|
|
"developers are able to offload significant chunks of processing power to the cloud—conceivably even fundamental game mechanics like physics engines or collision-detection systems."
That's what EA/Maxis said about Sim City. It was horse shit then and it's horse shit now. Offloading shit to a remote server is not a viable option for a real-time video game.
Go look at what happens when someone dies on a cruise ship.
They can and do switch flags, and it is in fact successful in delaying or preventing proper investigations.
They don't get to switch flags at will.
They in fact do though.
Cruise ships fly flags.
They'll typically fly the flag of their principal western nation (the US, for example).
But when a crime is committed on board they'll fly the flag of the shittiest nation they can to stop investigators while they sweep the crime under the rug.
Google "flags of convenience".
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Possibly detrimental
Possibly detrimental, possibly beneficial. Watching a playthrough could make a viewer say "ew, that game looks terrible" or "hey, I want to try that!" I don't see how you can make a deterministic statement either way. Your other points are accurate, though.
There's the additional "I've already seen the whole thing, why would I buy it now?".
Personally I've watched, instead of played, plenty of games in the last few years.
MS values your privacy? You mean how they read encrypted Skype messages? Don't kid yourself about MS motivations. They would monetize you in every single way they can and they will sell data to third parties. They are just not as good as Google yet. Google makes no pretense about it; it's how they make money from the free services they provide.
The fact that you are modded insightful just highlights how useless slashdot is now.
MS issues a HEAD request to URIs contained in chat messages.
Who gives a shit if they're HTTPS or not? They're not snooping on your session or stealing ur passwurdz. They can't do that even if they wanted to unless the link you paste contains login information (in which case HTTPS does nothing for you, and you just sent it to your friend on Skype anyway).
Is it still an "appeal to authority" fallacy when the person you're appealing to isn't an authority?
Digital vs. analog doesn't have shit to do with shit.
Thunderbolt isn't exciting.
We've had PCI-E over a cable for over 6 years.
But you're still buying from Microsoft through a third party vendor. If I buy a TV from Best Buy and it has issues, I call Samsung, not Best Buy. With Google, you're not buying a product, period.
I bought a Nexus One from Google.
They offered no support.
I've paid for additional storage from Google.
They offered no support.
Etc.
Google is a useless piece of shit when it comes to support. It's a forum of users complaining about known bugs and Google either completely ignores it or has an intern shit out a "You should be able to fix this by doing this." post (and of course that doesn't fix the problem).
Hell, I still have deleted entries from my Calendar show up in my phone as if they've been raised from the dead despite Google "fixing" the problem years ago.
There's a world of difference between having compute power on your machine and on a machine you have remote access to.
What's the practical effect of this "world of difference"? I need some ammo against the oft-repeated argument that "Apple's App Store restrictions are irrelevant because the iPad can run SSH and VNC".
And there's a world of difference between running a game at 20-30 fps
The article I linked says 46 fps.
on medium
Does the PS3 version even go higher than medium?
at a sub-native resolution
The article I linked says 1366x768. (I rounded it to 720p for the reader's convenience.) How is this "sub-native" on a laptop with a 1366x768 panel?
Working through a wireless remote connection is like trying to tie your shoes with boxing gloves on.
Either:
A) Your data set is already on the remote server. You can use your existing 3-year old laptop, no need to buy a new Haswell CPU.
B) You have to prepare the data set on your laptop and then upload it. Have fun working with a large data set on a shitty laptop, and have fun waiting for it to upload.
C) You have a a wired connection. You should be using a desktop.
The game you're talking about is a year and a half old, and is not a particularly taxing game. Modern games will perform far worse. I don't give a shit what the PS3 version looks like, the PC version I have on my PC is what it's supposed to look like. And 1366x768 will be sub-native for anyone who's screen has a resolution higher than 1366x768. Go look at the most popular laptop models. 1920x1080, 1920x1200, 2560x1440, 2560x1600, and 2880x1800 for Apple's largest (pushing resolution is the ONLY thing this company does right).
Be sure to tell yourself that nonsense as you drop another $500 on a landfill-bound graphics card to play Xbox360 ports.
The other option being dropping $500 to $2000 on a landfill-bound laptop to play Xbox360 ports at worse settings and frame rates? Or dropping $1000 for the high-end, landfill-bound desktop CPU from Intel (since that's the one with the "high-end" integrated GPU) to do the same?
thank you CUDA and OpenCL
OpenCL-heavy tasks can be done on a compute server at home or in a data center, and you can SSH (or VNC or RDP or whatever) to use an application on a compute server from your laptop. The only real use case I see for carrying an OpenCL powerhouse with you, apart from running shaders in a high-detail 3D game, is for editing huge images or high-definition video in a vehicle or some other place with no Wi-Fi. One workaround is to downscale the video to low definition (e.g. 320x180), edit the low-definition video while away from the net, and then export the edit decision list (EDL) back to the compute server to render the result in high definition. I used to do that with AviSynth.
Running games at resolutions and detail levels that look better than doom
Games are the other reason for carrying a beefy GPU with you. But Skyrim looks better than Doom, Doom II, and Doom 3, and Skyrim runs playably on the HD 4000 at 720p medium.
There's a world of difference between having compute power on your machine and on a machine you have remote access to.
And there's a world of difference between running a game at 20-30 fps on medium at a sub-native resolution and running it as intended.
This article is fucking trash.
It presumes that access to more information equates to more intelligence. It doesn't.
If access to information helped drive intelligence, the average person today would shit on Motzart and Einstein, and a 15 year old girl would have found the Higgs 2 years go while tweeting about Jake (he's so cuuuuuuute~!).
Then it presumes that such increased intelligence makes beings less likely to explore and seek out other beings. Horseshit.
If intelligent beings didn't care about less intelligent beings, we wouldn't have people who dedicate their lives to studying the less intelligent beings we have on this planet, or people who keep pets, etc.
If technologically advanced beings didn't care about exploring undeveloped places, Columbus and Magellan would have stuck their thumbs up their asses while tugging their dicks all day at home instead of all day at sea.
"How would you change if you had instant brain-level access to all information. How would you change if you were twice as smart as you are now. How about ten times as smart? (Don't answer, truth is, you're not smart enough to know)."
So we can't know what we'll do when we're more intelligent, yet TFS ignores that rule and tells us anyway? Laughable.
It's as fucking bad as Tyson's line about aliens not giving a shit about us because they'd be so far advanced that we'd be nothing but bugs or dust to them.
Why would you presume such a large gap in technological advancement? Why wouldn't there be civilizations who are just somewhat more advanced, to the point where we're still a curiosity? Wouldn't a growth in advancement lead to a growth in stellar reach, and thus increase our chances of meeting despite any lack of intentional interest on their part?
Why even presume a lack of interest comes along with advancement? We're excited when we see signs of water on other planets. We're actively looking for that shit. If we found a fucking planet full of boring space slugs we'd be going out of our fucking minds with excitement. We have people who dedicate their lives to talking to parrots and apes and shit. We literally know how to twerk our black booties to tell bees where some delicious pollen is.
Since the dawn of man we have wondered if we were alone in the Universe. There is no reason to presume that any other species would be different. Indeed, there is reason to believe that such curiosity goes hand-in-hand with intelligence and increased likelihood to become the dominant species on a planet.
Sorry, but when that particular tropical storm hit the coast it was no longer a hurricane.
Sorry, but there were no hurricane force winds when it hit the coast.
Sorry, but when we classify storms for the landfall event, for insurance, etc., we use the landfall event, not what it was days earlier out in the ocean.
Sorry, but when a storm collides with another storm nothing magical happens, the resulting storm front is reclassified.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter if it's the biggest storm to hit New York in a long time, that doesn't change the definition.
Sorry, but it wasn't a hurricane.
Wikipedia says it was the largest hurricane (by gale diameter) ever observed in the Atlantic basin.
Apparently there have been larger tropical storms in the Pacific. But that's kind of apples and oranges. You could also compare Jupiter's Great Red Spot, for instance.
Then Wikipedia is wrong. It wasn't an actual hurricane. It was a tropical storm.
If two people love each other, there can be no happy end to it. -- Ernest Hemingway