Asp Forum - Co zastapilo DirectPlay?

Dariusz Zolna

3/20/2007 11:45:00 PM

Czy jest jaki? aktualny odpowiednik DirectPlay, które to ostatni raz
by3o sk3adnikiem DirectX w wersji 9 bodaj?e?

Darek ?o3na

25 Answers

mx

3/21/2007 10:48:00 AM

Sockety panie, sockety :D

DP nie jest juz rozwijane, protokol ma zamkniety, opensourceowa spolecznosc
meczy sie z jego reverse-engineringiem (z tego co mi wiadomo narazie
bezskutecznie niestety).

Teraz gamedev urzywa 3rd party bibliotek (np. NetBlitz)
albo sam takowe pisze, zreszta DP nie jest taki zly - nie wiem jak to jest
na viscie (nie testowalem osobiscie)
ale na xp sprawuje sie calkiem dobrze i nadal go urzywam.

--
mx

Dariusz Zolna

3/21/2007 10:58:00 AM

mx napisa3(a):
> Teraz gamedev urzywa 3rd party bibliotek (np. NetBlitz)
> albo sam takowe pisze, zreszta DP nie jest taki zly - nie wiem jak to jest
> na viscie (nie testowalem osobiscie)
> ale na xp sprawuje sie calkiem dobrze i nadal go urzywam.

No ja wiem ?e sie sprawuje bardzo dobrze, dlatego interesuje mnie co sie
sta3o ?e znikne3o z najnowszego DX, bo mam teraz do zrobienia projekt w
którym najchetniej u?y3bym w3a?nie DP, ale nie wiem jak rozwi?zaa
problem gdyby klient za?yczy3 sobie czego? aktualnie wspieranego przez MS.

Darek ?o3na

mx

3/21/2007 12:35:00 PM

> No ja wiem ¿e siê sprawuje bardzo dobrze, dlatego interesuje mnie co siê
> sta³o ¿e zniknê³o z najnowszego DX, bo mam teraz do zrobienia projekt w
> którym najchêtniej u¿y³bym w³a¶nie DP, ale nie wiem jak rozwi±zaæ problem
> gdyby klient za¿yczy³ sobie czego¶ aktualnie wspieranego przez MS.

Z tego co siê orientuje na platforme PC nie ma odpowiednika DP wspieranego
przez MS obecnie
(na xbox 360 jest XRNM)

--
mx

ColdWarDinosaur

7/25/2011 10:20:00 AM

Felix Reynaldo wrote:
>
> "ColdWarDinosaur" <wynnehenry!@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:j0il2a$2u7$1@dont-email.me...
>> You have to wonder under what circumstances people exist in that they
>> could gleefully take the nation off a cliff? Are they all farmers or
>> some other demographic that does not fear the consequences of national
>> financial disaster? Are they political extremists that have gone
>> collectively insane? Are they financial speculators betting against
>> their own country??
>>
>> Other countries would call their actions either economic terrorism or
>> sabotage. Either way, they should be called upon to answer for their
>> crimes if they cause a catastrophic drop in the markets this coming week.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/24kristof.html?_...
>>
>>
>> --
>
> Dino, these people are crazy extortionists. They raised the debt
> ceiling for Reagan seventeen (17) times but for a black POTUS, these
> scumbags will not rest until he is lynched by his balls.

I think that is a large part of the answer. Racist lunatics.

--
~~
HW

ColdWarDinosaur

7/25/2011 10:24:00 AM

Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Felix Reynaldo" <FelixReynaldo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:j0ip9b$m3r$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "ColdWarDinosaur" <wynnehenry!@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:j0il2a$2u7$1@dont-email.me...
>>> You have to wonder under what circumstances people exist in that they
>>> could gleefully take the nation off a cliff? Are they all farmers or
>>> some other demographic that does not fear the consequences of national
>>> financial disaster? Are they political extremists that have gone
>>> collectively insane? Are they financial speculators betting against
>>> their own country??
>>>
>>> Other countries would call their actions either economic terrorism or
>>> sabotage. Either way, they should be called upon to answer for their
>>> crimes if they cause a catastrophic drop in the markets this coming
>>> week.
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/24kristof.html?_...
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Dino, these people are crazy extortionists. They raised the debt
>> ceiling for Reagan seventeen (17) times but for a black POTUS, these
>> scumbags will not rest until he is lynched by his balls.
>
> Yea, but I bet if Obama was asking for the amount that Reagan was, it
> wouldn't be an issue.
>
> Yet under Reagan the debt ceiling was raised a TOTAL of $2.14 Trillion
> Dollars.
>
> Obama on the other hand is asking for a $2.4 Trillion dollar increase
> all at once and he hasn't even been in office 3 years. Yet, has already
> increased the debt by some $3,7 Trillion dollars.
>
> Seems people are concerned that may mean he intends to add over $5
> Trillion dollars to our debt and do it in 4 years. After all, why else
> would he need such a massive increase in the debt ceiling unless he was
> planning to use it?
>
> Is Obama looking to match or exceed Bush' debt and do so in only half
> the time?
>
> Some people do wonder.

I think people need to look at how all these conservatives,
"christians" and Tea Partiers allowed Bush and Cheney to bankrupt the
country and said NOTHING! They are spinelessly held in thrall by peer
pressure to aspire to some non-existent "The past was better" crap.

--
~~
HW

rfischer

7/25/2011 12:56:00 PM

Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>Yea, but I bet if Obama was asking for the amount that Reagan was, it
>wouldn't be an issue.

Yes it would.

>Yet under Reagan the debt ceiling was raised a TOTAL of $2.14 Trillion
>Dollars.

Adjusted for inflation that's $5.5 trillion.

>Obama on the other hand is asking for a $2.4 Trillion dollar increase all at
>once and he hasn't even been in office 3 years.

Why is there a deficit?

>Seems people are concerned that may mean he intends to add over $5 Trillion
>dollars to our debt and do it in 4 years.

Why is there a deficit?

Are you honest enough to answer that question?

--
Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
rfischer@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal

The PHANTOM

7/25/2011 1:25:00 PM

On Jul 24, 10:52 pm, "Felix Reynaldo" <FelixReyna...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> "ColdWarDinosaur" <wynnehen...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:j0il2a$2u7$1@dont-email.me...
>
> > You have to wonder under what circumstances people exist in that they
> > could gleefully take the nation off a cliff? Are they all farmers or
> > some other demographic that does not fear the consequences of national
> > financial disaster? Are they political extremists that have gone
> > collectively insane? Are they financial speculators betting against
> > their own country??
>
> > Other countries would call their actions either economic terrorism or
> > sabotage. Either way, they should be called upon to answer for their
> > crimes if they cause a catastrophic drop in the markets this coming week.
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/24kristof.html?_...
>
> > --
>
> Dino, these people are crazy extortionists. They raised the debt ceiling
> for Reagan seventeen (17) times but for a black POTUS, these scumbags will
> not rest until he is lynched by his balls.
>
>
>
> > ~~
> > HW- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

But it was perfecly OK for O'Bama to vote against raising the debt
ceiling when a Republican was in the Whitehouse:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/white-house-defends-obama-s-s...

Five years ago, then-Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) voted against raising the
debt ceiling and even spoke about it on the Senate floor before the
Republican-controlled Senate voted 52-48 to increase it.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt
limit is a sign of leadership failure,” Obama said on March 16, 2006.
“Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is
shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our
children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure
of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose
the effort to increase America's debt limit".

My,my. I find it amazing how having a "black,liberal/progressive" as
POTUS can change the minds of so many uber-radicals.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110720180...

Why did Obama vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 but now
that he is President its ok?
http://www.nationalreview.com/...…

Here is what Obama said back in 2006 about raising the debt ceiling...

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt
limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S.
Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on
ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our
Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt
weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that
‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of
bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.
America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans
deserve better."

Interesting huh?

The PHANTOM

7/25/2011 1:45:00 PM

On Jul 25, 5:23 am, ColdWarDinosaur <wynnehen...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Scout wrote:
>
> > "Felix Reynaldo" <FelixReyna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:j0ip9b$m3r$1@dont-email.me...
>
> >> "ColdWarDinosaur" <wynnehen...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:j0il2a$2u7$1@dont-email.me...
> >>> You have to wonder under what circumstances people exist in that they
> >>> could gleefully take the nation off a cliff? Are they all farmers or
> >>> some other demographic that does not fear the consequences of national
> >>> financial disaster? Are they political extremists that have gone
> >>> collectively insane? Are they financial speculators betting against
> >>> their own country??
>
> >>> Other countries would call their actions either economic terrorism or
> >>> sabotage. Either way, they should be called upon to answer for their
> >>> crimes if they cause a catastrophic drop in the markets this coming
> >>> week.
>
> >>>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/24kristof.html?_...
>
> >>> --
>
> >> Dino, these people are crazy extortionists. They raised the debt
> >> ceiling for Reagan seventeen (17) times but for a black POTUS, these
> >> scumbags will not rest until he is lynched by his balls.
>
> > Yea, but I bet if Obama was asking for the amount that Reagan was, it
> > wouldn't be an issue.
>
> > Yet under Reagan the debt ceiling was raised a TOTAL of $2.14 Trillion
> > Dollars.
>
> > Obama on the other hand is asking for a $2.4 Trillion dollar increase
> > all at once and he hasn't even been in office 3 years. Yet, has already
> > increased the debt by some $3,7 Trillion dollars.
>
> > Seems people are concerned that may mean he intends to add over $5
> > Trillion dollars to our debt and do it in 4 years. After all, why else
> > would he need such a massive increase in the debt ceiling unless he was
> > planning to use it?
>
> > Is Obama looking to match or exceed Bush' debt and do so in only half
> > the time?
>
> > Some people do wonder.
>
> I think people need to look at how all these conservatives,
> "christians" and Tea Partiers allowed Bush and Cheney to bankrupt the
> country and said NOTHING! They are spinelessly held in thrall by peer
> pressure to aspire to some non-existent "The past was better" crap.
>
> --
> ~~
> HW- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

LIAR !!!!

http://www.cafetax.com/2010/09/20/bush-vs-obama-spending-...

..Bush vs. Obama Spending the Truth

By Joe Arsenault On September 20, 2010

Click here to read a short analysis on the costs for 2010.

It seems as if there has been enough political propaganda in the past
4 years to really become lost between facts and lies. I can’t
guarantee you any sort of absolute truth, but what we have available
is a certain level of information, which can be dissected to ascertain
a level of truth.

A big political and economic topic; Obama is spending at record
levels. Some are saying Obama has spent more than Bush in 1 year, and
the rising and unstable federal deficit is now Obama’s fault
completely. Two years ago everything was Bush’s fault, because of war
expenditures. So which is it? Is there any truth to any of these
claims?

How much has each president spent every year and how has the federal
deficit been affected?

Let me disclaim, I made it a point to try and be statistical without
bias (never truly 100% possible). I am not able to capture every
variable and create some magical algorithm that can settle all the
political arguments about our federal debt. What I can do is provide
you with some factual data, which may help support or shape your
opinion.

Below are the numbers through 2009. * 2010 has not concluded and I did
not want to use estimated numbers (at the time this was written).

Fiscal Years 2000 to 2008

Year GDP-US$ billion Total Spending-fed$ billion Federal Deficit-total
$ billion
2000 9951.5 1789.22 a -236.24 a
2001 10286.2 1863.19 a -128.24 a
2002 10642.3 2011.15 a 157.75 a
2003 11142.1 2160.12 a 377.59 a
2004 11867.8 2293.01 a 412.73 a
2005 12638.4 2472.20 a 318.34 a
2006 13398.9 2655.44 a 248.19 a
2007 14077.6 2728.94 a 160.94 a
2008 14441.4 2982.55 a 458.55 a

Spending increased every year through 2008. $730 billion of that
spending was attributed to military expenditures. That is about 24% of
the government spending. It is safe to assume that the war was a
significant contributing factor to the massive deficit. The seven
years of high war costs are part of the Bush administration, not
Obama. This is obviously a significant factor in understanding the
countries path to a large federal deficit.

For clarity, Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplemental’s
(not the regular budget process), but the spending is reflected in the
numbers above.

Now, we have one full year of factual numbers to dissect Obama’s
spending. Let’s take a look at the numbers. Some argue that the
spending was passed in 2008 under President Bush. Government budgets
are flexible and spending can be changed through legislation at any
point. This is important to remember when considering that 2009
budgets derive in majority from 2008 (Bush term).

Year GDP-US$ billion Total Spending-fed$ billion Federal Deficit-total
$ billion
2009 14601.4 3517.7 a 1412.7 a

Obama spent approximately $535 billion more year-over-year then Bush’s
highest year of spending. Because of the continuing recession and
slowed GDP, the deficit increased by a staggering $960 billion in 1
year.

$794 billion was spent on military expenditures, more than in 2008
while Bush was still president. That cost is almost a wash, but it is
a surprising number considering the anti-war stance Obama drove during
his campaign.

I also do not want to confuse the reduction in federal revenue with
the increase in our federal deficit. This would be unfair to Obama in
comparing his spending to Bush’s spending. Rising unemployment and
slowed GDP lead to less tax revenue which also increases the federal
deficit.

Obama spent the following in new legislation in 2009.

- TARP Program – $154 billion (money spent during Obama’s
administration but passed under Bush)

- American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – $202 billion

- Omnibus Spending Bill – $410 billion

This represents about $766 billion in spending directly attributable
to the increase of $960 billion in the federal deficit. With the
increase in military spending, that leaves about $140 billion left,
which can presumably be attributed to inflationary budgetary
expenditures (originally from the Bush office) and reduced revenue
from the economic recession. Recessions and high unemployment add to
the deficit because they result in less tax revenue as explained
above.

The spending in 2009 was high. The war spending struck me as
interesting because Obama’s political stance during the election was
to minimize current war efforts, not increase them. No legislation was
passed in 2009 to reduce this spending. In Obama’s defense, the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in 2001 estimated an $850 billion
surplus by 2009. The actual numbers have taken a $2.2 trillion dollar
swing. Because we are comparing 8 years of the Bush administration
against 1 year of the Obama administration, Bush obviously accounts
for a larger portion of that swing. The Bush administration’s policy
must take responsibility for the majority of the negative swing in the
deficit. They handed the Obama administration a “hot potato” and it
hasn’t cooled.

With a heavily skewed analysis (8 years of data vs. 1 year), you can
argue that the spending on an annualized basis is a more accurate
representation of spending.

Looking at 1 year against 8, Obama has been a major piece in spending
our way into what is considered an unstable federal deficit.
Historically, economists claim that increased spending helps take an
economy out of a recession. The question seems to be,what is the cost
and how much spending is appropriate? There isn’t a graph advising
leaders on how to effectively follow that methodology.

To conclude, it seems that both Presidents are to blame for leading
the country into a large federal deficit. The cumulative cost of the
military contributed greatly to handing Obama a $460 billion deficit
instead of a $850 billion surplus. Unfortunately, instead of cutting
spending, Obama has spent more money than the government has ever
spent in a single year and contributed to the substantial federal
budget deficit increase. We are now at the highest deficit levels
compared to GDP, second only to World War II. Obama may take note of
that, but in 2010 he continued passing legislation that increases
expenses through the next decade.

Scout

7/25/2011 5:21:00 PM

"ColdWarDinosaur" <wynnehenry!@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j0jg7c$2g0$4@dont-email.me...
> Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Felix Reynaldo" <FelixReynaldo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:j0ip9b$m3r$1@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> "ColdWarDinosaur" <wynnehenry!@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:j0il2a$2u7$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> You have to wonder under what circumstances people exist in that they
>>>> could gleefully take the nation off a cliff? Are they all farmers or
>>>> some other demographic that does not fear the consequences of national
>>>> financial disaster? Are they political extremists that have gone
>>>> collectively insane? Are they financial speculators betting against
>>>> their own country??
>>>>
>>>> Other countries would call their actions either economic terrorism or
>>>> sabotage. Either way, they should be called upon to answer for their
>>>> crimes if they cause a catastrophic drop in the markets this coming
>>>> week.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/24kristof.html?_...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Dino, these people are crazy extortionists. They raised the debt
>>> ceiling for Reagan seventeen (17) times but for a black POTUS, these
>>> scumbags will not rest until he is lynched by his balls.
>>
>> Yea, but I bet if Obama was asking for the amount that Reagan was, it
>> wouldn't be an issue.
>>
>> Yet under Reagan the debt ceiling was raised a TOTAL of $2.14 Trillion
>> Dollars.
>>
>> Obama on the other hand is asking for a $2.4 Trillion dollar increase
>> all at once and he hasn't even been in office 3 years. Yet, has already
>> increased the debt by some $3,7 Trillion dollars.
>>
>> Seems people are concerned that may mean he intends to add over $5
>> Trillion dollars to our debt and do it in 4 years. After all, why else
>> would he need such a massive increase in the debt ceiling unless he was
>> planning to use it?
>>
>> Is Obama looking to match or exceed Bush' debt and do so in only half
>> the time?
>>
>> Some people do wonder.
>
> I think people need to look at how all these conservatives,
> "christians" and Tea Partiers allowed Bush and Cheney to bankrupt the
> country and said NOTHING!

Yea, yea, the liberal democrats had absolutely nothing to do with that.....

Yet, when you actually run the numbers Democrats oversaw more deficit and
more debt that did Republicans.

I think you need to lose that partisanship of yours for a moment and try
looking at the numbers objectively.

>They are spinelessly held in thrall by peer
> pressure to aspire to some non-existent "The past was better" crap.
>
> --
> ~~
> HW

Scout

7/25/2011 5:24:00 PM

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4e2d67e5$0$2141$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>Yea, but I bet if Obama was asking for the amount that Reagan was, it
>>wouldn't be an issue.
>
> Yes it would.
>
>>Yet under Reagan the debt ceiling was raised a TOTAL of $2.14 Trillion
>>Dollars.
>
> Adjusted for inflation that's $5.5 trillion.

Yep, and nice how Obama seems on track to spend that kind of money in 4
years....and all the liberal bitching about Reagan's spending...are saying
NOTHING.

>>Obama on the other hand is asking for a $2.4 Trillion dollar increase all
>>at
>>once and he hasn't even been in office 3 years.
>
> Why is there a deficit?

Simple. They are spending far more than they get in revenue.

>>Seems people are concerned that may mean he intends to add over $5
>>Trillion
>>dollars to our debt and do it in 4 years.
>
> Why is there a deficit?
>
> Are you honest enough to answer that question?

Yep.

pl.comp.programming

Co zastapilo DirectPlay?

Dariusz Zolna

mx

Dariusz Zolna

mx

ColdWarDinosaur

ColdWarDinosaur

rfischer

The PHANTOM

The PHANTOM

Scout

Scout

x Login to ForumsZone