Motion sickness seems to be a hit and miss thing. I do not get motion sickness from playing Quake, but less than ten seconds of Alien Breed (a top down shooter) have me retching. Other top down shooters don't affect me either, but it's amazing how sick I get from that one game.
Flying acrobatics OTOH can't exactly be compared with a computer game. Even blindfolded I'd sooner sign away my soul than board one of those aircrafts.
So you're now saying that if Pixar just skipped doing off line scene analysis and instead did ray tracing on the direct they would render faster? And what stops future triangle heavy games from doing the same pre-scene analysis if that's not the case?
Big-O is an annoying notation, I prefer linear instead of O(n) and logarithmic instead of O(log n). That said, regardless of what you want to believe workarounds are workarounds, not solutions. The point anyway was that ray tracing does not reflect reality, not that scanline renderers were superior. Both methods are at the end of the day compromises.
You call pixar scenes with tens of thousand of objects simple? Pixar has shown of the most complex off line rendering I've seen and you consider that too simple to benefit from ray tracing?!
Solved? Issues such as aliasing and indirect light have just been 'worked around'. That's not solved IMO. Ray tracing is not happy about movement in scenes (think swaying trees). Neither is ray tracing all that accurate with reality, based on the assumption that light travels in the opposite direction than what it actually does (from the eyes to the sun).
IOW Ray tracing is not a golden bullet. It handles dynamic scenes poorly and needs an exponential raise in the number of rays as quality is improved. Pixar for instance used ray tracing first in 'Cars' (a movie with many reflective surfaces and shadows), having relied on scanline rendering for all their previous movies. Even then Pixar outright stated that Raytracing was unsuited for very complex scenes, which is the exact opposite of your claim.
This may be the result of Pixar's implementation but I rather take their word for it than yours to the opposite.
Raytracing is itself a cheat. Don't forget that. Rasterizers may cheat more but we got ten years of experience with real time rasterizers now while raytracing is a 'might be but probably not unless problem X is overcome'.
You can win on any of those OSs just by encrypting your files, though. No, you still have to store your encryption key in some safe spot. *BSD doesn't magically solve that problem and you can in fact encrypt files on Windows.
I've never understood why the state buys so much closed source software and flaky solutions. With the money they throw about they should demand source ownership. Instead they pay thousands of $ for programs like one recent I saw for deleting all PDF files older than five days.
Congrats with the free PS3. Right now the PS3 has one game I want to play (Heavenly sword) so I almost envy you. I figure I'll get it when it becomes dirt cheap. Perhaps I'll buy yours when you unload it for the PS4:)
Wouldn't be that hard to put some scripts on an USB disk, would it? That's basically what this MS USB thingamajig is. It does not exploit some backdoor in the USB stack, so if you log out right before the FBI breaks down your door and delete all encryption keys you're safe. But if the FBI now comes home to find your computer logged in and running they can extract data right away instead of turning it off and sending it to a crime lab.
Tools like this have existed for a long time. The fact of the matter is that unless you encrypt your hard drive and store the encryption keys somewhere NOT on your hard drive your files can be read. Ubuntu is no better than Windows here and consoles are worse (if it's privacy your after).
Oh, and the claim on the MPX site that it's the first implementation of a multi-pointer windowing system is just plain nonsense - I used a multi-pointer, multi-monitor, version of Windows 3.1 back in 1992. That must have cost an arm or perhaps a leg.
Not all low end laptops are glossy. Some sellers has glossy as an "extra feature" they try to make you want. Sadly I fell for it; glossy screens looks good when checking them out at the store.
The malware has not necessary infected the factory. The flash disks probably comes with some software tools, and it might be these tools which got infected.
Bandwidth reefers to the width of a signal (Read: band - width). As it happens a wide signal can generally send more information than a narrow signal, but that does not need to be the case. (For instance - A 28K and a 32K modem signal use the same amount of bandwidth but have different data rates)
The correct term for what we call bandwidth would be Channel capacity. (Not that it matters)
My son's Toshiba laptop, purchased this last Christmas, runs Vista at about that speed. I got a 1.6 GHz Toshiba laptop with Vista too. It is quite a bit faster than the Via based computers mentioned in this article. Even the down clocked 600MHz CPU in the eee PC should give the old Via a hard time. Unless it's one of those brand spanking new Via CPUs, in which case I know nothing.
On the Mac I believe you get the full 4 GB. Windows and Linux have the 3 Gig limit but without backwards compatibility to worry about Apple was able to code around it.
Vista was a good bit slower installing than XP on my comp. Vista has more data to install so I thought nothing of it, but it might just be me having a slow DVD player.
Linux has never cared much for binary compatibility. Back in '94 Linux was pretty much a grass root effort, not quite comparable to Windows in dev resources. Breaking binary compatibility saves time and it's not like they had large test labs to insure they uphold binary compatibility anyway.
W3C has done a good job upholding compatibility despite the feature push of the browser wars. Try out browsers that are a little newer and you'll still be able to surf the web. You may have to look into the html code from time to time but hey, back in '96 I had to do that as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. It's the same in god ol' MessyDOS
Dad: Great and about time! I got a backlog of several drives waiting...
Motion sickness seems to be a hit and miss thing. I do not get motion sickness from playing Quake, but less than ten seconds of Alien Breed (a top down shooter) have me retching. Other top down shooters don't affect me either, but it's amazing how sick I get from that one game.
Flying acrobatics OTOH can't exactly be compared with a computer game. Even blindfolded I'd sooner sign away my soul than board one of those aircrafts.
So you're now saying that if Pixar just skipped doing off line scene analysis and instead did ray tracing on the direct they would render faster? And what stops future triangle heavy games from doing the same pre-scene analysis if that's not the case?
I just did that study and there's only vertical scrolling. I think you need horizontal scrolling for it to make a difference.
Big-O is an annoying notation, I prefer linear instead of O(n) and logarithmic instead of O(log n). That said, regardless of what you want to believe workarounds are workarounds, not solutions. The point anyway was that ray tracing does not reflect reality, not that scanline renderers were superior. Both methods are at the end of the day compromises.
You call pixar scenes with tens of thousand of objects simple? Pixar has shown of the most complex off line rendering I've seen and you consider that too simple to benefit from ray tracing?!
Solved? Issues such as aliasing and indirect light have just been 'worked around'. That's not solved IMO. Ray tracing is not happy about movement in scenes (think swaying trees). Neither is ray tracing all that accurate with reality, based on the assumption that light travels in the opposite direction than what it actually does (from the eyes to the sun).
IOW Ray tracing is not a golden bullet. It handles dynamic scenes poorly and needs an exponential raise in the number of rays as quality is improved. Pixar for instance used ray tracing first in 'Cars' (a movie with many reflective surfaces and shadows), having relied on scanline rendering for all their previous movies. Even then Pixar outright stated that Raytracing was unsuited for very complex scenes, which is the exact opposite of your claim.
This may be the result of Pixar's implementation but I rather take their word for it than yours to the opposite.
Raytracing is itself a cheat. Don't forget that. Rasterizers may cheat more but we got ten years of experience with real time rasterizers now while raytracing is a 'might be but probably not unless problem X is overcome'.
I've never understood why the state buys so much closed source software and flaky solutions. With the money they throw about they should demand source ownership. Instead they pay thousands of $ for programs like one recent I saw for deleting all PDF files older than five days.
:)
Congrats with the free PS3. Right now the PS3 has one game I want to play (Heavenly sword) so I almost envy you. I figure I'll get it when it becomes dirt cheap. Perhaps I'll buy yours when you unload it for the PS4
Oh, and I'm sure you put the  there on purpose!
Wouldn't be that hard to put some scripts on an USB disk, would it? That's basically what this MS USB thingamajig is. It does not exploit some backdoor in the USB stack, so if you log out right before the FBI breaks down your door and delete all encryption keys you're safe. But if the FBI now comes home to find your computer logged in and running they can extract data right away instead of turning it off and sending it to a crime lab.
Tools like this have existed for a long time. The fact of the matter is that unless you encrypt your hard drive and store the encryption keys somewhere NOT on your hard drive your files can be read. Ubuntu is no better than Windows here and consoles are worse (if it's privacy your after).
Not all low end laptops are glossy. Some sellers has glossy as an "extra feature" they try to make you want. Sadly I fell for it; glossy screens looks good when checking them out at the store.
A Niagra is a wee bit more costly than an old Pentium. Doubt we'll ever see server oriented chips in office routers - app server or not.
The malware has not necessary infected the factory. The flash disks probably comes with some software tools, and it might be these tools which got infected.
Could also have been a disgruntled worker.
Bandwidth reefers to the width of a signal (Read: band - width). As it happens a wide signal can generally send more information than a narrow signal, but that does not need to be the case. (For instance - A 28K and a 32K modem signal use the same amount of bandwidth but have different data rates) The correct term for what we call bandwidth would be Channel capacity. (Not that it matters)
Now you know what Radio operators feels like when we geeks talk about "bandwidth". Perhaps it's karma ;)
Let's complain about BETA software!
Ensoniq. Looking at Wikipedia I see that they were bought for a not insignificant 77 mil in 1998.
On the Mac I believe you get the full 4 GB. Windows and Linux have the 3 Gig limit but without backwards compatibility to worry about Apple was able to code around it.
Vista was a good bit slower installing than XP on my comp. Vista has more data to install so I thought nothing of it, but it might just be me having a slow DVD player.
Can't you just install a pirated version of Windows XP? Seems simpler than going through the rather long Vista install prosses twice over.
Linux has never cared much for binary compatibility. Back in '94 Linux was pretty much a grass root effort, not quite comparable to Windows in dev resources. Breaking binary compatibility saves time and it's not like they had large test labs to insure they uphold binary compatibility anyway.
W3C has done a good job upholding compatibility despite the feature push of the browser wars. Try out browsers that are a little newer and you'll still be able to surf the web. You may have to look into the html code from time to time but hey, back in '96 I had to do that as well.