The second email seems to be from a bipolar or schizophrenic woman who is having severe delusions.
I know because a relative of mine who has been diagnosed as bipolar has had similar delusions.
Instead of posting the email and laughing at this poor woman, why don't you try to get her help?
The IOC has little choice but to accept the national passports as sufficient proof of their age.
Agreed. But when proof surfaces of the deceit, the IOC has a responsibility to act appropriately. Just like they strip medals after doping is exposed. And proof has surfaced.
Of course ray tracing, or one of its decendants, like photon mapping, will end up dominant. The question is when. Ray tracing is used now for rendering movies like Cars, which are probably pretty much state of the art for computer graphics, and would be used for things like PC games except that is so computationally expensive.
As to when rasterization will be replaced, the short answer is not any time soon. The article's title is misleading. It says "Intel: Rasterisation will be replaced in five years", while Intel's ray tracing guru Daniel Pohl actually says "Looking ahead five to ten years from now, I believe that rasterisation will be used less and less in games". Big difference there.
So, I think this will progress quickly, but we won't be getting rid of rasterization any time soon.
In terms of your other assertion, that trademark allows absolute control of images like the Olympic rings, that is not true. US trademark law has a provision called the fair use defense, where trademarks can be used to criticize or analyze. This doctrine allows this video to be posted on YouTube though it contains many of Disney's trademarks and copyrights.
The researchers developed an analytical model for designing tiny compressors that pump refrigerants using penny-sized diaphragms. This model has been validated with experimental data.
Translation:
This is completely impractical hype so far. We are looking for grant and startup money.
What facts do you have to support your opinion that "very, very few people will pay new-car prices for a car that will go 150 miles then require a 3-hour recharge."?
Because I would buy a car like that in a heartbeat.
The average US commute is only 32 miles per day. People don't need a 500 mile range to commute to work everyday.
Here is an online petition with 1755 signatures wanting Mitsubishi to bring the i-MiEV to America, which gets 100 miles per charge and will sell for approximately $24,000.
Here is an article from NPR in which the president of Nissan says "Today, there is latent consumer demand, but no offer."
As gas prices continue to increase, there is plenty of demand for an affordable electric car. Just no one supplying them.
According to Wikipedia, Cobasys and ECD Ovonics hold 125 patents for battery technology, particularly NiMH battery technology. They produced the batteries that powered the ill fated EV1. In 2001, Texaco (now Chevron) bought Cobasys. Since then, they have refused to sell automotive batteries or license the technology to smaller players. Since the big players were not interested in electric cars (perhaps because of influence from Big Oil), this effectively killed electric cars.
They have also actively used their patents to prevent others from selling NiMH batteries for automotive purposes in the US. In 2001, same year as they were bought by Texaco, they sued Panasonic EV Energy for patent infringement. The results were that Panasonic is restricted from selling commercial quantities of some batteries in the North American market until 2010.
This seems silly. If you create more compute power, someone will think of ways to use it.
Web applications are becoming more AJAX'y all the time, and they are not sequential at all. Watching a video while another tab checks my Gmail is a parallel task. All indications are that people want to consume more and more media on their computers. Things like the MLB mosaic allow you to watch four games at once.
Have you ever listened to a song through your computer while coding, running an email program, and running an instant messaging program? There are four highly parallelizable tasks right there. Not compute intensive enough for you? Imagine the song compressed with a new codec that is twice as efficient in terms of size but twice as compute intensive. Imagine the email program indexing your email for efficient search, running algorithms to assess the email's importance to you, and virus checking new deliveries. Imagine your code editor doing on the fly analysis of what you are coding, and making suggestions.
"Normal" users are doing more and more with computers as well. Now that fast computers are cheap, people who never edited video or photos are doing it. If you want a significant market besides gamers who need more cores, it is people making videos, especially HD videos. Sure, my Grandmother isn't going to be doing this, but I do, and I'm sure my children will do it even more.
And don't forget about virus writers. They need a few cores to run on as well!
Computer power keeps its steady progress higher, and we keep finding interesting things to do with it all. I don't see that stopping, so I don't see a limit to the number of cores people will need.
There has not yet been a plateau in how fast and how distant we want to communicate with each other, so there probably won't be a plateau in bandwidth demand. Communication started with speech in person (which wasn't very fast or could reach many people), and then moved to paper and ponies (as in the pony express, which could at least reach a larger audience), visual with signal towers (starting to speed up), telegraph, telephone, radio, TV, satellites, the internet...the pipe keeps expanding. It may never stop, because what we want to say to each other will keep getting more and more complex.
Sure, our communication speed might plateau for a time: for a long time TV was limited to NTSC and PAL sizes, but unlike people's appetite for water (which is pretty much fixed, as there is only so much you can drink or shower in it), people's appetite to communicate is unbounded.
If this somehow managed to become law, I wonder how much of enormous fines actually end up in the hands of artists? My guess is less than $15 per album. The rest are expenses, after all.
Text messaging costs the average user $.10 per message, and generates $50 billion in revenue for the phone companies. This is for a service that takes virtually no network or system resources to support, and should be free.
If Google can create an open platform and include great services like GMail, the SMS scam will die. Google stands to become very successful, just from this.
NBC Universal chief executive Jeff Zucker on Sunday urged colleagues to take a stand against Apple's iTunes, charging that the digital download service was undermining the ability of traditional media companies to set profitable rates for their content online.
To be fair to traditional media companies, blow and hookers cost a lot of money.
The media companies love standards when it suits them, such as when it limits the technology companies power (as in music DRM or content filtering). However, when the standards become, well, too standard, they want their own proprietary formats. NBC pulls out of ITunes because they didn't like the standard pricing. Sony tweaks its DVD's because it doesn't like the standard DRM (and I rented a coaster from Blockbuster recently, thanks Sony).
Viacom says "we believe in following the consumers". The real quote was "We believe in following the consumers as long as it pleases us. Otherwise fuck the consumers."
It's been a long time since I flew a rocket, but given how the thing took off I wonder if they didn't have trouble getting all the engines to burn the same. Multi engine rockets are really difficult to fly. Getting all the motors to ignite 0at the same time and burn with the same force is very tricky.
I'm sure Apple did research on the capacity for the new models. I'm sure is not as simple as adding a few chips, because there are probably considerable space restraints. Plus, Apple has to keep its product line sane. It can't put more memory in the Nano than the IPhone or the Touch. Finally, Apple likes to give itself room to roll out new, higher capacity products later. And the higher capacity rollout will definitely happen for the IPhone and Touch first.
I'm also sure that Apple did market research on adding video to the Nano. I personally think it is a great move for Apple. It means that everything with a screen has the same capabilities...can view movies, tv shows, and play the same games. It makes it simpler for the consumer as well. As long as they have a screen, they will be able to buy all the content on the ITunes store.
Now, clearly, it will disappoint some current users, who liked the form factor. But ultimately I think it will convert more people than it alienates.
Why would Apple offer recording services to musicians? They are about technology, not replicating the RIAA's failed business model. They already sell software to record music.
My guess is battry life and size are the reasons for sticking with flash.
The reason Apple decided to stick with flash memory is that battery life and size are very important in the phone market, and Apple wanted to re-engineer as little as possible for the ITouch.
From the company that is actually producing the technology, they list the technology as only having sub-second switching speed. That is not fast enough for monitors. Also, they only target the technology for large billboards or other outdoor displays, where the content is more static, and switching time might not be as critical.
The truth often does piss people off. From the article:
After benchmarking other companies, Clarian, which had already been encouraging employees to join smoking cessation programs and take health risk tests, decided charging employees was more "transparent." Other companies "were providing what they called incentives through credits or discounts toward health premiums," says Wantz. "What we found was what those employers were doing, many times, was raising their premiums and discounting them back."
I can't fault a company for being transparent. Even if it is news I don't like.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there is also the risk of cancer, but hey.
The second email seems to be from a bipolar or schizophrenic woman who is having severe delusions. I know because a relative of mine who has been diagnosed as bipolar has had similar delusions.
Instead of posting the email and laughing at this poor woman, why don't you try to get her help?
Agreed. But when proof surfaces of the deceit, the IOC has a responsibility to act appropriately. Just like they strip medals after doping is exposed. And proof has surfaced.
Of course ray tracing, or one of its decendants, like photon mapping, will end up dominant. The question is when. Ray tracing is used now for rendering movies like Cars, which are probably pretty much state of the art for computer graphics, and would be used for things like PC games except that is so computationally expensive.
As to when rasterization will be replaced, the short answer is not any time soon. The article's title is misleading. It says "Intel: Rasterisation will be replaced in five years", while Intel's ray tracing guru Daniel Pohl actually says "Looking ahead five to ten years from now, I believe that rasterisation will be used less and less in games". Big difference there.
So, I think this will progress quickly, but we won't be getting rid of rasterization any time soon.
IANAL....
From Nolo, slander is spoken defamation, while libel is written (or broadcast) defamation.
Faldwell sued for libel, not slander.
Faldwell didn't win on the libel charge, but did win $150,000 for emotional distress.
Larry Flynt took the case to the Supreme Court and won. The court ruled that the parody was protected speech under the first amendment.
In terms of your other assertion, that trademark allows absolute control of images like the Olympic rings, that is not true. US trademark law has a provision called the fair use defense, where trademarks can be used to criticize or analyze. This doctrine allows this video to be posted on YouTube though it contains many of Disney's trademarks and copyrights.
Translation:
This is completely impractical hype so far. We are looking for grant and startup money.
What facts do you have to support your opinion that "very, very few people will pay new-car prices for a car that will go 150 miles then require a 3-hour recharge."?
Because I would buy a car like that in a heartbeat.
The average US commute is only 32 miles per day. People don't need a 500 mile range to commute to work everyday.
Here is an online petition with 1755 signatures wanting Mitsubishi to bring the i-MiEV to America, which gets 100 miles per charge and will sell for approximately $24,000.
Here is an article from NPR in which the president of Nissan says "Today, there is latent consumer demand, but no offer."
As gas prices continue to increase, there is plenty of demand for an affordable electric car. Just no one supplying them.
I can give you 125 examples.
According to Wikipedia, Cobasys and ECD Ovonics hold 125 patents for battery technology, particularly NiMH battery technology. They produced the batteries that powered the ill fated EV1. In 2001, Texaco (now Chevron) bought Cobasys. Since then, they have refused to sell automotive batteries or license the technology to smaller players. Since the big players were not interested in electric cars (perhaps because of influence from Big Oil), this effectively killed electric cars.
They have also actively used their patents to prevent others from selling NiMH batteries for automotive purposes in the US. In 2001, same year as they were bought by Texaco, they sued Panasonic EV Energy for patent infringement. The results were that Panasonic is restricted from selling commercial quantities of some batteries in the North American market until 2010.
You are absolutely correct. There are no promising technologies that will improve music compression.
This seems silly. If you create more compute power, someone will think of ways to use it.
Web applications are becoming more AJAX'y all the time, and they are not sequential at all. Watching a video while another tab checks my Gmail is a parallel task. All indications are that people want to consume more and more media on their computers. Things like the MLB mosaic allow you to watch four games at once.
Have you ever listened to a song through your computer while coding, running an email program, and running an instant messaging program? There are four highly parallelizable tasks right there. Not compute intensive enough for you? Imagine the song compressed with a new codec that is twice as efficient in terms of size but twice as compute intensive. Imagine the email program indexing your email for efficient search, running algorithms to assess the email's importance to you, and virus checking new deliveries. Imagine your code editor doing on the fly analysis of what you are coding, and making suggestions.
"Normal" users are doing more and more with computers as well. Now that fast computers are cheap, people who never edited video or photos are doing it. If you want a significant market besides gamers who need more cores, it is people making videos, especially HD videos. Sure, my Grandmother isn't going to be doing this, but I do, and I'm sure my children will do it even more.
And don't forget about virus writers. They need a few cores to run on as well!
Computer power keeps its steady progress higher, and we keep finding interesting things to do with it all. I don't see that stopping, so I don't see a limit to the number of cores people will need.
There has not yet been a plateau in how fast and how distant we want to communicate with each other, so there probably won't be a plateau in bandwidth demand. Communication started with speech in person (which wasn't very fast or could reach many people), and then moved to paper and ponies (as in the pony express, which could at least reach a larger audience), visual with signal towers (starting to speed up), telegraph, telephone, radio, TV, satellites, the internet...the pipe keeps expanding. It may never stop, because what we want to say to each other will keep getting more and more complex.
Sure, our communication speed might plateau for a time: for a long time TV was limited to NTSC and PAL sizes, but unlike people's appetite for water (which is pretty much fixed, as there is only so much you can drink or shower in it), people's appetite to communicate is unbounded.
You can't understand this because you don't have them, but kids are worth more than any amount of money.
If this somehow managed to become law, I wonder how much of enormous fines actually end up in the hands of artists? My guess is less than $15 per album. The rest are expenses, after all.
You totally stole my joke.
Text messaging costs the average user $.10 per message, and generates $50 billion in revenue for the phone companies. This is for a service that takes virtually no network or system resources to support, and should be free.
If Google can create an open platform and include great services like GMail, the SMS scam will die. Google stands to become very successful, just from this.
The media companies love standards when it suits them, such as when it limits the technology companies power (as in music DRM or content filtering). However, when the standards become, well, too standard, they want their own proprietary formats. NBC pulls out of ITunes because they didn't like the standard pricing. Sony tweaks its DVD's because it doesn't like the standard DRM (and I rented a coaster from Blockbuster recently, thanks Sony).
Viacom says "we believe in following the consumers". The real quote was "We believe in following the consumers as long as it pleases us. Otherwise fuck the consumers."
It's been a long time since I flew a rocket, but given how the thing took off I wonder if they didn't have trouble getting all the engines to burn the same. Multi engine rockets are really difficult to fly. Getting all the motors to ignite 0at the same time and burn with the same force is very tricky.
I'm sure Apple did research on the capacity for the new models. I'm sure is not as simple as adding a few chips, because there are probably considerable space restraints. Plus, Apple has to keep its product line sane. It can't put more memory in the Nano than the IPhone or the Touch. Finally, Apple likes to give itself room to roll out new, higher capacity products later. And the higher capacity rollout will definitely happen for the IPhone and Touch first.
I'm also sure that Apple did market research on adding video to the Nano. I personally think it is a great move for Apple. It means that everything with a screen has the same capabilities...can view movies, tv shows, and play the same games. It makes it simpler for the consumer as well. As long as they have a screen, they will be able to buy all the content on the ITunes store.
Now, clearly, it will disappoint some current users, who liked the form factor. But ultimately I think it will convert more people than it alienates.
Why would Apple offer recording services to musicians? They are about technology, not replicating the RIAA's failed business model. They already sell software to record music.
From the company that is actually producing the technology, they list the technology as only having sub-second switching speed. That is not fast enough for monitors. Also, they only target the technology for large billboards or other outdoor displays, where the content is more static, and switching time might not be as critical.