I'm not sure about that one, crystal space claims to be able to use dynamic LOD but it's not going to be accelerated.
I know Microsoft is planning a programmable geometry pipeline as well as vertex and pixel shaders for, the geometry should in theory be able to handle nurbs and other 3d solids and blobs etc... It would be nice if they introduces some more noise functions into the pixel pipeline to make things look 'used' or dirty instead of that horrible plastic / metallic phong that you get with the current games engines.
It's for the player to identify with the character and enjoy living the character's life for a while, doing whatever it is the character does in the game.
And why wouldn't a woman want to identify with the 'She's prettier than you, sexier than you, and looks better in her clothes than you' woman?
on a side note, how many spotty geeks in anoraks do you see portrayed as male characters in games? not many, there all well build, good looking etc...
On another note, as polygon counts skyrocket they approach single pixel size.
Or, as Microsoft may be doing, you use nurbs, splines and 3d solids and then get the GPU to generate the interpolated edges and vertexes, so that circles look circular not matter how close you get. Polygon will start to be replaced by CSG, and solid primitives.
GPU's are designed to do parallel bulk vector processing (which is why they can transcode faster than a CPU) but this also limits what kind of applications or tasks you can reasonably offload to the GPU.
This means that the 'general purpose GPU' code, isn't really going to be general purpose, it going to be heavily vector orientated. On the other side the CPU is more general purpose, good at running many tasks and handling interrupts &co, for this reason the CPU won't replace the GPU and the GPU won't replace the CPU, no matter how many mflops you can squeeze out of either.
It would be nice to have protein folding done of the GPU, since it's a task the a GPU should be good at.
digital is highly prone to accumulative errors, say for instance the original digital file is in an odd charset, when the digital data is moved to a new storage medium they decided to convert everything into UTF16, but miss that fact that the file is in an odd charset and convert it incorrectly.
After a few generations of thouse sorts of errors you could end up with a digital copy with many possible unspotable mistakes.
Analoge/ Paper tech degrade a little more gracefully when their coppied.
adjusting to anything else would seriously hinder my productivity, for a couple of weeks after which it may improve significantly.
I like vim for command line and something like textpad for GUI text editing. I've never tried Emacs, but then again I don't do a huge amount of text editing.
Do you know what the X in XML stands for? It stands for the ability for a format to change but provide backwards compatibility, it allows OpenDocument for to grow to fit it's needs inclusing those gotchas ten years down the line.
Most modern books will be printed on acidic wood pulp paper (as apposed to acid free hemp, cloth (cotton based paper) or more expensive acid free wood pulp). Over a period of time the acid will erode the paper until between 20-60 years later all your left with is crumbs.
Modern print is crippled by paper tech that means you'll never have a copy survive until it's out of copyright, just like modern digital is crippled by DRM and can never be released into the public domain by someone who owns a copy.
Disney deliberately make sure that their movies are only on shore release DVD/VHS runs to keep the price and demand up when they come to remaster a new release. It's a way of making sure you make money from your IP.
Personally I think the length of copyright should be reduced to no longer than 25years(If you can't milk a product in 25Years then why not let someone else have the chance)
Prolog is quite easy to use and is inherently paralell, that why they chose it for the 5th Generation computing project that never really got anywhere (possibly because it was way before it's time)
My stance is that because there is no proof what so ever, I say that the thing for which there is no proof it doesn't exist. But we all know that it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, so my stance is slightly delusional because you could call it a belief, infact everything we think is only a belief resulting from the delusional portrayal of the world around us by our brain.
You are spouting all kinds of things for which you not only don't have any proof, but have made up. Making things up for which you have no proof of existence is very delusional.
I can accept my slight delusion, you appear to be unable to accept you complete delusion, which again goes to point at you being more delusional than me.
I honestly can't blame the politicians. If they follow the polls all the time, they're seen as wishy-washy and inconsistent populists. If they try to use their own judgment, and damn the polls, they're seen as elitist fascists The problem is that they pick statistics to match their desires, appoint their mates for top jobs, even though they've repeatedly fucked up, don't admit their lies and don't inform us of how they make their decisions i.e. what their view of utopia is and how this decision brings the world a little closer.
Well, democracy is the worst form of government there is, except for all the others. Not all democracies are equal, for instance in the UK we have a 'first past the post' system that means that if the top three parties all get 1/3 of the vote Labour (old left wing, new center-right) comes out tops with a majority > 50% of the seats, Conservative (right wing) come in next with a little over a third of the seats and Liberal (left wing) come in last with a only a few seats. a Proportional representation system like many other democracies have would see the three parties each having 1/3 of the seats, this kind of system allows minority parties like the greens, or the neo-Nazis getting a say in what happens too.
It seems modern governments are more concerned with keeping their power by bowing down to the opinion of the general doesn't know what their talking about' public instead of giving greater weight to those people that do know their stuff. Next they'll be telling us Iraq has WMD's because they overherd someone talking in the rugby club showers.
Wow, you sound like someone using the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. Bring a reference and we'll talk.
Newton, and almost every other scientist that had to work in a religious environment. The problem is that I have to infer how else could I possible respond to something that's pure delusion, and I only responded to point out that your ideas a far more delusional than mine.
I'm having a hard time picking anyone in some of the categories, but because I can't vote in one category without having to vote in all categories I'm going to have to do the 'vote for the least worst candidate' thing. Why couldn't they have put a cowboy neil option.
I have yet to hear of a single testable facet of evolution
Just look at food crops, and dogs. Carefully bread to their maximum ability as producing food or being working animals, this is a forced, reproducable kind of evolution.
You can also look at headgehogs, years ago they used to curl up into balls, but as cars have runover the hedgehogs that curl up into balls the one that run have survived, nowadays hedgehogs don't curl up into balls they run, they have evolved to evade cars.
God gave the people of that time 120 years to turn from their wickedness, while Noah suffered 120 years of scoffing and ridicule from them. God promised that the next time that evil rises to such a level, the agent of destruction will be fire.
That's funny, because most of the religious (Jewish / Christian) people I know follow the morals of the bible far less than the majority of the atheist people I know, there also far more environmentally friendly and will possibly reduce the flood caused by global warming. Anyhow, I'll keep trying to convert people away from the 'evils' of religion, and if something happens you can say I told you so, but that would prove God existed and you'd be stuck in the babble fish quandary.
Your God is too small! Why should it not be possible for an omnipotent God My God isn't small, my God does not exist (and neither does yours), lets say for a moment that you God does exist, does you God interact with people? and if so, why, whenever scientists look at things to they find science and not God (is God playing games with us for his own entertainment). You'd think by no someone would be able to point to one thing that has happend in the past thousand years as the result of God.
Those who don't want to believe scoff and ridicule all this of course. See, that's exactly what I would say that the deluded believers do to the non-believers and people of other faiths. When was the last time someone handed you a card saying God doesn't exist, have you ever had someone with a copy of the new scientist knocking on your door? What about those atheist leaders that don't go around invading Muslim countries.
It's not that I don't want to believe, it's that there is nothing for me to believe in that's why I call believers delusional. I also know a far few schizophrenics, some of there behavior is uncannily like that of religious people, it's probably the same bits of the brain that give religious people their delusions.
There is nothing deterministic about evolution well if you've said that God setup the course and sent the ball rolling then there is everything deterministic about evolution or how else could God have designed us using evolution.
If God interferes in our daily lives then you end up with intelligent design, there is also no evidence what so ever that God interferes with anything if so point me to a single, peer reviewed study that show the opposite. (The miricals in the bible don't cut it there as scientific as frankenstein's monster)
Science is God, religion is fudd, because of my first and second points.
You seem to be picking random ideas and joining them together in a way that can only be done if something 'super natural' is happening even though they can be joined together in a way where nothing 'super natural' is required, you may as well make up anything you want and say it's true. You are not making a leap of faith you are accepting something that is completely irrational.
Unless a soul is like a score card kept by God it must interact with our boddies. Also what is the point of the score card, and what about Cubans, and people from other countries where there's an almost 100% level of atheism. What if tomorrow the whole world becomes atheist, what would God do then.
I'm a Christian and I believe animals have a soul, too. Only theirs is pure.
What about rocks, or the wind. Really were not all that different from them, so do they have souls too? What about white blood cells, there almost a separate organism, do they have separate souls from humans? and what about retro viruses that mix with our DNA, do we inherit their souls.
Now, if you can prove that a soul is a reality then there's a million dollar prize you can claim.
If God used evolution then (I'm Talking the Jewish/Muslim/Christian God, not the cow God or the sun God here)
1. Free will doesn't exist 2. God does not interfear with our daily lives 3. Science is God, religion is fudd.
So, basically if God used evolution then you may as well say that God doesn't exist because he no longer influences you, you no longer influence him and the religion that created the God in the first place is fudd.
I think a better way to look at it is to say that the Universe was created by something with exactly the same amount of energy as the Universe, ergo the Universe created it'self.
Slashdot Mirror
$5 million could be the cost of setting up a world wide call center based in South Korea.
I'm not sure about that one, crystal space claims to be able to use dynamic LOD but it's not going to be accelerated.
I know Microsoft is planning a programmable geometry pipeline as well as vertex and pixel shaders for, the geometry should in theory be able to handle nurbs and other 3d solids and blobs etc... It would be nice if they introduces some more noise functions into the pixel pipeline to make things look 'used' or dirty instead of that horrible plastic / metallic phong that you get with the current games engines.
It's for the player to identify with the character and enjoy living the character's life for a while, doing whatever it is the character does in the game.
And why wouldn't a woman want to identify with the 'She's prettier than you, sexier than you, and looks better in her clothes than you' woman?
on a side note, how many spotty geeks in anoraks do you see portrayed as male characters in games? not many, there all well build, good looking etc...
On another note, as polygon counts skyrocket they approach single pixel size.
Or, as Microsoft may be doing, you use nurbs, splines and 3d solids and then get the GPU to generate the interpolated edges and vertexes, so that circles look circular not matter how close you get. Polygon will start to be replaced by CSG, and solid primitives.
GPU's are designed to do parallel bulk vector processing (which is why they can transcode faster than a CPU) but this also limits what kind of applications or tasks you can reasonably offload to the GPU.
This means that the 'general purpose GPU' code, isn't really going to be general purpose, it going to be heavily vector orientated. On the other side the CPU is more general purpose, good at running many tasks and handling interrupts &co, for this reason the CPU won't replace the GPU and the GPU won't replace the CPU, no matter how many mflops you can squeeze out of either.
It would be nice to have protein folding done of the GPU, since it's a task the a GPU should be good at.
digital is highly prone to accumulative errors, say for instance the original digital file is in an odd charset, when the digital data is moved to a new storage medium they decided to convert everything into UTF16, but miss that fact that the file is in an odd charset and convert it incorrectly.
After a few generations of thouse sorts of errors you could end up with a digital copy with many possible unspotable mistakes.
Analoge/ Paper tech degrade a little more gracefully when their coppied.
adjusting to anything else would seriously hinder my productivity, for a couple of weeks after which it may improve significantly.
I like vim for command line and something like textpad for GUI text editing. I've never tried Emacs, but then again I don't do a huge amount of text editing.
That has to be the only benefit of this getting passed, a viable alternative.
That's why you need , OK it's a dead project now but if you want to provide backwards compatibility I can restart the project and provide full read-write and conversion between and access file formats.
Do you know what the X in XML stands for? It stands for the ability for a format to change but provide backwards compatibility, it allows OpenDocument for to grow to fit it's needs inclusing those gotchas ten years down the line.
You know nothing about paper do you?
Most modern books will be printed on acidic wood pulp paper (as apposed to acid free hemp, cloth (cotton based paper) or more expensive acid free wood pulp). Over a period of time the acid will erode the paper until between 20-60 years later all your left with is crumbs.
Modern print is crippled by paper tech that means you'll never have a copy survive until it's out of copyright, just like modern digital is crippled by DRM and can never be released into the public domain by someone who owns a copy.
Disney deliberately make sure that their movies are only on shore release DVD/VHS runs to keep the price and demand up when they come to remaster a new release. It's a way of making sure you make money from your IP.
Personally I think the length of copyright should be reduced to no longer than 25years(If you can't milk a product in 25Years then why not let someone else have the chance)
Prolog is quite easy to use and is inherently paralell, that why they chose it for the 5th Generation computing project that never really got anywhere (possibly because it was way before it's time)
My stance is that because there is no proof what so ever, I say that the thing for which there is no proof it doesn't exist. But we all know that it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, so my stance is slightly delusional because you could call it a belief, infact everything we think is only a belief resulting from the delusional portrayal of the world around us by our brain.
You are spouting all kinds of things for which you not only don't have any proof, but have made up. Making things up for which you have no proof of existence is very delusional.
I can accept my slight delusion, you appear to be unable to accept you complete delusion, which again goes to point at you being more delusional than me.
I honestly can't blame the politicians. If they follow the polls all the time, they're seen as wishy-washy and inconsistent populists. If they try to use their own judgment, and damn the polls, they're seen as elitist fascists
The problem is that they pick statistics to match their desires, appoint their mates for top jobs, even though they've repeatedly fucked up, don't admit their lies and don't inform us of how they make their decisions i.e. what their view of utopia is and how this decision brings the world a little closer.
Well, democracy is the worst form of government there is, except for all the others.
Not all democracies are equal, for instance in the UK we have a 'first past the post' system that means that if the top three parties all get 1/3 of the vote Labour (old left wing, new center-right) comes out tops with a majority > 50% of the seats, Conservative (right wing) come in next with a little over a third of the seats and Liberal (left wing) come in last with a only a few seats. a Proportional representation system like many other democracies have would see the three parties each having 1/3 of the seats, this kind of system allows minority parties like the greens, or the neo-Nazis getting a say in what happens too.
It seems modern governments are more concerned with keeping their power by bowing down to the opinion of the general doesn't know what their talking about' public instead of giving greater weight to those people that do know their stuff. Next they'll be telling us Iraq has WMD's because they overherd someone talking in the rugby club showers.
Wow, you sound like someone using the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. Bring a reference and we'll talk.
Newton, and almost every other scientist that had to work in a religious environment. The problem is that I have to infer how else could I possible respond to something that's pure delusion, and I only responded to point out that your ideas a far more delusional than mine.
That happens to be the first, and perhaps only article of faith
I do not require any faith to believe a fact.
I'm having a hard time picking anyone in some of the categories, but because I can't vote in one category without having to vote in all categories I'm going to have to do the 'vote for the least worst candidate' thing. Why couldn't they have put a cowboy neil option.
I have yet to hear of a single testable facet of evolution
Just look at food crops, and dogs. Carefully bread to their maximum ability as producing food or being working animals, this is a forced, reproducable kind of evolution.
You can also look at headgehogs, years ago they used to curl up into balls, but as cars have runover the hedgehogs that curl up into balls the one that run have survived, nowadays hedgehogs don't curl up into balls they run, they have evolved to evade cars.
God gave the people of that time 120 years to turn from their wickedness, while Noah suffered 120 years of scoffing and ridicule from them. God promised that the next time that evil rises to such a level, the agent of destruction will be fire.
That's funny, because most of the religious (Jewish / Christian) people I know follow the morals of the bible far less than the majority of the atheist people I know, there also far more environmentally friendly and will possibly reduce the flood caused by global warming. Anyhow, I'll keep trying to convert people away from the 'evils' of religion, and if something happens you can say I told you so, but that would prove God existed and you'd be stuck in the babble fish quandary.
Your God is too small! Why should it not be possible for an omnipotent God My God isn't small, my God does not exist (and neither does yours), lets say for a moment that you God does exist, does you God interact with people? and if so, why, whenever scientists look at things to they find science and not God (is God playing games with us for his own entertainment). You'd think by no someone would be able to point to one thing that has happend in the past thousand years as the result of God.
Those who don't want to believe scoff and ridicule all this of course. See, that's exactly what I would say that the deluded believers do to the non-believers and people of other faiths. When was the last time someone handed you a card saying God doesn't exist, have you ever had someone with a copy of the new scientist knocking on your door? What about those atheist leaders that don't go around invading Muslim countries.
It's not that I don't want to believe, it's that there is nothing for me to believe in that's why I call believers delusional. I also know a far few schizophrenics, some of there behavior is uncannily like that of religious people, it's probably the same bits of the brain that give religious people their delusions.
There is nothing deterministic about evolution
well if you've said that God setup the course and sent the ball rolling then there is everything deterministic about evolution or how else could God have designed us using evolution.
If God interferes in our daily lives then you end up with intelligent design, there is also no evidence what so ever that God interferes with anything if so point me to a single, peer reviewed study that show the opposite. (The miricals in the bible don't cut it there as scientific as frankenstein's monster)
Science is God, religion is fudd, because of my first and second points.
You seem to be picking random ideas and joining them together in a way that can only be done if something 'super natural' is happening even though they can be joined together in a way where nothing 'super natural' is required, you may as well make up anything you want and say it's true. You are not making a leap of faith you are accepting something that is completely irrational.
Unless a soul is like a score card kept by God it must interact with our boddies. Also what is the point of the score card, and what about Cubans, and people from other countries where there's an almost 100% level of atheism. What if tomorrow the whole world becomes atheist, what would God do then.
I'm a Christian and I believe animals have a soul, too. Only theirs is pure.
What about rocks, or the wind. Really were not all that different from them, so do they have souls too? What about white blood cells, there almost a separate organism, do they have separate souls from humans? and what about retro viruses that mix with our DNA, do we inherit their souls.
Now, if you can prove that a soul is a reality then there's a million dollar prize you can claim.
If God used evolution then (I'm Talking the Jewish/Muslim/Christian God, not the cow God or the sun God here)
1. Free will doesn't exist
2. God does not interfear with our daily lives
3. Science is God, religion is fudd.
So, basically if God used evolution then you may as well say that God doesn't exist because he no longer influences you, you no longer influence him and the religion that created the God in the first place is fudd.
I think a better way to look at it is to say that the Universe was created by something with exactly the same amount of energy as the Universe, ergo the Universe created it'self.