Maybe if more Senators were playing games and actually using computers instead of hiding from them, we could get some common sense opposition to some of the more absurd tech related legislation.

No matter how a person might feel about the games using the engine or the engine itself, this is a good thing. If it does something wonderful for open source gaming, however, it will be through a more competent content creation pipeline. There are loads of excellent open source engines out there but getting your content into them can be a serious challenge. If it isn't released with solid import options and content creation tools it will just be another engine choice in a growing pool of already competent engines. Again, that's not a bad thing at all, it just isn't anything new.

Recognizing this reference probably means you're already flashing.

This is the answer. Anyone with sufficient aptitude to ask the question can pick up syntax and basics in a weekend, so determining strengths and weaknesses against ultimate goals is the only way to narrow down the broader answer, 'All of them.'

This happened with Daikatana as well, so I hear. You have to go to option and find the, 'sucks balls' option. Uncheck it.

that we deserve. Some developers make games they want to play and others make games that they think will sell. Oddly enough, they probably have similar ratios for success and miserable failure. Do you think Bay 12 or Notch studied demographics before making wildly fun and popular games? Equally, some of those FTP shooters are pretty fun right up until the point you realize that the only reason L33tb3@v3r69 killed you was because he dropped 20 bucks on the AK 47++. Then you get some extra gratification from the revenge of penetrating his puny douchebag hitbox with your bullets made of hate and Internet. Somewhere behind the scenes there is a developer who cares and against all odds they put out a good game for a greedy company, meanwhile some indie dev manages to code his or her dream in spite of limited time, limited motivation, and spiteful software patents. Those are the games we remember.

Obviously the port change idea is unpopular because it's just obscurity, which != security. However, most, of not all, of those attempts are probably from scripts rather than actual human attackers actively attempting to compromise your servers. The script kiddies rely on automation to rapidly find vulnerable hosts using easily-scripted vulnerabilities or brute force. The simple act of changing your ssh port will render those kinds of attacks useless against you. I had a similar scenario where my logs were full of failed ssh attempts and by changing the ssh port, they all stopped. ALL OF THEM. I haven't had an unknown IP attempt to log in via SSH in around five years. fail2ban, strong passwords, or whatever additional security you want to apply is great, and recommended, but a port change will solve more of the problem than you might think.

In linux that is.

You might need to include limits.h in PtexCache.cpp and various combinations of stdio.h, stdlib.h, and string.h in the tests for it to build.

The 8600GT 512 has been available for a while now, I have one myself, and it was ~$120. They're even cheaper these days. That card can handle about anything you care to throw at it, unless you're running Vista, at which point you shouldn't care about the cost, because you're already paying Mistress Xanthia hundreds per month to kick you in the beans.