Exactly. I don't know how they can use particles as a benchmark for the effectiveness/speed of a "physics" engine.
A proper rigid-body dynamics engine includes multiple joint types from revolute (hinge) joints to ball-and-socket joints to universal joints etc. Also a collision detection engine with correct collision responses including friction.
Most importantly, it should be stable. That is, if you attach a small low-mass body to a large high-mass body and run the simulation then the two should not suddenly unprovokingly tear appart and fly in various directions.
I would only be impressed if the physics demo contained something like hundreds of rag-doll characters (with hands and feet), where real physical calculations need to be performed between each joint-connected body and the collisions. It is also important to ensure that the calculations are performed correctly, not simply approximated for speed to make your benchmark look nice for the marketing people. Kind of like a "browerser Acid test" but for physics engines would be nice, so that you know they're not cheating with the physics engine.
You do realise that Asimov's Laws are actually purposfully flawed to make for interesting novels? You'd have to switch law 1 and 2 to make robots safe. In addition, law 2 must be the primary law in the novels anyway, since the three laws of robotics are themselves given by humans, rendering Asimov's three laws of robotics a paradox, and making for fun reading.
Anyone who has knows a bit about computer graphics will suspect this is a joke from the heading itself, and then when you look at the ray-traced image comparison all doubt is removed (especially because it seems to use global illumination). I was just upset they didn't spend more time on it. The joke could've been much better, showing realistic-looking specs, small rendering times etc.
I'd mod parent underrated, but as usual, i don't have mod points when I need them. I completelly agree with you. It is absolutely mind boggling to me why they don't implement anti-aliasing in presentations, which doesn't "impress" me in the slightest. It is if they are specifically trying to make their presentations look bad. Until they implement this, I won't even consider downloading it. From time to time, I may glance over the new features to see if it will one day be implemented.
God damn you for the headline "Scientists Create Room Temperature Superconductor". I almost fell of my chair in excitment. Then my climax was rapidly stolen when I read that it required high pressures. Next time, try to replace typical news sensationalistic headlines with pertinant headlines. In this case "Scientists Create Room Temperature but High Pressure Superconductor".
So a dog follows authority blindly whereas a cat will do whatever it feels like doing and still gets its way. Who's the smarter one?
Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because a cat doesn't do what it is told, then it is being a rebel against authority, and choosing its own way after deciding that the way taught by its masters isn't appealing to it. Cat's aren't intelligent beings of the likes of Will Hunting. Compared to dogs, they are just animals with simpler and smaller brains without the capacity to learn like dogs do. They don't decide to do what they want, they do what they want because they're incapable of assimilating instruction.
Also dogs don't follow authority blindly. If you mistreat it, then it will run away.
LOL, cats intelligent and dogs dumb? Cats crawl around scratching your blinds and carpet, and walk all over and sleep whatever they want. You can train a dog, but cats are too dumb to respond to any useful training other than knowing where its cat bowl is. When was the last time you saw a cat walking in the park next to its master, or rounding up a heard of sheep, or allowing blind people to safely cross the road, or sniffing drugs out at an airport? etc.
I'm pretty sure the difference in JavaScript performance of internet explorer 7 between Linux and windows is even greater.
These benchmarks are definitely lal done on a windows box, because if you compare the performance of JS in Firefox on Linux and Windows it is like night and day... I don't know why JS on Linux needs to be so much worse.
Actually, this is a very interesting point which I haven't considered before. Does releasing carbon dioxide into the air (via coal power stations, volcanoes etc) result in a loss of earth angular velocity to maintain angular momentum?
While the parent is joking, I do wonder how much angular velocity the Earth would lose if we switched an entire country (or say the entire world) lights to being powered by such devices. Eventually the earth would stop spinning.. Has the inventor taken this into account? Perhaps he'll be to blame for the end of world!
Not that I'm into that sort of crap, but isn't that power cord supposed to be used between a power stabilizer and the appliance? In which case it would make a difference, I guess.
If I had my time again I would be chasing girls instead of listening to the dm talk about how "after your party enters a bar and sits down for a drink you hear one of the clients talking about a tressure deep within an abandoned castle". Holy crap, what a waste of time, and I only realised this after getting layed.
I was interested in this, but it turns out nowhere in my entire continent of Australasia is eligible.:( From the Channel 8 website: For once, something that sounds too good to be true really is this good and really is true.
LIES!./ posters don't HAVE girlfriends! I dunno...my sister has religious paraphenalia that needs electricity. I know because when I am in another room, I can hear a buzzing sound in the bedroom and her chanting, "oh, god. oh, god! ohhhhh, gooood!"
Nobody who hosted the Olympics ever turned out to be bad. Am I right folks? Am I right? 1936 Berlin Olympics. Just playing the devil's advocate (devil in this case isn't China, i think you can guess who is).
I'm getting into semantics? I'm not the one claiming to be able to "simulate a mammalian brain." I'm talking about sematics of the world "simulation". Here, let me help you: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics. Ok, now that you know what it means, please read my previous post again about how simulation of the brain means different things at different levels of abstraction. If you still do not understand, then perhaps you've never looked at the mind-body problem. If you still don't understand after that, then sir/madam, I cannot help you.
If anyone is engaged in hand-waving here, it's those who ignore the hard distinction between "simulating a mammalian brain" and "simulating a lump of neurons connected to each other in the ways such neurons might initially be connected in brains." The former requires (at a minimum) the things I mention. The latter may be possible (and may even be useful), but it is by no means simulating a brain. Now you're getting into semantics. If everything you mentioned previously is simulated, then a chemist can come and say "where are the individual molecular interactions?", and if that is simulated one day then a physicist could say "where is the tunneling?" etc.
The problem with research scientists is that many of them believe their level of abstraction is the most important. The point of a simulation is to only simulate those parts that you need for the project. For example, reinforcement learning in the field of artificial intelligence simulates the way a human brain works, in its own level of abstraction, without any ion channels or neurons.
Stating broad issues that need to be addressed for a simulation to fit into your own level of abstraction, if it differs from the project, isn't an insight that is productive to the current research at hand.
Great. How long will it take to produce good models of sensory input, feedback loops concerning regulation of autonomic systems, and all the rest? Or has no one even begun seriously to work on such things? In any case, add the years necessary to sort that out to your confident predictions. The idea is not to simulate a living organism, or even an entire nervous system, but to learn more about how the brain works. Download the papers and have a look before dismissing it with the wave of your hand.
Slashdot Mirror
and give weapons to the terrorists to fight Russia in the Soviet-Afghan War.
Yep I use 64% (by volume) isopropyl, but from what you've said I might dilute it some more :P
Exactly. I don't know how they can use particles as a benchmark for the effectiveness/speed of a "physics" engine.
A proper rigid-body dynamics engine includes multiple joint types from revolute (hinge) joints to ball-and-socket joints to universal joints etc. Also a collision detection engine with correct collision responses including friction.
Most importantly, it should be stable. That is, if you attach a small low-mass body to a large high-mass body and run the simulation then the two should not suddenly unprovokingly tear appart and fly in various directions.
I would only be impressed if the physics demo contained something like hundreds of rag-doll characters (with hands and feet), where real physical calculations need to be performed between each joint-connected body and the collisions. It is also important to ensure that the calculations are performed correctly, not simply approximated for speed to make your benchmark look nice for the marketing people. Kind of like a "browerser Acid test" but for physics engines would be nice, so that you know they're not cheating with the physics engine.
Just a particle system is a joke.
I have a gloss screen and I use isopropyl alcohol to clean it. No problems.
You do realise that Asimov's Laws are actually purposfully flawed to make for interesting novels? You'd have to switch law 1 and 2 to make robots safe. In addition, law 2 must be the primary law in the novels anyway, since the three laws of robotics are themselves given by humans, rendering Asimov's three laws of robotics a paradox, and making for fun reading.
Anyone who has knows a bit about computer graphics will suspect this is a joke from the heading itself, and then when you look at the ray-traced image comparison all doubt is removed (especially because it seems to use global illumination). I was just upset they didn't spend more time on it. The joke could've been much better, showing realistic-looking specs, small rendering times etc.
I'd mod parent underrated, but as usual, i don't have mod points when I need them.
I completelly agree with you. It is absolutely mind boggling to me why they don't implement anti-aliasing in presentations, which doesn't "impress" me in the slightest. It is if they are specifically trying to make their presentations look bad. Until they implement this, I won't even consider downloading it. From time to time, I may glance over the new features to see if it will one day be implemented.
If bli33ard owned Hoover then they would sue Roomba.
God damn you for the headline "Scientists Create Room Temperature Superconductor". I almost fell of my chair in excitment. Then my climax was rapidly stolen when I read that it required high pressures. Next time, try to replace typical news sensationalistic headlines with pertinant headlines. In this case "Scientists Create Room Temperature but High Pressure Superconductor".
A US government program is in the works to design small nuclear reactors for use by their international military deployments.
So a dog follows authority blindly whereas a cat will do whatever it feels like doing and still gets its way. Who's the smarter one?
Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because a cat doesn't do what it is told, then it is being a rebel against authority, and choosing its own way after deciding that the way taught by its masters isn't appealing to it. Cat's aren't intelligent beings of the likes of Will Hunting. Compared to dogs, they are just animals with simpler and smaller brains without the capacity to learn like dogs do. They don't decide to do what they want, they do what they want because they're incapable of assimilating instruction.
Also dogs don't follow authority blindly. If you mistreat it, then it will run away.
LOL, cats intelligent and dogs dumb? Cats crawl around scratching your blinds and carpet, and walk all over and sleep whatever they want. You can train a dog, but cats are too dumb to respond to any useful training other than knowing where its cat bowl is. When was the last time you saw a cat walking in the park next to its master, or rounding up a heard of sheep, or allowing blind people to safely cross the road, or sniffing drugs out at an airport? etc.
Cats Suck
Dogs Rock
Not that I'm into that sort of crap, but isn't that power cord supposed to be used between a power stabilizer and the appliance? In which case it would make a difference, I guess.
of the wireless power, you can download the paper here: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0611063.
If I had my time again I would be chasing girls instead of listening to the dm talk about how "after your party enters a bar and sits down for a drink you hear one of the clients talking about a tressure deep within an abandoned castle". Holy crap, what a waste of time, and I only realised this after getting layed.
For once, something that sounds too good to be true really is this good and really is true.
Looks like for Aussies it is too good to be true.
Obligatory fix.
This could backfire when they say "cool i'll give linux a go aswell, and if i have any problems i know who to call ;)".
The problem with research scientists is that many of them believe their level of abstraction is the most important. The point of a simulation is to only simulate those parts that you need for the project. For example, reinforcement learning in the field of artificial intelligence simulates the way a human brain works, in its own level of abstraction, without any ion channels or neurons.
Stating broad issues that need to be addressed for a simulation to fit into your own level of abstraction, if it differs from the project, isn't an insight that is productive to the current research at hand.