-- If you don't cut into the brain or spinal cord when butchering the animals
Which is fine, assuming you dont want, uhh, steaks...:)
Re:Diesel Cars
on
239 MPG Car
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Yeah, that really gave it a bad name, it was too bad. The reason for it though was because the engines were really slapped together in a rush, basically retrofitted gasoline engines, none of the bearings and fittings had time to be re-engineered, and they just couldn't handle the different force you get from a diesel burn.
I think he is complaining about how a company would try and disable functionality of one product (In this case, using cheesy methods to make the mouse only work in windows, NOT leaving something OUT with the intention of keeping costs down, but rather, ADDING to the product to REMOVE functionality) in order to leverage sales of another, totally different product. Thats monopolizing the computer industry. We have laws that used to protect consumers from that sort of abuse. They dont seem to work anymore though.
(If I ever see any of you post that sentence without my permission you will face the awesome power of the Yahoo legal team, reachable at Sugarti^H^H^H^H^H^HImaLawyer550874@yahoo.com)
I do some volume rendering work, and the industry approach is generally "Ray Casting". A "Camera" matrix basically points at the volume space. Rays are cast from the camera to determine where/if they intercept the volume, if they do, the ray is traversed through the volume to gather information. Basically, you can have one "ray" for each destination pixel on the image. You could do parallel rays, or non-parallel for generating a perspective rendering. Also there are a number of different techniques for generating an image based on the points (Voxels) that the image passes through. You could just take hte maximum value you pass through, or you could use some sort of FIR filter, whatever you want really. To just draw a surface, you could have your rays use only the first non-zero value they hit. Whatever. ANYways my point is, how is this any different than what is described in this article? I mean, all the article talks about is "Points points points" but *all* volume rendering is done with points. Theres no polygons or anything like that, because in "volume rendering" you are taking a chunk of unprocessed 3d data and trying to get an image out of it. There are no larger representative elements than "3d data points" because "volume rendering" is meant to take raw data from a CT scan or what have you. I guess you could call a game like Doom "Volume rendered" Because there is some sort of VOLUMEtric format being turned into 2d images, but in the industry thats not what "Volume rendering" refers to. And this industry is also not new. And its all based on points. voxels. Whats the deal? What did I miss from this article? I'm sure its just that the article was written poorly and completely glossed over the actual meaning of the paper, but does anyone know what these people are actually doing that is different from typical volume rendering?
No, just kidding. Not to make light of what I'm sure you feel is a very important problem, but dont you think you *could* be overreacting? Take a look through the slashdot discussion archives. Theres plenty of slanderous stuff there!
And by the way, your mother was a hampster and your father smelled of elderberries!!
I always remember people saying "Oh you'll have no problem getting a job." "Oh you'll be rich" since I was an electrical engineering major. People never said that to Biologists and Mechanical engineers. Maybe now we in the tech industry just have to go through the process of finding a job, rather than a job finding us. Sure would have been nice if I had graduated 3 years ago, instead of 1, though.:) It all comes down to finding people you like, and that like you. I should take my own advice though...I'm still working an internship from back-in-the-day and making pennies.
My kids are aged 11, 7 and 3. All of them are computer savvy. They use the computer for basically three things: Games, writing papers and chatting with friends, as well as browsing sites that are frequented by children their age
Boy, I couldnt even *read* at 3!!!! I think you should be less worried about linux migration and more worried about your 3 year old taking over the world!
Proving you can put anything in homes across america, assuming you have $2 billion to spend on it. I dont want to start a fight here, I admit I've never even used an X-Box, but I think I could have freezers installed in every Igloo if I had $2 billion to market them.
Well, it took them what, about 7 years to finally buckle down? I think thats what people have a problem with. And how they are somehow "Forcing" you to use it? What does that mean, exactly? I imagine that's another reason/.ers are not saying "go microsoft!" I really dont know though. Perhaps I should stop posting before knowing the whole story. hehe
Again, nope. It's not unusual in the slightest. Defense is a private industry. People in that industry should act in their own best interest. If things like this didn't happen, I'd be curious.
I forgot about this. Defense a private industry? Taxpayers fund defense. That is why it is necessary for the bidding system to be in place (The same bidding process that is used throughout the rest of the government, for developing our nation's infrastructure.) in order to get taxpayers the best deal, and to avoid conflicts-of-interest that occur when people in government are in bed with people in the private sector. You are right, the companies that get a defense contract are private, that is obvious, and the fact that you felt the need to mention it makes me wonder if you missed the point. The point is that the money paid to these private defense contractors came from _our_ tax dollars, and that is why the process of taking the lowest bid is so important. We cant have billions of dollars handed out to Halliburton so Cheney can get rich. What we _can_ have is billions of dollars handed out to whatever company was selected in the fair, unbiased bidding process that existed for 200 years before Cheney came in. Anything else presensts conflicts of interest.
Maybe someday when your daddy takes his wallet away you'll realize these issues are important to people who have to put bread on the table.
Nope. The business of America is business. What Enron did was against the rules, but it's an accounting practice found in virtually every company in America. Enron was used to set an example. Any other company would have served just as well, but they picked Enron. And while it certainly worked-- practices nationwide are being reviewed and revised-- was it really worth it? Enron is gone. Andersen is gone. The pensions of thousands of people are gone. What a horrible price to pay for what was basically a difference of opinion over the interpretation of the ledgers.
I think heres whats different from you and me. The fact that all of those people no longer have their pensions, meanwhile the higher-ups in that company are still rolling in the profits they made through their dishonest business practices, really makes me mad. Maybe if you had family involved in that fiasco, you would be singing a different tune. I dont care about what the law says, I really dont. I care about thousands of people who planned their lives around a pension that some (currently still) rich people managed to screw up for them, in the name of profits. Your parents were not poor, and neither were you, ever. That's obvious. Take some time to see things from someone elses perspective. I never said anything about conspiracy. You just happen to think anyone who does not like big business is a conspiracy theorist.
Its funny, you really havent said anything factual. You use superficial blanket statements and name-calling to make your dilluted argument. Call me a conspiracy theorist again, call me crazy again, say "Such and such makes you crazy" but dont explain why. maybe if you say it enough times it'll come true.
You're suffering from paranoid delusions, mary_will_grow. You really might want to consider seeing a doctor. Thorazine can work wonders
That was the kicker. I bet your kids are on ritalen. My point of view is neither "Extreme" nor "Unjustifiable".
All I am saying is that things are getting a little weird. Our president's major campaign contributer was Kenneth Lay of Enron. W even rode around in the Enron jet to campaign. Later, Kenny was included in a committee to write our nations energy policy. This company Enron was also responsible for the largest corporate swindle in recent history. Doesn't that at least make you CONCERNED? I mean, I'm not saying "Forget it we are doomed, corporate america owns us." I am saying "Hey, things are getting a little weird." Doesnt it concern you that our Vice-President changed internal policy when he worked in Bush Sr.'s cabinet to allow a private company to obtain a defense contract WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE BIDDING PROCESS? Then, immediately after leaving his post, took up job as CEO of Halliburton where he himself made millions of dollars in DEFENSE CONTRACTS? And now, with war looming in the middle east, who has the contract to build 3 military bases in the mid east? Halliburton again? Doesnt that at least make you CURIOUS? So far the only one who has advocated anything EXTREME and UNJUSTIFIABLE is YOU, who is beligerently opposed to ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT CORPORATE AMERICA'S INTERESTS. Look, maybe theres nothing to worry about, fine. Just dont get mad at people for raising questions. I'm trying to make peace with you here, I dont know why you can't just drop this attack on people who MIGHT be a little SUSPICIOUS, considering recent events.
Um, no. Why, when someone questions Corporate America's motives, do people people tend to respond with "WELL THEN LETS GO BACK TO BEING HUNTER/GATHERERS" ? You are right, there ARE shades of grey, and worrying about how Big Business might trample on our rights is not the same as thinking that **Big business is going to enslave us all, it is time for a revolution!!** It is you who has turned things to Black and White. I agree that I've sounded a little crazy, but so does the News. Didnt want to start a fight, sorry if my take on things bothers you.
P.s. I happened to like this name! At least when I was in college.;)
Just a word of advice, since you seem to think that corporate interests ARENT attempting to buy our rights away. Read the washington post. And the christian science monitor. Hell, read slashdot. You might be able to pick out a few things.
Better bring Mercedes to task, then. They sell the crappy E-class, just so people who don't want a crappy car will buy the S-class. For that matter, Boeing is really on my shitlist, too. They sell the crappy 737 just to boost sales of the 747 and 777. And what's with IBM selling all of those crappy Intel-based servers? They should be selling mainframes for $20 each with lifetime warranties! This process of selling a crappy product for less money-- or, in the case of iDVD, even giving it away-- has got to stop!
Heh. Everything you mentioned is _entirely_ different. Mercedes doesnt make a low class vehicle by taking an already manufactured high class vehicle and hacking parts off of it with a crow bar. They make a low class vehicle by putting less MONEY into it, so they are able to SELL IT CHEAP, while keeping their profit margin. Dont you see the _huge_ difference between the two? The iDVD program was restricted in order to leverage sales of their internal DVD burners. They didnt SAVE ANY MONEY by NOT DEVELOPING THAT PART OF THE PROGRAM, because the patch to allow external DVD burners took one person 3 days to write. So it is entirely ARTIFICIAL. See this is the problem with America, everyone thinks that the most profitable approach is "Right" or "Justified" and a-o-k. Its not. You figure out classes of product you want to see. Price A, B, and C. And you develop the best product you can that you can profit by selling @ price A. and then you do it for price B. and then you do it for price C. Thats what all those manufacturers do that you mentioned. Apple's "Stripped down iDVD" was a totally artificial marketing scheme. It'd be like Mercedes making an econo class by taking a luxury sedan and plugging 4 cylinders shut, and covering the leather with vinyl. Except that they CANT do that, because it wouldnt be cost effective. Get it? Thanks for the "enlightened" response. Yeah, and I'm totally off the deep end to think that corporate lobbies are buying our rights away, right? Even if it is an exagerated take on recent events, how dare you stifle that sort of thinking? It is obvious that corporate interests are gaining a stranglehold on our nation's policy makers, why would you want people to associate that idea with someone who has "Dropped off the deep end". What if it really does get *bad* and everyone is too afraid to speak up for fear of people like you calling them crazy? Nice work you should feel good about it.
YES YES YES YES YES!.NET IS HERE!! I am so psyched. Its a breath of fresh air. I want to do all of my development on a platform created solely by a for-profit company who's interests do not extend past their own wallets!
They were "right" you keep saying they were "Right" so they were "Right" to restrict their software so that other manufacturer's DVD burners couldnt be used with Apple's burning software? They were "RIGHT" to leverage their software to increase their hardware sales? They were "RIGHT" to RESTRICT FUNCTIONALITY of their product to suit their needs? No, they werent. You make as good of a product as you can, for the lowest price you can. Thats the only way to do "GOOD" business. The rest, even if perfectly legal, is SHADY CRAP. Making a product CRAPPIER to make another product sell better does not help the consumers at all! So, no, you can NOT spin it so that Apple was in the right. They were wrong from the get-go, even though they were doing something totally legal. Its still WRONG. But go ahead and trumpet how they should do whatever makes them the most money because thats the way to run a successful business. And keep trumpetting until the RIAA and Micro$oft lobbies have managed to buy all of your rights out from under you. I'm sure this argument will get you somewhere. You'll be really happy in the world you are helping to create.
Slashdot Mirror
-- If you don't cut into the brain or spinal cord when butchering the animals
:)
Which is fine, assuming you dont want, uhh, steaks...
Yeah, that really gave it a bad name, it was too bad. The reason for it though was because the engines were really slapped together in a rush, basically retrofitted gasoline engines, none of the bearings and fittings had time to be re-engineered, and they just couldn't handle the different force you get from a diesel burn.
That little car looks pretty slick.
Too bad my girlfriend said she'll never get in one, for fear of getting clobbered by a Ford Excursion.
I think he is complaining about how a company would try and disable functionality of one product (In this case, using cheesy methods to make the mouse only work in windows, NOT leaving something OUT with the intention of keeping costs down, but rather, ADDING to the product to REMOVE functionality) in order to leverage sales of another, totally different product.
Thats monopolizing the computer industry.
We have laws that used to protect consumers from that sort of abuse. They dont seem to work anymore though.
I like p0rno
Copyright by Mary Will Grow, 2002.
(If I ever see any of you post that sentence without my permission you will face the awesome power of the Yahoo legal team, reachable at Sugarti^H^H^H^H^H^HImaLawyer550874@yahoo.com)
I do some volume rendering work, and the industry approach is generally "Ray Casting". A "Camera" matrix basically points at the volume space. Rays are cast from the camera to determine where/if they intercept the volume, if they do, the ray is traversed through the volume to gather information. Basically, you can have one "ray" for each destination pixel on the image. You could do parallel rays, or non-parallel for generating a perspective rendering. Also there are a number of different techniques for generating an image based on the points (Voxels) that the image passes through. You could just take hte maximum value you pass through, or you could use some sort of FIR filter, whatever you want really. To just draw a surface, you could have your rays use only the first non-zero value they hit. Whatever. ANYways my point is, how is this any different than what is described in this article? I mean, all the article talks about is "Points points points" but *all* volume rendering is done with points. Theres no polygons or anything like that, because in "volume rendering" you are taking a chunk of unprocessed 3d data and trying to get an image out of it. There are no larger representative elements than "3d data points" because "volume rendering" is meant to take raw data from a CT scan or what have you. I guess you could call a game like Doom "Volume rendered" Because there is some sort of VOLUMEtric format being turned into 2d images, but in the industry thats not what "Volume rendering" refers to. And this industry is also not new. And its all based on points. voxels. Whats the deal? What did I miss from this article? I'm sure its just that the article was written poorly and completely glossed over the actual meaning of the paper, but does anyone know what these people are actually doing that is different from typical volume rendering?
Hey, in other news,
TERRORISM WORKS
My alma mater is famous for two things:
Dean Kamen's (A WPI non-graduate) "IT"
and the Wachusett Brewery ("WPI Engineered")
Personally, I'll take the beer.
I am here to exert a little justice!
No, just kidding. Not to make light of what I'm sure you feel is a very important problem, but dont you think you *could* be overreacting?
Take a look through the slashdot discussion archives. Theres plenty of slanderous stuff there!
And by the way, your mother was a hampster and your father smelled of elderberries!!
I always remember people saying "Oh you'll have no problem getting a job." "Oh you'll be rich" since I was an electrical engineering major. People never said that to Biologists and Mechanical engineers. Maybe now we in the tech industry just have to go through the process of finding a job, rather than a job finding us. Sure would have been nice if I had graduated 3 years ago, instead of 1, though. :) .I'm still working an internship from back-in-the-day and making pennies.
It all comes down to finding people you like, and that like you. I should take my own advice though..
In other news, the USSR provided free bread only to the poor people.
What does that mean? I dont get it.
My kids are aged 11, 7 and 3. All of them are computer savvy. They use the computer for basically three things: Games, writing papers and chatting with friends, as well as browsing sites that are frequented by children their age
Boy, I couldnt even *read* at 3!!!!
I think you should be less worried about linux migration and more worried about your 3 year old taking over the world!
Hey... I read that link. Did you notice he was being charged with "Terroristic threats" ?
:)
What the heck is that?
Dont mod me down, he started it!! I'm on HIS topic, his off-topic.
Proving you can put anything in homes across america, assuming you have $2 billion to spend on it.
I dont want to start a fight here, I admit I've never even used an X-Box, but I think I could have freezers installed in every Igloo if I had $2 billion to market them.
Well, it took them what, about 7 years to finally buckle down? I think thats what people have a problem with. And how they are somehow "Forcing" you to use it? What does that mean, exactly? I imagine that's another reason /.ers are not saying "go microsoft!"
I really dont know though. Perhaps I should stop posting before knowing the whole story. hehe
You say you love it. Do you personally program?
Or do your employees? And do _they_ love it?
http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Wise99/42_United_ States2.txt
:)
Betterly, Laura
717 Weathersfield Dr.
Dunedin, FL 34698-7437
United States
(1) 727-447-2037
(1) 727-468-2037
I personally intend to sell her an Anti-Anti-Spam tool to filter out Anti-Spam mail.
Again, nope. It's not unusual in the slightest. Defense is a private industry. People in that industry should act in their own best interest. If things like this didn't happen, I'd be curious.
I forgot about this. Defense a private industry? Taxpayers fund defense. That is why it is necessary for the bidding system to be in place (The same bidding process that is used throughout the rest of the government, for developing our nation's infrastructure.) in order to get taxpayers the best deal, and to avoid conflicts-of-interest that occur when people in government are in bed with people in the private sector.
You are right, the companies that get a defense contract are private, that is obvious, and the fact that you felt the need to mention it makes me wonder if you missed the point. The point is that the money paid to these private defense contractors came from _our_ tax dollars, and that is why the process of taking the lowest bid is so important. We cant have billions of dollars handed out to Halliburton so Cheney can get rich. What we _can_ have is billions of dollars handed out to whatever company was selected in the fair, unbiased bidding process that existed for 200 years before Cheney came in. Anything else presensts conflicts of interest.
Maybe someday when your daddy takes his wallet away you'll realize these issues are important to people who have to put bread on the table.
Nope. The business of America is business. What Enron did was against the rules, but it's an accounting practice found in virtually every company in America. Enron was used to set an example. Any other company would have served just as well, but they picked Enron. And while it certainly worked-- practices nationwide are being reviewed and revised-- was it really worth it? Enron is gone. Andersen is gone. The pensions of thousands of people are gone. What a horrible price to pay for what was basically a difference of opinion over the interpretation of the ledgers.
I think heres whats different from you and me. The fact that all of those people no longer have their pensions, meanwhile the higher-ups in that company are still rolling in the profits they made through their dishonest business practices, really makes me mad. Maybe if you had family involved in that fiasco, you would be singing a different tune. I dont care about what the law says, I really dont. I care about thousands of people who planned their lives around a pension that some (currently still) rich people managed to screw up for them, in the name of profits.
Your parents were not poor, and neither were you, ever. That's obvious. Take some time to see things from someone elses perspective.
I never said anything about conspiracy. You just happen to think anyone who does not like big business is a conspiracy theorist.
Its funny, you really havent said anything factual. You use superficial blanket statements and name-calling to make your dilluted argument. Call me a conspiracy theorist again, call me crazy again, say "Such and such makes you crazy" but dont explain why. maybe if you say it enough times it'll come true.
You're suffering from paranoid delusions, mary_will_grow. You really might want to consider seeing a doctor. Thorazine can work wonders
That was the kicker.
I bet your kids are on ritalen.
My point of view is neither "Extreme" nor "Unjustifiable".
All I am saying is that things are getting a little weird. Our president's major campaign contributer was Kenneth Lay of Enron. W even rode around in the Enron jet to campaign. Later, Kenny was included in a committee to write our nations energy policy. This company Enron was also responsible for the largest corporate swindle in recent history. Doesn't that at least make you CONCERNED? I mean, I'm not saying "Forget it we are doomed, corporate america owns us." I am saying "Hey, things are getting a little weird."
Doesnt it concern you that our Vice-President changed internal policy when he worked in Bush Sr.'s cabinet to allow a private company to obtain a defense contract WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE BIDDING PROCESS? Then, immediately after leaving his post, took up job as CEO of Halliburton where he himself made millions of dollars in DEFENSE CONTRACTS? And now, with war looming in the middle east, who has the contract to build 3 military bases in the mid east? Halliburton again? Doesnt that at least make you CURIOUS?
So far the only one who has advocated anything EXTREME and UNJUSTIFIABLE is YOU, who is beligerently opposed to ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT CORPORATE AMERICA'S INTERESTS.
Look, maybe theres nothing to worry about, fine. Just dont get mad at people for raising questions.
I'm trying to make peace with you here, I dont know why you can't just drop this attack on people who MIGHT be a little SUSPICIOUS, considering recent events.
Um, no. Why, when someone questions Corporate America's motives, do people people tend to respond with "WELL THEN LETS GO BACK TO BEING HUNTER/GATHERERS" ? You are right, there ARE shades of grey, and worrying about how Big Business might trample on our rights is not the same as thinking that **Big business is going to enslave us all, it is time for a revolution!!**
;)
It is you who has turned things to Black and White. I agree that I've sounded a little crazy, but so does the News. Didnt want to start a fight, sorry if my take on things bothers you.
P.s. I happened to like this name! At least when I was in college.
Just a word of advice, since you seem to think that corporate interests ARENT attempting to buy our rights away. Read the washington post. And the christian science monitor. Hell, read slashdot. You might be able to pick out a few things.
Better bring Mercedes to task, then. They sell the crappy E-class, just so people who don't want a crappy car will buy the S-class. For that matter, Boeing is really on my shitlist, too. They sell the crappy 737 just to boost sales of the 747 and 777. And what's with IBM selling all of those crappy Intel-based servers? They should be selling mainframes for $20 each with lifetime warranties! This process of selling a crappy product for less money-- or, in the case of iDVD, even giving it away-- has got to stop!
Heh. Everything you mentioned is _entirely_ different. Mercedes doesnt make a low class vehicle by taking an already manufactured high class vehicle and hacking parts off of it with a crow bar. They make a low class vehicle by putting less MONEY into it, so they are able to SELL IT CHEAP, while keeping their profit margin. Dont you see the _huge_ difference between the two? The iDVD program was restricted in order to leverage sales of their internal DVD burners. They didnt SAVE ANY MONEY by NOT DEVELOPING THAT PART OF THE PROGRAM, because the patch to allow external DVD burners took one person 3 days to write. So it is entirely ARTIFICIAL. See this is the problem with America, everyone thinks that the most profitable approach is "Right" or "Justified" and a-o-k. Its not. You figure out classes of product you want to see. Price A, B, and C. And you develop the best product you can that you can profit by selling @ price A. and then you do it for price B. and then you do it for price C. Thats what all those manufacturers do that you mentioned. Apple's "Stripped down iDVD" was a totally artificial marketing scheme. It'd be like Mercedes making an econo class by taking a luxury sedan and plugging 4 cylinders shut, and covering the leather with vinyl. Except that they CANT do that, because it wouldnt be cost effective. Get it?
Thanks for the "enlightened" response. Yeah, and I'm totally off the deep end to think that corporate lobbies are buying our rights away, right? Even if it is an exagerated take on recent events, how dare you stifle that sort of thinking? It is obvious that corporate interests are gaining a stranglehold on our nation's policy makers, why would you want people to associate that idea with someone who has "Dropped off the deep end". What if it really does get *bad* and everyone is too afraid to speak up for fear of people like you calling them crazy?
Nice work you should feel good about it.
YES YES YES YES YES! .NET IS HERE!! I am so psyched.
Its a breath of fresh air. I want to do all of my development on a platform created solely by a for-profit company who's interests do not extend past their own wallets!
They were "right" you keep saying they were "Right" so they were "Right" to restrict their software so that other manufacturer's DVD burners couldnt be used with Apple's burning software?
They were "RIGHT" to leverage their software to increase their hardware sales? They were "RIGHT" to RESTRICT FUNCTIONALITY of their product to suit their needs? No, they werent. You make as good of a product as you can, for the lowest price you can. Thats the only way to do "GOOD" business. The rest, even if perfectly legal, is SHADY CRAP. Making a product CRAPPIER to make another product sell better does not help the consumers at all!
So, no, you can NOT spin it so that Apple was in the right. They were wrong from the get-go, even though they were doing something totally legal. Its still WRONG. But go ahead and trumpet how they should do whatever makes them the most money because thats the way to run a successful business. And keep trumpetting until the RIAA and Micro$oft lobbies have managed to buy all of your rights out from under you. I'm sure this argument will get you somewhere. You'll be really happy in the world you are helping to create.