As I said: "SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides a display system and process whereby the geometry, rasterization, and frame buffer predominately operate on a floating point format. Vertex information associated with geometric calculations are specified in a floating point format. Attributes associated with pixels and fragments are defined in a floating point format. In particular, all color values exist as floating point format. Furthermore, certain rasterization processes are performed according to a floating point format. Specifically, the scan conversion process is now handled entirely on a floating point basis. Texturing, fog, and antialiasing all operate on floating point numbers. The texture map stores floating point texel values. The resulting data are read from, operated on, written to and stored in the frame buffer using floating point formats, thereby enabling subsequent graphics operations to be performed directly on the frame buffer data without any loss of accuracy.

Many different types of floating point formats exist and can be used to practice the present invention. However, it has been discovered that one floating point format, known as "s10e5," has been found to be particularly optimal when applied to various aspects of graphical computations. As such, it is used extensively throughout the geometric, rasterization and frame buffer processes of the present invention. To optimize the range and precision of the data in the geometry, rasterization, and frame buffer processes, this particular s10e5 floating point format imposes a 16-bit format which provides one sign bit, ten mantissa bits, and five exponent bits. In another embodiment, a 17-bit floating point format designated as "s11e5" is specified to maintain consistency and ease of use with applications that uses 12 bits of mantissa. Other formats may be used in accordance with the present invention depending on the application and the desired range and precision."

Nothing innovative about using floating point arrays for a pixel element frame buffer nor for operating on the pixels with various algorithms. Not patentable.

An array of 16 bit floating point numbers as pixel elements? That's not innovative in any universe.

G and C#, you've got to be frigging kidding, more of the same crap; faster JavaScript, same old crap. How about something innovative? How about a new paradigm where the language, it's syntax are irrelevant? How about a system without a language? How about a language that is designed to disappear? How about accessing the full power of hardware tossing out the ridiculous language virtual machines?

Having used a plethora of languages over many decades every language sucks the big one big time except for assembly language and the new language I'm developing of course. When developing a new language you pretty much need an attitude like that to get over the morass that everyone - including more likely than not, you, although I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt - throw at language and system developers.

Assembly just sucks because it's so focused on the pesky details but it does so elegantly since it's the real hardware level so it doesn't suck big time. Assembly is the most powerful language after all as it is what is really happening (baring bugs in the processor). Now you might claim that micro-code is the real hardware but who ever programs in THAT today? Oh right the CPU, GPU, ASIC and FPGA guys. Ah whatever that's hardware not a general purpose programming language.

This new language - more than a language, it's a system - has new features that will knock your socks off. Like the core ideas of Lisp, Smalltalk, Erlang, Clojure but without all the horrifying warts that make your mind do crazy mental gymnastics just to solve problems and write awesome and fast compiled safe parallel native code.

If you're like most programmers then you'll love this new language. It's got it all, the homoiconic aspects of Lisp where programs are data and data are programs; it's got the uniform message passing paradigm of Smalltalk but improved so that every operation is a message including all meta operations, thus it also has all the distributed message passing capabilities of Erlang without the cryptic functional goo that lacks even basic notions of objects; it's got Clojure beat hands down which is easy since to know Clojure is to know the nine gates of hell, it thumps Clojure by providing a different paradigm where the user doesn't have to become a cryptozologist digging through the bizarre Clojure primitives just to get on with their work; all in all, it's a huge advance. Oh, and with it's improved Full Block Closures it can do things and meta things that functional languages and Smalltalk never dreamed of.

One of the biggest benefits is that it provides a means of doing multi-core multi-node native threading in a safe parallel programming environment for the bulk of common parallel operations within one program, across multiple programs and even across distributed nodes with many programs running. It can even do so efficiently.

Every aspect of the language and it's system is written in itself including all of the execution engine which provides not only homoiconic aspects but also Mobius Loop aspects when the language and it's system evolve via generational rewriting to the next level - which is really where the message passing meta operations on all parts of the language/system come into play and shine. You can't have a language/system that evolves itself if it can't rewrite all of it's parts and just about all languages fail at that.

Oh, it's not a virtual machine since it actually uses the full power of the computer hardware it's running on with it's intimate direct native code connection to the CPU and GPU and other hardware it's running on. Virtual Machines suck big time, in part because their machinery is hidden in inaccessible primitives providing a locked in frozen in time binary; in part because byte codes are pathetic primitives. This new language provides the interactive feel of Dynamic Languages with Full Interactive Development Environments (e.g. Smalltalk like Integrated Development Environment but without the VM). Naturally it's a fully dynamic language.

The long term end goal for this language is for it to disappear utterly leaving only the system aspect being what the users interact with as a fully evolved object networked messaging system is a much more powerful means of programming than using a set of ASCII (or UNICODE) characters in a linear stream as we do now. In the future text based programming (even with a full IDE like Smalltalk's which can't be beat today) will become obsolete and this language and it's system aim to accomplish that.

Facing reality it must also connect with the horrifying existing computing operating system ecosystem (Window, Unix, *BSD, Mac, iOS, bla bla bla) so parts of the libraries deal with connecting with system calls and DLLs and shared libraries. Shivers.

So you see this language/system is the best in the world for the kinds of complex systems level programming and applications programming that I'm engaged in building - and that many of you are engaged in making but end up stuck working with C, C++, C#, Python, Ruby, Perl, Sh or Bash, or G, or Java, or JavaScript, or other goo languages.

Now maybe you're not interested in any or all of the above which is fine, you don't have to use this - not named here - in development and evolving language/system. Not all languages are for all people.

Constructive comments are always welcome. What do you need to have in your programs that you want to create?

If the messages pass right through everything what's stopping them at the receiver? You'd have to detect them somehow and if your receiver is a massive amount of pure water that's not going to be easy to move about. So how practical is this really? Until the receivers are tiny is this really practical? Until the transmitters are tiny is this really practical? What about line of sight? The bigger the distance the more accurate your three dimensional aiming has to be (assuming neutrinos move in a straight beam like lasers do). So if you're on Mars and someone else is on Earth while you can see where each other are you have an easier time aiming the beams at each other but when you go behind the sun Sol then you're having to rely upon calculated positions, actually you have to do that anyway to compensate for the relativistic effect of the beams traveling from Earth to Mars and back again not to mention the constantly varying orbital positions and velocities of both planets. Likely this is a very difficult problem to solve, although it seems tractable. How narrow is the beam at the receiving end? Can you spit out a wide beam (like the bat signal) rather than a laser pin point? That way you don't need to be as accurate?

Getting accurate reports from users is always helpful navigating the bugs to get to reproduce them. Mr. Sulu warp eight, enage!

Well if you're a scientist you're getting the facts wrong or presenting them wrong. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is not "~9%", it's distortions like yours that make this a difficult conversation to have. In fact the CO2 concentration of the Earth's Atmosphere is 393 parts per million!!!! That's 0.0393% not ~9%.

"The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere is approximately 392 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of 2011[1] and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009. [1][2] The concentration with respect to pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm has increased roughly exponentially with a growth rate of 2.2% per year in the last decades[2] Carbon dioxide is essential to photosynthesis in plants and other photoautotrophs, and is also a prominent greenhouse gas."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

January 2012 it was 0.393% as reported here: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt.

The rise in CO2 since the 1950's has not increased temperature as shown by the Girma Analysis (posted in other comments on this thread). CO2 does not do what is claimed by alarmists in the real actual atmosphere, no where close as the failed and now falsified IPCC climate models verses actual temperatures proves conclusively.

Clearly you do no understand the scientific method.

Ones does NOT need to provide why the temperature is rising as the Null Hypothesis rules in science and the Null Hypothesis in this case is that the warming is Natural and/or unknown.

When falsifying the claims of a hypothesis all that is needed is to refute the claim, one does not have to provide an alternative explanation. In this case the central claim of CAGW is that "CO2 Drives Temperature", clearly as the Girma Analysis which compares those two sets of observational data to each other the central equation "CO2 Drives Temperature" is falsified by the observational data from Nature.

Please see this more extensive comment on Falsification of AGW on this same article thread: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2705663&cid=39231567, it goes into the Null Hypothesis and CAGW in depth.

Alleging a cause is not the same as proving it is the cause conclusively!

Besides CO2 hasn't caused temperature to deviate in the REAL ACTUAL ATMOSPHERE as noted above thus the CAGW claims of "CO2 driving Temperature" are falsified by Nature.

"UVa is a state school, not a private entity. As such it enjoys sovereign immunity."

Sovereign Immunity is such a crock, it's what the ruling elite use to enslave the rest of us and what they use to literally get away with mass murder death killing on a vast scale around the globe and here at home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/IPCC-20071.png

HadCrut3 disagrees with GISS on that.

GISS is well known for fabricating their data using 1,200 km radius circles with just one temperature station in them. That is not permitted in science when you are representing that the data is actual temperature measurements since it leads people - such as your self - to the incorrect conclusions about the data. GISS data is NOT pure raw observational temperature data, it's got tons of fabricated data in it. Thus GISS can't be relied upon for factual temperature data.

Also in the graph is the bonus that you'll see how the IPCC "climate models" are worth nothing as their predictions were ALL falsified by Nature herself.

Oh, and yeah, the temperature hasn't risen in the last decade or so, sure it goes up and down but as the graph shows... it more trending down than up.

Really, please show the data and graph to support your claim.

There is no independently verifiable evidence that CO2 is the cause of the slight warming that has occurred since the Little Ice Age in the real atmosphere. There is a slight Linear+Cyclic Warming since at least the 1880, 132, years ago and significantly despite CO2 being pumped out in vastly increased quantities since the 1940s/50s the temperature has not deviated from the slight Linear+Cyclic Warming. CO2 has not caused Temperature to deviate!

To show warming is not to show the cause of the warning. That is the mistake you alarmists make. You think that the warming is the whole ball of wax. It isn't since you've not shown causation in the REAL ACTUAL ATMOSPHERE.

Girma Orssengo's analyses using the standard observational temperature and CO2 data sets shows that Mother Nature has falsified the alleged CAGW Hypothesis. It's well worth your time to comprehend this elegant and clear analysis.

" *Effect Of CO2 Emission On Global Mean Temperature*

Examination of Figure 3 shows that the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly (GMTA) for 1940 of 0.13 deg C is greater than that for 1880 of –0.22 deg C. Also, the GMTA for 2000 of 0.48 deg C is greater than that for 1940 of 0.13 deg C. This means that the GMTA value, when the oscillating anomaly is at its maximum, increases in every new cycle. Is this global warming caused by human emission of CO2?

The data required to establish the effect of CO2 emission on global mean temperature already exist. The global mean temperature data are available from the Climate Research Unit of the Hadley Centre shown in Figure 3, and the CO2 emission data are available from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre [8]. *For the period from 1880 to 1940, the average emission of CO2 was about 0.8 G-ton, and the increase in the GMTA was 0.13+0.22=0.35 deg C. For the period from 1940 to 2000, the average emission of CO2 was about 4 G-ton, but the increase in GMTA was the same 0.48-0.13=0.35 deg C. This means that an increase in CO2 emission by 4/0.8=5-fold has no effect in the increase in the GMTA. This conclusively proves that the effect of 20th century human emission of CO2 on global mean temperature is nil.*

*Note that the increase in GMTA of 0.35 deg C from 1880 to 1940 (or from 1940 to 2000) in a 60 year period has a warming rate of 0.35/60=0.0058 deg per year, which is the slope of the linear anomaly given by Equation 1. As a result, the linear anomaly is not affected by CO2 emission. Obviously, as the oscillating anomaly is cyclic, it is not related to the 5-fold increase in human emission of CO2.

Figure 4, with high correlation coefficient of 0.88, shows the important result that the observed GMTA can be modeled by a combination of a linear and sinusoidal pattern given by Equation 3. This single GMTA pattern that was valid in the period from 1880 to 1940 was also valid in the period from 1940 to 2000 after about 5-fold increase in human emission of CO2. As a result, the effect of human emission of CO2 on GMTA is nil.* "
http://pathstoknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/predictions-of-gmt.pdf

Furthermore the conclusive counter evidence analysis based upon *observational data* by Girma Orrsenago puts a nail in the coffin of the AGW Hypothesis as promoted by the CO2 Climate Doomsday AGW Rapture proponents. *Orrsenago shows that Nature falsified the CAGW hypothesis*.

Hole in Man Made Global Warming.

a) Global Mean temperature (GMT) => http://bit.ly/zISeEo
For the period from 1880 to 1940, GMT increased by about 0.35.
For the period from 1940 to 2000, GMT increased by about nearly the same 0.35.

b) Human CO2 emission => http://bit.ly/wD1SZj
For the period from 1880 to 1940, CO2 emission increased by about 150 G-ton.
For the period from 1940 to 2000, CO2 emission increased by about 840 G-ton.

How come the increase in CO2 emission by 460% has not caused any change in the GMT?

It took years of sleuthing to find the "hidden decline", and it wasn't found by official peer review.

Peer review isn't magical saint hood for a paper people, it just means that a few peers (the number varies) looked at it and couldn't find anything wrong with it. Papers and the ideas in them are tossed into the dust bin of science all the time. That is the way science works.

It's you AC who doesn't get it. The number of references means nothing about the accuracy of the paper and it's concepts. Nature rules as the final judge not how many frigging references to the paper you fool. In the case of Mann's frauds he has been caught lying in a scientific paper and plotting to subvert the scientific process.

As a scientist myself I find that repugnant. Heck even Professor Muller, a noted Co2 Climate Doomsday Rapturist, says that he'll never read another paper from Mann et al. again since they can't do what they did in science, it's not acceptable.

So get your brain out of your politicized hole in the ground and wake up.

It's not a witch hunt when Mann fabricated scientific data and with it committed financial frauds. Being honest in science is a must and Mann violated that basic scientific principle. He has received millions of dollars in funding subsequently, all based upon that successful hide the decline fraud. So by supporting Mann you're supporting a criminal scientist who'll lie and cheat at science, heck he can't even produce the means to have other scientists reproduce his work. How much more pounding on your politicized brain do we have to do in order for you to get that fraud in science is not acceptable?

Nonsense. Your take away is only for people - like you - who side with political parties rather than thinking for themselves.

Also it's clearly evident that you're putting politics above the facts of the Mannian Statistical Lies and Scientific and Financial Frauds.

You're doing the despicable anti-science politics dude.