Most packages will support real-time hardware-accelerated rendering in the editor view, but there's a reason why the final renders are not usually going to be HW accelereted. It's for quality: When you use the vidcard to render, you're dependant on it: you can only render with features it has, to a level of precision it supports. Do any video cards support ray-tracing? I don't know if it could even be done in conjunction with a video card (but i am not a 3d programmer). What about correct shadows? Those stencil-buffer shadows are approximations, designed to run FAST, not WELL. That's why nvidia's professional line (the quadro) is NOT the same as their consumer/gamer line, the geforce. No, you do not want to render via video card.
Look at what the prices did once the standard was published, eh? Nothing! They didn't go anywhere! The reason modemn are so cheap is because they are winmodems! The good modems, such as the USRs, haven't ever changed in price, from the $99.99 I paid about 4 years ago, to the $99.99 they are charging now. Or $119.99 for their "gaming" modem. No, there's a bit more volume on modems, but the prices didn't change a bit, not because of the standard.
How many worms/viruses/etc has that been that have been dropping servers like flies across the world in the last 6 months? The last year? Why don't we do something about it? It isn't like the technology isn't there, but at the very least, the technology exists to filter almost all this, if it's known. And they become known pretty fast, as we've seen. Why not an RBL-type authority, where it can be automatic? Provide a database of traits of known bad emails, and just drop them. We keep having our servers hammered by this, but it's entirely unnecessary. But no one seems to LEARN! How many times before little teenie-boppers have to whack you over the head with the anvil that these damned worms is before something is done? This is insane: we can fix it, but no one has done a damned thing to date.
Do you really expect someone to be a good teacher just because they posess knowledge? There is a vast canyon between knowing the material and being to instill that knowledge into others. I'm in school now, so I see plenty of horrible teachers. Most of them know the material. However, the bad ones are disorganized and/or skip things because "I thought you knew that" or "it was in the book".
Interestingly enough the best teachers I've had have not meen the most intelligent, or the most knowledgable. Teaching is a quality on its own: Good coders are not good teachers. Good teachers are good teachers.
Just a random conspiracy here: Right now they make major office releases every say 1 or two years. Now that means file formats are really pretty constant (-ish, anyway). Now, what if they move to say a subscription format where it's feasible for them to force an upgrade every month, which changes the format? Yes, it'd be an open change, but how many OSS projects have that kind of reaction time? And to stay on the ball on that and maintain the code with bugfixes, etc? They could still be very evil with it, even if it is "open" (note the quotes: do you really think microsoft will ever Open anything? "open", maybe...)
Consider the possibilities: With this we can now reconnect optic nerves. The important thing is that if you remember, way back some time ago (can't find link, oh well) a method of drawing images directly onto the retina (assuming the optic nerve was connected still...) was developed. This effectively means a cure for any eye problem.... not too shabby.
AOL == time warner. Pretty big company? I don't have any numbers, but it seems to me that Time is probably not tiny.
Between Time and GM, that is some pretty big backing. No offense, but the rest really are small beans. But with some truly massive corporations backing a hopefully open standard, that could really provide some serious competition to M$, if they can deliver.
this truly is the fundamental question: can this be made to be more efficient than a turbine/generator combo?
If this can be more efficient than a turbine, we can have solid-state power plants. Nukes are nothing more than a complex method of boiling water to push a turbine: if we can replace the water, we have an order of magnitude less waste! Not to mention that the core stuff is much easier to deal with than heavy water. Plus, with no pumps or pipes to break, it becomes even safer than it already is.
Or other things, say laptops? PDAs? Naturally all these kinds of applications are XYZ years off, but just imagine what would happen when we get the effiency of these things up? I'd bet that boiling water to turn a turbine is real low efficiency: if we cut out the turbine step alone, that should increase effiency by a whole lot.
Consider this: if 1) It is implemented in the hardware itself, and not merely as software in the embedded system, then it's a new implementation of a free algorithm, and there is no conflict. OTOH, 2) if they are just putting your lib on a rom, then the LGPL ought to apply. My opinion in this case is of what the LGPL should do. One, you get credit. Two, Anything they change, obviously must be given back to the community. Now, I think they should be allowed to do this, Sure, it might bring it into contact with non-GPL software, but that really shouldn't make a differance here, even if it does. Why not just append a new clause onto the license? Modify it so the requirements are only dynamic linking when possible, and static is ok in embedded devices? It's the right way: it allows people to use it.
For some very very high-impact affects, check out some of the old-school sci-fi masters. Ever heard of Clarke Orbit? Also known as geosynchronous orbit (but shorter), it was originally Arthur C. Clarke's idea for stationary communications satalites. For another big one, try Asimov's robots: He invented the concept on his own: it's his word, and he created the concept. The newer sci-fi isn't going to be of much use, I think. But look at some of the much older stuff. Those are the only two examples I can think of off the top of my head, but I bet Heinlein did something.
Or, on the other hand, if you can be satinfied with sci-fi influencing/predicting the real non-tech world, what about Orwell? 1984 is more relevant now than ever, even if it's not a technology impact. Bradbury, et al. may be useful.
Somewhat offtopic, but didn't OSC say that the reason he was having a lot of trouble getting Ender's Game made into a movie was partly the lack of child actors? While there were not very many in Potter, there were more than usual (i.e. 6th Sense w/ just Osment). Any ideas on the impact this will have?
I don't know what kind of mac you're using, but any mac recent enough to ship with firewire will read Win partitions, There is no reason why you can't use vfat and have everything read it. I don't know which release works, but Mac System 8.5+ ought to do it.
Your fear-mongering. Sure, the risk exists. But I really don't think that it's reasonable. Contrast with other risks in history. Take, for instance, cars: it's easy for someone to point a car at something and put a brick on the accelerator. Trivial, in fact. Now, I think we can fairly well agree that some level of widely availible mode of transportation was necessary for society.
I think we can also agree that expansion into has been necessary (We've always explored), and will continue to be. We've covered the earth: the sky is next. Whether it's because of mining or whatever, is irrelevant: the dangers exist because we are putting the average joe up there.
What about planes? They have been used as massive weapons, but we still use them for their intended purpose. To abandon something because it potentially could be a weapon is cautious, however, to restrict civilization to the earth is ignorant, and, in the long run, suicidal.
Now, I don't know the dollars->euro exchange rate, but whatever it is, that is still amazingly cheap for a satalite of that caliber. Contrast with hubble: the cost of that was in the trillions; an order of magnitude higher.
Keep this in mind: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.
This means that if you did it, you should not get off! If you admit that you did it to your lawyer, he should turn you in!
You can cry civil liberties all you want, and I even have my reservations, but this will only affect those with something to hide. I know this sounds callous and is often critisized, but when its regarding say recording private conversations, thats one thing. But in the case of a lawyer: the lawyer is not there to get you off the hook, he's there to get you a fair trial. Don't forget that.
The big question, of course, is what a hacking device is?
I mean, if they can ban a "hacking device" they have just been vague enough to sieze anything from a computer, except MAYBE the moniter. And then consider that software product could be a hacking tool. Port scanners and security auditing tools are widely used for cracking. But on the other side they are used to combat it too.
We are hopeless, for when this passes, the government will have complete control over any and all electronics, and they cannot be held accountable.
Graphic video games are no differant than graphic movies. If the cinematic in your game is pornographic or too violent, treat it as you treat pornographic or violent sequences in the real cinemas. To treat the two as differant is nothing short of hipocrisy, as rampant as that is on/.
I do however, suggest that niether ought to be censored. Why shouldnt I play a video game? Why shouldnt I watch a movie? I have the right to do BOTH! Treat them the same and censor niether.
Have you considered the possibilites? A Dual processor RISC box for under five grand, running a BSD-derived OS. Seriously, the processors are faster than anything Intel has ever concieved (We've known for years that CISC sucks, but we still use em), they are cheap, the OS is fast and stable and secure (these are assumptions, the truth will be found out soon...).
There are many laws that can be at least justified, even if they are a bit misguided. Say' alcolhol: It fucks you up, so therefore you must be of age to drink it. At least that can be justified.
Now this law cannot be. It is said that it combats a "growing culture of violence" in our society. What I ask is: What culture? It is simply not there. If this is needed, why is it that as the number of violent video games increases (I don't have a study on this, but I believe we can reach a consensus), the amount of violence decreases? Don't believe me? Read this. According to the head of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (Vincent Schiraldi), said deaths in school have had a 40% decrease between 1998 and 1999. Overall juvenile homocides has dropped by 56%.
If there was a connection between games and violence, then it would suggest that games reduce violent acts. So then how can they possibly justify a law limiting such video games?
What makes openbsd so much more secure than any other OS like Linux, or more specifically, FreeBSD? I think it is fair to say that FreeBSD is secure and stable in the extreme (case in point, Walnut Creek). So why is OpenBSD better?
The artist has a *right* to charge for his work. And if he/she needs a conglomerate to protect his work to see that he gets paid what he demands, then he should get it.
Now this isn't to say that it is okay for these companies to blatently restrict us. For example, if we own a copy of the artists work, why can't I make myself a copy? Why not ten? Maybe I'm blind, but I don't understand this.
The artist does have a right to charge for his work. And if we don't like the price, then no one buys it. However, he has the right to distribute it free, if he so chooses.
DMCA may be bad, BUT don't attack the companies because they don't give away the product.
I work at a local computer store and sometimes cashier. Essentially, it is much easier to steal it from there on paper than in is to do a crack online.
Look at this: I have a big red bin sitting up on the counter where every reciept goes, organized by card provider (visa, etc). Sitting right out on the counter. Hundreds of receipts with the complete info, the number, the expiration date and the customer's name. Anyone can come and rip off a ton, if they want, and no one would suspect for a LONG while. Also, the camera's were recently added: that is, there have been years where there was no kind of security whatsoever. And no one actually moniters the cameras now, either.
It is far less difficult to rip it off the old fashioned way than to crack. Worry about the REAL world, the digital one is safe.
Now leaving out the password is insane, this does not make it any easier than stealing it from the store. Caution is pointless when both are equally vulnerable.
I prefer 'fake' contact to the real kind. So what? I am the only person that I know thats like that. At my school most people are your basic socializer-partygoer stereotype. The vast majority of people I know are like this, so it isn't an issue. ANd besides, there were antisocials before the Net, too
This is probably offensive and politically incorrect. But its true. Question: Why is it that many of the greatest people of history are men? I do not mean to say that women do not play a part, only that many of the greatest scientific advances have been by men. Think about it: Alan Turing, Newton, Einstein, Martin Luther King. Every great advance (and regression, say Nazi Germany) that I can think of has been done by men. Again, I am not saying that women had no part, only that the history courses I have taken have not covered many women. If my knowledge is not grossly lacking (which it may be), then I suggest that this trend that we see in the past is what we see now in technology industries, and, perhaps, it will be what we see in the future. My apologies for this rather anti-women post.
I would rather nominate John Carmack. Before you flame me, this ISNT an id vs. Epic post. I merely think that Carmack deserves in on the basis that he, and NOT Sweeny, had the courage to make a game that was totally off from what was sold before. UT & Q3A are good games, but I salute Carmack for not being afraid to take the first step.
Slashdot Mirror
Most packages will support real-time hardware-accelerated rendering in the editor view, but there's a reason why the final renders are not usually going to be HW accelereted. It's for quality: When you use the vidcard to render, you're dependant on it: you can only render with features it has, to a level of precision it supports. Do any video cards support ray-tracing? I don't know if it could even be done in conjunction with a video card (but i am not a 3d programmer). What about correct shadows? Those stencil-buffer shadows are approximations, designed to run FAST, not WELL. That's why nvidia's professional line (the quadro) is NOT the same as their consumer/gamer line, the geforce. No, you do not want to render via video card.
Look at what the prices did once the standard was published, eh? Nothing! They didn't go anywhere! The reason modemn are so cheap is because they are winmodems! The good modems, such as the USRs, haven't ever changed in price, from the $99.99 I paid about 4 years ago, to the $99.99 they are charging now. Or $119.99 for their "gaming" modem. No, there's a bit more volume on modems, but the prices didn't change a bit, not because of the standard.
How many worms/viruses/etc has that been that have been dropping servers like flies across the world in the last 6 months? The last year? Why don't we do something about it? It isn't like the technology isn't there, but at the very least, the technology exists to filter almost all this, if it's known. And they become known pretty fast, as we've seen. Why not an RBL-type authority, where it can be automatic? Provide a database of traits of known bad emails, and just drop them. We keep having our servers hammered by this, but it's entirely unnecessary. But no one seems to LEARN! How many times before little teenie-boppers have to whack you over the head with the anvil that these damned worms is before something is done? This is insane: we can fix it, but no one has done a damned thing to date.
Do you really expect someone to be a good teacher just because they posess knowledge? There is a vast canyon between knowing the material and being to instill that knowledge into others. I'm in school now, so I see plenty of horrible teachers. Most of them know the material. However, the bad ones are disorganized and/or skip things because "I thought you knew that" or "it was in the book".
Interestingly enough the best teachers I've had have not meen the most intelligent, or the most knowledgable. Teaching is a quality on its own: Good coders are not good teachers. Good teachers are good teachers.
Just a random conspiracy here: Right now they make major office releases every say 1 or two years. Now that means file formats are really pretty constant (-ish, anyway). Now, what if they move to say a subscription format where it's feasible for them to force an upgrade every month, which changes the format? Yes, it'd be an open change, but how many OSS projects have that kind of reaction time? And to stay on the ball on that and maintain the code with bugfixes, etc? They could still be very evil with it, even if it is "open" (note the quotes: do you really think microsoft will ever Open anything? "open", maybe...)
Consider the possibilities: With this we can now reconnect optic nerves. The important thing is that if you remember, way back some time ago (can't find link, oh well) a method of drawing images directly onto the retina (assuming the optic nerve was connected still...) was developed. This effectively means a cure for any eye problem.... not too shabby.
AOL == time warner. Pretty big company? I don't have any numbers, but it seems to me that Time is probably not tiny.
Between Time and GM, that is some pretty big backing. No offense, but the rest really are small beans. But with some truly massive corporations backing a hopefully open standard, that could really provide some serious competition to M$, if they can deliver.
this truly is the fundamental question: can this be made to be more efficient than a turbine/generator combo?
If this can be more efficient than a turbine, we can have solid-state power plants. Nukes are nothing more than a complex method of boiling water to push a turbine: if we can replace the water, we have an order of magnitude less waste! Not to mention that the core stuff is much easier to deal with than heavy water. Plus, with no pumps or pipes to break, it becomes even safer than it already is.
Or other things, say laptops? PDAs? Naturally all these kinds of applications are XYZ years off, but just imagine what would happen when we get the effiency of these things up? I'd bet that boiling water to turn a turbine is real low efficiency: if we cut out the turbine step alone, that should increase effiency by a whole lot.
This is truly cool shit.
Consider this: if 1) It is implemented in the hardware itself, and not merely as software in the embedded system, then it's a new implementation of a free algorithm, and there is no conflict. OTOH, 2) if they are just putting your lib on a rom, then the LGPL ought to apply. My opinion in this case is of what the LGPL should do. One, you get credit. Two, Anything they change, obviously must be given back to the community. Now, I think they should be allowed to do this, Sure, it might bring it into contact with non-GPL software, but that really shouldn't make a differance here, even if it does. Why not just append a new clause onto the license? Modify it so the requirements are only dynamic linking when possible, and static is ok in embedded devices? It's the right way: it allows people to use it.
For some very very high-impact affects, check out some of the old-school sci-fi masters. Ever heard of Clarke Orbit? Also known as geosynchronous orbit (but shorter), it was originally Arthur C. Clarke's idea for stationary communications satalites. For another big one, try Asimov's robots: He invented the concept on his own: it's his word, and he created the concept. The newer sci-fi isn't going to be of much use, I think. But look at some of the much older stuff. Those are the only two examples I can think of off the top of my head, but I bet Heinlein did something.
Or, on the other hand, if you can be satinfied with sci-fi influencing/predicting the real non-tech world, what about Orwell? 1984 is more relevant now than ever, even if it's not a technology impact. Bradbury, et al. may be useful.
Just my 2c.
Somewhat offtopic, but didn't OSC say that the reason he was having a lot of trouble getting Ender's Game made into a movie was partly the lack of child actors? While there were not very many in Potter, there were more than usual (i.e. 6th Sense w/ just Osment). Any ideas on the impact this will have?
I don't know what kind of mac you're using, but any mac recent enough to ship with firewire will read Win partitions, There is no reason why you can't use vfat and have everything read it. I don't know which release works, but Mac System 8.5+ ought to do it.
Bull shit.
Your fear-mongering. Sure, the risk exists. But I really don't think that it's reasonable. Contrast with other risks in history. Take, for instance, cars: it's easy for someone to point a car at something and put a brick on the accelerator. Trivial, in fact. Now, I think we can fairly well agree that some level of widely availible mode of transportation was necessary for society.
I think we can also agree that expansion into has been necessary (We've always explored), and will continue to be. We've covered the earth: the sky is next. Whether it's because of mining or whatever, is irrelevant: the dangers exist because we are putting the average joe up there.
What about planes? They have been used as massive weapons, but we still use them for their intended purpose. To abandon something because it potentially could be a weapon is cautious, however, to restrict civilization to the earth is ignorant, and, in the long run, suicidal.
Now, I don't know the dollars->euro exchange rate, but whatever it is, that is still amazingly cheap for a satalite of that caliber. Contrast with hubble: the cost of that was in the trillions; an order of magnitude higher.
Why can't NASA accomplish anything like this?
Keep this in mind: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.
This means that if you did it, you should not get off! If you admit that you did it to your lawyer, he should turn you in!
You can cry civil liberties all you want, and I even have my reservations, but this will only affect those with something to hide. I know this sounds callous and is often critisized, but when its regarding say recording private conversations, thats one thing. But in the case of a lawyer: the lawyer is not there to get you off the hook, he's there to get you a fair trial. Don't forget that.
The big question, of course, is what a hacking device is?
I mean, if they can ban a "hacking device" they have just been vague enough to sieze anything from a computer, except MAYBE the moniter. And then consider that software product could be a hacking tool. Port scanners and security auditing tools are widely used for cracking. But on the other side they are used to combat it too.
We are hopeless, for when this passes, the government will have complete control over any and all electronics, and they cannot be held accountable.
Good luck, we'll need it.
Graphic video games are no differant than graphic movies. If the cinematic in your game is pornographic or too violent, treat it as you treat pornographic or violent sequences in the real cinemas. To treat the two as differant is nothing short of hipocrisy, as rampant as that is on /.
I do however, suggest that niether ought to be censored. Why shouldnt I play a video game? Why shouldnt I watch a movie? I have the right to do BOTH! Treat them the same and censor niether.
Have you considered the possibilites? A Dual processor RISC box for under five grand, running a BSD-derived OS. Seriously, the processors are faster than anything Intel has ever concieved (We've known for years that CISC sucks, but we still use em), they are cheap, the OS is fast and stable and secure (these are assumptions, the truth will be found out soon...).
It's the best web server the world has ever seen!
There are many laws that can be at least justified, even if they are a bit misguided. Say' alcolhol: It fucks you up, so therefore you must be of age to drink it. At least that can be justified.
Now this law cannot be. It is said that it combats a "growing culture of violence" in our society. What I ask is: What culture? It is simply not there. If this is needed, why is it that as the number of violent video games increases (I don't have a study on this, but I believe we can reach a consensus), the amount of violence decreases? Don't believe me? Read this. According to the head of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (Vincent Schiraldi), said deaths in school have had a 40% decrease between 1998 and 1999. Overall juvenile homocides has dropped by 56%.
If there was a connection between games and violence, then it would suggest that games reduce violent acts. So then how can they possibly justify a law limiting such video games?
Question:
What makes openbsd so much more secure than any other OS like Linux, or more specifically, FreeBSD? I think it is fair to say that FreeBSD is secure and stable in the extreme (case in point, Walnut Creek). So why is OpenBSD better?
Katz, you missed something:
The artist has a *right* to charge for his work. And if he/she needs a conglomerate to protect his work to see that he gets paid what he demands, then he should get it.
Now this isn't to say that it is okay for these companies to blatently restrict us. For example, if we own a copy of the artists work, why can't I make myself a copy? Why not ten? Maybe I'm blind, but I don't understand this.
The artist does have a right to charge for his work. And if we don't like the price, then no one buys it. However, he has the right to distribute it free, if he so chooses.
DMCA may be bad, BUT don't attack the companies because they don't give away the product.
I work at a local computer store and sometimes cashier. Essentially, it is much easier to steal it from there on paper than in is to do a crack online.
Look at this: I have a big red bin sitting up on the counter where every reciept goes, organized by card provider (visa, etc). Sitting right out on the counter. Hundreds of receipts with the complete info, the number, the expiration date and the customer's name. Anyone can come and rip off a ton, if they want, and no one would suspect for a LONG while. Also, the camera's were recently added: that is, there have been years where there was no kind of security whatsoever. And no one actually moniters the cameras now, either.
It is far less difficult to rip it off the old fashioned way than to crack. Worry about the REAL world, the digital one is safe.
Now leaving out the password is insane, this does not make it any easier than stealing it from the store. Caution is pointless when both are equally vulnerable.
Just another perspective.
I prefer 'fake' contact to the real kind. So what? I am the only person that I know thats like that. At my school most people are your basic socializer-partygoer stereotype. The vast majority of people I know are like this, so it isn't an issue. ANd besides, there were antisocials before the Net, too
This is probably offensive and politically incorrect. But its true. Question: Why is it that many of the greatest people of history are men? I do not mean to say that women do not play a part, only that many of the greatest scientific advances have been by men. Think about it: Alan Turing, Newton, Einstein, Martin Luther King. Every great advance (and regression, say Nazi Germany) that I can think of has been done by men. Again, I am not saying that women had no part, only that the history courses I have taken have not covered many women. If my knowledge is not grossly lacking (which it may be), then I suggest that this trend that we see in the past is what we see now in technology industries, and, perhaps, it will be what we see in the future. My apologies for this rather anti-women post.
I would rather nominate John Carmack. Before you flame me, this ISNT an id vs. Epic post. I merely think that Carmack deserves in on the basis that he, and NOT Sweeny, had the courage to make a game that was totally off from what was sold before. UT & Q3A are good games, but I salute Carmack for not being afraid to take the first step.