Until relatively recently, it's always bugged me that there's been these incredible number crunching processors, but that they've been mostly locked away due to the focus on one subset of graphics (rasterization), rather than an all-encompassing generic style which would allow ray-tracing, particle interactions, and many other unique, weird and wonderful styles, as well as many amazing applications which couldn't otherwise exist.
Finally, that's beginning to change with projects like OpenCL, CUDA, even GPU coding for.NET (GPU.NET). In the future, it will be better still. GPUs still can't multitask, so code kernels longer than a frame or two tend to lock up the display while they're being processed. This means you have to chop up your code into chunks (that's okay for games, but really restricts some of the things you can do easily). That should change soon (at least Nvidia are on the case). Additionally, the cache size is increasing and much more automatic than it used to be. Things can only get better.
If you're right, then when I do reflected code in C#, it's a simulation inside a program, inside a simulated world, itself inside the REAL place where all souls float about:)
I always wonder why these types of slots don't work on a purely random basis. Yes, there's variance to consider, but over time (even if the advantage is 0.1% or less), the tide will always go to the weighted side (just like a roulette wheel).
I think a bigger problem is the definition of "world wonder". As with many other things (like deleting/keeping articles in Wikipedia itself), we should have ratings to indicate importance/notability, not a false dichotomy of "in" or "out".
Yes, but I can imagine many would try to solve the issue by adding a kludge creating more special cases, rather than approach the problem with the better goal of unifying the alleged difference between a sharp, or blurred edge. A matter of degree rather than type/quality.
With the doom face example, their algorithm falls down slightly. Basically, it's almost as if they have to decide between a sharp edge/curve, or a gradiated colour section, like as if the decision is a dichotomy. I'm sure the math is complex, but they should always strive towards the most general all-encompassing technique, rather than try to build more arbitrary 'stages'. A sharp edge could be said to be a gradient, but a very sharp changing one, and vice versa...
Yeah, the losses would concern me. We'd have to be careful - so that maybe the unified language borrows lots of these subtle words/concepts that aren't otherwise fully catered for.
I don't think you understood the gist of my post. The goal should be to eventually unify the languages, generally, not just on Wikipedia. Of course that'll mean adding to new words etc. to each one. Obviously, that's going to be a heck of an undertaking, and they each currently have their advantages and disadvantages.
Standards are good things, and promote easier cooperation and sharing of culture.
Yeah, not actually too bad for an AI - nice one. The style was sort of reminiscent of the Amiga bat and ball I mentioned actually!
You see, if I was rich, I'd create a competition and award a prize of $1,000,000 to the best attempt at creating a music generator. I bet that'd inspire more research into music theory than anything else.
I'm thinking more of the major languages here, or of the cases where I see an article in two different languages, and they're both really different, and better (or worse) in different ways. I always think it would be nice to combine the best features of both, and have the wisdom of both articles merged to make a 'super' article.
Well on that note I have to agree. There's certainly a lot of bloat in the English language, perhaps even more so than C++ or Windows. I'm hoping the english language will naturally evolve out of the slight mess its in, as it's already evolved a great deal so far.
However, there is a lot to be said for a common standard. I would love to use base 12 or 16 over base 10, but it would be awful if almost every country used a different number base. That's a greater 'crime' in many ways than a universally used albeit slightly less-than-ideal number base.
Monospace fonts certainly are very useful at times. I meant just generally. Yes, you need to get used to it for about 20 minutes. Give it a go though (I develop in C too, and very mathsy/logic stuff at times too).
If you get used to putting the curlies on the same line as I do, you'll magically find your vertical space has improved:P Otherwise you tend to get to whole blank wasted white lines. I suppose the argument could be made that it's clearer in one way, but colour coding, other cues, or even just getting used to it will solve that.
English?? Now why ever would I think of using that language out of the hundreds that happen to exist? Surely that would be incredibly biased of me?
Seriously, many countries are using English now as their second language, so I'll admit that seems the sensible choice here. However, my point was a unified language that we can all use universally. Sure, Esperanto can fit that bill, though obviously it lacks the momentum that, I don't know, say.... English perhaps?,... has gotten so far.
To be fair, I always think competition is a good thing in the initial stages, so I think two or three languages would be a good compromise for now. We can then merge them, delete stuff, or take the best concepts out of each one. Yes I am talking long term here.
I think your concept of a 'double dictionary' is a good thing in the initial stages, but obviously it shouldn't be the very long term goal.
Needless to say, there are many Wikipedias dedicated to each language. Think how much richer each entry would be if all that time and energy was concentrated into the one or maybe two languages. That always makes me sad.
Slashdot Mirror
Until relatively recently, it's always bugged me that there's been these incredible number crunching processors, but that they've been mostly locked away due to the focus on one subset of graphics (rasterization), rather than an all-encompassing generic style which would allow ray-tracing, particle interactions, and many other unique, weird and wonderful styles, as well as many amazing applications which couldn't otherwise exist.
Finally, that's beginning to change with projects like OpenCL, CUDA, even GPU coding for .NET (GPU.NET). In the future, it will be better still. GPUs still can't multitask, so code kernels longer than a frame or two tend to lock up the display while they're being processed. This means you have to chop up your code into chunks (that's okay for games, but really restricts some of the things you can do easily). That should change soon (at least Nvidia are on the case). Additionally, the cache size is increasing and much more automatic than it used to be. Things can only get better.
Both came from a live animal. It doesn't make it more 'clever' if you do it yourself.
Any astrophysicists (or at least postgrads) here to say how important or true this achievement really is?
If you're right, then when I do reflected code in C#, it's a simulation inside a program, inside a simulated world, itself inside the REAL place where all souls float about :)
Like preemptive multitasking GPUs (drool....):
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=181194
But roulette wheels obviously have to stick to the random model....?
By the way, according to this post, slots in the UK often use the random model still:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2186094&cid=36248404
I always wonder why these types of slots don't work on a purely random basis. Yes, there's variance to consider, but over time (even if the advantage is 0.1% or less), the tide will always go to the weighted side (just like a roulette wheel).
The 0.000...001 version maybe visually represents the amount better.
I think a bigger problem is the definition of "world wonder". As with many other things (like deleting/keeping articles in Wikipedia itself), we should have ratings to indicate importance/notability, not a false dichotomy of "in" or "out".
Yeah, something more along those lines.
Yes, but I can imagine many would try to solve the issue by adding a kludge creating more special cases, rather than approach the problem with the better goal of unifying the alleged difference between a sharp, or blurred edge. A matter of degree rather than type/quality.
With the doom face example, their algorithm falls down slightly. Basically, it's almost as if they have to decide between a sharp edge/curve, or a gradiated colour section, like as if the decision is a dichotomy. I'm sure the math is complex, but they should always strive towards the most general all-encompassing technique, rather than try to build more arbitrary 'stages'. A sharp edge could be said to be a gradient, but a very sharp changing one, and vice versa...
Yeah, the losses would concern me. We'd have to be careful - so that maybe the unified language borrows lots of these subtle words/concepts that aren't otherwise fully catered for.
I don't think you understood the gist of my post. The goal should be to eventually unify the languages, generally, not just on Wikipedia. Of course that'll mean adding to new words etc. to each one. Obviously, that's going to be a heck of an undertaking, and they each currently have their advantages and disadvantages.
Standards are good things, and promote easier cooperation and sharing of culture.
Yeah, not actually too bad for an AI - nice one. The style was sort of reminiscent of the Amiga bat and ball I mentioned actually!
You see, if I was rich, I'd create a competition and award a prize of $1,000,000 to the best attempt at creating a music generator. I bet that'd inspire more research into music theory than anything else.
I'm thinking more of the major languages here, or of the cases where I see an article in two different languages, and they're both really different, and better (or worse) in different ways. I always think it would be nice to combine the best features of both, and have the wisdom of both articles merged to make a 'super' article.
Well on that note I have to agree. There's certainly a lot of bloat in the English language, perhaps even more so than C++ or Windows. I'm hoping the english language will naturally evolve out of the slight mess its in, as it's already evolved a great deal so far.
However, there is a lot to be said for a common standard. I would love to use base 12 or 16 over base 10, but it would be awful if almost every country used a different number base. That's a greater 'crime' in many ways than a universally used albeit slightly less-than-ideal number base.
Sound choices!
(Sniff...)
Okay that can be the second language for now then.
Monospace fonts certainly are very useful at times. I meant just generally. Yes, you need to get used to it for about 20 minutes. Give it a go though (I develop in C too, and very mathsy/logic stuff at times too).
If you get used to putting the curlies on the same line as I do, you'll magically find your vertical space has improved :P Otherwise you tend to get to whole blank wasted white lines. I suppose the argument could be made that it's clearer in one way, but colour coding, other cues, or even just getting used to it will solve that.
English?? Now why ever would I think of using that language out of the hundreds that happen to exist? Surely that would be incredibly biased of me?
Seriously, many countries are using English now as their second language, so I'll admit that seems the sensible choice here. However, my point was a unified language that we can all use universally. Sure, Esperanto can fit that bill, though obviously it lacks the momentum that, I don't know, say.... English perhaps?,... has gotten so far.
To be fair, I always think competition is a good thing in the initial stages, so I think two or three languages would be a good compromise for now. We can then merge them, delete stuff, or take the best concepts out of each one. Yes I am talking long term here.
I think your concept of a 'double dictionary' is a good thing in the initial stages, but obviously it shouldn't be the very long term goal.
Although for my IPS 26" panel, it's matte AND tough. Maybe the best of both worlds is possible?
Very good point anon. I hadn't considered that the glossy covering is indeed much tougher.
Needless to say, there are many Wikipedias dedicated to each language. Think how much richer each entry would be if all that time and energy was concentrated into the one or maybe two languages. That always makes me sad.
How about if you have 4 documents? Or 2, where the other quarters contain a music player or browser window?