Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Again, it's not 3D. It's stereovision. (Score 1) 120

also, virtual reality and immersion imply interaction; that's not what makes something three d (and perhaps where your confusion is coming from.) 3d means an image has three dimensions. Width, height, and depth. Your stereo image doesn't have actual depth; if it did, you could look at things from any angle and your view would change accordingly. What it has is one locked view with one locked depth of field, again, just like a viewmaster.

Well, you'll understand when the tech gets there. No point in me trying to repair the public's thinking on this. Probably can't be done anyway.

Comment Re:Again, it's not 3D. It's stereovision. (Score 0) 120

I'm not trying to be mean. But you don't own a "3d tv"; you own a 2d, stereoscopic television that marketers *called* 3D, although it clearly isn't anything of the sort.

A 3d display will allow you to see behind the actors. If you move, your point of view will shift. If someone moves closer, it won't be the camera that has to re-focus to follow, it will be your eyes, because the objects in the display will actually be nearer or further away. You'll be able to look down on a tennis match on your display as if from the sky, from any side of the court, or up at it from (the player's) shoe-level. Your true 3d display will not take up a flat surface. It will take up an 3-d volume and within that volume, truly volumetric objects will seem to exist.

What you have right now is basically a ViewMaster that changes images really fast. It's not 3d.

Comment Context is everything for this job (Score 1) 167

You have to have a clear notion of what's expected to identify irony, and that's a function of the topic, the venue, and the history of the writer.

Fortunately, the utter brilliance the designers have shown by thinking of the idea in the first place will carry them beyond such minor details and bring them complete success.

Comment Re:Ministro (Score 1) 86

And it doesn't exist on mobile phones.

That's a problem with mobile devices; not with Qt. Mobile phones are still pretty weak computing platforms; but give it time, and we'll be doing more and more serious things with them. We'll have higher resolution (and probably projected to holographic) displays, more compute power, more power supply available, better charging regimes, lots more memory of all kinds (working RAM and longer term storage), better input mechanisms (speech, for one) and so forth.

Mobile devices started out as pretty much weak platforms -- Palm, etc. Today, they're much more powerful, but they're not even *close* to a desktop, and pretending they are does no one any good. More to do; more to come. And that's a good thing, really.

Comment Re:Jump Ship (Score 1) 86

it's not a bad thing, but it's not even accurate. .NET isn't going to produce cross-plaform apps. Qt will (with some limitations, but it's like 98% there. I write some *big* apps in Qt, and have been fairly successful at the cross-platform thing, though I do all my development under OSX.)

Mr. Troll is, to be blunt, bewildered.

Comment It's the promises you have to look out for (Score 1) 86

I use Qt extensively, and while there are numerous reasons to sing its praises, the project has a severe problem in the form of not fixing bugs (like file open dialogs dumping huge amounts of console errors) or limitations (like a windows audio sample rate of 48 khz) before proceeding to new versions.

What that causes is applications that are unstable either because the existing bug hasn't been fixed, or unstable because they get moved to an arbitrary new version with many changes -- and very few applications are as extensively tested against the new version as compared to the old during the initial design and implementation phase.

On the one hand, Qt has enabled me to make apps that (mostly) work the same using the same code under Windows and OSX. But it also causes me a lot of angst trying to explain to my users why the OSX version works so much better than the Windows version. It's not that I want it to; the OSX version of Qt is simply better.

Qt isn't the only project or organization guilty of wanting to make new versions before fixing the existing version. The lure of new APIs and such is strong, and the urge to fix bugs apparently not so much, right across the software spectrum. Apple does it; bugs persist for many OS revisions while APIs come (and go... Apple is not shy about telling you to stop using something.) Microsoft does it: I remember the glyph rotation bug (CW on some platforms, CCW on others) and the how-many-files-you-can-multi-select bugs managing to survive over not only OS revisions, but different OS platforms when the MIPS and Alpha versions were being offered. In the interim, Microsoft changed a great deal about window metrics across various OS levels, affecting all manner of interface issues, while OSX inflicts such obnoxious "favors" as not supporting new cameras except with a new OS level (while still happily selling you a version of their image editing that will work on your older OS), and breaking such *NIX components as cron. UDP sockets still don't work correctly under OSX (broadcast reception sockets where only one can exist on a machine... yeah, that's a good idea... not.)

Basically what I'm bitching about and advocating is that if you produce software, you shouldn't somehow magically get to ignore the fact that it doesn't do what you told the end user it would do just because you've released a new version you want them to buy, or even just use. I have NO problem with charging for new features. I don't even have a problem with adding new features to the current version while also fixing bugs, as long as you take care to not break pre-existing functionality. I have a HUGE problem with charging to fix something that was supposed to be working in the first place, or even, as is the case with Qt, not charging, but simply abandoning in place software that is significantly less than it was purported to be. I find adding new features to be insufficient cause to excuse leaving known bugs in place.

And frankly... if we would just seriously commit to fix the stuff we have before we move on, moving on would be a much better experience overall; the codebase would be more stable, the customers happier, and if we could couple that with a sense of responsibility that left existing APIs in place (once you tell someone to use an API, I think it's just awful to tell them they have to stop), I think we'd have a better process, a better end user experience, and a great deal less agonized tech support. When your "it's-our-fault" buglist hits zero, that's when you should start thinking about changes that might involve moving on from the previous version. I see it as an obligation to the end user. Unfortunately, at least thus far, Qt does not.

Comment Re:Where is the service? (Score 1) 133

It would be ride share if his response was "Nah, I was going to Bruno's".

No, it wouldn't -- because YOU are going to Brunos, and so you wouldn't go with him, you'd get your paid service from someone willing to provide it. There are plenty of taxi situations where the driver will tell you "no, I don't go there."

The distinctive element here isn't what doesn't happen; it is what does happen. As I said, I'm not arguing for regulation (nor am I claiming any one way is better than another... that strikes me as highly situational); but in terms of the common element here, it's that (a) transport costs money, (b) you don't have transport, (c) you pay someone to provide it, (d) they do so.

Comment Where is the service? (Score 5, Insightful) 133

No, the distinctive thing is that you're paying for a ride. That's a service.

Not saying that the city/state whatever needs to be involved, but I *am* saying that to pretend this isn't a paid service to the rider is disingenuous.

Suppose a taxi driver was thinking of going downtown to Bruno's for a good pizza slice. Turns around, heads down Broadway, there you are, waving your hand. You get in and tell him, Bruno's, please! Did that suddenly turn the taxi ride into not-a-taxi-ride? No, of course not.

Comment California's about to post a budget surplus (Score 1) 467

Not sure how that could have happened if business were fleeing the state en masse.

Just curious: do you know any government workers? You think the librarians at the city library are overpaid? That teachers don't work hard enough?

The Economist did a piece years ago about California's fiscal problems. Look it up.

Comment "Fair market value" implies a fair market (Score 0) 467

The economic idea of an efficient market is one where nobody can force an outcome with superior bargaining power.

You get a market-clearing price that reflects supply and demand when the parties meet as equals.

A software developer applying at Electronic Arts is not as bad off as a single mother applying to Wal-Mart, but is definitely not on a level playing field.

Oh, "reinvest in his business" is an idea from the past. People used to do that, but today any surplus is going to pay the management fees of the private equity company or to pay the interest on the loan the private equity company made the business take out to pay the "special dividend".

Comment Republicans have toasted themselves (Score 0) 600

If the Republicans can get total control, even by slim majorities

That's one heck of a big "if"; they've been awful, just awful. Democrats are no stars, but I can't see any way I could vote for a republican at this juncture. When it comes to choosing the lesser of two evils, the Democrats win every time. Republicans have to stop screwing up left and right on women's issues, they they have to stop dragging their feet in congress, they have to stop the outright fraud in their conventions, they have to stop the superstitious crazy, they have to start paying attention to the people who don't have their own business, they have to stop trampling the constitution at every step (dems too, but the republicans are much worse), they have to stop making laws designed to keep the poor from voting...

I just can't see it. It seems to me that every move the republicans have made since about 2001 has been designed to push me towards the democrats. My guess is we're looking at democrat control of both houses, and 8 years of Hillary Clinton.

When the choice is between "wish it was better" and "OMFG, PLAGUE!"... well, you know.

Slashdot Top Deals

A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.