I don't keep up much on the advancement of video cards and graphics processing but I recall several months ago (perhaps almost a year?) that raytracing was trying to get traction again as a viable rendering technology for computer games. And now lately I've also been hearing a lot of about how fast graphics cards have become and how many cores they have.
With all this in mind, how close are we to having games being rendered via raytracing? Is it still not possible even with all the hardware available now?
You forgot to list yourself in that roster of Wrongville.
You know all those movies about loser kids who do poorly in school but all become winners by the end? Do you think they become winners because they had some kind of simple "reward" to work towards? It's not because of a stupid reward like a movie day or an exemption from busy work. It's always a teacher who believes in the kids and their abilities and shows them they can achieve whatever they want with hard work and determination.
And since it's already been established that there are very few teachers who can do something like that, who else is there? Yep, you guessed it, parents.
I'm confident that your assertion that "most students would strive to achieve them", "them" being rewards, was pulled out of your ass.
One cool thing that E does is to give you a visual tree of your edits. That is, as you undo and make changes, you visually create a different branch of your previous changes and you can instantly go back to any point in time with just a click.
I don't know how well E might handle a 32MB file but it might be worth a look.
Now the only question is, how heavy is the battery to allow for such a long lasting device. You can't tell me it actually is this efficient, if it boasts that kind of computational power. There are two options:
1. A giant battery that you wear on your back. 2. A regular sized battery because the marketing goons aren't talking about running an entire device, just the nVidia portion of it. When you add all the other functions (WiFi, cellular, screen backlight, etc.) the runtime will drop dramatically.
You're right. I say we abandon our scientific research towards more efficient devices and go back to the good old days of candles and butter churns. Then the amateur astronomers can finally get back to what's important: looking at stars in their backyards!
Well, he also said, "She knows that my younger brother has to endure strict parental control software that was installed on his machine without his consent." Notice the strange part about "without his consent". I don't know how old his younger brother is but parents can and SHOULD do things without their child's consent.
Your assumption is correct. But contradictions? No. Any "contradiction" I've read about online or heard from someone else was either easily explained by someone who understands the Bible (i.e. not by the person pointing out the supposed contradiction), such as myself (not that I'm an expert and which takes me to the next option) or could be explained by someone with a lot more study on the matter. So just because I didn't/don't know the answer to every question doesn't mean there isn't one.
So, in other words, I don't think there are any contradictions. If there were then it loses all credibility and NOTHING can be trusted. If the Bible is the word of God then there can't possibly be any contradictions, right? But if there are indeed contradictions then it means (1) it's not really the word of God, or (2) it/they were introduced through human error during transcription or translation. But if either of those are true then how can we trust any of the content at all?
But contradictions or not, there's a difference between disregard for established theology and difference in interpretation. If you regard your own interpretation just as highly as anyone else's then certainly there's something wrong. Either the Bible can't be trusted at all as a whole, you're wrong, or the other interpretations are wrong (regarding a given subject).
There's also a difference between disregard for established theology and emphasizing one part of the Bible over another. Some people emphasize giving to the poor while others emphasize outreach.
I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in sin as defined in the Bible. How can someone claim to be a Christian and at the same time selectively disregard his God's words?
I'm honestly curious as I've never come across someone with your beliefs.
Also,
1. What other parts of the Bible have you chosen to not believe? 2. What, to you, are the criteria for a person to call their self Christian?
What's the purpose of being an anti-voter? I mean, why would you take such a position and think that it is useful?
"I would never condemn abortion as murder or as a crime, because the crime for a Christian is to not offer an opportunity to a pregnant woman in need."
You've GOT to be kidding. You're basically saying that if a Christian doesn't offer an alternative to sin, they are responsible for the sin of another person. Unbelievable. I think you've got a bit of the crazy in you.
Slashdot Mirror
It's hard for *you* to complain.
...for doing it with a single code!
So if she gave permission to sex being splashed in her face you'd be OK with it?
I don't keep up much on the advancement of video cards and graphics processing but I recall several months ago (perhaps almost a year?) that raytracing was trying to get traction again as a viable rendering technology for computer games. And now lately I've also been hearing a lot of about how fast graphics cards have become and how many cores they have.
With all this in mind, how close are we to having games being rendered via raytracing? Is it still not possible even with all the hardware available now?
Call me crazy but I don't think "one or two times" gives much weight to a statement like "Paypal ALWAYS ruled against me".
You're assuming our impact on the earth is equal to the one ounce in your example!
What if our impact was equal to that of a single whisker from a household cat? What if our impact was 1/100th of the whisker?
You forgot to list yourself in that roster of Wrongville.
You know all those movies about loser kids who do poorly in school but all become winners by the end? Do you think they become winners because they had some kind of simple "reward" to work towards? It's not because of a stupid reward like a movie day or an exemption from busy work. It's always a teacher who believes in the kids and their abilities and shows them they can achieve whatever they want with hard work and determination.
And since it's already been established that there are very few teachers who can do something like that, who else is there? Yep, you guessed it, parents.
I'm confident that your assertion that "most students would strive to achieve them", "them" being rewards, was pulled out of your ass.
Have you looked at E Text Editor?
One cool thing that E does is to give you a visual tree of your edits. That is, as you undo and make changes, you visually create a different branch of your previous changes and you can instantly go back to any point in time with just a click.
I don't know how well E might handle a 32MB file but it might be worth a look.
There's a free evaluation and I it's $35/license.
You can find it here http://www.e-texteditor.com/
1. A giant battery that you wear on your back.
2. A regular sized battery because the marketing goons aren't talking about running an entire device, just the nVidia portion of it. When you add all the other functions (WiFi, cellular, screen backlight, etc.) the runtime will drop dramatically.
MS: "We're working with Intel, which produces chips custom-made for this sector."
Oh, *that* Intel! I was thinking of the other one.
"IgnoramusMaximus"
If that's not a befitting moniker I don't know what is.
I end each of my sentences with an ellipsis... Even the questions?... Yes...
Yay!
You're right. I say we abandon our scientific research towards more efficient devices and go back to the good old days of candles and butter churns. Then the amateur astronomers can finally get back to what's important: looking at stars in their backyards!
Now if they could just figure out a way to keep everything upwind.
?????
/. doesn't like having only question marks in a comment.)
(I guess
"...certainly doesn't look human."
The author was later quoted as saying, "But its giant penis certainly makes me happy."
How flat is "flat"? I mean, if the universe were "flat" wouldn't we just see one intensely white line in the night sky?
9999.9% uptime? Yeah, that is good!
I don't get it. Was I supposed to RTFA?
Question marks.
Well, he also said, "She knows that my younger brother has to endure strict parental control software that was installed on his machine without his consent." Notice the strange part about "without his consent". I don't know how old his younger brother is but parents can and SHOULD do things without their child's consent.
So, yes, it is a serious question.
Your assumption is correct. But contradictions? No. Any "contradiction" I've read about online or heard from someone else was either easily explained by someone who understands the Bible (i.e. not by the person pointing out the supposed contradiction), such as myself (not that I'm an expert and which takes me to the next option) or could be explained by someone with a lot more study on the matter. So just because I didn't/don't know the answer to every question doesn't mean there isn't one.
So, in other words, I don't think there are any contradictions. If there were then it loses all credibility and NOTHING can be trusted. If the Bible is the word of God then there can't possibly be any contradictions, right? But if there are indeed contradictions then it means (1) it's not really the word of God, or (2) it/they were introduced through human error during transcription or translation. But if either of those are true then how can we trust any of the content at all?
But contradictions or not, there's a difference between disregard for established theology and difference in interpretation. If you regard your own interpretation just as highly as anyone else's then certainly there's something wrong. Either the Bible can't be trusted at all as a whole, you're wrong, or the other interpretations are wrong (regarding a given subject).
There's also a difference between disregard for established theology and emphasizing one part of the Bible over another. Some people emphasize giving to the poor while others emphasize outreach.
Anyway, it'd be nice to hear from the OP.
I'm honestly curious as I've never come across someone with your beliefs.
Also,
1. What other parts of the Bible have you chosen to not believe?
2. What, to you, are the criteria for a person to call their self Christian?
(Not a flame.)
What's the purpose of being an anti-voter? I mean, why would you take such a position and think that it is useful?
"I would never condemn abortion as murder or as a crime, because the crime for a Christian is to not offer an opportunity to a pregnant woman in need."
You've GOT to be kidding. You're basically saying that if a Christian doesn't offer an alternative to sin, they are responsible for the sin of another person. Unbelievable. I think you've got a bit of the crazy in you.