FSF Lawyer: "What? Product X functions like GNU/XYZ? Obviously you had access to our copyrighted source code!"
MS: "WTF are you talking about?"
FSF Lawyer: "Programmer Joe Collegekid over there, he saw our source in his college class. He obviously used it. Stop producing your software, or you'll lose everything you own! Oh, and give it to use, because we own all the copyrights on it!"
A function that calculates all digits of PI is not an algorithm because it will never terminate.
An "function" that never terminates, by definition, would not give you any result in finite time.
However, if you can tell the function to return up until the 100 billionth digit, or if you specify how many digits you want, then it is an algorithm.
A good algorithm of calculating PI just returns the text "PI", the textual representation of a series sum that sums up to PI (with "..." obviously), or a continued fraction (with "...") because a finite notation of this ratio in our current number notation system does not exist.
Well, it is not that I *think* it is a hoax. I experienced it. Haven't programmed in Java for about a year already, it might have changed. We used to make Java "compatibility workarounds" in our Java programs (mostly thanks to AWT, Swing wasn't around yet)
I'm glad things have changed, but it is irratating that Sun advertises "cross-platformness" a couple of years ago, which was simply laughable.
And, you don't have to tell me it runs 3D 50FPS on geforce2. I have confidence in Java's 3D performance, afterall, it is just another pretty thin layer to very fast graphics accelerators:)
Well-written C will be more portable. Well, if you write in Python, Ruby or Perl, it doesn't even has to be well-written to be more portable than Java.
Stop this train already. It is a nice language, but I think Java "portability" is a big hoax.
Roads were originally designed to carry horse
traffic, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't
adapt them as necessary when cars were invented.
It is exactly my point - posting HTML on today's Usenet is analogous to putting cars on roads built 100 years ago.
Roads built 100 years ago were built for horses. Roads built today are built for cars.
While engineers have adapted roads and bridges to cars by making their surfaces smoother and increasing their capability of carrying heavier loads, the Usenet hasn't undergone such adaptation yet.
If I want to drive a car on 100-year-old road I can, for example, get an AWD and drives like there's no road. In this case, it is the car that's adapting for the old road. However, no similar adaptation has been gone through HTML yet. (HEY!!! It triggers something - now I think using WML on Usenet is the best thing)
Still, it's not a perfect world and I think the
advantages far outweight the disadvantages.
I agree, that the advantage outnumbers the disadvantages. But for me, the disadvantages associated with security and eyesores associated with spams far outweighs the advantages. So you see, whether it is more advantageous or not, it is in the eye of the beholder.
I'll make my arguments in point form so it'll be easier for you to reply.
1. HTTP was DESIGNED to transport HTML.
2. The Usenet Protocol was DESIGNED to transport plaintext. Newsreaders that read HTML off postings do it by ugly hacks, that don't always work.
3. I didn't say the web should return to pure ASCII, and Slashdot should return to ASCII either. But I know if Slashdot allows embedded objects, pictures, BLINKS, or Java applets within comments all of these comments will eventually modded to -2. Problem is, there is no limit what HTML you can post on Newsgroups. If you can control your newsreader like you do with your browser, I'd not reject HTML-on-usenet as much.
4. If Usenet were invented today and included HTML, then I'll accept it and use it. Plain and simple - surprise eh? You know why?
BECAUSE the design and implementation of the protocol undoubtedly would be DIFFERENT than the original Usenet so they can handle HTML INHERENTLY.
If Usenet were invented today, it would be a DIFFERENT invention, not a "time-shift" of the same invention.
Anyway, do whatever you want. I was just saying Usenet in its form isn't suitable for HTML postings, that's all. Gotta go back and finish writing my ray tracer. Bye.
While I quite agree to your "screw the luddites" idea, and I think yEnc is a progress, I'm not sure if HTML postings in usenet can be classified as a "progress", especially when this trivial idea does not need any imagination to accomplish. "Yay, we have HTML, let's slap it onto everything!!"
Not only isn't HTML postings an important "technical advancement", not everyone thinks HTML postings look better, either - surprise.
I, for one, deliberately killfile HTML postings and filter HTML emails because I don't need the funny colours that distract contents, and the security concerns associated with scripts, images, "runnable" postings and cookies.
Plus, every single piece of HTML posting and email I've seen are spam anyway. Why bother?
If you want to post HTML contents, there is a place it should be done and it is called "the web". I don't complain HTML postings in web pages because it is what the HTTP was designed for - and there are already many decent methods built in or around an application called "browser" to protect yourself from security hazards and spams. I cannot say so for newsreaders, at least yet.
I'm not sure there are any ethical
considerations to growing "hydroponic" meat.
The stuff would not have a brain or the ability
to feel pain and fear any more than plants do.
Theoretically, yes. But how do you define "dense enough"?
Experiments and researches have shown that (take a look at some SIGGRAPH 99-01 papers) even in high triangle count, Gouraud shaded objects still look inferior to the same Phong shaded object using fewer triangles.
And the bomb is, texture-based Phong shading is a relatively simple technique to implement, gives good results if you have good texture hardware, and fast.
Even with T&L I highly doubt a Gouraud shaded object with "dense enough" triangles to look on par with the same Phong shaded object with fewer triangles would render faster. (in fact I'll bet you it'll render slower)
Although, from a bandwidth perspective hardware tesselation will be a huge step.
If we could describe a sphere as a sphere instead of 300 triangles, an arc as an arc instead of 200 triangles, then who needs AGP graphic cards, or even PCI for that matter?
I've accustomed to buying stuffs 1/2 to 1 a generation behind the technology and so far it saves me quite a sum and apparently I'm not missing much at all, since (surprise) games usually lag behind hardware advances.
Also, older cards can be sold off the usenet when you upgrade. Did that for quite a few times (I sold my stuffs at half the price I was going to pay for my upgrade, and it worked) until one day I decided to put all in-use hardware into my girlfriend's computer when I upgrade, then sell hers. This chain has been working pretty well.
Re:Enough with the Polygons, How about Ray Tracing
on
7 Years of 3D Graphics
·
· Score: 2
I fail to see how a ray tracing engine would produce significantly higher quality than todays best triangle rasterizers.
(other than the vast decrease of memory bandwidth usage by a real scene description language than describing stuffs in terms of triangles)
Smoother silhoettes due to the use of NURBS than triangles? Sure. We have T&L - just increase the number of triangles in the scene.
Different lighting effects? Pixel shaders can do that too.
Refraction and Reflection? Even Voodoos could fake that reasonably well with environmental maps.
Both approaches fail to render good-looking global illumination effects without faking it with textures or "ambient" lights.
I say, add support for non-triangle scene description and back that up with hardware-accelerated meshing. Then the quest for the ultimate triangle rasterizer is complete.
Actually, no matter how fast my connection is, I always want a CD. Having a fast connection is one thing, having a stable always-online connection is another.
There might just be one day, electricity runs out on your non-UPS equipped box, a few times when your disk is being fscked. And the ISP is down too. A CD will be your savior.
Don't laugh, it actually happened to my box and it scared the daylight outta me. Luckily my data wasn't affected and fsck finally finished without errors.
In the current state, if you keep using the GUI tools to play with your system, your system WILL break one day.
I won't say it won't break if you play with it with vi, but at least it is easier to fix, because at least you could have made a log of what you've done.
Until it is certain that the GUI config stuffies won't mess my system up no matter how I use them, I'll stick with vi.
And no, I don't want to use a bit of both. Be consistent and you'll stay away from a lot of trouble.
That you know in advance that you'll always have a backup installation to fall onto, that always works, without worrying whether your network connection is down?
>Your contention that "software" is synonymous >with "thought" is laughably naive; by that >reasoning, it would follow that "building" is >"brick", "symphony" is "tone", and "Water >Lillies" is "paint".
That's the idea - you can use whatever you like - in your case free software.
It does not mean what the shareware authors do is wrong. After all, it is their creation. If he chooses not to post it on a website at all, so there.
Did he download his shareware down to your hard drive? No. Who did it? Probably yourself. So, what do you have to complain about "your right being taken away using the software for any purpose"?
By your reasoning, is it my right to take GPL software and make closed derivations off them too?
>What gives her the right to forbid anyone from >distributing a game or any other software?
Let's say, because the author owns the software. You might say, once you sell a product, it is not yours anymore, so people should be able to redistribute. I remember at one point of time, it was true for software too - people can redistribute - provided that they destroy their own copies.
But how many people do that?
Let's agree on the assumption that software is sellable, just like any merchandise. Then, there must be some way to maintain the "scarcity". Making sure what you sell isn't going to duplicate is one way to do it. But since everybody who redistribute is keeping a copy for herself, the author must protect that scarcity by making himself some sort of copy protection.
>If she spent 1200 hours writing legislation >trying to forbid people from speaking freely, >do you think it is ethical and right to allow >her?
Of course not. However, your example is scewed. You may not agree with what the author says about free speech, but you STILL CANNOT REDISTRIBUTE THE LEGISLATION in question. It is NOT the content, but the redistribution, that matters. Please don't try to muddle up your own arguments to make them seem correct.
What is the difference between earning your money by practicing illegal antitrust behaviors from...well, murder is too extreme - how about - stealing?
I see no difference between the $$$ MS earned illegally than $$$ obtained through back robbery - both involving an unfair transfer from some victims to some criminals.
I agree that your dictionary definitions are correct. But I believe that unjust behaviors of similar kind should be treated in similar ways.
In this case, I advocate a fine of the $$ they earned illegally. (Not that I mean it is easy to calculate, tho)
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't it apply to GPL software as well?
FSF Lawyer: "What? Product X functions like GNU/XYZ? Obviously you had access to our copyrighted source code!"
MS: "WTF are you talking about?"
FSF Lawyer: "Programmer Joe Collegekid over there, he saw our source in his college class. He obviously used it. Stop producing your software, or you'll lose everything you own! Oh, and give it to use, because we own all the copyrights on it!"
A function that calculates all digits of PI is not an algorithm because it will never terminate.
An "function" that never terminates, by definition, would not give you any result in finite time.
However, if you can tell the function to return up until the 100 billionth digit, or if you specify how many digits you want, then it is an algorithm.
A good algorithm of calculating PI just returns the text "PI", the textual representation of a series sum that sums up to PI (with "..." obviously), or a continued fraction (with "...") because a finite notation of this ratio in our current number notation system does not exist.
One of the most important algorithms ever invented.
Seriously, how about Simulated Annealing or Genetic Algorithm?
Haven't you all received the opportunity to be FREED in your mailboxes?
"You need EVIDENCE ELIMINATOR (tm)!!"
Well, it is not that I *think* it is a hoax. I experienced it. Haven't programmed in Java for about a year already, it might have changed. We used to make Java "compatibility workarounds" in our Java programs (mostly thanks to AWT, Swing wasn't around yet)
:)
I'm glad things have changed, but it is irratating that Sun advertises "cross-platformness" a couple of years ago, which was simply laughable.
And, you don't have to tell me it runs 3D 50FPS on geforce2. I have confidence in Java's 3D performance, afterall, it is just another pretty thin layer to very fast graphics accelerators
Well-written C will be more portable. Well, if you write in Python, Ruby or Perl, it doesn't even has to be well-written to be more portable than Java.
Stop this train already. It is a nice language, but I think Java "portability" is a big hoax.
It is exactly my point - posting HTML on today's Usenet is analogous to putting cars on roads built 100 years ago.
Roads built 100 years ago were built for horses. Roads built today are built for cars.
While engineers have adapted roads and bridges to cars by making their surfaces smoother and increasing their capability of carrying heavier loads, the Usenet hasn't undergone such adaptation yet.
If I want to drive a car on 100-year-old road I can, for example, get an AWD and drives like there's no road. In this case, it is the car that's adapting for the old road. However, no similar adaptation has been gone through HTML yet. (HEY!!! It triggers something - now I think using WML on Usenet is the best thing)
I agree, that the advantage outnumbers the disadvantages. But for me, the disadvantages associated with security and eyesores associated with spams far outweighs the advantages. So you see, whether it is more advantageous or not, it is in the eye of the beholder.
Have a nice day.
Dude, you don't need opposible thumbs to play nintendo. Put it on the floor and you can control it with your nose and tongue!
I'll make my arguments in point form so it'll be easier for you to reply.
1. HTTP was DESIGNED to transport HTML.
2. The Usenet Protocol was DESIGNED to transport plaintext. Newsreaders that read HTML off postings do it by ugly hacks, that don't always work.
3. I didn't say the web should return to pure ASCII, and Slashdot should return to ASCII either. But I know if Slashdot allows embedded objects, pictures, BLINKS, or Java applets within comments all of these comments will eventually modded to -2. Problem is, there is no limit what HTML you can post on Newsgroups.
If you can control your newsreader like you do with your browser, I'd not reject HTML-on-usenet as much.
4. If Usenet were invented today and included HTML, then I'll accept it and use it. Plain and simple - surprise eh? You know why?
BECAUSE the design and implementation of the protocol undoubtedly would be DIFFERENT than the original Usenet so they can handle HTML INHERENTLY.
If Usenet were invented today, it would be a DIFFERENT invention, not a "time-shift" of the same invention.
Anyway, do whatever you want. I was just saying Usenet in its form isn't suitable for HTML postings, that's all. Gotta go back and finish writing my ray tracer. Bye.
While I quite agree to your "screw the luddites" idea, and I think yEnc is a progress, I'm not sure if HTML postings in usenet can be classified as a "progress", especially when this trivial idea does not need any imagination to accomplish. "Yay, we have HTML, let's slap it onto everything!!"
Not only isn't HTML postings an important "technical advancement", not everyone thinks HTML postings look better, either - surprise.
I, for one, deliberately killfile HTML postings and filter HTML emails because I don't need the funny colours that distract contents, and the security concerns associated with scripts, images, "runnable" postings and cookies.
Plus, every single piece of HTML posting and email I've seen are spam anyway. Why bother?
If you want to post HTML contents, there is a place it should be done and it is called "the web". I don't complain HTML postings in web pages because it is what the HTTP was designed for - and there are already many decent methods built in or around an application called "browser" to protect yourself from security hazards and spams. I cannot say so for newsreaders, at least yet.
Then parse and forward?
How about POP3-proxy their web mail?
Darn. I used to tell people to mail me at yahoo so I can receive mails on my Blackberrry. Now that I cannot forward I have to find another way...
Theoretically, yes. But how do you define "dense enough"?
Experiments and researches have shown that (take a look at some SIGGRAPH 99-01 papers) even in high triangle count, Gouraud shaded objects still look inferior to the same Phong shaded object using fewer triangles.
And the bomb is, texture-based Phong shading is a relatively simple technique to implement, gives good results if you have good texture hardware, and fast.
Even with T&L I highly doubt a Gouraud shaded object with "dense enough" triangles to look on par with the same Phong shaded object with fewer triangles would render faster. (in fact I'll bet you it'll render slower)
Can't agree more.
Although, from a bandwidth perspective hardware tesselation will be a huge step.
If we could describe a sphere as a sphere instead of 300 triangles, an arc as an arc instead of 200 triangles, then who needs AGP graphic cards, or even PCI for that matter?
well if you're only using Outlook and Word or Pine ;) then no.
However, you can really open your eyes by paying $10 for a used i740 card.
I've accustomed to buying stuffs 1/2 to 1 a generation behind the technology and so far it saves me quite a sum and apparently I'm not missing much at all, since (surprise) games usually lag behind hardware advances.
Also, older cards can be sold off the usenet when you upgrade. Did that for quite a few times (I sold my stuffs at half the price I was going to pay for my upgrade, and it worked) until one day I decided to put all in-use hardware into my girlfriend's computer when I upgrade, then sell hers. This chain has been working pretty well.
I fail to see how a ray tracing engine would produce significantly higher quality than todays best triangle rasterizers.
(other than the vast decrease of memory bandwidth usage by a real scene description language than describing stuffs in terms of triangles)
Smoother silhoettes due to the use of NURBS than triangles? Sure. We have T&L - just increase the number of triangles in the scene.
Different lighting effects? Pixel shaders can do that too.
Refraction and Reflection? Even Voodoos could fake that reasonably well with environmental maps.
Both approaches fail to render good-looking global illumination effects without faking it with textures or "ambient" lights.
I say, add support for non-triangle scene description and back that up with hardware-accelerated meshing. Then the quest for the ultimate triangle rasterizer is complete.
Actually, no matter how fast my connection is, I always want a CD. Having a fast connection is one thing, having a stable always-online connection is another.
There might just be one day, electricity runs out on your non-UPS equipped box, a few times when your disk is being fscked. And the ISP is down too. A CD will be your savior.
Don't laugh, it actually happened to my box and it scared the daylight outta me. Luckily my data wasn't affected and fsck finally finished without errors.
I still use Slackware.
In the current state, if you keep using the GUI tools to play with your system, your system WILL break one day.
I won't say it won't break if you play with it with vi, but at least it is easier to fix, because at least you could have made a log of what you've done.
Until it is certain that the GUI config stuffies won't mess my system up no matter how I use them, I'll stick with vi.
And no, I don't want to use a bit of both. Be consistent and you'll stay away from a lot of trouble.
The idea that a CD is being "tangible"?
That you know in advance that you'll always have a backup installation to fall onto, that always works, without worrying whether your network connection is down?
>Your contention that "software" is synonymous
>with "thought" is laughably naive; by that
>reasoning, it would follow that "building" is
>"brick", "symphony" is "tone", and "Water
>Lillies" is "paint".
Nice. I love these analogies.
That's the idea - you can use whatever you like - in your case free software.
It does not mean what the shareware authors do is wrong. After all, it is their creation. If he chooses not to post it on a website at all, so there.
Did he download his shareware down to your hard drive? No. Who did it? Probably yourself. So, what do you have to complain about "your right being taken away using the software for any purpose"?
By your reasoning, is it my right to take GPL software and make closed derivations off them too?
>What gives her the right to forbid anyone from
>distributing a game or any other software?
Let's say, because the author owns the software.
You might say, once you sell a product, it is not yours anymore, so people should be able to redistribute. I remember at one point of time, it was true for software too - people can redistribute - provided that they destroy their own copies.
But how many people do that?
Let's agree on the assumption that software is sellable, just like any merchandise. Then, there must be some way to maintain the "scarcity". Making sure what you sell isn't going to duplicate is one way to do it. But since everybody who redistribute is keeping a copy for herself, the author must protect that scarcity by making himself some sort of copy protection.
>If she spent 1200 hours writing legislation
>trying to forbid people from speaking freely,
>do you think it is ethical and right to allow
>her?
Of course not. However, your example is scewed.
You may not agree with what the author says about free speech, but you STILL CANNOT REDISTRIBUTE THE LEGISLATION in question. It is NOT the content, but the redistribution, that matters. Please don't try to muddle up your own arguments to make them seem correct.
What is the difference between earning your money by practicing illegal antitrust behaviors from...well, murder is too extreme - how about - stealing?
I see no difference between the $$$ MS earned illegally than $$$ obtained through back robbery - both involving an unfair transfer from some victims to some criminals.
I agree that your dictionary definitions are correct. But I believe that unjust behaviors of similar kind should be treated in similar ways.
In this case, I advocate a fine of the $$ they earned illegally. (Not that I mean it is easy to calculate, tho)
Good thing.
Murderers should not be executed because it is a retribution. Bank robbers should not be taking away their robbed money because it is a retribution.
Rather, the focus of the states should be on how to keep peace among people and make everyone rich in order to prevent future murders and robberies.