They have indeed already been proven, I suspect. Ah well...
OTOH, it might be that in the near future I prove some other, novel theorems (correctly), for which these known theorems were necessary practice. In that case, was proving them worthwhile?
I think you still should look at (and understand) the damn graph. The point of the article was that if you want a given complexity of scene (which translates into quality of image), you only have to get a little bit more complex than current game scenes before current ray tracing techniques become faster than current raster techniques. Thus, ray tracing at 30 fps will look better than raster at 30 fps in the near future, perhaps already. Ray tracing is the quickest known route to better graphics quality at the same frame rate in games.
Yes, what can be produced will still be behind what people want or expect. But ray tracing will be less far behind than rasters in the near future.
All of this is according to TFA; I don't know much about this from a technical standpoint.
Have you considered trying firefox 2, in which many problems from firefox 1.5 have been fixed (as they should be)? If you have problems, oftentimes, getting the latest version is more productive than complaining about them. Problems certainly aren't going to get fixed in old, deprecated versions. I don't know if your particular problem is fixed in firefox 2, but it is much more likely to be fixed there than in firefox 1.5.
Or, alternatively, you get elected, do whatever it is that you said you would do in your campaign (and precious little else), and then make a graceful exit at the end of your term, having stuck to what you said and not sold out just to grasp for more power. The problem with that democracy game is revealed very quickly on their webpage:
The object of the game is to stay in power as long as possible Any person who has this as their goal is practically guaranteed to turn out to be a bad president^Wleader of any sort.
what I've heard about "net neutrality." is clearly wrong. Perhaps, prior to forming and expounding at length upon an opinion on any given issue, you should make the effort required to learn about that issue. Wikipedia might well be a good place to start your self-education. Network neutrality is not a
one-size-fits-all price and service level set by some doofus bureaucrat in Washington. Rather, it is a requirement that the ISPs (and possibly all the backbones and such as well) do exactly what you have paid them to do, nothing more, nothing less. That is, they provide the equipment necessary to implement the IP protocol, and they don't screw around with it. Naturally, the equipment that you pay to have provided can and will have an effect on the rate at which data reaches you, both throughput and latency.
IT investments didn't provide companies with strategic advantages because when one company adopted a new technology, its competitors did the same. So it seems that failing to invest in IT will provide companies with a strategic disadvantage...
Slow down, cowboy. Where did I mention the USA? When did I say "The USA's gov't is better than Australia's"? I'll give you a hint: I didn't. It's true that I do live in the USA (although I'm probably leaving once I finish grad school), but I by no means think that the USA has a great gov't, or even a not-nannyistic one.
Sounds like a pretty terrible place to live, IMO. Laws which protect only one person from themselves (singular them, clearly) are a gross misuse of government powers. The government should only be enacting laws which protect others from the stupidity of that one person. As a grown adult, I don't want to go back to the nursery and have some higher power watch over my every move to make sure I don't trip and fall or choke on my own thumb. In other words, what you have there in Australia is derisively referred to as a "nanny government".
Hey there geezer. Last time I checked, it was my parents' generation, the Baby Boomers, who were driving this entire national security/loss of freedoms deal. My generation is well aware of it, and hates it.
Perhaps a larger (and maybe more real to Joe Sixpack) reason to be concerned is that you are even more easily pegged as an American, without any need to break the encryption or handshake (if there is one). Being identified as an American can make you a serious target in a lot of places for a lot of reasons, ranging from the terr'rists wanting to kill you to just some dude in an alley in Paris who wants to rob a rich guy instead of a poor guy. Americans tend to be rich.
A different voting system. The first-past-the-post system we have in place sucks a lot, and utterly fails to select the most desired candidate except in cases where there are only two candidates. It also encourages voting "strategy" that further reinforces the two entrenched parties. Read up on wikipedia about Condorcet methods, Arrow's impossibility theorem, and related topics.
It is certainly possible to create a third party under US law, for instance the Libertarian and Green parties are certainly legal. However, largely because of the current voting system, they are utter failures at displacing the entrenched parties.
Since we are talking about conversational language, I would submit that if you have an utterance which may be understood in two ways, one reasonable and one absurd, you should deliberately understand it in the reasonable way, rather than the absurd way. Since you think the G^nP's statement was absurd, yet two different people have pointed out a perfectly reasonable interpretation, I suggest that you back up and realize you probably took it the wrong way. There's no shame in misreading something and being corrected.
I would appreciate not being flamed by you in the future, please. Calling me an anal-retentive logician is rather rude, in my opinion (I understand that it may not be in yours, so I am trying to politely inform you of my feelings on the matter). I would also appreciate an apology for the flame, but OTOH, I certainly don't expect one (this being the internet, after all).
You still didn't read or invert correctly. "Never A when B" does not mean "It's ok to A when not B." The fact that the G^nP gave one condition under which starting a war was inappropriate does not imply that he/she believes that under all other conditions, starting a war is appropriate. Quit jerking your knees.
Enjoy your Soviet made goods, then. That's some really high quality stuff, it is.
Yes, this is a bit of a strawman, because there's regulation and then there's regulation. But still, I disagree that regulation is the solution we should look to. Frankly, I'm not convinced that the quality of silicon goods is actually that low...
Shouldn't steps 1 and 2 be switched?
Hmmm, step 1, accomplished! Now let's see about step 2.......... Crap. I'm not a prostitute. No Profit!!! for me after all.
You missed the point. As I read it, GP wasn't whining about having to write a lot of code, but rather about how long that code takes to run. Every time you want to write to the buffer (which presumably happens quite a lot), you have to spend a few cycles making your sanity check. In some cases, every cycle is vitally important, and that is an unacceptable cost. Thankfully, in most cases, cycles are sufficiently cheap nowadays that bounds checking is realistic.
Slashdot Mirror
They have indeed already been proven, I suspect. Ah well...
OTOH, it might be that in the near future I prove some other, novel theorems (correctly), for which these known theorems were necessary practice. In that case, was proving them worthwhile?
I proved a couple of minor quantum mechanical theorems the other day. Does that count?
It was shagged out after a long iSquawk?
I think you still should look at (and understand) the damn graph. The point of the article was that if you want a given complexity of scene (which translates into quality of image), you only have to get a little bit more complex than current game scenes before current ray tracing techniques become faster than current raster techniques. Thus, ray tracing at 30 fps will look better than raster at 30 fps in the near future, perhaps already. Ray tracing is the quickest known route to better graphics quality at the same frame rate in games.
Yes, what can be produced will still be behind what people want or expect. But ray tracing will be less far behind than rasters in the near future.
All of this is according to TFA; I don't know much about this from a technical standpoint.
Have you considered trying firefox 2, in which many problems from firefox 1.5 have been fixed (as they should be)? If you have problems, oftentimes, getting the latest version is more productive than complaining about them. Problems certainly aren't going to get fixed in old, deprecated versions. I don't know if your particular problem is fixed in firefox 2, but it is much more likely to be fixed there than in firefox 1.5.
Too bad they aren't being scythed by Congress instead...
Hurray for punchcards?! When you were my age, we had to make our own paper if we wanted punchcards! With our teeth! In the snow! And we liked it!
Is that a decent screen in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?
You could very well have some sort of a failsafe serial line connected to every machine. I'm sure that the black hats would loooove that.
facebook is (used to be?) mostly college students, eg, those who are old enough to vote.
Slow down, cowboy. Where did I mention the USA? When did I say "The USA's gov't is better than Australia's"? I'll give you a hint: I didn't. It's true that I do live in the USA (although I'm probably leaving once I finish grad school), but I by no means think that the USA has a great gov't, or even a not-nannyistic one.
Sounds like a pretty terrible place to live, IMO. Laws which protect only one person from themselves (singular them, clearly) are a gross misuse of government powers. The government should only be enacting laws which protect others from the stupidity of that one person. As a grown adult, I don't want to go back to the nursery and have some higher power watch over my every move to make sure I don't trip and fall or choke on my own thumb. In other words, what you have there in Australia is derisively referred to as a "nanny government".
Hey there geezer. Last time I checked, it was my parents' generation, the Baby Boomers, who were driving this entire national security/loss of freedoms deal. My generation is well aware of it, and hates it.
Perhaps a larger (and maybe more real to Joe Sixpack) reason to be concerned is that you are even more easily pegged as an American, without any need to break the encryption or handshake (if there is one). Being identified as an American can make you a serious target in a lot of places for a lot of reasons, ranging from the terr'rists wanting to kill you to just some dude in an alley in Paris who wants to rob a rich guy instead of a poor guy. Americans tend to be rich.
You, sir, have earned my respect and admiration. Thank you.
A different voting system. The first-past-the-post system we have in place sucks a lot, and utterly fails to select the most desired candidate except in cases where there are only two candidates. It also encourages voting "strategy" that further reinforces the two entrenched parties. Read up on wikipedia about Condorcet methods, Arrow's impossibility theorem, and related topics.
It is certainly possible to create a third party under US law, for instance the Libertarian and Green parties are certainly legal. However, largely because of the current voting system, they are utter failures at displacing the entrenched parties.
Since we are talking about conversational language, I would submit that if you have an utterance which may be understood in two ways, one reasonable and one absurd, you should deliberately understand it in the reasonable way, rather than the absurd way. Since you think the G^nP's statement was absurd, yet two different people have pointed out a perfectly reasonable interpretation, I suggest that you back up and realize you probably took it the wrong way. There's no shame in misreading something and being corrected.
I would appreciate not being flamed by you in the future, please. Calling me an anal-retentive logician is rather rude, in my opinion (I understand that it may not be in yours, so I am trying to politely inform you of my feelings on the matter). I would also appreciate an apology for the flame, but OTOH, I certainly don't expect one (this being the internet, after all).
You still didn't read or invert correctly. "Never A when B" does not mean "It's ok to A when not B." The fact that the G^nP gave one condition under which starting a war was inappropriate does not imply that he/she believes that under all other conditions, starting a war is appropriate. Quit jerking your knees.
Enjoy your Soviet made goods, then. That's some really high quality stuff, it is.
Yes, this is a bit of a strawman, because there's regulation and then there's regulation. But still, I disagree that regulation is the solution we should look to. Frankly, I'm not convinced that the quality of silicon goods is actually that low...
Hmmm, step 1, accomplished! Now let's see about step 2...
You missed the point. As I read it, GP wasn't whining about having to write a lot of code, but rather about how long that code takes to run. Every time you want to write to the buffer (which presumably happens quite a lot), you have to spend a few cycles making your sanity check. In some cases, every cycle is vitally important, and that is an unacceptable cost. Thankfully, in most cases, cycles are sufficiently cheap nowadays that bounds checking is realistic.