Then, whenever I dial a wrong number, it can automatically connect me to someone trying to sell me long distance service, debt consolidation, or a newspaper subsription.
i wouldnt be surprised if doom 3 didnt get a big mod following.
apart from the network code being so-so, the engine probably has a lot less to do with doom 3's beauty than the artwork does. the models and levels in doom 3 have a mgnificently low polygon count, and art that doesnt stack up to the masterpieces in doom 3 will probably look shabby or use more polygons than the engine is designed for.
32 bits is enough for a GPU. why? the point of a GPU is to produce good-looking graphics fast. precision problems with single precision IEEE754s are by and large far too small to notice once the end result is shipped off to a screen as color. so, 64 bits is killing a fly with a sledgehammer in a GPU.
the brightening example holds no water. 24 bits of intensity precision, mapped to the gamut of a crt or lcd, is orders of magnitude more than necessary for extremely atttractive real-time graphics. there are situations where the additional precision is necessary, but active moving scenes will not require it purely from the fact they are dynamic. for static scenes, teh computations can be produced more slowly on the gpu via simulated extended precision or off of the gpu.
32 bits is often not enough for a general math processor, but guess what? gpus are not general processors. thats the whole point -- specialized hardware that does one thing well and nothign else is cheaper and faster than general hardare. thats why it exists, and thats the point of the GPU.
64 bit processors DO significantly increase costs as well as hamper performance. if the gpu was converted to natively operate only on 64 bit, it would require significantly more silicon, as well as exhibiting increased latency for 32 bit operations -- both to convert to a 64 bit value and perform the operation. if the gpu were to support both 32 and 64 bit opeartions natively, the latency hit would be reduced, but there would be a massive increase in transistor count, and a major cost increase.
and, the super parallelism argument is bunk. parallelism (in a single machine) is not forcefeeding general computation to a specialized processor that isnt designed for it. im willing to wager the "scientific field" knows what it wants, and at no point has someone been doing research and cursed his GPU as not being useful for general computation.
basically, these are all things that are nice to have, but have no place on a gpu designed to produce good graphics fast. i understand your frustration over having that mighty little piece of silicon sitting in your computer and feeling like you cant fully tap it, but that just isnt what its made for; and if it were able to do it, it would be worse at what it is supposed to do.
regardless of privacy/big-brother/thoughtcrime issues, this doesnt seem that impressive to me.
algorithms have existed for a number of years for facial recognition that keys on features of the face, most notably eyes. being able to find irises in a picture with faces has been done; and not even requiring a picture of just one face as the article seems to suggest.
from there, its extracting a transparent reflection off of a constant backing with multiple frames. again, previous work. nothing new.
yes, its a neat application, but this is no breakthrough. this article is like someone going out and taking a picture of something nobodys taken a picture of before, and then saying they invented a new camera.
actually, there is a good way of tellign if it was a good or bad decision.
the decision to use the atomic bomb came as the emporer enacted programs to arm the women and children of japan with swords, since there werent enough guns to go around, and he wanted everyone to be prepared to fight an invasion.
its also of note that by "children," it means 13 and under, since at 14 you were in the military... period. and, for the fact checkers, im not positive -- it may have been 12, so go easy if its one of the two.
the plan of the japanese military as allied forces neared japan was to fight until the very last man, and not surrender until no japanese able to so much as hold up a sword was left standing. in his twilight years, the emporer was very public about how much his decision haunted him and about the horror he felt his pride and the pride of his nation led the world into.
there is a way of knowing how many lives were saved. the populations of hiroshima and nagasaki, man woman and child, were in preparation to defend against an invading force. women and children against marines, while they would be able to inflict massive casualty, would have been slaughtered. while nobody has the right or deserves the responsibility of deciding who should live and die, it is almost certain that most everyone who died by the bomb would have died defending japan from invasion; as well as tens of thousands more being prepared to defend coastlines with inadequate weaponry.
the US tried many times to settle the war without invasion. all were rebuked.
please, do not take me for saying that dropping nuclear bombs was an aceptable or only decision; take me as saying that it was an illustration of the horror of all war as compared to the horror of the united states or nuclear scientists.
when a decision must be made to kill half a million people or risk killing a million, there is no good decision. the best decision is still awful, and this was the situation that faced the world.
again, for the fact checkers, i pulled these number out of thin air. however, it is pure fact that the number of people killed at hiroshima and nagaski were far fewer that the majority of japans population that was being prepared to fight a desperate and hopeless last battle. the same forces that stormed the beaches at normandy under hellish fire and artillery would likely have no problem battling onto beaches defended by sword.
it is pointless to debate the decision. there was no good answer. the fact that the use of nuclear weapons was resonable compared to the alternative serves to ilustrate the horror of the time more than the horror of the decision. it was a bad decision, plain and simple -- but, there was no good decision available.
Yes, I do know what machine learning is, and I have to agree with the original poster. Not because there aren't potential uses for machine learning in a web browser, but because this is a fundamentally wrong way to develop software.
Useful solutions to problems arise by developing solutions to problems, not by developing solutions and trying to shoehorn them into existing solutions. Create what you need -- dont create need to fit your ideas.
Carving a square peg and wandering around a city to see where it fits makes much less sense than finding teh hole you need filled, and carving the peg to match.
Actually, that seems like an entirely legitimate patent to me.
Someone came up with an idea, they built it, it worked, and they patented it. Before they did, there was not a product with a mousewheel -- a paddle is a different animal altogether.
Not all patents are bad just by virtue of being a patent.
Easy... Acacia demands a sealed settlement from Disney so that the amount of the settlement is completely private.
Terms of settlement: $0.69, payable by certified check.
Guaranteed settlement. Acacia gets to be some fuzzy precedent, and lead counsel gets to supersize his lunch for free.
Disney is an angry behemoth, and if Acacia asked for anything, it would have gone to court. Do you think Acacia really wanted that?
Declare standards? Looks a little more like a piece of software written without a specification, much less a plan.
At this point, after going through the website and glancing at code, I have a hard time rating this at anything above the beginning of an idea.
Learning by working on things is good. Punching out code that is supposed to be a standard without writing at least something down about it first is a disaster.
In 1998, theoreticians proved that the problem was "NP hard" -- that no general solution exists that can be solved by a computer in finite length of time.
does that sound harsh? maybe, but it hits the nail on the head.
I used to feel the exact same way. Its probably why I dropped out of college and only recently went back and graduated (at 26). These are the kind of things I needed to realize before I could pull my head out my rear, get off my pedestal, and actually accomplish anything.
Yes, we are bright. But just because Einstein was disinterested too doesnt make us geniuses and wont make us successful. Even if it did, sitting around and contemplating how wonderfully non-traditionally we are is an excellent way to severly underachieve.
We are not non-traditional. In fact, I can't count the number of people who feel exactly the same way about themselves, yet I don't know anyone who is good at everything. Leonardo da Vinci was non-traditionally bright. Being good at math and average at philosophy does not make me a special unique snowflake, and certainly shouldnt excuse me from philosophy.
Just because something doesnt interest you doesnt mean you dont have to do it. Taxes dont interest me, reviewing co-workers bugfixes dont necessarily interest me, and figuring out a 401(k) doesnt interest me. Good luck not doing any of them. Life is full of boring, tedious crap you have to do, no matter how great and interesting a job, project, thesis, or whatever you stumble upon. Hopefully most of what you do is interesting, but it will never all be intetesting. Learn to get yourself through the boring stuff now -- it will always be there, and the more ingrained you get it in your head that youre above doing them, the more it will handicap you. Whether thats writing a history paper or endlessly bouncing around design documents in a large company, it happens.
Heres the most important part... really think about this and be honest with yourself. For those things that dont interest you, is it possible that you arent doing them simply because you arent good at them? that facing up to the fact they take you more time than other things (sometimes even *gasp* as long as it takes other people to do them) is too difficult, and its better to do poorly and blame it on disinterest? it will probably take you a few years to answer that one honestly. when you can, itll do wonders for you.
Talents are a gift, but you have to ascribe value to them yourself. People wouldnt think too highly of Thomas Edison if he was too lazy to apply himself and ended up shoveling manure out of a barn.
Things will change quickly when you go to school. Thinking you are the smartest, you are different, and that you should get special consideration is a crock of shit. Realizing that is a step you have to make to go from being gifted to being smart.
Watch out that you arent just finding a nice way to candy coat laziness.
Slashdot Mirror
wow... this is begging for some photoshop work from someone much more talented than me.
well, im sure www.jerryfalwellisanidiot.com isnt a violation. go for it, fellas.
Then, whenever I dial a wrong number, it can automatically connect me to someone trying to sell me long distance service, debt consolidation, or a newspaper subsription.
i wouldnt be surprised if doom 3 didnt get a big mod following. apart from the network code being so-so, the engine probably has a lot less to do with doom 3's beauty than the artwork does. the models and levels in doom 3 have a mgnificently low polygon count, and art that doesnt stack up to the masterpieces in doom 3 will probably look shabby or use more polygons than the engine is designed for.
32 bits is enough for a GPU. why? the point of a GPU is to produce good-looking graphics fast. precision problems with single precision IEEE754s are by and large far too small to notice once the end result is shipped off to a screen as color. so, 64 bits is killing a fly with a sledgehammer in a GPU.
the brightening example holds no water. 24 bits of intensity precision, mapped to the gamut of a crt or lcd, is orders of magnitude more than necessary for extremely atttractive real-time graphics. there are situations where the additional precision is necessary, but active moving scenes will not require it purely from the fact they are dynamic. for static scenes, teh computations can be produced more slowly on the gpu via simulated extended precision or off of the gpu.
32 bits is often not enough for a general math processor, but guess what? gpus are not general processors. thats the whole point -- specialized hardware that does one thing well and nothign else is cheaper and faster than general hardare. thats why it exists, and thats the point of the GPU.
64 bit processors DO significantly increase costs as well as hamper performance. if the gpu was converted to natively operate only on 64 bit, it would require significantly more silicon, as well as exhibiting increased latency for 32 bit operations -- both to convert to a 64 bit value and perform the operation. if the gpu were to support both 32 and 64 bit opeartions natively, the latency hit would be reduced, but there would be a massive increase in transistor count, and a major cost increase.
and, the super parallelism argument is bunk. parallelism (in a single machine) is not forcefeeding general computation to a specialized processor that isnt designed for it. im willing to wager the "scientific field" knows what it wants, and at no point has someone been doing research and cursed his GPU as not being useful for general computation.
basically, these are all things that are nice to have, but have no place on a gpu designed to produce good graphics fast. i understand your frustration over having that mighty little piece of silicon sitting in your computer and feeling like you cant fully tap it, but that just isnt what its made for; and if it were able to do it, it would be worse at what it is supposed to do.
regardless of privacy/big-brother/thoughtcrime issues, this doesnt seem that impressive to me.
algorithms have existed for a number of years for facial recognition that keys on features of the face, most notably eyes. being able to find irises in a picture with faces has been done; and not even requiring a picture of just one face as the article seems to suggest.
from there, its extracting a transparent reflection off of a constant backing with multiple frames. again, previous work. nothing new.
yes, its a neat application, but this is no breakthrough. this article is like someone going out and taking a picture of something nobodys taken a picture of before, and then saying they invented a new camera.
date ordering information? yeah, its in there.
DSC_0001.jpg comes before DSC_0002.jpg, etc.
doesnt this make prions more of a poison than a disease?
...Ted Turner is the little guy.
lets play a game... who can find the oldest CVS gui?
Did anyone else watch the flash page loading screen tick up to 100% and think they were playing diablo?
Where's the mushkin at?
Does this seem like a pretty major omission to anyone else?
funny? whos modding this funny, i thought it was serious.
if Yahoo slaps a outlook-alike interface on their mail, it'll be time to accelerate project get-people-to-use-my-gmail-adress.
actually, there is a good way of tellign if it was a good or bad decision.
the decision to use the atomic bomb came as the emporer enacted programs to arm the women and children of japan with swords, since there werent enough guns to go around, and he wanted everyone to be prepared to fight an invasion.
its also of note that by "children," it means 13 and under, since at 14 you were in the military... period. and, for the fact checkers, im not positive -- it may have been 12, so go easy if its one of the two.
the plan of the japanese military as allied forces neared japan was to fight until the very last man, and not surrender until no japanese able to so much as hold up a sword was left standing. in his twilight years, the emporer was very public about how much his decision haunted him and about the horror he felt his pride and the pride of his nation led the world into.
there is a way of knowing how many lives were saved. the populations of hiroshima and nagasaki, man woman and child, were in preparation to defend against an invading force. women and children against marines, while they would be able to inflict massive casualty, would have been slaughtered. while nobody has the right or deserves the responsibility of deciding who should live and die, it is almost certain that most everyone who died by the bomb would have died defending japan from invasion; as well as tens of thousands more being prepared to defend coastlines with inadequate weaponry.
the US tried many times to settle the war without invasion. all were rebuked.
please, do not take me for saying that dropping nuclear bombs was an aceptable or only decision; take me as saying that it was an illustration of the horror of all war as compared to the horror of the united states or nuclear scientists.
when a decision must be made to kill half a million people or risk killing a million, there is no good decision. the best decision is still awful, and this was the situation that faced the world.
again, for the fact checkers, i pulled these number out of thin air. however, it is pure fact that the number of people killed at hiroshima and nagaski were far fewer that the majority of japans population that was being prepared to fight a desperate and hopeless last battle. the same forces that stormed the beaches at normandy under hellish fire and artillery would likely have no problem battling onto beaches defended by sword.
it is pointless to debate the decision. there was no good answer. the fact that the use of nuclear weapons was resonable compared to the alternative serves to ilustrate the horror of the time more than the horror of the decision. it was a bad decision, plain and simple -- but, there was no good decision available.
Yes, I do know what machine learning is, and I have to agree with the original poster. Not because there aren't potential uses for machine learning in a web browser, but because this is a fundamentally wrong way to develop software.
Useful solutions to problems arise by developing solutions to problems, not by developing solutions and trying to shoehorn them into existing solutions. Create what you need -- dont create need to fit your ideas.
Carving a square peg and wandering around a city to see where it fits makes much less sense than finding teh hole you need filled, and carving the peg to match.
yeah, but you can get an @alumni.cmu.edu forwarding address free.
if you get half as much spam through the old andrew account as i do, its a welcome change.
its probably just a couple of gotos with the wrong labels.
btw... if you actually read the link, the patent is for an actual mouse wheel, not the shuttle on an iPod.
Actually, that seems like an entirely legitimate patent to me.
Someone came up with an idea, they built it, it worked, and they patented it. Before they did, there was not a product with a mousewheel -- a paddle is a different animal altogether.
Not all patents are bad just by virtue of being a patent.
Easy... Acacia demands a sealed settlement from Disney so that the amount of the settlement is completely private. Terms of settlement: $0.69, payable by certified check. Guaranteed settlement. Acacia gets to be some fuzzy precedent, and lead counsel gets to supersize his lunch for free. Disney is an angry behemoth, and if Acacia asked for anything, it would have gone to court. Do you think Acacia really wanted that?
i love the small, quiet, cool boards, but why cant anyone make an EPIA board with two network interfaces? VIA, are you listening?
Declare standards? Looks a little more like a piece of software written without a specification, much less a plan. At this point, after going through the website and glancing at code, I have a hard time rating this at anything above the beginning of an idea. Learning by working on things is good. Punching out code that is supposed to be a standard without writing at least something down about it first is a disaster.
i bet if that free email account was on gmail this guy would be a hero.
does that sound harsh? maybe, but it hits the nail on the head.
I used to feel the exact same way. Its probably why I dropped out of college and only recently went back and graduated (at 26). These are the kind of things I needed to realize before I could pull my head out my rear, get off my pedestal, and actually accomplish anything.
Yes, we are bright. But just because Einstein was disinterested too doesnt make us geniuses and wont make us successful. Even if it did, sitting around and contemplating how wonderfully non-traditionally we are is an excellent way to severly underachieve.
We are not non-traditional. In fact, I can't count the number of people who feel exactly the same way about themselves, yet I don't know anyone who is good at everything. Leonardo da Vinci was non-traditionally bright. Being good at math and average at philosophy does not make me a special unique snowflake, and certainly shouldnt excuse me from philosophy.
Just because something doesnt interest you doesnt mean you dont have to do it. Taxes dont interest me, reviewing co-workers bugfixes dont necessarily interest me, and figuring out a 401(k) doesnt interest me. Good luck not doing any of them. Life is full of boring, tedious crap you have to do, no matter how great and interesting a job, project, thesis, or whatever you stumble upon. Hopefully most of what you do is interesting, but it will never all be intetesting. Learn to get yourself through the boring stuff now -- it will always be there, and the more ingrained you get it in your head that youre above doing them, the more it will handicap you. Whether thats writing a history paper or endlessly bouncing around design documents in a large company, it happens.
Heres the most important part... really think about this and be honest with yourself. For those things that dont interest you, is it possible that you arent doing them simply because you arent good at them? that facing up to the fact they take you more time than other things (sometimes even *gasp* as long as it takes other people to do them) is too difficult, and its better to do poorly and blame it on disinterest? it will probably take you a few years to answer that one honestly. when you can, itll do wonders for you.
Talents are a gift, but you have to ascribe value to them yourself. People wouldnt think too highly of Thomas Edison if he was too lazy to apply himself and ended up shoveling manure out of a barn.
Things will change quickly when you go to school. Thinking you are the smartest, you are different, and that you should get special consideration is a crock of shit. Realizing that is a step you have to make to go from being gifted to being smart.
Watch out that you arent just finding a nice way to candy coat laziness.
Good luck.