It is important to clarify that while Niven created the Kzinti and the known space universe, he did not write the Man-Kzin wars, but rather they were written by his friends.
Ok your examples make sense. They are more complicated than need be, however. Consider two laser pointers pointed at two different spots. Time them so that first one is on, then the first one goes off right as the second one goes on. The point of light traveled at an infinite velocity to move from one spot to another in zero time at all!
Would your example still work, if, instead of a beam of light, we were talking about a rapidfire stream of tiny particles moving very, very fast?
I would really like to understand your argument, but it is eluding me. No matter how fast the intersection point is mathematically moving, you still have to wait for the next particle to hit before you see the spot move, and this will never be infinite.
I think there is a flaw in your example. Mathematically, the intersection of the ray leaving your laser pointer intersecting with the ball may be moving infinitely fast, agreed. However, when you are moving the laser pointer around, the light beam is not a straight line, due to the fact that the photons are moving only at the speed of light, and not infinitely. That is, when you move the laser pointer, the spot on the wall laggs behind slightly at a delay related to the speed of light and the distance from the laser pointer to the wall.
Now consider moving the laser pointer such that the spot moves over the edge of the ball and onto the wall. Mathematically the spot ought to jump instantly from the ball to the wall, meaning that the spot moves infinitely fast. In reality, the photons that previously only had to travel so far as the ball, now travel so far as the wall, which takes some time, meaning that the transition is slowed due to lightspeed and is not infinite.
So you want a completely detailed model of the world, down to bricks and individual grains of sand? You want it all be simulated with physics so that you can interact with everything in a plausible way?
Well, I can tell you that any one of these things currently is a struggle to get to work at all, even assuming you are willing to wait hours per frame. You want a pile of thousands of bricks falling into a pile, with correct collision detection? This is an area of active research.
You want the water on the beach to swirl and splash? How about a piece of paper that you can burn? Again, a challenging set of problems that we are just beginning to solve in a way that looks good. http://graphics.stanford.edu/~fedkiw/
How about the snot you pull out of your nose? You want to pick your nose and have the snot squish in a gooey fashion? We can do it, but just barely, if you want to wait all week for a few seconds of animation.
I don't think you know what a 'word processor' is. A word processor is a text editor that lets you apply formatting without forcing the user to type markup.
Are you suggesting that we simply type HTML into web forms, and call that a 'word processor'?
Under your definition, is vi+latex a 'word processor'?
Is this Comment box I'm typing in to make this post a 'word processor'? I think it is this issue that is bothering people about your comments.
And to provide some context, 10 years ago I would have posted almost exactly the same post, except I would have fully meant each word. Such is the seductive cult that is the FSF.
I am the legit owner of this UID. Lately, however, I Have noticed that slashdot has degenerated to the point where reasonable discussion and articles no longer exist. I am attempting to parody slashdot to see if people even notice. IT looks like you, for one, are smart enough to tell the difference.
Would these be useful for young nerds to wear to school, as a protection against bullies. Imagine being a bully taking a nice swing at your gut, when his hand his stopped by space-age meteor shielding!
Articles and studies such as this are missing the point.
First of all, we need to stop talking about 'open source' once and for all. It diverts our minds from the true benefit of Free Software, i.e., freedom.
Second, questions such as 'is free software better' and 'is free software more secure' miss the point. The benefit of Free software is Freedom. If Free Software is more powerful, featureful, secure, and updated in a more timely manner, so much the better. But if not, remember the old saying: "he who would sacrifice freedom for a little security deserves neither". Any moral human who cares about freedom would gladly use software that is technically inferior, if it provides more freedom.
I suggest slashdot would start censoring the term 'open source'. Any articles that talk about 'open source' software should not be accepted. Comments that use 'open source' to refer to Free Software should result in that user being banned, and if the user was an Anonymous coward, his subnet should be banned.
Before you go off about how I am proposing to restrict freedom of speech, remember this: There is but one legitimate use of totalitarianist tactics: and that is in the defense of freedom. Freedom at any cost!!!
It does not come down to the games. Many people say this, and they are all wrong. Fun games have nothing to do with hardware. We had great games on the NES. We are talking about new hardware, which enables better graphics (and possibly new controllers, or better online play, or whatever).
The main issue with video game hardware is which has the best hardware for doing graphics, simulating physics, and so forth. Why do so many slashdotters insist on confusing discussions of graphics hardware with the entirely irrelevant discussion of 'fun' or 'games'?
Games are great, and fun is fun, but they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with technology. And I certainly see no reason why anyone should expect games to be 'more fun' as technology improves, nor do I understand why anyone would be surprised when the games are NOT more fun.
I don't understand your reasoning at all. If I were asked 'how does my program work', and in fact I had implemented quicksort, why would I first tell you the definition of a sorted list, then start going through the details of my algorithm? After a while you might realize that I had implemented quicksort, but wouldn't it have been much easier for me just to say "I used quicksort"?
Now, if you indeed want to probe my knowledge of sorting algorithms, to make sure that I didn't just memorize some code and parrot it back, you could ask me "ok, great, quicksort, now why did you choose quicksort, and how does THAT work"?
And your other possible answers about "it works because I tested it", are also reasonable first responses, it is just a matter of how exactly you phrased your question and how the question was interpreted. Maybe "why does it work" sounds like it means "how do you know it worked"? In that case, "because I tested it" would be the logical answer.
Judging by the quality of the vast majority of blogs, I don't think we necessarily need blogs to even EASIER to make. This would just increase the deluge of low quality, worthless blogs.
If you thought livejournal was self-indulgent and obnoxious already...
Slashdot Mirror
Now those are some bizarre morals. About equivalent to paying a large fee for forgetting to feed the meter.
And this is exactly why Apple shut down the clone manufacturers, they just can't stand the thought of another Apple cart "stealing" their business.
You do realize that a PhD has very little to do with studying, and more to do with learning how to be creative and doing original research, right?
It is important to clarify that while Niven created the Kzinti and the known space universe, he did not write
the Man-Kzin wars, but rather they were written by his friends.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-Kzin_Wars
Some of us value freedom above convenience.
Nothing that hasn't been around for many years.
This is no more 'Real' 3D than the other polarized 3D systems that have been around forever.
To quote Jimbo: "Hah Hah!"
You are aware that the legions of Ayn Rand fanatics believe that altruism is inherently evil, right?
Ok your examples make sense. They are more complicated than need be, however.
Consider two laser pointers pointed at two different spots. Time them so that first one is on, then the first one goes off
right as the second one goes on. The point of light traveled at an infinite velocity to move from one spot to another in
zero time at all!
Would your example still work, if, instead of a beam of light, we were talking about a rapidfire stream of tiny particles
moving very, very fast?
I would really like to understand your argument, but it is eluding me. No matter how fast the intersection point is mathematically
moving, you still have to wait for the next particle to hit before you see the spot move, and this will never be infinite.
I think there is a flaw in your example.
Mathematically, the intersection of the ray leaving your laser pointer intersecting with the ball may be moving infinitely
fast, agreed.
However, when you are moving the laser pointer around, the light beam is not a straight line, due to the fact that
the photons are moving only at the speed of light, and not infinitely.
That is, when you move the laser pointer, the spot on the wall laggs behind slightly at a delay related to the speed of light
and the distance from the laser pointer to the wall.
Now consider moving the laser pointer such that the spot moves over the edge of the ball and onto the wall.
Mathematically the spot ought to jump instantly from the ball to the wall, meaning that the spot moves infinitely fast.
In reality, the photons that previously only had to travel so far as the ball, now travel so far as the wall, which takes
some time, meaning that the transition is slowed due to lightspeed and is not infinite.
We have 3D online multiplayer games.
New technology is cool, but what is new here?
So you want a completely detailed model of the world, down to bricks and individual grains of sand?
2 004-AMF/index.html
You want it all be simulated with physics so that you can interact with everything in a plausible way?
Well, I can tell you that any one of these things currently is a struggle to get to work at all,
even assuming you are willing to wait hours per frame. You want a pile of thousands of bricks
falling into a pile, with correct collision detection? This is an area of active research.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~djames/
You want the water on the beach to swirl and splash?
How about a piece of paper that you can burn?
Again, a challenging set of problems that we are just beginning to solve in a way that looks good.
http://graphics.stanford.edu/~fedkiw/
How about the snot you pull out of your nose?
You want to pick your nose and have the snot squish in a gooey fashion?
We can do it, but just barely, if you want to wait all week for a few seconds of animation.
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/b-cam/Papers/Goktekin-
Now, what you want is to combine all these simulations, plus many more.
Also you want it to run in real time on a desktop PC.
I predict we will have this in 50 years, and that is being extremely optimistic.
If Moore's law is really ending, then maybe much longer.
Hardware physics cards may be just the thing we need to make it possible one day.
Nevermind that the "open source movement" is nothing but a degraded, impotent version of
the Free Software Movement.
I don't think you know what a 'word processor' is.
A word processor is a text editor that lets you apply formatting without forcing the user to type
markup.
Are you suggesting that we simply type HTML into web forms, and call that a 'word processor'?
Under your definition, is vi+latex a 'word processor'?
Is this Comment box I'm typing in to make this post a 'word processor'?
I think it is this issue that is bothering people about your comments.
Am I the only who one who thinks 'mebibyte' sounds really, really stupid?
And to provide some context,
10 years ago I would have posted almost exactly the same post, except I would have fully meant each word.
Such is the seductive cult that is the FSF.
I am the legit owner of this UID.
Lately, however, I Have noticed that slashdot has degenerated to the point where reasonable discussion
and articles no longer exist. I am attempting to parody slashdot to see if people even notice.
IT looks like you, for one, are smart enough to tell the difference.
Would these be useful for young nerds to wear to school, as a protection against bullies.
Imagine being a bully taking a nice swing at your gut, when his hand his stopped by space-age meteor
shielding!
Maybe we can get thinkgeek to carry it....
Articles and studies such as this are missing the point.
First of all, we need to stop talking about 'open source' once and for all. It diverts our minds
from the true benefit of Free Software, i.e., freedom.
Second, questions such as 'is free software better' and 'is free software more secure' miss the point.
The benefit of Free software is Freedom. If Free Software is more powerful, featureful, secure, and
updated in a more timely manner, so much the better. But if not, remember the old saying: "he who
would sacrifice freedom for a little security deserves neither". Any moral human who cares about freedom
would gladly use software that is technically inferior, if it provides more freedom.
I suggest slashdot would start censoring the term 'open source'. Any articles that talk about 'open
source' software should not be accepted. Comments that use 'open source' to refer to Free Software
should result in that user being banned, and if the user was an Anonymous coward, his subnet should
be banned.
Before you go off about how I am proposing to restrict freedom of speech, remember this:
There is but one legitimate use of totalitarianist tactics: and that is in the defense of freedom.
Freedom at any cost!!!
It does not come down to the games. Many people say this, and they are all wrong.
Fun games have nothing to do with hardware. We had great games on the NES.
We are talking about new hardware, which enables better graphics (and possibly new controllers, or better
online play, or whatever).
The main issue with video game hardware is which has the best hardware for doing graphics, simulating
physics, and so forth. Why do so many slashdotters insist on confusing discussions of graphics hardware
with the entirely irrelevant discussion of 'fun' or 'games'?
Games are great, and fun is fun, but they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with technology.
And I certainly see no reason why anyone should expect games to be 'more fun' as technology improves,
nor do I understand why anyone would be surprised when the games are NOT more fun.
I don't understand your reasoning at all.
If I were asked 'how does my program work', and in fact I had implemented quicksort, why would I first
tell you the definition of a sorted list, then start going through the details of my algorithm?
After a while you might realize that I had implemented quicksort, but wouldn't it have been much
easier for me just to say "I used quicksort"?
Now, if you indeed want to probe my knowledge of sorting algorithms, to make sure that I didn't
just memorize some code and parrot it back, you could ask me "ok, great, quicksort, now why did you
choose quicksort, and how does THAT work"?
And your other possible answers about "it works because I tested it", are also reasonable first responses,
it is just a matter of how exactly you phrased your question and how the question was interpreted.
Maybe "why does it work" sounds like it means "how do you know it worked"? In that case,
"because I tested it" would be the logical answer.
How about something like python or perl?
Load up the python interpreter, type in a couple lines of code, and away you go!
Calculation is not math.
Math is doing proofs.
Just because elementary school "math class" omits the proofs doesn't mean that doing calculations
is math.
Judging by the quality of the vast majority of blogs, I don't think we necessarily need blogs to
even EASIER to make. This would just increase the deluge of low quality, worthless blogs.
If you thought livejournal was self-indulgent and obnoxious already...