I'm so glad we're on the same page. You're the kind of innovative, can-do individual we need to enhance our organisational synergy.
We must calendar some face-time to discuss how better to engage our value customers with a view to leveraging our key threshold activities to achieve ongoing transformation.
Every nation that takes sports seriously spends a ridiculous amount of money on improving the performance of their athletes [...]
Perhaps a bit of perspective would help to make this seem not quite as ridiculous.
First off, you learn a lot about the human body by studying what it does under extreme conditions.
Secondly, most new technologies are multiple-use. The same device could be used to monitor athletes or intensive care patients. Or the same material could be used to make racing bikes or defence aircraft.
Developing a new technology for, say, health, is very expensive and requires a mountain of paperwork and ethics committees. Developing the identical technology for elite sport is very cheap.
So developing your technology for sport first gives you an advantage. You prove it quickly and cheaply, so that when it comes time to do the medical trials, you're much more confident that it's going to work before you start.
I hope this finally puts to rest the idea that rasterizing with upteenth number of features added in can compete with the image quality of Raytracing.
Any time anyone says this, keep this in mind: All Pixar films before Cars used no more than 6 minutes screen-time worth of raytracing.
(And, BTW, it's no coincidence that NVIDIA chose a car for this demo. Cars have curved reflective surfaces, which is one of the very few things in the world that are hard to fake convincingly with scanline rendering. It's much easier to fake them convincingly with raytracing.)
Another interesting point is that this demo is currently capped at 3 casts per pixel. Which means that the scenes shown could look even better than they already do.
Indeed. They could, for instance, use rasterisation for "primary" rays and reserve raytracing for secondary rays like most high-end software renderers do. That'd give you the speed of rasterisation where it counts and the illumination model of raytracing where it's needed.
Perhaps more to the point, it's not just US that uses science.
(And yes, I speak from experience. I can't tell you exactly what I do for a living, but let's just say that next Olympics, Australia's rowers are going to have a distinct advantage.)
However, since most religions are mutually exclusive, statistics suggest that at least a majority of those people who believe in a supreme being are wrong.
Being male and being female are mutually exclusive, therefore at least 49% of the population are wrong?
So, genius, explain to me how you upload something without making a copy.
I don't know why you got modded down as a troll. You ask a very important question which, fortunately in this case, has a very simple answer:
Jammie Thomas isn't accused of uploading, she is accused of "making available". If you have a file that you have the legal rights to, and you happen to put it on your hard drive in a place where your file sharing software (which you only use for legal purposes) can find it (presumably by accident), then you're "making available" even if no upload happened.
OK, so for a 256-bit hash, you need 2^255 bit flips to replicate the hash. You'd be flipping bits on the hash itself before that happened.
Incidentally, if we flip enough bits on my hard drive, there is the possibility that I could end up with the contents of your hard drive, via the infinite monkeys principle.
Ok, lets assume its a 128-bit hash. For a 1GB file how many combinations of 1GB will produce the same hash?
You're asking the wrong question.
The right question is: Given a 1Gb file, how much "mutation" do you have to do to it to produce a file with the same hash? And the answer to that is: Enough to make the data unrecoverable no matter what you do.
Someone else mentioned Milo.
Brian Cox is probably the most hard-core. He used to be the keyboard player in Dare and D:ream and once got into a bar fight with Jimmy Page. He is now a full-on professor of physics.
But you're kinda right. It's actually more common for scientists to be classical or jazz musicians.
Well, the purpose of negative feedback is to stop being getting screwed over by bad actors.
There are several ways that a buyer can scam a seller. They can, for example, claim that the item is not as described, and then return something else (e.g. buying a new diamond ring and returning a cheap cubic zirconia, or buying a new laptop and returning an old one). eBay and PayPal will honour proof of postage as "proof" that the correct item was returned, even if it wasn't.
In those situations, negative feedback was the only recourse that a scammed seller had.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is for people to be able to defend themselves from their own government, not to attack their own government. [...] Trust me, if you had the military start to invade Small Town USA, you'd probably have plenty of people in the surrounding area exercising their right to keep and bear arms.
As I mentioned above, this isn't a theoretical question. It really happened to American citizens of Japanese descent in 1942, and the "exercising [of] their right to keep and bear arms" didn't happen.
You're an American citizen of Japanese ancestry, living peacefully in the US in 1942. The government comes for you. Do you a) go peacefully, or b) defend yourself with your guns?
Here's a simple example. Suppose you want to correct spelling. There are two ways of doing this.
The first we'll call the "Microsoft" way: come up with a dictionary of correctly-spelled words and check against that. This is labour-intensive, and has the problem of novel words, different dialects and so on.
The second is the Google way: analyse every piece of text in the world, assume that the majority knows how to spell correctly, and correct against that. This is compute-intensive, but computers are cheaper than humans.
The basic premise is that by pulling "free" energy from the alternator [...]
So this isn't "free" energy, it's recycling energy that would otherwise be wasted. For example, the energy wasted idling at stop lights can be partially recovered.
That makes a certain amount of sense, actually. It's not perpetual motion, it's just making the engine slightly more efficient.
I'd very happily donate a large chunk of my free time to QT development.
Me too. I've reluctantly held off on using Qt because it doesn't play nice with modern C++. I essentially can't use Qt and a modern third-party library (e.g. Boost) or even bits of the standard library in the same application.
I know that the trolls are working on it, but it's a very slow job. (Qt finally got RAII for locks a couple of years ago; kudos!) But if Nokia really does try to threaten anything, I'm also goinjg to see that as an opportunity.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm so glad we're on the same page. You're the kind of innovative, can-do individual we need to enhance our organisational synergy.
We must calendar some face-time to discuss how better to engage our value customers with a view to leveraging our key threshold activities to achieve ongoing transformation.
Perhaps a bit of perspective would help to make this seem not quite as ridiculous.
First off, you learn a lot about the human body by studying what it does under extreme conditions.
Secondly, most new technologies are multiple-use. The same device could be used to monitor athletes or intensive care patients. Or the same material could be used to make racing bikes or defence aircraft.
Developing a new technology for, say, health, is very expensive and requires a mountain of paperwork and ethics committees. Developing the identical technology for elite sport is very cheap.
So developing your technology for sport first gives you an advantage. You prove it quickly and cheaply, so that when it comes time to do the medical trials, you're much more confident that it's going to work before you start.
As with the swimmers, it's instrumentation.
Any time anyone says this, keep this in mind: All Pixar films before Cars used no more than 6 minutes screen-time worth of raytracing.
(And, BTW, it's no coincidence that NVIDIA chose a car for this demo. Cars have curved reflective surfaces, which is one of the very few things in the world that are hard to fake convincingly with scanline rendering. It's much easier to fake them convincingly with raytracing.)
Indeed. They could, for instance, use rasterisation for "primary" rays and reserve raytracing for secondary rays like most high-end software renderers do. That'd give you the speed of rasterisation where it counts and the illumination model of raytracing where it's needed.
Perhaps more to the point, it's not just US that uses science.
(And yes, I speak from experience. I can't tell you exactly what I do for a living, but let's just say that next Olympics, Australia's rowers are going to have a distinct advantage.)
And, similarly, they tend to lump religion in with theism.
In what way is it possible for mythology to be "wrong"? And while we're at it, is Star Wars more or less "true" than The Lord of the Rings?
Being male and being female are mutually exclusive, therefore at least 49% of the population are wrong?
Serves you right for feeling lucky.
I don't know why you got modded down as a troll. You ask a very important question which, fortunately in this case, has a very simple answer:
Jammie Thomas isn't accused of uploading, she is accused of "making available". If you have a file that you have the legal rights to, and you happen to put it on your hard drive in a place where your file sharing software (which you only use for legal purposes) can find it (presumably by accident), then you're "making available" even if no upload happened.
OK, so for a 256-bit hash, you need 2^255 bit flips to replicate the hash. You'd be flipping bits on the hash itself before that happened.
Incidentally, if we flip enough bits on my hard drive, there is the possibility that I could end up with the contents of your hard drive, via the infinite monkeys principle.
Indeed. TFA should get to me when it discovers LDPC.
You're asking the wrong question.
The right question is: Given a 1Gb file, how much "mutation" do you have to do to it to produce a file with the same hash? And the answer to that is: Enough to make the data unrecoverable no matter what you do.
Someone else mentioned Milo. Brian Cox is probably the most hard-core. He used to be the keyboard player in Dare and D:ream and once got into a bar fight with Jimmy Page. He is now a full-on professor of physics. But you're kinda right. It's actually more common for scientists to be classical or jazz musicians.
You're going to sue a buyer in another country over a $200 item? Or were you planning to sue eBay itself?
Well, the purpose of negative feedback is to stop being getting screwed over by bad actors.
There are several ways that a buyer can scam a seller. They can, for example, claim that the item is not as described, and then return something else (e.g. buying a new diamond ring and returning a cheap cubic zirconia, or buying a new laptop and returning an old one). eBay and PayPal will honour proof of postage as "proof" that the correct item was returned, even if it wasn't.
In those situations, negative feedback was the only recourse that a scammed seller had.
Japan: Where every fetish is disturbingly specific.
As I mentioned above, this isn't a theoretical question. It really happened to American citizens of Japanese descent in 1942, and the "exercising [of] their right to keep and bear arms" didn't happen.
So no, actually I don't trust you.
Thought experiment:
You're an American citizen of Japanese ancestry, living peacefully in the US in 1942. The government comes for you. Do you a) go peacefully, or b) defend yourself with your guns?
Here's a simple example. Suppose you want to correct spelling. There are two ways of doing this. The first we'll call the "Microsoft" way: come up with a dictionary of correctly-spelled words and check against that. This is labour-intensive, and has the problem of novel words, different dialects and so on. The second is the Google way: analyse every piece of text in the world, assume that the majority knows how to spell correctly, and correct against that. This is compute-intensive, but computers are cheaper than humans.
Just watch out for the killer cars.
Norway, Norway, Norway, the country where I quite want to be...
And for everyone for whom "10 feet per gallon" is just as meaningless, it's over 120,000 litres per 100km.
So this isn't "free" energy, it's recycling energy that would otherwise be wasted. For example, the energy wasted idling at stop lights can be partially recovered.
That makes a certain amount of sense, actually. It's not perpetual motion, it's just making the engine slightly more efficient.
Me too. I've reluctantly held off on using Qt because it doesn't play nice with modern C++. I essentially can't use Qt and a modern third-party library (e.g. Boost) or even bits of the standard library in the same application.
I know that the trolls are working on it, but it's a very slow job. (Qt finally got RAII for locks a couple of years ago; kudos!) But if Nokia really does try to threaten anything, I'm also goinjg to see that as an opportunity.