no, no, no, no.. ATI uses every second frame. One chip renders one frame the other renders the next. The way you run pixels shaders and the like doesn't differ in a multi chip card. It's like having two cards but each card re=nders every second frame. the main problem will be synchronizing the two cards so one card doesn't get too far ahead of the other I mean consider;
this is how it works in theory:
chip1 (working) chip2 (working) / chip 1 (output on screen) chip1 (working) / chip 2 (output on screen) chip2 (working) / chip 1 (output on screen) chip1 (working) / chip 2 (output on screen)
now.. if chip 2 has consistantly had easier frames then they might go out of sync and you'll get
time between frame 1 and 2 80ms (times are not realistic) time between 2 and 3 1ms time between 3 and 4 80ms time between 4 and 5 1ms..
this is nt usefull to have two frames very quick then a big gap between the next frame.. ironically, FPS will remain high despite the fact you're only getting effective half the frame rate.
Doing SLI has its problem too.. like tearing (a probably worse problem).
I wonder if ATi's MAXX cards try to keep the distance between frames constant or if they run ansychronously...
I agree that people cannot be bothered taking the time to figure out how things work, however, I must say that their attitude is not only justifiable but that of a well ajusted persone. When programing two VCRs from the same munufacturer only 2 years apart requires a totaly different proceedure, why bother taking the time to learn how to use it? The knowlege is totaly unapplicable anythwhere else! I think that many things we learn in the computer industry are totaly absurd and useless. I mean if it takes 5 to 10 years to go from a newbie to linux user, that's 5 to 10 years of your life that are gone forever - you can't have back and what have you gained? The knowlege of how to interract with a niche OS that probably will work totaly differently in 5 years anyways....
It's utterly embarasing, I find, that some people know so much, of what is ultimately trivia, about interracting with a big, complicated, proceedure and not even paid for it. It doubly spooky to think that at the same time, that linux and it's supporting structure are about the extent of these people's knowlege. Getting all snoby about how no one bothers to learn some here-today gone tomorrow technological gaget seems a bit.. miss-guided to say the least. If anything, spending 5 years or so obsessing about some gizmo and not getting paid for it is the truely disturbing thing. My personal opinion is that if the specialist (aka programmer or engineer) did not spend the time to make his program or gaget as easy and intuative to use as possibly he is wasting my time - forcing me to understand some irrelevent minuta of his domain. As a result he is an ass hole, just like the sales clerks that keeps me waiting in line for 5 minutes for nothing, just like the jerk in traffic that sits in the middle of the intersection on red. To hell with him and his program.
Granted you still have a funciton that doesa a whoile load of things but that is now nicely contained in a factiont that makes sence!!!!!!!!!!
Even better would be some sort of OO way of coding it like:
ConfigCollection::addConfigs(array allconfigs) {
while(gotMoreConfigs) {
addConfig(...);//part of config ///collection
} //add config does what is needed //to store the config. }
YOU can split this thing up into seral funciton not bigger then a few lines, expect the function that does the adding garbage.. and even that can probably be broken up since it loks like misc things arebieng added to misc objects and such a thing should probably never happen.. of course this all depends on specifics...
-> Java lacks "real" socket classes. Java's threading classes stink, compared to CLR as well.
What is a real socket? One that allows for things mor elow level than TCP/UDP?
-> Java lacks asynchronous I/O, (1.4 supposedly will remedy that)...
I made my own async IO library. It's not hard. It's also not really a language problem. More of a lack of utility classes.
-> Java doesn't let you pass things by reference.
You're always passing by reference in Java. It's actually quite a pain to do otherwise.. unless you're using primitive data types in which case you can use the provided primitive data classes wrapper types.
-> CLR's delegate based eventing is more intuitive and simpler
CLR?
-> Java is not truly object oriented... ie primitives are not objects and niether are literals. In CLR, everything is an object. Even primitives and literals.
This is not a bad thing. Passing primitives by value is what you want to do 99.9% of the time. You cna also do proper math on primitives (using +,-,/,* symbols).. and an array of primitives gets compatected saving space. primitives don't have asosated pointer, monitor, toString()
-> Java lacks Unsigned data types.
A good thing! Unsinged data types cause more problems then they are worth.. If you're going to make all primitive data types objects then you should at least use an int instead of a short. Not that it matters since an int and short take up the same amount of actual memory in java anyways.. unless there's in arrays of course.
-> I really hate how you have to declare that your methods throws something, and be forced at compile time to catch them. Any developer worth their beans will already be aware of exceptions and how to deal with them. When you force developers to catch everything, too many people get lazy and catch an exception, just to throw it away, which is truly heinous. And CLR's System.Diagnostic classes are very nice;)
being forced to do something intellegent with the error is not a bad thing. it's nice to know you can force the user to handle the error when making libraries. Or to at least communicate that there is a very good chance that this problem will happen.. sort of thing...
The recursive "throws" can be annoying (you know, change one exception change a billion "throws" all through the calling functions.) but that's what you pay for the having the ability to pester users of your code into using it like it should. Or go through pain to do the wrong thing.
the way I'd try and do it is to start from the idea of a remote screen and work form there... That is, use the client as a sort of viewer of events happening in the "real world" on the main server.
Show users what you can manage to show and have your client try an interpolate form the data that can be sent. As the user moves around the world, the view might require more timely information about certain areas of the "real world" so it would signal that the events it's interrested int should recieve more updates.
It's not a real linux keyboard. A real linux keyboard would come with no letters and allow each user to set each key to anyting you want. It would also send out electrical shocks every once in a while just for the hell of it:-)
It would probably fall under the catagory of "social discovery" but I'm working on a proxying system that would allow many nodes to pool their resources under one node, effectively implementing a kind of super node.
Actually, you wouldn't be forcing much of anything.,. by making a new standard called X12 or whatever and by making all the extensions mandatory, you're not forcing users to install a fat system at all. The exist of X12 doesn't mean the death of X11. Since X11 features would be a subset of X12.
So, I would vote for keeping the X11 system and proposing an X12 system to make X11 somewhat less primitive....
.jar is a.zip with a manifesyt file. The manifest file is a txt file inside the archive. If you change the name to.zip you can open it up and decompress things and such...
.jar do not need to be extracted before running. if you're on windows you simply double click on them. if you're on a command line OS you type something like
java -jar jarFileName.jar
and assuming the manifest file exist and is done properly, it will run.
I've always viewed Objects and object oriented desgint to be usefull for structuring programs - that is making moduals simple to glue together.. getting rid of "glue bugs" (problems that occure when intergrating moduals). I don't think that Objects help make a program fast or efficient.. if anything they seem to work against it, making data structures fatter and blocking possible optimisations that could come from tigher integration. This is fine with me, however, since most of my problems come from people not understanding how each others moduals work or making errors that come from simply being un-experienced with someone else's code.
I think you're looking at a tool that can be used to help structure, isolate and make code self sufficient to help with calculations and modeling.
Yep.. gone from an OS that was unstable to an OS that is unstable, hard to configure, slow and has a really bad UI.. yeah! go MacOS X.. The funny thing is, Unix people are looking at it and going on about how great the GUI is. Wow, talk about low standards...
My dad had problems with doing this too. I always aim for it, but miss the pedal completely - it's not there! How can you hit the clutch if it's not there.. the brake is too far over to mistake for the clutch...! I'm thinking it has somehting to do with the way muscle memory works... I think my muscel memory has learnt where the brake pedal ends and then goes over one more. When the tracking fails to hit it, it causes a panic instead of auto correcting it.. I dunno..
My main concern is one of the alternatives are any good. MacOS X is a slow buggy disaster with an interface that is inferior to Apple's own previous generation product. Linux is two shakes away from being utterly unusable by mere mortals (administrable? no granny stories here. Grannies don't count if they have a son that works in IT...). There are no reasonable alternatives. Computers seem to have regressed back to being toys again. I spend more time configuring, tinkering, working on my system trying to get it to do what it should then I do actually working. Every new program needs weeks to become familiar with it enough to use it to any degree. When I got into computers it was because they were going away from being toys for nerds to being actually useful. Instead, we have Microsoft being its normal predatory self - destroying good, simple, effective open systems and replacing them with slow, buggy, irritatingly complex systems with a slightly better initial learning curve and tightly bundling things together. To MSN you need to get a hotmail account, install Netmeeting, get a passport and god only knows what other horrible things it has secretly done to my system. Aghhhh!
..can someone explain to me why no one has been hanged for installing spyware programs? Good god - secretly installing programs that do nothing but show ads. What kind of system is this where users give up control to some pushy software? I'm sorry Mr. Jones, but that computer you bought and paid for now belongs to us. haw haw...
Linux (unix) isn't much better. There's a very blurry line between programmer and user. Want to install a program? Well, you need to get a copy, install a bunch of hard paths ('cause the file structure isn't for users it's for programs.. yeah).. Then there are config files all over the place because 1) you can do everything from a telnet session 2) no one has heard you can get a directory listing and just load everything in there 3) parsers are more glamorous than GUI interfaces. A programming language per program.. fun...
No good system that just let me work. Just don't get in my way, is that too hard?!?! AGHH!
of course. You think anyone over 20 has the time to look through these groups?:-)
What we've done or who we are?
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
I'm not so certain that the gripes are mostly about what the US has done or about what the western world is. I would argue that the center of the conflict is one of ideologies. Consider the differences between the two cultures I have stumbled upon by talking to my newly immigrated Arabic friend.
Western view on religion's role in ethics:
ethics or being ethical has little to do with being religious, ie: it is quite possible to be ethical and not be religious. Ethics should be derived through a mixture of intuition and case studies.
Middle eastern view on religion and ethics (from my understanding)
It's just about impossible to be ethical and not be religious. The two are one and the same. There might exist some cases where a person can be ethical and not religious but that person is not an ethical person. (From my understanding it's akin to being accidentally ethical)
Western view on religious ceremonies:
Any religion that requires shows of devotion from its followers is suspicious. God should not care how he is worshiped. Perhaps these shows of devotions are for the church leaders and not God?
Middle eastern view of religious ceremonies:
Essential to proving your devotion to god.
Westerners who don't observe religious do-dads are either lazy, undevoted or scared to be devoted because they secretly know they are unethical (see above).
weeee, isn't religion fun.
So anyways, this is what's I've gathered and I'm not sure it's completely accurate since it was picked up by listening to how many friend argued ? and of course this is a survey of one, which doesn?t help. Also I'm not certain of how regional the views are either.
At any rate, if the views expressed are accurate for about 25% of the population of most countries then the western world has a serious image problem - ie: just about everyone is unethical or if you push it, evil and it can't be resolved entirely by simply being good.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, he should gone with a more fashionable inflammatory label and called them a terrorist...
Add Myster as well (my url link)
It's more to do with the vastness of the British empire and the usefulness a common second language. Americans need not flatter themselves.
What if I just take a picture of the Stratus and drive that around then come and buy the Viper later?
no, no, no, no.. ATI uses every second frame. One chip renders one frame the other renders the next. The way you run pixels shaders and the like doesn't differ in a multi chip card. It's like having two cards but each card re=nders every second frame. the main problem will be synchronizing the two cards so one card doesn't get too far ahead of the other I mean consider;
this is how it works in theory:
chip1 (working)
chip2 (working) / chip 1 (output on screen)
chip1 (working) / chip 2 (output on screen)
chip2 (working) / chip 1 (output on screen)
chip1 (working) / chip 2 (output on screen)
now.. if chip 2 has consistantly had easier frames then they might go out of sync and you'll get
time between frame 1 and 2 80ms (times are not realistic)
time between 2 and 3 1ms
time between 3 and 4 80ms
time between 4 and 5 1ms..
this is nt usefull to have two frames very quick then a big gap between the next frame.. ironically, FPS will remain high despite the fact you're only getting effective half the frame rate.
Doing SLI has its problem too.. like tearing (a probably worse problem).
I wonder if ATi's MAXX cards try to keep the distance between frames constant or if they run ansychronously...
I agree that people cannot be bothered taking the time to figure out how things work, however, I must say that their attitude is not only justifiable but that of a well ajusted persone. When programing two VCRs from the same munufacturer only 2 years apart requires a totaly different proceedure, why bother taking the time to learn how to use it? The knowlege is totaly unapplicable anythwhere else! I think that many things we learn in the computer industry are totaly absurd and useless. I mean if it takes 5 to 10 years to go from a newbie to linux user, that's 5 to 10 years of your life that are gone forever - you can't have back and what have you gained? The knowlege of how to interract with a niche OS that probably will work totaly differently in 5 years anyways....
It's utterly embarasing, I find, that some people know so much, of what is ultimately trivia, about interracting with a big, complicated, proceedure and not even paid for it. It doubly spooky to think that at the same time, that linux and it's supporting structure are about the extent of these people's knowlege. Getting all snoby about how no one bothers to learn some here-today gone tomorrow technological gaget seems a bit.. miss-guided to say the least. If anything, spending 5 years or so obsessing about some gizmo and not getting paid for it is the truely disturbing thing. My personal opinion is that if the specialist (aka programmer or engineer) did not spend the time to make his program or gaget as easy and intuative to use as possibly he is wasting my time - forcing me to understand some irrelevent minuta of his domain. As a result he is an ass hole, just like the sales clerks that keeps me waiting in line for 5 minutes for nothing, just like the jerk in traffic that sits in the middle of the intersection on red. To hell with him and his program.
easy:
function() {
array allconfigs=getAllConfigs();
while(gotMoreConfigs) {
addConfig(...);
}
storeConfigurations(allconfigs);
}
Wow.. that suddenly got readable too.
Granted you still have a funciton that doesa a whoile load of things but that is now nicely contained in a factiont that makes sence!!!!!!!!!!
Even better would be some sort of OO way of coding it like:
ConfigCollection::addConfigs(array allconfigs) {
while(gotMoreConfigs) {
addConfig(...);//part of config
///collection
}
//add config does what is needed
//to store the config.
}
YOU can split this thing up into seral funciton not bigger then a few lines, expect the function that does the adding garbage.. and even that can probably be broken up since it loks like misc things arebieng added to misc objects and such a thing should probably never happen.. of course this all depends on specifics...
wow
;)
-> Java lacks "real" socket classes. Java's threading classes stink, compared to CLR as well.
What is a real socket? One that allows for things mor elow level than TCP/UDP?
-> Java lacks asynchronous I/O, (1.4 supposedly will remedy that)...
I made my own async IO library. It's not hard. It's also not really a language problem. More of a lack of utility classes.
-> Java doesn't let you pass things by reference.
You're always passing by reference in Java. It's actually quite a pain to do otherwise.. unless you're using primitive data types in which case you can use the provided primitive data classes wrapper types.
-> CLR's delegate based eventing is more intuitive and simpler
CLR?
-> Java is not truly object oriented... ie primitives are not objects and niether are literals. In CLR, everything is an object. Even primitives and literals.
This is not a bad thing. Passing primitives by value is what you want to do 99.9% of the time. You cna also do proper math on primitives (using +,-,/,* symbols).. and an array of primitives gets compatected saving space. primitives don't have asosated pointer, monitor, toString()
-> Java lacks Unsigned data types.
A good thing! Unsinged data types cause more problems then they are worth.. If you're going to make all primitive data types objects then you should at least use an int instead of a short. Not that it matters since an int and short take up the same amount of actual memory in java anyways.. unless there's in arrays of course.
-> I really hate how you have to declare that your methods throws something, and be forced at compile time to catch them. Any developer worth their beans will already be aware of exceptions and how to deal with them. When you force developers to catch everything, too many people get lazy and catch an exception, just to throw it away, which is truly heinous. And CLR's System.Diagnostic classes are very nice
being forced to do something intellegent with the error is not a bad thing. it's nice to know you can force the user to handle the error when making libraries. Or to at least communicate that there is a very good chance that this problem will happen.. sort of thing...
The recursive "throws" can be annoying (you know, change one exception change a billion "throws" all through the calling functions.) but that's what you pay for the having the ability to pester users of your code into using it like it should. Or go through pain to do the wrong thing.
the way I'd try and do it is to start from the idea of a remote screen and work form there... That is, use the client as a sort of viewer of events happening in the "real world" on the main server.
Show users what you can manage to show and have your client try an interpolate form the data that can be sent. As the user moves around the world, the view might require more timely information about certain areas of the "real world" so it would signal that the events it's interrested int should recieve more updates.
more like
Barney's film had heart but "football in the groin" had a football in the groin.
It's not a real linux keyboard. A real linux keyboard would come with no letters and allow each user to set each key to anyting you want. It would also send out electrical shocks every once in a while just for the hell of it :-)
HEY! you forgot My program: Myster... :-)
It would probably fall under the catagory of "social discovery" but I'm working on a proxying system that would allow many nodes to pool their resources under one node, effectively implementing a kind of super node.
Actually, you wouldn't be forcing much of anything.,. by making a new standard called X12 or whatever and by making all the extensions mandatory, you're not forcing users to install a fat system at all. The exist of X12 doesn't mean the death of X11. Since X11 features would be a subset of X12.
So, I would vote for keeping the X11 system and proposing an X12 system to make X11 somewhat less primitive....
.jar is a .zip with a manifesyt file. The manifest file is a txt file inside the archive. If you change the name to .zip you can open it up and decompress things and such...
.jar do not need to be extracted before running. if you're on windows you simply double click on them. if you're on a command line OS you type something like
java -jar jarFileName.jar
and assuming the manifest file exist and is done properly, it will run.
Modern sociaty is a good example of a system that punishes free loaders by majority to achieve better co-opperation.
Sociaty punished people who work against sociaty through the police force and justice system.. Co-opperation abounds.
I've always viewed Objects and object oriented desgint to be usefull for structuring programs - that is making moduals simple to glue together.. getting rid of "glue bugs" (problems that occure when intergrating moduals). I don't think that Objects help make a program fast or efficient.. if anything they seem to work against it, making data structures fatter and blocking possible optimisations that could come from tigher integration. This is fine with me, however, since most of my problems come from people not understanding how each others moduals work or making errors that come from simply being un-experienced with someone else's code.
I think you're looking at a tool that can be used to help structure, isolate and make code self sufficient to help with calculations and modeling.
Yep.. gone from an OS that was unstable to an OS that is unstable, hard to configure, slow and has a really bad UI.. yeah! go MacOS X.. The funny thing is, Unix people are looking at it and going on about how great the GUI is. Wow, talk about low standards...
That's not your fault for not knowing.. that's linux's fault for being a very silly OS.
I've always wondered if Windoze + time spent trying to get it to work properly is less than or equal time to convincing linux to do something.
My dad had problems with doing this too. I always aim for it, but miss the pedal completely - it's not there! How can you hit the clutch if it's not there.. the brake is too far over to mistake for the clutch...! I'm thinking it has somehting to do with the way muscle memory works... I think my muscel memory has learnt where the brake pedal ends and then goes over one more. When the tracking fails to hit it, it causes a panic instead of auto correcting it.. I dunno..
How ironic. MacOS X drive me to windows from MacOS classic.
So you've installing three seperate Linux distros and you're claiming very little Linux knowlege..
BTW: Since when has installing an OS been hard? Just pop in the CD and double click. command-open-k if you'd like a fresh install.
MacOS X is the MacOS in name only. The REAL MacOS dies with 9.X....
My main concern is one of the alternatives are any good. MacOS X is a slow buggy disaster with an interface that is inferior to Apple's own previous generation product. Linux is two shakes away from being utterly unusable by mere mortals (administrable? no granny stories here. Grannies don't count if they have a son that works in IT...). There are no reasonable alternatives. Computers seem to have regressed back to being toys again. I spend more time configuring, tinkering, working on my system trying to get it to do what it should then I do actually working. Every new program needs weeks to become familiar with it enough to use it to any degree. When I got into computers it was because they were going away from being toys for nerds to being actually useful. Instead, we have Microsoft being its normal predatory self - destroying good, simple, effective open systems and replacing them with slow, buggy, irritatingly complex systems with a slightly better initial learning curve and tightly bundling things together. To MSN you need to get a hotmail account, install Netmeeting, get a passport and god only knows what other horrible things it has secretly done to my system. Aghhhh!
..can someone explain to me why no one has been hanged for installing spyware programs? Good god - secretly installing programs that do nothing but show ads. What kind of system is this where users give up control to some pushy software? I'm sorry Mr. Jones, but that computer you bought and paid for now belongs to us. haw haw...
Linux (unix) isn't much better. There's a very blurry line between programmer and user. Want to install a program? Well, you need to get a copy, install a bunch of hard paths ('cause the file structure isn't for users it's for programs.. yeah).. Then there are config files all over the place because 1) you can do everything from a telnet session 2) no one has heard you can get a directory listing and just load everything in there 3) parsers are more glamorous than GUI interfaces. A programming language per program.. fun...
No good system that just let me work. Just don't get in my way, is that too hard?!?! AGHH!
of course. You think anyone over 20 has the time to look through these groups? :-)
I'm not so certain that the gripes are mostly about what the US has done or about what the western world is. I would argue that the center of the conflict is one of ideologies. Consider the differences between the two cultures I have stumbled upon by talking to my newly immigrated Arabic friend.
Western view on religion's role in ethics:
ethics or being ethical has little to do with being religious, ie: it is quite possible to be ethical and not be religious. Ethics should be derived through a mixture of intuition and case studies.
Middle eastern view on religion and ethics (from my understanding)
It's just about impossible to be ethical and not be religious. The two are one and the same. There might exist some cases where a person can be ethical and not religious but that person is not an ethical person. (From my understanding it's akin to being accidentally ethical)
Western view on religious ceremonies:
Any religion that requires shows of devotion from its followers is suspicious. God should not care how he is worshiped. Perhaps these shows of devotions are for the church leaders and not God?
Middle eastern view of religious ceremonies:
Essential to proving your devotion to god.
Westerners who don't observe religious do-dads are either lazy, undevoted or scared to be devoted because they secretly know they are unethical (see above).
weeee, isn't religion fun.
So anyways, this is what's I've gathered and I'm not sure it's completely accurate since it was picked up by listening to how many friend argued ? and of course this is a survey of one, which doesn?t help. Also I'm not certain of how regional the views are either.
At any rate, if the views expressed are accurate for about 25% of the population of most countries then the western world has a serious image problem - ie: just about everyone is unethical or if you push it, evil and it can't be resolved entirely by simply being good.
anyway.. comments welcome.