Everyone interested in high performance software is moving to data parallel many threaded designs right now. Within a couple of years, it should be fairly unusual for CPU sensitive apps not to have at least 4 threads.
You think that kind of place has a bathroom on the inside?
Re:Positively fantastic news
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
a new route to making insulin can't possibly make it cost *more*.
Unless of course it bypasses regulatory hurdles allowing drug manufacturers to drop the older, lower profit method and/or they collude to use the new method as an excuse to raise prices.
No obvious reason for it not to be arbitrary, except for performance limitations. I'm guessing by fuzzing your view through the portal they limit the depth they need to render through the portal, but for number of portals, there's no obvious reason you can't just render scene after scene into each portal texture.
Linux development tools don't hold up to VC/DirectX yet. So a linux bootdisk as the target doesn't work well. A windows bootdisk would have license issues with MS.
And even if linux were more viable... you'd have to ship with soooo many drivers for good performance (a boot disk that works well on all systems doesn't use the advanced 3d features of cards that games would need).
The article actually talks about moving even more of the graphics work from CPU to GPU, thus freeing up more CPU time for AI/Physics/Whatever. However, DX10 also makes general parallel computation easier to accomplish on the GPU, so we'll likely start seeing some game devs compute physics on the GPU as well.
You can simulate a network of neurons on a single processor, pretty much as large a network as you'd like, the only limit being memory and speed, and this has been done, but a neuronal simulation with good accuracy runs at best at something like 100x realtime on current commodity processors (so you can simulate a network of roughly 100 neurons in real time, or 10,000 at 100x compressed time. To get up to the ~10 billion neurons you'll want to simulate to reproduce a human brain... you'll obviously need a fair number of processors, or a lot of patience.
I doubt this effort will amount to anything, not enough processor capacity yet.
Obviously they take risks. But the question was whether they took any real risk. Will they be unable to feed or house their families if their risk goes bad? Or just not as extravagantly?
Your argument seems contradictory. The drunk drivers themselves are the ones who should pay the medical bills.
That would be great, if it were possible. But in most cases the medical bills exceed the ability of the drunk to pay, and then society ends up subsidizing. So I believe my proposal would result in a lower net cost to the rest of us.
I would also be perfectly happy with a system that required drinkers to purchase drunk accident insurance, in advance of their being sold alcohol. Perhaps that would be the best system, you must show your proof of drunk accident insurance before you buy.
Therefore, we must all be slaves to the government. Are you prepared to admit this?
I believe that is factually correct. The government can execute us if it wants to, and we cannot commit suicide legally. I would much prefer to live in a world where people were responsible, but I don't.
Don't serve anyone alcohol that will put them over the legal limit to drive unless you're sure they're not going to drive.
Take responsibility for when your actions put others in danger. The drunk is responsible also, but if you carelessly feed his addiction part of the blame belongs with you.
Yes, we should give it up, because it causes more serious consequences for innocent people who have nothing to do with the drugs than the harm done to the one person who uses them.
I dispute that claim. I'd say that legalized drugs (as evidenced by legalized alcohol) would cause more harm to innocent people.
It wasn't right thing to do, because most people use alcohol responsibly, and they shouldn't have to pay the higher costs associated with the bans to cover those who are irresponsible.
I'd also have to dispute that. Most people who use any alcohol do so irresponsibly. Drinking and driving is rampant in the USA at least. Why should those of us who don't drink have to subsidize enforcement measures, medical bills, etc caused by drunk driving accidents?
If there is a way to do this that doesn't interfere with my causual beer consumption (in higher costs or otherwise), I would be welcome to any suggestions. Or, are you trying to tell me that I should be forced to abstain from enjoying a couple of my favorite brews after a hard days work?
How about just restricting the sale of high alcohol content beverages, and holding alcohol servers liable if they are the last bar to serve alcohol to a patron who later commits a drunk driving accident (over the limit)? Bar owners would need to install breathalyzers, and make sure they aren't over-serving. Party holders would be motivated to make sure their party-goers aren't over consuming and driving themselves home. People drinking responsibly at home and not driving would be unaffected.
Why should anyone be allowed to dictate what people should be allowed to put into their own bodies? Do we not own our own body? If we do, don't we have a right to cause it harm if we so desire?
Nope... suicide is illegal for a reason. Here's a business plan I have if your world comes to pass: Go to the kindergartens, and offer kids free (legal) samples of my custom drug. Once they're addicted, I'll offer to sell it to the parents. I'll even offer convenient climb-down dosages for parents who want to get their kids off the addiction. Woo hoo profit!
But at that point, I've driven to the video store, so I'm leaving with at least one movie. So, I spend 45 minutes to finally decide on something that I don't even care about, just so my trip wasn't a total loss.
Or from another point of view: your trip was a total loss, and you spent $2 on a movie you didn't want to see, and maybe you'll suffer through watching it, and you have to return it.
But statistically, it is almost certainly the case that legalized alcohol causes more deaths and injury per year in the form of driving accidents than prohibition did in the form of gang warfare. But the gang warfare was highly visible and involved guns, which scare people more than cars, even though they are significantly less deadly, because basically everyone owns a car. Should we give up banning hard core addictive drugs because there is gang warfare surrounding those? Just because prohibition didn't work, doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. We have a ban in place on murders too, how well does that work?
I certainly believe alcohol should be banned to the same extent as other addictive, destructive drugs that render the user a danger to those around them. I certainly wouldn't mind accomplishing it in a more effective way than immediate prohibition.
Cigarettes are a somewhat different case. Nicotine, as a mild stimulant, doesn't seem to render the user a significant danger to those around them when operating heavy machinery. It does present a threat via area exposure when smoked, so I think in this case it would be a start to place it in the same category as caffeine, with the additional restriction that in the smoking form it not be allowed in public places and around children, to protect the public from unwanted exposure. However, given the health harm it causes to the user and its addictive qualities, it would also be reasonable for society to consider an eventual complete ban.
The only moral right we have as humans is to proceed with the course of our action as long as it doesn't forcibly harm anyone else.
The argument goes that offering gambling to a gambling addict (and by this taking his money) takes advantage of the force offered by neurological addiction, thus forcible harm.
I think gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math, and should be 100% legal.
It's only a tax if at least some of the gambling losses go to the legitimate government of the gamblers (state lotteries), which is typically not the case with offshore online casinos.
And in any case, people who want to make gambling illegal are generally in favor of that position for the same reason that many people oppose drug legalization: the addiction problem. When you legalize things that lead to addiction, addiction rates have a tendency to go up, and it's challenging to argue that the addiction is good for people. What you can typically argue more effectively is that by driving these addictions underground, it becomes harder to monitor the dangers, and that a violent criminal element tends to develop around the addiction, and that maybe this isn't a net gain (but this is extremely difficult to prove, try to imagine running the study to determine: how many people were hurt/killed by alcohol gangs during prohibition vs how many people are hurt/killed by drunk drivers in the legalized alcohol regime).
Their values voters care about lots of 'morals' issues not well documented in the bible. You might as well ask: where's the prohibition against human cloning in the bible?
No, what they say is 'the proof is in the pudding' as you admit when you point out that most people get it 'wrong'. If most people say 'the proof is in the pudding' then that is what they say, by definition.
That doesn't have to be the case. VMs can (and do) make execution decisions using information collected from a running instance where the data is known, optimizations that are impossible at compile time.
I wouldn't recommend it. I was only answering the question of whether or not you could draw freestyle in gimp. If you've already paid for PSP, make use of that investment in a better program. But if you haven't, PSP is still $80 to Gimp's $0.
Computer Science is good... 'Game Development' would be the degree title that would be good to avoid. And if you're getting couple of games done as student projects that's pretty good, sounds like your program is doing reasonable things, there are a lot out there that dont.
I thought it might actually be useful to be obvious that I was using a brush + shape combo, shows more capabilities if you understand what you're looking for. Plus I just wanted to put something up in minimal time. But you're probably right, to a novice, it might look bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone interested in high performance software is moving to data parallel many threaded designs right now. Within a couple of years, it should be fairly unusual for CPU sensitive apps not to have at least 4 threads.
You think that kind of place has a bathroom on the inside?
a new route to making insulin can't possibly make it cost *more*.
Unless of course it bypasses regulatory hurdles allowing drug manufacturers to drop the older, lower profit method and/or they collude to use the new method as an excuse to raise prices.
I'm a little confused about what you meant by:
8. Consumers fresh off the previous ingredient used to lace the drink, get hooked on zero calories.
Zero calorie drinks have neither sugar nor high-fructose corn syrup for sweeteners.
No obvious reason for it not to be arbitrary, except for performance limitations. I'm guessing by fuzzing your view through the portal they limit the depth they need to render through the portal, but for number of portals, there's no obvious reason you can't just render scene after scene into each portal texture.
Linux development tools don't hold up to VC/DirectX yet. So a linux bootdisk as the target doesn't work well. A windows bootdisk would have license issues with MS.
... you'd have to ship with soooo many drivers for good performance (a boot disk that works well on all systems doesn't use the advanced 3d features of cards that games would need).
And even if linux were more viable
The article actually talks about moving even more of the graphics work from CPU to GPU, thus freeing up more CPU time for AI/Physics/Whatever.
However, DX10 also makes general parallel computation easier to accomplish on the GPU, so we'll likely start seeing some game devs compute physics on the GPU as well.
You can simulate a network of neurons on a single processor, pretty much as large a network as you'd like, the only limit being memory and speed, and this has been done, but a neuronal simulation with good accuracy runs at best at something like 100x realtime on current commodity processors (so you can simulate a network of roughly 100 neurons in real time, or 10,000 at 100x compressed time. To get up to the ~10 billion neurons you'll want to simulate to reproduce a human brain ... you'll obviously need a fair number of processors, or a lot of patience.
I doubt this effort will amount to anything, not enough processor capacity yet.
Obviously they take risks. But the question was whether they took any real risk. Will they be unable to feed or house their families if their risk goes bad? Or just not as extravagantly?
Your argument seems contradictory. The drunk drivers themselves are the ones who should pay the medical bills.
That would be great, if it were possible. But in most cases the medical bills exceed the ability of the drunk to pay, and then society ends up subsidizing. So I believe my proposal would result in a lower net cost to the rest of us.
I would also be perfectly happy with a system that required drinkers to purchase drunk accident insurance, in advance of their being sold alcohol. Perhaps that would be the best system, you must show your proof of drunk accident insurance before you buy.
Therefore, we must all be slaves to the government. Are you prepared to admit this?
I believe that is factually correct. The government can execute us if it wants to, and we cannot commit suicide legally. I would much prefer to live in a world where people were responsible, but I don't.
How do you suggest people enforce this?
Take pre-action not post-action.
Don't serve anyone alcohol that will put them over the legal limit to drive unless you're sure they're not going to drive.
Take responsibility for when your actions put others in danger. The drunk is responsible also, but if you carelessly feed his addiction part of the blame belongs with you.
I'm not really totalitarian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
I might be considered a statist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism
Yes, we should give it up, because it causes more serious consequences for innocent people who have nothing to do with the drugs than the harm done to the one person who uses them.
... suicide is illegal for a reason. Here's a business plan I have if your world comes to pass: Go to the kindergartens, and offer kids free (legal) samples of my custom drug. Once they're addicted, I'll offer to sell it to the parents. I'll even offer convenient climb-down dosages for parents who want to get their kids off the addiction. Woo hoo profit!
I dispute that claim. I'd say that legalized drugs (as evidenced by legalized alcohol) would cause more harm to innocent people.
It wasn't right thing to do, because most people use alcohol responsibly, and they shouldn't have to pay the higher costs associated with the bans to cover those who are irresponsible.
I'd also have to dispute that. Most people who use any alcohol do so irresponsibly. Drinking and driving is rampant in the USA at least. Why should those of us who don't drink have to subsidize enforcement measures, medical bills, etc caused by drunk driving accidents?
If there is a way to do this that doesn't interfere with my causual beer consumption (in higher costs or otherwise), I would be welcome to any suggestions. Or, are you trying to tell me that I should be forced to abstain from enjoying a couple of my favorite brews after a hard days work?
How about just restricting the sale of high alcohol content beverages, and holding alcohol servers liable if they are the last bar to serve alcohol to a patron who later commits a drunk driving accident (over the limit)? Bar owners would need to install breathalyzers, and make sure they aren't over-serving. Party holders would be motivated to make sure their party-goers aren't over consuming and driving themselves home. People drinking responsibly at home and not driving would be unaffected.
Why should anyone be allowed to dictate what people should be allowed to put into their own bodies? Do we not own our own body? If we do, don't we have a right to cause it harm if we so desire?
Nope
What would these "paradox of abundance" sufferers do if they had to go out and hunt a wooly mammoth for dinner?
I'm pretty much sure they'd starve to death, the wooly mammoths have been real scarce this year.
But at that point, I've driven to the video store, so I'm leaving with at least one movie. So, I spend 45 minutes to finally decide on something that I don't even care about, just so my trip wasn't a total loss.
Or from another point of view: your trip was a total loss, and you spent $2 on a movie you didn't want to see, and maybe you'll suffer through watching it, and you have to return it.
But I'm a bit of a pessimist.
I think everyone on slashdot knows this, there have been, what, like 15 dups of that story in various forms?
But statistically, it is almost certainly the case that legalized alcohol causes more deaths and injury per year in the form of driving accidents than prohibition did in the form of gang warfare. But the gang warfare was highly visible and involved guns, which scare people more than cars, even though they are significantly less deadly, because basically everyone owns a car. Should we give up banning hard core addictive drugs because there is gang warfare surrounding those? Just because prohibition didn't work, doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. We have a ban in place on murders too, how well does that work?
I certainly believe alcohol should be banned to the same extent as other addictive, destructive drugs that render the user a danger to those around them. I certainly wouldn't mind accomplishing it in a more effective way than immediate prohibition.
Cigarettes are a somewhat different case. Nicotine, as a mild stimulant, doesn't seem to render the user a significant danger to those around them when operating heavy machinery. It does present a threat via area exposure when smoked, so I think in this case it would be a start to place it in the same category as caffeine, with the additional restriction that in the smoking form it not be allowed in public places and around children, to protect the public from unwanted exposure. However, given the health harm it causes to the user and its addictive qualities, it would also be reasonable for society to consider an eventual complete ban.
The only moral right we have as humans is to proceed with the course of our action as long as it doesn't forcibly harm anyone else.
The argument goes that offering gambling to a gambling addict (and by this taking his money) takes advantage of the force offered by neurological addiction, thus forcible harm.
Same argument for offering addictive drugs.
I think gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math, and should be 100% legal.
It's only a tax if at least some of the gambling losses go to the legitimate government of the gamblers (state lotteries), which is typically not the case with offshore online casinos.
And in any case, people who want to make gambling illegal are generally in favor of that position for the same reason that many people oppose drug legalization: the addiction problem. When you legalize things that lead to addiction, addiction rates have a tendency to go up, and it's challenging to argue that the addiction is good for people. What you can typically argue more effectively is that by driving these addictions underground, it becomes harder to monitor the dangers, and that a violent criminal element tends to develop around the addiction, and that maybe this isn't a net gain (but this is extremely difficult to prove, try to imagine running the study to determine: how many people were hurt/killed by alcohol gangs during prohibition vs how many people are hurt/killed by drunk drivers in the legalized alcohol regime).
Their values voters care about lots of 'morals' issues not well documented in the bible. You might as well ask: where's the prohibition against human cloning in the bible?
No, what they say is 'the proof is in the pudding' as you admit when you point out that most people get it 'wrong'. If most people say 'the proof is in the pudding' then that is what they say, by definition.
VMs always take more time.
That doesn't have to be the case. VMs can (and do) make execution decisions using information collected from a running instance where the data is known, optimizations that are impossible at compile time.
I wouldn't recommend it. I was only answering the question of whether or not you could draw freestyle in gimp. If you've already paid for PSP, make use of that investment in a better program. But if you haven't, PSP is still $80 to Gimp's $0.
Computer Science is good ... 'Game Development' would be the degree title that would be good to avoid.
And if you're getting couple of games done as student projects that's pretty good, sounds like your program is doing reasonable things, there are a lot out there that dont.
I thought it might actually be useful to be obvious that I was using a brush + shape combo, shows more capabilities if you understand what you're looking for. Plus I just wanted to put something up in minimal time.
But you're probably right, to a novice, it might look bad.