TheINQ is so F'in...

Well, I'm not a gr8 fan of INQ. But, just like People magazine get some people happy, they do provide amusing/entertaining reading. And sometimes they actually provide usefull info.

Plus, they're one of the few sites that support pocket.aspx view for us souls with pocket pc's - moot point, but hey - they're not causing harm are they now?
 
This is blog material at best. Does this guy think he's a journalist?

I disagree with the content of the article, but what you've never heard of an Op-Ed piece in a newspaper?

Seriously, you know what you're getting with the InQ before you go there. Heck the entire article keeps saying ;

"..I pondered..."
"...make it seem like..."
"According to a friend..."
"I stand by my earlier conclusions that..."

The InQ is tasty cotton Candy, not much substance, but tasty emptiness that gives you something to talk about.

Personally I think he's wrong since not just the shiny physics would be good from a GPU it can obviously do great vector physics (does vertex mapping and occlusion detection/culling quite easily), the particle physics may be a little more difficult, but that would play well to the individual element aspect of a GPU where each particle is treated like a pixel and then have the forces applied on to it. Liquids may be a little more difficult, but I'm not sure if they haven't already done some free form boundary math in things like BLOB shadows. For other aspects you may have to treat it like rays in the way they do for soft shadows, and push out an imaginary string line boundary for moving liquids. Blood splatters would be like 'heavy' photons of light so should be easy to calculate, but the way a drop of water splashes when it hits the ground or a gas canisters ruptures and leaks everywhere would involve very non-linear physics and therefore might be somewhat more difficult for things use to drawing essentially rays.