Consider great works of architecture... certainly, the simple task of building a bridge, or some building can result in the most straight-forward, brute-force application of a solution, but the results would not be as elegant or noteworthy.
Similarly, code can be kludged to hell, lacking any elegance and as a result, impossible to enhance or even maintain... or a software engineer could architect a system that is elegant and even mostly reusable (or even better build such a system out of a large library of code already written).
Unfortunately, the difference is lost amongst probably 80% of the "programmers"
out there, who have more of an attitude of "get 'r done" and "if it ain't broke...". We talk about patterns, algorithms, processes to developing solid applications and systems, but end up dealing with managers or clients who couldn't give a rat's ass about it until a quality audit is announced.
I know a handful of very talented engineers who can design "on the fly" - elegant design work, and as a bonus, they know the engineering side, as well. Put the two together, the SCIENCE of applying basic engineering principles, along with the ART of intuitively understanding the best flow of an application, and you've got solid code.
To put it another way, I've seen guys who know the process side of software engineering inside and out - but couldn't code their way out of a paper bag, and certainly cannot architect a real software system. They know the science, but lack the artistry (i.e the creative thinking).
"...become irrelevant to the Norwegian Government."
More likely, the Norwegian Government will become irrelevant to everybody else, when their Word and Excel documents are rejected and sent back.
Honestly, this is like one of those tiny toy dogs yipping and snarling, not realizing they can easily be stepped on by the very creature they are threatening.
The "irrelevant" statement is nothing more than wishful thinking on a Microsoft Hater's part.
The book, teddy bear, coke bottle and teapot are all very popular models used in 3D rendering apps.
I would find it very odd that students would have these readily available, as the Coke bottle hasn't been made with that thick, distinctive glass for decades, the teapot is, well, an idealized model, and the teddy bear is not something you pick up at the local toys 'r us.
The teapot is also unusually small, for what it is.
The whole thing SCREAMS "popular mesh models used in a 3D rendering".
What looks contrived in the video is the presentation showing the video projector and camera, in particular, the odd angle the video projector is sitting at (actually looks as if it's pointing BELOW the objects).
I'm not making this claim to try and delegitamize the demonstration... I'm just trying to sort out reality from virtuality in this demonstration.
What I mean is that the book, coke bottle, teddy bear and teapot are NOT real objects. They are simply 3D models rendered in some ray tracing application as a demonstration, virtual, of the concept.
The playing card, on the other hand, was a real object, and was the actual real-world demonstration of the concept.
OK, after seeing the video, I've answered my own question... MOST of the images shown are, indeed, rendered (though the video cleverly superimposes real images as a deomnstration of camera and light projector).
The only real-world demonstration of the technique is the playing card demo.
I would think this plays out more as a dramatic demonstration proving accepted imaging theory.
I would think that an adoption of this technology could be used to construct images through keyholes (as others suggested), perhaps using infrared or lasers as the scanning light source. The specific conditions required to use this may limit its practical applications, but I imagine this technique could be "implemented" in an upcoming Bond or Mission Impossible movie.
Is it just me, or is the image shown on the page a rendered image?
The teapot kind of gives it away.... I also have the book in the picture, and I've seen the model of that book in some sample renderings out there. Additionally, when's the last time you saw a REAL coke bottle, outside of 3D renderings... or the ancient teddy bear. All are classic examples of 3D meshes often used to demonstrate various 3D techniques.
If, for the sake of the argument, this is rendered (I believe this to about 99% certainty), then the demonstration, perhaps still valid, is demonstrated under perfect conditions, as opposed to a real-world application.
Also, if it's rendered, who's to say the results and the paper itself are nothing more than academic huxterism?
I'm not trying to troll here, just trying to understand the conditions and import of this whole thing, beyond the slashdotting of the server there.
Would somebody care to explain this? My point was that there is all this mention of "vintage" MP3 Players, and as far as I know, the MPTrip was the first mass market portable MP3 Player.
I bought my MPTrip CD/MP3 Player back in January of 2000... Went well with my Apex AD-600 (1998) and the collection of MP3s I started in 1997 (compressed my 400+ Audio CD collection).
Actually, I watched this technology for some time... 8 years ago, a Russian company claimed to have the same thing, labelled FM-ROM.
Waited and waited... dunno if it was all just a scam, or perhaps this company is the new incarnation. C3D's stock went into OTC/Penny-stock status and changed symbols countless times.
I believe I participated in a discussion on the alt.shenanigans newsgroup 10 years (or longer) ago that mentioned getting a stack of $2 bills and gluing them to a cardboard pad backing, then making a bit of a flourish when paying using the bills, ripping them from the pad./not to self: Don't pull joke in Baltimore.
I realize the OSS community is doing things with their software to try and defeat spammers and phishers, but let's face it, legal action is the only real course of action to stop these guys (or at least whittle down their numbers).
Phishers and spammers will always find ways around filters, no matter what intelligence is brought to bear with new algorithms. New mail protocols would help, but we are hopelessly mired in a standard that will take a miracle to topple at this point (perhaps some new multi-media e-mail standard?). People won't buy into an e-mail system other than SMTP/POP unless it brings something significant to the table, and is as simple and easy to use.
The OSS community has for-profit companies out there... why aren't they flexing their muscle to help stop these scammers? Microsoft is at least doing something... and it demonstrates exactly what a big corporation like that can do when that lkind of capital is directed at doing something worthwhile.
I think in the fervor to attack the supposed "evil monolith" people here tag as "Micro$oft", they forget exactly how much Gates, his company, and his employees donate to good causes around the world.
Doc Oc has known this for decades....in other news, Robotics Scientists often fall asleep during Spiderman movies and have epiphanies in the mornings following.
My prediction: Slashdot article in the near future about the possibility of armored soldiers riding anti-gravity sleds pumped up with performance-enhancing drugs.
I'm thinking a LOT of slashdotters would be wary about giving up their names and addresses to this sort of program, regardless of the promises of Microsoft.
IMO, I think Microsoft is honest in their intentions, but I can see where this might come back to bite some people, with the RIAA and MPAA lawsuits as an example.
All in all, though, this is good business for Microsoft - they've ALWAYS been quite generous with their licenses (developers, network admins, etc have always enjoyed a lot of freebies or outrageously generous package deals). Microsoft knows that once they get you on the straight and narrow, you'll probably keep coming back to them with legitimate purchases.
Of course, an outfit like the RIAA has the opposite business model and problem - selling crap CDs at inflated prices and chasing down, threatening and prosecuting every last potential user. The real problem for them is that for every person they "catch", there are 100 more who decide the RIAA and their ilk deserve no business and pirate out of spite.
Microsoft doesn't have that problem... the "haters" would be hipocritical to pirate Microsoft products, after all, they hate the product, right? So pirated copies almost become "free samples" to entice people in, and amnesty is the way to get that user back to buying the product (or at least the next cycle). Sure, they'd prefer you paid for the license, but they aren't as stupid as the record labels and movie people... they know many users either won't pay or paid a dishonest vendor; if you couldn't afford it anyway, they haven't lost a customer - but if you could afford it, you'll probably BUY the next version, or perhaps other Microsoft packages, because they were nice to you.
In short, it's a win-win for people who bought PCs with pirated Windows on them (and the vendor comes out as a loser when Microsoft comes knocking on THEIR door).
Since we all think he's the most evil thing since Sauron ruled the Middle Earth, we all do understand what a bad idea it is to take out a full page ad to tell Microsoft, by name, who their enemies are, right?
...and what we are all screaming about is Dolby Digital, AC-3 Encoded 5.1 audio for ALL audio generated by the soundcard, not just passed-through DVD streams.
You can keep the DIN cable. It's a set of 3 stereo PCM digital audio streams, requiring a proprietary speaker setup with three discrete PCM decoders for each pair of speakers in the 5.1 system. While it may slightly reduce the clutter to one single, if bulky cable, it still requires you to be tied to a set of Creative Labs speakers (that will likely not work on the next generation of CL cards, when they change the DIN system yet again)
I want, and should EXPECT a sound card COMPATIBLE with my AC-3 decoding receiver/amp and whatever speakers I want to use. The technology has been around for 5 years to put this into our PCs. Meanwhile, Creative has swallowed up company after company and instead of innovating with new features that are useful, they continue shoveling crap in our direction, laughing all the way to the bank, apparently, as we continue to support them.
At least somebody else here mentioned the Intel HD Audio used in their latest PCI/PCIExpress chipsets. That supports true DD 5.1 AC-3 encoding... I will be looking into that when building my next PC.
Erm, not really. It supports 5.1 ANALOG in gaming. If you have digital audio hooked up, you will only hear PCM-encoded 2 channel sound, either for the front, or rear speakers, from a Dolby Digital decoder.
This means you have to switch between analog and digital, depending on what the source material is. 5.1 DIGITAL is only supported for pre-encoded material that's passed-through the system (as in DVD audio).
I would also like to mention that I currently do work in the automotive audio industry - there's a world of issues that arise with sending 6 distinct audio source lines to an amplifier; tuning and EQing the whole setup becomes far more complicated with an additional analog line. I'd rather spend less money on a simple, single digital cable to my Dolby Digital decoding amp, rather than worry about lengths, shielding, and even the issues of noise generated within the computer case (on card) introduced because analog output was used.
Well, that would be nice, but I've already got several decent systems, so getting an Athlon motherboard for this specific purpose seems a bit of overkill.
What would have been nice would be a PCI card for Soundstorm. That's what I'm the perfect target for.;)
I've got two Xboxes, and they sound great with 5.1 Audio. My PC is decent enough, with a 6-speaker setup (5.1 analog inputs on the receiver), but it really doesn't seem to have the same "oomph!" as a true 5.1 digital setup.
Interestingly, the Audigy DOES output 4.0 digital sound via PCM digital output. It handles front and rear channels, using a modification of a stereo jack to split the two 2-channel digital PCM signals. Alas, for a 5.1 digital decoding system, this means you can have either the front or the rear, but not both; the 4-channel PCM sound was intended to be used with Creative Labs' special speaker systems.
So in short, where are the "true" 5.1 Digital audio cards? nVidia had this stuff in 1999 (albeit with Microsoft's money funding it) - and here it is, 2004, and NOTHING is on the drawing boards. It reminds me of how long it's taken for the first affordable HDTV Tuner cards to appear (and even that's a mess still).
Finally, somebody who points out the big elephant standing amidst the audio chip havyweights.
5.1 AC-3 Encoding is the next big step.
Out of my own ignorance, I bought an AC-3 home theater decoder setup for my main computer, only to find my expensive (when purchased) Audigy didn't support 5.1 DIGITAL SOUND for anything but DVD playback.
How useless is that?
What it meant was that, for games, I'd have to switch to analog input (with it's attendent rat's nest of wires, noise, etc...) and for movies, I'd have to use digital output. WTF? That's totally asinine.
Here, I figured with a so-called "5.1" audio card, (3rd generation, at that!!) I'd be able to simply remove the rat's nest and plug in the digital connection - simple, no fuss audio, with brilliant, vibrant 5.1 audio, sounding the way it was MEANT to sound.
Instead of real progress, we get this nonsense about higher sample rates and pointless signal-to-noise (which doesn't mean squat with 12 wires running analog audio to an amplifier) ratios. Worse is the idiotic "5.1 headphone" garabage, which only obfuscates the matter even more.
Hey, Creative, Crystal, Turtle Beach, etc...: I'll pay $150-200 for a true 5.1 audio card. I want that card to have DIGITAL 5.1 OUTPUT for ALL Computer generated audio.
Until then, I'll probably be satisfied with on-the-motherboard audio solutions instead of shelling out for Creative Labs or Turtle Beach cards, as I used to in the past. If the big Audio Card developers can't deliver REAL imrovements in computer audio technology (particularly developments that should have been here 5 years ago), then they don't deserve our business, and can go straight to hell, for all I care.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, to some degree, engineering can be art.
Consider great works of architecture... certainly, the simple task of building a bridge, or some building can result in the most straight-forward, brute-force application of a solution, but the results would not be as elegant or noteworthy.
Similarly, code can be kludged to hell, lacking any elegance and as a result, impossible to enhance or even maintain... or a software engineer could architect a system that is elegant and even mostly reusable (or even better build such a system out of a large library of code already written).
Unfortunately, the difference is lost amongst probably 80% of the "programmers"
out there, who have more of an attitude of "get 'r done" and "if it ain't broke...". We talk about patterns, algorithms, processes to developing solid applications and systems, but end up dealing with managers or clients who couldn't give a rat's ass about it until a quality audit is announced.
I know a handful of very talented engineers who can design "on the fly" - elegant design work, and as a bonus, they know the engineering side, as well. Put the two together, the SCIENCE of applying basic engineering principles, along with the ART of intuitively understanding the best flow of an application, and you've got solid code.
To put it another way, I've seen guys who know the process side of software engineering inside and out - but couldn't code their way out of a paper bag, and certainly cannot architect a real software system. They know the science, but lack the artistry (i.e the creative thinking).
So where exactly does the BBC make episodes available to download? /Misses the old H2GT2G episodes watched back in the early 80s
"...become irrelevant to the Norwegian Government."
More likely, the Norwegian Government will become irrelevant to everybody else, when their Word and Excel documents are rejected and sent back.
Honestly, this is like one of those tiny toy dogs yipping and snarling, not realizing they can easily be stepped on by the very creature they are threatening.
The "irrelevant" statement is nothing more than wishful thinking on a Microsoft Hater's part.
What's next? Will the Leamington Assayer's Office also kick Microsoft to the curb? /Time to sell off Microsoft stock!!
Why are you so sure of this?
The book, teddy bear, coke bottle and teapot are all very popular models used in 3D rendering apps.
I would find it very odd that students would have these readily available, as the Coke bottle hasn't been made with that thick, distinctive glass for decades, the teapot is, well, an idealized model, and the teddy bear is not something you pick up at the local toys 'r us.
The teapot is also unusually small, for what it is.
The whole thing SCREAMS "popular mesh models used in a 3D rendering".
What looks contrived in the video is the presentation showing the video projector and camera, in particular, the odd angle the video projector is sitting at (actually looks as if it's pointing BELOW the objects).
I'm not making this claim to try and delegitamize the demonstration... I'm just trying to sort out reality from virtuality in this demonstration.
What I mean is that the book, coke bottle, teddy bear and teapot are NOT real objects. They are simply 3D models rendered in some ray tracing application as a demonstration, virtual, of the concept.
The playing card, on the other hand, was a real object, and was the actual real-world demonstration of the concept.
OK, after seeing the video, I've answered my own question... MOST of the images shown are, indeed, rendered (though the video cleverly superimposes real images as a deomnstration of camera and light projector).
The only real-world demonstration of the technique is the playing card demo.
I would think this plays out more as a dramatic demonstration proving accepted imaging theory.
I would think that an adoption of this technology could be used to construct images through keyholes (as others suggested), perhaps using infrared or lasers as the scanning light source. The specific conditions required to use this may limit its practical applications, but I imagine this technique could be "implemented" in an upcoming Bond or Mission Impossible movie.
Is it just me, or is the image shown on the page a rendered image?
The teapot kind of gives it away.... I also have the book in the picture, and I've seen the model of that book in some sample renderings out there. Additionally, when's the last time you saw a REAL coke bottle, outside of 3D renderings... or the ancient teddy bear. All are classic examples of 3D meshes often used to demonstrate various 3D techniques.
If, for the sake of the argument, this is rendered (I believe this to about 99% certainty), then the demonstration, perhaps still valid, is demonstrated under perfect conditions, as opposed to a real-world application.
Also, if it's rendered, who's to say the results and the paper itself are nothing more than academic huxterism?
I'm not trying to troll here, just trying to understand the conditions and import of this whole thing, beyond the slashdotting of the server there.
Exactly...
Hard Disc and Memory-based MP3 Players are all fine and dandy, but they weren't affordable in a "mass-market" format until recently.
The CD MP3 Players should not be overlooked... they were the real break-through devices in this area.
Affordable and accessable.
Flambait?!??!?
Would somebody care to explain this? My point was that there is all this mention of "vintage" MP3 Players, and as far as I know, the MPTrip was the first mass market portable MP3 Player.
I think I've got you all beat.
I bought my MPTrip CD/MP3 Player back in January of 2000... Went well with my Apex AD-600 (1998) and the collection of MP3s I started in 1997 (compressed my 400+ Audio CD collection).
Actually, I watched this technology for some time... 8 years ago, a Russian company claimed to have the same thing, labelled FM-ROM.
Waited and waited... dunno if it was all just a scam, or perhaps this company is the new incarnation. C3D's stock went into OTC/Penny-stock status and changed symbols countless times.
Well, OK... still seems a might Urban Legendish.
/not to self: Don't pull joke in Baltimore.
I believe I participated in a discussion on the alt.shenanigans newsgroup 10 years (or longer) ago that mentioned getting a stack of $2 bills and gluing them to a cardboard pad backing, then making a bit of a flourish when paying using the bills, ripping them from the pad.
No actual news articles... just a bunch of blogs carrying the story.
Sounds suspicious to me.
Where are the supposed "good guys"?
I realize the OSS community is doing things with their software to try and defeat spammers and phishers, but let's face it, legal action is the only real course of action to stop these guys (or at least whittle down their numbers).
Phishers and spammers will always find ways around filters, no matter what intelligence is brought to bear with new algorithms. New mail protocols would help, but we are hopelessly mired in a standard that will take a miracle to topple at this point (perhaps some new multi-media e-mail standard?). People won't buy into an e-mail system other than SMTP/POP unless it brings something significant to the table, and is as simple and easy to use.
The OSS community has for-profit companies out there... why aren't they flexing their muscle to help stop these scammers? Microsoft is at least doing something... and it demonstrates exactly what a big corporation like that can do when that lkind of capital is directed at doing something worthwhile.
I think in the fervor to attack the supposed "evil monolith" people here tag as "Micro$oft", they forget exactly how much Gates, his company, and his employees donate to good causes around the world.
Doc Oc has known this for decades. ...in other news, Robotics Scientists often fall asleep during Spiderman movies and have epiphanies in the mornings following.
My prediction: Slashdot article in the near future about the possibility of armored soldiers riding anti-gravity sleds pumped up with performance-enhancing drugs.
Hopefully, Anikin Ali doesn't fly his carpet into the Trade Coalition Battledroid Control Ship and blow it up. /obligatory Star Wars reference
But HOW did it affect the rotation?
Is it now longer? Shorter? Does the sun rise ealier or later? HOW?!??!?
I hate it when something like that is mentioned in passing without any detail whatsoever.
I'm thinking a LOT of slashdotters would be wary about giving up their names and addresses to this sort of program, regardless of the promises of Microsoft.
IMO, I think Microsoft is honest in their intentions, but I can see where this might come back to bite some people, with the RIAA and MPAA lawsuits as an example.
All in all, though, this is good business for Microsoft - they've ALWAYS been quite generous with their licenses (developers, network admins, etc have always enjoyed a lot of freebies or outrageously generous package deals). Microsoft knows that once they get you on the straight and narrow, you'll probably keep coming back to them with legitimate purchases.
Of course, an outfit like the RIAA has the opposite business model and problem - selling crap CDs at inflated prices and chasing down, threatening and prosecuting every last potential user. The real problem for them is that for every person they "catch", there are 100 more who decide the RIAA and their ilk deserve no business and pirate out of spite.
Microsoft doesn't have that problem... the "haters" would be hipocritical to pirate Microsoft products, after all, they hate the product, right? So pirated copies almost become "free samples" to entice people in, and amnesty is the way to get that user back to buying the product (or at least the next cycle). Sure, they'd prefer you paid for the license, but they aren't as stupid as the record labels and movie people... they know many users either won't pay or paid a dishonest vendor; if you couldn't afford it anyway, they haven't lost a customer - but if you could afford it, you'll probably BUY the next version, or perhaps other Microsoft packages, because they were nice to you.
In short, it's a win-win for people who bought PCs with pirated Windows on them (and the vendor comes out as a loser when Microsoft comes knocking on THEIR door).
...has about 20 tons of popcorn for sale. Please inquire at his home. Look for the Jiffy-pop foil scattered about the neighborhood.
Since we all think he's the most evil thing since Sauron ruled the Middle Earth, we all do understand what a bad idea it is to take out a full page ad to tell Microsoft, by name, who their enemies are, right?
...and what we are all screaming about is Dolby Digital, AC-3 Encoded 5.1 audio for ALL audio generated by the soundcard, not just passed-through DVD streams.
You can keep the DIN cable. It's a set of 3 stereo PCM digital audio streams, requiring a proprietary speaker setup with three discrete PCM decoders for each pair of speakers in the 5.1 system. While it may slightly reduce the clutter to one single, if bulky cable, it still requires you to be tied to a set of Creative Labs speakers (that will likely not work on the next generation of CL cards, when they change the DIN system yet again)
I want, and should EXPECT a sound card COMPATIBLE with my AC-3 decoding receiver/amp and whatever speakers I want to use. The technology has been around for 5 years to put this into our PCs. Meanwhile, Creative has swallowed up company after company and instead of innovating with new features that are useful, they continue shoveling crap in our direction, laughing all the way to the bank, apparently, as we continue to support them.
At least somebody else here mentioned the Intel HD Audio used in their latest PCI/PCIExpress chipsets. That supports true DD 5.1 AC-3 encoding... I will be looking into that when building my next PC.
Erm, not really. It supports 5.1 ANALOG in gaming. If you have digital audio hooked up, you will only hear PCM-encoded 2 channel sound, either for the front, or rear speakers, from a Dolby Digital decoder.
This means you have to switch between analog and digital, depending on what the source material is. 5.1 DIGITAL is only supported for pre-encoded material that's passed-through the system (as in DVD audio).
I would also like to mention that I currently do work in the automotive audio industry - there's a world of issues that arise with sending 6 distinct audio source lines to an amplifier; tuning and EQing the whole setup becomes far more complicated with an additional analog line. I'd rather spend less money on a simple, single digital cable to my Dolby Digital decoding amp, rather than worry about lengths, shielding, and even the issues of noise generated within the computer case (on card) introduced because analog output was used.
Well, that would be nice, but I've already got several decent systems, so getting an Athlon motherboard for this specific purpose seems a bit of overkill.
;)
What would have been nice would be a PCI card for Soundstorm. That's what I'm the perfect target for.
I've got two Xboxes, and they sound great with 5.1 Audio. My PC is decent enough, with a 6-speaker setup (5.1 analog inputs on the receiver), but it really doesn't seem to have the same "oomph!" as a true 5.1 digital setup.
Interestingly, the Audigy DOES output 4.0 digital sound via PCM digital output. It handles front and rear channels, using a modification of a stereo jack to split the two 2-channel digital PCM signals. Alas, for a 5.1 digital decoding system, this means you can have either the front or the rear, but not both; the 4-channel PCM sound was intended to be used with Creative Labs' special speaker systems.
So in short, where are the "true" 5.1 Digital audio cards? nVidia had this stuff in 1999 (albeit with Microsoft's money funding it) - and here it is, 2004, and NOTHING is on the drawing boards. It reminds me of how long it's taken for the first affordable HDTV Tuner cards to appear (and even that's a mess still).
Finally, somebody who points out the big elephant standing amidst the audio chip havyweights.
5.1 AC-3 Encoding is the next big step.
Out of my own ignorance, I bought an AC-3 home theater decoder setup for my main computer, only to find my expensive (when purchased) Audigy didn't support 5.1 DIGITAL SOUND for anything but DVD playback.
How useless is that?
What it meant was that, for games, I'd have to switch to analog input (with it's attendent rat's nest of wires, noise, etc...) and for movies, I'd have to use digital output. WTF? That's totally asinine.
Here, I figured with a so-called "5.1" audio card, (3rd generation, at that!!) I'd be able to simply remove the rat's nest and plug in the digital connection - simple, no fuss audio, with brilliant, vibrant 5.1 audio, sounding the way it was MEANT to sound.
Instead of real progress, we get this nonsense about higher sample rates and pointless signal-to-noise (which doesn't mean squat with 12 wires running analog audio to an amplifier) ratios. Worse is the idiotic "5.1 headphone" garabage, which only obfuscates the matter even more.
Hey, Creative, Crystal, Turtle Beach, etc...: I'll pay $150-200 for a true 5.1 audio card. I want that card to have DIGITAL 5.1 OUTPUT for ALL Computer generated audio.
Until then, I'll probably be satisfied with on-the-motherboard audio solutions instead of shelling out for Creative Labs or Turtle Beach cards, as I used to in the past. If the big Audio Card developers can't deliver REAL imrovements in computer audio technology (particularly developments that should have been here 5 years ago), then they don't deserve our business, and can go straight to hell, for all I care.