And yet here they are *TIGHTLY* integrating the browser into the OS (you know, just like Chrome does) which was what the whole antitrust case forbid Microsoft to do until last year. Seems interesting that when you look at it, a lot of the progress that Microsoft could have been making in this direction wasn't allowed up until recently.
I'm pretty sure that is NOT what McCain voters would have wanted. I thing that is why you are seeing the Tea Party movement where people are voicing that neither of te major parties represent their will. As a whole, they want less government and fiscal responsibility. The real trick is to see how much their ideas get warped by the Republicans and the media.
There's CUDA and FireStream which are programming the shaders w/o going through DirectX/OpenGL.
As far as D3D11 -- I think the only support there which is similar is the compute shaders which I'm unsure if it will apply. There's also the Apple OpenCL initiative which aims to accomplish a similar thing. AFAIK, none of the GPGPU bare-to-the metal APIs allow you to render to a texture so I think it might not be possible to accomplish a pure Stream based rendering engine (yet).
In any case, I think his original point stands -- that the monolithic SGI based APIs are going to still be used (OpenGL/DirectX), but the hardware under the covers will be more exposed to allow programmers to be more creative with how they want to utilize the highly parallel processing that the new chips provide. Thus allowing programmers to do things in software that were previously done with dedicated hardware.
Actually, I think he says in the article that you'd see APIs like Direct3D and OpenGL staying around and leveraging the CUDA/FireStream APIs instead of relying on hardware specific features (at least, that is what is already happening at the driver level).
I think he envisions that new engines/APIs will come about (such as those that could be Voxel based or based on Ray Shaders, etc.) once the CUDA/FireStream APIs become more mature and the hardware gets faster.
Also, by breaking out of the hardware specific implementations of the SGI-based implementations (OpenGL/Direct3D) it would provide more flexibility for programmers to insert their own customizations into the rendering pipeline. With the hardware designed around one specific rendering design, programmers were limited. With the evolution of GPUs turning into highly parallel GPGPUs and CPUs turning into 80+ core beasts, it opens a whole realm of possibilities.
Except that you like everyone else reads "CPU" in the article to mean the Intel/AMD CPU and not think of it as current gen GPUs that are almost capable of massive parallel execution of general purpose code. With the advent of Shaders, more processing was able to be offloaded to GPUs and over the next couple of GPU generations. So his idea is that we'll see less of the OpenGL/DirectX specific API calls and everything being done in CUDA/Shaders. That way the folks who write graphics engines aren't limited to the current SGI implementation (here's a set of vectors describing my object -- draw it) and we'll see different rendering engines based on Ray Tracing for example (or whatever other methods the engine writers want to do it).
This isn't anything new here -- he's basically saying what Intel has already said... You'll see less OpenGL/DirectX and more CUDA/Shader based implementations for rendering engines.
He is talking about custom rendering engines that would run on dedicated processors close to the video memory (such as on current generation GPUs). You could probably write a custom rendering engine in CUDA right now -- might not be all that great, but bandwidth would be a non-issue since it is running on the video card.
I think too many see his reference to CPU and think of CPUs running on the motherboard. Whereas he is looking at CPUs as any processor in the system, including the GPU cores running on current generation video cards.
Not sure why Tim Sweeney gets so much flack, he is the lead developer for a pretty popular 3d rendering engine...
Current generation GPUs are to the point where you can basically run arbitrary code on the GPU (as shaders) in high vectorizable code. So instead of the monolithic APIs such as OpenGL/DirectX, we'll see custom rendering engines that take advantage of the parallel cores running in GPUs and future CPUs (if Intel has their way).
So in a sense, he was correct. If you take CPUs in his 1999 interview to mean current GPU processors. Which is becoming somewhat of a misnomer nowadays with the CUDA/Firestream SDKs out now.
In the end, his point is that OpenGL/DirectX will probably go away in favor of custom rendering engines based on other techniques that will, in the long run, result in much better/different rendering techniques. (Ex: Voxel based rendering, Real-time ray tracing etc).
Well, I was using the broader wavelength capacity as an example, not necessarily as a valid argument. My point is that you could substitute a higher quality CCD with a higher dynamic range for example (registering more levels of light) or have a 3CCD setup for very little cost...
How about that you could essentially make any CCD into a frame transfer CCD by focusing light onto different parts of a CCD?
Actually, if you think about it, the minimum exposure time is however long it takes for the mirrors to move and for the CCD to capture the light. With good enough software, motion could potentially be taken into account to remove any blurs and could potentially increase the resolution of the image even.
Since it isn't doing this "one pixel at a time" but instead uses varying patterns to capture the image, the "quality" of the image is dependent on shutter speed vs. exposure of the image. Exposure is just determined in the DSP by the average light levels during and how many samples were taken while the shutter was open. What would be kind of cool is to have a RAW format for this data that could be processed futher "offline" to adjust for things like motion of objects during the shutter-open time and whatnot. The same kind of technology that is used in movie restoration (where they rely on the adjacent images to recreate lost data) could be applied here.
Sort of -- it does the "compression" pre-capture by the CCD. They have random patterns in the mirrors hitting the CCD and use a DSP to reconstruct the image based on what the random patterns ended up being. It is kind of an interesting concept. The other benefit is that more money can be put into a higher quality CCD (such as one that senses in UV or IR).
I'm kind of interested in why the patterns have to be done randomly (or pseudo-randomly). That mean that two shots using the exact same settings could produce vastly different results. I imagine that with long enough "exposure" (really collection) time that the imagines would end up being basically the same. From what I can gather, the # of samples taken would be determined by the exposure time and that the DSP is adjusting the brightness levels post-processing. So longer exposures would give you a clearer picture versus what you'd traditionally see as over/underexposed. So a shorter exposure time would give you a blurrier picture (as seen in the second link).
Oh yeah, real good idea. Make people live in the already overcrowded, crime riddled cities. Good call. Let alone that there will then become an artificially created real-estate crunch added to your gas crunch. Because all the non-rich people will be clamoring to live in the cities. Then what, rent control of course, because those damn landlords who are trying to actually make a profit instead of losing their lunch are screwing the poor people. They should just bend over and take it because they own property and therefore must be rich and they owe it to those less fortunate.
Here's what really just bothers me about you socialists. You think that you know what is best for other people, and you are willing to screw with them to make them change to the way you think it ought to be.
Why not let the market sort it all out instead of you needing to poke your fingers in it. See, the price of oil/gas goes up and people will adapt naturally. Eventually either a) another energy alternative will become more viable that oil and the market will seize on it or b) people will move to the cities just like you predict will happen and mass transit will become a more productive endeavor. That way, there is no need to go mucking about with the process, people will adapt on their own without any government intervention and it is so elegantly simple.
Why do you feel the need to hasten your preferred approach? Arrogance? Because you're right and therefore because people disagree with you they are wrong?
Argh! If you raise the price of gas to $7 a gallon, then you will raise the price of practically EVERY commodity item. Do you not realize that the backbone of commerce in America is the transportation industry? Or did you imagine that all the truck drivers would start pushing their 18-wheelers everywhere?
Is it that you live in New York and are isolated from reality or what? I'm trying to figure out where someone gets the mindset that public transportation is for everyone. I live in the suburbs of a major city and I can't even begin to imagine how impossible it would be to bring public transport to the town...
Well, for the MSN Desktop search (which IMO is better than Google, features like pausing indexing, and the results pane on the desktop search is so much more usable) allows you to reconfigure the web search service really easy in the options menu. It took me all of 2 seconds to change it to search Google instead of MSN search.
It is even on the "General" tab in the options, so it is the first thing you see when you set up the options.
I strongly suggest you get out and actually meat real people
What is this? Soylent Green?
Seriously though... what kind of work is your fiancee looking for and where do you live that jobs seem so scarce? I've heard so many times that people were having trouble finding jobs, but when my job seemed in jeopardy recently, I looked and the response was overwhelming. I had multiple job offers the next day. Maybe it is just my field, or my location though?
okay, maybe it is because I'm a Microsoft shill, but DotNet Rocks is a very entertaining show by a Microsoft Trainer and he has some pretty good guests on there (and some decent music too). http://www.dotnetrocks.com/
Their spin-off Mondays is more of a non-programmer but still geeky type of off-the-wall content.
That post was inspirational! After reading it, I realized that I have no chance of ever being good at anything, and now feel the urge to go home and sit in front of the television watching nothing but commercials.
You're right... American's Operations Center runs on Solaris, Oracle and Macintosh (Last I know of it was MacOS 9 (ugh)). If they were running on Windows, I think the media would be shouting it from the rooftops.
So, I guess that means that all those Windows jokes will go right out the window?
If I had to guess, since it apparently was affecting flight ops as well as the loading ops, it was most likely something in the DB or maybe a physical networking problem. The last I knew, those were two seperate programs.
If the other worm you are talking about is hitting port 445 it is probably the Backdoor.irc.Cirebot trojan. It targets port 445 (vs 135), and opens up a backdoor. Its still an RPC attack though...
Hopefully, the other worm you are seeing isn't a mutation.
Technically, I think it depends on the work agreements and so forth...
If I work on a contract basis for a company, I technically own the Copyright until handing it over to the company buying my "product".
There are all sorts of legal issues though. For example, if I am a contractor, but working on a company provided computer, and they don't pay me... they *might* own the code I wrote because it was on *their* computer.
So on and so on... it is always best to consult a lawyer when it comes to issues like this though.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet here they are *TIGHTLY* integrating the browser into the OS (you know, just like Chrome does) which was what the whole antitrust case forbid Microsoft to do until last year. Seems interesting that when you look at it, a lot of the progress that Microsoft could have been making in this direction wasn't allowed up until recently.
I'm pretty sure that is NOT what McCain voters would have wanted. I thing that is why you are seeing the Tea Party movement where people are voicing that neither of te major parties represent their will. As a whole, they want less government and fiscal responsibility. The real trick is to see how much their ideas get warped by the Republicans and the media.
Umm... what? Why the namecalling?
There's CUDA and FireStream which are programming the shaders w/o going through DirectX/OpenGL.
As far as D3D11 -- I think the only support there which is similar is the compute shaders which I'm unsure if it will apply. There's also the Apple OpenCL initiative which aims to accomplish a similar thing. AFAIK, none of the GPGPU bare-to-the metal APIs allow you to render to a texture so I think it might not be possible to accomplish a pure Stream based rendering engine (yet).
In any case, I think his original point stands -- that the monolithic SGI based APIs are going to still be used (OpenGL/DirectX), but the hardware under the covers will be more exposed to allow programmers to be more creative with how they want to utilize the highly parallel processing that the new chips provide. Thus allowing programmers to do things in software that were previously done with dedicated hardware.
True, but typically only once so really not a big deal.
Actually, this is preferable so that any "tweaks" can be implemented by the driver writers without recompiling every program that uses those drivers.
Actually, I think he says in the article that you'd see APIs like Direct3D and OpenGL staying around and leveraging the CUDA/FireStream APIs instead of relying on hardware specific features (at least, that is what is already happening at the driver level).
I think he envisions that new engines/APIs will come about (such as those that could be Voxel based or based on Ray Shaders, etc.) once the CUDA/FireStream APIs become more mature and the hardware gets faster.
Also, by breaking out of the hardware specific implementations of the SGI-based implementations (OpenGL/Direct3D) it would provide more flexibility for programmers to insert their own customizations into the rendering pipeline. With the hardware designed around one specific rendering design, programmers were limited. With the evolution of GPUs turning into highly parallel GPGPUs and CPUs turning into 80+ core beasts, it opens a whole realm of possibilities.
Actually, no.
Currently you could write to CUDA/FireStream or GLSL/HLSL which leaves it up to the driver to determine specifics for the GPU.
Except that you like everyone else reads "CPU" in the article to mean the Intel/AMD CPU and not think of it as current gen GPUs that are almost capable of massive parallel execution of general purpose code. With the advent of Shaders, more processing was able to be offloaded to GPUs and over the next couple of GPU generations. So his idea is that we'll see less of the OpenGL/DirectX specific API calls and everything being done in CUDA/Shaders. That way the folks who write graphics engines aren't limited to the current SGI implementation (here's a set of vectors describing my object -- draw it) and we'll see different rendering engines based on Ray Tracing for example (or whatever other methods the engine writers want to do it).
This isn't anything new here -- he's basically saying what Intel has already said... You'll see less OpenGL/DirectX and more CUDA/Shader based implementations for rendering engines.
He is talking about custom rendering engines that would run on dedicated processors close to the video memory (such as on current generation GPUs). You could probably write a custom rendering engine in CUDA right now -- might not be all that great, but bandwidth would be a non-issue since it is running on the video card.
I think too many see his reference to CPU and think of CPUs running on the motherboard. Whereas he is looking at CPUs as any processor in the system, including the GPU cores running on current generation video cards.
Not sure why Tim Sweeney gets so much flack, he is the lead developer for a pretty popular 3d rendering engine...
It says it right there in the article.
Current generation GPUs are to the point where you can basically run arbitrary code on the GPU (as shaders) in high vectorizable code. So instead of the monolithic APIs such as OpenGL/DirectX, we'll see custom rendering engines that take advantage of the parallel cores running in GPUs and future CPUs (if Intel has their way).
So in a sense, he was correct. If you take CPUs in his 1999 interview to mean current GPU processors. Which is becoming somewhat of a misnomer nowadays with the CUDA/Firestream SDKs out now.
In the end, his point is that OpenGL/DirectX will probably go away in favor of custom rendering engines based on other techniques that will, in the long run, result in much better/different rendering techniques. (Ex: Voxel based rendering, Real-time ray tracing etc).
Well, I was using the broader wavelength capacity as an example, not necessarily as a valid argument. My point is that you could substitute a higher quality CCD with a higher dynamic range for example (registering more levels of light) or have a 3CCD setup for very little cost...
How about that you could essentially make any CCD into a frame transfer CCD by focusing light onto different parts of a CCD?
Actually, if you think about it, the minimum exposure time is however long it takes for the mirrors to move and for the CCD to capture the light. With good enough software, motion could potentially be taken into account to remove any blurs and could potentially increase the resolution of the image even.
Since it isn't doing this "one pixel at a time" but instead uses varying patterns to capture the image, the "quality" of the image is dependent on shutter speed vs. exposure of the image. Exposure is just determined in the DSP by the average light levels during and how many samples were taken while the shutter was open. What would be kind of cool is to have a RAW format for this data that could be processed futher "offline" to adjust for things like motion of objects during the shutter-open time and whatnot. The same kind of technology that is used in movie restoration (where they rely on the adjacent images to recreate lost data) could be applied here.
Sort of -- it does the "compression" pre-capture by the CCD. They have random patterns in the mirrors hitting the CCD and use a DSP to reconstruct the image based on what the random patterns ended up being. It is kind of an interesting concept. The other benefit is that more money can be put into a higher quality CCD (such as one that senses in UV or IR).
I'm kind of interested in why the patterns have to be done randomly (or pseudo-randomly). That mean that two shots using the exact same settings could produce vastly different results. I imagine that with long enough "exposure" (really collection) time that the imagines would end up being basically the same. From what I can gather, the # of samples taken would be determined by the exposure time and that the DSP is adjusting the brightness levels post-processing. So longer exposures would give you a clearer picture versus what you'd traditionally see as over/underexposed. So a shorter exposure time would give you a blurrier picture (as seen in the second link).
You forgot parrots. An African Gray parrot will recognize itself in a mirror no problem.
Oh yeah, real good idea. Make people live in the already overcrowded, crime riddled cities. Good call. Let alone that there will then become an artificially created real-estate crunch added to your gas crunch. Because all the non-rich people will be clamoring to live in the cities. Then what, rent control of course, because those damn landlords who are trying to actually make a profit instead of losing their lunch are screwing the poor people. They should just bend over and take it because they own property and therefore must be rich and they owe it to those less fortunate.
Here's what really just bothers me about you socialists. You think that you know what is best for other people, and you are willing to screw with them to make them change to the way you think it ought to be.
Why not let the market sort it all out instead of you needing to poke your fingers in it. See, the price of oil/gas goes up and people will adapt naturally. Eventually either a) another energy alternative will become more viable that oil and the market will seize on it or b) people will move to the cities just like you predict will happen and mass transit will become a more productive endeavor. That way, there is no need to go mucking about with the process, people will adapt on their own without any government intervention and it is so elegantly simple.
Why do you feel the need to hasten your preferred approach? Arrogance? Because you're right and therefore because people disagree with you they are wrong?
Argh! If you raise the price of gas to $7 a gallon, then you will raise the price of practically EVERY commodity item. Do you not realize that the backbone of commerce in America is the transportation industry? Or did you imagine that all the truck drivers would start pushing their 18-wheelers everywhere?
Is it that you live in New York and are isolated from reality or what? I'm trying to figure out where someone gets the mindset that public transportation is for everyone. I live in the suburbs of a major city and I can't even begin to imagine how impossible it would be to bring public transport to the town...
Is it just me, or was that thing waaaay overhyped?
Well, for the MSN Desktop search (which IMO is better than Google, features like pausing indexing, and the results pane on the desktop search is so much more usable) allows you to reconfigure the web search service really easy in the options menu. It took me all of 2 seconds to change it to search Google instead of MSN search.
It is even on the "General" tab in the options, so it is the first thing you see when you set up the options.
Seriously though... what kind of work is your fiancee looking for and where do you live that jobs seem so scarce? I've heard so many times that people were having trouble finding jobs, but when my job seemed in jeopardy recently, I looked and the response was overwhelming. I had multiple job offers the next day. Maybe it is just my field, or my location though?
okay, maybe it is because I'm a Microsoft shill, but DotNet Rocks is a very entertaining show by a Microsoft Trainer and he has some pretty good guests on there (and some decent music too).
http://www.dotnetrocks.com/
Their spin-off Mondays is more of a non-programmer but still geeky type of off-the-wall content.
http://mondays.pwop.com/
Since they have all their shows archived and they podcast, it is easy to d/l a bunch of content for your morning commute.
That post was inspirational! After reading it, I realized that I have no chance of ever being good at anything, and now feel the urge to go home and sit in front of the television watching nothing but commercials.
Thank you for simplifying my life.
You're right... American's Operations Center runs on Solaris, Oracle and Macintosh (Last I know of it was MacOS 9 (ugh)). If they were running on Windows, I think the media would be shouting it from the rooftops.
So, I guess that means that all those Windows jokes will go right out the window?
If I had to guess, since it apparently was affecting flight ops as well as the loading ops, it was most likely something in the DB or maybe a physical networking problem. The last I knew, those were two seperate programs.
Or perhaps W32.Randex.E which explots the same DCOM RPC vulnerability as MSBlaster.
I'm gonna stick to the Backdoor.irc.Cirebot theory just because I think this one has been more widespread.
See MS03-026
If the other worm you are talking about is hitting port 445 it is probably the Backdoor.irc.Cirebot trojan. It targets port 445 (vs 135), and opens up a backdoor. Its still an RPC attack though...
Hopefully, the other worm you are seeing isn't a mutation.
Which way to the nearest farmer's market?
*watches karma plummet*
Technically, I think it depends on the work agreements and so forth...
If I work on a contract basis for a company, I technically own the Copyright until handing it over to the company buying my "product".
There are all sorts of legal issues though. For example, if I am a contractor, but working on a company provided computer, and they don't pay me... they *might* own the code I wrote because it was on *their* computer.
So on and so on... it is always best to consult a lawyer when it comes to issues like this though.