Yeah, but no two manufacturers make them EXACTLY the same way. Sure, the interface (number of pins, what the pins do, etc.) might be the same, but a chip from manufacturer #1 might be susceptible to one thing, while the same chip from manufacturer #2 isn't.
The chips in question probably must meet a very specific list of requirements.
Yes, and when one of those satellites has a problem, how do you fix it? Oh, that's right, you send up a space shuttle full of people to fix it.
I mean, look at the Hubble Space Telescope. If it weren't for the shuttle, the whole thing would've been just another piece of floating space junk. Because we have the capability to send actual humans into space, the HST could be fixed, and is now producing some of the most amazing pictures of space yet seen. It recently needed an upgrade, and guess how that was done? Yep, astronauts went up in the shuttle, replaced what needed to be replaced, and now the Hubble should be good to go for quite a while.
As for the International Space Station, I don't think it's all that silly. Yeah, it's over-budget. But it is also a good exercise in international cooperation. Do you really think that private enterprise is going to terraform other planets? The fact remains that any significant space effort is going to require international cooperation.
Nevermind that NASA's original plan was to 1)build a reuseable space vehicle (done), 2)build a permanent space station (in progress), 3)use those as stepping stones to things like sending people to Mars. Much of this plan has been kneecapped by politicians eager to steal NASA's budget for their own projects.
Can you come up with a better way to get humans into space (and bring them back if needed)?
As much as I hate feeding trolls, if you're using a BSD operating system, chances are you already know what the IP address of your primary name server is.
If you don't know what at least some of those files do, then why are you posting in the BSD section of Slashdot?
Nevermind that MicroBSD isn't close to a 1.0 release yet.
I'm aware of the defaults you get from a CVS installation but one of the main features of KDE is the ability to change the look-and-feel. Should this ability be reserved solely for end-users?
IMHO, yes. Distros should have the default theme enabled by default. If they want to include extra themes, fine. I myself have changed some of the look & feel settings on my system. But, from what it sounds like, RedHat has removed the "default" KDE theme and replaced it with their own, and is leaving out Konqueror (ok, I use Mozilla 90% of the time, but for the occasional page that Mozilla doesn't render properly, I use Konqueror, which usually renders those pages just fine) and Kmail (which I use).
If RedHat included the "default" KDE and Gnome themes, and just by default had their own theme switched on, that would be one thing. But it sounds as if they're changing more than just the theme. Some people say they've removed the "About KDE" box, and in general have tried hard to make Gnome and KDE look, feel, and function the same (and now they both look like WinXP). So then why not just drop one or the other alltogether? Especially if support costs are the deciding issue.
I imagine some GUI "designer" (read: GUI overthinker, such as Jeff Raskin) had a hand in this.
It only figures that changing Gnome and KDE around wasn't enough; they had to go and change them around to look like Windows XP;)
And it only figures that the KDE screenshots look more like XP than the Gnome ones. This says to me that RedHat is either
a)Trying to give an XP-like desktop for the wannabes switching from, oh, say, WinXP, while still giving their staff something that doesn't completely resemble Windows.
b)Make all their users who run KDE switch to Gnome. How long could you stand to look at WinXP? I'm forced to use WinXP occasionally (mostly when I get talked into fixing my neighbor's PCs; I don't have the XP monstrosity on my system), and I can take it for about 2 minutes, then I want to tear my eyes out.
I really hope that there is a backlash, especially in the corporate and server environment, and RedHat wakes up and fires whoever's idea this was.
So many people are talking about how easy this will make it to switch back and forth between Gnome and KDE. Who the hell does this? Most people pick a desktop environment they like and stick with it. As long as you have the libraries for both installed, you can run Gnome and GTK+ apps from KDE, and vice versa. You guys realize this, right?
If you're going to make all the desktops look the same, why even offer more than one in the first place? I switched to KDE because I preferred its look and feel over Gnome's, but left Gnome installed so that I could run the occasional Gnome app (I use GnoRPM instead of Kpackage, etc.). I know that RedHat likes Gnome (probably because the G stands for GNU), but this whole thing is stupid. People who want Gnome will use Gnome. RedHat should let their users who want KDE have KDE, and freaking have it look like KDE.
Nevermind that those screenshots look an awful lot like Windows XP. I guess it's Mandrake for my Linux workstation from here on. Let's not forget that this will prevent Linux from making inroads in the UNIX workstation arena, a market that has time and again shown they don't want Windows. ILM, Rythm & Hues, et al, will be mighty pleased when they "upgrade" to the new RedHat distro only to find their desktop (whichever they choose) looks just like WinXP (and yes, I realize that ILM uses OpenMotif, but looking at the Film Gimp website it would seem that Rythm & Hues uses KDE). If I liked Windows, I'd use that on my workstation instead of KDE and Linux.
Yes, you heard right, I have been using Linux on a desktop machine for what seems like forever, and have been *gasp* getting work done. Both programming and VFX work. The fact that in some apps the buttons are in different places than others makes little difference to me, and I'll never understand Jeff Raskin and his crowd who simply cannot cope if two different programs don't have the exact same menu layout or whatever.
1)They are using the pixel and vertex shaders available on newer ATI and nVidia cards.
2)The lighting is completely dynamic. No more static lightmaps. This also means that the monsters will cast shadows... on themselves, as well as the surrounding environment.
You have no idea how much these add to the realism until you've seen it in motion, and these static, overcompressed JPEGs don't do the game justice.
The changes made for Team Arena (such as the terrain engine) were put back into the Q3 engine proper. Anybody with the latest version of plain old Q3 can do outdoor terrain maps just like in Q3:TA.
Last I heard, he was married to Katherine Anna Kang (who used to work at id Software). I saw a picture of her once, but since she wasn't the subject of the photo, she was a little out of focus. But she didn't look too bad.
I remember the 2 Wolfenstein 3D levels in Doom II, which ended with you walking into a room, and in that room was Commander Keen.
If you know the code to jump between levels, I believe the first Wolf3D level is #30 or #31. I discovered them by accident one day when I was making my own level for Doom II, and wanted to see how iD had done something, so I loaded up the Doom II.wad file. Surprise surprise, there were two levels at the end that I didn't remember playing through, so I loaded them into the map editor, realizing once I saw them that they were the rumored Wolf3D levels.
It isn't about what the actor can do vs what the computer can do.
It's about what the actor can do vs what the CG animator can do.
Many actors can do better than even the best CG animators, especially when it comes to the unexpected ad-lib kind of stuff. The best actors try to become the characters that they play. CG animators don't, and IMO for that reason alone the best actors will ALWAYS be able to outdo the best CG animators.
As much as I enjoy all-CG films, and cool CG effects, the last thing I want to see is every movie made entirely within a computer.
1)Not everybody wants to make all-CG movies, myself (an amateur/independant director and cinematographer) included. For many people involved in making a film, they do it because they enjoy being there, on the set, shooting an actual movie, and dealing with the challenges that go along with that. Additionally, with live actors (good ones, anyway) there's always the chance of the unexpected: that little ad-lib that makes a scene so memorable, the actor getting so into the scene and character that the performance is amazing, etc. Many directors let the actors do a good deal of ad-libbing, which is either nonexistant or severely limited when doing all-CG movies. And if the actor doesn't do what you want, you spend a few minutes doing another take, instead of potentially waiting hours for the scene to be re-rendered.
2)As the price:performance ratio of computing increases, the demand for more realism and more scene complexity also goes up. In 10 years, the current crop of all-CG movies will be looked upon much the same way that modern audiences look at the original King Kong. All that hardware is expensive, and the fact that once it is bought, it only has a useful life of maybe a year or two, leaves independants out of the scene.
3)Talented animators, TDs, compositors, etc., are expensive, as are the costs of running the studio. None of this, "$700k for the real Jenifer Aniston vs. $70k for a team of animators for a digital version of her" nonsense. And then there's the cost of the motion-capture performers, the motion-capture studio, the time to correct and fine-tune the motion-capture data, etc.
4)Let's not forget the fact that the makers of all-CG films will have to compensate the actors whose digital likeness they're using. Some ego maniacs even go so far as to copyright their faces (*ahem* Tom Cruise *ahem*). If you used a digital version of an actor without the actor's permission, you would most likely get sued, and rightly so.
5)Even the George Lucas doesn't use CG for everything, nor does Peter Jackson. Many of the backgrounds in Attack of the Clones were models. The same for the Lord of the Rings.
6)And finally, let's not forget that you'd be taking the talent and experience of people who've spent their entire adult lives (20+ years for many of them) working in the live-action film industry, and throwing it away. Don't give me the, "No, they'd just have to transition into the computer version of their respective fields." because for many of them it just won't happen. I doubt you'd see Tak Fujimoto (cinematographer for Episode IV, The Sixth Sense, and Signs, among other films), Darius Khondji (cinematographer for City of the Lost Children, Seven, The Beach, part of Panic Room, among other films), or very many of the other talented cinematographers making the transition to all-CG movies, simply because the mediums are so different (all the cinematographer's knowledge of film stocks, lenses, filters, film processing, etc., would be worthless).
The other videos are censored...the MPAA uses its rating system as a censorship tool. The rating system isn't mandatory. Many films are unrated. The thing is, most theaters won't show unrated films. The rating system isn't meant as a censorship device, but as a guage to help parents decide whether or not their child can watch a movie.
Yeah, everybody has a multimillion dollar movie budget... Remember, these are Mormons, and the Mormon church could most certainly drum up a few million dollars to make a movie.
You obviously never saw Requiem for a Dream. The film is definately not mere entertainment. Part of the reason the film is so effective is because of the things that you claim should be discontinued. There is a scene in the film (which I won't spoil for those who haven't seen it) which is particularly effective because there is a good deal of blood and violence.
If the film is anything over an R rating, most directors do offer two versions from the start. For Requiem for a Dream, it was in the director's contract that in return for getting to make the film have an NC-17 theatrical release, he'd have to do an R-rated version for sale to places like Blockbuster and whatnot.
I guess you're just another prude who doesn't realize the world isn't just flowers and happy songs and clean fun.
Well, on the box for Requiem for a Dream, it says "Edited Version" right on the box. On the front of the box, in fact. For many films, if the film is somehow different from the theatrical release, it will say so on the box.
1)Yes, you can do all those things. But no, you can't then take Return of the Muppets Take Manhattan and sell it or rent it out to people.
2)The MPAA has nothing to do with it. The Director's Guild of America, which is all about protecting the interests of directors (often at the expense of the MPAA's member's profits), including the director's artistic vision.
3)I realize uncreative people such as yourself have trouble grasping concepts such as artistic vision, but just as Picasso would be upset if some narrow-minded fool painted over his work to make it look more "normal", film directors get upset when somebody censors their work so they can sell or rent it to Joe Prude in Uptight, Utah.
As an independant filmmaker, I would rather have someone not watch my film than tone it down so that it's Mormon-safe.
If you don't like scrambled eggs, then don't eat scrambled eggs. If you don't like violence or nudity or coarse language, don't watch a movie that contains such things. Prudes are just going to have to deal with the fact that not everyone holds their views.
Actually, from what I've heard, the dye transfer process is thought to make film last for a very long time. Basically, if my understanding is correct, it puts each of the 3 dye layers (the emulsion in color film has three layers: one sensitive to red light, one for green, and one for blue) on separate pieces of film. There are several advantages to this, not the least of which is that if one of them fades, the whole movie isn't lost (though the colors would look off).
Like the guy's.sig said, don't believe everything Rick McCallum says, and almost never believe anything on IMDB.
I should read posts more carefully, as I did think you were in the "I bought it, I should be able to do anything I want with it" crowd. Sorry.
And I agree that beyond actual copyright law, the copyright holder shouldn't be able to add additional restrictions without some sort of written agreement between you and them. Whether or not software EULAs count should depend on whether or not you get a chance to read the EULA before you purchase the software.
When you buy a CD, it is generally understood that you aren't purchasing the rights to the music on the CD, but the CD itself. With this comes the implied license to listen to the music.
However, the copyright remains with the artist/record company/whomever, which means they hold all rights to copy and distribute the music itself (and no, you can't copy the CD and say you were just duplicating the physical CD and therefore aren't liable). Fair use law was tacked on to allow people to make copies for their own private use and whatnot.
When you purchase a book, you don't think that you now own the copyright on the text inside the book, do you? You've bought the physical materials (paper and ink, in this case), and with that came an implied right to read the book, sell it, quote it, etc., but not to make copies for people other than yourself.
Cg isn't a universal, all-purpose graphics language. It is specifically tailored for writing custom pixel and vertex shaders for newer 3D cards like the GeForce3 & 4 and newer ATI cards.
The hardware in those cards has certain limitations (dunno 'bout the integers, but I've heard (from John Carmack's.plan file) that the hardware itself lacks support for conditional jumps i.e. if...else) when it comes to custom pixel and vertex shaders.
It seems like there's rampant misunderstanding when it comes to Cg, so I'll try to clear things up: 1)It is *ONLY* for writing custom pixel and vertex shaders for 3D cards that support custom pixel and vertex shaders. 2)The alternative to Cg is to write your pixel/vertex shader(s) in an assembly-like language. This is assembly language for the 3D hardware, not the CPU or anything else. Again, this isn't x86 assembly. 3)The shaders produced are only used by the 3D hardware, and only for the purpose of allowing developers more control over how objects look (i.e. the developer can write a shader that mathematically simulates the way light bounces off human skin, then tell the 3D hardware to use that shader for all polygons that are supposed to be human skin), and have absolutely nothing to do with speeding up graphics operations or other speed optimizations.
I thought that Cg didn't support if...else (etc.) because the pixel and vertex shader hardware itself doesn't support that sort of thing. If the hardware doesn't support it, why should Cg?
I distinctly remember John Carmack saying in his.plan file how the lack of support for conditional jumps and suchsort in the shader hardware really annoyed him.
I doubt there is some evil conspiracy going on here. nVidia may add if...else to Cg in the future, not due to some underhanded plot, but because once the shader hardware supports conditional jumping it only makes sense that Cg would as well.
Actually, knowing the address of a variable can be useful.
"char *s" means s is a "pointer to char"
"( &s )" means the "address of s"
Actually, a pointer points to an address in memory. If you're passing a non-pointer variable to a function that expects a pointer, you'll have to use "&" to get the address of the non-pointer variable, since passing a pointer is the equivalent of passing an address in memory.
The limit with many BIOSes is that they stored the cylinder as a 10-bit number, which means they could only load up to the first 1024 (0 - 1023) cylinders.
But as long as the kernel was below the first 1024 cylinders (by making a/boot partition, and making it the first partition on the disk (not necessarily first in the partition table, but at the first physical location on the HD) and then making your other partitions come after it, you can circumvent the problem).
And the disk size limitations of DOS were a combinations of the limitations of FAT16 and the BIOS.
If the BIOS isn't even acknowledging the HD's presense, then: 1)The jumper settings aren't configured properly on the HD (master, slave, cable select, etc.) 2)The disk is FUBAR 3)The BIOS settings are wrong 4)The BIOS's IDE autodetection can't deal with the disk for whatever reason
Check to see if other HDs (preferrably of similar size and on the same IDE controller on the same priority (master or slave)) work or not. And remember to make sure the jumpers are set correctly and try manually entering the values for your HD.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but no two manufacturers make them EXACTLY the same way. Sure, the interface (number of pins, what the pins do, etc.) might be the same, but a chip from manufacturer #1 might be susceptible to one thing, while the same chip from manufacturer #2 isn't.
The chips in question probably must meet a very specific list of requirements.
Yes, and when one of those satellites has a problem, how do you fix it? Oh, that's right, you send up a space shuttle full of people to fix it.
I mean, look at the Hubble Space Telescope. If it weren't for the shuttle, the whole thing would've been just another piece of floating space junk. Because we have the capability to send actual humans into space, the HST could be fixed, and is now producing some of the most amazing pictures of space yet seen. It recently needed an upgrade, and guess how that was done? Yep, astronauts went up in the shuttle, replaced what needed to be replaced, and now the Hubble should be good to go for quite a while.
As for the International Space Station, I don't think it's all that silly. Yeah, it's over-budget. But it is also a good exercise in international cooperation. Do you really think that private enterprise is going to terraform other planets? The fact remains that any significant space effort is going to require international cooperation.
Nevermind that NASA's original plan was to 1)build a reuseable space vehicle (done), 2)build a permanent space station (in progress), 3)use those as stepping stones to things like sending people to Mars. Much of this plan has been kneecapped by politicians eager to steal NASA's budget for their own projects.
Can you come up with a better way to get humans into space (and bring them back if needed)?
As much as I hate feeding trolls, if you're using a BSD operating system, chances are you already know what the IP address of your primary name server is.
If you don't know what at least some of those files do, then why are you posting in the BSD section of Slashdot?
Nevermind that MicroBSD isn't close to a 1.0 release yet.
I'm aware of the defaults you get from a CVS installation but one of the main features of KDE is the ability to change the look-and-feel. Should this ability be reserved solely for end-users?
;)
IMHO, yes. Distros should have the default theme enabled by default. If they want to include extra themes, fine. I myself have changed some of the look & feel settings on my system. But, from what it sounds like, RedHat has removed the "default" KDE theme and replaced it with their own, and is leaving out Konqueror (ok, I use Mozilla 90% of the time, but for the occasional page that Mozilla doesn't render properly, I use Konqueror, which usually renders those pages just fine) and Kmail (which I use).
If RedHat included the "default" KDE and Gnome themes, and just by default had their own theme switched on, that would be one thing. But it sounds as if they're changing more than just the theme. Some people say they've removed the "About KDE" box, and in general have tried hard to make Gnome and KDE look, feel, and function the same (and now they both look like WinXP). So then why not just drop one or the other alltogether? Especially if support costs are the deciding issue.
I imagine some GUI "designer" (read: GUI overthinker, such as Jeff Raskin) had a hand in this.
It only figures that changing Gnome and KDE around wasn't enough; they had to go and change them around to look like Windows XP
And it only figures that the KDE screenshots look more like XP than the Gnome ones. This says to me that RedHat is either
a)Trying to give an XP-like desktop for the wannabes switching from, oh, say, WinXP, while still giving their staff something that doesn't completely resemble Windows.
b)Make all their users who run KDE switch to Gnome. How long could you stand to look at WinXP? I'm forced to use WinXP occasionally (mostly when I get talked into fixing my neighbor's PCs; I don't have the XP monstrosity on my system), and I can take it for about 2 minutes, then I want to tear my eyes out.
I really hope that there is a backlash, especially in the corporate and server environment, and RedHat wakes up and fires whoever's idea this was.
So many people are talking about how easy this will make it to switch back and forth between Gnome and KDE. Who the hell does this? Most people pick a desktop environment they like and stick with it. As long as you have the libraries for both installed, you can run Gnome and GTK+ apps from KDE, and vice versa. You guys realize this, right?
If you're going to make all the desktops look the same, why even offer more than one in the first place? I switched to KDE because I preferred its look and feel over Gnome's, but left Gnome installed so that I could run the occasional Gnome app (I use GnoRPM instead of Kpackage, etc.). I know that RedHat likes Gnome (probably because the G stands for GNU), but this whole thing is stupid. People who want Gnome will use Gnome. RedHat should let their users who want KDE have KDE, and freaking have it look like KDE.
Nevermind that those screenshots look an awful lot like Windows XP. I guess it's Mandrake for my Linux workstation from here on. Let's not forget that this will prevent Linux from making inroads in the UNIX workstation arena, a market that has time and again shown they don't want Windows. ILM, Rythm & Hues, et al, will be mighty pleased when they "upgrade" to the new RedHat distro only to find their desktop (whichever they choose) looks just like WinXP (and yes, I realize that ILM uses OpenMotif, but looking at the Film Gimp website it would seem that Rythm & Hues uses KDE). If I liked Windows, I'd use that on my workstation instead of KDE and Linux.
Yes, you heard right, I have been using Linux on a desktop machine for what seems like forever, and have been *gasp* getting work done. Both programming and VFX work. The fact that in some apps the buttons are in different places than others makes little difference to me, and I'll never understand Jeff Raskin and his crowd who simply cannot cope if two different programs don't have the exact same menu layout or whatever.
1)They are using the pixel and vertex shaders available on newer ATI and nVidia cards.
2)The lighting is completely dynamic. No more static lightmaps. This also means that the monsters will cast shadows... on themselves, as well as the surrounding environment.
You have no idea how much these add to the realism until you've seen it in motion, and these static, overcompressed JPEGs don't do the game justice.
Actually, there is no Q3:TA engine.
The changes made for Team Arena (such as the terrain engine) were put back into the Q3 engine proper. Anybody with the latest version of plain old Q3 can do outdoor terrain maps just like in Q3:TA.
Last I heard, he was married to Katherine Anna Kang (who used to work at id Software). I saw a picture of her once, but since she wasn't the subject of the photo, she was a little out of focus. But she didn't look too bad.
I remember the 2 Wolfenstein 3D levels in Doom II, which ended with you walking into a room, and in that room was Commander Keen.
.wad file. Surprise surprise, there were two levels at the end that I didn't remember playing through, so I loaded them into the map editor, realizing once I saw them that they were the rumored Wolf3D levels.
If you know the code to jump between levels, I believe the first Wolf3D level is #30 or #31. I discovered them by accident one day when I was making my own level for Doom II, and wanted to see how iD had done something, so I loaded up the Doom II
It was a typo. Most likely he meant "per se" (which is pronounced the same as per say).
It isn't about what the actor can do vs what the computer can do.
It's about what the actor can do vs what the CG animator can do.
Many actors can do better than even the best CG animators, especially when it comes to the unexpected ad-lib kind of stuff. The best actors try to become the characters that they play. CG animators don't, and IMO for that reason alone the best actors will ALWAYS be able to outdo the best CG animators.
As much as I enjoy all-CG films, and cool CG effects, the last thing I want to see is every movie made entirely within a computer.
1)Not everybody wants to make all-CG movies, myself (an amateur/independant director and cinematographer) included. For many people involved in making a film, they do it because they enjoy being there, on the set, shooting an actual movie, and dealing with the challenges that go along with that. Additionally, with live actors (good ones, anyway) there's always the chance of the unexpected: that little ad-lib that makes a scene so memorable, the actor getting so into the scene and character that the performance is amazing, etc. Many directors let the actors do a good deal of ad-libbing, which is either nonexistant or severely limited when doing all-CG movies. And if the actor doesn't do what you want, you spend a few minutes doing another take, instead of potentially waiting hours for the scene to be re-rendered.
2)As the price:performance ratio of computing increases, the demand for more realism and more scene complexity also goes up. In 10 years, the current crop of all-CG movies will be looked upon much the same way that modern audiences look at the original King Kong. All that hardware is expensive, and the fact that once it is bought, it only has a useful life of maybe a year or two, leaves independants out of the scene.
3)Talented animators, TDs, compositors, etc., are expensive, as are the costs of running the studio. None of this, "$700k for the real Jenifer Aniston vs. $70k for a team of animators for a digital version of her" nonsense. And then there's the cost of the motion-capture performers, the motion-capture studio, the time to correct and fine-tune the motion-capture data, etc.
4)Let's not forget the fact that the makers of all-CG films will have to compensate the actors whose digital likeness they're using. Some ego maniacs even go so far as to copyright their faces (*ahem* Tom Cruise *ahem*). If you used a digital version of an actor without the actor's permission, you would most likely get sued, and rightly so.
5)Even the George Lucas doesn't use CG for everything, nor does Peter Jackson. Many of the backgrounds in Attack of the Clones were models. The same for the Lord of the Rings.
6)And finally, let's not forget that you'd be taking the talent and experience of people who've spent their entire adult lives (20+ years for many of them) working in the live-action film industry, and throwing it away. Don't give me the, "No, they'd just have to transition into the computer version of their respective fields." because for many of them it just won't happen. I doubt you'd see Tak Fujimoto (cinematographer for Episode IV, The Sixth Sense, and Signs, among other films), Darius Khondji (cinematographer for City of the Lost Children, Seven, The Beach, part of Panic Room, among other films), or very many of the other talented cinematographers making the transition to all-CG movies, simply because the mediums are so different (all the cinematographer's knowledge of film stocks, lenses, filters, film processing, etc., would be worthless).
The other videos are censored...the MPAA uses its rating system as a censorship tool.
The rating system isn't mandatory. Many films are unrated. The thing is, most theaters won't show unrated films. The rating system isn't meant as a censorship device, but as a guage to help parents decide whether or not their child can watch a movie.
Yeah, everybody has a multimillion dollar movie budget...
Remember, these are Mormons, and the Mormon church could most certainly drum up a few million dollars to make a movie.
You obviously never saw Requiem for a Dream. The film is definately not mere entertainment. Part of the reason the film is so effective is because of the things that you claim should be discontinued. There is a scene in the film (which I won't spoil for those who haven't seen it) which is particularly effective because there is a good deal of blood and violence.
If the film is anything over an R rating, most directors do offer two versions from the start. For Requiem for a Dream, it was in the director's contract that in return for getting to make the film have an NC-17 theatrical release, he'd have to do an R-rated version for sale to places like Blockbuster and whatnot.
I guess you're just another prude who doesn't realize the world isn't just flowers and happy songs and clean fun.
Well, on the box for Requiem for a Dream, it says "Edited Version" right on the box. On the front of the box, in fact. For many films, if the film is somehow different from the theatrical release, it will say so on the box.
1)Yes, you can do all those things. But no, you can't then take Return of the Muppets Take Manhattan and sell it or rent it out to people.
2)The MPAA has nothing to do with it. The Director's Guild of America, which is all about protecting the interests of directors (often at the expense of the MPAA's member's profits), including the director's artistic vision.
3)I realize uncreative people such as yourself have trouble grasping concepts such as artistic vision, but just as Picasso would be upset if some narrow-minded fool painted over his work to make it look more "normal", film directors get upset when somebody censors their work so they can sell or rent it to Joe Prude in Uptight, Utah.
As an independant filmmaker, I would rather have someone not watch my film than tone it down so that it's Mormon-safe.
If you don't like scrambled eggs, then don't eat scrambled eggs. If you don't like violence or nudity or coarse language, don't watch a movie that contains such things. Prudes are just going to have to deal with the fact that not everyone holds their views.
Actually, from what I've heard, the dye transfer process is thought to make film last for a very long time. Basically, if my understanding is correct, it puts each of the 3 dye layers (the emulsion in color film has three layers: one sensitive to red light, one for green, and one for blue) on separate pieces of film. There are several advantages to this, not the least of which is that if one of them fades, the whole movie isn't lost (though the colors would look off).
.sig said, don't believe everything Rick McCallum says, and almost never believe anything on IMDB.
Like the guy's
I should read posts more carefully, as I did think you were in the "I bought it, I should be able to do anything I want with it" crowd. Sorry.
And I agree that beyond actual copyright law, the copyright holder shouldn't be able to add additional restrictions without some sort of written agreement between you and them. Whether or not software EULAs count should depend on whether or not you get a chance to read the EULA before you purchase the software.
When you buy a CD, it is generally understood that you aren't purchasing the rights to the music on the CD, but the CD itself. With this comes the implied license to listen to the music.
However, the copyright remains with the artist/record company/whomever, which means they hold all rights to copy and distribute the music itself (and no, you can't copy the CD and say you were just duplicating the physical CD and therefore aren't liable). Fair use law was tacked on to allow people to make copies for their own private use and whatnot.
When you purchase a book, you don't think that you now own the copyright on the text inside the book, do you? You've bought the physical materials (paper and ink, in this case), and with that came an implied right to read the book, sell it, quote it, etc., but not to make copies for people other than yourself.
Cg isn't a universal, all-purpose graphics language. It is specifically tailored for writing custom pixel and vertex shaders for newer 3D cards like the GeForce3 & 4 and newer ATI cards.
.plan file) that the hardware itself lacks support for conditional jumps i.e. if...else) when it comes to custom pixel and vertex shaders.
The hardware in those cards has certain limitations (dunno 'bout the integers, but I've heard (from John Carmack's
It seems like there's rampant misunderstanding when it comes to Cg, so I'll try to clear things up:
1)It is *ONLY* for writing custom pixel and vertex shaders for 3D cards that support custom pixel and vertex shaders.
2)The alternative to Cg is to write your pixel/vertex shader(s) in an assembly-like language. This is assembly language for the 3D hardware, not the CPU or anything else. Again, this isn't x86 assembly.
3)The shaders produced are only used by the 3D hardware, and only for the purpose of allowing developers more control over how objects look (i.e. the developer can write a shader that mathematically simulates the way light bounces off human skin, then tell the 3D hardware to use that shader for all polygons that are supposed to be human skin), and have absolutely nothing to do with speeding up graphics operations or other speed optimizations.
I thought that Cg didn't support if...else (etc.) because the pixel and vertex shader hardware itself doesn't support that sort of thing. If the hardware doesn't support it, why should Cg?
.plan file how the lack of support for conditional jumps and suchsort in the shader hardware really annoyed him.
I distinctly remember John Carmack saying in his
I doubt there is some evil conspiracy going on here. nVidia may add if...else to Cg in the future, not due to some underhanded plot, but because once the shader hardware supports conditional jumping it only makes sense that Cg would as well.
Actually, knowing the address of a variable can be useful.
"char *s" means s is a "pointer to char"
"( &s )" means the "address of s"
Actually, a pointer points to an address in memory. If you're passing a non-pointer variable to a function that expects a pointer, you'll have to use "&" to get the address of the non-pointer variable, since passing a pointer is the equivalent of passing an address in memory.
The limit with many BIOSes is that they stored the cylinder as a 10-bit number, which means they could only load up to the first 1024 (0 - 1023) cylinders.
/boot partition, and making it the first partition on the disk (not necessarily first in the partition table, but at the first physical location on the HD) and then making your other partitions come after it, you can circumvent the problem).
But as long as the kernel was below the first 1024 cylinders (by making a
And the disk size limitations of DOS were a combinations of the limitations of FAT16 and the BIOS.
If the BIOS isn't even acknowledging the HD's presense, then:
1)The jumper settings aren't configured properly on the HD (master, slave, cable select, etc.)
2)The disk is FUBAR
3)The BIOS settings are wrong
4)The BIOS's IDE autodetection can't deal with the disk for whatever reason
Check to see if other HDs (preferrably of similar size and on the same IDE controller on the same priority (master or slave)) work or not. And remember to make sure the jumpers are set correctly and try manually entering the values for your HD.