OpenCL isn't supported (in actuality) by Nvidia yet, unfortunately.
OpenCL would be the way to go, but I simply don't trust Nvidia and ATi (especially Nvidia) to both get true, full, interchangeable support going.
DirectX 11 would be a much more useful target in actuality, since the hardware will support DX11 fully (thank you gamers), and the learning curve for programming using DX11 is much lower than an all-new API.
AMD (ATi) jumped on the OpenCL bandwagon pretty quickly after realizing they weren't getting shit done with Stream (while Nvidia WAS getting software out with CUDA and moneyhats).
OpenCL would be the way to go ideally, sure, for many reasons. But I simply think that in actuality DX11 will win out and will be easier (in terms of availability of resources and programmers), at least in the short term.
Of course, in an ideal world, we'd have scientists generalizing tasks and engineers rigging up FPGAs and then true hardware solutions being fabbed out.
And if your work is taking advantage of multiple cores as you imply, I would suggest you DO buy some new video cards, and maybe make use of them to do your "real work".
Hell, DirectX 11 will be giving us all a standard language for GPU computing. No more bullshit between ATi and Nvidia.
On the contrary, I think that in the west, this procedure will be available to the unwashed octomoms to be. We'll be sure to have built-in defects and variation to promote equality and diversity.
You often CAN prove a negative. Many things are mutually exclusive, and if you can prove one thing to be true, you can also eliminate the possibility of the other thing being true. If I flip a coin and it lands on heads, I can prove that it didn't land on tails. If you claim that I can't prove that because I may be looking at it wrong or some other bullshit, then what you're actually claiming is that it is impossible to prove ANYTHING, and thus it is impossible to KNOW anything (something which is technically correct, but utterly useless).
In terms of a religion, you don't need to prove that something doesn't exist, you merely need to prove that what does exist is false.
I can easily prove that the flying spaghetti monster, as we know it, does not exist.
It's origins can be traced back to whoever it was that made that shit up as a lame jab at religion. It is an admitted work of fiction. The author's statements can all be refuted, and thus, all we know of the flying spaghetti monster can be proven to be false.
The entire basis of the flying spaghetti monster can be proven to be a work of fiction, and thus, whether or not an actual entity fitting that description exists, the entire basis of any religion following the flying spaghetti monster would be shattered.
Internet atheists just give up or trot out ridiculous "can't prove a negative" arguments when challenged to disprove the existence of a god. The focus (for Christianity) should be on disproving the facts presented in the Bible and by the church, the basis of the religion. This can easily be done with great certainty in many cases using a bit of history, a bit of reading, and a bit of critical thinking. The problem is most internet atheists fail to do any of those three things. They can google and copy and paste, though.
It comes down to what you choose to believe and what they choose to believe. As shit gets older, it becomes much harder to "prove" which is right. The bottom line is no one alive today knows what the fuck happened thousands of years ago. Even if god appeared in the sky for the whole world to see and hear, there would be skeptics looking for the projector and the speakers.
Atheists demand to be shown proof. Believers have faith. Challenging a believer to provide proof is futile. Mocking belief in the flying spaghetti monster, thor, etc. is simple jackassery.
Most atheists are only concerned with shitting on religion, and making sure each and every one of their friends is an atheist.
Then they go on the internet and post on a forum about how they hate that the holidays are coming, because they'll have to go to church, and how they can't tell their mom that they're an atheist because it will hurt her, especially after the divorce.
Basically: Atheists on the internet are just stupid teenagers.
True atheists usually turn out to be amoral, unethical, opportunistic, selfish, assholes. Oh, and did I mention they think they're better than anyone else?
And the army keeps around some color blind people to help read aerial photos.
They've got different pattern recognition shit going on, and can often spot shit that has been camouflaged.
(I don't know for sure if they still do this, what with computers and satellites and various wavelength sensors, but the Navy still has people navigate by sexton every night.)
I know about IT, having worked there for many years. In fact, I'm still working there. Keep up the good work, I know there's a lot of bullshit to put up with.
Actual:
I heard some buzzwords. When can we implement them in order to actualize our potential? Also, I'll need you to stay late and fix my computer. It's got some sort of virus or something I don't know.
(As you're fixing his machine, you see a note on his desk right next to the post-it with his passwords)
Hire grad student from India [x] Get what's his name to train him. [ ] Fire what's his name. [ ] Synergize. [ ]
First of all, the Milo/Milly demo was pre-recorded, scripted, bullshit. The most it can do live is some basic voice recognition (we all know MS's track record with that) and some rudimentary image recognition, the likes of which we've seen in other games already. And Walmart greeters? A senior citizen at minimum wage is cheaper and more reliable.
As for specific reasons:
Because neither company has show more than a tech demo.
Because Nintendo already HAS a working motion control system.
Because these things are NOT standard for their consoles, developers won't readily take advantage of them. Hell, the Sixaxis motion controls in the PS3 ARE standard, and they're a fucking joke.
Because the core audiences of the 360 and PS3 have been saying for the last three years that motion controls are for babies.
Because Natal can't see black people.
Because all we've seen from Natal is a girl spazzing out, and a pre-recorded tech demo from Peter "Everything I Say is Bullshit" Molyneux.
Because Sony's wand is nowhere near complete, and (from what we've seen so far) requires the wand AND the already-failed Eyetoy.
Because Natal will follow the general MS rule of pricing accessories extra high to offset the costs of their warranty extension program.
Because the Wii and DS have already sucked up most of the (previously) non-gamers that MS and Sony hope to target.
So, when do these things launch again?
Don't get me wrong. I'd love for these things to be great so I could play some more fun games. But they reek of fail. They'll be included as standard for the next gen, and then we'll see what will happen.
However, I am on my 4th Wii. First (launch) Wii showed graphical artifacting in Twilight Princess. Second Wii wouldn't sync remotes properly. Third Wii crashed consistently when trying to load Wii Sports Golf (disc was fine, and I believe I got it to crash consistently with other games). Fourth Wii is going strong.
Slashdot Mirror
OpenCL isn't supported (in actuality) by Nvidia yet, unfortunately.
OpenCL would be the way to go, but I simply don't trust Nvidia and ATi (especially Nvidia) to both get true, full, interchangeable support going.
DirectX 11 would be a much more useful target in actuality, since the hardware will support DX11 fully (thank you gamers), and the learning curve for programming using DX11 is much lower than an all-new API.
AMD (ATi) jumped on the OpenCL bandwagon pretty quickly after realizing they weren't getting shit done with Stream (while Nvidia WAS getting software out with CUDA and moneyhats).
OpenCL would be the way to go ideally, sure, for many reasons. But I simply think that in actuality DX11 will win out and will be easier (in terms of availability of resources and programmers), at least in the short term.
Of course, in an ideal world, we'd have scientists generalizing tasks and engineers rigging up FPGAs and then true hardware solutions being fabbed out.
Yet you could be running those regressions on GPUs for huge performance increases.
And if you used DirectX 11, you would be able to run that shit on Nvidia OR ATi hardware WITHOUT dealing with CUDA/Stream/OpenCL.
I hope you're not using a GUI.
And if your work is taking advantage of multiple cores as you imply, I would suggest you DO buy some new video cards, and maybe make use of them to do your "real work".
Hell, DirectX 11 will be giving us all a standard language for GPU computing. No more bullshit between ATi and Nvidia.
But that's from MS. That can't be a good thing.
Mac shops have admins?
I thought they just had baristas.
If MS does that, they'd be sued to high heaven.
Even though you're gay for linux, you seem to be able to see /. for what it is.
I don't see two wrongs.
I don't even see 1 wrong.
Sucks? Sure.
Wrong? No.
(Three lefts make a right, and so does half of a Michigan left.)
On the contrary, I think that in the west, this procedure will be available to the unwashed octomoms to be. We'll be sure to have built-in defects and variation to promote equality and diversity.
The normals will be paying for it, as usual.
You often CAN prove a negative.
Many things are mutually exclusive, and if you can prove one thing to be true, you can also eliminate the possibility of the other thing being true.
If I flip a coin and it lands on heads, I can prove that it didn't land on tails. If you claim that I can't prove that because I may be looking at it wrong or some other bullshit, then what you're actually claiming is that it is impossible to prove ANYTHING, and thus it is impossible to KNOW anything (something which is technically correct, but utterly useless).
In terms of a religion, you don't need to prove that something doesn't exist, you merely need to prove that what does exist is false.
I can easily prove that the flying spaghetti monster, as we know it, does not exist.
It's origins can be traced back to whoever it was that made that shit up as a lame jab at religion. It is an admitted work of fiction. The author's statements can all be refuted, and thus, all we know of the flying spaghetti monster can be proven to be false.
The entire basis of the flying spaghetti monster can be proven to be a work of fiction, and thus, whether or not an actual entity fitting that description exists, the entire basis of any religion following the flying spaghetti monster would be shattered.
Internet atheists just give up or trot out ridiculous "can't prove a negative" arguments when challenged to disprove the existence of a god. The focus (for Christianity) should be on disproving the facts presented in the Bible and by the church, the basis of the religion. This can easily be done with great certainty in many cases using a bit of history, a bit of reading, and a bit of critical thinking. The problem is most internet atheists fail to do any of those three things. They can google and copy and paste, though.
It comes down to what you choose to believe and what they choose to believe. As shit gets older, it becomes much harder to "prove" which is right. The bottom line is no one alive today knows what the fuck happened thousands of years ago. Even if god appeared in the sky for the whole world to see and hear, there would be skeptics looking for the projector and the speakers.
Atheists demand to be shown proof. Believers have faith. Challenging a believer to provide proof is futile. Mocking belief in the flying spaghetti monster, thor, etc. is simple jackassery.
You said "straw man".
Calling something a "straw man" is the ultimate internet cop-out.
You lose.
Most atheists are only concerned with shitting on religion, and making sure each and every one of their friends is an atheist.
Then they go on the internet and post on a forum about how they hate that the holidays are coming, because they'll have to go to church, and how they can't tell their mom that they're an atheist because it will hurt her, especially after the divorce.
Basically: Atheists on the internet are just stupid teenagers.
True atheists usually turn out to be amoral, unethical, opportunistic, selfish, assholes. Oh, and did I mention they think they're better than anyone else?
(I am not religious.)
I want a medical procedure that will make me highly toxic to all around me.
I don't want some nut like you telling me what medical procedures I can/cannot have.
And the army keeps around some color blind people to help read aerial photos.
They've got different pattern recognition shit going on, and can often spot shit that has been camouflaged.
(I don't know for sure if they still do this, what with computers and satellites and various wavelength sensors, but the Navy still has people navigate by sexton every night.)
The Russians are demanding every citizen be a pure-bred Russian?
Putin is moving more quickly than we anticipated.
We're fucked.
"nobody is reproducing with their car"
They're trying, though.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/car_lovers/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2000899/Man-admits-having-sex-with-1000-cars.html
Just two of many sad examples.
Let's take it full circle.
We need to progress IVF and genetic screening to make sure that the people who do use IVF don't pass on fail genes.
Soon, we will be able to build an army of supermen.
I think that has more to do with people being horny.
Ideal:
I know about IT, having worked there for many years. In fact, I'm still working there. Keep up the good work, I know there's a lot of bullshit to put up with.
Actual:
I heard some buzzwords. When can we implement them in order to actualize our potential? Also, I'll need you to stay late and fix my computer. It's got some sort of virus or something I don't know.
(As you're fixing his machine, you see a note on his desk right next to the post-it with his passwords)
Hire grad student from India [x]
Get what's his name to train him. [ ]
Fire what's his name. [ ]
Synergize. [ ]
Assuming this means the height of the debris (and not the fireball/whatever):
Doubtful.
Gravity is a force and thus affects the acceleration of mass, which runs on time squared.
Displacement runs flat with respect to velocity and time.
Add in some wiggle room due to the lack of atmosphere to slow shit down.
The "I'm lazy" estimate says this is more like a 800 foot explosion on earth.
No, bu t the video of the impact will be edited for a new Cheez-It commercial.
Obvious flaw number 1:
Kites at 30,000 feet.
First of all, the Milo/Milly demo was pre-recorded, scripted, bullshit. The most it can do live is some basic voice recognition (we all know MS's track record with that) and some rudimentary image recognition, the likes of which we've seen in other games already. And Walmart greeters? A senior citizen at minimum wage is cheaper and more reliable.
As for specific reasons:
Because neither company has show more than a tech demo.
Because Nintendo already HAS a working motion control system.
Because these things are NOT standard for their consoles, developers won't readily take advantage of them. Hell, the Sixaxis motion controls in the PS3 ARE standard, and they're a fucking joke.
Because the core audiences of the 360 and PS3 have been saying for the last three years that motion controls are for babies.
Because Natal can't see black people.
Because all we've seen from Natal is a girl spazzing out, and a pre-recorded tech demo from Peter "Everything I Say is Bullshit" Molyneux.
Because Sony's wand is nowhere near complete, and (from what we've seen so far) requires the wand AND the already-failed Eyetoy.
Because Natal will follow the general MS rule of pricing accessories extra high to offset the costs of their warranty extension program.
Because the Wii and DS have already sucked up most of the (previously) non-gamers that MS and Sony hope to target.
So, when do these things launch again?
Don't get me wrong. I'd love for these things to be great so I could play some more fun games. But they reek of fail. They'll be included as standard for the next gen, and then we'll see what will happen.
Wii has My Life as a King and Echoes of Time.
They're not normal FF games by any means (one is a port of a DS game for shit's sake!), but that's 2 FF games. My Life as a King was neat at least.
Nintendo products are built like tanks.
However, I am on my 4th Wii.
First (launch) Wii showed graphical artifacting in Twilight Princess.
Second Wii wouldn't sync remotes properly.
Third Wii crashed consistently when trying to load Wii Sports Golf (disc was fine, and I believe I got it to crash consistently with other games).
Fourth Wii is going strong.
It's not even a nice idea in theory.
It's an obviously stupid idea.
Whoever though it up just wants attention, money, or both.