I was going to mention physics processing units, but I really don't think they will take off. Not in the way graphics cards have. Physics just isn't as sexy.
That said, I think that some sort of physical calculation support will end up in the CPU. Given that the GPU is basically a massively parallel computer, and that people have already done physics simulations on GPUs, I predict that the GPU on CPU technology will be used for physics more than any external physics card. It's not quite the same as folding the technology from an external device into the CPU, it's a case of reusing existing CPU grunt for a new purpose.
The Wheel of time has turned again. GPUs are now general-purpose massively-parallel computers; they will be folded back into the CPU core, so that the general purpose CPU gains massive parallelism. Kind of like SIMD, but on the order of a million operations per instruction instead of 8.
The next 10 years will consist of a new type of external graphics hardware being built, which will of course, be folded into the CPU at the end of it.
I was asking for a REAL and AVAILABLE graphics card
Sorry, but you are shit outta luck. There is no decent open-source graphics hardware at the moment. The open graphics project is building one. If you were to help instead of whine, then maybe it would be here sooner.
Which 3D graphics card would you recommend if I wanted to make a top noch "open" gaming machine?. I would like a card whose drivers could exploit all the hardware properties
What's with "ppeople"? You even managed to insert that spelling mistake into comments which were copied and pasted, as "Ppeople" and "[P]people". And not once was it spelled correctly. What gives? Did you not think it was spelled correctly in the first place (Hint: "people")? Did you set your spellchecker to automatically stupidify?
This post will, of course, be subject to Skitt's law.
Oh how I hate the drooling marketroidia who gave us the term "megapixel". A nice way of making big numbers sound bigger, and forcing us to actually care about things like resolution to do integer factorisation in our heads - something is mathematically hard.
And even though the article is tagged with "overkill", even a resolution of 10560 pixels each way will only give you a print at 8.8" square at 1200dpi (photo quality), which is slightly smaller than A4.
Because the player has more information on how to upscale. It can use motion compensation data to more accurately predict subpixel movement, and extrapolate that into the newly created pixels. By the time the signal gets to the TV, it's a stream of flat images, which has a lot less data. A really good TV-based scaler could sample multiple frames in order to try to guess the changes in the image and calculate the interpixel data, but what's the point when the data is already there, encoded on the disc? It can also use the motion data to deinterlace; sending an interlaced signal to a progressive scan TV is just crap.
Of course, it may still be a crappy scaler on the player, but at least it has the option.
Lines of code is a stupid metric. It's on the wrong side of the balance sheet. Lines of code is a cost, not a benefit. As a software engineer, your job is to express concepts in as little code as possible. That's why we have high level languages like Lisp, Haskell and Ruby.
On the other hand, we have people who try to fatten their lines-of-code metric, which is why we have assembler, C, and TheDailyWtf.
If anyone asks me for how many lines of code I've written in a day, I will either respond with a negative number, which is probably correct, or if I'm feeling vicious, One.
I'd go with the "marvellously good-looking military hardware". I can't wait to get my hands on one of their iSurfaceToAirMissile (or iSam). Looks just like an iPod, can take out a stealth bomber and has a 50GB hard drive!
There was a young lady called Bright, Who travelled much faster than light. She set off one day, In a relative way, And returned on the previous night.
Really it's a glorified DSP that has some interesting programmability
Actually, it sounds more like an FPGA. And, since VHDL is turing-equivalent, it would actually be possible to compile C code (such as the Linux kernel) into a gate array and run it on such a chip.
"I agree that it should default to the X DPI information, the GNOME DPI-settings are per user, rather than per machine. A much more sensible way, especially since people's eyesight vary wildly."
DPI is an attribute of the screen. It is the physical number of pixels crammed into a single inch on the monitor at the current resolution. It should be discovered from the X server.
But then, Gnome stupidly uses "DPI" as a typeface size selector. Changing DPI should not change typeface size. One point is defined as 1/72nd of an inch, so if you have a 96-DPI monitor, a 10pt font should appear as 10/72nd of an inch, or just over 3.5mm. That same 10pt font should always appear at 3.5mm, regardless of resolution.
Good ol' water can store a lot of hydrogen cheaply but getting it out is a PITA
Sure, water can "store" hydrogen. But that's not the point.
Conversion of hydrogen+oxygen->water is exothermic. That's the reaction you need to power the vehicle. Stored energy in, kinetic energy out. It's the energy stored in less-stable molecules (H2) vs. that stored in more stable molecules (H2O) that is useful, in that the creation of a more stable molecule releases energy (as heat).
The reverse reaction is, you guessed it, endothermic. It takes the same amount of energy (more, due to inefficiencies) to convert water->hydrogen+oxygen as it releases when you then consume it. And just where do you get that energy?
The highly endothermic reaction has to be done at the power plant, using some external power source (e.g. nuclear, solar etc.), which is what gives you the potential energy in a transportable form. You then release that energy elsewhere (e.g. the streets of Monaco).
DRM does not work. Open-source DRM will not work either. Why? Because of the fundamental laws of cryptography.
DRM works by giving someone a ciphertext, a decryption algorithm, and the decryption key. Once you have these three ingredients, you have the plaintext. No amount of open-source-buzzwords or legal threats or appeals to fair-use can change that fact. DRM cannot work. It does not work.
Am I the only one who recognises that the word "only" is an absolute? And so saying that "only the Sith deal in absolutes" means either
a) Obi Wan's statement is logically inconsistent, or b) Obi Wan is a Sith.
If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft
on
HP Fires Father of OOP
·
· Score: 1
(Obligatory - if only because I think Dick Feynman is one of the greatest characters in Science)
Interviewer: Now comes the part of the interview where we ask a question to test your creative thinking ability. Don't think too hard about it, just apply everyday common sense, and describe your reasoning process. Here's the question: Why are manhole covers round?
Feynman: They're not. Some manhole covers are square. It's true that there are SOME round ones, but I've seen square ones, and rectangular ones.
Interviewer: But just considering the round ones, why are they round?
Feynman: If we are just considering the round ones, then they are round by definition. That statement is a tautology.
Interviewer: I mean, why are there round ones at all? Is there some particular value to having round ones?
Feynman: Yes. Round covers are used when the hole they are covering up is also round. It's simplest to cover a round hole with a round cover.
Interviewer: Can you think of a property of round covers that gives them an advantage over square ones?
Feynman: We have to look at what is under the cover to answer that question. The hole below the cover is round because a cylinder is the strongest shape against the compression of the earth around it. Also, the term "manhole" implies a passage big enough for a man, and a human being climbing down a ladder is roughly circular in cross-section. So a cylindrical pipe is the natural shape for manholes. The covers are simply the shape needed to cover up a cylinder.
Interviewer: Do you believe there is a safety issue? I mean, couldn't square covers fall into the hole and hurt someone?
Feynman: Not likely. Square covers are sometimes used on prefabricated vaults where the access passage is also square. The cover is larger than the passage, and sits on a ledge that supports it along the entire perimeter. The covers are usually made of solid metal and are very heavy. Let's assume a two-foot square opening and a ledge width of 1-1/2 inches. In order to get it to fall in, you would have to lift one side of the cover, then rotate it 30 degrees so that the cover would clear the ledge, and then tilt the cover up nearly 45 degrees from horizontal before the center of gravity would shift enough for it to fall in. Yes, it's possible, but very unlikely. The people authorized to open manhole covers could easily be trained to do it safely. Applying common engineering sense, the shape of a manhole cover is entirely determined by the shape of the opening it is intended to cover.
Interviewer (troubled): Excuse me a moment; I have to discuss something with my management team. (Leaves room.)
(Interviewer returns after 10 minutes)
Interviewer: We are going to recommend you for immediate hiring into the marketing department.
Seriously? That production of a fuel requires more energy than it requires? Surely eveyone must by now have at least heard of the second law of thermodynamics?
If it were possible to produce a substance using less energy than it produces in an exothermic reaction (e.g. combustion), then well done, you've just built a perpetual motion machine.
So what the hell does the claim "Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, the economy, or the environment" mean? That we must stop all research into alternative fuels and continue to all our money to Dubya's Texan oilfields?
I think not. I'd rather have a solar or nuclear power station producing portable electricity. Oh well, only ten more years until Mr Fusion
Obviously someone who is quite unaware of how much a BIOS actually does, and how much DOS relies on it. Every single operation a DOS machine can to do the hardware is done through the BIOS. That includes - guess what - flashing it!
Only in these days of everyone needing their own drivers for every bit of hardware have people forgotten the utility of the BIOS.
DOS may be in memory, but the BIOS calls execute from CMOS. That includes those calls which make USB drives appear as floppies to brain-dead old DOS. And DOS from a floppy is still the safest way to flash a BIOS.
It's not that clear cut - every single word of the new Harry Potter book has in fact been published before, in a book called the Dictonary. Perhaps you've read it?
I'm not hosting copyrighted content. I'm sending out individual bits. Ones and Zeroes, just like George Boole. Its your interpretation of those bits as content which is infringing, not my sharing of them.
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to mention physics processing units, but I really don't think they will take off. Not in the way graphics cards have. Physics just isn't as sexy.
That said, I think that some sort of physical calculation support will end up in the CPU. Given that the GPU is basically a massively parallel computer, and that people have already done physics simulations on GPUs, I predict that the GPU on CPU technology will be used for physics more than any external physics card. It's not quite the same as folding the technology from an external device into the CPU, it's a case of reusing existing CPU grunt for a new purpose.
The Wheel of time has turned again. GPUs are now general-purpose massively-parallel computers; they will be folded back into the CPU core, so that the general purpose CPU gains massive parallelism. Kind of like SIMD, but on the order of a million operations per instruction instead of 8.
The next 10 years will consist of a new type of external graphics hardware being built, which will of course, be folded into the CPU at the end of it.
Sorry, but you are shit outta luck. There is no decent open-source graphics hardware at the moment. The open graphics project is building one. If you were to help instead of whine, then maybe it would be here sooner.
The Open Graphics Project is your friend.
Or did. Nearly. Actually, I grew up in Buckie, which on a clear day, you can see Lossiemouth over the other end of the Spey Bay.
What's with "ppeople"? You even managed to insert that spelling mistake into comments which were copied and pasted, as "Ppeople" and "[P]people". And not once was it spelled correctly. What gives? Did you not think it was spelled correctly in the first place (Hint: "people")? Did you set your spellchecker to automatically stupidify?
This post will, of course, be subject to Skitt's law.
Oh how I hate the drooling marketroidia who gave us the term "megapixel". A nice way of making big numbers sound bigger, and forcing us to actually care about things like resolution to do integer factorisation in our heads - something is mathematically hard.
And even though the article is tagged with "overkill", even a resolution of 10560 pixels each way will only give you a print at 8.8" square at 1200dpi (photo quality), which is slightly smaller than A4.
Because the player has more information on how to upscale. It can use motion compensation data to more accurately predict subpixel movement, and extrapolate that into the newly created pixels. By the time the signal gets to the TV, it's a stream of flat images, which has a lot less data. A really good TV-based scaler could sample multiple frames in order to try to guess the changes in the image and calculate the interpixel data, but what's the point when the data is already there, encoded on the disc? It can also use the motion data to deinterlace; sending an interlaced signal to a progressive scan TV is just crap.
Of course, it may still be a crappy scaler on the player, but at least it has the option.
Lines of code is a stupid metric. It's on the wrong side of the balance sheet. Lines of code is a cost, not a benefit. As a software engineer, your job is to express concepts in as little code as possible. That's why we have high level languages like Lisp, Haskell and Ruby.
On the other hand, we have people who try to fatten their lines-of-code metric, which is why we have assembler, C, and TheDailyWtf.
If anyone asks me for how many lines of code I've written in a day, I will either respond with a negative number, which is probably correct, or if I'm feeling vicious, One.
I'd go with the "marvellously good-looking military hardware". I can't wait to get my hands on one of their iSurfaceToAirMissile (or iSam). Looks just like an iPod, can take out a stealth bomber and has a 50GB hard drive!
DevaStation.
There was a young lady called Bright,
Who travelled much faster than light.
She set off one day,
In a relative way,
And returned on the previous night.
Which only serves as further proof of the approaching singularity.
Only nine years away. Can't wait till I get my hoverboard.
Actually, it sounds more like an FPGA. And, since VHDL is turing-equivalent, it would actually be possible to compile C code (such as the Linux kernel) into a gate array and run it on such a chip.
Just ask Knuth.
The work which defines computer programming calls it an art. I'd have to agree with that.
DPI is an attribute of the screen. It is the physical number of pixels crammed into a single inch on the monitor at the current resolution. It should be discovered from the X server.
But then, Gnome stupidly uses "DPI" as a typeface size selector. Changing DPI should not change typeface size. One point is defined as 1/72nd of an inch, so if you have a 96-DPI monitor, a 10pt font should appear as 10/72nd of an inch, or just over 3.5mm. That same 10pt font should always appear at 3.5mm, regardless of resolution.
So why again should DPI be a per-user setting?
Sure, water can "store" hydrogen. But that's not the point.
Conversion of hydrogen+oxygen->water is exothermic. That's the reaction you need to power the vehicle. Stored energy in, kinetic energy out. It's the energy stored in less-stable molecules (H2) vs. that stored in more stable molecules (H2O) that is useful, in that the creation of a more stable molecule releases energy (as heat).
The reverse reaction is, you guessed it, endothermic. It takes the same amount of energy (more, due to inefficiencies) to convert water->hydrogen+oxygen as it releases when you then consume it. And just where do you get that energy?
The highly endothermic reaction has to be done at the power plant, using some external power source (e.g. nuclear, solar etc.), which is what gives you the potential energy in a transportable form. You then release that energy elsewhere (e.g. the streets of Monaco).
DRM does not work. Open-source DRM will not work either. Why? Because of the fundamental laws of cryptography.
DRM works by giving someone a ciphertext, a decryption algorithm, and the decryption key. Once you have these three ingredients, you have the plaintext. No amount of open-source-buzzwords or legal threats or appeals to fair-use can change that fact. DRM cannot work. It does not work.
Let's settle this once and for all - which is the better search engine - in the only way possible:
GoogleFight!
Am I the only one who recognises that the word "only" is an absolute? And so saying that "only the Sith deal in absolutes" means either
a) Obi Wan's statement is logically inconsistent, or
b) Obi Wan is a Sith.
(Obligatory - if only because I think Dick Feynman is one of the greatest characters in Science)
Interviewer: Now comes the part of the interview where we ask a question to test your creative thinking ability. Don't think too hard about it, just apply everyday common sense, and describe your reasoning process. Here's the question: Why are manhole covers round?
Feynman: They're not. Some manhole covers are square. It's true that there are SOME round ones, but I've seen square ones, and rectangular ones.
Interviewer: But just considering the round ones, why are they round?
Feynman: If we are just considering the round ones, then they are round by definition. That statement is a tautology.
Interviewer: I mean, why are there round ones at all? Is there some particular value to having round ones?
Feynman: Yes. Round covers are used when the hole they are covering up is also round. It's simplest to cover a round hole with a round cover.
Interviewer: Can you think of a property of round covers that gives them an advantage over square ones?
Feynman: We have to look at what is under the cover to answer that question. The hole below the cover is round because a cylinder is the strongest shape against the compression of the earth around it. Also, the term "manhole" implies a passage big enough for a man, and a human being climbing down a ladder is roughly circular in cross-section. So a cylindrical pipe is the natural shape for manholes. The covers are simply the shape needed to cover up a cylinder.
Interviewer: Do you believe there is a safety issue? I mean, couldn't square covers fall into the hole and hurt someone?
Feynman: Not likely. Square covers are sometimes used on prefabricated vaults where the access passage is also square. The cover is larger than the passage, and sits on a ledge that supports it along the entire perimeter. The covers are usually made of solid metal and are very heavy. Let's assume a two-foot square opening and a ledge width of 1-1/2 inches. In order to get it to fall in, you would have to lift one side of the cover, then rotate it 30 degrees so that the cover would clear the ledge, and then tilt the cover up nearly 45 degrees from horizontal before the center of gravity would shift enough for it to fall in. Yes, it's possible, but very unlikely. The people authorized to open manhole covers could easily be trained to do it safely. Applying common engineering sense, the shape of a manhole cover is entirely determined by the shape of the opening it is intended to cover.
Interviewer (troubled): Excuse me a moment; I have to discuss something with my management team. (Leaves room.)
(Interviewer returns after 10 minutes)
Interviewer: We are going to recommend you for immediate hiring into the marketing department.
Seriously? That production of a fuel requires more energy than it requires? Surely eveyone must by now have at least heard of the second law of thermodynamics?
If it were possible to produce a substance using less energy than it produces in an exothermic reaction (e.g. combustion), then well done, you've just built a perpetual motion machine.
So what the hell does the claim "Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, the economy, or the environment" mean? That we must stop all research into alternative fuels and continue to all our money to Dubya's Texan oilfields?
I think not. I'd rather have a solar or nuclear power station producing portable electricity. Oh well, only ten more years until Mr Fusion
Obviously someone who is quite unaware of how much a BIOS actually does, and how much DOS relies on it. Every single operation a DOS machine can to do the hardware is done through the BIOS. That includes - guess what - flashing it!
Only in these days of everyone needing their own drivers for every bit of hardware have people forgotten the utility of the BIOS.
DOS may be in memory, but the BIOS calls execute from CMOS. That includes those calls which make USB drives appear as floppies to brain-dead old DOS. And DOS from a floppy is still the safest way to flash a BIOS.
It's not that clear cut - every single word of the new Harry Potter book has in fact been published before, in a book called the Dictonary. Perhaps you've read it?
I'm not hosting copyrighted content. I'm sending out individual bits. Ones and Zeroes, just like George Boole. Its your interpretation of those bits as content which is infringing, not my sharing of them.
You owe me £30,000. In gold bullion.