The law does not prohibit people in Maricopa county (which I live in) from purchasing Microsoft products. It just says that government agencies in Maricopa county can't purchase or contract out to companies that have been convicted of violating federal or state antitrust laws.
IMHO, this was probably to keep monopolies from paying off people in local governments in return for them spending enormous sums of money on that company's products and/or services.
Cg (and the pixel and vertex shaders written in it) have nothing to do with processing scenes, etc.
All they're for is to tell the GPU how to draw an object. For example, lets say you wanted to draw a polygon that was supposed to be part of someone's face. You would write your pixel shader to simulate the way light bounces off human skin, use OpenGL calls to load it into the GPU, then tell OpenGL to draw the polygon using the shader you just loaded.
The advantage that Cg brings is that instead of having to write the mathematics necessary to realistically simulate the way light bounces off human skin (or some other material) in an assembly-like language, you can do it in a C-like language. This would make writing shaders *MUCH* easier.
And, it will work on ATI cards that support custom pixel and vertex shaders as well, so it really does benefit everybody, since now those who've got a Geforce3, Geforce4 (but not a Geforce4 MX) or a recent ATI card will see more games that support the ability of these cards to do custom shaders.
This has nothing to do with raw x86 assembly! This isn't doing graphics programming in raw assembly!
There is an assembly-like language for writing vertex and pixel shaders on nVidia and ATI GPUs. Your entire program could be nothing but high-level calls to DirectX 8 or OpenGL 1.4 in C++, but if you want to take advantage of the ability of the Geforce3, Geforce4 (but not Geforce4 MX), and recent ATI cards, to do custom pixel and vertex shaders, you have to write said pixel and vertex shaders in a small assembly-like language, and use DirextX or OpenGL calls to load them into the GPU. These shaders get used by the card's GPU, and has absolutely nothing to do with the CPU.
The idea here is that instead of writing your pixel or vertex shaders in something similar to assembly (again, it *ISN'T* assembly), you can write them in something similar to C, and the Cg compiler will compile your shaders into machine code for the GPU (Graphics Processing Unit; it's on the GeForce3, GeForce4 (but not GeForce4 MX), and recent ATI cards), not the CPU!
Writing shaders in this assembly-like language for the GPU is nothing like trying to do graphics in x86 assembly back in the day, ok?
Re:Internal ATX MoBo.
on
IMSAI Series Two
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No, you get a complete (though, no disk drives), working IMSAI system, that just happens to be able to have a PC ATX motherboard alongside all the IMSAI parts.
So, basically, you use the ATX mobo running Linux to download some IMSAI software from the internet, switch over to the IMSAI, and the included drivers for CP/M (an OS) will allow you to access the programs. Complicated? Maybe. Easier than trying to connect an 8-inch floppy drive to a PC, using some CP/M disk utils for Windows/Linux/whatever to put the progs onto the disk, re-connect the disk drive to the IMSAI, boot CP/M on the IMSAI, then run the programs? Definately.
What part of "Sync-on-green monitor required" didn't you understand?
Most PC monitors are designed to be as inexpensive to manufacture as possible. This means that "extra" features (that any decent monitor _SHOULD_ have) such as sync-on-green get left out.
Don't expect to be able to be a cheapskate and buy the least expensive monitor you can find and still have it work as well as a much nicer (but more expensive) monitor.
Well, it DOES have an Intel processor (Celeron I think).
Therefore, "standard" x86 code should run just fine.
One only runs into problems when trying to do stuff with the rest of the hardware, since, I imagine, the I/O ports would be different, the memory map is probably different, etc.
As far as resolution goes, film has a much higher resolution than the digital projectors do.
Since AotC was shot in the same resolution as the digital projectors, you won't notice any difference between the film and digital versions (at least as far as resolution goes). However, for a movie that was shot on film, the difference is quite noticeable.
Most people think that because it is digital projection that it will be of higher quality and higher resolution. But film has at least *TWICE* the resolution of the DLP digital projectors. The only real advantage to projecting digitally is that you don't have to worry about it getting scratched.
As for the people who claim that film reels get badly damaged, only at crappy theaters. The decent ones take good care of their prints and projectors so that kind of stuff doesn't happen.
You forgot The Cat's Meow. I just saw it last weekend at the Phoenix Film Festival (unfortunately, they haven't updated their site, even though the festival is over).
Kirsten Dunst's acting in that film was good, and it also has Eddie Izzard (doing a wonderful job playing a self-absorbed Charlie Chaplin), Cary Elwes, the woman who played Patsy in Absolutely Fabulous, and a few other people who's names I can't remember right now.
I have Dish Network, and get all the local channels just fine. You just have to pay a little extra for them, and they all come in through the satellite, so no bad antennae reception or anything.
For me, they start on channel 833 and proceed downwards from there (though there are a few, like UPN, up in the 16xx's IIRC).
People should check this stuff out BEFORE they get the satellite. I asked the guy, "Do I get any local channels?" "Yeah, you've got to get the [some package]." "Ok."
So I get NBC, ABC, Fox, WB, CBS, UPN, and local Channel 3 (not affiliated with any network; aside from a few shows in syndication, they run their own programming, which usually isn't *too* bad).
IIRC, Sun practically gave the renderfarm to Pixar in return for Pixar putting "Final rendering done on systems provided by Sun Microsystems", or something along those lines.
ILM used to have a similar deal with SGI (not sure if they still do), where ILM got SGI's latest and greatest for almost nothing, in return for good PR and testing out SGI's new stuff.
Sorry, but your argument is lame. _YOU_ might not like digital spedometers, but I know a few that prefer them. If your girlfriend was able to change the spedometer from miles per hour to kilometers per hour, you'd notice the "kph" instead of "mph" if you had a digital spedometer, and even with analog ones, there would be a noticeable difference.
Let me make it a bit clearer: I like having my icons on the left side of the desktop. I also have my background set to one of the images that came on my Planet of the Apes DVD (one of the darker, more low-key ones). According to Jef Raskin, I shouldn't be able to do either of these, yet neither affects my productivity. The background isn't distracting in the least (sorry Jef, nobody (unless they were playing a joke on somebody else, but no one would every do that because precious minutes would be lost!) is going to change their background to a picture of endless open windows), and I find its low-key hues make it easier for me to stare at my monitor for extended periods of time.
But according to Mr Raskin, his way is the best and only way, because there's "science" in it. What a load of crap. Everybody customizes their desktop at least a little bit, and it has nothing to do with the GUI's efficiency (or lack thereof). It's just a matter of personal taste (you can't take away my damn dirty apes!).
Who wants to bet that Jef Raskin left his house/apartment undecorated because "that is how the original designer intended it"? C'mon Jef, fess up; inquiring minds want to know...
Note the part where I said it ends up being the best book I have ever written, implying that I kept on writing other books, but that one was the best.
I myself am a C programmer, but I do not consider writing programs to be on the same level as writing a novel, writing a script, painting a picture, or directing a movie. I'm not downplaying the superb work done by Linus, but programming tends to be an exercise in logic with a bit of insight thrown in, whereas writing a book requires a much greater deal of creativity (and depending on the writer, no logic at all:) ).
And last time I checked, simply releasing new versions of the same product doesn't mean that you've got a new copyright. That is why with software that has been continually updated over the years you often see things like "Copyright (C) 1998,2000 Hugesoft". The copyright applies from the date of first publication, not the last.
And just how many authors release a "special edition" of their book? Some movie companies do it, but it has nothing to do with copyright renewal, and everything to do with getting more money. Like I said, just making a "special edition" doesn't garner a whole new copyright, because the copyright applies from the date of first publication, regardless of how many "director's cut" or "special editions" that you do.
Allow me to propose something: Let's say that tomorrow I wrote the best book that I had ever written, and it continues to be the best book that has ever been written by me. Let's also say that in 20 years it is still selling modestly. But all of a sudden, wham, I no longer see a penny from it, despite the fact that at least _some_ people are still buying it.
People who say that shorter copyrights encourage more creativity are incorrect. Truely creative people don't do it for profit, they do it because they love doing it. Regardless, they still deserve to be rewarded for creating things, and shouldn't have their creations ripped from them just because somebody wants to be able to legally post it all over USENET.
I really think that most of the people who are saying things like, "Shorten copyrights! Make the evil satan that is Disney pay!" are generally just a bunch of people who've never created anything worthwhile in their lives, and just want to profit from the works of others.
As for the Gone With the Wind thing, so the copyright holders have no sense of humor. Big deal. US copyright law (IANAL) allows for parodies, so tough luck for them. But imagine that _you_ wrote Gone With the Wind, and just a few years after initial publication you were no longer entitled to a dime from its sales, despite the fact that it is still selling modestly well. Would you be so eager to take away the rights of creative people to their own works? I think not.
I've got Dish Network (which really sucks; I've had nothing but trouble with it, and the compression artifacts are awful), and get both Comedy Central and Sci-Fi.
Back when I used to have Cable America (again, very awful; why do I keep getting stuck with shitty providers? Qwest.net for shitty 'net access, Cable America for shitty cable television, and now Dish Network for shitty satelite television), I got both Comedy Central and Sci-Fi.
You just have to be careful as to what package you sign up for. For both cable TV and satellite I had to sign up for something above the "basic" package to get all the channels I wanted. Despite getting hundreds of channels, there is still almost nothing worth watching on, and I still hate television for the most part (and I almost always miss the shows that are actually worth seeing).
Here in the US, filing for a copyright within the first month isn't required in order for [item x] to be copyrighted. Just sticking a "Copyright (C) [year] [copyright holder]" is enough. However, if you want the right to sue, you've got to file within the first 3 months.
1)No random access. Now you're gonna have to start rewinding your movies (again)
2)Do you really think the consumer-level D-VHS "VCRs" are going to have recording ability?
3)Tapes stretch, break, become mangled, and start to lose their magnetic abilities after a while, especially if the tape is used often. I've got movies on VHS that I've had for years, and they're rapidly losing their picture and sound quality. Just because the images will be stored on the tape digitally doesn't mean that the tape itself won't go bad (stretch, mangle, get "eaten" by the player, etc.) after a while.
Of course, it's in the studio's best interest if the tapes go bad after a while, 'cause then you've got to buy them all over again.
Also, forget any extra features like you'd have on DVD. It will be back to "dump a telecine of the lo-con print to tape, stick a few trailers on the front, and then go manufacture a few thousand."
Actually, most people who know what they're talking about regard American Graffitti as fairly lackluster in general. It has almost no plot, the dialog is cheesy, and George Lucas' directing is subpar.
It is commonly known by people who actually _make_ films that George Lucas is a bad director. He doesn't know how to direct actors very well and his movies are all throwbacks to 50's sci-fi crap.
Most directors' favorite part of the moviemaking process is the actual production. George Lucas hates the production phase.
Most directors try to pay attention to their actors and give them good motivation. George Lucas couldn't care less.
The biggest thing, to me, is that most of the directors that I know can't stand to go for more than a few months without at least directing something. Mr Lucas went 20 years.
It doesn't matter how good the script is, because if Georgie Boy screws up the execution (again), the movie is still going to be bad.
I really shouldn't dignify this post with a response, but here goes:
1)ILM and Linux? No, I don't think so. ILM uses SGIs, which means IRIX. They've got a shitload of them, and probably MILLIONS of lines of proprietary code, all written for SGI machines running IRIX. And, unless I'm mistaken, ILM has a deal with SGI where ILM gets SGI's hardware for dirt cheap, in return for being a testbed/advertisement for SGI.
2)500 mhz may not sound like much, but remember: it's a 64-bit CPU. All you'll see in a PC or a Mac is a 32-bit CPU. Yes, yes, I know, more bits != better, but neither does more mhz. Besides, SGIs have an incredible amount of memory bandwidth, due in part to their wide data bus.
You forget that someone has to do the programming for the DVD. There are DVDs which contain a *TON* of extra stuff, and a good deal of it was created specifically for the DVD.
Also, I have seen some "Making of..." that were created just for the DVD.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but one has to consider the cost of creating the DVD. Granted, the cost to manufacture the disc is probably less than $5 US, but what about the extra stuff on the DVD? It isn't like VHS, where you just dump the lo-con print to tape, stick some trailers in front of it, and then go manufacture a few thousand. You've got to do the pan-and-scan telecine of the lo-con print, do the widescreen telecine of the lo-con print, put together the "Making of..." stuff, the filmographies, production photos, commentaries, etc.
So I can understand raising the price of each DVD by a few dollars (less than $5), but $25 for a DVD and $10 for the VHS of the same movie? Well, that's pushing it.
However, one still has to remember that if something is being sold for $20 in a store, the store keeps around half of that.
Neither the article nor the test were done by Intel.
Open Magazine (or whatever they're called) are the ones who decided that the Intel compiler produced faster x86 code than GCC.
Re:That's great and all, but...
on
Wired Talks Wine
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well, at least some native Linux versions of Windows programs should be similar enough to their Windows counterparts that people can just pick them up and go, with minimal "re-learning".
Not _ALL_ Linux programs have to be just like the Windows ones, nor do KDE/GNOME/[insert favorite X Window manager] have to be like Windows. But if there were say, some popular Linux-native office apps that not only were of good quality (and very compatible with the files generated by MS Word, Excel, etc.) but had an interface similar to MS Office*, there would no longer be the, "Well, but I've already gone to the trouble of learning MS Office!" excuse.
Remember, people take entire CLASSES to learn MS Office*. Neither they nor their bosses (who would have to pay them while they re-learn what they already know) would be happy if one day all their MS Office knowledge meant nothing, just because the Chief Technology Officer / IT department of the company they were working at decided to switch over to Linux.
*When I say "MS Office" I mean all the MS Office apps, such as Word, Excel, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
The law does not prohibit people in Maricopa county (which I live in) from purchasing Microsoft products. It just says that government agencies in Maricopa county can't purchase or contract out to companies that have been convicted of violating federal or state antitrust laws.
IMHO, this was probably to keep monopolies from paying off people in local governments in return for them spending enormous sums of money on that company's products and/or services.
Cg (and the pixel and vertex shaders written in it) have nothing to do with processing scenes, etc.
All they're for is to tell the GPU how to draw an object. For example, lets say you wanted to draw a polygon that was supposed to be part of someone's face. You would write your pixel shader to simulate the way light bounces off human skin, use OpenGL calls to load it into the GPU, then tell OpenGL to draw the polygon using the shader you just loaded.
The advantage that Cg brings is that instead of having to write the mathematics necessary to realistically simulate the way light bounces off human skin (or some other material) in an assembly-like language, you can do it in a C-like language. This would make writing shaders *MUCH* easier.
And, it will work on ATI cards that support custom pixel and vertex shaders as well, so it really does benefit everybody, since now those who've got a Geforce3, Geforce4 (but not a Geforce4 MX) or a recent ATI card will see more games that support the ability of these cards to do custom shaders.
ENOUGH!
This has nothing to do with raw x86 assembly! This isn't doing graphics programming in raw assembly!
There is an assembly-like language for writing vertex and pixel shaders on nVidia and ATI GPUs. Your entire program could be nothing but high-level calls to DirectX 8 or OpenGL 1.4 in C++, but if you want to take advantage of the ability of the Geforce3, Geforce4 (but not Geforce4 MX), and recent ATI cards, to do custom pixel and vertex shaders, you have to write said pixel and vertex shaders in a small assembly-like language, and use DirextX or OpenGL calls to load them into the GPU. These shaders get used by the card's GPU, and has absolutely nothing to do with the CPU.
The idea here is that instead of writing your pixel or vertex shaders in something similar to assembly (again, it *ISN'T* assembly), you can write them in something similar to C, and the Cg compiler will compile your shaders into machine code for the GPU (Graphics Processing Unit; it's on the GeForce3, GeForce4 (but not GeForce4 MX), and recent ATI cards), not the CPU!
Writing shaders in this assembly-like language for the GPU is nothing like trying to do graphics in x86 assembly back in the day, ok?
No, you get a complete (though, no disk drives), working IMSAI system, that just happens to be able to have a PC ATX motherboard alongside all the IMSAI parts.
So, basically, you use the ATX mobo running Linux to download some IMSAI software from the internet, switch over to the IMSAI, and the included drivers for CP/M (an OS) will allow you to access the programs. Complicated? Maybe. Easier than trying to connect an 8-inch floppy drive to a PC, using some CP/M disk utils for Windows/Linux/whatever to put the progs onto the disk, re-connect the disk drive to the IMSAI, boot CP/M on the IMSAI, then run the programs? Definately.
What part of "Sync-on-green monitor required" didn't you understand?
Most PC monitors are designed to be as inexpensive to manufacture as possible. This means that "extra" features (that any decent monitor _SHOULD_ have) such as sync-on-green get left out.
Don't expect to be able to be a cheapskate and buy the least expensive monitor you can find and still have it work as well as a much nicer (but more expensive) monitor.
Well, it DOES have an Intel processor (Celeron I think).
Therefore, "standard" x86 code should run just fine.
One only runs into problems when trying to do stuff with the rest of the hardware, since, I imagine, the I/O ports would be different, the memory map is probably different, etc.
NAFTA - North American Free Trade Agreement.
;-)
The last time I looked, Peru was in South America.
Although, I admit they could have pulled an Australia and now be somewhere in North America
----
As far as resolution goes, film has a much higher resolution than the digital projectors do.
Since AotC was shot in the same resolution as the digital projectors, you won't notice any difference between the film and digital versions (at least as far as resolution goes). However, for a movie that was shot on film, the difference is quite noticeable.
Most people think that because it is digital projection that it will be of higher quality and higher resolution. But film has at least *TWICE* the resolution of the DLP digital projectors. The only real advantage to projecting digitally is that you don't have to worry about it getting scratched.
As for the people who claim that film reels get badly damaged, only at crappy theaters. The decent ones take good care of their prints and projectors so that kind of stuff doesn't happen.
You forgot The Cat's Meow. I just saw it last weekend at the Phoenix Film Festival (unfortunately, they haven't updated their site, even though the festival is over).
Kirsten Dunst's acting in that film was good, and it also has Eddie Izzard (doing a wonderful job playing a self-absorbed Charlie Chaplin), Cary Elwes, the woman who played Patsy in Absolutely Fabulous, and a few other people who's names I can't remember right now.
----
I have Dish Network, and get all the local channels just fine. You just have to pay a little extra for them, and they all come in through the satellite, so no bad antennae reception or anything.
For me, they start on channel 833 and proceed downwards from there (though there are a few, like UPN, up in the 16xx's IIRC).
People should check this stuff out BEFORE they get the satellite. I asked the guy, "Do I get any local channels?" "Yeah, you've got to get the [some package]." "Ok."
So I get NBC, ABC, Fox, WB, CBS, UPN, and local Channel 3 (not affiliated with any network; aside from a few shows in syndication, they run their own programming, which usually isn't *too* bad).
IIRC, Sun practically gave the renderfarm to Pixar in return for Pixar putting "Final rendering done on systems provided by Sun Microsystems", or something along those lines.
ILM used to have a similar deal with SGI (not sure if they still do), where ILM got SGI's latest and greatest for almost nothing, in return for good PR and testing out SGI's new stuff.
Sorry, but your argument is lame. _YOU_ might not like digital spedometers, but I know a few that prefer them. If your girlfriend was able to change the spedometer from miles per hour to kilometers per hour, you'd notice the "kph" instead of "mph" if you had a digital spedometer, and even with analog ones, there would be a noticeable difference.
Let me make it a bit clearer: I like having my icons on the left side of the desktop. I also have my background set to one of the images that came on my Planet of the Apes DVD (one of the darker, more low-key ones). According to Jef Raskin, I shouldn't be able to do either of these, yet neither affects my productivity. The background isn't distracting in the least (sorry Jef, nobody (unless they were playing a joke on somebody else, but no one would every do that because precious minutes would be lost!) is going to change their background to a picture of endless open windows), and I find its low-key hues make it easier for me to stare at my monitor for extended periods of time.
But according to Mr Raskin, his way is the best and only way, because there's "science" in it. What a load of crap. Everybody customizes their desktop at least a little bit, and it has nothing to do with the GUI's efficiency (or lack thereof). It's just a matter of personal taste (you can't take away my damn dirty apes!).
Who wants to bet that Jef Raskin left his house/apartment undecorated because "that is how the original designer intended it"? C'mon Jef, fess up; inquiring minds want to know...
Note the part where I said it ends up being the best book I have ever written, implying that I kept on writing other books, but that one was the best.
:) ).
I myself am a C programmer, but I do not consider writing programs to be on the same level as writing a novel, writing a script, painting a picture, or directing a movie. I'm not downplaying the superb work done by Linus, but programming tends to be an exercise in logic with a bit of insight thrown in, whereas writing a book requires a much greater deal of creativity (and depending on the writer, no logic at all
And last time I checked, simply releasing new versions of the same product doesn't mean that you've got a new copyright. That is why with software that has been continually updated over the years you often see things like "Copyright (C) 1998,2000 Hugesoft". The copyright applies from the date of first publication, not the last.
And just how many authors release a "special edition" of their book? Some movie companies do it, but it has nothing to do with copyright renewal, and everything to do with getting more money. Like I said, just making a "special edition" doesn't garner a whole new copyright, because the copyright applies from the date of first publication, regardless of how many "director's cut" or "special editions" that you do.
Allow me to propose something:
Let's say that tomorrow I wrote the best book that I had ever written, and it continues to be the best book that has ever been written by me.
Let's also say that in 20 years it is still selling modestly. But all of a sudden, wham, I no longer see a penny from it, despite the fact that at least _some_ people are still buying it.
People who say that shorter copyrights encourage more creativity are incorrect. Truely creative people don't do it for profit, they do it because they love doing it. Regardless, they still deserve to be rewarded for creating things, and shouldn't have their creations ripped from them just because somebody wants to be able to legally post it all over USENET.
I really think that most of the people who are saying things like, "Shorten copyrights! Make the evil satan that is Disney pay!" are generally just a bunch of people who've never created anything worthwhile in their lives, and just want to profit from the works of others.
As for the Gone With the Wind thing, so the copyright holders have no sense of humor. Big deal. US copyright law (IANAL) allows for parodies, so tough luck for them. But imagine that _you_ wrote Gone With the Wind, and just a few years after initial publication you were no longer entitled to a dime from its sales, despite the fact that it is still selling modestly well. Would you be so eager to take away the rights of creative people to their own works? I think not.
I've got Dish Network (which really sucks; I've had nothing but trouble with it, and the compression artifacts are awful), and get both Comedy Central and Sci-Fi.
Back when I used to have Cable America (again, very awful; why do I keep getting stuck with shitty providers? Qwest.net for shitty 'net access, Cable America for shitty cable television, and now Dish Network for shitty satelite television), I got both Comedy Central and Sci-Fi.
You just have to be careful as to what package you sign up for. For both cable TV and satellite I had to sign up for something above the "basic" package to get all the channels I wanted. Despite getting hundreds of channels, there is still almost nothing worth watching on, and I still hate television for the most part (and I almost always miss the shows that are actually worth seeing).
About your sig: it should actually read "Oppinions are like assholes: everybody's got one and they all stink."
Here in the US, filing for a copyright within the first month isn't required in order for [item x] to be copyrighted. Just sticking a "Copyright (C) [year] [copyright holder]" is enough. However, if you want the right to sue, you've got to file within the first 3 months.
"There is unlikely anything too "proprietary" about any sourcecode that ILM might have."
Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
Have you heard of Sabre, ILM's proprietary compositing package? Or Viewpaint?
HDTV aside, this has absolutely 0 value over DVD.
1)No random access. Now you're gonna have to start rewinding your movies (again)
2)Do you really think the consumer-level D-VHS "VCRs" are going to have recording ability?
3)Tapes stretch, break, become mangled, and start to lose their magnetic abilities after a while, especially if the tape is used often. I've got movies on VHS that I've had for years, and they're rapidly losing their picture and sound quality. Just because the images will be stored on the tape digitally doesn't mean that the tape itself won't go bad (stretch, mangle, get "eaten" by the player, etc.) after a while.
Of course, it's in the studio's best interest if the tapes go bad after a while, 'cause then you've got to buy them all over again.
Also, forget any extra features like you'd have on DVD. It will be back to "dump a telecine of the lo-con print to tape, stick a few trailers on the front, and then go manufacture a few thousand."
It is commonly known by people who actually _make_ films that George Lucas is a bad director. He doesn't know how to direct actors very well and his movies are all throwbacks to 50's sci-fi crap.
Most directors' favorite part of the moviemaking process is the actual production. George Lucas hates the production phase.
Most directors try to pay attention to their actors and give them good motivation. George Lucas couldn't care less.
The biggest thing, to me, is that most of the directors that I know can't stand to go for more than a few months without at least directing something. Mr Lucas went 20 years.
It doesn't matter how good the script is, because if Georgie Boy screws up the execution (again), the movie is still going to be bad.
I really shouldn't dignify this post with a response, but here goes:
1)ILM and Linux? No, I don't think so. ILM uses SGIs, which means IRIX. They've got a shitload of them, and probably MILLIONS of lines of proprietary code, all written for SGI machines running IRIX. And, unless I'm mistaken, ILM has a deal with SGI where ILM gets SGI's hardware for dirt cheap, in return for being a testbed/advertisement for SGI.
2)500 mhz may not sound like much, but remember: it's a 64-bit CPU. All you'll see in a PC or a Mac is a 32-bit CPU. Yes, yes, I know, more bits != better, but neither does more mhz. Besides, SGIs have an incredible amount of memory bandwidth, due in part to their wide data bus.
You forget that someone has to do the programming for the DVD. There are DVDs which contain a *TON* of extra stuff, and a good deal of it was created specifically for the DVD.
Also, I have seen some "Making of..." that were created just for the DVD.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but one has to consider the cost of creating the DVD. Granted, the cost to manufacture the disc is probably less than $5 US, but what about the extra stuff on the DVD? It isn't like VHS, where you just dump the lo-con print to tape, stick some trailers in front of it, and then go manufacture a few thousand. You've got to do the pan-and-scan telecine of the lo-con print, do the widescreen telecine of the lo-con print, put together the "Making of..." stuff, the filmographies, production photos, commentaries, etc.
So I can understand raising the price of each DVD by a few dollars (less than $5), but $25 for a DVD and $10 for the VHS of the same movie? Well, that's pushing it.
However, one still has to remember that if something is being sold for $20 in a store, the store keeps around half of that.
Neither the article nor the test were done by Intel.
Open Magazine (or whatever they're called) are the ones who decided that the Intel compiler produced faster x86 code than GCC.
Well, at least some native Linux versions of Windows programs should be similar enough to their Windows counterparts that people can just pick them up and go, with minimal "re-learning".
Not _ALL_ Linux programs have to be just like the Windows ones, nor do KDE/GNOME/[insert favorite X Window manager] have to be like Windows. But if there were say, some popular Linux-native office apps that not only were of good quality (and very compatible with the files generated by MS Word, Excel, etc.) but had an interface similar to MS Office*, there would no longer be the, "Well, but I've already gone to the trouble of learning MS Office!" excuse.
Remember, people take entire CLASSES to learn MS Office*. Neither they nor their bosses (who would have to pay them while they re-learn what they already know) would be happy if one day all their MS Office knowledge meant nothing, just because the Chief Technology Officer / IT department of the company they were working at decided to switch over to Linux.
*When I say "MS Office" I mean all the MS Office apps, such as Word, Excel, etc.