It's the Michigan law enforcement morons fault
on
ORBZ Shuts Down
·
· Score: 2
So contact the damned morons in the Michigan justice department, contact the govenor, contact the local media there. What a shower of incompetent asinine fools. They're supposed to be defending the public interest not assaulting it. They have removed a valuable public service to the world under the guise of doing the opposite. This kind of inexcusable stupidity by Michigan authorities makes me furious. Why don't those incompetent morons go catch some real DoS criminals. Oh wait, that would require some real investigative work on the part of some some damndably stupid people there. It's too much to hope that these idiots will be held accountable for their wanton vandalism here.
Re:Its funny our attitude about success...
on
Soviet Moon Rocket
·
· Score: 2
It always amuses me when someone puts up the first woman in orbit as some king of technical accomplishment. It is not, the engineering challendges are identical. It is a non event.
And the US got first, second, third, fourth, fifth etc. etc. man on the moon, and then brought them all back alive. As an accomplishment it is fair to say it dwarfs all the others. The US also has numerous firsts in planetary missions (the Soviets got a few too).
The US also hadthe first reusable space vehicle that's more than a tin can and did not lose interest, the US has been launching shuttle missions and planetary missions spending billions for decades.
Your problem is you are very selective about what you cound and chose to stop counting after the moon shot, the US did not stop.
Maybe the Chinese can shoot for first woman on the moon.
See my P.S. posted before your response, apart from the caveats I posted there it is entirely reasonable to consider the 2D cross section in these calculations.
P.S. I know it's bad probability math to post facto take the range and use that in calculations, however, it is correct to say that the chance that any future object passing within that distance would have this probability of hitting gives some simplifying assumptions. The big assumption is that theere is an even poisson distribution of events in the circular target cross section. There may not be for reasons of orbital mechanics and the gravity of the Earth skewing the results. It seems to me that these would likely work to increase the probability of a strike, unless you consider that the Earth hoovering up rocks could skew results the other way, I think when you're this close with a near miss anyway the latter effect is negligable.
OK time for some back of the envelope math to counter the hysteria.
461,000 kilometers was the distance it missed by. The projected target area of that circle is PI*R^2 or about 667 billion square kilometers.
Radius of the Earth is around 6360 kilometers give or take. Projected target area of the Earth is therefore about 0.12 billion square kilometers. So the probability this class of object would collide with teh earth is roughly.12/667 or around 1/5600. Then IF it hit it would be more likely to do no damage than not depending on the impact zone.
Of course they don't just count objects inside the 1.2X distance to the moon, range when they scream "near miss". Inside the moon, beyond the moon, they all count for the headlines.
Ah there's nothing like reading a post and completely missing the point. Tell me, did the preceeding posts fire any neurons in your brain or did they just stimulate reflex muscles in your fingers to type a response? Nobody is advocating a conspiracy here, the point is someone wrote those rules for a reason. People pay big bucks for a trade show spots and generally follow the rules which are designed to stop trade shows degenerating into arms races between vendors. If it wasn't for these rules trade shows WOULD degenerate and quickly. If you'd ever been involved in trade shows in a competitive industry you'd understand that.
Ask yourself why didn't Sony simply hire a few demo jockeys and give them t-shirts for the remainder of the show to come back into compliance with the show rules?
I'm more interested in Microsoft's denial that they were involved. Sounds like someone has been caught in a lie and nobody really cares too much about this lack of professional ethics.
Ha ha. Your expletives merely serve to illustrate that you should up your prozac dose.
What's your suggestion? No governments?
Apart from the obvious fact that more that just governments out there want to look at your data, without them well, there'd be no government, at least until someone next door marched in.
None of this makes the German move one in the wrong direction whether or not governments are the primary source of concern. They probably shouldn't be, but we all need our bogey men I suppose.
Those 10 bits are only used for display on a monitor, the point is it is not used for 'output' elsewhere in a production environment. On top of this you can't see north of 9 bits but it's entirely dependent on the gamma distribution of the bits and whether they are perceptually uniform w.r.t. contrast sensitivity.
P.S. the limit on animation preview is often image bandwidth to the bus, whether it's raw drawpixels to framebuffer or texsubimage to texture. Beyond this for a limited flipbook in texture cache, well the more texture memory the better right. The actual pixel fill requirements are not that onerous for most requirements because the depth complexity is one, there's no geometry to speak of so getting peak fill is easy and when the resolution is at it's highest the frame rate tends to be at it's lowest.
Your eye cannot see this kind of color depth. 10 bits is HUGE. The reason you might want better is to support linear blended arithmetic in hardware you can subsequently gamma correct or apply gain to. In otherwords, for preview you probably don't need more than 10 if you handle the gamma correction in the right space, another key difference between live vs prerendered visualization. I suppose it's also software and workflow dependent.
Preview means different things to different people and the majority of people in 'animation' don't need hardware capabilities exceeding this, *in my opinion*, but you know what you're talking about so let's agree to differ. You also make some good points and I don't want to argue since you're making an effort to be civil. As I mention above with a correctly calibrated monitor and applying the right correction in the software image I expect you would be delighted with 10 bits.
ovie effects are NOT rendered in hardware, that is all done on the CPU using software ray tracers or renderman renderers. The tag 'animation' is too vague exactly because it is all encompassing. There are large numbers of overlapping applications and VERY few of them take hardware framebuffer pixels and send them through the RAMDACS or digital format to end up as pixels anyone sees on the screen in animation. There's more of that goes on for broadcast TV, but again it is a highly specialized broadcast subset of the market that likes features like digital alpha channel video output for live composition. I'd have maybe cut the post some slack if it had said something like "live broadcast video".
I'm not angry in my post, I am honest though. Nothing in my post is angry if you go read it again. Pointing out some interesting features Sun has that have been unfairly criticised by people who don't know what they are talking about is not sour grapes.
It is an interesting phenomenon that as lower end systems become more capable those extolling the virtues of so called high end systems become ever more desperate. They start throwing out rubbish about certain requirements like bits per pixel in animation applications which have absolutely no basis in the way the systems are used in the real world if you look at the workflow.
The comment that 38 bit pixels will discourage use by animation applications is as ignorant as your comments that movie makers need the high precision framebuffer visuals.
You have clearly never used Maya (I have), or you'd know it's use of hardware graphics is downright primitive by comparrison even to poor graphics hardware capabilities. You'd also know that it renders the production stuff in software. Even the software renderer often goes unused in productions.
The flight envelopes still don't extend to 60 miles altitude. Nothing I wrote is incorrect, the 727 is used for this stuff. Infact you don't directly contradict anything I wrote, go play pedant on someone elses thread, or do you have something substantive to offer?
What do you mean 38 bit color makes it less desirable for animation?
That is just wrong. This has 10 bits per component RGB. Typically that's more than enough. In addition animation apps like Maya tend to be geometry and state limited not fill limited.
Ofcourse the tag 'animation' is a bit to vague to mean anything in the first place.
Well done Sun, this should cause SGI some pain, but I'd say more because it gives the impression that Sun is doing something interesting where SGI hasn't done anything genuinely interesting in a LONG time.
I never called you a troll. This type of design has been tried before you, but even these stabilizers are massive by comparrison to earlier designs. You have seen the X-24 haven't you?
http://homepages.tesco.net/~xplanesx/xplanes/xpl an esx24a.jpg
It is not the altitude that simulates zero gravity on these flights, it is the parabolic flight arc of the aircraft, basically the aircraft starts off heading up and arcs downwards to simulate zero gravity, basically it free falls so from the inside it seems like you are weightless. In a strange way orbiting spacecraft do the same thing, except when they fall they miss the Earth. 65 miles altitude is extremely high and not as easily attainable as you think, some modern commercial aircraft can reach 40,000 feet on a good day (NASA use a modified 707 KC-135 airframe for the vomit comet, commercial companies use a modified 727). 40,000 feet is about 7.5 miles, that's WAY below the 65 miles you claim.
That's right, the company is bust so GIVE AWAY it's only significant asset & screw the creditors.
If the users of this application were so deserving they'd have paid what it took to support the costs of developing & delivering the software. They did not do so in sufficient numbers. Maybe someone out there will buy blender, but that seems unlikely to me.
My expectations are high, but this series has always delivered. AS for your video game comment, you need to go see final fantasy, now that was a video game. If you see the other trailers it's clear that in total this movie is lining up to be anything but a video game. There's more to critical judgement than just bashing something, which is what you are doing. All signs indicate a great movie, and to bash this on available evidence is just moronic. Like I said, don't go see the movie, I dare you.
Slashdot Mirror
So contact the damned morons in the Michigan justice department, contact the govenor, contact the local media there. What a shower of incompetent asinine fools. They're supposed to be defending the public interest not assaulting it. They have removed a valuable public service to the world under the guise of doing the opposite. This kind of inexcusable stupidity by Michigan authorities makes me furious. Why don't those incompetent morons go catch some real DoS criminals. Oh wait, that would require some real investigative work on the part of some some damndably stupid people there. It's too much to hope that these idiots will be held accountable for their wanton vandalism here.
Next time read the posts you reply to.
It always amuses me when someone puts up the first woman in orbit as some king of technical accomplishment. It is not, the engineering challendges are identical. It is a non event.
And the US got first, second, third, fourth, fifth etc. etc. man on the moon, and then brought them all back alive. As an accomplishment it is fair to say it dwarfs all the others. The US also has numerous firsts in planetary missions (the Soviets got a few too).
The US also hadthe first reusable space vehicle that's more than a tin can and did not lose interest, the US has been launching shuttle missions and planetary missions spending billions for decades.
Your problem is you are very selective about what you cound and chose to stop counting after the moon shot, the US did not stop.
Maybe the Chinese can shoot for first woman on the moon.
See my P.S. posted before your response, apart from the caveats I posted there it is entirely reasonable to consider the 2D cross section in these calculations.
P.S. I know it's bad probability math to post facto take the range and use that in calculations, however, it is correct to say that the chance that any future object passing within that distance would have this probability of hitting gives some simplifying assumptions. The big assumption is that theere is an even poisson distribution of events in the circular target cross section. There may not be for reasons of orbital mechanics and the gravity of the Earth skewing the results. It seems to me that these would likely work to increase the probability of a strike, unless you consider that the Earth hoovering up rocks could skew results the other way, I think when you're this close with a near miss anyway the latter effect is negligable.
OK time for some back of the envelope math to counter the hysteria.
.12/667 or around 1/5600. Then IF it hit it would be more likely to do no damage than not depending on the impact zone.
461,000 kilometers was the distance it missed by. The projected target area of that circle is PI*R^2 or about 667 billion square kilometers.
Radius of the Earth is around 6360 kilometers give or take. Projected target area of the Earth is therefore about 0.12 billion square kilometers. So the probability this class of object would collide with teh earth is roughly
Of course they don't just count objects inside the 1.2X distance to the moon, range when they scream "near miss". Inside the moon, beyond the moon, they all count for the headlines.
Excuse me for not losing any sleep.
There are some serious omissions here.
To ignore the early GLINT work from 3DLabs and not give them their own column in the table is a bit unfair.
The Number9 stuff is missing (no great loss).
Other early work is missing, for example SGIs PC graphics card which predates all of this by about 5 years.
Ah there's nothing like reading a post and completely missing the point. Tell me, did the preceeding posts fire any neurons in your brain or did they just stimulate reflex muscles in your fingers to type a response? Nobody is advocating a conspiracy here, the point is someone wrote those rules for a reason. People pay big bucks for a trade show spots and generally follow the rules which are designed to stop trade shows degenerating into arms races between vendors. If it wasn't for these rules trade shows WOULD degenerate and quickly. If you'd ever been involved in trade shows in a competitive industry you'd understand that.
Ask yourself why didn't Sony simply hire a few demo jockeys and give them t-shirts for the remainder of the show to come back into compliance with the show rules?
I'm more interested in Microsoft's denial that they were involved. Sounds like someone has been caught in a lie and nobody really cares too much about this lack of professional ethics.
Ha ha. Your expletives merely serve to illustrate that you should up your prozac dose.
What's your suggestion? No governments?
Apart from the obvious fact that more that just governments out there want to look at your data, without them well, there'd be no government, at least until someone next door marched in.
None of this makes the German move one in the wrong direction whether or not governments are the primary source of concern. They probably shouldn't be, but we all need our bogey men I suppose.
Those 10 bits are only used for display on a monitor, the point is it is not used for 'output' elsewhere in a production environment. On top of this you can't see north of 9 bits but it's entirely dependent on the gamma distribution of the bits and whether they are perceptually uniform w.r.t. contrast sensitivity.
That is less naive than you are foolishly cynical. But being cynical is chic I suppose, reguardless of how asinine the position you have to adopt is.
P.S. the limit on animation preview is often image bandwidth to the bus, whether it's raw drawpixels to framebuffer or texsubimage to texture. Beyond this for a limited flipbook in texture cache, well the more texture memory the better right. The actual pixel fill requirements are not that onerous for most requirements because the depth complexity is one, there's no geometry to speak of so getting peak fill is easy and when the resolution is at it's highest the frame rate tends to be at it's lowest.
Your eye cannot see this kind of color depth. 10 bits is HUGE. The reason you might want better is to support linear blended arithmetic in hardware you can subsequently gamma correct or apply gain to. In otherwords, for preview you probably don't need more than 10 if you handle the gamma correction in the right space, another key difference between live vs prerendered visualization. I suppose it's also software and workflow dependent.
:-) LOL.
Preview means different things to different people and the majority of people in 'animation' don't need hardware capabilities exceeding this, *in my opinion*, but you know what you're talking about so let's agree to differ. You also make some good points and I don't want to argue since you're making an effort to be civil. As I mention above with a correctly calibrated monitor and applying the right correction in the software image I expect you would be delighted with 10 bits.
Yes, let's be friends
ovie effects are NOT rendered in hardware, that is all done on the CPU using software ray tracers or renderman renderers. The tag 'animation' is too vague exactly because it is all encompassing. There are large numbers of overlapping applications and VERY few of them take hardware framebuffer pixels and send them through the RAMDACS or digital format to end up as pixels anyone sees on the screen in animation. There's more of that goes on for broadcast TV, but again it is a highly specialized broadcast subset of the market that likes features like digital alpha channel video output for live composition. I'd have maybe cut the post some slack if it had said something like "live broadcast video".
I'm not angry in my post, I am honest though. Nothing in my post is angry if you go read it again. Pointing out some interesting features Sun has that have been unfairly criticised by people who don't know what they are talking about is not sour grapes.
It is an interesting phenomenon that as lower end systems become more capable those extolling the virtues of so called high end systems become ever more desperate. They start throwing out rubbish about certain requirements like bits per pixel in animation applications which have absolutely no basis in the way the systems are used in the real world if you look at the workflow.
The comment that 38 bit pixels will discourage use by animation applications is as ignorant as your comments that movie makers need the high precision framebuffer visuals.
You have clearly never used Maya (I have), or you'd know it's use of hardware graphics is downright primitive by comparrison even to poor graphics hardware capabilities. You'd also know that it renders the production stuff in software. Even the software renderer often goes unused in productions.
I do not work for SGI.
The flight envelopes still don't extend to 60 miles altitude. Nothing I wrote is incorrect, the 727 is used for this stuff. Infact you don't directly contradict anything I wrote, go play pedant on someone elses thread, or do you have something substantive to offer?
P.S.
This thing also has true 16 sample antialiasing. That is incredible, and better that the highest end SGI systems.
What do you mean 38 bit color makes it less desirable for animation?
That is just wrong. This has 10 bits per component RGB. Typically that's more than enough. In addition animation apps like Maya tend to be geometry and state limited not fill limited.
Ofcourse the tag 'animation' is a bit to vague to mean anything in the first place.
Well done Sun, this should cause SGI some pain, but I'd say more because it gives the impression that Sun is doing something interesting where SGI hasn't done anything genuinely interesting in a LONG time.
I never called you a troll. This type of design has been tried before you, but even these stabilizers are massive by comparrison to earlier designs. You have seen the X-24 haven't you?
l an esx24a.jpg
http://homepages.tesco.net/~xplanesx/xplanes/xp
It is not the altitude that simulates zero gravity on these flights, it is the parabolic flight arc of the aircraft, basically the aircraft starts off heading up and arcs downwards to simulate zero gravity, basically it free falls so from the inside it seems like you are weightless. In a strange way orbiting spacecraft do the same thing, except when they fall they miss the Earth. 65 miles altitude is extremely high and not as easily attainable as you think, some modern commercial aircraft can reach 40,000 feet on a good day (NASA use a modified 707 KC-135 airframe for the vomit comet, commercial companies use a modified 727). 40,000 feet is about 7.5 miles, that's WAY below the 65 miles you claim.
What do you think those huge vertical surfaces on the wing tips act as? Sorry Mr Wind Tunnel but this thing looks plenty stable.
I want one that goes to eleven.
/
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/9177
That's right, the company is bust so GIVE AWAY it's only significant asset & screw the creditors.
If the users of this application were so deserving they'd have paid what it took to support the costs of developing & delivering the software. They did not do so in sufficient numbers. Maybe someone out there will buy blender, but that seems unlikely to me.
So how much DU do I have to eat before my kidneys are shot?
My expectations are high, but this series has always delivered. AS for your video game comment, you need to go see final fantasy, now that was a video game. If you see the other trailers it's clear that in total this movie is lining up to be anything but a video game. There's more to critical judgement than just bashing something, which is what you are doing. All signs indicate a great movie, and to bash this on available evidence is just moronic. Like I said, don't go see the movie, I dare you.