Huh? Most of the animators I know pore over what is the fastest video card for the money at a given moment. (I am one, but I don't pore much -g- ) True, most interactive modeling/animation involves working with flat-shaded or wireframe models. However, working with complex geometry in a scene or trying to view your movement requires as fast a card as you can get. Nowadays, it's practical to work with a $200 graphics card, which wasn't true 5 years ago. However, it's still the case that the faster card you can get the better.
I think the original poster was referring to rendering back-ends, not the modelling component of 3D software. Granted, of course, they're usually in the same package...
That's because they don't make any for any platform, or at least nothing major. They are known for Renderman, their renderer.
They used to make modelling software as well. Did they drop that?
The Kerberos community was incensed when they saw this, but they had no way to stop it. Kerberos had been developed at MIT, and released as free software--but not under the GNU GPL. The lax license used for Kerberos was no bar to Microsoft's plans. If the Kerberos developers had released Kerberos under the GPL, Microsoft could not have undermined it in this way.
It's implicit. RMS makes no distinction between the Kerberos specification and implementation. Moreover, if MIT had released their Kerberos implementation under GPL, it would not have stopped MS from doing exactly the same thing, as long as they had used a clean-room version of the software. An earlier poster claimed they did just that. Therefore, RMS's statement is misleading.
You cannot 'disprove' Creationism. To do so, you would have to prove that God (or whoever) was unable to create a genome that looks like it had evolved from bacteria. Mapping the genome and seeing consistent patterns is no more compelling, in my opinion, than noting the similarities in human and mouse physiologies. It may be astronomically improbable that the human genome got to its current state in any way other than evolution (good luck proving that), but probabilities don't count when you're talking about religion.
I believe in evolution. I agree that the results presented here are independently corroborating evidence of evolution. However, the article does not present a single piece of evidence that invalidates the theory of Creationism. The author hypocritically takes the same tone as one of the bible-thumping zealots he derides.
Problem here is that you still have to post your hypothetical CDs to make them available to your P2P client. If somebody else happens to download from you, then you really are guilty of copyright infringement. In any case, good luck convincing the judge (a) that you weren't pirating anything - you just like clogging up your own system resources for the appearance of infringing copyright, and (b) that the other party invaded your privacy (or whatever) after you took special pains to attract their attention.
It's not the end users that we need to worry about. It's the service providers who never explicitly installed the software that need to stop snooping. If you're thinking in terms of bad-guy end users that would use the client to see who's sharing what, how hard do you think it would be to make a clean-room snooper with no such legal binds? I.e., read the code, write down a spec for the protocol, then get somebody else to write the snooper. The same techniques hackers hold near and dear can just as easily be used by (for lack of a better word) counter-hackers.
And how do you plan to bind someone to a contract they don't even know about? Can I send you an e-mail that legally compels you to send me money? As long as service providers can even claim not to know about every single piece of data that passes through them, this simply won't work. Moreover, assuming that it were binding, providers would simply choose not to host the software. Now who benefits from such an arrangement?
When you're dealing with a scanline renderer, you want a regular grid of pixels, because the algorithms take advantage of a simple data structure (e.g., a Z buffer). Trying to do it adaptively in this case would complicate the algorithm and probably slow you down quite a bit more than you'd gain by having fewer Z values.
They've also shown their willingness to license the patent (MentalRay has a license, I believe). I thought the patent was on jittered supersampling. I didn't know it had anything to do with the dithering pattern, and the article doesn't mention anything about jittering the samples. In any case, the distributed ray tracing paper appeared in the '84 SIGGRAPH conference proceedings. The patent should be about to die if it hasn't already.
Maybe because you don't have your own web site? What I don't get is why HTML mail can't simply be sandboxed - no scripting, no initiation of HTTP requests, etc. There's no reason I can think of that HTML couldn't be used for text formatting.
Um, lawyer you may be, but surely you mean that trademarks must be enforced, not copyright, right? Or is software piracy legal if enough people pirate the software?
I think this is theoretically taken care of. If someone sues you for patent infringement, and you can demonstrate obvious prior art in a timely manner after being informed of the alleged infringement, then the plaintiffs would be bringing about a frivolous suit. Their case gets dismissed, and your case about their harassing suit can begin.
OK, but what if nVidia actually was infringing on 3dfx's patents? nVidia made a lot of money, and 3dfx, well, got bought by nVidia. I don't know enough about the patents in question to really judge, but if 3dfx had a legitimate claim, but wasn't able to get it enforced, I would say that justice had not been served.
You draw the line where it's reasonable. It wouldn't be reasonable to implement SETI@home in Java because you'd sacrifice a large percentage of your speed for the sake of being able to run on a couple of fringe platforms. You choose your language early on based on its suitability and accessibility. You don't let your developers write in whatever language they choose unless it's easy to replace their language expertise if need be. There's no need to cater to the one developer who happens to like Eiffel. However, if Eiffel is the right tool for the job, and all your developers are familiar with it, it might just be the language to use.
The reason there are many languages is that different languages have different strengths. Suppose you have a team of a dozen Java programmers, and you suddenly need to do some hard-core number crunching? Or maybe your platform just doesn't have a very robust JVM? Or what if you find some open source code that does almost (but not quite) exactly what you want, but it's written in Objective C? This isn't intended as an anti-Java rant, just as a reminder that different jobs need different tools. Your group doesn't need to know every language, but that doesn't mean that you should always embrace a single language regardless of how unsuitable it may be.
From looking at the link, it looks to me like the issue in question is more about having the auctions pulled, in which case the suit should be against eBay (who would probably win). If it's over the accounts getting pulled, I think the question would simply come down to whether or not Verant asked the players nicely to stop doing what they were doing. If so, then the players would be in violation of the TOS (the part saying that players need to obey the instructions of Verant personnel). If not, then I think the best they could do would be to sue for a month's worth of fees, which certainly wouldn't attract any lawyers.
So let me get this straight. CMGi lays out some cash which, after changing hands a few times, winds up in Slashdot's pockets, allowing them to continue writing stories. Slashdot writes a story slamming CMGi. Joe Consumergeek reads said story, sees the banner ad for CMGi, and, full of moral righteousness, does not click the ad to find out more.
Who, exactly, is being wronged in this ethical travesty? Since banner ad contracts generally get worked out before stories get written, would you prefer that Slashdot not write stories that piss off their advertisers? Or should Slashdot refuse to run the ad, letting CMGi keep the money to be spent on placing it in a better-targeted location?
When all's said and done, it's CMGi who winds up getting the bad end of the deal, because they paid for poor ad placement.
People (usually AMD'ers who want to wax rhapsodic about the Sledgehammer) often overlook the fact that the Itanium isn't supposed to be just 'a 64-bit chip.' They're trying out some rather neat stuff in the way of EPIC instructions and scaleability. Once the chip has had some software developed for it (actually using some of these features instead of just looking for an excuse to have 64-bit integers) and has maybe even had a chance to go through some incremental upgrades, then it will be fair to really judge the Itanium against its competitors. Until then, I think Intel at least deserves a nod for trying to actually push processor design technology forward instead of resting on its x86 laurels.
If you make an assignment, something has to happen - either the default assignment operator or an overloaded one. Either one can have consequences. Presumably if you make an assignment, you're doing it for a reason. As far as the function call goes, you presumably know beforehand if you're going to be implicitly casting from one type to an unrelated type. Otherwise, why would it occur to you to make the function call in the first place?
C++ is bad if you use the features badly. Memory leaks don't have them much if you confine your new's and delete's to within object constructors. Don't like copy constructors? Declare it but don't define it to catch any unwanted calls. Don't want implicit conversions? Not that you're likely to find many if you pass objects around with pointers and references. Declare single-parameter constructors as explicit (that's what the keyword's for), and don't write any cast operators. Using the shift operator for I/O might look a bit weird, but it beats run-time crashes caused by having the wrong number of parameters in a function call.
It's possible to code badly in any language. It's not really fair to blame the language for badly-written code.
film around a dead actor, (Brandon Lee in the Crow) why can't they film around one with a broken ankle? If they are in fact filming both sequels at the same time, then they should have plenty of scenes to shoot.
We don't know how much shooting got done before Keanu broke his ankle. Most of the shooting for the Crow was finished before Brandon got shot. It is possible to work some scenes around a missing actor, but it's not easy. If it were, studios wouldn't use highly-paid actors (using the term loosely in Keanu's case) in the first place.
And as for a leading lady, somebody will step in. There are a ton of great acresses out there that kick ass (It seems everyone is either taking Tae-bo or kickboxing now).
*cringe* Aerobic kickboxing and Tae-Bo(tm) produce some of the ugliest martial arts movements I've ever seen. There's lots of emphasis on repitition, but almost none on form. That means people develop and reinforce bad habits. I want to weep every time the camera pans over those firefighter guys...
Not that you can show that it's libel, but how do you show damages? That you didn't get the loan/rental/job? They will argue that it's not just their report.
Not that I think it's necessarily practical to take on major credit reporting agencies in this kind of suit, but you can show damages, and the fact that other people have it in their report does not free them from liability. Plaintiffs in racial discrimination suits use not getting a loan/rental/job as a source of damages. Moreover, by your reasoning, if three people kill one person, all three would never be found guilty because no single one of them was wholly responsible.
I think your biggest problem would be that you couldn't show libel. Libel requires that the other party be publishing information that the party knew to be false. Since they're taking the information in good faith, they don't have an immediate reason to be false. I am curious about what the law says they must do if you dispute the claims on the report, and the person who made the claim cannot confirm it.
If a rogue Microsoft employee put some code into the next version of Word which would at random times replace every other word in all your documents with the word "nigger", Microsoft would be responsible for this and would have to pay out on all the lawsuits brought against it even though it was a single person who did this and not a company policy.
You haven't looked at a software EULA recently, have you?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the original poster was referring to rendering back-ends, not the modelling component of 3D software. Granted, of course, they're usually in the same package...
That's because they don't make any for any platform, or at least nothing major. They are known for Renderman, their renderer.
They used to make modelling software as well. Did they drop that?
It's implicit. RMS makes no distinction between the Kerberos specification and implementation. Moreover, if MIT had released their Kerberos implementation under GPL, it would not have stopped MS from doing exactly the same thing, as long as they had used a clean-room version of the software. An earlier poster claimed they did just that. Therefore, RMS's statement is misleading.
I believe in evolution. I agree that the results presented here are independently corroborating evidence of evolution. However, the article does not present a single piece of evidence that invalidates the theory of Creationism. The author hypocritically takes the same tone as one of the bible-thumping zealots he derides.
The case would get thrown out in a heartbeat. And you'd be out the cost of postage.
Problem here is that you still have to post your hypothetical CDs to make them available to your P2P client. If somebody else happens to download from you, then you really are guilty of copyright infringement. In any case, good luck convincing the judge (a) that you weren't pirating anything - you just like clogging up your own system resources for the appearance of infringing copyright, and (b) that the other party invaded your privacy (or whatever) after you took special pains to attract their attention.
It's not the end users that we need to worry about. It's the service providers who never explicitly installed the software that need to stop snooping. If you're thinking in terms of bad-guy end users that would use the client to see who's sharing what, how hard do you think it would be to make a clean-room snooper with no such legal binds? I.e., read the code, write down a spec for the protocol, then get somebody else to write the snooper. The same techniques hackers hold near and dear can just as easily be used by (for lack of a better word) counter-hackers.
And how do you plan to bind someone to a contract they don't even know about? Can I send you an e-mail that legally compels you to send me money? As long as service providers can even claim not to know about every single piece of data that passes through them, this simply won't work. Moreover, assuming that it were binding, providers would simply choose not to host the software. Now who benefits from such an arrangement?
Laugh if you like, but is Microsoft going to give Mozilla flak for having XPToolkit, XPApps, XPCOM, etc.?
When you're dealing with a scanline renderer, you want a regular grid of pixels, because the algorithms take advantage of a simple data structure (e.g., a Z buffer). Trying to do it adaptively in this case would complicate the algorithm and probably slow you down quite a bit more than you'd gain by having fewer Z values.
They've also shown their willingness to license the patent (MentalRay has a license, I believe). I thought the patent was on jittered supersampling. I didn't know it had anything to do with the dithering pattern, and the article doesn't mention anything about jittering the samples. In any case, the distributed ray tracing paper appeared in the '84 SIGGRAPH conference proceedings. The patent should be about to die if it hasn't already.
I don't think there is, other than hogging up space. The problem with images is in HTML mail is that they are often served remotely.
Maybe because you don't have your own web site? What I don't get is why HTML mail can't simply be sandboxed - no scripting, no initiation of HTTP requests, etc. There's no reason I can think of that HTML couldn't be used for text formatting.
Um, lawyer you may be, but surely you mean that trademarks must be enforced, not copyright, right? Or is software piracy legal if enough people pirate the software?
I think this is theoretically taken care of. If someone sues you for patent infringement, and you can demonstrate obvious prior art in a timely manner after being informed of the alleged infringement, then the plaintiffs would be bringing about a frivolous suit. Their case gets dismissed, and your case about their harassing suit can begin.
OK, but what if nVidia actually was infringing on 3dfx's patents? nVidia made a lot of money, and 3dfx, well, got bought by nVidia. I don't know enough about the patents in question to really judge, but if 3dfx had a legitimate claim, but wasn't able to get it enforced, I would say that justice had not been served.
You draw the line where it's reasonable. It wouldn't be reasonable to implement SETI@home in Java because you'd sacrifice a large percentage of your speed for the sake of being able to run on a couple of fringe platforms. You choose your language early on based on its suitability and accessibility. You don't let your developers write in whatever language they choose unless it's easy to replace their language expertise if need be. There's no need to cater to the one developer who happens to like Eiffel. However, if Eiffel is the right tool for the job, and all your developers are familiar with it, it might just be the language to use.
The reason there are many languages is that different languages have different strengths. Suppose you have a team of a dozen Java programmers, and you suddenly need to do some hard-core number crunching? Or maybe your platform just doesn't have a very robust JVM? Or what if you find some open source code that does almost (but not quite) exactly what you want, but it's written in Objective C? This isn't intended as an anti-Java rant, just as a reminder that different jobs need different tools. Your group doesn't need to know every language, but that doesn't mean that you should always embrace a single language regardless of how unsuitable it may be.
From looking at the link, it looks to me like the issue in question is more about having the auctions pulled, in which case the suit should be against eBay (who would probably win). If it's over the accounts getting pulled, I think the question would simply come down to whether or not Verant asked the players nicely to stop doing what they were doing. If so, then the players would be in violation of the TOS (the part saying that players need to obey the instructions of Verant personnel). If not, then I think the best they could do would be to sue for a month's worth of fees, which certainly wouldn't attract any lawyers.
Who, exactly, is being wronged in this ethical travesty? Since banner ad contracts generally get worked out before stories get written, would you prefer that Slashdot not write stories that piss off their advertisers? Or should Slashdot refuse to run the ad, letting CMGi keep the money to be spent on placing it in a better-targeted location?
When all's said and done, it's CMGi who winds up getting the bad end of the deal, because they paid for poor ad placement.
People (usually AMD'ers who want to wax rhapsodic about the Sledgehammer) often overlook the fact that the Itanium isn't supposed to be just 'a 64-bit chip.' They're trying out some rather neat stuff in the way of EPIC instructions and scaleability. Once the chip has had some software developed for it (actually using some of these features instead of just looking for an excuse to have 64-bit integers) and has maybe even had a chance to go through some incremental upgrades, then it will be fair to really judge the Itanium against its competitors. Until then, I think Intel at least deserves a nod for trying to actually push processor design technology forward instead of resting on its x86 laurels.
If you make an assignment, something has to happen - either the default assignment operator or an overloaded one. Either one can have consequences. Presumably if you make an assignment, you're doing it for a reason. As far as the function call goes, you presumably know beforehand if you're going to be implicitly casting from one type to an unrelated type. Otherwise, why would it occur to you to make the function call in the first place?
It's possible to code badly in any language. It's not really fair to blame the language for badly-written code.
We don't know how much shooting got done before Keanu broke his ankle. Most of the shooting for the Crow was finished before Brandon got shot. It is possible to work some scenes around a missing actor, but it's not easy. If it were, studios wouldn't use highly-paid actors (using the term loosely in Keanu's case) in the first place.
And as for a leading lady, somebody will step in. There are a ton of great acresses out there that kick ass (It seems everyone is either taking Tae-bo or kickboxing now).
*cringe* Aerobic kickboxing and Tae-Bo(tm) produce some of the ugliest martial arts movements I've ever seen. There's lots of emphasis on repitition, but almost none on form. That means people develop and reinforce bad habits. I want to weep every time the camera pans over those firefighter guys...
Not that you can show that it's libel, but how do you show damages? That you didn't get the loan/rental/job? They will argue that it's not just their report.
Not that I think it's necessarily practical to take on major credit reporting agencies in this kind of suit, but you can show damages, and the fact that other people have it in their report does not free them from liability. Plaintiffs in racial discrimination suits use not getting a loan/rental/job as a source of damages. Moreover, by your reasoning, if three people kill one person, all three would never be found guilty because no single one of them was wholly responsible.
I think your biggest problem would be that you couldn't show libel. Libel requires that the other party be publishing information that the party knew to be false. Since they're taking the information in good faith, they don't have an immediate reason to be false. I am curious about what the law says they must do if you dispute the claims on the report, and the person who made the claim cannot confirm it.
You haven't looked at a software EULA recently, have you?