SDL itself doesn't (except maybe alpha transparency?) - just bitmaps to draw into. There are a bunch of "3rd party" SDL libraries though that provide drawing primitives, font rendering, widgets, etc.
YUV overlays provide YUV scaling, not MPEG scaling - there's no MPEG specific support.
There are a few graphics cards that do provide hardware/firmware IDCT, but AFAIK there's no API to access this functionality under Linux, yet alone SDL support.
If you need real-time, use QNX. It's real-time credentials are better than anything else out there. It's a real-time kernel grown up into a desktop OS, rather than a desktop OS trying to achieve real-time.
Huh? Many countries eat dogs, but we don't. We eat cows, but they're sacred in India. In Africa monkeys and gorilla's are just as good "bush meat" as elephants or antelope... and so it goes. We spare dolphins because they're smart/cute, eat pigs who are smart/ugly, but for some reason won't eat rats, although other countries will. In the Phillippines they eat rotting eggs containing half-developed chicks as a delicacy.
So will we eat aliens? I'd say it's a fair bet that someone might.
Hasn't XFree86 4.x reorganized to split the device drivers from the higher level X stuff? Maybe you could do it already, but if not I can't imagine that it'd be to much work to allow applications other than X talk directly to the drivers.
Of course, but this is actually easy to do. I remember taking a VLSI design course (based on the Carver Mead/Lynn Conway book) back in college around 1980 and designing a "memory cell" with a built-in comparator that could swap the contents with the neighboring cell.... the "sort algorithm" then consists of loading the memory and clocking it N times!:-)
Re:The emperor looks great in those new clothes
on
FPGA Supercomputers
·
· Score: 1
Really? Wow! I wonder how close we are to DSP's being obsolete entirely, and people just compiling their designs to FPGAs? It'd be awesome if this technology became mass market and cheap.
Yep, shuffle sort can be implemented in O(n) on a massively parallel computer.
What'd be neat would be if they sold this thing at a price reflecting it's cost (an FPGA chip) rather than the customers ability to pay...then we could all play with them.
Re:The emperor looks great in those new clothes
on
FPGA Supercomputers
·
· Score: 2
If this thing could be reconfigured to be a better hardware graphics accelerator than a dedicated hardware graphics accelerator like the GeForce 3, then I'd REALLY be impressed:-)
Can't ICQ now interoperate with AIM? Does it do this via OSCAR or TOC? If OSCAR, then it'd be interesting to know how ICQ authenticates itself - is it through an MD5 of icq.exe, or something else?
Surely fair use means I can copy it to match whatever form of playback device I choose?
Sure, so do an analog rip, and encode it to MP3 or the format du jour... they're not preventing you from listening to the music (remember the maxim: if you can hear/see it, you can rip it), just not allowing you to copy it directly in the format that choose to provide it to you on the media.
Copyright protected cd's do not allow you to replicate them in a cd burner nor do they allow you to rip the audio tracks "digitally" (although can still be done through analog)."
Taco editorialized:
Actually the article is well written, covering all the bases, although it neglects to say how we're all expected to bend over while our fair use of stuff we paid for is taken away from us.
So now "fair use" for any piece of music you buy is meant to be defined by you're being able to make digital copies of it? I guess the RIAA is really fucking us with those analog LP's then, with their insidious built-in bumpy groove technology.
Fair use of a music CD is to be able to play the thing whereever you like, and generally do whatever you like with it (such as making a copy for the car) as long as it's for your own use and not giving copies away to others who hav't paid for it.
However, Fair use DOES not by any stretch of the imagination mean you should be guaranteed to be able to copy directly to CD rather than tape, or that you should be facilitated in copying it to MiniOggCD-2010 or whatever alternate formats may emerge. That is ridiculous.
The PIII and Athlon are roughly MHz comparable when running with SDRAM, except of course that the PIII tops out at 1GHz while the fastest Athlon is currently 1.33GHz.
If you're using DDR RAM, then Athlon beats PIII at any given MHz rating because it's FSB is twice as fast as that of the PIII and DDR takes advantage of that.
Things get more difficult with the Athlon vs P4 comparison, but the benchmarks out so far seem to show that the 1.5 GHz P4 is about as fast as a 1-1.2GHz Athlon. When both are configured for max. speed with PC800 RDRAM for the P4 and PC2100 DDR RAM for the Athlon, then a 1.33GHz Athlon blows the 1.5GHz P4 away.
In theory the P4 with PC800 has far higher memory bandwidth than Athlon even with PC2100 DRR, and this should give it an edge in some benchmarks, but in reality it only shows in synthetic memory benchmarks and Athlon's more balanced architecture proves unbeatable. P4 *without* PC800 RDRAM is severly crippled, and not worth considering.
Not necessarily. You can consider the analog soap bubble computer as a parallel solution, since it is "computing" the solution, but the DNA/quantum computer approaches are radically different... With that paradign you're not relying on the solution method being parallelizeable because you're not trying to derive the solution!.. instead you're assuming that you can create a non-computed set that contains the solution, then remove the non-solutions. If puts the empasis on verification rather than solution generation, and regardless of the problem you can always represent multiple potential solutions in parallel.
Well, it better be a damn fast Turing machine if you want to solve any O(N**1000) problems!;-)
O(X) only applies to stepwise problem solving as done by digital computers (and Turing machines). If you can use an analog/parallel approach, then you have circumvented the complexity entirely.
See the DNA and sphagetti examples in this thread, or my comment about quantum solutions.
I'm not sure if it's a local minimum or not - it was a LONG time ago that I saw this done on TV.
Quantum may well be the practical way to go for NP complete problems, and I believe the general approach is the same as the DNA method you linked to - you figure out how to make your quantum system simultaneously represent all solutions to the problem, then reject the ones you don't want - pretty much the exact opposite of conventional methods.
Slashdot Mirror
SDL itself doesn't (except maybe alpha transparency?) - just bitmaps to draw into. There are a bunch of "3rd party" SDL libraries though that provide drawing primitives, font rendering, widgets, etc.
YUV overlays provide YUV scaling, not MPEG scaling - there's no MPEG specific support.
There are a few graphics cards that do provide hardware/firmware IDCT, but AFAIK there's no API to access this functionality under Linux, yet alone SDL support.
I thought that SGI were cool with Mesa - didn't they offically make some statment about it in the last year?
Let the aliens use DOS. Whatever.
What I want to know is if ESR's sex tips will help me get it on with a triple-breasted alien chick.
If you need real-time, use QNX. It's real-time credentials are better than anything else out there. It's a real-time kernel grown up into a desktop OS, rather than a desktop OS trying to achieve real-time.
http://www.qnx.com/
Huh? Many countries eat dogs, but we don't. We eat cows, but they're sacred in India. In Africa monkeys and gorilla's are just as good "bush meat" as elephants or antelope... and so it goes. We spare dolphins because they're smart/cute, eat pigs who are smart/ugly, but for some reason won't eat rats, although other countries will. In the Phillippines they eat rotting eggs containing half-developed chicks as a delicacy.
So will we eat aliens? I'd say it's a fair bet that someone might.
Hasn't XFree86 4.x reorganized to split the device drivers from the higher level X stuff? Maybe you could do it already, but if not I can't imagine that it'd be to much work to allow applications other than X talk directly to the drivers.
Do you have any idea if this is already possible?
Of course, but this is actually easy to do. I remember taking a VLSI design course (based on the Carver Mead/Lynn Conway book) back in college around 1980 and designing a "memory cell" with a built-in comparator that could swap the contents with the neighboring cell.... the "sort algorithm" then consists of loading the memory and clocking it N times! :-)
Really? Wow! I wonder how close we are to DSP's being obsolete entirely, and people just compiling their designs to FPGAs? It'd be awesome if this technology became mass market and cheap.
Yep, shuffle sort can be implemented in O(n) on a massively parallel computer.
What'd be neat would be if they sold this thing at a price reflecting it's cost (an FPGA chip) rather than the customers ability to pay...then we could all play with them.
If this thing could be reconfigured to be a better hardware graphics accelerator than a dedicated hardware graphics accelerator like the GeForce 3, then I'd REALLY be impressed :-)
75 GFLOPS for the GeForce 3 - kinda hard to beat.
Can't ICQ now interoperate with AIM? Does it do this via OSCAR or TOC? If OSCAR, then it'd be interesting to know how ICQ authenticates itself - is it through an MD5 of icq.exe, or something else?
I'd like to opt-in for the sharing of a file. The name of my file is:
pig_latin_metallica.mp3
Thank you,
Joe Ripper.
Surely fair use means I can copy it to match whatever form of playback device I choose?
Sure, so do an analog rip, and encode it to MP3 or the format du jour... they're not preventing you from listening to the music (remember the maxim: if you can hear/see it, you can rip it), just not allowing you to copy it directly in the format that choose to provide it to you on the media.
Copyright protected cd's do not allow you to replicate them in a cd burner nor do they allow you to rip the audio tracks "digitally" (although can still be done through analog)."
Taco editorialized:
Actually the article is well written, covering all the bases, although it neglects to say how we're all expected to bend over while our fair use of stuff we paid for is taken away from us.
So now "fair use" for any piece of music you buy is meant to be defined by you're being able to make digital copies of it? I guess the RIAA is really fucking us with those analog LP's then, with their insidious built-in bumpy groove technology.
Fair use of a music CD is to be able to play the thing whereever you like, and generally do whatever you like with it (such as making a copy for the car) as long as it's for your own use and not giving copies away to others who hav't paid for it.
However, Fair use DOES not by any stretch of the imagination mean you should be guaranteed to be able to copy directly to CD rather than tape, or that you should be facilitated in copying it to MiniOggCD-2010 or whatever alternate formats may emerge. That is ridiculous.
http://www.EmperorLinux.com/kiwi.html
Damn that's a cute little computer!
Could you imagine a beowulf cluster of qubits in Natalie Portman's pants, running Linux?!
AFAIK, there is still ongoing investigation into whether and how every one of our cells utilises the quantum nature of particles in DNA manipulation
Wow, I never knew Roger Penrose was an expert in DNA as well as neurology.
I've heard he's working on a theory that motor cars operate at the quantum level also.
The PIII and Athlon are roughly MHz comparable when running with SDRAM, except of course that the PIII tops out at 1GHz while the fastest Athlon is currently 1.33GHz.
If you're using DDR RAM, then Athlon beats PIII at any given MHz rating because it's FSB is twice as fast as that of the PIII and DDR takes advantage of that.
Things get more difficult with the Athlon vs P4 comparison, but the benchmarks out so far seem to show that the 1.5 GHz P4 is about as fast as a 1-1.2GHz Athlon. When both are configured for max. speed with PC800 RDRAM for the P4 and PC2100 DDR RAM for the Athlon, then a 1.33GHz Athlon blows the 1.5GHz P4 away.
In theory the P4 with PC800 has far higher memory bandwidth than Athlon even with PC2100 DRR, and this should give it an edge in some benchmarks, but in reality it only shows in synthetic memory benchmarks and Athlon's more balanced architecture proves unbeatable. P4 *without* PC800 RDRAM is severly crippled, and not worth considering.
Ah, so that's why she's always wearing those short tennis dresses! ;-)
It means the problem is parallelizeable.
Not necessarily. You can consider the analog soap bubble computer as a parallel solution, since it is "computing" the solution, but the DNA/quantum computer approaches are radically different... With that paradign you're not relying on the solution method being parallelizeable because you're not trying to derive the solution!.. instead you're assuming that you can create a non-computed set that contains the solution, then remove the non-solutions. If puts the empasis on verification rather than solution generation, and regardless of the problem you can always represent multiple potential solutions in parallel.
Do you have any links or any more info pertaining to natural human clones?
Who cares if Kournikova clone #1 goes defective after a while - just toss her out of bed and bring on #2 and #3. They're all the same y'know!
Well, it better be a damn fast Turing machine if you want to solve any O(N**1000) problems! ;-)
O(X) only applies to stepwise problem solving as done by digital computers (and Turing machines). If you can use an analog/parallel approach, then you have circumvented the complexity entirely.
See the DNA and sphagetti examples in this thread, or my comment about quantum solutions.
I'm not sure if it's a local minimum or not - it was a LONG time ago that I saw this done on TV.
Quantum may well be the practical way to go for NP complete problems, and I believe the general approach is the same as the DNA method you linked to - you figure out how to make your quantum system simultaneously represent all solutions to the problem, then reject the ones you don't want - pretty much the exact opposite of conventional methods.