i stuck with the 2400 (TW2002's movies were more watchable on 2400 than 33.6) and instead got another 4MB memory and a coprocessor. Imagine 3D v2.0 simply FLEW after that!
alt+tab works now and has a nifty little window list that pops up.
kinda spiffy how it works, too: as you alt+tab through the windows on the current desktop, the mouse cursor moves to the center of each window, as it brings it to the front.
<? if (strpos($_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'], 'MSIE') !== false && strpos($_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'], 'Opera') === false) { ?> <br/><br/><b>Attention:</b> Although this method of browser identification isn't foolproof, you appear to be using Microsoft Internet Explorer. A number of security and other analysts (including the Internet Storm Center) have recommended that people stop using IE, since it not only has a very large number of security problems, but also does not comply with Web design standards, which means that it is a lot more difficult for Web designers to create Websites which everyone can view. <br/> If you want a more secure alternative to Internet Explorer, which is just as easy to use, install <a href="http://www.getfirefox.com/" title="A Better Browser" >Firefox</a>.<br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/> <? }// now XHTML1.1 compliant! ?>
Is it true that inmates of US jails are regularly subjected to homosexual attack without protection from the authorities, as the accused seems to believe? It seems to be a common theme here on/.
actually, no. that idea actually comes from the Federal Penal system, where Wardens like to perpetuate the myth to discourage crime. it actually doesn't happen nearly as often as most people are apt to think.
all they need to do is use the features of their own CPUID instruction to see if SSE2 support exists, which it does not do. they go out of their way to alienate everything else, even their own old CPUs.
they've turned it into a marketing tool instead of a compiler.
the ballon's surface is two-dimensional. the universe is 3-dimensional. the interior of a baloon is a 3-dimensional volume representing the expansion of 4th-dimensional time. the analogy describes the expansion of 3-dimensional space using 2-dimensional concepts. i can see where the analogy has grounding, but it's so over-simplified that it's missing that 3rd dimension of depth that the universe has.
i can see where the analogy has merit, but it hurts my head when i try to figure out how to apply it to 3rd-dimensional space. that's why i find the analogy so abhorringly inadequate.
that damned limitation of our minds to conceive of 3-dimensional shadows of 4-dimensional objects (in much the same way a plane (2D) is a shadow of 3D space and a line (1D) the shadow of a plane and a point (0D) the shadow of a line) is so frustratingly limiting that i've come to hate any metaphors that make things smipler for it.
i could easily say the same thing about Starsiege, since it's an identical engine. but with my limited experience with modelling and mapping in Starsiege, i contend that it is not pixel- or poly-precise. it behaves much more like small axis-oriented collision boxes.
give more evidence than "i sniped for 3 years." i did, too, but i won't say it's pixel-precise, because it isn't.
to answer your 1): yes. AMD's optimization guides and techinical information is available for free download (PDF) or hardcopy (free shipping, 4-6 weeks delivery, no cost to you for the books). the case is identical with Intel. the entire programming guide is available for free in both forms.
But let's be clear: Intel would be perfectly within their rights to make a generic non-Intel option which functions at the level of the safest (albeit slowest) common denominator. To begin to optimize and troubleshoot for alternate (competitor's) chips would be an absurd project for Intel to invest resources in. The question is this: Is AMD uniquely singled out here by the Intel compiler? (By name?) Or does the Intel compiler check the CPUID for a simple boolean of Intel or non-Intel.
according to this guy, it is in fact a boolean test of Intel/non-Intel. correct me if i'm wrong, but AMD is the only competing company to provide an SE2 solution, so i would go as far as to say this is singling them out. the Fortran compiler 7.1 executes a mov $0x1, 0x0 in the case of non-Intel chips, regardless of SSE support. compiler 8.0+ executes SSE instructions in the case of existing SSE support, optimized SSE2 instructions on Intel chips supporting it, and crippled SSE support on non-Intel ships.
if AMD is the only other provider of an SSE2-supporting chip, this could easily be construed as singling-out.
it does. some vectorized 3D operations depend on SSE and/or 3DNow! extensions. the Intel compiler's math library deliberately tests for Intel chips and disables or cripples vectorized SSE functions if an Intel chip is not detected. (that is, all AMD, Cyrix, ViA, and Transmeta chips are affected, whether they support SSE, SSE2, and SSE3 or not.)
when compiled properly, the SSE codepaths Intel's compiler produces runs faster on AMD's chips than on Intel's chips for most cases. there are still the handful of cases where Intel excels, but all ICC-compiled code is affected negatively on AMD processors.
the CPUID instruction provides several double-words of information: the trademark string identifying the manufacturer ("GenuineIntel" or "AuthenticAMD", among others), the model and stepping of the CPU, the core revision number, and a bitfield revealing available features, including: MMX, 3DNow!, 3DNow!+, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, HT, x86_64 extensions, and many others, as well as more bits for expandability. it takes only a few clock cycles for CPUID to provide this information, and a few more to parse and set up branches based on it. for all intents and purposes, it's a free test for all the capabilities of a CPU. if a bit is set in the features word, you are guaranteed the availability of the assosciated instructions in the appropriate mode(s).
there is a great deal more information on the instruction in Intel's IA-32 Intel Architecture Software Developer's Manual Volume 2A and the AMD x86-64 Architecture Programmer's Manual Volume 3.
go read up before spewing shit about it. the books (both hardcopy and PDF) are available *FREE*.
Again, the C to Obj-C transition is so easy that everyone who knows C should add it to their toolbox.
i know and use C as well as C++, and i'm quite comfortable in C++ (though Java is still completely foreign to me). i've been wanting and begging to learn Obj-C and C# to broaden my skillset, but non-.NET-specific resources on C# are disappointingly thin and i've been unable to find any books, turorials, or references on Obj-C anywhere. i've spent hours per day looking and have turned up very little. certainly nothing useful to me.
please, PLEASE point me to Obj-C resources so i can get learning!
Uh, Tribes (1998) featured accurate collision detection based on the polygonal structure of objects.
hm. it's interesting you point this out. i was a long-time player of Starsiege (whose engine Tribes was to be based on, despite being forced out the door sooner). in Starsiege, it was a well-known fact that the toe was the most vulnerable point of an HERC, and a clean enough shot could even penetrate and bypass shields. (many Wolf Pack members, including myself, became quite good at this, though my preference for heavy firepower led to my rustiness.) but i'd always thought it used *very* tight collision detection boxes.
do you have any evidence that it was actually a polygon-level CD system?
uhh, i think not. every fan of zombie flicks knows that to kill a zombie requires to either separate its head from its body, or shot it 'till it stops moving.
i was under the impression that fermilab produced about a pint of anti-particles for about $4.
so much for that. i guess i'll go back to reading.
but it seems ot me that despite the cost of producing anti-particles, i would think it would be horrendously expensive to *store* them, since they have to be kept quite separate from normal matter, and the only way i'm aware of for doing that involves powerful magnetic fields.
Slashdot Mirror
i stuck with the 2400 (TW2002's movies were more watchable on 2400 than 33.6) and instead got another 4MB memory and a coprocessor. Imagine 3D v2.0 simply FLEW after that!
imlib2 is a rewrite that fixes most of the problems imlib had, and adds a lot of features and optimizations to boot.
alt+tab works now and has a nifty little window list that pops up.
kinda spiffy how it works, too: as you alt+tab through the windows on the current desktop, the mouse cursor moves to the center of each window, as it brings it to the front.
current CVS of Konqueror/KHTML (which i expect to be released with KDE 3.5) and current CVS of Safari and Safari 2.0 both pass, AFAIK.
funny thing, that. they tried.
i assume you mean Acid2?
Acid2 doesn't just test CSS behavior, it tests error handling as well.
<?
} // now XHTML1.1 compliant!
if (strpos($_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'], 'MSIE') !== false && strpos($_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'], 'Opera')
=== false) {
?>
<br/><br/><b>Attention:</b> Although this method of browser identification isn't foolproof, you appear to be using Microsoft Internet Explorer. A number of security and other analysts (including the Internet Storm Center) have recommended that people stop using IE, since it not only has a very large number of security problems, but also does not comply with Web design standards, which means that it is a lot more difficult for Web designers to create Websites which everyone can view.
<br/>
If you want a more secure alternative to Internet Explorer, which is just as easy to use, install <a href="http://www.getfirefox.com/"
title="A Better Browser" >Firefox</a>.<br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/>
<?
?>
you're right - but it does use int 13h (where available) to read from disk to load the kernel. you gotta start somewhere.
thing is, Jesus *is* defined. he died some time around 32AD. check out Josephus. he records the existence, life, and death (however briefly) of Jesus.
i'll leave it at that.
actually, no. that idea actually comes from the Federal Penal system, where Wardens like to perpetuate the myth to discourage crime. it actually doesn't happen nearly as often as most people are apt to think.
they don't need to maintain it for other vendors.
all they need to do is use the features of their own CPUID instruction to see if SSE2 support exists, which it does not do. they go out of their way to alienate everything else, even their own old CPUs.
they've turned it into a marketing tool instead of a compiler.
the ballon's surface is two-dimensional. the universe is 3-dimensional. the interior of a baloon is a 3-dimensional volume representing the expansion of 4th-dimensional time. the analogy describes the expansion of 3-dimensional space using 2-dimensional concepts. i can see where the analogy has grounding, but it's so over-simplified that it's missing that 3rd dimension of depth that the universe has.
i can see where the analogy has merit, but it hurts my head when i try to figure out how to apply it to 3rd-dimensional space. that's why i find the analogy so abhorringly inadequate.
that damned limitation of our minds to conceive of 3-dimensional shadows of 4-dimensional objects (in much the same way a plane (2D) is a shadow of 3D space and a line (1D) the shadow of a plane and a point (0D) the shadow of a line) is so frustratingly limiting that i've come to hate any metaphors that make things smipler for it.
many thanks.
i could easily say the same thing about Starsiege, since it's an identical engine. but with my limited experience with modelling and mapping in Starsiege, i contend that it is not pixel- or poly-precise. it behaves much more like small axis-oriented collision boxes.
give more evidence than "i sniped for 3 years." i did, too, but i won't say it's pixel-precise, because it isn't.
to answer your 1): yes. AMD's optimization guides and techinical information is available for free download (PDF) or hardcopy (free shipping, 4-6 weeks delivery, no cost to you for the books). the case is identical with Intel. the entire programming guide is available for free in both forms.
according to this guy, it is in fact a boolean test of Intel/non-Intel. correct me if i'm wrong, but AMD is the only competing company to provide an SE2 solution, so i would go as far as to say this is singling them out. the Fortran compiler 7.1 executes a mov $0x1, 0x0 in the case of non-Intel chips, regardless of SSE support. compiler 8.0+ executes SSE instructions in the case of existing SSE support, optimized SSE2 instructions on Intel chips supporting it, and crippled SSE support on non-Intel ships.
if AMD is the only other provider of an SSE2-supporting chip, this could easily be construed as singling-out.
it does. some vectorized 3D operations depend on SSE and/or 3DNow! extensions. the Intel compiler's math library deliberately tests for Intel chips and disables or cripples vectorized SSE functions if an Intel chip is not detected. (that is, all AMD, Cyrix, ViA, and Transmeta chips are affected, whether they support SSE, SSE2, and SSE3 or not.) when compiled properly, the SSE codepaths Intel's compiler produces runs faster on AMD's chips than on Intel's chips for most cases. there are still the handful of cases where Intel excels, but all ICC-compiled code is affected negatively on AMD processors.
yes, you can.
the CPUID instruction provides several double-words of information: the trademark string identifying the manufacturer ("GenuineIntel" or "AuthenticAMD", among others), the model and stepping of the CPU, the core revision number, and a bitfield revealing available features, including: MMX, 3DNow!, 3DNow!+, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, HT, x86_64 extensions, and many others, as well as more bits for expandability. it takes only a few clock cycles for CPUID to provide this information, and a few more to parse and set up branches based on it. for all intents and purposes, it's a free test for all the capabilities of a CPU. if a bit is set in the features word, you are guaranteed the availability of the assosciated instructions in the appropriate mode(s).
there is a great deal more information on the instruction in Intel's IA-32 Intel Architecture Software Developer's Manual Volume 2A and the AMD x86-64 Architecture Programmer's Manual Volume 3.
go read up before spewing shit about it. the books (both hardcopy and PDF) are available *FREE*.
i know and use C as well as C++, and i'm quite comfortable in C++ (though Java is still completely foreign to me). i've been wanting and begging to learn Obj-C and C# to broaden my skillset, but non-.NET-specific resources on C# are disappointingly thin and i've been unable to find any books, turorials, or references on Obj-C anywhere. i've spent hours per day looking and have turned up very little. certainly nothing useful to me.
please, PLEASE point me to Obj-C resources so i can get learning!
i have one such controller. any tips or information on how i could test it and possibly use it? it's just sitting in a box right now.
hm. it's interesting you point this out. i was a long-time player of Starsiege (whose engine Tribes was to be based on, despite being forced out the door sooner). in Starsiege, it was a well-known fact that the toe was the most vulnerable point of an HERC, and a clean enough shot could even penetrate and bypass shields. (many Wolf Pack members, including myself, became quite good at this, though my preference for heavy firepower led to my rustiness.) but i'd always thought it used *very* tight collision detection boxes.
do you have any evidence that it was actually a polygon-level CD system?
uhh, i think not. every fan of zombie flicks knows that to kill a zombie requires to either separate its head from its body, or shot it 'till it stops moving.
feh. n00b.
fwiw, i despise that anology. it's missing a whole bloody dimension.
i was under the impression that fermilab produced about a pint of anti-particles for about $4.
so much for that. i guess i'll go back to reading.
but it seems ot me that despite the cost of producing anti-particles, i would think it would be horrendously expensive to *store* them, since they have to be kept quite separate from normal matter, and the only way i'm aware of for doing that involves powerful magnetic fields.
already does.
ICQ.