The right thing to do is to keep the resolution high and increase the font size.
HTML is a markup language (ML?), not a layout language. You have no idea how (or even if!) your content is going to be rendered. Tell the browser what the function of the text is (title, heading, etc.), not how it should look. Taking care of font sizes is a job for the browser, not the content.
If people would spend more time worrying about how their content reads rather than forcing my to render text in 18.2 point VisigothCluster the web would be a better place.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the particles' spin correlation exists only for the first measurement.
Consider a spinless particle decaying into two spin-1/2 particles, A & B. Now measure the spin of particle A along some axis. If A is measured to be spin up, B will be measured to be spin down (assuming they measure along the same spin axis).
At this point the spin of particle A is modified. The spin of particle B remains unaffected by this change. That is, the spins of A & B are no longer correlated. You can't use these particles as some kind of FTL telegraph.
As for the faster-than-light communications, we could do that with tangled photons. Einstein was troubled by the fact that quantum entanglment causes an instantaneous change across a large distance.
I assume you're talking about the fact that two spin-1/2 particles generated in a single decay have entangled spin polarization states.
These spin states cannot be used to transmit information faster than light. While it is true that the effect happens over arbitrarily large separations, the people doing the experiment must still communicate their results in order to use the information. Therefore, communication is still constrained by the speed of light.
when was the last time you actually checked the code of something you've compiled?
This is a common strawman in discussions of viruses/trojans under Linux. Obviously noone has time to scan all the code they download for use on their systems. Fortunately, there are sites that you can trust offering the vast majority of software we use.
Receipt of an executable attachment is in no way similar to downloading files from gnu.org, [insert your favorite linux distribution here].com, idsoftware.com, etc. If you don't trust well-known packages from well-know sites (or mirrors linked from those sites) then you may as well hang it up right now.
who would want to put songs on their computer if they already own the CD?
Anybody with hundreds of CDs who wants to avoid having to waste time loading and unloading CDs. It becomes even more of a pain in the ass if you want to play random selections from multiple CDs. Who cares what the reason is - ever hear of fair use? As long as I'm not distributing the copies, I can make as many as I like.
Now, a more appropriate question is whether we could approach the scale of Earth-impacting solar energy with our own heat producing energy sources like fusion, fission and fossil fuels. I admit I have no idea of their relative magnitude.
Let's see if I can be as confusing as possible.
The total fission of 1kg of uranium releases the energy equivalent to burning 2x10^6 l of gasoline or 3x10^6 kg of coal or 20 kilotons of TNT. A given mass of fused deuterium nuclei will yield about four times as much energy as an equivalent mass of fissioned uranium nuclei. (Note that fission reactors are somewhat inefficient and that you can't really use very much of a given hunk of uranium (5%?) before it needs to be replaced.)
The Earth intercepts about 3x10^10MW of power.
Energy obtained by burning 1 gallon of gasoline: 1.3x10^8J
Energy obtained by fissioning 1 kg of uranium: 8.2x10^13J
Energy obtained by fusing 1 kg of deuterium: ~3.3x10^14J
So, to match the amount of solar energy intercepted by the sun, we'd have to:
burn 230 million gallons of gasoline per second,
fission (totally, that is) 366 kg of uranium per second,
or
fuse 91 kg of deuterium per second.
I have no idea if doing any of these things is practical.
Tarkin:Try and imagine how a Photoshop/Illustrator for linux could improve the printing of images etc... ?
Printing images using GIMP/Ghostscript is already in great shape. Generally, having Adobe port their apps won't do squat for printing quality. That's a function of the printer drivers.
The distribution of galaxies throughout the universe is not uniform. This clumpiness results in regions where local gravitational interactions dominate local kinematics.
In general, though, we see other galaxies as red-shifted (receding). Things tend to get more interesting at smaller scales (for Chinese values of interesting).
Good thing that galactic spirals aren't due to winding, then, isn't it?
An excellent online reference on density waves (the phenomenon currently thought to be responsible for the appearance of spiral galaxies) is at http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu/~danforth/spiral
Density waves were proposed in the mid-60s and have (so far) stood up pretty well. What this has to do with the big bang or evolution is beyond me.
If Slack works for you, great. It may not in the future and it certainly doesn't for many Linux users.
Wow. You've left a bit of FUD on your chin. Would you like a napkin?
If some time in the future you become tired of manually configuring and building packages[...]
This shows a deep misunderstanding of how Slack and Slack packages work.
[acknowledge] that changes come through time how open-minded and forward-thinking you are.
Hmmmm. If hiding information from the administrator is open-minded and forward-thinking, give me unreceptive and reactionary any day. The concept that Linux must be easy to use for any clueless git on the planet is seriously flawed. The requirement of study and attention to detail to run a *nix system is a Good Thing. I'd prefer that people who aren't willing to put in the time and effort stay out of the pool rather than pissing in it.
Re:No federally funded software GLP'ed a good thin
on
Microsoft and the GPL
·
· Score: 1
Raistlin99 wrote:
There is nothing in the GPL that says corporations can't use GPL'd code.
That's what I thought. I'm also well aware of the restrictions the GPL places on distribution of code. Now we're still left with the delusional rantings of AIXadmin who seems to think that businesses and individuals are treated differently and therefore the GPL is evil.
I suppose it makes sense for publically funded software development to be released in the public domain. This whole "the GPL turns everyone who reads it into a mindles socialist zombie BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA" is a bit tiresome, however.
Re:No federally funded software GLP'ed a good thin
on
Microsoft and the GPL
·
· Score: 1
You wrote:
Both [individuals and businesses] pay tax[e]s. Both should have equal rights to federally funded software.
Perhaps I'm simply ignorant on this issue, but don't both individuals and corporations have equal rights under the GPL no matter who funded the development of the software in question? Is there something in the GPL that treats individuals differently than corporations?
I did make an actual error in my previous post. Replace "radiosity" with "raytracing" to fix.
The phrase "take a remedial english class" did not appear in my previous post. You might consider getting some help for that persecution complex.
I'll put it as simply as I can: Just as Word's ability to print (or even render) a spreadsheet does not make it a spreadsheet program, prman's ability to call BMRT to do raytracing does not make prman a raytracing program.
I apologize if my previous use of double negatives hurt your widdle head. I'll refrain from using them in the future. HAND!
You're now talking about two separate things: Word's ability to render an Excel spreadsheet and Word's ability to print an arbitrary object it's able to render.
Let's just assume that Word can print anything it can render.
There are (at least) two situations:
You've got a preexisting Excel spreadsheet and both Word and Excel.
You've got a preexisting Excel spreadsheet but Word only.
If you can import the spreadsheet and print the resulting document in case (1) but not in case (2), the situation is equivalent to that with BMRT/prman.
If you can import/print in both cases, then your analogy is bogus since it would mean that Word is inherently capable of rendering an Excel spreadsheet.
The point? Well, I'm saying 'echo "Word can't render an Excel spreadsheet without Excel." | sed -e 's/Word/prman/' -e 's/render an Excel spreadsheet/do radiosity via an SL trace\(\) call/' -e 's/Excel/BMRT/'.
If you disagree with that then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
On my planet, "Earth", when program 1 calls program 2 to do a specific task, we don't say that program 1 is performing the specific task.
BTW, I did read the link you provided, long before this thread came up. I read it again just to be sure. The HOWTO very carefully refers to two separate renderers. At no point is it even implied that prman is doing raytracing. It clearly states that you must rewrite trace() as a DSO shadeop which calls BMRT to throw some rays around. It even talks about the disadvantage of having to keep the scene geometry in memory for two different renderers.
If you still think that's prman doing raytracing then I suggest you take a remedial english class.
If you read the RenderMan Interface Spec. (V 3.2) the entry for trace() reads as follows:
"
color trace( point P, point R )
trace returns the incident light reaching a point P from a given direction R. If a particular implementation does not support the Ray Tracing capability, and cannot compute the incident light arriving from an arbitrary direction, trace will return 0 (black). "
So, you can calltrace() in prman, but it's not going to do you any good.
That said, it is possible to write a ray tracer in the shading language! This has been done, in fact, by an insane person named Katsuaki Hiramitsu. This shader, however, does not use the trace() call. The trick lies in actually defining the objects you're going to do ray tracing on in the shader along with your own version of trace(), which is, by necessity, intimately bound to the type of object you've defined.
So, saying the shading language can ray trace is like saying you can keep yourself alive for a while by eating selected portions of your own body. It's possible, but certainly pessimal.
Actually, BMRT's author (Larry Gritz) has long since left Pixar to start his own company with several other folks. They're going to be releasing yet another implementation of Renderman Real Soon Now. Larry has stated several times in comp.graphics.rendering.renderman that BMRT will continue to be free (in the sense of free beer) for the forseeable future, but efforts will concentrate mostly on development of the new renderer.
Slashdot Mirror
RedHat should ring a bell with you
Repeat after me: RH != Linux.
If RH dies, Linux goes on.
If Sun dies, Solaris goes down with it.
The right thing to do is to keep the resolution high and increase the font size.
HTML is a markup language (ML?), not a layout language. You have no idea how (or even if!) your content is going to be rendered. Tell the browser what the function of the text is (title, heading, etc.), not how it should look. Taking care of font sizes is a job for the browser, not the content.
If people would spend more time worrying about how their content reads rather than forcing my to render text in 18.2 point VisigothCluster the web would be a better place.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the particles' spin correlation exists only for the first measurement.
Consider a spinless particle decaying into two spin-1/2 particles, A & B. Now measure the spin of particle A along some axis. If A is measured to be spin up, B will be measured to be spin down (assuming they measure along the same spin axis).
At this point the spin of particle A is modified. The spin of particle B remains unaffected by this change. That is, the spins of A & B are no longer correlated. You can't use these particles as some kind of FTL telegraph.
As for the faster-than-light communications, we could do that with tangled photons. Einstein was troubled by the fact that quantum entanglment causes an instantaneous change across a large distance.
I assume you're talking about the fact that two spin-1/2 particles generated in a single decay have entangled spin polarization states. These spin states cannot be used to transmit information faster than light. While it is true that the effect happens over arbitrarily large separations, the people doing the experiment must still communicate their results in order to use the information. Therefore, communication is still constrained by the speed of light.
when was the last time you actually checked the code of something you've compiled?
This is a common strawman in discussions of viruses/trojans under Linux. Obviously noone has time to scan all the code they download for use on their systems. Fortunately, there are sites that you can trust offering the vast majority of software we use.
Receipt of an executable attachment is in no way similar to downloading files from gnu.org, [insert your favorite linux distribution here].com, idsoftware.com, etc. If you don't trust well-known packages from well-know sites (or mirrors linked from those sites) then you may as well hang it up right now.
My god... my alt.sex post is embarrassing from Jan 1995 as well.
Yeah, I just found some embarrassing alt.sex posts of my own from 1990. Problem is, I don't even remember reading alt.sex, much less posting there.
In explicit detail.
"Uh. No, mom, that was somebody else with the same name. I don't even know what 'doggy style' means."
who would want to put songs on their computer if they already own the CD?
Anybody with hundreds of CDs who wants to avoid having to waste time loading and unloading CDs. It becomes even more of a pain in the ass if you want to play random selections from multiple CDs. Who cares what the reason is - ever hear of fair use? As long as I'm not distributing the copies, I can make as many as I like.
Now, a more appropriate question is whether we could approach the scale of Earth-impacting solar energy with our own heat producing energy sources like fusion, fission and fossil fuels. I admit I have no idea of their relative magnitude.
Let's see if I can be as confusing as possible.
The total fission of 1kg of uranium releases the energy equivalent to burning 2x10^6 l of gasoline or 3x10^6 kg of coal or 20 kilotons of TNT. A given mass of fused deuterium nuclei will yield about four times as much energy as an equivalent mass of fissioned uranium nuclei. (Note that fission reactors are somewhat inefficient and that you can't really use very much of a given hunk of uranium (5%?) before it needs to be replaced.)
The Earth intercepts about 3x10^10MW of power.
Energy obtained by burning 1 gallon of gasoline: 1.3x10^8J
Energy obtained by fissioning 1 kg of uranium: 8.2x10^13J
Energy obtained by fusing 1 kg of deuterium: ~3.3x10^14J
So, to match the amount of solar energy intercepted by the sun, we'd have to:
I have no idea if doing any of these things is practical.
Tarkin:Try and imagine how a Photoshop/Illustrator for linux could improve the printing of images etc... ?
Printing images using GIMP/Ghostscript is already in great shape. Generally, having Adobe port their apps won't do squat for printing quality. That's a function of the printer drivers.
The distribution of galaxies throughout the universe is not uniform. This clumpiness results in regions where local gravitational interactions dominate local kinematics.
In general, though, we see other galaxies as red-shifted (receding). Things tend to get more interesting at smaller scales (for Chinese values of interesting).
Good thing that galactic spirals aren't due to winding, then, isn't it?
An excellent online reference on density waves (the phenomenon currently thought to be responsible for the appearance of spiral galaxies) is at http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu/~danforth/spiral
Density waves were proposed in the mid-60s and have (so far) stood up pretty well. What this has to do with the big bang or evolution is beyond me.
If Slack works for you, great. It may not in the future and it certainly doesn't for many Linux users.
Wow. You've left a bit of FUD on your chin. Would you like a napkin?
If some time in the future you become tired of manually configuring and building packages[...]
This shows a deep misunderstanding of how Slack and Slack packages work.
[acknowledge] that changes come through time how open-minded and forward-thinking you are.
Hmmmm. If hiding information from the administrator is open-minded and forward-thinking, give me unreceptive and reactionary any day. The concept that Linux must be easy to use for any clueless git on the planet is seriously flawed. The requirement of study and attention to detail to run a *nix system is a Good Thing. I'd prefer that people who aren't willing to put in the time and effort stay out of the pool rather than pissing in it.
There is nothing in the GPL that says corporations can't use GPL'd code.
That's what I thought. I'm also well aware of the restrictions the GPL places on distribution of code. Now we're still left with the delusional rantings of AIXadmin who seems to think that businesses and individuals are treated differently and therefore the GPL is evil.
I suppose it makes sense for publically funded software development to be released in the public domain. This whole "the GPL turns everyone who reads it into a mindles socialist zombie BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA" is a bit tiresome, however.
Both [individuals and businesses] pay tax[e]s. Both should have equal rights to federally funded software.
Perhaps I'm simply ignorant on this issue, but don't both individuals and corporations have equal rights under the GPL no matter who funded the development of the software in question? Is there something in the GPL that treats individuals differently than corporations?
Sigh. This will be my last post in this thread.
I did make an actual error in my previous post. Replace "radiosity" with "raytracing" to fix.
The phrase "take a remedial english class" did not appear in my previous post. You might consider getting some help for that persecution complex.
I'll put it as simply as I can: Just as Word's ability to print (or even render) a spreadsheet does not make it a spreadsheet program, prman's ability to call BMRT to do raytracing does not make prman a raytracing program.
I apologize if my previous use of double negatives hurt your widdle head. I'll refrain from using them in the future. HAND!
You're now talking about two separate things: Word's ability to render an Excel spreadsheet and Word's ability to print an arbitrary object it's able to render.
Let's just assume that Word can print anything it can render.
There are (at least) two situations:
If you can import the spreadsheet and print the resulting document in case (1) but not in case (2), the situation is equivalent to that with BMRT/prman.
If you can import/print in both cases, then your analogy is bogus since it would mean that Word is inherently capable of rendering an Excel spreadsheet.
The point? Well, I'm saying 'echo "Word can't render an Excel spreadsheet without Excel." | sed -e 's/Word/prman/' -e 's/render an Excel spreadsheet/do radiosity via an SL trace\(\) call/' -e 's/Excel/BMRT/'.
If you disagree with that then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
PRMAN CAN RAYTRACE USING BMRT AS A TRACER
On my planet, "Earth", when program 1 calls program 2 to do a specific task, we don't say that program 1 is performing the specific task.
BTW, I did read the link you provided, long before this thread came up. I read it again just to be sure. The HOWTO very carefully refers to two separate renderers. At no point is it even implied that prman is doing raytracing. It clearly states that you must rewrite trace() as a DSO shadeop which calls BMRT to throw some rays around. It even talks about the disadvantage of having to keep the scene geometry in memory for two different renderers.
If you still think that's prman doing raytracing then I suggest you take a remedial english class.
Fat fingered the subject...
If you read the RenderMan Interface Spec. (V 3.2) the entry for trace() reads as follows:
So, you can call trace() in prman, but it's not going to do you any good.
That said, it is possible to write a ray tracer in the shading language! This has been done, in fact, by an insane person named Katsuaki Hiramitsu. This shader, however, does not use the trace() call. The trick lies in actually defining the objects you're going to do ray tracing on in the shader along with your own version of trace(), which is, by necessity, intimately bound to the type of object you've defined.
So, saying the shading language can ray trace is like saying you can keep yourself alive for a while by eating selected portions of your own body. It's possible, but certainly pessimal.
Actually, BMRT's author (Larry Gritz) has long since left Pixar to start his own company with several other folks. They're going to be releasing yet another implementation of Renderman Real Soon Now. Larry has stated several times in comp.graphics.rendering.renderman that BMRT will continue to be free (in the sense of free beer) for the forseeable future, but efforts will concentrate mostly on development of the new renderer.