Re: Morphing more and more into PC's

Any company that released a game that insisted on a particular motherboard, a specific chip from a specific company, a specific graphics card - nope, a cheaper, more expensive or upgraded version will not do - a specific blu-ray drive with known spin-rates and the equivalent of a VPN to a dedicated gaming network would be laughed out of business in days and you know it.

Why are you worried about that? That is the job of the OS not the person writing the game. If they are writing the game for the motherboard ability I would be worried! The OS is supposed to abstract that from the developer, the game is written to the APIs. So you know the card does not support a certain type of shader, great you don't have to code that but if you want it on a system that does (they will) it needs to be coded anyway.

If this is not the job of the OS then why is it there in the first place? Am I missing something and are the people coding the games actually writing for every bit of hardware directly and do not need an OS?

I am not trying to be stubborn here, I am not in the industry of making games so do not have any direct experience so please enlighten me if they are writing directly for hardware and not APIs.

Re: Morphing more and more into PC's

while I take your point entirely, the thing about consoles is that, as a developer, you know exactly where the target is. You don't have dick about with whether the user has a decent GPU or is going to bitch that his nice shiny Ultrabook with Intel's excuse for gfx onboard won't run it at over 8fps. You don't have to aim low on memory requirements. You know exactly what the sound output is and how the controllers work. Nobody is going to demand to remap the controls for their Logitech macro-able cheat-like-fuck keyboard. In short, you can optimize the holy hell out of everything because you have a static target.

While I get this entirely you have not considered several points. If they are creating a PC version anyway having two code bases for the same hardware kind of makes the point about optimisation useless. Companies can optimise for a PC, it's called listing requirements for the game. This has only been happening since I had my Acorn Electron so it is not something new that people have to learn. And comeon how hard is it to code this:

Normal input to jump = space. This is coded somewhere let me see this can even be and usually is some form of text file. User changes space to another key. Change that part of file. Really, is it hard? Sound output and controllers are mapped by the OS, all you have to do is ask the OS. Same as the Xbox One will require of developers for additional hardware.

How old is the 360 now? And how good does, for example, Assassin's Creed 3 look on it? Yet the hardware is basically obsolete by PC standards. You'd need a PC significantly heftier than a 360 to even consider playing it but when the hardware is fixed, you can work miracles.

The game looks as good as I can get on old hardware on a PC. I have not used the latest £400 GC since I were a lad. It is not needed now-a-days 2nd or 3rd generation back are ample for most games. And there is little need to upgrade the CPU now as they are all so fast anyway.

If this thing or the PS4 goes for £400 or less, it's cheaper than a current best-of-breed GPU. And it will last you approximately five times as long.

The GPU will last you easily that long with the same graphics (or better) there is no requirement to upgrade, but the option is there.

I really get why your coming from but you just used the argument I said was obsolete now, that it is a dedicated machine. It is not, it is commodity hardware put in a box but that you cannot change.

Re: Recommendation from ACs

See that's better. I have no Idea who TheVogon is still, but I instantly trust you more for not posting AC. I am looking into this at the moment so will at least take a look at it.

Recommendation from ACs

These always make me instantly wary of the product. It may be a great product and you may have a really good reason to be posting AC but nevertheless a recommendation from someone that does not want to show a pseudonym for some reason sends of the warning flags.

Re: @Ragarath @HolyFreakinGhost

Did you miss the part where I found that they're modelling heat emission using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which is only valid for blackbodies, and that they didn't test whether or not this object is actually radiating as a blackbody (hint: it won't be), and that they would have to modify that law to T^(4+delta) with delta<~1? That's the point I stopped reading. The font is off-putting through experience: I've refereed a lot of papers and I have never seen a paper that I would accept for publication that was submitted in Word and standard MS fonts. That's not a reflection on Word, and it's not actually snobbery (which you may notice I acknowledged in the original post); it's an observation.

Whoa there, I think you misunderstood my post, and reading it back now I think I understand why (because I am a dolt). The snobbery part was meant to be light hearted (your the one that brought it up! and in response to yojb's post) and reading back dismissing was too harsh a word for what I wanted to convey. I should have used 'rubbishing' or some such. You even state in your original post "The rest of it may or may not be valid but if they're not verifying that" which in my opinion means you were although I must admit not just on the grounds of formatting.

From my post:

"I don't like the way they used a font I don't like so their publishing format and because of that I am dismissing their work (which I have not read and probably would not understand so I will not even go there.)"

I confused the way I was writing this and yes reading it back it looks like a dig at you because I was talking from your point of view to parrot back then continued using the first person in brackets to talk about myself. As in the not understanding part would be me, not you.

And yes, I do call myself a scientist. Back when things were scribbled on scraps of paper I would read things scribbled on scraps of paper. These days we can do rather better, and a seeming lack of effort makes me wary. Bad science inside -- or, at least, unacknowledged sources of error -- makes me even more wary.

Read my post again, it is not the scraps of paper, it was the ink in question or even (though not in the post) the style of handwriting used. Yes formatting and neat layouts etc. help a lot but work should not be discounted because it is not in what one person deems to be the correct way of writing it.

Re: Having not read the paper yet

Gosh we are a lot of snobs aren't we. I don't like the way they used a font I don't like so their publishing format and because of that I am dismissing their work (which I have not read and probably would not understand so I will not even go there.)

You call yourself a scientist? What would you have done when things were scribbled down on scraps of paper? Complained that they did not use the right consistency of ink / carbon?

Re: Really? @ annosomini2

Thanks for the correction. I missed a zero off when I typed in 3 million.

Re: Colour me shocked

@AC 14:15

Eadon, you ask men in the street what they think about Microsoft? Blimey!

Yes he does, and look they tell him that they have not used it but believe the here-say!

From Eadons post: They tell me that they are hearing bad things about it. Note: they are hearing. Not after trying it.

These type of people that do not try before commenting (probably like Eadon as I am sure he would not touch the MS software from hell) are not worth bothering with. If someone told them person X is a witch they would help burn them without ever testing it themselves.

Re: Really?

Anyone who thinks a global standard can ever be possible is really ignoring the whole of history.

I don't think that at all, hence the brackets and the "if it gets that far" part.

We can be optimists though, and hope. There will always be people that disagree with each other, but what we need to encourage is more cooperation not less.

Nothing ever got built/done by saying "It won't happen," "that can't be done" etc. Try, try and try again. Although I think there are other things that require this before worrying about tax evasion.

Re: Well hopefully

@JimC

I take it you mean because they are charging for content they won't show advertising? Good luck with that! If there are two income streams why cut one off?

I point out the paper in question. You pay for the paper (to read I presume or maybe P3 but then there is the web for that) and what do you find inside? Yup adverts, so the case already exists.

Re: Only three infrastructure providers in the UK

Why should those of us living in cities subsidize those who live in rural areas so much? We pay considerably more council tax here in town than our friends who live 10 miles away in the sticks. Who in turn pay far more than friends in rural Northern Ireland. I don't have much sympathy for people who grumble about rural connections while this anomaly persists.

Why should I subsidise those living in cities? I pay and I get less services, much less.

Stop being an idiot. People in "Cities" and those in villages and small towns are no different. Neither could survive without the other (OK in reality those in the countryside could live very easily without those in the town as that is where your food comes from) so lets all get along. Phone lines are pretty much universal so what is the difference with fibre?

Re: Game of Thrones

Some people have said that they find the nudity excessive

I take it you did not read the books first more of it is described there than shown on TV.

The series is actually quite close to the books and stuck to the story well enough, but there are still some parts that TV just cannot depict well enough to the viewers. I keep having to clarify parts of the show to my Wife because they have failed to describe what in the book I felt was important.

Re: Quick Eadon!

Please stop spreading this FUD!

What FUD? Are you saying it hasn't happened?

For one, they don't even know how the malware is installed, and given the relative small number of sites, it it believed each one was hacked manually.

Ahh no you realise it has happened, so that makes your first statement a barefaced lie. As for how it got their, the fact that they don't know should worry you more than making up how they "think" it got there.

One reason is that you can't simply go changing the apache binary the way they did, unless the one doing it had root rights.

Then how did they get the root rights? You have still not explained this? Was it an exploit, manually done from the site, brute forced? No one has answered this yet you wave it around like fact.

Re: New product?

And an up-vote for taking it on the chin!

Re: MS Windows in high security organisations is a recipe for disaster.

Yes Eadon, we all believe your rhetoric. No malware can ever cause the downfall of your beloved Linux....

... hang on I am sure I read... yes there it is! Cdorked!

Re: New product?

I've never seen anyone say "It's an Apple product so I will buy it no matter what"

I have, lots of them, you can't work in IT if you have never met one.

but I've seen lots of people say "It's an Apple product so I won't buy it no matter what".

Now I am one of these people and do not mind admitting it. I recommend Apple to the people it would benefit but long before OSX came around, MACs were the biggest pain in the arse. Hense they no longer get my custom due to being burned back in the day.

Incidentally, I do not stop my wife from buying Apple but she chooses to avoid them knowing how I feel about them. She has found, like so many, that the functionality and more than is offered by Apple is generally available elsewhere.

Time Reference

Not if your speaking from the Time reference of Earth.

Re: Call me paranoid

The ITC agreed with a judge who ruled that the technology, patented by Google-owned Motorola Mobility, was too obvious.

The part of all this that niggles me is that if they were too obvious, why were they granted? A nice way of sorting the USPTO out might be to allow companies that have patents passed that are deemed ovious to claim costs back off of the USPTO.

Perhaps then they would do their job!

Re: Who let the data out?

We are the Borg. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile.

Re: Only £5,000?

I think they would be more scared of the jail time part that can (and at least I think) should be applied if they moved them.

The $5,000 fine is for people like you or I that it would crush if done accidentally.

Re: Why am I playing Summly?

Thanks guys, nice summaries. If I get a chance I will read the paper up-voted you both ;)

Re: Which is a real problem if some pillock has parked their car on the kerb as well.

Illegal to drive on it. Not illegal to park there, or something like that.

How do you think a car parks on the pavement? Magical teleportation?

Re: Which is a real problem if some pillock has parked their car on the kerb as well.

Rule 244 actually states this:

You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it.

Now taking the whole sentence into context. Should not means in addition to the original must not. The critical point being the UNLESS clause. It has to be marked that you can park on the pavement for it to be legal.

Re: Coming to a wallet near you...

I think he is suggesting they set up a competitor to Mastercard and Visa.

The GooPal Card perhaps?

Re: Beer, because at 1p off, why not?

I thought you were going to say spilt beer then! Heinous crime that it is, should not be allowed anywhere.

Luckily it was the making room for more beer that was the culprit and thus you were saved.

Re: Using a default username and password isn't hacking

So if I notice your car keys on your table through your window. I can break the window to get your keys to take your car, because otherwise you would not have windows in your house for easy access.

Yes my example is ludicrous but I am afraid so is your statement.

Re: "Super-fast broadband by 2015"

All along it has been said, 2mbps. That is it :)