You could do far worse than have a look at energtXT2 by Jorgen Aase. Its a ground-up rewrite of his acclaimed energyXT sequencer which is now cross platform. EnergyXT was fairly innovative for being both a VST plugin host and a VST plugin itself (VST being the de facto standard for plugins on most Mac/Windows audio sequencers) as well as being a flexible 'modular' routing environment.
The first beta release of 'core' functionality was released in early December, and the most recent beta is only a couple of days old.
[i] Get a job as a stocker at WalMart and stop being an anarchist/conspiracy theorist (hey, that's what it says on the linked Wikipedia page) refusing to do actual work for money in our 'system'.[/i]
Kind of hard to do that when you're housebound and only have a few months to live, y'know.
And where on earth do you get the assumption that he ever refused to work for money?
[i]There is a rather large african bird that runs and pack hunts on the African plains even now. I'm sure that one of you will know the name of it, as it escapes me at the moment. It is quite feared in the regions it is known to inhabit because it currently has the rather uncomfortable habit of killing and eating members of our species.[/i]
Ummm, did you watch 'Walking with Beasts' and think it was a real nature documentary?
I think you're missing my point. I prefer running Firefox, Thunderbird, and Sunbird separately. I dont need them all running all the time. For example I access my home email at home, and my work email at work, and I want to keep them separate. In fact, for legacy reasons, I dont even run Thunderbird at home. Its not 'efficient' to be have two mail programs (or one mail program and a monolithic mail/browser/address book) running when one isnt being used except for a very limited part of its functionality.
However there are things in my calendar/to-do list which do overlap. I can currently run Sunbird on its own on either machine and access them off a memory stick. It would be handy to be able to do the same thing for certain contact addresses and phone numbers.
I can understand the motivation for separating out most of the 'components' of Mozilla. I can't really understand the motivation for not separating out the last one at the same time.
Can someone explain give a good justification for the fact that, although the 'old' Mozilla has been broken up into component parts, the Address Book is still part of the mail program?
I dont want to have to fire up a mail program just to get someone's phone number.
Cubase does NOT have this kind of distributed processing. If you're referring to VStack, you still need audio cards on your 'other' machines; this doesnt appear to; all routing is via ethernet.
The nearest competing technology is FXTeleport, which is host-independent (its a VST plugin)
Correction : The Arius3D system is actually based around a fixed-position object and a moving scanning laser. I do know it can also be used to scan rooms, so it may be what was used for your cave.
No, because in spirit, the film of Starship Troopers was actually more like the The Forever War... which was a satirical response to Starship Troopers from a post-Vietnam perspective
Just because you can't see a use for them, doesnt mean there isnt one. I ordered two of these late last years for lecturers in my department who teach Maya. Both need to be able to work at their desks, at home, and in a variety of lecture theatres, but without any compromise in the power, facilities, or screen real-estate. These were perfect, and less than 2/3rds the cost of anything else with as remotely big a screen.
1) Change the colour. Red is too demonic. Black would be good, no-one objects to Tux after all, but you wanna make the face stand out. Make that much lighter, and slightly more prominent. 2) Lose the horns. Something like big round ears would be friendlier. 3) Lose the pitchfork and tail. You want something that gives an air of class - like white gloves 4) No nudity, please; we need more than trainers or this is just pornography. Put shorts on the dude or something. You could even make them red, sort of a homage to the original. But you'd need to simplify the footwear.
That would be perfect. No-one could ever object to that.
It has not been proposed because HTML is not a page description language. I doubt if that is correct. There are probably other reasons it may not have been proposed, but that certainly isnt one of them.
It's a document structuring language, even if a lot of people do not understand the difference. Actually the differentation was lost fairly early on in HTML, and was only really made absolute again in HTML 4.
But thats irrelevant to my point. HTML+CSS gives you content, structure, and page description. Didnt I already mention having all external files incuded in the bundle. Was I talking about something only in terms of page description? Or did you just bring up some arbitrary points with no relevance to what I was saying?
Its is simply the wrong tool. HTML displays a document using information about its structure (title, paragraphs), to an arbitrary media. Actually incorrect, for reasons you have already mentioned. Are you getting yourself confused? An HTML browser does the display. HTML basically only marks up predefined (and somewhat content-null) structural components.
A page description language is about describing precisely the graphical structure (x,y position of all elements).
I was talking about a vendor-neutral method of distributing multi-part hypertextual documentation in a single easily-parsed file. Who limited that definition to 'page description language'?
I'm surprised no-one (that I'm aware of) has proposed a 'bundled' portable HTML file format that would be non-proprietry, vendor neutral, and immune to problems like the Skylarov case.
All it would take (IMHO) is an extended HTML document which contained each individual HTML page in < PAGE > </PAGE > sections, as well as < MEDIA > </MEDIA> wrappers around text-encoded graphics file. Fonts could possibly also be shipped within the document.
All the browser would have to be extended to do would be split up the pages, and decode the image information. Or, a simple parser could chop it into its component pages and images. Voila, a single-file multi-part document viewable by any browser.
Why is this better than a zipped set of HTML pages? For one it misses the unzipping and saving stage, making it as immediate as PDF. Secondly, the PHTML generator would do link checking and remunging ensuring local links within the document was completely self contained.
Aside : There's no such product as 'Maya character studio'.
But these days a -lot- of companies use Maya in the production chain somewhere -because- its completely extensible; it's written in its own scripting language (MELscript) and it has a very open API.
So if you need to write AI code that controls blending of motion-capture data to provide an autonomous Orc then you can; if you want to have seemless interdependence with your established top-quality rendering system, then you can (ie RenderMan).
A typical recording budget for an artist's first album is between $250,000 and $1 million.
You could build the artist their own recording studio for that, and minimise the production costs of their next album. Geez even 250 grand would be enough. Wanna guess why they don't do it that way?
But worse still, this presents the story as being awful hard on the record company. Bullshit.
Lets rephrase the process...
"Yeah, you write this piece of software. We'll give you money to cover the costs of it now, and advertise and sell it for you. We call that an 'advance'.
But when we start to sell it, you'll pay us all that 'advance' back, out of your share of the profits (we call them 'royalties), and in addition to you repaying our outlay, we'll get at least three and a half times the profits you do.
If you don't cover the money you owe us, then we'll ask you to do another project, and the amount outstanding will have to come from the profits you make on -that- one. We'll also reduce your new advance, and the amount of advertising we do because you're obviously unprofitable."
And astonishingly dissimilar as well. What they have in common as forms of entertainment is actually a different issue from that of the original article, which seems to be more about the people and culture surrounding them.
They both appeal to the basal emotions, and encourage the user to imagine himself doing thing unnacceptable in real life. In games it is violence, and in porn it is sex (and often violence too). The differences are minimal
A glib and shallow comparson. Games are by nature interactive and competitive. Winning is a process of skill. Pornography is passive, and any eleven-year old boy is capable of exactly the same 'result' with the lingerie section of a mail order catalog. People don't play games because it is unacceptable to be violent in real life; they play games because there is a challenge involved.
Oh and quit the 'himself' stuff. Women buy and watch pornography as well, in case you forgot.
it is the women of America who really pay for the porn and violence that our menfolk consume.
Substantiate or retract. For example, if your statement has anything more than surface rhetoric, explain why more violence is committed against young adult males than against women.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, no; 'psychopath' is correct
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3579402.stm
Google for 'corporate psychopath'
Sheesh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trawling
You could do far worse than have a look at energtXT2 by Jorgen Aase. Its a ground-up rewrite of his acclaimed energyXT sequencer which is now cross platform. EnergyXT was fairly innovative for being both a VST plugin host and a VST plugin itself (VST being the de facto standard for plugins on most Mac/Windows audio sequencers) as well as being a flexible 'modular' routing environment.
The first beta release of 'core' functionality was released in early December, and the most recent beta is only a couple of days old.
http://www.energy-xt.com/
[i] Get a job as a stocker at WalMart and stop being an anarchist/conspiracy theorist (hey, that's what it says on the linked Wikipedia page) refusing to do actual work for money in our 'system'.[/i]
Kind of hard to do that when you're housebound and only have a few months to live, y'know.
And where on earth do you get the assumption that he ever refused to work for money?
[i]There is a rather large african bird that runs and pack hunts on the African plains even now. I'm sure that one of you will know the name of it, as it escapes me at the moment. It is quite feared in the regions it is known to inhabit because it currently has the rather uncomfortable habit of killing and eating members of our species.[/i]
Ummm, did you watch 'Walking with Beasts' and think it was a real nature documentary?
I think you're missing my point. I prefer running Firefox, Thunderbird, and Sunbird separately. I dont need them all running all the time.
For example I access my home email at home, and my work email at work, and I want to keep them separate. In fact, for legacy reasons, I dont even run Thunderbird at home. Its not 'efficient' to be have two mail programs (or one mail program and a monolithic mail/browser/address book) running when one isnt being used except for a very limited part of its functionality.
However there are things in my calendar/to-do list which do overlap. I can currently run Sunbird on its own on either machine and access them off a memory stick. It would be handy to be able to do the same thing for certain contact addresses and phone numbers.
I can understand the motivation for separating out most of the 'components' of Mozilla. I can't really understand the motivation for not separating out the last one at the same time.
Can someone explain give a good justification for the fact that, although the 'old' Mozilla has been broken up into component parts, the Address Book is still part of the mail program?
I dont want to have to fire up a mail program just to get someone's phone number.
Cubase does NOT have this kind of distributed processing. If you're referring to VStack, you still need audio cards on your 'other' machines; this doesnt appear to; all routing is via ethernet.
The nearest competing technology is FXTeleport, which is host-independent (its a VST plugin)
Nice.
Of course whoever modded this 'Insightful' wouldnt appear to know dick about Dick.
Correction : The Arius3D system is actually based around a fixed-position object and a moving scanning laser. I do know it can also be used to scan rooms, so it may be what was used for your cave.
No, because in spirit, the film of Starship Troopers was actually more like the The Forever War... which was a satirical response to Starship Troopers from a post-Vietnam perspective
[i]Currently CG skin is only a surface -- it doesn't show light reflecting from within the skin.[/i]
Totally wrong. Try googling for 'subsurface scattering skin'.
You say 'stupid, stupid, stupid'.
Just because you can't see a use for them, doesnt mean there isnt one. I ordered two of these late last years for lecturers in my department who teach Maya. Both need to be able to work at their desks, at home, and in a variety of lecture theatres, but without any compromise in the power, facilities, or screen real-estate. These were perfect, and less than 2/3rds the cost of anything else with as remotely big a screen.
1) Change the colour. Red is too demonic. Black would be good, no-one objects to Tux after all, but you wanna make the face stand out. Make that much lighter, and slightly more prominent.
2) Lose the horns. Something like big round ears would be friendlier.
3) Lose the pitchfork and tail. You want something that gives an air of class - like white gloves
4) No nudity, please; we need more than trainers or this is just pornography. Put shorts on the dude or something. You could even make them red, sort of a homage to the original. But you'd need to simplify the footwear.
That would be perfect. No-one could ever object to that.
It would look something like this : google link
Or just install popfile ( http://popfile.sourceforge.net/ ) on your system, and get it to proxy your incoming mail for free.
Yup. We had some. They'll shag for hours and hours, just going round and round.
Then they all died.
Exhaustion, I suspect.
However, Apple's version will be pronounced 'Coog-Wire' so there will be no verbal confusion.
Make this offer to blizzard : the bnetd supplies the server game code, but passes the authentication off to a Blizzard-run server....
Lets see how Blizzard would respond to that, if piracy really is the objection...
It has not been proposed because HTML is not a page description language.
I doubt if that is correct. There are probably other reasons it may not have been proposed, but that certainly isnt one of them.
It's a document structuring language, even if a lot of people do not understand the difference.
Actually the differentation was lost fairly early on in HTML, and was only really made absolute again in HTML 4.
But thats irrelevant to my point. HTML+CSS gives you content, structure, and page description. Didnt I already mention having all external files incuded in the bundle. Was I talking about something only in terms of page description? Or did you just bring up some arbitrary points with no relevance to what I was saying?
Its is simply the wrong tool. HTML displays a document using information about its structure (title, paragraphs), to an arbitrary media.
Actually incorrect, for reasons you have already mentioned. Are you getting yourself confused? An HTML browser does the display. HTML basically only marks up predefined (and somewhat content-null) structural components.
A page description language is about describing precisely the graphical structure (x,y position of all elements).
I was talking about a vendor-neutral method of distributing multi-part hypertextual documentation in a single easily-parsed file. Who limited that definition to 'page description language'?
I'm surprised no-one (that I'm aware of) has proposed a 'bundled' portable HTML file format that would be non-proprietry, vendor neutral, and immune to problems like the Skylarov case.
/PAGE > sections, as well as < MEDIA > < /MEDIA> wrappers around text-encoded graphics file. Fonts could possibly also be shipped within the document.
All it would take (IMHO) is an extended HTML document which contained each individual HTML page in < PAGE > <
All the browser would have to be extended to do would be split up the pages, and decode the image information. Or, a simple parser could chop it into its component pages and images. Voila, a single-file multi-part document viewable by any browser.
Why is this better than a zipped set of HTML pages? For one it misses the unzipping and saving stage, making it as immediate as PDF. Secondly, the PHTML generator would do link checking and remunging ensuring local links within the document was completely self contained.
Any thoughts?
I'd also put the UK first, which should help a bit as well...
Aside : There's no such product as 'Maya character studio'.
But these days a -lot- of companies use Maya in the production chain somewhere -because- its completely extensible; it's written in its own scripting language (MELscript) and it has a very open API.
So if you need to write AI code that controls blending of motion-capture data to provide an autonomous Orc then you can; if you want to have seemless interdependence with your established top-quality rendering system, then you can (ie RenderMan).
Maya 4 for Linux doesnt appear to be available yet...
A typical recording budget for an artist's first album is between $250,000 and $1 million.
You could build the artist their own recording studio for that, and minimise the production costs of their next album. Geez even 250 grand would be enough. Wanna guess why they don't do it that way?
But worse still, this presents the story as being awful hard on the record company. Bullshit. Lets rephrase the process...
"Yeah, you write this piece of software. We'll give you money to cover the costs of it now, and advertise and sell it for you. We call that an 'advance'.
But when we start to sell it, you'll pay us all that 'advance' back, out of your share of the profits (we call them 'royalties), and in addition to you repaying our outlay, we'll get at least three and a half times the profits you do.
If you don't cover the money you owe us, then we'll ask you to do another project, and the amount outstanding will have to come from the profits you make on -that- one. We'll also reduce your new advance, and the amount of advertising we do because you're obviously unprofitable."
Pornography and games are astonishingly similar
And astonishingly dissimilar as well. What they have in common as forms of entertainment is actually a different issue from that of the original article, which seems to be more about the people and culture surrounding them.
They both appeal to the basal emotions, and encourage the user to imagine himself doing thing unnacceptable in real life. In games it is violence, and in porn it is sex (and often violence too). The differences are minimal
A glib and shallow comparson. Games are by nature interactive and competitive. Winning is a process of skill. Pornography is passive, and any eleven-year old boy is capable of exactly the same 'result' with the lingerie section of a mail order catalog. People don't play games because it is unacceptable to be violent in real life; they play games because there is a challenge involved.
Oh and quit the 'himself' stuff. Women buy and watch pornography as well, in case you forgot.
it is the women of America who really pay for the porn and violence that our menfolk consume.
Substantiate or retract. For example, if your statement has anything more than surface rhetoric, explain why more violence is committed against young adult males than against women.
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++