If you change your actions, it makes you look guilty. Since they maintained that their actions were legal and good for the country, acting guilty would be a major weakness.
First, samba is a specific package. What you want is a CIFS (used to be SMB) driver.
There used to be third party products, but my understanding is that samba killed them all. And being 3rd party wouldn't help anyway, unless you manage to get into the Microsoft Shared Source program.
Re:Stop whining about HDTV
on
HDTV Over IP
·
· Score: 1
First, I would still buy box sets. Second, many shows never had box sets, or they were made in too small a quantity. Twin Peaks comes to mind...
Re:This makes Open Source video even more importan
on
HDTV Over IP
·
· Score: 1
From where I sit, DivX and MPEG4 seem to be heading rapidly towards being industry standard. But, isn't DivX open? Or is that just international effort from countries who don't care that brings us OpenDivX?
Anyway, there was talk of an OGG video codec. In and interview, the creator of Vorbis said that video compression should be easier than audio, and also that he was planning on doing such a thing once vorbis was further along.
Too complicated. And mod_perl is fir wussies anyway.:-) Who needs logfiles? Real men write their own modules in assembly embedded in the web server using self modifying code.
It's not that hard, if you have a copy of the flashdisk. Soon, they will find a way to extract the OS (OK, this seems to be hard), and then everything will be easy. Maybe I should order myself one of these.
Think Octane (SGI), or SunBlade1000 (Sun), or numerous other machines. And that doesn't count the needed wireless gear. And medical stuff is always really expensive.
The creators of DeCSS were never found. A kid in another country got the code from the creators and released it, and last I heard, he never revealed where he got it from. Even though such code is legal in the kids country, the MPAA still managed to get him arrested (although I don't know if they managed to press charges) and his computers confiscated.
2600 wasn't just strongarmed into removing the code, they are in an ongoing court battle over being able to just link to people who have the code. So far, this has been the only assult on the DMCA, and it hasn't been going well (sure, people say that Dmitry is an assult also, but until it reaches court, there is no chance of the DMCA changing because of him).
BTW, until courts rule otherwise, the DMCA supercedes fair use. If there is no copy protection, fair use applies, but if there is, then the DMCA applies. At least, IANAL, but that is what I think.
As other people point out, Pixar uses Suns for rendering, not SGIs.
Now, what is interesting is that you need about the same or larger load of SGIs to do the rendering. For something that doesn't benifit specifically from things like craylink (used for the really monstrous origins), a network of lintel machines is probably faster and definately cheaper.
Now, the question that Pixar asked them selves was something like, do we want several hundred linux boxes, or do we want to spend more and get 250 Suns (quad processor machines) which will cost most, but take less effort (real employees) to keep running? I guess which is better depends on the renderfarm size, and how you feel about the cost of keeping PC hardware running.
Myself, for small render farms, I'd look to Athlons, but if I got stuck running a large one, I probably would also look to Sun (sorry, love SGIs, but they wouldn't be the best here IMHO), although I would pause to check out IBMs and HPs as well.
The Pharm. industry is no longer a good example thanks to a recent study that points out that R&D is a small fraction of the budget, but Marketing is a large fraction of the budget. Thus, nobody feels any sympathy for the pharm. industry anymore. I think that cars might be a better idea. Don't they usually take 4+ years to develop?
Yes, but this paper was about actually effectively simulating skin rather than faking sub surface scattering by using layers and translucency. This is much more computationally intensive, but ultimately easier to use.
Actually, I expect that in 10 years, animation times could potentially be shorter than 6 months due to increased simulation usage to get rid of the insignificant details (as opposed to the details that matter like eye expressions). As to voice actors, well, I don't see speech synthesis getting radically better anytime real soon. However, someone was recently telling me that "talkies" are just a fad, and that in 10 years we will all be back to silent films. Viola, no more actor woes.
Which $3k card do you have? I've used Wildcat 4000 cards extensively, and there is no way that a Geforce 3 comes close. The GeForce2 came no where near close, and on paper the GF3 isn't so much faster than a GF2 as to have any chance of catching up. And there are many newer and faster Wildcats out since the 4000.
Heck, it isn't even going to show up in the million dollar graphics solutions (SGI Onyx3s) for quite some time, let alone the $3k boards used by consumers.
I rather suspect that we will need a radically new approach to real time rendering to do it. Real time rendering resorts to all sorts of tricks, and this is something that needs to be simulated. So, we might see it sometime after we see real time raytracers with radiosity, which also expected to be many, many years off..
In an interview about Shrek, they said that they sorta did subsurface scattering. What they really did was build several polygonal skin layers on top of each other rather than simulate the actual sub surface scattering. I can't get to the site (/. effect probably) to read the actual paper on the new subsurface scattering method to compare it.
In the current Cinefex issue, they talk about the FF movie. It is said that they actually had the characters looking more realistic, but felt that they needed to tone the realism down because it freaked people out to watch even more realistic characters have less than perfect animation. Actually, the same interview about Shrek mentioned about also said that they toned down the Fiona realism because it didn't stylistically match the rest of the film.
I tried to look at the Alias Wavefront link you provided, and found something disturbing. They refuse to let me look at their site with my Mozilla. They try to insist that I downgrade to NS4 or switch to IE. Darn them.
Uhm, if you are designing a small networking system for a few academics, network connection cost isn't really an issue. I doubt that TBL was picturing the web as it now exists when he did his initial design.
And you know, how hard can it really be to make changes? Just sneak a better system into apache and mozilla, and wait for things to spread from there. OK, maybe if Netscape hadn't screwed up so badly this would work. At this point, mozilla is such a minority that doing such wouldn't make it a major win, but it couldn't hurt.
I don't necessarily like this approach that they are taking, but at some point, they have to be able to get some legal recourse for stopping people from sharing copyrighted materials.
There is a legal recourse. Sue or criminally charge every user who violates the copyright. Further, ISPs shouldn't be responsible for removing a users content until there is a court order to take it down. This would mean that every user would get a fair chance to have their say, rather than just being cut off.
In making ISPs and copyright holders work the above way, either copyright holders will have to find a way to survive pirates (like, charge the largest volume ones and tolerate the little napster users, while trying to provide better incentives to buy the CD instead of only downloading it), or they will get over run by court costs, which if they manage to afford it, then public favor will run against them. It is one thing to have some kids internet connection turned off. It is another to sue him for hundreds of thousands of dolars or threaten jail time for a few songs. People wouldn't put up with it. Either way, balance would be restored.
What I want to know, is if the web was invented by and for physists (which it is), then why doesn't HTML have a better way of expressing formulas then to put them in a picture?
Slashdot Mirror
If you change your actions, it makes you look guilty. Since they maintained that their actions were legal and good for the country, acting guilty would be a major weakness.
First, samba is a specific package. What you want is a CIFS (used to be SMB) driver.
There used to be third party products, but my understanding is that samba killed them all. And being 3rd party wouldn't help anyway, unless you manage to get into the Microsoft Shared Source program.
First, I would still buy box sets. Second, many shows never had box sets, or they were made in too small a quantity. Twin Peaks comes to mind...
From where I sit, DivX and MPEG4 seem to be heading rapidly towards being industry standard. But, isn't DivX open? Or is that just international effort from countries who don't care that brings us OpenDivX?
Anyway, there was talk of an OGG video codec. In and interview, the creator of Vorbis said that video compression should be easier than audio, and also that he was planning on doing such a thing once vorbis was further along.
Too complicated. And mod_perl is fir wussies anyway.:-) Who needs logfiles? Real men write their own modules in assembly embedded in the web server using self modifying code.
Cheap PCs are big and ugly. Audreys are small and cute. Besides, how else are you gonna get an affordable flat panel display?
As to hacking them, well, some of us refuse to own computers that aren't under our control.
It's not that hard, if you have a copy of the flashdisk. Soon, they will find a way to extract the OS (OK, this seems to be hard), and then everything will be easy. Maybe I should order myself one of these.
Think Octane (SGI), or SunBlade1000 (Sun), or numerous other machines. And that doesn't count the needed wireless gear. And medical stuff is always really expensive.
The creators of DeCSS were never found. A kid in another country got the code from the creators and released it, and last I heard, he never revealed where he got it from. Even though such code is legal in the kids country, the MPAA still managed to get him arrested (although I don't know if they managed to press charges) and his computers confiscated.
2600 wasn't just strongarmed into removing the code, they are in an ongoing court battle over being able to just link to people who have the code. So far, this has been the only assult on the DMCA, and it hasn't been going well (sure, people say that Dmitry is an assult also, but until it reaches court, there is no chance of the DMCA changing because of him).
BTW, until courts rule otherwise, the DMCA supercedes fair use. If there is no copy protection, fair use applies, but if there is, then the DMCA applies. At least, IANAL, but that is what I think.
As other people point out, Pixar uses Suns for rendering, not SGIs.
Now, what is interesting is that you need about the same or larger load of SGIs to do the rendering. For something that doesn't benifit specifically from things like craylink (used for the really monstrous origins), a network of lintel machines is probably faster and definately cheaper.
Now, the question that Pixar asked them selves was something like, do we want several hundred linux boxes, or do we want to spend more and get 250 Suns (quad processor machines) which will cost most, but take less effort (real employees) to keep running? I guess which is better depends on the renderfarm size, and how you feel about the cost of keeping PC hardware running.
Myself, for small render farms, I'd look to Athlons, but if I got stuck running a large one, I probably would also look to Sun (sorry, love SGIs, but they wouldn't be the best here IMHO), although I would pause to check out IBMs and HPs as well.
Do not new air bags and other parts qualify for patents? I would imagine that volvo has a patent on their whiplash protection system for starters.
The Pharm. industry is no longer a good example thanks to a recent study that points out that R&D is a small fraction of the budget, but Marketing is a large fraction of the budget. Thus, nobody feels any sympathy for the pharm. industry anymore. I think that cars might be a better idea. Don't they usually take 4+ years to develop?
Yes, but this paper was about actually effectively simulating skin rather than faking sub surface scattering by using layers and translucency. This is much more computationally intensive, but ultimately easier to use.
Actually, I expect that in 10 years, animation times could potentially be shorter than 6 months due to increased simulation usage to get rid of the insignificant details (as opposed to the details that matter like eye expressions). As to voice actors, well, I don't see speech synthesis getting radically better anytime real soon. However, someone was recently telling me that "talkies" are just a fad, and that in 10 years we will all be back to silent films. Viola, no more actor woes.
100 times speed up? I'd be hard pressed to say that a Geforce 3 is 100x faster than a TNT, and the TNT is over 3 years old.
Which $3k card do you have? I've used Wildcat 4000 cards extensively, and there is no way that a Geforce 3 comes close. The GeForce2 came no where near close, and on paper the GF3 isn't so much faster than a GF2 as to have any chance of catching up. And there are many newer and faster Wildcats out since the 4000.
Heck, it isn't even going to show up in the million dollar graphics solutions (SGI Onyx3s) for quite some time, let alone the $3k boards used by consumers.
I rather suspect that we will need a radically new approach to real time rendering to do it. Real time rendering resorts to all sorts of tricks, and this is something that needs to be simulated. So, we might see it sometime after we see real time raytracers with radiosity, which also expected to be many, many years off..
In an interview about Shrek, they said that they sorta did subsurface scattering. What they really did was build several polygonal skin layers on top of each other rather than simulate the actual sub surface scattering. I can't get to the site (/. effect probably) to read the actual paper on the new subsurface scattering method to compare it.
In the current Cinefex issue, they talk about the FF movie. It is said that they actually had the characters looking more realistic, but felt that they needed to tone the realism down because it freaked people out to watch even more realistic characters have less than perfect animation. Actually, the same interview about Shrek mentioned about also said that they toned down the Fiona realism because it didn't stylistically match the rest of the film.
I tried to look at the Alias Wavefront link you provided, and found something disturbing. They refuse to let me look at their site with my Mozilla. They try to insist that I downgrade to NS4 or switch to IE. Darn them.
Academics aren't as sexy as hackers, as far as movies go, so I doubt that Die Hard 4 would be about that.
Uhm, if you are designing a small networking system for a few academics, network connection cost isn't really an issue. I doubt that TBL was picturing the web as it now exists when he did his initial design.
And you know, how hard can it really be to make changes? Just sneak a better system into apache and mozilla, and wait for things to spread from there. OK, maybe if Netscape hadn't screwed up so badly this would work. At this point, mozilla is such a minority that doing such wouldn't make it a major win, but it couldn't hurt.
There is a legal recourse. Sue or criminally charge every user who violates the copyright. Further, ISPs shouldn't be responsible for removing a users content until there is a court order to take it down. This would mean that every user would get a fair chance to have their say, rather than just being cut off.
In making ISPs and copyright holders work the above way, either copyright holders will have to find a way to survive pirates (like, charge the largest volume ones and tolerate the little napster users, while trying to provide better incentives to buy the CD instead of only downloading it), or they will get over run by court costs, which if they manage to afford it, then public favor will run against them. It is one thing to have some kids internet connection turned off. It is another to sue him for hundreds of thousands of dolars or threaten jail time for a few songs. People wouldn't put up with it. Either way, balance would be restored.
What I want to know, is if the web was invented by and for physists (which it is), then why doesn't HTML have a better way of expressing formulas then to put them in a picture?
because then someone will have their ass chip removed, and a new ass chip implanted that can be reprogrammed.