I'm not the AC you replied to, but I disagree with your statement. The animation hogged one core (90% FireFox, 80% Chrome) of my (fairly recent) laptop too.
In fact lot's of people had this experience, so your milage may vary.
I'm not sure what causes the differences, maybe it works better on Vista/Win7, I'm using XP.
My major gripe with it was that it continued to use CPU if you left a tab open on the google main page, even if that tab was not active or the browser minimized.
I have a fairly recent machine, and that buckyball thing bogged my cpu too.
I googled around that day and found lots of people complaining. Aparently for Chrome it wasn't a problem, but Firefox users were hosed.
You'd think they would test it for multiple browsers at Google, before pushing it to one of the most used pages of the web...
but try writing on the front side of paper in a 3-ring binder or spiral bound notebook!
Bad example. Righties have exactly the same problem with the back sides of the paper.
Unless it is mandatory to write exclusively on the front side for some reason.
With binders, you can also always open the clamps, take out the paper, write on it, and put it back in.
Or alternatively, add perforations to the right side of the paper (for papers that have print on the front side and empty back).
That's all nice in theory. But in practice, the raster version runs on my desktop at 200+ FPS, while the ray-traced version runs at 0.1 (?) FPS.
Probably one day the chipsets will be powerful enough to do this on a single machine, but even then ray-tracing doesn't give a full render solution. You'd need a global illumination implementation (radiosity, photon mapping) to get realistic (secundary) shadows/hilights.
And it's not like DirectDraw has much to do with Direct3D anyway
That's what Direct2D is for. Anyhow, it seems like he just wanted to do some quick & dirty development to get Wing Commander running.
At the end he stated:
Next up would have been WC4DVD version, but that adds MCI, DirectShow, mpeg2, DirectDraw7, and all sorts of headaches to the mix, so I figured it's time for this project to end
He would have gotten all the DirectX stuff for free if he used that to start with. I think it would be simpler to implement a wrapper that passes through all calls that are still supported by the current DirectX and intercept calls to the old API.
But I guess the real question is, why this is a main/. story.
What I don't understand is: why did he implement the wrapper on top of OpenGL?
I'm not trying to start another DirectX/3D versus OpenGL war, but I think it would have been so much easier to implement the missing pieces using the latest DirectX.
Also, OpenGL support on Win7 is not so great.
If you dislike, please propose a better solution rather than just complaining.
Here you go...
(I'm not a theoretical physicist, but the fractal space-time that seems to emerge from CDT makes a lot more sense to me than 11-dimensional strings and branes)
And what if the hacker doesn't send any singal to Bob, so the line is quiet? Bob would never know Alice is sending a key, and therefore never warn her.
Of course she could use some secure side channel to tell Bob she's sending a key, but that could be hacked as well...
AC is correct.
Linking your own code to GPLed code doesn't automatically change the license of your own code to GPL.
If you distribute the combined code under a GPL-incompatible license, then you're in violation with the license, causing it to be void.
The copyright owner of the GPL code can then request an injunction to stop you from distributing.
Once you voided the license, you'll have to request explicit permission from the copyright owner to license the code again.
To rectify the situation, you have several options:
You can change the license of the whole to a GPL-compatible license.
You can stop distributing and post a statement that you don't own the rights on part of your previous distribution, so that people who got it know they are not allowed to redistribute it under that license.
You can replace or remove all GPL code from the work.
Well, there was barely any traffic at that hour.
In fact, we crossed that same street ourselves 10 min or so earlier, so I don't think safety had anything to do with it.
Maybe they planned to go somewhere but then decided they'd eat something first. It just seemed extremely silly at the time.
So true. Once I was sitting in a Denny's with a couple of friends. Then we saw this (20-ish) couple leave their motel on the other side of the road, get in their car, cross the road, park in front of the Denny's, get out and order some food inside. OK, the roads are a bit wider in the US, but wtf ?!
Just generally looking like a light saber isn't enough to invoke copyright. For a patent or trademark claim that might be enough, but TFA specifically mentioned copyright.
For copyright to apply, it would have to look strikingly similar to a specific lightsaber design published by Lucas. If it does (I don't know), then Lucas is in his right.
Several movies have depicted such a situation including Waterworld and the recent 2012.
Exactly! And in Bambi they depicted animals talking, just like they did in the Garden of Eden.
Seriously, melting all the world's ice would require unimaginable amounts of energy. Even in the worst-case runaway greenhouse scenarios it would take decades, if not centuries for the ice to melt, resulting a slow rise of the ocean levels. Hardly a flood...
And if all the ice would melt, the water would rise at most 100m or so, hardly enough to submerge all the land.
The first says that if you have two events happening at different places, and if you observe those events simultaneously in one reference frame, then you might observe one event before the other in a different reference frame. The Ladder Paradox is an example of this (two ends of the ladder crossing the barn frame).
The second says that if you have two consecutive events in the same position of one reference frame (for example a ticking clock hand), then you will observe those events in the same order in any other reference frame you chose (the clock ticks 12:30 an then 12:31). The reason for this is that light always moves at c, no matter the reference frame, and therefore the light from the second event can never overtake the first.
Relativity doesn't forbid you to sync clocks between two reference frames. All Relativity says is that if you put pre-synced twin clocks in different reference frames, then they will unsync in a calculable manner. All you need is some observations of the second clock, knowledge of its reference frame relative to yours, and some calculations (, and if you want to keep the clocks in sync: also a clock that you can speed up or slow down). Also note that the sync will only work for you: an observer in a different reference frame will still see one clock going faster than the other, since the light from one of them will reach him/her/it first.
That being said, I hope I don't come over as overly critical. I'm actually enjoying the refresh, it's been a while since I've had to think about these concepts. Regards.
The reason why I picked on your use of the word "absolute" is because it has a well defined meaning in Relativity. The fact that there is no absolute spatial or time reference frame in Relativity is exactly what sets it apart from Newtonian physics. The CMBR reference frame is a useful one, but I think for most purposes our preferred reference frame is the one in which we ourselves exist and observe the universe (i.e. wherever we are on this planet).
Yes, I understood the 'speedometer' part of your comment. My remark was mainly towards the 'absolute clock' part. Recalculating time (or the age of the universe) to the frame of the CMBR doesn't make it absolute. Just relative to the CMBR. The CMBR can make an excellent frame to use as a reference, but that still doesn't make it an absolute reference frame.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not the AC you replied to, but I disagree with your statement. The animation hogged one core (90% FireFox, 80% Chrome) of my (fairly recent) laptop too.
In fact lot's of people had this experience, so your milage may vary.
I'm not sure what causes the differences, maybe it works better on Vista/Win7, I'm using XP.
My major gripe with it was that it continued to use CPU if you left a tab open on the google main page, even if that tab was not active or the browser minimized.
I have a fairly recent machine, and that buckyball thing bogged my cpu too.
I googled around that day and found lots of people complaining. Aparently for Chrome it wasn't a problem, but Firefox users were hosed.
You'd think they would test it for multiple browsers at Google, before pushing it to one of the most used pages of the web...
Someone should buy it for $699.
Bad example. Righties have exactly the same problem with the back sides of the paper.
Unless it is mandatory to write exclusively on the front side for some reason.
With binders, you can also always open the clamps, take out the paper, write on it, and put it back in.
Or alternatively, add perforations to the right side of the paper (for papers that have print on the front side and empty back).
That's all nice in theory. But in practice, the raster version runs on my desktop at 200+ FPS, while the ray-traced version runs at 0.1 (?) FPS.
Probably one day the chipsets will be powerful enough to do this on a single machine, but even then ray-tracing doesn't give a full render solution. You'd need a global illumination implementation (radiosity, photon mapping) to get realistic (secundary) shadows/hilights.
That's what Direct2D is for. Anyhow, it seems like he just wanted to do some quick & dirty development to get Wing Commander running.
At the end he stated:
He would have gotten all the DirectX stuff for free if he used that to start with. I think it would be simpler to implement a wrapper that passes through all calls that are still supported by the current DirectX and intercept calls to the old API.
/. story.
But I guess the real question is, why this is a main
What I don't understand is: why did he implement the wrapper on top of OpenGL?
I'm not trying to start another DirectX/3D versus OpenGL war, but I think it would have been so much easier to implement the missing pieces using the latest DirectX.
Also, OpenGL support on Win7 is not so great.
Here you go...
(I'm not a theoretical physicist, but the fractal space-time that seems to emerge from CDT makes a lot more sense to me than 11-dimensional strings and branes)
And what if the hacker doesn't send any singal to Bob, so the line is quiet? Bob would never know Alice is sending a key, and therefore never warn her.
Of course she could use some secure side channel to tell Bob she's sending a key, but that could be hacked as well...
Alice is the transmitter, Bob is the receiver (from A to B, see?).
Well, last time I checked, the mold on your basement walls still counted as life. So yes. Beyond that, it gets hypothetical.
Most likely, it turned into fiery pieces ...
Linking your own code to GPLed code doesn't automatically change the license of your own code to GPL.
If you distribute the combined code under a GPL-incompatible license, then you're in violation with the license, causing it to be void.
The copyright owner of the GPL code can then request an injunction to stop you from distributing.
Once you voided the license, you'll have to request explicit permission from the copyright owner to license the code again.
To rectify the situation, you have several options:
Well, there was barely any traffic at that hour.
In fact, we crossed that same street ourselves 10 min or so earlier, so I don't think safety had anything to do with it.
Maybe they planned to go somewhere but then decided they'd eat something first. It just seemed extremely silly at the time.
So true. Once I was sitting in a Denny's with a couple of friends.
Then we saw this (20-ish) couple leave their motel on the other side of the road, get in their car, cross the road, park in front of the Denny's, get out and order some food inside.
OK, the roads are a bit wider in the US, but wtf ?!
Just generally looking like a light saber isn't enough to invoke copyright. For a patent or trademark claim that might be enough, but TFA specifically mentioned copyright.
For copyright to apply, it would have to look strikingly similar to a specific lightsaber design published by Lucas. If it does (I don't know), then Lucas is in his right.
And I suppose you'd also have a magnetic containment trap in your wallet to keep the antimatter from touching the (matter) walls?
Imagine the fun we could have with one of these on a corn field.
In that case it also meant they could time-travel more than 60 million years into the past...
Exactly! And in Bambi they depicted animals talking, just like they did in the Garden of Eden.
Seriously, melting all the world's ice would require unimaginable amounts of energy. Even in the worst-case runaway greenhouse scenarios it would take decades, if not centuries for the ice to melt, resulting a slow rise of the ocean levels. Hardly a flood...
And if all the ice would melt, the water would rise at most 100m or so, hardly enough to submerge all the land.
Or maybe they're just all bots?
I get the impression you're confusing simultaneity with causality.
The first says that if you have two events happening at different places, and if you observe those events simultaneously in one reference frame, then you might observe one event before the other in a different reference frame. The Ladder Paradox is an example of this (two ends of the ladder crossing the barn frame).
The second says that if you have two consecutive events in the same position of one reference frame (for example a ticking clock hand), then you will observe those events in the same order in any other reference frame you chose (the clock ticks 12:30 an then 12:31). The reason for this is that light always moves at c, no matter the reference frame, and therefore the light from the second event can never overtake the first.
Relativity doesn't forbid you to sync clocks between two reference frames. All Relativity says is that if you put pre-synced twin clocks in different reference frames, then they will unsync in a calculable manner. All you need is some observations of the second clock, knowledge of its reference frame relative to yours, and some calculations (, and if you want to keep the clocks in sync: also a clock that you can speed up or slow down). Also note that the sync will only work for you: an observer in a different reference frame will still see one clock going faster than the other, since the light from one of them will reach him/her/it first.
That being said, I hope I don't come over as overly critical. I'm actually enjoying the refresh, it's been a while since I've had to think about these concepts.
Regards.
The reason why I picked on your use of the word "absolute" is because it has a well defined meaning in Relativity. The fact that there is no absolute spatial or time reference frame in Relativity is exactly what sets it apart from Newtonian physics. The CMBR reference frame is a useful one, but I think for most purposes our preferred reference frame is the one in which we ourselves exist and observe the universe (i.e. wherever we are on this planet).
a rounding error really
Yeah, but the problem is that it's constantly rounding down...
Yes, I understood the 'speedometer' part of your comment. My remark was mainly towards the 'absolute clock' part. Recalculating time (or the age of the universe) to the frame of the CMBR doesn't make it absolute. Just relative to the CMBR. The CMBR can make an excellent frame to use as a reference, but that still doesn't make it an absolute reference frame.