No. I am one of the primary authors of what might be fairly described as a Photoshop-class application -- one with far more layer modes and built-in filters than Photoshop, as well as a full-bore built-in ray tracer and texturing facility. It is also considerably smaller and faster than Photoshop in the identical system environment. I am also the author of multiple realtime video and arcade games, etc. I'm telling you flat out that matrices are not required. Period.
Matrices may be the only way you know how to do these kinds of graphics; but they definitely aren't the only way to do it.
Just to take your example: "if you have 3-vectors (i.e. points relative to the origin in 3-space), any global linear transformation is represented by a matrix multiplying each vectors"
The correct way to state this is: "if you have 3-vectors (i.e. points relative to the origin in 3-space), any global linear transformation can be represented by a matrix multiplying each vectors." Here is the non-matrix approach (and of course, there's always polar, which can also be easily handled.) This is for 2D points; 2D vectors and 3D points and vectors are all just a further (and trivial) generalizations of the following:
Translation: X += deltaX; Y += DeltaY
Rotation: X = X * cos(theta) - Y * sin(theta); Y = Y * cos(theta) + Y * sin(theta);
Scaling: X *= Xfactor; Y *= Yfactor
Shadows and reflections can be trivially accomplished with more of the same. Basically: R = 2(V dot N)N - V
"dot" is just the dot product, which again is a trivial combination of the lowest math primitives.
You are confusing the fact that matrices can be used to do something with the idea that matrices are the something.
With algebra, trig, and basic math in hand, the programmer's doors to 2D and 3D graphics are wide open.
If you think you are having an argument with me you should re-read my comment. A right is protection against government oppression.
The government doesn't obey the law.
Your phone is always awake, or can be, which is to say, the CPU running, albeit in a lower power state. From there, it takes very little energy to simply record what the mic is picking up. It doesn't need to be translated, and it can be sent, compressed, at widely spaced intervals in terms of battery load. It could be sent while you are otherwise connected. You'd be unlikely to notice a difference in power consumption.
Funny. Also precisely on target.
When speech recognition gets "decent", as TFS inaccurately states, which is to say, when it's good enough to understand me as well as a human does, then a lot of things will change. For instance, I wouldn't be typing this on a keyboard. I'd be speaking, which is quite a bit faster than typing. Probably never touch my phone other than to slip it into a pocket. Especially after there's a decent, power-efficient wearable display, or an in-eye projection, in front of face hologram, etc.
Right now, what the author calls "decent", I would describe as not even close to acceptable, with a grace note of "better than nothing."
I think it'll be a white yet, based on the crappy stuff available right now.
On the other hand, speech synthesis is actually decent at this point in time.
Not sure about that -- if you look closely at the pics of the Huawei watch you'll see that the body extends out towards the lugs quite a bit. I suspect the extra tech is hidden in those chunky bits. The G watch R has the same styling; and whilst that could just indicate that Huawei and LG have no design smarts (which is often true) I'd be a little surprised that the two companies independently hit on the exact same ugliness by chance.
I suspect that at the moment some compromise has to be made: you can have a flat tyre, you can have a giant bezel, you can have chunky bits-that-aren't-lugs. One thing I'd be pretty certain about, though, is that Motorola didn't go with the flat tyre look just for kicks.
Here's an old article about Moto's design choices if you're interested.
The Power of the State is absolute. What else is there to talk about here except for the complete lack of individual human rights?
A right is protection against government oppression, this is a case of government oppressing a 14 year old child all while using 'think of the children' rhetoric for its own political purposes.
I'm sorry, I tried to read your post, and Culture20's post, with your reasoning in mind, but everything that was written reduced to "words", and then to letters, and then to dots on my display, all the same thing, no meaning remaining at all.
So I think I'll stay with "coding" and "programming" taken to mean making computers do things for us. Yes, "coding" applies to a markup language. "Programming" does not. From TFS: "Olga Khazan writes in The Atlantic that learning to program involves a lot of Googling, logic, and trial-and-error—but almost nothing beyond fourth-grade arithmetic."
Now. Let's say you are ejected from school on the first day of fifth grade. You passed 4th grade with flying colors, though. Now you are sent to a desert island with a computer. Alone. No network. No books. No communications. No reference materials on the computer. Just you, an abundance of tropical fruit and fish, your grass hut and a computer, let's say solar-powered. You are not going to be able to program it until, or unless, you figure out a great deal more than "fourth-grade arithmetic."
Programming. It actually means something more than piddling about with markup language and 4th grade math.
Linear algebra (matrices) and trig are essential for doing 3D graphics.
Trig is. Matrices aren't. Translation, rotation, scaling, texturing, light and shadow simulation -- all can be done without matrices. Matrices have nothing inherently linked to 3D about them. They are simply a neat way to concatenate operations and/or factors that can be, but don't have to be, used.
For conversation above the trivial level, context is relevant.
So while you may hate it, you certainly aren't going to stop it.
They may be fine in Arizona, but they're all kinds of fun to navigate when the road is icy, making every time you turn an invitation to start sliding. Did anyone not notice that roundabouts are a continuous turn? (Which is why I saw lots of accidents at the roundabouts I had to regularly use during an Idaho winter.)
It's actually the same root cause for both -- incompetent management. Having an idiot in the C$(x)O suite forcing competent engineers into supervisory roles for which they are extremely unqualified does as much damage as having him force the engineers to follow Waterfall development methodology.
And it's absolutely not a matter of training. A CIO who isn't an engineer and who hasn't spent at least part of their life actually doing engineering can't be "trained" to be a competent engineer; not without giving up the CIO gig and becoming an actual hands-on engineer for a while.
By the same exact logic, you can't take a random engineer out of the pool, send him to manager school, and then stick him in a corner office. The day-to-day tasks of scheduling and spreadsheets and budgets may not be technically difficult, but managing is all about handling people, and many engineers won't have the schmoozing abilities needed to make them comfortable in that role. Ever take a Meyers Briggs test? Ever notice how the managers' results are generally distinct from those of the engineers? There's a clue.
Just like someone chooses to go into engineering, some people choose to go into management. The office of the CIO is best served when it contains someone who naturally has both talents.
Yes, well, KITT with a flat-tyre would be a bad combo
But having seen the watch in the flesh (it, with the apple watch, are the only two smartwatches I've ever seen in the wild) I can only say I didn't notice the flat-tyre look at all when coupled with a dark watch face. Horses for courses, naturally, but I liked the watch in person a whole lot more than in the renders.
From the pictures, it seems the screen still isn't really round, but has a straight section at the bottom just like the old version.
This was discussed with the release of the original 360. IIRC, current display tech necessitates some non-display area, and Motorola decided (rightly, in my opinion) to go with the flat-tyre approach rather than the chunky-bezels approach. The LG G-watch R is an example of the latter approach, with bezels blown out of all proportion (although LG clearly don't understand watch design so I suspect that one looks worse than it had to).
Then again, I don't wear watches anyway, and if I did, it'd be a classic, not some smart toy.
I do wear watches, and I wear classic ones; there's something about mechanical movements that strongly appeals to my steampunk side. Like you, I wouldn't buy a smartwatch; I have no need for notifications on my wrist and it would go against my personal grain. But I have to say that so far Motorola has understood the "watch" concept better than any of the other smartwatch players -- the Moto360 actually looks great on the wrist.
I'm not Hasselhoff, I don't need to talk to my car.
Hey, if it came with KITT I might seriously consider it
"Old age and treachery will beat youth and skill every time." -- a coffee cup