I thought Reloaded completely bit when I first saw it, but I've liked it more and more with each additional viewing. I now hold it in higher regard than the original. I'm fairly sure the same thing will happen with Revolutions, at least for myself.
Raytracing is *the* elegant solution. Rasterisers use smoke and mirrors to achieve the same effects. Often those tricks are not flawless -- for example, you often see a smoke or explosion texture intersecting with nearby walls, creating an ugly edge. This is not the kind of thing I would want to see in a production movie, but in a game, it's not so rough.
I said function, not program. If the words are already in an array, that's much of the trouble already out of the way. If you want to do as I indicated, then you either need to write your own string-splitting function, or use a strsep(3) loop. Much of the work is in memory allocation, which Perl takes care of. However, I now realise 100 lines was an overstatement. Reduce it to 25 -- still, that's 25 times as many lines as the Perl script.
Of course, PERL and friends, being associated with the academic and UNIX communities, don't have quite the same aroma to them.
True, but Perl is hardly the Unix analogue to Visual Basic. Visual Basic is very easy to learn and use, so "VB Jedi" doesn't have much weight. VB exists to make complete applications rapidly. On the other hand, Perl's strength is in text processing.
A function to reverse the order of the words in a sentence is a single line of Perl, but could be a hundred lines of C or VB.
A program to display a form with two text boxes, and display the sum of the numbers in those two boxes, would take seconds to write in VB, but hours in Perl or C.
A program to perform a numerical simulation would take about the same time to write in all three, but the Perl script would run considerably slower than the C or VB program.
I do believe Borland Delphi has a considerable edge over Visual Basic. No runtime libraries, and the language (Object Pascal) is as featureful as C++. To remain topical, I don't think there's any reason to ever use Java, save programmer-masochism.
No, the grandparent is right. X sucks. It was useful when computers were expensive. This is no longer the case. Now it is just crippling things.
I really, really wish graphics code was in the kernel. Sending everything through a pipe is not as efficient as you suggest. The pipe itself may be fast, but everything needs to be encoded and decoded.
Consider an example like "draw a line."
Currently, the client must call a function in the X client library, which then encodes this into a message and uses a select loop to write the message to a pipe. This is not one, but many syscalls. The kernel must allocate buffer space to handle this specific pipe. Then, the server receives this command from its select loop, decodes it, and executes it.
In my model, the client executes a syscall with a pointer to the data. The kernel then executes the draw operation, possibly inside the interrupt handler. This is easily a hundred times faster than the above model, uses less memory, does far less needless work, and is far more simple and elegant, with the only drawback being a lack of network transparency -- which could easily be added with a userland client and server.
The performance increase is even greater for a command like "draw a bitmap."
Currently, the bitmap is being fragmented and sent through multiple syscalls which then makes four copies of it: from client into send buffer, from send buffer into receive buffer, from receive buffer into server, and from server into video memory.
Chances are, the server has an extra buffer because it cannot handle the data until it is complete. So that's another copy.
With the graphics in the kernel, the bitmap is copied ONCE: from the client directly into video memory, from the single syscall.
Have you tried amphetamines? Your doctor probably gave you Ritalin as a light drug or test. If it isn't working you ought to indicate this.
You would probably have better luck with them dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine), and if that also does not work, dextromethamphetamine (Desoxyn.) To my knowledge ritalin is ineffective for narcolepsy, but ianad.
You are missing a crucial point, and without ADD, this is very hard to understand. Let me try to explain:
Imagine one day you woke up, and found you could no longer walk. Well, that's not exactly true. You COULD walk, but you had to manually move each leg to its exact destination, and concentrate fully on the task.
Now imagine instead of walking, this was applied to thinking. I love programming, but pre-medication I spent thousands of hours in front of my computer thinking "Well, I should be programming. Gotta have this done by tomorrow. Sure would be nice to do some coding, make some money. Fuck, why the fuck aren't I doing it?"
These are things I wanted to do, enjoyed doing, was being paid for, etc etc. There was no reason to not do them, and yet I didn't. I just sat there and stared at the wall, thinking about how I should be doing it, should get started on it. It was like each brain cell was off doing its own thing, and mustering up the strength to align them all was an overwhelmingly daunting task.
Usually once I did get going, I could pull off lengthy binges (upwards of 36 hours.)
School was far worse, because I had the same condition, but absolutely no motivation to do the work either. I eventually dropped out of high school when I was 15 (and am now happily employed in perhaps the most saturated job sectors on the planet, imagine that.)
I feel many people cannot even fathom what this is like. There is some sort of "get started" process which was completely inoperable. I stopped discussing it with others after hearing all the bullshit suggestions people had to offer.
My favourite was "You need to learn to focus." Right, and you just need to learn to think up sixteen-digit primes.
FUD. The health-related side-effects of Ritalin and friends are said to be clinically significant but statistically insignificant -- that is, they will have a measurable effect (a few extra BPM), but that effect has a statistically negligible effect on physical health.
It is only addictive if it is abused. If you are taking it or any drug and start to feel dependent, tell your doctor.
Maybe so, but you can look at a specific set of symptoms and categorise them. What you're saying is akin to "There's no such thing as cancer, only tumors growing out of control!"
See, you give a specific set of symptoms a name so as to distinguish it from others. Is it so hard to believe there is a set of people who exhibit the same symptoms and respond the same way to the same medications?
A truly amazing fact, is the response to nervous system stimulants among individuals diagnosed with ADHD. When a "normal" individual takes such drugs, they tend to become very hyperactive, whereas the inverse is observed among ADHD patients: stimulants slow them down.
Also, there is a characteristic imbalance of serotonin and dopamine. The result is depression, often severe, with no response to SSRIs and other such anti-depressants, because an SSRI works to block the reuptake of serotonin -- but in the case of an ADHD patient, there is less serotonin to begin with.
Re:Please be respectful on this topic
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
The drug you are most likely thinking of is Atomoxetine, aka "Strattera".
Personally I will probably continue taking amphetamines. Most of the side effects are desirable, for instance, heightened confidence, heightened alertness, more rigid sleep schedule, deeper sleep, vivid dreams, heightened awareness, heightened response to various stimulation such as music/movies/etc, among others.
This is not likely to do much, unless it is an oscillating field. If I'm not mistaken, an AC electromagnet will do this.
Consider that data is recovered from a drive by looking at weaker signals. Ie, when you write a 1 to the drive, it will probably end up at (numbers made up) at 90% strength if the previous bit was a 0, and 95% if the previous bit was a 1. This recurs several times.
From this we can see it is obvious that writing all 1s or all 0s does squat for cleaning a drive. Writing random data is also useless if you don't have a good source of random numbers, because if there is even a single pattern, that pattern can be found and subtracted from the data.
The best route is to write certain parts more than you write to other parts of the disk, at random. How you do this is up to you (perl script, commercial tool, etc.) So, write bytes 0, and 1, but not 2, then 3 and 4 and 5, but not 6 and 7, etc, all with random data.
Do this many times (I have heard 12 is a good number, but I suspect somebody pulled that out of their ass.)
There are lots of factors yet to consider, for instance many drives read an entire track, make changes in memory, and rewrite it.
As has been said before, the best way to clear the drive is to scrap it. Open it up and reduce the platters to nothing with some sort of chemical -- how you do that is of course up to you, just don't breathe the fumes!
What I find fascinating is that they were able to keep the telescope still for that long. With a field of view that low, even microscopic rotations could ruin the shot.
You and this post's uncle make about the same point, but you're missing mine. I'm not saying you HAVE to have been a black hat to be a good white hat. I'm saying, if you were a black hat, you are in every way better off than if you have always been a white hat. You've seen both sides of things. You know the mentality.
There are also heuristics: the desire to break into systems, to trespass and have the rules not apply, are going to go hand in hand with somebody who puts huge amounts of effort into learning everything they can about the field. And it's true, hackers are obsessive!
But whoever got such a kick out of securing their system that they stayed up till the wee hours of the morning, foregoing friends, girls, and other such things?
Slashdot Mirror
Crap, replied to the wrong post... You know, the one above it.
I thought Reloaded completely bit when I first saw it, but I've liked it more and more with each additional viewing. I now hold it in higher regard than the original. I'm fairly sure the same thing will happen with Revolutions, at least for myself.
Raytracing is *the* elegant solution. Rasterisers use smoke and mirrors to achieve the same effects. Often those tricks are not flawless -- for example, you often see a smoke or explosion texture intersecting with nearby walls, creating an ugly edge. This is not the kind of thing I would want to see in a production movie, but in a game, it's not so rough.
You shouldn't. Good thing they provide MD5 sums.
Not that I doubt they can take the load, but why make 'em?
Done. I think.
"Haven't you ever seen a stand-up comedian?"
Torrent of their images, data, VRML, etc.
I said function, not program. If the words are already in an array, that's much of the trouble already out of the way. If you want to do as I indicated, then you either need to write your own string-splitting function, or use a strsep(3) loop. Much of the work is in memory allocation, which Perl takes care of. However, I now realise 100 lines was an overstatement. Reduce it to 25 -- still, that's 25 times as many lines as the Perl script.
True, but Perl is hardly the Unix analogue to Visual Basic. Visual Basic is very easy to learn and use, so "VB Jedi" doesn't have much weight. VB exists to make complete applications rapidly. On the other hand, Perl's strength is in text processing.
A function to reverse the order of the words in a sentence is a single line of Perl, but could be a hundred lines of C or VB.
A program to display a form with two text boxes, and display the sum of the numbers in those two boxes, would take seconds to write in VB, but hours in Perl or C.
A program to perform a numerical simulation would take about the same time to write in all three, but the Perl script would run considerably slower than the C or VB program.
I do believe Borland Delphi has a considerable edge over Visual Basic. No runtime libraries, and the language (Object Pascal) is as featureful as C++. To remain topical, I don't think there's any reason to ever use Java, save programmer-masochism.
Choose your tools wisely.
No, the grandparent is right. X sucks. It was useful when computers were expensive. This is no longer the case. Now it is just crippling things.
I really, really wish graphics code was in the kernel. Sending everything through a pipe is not as efficient as you suggest. The pipe itself may be fast, but everything needs to be encoded and decoded.
Consider an example like "draw a line."
Currently, the client must call a function in the X client library, which then encodes this into a message and uses a select loop to write the message to a pipe. This is not one, but many syscalls. The kernel must allocate buffer space to handle this specific pipe. Then, the server receives this command from its select loop, decodes it, and executes it.
In my model, the client executes a syscall with a pointer to the data. The kernel then executes the draw operation, possibly inside the interrupt handler. This is easily a hundred times faster than the above model, uses less memory, does far less needless work, and is far more simple and elegant, with the only drawback being a lack of network transparency -- which could easily be added with a userland client and server.
The performance increase is even greater for a command like "draw a bitmap."
Currently, the bitmap is being fragmented and sent through multiple syscalls which then makes four copies of it: from client into send buffer, from send buffer into receive buffer, from receive buffer into server, and from server into video memory.
Chances are, the server has an extra buffer because it cannot handle the data until it is complete. So that's another copy.
With the graphics in the kernel, the bitmap is copied ONCE: from the client directly into video memory, from the single syscall.
Better watch out then...
Have you tried amphetamines? Your doctor probably gave you Ritalin as a light drug or test. If it isn't working you ought to indicate this.
You would probably have better luck with them dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine), and if that also does not work, dextromethamphetamine (Desoxyn.) To my knowledge ritalin is ineffective for narcolepsy, but ianad.
You are missing a crucial point, and without ADD, this is very hard to understand. Let me try to explain:
Imagine one day you woke up, and found you could no longer walk. Well, that's not exactly true. You COULD walk, but you had to manually move each leg to its exact destination, and concentrate fully on the task.
Now imagine instead of walking, this was applied to thinking. I love programming, but pre-medication I spent thousands of hours in front of my computer thinking "Well, I should be programming. Gotta have this done by tomorrow. Sure would be nice to do some coding, make some money. Fuck, why the fuck aren't I doing it?"
These are things I wanted to do, enjoyed doing, was being paid for, etc etc. There was no reason to not do them, and yet I didn't. I just sat there and stared at the wall, thinking about how I should be doing it, should get started on it. It was like each brain cell was off doing its own thing, and mustering up the strength to align them all was an overwhelmingly daunting task.
Usually once I did get going, I could pull off lengthy binges (upwards of 36 hours.)
School was far worse, because I had the same condition, but absolutely no motivation to do the work either. I eventually dropped out of high school when I was 15 (and am now happily employed in perhaps the most saturated job sectors on the planet, imagine that.)
I feel many people cannot even fathom what this is like. There is some sort of "get started" process which was completely inoperable. I stopped discussing it with others after hearing all the bullshit suggestions people had to offer.
My favourite was "You need to learn to focus." Right, and you just need to learn to think up sixteen-digit primes.
FUD. The health-related side-effects of Ritalin and friends are said to be clinically significant but statistically insignificant -- that is, they will have a measurable effect (a few extra BPM), but that effect has a statistically negligible effect on physical health.
It is only addictive if it is abused. If you are taking it or any drug and start to feel dependent, tell your doctor.
Maybe so, but you can look at a specific set of symptoms and categorise them. What you're saying is akin to "There's no such thing as cancer, only tumors growing out of control!"
See, you give a specific set of symptoms a name so as to distinguish it from others. Is it so hard to believe there is a set of people who exhibit the same symptoms and respond the same way to the same medications?
A truly amazing fact, is the response to nervous system stimulants among individuals diagnosed with ADHD. When a "normal" individual takes such drugs, they tend to become very hyperactive, whereas the inverse is observed among ADHD patients: stimulants slow them down.
Also, there is a characteristic imbalance of serotonin and dopamine. The result is depression, often severe, with no response to SSRIs and other such anti-depressants, because an SSRI works to block the reuptake of serotonin -- but in the case of an ADHD patient, there is less serotonin to begin with.
The drug you are most likely thinking of is Atomoxetine, aka "Strattera".
Personally I will probably continue taking amphetamines. Most of the side effects are desirable, for instance, heightened confidence, heightened alertness, more rigid sleep schedule, deeper sleep, vivid dreams, heightened awareness, heightened response to various stimulation such as music/movies/etc, among others.
That's just completely wrong. It could be as many as 65534 usable addresses. Networks certainly needn't be on octet boundaries.
So vim treats escaped characters as being meta? Yuu-uuuck!
But, if so, then I retract my previous statement.
Why have you escaped everything in your sig? You might as well just stop trying to be cool.
This is not likely to do much, unless it is an oscillating field. If I'm not mistaken, an AC electromagnet will do this.
Consider that data is recovered from a drive by looking at weaker signals. Ie, when you write a 1 to the drive, it will probably end up at (numbers made up) at 90% strength if the previous bit was a 0, and 95% if the previous bit was a 1. This recurs several times.
From this we can see it is obvious that writing all 1s or all 0s does squat for cleaning a drive. Writing random data is also useless if you don't have a good source of random numbers, because if there is even a single pattern, that pattern can be found and subtracted from the data.
The best route is to write certain parts more than you write to other parts of the disk, at random. How you do this is up to you (perl script, commercial tool, etc.) So, write bytes 0, and 1, but not 2, then 3 and 4 and 5, but not 6 and 7, etc, all with random data.
Do this many times (I have heard 12 is a good number, but I suspect somebody pulled that out of their ass.)
There are lots of factors yet to consider, for instance many drives read an entire track, make changes in memory, and rewrite it.
As has been said before, the best way to clear the drive is to scrap it. Open it up and reduce the platters to nothing with some sort of chemical -- how you do that is of course up to you, just don't breathe the fumes!
Whoops, I replied to the wrong post. First time for me.
They took it from space.
What I find fascinating is that they were able to keep the telescope still for that long. With a field of view that low, even microscopic rotations could ruin the shot.
Uh, did you even read the post you are responding to?
And it's a little ironic that you then proceed to use "under educated" as some sort of insult.
You and this post's uncle make about the same point, but you're missing mine. I'm not saying you HAVE to have been a black hat to be a good white hat. I'm saying, if you were a black hat, you are in every way better off than if you have always been a white hat. You've seen both sides of things. You know the mentality.
There are also heuristics: the desire to break into systems, to trespass and have the rules not apply, are going to go hand in hand with somebody who puts huge amounts of effort into learning everything they can about the field. And it's true, hackers are obsessive!
But whoever got such a kick out of securing their system that they stayed up till the wee hours of the morning, foregoing friends, girls, and other such things?