3.b) reducing the complexity. it's not physically possible to have a full height position adjacent to a deeply cut position. No problem, just cut it as high a possible, the master key suffers the same limits too, and this reduces the complexity of the pattern.
The master key does not necessarily suffer the same limits. Consider a lock where your key has a (trivial) code of 11111 (minimal cuts) and the master key has a code of 99999 (all cut to the maximum depth; I'm using Schlage codes here, just because the only key I have handy with a code stamped on it happens to be a Schlage.) In that case, none of your test keys will open the door because they will all have a 9 next to a 1 and wouldn't fit into the lock (or worse, would stick in the lock and not come back out) but neither the individual key nor the master key will have any large transitions (in fact, they won't have any transitions at all.)
I would guess that ensuring a condition like this exists is one of the suggested workarounds in the original paper.
(who want's to carry around a keyring with 500 keys when you're building a housing development or a condo complex)
Or, oh, here's an idea, the one general contractors actually use: you don't install the customer's lockset until you're finished with the building. That protects the customer's shiny new brass-like doorknob from those lazy subs who can't bother to wash the paint off their hands, and coincidentally allows you to use your vast collection of keyed-alike locksets in all of the houses you're currently working on.
Oh, so the customer needs to (regularly) come by and check on the progress of his new house while you're not there? No problem! Put his shiny new lockset on the back door, or the door into the garage, and require the subs to enter and exit via the front door.
(My experience: I just changed a "low-end" Schlage deadbolt. Before I threw out the old lock I removed all of the pins, since it was keyed to match other locks in the same house. Exactly 10 tiny pieces of metal (and 5 springs) fell out of the cylinder when I unscrewed the back. That means there was one shear line, the one that corresponds to the homeowner's key.)
Similarly if the garage is fooled somehow into thinking it has a legal code and advances to the next sequence, when I press the fob the first time it doesn't work, the next time it does because the fob advances until they are in sequence again
You must be single and/or have a one-car garage. Keep in mind that whatever system you invent has to work with more than one transmitter, or it won't be usable in the vast majority of suburban homes.
If I had to press the button twice every time I come home just because my wife gets home before me, I'd quickly throw out that garage door opener and buy one that works.
The one you're thinking of goes between Monte Carlo and Bellagio. There's another one that's actually a real monorail between the MGM Grand and Bally's. Last time I looked at the proposed monorail route, it appeared that the MGM/Bally's monorail would be incorporated into the new system.
If the new system inherits the properties of the old system, you'll be forced to walk through approximately 8.2 miles of retail space at each station to get from the monorail to the street, or vice versa. You might as well use the sidewalk.
If you read the decision, you'll see that the plaintiff didn't approach Southwest about fixing the problem before filing suit. Southwest didn't really have a choice as to whether it would go to court or not.
The court did mention in a footnote that they're surprised Southwest didn't just fix the problem anyway, given the financial benefits to doing so. The truth is that it's not entirely Southwest's problem; some screen readers do just fine with Southwest's website and some do not. Part of the blame has to rest on the manufacturer of the plaintiff's screen reader. (Disclaimer: I work for a company whose screen reader does work with Southwest.com, so I might not be entirely unbiased.)
This would be "informative" if it were true, but it's not. I use an RF modulator with my DVD player; I have to, because my TV is too old to have composite inputs. The way my system is wired, the output from the modulator goes into the input of my VCR. Surprise, surprise: if the VCR's tuner is on, I get the usual Macrovision effects (high saturation, low brightness) on the signal.
A little thought shows why this is: the Macrovision signal is just a very high-intensity band of very bright signal inserted just after the colorburst signal at the start of some video fields. It's completely in-band (if a little hot) so your modulator will be more than happy to add it to the modulated signal and pass it on down the chain.
The simple answer is that we don't actually know who contributed what, except for the stuff that was contributed recently. So, for most of the core rendering engine, we have no idea whether we have permission.
Some other stuff, for example the code for the "crackle" pattern, is actually licensed separately; if you look at the header for that module you'll see that the 3.1x crackle implementation is public domain.
A little more than ten years, if we're to believe the keychain in my pocket that says "1991-2001". That dates to before the commercial success of the Internet, so many of the contributors were only on Compuserve. Finding some of those people by their names alone would be very difficult, because their names are so common, and we don't have any other reliable contact information now that Compuserve has all but ceased to exist.
It's true that POV is not open source. There's a very good reason for that: we can't reach many of the people who contributed the original code under the old license, so we don't have the right to just switch the license. We'll have to rewrite some pretty big chunks of code before we can think about a more open license. That (the rewrite) is slated to happen for the next major release.
As for the object files, I think that if you read carefully you'll find that the only restrictions are on the use of the files in the samples directory; the POV-Team doesn't own the copyright on those files so the restrictions on those files are an unfortunate necessity. The standard include files and macros, though, are free to be used for any purpose:
The user is also granted the right to use the scene files, fonts,
bitmaps, and include files distributed in the INCLUDE and SCENES\INCDEMO sub-directories in their own scenes. Such permission does not extend to any other files in the SCENES directory or its sub-directories. The SCENES files are for your enjoyment and education but may not be the basis of any derivative works unless the file in question explicitly grants permission to do such.
I think everybody's done the z-buffer thing at one time or another; I'm not sure why we've never made it an official feature. If your other patch was what I think it was (the description isn't really too clear) there's a way to do that in 3.5 using pigment_pattern but it might take some experimenting.
Re:Render Engine is nice, but modelers?
on
POV-Ray 3.5 Rendered
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Moray's not open source, but it is a nice POV-centric modeler. There are also utilities to convert objects created in other modelers to be used with POV; lots of people use those to create objects and then glue it all together with some hand coding.
There have been attempts to create open source modelers for POV in the past, but they were collaborative projects from the start and the unfortunate truth behind open source is that it seems to work best if one person does a lot of the design and coding before getting all those eyes to debug. Design by committee just seems to lead to stagnation.
Personally, I do it all by hand, when I actually have time to use POV as opposed to helping write it.
Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
The strip is made of plastic and is both transparent and fluorescent, but it's not magnetic. Do some experiments. Wave a stack of 20's next to a good-quality compass and watch for the needle to deflect. Try to stick a bill to a strong rare-earth magnet to find out if it has any ferrous content. Buy some magnetic field viewing film and check it out. But whatever you do, don't just believe the black helicopter brigade.
I also wrote Script Sentry which traps those VBS scripts (as well as DOC, XLS, SHS, SHB, REG, HTA, and more), shows you details as to what it would do if run
But can it tell me if the VBS script will terminate in a finite time?
Sorry, that's wrong. So are at least some of the other so-called laws there. For example, the one that says "A man over the age of 18 may be arrested for statutory rape if the passenger in his car is not wearing her socks and shoes, and is under the age of 17" makes no sense when you consider that the age of consent in Indiana is 16 (or 14 if both parties are under 18) even if you don't bother to actually go look it up. (The full text of any Indiana law can be found here )
The truth behind the pi thing is that it would not have set the value of pi to 4, or even to 3 as most accounts would have it. It would have set it to a value that was to be determined by a process that was so weird that nobody but its creator has ever figured out what it was supposed to mean. In addition, the law was never passed, so it could hardly have been "repealed" as stated on the page you linked to. A mathematician from Purdue was in the gallery while the Senate was debating it and he set them straight. This information is from the fine book
A History of Pi by Petr Beckmann, which includes a copy of the actual text of the bill and more info on the nutjob who came up with it.
Well, as long as we're talking about changes to the rules, there is a way to guarantee a win if you do multiple rounds with feedback a la Mastermind. That is, if the players are allowed to guess once simultaneously, then told as a group how many wrong guesses there were, then allowed one more simultaneous guess, you can guarantee a win. Not only that, but you can guarantee that by the second guess every player knows the color of his or her hat.
The strategy is simple: everyone guesses blue in the first round. Then the number of wrong guesses is the number of red hats. If the number of red hats you see is different, you're wearing a red hat.
I think that maybe I am simply missing some fundamental point of the Open-Source business model. So, someone please enlighten me. Assuming a future in which everyone has a fast internet connection and remains as greedy/thrifty as they are now, where is all of the funding going to come from?
It's obvious that RedHat has managed to do quite well thus far. Unfortunately, I can't say I quite understand how. Is all this revenue due to tech support contracts and cd sales or is there more?
That's exactly where it comes from. Remember, not
everyone who uses Linux is sufficiently proficient with the tools one needs to build a
Linux distribution, or even to install one without
help. Those are the people RedHat makes money from, and there's no shortage of that kind of people.
As I read it, the merchandise has to have been
unsolicited. Don't you have a subscription to the
magazine? Do you know whether the terms of your
subscription allow them to send you such hardware
as they might deem useful to their subscribers?
If they do, the hardware might not be unsolicited
after all, and the whole point may be moot.
Slashdot Mirror
The master key does not necessarily suffer the same limits. Consider a lock where your key has a (trivial) code of 11111 (minimal cuts) and the master key has a code of 99999 (all cut to the maximum depth; I'm using Schlage codes here, just because the only key I have handy with a code stamped on it happens to be a Schlage.) In that case, none of your test keys will open the door because they will all have a 9 next to a 1 and wouldn't fit into the lock (or worse, would stick in the lock and not come back out) but neither the individual key nor the master key will have any large transitions (in fact, they won't have any transitions at all.)
I would guess that ensuring a condition like this exists is one of the suggested workarounds in the original paper.
Oh, so the customer needs to (regularly) come by and check on the progress of his new house while you're not there? No problem! Put his shiny new lockset on the back door, or the door into the garage, and require the subs to enter and exit via the front door.
(My experience: I just changed a "low-end" Schlage deadbolt. Before I threw out the old lock I removed all of the pins, since it was keyed to match other locks in the same house. Exactly 10 tiny pieces of metal (and 5 springs) fell out of the cylinder when I unscrewed the back. That means there was one shear line, the one that corresponds to the homeowner's key.)
If I had to press the button twice every time I come home just because my wife gets home before me, I'd quickly throw out that garage door opener and buy one that works.
The one you're thinking of goes between Monte Carlo and Bellagio. There's another one that's actually a real monorail between the MGM Grand and Bally's. Last time I looked at the proposed monorail route, it appeared that the MGM/Bally's monorail would be incorporated into the new system.
If the new system inherits the properties of the old system, you'll be forced to walk through approximately 8.2 miles of retail space at each station to get from the monorail to the street, or vice versa. You might as well use the sidewalk.
If you read the decision, you'll see that the plaintiff didn't approach Southwest about fixing the problem before filing suit. Southwest didn't really have a choice as to whether it would go to court or not.
The court did mention in a footnote that they're surprised Southwest didn't just fix the problem anyway, given the financial benefits to doing so. The truth is that it's not entirely Southwest's problem; some screen readers do just fine with Southwest's website and some do not. Part of the blame has to rest on the manufacturer of the plaintiff's screen reader. (Disclaimer: I work for a company whose screen reader does work with Southwest.com, so I might not be entirely unbiased.)
Yes, but people don't become spammers by thinking.
This would be "informative" if it were true, but it's not. I use an RF modulator with my DVD player; I have to, because my TV is too old to have composite inputs. The way my system is wired, the output from the modulator goes into the input of my VCR. Surprise, surprise: if the VCR's tuner is on, I get the usual Macrovision effects (high saturation, low brightness) on the signal.
A little thought shows why this is: the Macrovision signal is just a very high-intensity band of very bright signal inserted just after the colorburst signal at the start of some video fields. It's completely in-band (if a little hot) so your modulator will be more than happy to add it to the modulated signal and pass it on down the chain.
The simple answer is that we don't actually know who contributed what, except for the stuff that was contributed recently. So, for most of the core rendering engine, we have no idea whether we have permission.
Some other stuff, for example the code for the "crackle" pattern, is actually licensed separately; if you look at the header for that module you'll see that the 3.1x crackle implementation is public domain.
Sorry about the extra spaces in these URLs...
b /p ovray/Official/r ror/povray/povray /Official/f tp.povray.or g/povray/Official/s /raytracing/povray/O fficial// povray/Off icial// povray/O fficial/r ay/Officia l/
http://www.mirror.ac.uk/sites/ftp.povray.org/pu
ftp://sunsite.cnlab-switch.ch/mi
ftp://sunsite.wits.ac.za/pub/mirrors/
ftp://gd.tuwien.ac.at/graphic
ftp://ftp.etsimo.uniovi.es/pub/raytrace
ftp://kermit.stud.fh-heilbronn.de/mirrors
ftp://ring.asahi-net.or.jp/pub/misc/pov
3.5 still can't do that. Lots of the guts of the code just aren't threadsafe, and won't be until we do the 4.0 rewrite.
From a post on news.povray.org by the server administrator, Chris Cason:
...
...
From my server status page
Current Time: Wednesday, 10-Jul-2002 13:51:50 EDT
Restart Time: Wednesday, 10-Jul-2002 13:29:38 EDT
Parent Server Generation: 1
Server uptime: 22 minutes 12 seconds
Total accesses: 45519 - Total Traffic: 1.6 GB
CPU Usage: u39.2188 s34.5938 cu1.70313 cs1.21094 - 5.76% CPU load
34.2 requests/sec - 1.2 MB/second - 36.8 kB/request
198 requests currently being processed, 0 idle servers
Note the uptime and the total amount transferred in that time
A little more than ten years, if we're to believe the keychain in my pocket that says "1991-2001". That dates to before the commercial success of the Internet, so many of the contributors were only on Compuserve. Finding some of those people by their names alone would be very difficult, because their names are so common, and we don't have any other reliable contact information now that Compuserve has all but ceased to exist.
Post proof or retract.
Yes, the source code is not free, but nothing in the license even tries to restrict what you do with the artwork. Maybe you're confusing us with BMRT.
As for the object files, I think that if you read carefully you'll find that the only restrictions are on the use of the files in the samples directory; the POV-Team doesn't own the copyright on those files so the restrictions on those files are an unfortunate necessity. The standard include files and macros, though, are free to be used for any purpose:
I think everybody's done the z-buffer thing at one time or another; I'm not sure why we've never made it an official feature. If your other patch was what I think it was (the description isn't really too clear) there's a way to do that in 3.5 using pigment_pattern but it might take some experimenting.
Moray's not open source, but it is a nice POV-centric modeler. There are also utilities to convert objects created in other modelers to be used with POV; lots of people use those to create objects and then glue it all together with some hand coding.
There have been attempts to create open source modelers for POV in the past, but they were collaborative projects from the start and the unfortunate truth behind open source is that it seems to work best if one person does a lot of the design and coding before getting all those eyes to debug. Design by committee just seems to lead to stagnation.
Personally, I do it all by hand, when I actually have time to use POV as opposed to helping write it.
Well, if it's not strong enough to see with a good compass, it's not strong enough for the boogeyman to read it from a distance, either, is it?
Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. The strip is made of plastic and is both transparent and fluorescent, but it's not magnetic. Do some experiments. Wave a stack of 20's next to a good-quality compass and watch for the needle to deflect. Try to stick a bill to a strong rare-earth magnet to find out if it has any ferrous content. Buy some magnetic field viewing film and check it out. But whatever you do, don't just believe the black helicopter brigade.
But can it tell me if the VBS script will terminate in a finite time?
The truth behind the pi thing is that it would not have set the value of pi to 4, or even to 3 as most accounts would have it. It would have set it to a value that was to be determined by a process that was so weird that nobody but its creator has ever figured out what it was supposed to mean. In addition, the law was never passed, so it could hardly have been "repealed" as stated on the page you linked to. A mathematician from Purdue was in the gallery while the Senate was debating it and he set them straight. This information is from the fine book A History of Pi by Petr Beckmann, which includes a copy of the actual text of the bill and more info on the nutjob who came up with it.
The strategy is simple: everyone guesses blue in the first round. Then the number of wrong guesses is the number of red hats. If the number of red hats you see is different, you're wearing a red hat.
That's exactly where it comes from. Remember, not everyone who uses Linux is sufficiently proficient with the tools one needs to build a Linux distribution, or even to install one without help. Those are the people RedHat makes money from, and there's no shortage of that kind of people.
As I read it, the merchandise has to have been unsolicited. Don't you have a subscription to the magazine? Do you know whether the terms of your subscription allow them to send you such hardware as they might deem useful to their subscribers? If they do, the hardware might not be unsolicited after all, and the whole point may be moot.