I might have been in a coma for the last few years but since when is the ability to point a mouse and shoot an overgrown +6 {insert weapon here} a skill?
I'm sorry but most 12 yr old kids can play the same games and I certainly don't idolize them.
Get fucking real. You want some real skill learn to play an instrument [piano is fairly hard] or invent a longer lasting light bulb. Those are *real* talents.
"Hare Core Gamer".... And in other news the master asswiper will be interviewed by the Enquirer. Known for his legendary ass wiping abilities.....
CS degree is one thing but what else have you done? To met a built up portfolio is way better than a degree can ever be because it lets potential job givers [re: employers] see the talent you have.
A degree is just a check mark on a HR checklist. To impress your would-be boss you need initiative and the ability to demonstrate.
Cheap plug: check out http://libtomcrypt.org
I'm developing those two libraries in my spare time and it has caught the attention of quite a few people. I was awarded a stipend for a conference this year through a contact I made by writing those libraries. I'm not even in university and they awarded me a stipend!
MSFT can aquire a company and *not* integrate it into windows you know.... So no, provided they don't bundle it with windows it isn't anti-competitive.
I disagree on the basis "fast" is subjective. For example, Athlon XP processors kick the P4 at doing bignum math [something I'm active in]. My 1.53Ghz Athlon would routinely beat out a P4 2Ghz by 25% or more.
There are really only three good reasons to buy a P4
1. Cost. It comes with a Dell
2. Heat. P4s are wickedly better at managing heat.
3. Multimedia. SSE2 when used properly can woop an Athlon.
Outside of those three reasons there isn't any other real reason to use a P4. The ALU and FPU of the Athlon are wickedly optimized making it an all around faster processor.
15 cycle MUL on the P4, nuff said. [hint: the same multiply takes 6 cycles on the Athlon]:-)
Yes, the 8088 and 80188 were both 16-bit processors with 8-bit data busses. This is because [well I think so anyways] at the time processors like the 8080 and 68xx family were popular and only interfaced with 8-bit data memory mapped devices.
Of course I actually prefer the 68xx series anyways. Not a huge fan of accumulator based processors but it has the coolest indexing modes [specially the 6809].
Not having owned a 8088 [though I can proudly? say I owned a 8086] I'm not sure if this is entirely correct.
I really hate this argument. Its true that as you pass through more filters you lose quality. But the loss is not always perceptible. Provide the codec is implemented with sufficient precision you should be able to perform many encode/decode cycles at high quality without losing too much.
So if you first ripped as say 1:4 AAC e.g. around 320Kbps then encode to say 128Kbps MP3 it should sound roughly as good as a MP3 at 128Kbps from the original source.
So if this is really a problem with the tools just do that. Rip high quality originally
An open JPEG variant that doesn't involve paying an arm an a leg [re: JPEG2000] to get access to would be wicked cool.
Some ideas for a JPEG variant:
1. block sort the DCT coefficients instead of just ZigZag+RLE. They will have strong "temporal" correlation [e.g. values are clustered near the DC]. By this I mean block sort the DCT coefficients for an entire row of blocks.
2. Use a larger block size. E.g. 16x16. Processors are wickedly fast nowadays they could easily handle this. Maybe be able to code certain 16x16s as four 8x8s if the resolution calls for it [e.g. tons of highfreq data]
The TDCAL originally was a single paragraph "license". I only recently [re: today] wrote a formal [whopping 2 pages] document.
I agree in heinsight I should have used PD but since I've been using TDCAL for almost two years and people know it as such... why mess with a good thing:-)
By "TDCAL Software" I meant software released as TDCAL.
Yes, you can take TDCAL software, remove the copyright, sell it for a million bucks.
But if you claim its TDCAL it must follow the TDCAL rules, or I will hunt you down and kill you. Hahaha, kidding. But seriously.
I'm not lying here. I *intended* for the code to be free for any use [including commercial]. I use the TDCAL license since its essentially legalese free [me being a living-with-parents CS student non-lawyer].
And yes, it was my point to basically give it out entirely for free.
Don't think for a second that I fell into some loop hole and now I can't extract billions in royalties. I never wrote my libraries to get rich. I wrote them so people can [and they do] use them.
I apply the TDCAL to not only formally state you can do whatever you want with them but to make a statement that I'm not getting all riled up in a GPL crusade. Commercial developers [re: Sony] seem to love the TDCAL btw. There is already a few project groups at SCEA that use LibTomCrypt for the sole reason that they don't owe me jack-shit.
RMS wants his cookie. The fact that it's not particularly good for him is something he doesn't care to acknowledge.
This is why people should use my TDCAL license I've applied to LibTomCrypt and LibTomMath. Basically you may use my libraries for whatever you want including commercial redistribution, without having to please the author [e.g. release source, send money, etc...]
http://libtomcrypt.org
This sort of license permits all sorts of users to use my libraries. And yes, I do get feedback from commercial developers. They occasionally send in bug reports/suggestions that help the library.
So in a nutshell I release code that people like, they help me [occasionally] in return and they're not stuck up the ass to use it in their commercial software [like the GPL].
In 30 seconds I could boot into linux [even though WinXP is on my computer]. Simply plop a Knoppix CD in and boom workable linux [to a certain degree]. apt-get openoffice and boom I have an office suite. apt-get GCC and boom I have a working C compiler [among other langs], etc...
It isn't that I don't have a choice its just that I don't want to.....Arguments for either side....
Many like Linux, many like windows. At this point in the game people *DO* have a choice. The fact that MS pulls some bigwig muscle is a problem of the stores. just because a store doesn't sell Windows doesn't mean they can't sell other OSes or hardware. Most stores I know have a huge display of hardware [graphics cards are the most popular] while a small section of a shelf for windows...
So get off your high horse. Maybe the failure to act in the US is just a gathering of common sense.
[And yes, this reply along with the original post I am replying to are Off-Topic so mod as appropriate].
Though admitedly TeX can be a bit bitchy to get things going for the most part [e.g. 98% of the document creation time] it's simple and produces consistently professional looking documents.
I totally agree. My point though is we were taught its huge just by using math. e.g. draw the sun. Draw the orbit of Mercury then the other planets.
When you end up putting Pluto a couple of feet out in radius [when by comparison Mercury is fairly close I don't remember exact details] you get the point.
As I recall we did use a football field, meter sticks and huge cardboard circles with names on them to help out. Budget: 10$ [not the few thousand or so they probably had]
Slashdot Mirror
I might have been in a coma for the last few years but since when is the ability to point a mouse and shoot an overgrown +6 {insert weapon here} a skill?
I'm sorry but most 12 yr old kids can play the same games and I certainly don't idolize them.
Get fucking real. You want some real skill learn to play an instrument [piano is fairly hard] or invent a longer lasting light bulb. Those are *real* talents.
"Hare Core Gamer".... And in other news the master asswiper will be interviewed by the Enquirer. Known for his legendary ass wiping abilities.....
Tom
The way I see it is like this
1. The people really can't handle the movie and its a good idea.
or
2. So many people will be downloading it [if not already] off Kazaa that it won't matter in a week.
Tom
Off-Topic...
CS degree is one thing but what else have you done? To met a built up portfolio is way better than a degree can ever be because it lets potential job givers [re: employers] see the talent you have.
A degree is just a check mark on a HR checklist. To impress your would-be boss you need initiative and the ability to demonstrate.
Cheap plug:
check out http://libtomcrypt.org
I'm developing those two libraries in my spare time and it has caught the attention of quite a few people. I was awarded a stipend for a conference this year through a contact I made by writing those libraries. I'm not even in university and they awarded me a stipend!
Beat that.
1. Make an x86 emulator.
2. Boot Windows....er... linux.
3. Install Moz.
Profit.
Heck I'd pay 3639$ to see Moz ported to my Gameboy Color [the Z80 one] that in itself would be a feat!
Tom
MSFT can aquire a company and *not* integrate it into windows you know.... So no, provided they don't bundle it with windows it isn't anti-competitive.
Tom
I disagree on the basis "fast" is subjective. For example, Athlon XP processors kick the P4 at doing bignum math [something I'm active in]. My 1.53Ghz Athlon would routinely beat out a P4 2Ghz by 25% or more.
:-)
There are really only three good reasons to buy a P4
1. Cost. It comes with a Dell
2. Heat. P4s are wickedly better at managing heat.
3. Multimedia. SSE2 when used properly can woop an Athlon.
Outside of those three reasons there isn't any other real reason to use a P4. The ALU and FPU of the Athlon are wickedly optimized making it an all around faster processor.
15 cycle MUL on the P4, nuff said. [hint: the same multiply takes 6 cycles on the Athlon]
Tom
Not surprising. Since
:-)
a) They own more than one fabs
b) They print [cut, etch, whatever] more than one processor per waifer. Its called mass production
Otherwise we'd be buying a P4 2Ghz processor at a bargain 9500$ or so.
Tom
Yes, the 8088 and 80188 were both 16-bit processors with 8-bit data busses. This is because [well I think so anyways] at the time processors like the 8080 and 68xx family were popular and only interfaced with 8-bit data memory mapped devices.
Of course I actually prefer the 68xx series anyways. Not a huge fan of accumulator based processors but it has the coolest indexing modes [specially the 6809].
Not having owned a 8088 [though I can proudly? say I owned a 8086] I'm not sure if this is entirely correct.
Tom
I really hate this argument. Its true that as you pass through more filters you lose quality. But the loss is not always perceptible. Provide the codec is implemented with sufficient precision you should be able to perform many encode/decode cycles at high quality without losing too much.
So if you first ripped as say 1:4 AAC e.g. around 320Kbps then encode to say 128Kbps MP3 it should sound roughly as good as a MP3 at 128Kbps from the original source.
So if this is really a problem with the tools just do that. Rip high quality originally
Tom
Why wait 100 years? I'm ashamed of most programmers *TODAY*. Stupid three week IT majors with a background in ASP.NET or some shit...
Used to be comp.sci was about comp.sci not staying upto date with the latest code monkey script language.
There is still a reason why the majority of *real* work is coded in C. Its a simple language that gets things done.
The dot.com busta VB script kiddies [e.g. three week IT grads] come and go. True comp.sci'ers stick along better.
Tom
Wrong. Metric is used by the modern world. Imperial is used by Dictator Georgies country.
Get with the F'ing program!
Tom
An open JPEG variant that doesn't involve paying an arm an a leg [re: JPEG2000] to get access to would be wicked cool.
Some ideas for a JPEG variant:
1. block sort the DCT coefficients instead of just ZigZag+RLE. They will have strong "temporal" correlation [e.g. values are clustered near the DC]. By this I mean block sort the DCT coefficients for an entire row of blocks.
2. Use a larger block size. E.g. 16x16. Processors are wickedly fast nowadays they could easily handle this. Maybe be able to code certain 16x16s as four 8x8s if the resolution calls for it [e.g. tons of highfreq data]
Just my thoughts...
Oh and I bet your TV has one of those sliding channel changers my GrandMa had back in the day?
Tom
The TDCAL originally was a single paragraph "license". I only recently [re: today] wrote a formal [whopping 2 pages] document.
... why mess with a good thing :-)
I agree in heinsight I should have used PD but since I've been using TDCAL for almost two years and people know it as such
Tom
By "TDCAL Software" I meant software released as TDCAL.
Yes, you can take TDCAL software, remove the copyright, sell it for a million bucks.
But if you claim its TDCAL it must follow the TDCAL rules, or I will hunt you down and kill you. Hahaha, kidding. But seriously.
I'm not lying here. I *intended* for the code to be free for any use [including commercial]. I use the TDCAL license since its essentially legalese free [me being a living-with-parents CS student non-lawyer].
Tom
Mine is also a draft written in about 5 mins to quiet the reams of people asking "What is TDCAL?" :-)
Before today there was no real "TDCAL License" written down...
Tom
No, its not PD, its TDCAL.
And yes, it was my point to basically give it out entirely for free.
Don't think for a second that I fell into some loop hole and now I can't extract billions in royalties. I never wrote my libraries to get rich. I wrote them so people can [and they do] use them.
I apply the TDCAL to not only formally state you can do whatever you want with them but to make a statement that I'm not getting all riled up in a GPL crusade. Commercial developers [re: Sony] seem to love the TDCAL btw. There is already a few project groups at SCEA that use LibTomCrypt for the sole reason that they don't owe me jack-shit.
Tom
I'm making a statement. Besides there *are* two restrictions.
:-)
TDCAL software must consist of ENTIRELY TDCAL based source code.
TDCAL software may not be redistributed as branch under the same name.
Tom
There is a slight difference.
Under BSD you may not strip copyright or credit information from the binary/source.
Under TDCAL you may do that if you wish.
Tom
Mine is called TDCAL to prove a point. :-)
Tom
Shhh.
RMS wants his cookie. The fact that it's not particularly good for him is something he doesn't care to acknowledge.
This is why people should use my TDCAL license I've applied to LibTomCrypt and LibTomMath. Basically you may use my libraries for whatever you want including commercial redistribution, without having to please the author [e.g. release source, send money, etc...]
http://libtomcrypt.org
This sort of license permits all sorts of users to use my libraries. And yes, I do get feedback from commercial developers. They occasionally send in bug reports/suggestions that help the library.
So in a nutshell I release code that people like, they help me [occasionally] in return and they're not stuck up the ass to use it in their commercial software [like the GPL].
Tom
Oh shut up piggy!
....Arguments for either side....
In 30 seconds I could boot into linux [even though WinXP is on my computer]. Simply plop a Knoppix CD in and boom workable linux [to a certain degree]. apt-get openoffice and boom I have an office suite. apt-get GCC and boom I have a working C compiler [among other langs], etc...
It isn't that I don't have a choice its just that I don't want to.
Many like Linux, many like windows. At this point in the game people *DO* have a choice. The fact that MS pulls some bigwig muscle is a problem of the stores. just because a store doesn't sell Windows doesn't mean they can't sell other OSes or hardware. Most stores I know have a huge display of hardware [graphics cards are the most popular] while a small section of a shelf for windows...
So get off your high horse. Maybe the failure to act in the US is just a gathering of common sense.
[And yes, this reply along with the original post I am replying to are Off-Topic so mod as appropriate].
Tom
Welcome to TeX.
Nuff said.
Though admitedly TeX can be a bit bitchy to get things going for the most part [e.g. 98% of the document creation time] it's simple and produces consistently professional looking documents.
Tom
Where do I send my GNU/Dollar?
Tom
I totally agree. My point though is we were taught its huge just by using math. e.g. draw the sun. Draw the orbit of Mercury then the other planets.
When you end up putting Pluto a couple of feet out in radius [when by comparison Mercury is fairly close I don't remember exact details] you get the point.
As I recall we did use a football field, meter sticks and huge cardboard circles with names on them to help out. Budget: 10$ [not the few thousand or so they probably had]
Tom