FINALLY SOMEONE MENTIONS MP3!

So true, the game looks nothing like a wii game (save for the crappy character models). And it's fun too

Gamecube was the second strongest console last gen. Technically speaking.

Yet it didn't have uber games like JA (not so uber I know) and Black (one of my favorite titles of last gen - it really shined in the visual department.)

PS2 did have a 128bit Processor though.

No, it had VPUs that had 128-bit registers (composed of four 32-bit registers) and a 128-bit data bus, but the native word size was 64-bits.

its true, lucas does have a f****** massive fat neck!

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Ah, well I had the 128 number right


Just a quick question, is that tech any good for the time?

i thought they didnt release it on PC because the game sucked

Come to think of it, if LA did release a PC port, the whole scene would probably be like this:

-FU hits the shelves, people buy it.

-people realize that how buggy the game is (like its console counterparts) and demand solutions.

-LucasArts doesn't care, doesn't provide decent support.

-people get annoyed. No real, effective patches in sight.

-LucasArts moves onto another project (Clone Wars movie tie-in game for Wii), leaves PC users in the dust.

-When enough people complain, LucasArts blames computer pirates for torrenting the game.

I didn't say PC gaming itself is dead, but that it's dead for games like this. Nobody wants to buy a close-ended game on PC. They want moddability, or open endedness to feel like it's worth the cash. I dunno why that's the case, but console users will spend their money on games they beat and shelf. PC gamers don't.

... Thus, why the PC is a dead platform for these kinds of games.

That's a good point, Tazz. But you'd think with online distribution systems like Steam becoming more popular, people would be more likely to buy games like this. It's very easy to purchase something on Steam, play it and then forget about it.

Starting to sound like Crysis

I remember doing a small assignment on Quantum Computing in 2000 (first year uni). I based my assignment on that subject mostly because I'd heard a lot about it over the previous 4-5 years (so getting back to mid 90s now) , but hadn't seen anything come through in terms of actual deliverables.

It's now 2008, still haven't seen much come through. There's been a lot of talk about quantum computing over the years, but I'll believe it when I see it on newegg.

Quantum computing isn't necessarily the next big thing. The big hope is that it can provide solutions for np problems in p time. But someone might still invent an algorithm to solve an np problem in p time on a conventional computer, so eh.

There's still a lot of work to be done on the theoretical front, there's a certain class of equations that can't be solved yet and these govern the error rates from system decoherence. The topological model is a completely new approach to this problem and was only first suggested about 10 years ago, and has been proven 1 2 to be both inherently more stable and and much simpler at error-control.

The research being done now is very different to that in 2000, for one the models being used are inherently fault-tolerant (which was not the case with previous models).

To expect some 'magic box' to suddenly appear and everyone to go "we've discovered a quantum computer! isn't it cool!" is horrendously naïve (though is certainly what the general population expect of physics), and I'd expect a fellow physics student to understand the absolute necessity of theoretical frameworks; the phenomenon of superconductivity was discovered experimentally in 1911 by Heike Onnes, but it wasn't until 1957 when Bardeen, Cooper, and Schrieffer developed a fully microscopic theory of superconductivity that it actually became possible to exploit for anything useful (or more technically until Ginzberg, Landau and Abrikosov developed a slightly-more-macroscopic theory of type II superconductors).
Bardeen, Cooper, Schrieffer, Ginzberg and Abrikosov all won Nobel prizes for their work on superconductivity, but Heike Onnes didn't (don't worry, he got a Nobel prize for something else. Also Landau would've done, but he was a bit too dead at the time).

For an apt summary of the accelerated progress in quantum computing, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_quantum_computing
and notice that there are more papers published on quantum computing in the last 2 years than in the previous 20.



They could, but there is a physical limit to the processing power of a conventional computer, a limit we're fast (well, maybe not fast, but inevitably) approaching. A quantum computer does have a limit too, but of an entirely different nature and with different dependencies. A quantum computer is simply necessary when we reach the limit where semiconductor materials become so small as for quantum phenomena to take over. Of course there's plenty we can do with clever software to extend the lifetime of conventional computing, but eventually we're going to have to manipulate the quantum world (and all that clever software can be translated to qubits, so everyone wins!)

Sounds like my experience with BioShock