I agree that KDE/GNOME etc have a long way to go in terms of matching the Mac OS GUI (and Mac OS X goes a long ways towards matching the utility and versitility of a command shell - because it IS one).
But weren't we talking about GNUStep the other day? Mac OS X GUI - somehow related to NeXT Step GUI - somehow derived to GNUStep?
What I'm trying to get at here is, couldn't GNUStep be used to hobble together a GUI and tools as nice on newbies (and NHW, or Not Hacker Wannabes) as Mac's?
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Domain names were meant for servers, not for corporate identity. Domain names don't even allow for spaces. That should be the first clue that it's not the right solution. Joe Shmo from Cocamo should be able to serve his "this is my dog" webpage on his www.ibm.org web server if he wants to (um, as long as he runs a non-corporate entity, and therefore deserves a.org).
The domain name of one's server should bear no more relevance than the IP address. Corporations seeking an easy way to get folks to their web site should utilize a service like RealNames (or, I thought GO did this too).
Unfortunately, IIRC, the original test of this technology led to folks typing in "Barbie" and getting a sex site. But in this case, Mattel would have a legitimate case for suing whoever coopted their trademark in this corporate identity namespace.
Maybe web browsers should have an added feature like "Corporate Trademark Server: www.realname.com" or something like that, but whoever owns the repository, and redirection service needs to be answerable to trademark law, instead of the messed up situation we have now, where people who assign server names need to spend time in court. It should have no bearing.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
I don't think that there should be a "mapping" between existing corporate trademarks, and domain names. I mean, I don't think that domain names were originally intended to be used that way, and with the nature of the internet, and the way domain names are (were) assigned, we were bound to run into conflicts.
I think a new system of corporate registry is needed, whereby, a given "big corporation" that has it's name as a protected, registered trademark, can register it's name, and be assigned an IP, but doesn't necessarily need a domain name, because this "new system" does not consist of a user, typing the corporate trademark into the Location field of his or her browser.
I don't know if there should be some intermediate "portal" or directory site one should go to first, in order to "hop off" to any given corporation, or whether browsers (or plugins) should add some kind of input field to the UI. It would seem to be more clean if there were just a page one could go to, look up the actual real corporate trademark name (Microsoft Corp. not Microsoft.com), and click on the link, and there you go, no ambiguity, no possibility of hitting some squatter site by mistake, and no need for Corporation X to send paralegal paratroopers in to do a man's job.
The simple mapping of corporate names to domain names certainly is one of the great things about the internet that has attracted a lot of business (because it's SIMPLE for the enduser to understand and implement), but the limitations of using that system for something it was not designed to do are showing.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
I keep hearing this about NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP - that it's the most beautifully designed system folks have ever seen, it's great, stupendous, spectacular, etc.
I've never heard anyone criticize it.
I'd like to hear some criticisim. Anybody out there NOT like NeXTStep?
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
and as far as the ease of which this can be found, and how "obvious" it is.
The NSA does not have to answer to anyone. And they probably DO have more well hidden means to get at your data. But their attitude about this one probably is: "So, what are you going to do about it?"
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
ah. As a former SCA person myself (there really isn't much SCA activity in my area - so I basically dropped out when I moved here), I can say that SCA folks are probably best equipped to survive "the armageddon".
They know how to camp - often not using modern equipment. They know how to survive by creating their own civilization out of the wilderness. They're well versed in fighting, and with weapons and techniques they also know how to fabricate, and are likely to have all the equipment they need to do both (fight, and fabricate weapons).
And they know women who not only know how to sew, but LIKE to sew.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
The end goal of a weapon in war is to "neutralize" the enemy, make them no longer a threat.
You don't necessarily have to kill or even maim a man to neutralize them.
Technology like this might be just the thing - it could easily be used to selectively paralyze the human body, and you're an instant POW. When the war's over, they irradiate you with a coded signal that deactivates the nanites, and now, you're a slave to the regime that just conquered your country. (with the threat that if you resist, or don't work hard, the nanites can be switched back on).
Now, I guess it all depends on who the master of the technology is, and what the goals are. If you want to conquer a nation, that's the most humane way, technologically possible, to do it, and probably the cheapest too, and you don't end up with problems a generation later (you bastard Zambozian! You killed my father, I'm going to start an underground resistance, and I'll be blowing up busses and airplanes for the next 20 years). But if your goals are to kill off an entire race - well then, the device won't be designed to selectively paralyze, or be switched off. But then you still have the problem of "friendly fire", you'll want to be able to rescue friendlies that have been accidentally exposed to the nanites, so again, ideally, a reversible, partial paralysis mmode of operation would be best, and when the fighting's over, you round up the hostiles, and, well, terminate them.
Maybe the human race is not ready for this yet. But they better GET ready, in a hurry.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
No, we're afraid that the bastards are going to shut our electricity off when they see their records indicating that we've missed payment on the last 10,000 monthly bills.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
And the problem with Athiests is that they think all Christians are fundamentalists, and don't "get" the "free will" thing.
As a Christian (liberal, heretic), I don't give much of a crap what you believe. I'll leave you in peace if you leave me in peace, and don't lump all Christians together as crusading inquisitors.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Re:Big Deal. 9/9/99 wasn't going to be a problem.
on
9/9/99: News? Nein!
·
· Score: 1
Y2K.
We told the computers that the world was going to end.
And it didn't.
Oops.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Re:Big Deal. 9/9/99 wasn't going to be a problem.
on
9/9/99: News? Nein!
·
· Score: 1
Well, most people are already sure there's gonna be rioting and hoarding, even in the absense of ANY technological effects.
I'm willing to bet 1000 mythical milkshakes that some country somewhere will take advantage of rioting chaos in a neighbor, and use it as an opportunity to launch a war - especially with everyone that owns a nuke with their finger hovering over the manual override switch in case their early warning radar sends "false signals".
(I'm specifically referring to Pakistan and India, though I wouldn't rule out any other nuclear power in Mr. Roger's Neighborhood.)
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
naw. I live in a small-ish college town (45k), right near a national guard base. I've already heard that national guard troops are going to be deployed in the big cities to be ready to act if there is any trouble. There are still plenty of national guardsmen left here, and also, TONS of local volunteers for doing things like watching stores after hours for looting, distributing stockpiled food and water to the elderly or other folks in need, etc. The measures may be paranoid, but it shows that people around here care, and that it's not going to be "every man for himself" when the lights go out (and "I wasn't doin nuthin" when the lights go back on 30 minutes later). I feel MUCH more secure here than I would in a large city.
The only thing I'm worried about is the local prison, and the local state mental hospital. I'm going to be a little bit pissed if the doors click open at midnight 12/31/99.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
I still don't understand how this can be a problem.
If 9/9/99 is a date for a record in a file, and the software assumes that's the end of file, then you could have a problem, but today is just the cpu clock hitting 9/9/99, that doesn't mean that any records are going to read 9/9/99, unless an operator enters that into their database or something. So we wouldn't see this problem until the software started reading those dates out of the file. That may be more likely to happen to day, but doesn't necessarily mean it will happen today, and certainly doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened like a few weeks ago (ie. this account will expire on: 9/9/99, etc.).
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
That's actually one of the common pitfalls of beginning art students, the fact that they tend to focus on details rather than the object as a whole. The excercise of "contour drawing" is designed to combat that, by maddeningly forcing you to work on what amounts to details - while "gesture drawing" focusses on gross generalizations of shape. Gesture drawing tends to capture the overall form of the subject, while omitting the details, and contour drawing tends to be accurate in terms of details, but you end up with badly proportioned overall figures.
In both cases, they're trying to teach a student how to overcome the limitations of being locked into one "mode" or another.
As far as what "most good artists" do, I don't think that's something you want to generalize, you're really talking about what "most good draftsmen" do. In terms of "recording an image", as the data appears on the recording media (pencil marks on paper), it's going to be serialized, because the artist is typically holding one pencil. How the brain "solves" the entire image may not be as methodical as how an inkjet printer prints an image (one line at a time), but that's probably because a whole "rough" view of the subject has to be worked out first, to preserve perspecive and proportion, otherwise, I think the human brain has a tendency to focus in on details, breaking the image down into small sections, without tying them together.
I think the data-processing equivalent would be, creating an overall shape for the subject (cylinder, cube, sphere, some primative), and then determining it's orientation and proportions, and "shaping" it down to reflect details. However, I don't think machines would have the same limitations as the human brain, because the sensing device, say a CCD, rasterizes the image, and therefore, you always have a frame of reference to stick to, to judge proportions.
I think it was Albrecht Durer (not sure), who devised a device for viewing objects up against a wire-mesh grid, so that if you held your head steady, you could accurately work on small sections on your paper (or in his case, I think it was a silver engraving plate), and not have to worry about the whole view - (I don't think he actually used it much, but it shows what he was thinking about). But using this kind of technique, a machine could break down a scene into sections (sort of like how JPEG works), and then paralell threads could be assigned to work out processing the details, the spatial relationships between the sections will always work out because of the rasterization. However, this addresses rendering a 3d image onto 2d. We know how raytracers work.
The question is, what sort of input would machine-vision use to process 3d images as 3d information? stereoscopic CCDs? lasers? radar? I would think that compiling stereoscopic 2d images to a 3d representation in the computer's memory would be computationally intense. Visual ques for depth information are notoriously ambiguous, and with machine input, you would think that using some kind of range-specific system, radar, etc. would be best. . . bottom line, I think how a machine would process vision, would probably depend most on the input mechanism.
(Art school dropout, now playing with computers)
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
IR port - I've never used it. I doubt I ever will.
USB - I think would be similarly useless. Build in the AirPort wireless functionality (same as the iBook), and THEN we'll have some hot peice of Palm action.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
I think that the modularity is NOT a good idea. I don't really want to have to carry (and possibly lose) a bunch of these plug-in modules to switch between several desired functions.
I think that the #1 great thing here is price. 3Com finally has competition that's going to bring prices back down out of the ionosphere. (WinCE doesn't count).
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Slashdot Mirror
God bless anonymous posting!
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
I agree that KDE/GNOME etc have a long way to go in terms of matching the Mac OS GUI (and Mac OS X goes a long ways towards matching the utility and versitility of a command shell - because it IS one).
But weren't we talking about GNUStep the other day?
Mac OS X GUI - somehow related to NeXT Step GUI - somehow derived to GNUStep?
What I'm trying to get at here is, couldn't GNUStep be used to hobble together a GUI and tools as nice on newbies (and NHW, or Not Hacker Wannabes) as Mac's?
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
now THAT'S what I'm talking about.
.org).
Domain names were meant for servers, not for corporate identity. Domain names don't even allow for spaces. That should be the first clue that it's not the right solution.
Joe Shmo from Cocamo should be able to serve his "this is my dog" webpage on his www.ibm.org web server if he wants to (um, as long as he runs a non-corporate entity, and therefore deserves a
The domain name of one's server should bear no more relevance than the IP address. Corporations seeking an easy way to get folks to their web site should utilize a service like RealNames (or, I thought GO did this too).
Unfortunately, IIRC, the original test of this technology led to folks typing in "Barbie" and getting a sex site. But in this case, Mattel would have a legitimate case for suing whoever coopted their trademark in this corporate identity namespace.
Maybe web browsers should have an added feature like "Corporate Trademark Server: www.realname.com" or something like that, but whoever owns the repository, and redirection service needs to be answerable to trademark law, instead of the messed up situation we have now, where people who assign server names need to spend time in court. It should have no bearing.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
I don't think that there should be a "mapping" between existing corporate trademarks, and domain names. I mean, I don't think that domain names were originally intended to be used that way, and with the nature of the internet, and the way domain names are (were) assigned, we were bound to run into conflicts.
I think a new system of corporate registry is needed, whereby, a given "big corporation" that has it's name as a protected, registered trademark, can register it's name, and be assigned an IP, but doesn't necessarily need a domain name, because this "new system" does not consist of a user, typing the corporate trademark into the Location field of his or her browser.
I don't know if there should be some intermediate "portal" or directory site one should go to first, in order to "hop off" to any given corporation, or whether browsers (or plugins) should add some kind of input field to the UI. It would seem to be more clean if there were just a page one could go to, look up the actual real corporate trademark name (Microsoft Corp. not Microsoft.com), and click on the link, and there you go, no ambiguity, no possibility of hitting some squatter site by mistake, and no need for Corporation X to send paralegal paratroopers in to do a man's job.
The simple mapping of corporate names to domain names certainly is one of the great things about the internet that has attracted a lot of business (because it's SIMPLE for the enduser to understand and implement), but the limitations of using that system for something it was not designed to do are showing.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
I keep hearing this about NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP - that it's the most beautifully designed system folks have ever seen, it's great, stupendous, spectacular, etc.
I've never heard anyone criticize it.
I'd like to hear some criticisim. Anybody out there NOT like NeXTStep?
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
500 Server Error
The hard access limit for this user has been reached
- - -
talk about minimalist design! A visitor to this site as absolutely not confused as to what to do or where to go, it's TOTALLY intuitive man!
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
and as far as the ease of which this can be found, and how "obvious" it is.
The NSA does not have to answer to anyone. And they probably DO have more well hidden means to get at your data. But their attitude about this one probably is: "So, what are you going to do about it?"
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Well, last time, the naysayers said that NSA in "NSAKEY" didn't stand for "No Such Agency".
Then, Microsoft's official press release said it DID. (tho they downplayed the significance).
I tend to NOT side with the naysayers.
Besides, everyone knows that NSA stands for:
Naysaysers of Slashdot Association.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
ah.
As a former SCA person myself (there really isn't much SCA activity in my area - so I basically dropped out when I moved here), I can say that SCA folks are probably best equipped to survive "the armageddon".
They know how to camp - often not using modern equipment. They know how to survive by creating their own civilization out of the wilderness. They're well versed in fighting, and with weapons and techniques they also know how to fabricate, and are likely to have all the equipment they need to do both (fight, and fabricate weapons).
And they know women who not only know how to sew, but LIKE to sew.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Or maybe not so nasty.
The end goal of a weapon in war is to "neutralize" the enemy, make them no longer a threat.
You don't necessarily have to kill or even maim a man to neutralize them.
Technology like this might be just the thing - it could easily be used to selectively paralyze the human body, and you're an instant POW. When the war's over, they irradiate you with a coded signal that deactivates the nanites, and now, you're a slave to the regime that just conquered your country. (with the threat that if you resist, or don't work hard, the nanites can be switched back on).
Now, I guess it all depends on who the master of the technology is, and what the goals are. If you want to conquer a nation, that's the most humane way, technologically possible, to do it, and probably the cheapest too, and you don't end up with problems a generation later (you bastard Zambozian! You killed my father, I'm going to start an underground resistance, and I'll be blowing up busses and airplanes for the next 20 years).
But if your goals are to kill off an entire race - well then, the device won't be designed to selectively paralyze, or be switched off. But then you still have the problem of "friendly fire", you'll want to be able to rescue friendlies that have been accidentally exposed to the nanites, so again, ideally, a reversible, partial paralysis mmode of operation would be best, and when the fighting's over, you round up the hostiles, and, well, terminate them.
Maybe the human race is not ready for this yet.
But they better GET ready, in a hurry.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
9/9/99, and MY computer's still working fi- ïF8-? j Pj j j v=veF¥?â-?â~=?t?Ti¦íÿ?ï?Ü?-Pö¦&ë&ëW¦ &ëG?&¦G? -Pa¦&¦? û û¦&ë?&ëT?¦F=? íÿ?ï?Ü?ëåö¦ëûû¦j û ¦&ë?&ëT?¦F= íÿ?ï?Ü?ëåö¦ëûû¦ìF & ëW?RRPF
&ï&ïW?-?ÿ?&ë&ëW?Tg¦ÉìF8PìNeQF¥Fâ-?
+u?TK?j?j j4F(â-?úÿ?ë?Ü?ïFeïV=-?ÿ?&ëG0&ëW2ïF8-?ÿ?â+?ëPa¦îåG
â-?â~=?u(íÿ?ï?Ü?-Pö¦&ë&ëW
&ï&ïW?-?ÿ?&ë&ëW?d'Éíÿ?ï?Ü?-Pö¦&ëG?&ëW?-6ÿ?ïåö¦ï
&ï&ïW?-?ÿ?&ë&ëW?d&íÿ?ï?Ü?-Pö¦&ëG?&ëW?-6ÿ?ïåö¦ïû
ïF8?? ?妦j v8j j j v=veFfâ-?ìF8PïĦ¦ïû+¦ë?£?ë?P?RQF-û??t?Tâ íÿ?ï?Ü??? ëåa¦ëûG¦?? RPíÿ??0 RPFb)â-Pa¦&ïG?&?G?tPî+-
-^&ï&ïW
TMF÷ïF÷-^=&9G?vpï=-??=âëv8îFe&Çâ-?@ëF¦+--^?&ëG?
=â-?-^?&ëG &ëW"?RPÉ?F£?âdÉ-^?&ëG?&ëG?&ëG"&ëG ï^
èG?*SèO?*f?-èO??-è?-ëF=â~? t?@ëF=?+¦?T¦ j?-a??F? ëF¦j PFnâ-?Ä-ï+ë^îFnïF=Ö&ëG?
ì@?-^Vìï= =Ñ^F(ïF=H;F(¦+â~? t9ï^=-p??^ÄFn&¦G?&¦G ïF?&ëGn&¦G¦ ìP?v??QÉ?Fd
d?Éïv=-?ï^
ì@(-^Vìxï= =Ñ^ïF¦-^?&ëG?&¦G? ïFïVn^_++ÉUï8ï-^?&ëïF
&ëG?&¦G?? &¦G? &¦?&¦G ïF?&ëG
ïF?ïV?&ëG?&ëW?++&ëG?&ëG?&ëG?&ëG++ Uï8ïV?8]+Uï8ïV?f]+Uï8ïV?èF?e]+Uï
=ñ_^?[ïs]+Uï8fVfW??nfïN?fü ? çQ fïF?f?-f= ? wBfïf?-fü ? w2fïF?f-F?Ä+fï~?
¦Fn Fñ¦ú&?j?ìF÷PF?â-?ëF¦?+¦?T½ èF÷*S=? t'~?Té HtHt
HHt0Tê ÉÉɦFn? Të ¦Fn? Tü ÉɦFn? dxɦFn? dpɦFn? dhɦFn? d`Éh= ìF÷PFܦâ-?ëF¦?+~?
+t?¦Fn ïFn++É++ WV*+êåDêåEêåFêåGj?j j4FGdâ-?ëF÷ëV?? ëFëVnÄ-ï+&¦? &¦G??
ïv=-?ëéJQQìåDPj vnvF â-?-^÷&ëG0&ëW2j?j j4F)Oâ-?ëF=ëV(?? ëFëVnÄ-ï+&¦? &¦
&ëÄ-ï+ïN÷ïv&ë&ëw?+&ë¦
&ë&ë¦?&ë¦?ï-ï+^_++É+? VïF??? PF7â-?j ïF?@Pï=F(â-?jVF?â-?¦Fn j!F â-?hí F
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
"And hey, if Y2K doesn't end the world, you will
.
be able to pick up great camping gear for next to
nothing at garage sales!"
That's what I've been counting on. .
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
No, we're afraid that the bastards are going to shut our electricity off when they see their records indicating that we've missed payment on the last 10,000 monthly bills.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
New moon is also significant to Muslims and Jews.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
And the problem with Athiests is that they think all Christians are fundamentalists, and don't "get" the "free will" thing.
As a Christian (liberal, heretic), I don't give much of a crap what you believe. I'll leave you in peace if you leave me in peace, and don't lump all Christians together as crusading inquisitors.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Y2K.
We told the computers that the world was going to end.
And it didn't.
Oops.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Well, most people are already sure there's gonna be rioting and hoarding, even in the absense of ANY technological effects.
I'm willing to bet 1000 mythical milkshakes that some country somewhere will take advantage of rioting chaos in a neighbor, and use it as an opportunity to launch a war - especially with everyone that owns a nuke with their finger hovering over the manual override switch in case their early warning radar sends "false signals".
(I'm specifically referring to Pakistan and India, though I wouldn't rule out any other nuclear power in Mr. Roger's Neighborhood.)
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
naw. I live in a small-ish college town (45k), right near a national guard base. I've already heard that national guard troops are going to be deployed in the big cities to be ready to act if there is any trouble. There are still plenty of national guardsmen left here, and also, TONS of local volunteers for doing things like watching stores after hours for looting, distributing stockpiled food and water to the elderly or other folks in need, etc.
The measures may be paranoid, but it shows that people around here care, and that it's not going to be "every man for himself" when the lights go out (and "I wasn't doin nuthin" when the lights go back on 30 minutes later). I feel MUCH more secure here than I would in a large city.
The only thing I'm worried about is the local prison, and the local state mental hospital. I'm going to be a little bit pissed if the doors click open at midnight 12/31/99.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
I still don't understand how this can be a problem.
If 9/9/99 is a date for a record in a file, and the software assumes that's the end of file, then you could have a problem, but today is just the cpu clock hitting 9/9/99, that doesn't mean that any records are going to read 9/9/99, unless an operator enters that into their database or something. So we wouldn't see this problem until the software started reading those dates out of the file. That may be more likely to happen to day, but doesn't necessarily mean it will happen today, and certainly doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened like a few weeks ago (ie. this account will expire on: 9/9/99, etc.).
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
How many clicks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-pop? http://fatdays.com/jokes/misc/licks.html
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
That's actually one of the common pitfalls of beginning art students, the fact that they tend to focus on details rather than the object as a whole. The excercise of "contour drawing" is designed to combat that, by maddeningly forcing you to work on what amounts to details - while "gesture drawing" focusses on gross generalizations of shape. Gesture drawing tends to capture the overall form of the subject, while omitting the details, and contour drawing tends to be accurate in terms of details, but you end up with badly proportioned overall figures.
In both cases, they're trying to teach a student how to overcome the limitations of being locked into one "mode" or another.
As far as what "most good artists" do, I don't think that's something you want to generalize, you're really talking about what "most good draftsmen" do. In terms of "recording an image", as the data appears on the recording media (pencil marks on paper), it's going to be serialized, because the artist is typically holding one pencil. How the brain "solves" the entire image may not be as methodical as how an inkjet printer prints an image (one line at a time), but that's probably because a whole "rough" view of the subject has to be worked out first, to preserve perspecive and proportion, otherwise, I think the human brain has a tendency to focus in on details, breaking the image down into small sections, without tying them together.
I think the data-processing equivalent would be, creating an overall shape for the subject (cylinder, cube, sphere, some primative), and then determining it's orientation and proportions, and "shaping" it down to reflect details. However, I don't think machines would have the same limitations as the human brain, because the sensing device, say a CCD, rasterizes the image, and therefore, you always have a frame of reference to stick to, to judge proportions.
I think it was Albrecht Durer (not sure), who devised a device for viewing objects up against a wire-mesh grid, so that if you held your head steady, you could accurately work on small sections on your paper (or in his case, I think it was a silver engraving plate), and not have to worry about the whole view - (I don't think he actually used it much, but it shows what he was thinking about). But using this kind of technique, a machine could break down a scene into sections (sort of like how JPEG works), and then paralell threads could be assigned to work out processing the details, the spatial relationships between the sections will always work out because of the rasterization.
However, this addresses rendering a 3d image onto 2d. We know how raytracers work.
The question is, what sort of input would machine-vision use to process 3d images as 3d information? stereoscopic CCDs? lasers? radar? I would think that compiling stereoscopic 2d images to a 3d representation in the computer's memory would be computationally intense. Visual ques for depth information are notoriously ambiguous, and with machine input, you would think that using some kind of range-specific system, radar, etc. would be best. . . bottom line, I think how a machine would process vision, would probably depend most on the input mechanism.
(Art school dropout, now playing with computers)
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Not very chivalrous for a knight, is he?
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
IR port - I've never used it. I doubt I ever will.
USB - I think would be similarly useless.
Build in the AirPort wireless functionality (same as the iBook), and THEN we'll have some hot peice of Palm action.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
I think that the modularity is NOT a good idea.
I don't really want to have to carry (and possibly lose) a bunch of these plug-in modules to switch between several desired functions.
I think that the #1 great thing here is price. 3Com finally has competition that's going to bring prices back down out of the ionosphere. (WinCE doesn't count).
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
I bought a Palm III for $200, and though I LOVE it, and I use it every day, I still think it's horrendously overpriced.
I'd actually really like to have a Palm V (I like the smaller form-factor), but $350 is just WAY too much money for what it does.
Perhaps my next palmtop purchase will be the rumored Apple Palmtop, with the AirPort wireless network. THAT would be, Way Cool (TM).
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."