Comment Obligatory reference (Score 0, Redundant) 110
Obligatory Perry Bible Fellowship reference. Or wait, maybe it's xkcd references that are obligatory. Whatever.
Obligatory Perry Bible Fellowship reference. Or wait, maybe it's xkcd references that are obligatory. Whatever.
I'd like to think that most people, like me, have no idea what happens if you stand in front of the beam of the large hadron collider. It might be that nothing happens or you might be vaporized on the spot. From the context I'm guessing more of the latter than the sooner but it's still a crappy analogy. Stick to what people can relate to, like:
"It's like standing in front of a moving car" or "It's like standing in front of 56 libraries of congress".
It doesn't matter how many transistors you throw at 'artificial' intelligence, it's still just that: artificial. It has no intelligence, just as it has no life.
Artificial here means man-made or unnatural. It doesn't mean "not real" as you seem to be implying (that would be virtual intelligence). Your views seem to be more religious than scientific in nature.
It's all about defining intelligence. If you define intelligence in this context as "a human", then a machine of course can't be intelligent. I'd argue though that if a machine could perfectly simulate all aspects of human intelligence, it would in fact be intelligent.
Ah, but how does one know if a person is "centuries ahead of our time" or just crazy? It's always easy in hindsight.
I know what ????? is. It's "Pray that your often accessed data ends up on the RAID1-part of your JBOD"
The fact that we've detected a 10m wide object once, a couple of days before it hits (or doesn't hit), doesn't mean anything. It might be that we can detect every such object or one in a million.
Having actually run projectors, both ones 2 decades old, and 5 years old, I have to say, you're full of shit. Film projectors in movie theatres do NOT show each frame twice.
I'm no projector operator but I've heard, like the OP stated, that the shutter is operating at 48 Hz in movie theaters to reduce flicker (ie. "show each frame twice", since the film is captured at 24 fps).
Turns out they do this and more since some even run their shutters at 72Hz ("show each image three times").
Add a notice in the manual that some parts of the product use GPL licensed code.
If a customer to whom you've distributed a binary version of a program containing GPL licensed code asks for the source code, give it to him/her.
Cards are lazily called "DX11" or "DX10", but the features are not DirectX-specific. The term shader model, or pixel shader version can be used to describe GPU hardware generations correctly and/or in an API neutral fashion.
Since these are hardware features they are available to any API that implements them, and OpenGL usually is implemented by the graphics driver, which is written by (or under contract of) the graphics card manufacturers, they usually expose any new hardware features to an OpenGL-application through extensions.
It's a shame that the Khronos Group isn't faster when it comes to including the extensions in the standard and upping the version number of OpenGL. I'd love to see an OpenGL release schedule synced with the shader models.
DX8 -> PS1.0 / PS1.1
DX11 -> PS5.0
For more information see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_shader#Hardware
I'd mod you up, but I'm fresh out of mod points
If someone was taking Linux and illegally distributing proprietary, commercial Linux apps with it, they'd get a cease and desist.
Well, yes, that's exactly what just happened.
Given that what's being distributed is not GNU/Linux, but Android/Linux (I'm sure they put some GNU in there somewhere though, everyone does
Still Linux though.
Not quite. Even if an API is cross platform in its nature, it still only provides the functionality it was designed for. OpenGL for instance doesn't offer any way to open up a window, initialize a rendering context, etc. For that you would have to use something like GLX for X11, WGL for windows or CGL for Mac OS X, and so on for every platform.
There are of course libraries to remedy this situation, such as SDL, GLFW and GLUT, which work on many platforms, but certainly not all platforms that have some level of OpenGL support.
Your phone probably has OpenGL ES support rather than vanilla OpenGL support. ES is a fixed point version of OpenGL for embedded systems and any OpenGL application would need to be modified extensively to run on an ES platform. There are OpenGL -> OpenGL ES wrappers, but that solution is usually less than optimal.
Your average OpenGL-based windows game is certainly easier to port to Linux (or any other OpenGL capable platform) than a DirectX game, but it's by no means "automatically portable". It's using tons of windows API calls, maybe even DirectX, to handle windows, input, sound etc.
Most graphically advanced OpenGL games are probably also using OpenGL extensions. Functionality that is not guaranteed to work by the OpenGL API itself, but the hardware might support. OpenGL doesn't even offer a way to probe for what extensions the current implementation / hardware supports. For that you need yet another library, such as GLEW or GLEE.
The point I'm trying to make here is that making a cross platform video game is a lot more work than simply going with OpenGL for graphics hardware acceleration. Even if the platforms you're working with implement the OpenGL 3 specification to the letter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opengl#Higher_level_functionality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL#Extensions
Not quite yet. The mouse actually grew back a new mouse tooth, not a human one. So you're stuck with the whale for now.
I've worked on a similar project, but we avoided GPS, since it doesn't work very well indoors.
What I want to know is if TFA is wrong, or if they're really using GPS. If it works fairly well, that would have made our lives a lot easier during my project.
I thought you meant that you wanted to destroy, as in erase from the drive, the files.
Something similar to what you're suggesting is implemented in TrueCrypt. Ie. two passwords, one will get you one set of data and the other will give you a another.
What you're describing is even sneakier though, with one password giving you one subset of the data and the other password giving you another subset (or the whole shebang).
That sounds like a great plan for plausible deniability, especially if you encrypt the whole drive.
When it is incorrect, it is, at least *authoritatively* incorrect. -- Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy
