I do 3D visualization type stuff at work. We don't actually code the 3D engines however. We just use 3rd party software for rendering the scenes while we concentrate on presenting the data.
Anyway, I wanted to learn to do 3D stereo with OpenGL so I went out, bought the glasses and here's what I found.
The nVidia stereo drivers don't work with the OpenGL stereo on the TNT and TNT2 based cards.
After I bought a GeForce4 4200, here's what I found...
The GeForce4 (and other gaming cards) don't support the quad-buffered stereo I was trying to learn. None of the OpenGL apps I added stereo support for would run in stereo.
The nVidia stereo driver seems to take a normal scene and generate stereo pairs for all the vertices before it renders the scene. I took the code I wrote and removed all the "special" stereo code, and then my applications would run in stereo just fine.
Quake 3 looks great. Quake 2 looks a little better.
DirectX based applications seem to have the stereo reversed and there is no way to switch it. (that I have found yet)
I can play cool games and write OpenGL apps but I still don't have a machine at home to learn quad buffered stereo.
Nice come back. "Grow up." You obviously don't get it.
It was supposed to be a facetious attempt at sarcasm directed at this discussion group. I was debating on wether or not to put 7. ??? 8. Proft! but I thought that was enough for most to get the joke.
BTW, I haven't had any rogue ActiveX controls even attempt to infect my system since I started running Mozilla.
Yes, Micro$oft has some real issues, and yes it's still fun to laugh at them. Get over it.
1. Open Control Panel. 2. Select Add/Remove programs. 3. Select Microsoft Internet Explorer. 4. Select Add/Remove... 5. Download Mozilla. 6. Run the mozilla installer.
I would like my 15-16 year old to be able to do research on birth control, teen pregnancy and the like. Any topic of which would probably embarass them enough to not want to approach the librarian to ask permission to do the research.
Yeah it is a step back, to us who are familiar with the file systems and how they work. The point is that Microsoft realized that my friend doesn't know squat about file systems. When she saves pictures from her digital camera, if it's not in "My Pictures" she's lost.
Yeah, it is a mess for us to keep everything in one place. It is for her too. But Microsoft realized that she is not going to take the time to learn or try to understand the file system.
My ex-girlfriend used to tell me she saved her files in Word. I'm still not quite sure what she meant by that. I think she was embedding all her media files in a word document. Silly yeah, but I guess it worked for her. Her word document was always there when she opened word. All her files were right there.
We uber geeks understand how simple our current interfaces are because we understand them inside and out. But if we take a step back and look at someone new to computers or who is uninterested in how computers work, we see just how unintuitive the user interfaces are.
Microsoft's "My Documents" folder might not be the best solution. But it makes using computers a lot easier for those not as 31337.:-)
We are not talking about what makes a good operating system. We are talking about new ways to interface with computers that are inovative, efficient and radically different than the point and click GUI maps over the OS's.
Anyone remember this DOOM interface for killing processes. Granted, this still requires a sysadmin that knows what he's doing but that's not the point. The point is, this is a radically different interface than anyone has ever done before.
In context it is funny and a rather novel idea that no one would really implement in a production environment. Imagine the havoc!:-)
However, it's not far from what Dr. Gelernter is talking about: Thinking outside the box for new inovative ways for interfacing with the computer. Tying the user closer to the information rather than the intricacies of the system.
In this interface, the information (processes) are presented in a unique way to the user (as demons). The user does not really need to know much about the system or about the OS. To kill a process, use the BFG!:-)
Pretty radical!
This is not the solution so don't nitpick. Its an example of thinking outside the box. Dr. Gelernter's software doesn't necessarily need to be the solution either. But at least he's thinking about it and not trying to duplicate the same old thing.
Everyone seems to be reading too much into the word "irrelevant".
Irrelevant does not mean unnecessary. They will always be necessary. The word "irrelevant" was directed toward end users. Your last paragraph sums that up exactly. To the end user, the actuall OS the computer is running should be irrelevant. The interface should be instead centered around the user and the desired information.
Is this aimed at users, or developers? Users don't care (read: understand) about the underlying methods, do they?
Users of course. Developers will always need to know what goes on under the hood. They are the ones trying to make the user's experience better.
Users don't care about the underlying methods. Unfortunately, today, even the end user needs to know a little about the underlying OS to get to the desired information.
Think Star Trek for a moment. Any access to the computer is centered around the information, not the method in which it's stored. With our current interfaces today, we ask the computer, "give me a list of the files on this (drive/storage device)" or "download the files at this (web address that I need to know) so I can read the content."
We are doing things now to get away from things like that. Microsoft has their "My Documents" or "My Pictures" folders that applications default to when opening and saving files. No need to search the hard drive for this stuff. Seem's simple but this is a step away from the underlying OS. On the net we have things like Google. Still not a complete disconnect but our searches are centered around information rather than where it's located.
This is the point of the article. To make the disconnect. Not that Dr. Gelernter's whiz-bang new interface will be the wave of the future but rather it opens the door to new ideas.
No, Dr. Gelernter knows the difference between an OS and a GUI.
By reading the article, you would have realized that Dr. Gelernter is stating that we need to distance ourselves a bit farther from the OS than we are now. Current user interfaces are tied too closely to the nature of the operating system. Instead of having a user interface that is centered around the OS (let's see, a tree of files and folders that just mirrors the filesystem directory structure) to access our information, the interface needs to be centered around the information itself. Then, the OS managing the information does become irrelevant. Not useless, just irrelevant... to the user. We won't care what it is or what it's doing as long as we get the information we are interested in.
We shouldn't need to know we need a network connection to do email, IM, whatever... We should be able to just say, "computer, what's the score?" and it would get the information for us. This type of interface IS a radical change from what we've been doing for the last 20+ years. Will people accept it? People fear change so it will probably take a while. But it will happen.
Yeah it is probably in the archives. I've read it before.
Problem is, the slashdot search engine sucks. I haven't yet been able to query the archives and actually find what I'm looking for without needing to dig through hundreds of irrelevent discussions. Sometimes I think it might be faster to just scroll back through the "Older Stuff" section.
Or we could just have another discussion about it.:-)
"Royalty free" doesn't mean "free". You still have to purchase the image. The image shown in the link is a comping image for creating, well, comps to test whether a design idea works before actually purchasing the image.
"Royalty-free pricing is based solely on the size of the product you need, not the specific use. You don't have to pay any additional fees on a use-by-use. Once you purchase a royalty-free product, you may use it multiple times for multiple projects without paying additional fees."...
The actual purchased images come in larger sizes than the comping image, and without the watermark.
Yes, you are correct. I probably spoke too soon.
However, that still doesn't seem to be the case here. Pure speculation of course:-) but, it really looks like they copied the image and ran it through photoshop for about 5 minutes. All they really did was crop it and mirror it, maybe darken it a little, but that's about it. They didn't even change the size. If you mirror the original, it will overlay perfectly on MS's version.
...will stop audience members from videotaping digital movies off theater screens.
Ok, so this really won't be useful for another 10 years anyway. I mean, after all, how many digital theaters are there now? Additionally, what's the likelyhood many of these bootleg movies were even taped in a digital theater. I know we don't yet have a digital theater where I live. And it doesn't look like we are going to get one any time soon.
Actually, that's not a bad idea. I've considered going that route. Perhaps this would be a better question for Ask Slashdot but...
How good is open source anti-virus software compaired to closed source products like semantec? Who supplies them with the virus signatures? In the Anti-virus community, they share information about the viruses among each other to keep one company from using it as leverage over another and from forcing consumers to have to purchase each company's product to be fully protected. Are the open source solutions part of that circle? If not, who's the lucky winner who gets to reverse engineer the virus and distribute the updates for free?
all you'll end up with is a bunch of garbage, and a small section of the key.
Actually, it will be a small section of a particular key from an infinite set of possible keys.
The "Word Trade Center" will actually match everywhere on the cyphertext and produce a particular key that would have produced that cyphertext from the plaintext.
Given C = akduyghnleidlgn;l
there is a OTP string K1 where
K1 XOR C = T1
where T1 = Word Trade Center
however, there is a OTP string K2 where
K2 XOR C = T2
where T2 = Fish have no feet
since the OTP is truely random K1 and K2 are equally likey to be the correct key.
Also, in my example I could have chosen a different C to produce K3 and K4 to come up with the same T1 and T2. Point being, there is no way to be certain you have actually discovered even part of the key.
Picture a bank deposit protected with an XOR OTP. The MitM XORs the account number of the victim with (victim's account number ^ MitM's account number)
This is a good attack, however, it's not an attack on OTP. This would work with any simple C = T + K type encryption (that is non authenticated). (it's been awhile since I had crypto, what's this type of encryption called?)
In this case the cypher text and plain text are already known to the man in the middle. OTP (or other non public key encryption schemes) would not be used in this situation. OTP's sole purpose is to keep the plain text message secret.
OTP works because for any given cypher text, there are an infinite number of plain text - key stream pairs that generate that same cypher text. If the man in the middle already knows the plain text, the message is no longer secret so incrypting it is pointless.
Re:of course 15 coders makes for less bugs
on
Open Source Studies
·
· Score: 2, Informative
if these projects average 15 coders, on average they're also significantly less complex projects, and then of course on average theyll have less bugs.
In addition, a small number of developers makes for better communication among the developers. The projects don't neccessarily need to be less complex but with a small number of coders, each will have a better understanding of what the others are doing. Less misunderstanding of what another's code is supposed to do makes for less problems down the road.
Come on now. Your post was insightful until that. Why do we need to resort to flamebait?
I don't necessarily agree with unicron's extremist view either, but he does make some interesting points in this and some other follow-ups to other posts in this thread. Not that his comments in any way sway my opinion toward his as I am against any government intervention on my existing freedoms, however I don't think he warrants a "dipshit."
Half of their success is based on music that is created by the music industry. The other half is based on those who listen to the music...
Really? MTV still has something to do with music? I thought it was all about idiots stapling their nut sack to their leg and Girls Gone Wild on Spring Break.
Slashdot Mirror
I do 3D visualization type stuff at work. We don't actually code the 3D engines however. We just use 3rd party software for rendering the scenes while we concentrate on presenting the data.
Anyway, I wanted to learn to do 3D stereo with OpenGL so I went out, bought the glasses and here's what I found.
The nVidia stereo drivers don't work with the OpenGL stereo on the TNT and TNT2 based cards.
After I bought a GeForce4 4200, here's what I found...
The GeForce4 (and other gaming cards) don't support the quad-buffered stereo I was trying to learn. None of the OpenGL apps I added stereo support for would run in stereo.
The nVidia stereo driver seems to take a normal scene and generate stereo pairs for all the vertices before it renders the scene. I took the code I wrote and removed all the "special" stereo code, and then my applications would run in stereo just fine.
Quake 3 looks great. Quake 2 looks a little better.
DirectX based applications seem to have the stereo reversed and there is no way to switch it. (that I have found yet)
I can play cool games and write OpenGL apps but I still don't have a machine at home to learn quad buffered stereo.
Will it tell Stallman to fuck off for trying to put gnu/ on it.
GNU/Linux (The GNU Operating System with Linux kernel) is not Linux (the kernel).
I'm still suprised that Stallman tried this. He of all people should know better. After all...
GNU's Not Linux
err... something like that...
Nice come back. "Grow up." You obviously don't get it.
It was supposed to be a facetious attempt at sarcasm directed at this discussion group. I was debating on wether or not to put 7. ??? 8. Proft! but I thought that was enough for most to get the joke.
BTW, I haven't had any rogue ActiveX controls even attempt to infect my system since I started running Mozilla.
Yes, Micro$oft has some real issues, and yes it's still fun to laugh at them. Get over it.
This sounds kinda familiar...
1. Open Control Panel.
2. Select Add/Remove programs.
3. Select Microsoft Internet Explorer.
4. Select Add/Remove...
5. Download Mozilla.
6. Run the mozilla installer.
How did it feel to go from being captain of your own Starship and crew to driving around in a police cruiser eating donuts?
We hate anybody who doesn't give away their stuff for free... Or let us trade their stuff for free... Or let us modify their stuff for free... Or...
I would like my 15-16 year old to be able to do research on birth control, teen pregnancy and the like. Any topic of which would probably embarass them enough to not want to approach the librarian to ask permission to do the research.
Yeah it is a step back, to us who are familiar with the file systems and how they work. The point is that Microsoft realized that my friend doesn't know squat about file systems. When she saves pictures from her digital camera, if it's not in "My Pictures" she's lost.
:-)
Yeah, it is a mess for us to keep everything in one place. It is for her too. But Microsoft realized that she is not going to take the time to learn or try to understand the file system.
My ex-girlfriend used to tell me she saved her files in Word. I'm still not quite sure what she meant by that. I think she was embedding all her media files in a word document. Silly yeah, but I guess it worked for her. Her word document was always there when she opened word. All her files were right there.
We uber geeks understand how simple our current interfaces are because we understand them inside and out. But if we take a step back and look at someone new to computers or who is uninterested in how computers work, we see just how unintuitive the user interfaces are.
Microsoft's "My Documents" folder might not be the best solution. But it makes using computers a lot easier for those not as 31337.
Doesn't anyone think out of the box around here?
:-)
:-)
We are not talking about what makes a good operating system. We are talking about new ways to interface with computers that are inovative, efficient and radically different than the point and click GUI maps over the OS's.
Anyone remember this DOOM interface for killing processes. Granted, this still requires a sysadmin that knows what he's doing but that's not the point. The point is, this is a radically different interface than anyone has ever done before.
In context it is funny and a rather novel idea that no one would really implement in a production environment. Imagine the havoc!
However, it's not far from what Dr. Gelernter is talking about: Thinking outside the box for new inovative ways for interfacing with the computer. Tying the user closer to the information rather than the intricacies of the system.
In this interface, the information (processes) are presented in a unique way to the user (as demons). The user does not really need to know much about the system or about the OS. To kill a process, use the BFG!
Pretty radical!
This is not the solution so don't nitpick. Its an example of thinking outside the box. Dr. Gelernter's software doesn't necessarily need to be the solution either. But at least he's thinking about it and not trying to duplicate the same old thing.
You've just argued the point of the article.
Everyone seems to be reading too much into the word "irrelevant".
Irrelevant does not mean unnecessary. They will always be necessary. The word "irrelevant" was directed toward end users. Your last paragraph sums that up exactly. To the end user, the actuall OS the computer is running should be irrelevant. The interface should be instead centered around the user and the desired information.
Is this aimed at users, or developers? Users don't care (read: understand) about the underlying methods, do they?
Users of course. Developers will always need to know what goes on under the hood. They are the ones trying to make the user's experience better.
Users don't care about the underlying methods. Unfortunately, today, even the end user needs to know a little about the underlying OS to get to the desired information.
Think Star Trek for a moment. Any access to the computer is centered around the information, not the method in which it's stored. With our current interfaces today, we ask the computer, "give me a list of the files on this (drive/storage device)" or "download the files at this (web address that I need to know) so I can read the content."
We are doing things now to get away from things like that. Microsoft has their "My Documents" or "My Pictures" folders that applications default to when opening and saving files. No need to search the hard drive for this stuff. Seem's simple but this is a step away from the underlying OS. On the net we have things like Google. Still not a complete disconnect but our searches are centered around information rather than where it's located.
This is the point of the article. To make the disconnect. Not that Dr. Gelernter's whiz-bang new interface will be the wave of the future but rather it opens the door to new ideas.
No, Dr. Gelernter knows the difference between an OS and a GUI.
By reading the article, you would have realized that Dr. Gelernter is stating that we need to distance ourselves a bit farther from the OS than we are now. Current user interfaces are tied too closely to the nature of the operating system. Instead of having a user interface that is centered around the OS (let's see, a tree of files and folders that just mirrors the filesystem directory structure) to access our information, the interface needs to be centered around the information itself. Then, the OS managing the information does become irrelevant. Not useless, just irrelevant... to the user. We won't care what it is or what it's doing as long as we get the information we are interested in.
We shouldn't need to know we need a network connection to do email, IM, whatever... We should be able to just say, "computer, what's the score?" and it would get the information for us. This type of interface IS a radical change from what we've been doing for the last 20+ years. Will people accept it? People fear change so it will probably take a while. But it will happen.
Most documents that contain "sensitive" information don't contain the phrase "forward to..." anywhere within the document.
This sounds as fishy as the virus alerts that request they be "forwarded to everyone in your address book."
Yeah it is probably in the archives. I've read it before.
:-)
Problem is, the slashdot search engine sucks. I haven't yet been able to query the archives and actually find what I'm looking for without needing to dig through hundreds of irrelevent discussions. Sometimes I think it might be faster to just scroll back through the "Older Stuff" section.
Or we could just have another discussion about it.
"Royalty free" doesn't mean "free". You still have to purchase the image. The image shown in the link is a comping image for creating, well, comps to test whether a design idea works before actually purchasing the image.
:-) but, it really looks like they copied the image and ran it through photoshop for about 5 minutes. All they really did was crop it and mirror it, maybe darken it a little, but that's about it. They didn't even change the size. If you mirror the original, it will overlay perfectly on MS's version.
"Royalty-free pricing is based solely on the size of the product you need, not the specific use. You don't have to pay any additional fees on a use-by-use. Once you purchase a royalty-free product, you may use it multiple times for multiple projects without paying additional fees."...
The actual purchased images come in larger sizes than the comping image, and without the watermark.
Yes, you are correct. I probably spoke too soon.
However, that still doesn't seem to be the case here. Pure speculation of course
That particular image is royalty free according to their web site.
...will stop audience members from videotaping digital movies off theater screens.
Ok, so this really won't be useful for another 10 years anyway. I mean, after all, how many digital theaters are there now? Additionally, what's the likelyhood many of these bootleg movies were even taped in a digital theater. I know we don't yet have a digital theater where I live. And it doesn't look like we are going to get one any time soon.
Actually, that's not a bad idea. I've considered going that route. Perhaps this would be a better question for Ask Slashdot but...
How good is open source anti-virus software compaired to closed source products like semantec? Who supplies them with the virus signatures? In the Anti-virus community, they share information about the viruses among each other to keep one company from using it as leverage over another and from forcing consumers to have to purchase each company's product to be fully protected. Are the open source solutions part of that circle? If not, who's the lucky winner who gets to reverse engineer the virus and distribute the updates for free?
all you'll end up with is a bunch of garbage, and a small section of the key.
Actually, it will be a small section of a particular key from an infinite set of possible keys.
The "Word Trade Center" will actually match everywhere on the cyphertext and produce a particular key that would have produced that cyphertext from the plaintext.
Given C = akduyghnleidlgn;l
there is a OTP string K1 where
K1 XOR C = T1
where T1 = Word Trade Center
however, there is a OTP string K2 where
K2 XOR C = T2
where T2 = Fish have no feet
since the OTP is truely random K1 and K2 are equally likey to be the correct key.
Also, in my example I could have chosen a different C to produce K3 and K4 to come up with the same T1 and T2. Point being, there is no way to be certain you have actually discovered even part of the key.
Picture a bank deposit protected with an XOR OTP. The MitM XORs the account number of the victim with (victim's account number ^ MitM's account number)
This is a good attack, however, it's not an attack on OTP. This would work with any simple C = T + K type encryption (that is non authenticated). (it's been awhile since I had crypto, what's this type of encryption called?)
In this case the cypher text and plain text are already known to the man in the middle. OTP (or other non public key encryption schemes) would not be used in this situation. OTP's sole purpose is to keep the plain text message secret.
OTP works because for any given cypher text, there are an infinite number of plain text - key stream pairs that generate that same cypher text. If the man in the middle already knows the plain text, the message is no longer secret so incrypting it is pointless.
if these projects average 15 coders, on average they're also significantly less complex projects, and then of course on average theyll have less bugs.
In addition, a small number of developers makes for better communication among the developers. The projects don't neccessarily need to be less complex but with a small number of coders, each will have a better understanding of what the others are doing. Less misunderstanding of what another's code is supposed to do makes for less problems down the road.
Great plan, dipshit.
Come on now. Your post was insightful until that. Why do we need to resort to flamebait?
I don't necessarily agree with unicron's extremist view either, but he does make some interesting points in this and some other follow-ups to other posts in this thread. Not that his comments in any way sway my opinion toward his as I am against any government intervention on my existing freedoms, however I don't think he warrants a "dipshit."
Half of their success is based on music that is created by the music industry. The other half is based on those who listen to the music...
Really? MTV still has something to do with music? I thought it was all about idiots stapling their nut sack to their leg and Girls Gone Wild on Spring Break.
Sweet! I hope they run Java!