Because, generally, 2d OpenGL operations are *really* slow compard to equivalent ones on a direct framebuffer, or even through the framebuffer. OpenGL drivers/implementations are designed and optimized for 3d applications --- they simply include 2d functions for completeness. No one in his or her right mind uses glReadPixels when performance is required --- instead, they use textured quads rendered in orthagonal mode, which is a nasty trick.
int WinMain(HINSTANCE i, HINSTANCE p, BSTR foo, int bar){ MessageBox(NULL, "Screw UTICA", "Message", MB_OK); }
I did this in approximately 30 seconds. Using the win32 api. In a slashdot comment box. GUI programs arn't *that* complex, especially since many of them are simply front ends/glue programs for already-existing command-line programs (Linux) or ActiveX Crapjects (Windows). If you already have the basic program made, writing a GUI for it is nearly trivial.
That's the only piece of software ABIT *did* include in their distribution that came with the source. Even if they had neglected that, however, a stock kernel would have worked fine.
Not all sites on the Internet are commerical, not all sites are up all of the time, and most of the oens that do are faster than google itself! The benefits of caching far outweigh the disadvantages --- I can't count the number of times I found what I was looking for in Google's cache because the original site had been destroyed.
Oral sex is technically banned in many of the states of the US. If this law passes in France, I think it will be enforced about as harshly (i.e., not).
The TBuffer is just an accumulation buffer, something cards with decent OGL implementions have had for years. As for anti-aliasing --- at 1280x1024, does it really matter much?
While in this account Billington doesn't mention it, there is a bigger issue for the LOC: How long can they expect paper media to last?
We know from experience that bacteria-free bone lasts for many hundreds of centuries. But fliers and pamphlets aren't reliable for more than a half-dozen centuries, scrolls have wooden rods and other moving parts that fail over time, and some studies indicate that the fiber in book pages may deteriorate after five hundred years.
And this ignores the formatting issues: Can you find hardware to read your archive of hand-written manuscripts and original scribblings today? Will you be able to find paper readers 200 years from now? And if the data's stored as text, will anyone be able to find scribes? My senior thesis is safely stored on a papyrus sheet in Grog Writing Picrograph format. It might as well be written in an alphabet.
If the LOC were to take the trouble to paperize the books, what media and format could they reliable store them on so that they'll still exist for future generations?
Given these constraints, I'd rather not have them spend my tax dollars on the labor-intensive process of reading, writing and correcting text from millions of bones.
Or just use (La)TeX instead. It's free, fast, heavily-used, compatable, and makes virtually any text look better. Whenever I read a book from Project Gutenberg, I usually LaTeX the text and read it using xdvi or kdvi --- it's easier on the eyes than using Xemacs (serifs, margins, etc.). Not to mention LaTeX source code is plaintext as well, which should be readable for at least a century. If paper isn't subject to bit rot, then why not simply print books instead?
Not entirely true, actually. Sink is the woven cloth of threads made of unspun silkworm cocoons. True, the chrysalis is burned alive, but no actual silkworm is contained in it.
>Actually, no. VC++ encourages stupidity by having >some non-standard features, but it is in fact a >lot closer to the C++ standard than g++. >g++ is still using an obselete iostreams library, >and namespaces don't really work, and there are a >lot of problems with the STL implementation that >comes with it. Untrue, untrue, and untrue. Yes, they *were* true of gcc/g++ (They are really the same compiler) with gcc 2.*8*x, but 2.95.2 is one of the most standards-conforming compilers in existance, as shown by this page comparing various compilers. Note that gcc 2.95.x is the same as egcs. Oh, btw, namespaces work fine in gcc/egcs. The STL, which is actually SGI's, is almost as good as VC++'s, and can be replaced by future versions of SGI's library. The std:: namespace is, by default, ignored, but it can be turned on with the -fhonor-std option. Unfortunately, this somewhat breaks its own iostream headers. Luckily, SGI has an experimental iostream library one can download as well. This is the only area where g++ lacks compared to VC++, but it's sufficiently close as to be useable by the vast majority of programs that rely upon the STL. Oh, do I love SGI. In gcc 2.95.2, I have found no bugs relating to templates (or, heck, at all). Even partial specialization works! Oh, btw, I develop on Win32. I still prefer bash/Unix command-line tools from cygwin/mingw32 gcc 2.95.2, and makefiles to VC++. Now, KDevelop for Win32 would be nice. Btw... What are Koenig lookups?
Err, I forgot to finish this. Anyway, section 7 is no way prohibits the distribution of the software, provided that you violate no laws in doing so. The only law that can stop something like this is patent law, and even the USPO would throw out a fatous patent such as "Method and System for Decryption of Cyberpatrol Blocked URL Lists."
Licenses cannot be revoked once given without an explicit termination clause. It's just that most licenses explicity prohibit redistribution instead of explicitly allowing it.
Firstly, it is obvious to any programmer who has looked outside the M$-Window$ worlds (and even a few that havn't) that 'GPL' refers to the latest version of the Gnu Public License, especially when used with the words "released under". I quote chapter and verse:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
>Mattel DID win, in a big way. Now that they own >the copyright on the source, it's a slam dunk to >get the essay, the source and binaries removed >from the 'net. They own it now, and it's doubtful >that it will ever see the light of day. You say >that the original license gave the right to >redistribute, but that doesn't do the mirrors any >good now, as you don't own the code, anymore. It >would be foolhardy to think that Mattel will >allow any of what you assigned them to be >published on the net, in any form whatsoever.
IANAL, but I know several. A license connot be taken away once granted without a retroactive deactivation clause, and the GNU GPL as none. The mirrors cannot be threatened legally because of this. They have the right to redistribute despite what the current owner, Mattel, says.
Python's encapsulation is iffy, at best. Although there are __private__ variables and functions, they are just mangled, and can be accessed from outside.
Anyhow, if you don't mind coming up with your own protocol, and high lag is a way of life (like a Mars-Earth IP link), just transmit everything redundantly over a UDP like protocol with extra redundancy! Then keep everything on file for retransmission if packets still get lost. Uhm, you just described TCP.
I quoth from the GPL: ... These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. ... (Formatting mine) I think his assumption 10 lines would fall under the nonidentifiable category is valid... if they are very special lines containing unique algorithms, that's different, however.
I know this message is offtopic, but one thing about it irks me. Adobe Acrobat Viewer isn't the only program that can dispaly PDF files. Ghostscript can also do the deed. This is probably more insiteful than insightful, but my question is this: Why is/. advocating the use of a commercial software program when a free alternative exists?
Slashdot Mirror
Because, generally, 2d OpenGL operations are *really* slow compard to equivalent ones on a direct framebuffer, or even through the framebuffer. OpenGL drivers/implementations are designed and optimized for 3d applications --- they simply include 2d functions for completeness. No one in his or her right mind uses glReadPixels when performance is required --- instead, they use textured quads rendered in orthagonal mode, which is a nasty trick.
#include
int WinMain(HINSTANCE i, HINSTANCE p, BSTR foo, int bar){
MessageBox(NULL, "Screw UTICA", "Message", MB_OK);
}
I did this in approximately 30 seconds. Using the win32 api. In a slashdot comment box. GUI programs arn't *that* complex, especially since many of them are simply front ends/glue programs for already-existing command-line programs (Linux) or ActiveX Crapjects (Windows). If you already have the basic program made, writing a GUI for it is nearly trivial.
That's the only piece of software ABIT *did* include in their distribution that came with the source. Even if they had neglected that, however, a stock kernel would have worked fine.
Not all sites on the Internet are commerical, not all sites are up all of the time, and most of the oens that do are faster than google itself! The benefits of caching far outweigh the disadvantages --- I can't count the number of times I found what I was looking for in Google's cache because the original site had been destroyed.
Oops...
This actually happened once.
See the last paragraph of this section of the Jargon File.
Oral sex is technically banned in many of the states of the US. If this law passes in France, I think it will be enforced about as harshly (i.e., not).
Pfffft!
The TBuffer is just an accumulation buffer, something cards with decent OGL implementions have had for years. As for anti-aliasing --- at 1280x1024, does it really matter much?
While in this account Billington doesn't mention it, there is a bigger
issue for the LOC: How long can they expect paper media to last?
We know from experience that bacteria-free bone lasts for many
hundreds of centuries. But fliers and pamphlets aren't reliable for
more than a half-dozen centuries, scrolls have wooden rods and other
moving parts that fail over time, and some studies indicate that the
fiber in book pages may deteriorate after five hundred years.
And this ignores the formatting issues: Can you find hardware to read
your archive of hand-written manuscripts and original scribblings
today? Will you be able to find paper readers 200 years from now? And
if the data's stored as text, will anyone be able to find scribes? My
senior thesis is safely stored on a papyrus sheet in Grog Writing
Picrograph format. It might as well be written in an alphabet.
If the LOC were to take the trouble to paperize the books, what media
and format could they reliable store them on so that they'll still
exist for future generations?
Given these constraints, I'd rather not have them spend my tax dollars
on the labor-intensive process of reading, writing and correcting text
from millions of bones.
Or just use (La)TeX instead. It's free, fast, heavily-used, compatable, and makes virtually any text look better. Whenever I read a book from Project Gutenberg, I usually LaTeX the text and read it using xdvi or kdvi --- it's easier on the eyes than using Xemacs (serifs, margins, etc.). Not to mention LaTeX source code is plaintext as well, which should be readable for at least a century. If paper isn't subject to bit rot, then why not simply print books instead?
> Well, aparently the courts disagree with you,
> and its their opinion that counts, not yours.
Nazi Germany, 1944: Imagine you are a jew. The opinion of the government is to kill you by CO2 poisoning.
The law, or the court, isn't always ethically correct (although it is in most cases).
Oops...
class SoapBox
{
private:
std::vector<std::string> m_Enemies;
public:
SoapBox()
{
m_Enemies.push_back("MPAA");
m_Enemies.push_back("RIAA");
m_Enemies.push_back("MSFT");
m_Enemies.push_back("NSA");
for(std::vector<std::string>::iterator i =
m_Enemies.begin(); i != m_Enemies.end(); ++i)
{
std::cout << "Fuck the evil " << *i << "!" << std::endl;
}
} SoapBox_Inst;
int main(int, char**){}
class SoapBox
{
private:
std::vector<std::string> m_Enemies;
public:
SoapBox()
{
for(std::vector<std::string>::iterator i =
m_Enemies.begin(); i != m_Enemies.end(); ++i)
{
std::cout << "Fuck the evil " << *i << "!" << std::endl;
}
} SoapBox_Inst;
int main(int, char**){}
Not entirely true, actually. Sink is the woven cloth of threads made of unspun silkworm cocoons. True, the chrysalis is burned alive, but no actual silkworm is contained in it.
*cough*mingw32*cough*
>Actually, no. VC++ encourages stupidity by having >some non-standard features, but it is in fact a >lot closer to the C++ standard than g++. >g++ is still using an obselete iostreams library, >and namespaces don't really work, and there are a >lot of problems with the STL implementation that >comes with it. Untrue, untrue, and untrue. Yes, they *were* true of gcc/g++ (They are really the same compiler) with gcc 2.*8*x, but 2.95.2 is one of the most standards-conforming compilers in existance, as shown by this page comparing various compilers. Note that gcc 2.95.x is the same as egcs. Oh, btw, namespaces work fine in gcc/egcs. The STL, which is actually SGI's, is almost as good as VC++'s, and can be replaced by future versions of SGI's library. The std:: namespace is, by default, ignored, but it can be turned on with the -fhonor-std option. Unfortunately, this somewhat breaks its own iostream headers. Luckily, SGI has an experimental iostream library one can download as well. This is the only area where g++ lacks compared to VC++, but it's sufficiently close as to be useable by the vast majority of programs that rely upon the STL. Oh, do I love SGI. In gcc 2.95.2, I have found no bugs relating to templates (or, heck, at all). Even partial specialization works! Oh, btw, I develop on Win32. I still prefer bash/Unix command-line tools from cygwin/mingw32 gcc 2.95.2, and makefiles to VC++. Now, KDevelop for Win32 would be nice. Btw... What are Koenig lookups?
All of which you lack.
Since when has the USPO cared about prior art for software patents? :)
Err, I forgot to finish this. Anyway, section 7 is no way prohibits the distribution of the software, provided that you violate no laws in doing so. The only law that can stop something like this is patent law, and even the USPO would throw out a fatous patent such as "Method and System for Decryption of Cyberpatrol Blocked URL Lists."
Licenses cannot be revoked once given without an explicit termination clause. It's just that most licenses explicity prohibit redistribution instead of explicitly allowing it.
>Mattel DID win, in a big way. Now that they own >the copyright on the source, it's a slam dunk to >get the essay, the source and binaries removed >from the 'net. They own it now, and it's doubtful >that it will ever see the light of day. You say >that the original license gave the right to >redistribute, but that doesn't do the mirrors any >good now, as you don't own the code, anymore. It >would be foolhardy to think that Mattel will >allow any of what you assigned them to be >published on the net, in any form whatsoever.
IANAL, but I know several. A license connot be taken away once granted without a retroactive deactivation clause, and the GNU GPL as none. The mirrors cannot be threatened legally because of this. They have the right to redistribute despite what the current owner, Mattel, says.
Python's encapsulation is iffy, at best. Although there are __private__ variables and functions, they are just mangled, and can be accessed from outside.
Anyhow, if you don't mind coming up with your own protocol, and high lag is a way of life (like a Mars-Earth IP link), just transmit everything redundantly over a UDP like protocol with extra redundancy! Then keep everything on file for retransmission if packets still get lost. Uhm, you just described TCP.
I quoth from the GPL:
...
...
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
(Formatting mine) I think his assumption 10 lines would fall under the nonidentifiable category is valid... if they are very special lines containing unique algorithms, that's different, however.
I know this message is offtopic, but one thing about it irks me. Adobe Acrobat Viewer isn't the only program that can dispaly PDF files. Ghostscript can also do the deed. This is probably more insiteful than insightful, but my question is this: Why is /. advocating the use of a commercial software program when a free alternative exists?