Sometimes I hate being a mac guy.. It' sno fun being lied to by your own zealotous kind then making an ass of yourself as you state incorrect facts.
I say it amongst my own kind: Mac people, get a clue.
Also at Macworld
on
Baked Apple
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Apple also did a demo similar to what you describe with the iBook, I forget if it was the initial introduction of the toilet-seat iBook or the Macworld directly after but they had a guy climb a ladder and toss the iBook on the floor, where Jobs proceeded to pick it up and boot it.
The really sad thing to think about is that with all these ideas people come up with, big business would rather invest more in saving the present system than it would probably cost to implement and run a new, improved system that everyone would go crazy for.
Except that all those companies are either owned by or run their own ISPs, therefore why give up their share to Earthlink? I mean, Earthlink says "Hey, AOL Time Warner, wanna rent us a ton of your bandwidth to use to compete directly against you?"
One of the first things that popped into my head was read/write lights for hard disk icons. Wouldn't that be a nice way to observe server activity at a glance, just take a quick peek at which icons are blinking on the desktop.
There are a million poissbilities for this, and I hope little things liek this begin to get us re-thinking the whole desktop model.
Exactly, they also where responsible for FireWire, etc.
I gues my point wasn't clear: Apple doesnt' design standards to be proprietary for themselved. I.E. "Apple's 802.11 Standard" is the same as everyone else's 802.11 standards. I have my a G4 laptop (my sisters) running thougha LinkSys wireless base station, no problems.
Honestly, anyone who can get a job writing subtitles on the movies can't be THAT lacking in their understanding of English. Someone is laughing their ass off somewhere...
What do you call a PowerBook with iChat/Rendezvous and and AirPort card?
Gaydar.
I laughed, even thought I'm a Mac fan, i've seen some of the eccentric yuppies who use Macs. Some of those people just NEED To belong to a cult or else there would be no balance in their lives at all...
No, actually I give you the +1 Informative, I wasn't aware Apple was the originator of the FireWire project, only that they played a large part in it's development.
Apple no longer "creates" standards, it simply implements them, it may possibly improve apon them if it is possible to give back to the open source community. This means cheaper, more compatable products at Apple quality levels. All off Apple's previous "standards" (Mac video adapter, ADB, etc) where all proprietary to the Macintosh.
FireWire = Sony iLINK = IEEE 1392
AirPort = IEEE P802.11's "b" standard
AirPort Extreme = IEEE P802.11's "g" standard
For more info, IEEE's working group on these standards can be found here.
On another note, this gets me thinking... what are they going to call the 802.16a-based AirPort? AirPort Double Extreme? SpacePort? it aught to be interesting to see what marketing comes up with for this one...
As for patrolling a larger area, the bubble around the carrier is a 1.000 nautical miles radius (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/airc raft/air-fa18.html), so what's the point of making 35 more miles in an hour?
Actually I believe you meant to use the comma, not the period.
"CAPITAIN! Incomming enemy planes! They've got missles locked and ready to fire!" "How far away are they?!?!" "1.700 nautical miles!!" "Damn! WE'RE FINISHED!";-)
Also, please be kind and link to your references. I'm more likely to read if I don't have to copy and paste. Besides,/. is lame and adds a space to URLs for no reason, so your link actually confused me until I noticed the unnessesary %20 in the URL.
Some interesting facts from that page:
Range: Combat: 1,089 nautical miles (1252.4 miles/2,003 km), clean plus two AIM-9s Ferry: 1,546 nautical miles (1777.9 miles/2,844 km), two AIM-9s plus three 330 gallon tanks
Ceiling: 50,000+ feet
Speed: Mach 1.7+
So any carrier which carries the FA-18 Hornet is pretty well protected. IANANM (I am not a Navy Man), but how many of the carriers have the FA-18s on them?
Spot on, I hadn't even noticed that in the sample code given on Duff's explaination page. IIRC (short on time, I'll look it up later) the code was meant to interface with a hardware blitter, making writing everything in serial fashion to an I/O register a reasonable thing.
Modifying it to move memory blocks to other memory blocks does give it a valid comparison, at least it did on the old hardware I used to code for (68K->PPC 604e). Once I get back into the game (which I plan to quite soon actually), perhaps I will test this out.
Judging by your reference to BlockMove(), I take it you are a Mac programmer?
Unfortuantely I have been out of the loop for a logn while as far as programming goes. I'm still trying to catch up on all the new things I need to know about OS X:-/ but yes, I am a Mac programmer.
Moving 32 instead of 16 is nice, but IIRC the PowerPC can move 64 in one instruction (note this may take 2 cycles)? I cant' find any of my reference material anywhere, but I could have sworn the 604e and higher can move a double straight up. Ahh I'll look it up later. A book about Mac game programming called "Sex, Lies, and Video Games" is actually where i first learned of Duff's Device and in this book, as part of the advanced graphics chapter, Duff's Device is expanded apon to utilize the larger-than-a-byte moves which are possible. Unfortunately the book was written long ago and is well obsolete.
I'm not familiar with PPC pipeline optimizations, know a good source of reference?
AltiVec wouldnt' really offer very much unless you're doing mass mathmatical operations while transfering (add 0 and move 128 bits at once? or does the answer go to a register or the original memory location? can you access memory directly with AltiVec?). Might be nice for some kind of Geiss/G-Force type effects though. Again I'm not familiar with AltiVec in the least, except that it makes complex math fast because it's many mathmatical operations in parallel, and it's only availible on the G4 (and hopefully higher).
Yea, % sucks. No question there.
Another lesson in that book was that when blitting it was actually a huge optimization to modify the copy rectangle's boundries so it would copy from an even 4-byte boundry to another even 4-byte boundry. That has improved some of my code 300%.
Re:Oldest working code...
on
Immortal Code
·
· Score: 1
Heh, yea next time my girlfriend comes over we'll try out that compiling part, thanks.:-)
Very true. Assembly would make this even faster, and in fact makes such a construction obsolete. But it's just so weird and yet so fast, and quite easy to implement once you've learned how it works.
I really never grasped how this doesn't choke a compiler to death but then again I've never written a complier, nor do I know the first thing about it.
That made me think of an interesting question: Is it the code or the algorithm which is actually immortal?
Duff's Device
on
Immortal Code
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Tom Duff once came up with this very useful yet ugly piece of C code for high-speed blitter routines, or any other instance where data must be moved as quickly as possible.
I'd post it but the Slashdot lameness filter is just that: It makes posting code like this impossible, therefore making Slashdot lame.:-/
There is a link to a full explaination here. Damn, if only we could all be this good. PS: Yea, I do believe it beats the living crap out of memcpy() or BlockMove() or whatever other routine your using;-)
The fact that the guy is an activist and a history teacher gives him much more insight than your average Joe Sixpack, so perhaps the fact that his opinions could be more biased is the issue? It would be fine to label his comments as those of someone informed, prehaps even lend more credibility to the statements, however it is much different than getting the opinion of a random "average" person.
But, you probably just wanted the +1 Funny and here I am stating the obvious like a tool;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I know this is a complete troll, but it really happened: I read your third point as "RMS' shower figures don't mean much, either."
Time for a coffee.
I'd like to be able to think of you as a reliable source.
That's it? GRRRRR
Sometimes I hate being a mac guy.. It' sno fun being lied to by your own zealotous kind then making an ass of yourself as you state incorrect facts.
I say it amongst my own kind: Mac people, get a clue.
Apple also did a demo similar to what you describe with the iBook, I forget if it was the initial introduction of the toilet-seat iBook or the Macworld directly after but they had a guy climb a ladder and toss the iBook on the floor, where Jobs proceeded to pick it up and boot it.
Anyone remember this?
The really sad thing to think about is that with all these ideas people come up with, big business would rather invest more in saving the present system than it would probably cost to implement and run a new, improved system that everyone would go crazy for.
Or how about $5 for 5 days, like video stores do now? Or how about $30 for 2 months? It isn't like they "need the copy back".
Problem is, they do anything like this and Blockbuster Video will somehow sue them for breaking their business model. This is the world we live in.
I thought EFNet was the largest IRC network? Or was it just the most popular? Grr it's been tool long since I've been on IRC...
Except that all those companies are either owned by or run their own ISPs, therefore why give up their share to Earthlink? I mean, Earthlink says "Hey, AOL Time Warner, wanna rent us a ton of your bandwidth to use to compete directly against you?"
For some reason, I doubt it.
One of the first things that popped into my head was read/write lights for hard disk icons. Wouldn't that be a nice way to observe server activity at a glance, just take a quick peek at which icons are blinking on the desktop.
There are a million poissbilities for this, and I hope little things liek this begin to get us re-thinking the whole desktop model.
You're not watching enough MTV, you LOSER!
Exactly, they also where responsible for FireWire, etc.
I gues my point wasn't clear: Apple doesnt' design standards to be proprietary for themselved. I.E. "Apple's 802.11 Standard" is the same as everyone else's 802.11 standards. I have my a G4 laptop (my sisters) running thougha LinkSys wireless base station, no problems.
...and I will be modded down for this:
"Bring your pussy face to my ass"
Honestly, anyone who can get a job writing subtitles on the movies can't be THAT lacking in their understanding of English. Someone is laughing their ass off somewhere...
The big joke with some of my Wintel friends:I laughed, even thought I'm a Mac fan, i've seen some of the eccentric yuppies who use Macs. Some of those people just NEED To belong to a cult or else there would be no balance in their lives at all...
Grr, that's what I get for being awake at 8 in the morning. Good catch.
No, actually I give you the +1 Informative, I wasn't aware Apple was the originator of the FireWire project, only that they played a large part in it's development.
Apple no longer "creates" standards, it simply implements them, it may possibly improve apon them if it is possible to give back to the open source community. This means cheaper, more compatable products at Apple quality levels. All off Apple's previous "standards" (Mac video adapter, ADB, etc) where all proprietary to the Macintosh.
- FireWire = Sony iLINK = IEEE 1392
- AirPort = IEEE P802.11's "b" standard
- AirPort Extreme = IEEE P802.11's "g" standard
For more info, IEEE's working group on these standards can be found here.On another note, this gets me thinking... what are they going to call the 802.16a-based AirPort? AirPort Double Extreme? SpacePort? it aught to be interesting to see what marketing comes up with for this one...
First off: Yes it's a "typo" in that i am European(we use . for thousands, comma for point) the 1,000 (....) NM bubble is the OFFENSIVE capability.
First this damn non-standard "metric" system and now this? Man, when will you guys give it up already?
As for patrolling a larger area, the bubble around the carrier is a 1.000 nautical miles radius (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/airc raft/air-fa18.html), so what's the point of making 35 more miles in an hour?
;-)
/. is lame and adds a space to URLs for no reason, so your link actually confused me until I noticed the unnessesary %20 in the URL.
Actually I believe you meant to use the comma, not the period.
"CAPITAIN! Incomming enemy planes! They've got missles locked and ready to fire!"
"How far away are they?!?!"
"1.700 nautical miles!!"
"Damn! WE'RE FINISHED!"
Also, please be kind and link to your references. I'm more likely to read if I don't have to copy and paste. Besides,
Some interesting facts from that page:
Range:
Combat: 1,089 nautical miles (1252.4 miles/2,003 km), clean plus two AIM-9s
Ferry: 1,546 nautical miles (1777.9 miles/2,844 km), two AIM-9s plus three 330 gallon tanks
Ceiling: 50,000+ feet
Speed: Mach 1.7+
So any carrier which carries the FA-18 Hornet is pretty well protected. IANANM (I am not a Navy Man), but how many of the carriers have the FA-18s on them?
God, that was fucking beautiful. Sorry for the OT, but I just had to congradulate publicly.
Spot on, I hadn't even noticed that in the sample code given on Duff's explaination page. IIRC (short on time, I'll look it up later) the code was meant to interface with a hardware blitter, making writing everything in serial fashion to an I/O register a reasonable thing.
;-)
Modifying it to move memory blocks to other memory blocks does give it a valid comparison, at least it did on the old hardware I used to code for (68K->PPC 604e). Once I get back into the game (which I plan to quite soon actually), perhaps I will test this out.
Who needs OpenGL? Long live 2D gaming!
Judging by your reference to BlockMove(), I take it you are a Mac programmer?
:-/ but yes, I am a Mac programmer.
Unfortuantely I have been out of the loop for a logn while as far as programming goes. I'm still trying to catch up on all the new things I need to know about OS X
Moving 32 instead of 16 is nice, but IIRC the PowerPC can move 64 in one instruction (note this may take 2 cycles)? I cant' find any of my reference material anywhere, but I could have sworn the 604e and higher can move a double straight up. Ahh I'll look it up later. A book about Mac game programming called "Sex, Lies, and Video Games" is actually where i first learned of Duff's Device and in this book, as part of the advanced graphics chapter, Duff's Device is expanded apon to utilize the larger-than-a-byte moves which are possible. Unfortunately the book was written long ago and is well obsolete.
I'm not familiar with PPC pipeline optimizations, know a good source of reference?
AltiVec wouldnt' really offer very much unless you're doing mass mathmatical operations while transfering (add 0 and move 128 bits at once? or does the answer go to a register or the original memory location? can you access memory directly with AltiVec?). Might be nice for some kind of Geiss/G-Force type effects though. Again I'm not familiar with AltiVec in the least, except that it makes complex math fast because it's many mathmatical operations in parallel, and it's only availible on the G4 (and hopefully higher).
Yea, % sucks. No question there.
Another lesson in that book was that when blitting it was actually a huge optimization to modify the copy rectangle's boundries so it would copy from an even 4-byte boundry to another even 4-byte boundry. That has improved some of my code 300%.
Heh, yea next time my girlfriend comes over we'll try out that compiling part, thanks.
Very true. Assembly would make this even faster, and in fact makes such a construction obsolete. But it's just so weird and yet so fast, and quite easy to implement once you've learned how it works.
I really never grasped how this doesn't choke a compiler to death but then again I've never written a complier, nor do I know the first thing about it.
That made me think of an interesting question: Is it the code or the algorithm which is actually immortal?
Tom Duff once came up with this very useful yet ugly piece of C code for high-speed blitter routines, or any other instance where data must be moved as quickly as possible.
I'd post it but the Slashdot lameness filter is just that: It makes posting code like this impossible, therefore making Slashdot lame.
There is a link to a full explaination here. Damn, if only we could all be this good.
PS: Yea, I do believe it beats the living crap out of memcpy() or BlockMove() or whatever other routine your using
The fact that the guy is an activist and a history teacher gives him much more insight than your average Joe Sixpack, so perhaps the fact that his opinions could be more biased is the issue? It would be fine to label his comments as those of someone informed, prehaps even lend more credibility to the statements, however it is much different than getting the opinion of a random "average" person.
But, you probably just wanted the +1 Funny and here I am stating the obvious like a tool