Absolutely! Moon dust is an excellent building material, especially if you combine it with oxygen (cooked out of silica) you combine with hydrogen (as found on the pole), which gives you water, that you mix with lime (which is abundant on the moon) to concrete.
You know the trouble is, this "bridge to nowhere" could very well turn out to be the "the bridge to everywhere". And it doesn't really matter if you do the right thing for all the wrong reasons, and even a blind chicken finds some kernel of corn. If the Japanese manage to install an industrial complex on the moon, we'll all look pretty stupid having made fun of it, because then they will simply drive space services prices down for rock bottom for anybody attempting to launch anything off earths gravity well.
you want to do more on the moon then drive around a couple robots that eventually break down. Like say, repair those robots, extract minerals, produce rocket fuel, build other robots, satellites and rockets, and just generally set yourself up to be relevant in space in the forseeable future (unlike say, current US strategy, which sets itself up for irrelevancy).
Sure, companies aren't nearly as volatile the stock markets make them out to be. But it's well known that if you partake in the stock market game (by giving out shares), you're accepting to be synched in step with the global economy.
So if you think you can fund a company that does better then the economy around it, do yourself a favor, don't put your stock on any stock market.
The idea that an individual company breaks out significantly from a massively synchronized economy is beyond ridicule. What you want is the world to get larger again, not to get news from halfway around it in milliseconds in front of your eyes, and generally just turn the big wheel of time back to the golden times of bliss and ignorance.
Newsflash: The world's become a small village, and every gossip and whisper is heard by many, many people. There's good and bad sides to this. But unless you're in possession of a time machine, you better get used to the idea and get on living.
I think you mistake traditional practice with "was intended to". Please show me the writ, paper, law or stated intend that markets derive their right of existence to long term investment?
Weather you like it or not, markets come into existence not because some founding fathers sat together and wrote some noble goal onto parchment, but because somebody has something to sell, which somebody else might want to buy. And even tough you might not like it if long term investment becomes meaningless, this is merely a function of the times we're living in where ALL things are more volatile, the markets merely reflect and amplify that.
Now as far as stupid goes, you should perform some serious navel gazing there, because you project your own failed expectations onto a changed reality. Stupid is, to expect reality to behave like you'd like it to.
What you seem to fail to realize is that growth has nothing to do with making a profit in derivative markets. And high frequency algorithmic trading has been here before, and now they step up that game. So as far as "change" goes, nothing has really changed, and nothing will, high frequency algorithmic trading is here to stay.
If anything, this is making markets much more volatile. And if you think last weeks 1000 DOW drop was an exception, those are going to be more frequent.
This is a statement about the probability of hostile and resource hungry alien life visiting us, it hinges on a lot of unknowns and miniscule probabilities. The conditions are:
* Intelligent alien life exists near us in time and space
* They perform interstellar spacefaring for migratory reasons
* They survived resource depletion of their entire home system
* Earth is in one of the nearest systems they choose for strip mining next
* Earth is more interesting in our solar system then the gas planets, the kuiper belt, the moon, mercury, venus, the sun and the asteroid belt.
* Their technology which enabled them to cross interstellar distances hasn't produced independence of extensive resources as a by product
* They are hostile and their inbred aggression somehow didn't result in them going extinct long before they reach other solar systems
* Their inbred aggression also hasn't led them to be fighting some war with somebody as capable as them
* They've not had any contact with any civilization they haven't quite wiped out, which would've produced another war as a by product, which they'd also survived.
There are quite a few unknowns in it, but looking at all the conditions that must be unequivocally *true*, it's quite unlikely we'll ever see that kind of alien around our neighborhood (or at least before we've managed to wipe ourselves out)
OpenGL is loosing because nobody pours billions into its marketing and because the vendor that happens to sell Direct3D also happens to sell 95% of Desktop operating systems and 30% of modern gaming consoles. They also happen (by this mechanism) to strong-arm hardware manufacturers to their will. Considering Direct3D is also from the company that's well known for Open talks/convention rigging, behind the scenes arm twisting and strategizing, committee stacking and standards sabotaging, you can begin to appreciate *why* is OpenGL is loosing.
google for frame matched sound or speculative rendering and you'll draw lots of blanks, so even if it's not made up, it's entirely out of context or completely esoteric. It's just "blahblahblah see, OpenGL is worse". If you can link me to *any* article that shows clearly how and why this makes OpenGL bad somehow, and Direct3D great, I will stand corrected.
speculative rendering, frame matched sound, frankly, I have no idea what you talk about, and it sounds to me like technobabble. Of course, I might just be completely ignorant, on the other hand, when what you're saying is true, it has not prevented anybody yet from doing a good game with OpenGL/OpenAL, despite a perceived disability to do technobbabble buzzwordy things.
- OpenGL works on Mac, Linux, WindowsXP and Direct3D does not (or only partially as in no DX11 for XP)
- OpenGL compatible APIs are present on the PS3, Wii, iPhone and many other devices, wheras Direct3D works on none of those.
- Cutting edge features can be accessed in OpenGL as they come out, whereas in Direct3D you'll have to wait until M$uck decides to iterate++ DX.
- A wealth of good online and dead tree documentation can be had for OpenGL
- A host of "killer apps" has been done and is continuing to be done with OpenGL (such as Maya, 3ds max, softimage, all iPhone games, Mac Games etc.)
Sure, it's all about MONEY, like when your Dictator of choice tells you that 50% of your customer base are left in the cold (as in Windows XP isn't running DX11). You keep chasing that M$ pipedreams of vendor enslavement, you keep screwing your customers every 3-4 turnkey years when M$ decides it's time for some strategic jostling.
Not to insult the 12 year old programmer target market, but it's well documented (by Carmack for example) that back then, Direct3D was a complete mess...
That mess you talk of, it's what happens when people get together, each with his own idea, and try to collaborate. It's not perfect, but it sure the hell beats a dictatorship...
Well, AutoCAD, Softimage, Maya, 3ds max, Cinema 4d, Rhino, ZBrush, yeah, it's just a "few" standing in the way of DirectX right? It's not like THE ENTIRE FUCKING PRODUCTIVITY APP INDUSTRY is using OpenGL, right? Geeze, get a clue man.
Don't feed the trolls, but here we go. DirectX is at least as old as OpenGL, but it's also chronically outdated on modern features that you can already use in OpenGL (that's thanks to opengl extensions as opposed to willy nilly snapshotting of features by M$uck)
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely! Moon dust is an excellent building material, especially if you combine it with oxygen (cooked out of silica) you combine with hydrogen (as found on the pole), which gives you water, that you mix with lime (which is abundant on the moon) to concrete.
You know the trouble is, this "bridge to nowhere" could very well turn out to be the "the bridge to everywhere". And it doesn't really matter if you do the right thing for all the wrong reasons, and even a blind chicken finds some kernel of corn. If the Japanese manage to install an industrial complex on the moon, we'll all look pretty stupid having made fun of it, because then they will simply drive space services prices down for rock bottom for anybody attempting to launch anything off earths gravity well.
you want to do more on the moon then drive around a couple robots that eventually break down. Like say, repair those robots, extract minerals, produce rocket fuel, build other robots, satellites and rockets, and just generally set yourself up to be relevant in space in the forseeable future (unlike say, current US strategy, which sets itself up for irrelevancy).
Obviously the Japanese have more in mind then some tourist visit and PR stunt. http://codeflow.org/articles/why-to-the-moon.html
http://codeflow.org/articles/why-to-the-moon.html
Sure, companies aren't nearly as volatile the stock markets make them out to be. But it's well known that if you partake in the stock market game (by giving out shares), you're accepting to be synched in step with the global economy.
So if you think you can fund a company that does better then the economy around it, do yourself a favor, don't put your stock on any stock market.
The idea that an individual company breaks out significantly from a massively synchronized economy is beyond ridicule. What you want is the world to get larger again, not to get news from halfway around it in milliseconds in front of your eyes, and generally just turn the big wheel of time back to the golden times of bliss and ignorance.
Newsflash: The world's become a small village, and every gossip and whisper is heard by many, many people. There's good and bad sides to this. But unless you're in possession of a time machine, you better get used to the idea and get on living.
I think you mistake traditional practice with "was intended to". Please show me the writ, paper, law or stated intend that markets derive their right of existence to long term investment?
Weather you like it or not, markets come into existence not because some founding fathers sat together and wrote some noble goal onto parchment, but because somebody has something to sell, which somebody else might want to buy. And even tough you might not like it if long term investment becomes meaningless, this is merely a function of the times we're living in where ALL things are more volatile, the markets merely reflect and amplify that.
Now as far as stupid goes, you should perform some serious navel gazing there, because you project your own failed expectations onto a changed reality. Stupid is, to expect reality to behave like you'd like it to.
I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing. It just means long-term investment can now be put to rest in its well deserved grave.
What you seem to fail to realize is that growth has nothing to do with making a profit in derivative markets. And high frequency algorithmic trading has been here before, and now they step up that game. So as far as "change" goes, nothing has really changed, and nothing will, high frequency algorithmic trading is here to stay. If anything, this is making markets much more volatile. And if you think last weeks 1000 DOW drop was an exception, those are going to be more frequent.
This is a statement about the probability of hostile and resource hungry alien life visiting us, it hinges on a lot of unknowns and miniscule probabilities. The conditions are:
* Intelligent alien life exists near us in time and space
* They perform interstellar spacefaring for migratory reasons
* They survived resource depletion of their entire home system
* Earth is in one of the nearest systems they choose for strip mining next
* Earth is more interesting in our solar system then the gas planets, the kuiper belt, the moon, mercury, venus, the sun and the asteroid belt.
* Their technology which enabled them to cross interstellar distances hasn't produced independence of extensive resources as a by product
* They are hostile and their inbred aggression somehow didn't result in them going extinct long before they reach other solar systems
* Their inbred aggression also hasn't led them to be fighting some war with somebody as capable as them
* They've not had any contact with any civilization they haven't quite wiped out, which would've produced another war as a by product, which they'd also survived.
There are quite a few unknowns in it, but looking at all the conditions that must be unequivocally *true*, it's quite unlikely we'll ever see that kind of alien around our neighborhood (or at least before we've managed to wipe ourselves out)
pedophobic much?
And how exactly does the absence speculative rendering and frame matched sound influence a game negatively?
So... instead of using an up to date API which supports cutting edge hardware features, you're now going to target... DX9. That's sensible, carry on.
OpenGL is loosing because nobody pours billions into its marketing and because the vendor that happens to sell Direct3D also happens to sell 95% of Desktop operating systems and 30% of modern gaming consoles. They also happen (by this mechanism) to strong-arm hardware manufacturers to their will. Considering Direct3D is also from the company that's well known for Open talks/convention rigging, behind the scenes arm twisting and strategizing, committee stacking and standards sabotaging, you can begin to appreciate *why* is OpenGL is loosing.
google for frame matched sound or speculative rendering and you'll draw lots of blanks, so even if it's not made up, it's entirely out of context or completely esoteric. It's just "blahblahblah see, OpenGL is worse". If you can link me to *any* article that shows clearly how and why this makes OpenGL bad somehow, and Direct3D great, I will stand corrected.
speculative rendering, frame matched sound, frankly, I have no idea what you talk about, and it sounds to me like technobabble. Of course, I might just be completely ignorant, on the other hand, when what you're saying is true, it has not prevented anybody yet from doing a good game with OpenGL/OpenAL, despite a perceived disability to do technobbabble buzzwordy things.
Irrefutable, feel welcome to try.
- OpenGL works on Mac, Linux, WindowsXP and Direct3D does not (or only partially as in no DX11 for XP)
- OpenGL compatible APIs are present on the PS3, Wii, iPhone and many other devices, wheras Direct3D works on none of those.
- Cutting edge features can be accessed in OpenGL as they come out, whereas in Direct3D you'll have to wait until M$uck decides to iterate++ DX.
- A wealth of good online and dead tree documentation can be had for OpenGL
- A host of "killer apps" has been done and is continuing to be done with OpenGL (such as Maya, 3ds max, softimage, all iPhone games, Mac Games etc.)
You're completely delusional right? http://www.opengl.org/sdk/docs/man/
Sure, it's all about MONEY, like when your Dictator of choice tells you that 50% of your customer base are left in the cold (as in Windows XP isn't running DX11). You keep chasing that M$ pipedreams of vendor enslavement, you keep screwing your customers every 3-4 turnkey years when M$ decides it's time for some strategic jostling.
Not to insult the 12 year old programmer target market, but it's well documented (by Carmack for example) that back then, Direct3D was a complete mess...
That mess you talk of, it's what happens when people get together, each with his own idea, and try to collaborate. It's not perfect, but it sure the hell beats a dictatorship...
Well, AutoCAD, Softimage, Maya, 3ds max, Cinema 4d, Rhino, ZBrush, yeah, it's just a "few" standing in the way of DirectX right? It's not like THE ENTIRE FUCKING PRODUCTIVITY APP INDUSTRY is using OpenGL, right? Geeze, get a clue man.
The parent is bogus FUD, learn to think and research for yourself.
All of Rages/IDs software runs on OpenGL... that not quick enough for you?
Don't feed the trolls, but here we go. DirectX is at least as old as OpenGL, but it's also chronically outdated on modern features that you can already use in OpenGL (that's thanks to opengl extensions as opposed to willy nilly snapshotting of features by M$uck)