Obviously games will need to look different than real-life--who wants to shoot (seemingly) real people?
A lot of people, I think. I fully expect games with completely customizable, photorealistic models so you can model your boss and ex-girlfriend and rip them with a chainsaw or have a horny gorilla have his way with them, real-time rendered. That may seem off topic, but it does emphasize your point: with more power, new apps will arise.
Stronger Graphics cards, for example, with handle multiple monitors/projectors more easily. The image search technique where you draw a shape and the computer finds images that look similar could help organize photo albums. Besides the voice-to-text you mentioned, text-to-voide will get a lot better as well. Screen resolutions will keep growing, new movie codecs will compress files just a few bits more at a massive performance cost that won't matter, and a lot of apps will store ever-growing parts of themselves in RAM so they can start up and work faster. We are still far from what is possible.
Right now, every serious software developer is violating dozens, if not hundreds, of patents. But so far, people aren't sued (in large numbers).
What we are currently in is a Cold War of patent rights. Any large patent holder who first starts sueing en masse will get tied up in expensive suits and counter-suits till the courts find all decisions, i.e. hell freezes over. If this happens, small software developers will find it pretty much impossible to do any work without paying for a lot of lawyers, and astronomical licenses. I don't know what this will result in, but in some way, the software patent principle will go. It just can't reasonably exist. I just wish this nonsensical turmoil wouldn't be going to happen during my career.
I'm sure if the figures were much lower, the government couldn't care less.
And if the figures were much higher, the government would realize passing this kind of law doesn't go well with re-election. This will take a while, but we have time.
The formula editor is the reason why I stopped enduring Microsoft Office in writing my thesis. Actually, the Microsoft one is. Of course this also saved me the hassle of trying to edit large documents with Microsoft's product.
I wonder why the stability and size-tolerance of OOo was mentioned nowhere in the article. I translated two books using it, each 300+ pages (and the first one on an old K6/300 machine), with zero crashes. A Microsoft Office user's wet dream. I'm now doing a third translation and choosing the tool for it was a no-brainer.
Full ACK. I think the article displays quite nicely the "ease of use oriented" attitude normal users have. Non-identity to what they used to work with is the single problem.
If OO.o had an option to use icons and menus identical to Microsoft Office's (except for the additional/missing features), and if it was 98%+.DOC compatible, a lot of these people would switch. And it'd hurt Micro$oft a lot harder than a 1% increase in Linux market share would.
I can't imagine the former would be difficult to do. The latter will be a lot more difficult, and I fully expect the next incarnation of.DOC to be a lot harder to decode. Unintentionally, of course.
Do you think dancing on the street at night means to break or cheat the traffic system? Isn't it just the (illegal) assimilation of technology into culture?
Also, there's one thing wrong with BitTorrent: lack of upstream. Google probably doesn't have this problem.
You're a beta tester, so beta test it.:-p I'm sure people on both sides of the legality fence can see the benefits of setting up what amounts to a free fileserver with gigabit upstream.
Can a beta tester please tell if the sending of very large attachments from one Gmail account to another is reasonably fast? Also, what is the maximum attachment size?
I don't think anyone knows yet what Google does with a new account that holds a single mail with a very large, PGP-encrypted attachment that curiously is accessed and downloaded from a wide range of different IPs, but if so, please tell.
Perhaps the format doesn't care about geometry, light sources and whatnot, but simply works like MPEG, just in 3D. The cosine or wavelet transform can be done in 3D as well as it can in 2D, and codecs for such a format would be rather simple to do (and faster, I guess) than realtime rendering engines, because they don't have to bother with how to interpret the various elements of a 3D scene with actual model data. Files in that format also would be much harder to edit, with obvious advantages for the industry.
Also, the transform need not be lossy (although lack of lossless compression would mean the files get really big). Even if it is lossy, you could make certain parts of the 3D scenes much more detailed than others using clever wavelet compression.
And of course, if the format is to work that way, the comparison to JPEG and MP3 makes a lot more sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously games will need to look different than real-life--who wants to shoot (seemingly) real people?
A lot of people, I think. I fully expect games with completely customizable, photorealistic models so you can model your boss and ex-girlfriend and rip them with a chainsaw or have a horny gorilla have his way with them, real-time rendered. That may seem off topic, but it does emphasize your point: with more power, new apps will arise.
Stronger Graphics cards, for example, with handle multiple monitors/projectors more easily. The image search technique where you draw a shape and the computer finds images that look similar could help organize photo albums. Besides the voice-to-text you mentioned, text-to-voide will get a lot better as well. Screen resolutions will keep growing, new movie codecs will compress files just a few bits more at a massive performance cost that won't matter, and a lot of apps will store ever-growing parts of themselves in RAM so they can start up and work faster. We are still far from what is possible.
Right now, every serious software developer is violating dozens, if not hundreds, of patents. But so far, people aren't sued (in large numbers).
What we are currently in is a Cold War of patent rights. Any large patent holder who first starts sueing en masse will get tied up in expensive suits and counter-suits till the courts find all decisions, i.e. hell freezes over. If this happens, small software developers will find it pretty much impossible to do any work without paying for a lot of lawyers, and astronomical licenses. I don't know what this will result in, but in some way, the software patent principle will go. It just can't reasonably exist. I just wish this nonsensical turmoil wouldn't be going to happen during my career.
I'm sure if the figures were much lower, the government couldn't care less.
And if the figures were much higher, the government would realize passing this kind of law doesn't go well with re-election. This will take a while, but we have time.
The formula editor is the reason why I stopped enduring Microsoft Office in writing my thesis. Actually, the Microsoft one is. Of course this also saved me the hassle of trying to edit large documents with Microsoft's product.
I wonder why the stability and size-tolerance of OOo was mentioned nowhere in the article. I translated two books using it, each 300+ pages (and the first one on an old K6/300 machine), with zero crashes. A Microsoft Office user's wet dream. I'm now doing a third translation and choosing the tool for it was a no-brainer.
Full ACK. I think the article displays quite nicely the "ease of use oriented" attitude normal users have. Non-identity to what they used to work with is the single problem.
.DOC compatible, a lot of these people would switch. And it'd hurt Micro$oft a lot harder than a 1% increase in Linux market share would.
.DOC to be a lot harder to decode. Unintentionally, of course.
If OO.o had an option to use icons and menus identical to Microsoft Office's (except for the additional/missing features), and if it was 98%+
I can't imagine the former would be difficult to do. The latter will be a lot more difficult, and I fully expect the next incarnation of
Do you think dancing on the street at night means to break or cheat the traffic system? Isn't it just the (illegal) assimilation of technology into culture?
Also, there's one thing wrong with BitTorrent: lack of upstream. Google probably doesn't have this problem.
You're a beta tester, so beta test it. :-p I'm sure people on both sides of the legality fence can see the benefits of setting up what amounts to a free fileserver with gigabit upstream.
Can a beta tester please tell if the sending of very large attachments from one Gmail account to another is reasonably fast? Also, what is the maximum attachment size?
I don't think anyone knows yet what Google does with a new account that holds a single mail with a very large, PGP-encrypted attachment that curiously is accessed and downloaded from a wide range of different IPs, but if so, please tell.
Scarey thing is, what if the US goverment decides to fuck up someone's life abroad in the name of "fighting terrorism"?
You mean like this?
Perhaps the format doesn't care about geometry, light sources and whatnot, but simply works like MPEG, just in 3D. The cosine or wavelet transform can be done in 3D as well as it can in 2D, and codecs for such a format would be rather simple to do (and faster, I guess) than realtime rendering engines, because they don't have to bother with how to interpret the various elements of a 3D scene with actual model data. Files in that format also would be much harder to edit, with obvious advantages for the industry.
Also, the transform need not be lossy (although lack of lossless compression would mean the files get really big). Even if it is lossy, you could make certain parts of the 3D scenes much more detailed than others using clever wavelet compression.
And of course, if the format is to work that way, the comparison to JPEG and MP3 makes a lot more sense.