all that journal shows me is an attempt at making this a better place. Imagine tring to please everyone on/., that's a joke, I think he's doing a good job at attempting to balance it.
Just because they didn't click "I Agree" doesn't mean they don't have to follow the rules. It's like(I know people are going to beat this analogy with a stick) if you walk into a store, and your not suppose to steal, and if you don't tell then you agree with this policy, then they don't have the right(ot legaly) to steal. I think these "I Agree" things need to be looked at in context.
Heh, I realize this is how it came off sounding, but that is not quite what I ment. I was just wondering(not stating) if there was a possibility that there were more lately because of some larger scale pattern that has them peaking now. Just as, but on a smaller scale, global warming could just be a phase in the cycle patterns.
Though this may be true, can't we take into account complexity of the circutry? I could make 70's tech level conponets quite reliably my self even, but with the increased complexity, reliability decreases. This is not an excuse, but just a possible reason to take into account. VCR and DVD players don't compare well because a VCR(I assume) is much easier to build then a DVD Player.
I must ask again for this, Why Bother? What is the significance? I'm not saying there isn't, but for my CPU time, I want to know the reason. And I also strongly agree with the Folding project
I would think that by now, you could show how many different projects have been very successfull with the Open Source model, and there hasn't been a problem of just any user doing what ever they want. Simply show the system in effect.
As a linux desktop adovcate, I still hate WineX. It is difficult to get working, it depends on Wine libraries(I believe) and OpenGL is much more cross platform compatible. I have seen many companys begin to have linux support(including Valve with Neverwinter Nights ^.^)
Here's the article so we can ease up on the server:
Future Look: OpenGL 2.0
Preview by: Robert Richmond
Preview Date: November 11, 2002
OpenGL has been a primary component of three dimensional rendering technology since its inception in 1991. OpenGL is implemented in a wide variety of applications, ranging from professional design software to multimedia presentations to interactive games. Currently available as version 1.4, OpenGL has proven to adapt with the evolution of graphics hardware, though it's age is becoming starkly apparent as compared to Microsoft's latest DirectX D3D technology. In hopes of revitalizing the decade old standard, 3Dlabs recently offers a new approach outlining the features of a possible OpenGL 2.0 revision.
The concept of a proposal as compared to a standard needs to be clearly defined for the purposes of this preview article. The OpenGL 2.0 topicalities presented here are based upon a discussion text and early developmental engineering from 3Dlabs. Many vendors usually submit discussion texts and/or proposals during the OpenGL ratification process, then an appointed governing committee will analyze the various aspects of the given information before reaching an agreement about the final published standard. Since the OpenGL 2.0 development process is still in finalization stages, the information presented within this text will likely undergo multiple changes before a final OpenGL 2.0 specification is adopted for widespread industry use.
About 3Dlabs
3Dlabs has been a long-time contributor to the OpenGL community by providing advanced 3D hardware solutions to the professional marketplace. 3Dlabs graphics accelerators are commonly utilized for computer-aided design, multimedia development, and special effects rendering. 3Dlabs technology can also be found in many non-PC devices like military aircraft and personal cell phones. 3Dlabs is a wide market corporation with operations currently in Alabama, California, Massachusetts, Texas, Washington, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom.
OpenGL 1.x Limitations
The bulk of graphics development was centered on 2D rendering until 1997. The only areas of computing utilizing 3D technologies before this time were generally in the extremely high-end professional markets, such as CAD or virtual reality. The mid-90's release of desktop-oriented 3D accelerators like 3dfx's Voodoo or Rendition's Verite ushered in the concept of affordable 3D graphics for most mainstream PC users. Nearly a half decade later, desktop 3D video cards now include options like cube mapping, hardware transform/lighting, and programmable vertex/pixel shading. The OpenGL interface has evolved along with these new rendering features, but today's OGL 1.x does have substantial room for improvement as the next generation of video chipsets could finally outpace the capabilities of this venerable standard.
For example, the popular OpenGL 1.3 API suffers from several major limitations, especially in regards to extending the base programming interface to include additional rendering options. The base OGL 1.3 specification documentation is approximately 284 pages of programming conventions and theory, while nVidia's extension documentation needed to implement options like per-pixel shading is well over 500 pages in length. The concern over efficient programming is clearly apparent once one factors in proprietary extensions from other corporations like ATI, Matrox, STMicro, and the vast number of other companies currently offering OpenGL compliant drivers.
The age of OpenGL 1.x is the primary contributor to these limitations, as hardware has evolved at such a rapid pace over the past few years. System that were once considered to offer high performance only a couple of years ago are now entry-level configurations at best. The rapid development of hardware plays a significant role, as many manufacturers are adding OpenGL extensions without any real inter-corporate centralization in order to release products by usually grossly misrepresented retail availability deadlines.
Worst yet, it appears OpenGL is following nearly the same development paradigm as DirectX. DX7 was the last fixed-function D3D interface, with the current DX8 standard being devised around poorly coordinated implementations of programmable rendering options. DX8 offers v1.2 programmable options, while DX8.1 offers a slightly improved v1.4 programmable feature set. This development schedule can wreak havoc on developers and hardware engineers. For example, the GeForce-3 supports v1.2, but the Radeon 8500 supports v1.4. In can be expected that programmers will likely opt for the lowest common denominator when coding, thus it is suspect whether some of these staggered options will ever be included in software released in the near future. Only with the release of DirectX 9 does Microsoft plan to offer a hardware independent programmable interface.
Some developers have proposed extensions to OpenGL 1.x to add programmable rendering options including various extensions which may not be compatible with hardware from another manufacturer. Efforts are also being established to institute a generalized extension set for programmable shading, though these are still largely hardware dependant, thus they will not work with all OpenGL implementations. The goal of 3Dlabs' OpenGL 2.0 initiative is to create an uniform standard with a hardware independent shading language that functions with nearly all OpenGL compliant graphics accelerators.
OpenGL 2.0 Envisioned
3Dlabs hopes to address several key issues with its OpenGL 2.0 approach. OpenGL needs to evolve into an easier to code interface format with optimizations for memory management and timing control for increased performance potential. Another issue to be addressed is how to deploy generalized programmable shading routines which are hardware independent. The overall predominate concern is maintaining complete backwards compatibility with OGL 1.x standards while retaining the functionality of the new standard's advanced rendering options.
3Dlabs has received positive support from many facets of the graphics engineering community. Universities like Stanford are already hard at work on extended OpenGL rendering routines which support some of the v2.0 conventions. Most hardware manufacturers and software vendors are also expressing overwhelming support, as an improved OpenGL standard could lead to better graphics and performance with less development overheard and greater product turnaround times. Regardless of those involved, 3Dlabs is working towards a future OpenGL 2 interface without any imposed royalties or operating system limitations in hopes of establishing a wider market base.
OpenGL 2.0 Explained
The 3DLabs approach is to first extend software through utilization and public promotion of certain OpenGL 2 standards, then gradually move code towards a "pure" OpenGL 2.0 environment. However, unlike DirectX 8, all OpenGL rendering conventions should be available for those seeking a pure OGL implementation at release, instead of staggering the releases in various subset revisions. As stressed earlier, the ultimate final goal is to reach a streamlined programming interface which offers hardware independency.
Each of the programmable processor pipelines (software and/or hardware) essentially eliminate and/or replace a significant portion of current OpenGL conventions. The programmable vertex processor replaces the current options for transform, lighting, normalization, texture coordinate generation, and fog rendering. The fragment processor replaces the current operations for smooth shading, texture access, texture application, alpha testing, and pixel transfers. The pack/unpack processor included capabilities for flexible pixel formatting during memory move operations to create a coherent and consistent stream of pixel data to the rendering pipeline. The clear benefits of these programmable options are increased performance and image quality by removing the dependence upon fixed functions of static T&L pipeline routines. The associated rendering conventions for each of these advanced routines are unified through a comprehensive C-based programming language with special detail added for vector and matrix processing operations.
3Dlabs also implements a new data buffer mechanism to be utilized for enhancement of the programmable rendering interface. The buffer is used to enable multiple-pass fragment programs with full stream processing support. Usage examples include multiple outputs from a single fragment routine, intermediate result storage, multi-spectral imaging, and acceleration of back-end rendering by reducing the time needed for read-back of floating-point images by the host bus. Additionally, the buffer space is accessible through either spatial or FIFO memory operations.
Today's OpenGL 1.x provides no real direct control over when or where objects are stored or deleted within the memory address range. OGL 1.x also provides no direct control over memory copies or address fragmentation. 3Dlabs plans to implement a new management routine to allow for improved timing control over memory operations. The OGL 2.0 proposal sets policies and priorities for all datasets with timing estimates provided for each task. Additionally, all pinned policy operations allow the application to control memory store/delete and packing operations.
John Carmac's Opinion
"Given the good first impression, I was willing to go ahead and write a new back end that would let the card do the entire Doom interaction rendering in a single pass. The most expedient sounding option was to just use the Nvidia extensions that they implement, NV_vertex_program and NV_register_combiners, with seven texture units instead of the four available on GF3/GF4. Instead, I decided to try using the prototype OpenGL 2.0 extensions they provide.
The implementation went very smoothly, but I did run into the limits of their current prototype compiler before the full feature set could be implemented. I like it a lot. I am really looking forward to doing research work with this programming model after the compiler matures a bit. While the shading languages are the most critical aspects, and can be broken out as extensions to current OpenGL, there are a lot of other subtle-but-important things that are addressed in the full OpenGL 2.0 proposal.
I am now committed to supporting an OpenGL 2.0 renderer for Doom through all the spec evolutions. If anything, I have been somewhat remiss in not pushing the issues as hard as I could with all the vendors. Now really is the critical time to start nailing things down, and the decisions may stay with us for ten years.
A GL2 driver won't give any theoretical advantage over the current back ends optimized for cards with 7+ texture capability, but future research work will almost certainly be moving away from the lower level coding practices, and if some new vendor pops up (say, Rendition back from the dead) with a next-gen card, I would strongly urge them to implement GL2 instead of proprietary extensions."
John Carmac
Lead Programmer
ID Software
Final Thoughts
OpenGL 2.0 is still in its development stages, though 3Dlabs does offer some insight into the new features needed for this aging standards to maintain acceptance within the graphics marketplace. As noted earlier, the concepts and ideas presented here are only preliminary at best. The information gathered for this article was obtained through various discussion overviews published by 3DLabs and associated companies. It appears 3DLabs and other developers are steadily moving forward with development of a new and exciting OpenGL standard that strives to offer the best compatibility with sustained performance across the widest variety of hardware configurations available.
I can just see the new paths layed down in chalk in offices, so as to not walk in front of the network LoS. "Damn John, you walked right in front of my connection, now I gotta start this all over again"
Tsk Tsk, honestly, you think that makes you any better? I typed it up quickly, but I can see why you're mad, you have no intelligent thing to say, so you look for the obvious simple mistakes, and look past the point...wow, could you be a slashdot reader?
And others complain bout kernel news. We have it both, there is no loss in "focus". Mandrake is very important, and I think that as it develops more, and as long as it stays on track(and not follow the road RH is going).
Like I said, Foresight is important, and we need that. All those examples you gave(well, almost all) may have harmed some, but saved many. I may sound nieve, but you can't see ever advancement and expect the absolut worse. And to keep on topic, what exactly bad comes from predicting cancer and such faults pre-birth? I guess that leads to the question of "When is a human become a 'Human'", but if it can be found early, we can help prevent alot of suffering. I know some one with such bad downsydrome, that even his parents wish they hadn't brought him in the world, cause he only suffers. And about the space colonies and political break-up, I can't wait. We need something to spark a big enough change. Nothing can change in our current state, nothing of any true importance.
I know this may be over used, but this is slippery slope logic if I ever heard it. Every advancement in science doesn't lead to the extream. If we thought this, back when computers were first in development, we could have looked to movies about robots taking over the world, and stoped all computer advancement. Forsight is important, but assumtion is bad.
As much as I hate the 9/11 thing, I think the parent makes a very good point, and punctuates it with sarcasim. We should not all still be in shock and we should get on with life, and use this event as a lesson.
But to get back on topic, I think that a collapse would be much better. I think that would give it a better chance at reforming the universe(as we know it or not) then an everlasting expansion. But I may be wrong on my facts here, I'm only in high school physics. Ooops, my opinion was prolly just discarded there.
Slashdot Mirror
all that journal shows me is an attempt at making this a better place. Imagine tring to please everyone on /., that's a joke, I think he's doing a good job at attempting to balance it.
Let me get this strait, The gov. is making a list for the spam companies? I'm confused...
Just because they didn't click "I Agree" doesn't mean they don't have to follow the rules. It's like(I know people are going to beat this analogy with a stick) if you walk into a store, and your not suppose to steal, and if you don't tell then you agree with this policy, then they don't have the right(ot legaly) to steal. I think these "I Agree" things need to be looked at in context.
Heh, I realize this is how it came off sounding, but that is not quite what I ment. I was just wondering(not stating) if there was a possibility that there were more lately because of some larger scale pattern that has them peaking now. Just as, but on a smaller scale, global warming could just be a phase in the cycle patterns.
Is it just my growing awareness, or have there been more meteor showers over the past few years then there normaly is?
Someone actually put a geocities link in the article? So the first what? 10 people can see it?
oh and I must resist the obvious slow news day this article makes so clear.
Though this may be true, can't we take into account complexity of the circutry? I could make 70's tech level conponets quite reliably my self even, but with the increased complexity, reliability decreases. This is not an excuse, but just a possible reason to take into account. VCR and DVD players don't compare well because a VCR(I assume) is much easier to build then a DVD Player.
I must ask again for this, Why Bother? What is the significance? I'm not saying there isn't, but for my CPU time, I want to know the reason. And I also strongly agree with the Folding project
I would think that by now, you could show how many different projects have been very successfull with the Open Source model, and there hasn't been a problem of just any user doing what ever they want. Simply show the system in effect.
Some one modded me as redundant? ...um, I plead guilty? Isn't that the point?
....oops, hell, you get the point
As a linux desktop adovcate, I still hate WineX. It is difficult to get working, it depends on Wine libraries(I believe) and OpenGL is much more cross platform compatible. I have seen many companys begin to have linux support(including Valve with Neverwinter Nights ^.^)
Here's the article so we can ease up on the server:
Future Look: OpenGL 2.0 Preview by: Robert Richmond Preview Date: November 11, 2002
OpenGL has been a primary component of three dimensional rendering technology since its inception in 1991. OpenGL is implemented in a wide variety of applications, ranging from professional design software to multimedia presentations to interactive games. Currently available as version 1.4, OpenGL has proven to adapt with the evolution of graphics hardware, though it's age is becoming starkly apparent as compared to Microsoft's latest DirectX D3D technology. In hopes of revitalizing the decade old standard, 3Dlabs recently offers a new approach outlining the features of a possible OpenGL 2.0 revision. The concept of a proposal as compared to a standard needs to be clearly defined for the purposes of this preview article. The OpenGL 2.0 topicalities presented here are based upon a discussion text and early developmental engineering from 3Dlabs. Many vendors usually submit discussion texts and/or proposals during the OpenGL ratification process, then an appointed governing committee will analyze the various aspects of the given information before reaching an agreement about the final published standard. Since the OpenGL 2.0 development process is still in finalization stages, the information presented within this text will likely undergo multiple changes before a final OpenGL 2.0 specification is adopted for widespread industry use.
About 3Dlabs
3Dlabs has been a long-time contributor to the OpenGL community by providing advanced 3D hardware solutions to the professional marketplace. 3Dlabs graphics accelerators are commonly utilized for computer-aided design, multimedia development, and special effects rendering. 3Dlabs technology can also be found in many non-PC devices like military aircraft and personal cell phones. 3Dlabs is a wide market corporation with operations currently in Alabama, California, Massachusetts, Texas, Washington, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom.
OpenGL 1.x Limitations
The bulk of graphics development was centered on 2D rendering until 1997. The only areas of computing utilizing 3D technologies before this time were generally in the extremely high-end professional markets, such as CAD or virtual reality. The mid-90's release of desktop-oriented 3D accelerators like 3dfx's Voodoo or Rendition's Verite ushered in the concept of affordable 3D graphics for most mainstream PC users. Nearly a half decade later, desktop 3D video cards now include options like cube mapping, hardware transform/lighting, and programmable vertex/pixel shading. The OpenGL interface has evolved along with these new rendering features, but today's OGL 1.x does have substantial room for improvement as the next generation of video chipsets could finally outpace the capabilities of this venerable standard.
For example, the popular OpenGL 1.3 API suffers from several major limitations, especially in regards to extending the base programming interface to include additional rendering options. The base OGL 1.3 specification documentation is approximately 284 pages of programming conventions and theory, while nVidia's extension documentation needed to implement options like per-pixel shading is well over 500 pages in length. The concern over efficient programming is clearly apparent once one factors in proprietary extensions from other corporations like ATI, Matrox, STMicro, and the vast number of other companies currently offering OpenGL compliant drivers.
The age of OpenGL 1.x is the primary contributor to these limitations, as hardware has evolved at such a rapid pace over the past few years. System that were once considered to offer high performance only a couple of years ago are now entry-level configurations at best. The rapid development of hardware plays a significant role, as many manufacturers are adding OpenGL extensions without any real inter-corporate centralization in order to release products by usually grossly misrepresented retail availability deadlines.
Worst yet, it appears OpenGL is following nearly the same development paradigm as DirectX. DX7 was the last fixed-function D3D interface, with the current DX8 standard being devised around poorly coordinated implementations of programmable rendering options. DX8 offers v1.2 programmable options, while DX8.1 offers a slightly improved v1.4 programmable feature set. This development schedule can wreak havoc on developers and hardware engineers. For example, the GeForce-3 supports v1.2, but the Radeon 8500 supports v1.4. In can be expected that programmers will likely opt for the lowest common denominator when coding, thus it is suspect whether some of these staggered options will ever be included in software released in the near future. Only with the release of DirectX 9 does Microsoft plan to offer a hardware independent programmable interface.
Some developers have proposed extensions to OpenGL 1.x to add programmable rendering options including various extensions which may not be compatible with hardware from another manufacturer. Efforts are also being established to institute a generalized extension set for programmable shading, though these are still largely hardware dependant, thus they will not work with all OpenGL implementations. The goal of 3Dlabs' OpenGL 2.0 initiative is to create an uniform standard with a hardware independent shading language that functions with nearly all OpenGL compliant graphics accelerators.
OpenGL 2.0 Envisioned
3Dlabs hopes to address several key issues with its OpenGL 2.0 approach. OpenGL needs to evolve into an easier to code interface format with optimizations for memory management and timing control for increased performance potential. Another issue to be addressed is how to deploy generalized programmable shading routines which are hardware independent. The overall predominate concern is maintaining complete backwards compatibility with OGL 1.x standards while retaining the functionality of the new standard's advanced rendering options.
3Dlabs has received positive support from many facets of the graphics engineering community. Universities like Stanford are already hard at work on extended OpenGL rendering routines which support some of the v2.0 conventions. Most hardware manufacturers and software vendors are also expressing overwhelming support, as an improved OpenGL standard could lead to better graphics and performance with less development overheard and greater product turnaround times. Regardless of those involved, 3Dlabs is working towards a future OpenGL 2 interface without any imposed royalties or operating system limitations in hopes of establishing a wider market base.
OpenGL 2.0 Explained
The 3DLabs approach is to first extend software through utilization and public promotion of certain OpenGL 2 standards, then gradually move code towards a "pure" OpenGL 2.0 environment. However, unlike DirectX 8, all OpenGL rendering conventions should be available for those seeking a pure OGL implementation at release, instead of staggering the releases in various subset revisions. As stressed earlier, the ultimate final goal is to reach a streamlined programming interface which offers hardware independency.
Each of the programmable processor pipelines (software and/or hardware) essentially eliminate and/or replace a significant portion of current OpenGL conventions. The programmable vertex processor replaces the current options for transform, lighting, normalization, texture coordinate generation, and fog rendering. The fragment processor replaces the current operations for smooth shading, texture access, texture application, alpha testing, and pixel transfers. The pack/unpack processor included capabilities for flexible pixel formatting during memory move operations to create a coherent and consistent stream of pixel data to the rendering pipeline. The clear benefits of these programmable options are increased performance and image quality by removing the dependence upon fixed functions of static T&L pipeline routines. The associated rendering conventions for each of these advanced routines are unified through a comprehensive C-based programming language with special detail added for vector and matrix processing operations.
3Dlabs also implements a new data buffer mechanism to be utilized for enhancement of the programmable rendering interface. The buffer is used to enable multiple-pass fragment programs with full stream processing support. Usage examples include multiple outputs from a single fragment routine, intermediate result storage, multi-spectral imaging, and acceleration of back-end rendering by reducing the time needed for read-back of floating-point images by the host bus. Additionally, the buffer space is accessible through either spatial or FIFO memory operations.
Today's OpenGL 1.x provides no real direct control over when or where objects are stored or deleted within the memory address range. OGL 1.x also provides no direct control over memory copies or address fragmentation. 3Dlabs plans to implement a new management routine to allow for improved timing control over memory operations. The OGL 2.0 proposal sets policies and priorities for all datasets with timing estimates provided for each task. Additionally, all pinned policy operations allow the application to control memory store/delete and packing operations.
John Carmac's Opinion
"Given the good first impression, I was willing to go ahead and write a new back end that would let the card do the entire Doom interaction rendering in a single pass. The most expedient sounding option was to just use the Nvidia extensions that they implement, NV_vertex_program and NV_register_combiners, with seven texture units instead of the four available on GF3/GF4. Instead, I decided to try using the prototype OpenGL 2.0 extensions they provide.
The implementation went very smoothly, but I did run into the limits of their current prototype compiler before the full feature set could be implemented. I like it a lot. I am really looking forward to doing research work with this programming model after the compiler matures a bit. While the shading languages are the most critical aspects, and can be broken out as extensions to current OpenGL, there are a lot of other subtle-but-important things that are addressed in the full OpenGL 2.0 proposal.
I am now committed to supporting an OpenGL 2.0 renderer for Doom through all the spec evolutions. If anything, I have been somewhat remiss in not pushing the issues as hard as I could with all the vendors. Now really is the critical time to start nailing things down, and the decisions may stay with us for ten years.
A GL2 driver won't give any theoretical advantage over the current back ends optimized for cards with 7+ texture capability, but future research work will almost certainly be moving away from the lower level coding practices, and if some new vendor pops up (say, Rendition back from the dead) with a next-gen card, I would strongly urge them to implement GL2 instead of proprietary extensions."
John Carmac Lead Programmer ID Software
Final Thoughts
OpenGL 2.0 is still in its development stages, though 3Dlabs does offer some insight into the new features needed for this aging standards to maintain acceptance within the graphics marketplace. As noted earlier, the concepts and ideas presented here are only preliminary at best. The information gathered for this article was obtained through various discussion overviews published by 3DLabs and associated companies. It appears 3DLabs and other developers are steadily moving forward with development of a new and exciting OpenGL standard that strives to offer the best compatibility with sustained performance across the widest variety of hardware configurations available.
*cries* First my friend's video card is better then my P200, and now this?
This brings a whole new definition to the term "War Chalking"
I can just see the new paths layed down in chalk in offices, so as to not walk in front of the network LoS.
"Damn John, you walked right in front of my connection, now I gotta start this all over again"
Any votes as to when these "The terrorists have won when" jokes die out?
And please, don't say, "The terrorist have won when these jokes die"
Tsk Tsk, honestly, you think that makes you any better? I typed it up quickly, but I can see why you're mad, you have no intelligent thing to say, so you look for the obvious simple mistakes, and look past the point...wow, could you be a slashdot reader?
Why is every good point a karma whore? Your the one wasting the bandwidth on slashdot.
And others complain bout kernel news. We have it both, there is no loss in "focus". Mandrake is very important, and I think that as it develops more, and as long as it stays on track(and not follow the road RH is going).
I have been using this for a while, and I have seen no sign of it being a trojen it self.
Like I said, Foresight is important, and we need that. All those examples you gave(well, almost all) may have harmed some, but saved many. I may sound nieve, but you can't see ever advancement and expect the absolut worse. And to keep on topic, what exactly bad comes from predicting cancer and such faults pre-birth? I guess that leads to the question of "When is a human become a 'Human'", but if it can be found early, we can help prevent alot of suffering. I know some one with such bad downsydrome, that even his parents wish they hadn't brought him in the world, cause he only suffers.
And about the space colonies and political break-up, I can't wait. We need something to spark a big enough change. Nothing can change in our current state, nothing of any true importance.
Mod Parent up 3/Insightful, I agree, this is a very good point that has been little brought up.
I know this may be over used, but this is slippery slope logic if I ever heard it. Every advancement in science doesn't lead to the extream. If we thought this, back when computers were first in development, we could have looked to movies about robots taking over the world, and stoped all computer advancement. Forsight is important, but assumtion is bad.
As much as I hate the 9/11 thing, I think the parent makes a very good point, and punctuates it with sarcasim. We should not all still be in shock and we should get on with life, and use this event as a lesson. But to get back on topic, I think that a collapse would be much better. I think that would give it a better chance at reforming the universe(as we know it or not) then an everlasting expansion. But I may be wrong on my facts here, I'm only in high school physics. Ooops, my opinion was prolly just discarded there.