Now, if the Blender team could ever pull theierr head out of their ass and bring in a UI developer and stay out of the way... they might have something.
But it's been ears coming and I doubt we'll ever see Blender become usable.
Hey, I do UI development and I'd love to work on Blender! How much do they pay?... Oh, yeah.
I suspect that's why so many free software projects have poor usability. That last bit of "polish" can be pretty expensive in man-hours, and I think the volunteers on these projects tend to be more interested in the challenging work of adding new features than they are in mundane usability work (I know I would be).
Does anyone know how much power a Wi-Fi network consumes vs a wired one? I realize that's a difficult comparison to make, but can anyone point me to some data on that topic?
Learning is a vacuous concept that you can talk to your grandmother about but science has moved away from it because it doesn't address precisely what is learned or precisely when the learning takes place.
So let me see if I understand you: Science has abandoned the concept of learning because it doesn't adequately explain learning?
MOD PARENT UP! (darn, I just used my last mod point earlier today)
This article touches on two key topics, censorship and abortion, that are sure to get people all fired up before they can read the details. You've covered censorship. Now I'd like to pour a little water on the abortion fire with this (FTA):
A spokesman for Verizon said the decision turned on the subject matter of the messages and not on Naral's position on abortion. "Our internal policy is in fact neutral on the position," said the spokesman, Jeffrey Nelson. "It is the topic itself" -- abortion -- "that has been on our list."
So they're not (at least they claim they're not) taking a "side" in the abortion issue, they just don't want to be associated with the issue at all. I'm not saying there isn't anything here to get fired up about, but let's keep it in perspective and not turn it into another right wing conspiracy theory.
Now don't get me wrong. Valve is great, HL and HL2 are my all-time favorite games, and I don't even mind the "orange box" package. That said, given the long wait for ep1 and ep2 (shorter, I admit, than the wait for hl2), and the bundling with ep2, I think it's a stretch for Valve to claim they have much experience with episodic releases. Maybe the discussion should be more centered around whether Value can even do episodic releases.
No it's called a Nash Equilibrium. A point in competition space where no player can imporve his strategy given the other players moves. I can't say what the costs that drive it are. But it's so fixed it apparently has reached equilibrium.
So are you saying it's a Nash Equilibrium because the technology has followed Moore's law so closely that therefore all the companies must be doing just what they need to make it true and no more? I'm not arguing, just honestly trying to understand your point.
Moores law stays fixed because the industry invests enough research dollars--and not one dollar more-- to keep it at that rate. Their entire economic model is built on this. What makes you say that? What about competition? If you knew "the other guys" were striving to exactly meet Moore's law, wouldn't you try to beat it?
The ideal shape for a chip die is an hexagon. Chips must be able to tessellate into shapes that approximate a circle (for good coverage of the wafer), and they must have a regular tessellation pattern to enable them to be easily laid out. Only three shapes are known meet these requirements; triangles, squares and hexagons. A third requirement is that the edge area should be maximised because that governs off-chip bandwidth.
I question whether you know what you are talking about. I suspect you are arguing from a purely geometrical standpoint, and even there I think you are incorrect. You give 3 criteria: wafer coverage, regular pattern ("easy to lay out"), and maximizing edge area.
Of the three shapes, squares are better than triangles in every way, and hexagons are better than squares in all except two ways: They are harder to design than squares, and they are harder to cut out than squares
Actually, triangles (I assume we are talking about regular polygons here) have the greatest edge length for the same area, squares are probably easiest to cut (I don't know the cutting process so I don't know for sure, but I know I'd rather cut something into squares than triangles or hexagons), and hexagons are probably best for "filling" a circular wafer.
However, CPU dies are generally rectangular, and often not square, so there must be other factors.
Another reason why powers of two are popular with multicore chips is that powers of two can be laid out into rectangles. If your multicore design is basically a copy-and-paste job with a little glue logic, it's a lot easier to lay out the cores. With something like the Cell, 8 is a nice number of cores since it allows you to have two rows of four. Three is just awkward.
Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.
Isn't the first sentence pretty much the DEFINITION of conservative vs liberal? So what's surprising? Even so, I think they made a mistake in using too homogeneous a pool of participants:
Participants were college students whose politics ranged from "very liberal" to "very conservative."
At college age, most people are just starting to form their own opinions about things and typically see the opinions they were taught at home as "conservative" and the new ones they are exposed to at school as "liberal". So yes, among college students, I would expect the "liberal" ones to be "more open to new ideas". But many college students change their positions at some point in their lives. Is that because the way their brain processes information changes? I think if the study was done on a wider age range they might get different results.
Another problem is the difference between the dictionary definition of liberal and conservative vs. the political definition. Like I said, being open to new ideas is one definition of "liberal", but it may have nothing to do with believing in specific "liberal" political ideas (especially since most of those ideas are not so new anymore). The latter meaning is probably what the students were referring to in identifying themselves as liberal or conservative.
There's the Universe, and it's a lot more than we can comprehend even there. But no God, right? I mean, in spite of all the things that might be there that you don't understand, God can't be one of them. Despite all the people who claim to know God, to feel him, hear him, SEE him, experience "supernatural" phenomena -- all those people are either deluded or liars. Is that what you're saying?
Now that Bush is president the US does support churchs, thats what Bush's White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is all about.
I read the link: that's very interesting. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, if the government is giving grants to "artists" to photograph dung covered statues, wouldn't it be better to give grants to organizations that actually HELP people? My main concern comes from the other side -- if I were in charge of a church, I wouldn't take money from the government, because that's a foot in the door to start regulating and controlling what the church does. I think separation of church and state means the STATE should keep out of the CHURCH's business. Personally, I think most of the government social programs are functions that could be better handled by community churches and other charities (faith-based or not). They're cheaper, too. I mean, the church only asks for 10% of my money.
I don't go to church, I want the portion of my taxes that supports those churches back.
Are you a U.S. citizen? What portion of your taxes go to support churches? Or are you making the argument that not taxing something (like charitable donations) is the same as supporting it.
I'm confident that professional linguistic anthropologists are aware that languages share common roots. They quite depend on it, actually, as the change and drift of languages over time from a common root is one of the ways they study how language evolves, and by examining the commonalities and fundamental words, they can determine which words are oldest (and therefore more frequently shared). Yes, you can easily think of a hundred ways those assumptions could be wrong, and each of those ways has probably been examined as somebody's PhD thesis. Well, maybe if we're lucky, a professional linguistic anthropologist will weigh in on the subject and give an explanation.
Consider your tax payment as the price of remaining "free." That's worth something, isn't it? So paying taxes is like paying ransom? Thanks, I never thought of it that way.
The pride and arrogance displayed by slashdot posters (not all or even most of them, but you get a good sprinkling of it in every thread) is truly a wonder to behold. For example, tagging this article with "stupidity of the crowds". Of course we aren't part of the crowd! Never mind that the article has to do with "the way the human mind works" -- we are the technocracy! Our minds are super-human and not subject to the frailties that the article suggests! And who are the "rest of us" that call religion "wishful thinking"? In my circle of friends (mostly educated, technical people), you'd be in the minority.
If you truly agree with the article, you should humbly be considering the limits of your own wisdom, not shaking your head at the apparent gullibility of people who don't agree with you.
But hey, that's just another limited human's opinion.
Most societies start out with either a word for red or a word for blue, then add the other. Then they start adding tertiary colors like greens and oranges. You didn't answer my question of HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH WAS FIRST? It sounds like you would claim that "blue" is an older word than "green" in English, but how could you prove that? And even if you could prove that green is newer, can you prove it didn't just replace an older word for green? I'm not a linguist, but I do know that English and German are related languages, and that the German words for blue and green (blau and grün, IIRC) are very similar to the English words, so I think you'd have to go back at least to their common root language to find which was first. In other words, I don't see how it makes sense to claim that either blue or green came first "in English".
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I do UI development and I'd love to work on Blender! How much do they pay? ... Oh, yeah.
I suspect that's why so many free software projects have poor usability. That last bit of "polish" can be pretty expensive in man-hours, and I think the volunteers on these projects tend to be more interested in the challenging work of adding new features than they are in mundane usability work (I know I would be).
In soviet Russia, the Processor throttles YOU!
Does anyone know how much power a Wi-Fi network consumes vs a wired one? I realize that's a difficult comparison to make, but can anyone point me to some data on that topic?
So let me see if I understand you: Science has abandoned the concept of learning because it doesn't adequately explain learning?
MOD PARENT UP! (darn, I just used my last mod point earlier today)
This article touches on two key topics, censorship and abortion, that are sure to get people all fired up before they can read the details. You've covered censorship. Now I'd like to pour a little water on the abortion fire with this (FTA):
A spokesman for Verizon said the decision turned on the subject matter of the messages and not on Naral's position on abortion. "Our internal policy is in fact neutral on the position," said the spokesman, Jeffrey Nelson. "It is the topic itself" -- abortion -- "that has been on our list."So they're not (at least they claim they're not) taking a "side" in the abortion issue, they just don't want to be associated with the issue at all. I'm not saying there isn't anything here to get fired up about, but let's keep it in perspective and not turn it into another right wing conspiracy theory.
Now don't get me wrong. Valve is great, HL and HL2 are my all-time favorite games, and I don't even mind the "orange box" package. That said, given the long wait for ep1 and ep2 (shorter, I admit, than the wait for hl2), and the bundling with ep2, I think it's a stretch for Valve to claim they have much experience with episodic releases. Maybe the discussion should be more centered around whether Value can even do episodic releases.
... this, but I found it amusing that that they're talking to all these geologists, and then the guy named "Ishitsuka" is an astronomer.
So are you saying it's a Nash Equilibrium because the technology has followed Moore's law so closely that therefore all the companies must be doing just what they need to make it true and no more? I'm not arguing, just honestly trying to understand your point.
I question whether you know what you are talking about. I suspect you are arguing from a purely geometrical standpoint, and even there I think you are incorrect. You give 3 criteria: wafer coverage, regular pattern ("easy to lay out"), and maximizing edge area.
Of the three shapes, squares are better than triangles in every way, and hexagons are better than squares in all except two ways: They are harder to design than squares, and they are harder to cut out than squaresActually, triangles (I assume we are talking about regular polygons here) have the greatest edge length for the same area, squares are probably easiest to cut (I don't know the cutting process so I don't know for sure, but I know I'd rather cut something into squares than triangles or hexagons), and hexagons are probably best for "filling" a circular wafer.
However, CPU dies are generally rectangular, and often not square, so there must be other factors.
it's "Hombre Estupendo"!
That claim seems consistent with the rest of your post:
- Chernobyl - operated out of spec - human error
- Challanger - operated out of spec - human error
- Tacoma Bridga - didn't account for high wind - human error
I think the point is not that these things were designed to fail, but that no design is failure proof.What about one row of 3? Just sayin' ...
... farming is.
I think you've hit on the primary motivation here. This may have been done as much to hobble Fusion, as to support Nehalem.
Another possibility I haven't seen mentioned is to do BOTH. Talk to them AND do some monitoring or restriction.
Okay, all jokes aside:
Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.Isn't the first sentence pretty much the DEFINITION of conservative vs liberal? So what's surprising? Even so, I think they made a mistake in using too homogeneous a pool of participants:
Participants were college students whose politics ranged from "very liberal" to "very conservative."At college age, most people are just starting to form their own opinions about things and typically see the opinions they were taught at home as "conservative" and the new ones they are exposed to at school as "liberal". So yes, among college students, I would expect the "liberal" ones to be "more open to new ideas". But many college students change their positions at some point in their lives. Is that because the way their brain processes information changes? I think if the study was done on a wider age range they might get different results.
Another problem is the difference between the dictionary definition of liberal and conservative vs. the political definition. Like I said, being open to new ideas is one definition of "liberal", but it may have nothing to do with believing in specific "liberal" political ideas (especially since most of those ideas are not so new anymore). The latter meaning is probably what the students were referring to in identifying themselves as liberal or conservative.
I read the link: that's very interesting. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, if the government is giving grants to "artists" to photograph dung covered statues, wouldn't it be better to give grants to organizations that actually HELP people? My main concern comes from the other side -- if I were in charge of a church, I wouldn't take money from the government, because that's a foot in the door to start regulating and controlling what the church does. I think separation of church and state means the STATE should keep out of the CHURCH's business. Personally, I think most of the government social programs are functions that could be better handled by community churches and other charities (faith-based or not). They're cheaper, too. I mean, the church only asks for 10% of my money.
Are you a U.S. citizen? What portion of your taxes go to support churches? Or are you making the argument that not taxing something (like charitable donations) is the same as supporting it.
The pride and arrogance displayed by slashdot posters (not all or even most of them, but you get a good sprinkling of it in every thread) is truly a wonder to behold. For example, tagging this article with "stupidity of the crowds". Of course we aren't part of the crowd! Never mind that the article has to do with "the way the human mind works" -- we are the technocracy! Our minds are super-human and not subject to the frailties that the article suggests! And who are the "rest of us" that call religion "wishful thinking"? In my circle of friends (mostly educated, technical people), you'd be in the minority.
If you truly agree with the article, you should humbly be considering the limits of your own wisdom, not shaking your head at the apparent gullibility of people who don't agree with you.
But hey, that's just another limited human's opinion.