I will say that self documenting words (just like self documenting code) require a minimum intelligence level. I'm wondering what percentile of the US population you represented to get the "fan fucking" + "elastic" conclusion.
But on the specifics of 'rigoddamndiculous' it is an impromptu word. It is self documenting and shouldn't have a definition for the same reason we don't write up definitions for every word with 'fuck' inserted. fan-fucking-tastic for example.
if you submit too much, they won't review it at all..
The feature in question is self described as an engine, which generally implies a decent amount of code. How do you write an "engine" that is good enough to submit then submit it in small chunks that compile?
I'm not a network engineer but I think we did that senior year of college (2004). The engineering department provided us with our own work rooms we could lock. The rooms only had a couple of Ethernet jacks so we brought in our own switch which I remember could auto detect the uplink. It was plugged into the wall then someone by mistake plugged both ends of another CAT cable into some open ports. That mistake took down half the campus network for a couple of hours till some very mad IT guys found us.
No ideas? By comparison a ti83 costs about ~120 bucks new. There is an educational overhead to using these devices: I would much rather have teachers teaching kids how to do graphs and stats with a spread sheet (spread sheets are a skill they can use their entire life) than learning what buttons to press on a calculator.
There isn't an official name for the language. But in the ti sites/forums we call it basic or 'ti basic'.
I consider it a very good way to learn how to program. Its a portable platform you can take to school, and you can make programs for the classes you take. It is very easy to make dialog boxes and give output. Things that would take you a couple years to learn all the APIs on a real PC to accomplish.
Oversampling by 4x in each direction would result in 4*4 = 16x FSAA (full screen anti-aliasing). The oversampling method for FSAA is usually 2x in each direction.
When you hear about 16x anti aliasing they are not referring to FSAA. They are referring to coverage calculations. Lets say you draw a black line on a white background. For each and every pixel that black line touches the GPU is going to estimate how much of that pixel the line covers. If the line covers the pixel 100% that pixel becomes black. If it is 50% then the the GPU does weighted averaging of the existing color with the black line. For the case of black on white that results in gray.
So why does this '16x' anti aliasing method even have a number like 16 in the name of it? You would think that the coverage calculations would be very precise and result in very exact weighted blending, (EG the black line covers the white pixel 28.45%, the resulting pixel is going to be 28.45% black and 71.55% white) The reason is this kind or precision is not doable in real time. So you consider the pixel to have 16 sub points inside of it. The gpu checks if the line touches each sub point, and for every one that it does that pixel just got an extra 1/16th darker.
well here's how it works on the embedded GPUs I work with.
with 64 bits per pixel you have, red, green , blue, alpha, z buffer, maybe a stencil buffer or an accumulation buffer. it depends on what is needed.
however when it comes to multiple buffers each buffer is not 64 bits... The front buffer that is being clocked to your screen only needs the red, green, and blue values. (24 bits per pixel) the other items that where used to generate the front buffer (z buffer, stencil...), can now be used again for the ongoing rendering into the back buffer. So the back buffer can be 64 bits, the front buffer isn't.
(and to be precise alphas also stay with the front buffer, so the front buffer is 32 bits despite only 24 being sent to the screen)
Slashdot Mirror
I was playing this at a friends and we were having more fun trying to get the quirky accomplishments than the actual game.
aww nuts. I fell into the American insensitive clod role.
Point taken.
I will say that self documenting words (just like self documenting code) require a minimum intelligence level. I'm wondering what percentile of the US population you represented to get the "fan fucking" + "elastic" conclusion.
I was expressing a generic sentiment.
But on the specifics of 'rigoddamndiculous' it is an impromptu word. It is self documenting and shouldn't have a definition for the same reason we don't write up definitions for every word with 'fuck' inserted. fan-fucking-tastic for example.
urban dictionary = idiots making up words.
At 27 years old I am now an old fart.
The feature in question is self described as an engine, which generally implies a decent amount of code. How do you write an "engine" that is good enough to submit then submit it in small chunks that compile?
I've always wondered: why fly a plane into a building? Its nice and dramatic but it would seem much easier to chop down telephone poles.
Mount their little heads on spikes.
Indeed tis me.
I'm not a network engineer but I think we did that senior year of college (2004). The engineering department provided us with our own work rooms we could lock. The rooms only had a couple of Ethernet jacks so we brought in our own switch which I remember could auto detect the uplink. It was plugged into the wall then someone by mistake plugged both ends of another CAT cable into some open ports. That mistake took down half the campus network for a couple of hours till some very mad IT guys found us.
huh?
This Memristor technology sounds like it could be an ideal device for mounting lasers onto sharks. Anyone working on that, I wonder?
-SNS
I accidentally left out a word. 'why eventually' should have been "why we eventually". By leaving out this word I 'malfunctioned'
From the farside gallery
ha, just got that.
Not only does God code in machine language, but it is all spaghetti. Thats probably why eventually malfunction and die.
density is unitless ?
Time keeps flowing.
So all theys gots to do is change the "do you accept this?" to "did you read it?"
I noticed immediately, as I'm sure many of you have, that both browsers isolate tabs in different processes
Huh?
You "noticed" this?
All on your own?
Really?
Haven't they been screaming this from the roof tops as why you should give it a try.
The first thought that came to my head is that checking 100% of meat is a lot like the Ada programming language.
I run the protein folding software on my PS3 cause they give me points.
lovely lovely points.
No ideas?
By comparison a ti83 costs about ~120 bucks new. There is an educational overhead to using these devices: I would much rather have teachers teaching kids how to do graphs and stats with a spread sheet (spread sheets are a skill they can use their entire life) than learning what buttons to press on a calculator.
There isn't an official name for the language. But in the ti sites/forums we call it basic or 'ti basic'.
I consider it a very good way to learn how to program. Its a portable platform you can take to school, and you can make programs for the classes you take. It is very easy to make dialog boxes and give output. Things that would take you a couple years to learn all the APIs on a real PC to accomplish.
Oversampling by 4x in each direction would result in 4*4 = 16x FSAA (full screen anti-aliasing).
The oversampling method for FSAA is usually 2x in each direction.
When you hear about 16x anti aliasing they are not referring to FSAA. They are referring to coverage calculations. Lets say you draw a black line on a white background. For each and every pixel that black line touches the GPU is going to estimate how much of that pixel the line covers. If the line covers the pixel 100% that pixel becomes black. If it is 50% then the the GPU does weighted averaging of the existing color with the black line. For the case of black on white that results in gray.
So why does this '16x' anti aliasing method even have a number like 16 in the name of it? You would think that the coverage calculations would be very precise and result in very exact weighted blending, (EG the black line covers the white pixel 28.45%, the resulting pixel is going to be 28.45% black and 71.55% white) The reason is this kind or precision is not doable in real time. So you consider the pixel to have 16 sub points inside of it. The gpu checks if the line touches each sub point, and for every one that it does that pixel just got an extra 1/16th darker.
well here's how it works on the embedded GPUs I work with.
with 64 bits per pixel you have, red, green , blue, alpha, z buffer, maybe a stencil buffer or an accumulation buffer. it depends on what is needed.
however when it comes to multiple buffers each buffer is not 64 bits... The front buffer that is being clocked to your screen only needs the red, green, and blue values. (24 bits per pixel) the other items that where used to generate the front buffer (z buffer, stencil...), can now be used again for the ongoing rendering into the back buffer. So the back buffer can be 64 bits, the front buffer isn't.
(and to be precise alphas also stay with the front buffer, so the front buffer is 32 bits despite only 24 being sent to the screen)