Or we will first need to master the art of self-driving cars
Why would we need to master this? Self driving cars will have to deal with things a flying car will never have to deal with. Mastering self-flying vehicles is a lot easier than mastering self-driving cars. We've had self-flying vehicles (commercial jets) for decades.
I just don't believe we're going to be able to build the infrastructure to have millions of autonomous flying vehicles soaring around the world.
What infrastructure? The technology (to navigate) is available and in use today, it can all be put into the car it self. No need for infrastructure.
GPS. proximity sensor, positioning broadcast, a system of flight "corridors" pre-programmed into the cars, or regularly broadcast ota (and changed infrequently - you go north you fly at 300ft, you fly south at 200 ft, east, west etc..
Computer controlled (self driving) cars are easy by comparison
Not even close. Self-driving cars need to be a lot more intelligent than self driving "planes". Commercial airplanes have been self-driving for decades (as someone pointed out). A few things that self-driving "planes" will not have to deal with:
- Ad-hoc changes to roads due to, for example, a busted water main. Happens all the time. As a driver I know how to drive into the temporary "lane" on that field, a self-driving car will not have a clue.
- Pedestrians and others veering into the path of your car with a seconds notice.
- That creek that is over flowing and has taken the road with it.
Etc, and so forth. Once flying cars start taking off (pun intended) regulations will have them equipped with proximity sensors, pre-approved flight situations etc. It would, for example, be rather straightforward to divide air-space into sections (for example horizontally) in such a way that the vehicles are never on paths that are crossing. You turn the wheel north and the car automatically raises to a level where driving north is allowed.
Since the 3D space is rather more static and maneouverable than 2D space, this is a lot easier than self-driving cars (again, commercial jets have done this for decades, and when planes do collide it is "always" because of human error (wrong action taken at the wrong point in time) or a very old plane without modern electronics getting in the way of another.
Aperture and Lightroom are similar, and with plugins (thank you google for dropping the price of Nik) the trips to Photoshop become, as you say, much fewer, but those times when you do need to pop into Photoshop, it is for even more demanding stuff, and for that there are no competitors out there.
God, you are quite dumb. Let's say I dunk your head into a chamber filled with pure fresh water for say, 10 minutes. Then you can come out afterwards and tell me how good pure fresh water is for you. Were you born this dumb or did someone hit you repeatedly over the head with a heavy object throughout your childhood?
If just one thing of what he said was wrong I am sure you can point it out rather than blabber about some apocalyptic nonsense you have dreamed up inside the deranged mind of yours.
Wow, that's just retarded. Beijing pollution has nothing to do with CO2. You can't see, smell or taste CO2. In Beijing you can definitely see, taste and smell the pollution.
There is so much fun in attacks. But yes, you are right, which is why I always drop lots of rational arguments throughout my ad-hominem attacks. Try answering them.
It won't save anything at all. There is no reason to think that there will be a real, measurable reduction in CO2 emissions when focusing on personal vehicles. Even getting rid of all personal vehicles tomorrow, replacing the with electrical vehicles would have a negligible positive or a moderate negative impact on CO2 emissions since the increase in electricity demand would mean an enormous increase in coal-fired power plants.
Sorry, any focus on private vehicles at all as a solution to the AGW problem is ridiculous and shows a serious deficiency in math skills.
Electricity production is somewhere between half and 60% of global CO2 emissions (and increasing). Replace half of them with nuclear power plants and we're there. Reached our goal. No need to do more. Reaching our CO2 emission targets is technically easy but politically difficult. That is why politicians and the AGW lobby is focusing on the private citizen. If they can make him change behavior, feel better about him self and make him vote for the "right" party, and they are all happy. Making the private citizen go out and replace his gas guzzler with an electrical vehicle will do NOTHING for the CO2 emissions though.
If you are not a complete retard you know that you put effort in where it matters. Where you can actually make substantial and real change. Sadly that has a political cost that is too high for most politicians to accept, and in the AGW group the only viable alternative is looked upon the same way a nutcase born-again Christian views Satan.
Replace half the US coal-fired plants with Nuclear powered plants, technically (given time and money) easy, and we have solved the CO2 emission issue. If you, at the same time, put in place strict requirements for cleaning the exhaust from coal and oil power plants, you can probably reduce the CO2 emissions with close to half. Then once you have reasonably clean electricity, you start looking at other issues, if needed.
Oh, and please do not talk about solar and wind, at the moment they are far more of a problem than is CO2. Both require substantial amounts of rare-earth minerals, and that mining is destroying a country at the moment.
The US transportation sector emits more CO2 than all...
The numbers you are quoting are both irrelevant to the discussion as such and also malapropos to this discussion. You are talking about the entire transportation sector, which is bigger in the US than in most of the world, but this discussion is about personal vehicles only. The transportation sector in the US is huge not only because of a high personal vehicle ownership, but even more so due to the fact that there is huge open market in the US that transports goods on roads in quantities and over distances much greater than anywhere else.
Unfortunately, it looks like there is no simple way to reduce CO2 emissions.
It is, but it is "temporary" in many ways, it is expensive, and due to a lot of superstition it is also highly controversial. A significant portion of US electricity is produced in plants burning oil or coal. A quick (no such thing, I know) and aggressive replacement of these with nuclear power plants will - in the medium term, do wonders for CO2 emissions, and it would probably also do wonders for the struggling US economy. The solution is technically easy, but a political hot potato.
Just saying "just cut all the CO2 sources except the my car, my airconditioning, and my incandescent bulbs
The constant and rather insane focus on private vehicles is worse. If you convert all gas cars in the US magically to Tesla Model S' tomorrow, there would be no significant drop in CO2 emissions since the US would have to build huge amounts of coal-fired power plants to meet the demand. Some say the total CO2 would go UP, not down with electrical cars and the current popular power production systems.
Motor vehicles are behind about 15% all CO2 emissions. Out of that I have seen numbers ranging from 40-75% coming from private transporation, the typical definition of car. Let's assume the upper range and say that private car transportation emits about 10% of all CO2 in the world. How much of that is done buying groceries? I know personally it is less than half, but for fun, lets say my work and my kids spare-time activities are really close and my grocery store is really far away, and I spend half of my driving to and from the grocery store. That would mean that 5% of all CO2 emissions come from driving to and from grocery stores. This is most likely exaggerated quite a bit, but let's stay with the upper boundaries.
If they can cut grocery-related emissions by half, that would mean a 2.5% reduction in emissions give an absolute perfect scenario. The real number is probably closer to somewhere between 0 and 1%.
The people doing this research are not morons for doing the research, but they are morons for publishing it thinking it adds to the debate about AGW.
In fact, given that private car transportation is the source of 10% or so of carbon emissions, any person who uses changes in private car transportation as a solution to AGW is mathematically retarded and should be removed from the discussion. The reduction in CO2 emissions that can be achieved targeting private transportation are statistically insignificant, and most of the "solutions" are far worse than the problem. Electrical cars for example, would increase CO2 emissions in most of the world, not reduce them since most of the electricity they run on is being produced by coal-fueled power plants.
Windows 7 can run a Window XP VM with a Window XP application seamlessly integrated into the Windows 7 experience. In other words, other than the app taking a long time to start (it has to boot the VM and XP first) the user wouldn't notice.
And that is wrong. If you have five time-lines of video, two of which is 32 bit with transparency, there is a lot of data in memory being manipulated. Video Editing software doesn't deal with compressed video, each video frame must be manipulated in an uncompressed state. So, during the render/encode process, algorithms are working on 30 un-compressed HD video frames per second multiplied by five or more time-lines. That is a lot of data going in and out of memory.
The assertion of his is that Win8, though having significant improvements measured by geekbench, can't possibly have any improvements in real life. His religious view is contradicted by real world observations.
No, I specifically meant the encoding part of the video creation process, which is one of the benchmarks I run. In video encoding you take some stuff that is not (a single) video, such as transition descriptions, overlays, videos, images etc, and you encode it into (a single) video. What you were talking about is video transcoding (I assume), where you take video in one format and transcode it into another format, usually avoiding significant quality loss.
Video encoding is what you do when you format shift, or do the actual encoding pass on the video that has all the effects added in
That would be either transcoding or transrating, depending on how you configure the target video.
Video professionals use transcoding to convert a highly compressed format such as H.264 to a more edit friendly format like MXF or others. This means that they can edit and composite a number of times with little or no quality loss. There are even companies that specialize in creating transcoding tools for this specific purpose. Some allow you to edit low-res versions of your video, automatically replacing it with the original for the encoding process. This was always done when computers were slow, it was often done with HD until a few years ago, and it is mostly done with 4K video today. Transcoding.
Download a popular encoder/decoder such as handbrake... when decoding/encoding is direct and largely uncacheable
Dude, you got it wrong right there - and incidentally demonstrated that you are primarily a porn user. You are talking about encoding video from one format to another. That's nonsense. Here is a better test for you (easiest way to do this if you don't have a couple of Illustrator experts on staff):
1. Download After Effects (best), Adobe Premiere Pro or Vegas Video Pro
2. Download Digital Juice and either a ready2go set or Toxic Theme set for your application.
3. Create a project from one of the supplied templates.
4. Add 5-6 videos, you decide format, to the new project.
5. Render.
Sorry dude, but cross-rendering a video file is not what people who create video do. They add non-compressed 32 bit (with transparency) video to time lines to create masks, put 32 bit uncompressed video as lower-third overlays on top of that, make the resulting composition move in 3D space etc. This requires a lot of memory interaction - and incidentally, both the masks, lower thirds etc are looped, which means the process benefits tremendously from not having to read them from disk at every loop. A looped mask or lower third can re-play many, many times in a single video. This is why After Effects in 64 bits is so much better than in 32. It will use all of your memory and then some.
Incorrect. The "memory intensiveness" of video encoding is low enough that even the lowest and slowest memory on the market is unlikely to meaningfully impact it. It's essentially either CPU or GPU bound at this point
LOL. Yeah, you must be right. Or clueless. 1920x1080 non-compressed 32bit video including transparency uses no memory when encoded. Add three to five layers of video, and we are talking no memory whatsoever. Sure, you know what you are talking about. When you stick to things that are not more complicated than surfing for porn.
None of your car analogy nonsense is related in any way to Windows. There is no reason to use Metro apps anywhere, any time for a desktop user. Try again.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, it isn't a professional grade graphics tool unless you paid an obscene amount of money for it
You and I have very different views on the concept of "obscene", but hey, you could ask your mummy to increase your weekly allowance.
There is no radar technology that can sort out that many targets
Not neeed. No need for ground control.
There is no on board computer system that can manage that many "obstacles"
An iPhone is plenty sufficient.
There is no contingency plan for a area wide power failure taking down all the radar and ground computers.
They are not needed.
You hand wave away massive problems and assume into existence technology that simply does not exist
No, you assume we need to handle air-borne cars the same way we handle commercial jets. We don't.
Like I said, 2D space is way easier to deal with than 250 million aircraft in 3D space over cities
Nobody would ever have to handle any number of vehicles in that range. There is no need for ground control.
Our capabilities at self-flying commercial jets have not reached the perfection level necessary to do without well-trained pilots all together
Mostly for regulatory reasons :-)
Now you have to worry about people coming from all 3 dimensions
No you won't. RTFA. That's for the on-board computer to worry about, while you are finishing breakfast and updating your facebook status.
Or we will first need to master the art of self-driving cars
Why would we need to master this? Self driving cars will have to deal with things a flying car will never have to deal with. Mastering self-flying vehicles is a lot easier than mastering self-driving cars. We've had self-flying vehicles (commercial jets) for decades.
I just don't believe we're going to be able to build the infrastructure to have millions of autonomous flying vehicles soaring around the world.
What infrastructure? The technology (to navigate) is available and in use today, it can all be put into the car it self. No need for infrastructure.
GPS. proximity sensor, positioning broadcast, a system of flight "corridors" pre-programmed into the cars, or regularly broadcast ota (and changed infrequently - you go north you fly at 300ft, you fly south at 200 ft, east, west etc..
Computer controlled (self driving) cars are easy by comparison
Not even close. Self-driving cars need to be a lot more intelligent than self driving "planes". Commercial airplanes have been self-driving for decades (as someone pointed out). A few things that self-driving "planes" will not have to deal with:
- Ad-hoc changes to roads due to, for example, a busted water main. Happens all the time. As a driver I know how to drive into the temporary "lane" on that field, a self-driving car will not have a clue.
- Pedestrians and others veering into the path of your car with a seconds notice.
- That creek that is over flowing and has taken the road with it.
Etc, and so forth. Once flying cars start taking off (pun intended) regulations will have them equipped with proximity sensors, pre-approved flight situations etc. It would, for example, be rather straightforward to divide air-space into sections (for example horizontally) in such a way that the vehicles are never on paths that are crossing. You turn the wheel north and the car automatically raises to a level where driving north is allowed.
Since the 3D space is rather more static and maneouverable than 2D space, this is a lot easier than self-driving cars (again, commercial jets have done this for decades, and when planes do collide it is "always" because of human error (wrong action taken at the wrong point in time) or a very old plane without modern electronics getting in the way of another.
The main one From Apple itself is Aperture.
Aperture and Lightroom are similar, and with plugins (thank you google for dropping the price of Nik) the trips to Photoshop become, as you say, much fewer, but those times when you do need to pop into Photoshop, it is for even more demanding stuff, and for that there are no competitors out there.
GiMP should be looking more and more attractive to professionals as this sort of thing goes
No, not to professionals.
With Creative Cloud you do not have to be tethered all the time. Just FYI.
God, you are quite dumb. Let's say I dunk your head into a chamber filled with pure fresh water for say, 10 minutes. Then you can come out afterwards and tell me how good pure fresh water is for you. Were you born this dumb or did someone hit you repeatedly over the head with a heavy object throughout your childhood?
If just one thing of what he said was wrong I am sure you can point it out rather than blabber about some apocalyptic nonsense you have dreamed up inside the deranged mind of yours.
Wow, that's just retarded. Beijing pollution has nothing to do with CO2. You can't see, smell or taste CO2. In Beijing you can definitely see, taste and smell the pollution.
There is so much fun in attacks. But yes, you are right, which is why I always drop lots of rational arguments throughout my ad-hominem attacks. Try answering them.
Please tell me you are not this dumb! Seriously.
This one thing won't solve the problem on its own
It won't save anything at all. There is no reason to think that there will be a real, measurable reduction in CO2 emissions when focusing on personal vehicles. Even getting rid of all personal vehicles tomorrow, replacing the with electrical vehicles would have a negligible positive or a moderate negative impact on CO2 emissions since the increase in electricity demand would mean an enormous increase in coal-fired power plants.
Sorry, any focus on private vehicles at all as a solution to the AGW problem is ridiculous and shows a serious deficiency in math skills.
Electricity production is somewhere between half and 60% of global CO2 emissions (and increasing). Replace half of them with nuclear power plants and we're there. Reached our goal. No need to do more. Reaching our CO2 emission targets is technically easy but politically difficult. That is why politicians and the AGW lobby is focusing on the private citizen. If they can make him change behavior, feel better about him self and make him vote for the "right" party, and they are all happy. Making the private citizen go out and replace his gas guzzler with an electrical vehicle will do NOTHING for the CO2 emissions though.
If you are not a complete retard you know that you put effort in where it matters. Where you can actually make substantial and real change. Sadly that has a political cost that is too high for most politicians to accept, and in the AGW group the only viable alternative is looked upon the same way a nutcase born-again Christian views Satan.
Replace half the US coal-fired plants with Nuclear powered plants, technically (given time and money) easy, and we have solved the CO2 emission issue. If you, at the same time, put in place strict requirements for cleaning the exhaust from coal and oil power plants, you can probably reduce the CO2 emissions with close to half. Then once you have reasonably clean electricity, you start looking at other issues, if needed.
Oh, and please do not talk about solar and wind, at the moment they are far more of a problem than is CO2. Both require substantial amounts of rare-earth minerals, and that mining is destroying a country at the moment.
The US transportation sector emits more CO2 than all...
The numbers you are quoting are both irrelevant to the discussion as such and also malapropos to this discussion. You are talking about the entire transportation sector, which is bigger in the US than in most of the world, but this discussion is about personal vehicles only. The transportation sector in the US is huge not only because of a high personal vehicle ownership, but even more so due to the fact that there is huge open market in the US that transports goods on roads in quantities and over distances much greater than anywhere else.
Unfortunately, it looks like there is no simple way to reduce CO2 emissions.
It is, but it is "temporary" in many ways, it is expensive, and due to a lot of superstition it is also highly controversial. A significant portion of US electricity is produced in plants burning oil or coal. A quick (no such thing, I know) and aggressive replacement of these with nuclear power plants will - in the medium term, do wonders for CO2 emissions, and it would probably also do wonders for the struggling US economy. The solution is technically easy, but a political hot potato.
Just saying "just cut all the CO2 sources except the my car, my airconditioning, and my incandescent bulbs
The constant and rather insane focus on private vehicles is worse. If you convert all gas cars in the US magically to Tesla Model S' tomorrow, there would be no significant drop in CO2 emissions since the US would have to build huge amounts of coal-fired power plants to meet the demand. Some say the total CO2 would go UP, not down with electrical cars and the current popular power production systems.
Motor vehicles are behind about 15% all CO2 emissions. Out of that I have seen numbers ranging from 40-75% coming from private transporation, the typical definition of car. Let's assume the upper range and say that private car transportation emits about 10% of all CO2 in the world. How much of that is done buying groceries? I know personally it is less than half, but for fun, lets say my work and my kids spare-time activities are really close and my grocery store is really far away, and I spend half of my driving to and from the grocery store. That would mean that 5% of all CO2 emissions come from driving to and from grocery stores. This is most likely exaggerated quite a bit, but let's stay with the upper boundaries.
If they can cut grocery-related emissions by half, that would mean a 2.5% reduction in emissions give an absolute perfect scenario. The real number is probably closer to somewhere between 0 and 1%.
The people doing this research are not morons for doing the research, but they are morons for publishing it thinking it adds to the debate about AGW.
In fact, given that private car transportation is the source of 10% or so of carbon emissions, any person who uses changes in private car transportation as a solution to AGW is mathematically retarded and should be removed from the discussion. The reduction in CO2 emissions that can be achieved targeting private transportation are statistically insignificant, and most of the "solutions" are far worse than the problem. Electrical cars for example, would increase CO2 emissions in most of the world, not reduce them since most of the electricity they run on is being produced by coal-fueled power plants.
Don't get out much do you? Windows 7, mark the app as needing XP, and the app will run seamlessly on a VM, but look like a standard app. Seamless.
Windows 7 can run a Window XP VM with a Window XP application seamlessly integrated into the Windows 7 experience. In other words, other than the app taking a long time to start (it has to boot the VM and XP first) the user wouldn't notice.
Why would this be an issue? The firewall can be open to the relevant software.
And that is wrong. If you have five time-lines of video, two of which is 32 bit with transparency, there is a lot of data in memory being manipulated. Video Editing software doesn't deal with compressed video, each video frame must be manipulated in an uncompressed state. So, during the render/encode process, algorithms are working on 30 un-compressed HD video frames per second multiplied by five or more time-lines. That is a lot of data going in and out of memory.
The assertion of his is that Win8, though having significant improvements measured by geekbench, can't possibly have any improvements in real life. His religious view is contradicted by real world observations.
Ah, you're not talking about video ENCODING
No, I specifically meant the encoding part of the video creation process, which is one of the benchmarks I run. In video encoding you take some stuff that is not (a single) video, such as transition descriptions, overlays, videos, images etc, and you encode it into (a single) video. What you were talking about is video transcoding (I assume), where you take video in one format and transcode it into another format, usually avoiding significant quality loss.
Video encoding is what you do when you format shift, or do the actual encoding pass on the video that has all the effects added in
That would be either transcoding or transrating, depending on how you configure the target video.
Video professionals use transcoding to convert a highly compressed format such as H.264 to a more edit friendly format like MXF or others. This means that they can edit and composite a number of times with little or no quality loss. There are even companies that specialize in creating transcoding tools for this specific purpose. Some allow you to edit low-res versions of your video, automatically replacing it with the original for the encoding process. This was always done when computers were slow, it was often done with HD until a few years ago, and it is mostly done with 4K video today. Transcoding.
Download a popular encoder/decoder such as handbrake ... when decoding/encoding is direct and largely uncacheable
Dude, you got it wrong right there - and incidentally demonstrated that you are primarily a porn user. You are talking about encoding video from one format to another. That's nonsense. Here is a better test for you (easiest way to do this if you don't have a couple of Illustrator experts on staff):
1. Download After Effects (best), Adobe Premiere Pro or Vegas Video Pro
2. Download Digital Juice and either a ready2go set or Toxic Theme set for your application.
3. Create a project from one of the supplied templates.
4. Add 5-6 videos, you decide format, to the new project.
5. Render.
Sorry dude, but cross-rendering a video file is not what people who create video do. They add non-compressed 32 bit (with transparency) video to time lines to create masks, put 32 bit uncompressed video as lower-third overlays on top of that, make the resulting composition move in 3D space etc. This requires a lot of memory interaction - and incidentally, both the masks, lower thirds etc are looped, which means the process benefits tremendously from not having to read them from disk at every loop. A looped mask or lower third can re-play many, many times in a single video. This is why After Effects in 64 bits is so much better than in 32. It will use all of your memory and then some.
Incorrect. The "memory intensiveness" of video encoding is low enough that even the lowest and slowest memory on the market is unlikely to meaningfully impact it. It's essentially either CPU or GPU bound at this point
LOL. Yeah, you must be right. Or clueless. 1920x1080 non-compressed 32bit video including transparency uses no memory when encoded. Add three to five layers of video, and we are talking no memory whatsoever. Sure, you know what you are talking about. When you stick to things that are not more complicated than surfing for porn.
None of your car analogy nonsense is related in any way to Windows. There is no reason to use Metro apps anywhere, any time for a desktop user. Try again.