media in Canada. However, for those Americans with any legal worries, I would suggest that you discuss the implications of putting unlicensed content onto media purchased (and on which the "pircay" tax appropriately was paid) in Canada with an American lawyer before trying to use the Canadian flag to shield your infrignement activities in the USA.
Ok, I'm pretty worried now that someone actually modded that +Interesting instead of +Funny. To set the record straight, I was being facetious. One would normally expect the traffic to flow the other way, correct? My apologies. Next time I'll try to make use of sarcasm tags, perhaps. Sigh...
Forgive me if this has been asked previously: Where does the distinction lie? Can I, as an Alaskan, drive through Canada, purchase said blank media for the purpose of holding copyrighted materials? Am I allowed to transport it outside of Canada, assuming I keep it and don't resell it, or am I obligated to leave it at the border?
Yes, my understanding is that you're allowed to transport it across the border. It's a pretty rare commodity, though, made exclusively in Canada, so when asked "anything to declare", you're under a legal obligation to declare all firearms, produce, and pre-formatted copyright-enabled electronic media. I drive up to Canada for ALL my media. The extra tiny cost is worth that warm fuzzy feeling, knowing that even if I were to *accidentally* put some unlicensed media on those disks, I don't have to worry at all about cheating those RIAA executives out of their second summer home.