Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Germany 08/31
Chicago, IL USA, IL 10/19

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Pawn

Real Name Pawn   
Search for:
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
Nickname Propagandhi
ICQ 1105042
Homepage None given.
Signed On Aug 14, 2001, 06:31
Total Comments 794 (Graduate)
User ID 10650
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Older >

News Comments > Ships Ahoy - Half-Life 2: The Orange Box
96. Re: 2007's Darwin Post: #6 by nin Oct 11, 2007, 03:21 Propagandhi
I can't tell if you're trolling or retarded, Zeph...

That's not a good thing
I eat pasta!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Evening Consolidation
7. Re: No subject Oct 11, 2007, 03:19 Propagandhi
Why would sale ratio matter? We're talking about ease of development here, and that's one thing (maybe the only thing) that Microsoft does well. Ever used Visual Studio? Ever found an IDE that even comes close to its ease of use and power? No. You haven't, because for C++ there's nothing close...

And don't expect Sony to fix it any time soon. The quote shows their mindset, and their shitt software shows the results.

It's hard to use because it's powerful is the crutch of a shitty and/or lazy programmer.
I eat pasta!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Half-Life 2 versus Mac Round II
21. Re: No subject Oct 8, 2007, 01:29 Propagandhi
..Macs are now Wintel's w/o windows and a 50% markup..

Do an unbiased comparison between a MacBook Pro and Dell's or Lenovo's similar offerings... I think you'll be surprised.

Why port code to a system that can already run it with only minor hoop-jumping?

If "porting" your code is actually non trivial it's likely that you have serious design issues. It reportedly took id a week to get their tech up and running on OS X.
I eat pasta!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Half-Life 2 versus Mac Round II
20. Re: No subject Oct 8, 2007, 01:15 Propagandhi
A million seems cheap to me. Apple is stupid for not doing it, IMHO...  
I eat pasta!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Crysis Q&A
5. Re: No subject Sep 24, 2007, 22:27 Propagandhi
sppppppppppppace captain  
I eat pasta!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Into the Black
6. Re: Carbon nanotubes are expensive, mmm Sep 21, 2007, 01:09 Propagandhi
what kind of prof gives $5000 worth of materials to undergrads?

Any electronics lab will have that much equipment per station. I'm sure this is true for other faculties as well, but I'm not familiar with them...
I eat pasta!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > StarCraft II Movie
23. Re: No subject Sep 17, 2007, 00:56 Propagandhi
You guys say SC2 isn't innovative, yet it's gonna be the next standard for RTS games when it comes out as Blizzard games always are.

There are very few true Real Time Strategy games, here is a list:

Myth series
Total War series
Battlezone series

There is no strategy involved in Starcraft (just as there is no strategy in paper, rock, scissors) or at least not enough to warrant the title of "strategy game". It could be the standard for "build a force faster than your opponent"... but who cares, those games have been trivial, derivative works since Red Alert.
I eat pasta!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Morning Metaverse
4. Re: FF extensions Sep 11, 2007, 13:28 Propagandhi
What it all comes down to is consumer backlash. Ad companies couldn't reign themselves in and now they're paying the price.

I eat pasta!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > FIFA 08 Demo
5. Re: No subject Aug 31, 2007, 20:16 Propagandhi
He's gotta have a script doing this for him, otherwise he'd read some of these flames and get drawn into a discussion re: his posting habits..  
I eat pasta!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Orange Box Nears
2. Re: No subject Aug 27, 2007, 21:52 Propagandhi
More money? Who the fuck is gonna buy the game on multiple platforms? If it only cost, say $10-20 gamers would have payed for this convenience... at twice the price noone will. This costs Valve a little money, and I'm sure they know it.  
I eat pasta!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > BioShock Activation Not Permanent
89. Re: No subject Aug 25, 2007, 16:01 Propagandhi
Stop talking shit out of your ass. There is no working crack for Bioshock yet

Nforce says there's a working distribution out, and pretending that securom is uncrackable is laughable.

Typical /. dumbasses. Demos have needed copy protection sinse people started using the unprotected demos to crack the full version of the game.

1) "Since"

2) This has been "fact" is brought up everytime someone whines about copy protection in a demo, and it's simply not true. Although there are cases in which a demo executable is identical to that of the complete game (and only the available resources differ), these are rare. The primary reason copy protection is included in demos is that it's simply too much of a pain in the ass to remove...
I eat pasta!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > BioShock Activation Not Permanent
66. Re: Sounds close enough to permanent for Aug 25, 2007, 09:48 Propagandhi
It's not a rootkit because it doesn't embed itself in the host OS. It's associated processes are distinguishable from those of Windows...

The blog author even notes this, he's changed the title of the original post, but not before he said this:

I don't care if it is one or not. My point of this article is that the SecuROM service doesn't need to be included in the demo if we don't have to activate it.

Using "rootkit" brings the traffic. It's all about the SEO, and is why this article is on top in Google.
I eat pasta!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > BioShock Activation Not Permanent
63. Re: Sounds close enough to permanent for me Aug 25, 2007, 09:32 Propagandhi
Stop spreading FUD... there's no "rootkit", it's just securom.  
I eat pasta!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > BioShock Widescreen Woes
104. Re: Posts 51-75... Aug 22, 2007, 22:20 Propagandhi
I don't even know why I'm replying to this.. a day late, and you (zeph) barely replied to my first post, but whatever:

You don&#8217;t get it do you? Technology isn&#8217;t going to wait on you. Technology doesn&#8217;t stop. When the flood gates up & true 64-bit computing is available without barriers so that people can have 16,000 Gigs of RAM, then that&#8217;s the direction computing will go.

I don't know if you know what a "64-bit" processor actually is, but I do and it's not the revolution you seem to think it is. At best it represents a processor which is twice as fast/efficient as a 32 bit equivalent. In reality applications of a 64bit instruction, result, or address space are not exceptionally common and I'd expect the actual speed gain of a 64bit processor to be around the 1.5 mark. This is ignoring the types of nonlinearities associated with an increased bus size which inevitably results in increased power and heat disipation requirements.

Furthermore, it isn't alack of address space which keeps us from throwing 10 or more gigs of RAM in a home computer. That problem is easy to overcome, what's not easy to engineer is ram which can perform reasonably fast when the associated amount of excess wiring/transistrs is put in close proximity. I alluded to the memory latency bottleneck in my last post, but now I'm going to own you (with the help of intel's Platform 2015 ( and this paper:

Both outline the problem of the memory bottleneck. While CPU speeds have grown at an annual rate of 55%, memory speed has only improved 10%. Of special note, is the complete LACK of bus size as a topic of intel's 2015 platform.. in other words, the leaders of the CPU market don't see any serious benefit to future computing, so please STFU about how 64 bit processors are going to revolutionize the industry.

I wouldn&#8217;t be surprised if in 15-20years we needed 128bit systems.

You. Are. Fucking. Retarded.

Ever hear of Moore&#8217;s Law dumbfuck?

Moore's law has nothing to do with bus or instruction size. It relates only to the size of transistors, or how many we can fit onto a single chip. More transistors does not result directly in larger instructions, those extra transistors are generally used as more on-chip cache or registers. Another doubling of register size would result in no useful gains for video gamers... No game progammer has ever implemented a system for performing 128bit math on a 64bit processor and thought to themselves "gee, I wish I could do this in hardware". That level of precision has no application in videogames.

I encourage you to read through that intel document I linked, it outlines fairly conservatively the future of computing. Parallelism is in, as is on chip memory. Intel's paper suggest something in the gigabyte range for on chip memory.. nothing like your ludicrous claims of 16,000 gigs. Just because bus size increased from 8 to 16, to 32 fairly quickly don't assume that futher increases will result. Notice how long we used 32 bit processors, and notice how slow the 64 bit adoption was. 32 bit processors reigned for well over a decade, and 64 bit processors will likely have a longer lifetime. Architectures are no longer capable of acheiving speed increases in this way, they have to get smarter as opposed to just getting larger.

Fuck, in a few years they&#8217;re going to be talking about holographic television because of the wide-open space and breathing room that 64-bit computing will provide.

A 64 bit architecture doesn't enable holographic television, a fucking holographic medium enables it.

I&#8217;ll have the right video card and if I had a widescreen monitor

?? So you're entire rant about widescreen monitors was bullshit... say it aint so!

That&#8217;s what widescreen does for you when it works!!!! I&#8217;ve explained that if you have a 22&#8221; monitor 4:3 & a 22&#8221; monitor at 16:9..

QFT. Stop comparing widescreen monitors of the "same size" to 4:3 monitors of the same size. The comparison is NOT valid, one is SMALLER than the other.

I know right now that a lot of you are scratching your heads and thinking no, no, that&#8217;s not how it works.

No one is scratching their heads about this, we are just confused as to why you are comparing 22" widescreends to 22" 4:3's, as the comparison is not valid. Compare the widescreen to a 4:3 of the same height, that is the valid comparison to make...
I eat pasta!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > BioShock Widescreen Woes
69. Re: The 1st 50 Posts... (part 2) Aug 22, 2007, 04:08 Propagandhi
Oh good. I escaped Zephalephelah wrath once again. Go me!

Was that rambling mess his "wrath"? I can't even tell wtf point he's trying to make..

The problem with all these theories is that they are all mind games. 16:9 in a 22&#8221; monitor is WAY WAY SMALLER than 4:3 in a 22&#8221; monitor.

Yeah, duder.. no shit. The surface area of the screen is less, but that's not at all relavent. Take, for example, my laptop. It's a 15" widescreen, if it were 15" square it would have greater surface area, but would be totally fucking impractical. The benefits are beyond that of mobility, though, and have their base in function. Since english text moves left to right, the screen becomes more practical when it is longer in that dimension.

Nevermind all that, though. The meat of your post is an irrational rant about the evils of LCD's, swearing up and down that they are the lesser cousins of the godly CRT. First of all, this is bullshit. For one the image on an LCD doesn't flicker in the way a CRT does when viewing a static image. This means you can actually sit in front of your monitor and read through thousands of lines of code without going blind... a substantial benefit when one is force to do so.

Form factor is another obvious benefit. As is power consumption.

At any rate, your entire post is a rant about the fact that a 17" widescreen has less surface are than a 17" "normal" monitor. Noone disputes this, and noone is unaware. It's obvious the second you see a widescreen TV next to a normal one, the reason people choose widescreen monitors is because they're often more practical, as horizontal screenspace is more valuable than vertical (the same reason 4:3 monitors aren't 1:1).

They made the game for 4:3 because they made the game on CRTs that were 4:3.

I hope you know that "made the game" 4:3 merely means they set their renderer viewspace to this size. It would have been a simple computation to properly adjust the viewing frustrum to 16:9 based on the selected resolution, both for cutscene rendering and ingame rendering.

Let me tell you, when the next real operating system comes out that truly begins to harness the power of 64bit & you have to go buy another system that can handle 64Gigs of memory, then a thousand gigs, just I like had to with Megabytes; then you&#8217;ll find yourself upgrading every 6 months to keep up with the technology because technology never ever stops.

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Memory is not the bottleneck it was 10 years ago, and neither is bus/instruction size. Games will only marginally benefit from a 64bit instruction set, as that level of precision is not at all necessary when performing realtime computations. Yes, there are some hacks which can result in improved speed, but they amount to paralization of 32 bit instructions, which would be better left to a multicore or dedicated vector coprocessor.

Futhermore, driving/refreshing "64 gigs" of memory would result in a significant capacitance, which would begin to affect write and read speeds on the address bus.

I can think of no practical benefit to rewriting an OS kernel with 64bit instructions "in mind", the work it's doing is not high precision, it's high volume. An OS designed with multiple processors in mind (like BeOS, not that you'd know what that was) would be of some benefit, but the benefit to gamers would still be marginal.

Why am I even posting this...
I eat pasta!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > BioShock Widescreen Woes
65. BTW.. Aug 22, 2007, 03:37 Propagandhi
To those totally flipping out: this is a "problem" with lots of games. IIRC gears of wars behaves similarly, to give a recent example...

It's simply not, or shouldn't be, a deal breaker for anyone... there's nothing there for you to see, put it out of mind and focus on the game.
I eat pasta!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > BioShock Widescreen Woes
47. Re: No subject Aug 22, 2007, 01:26 Propagandhi
Anyone playing it on a system near the minimum system requirements who would care to comment on performance? Please give system specs if you are..

I played the demo on my "old" macbook pro: 2.16 ghz core duo 2, x1600 (a "mobile" ATI chipset), and 1 gig of ram. It was playable, moreso when I dropped the resolution to something weird (<1024) and graphics slider to medium.

Still on the fence on buying it now vs. waiting til I get a new box in the distant future.
I eat pasta!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > BioShock Widescreen Woes
41. Re: Great. Aug 22, 2007, 01:11 Propagandhi
All of this whining about widescreen is amusing. "Widescreen" monitors aren't wide, they're short. You bought a monitor that's fit for watching movies, not playing games; computer monitors are 4:3, not 16:10, so don't be surprised when stuff gets cut off because your monitor is shorter than others. And this goes doubleplus so for multiplayer games, it's not the job of the developers to give you a leg-up(seeing more) just because you bought an inferior monitor.

This post is stupid and you're stupid for making it.
I eat pasta!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > BioShock Demo This Evening
3. Re: No subject Aug 20, 2007, 10:28 Propagandhi
This is going to crash the internets!

Ok, not really... but that dire prediction seems to be in vogue, and I'm nothing if not IN VOGUE!

I eat pasta!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Out of the Blue
44. Re: No subject Aug 14, 2007, 19:01 Propagandhi
I think we can all agree (be foolish not to) that our current trips to the moon (ok, moon has been a while) and space station......are kinda worthless.

The amount of $ used to do so could be used for vast amounts of things.

$618.412 billion is the total value (adjusted for inflation, even) of NASA's annual budget since 1958.

$439.3 Billion is the US military budget for FY 2007

So.. we could have used our entire NASA budget for the last 50 years to almost fund the military for a year and a half. Vast amount of things, indeed.

Oh, and Shane, the only thing we disagree about is whether the shuttle program's failure could have been identified significantly earlier, so settle down...

Edit: wikipedia says the military budget was increased to 532.8 billion, but you get my point...

Edit2: And that figure doesn't include "black budget" spending or some (all?) of the iraq/afghanistan spending.

This comment was edited on Aug 14, 19:17.
I eat pasta!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
794 Comments. 40 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Older >


Blue's News logo