Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 1) 166

No I haven't (I don't know what node-based texture generation is) but my comment was "not necessarily", not "never".

Here's some code (octave) which generates a signal, quantizes it to 10 levels with and without dithering. If you run it, you'll see that you start getting substantial extra noise from dithering below about 1E-3. I've put noise in too, and 1e-3 corresponds to noise with a scale of 0.03, which is much less than the quantization error of 0.1

xs = -1000:1000;
% A signal
ys = min((xs/50).^2, 100) / 100;
[ys_p, f] = periodogram(ys);
ysq = round(ys*10)/10;
ysq_p = periodogram(ysq);
ysqn = round(ys*10 + (rand(size(ys))-.5)*0.99)/10;
ysqn_p = periodogram(ysqn);
hold on
semilogy(f, n_p);
semilogy(f, ysqn_p, 'g');
semilogy(f, ysq_p, 'r');
semilogy(f, ys_p, 'k');
legend('Noise', 'Dithered', 'Quantized', 'Signal');

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 1) 166

No one has tried to undo and redo compression of video files before.

Great job! I've thought about it before, as clearly have others given those doom9 posts. I'm glad to hear it works well and that someone's done it! It sounds like you were going for 4mb blocks if I gather correctly?

How much do you gain/lose going to 8 or 2mb block.

Comment Re:Headline is Bad (Score 1) 1030

I like how you first accused me of hating men, then silently dropped the point. +1 for rhetorical gymnastice!

The point of the Charge of Irascibility is that someone's legitimate arguments are responded to with "you're angry at women"

It's astonishing that you showed me a picture of a chart you have either failed to read or are incapable of understanding.

His argument is that anger is a legitimate response to injustice.

My argument is that there is nothing that women as a choesive group have done to him, and therefore anger at all women is as ujustified as anger towards all men.

The whole point is that claiming someone is angry at or bitter over women is in and of itself the fallacious attack.

No it's not, that is literally not what it says. It says accusations of unjustified anger are bad and the anger is justified. I claim that it is not.

You're avoiding dealing with someone's points

What point is that? the one he wrote or the invisible one floating round inside your head?

public opinion

I doubt anyone but us two are reading this sub thread.

society was actually as anti-woman as your ideology claims it to be

I don't think you have even the faintest clue what my ideology is, but do enlighten me!

Comment Re:Lovely summary. (Score 1) 1030

Is it still a straw man if you're so divorced from reality as to be simply making things up from whole cloth?

Er, well yes you can hurl the names of random logical fallacies at the thread if you wish.

My post contradicted your party line.

Your post, as far as I read it, was blatantly rewriting history. Why would I waste my time reading further if you are too lazy to make the beginning of the post factually correct?

feminism's real world actions.

Ah yes, how feminists went back in time and stole the "neckbeard" insult from the nerds who coined it. What evil feminists and their dastardly time machines.

Comment Re:Headline is Bad (Score 1) 1030

You're misrepresenting things as usual.

More lies from Mr Eternity.

The point of the Charge of Irascibility is that someone's legitimate arguments are responded to with "you're angry at women",

Nope, the person doesn't deny being angry at women. He's more or less admitting to being angry. But apparently an ovservation that the guy does not dispute is a "charge".

the response is to both address that as a disingenuous argument and point out that anger in general can be legitimate.

Sure, anger in general can be legitimate, but in this case it isn't. Being angry at 50% of the population is just plain dumbassery. If he's angry at women in general, then he also ought to be angry at men in general. There is no legitimate reason to be angry at women in general and not men unless he believes that women in general owe him something.

You think because you hate men that means people must hate women in return.

Ah so now you're back to making shit up. I don't hate men. As I've pointed out being angry at half of the population is pretty stupid.

Yo might want to consider why you believe I hate men. I certainly don't, but it is very revealing about you that you believe I do.

And what does "being angry at women"---something he doesn't deny--even mean? Angry at the old biddy who tottered slowly past him in th street? Angry at the barrista who served him coffee? Angry at the 50 yr old store clerk who was restocking as he passed? Angry at the random women he passes in the office building but has never spoken to?

Comment Re:Headline is Bad (Score 1) 1030

You, as in the general you (you know it's third person as well, right?). I was referring to the chart as was clear by the way I was referring to the awfully silly chart you posted. You need to learn to read, bro.

But tell me, my man, why post the chart if you don't agree with it? What point are you making by posting something you don't identify with?

Comment Native binaries... (Score 2) 59

If they do a good job on the protocol, then it should be reasonably reasonable to make a native binary which also speaks the same protocol. That would be awesome too: you can collaborate via the web if you don't have it installed, but use a native program which doesn't hog resources like they're going out of style if you're using it a lot

Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz