Here is something else I wrote once, long long ago ... I don't even know what I based some of the facts / assumptions on, but for the record, here it is ...

Extra Terrestrial life does exist, but will we recognise it when we find it? Many scientists say Silicon does not support the rich variety of complex molecules. Have they tested this at the conditions [that exists] at the core of a planet or star?

Does a life form even have to have complex molecules in order for it to be intelligent? Does a life form have to be able to communicate in order to be considered intelligent? If it does, do you think they will have found OTHER alien beings?

Our sending signals and listening for signals is based on a basic assumption: That some alien neighbours would make use of radio signals for communication. This I personally believe may well not be true. I think a species that uses such a slow form of information sending would either have to think very different about time (eg live millions and millions of our years) or else they would use it only over shorter distances. In the first instance, it might be hard for us to communicate with these beings based on the fact that it would take them a few millennia to form a decision or think a single thought. In the second case their transmissions is not likely to be strong enough for us to be able to distinguish it from background noise, or possibly to even pick it up (at current instrument resolution - which might reach the maximum possible for electronic based analogy equipment, e.g. shifting and measuring a single electron)

I'm running Seti because I like seeing my CPU(s) busy. And because I find the purpose of the project amusing. And because I love anything that utilises the Internet for a purpose other than shopping online. And because it looks like I can work my way up in the ranks and achieve a nice position.

I have been wondering for some time about frame rates in computer games, and here are some of my thoughts.

The first question is: If a human can supposedly see only about 15 to 18 frames per second, why do games need to display 50 to 80 FPS to be "smooth"?

The second question is: If a computer monitor displays at a refresh rate of say 70 Hz, what happen to "frames" which does not actually fall in sync with the monitor's refresh cycle?

I have some thoughts on the first. Movies generally show about 24 FPS in order to create an illusion of smooth movement, and much of this illusion comes from the brain's ability to derive movement from images which are close together, eg in observing small incremental displacements of an object within a scene between separate frames, the brain concludes that an object is physically moving. But does all the light sensitive cones in the eye respond in sync, creating individual frames? Do these cones have a "shutter time" like a camera?

I suspect that like with a normal camera, where a moving object creates a certain amount of blur or drag during the time the shutter is open as a result from light from a specific spot on the moving object passing over a certain surface on the film or CCD, so too does this blur effect affect the human eye. I suspect that this assists the brain in recognizing movement.

"Frames" in computer games however are each individually perfectly still - there is no drag or blur effect. But if the computer screen displays multiple frames in the time that the eye recognizes a single image, then this could possibly have the same effect as light bouncing off a moving object and the resultant focused image on the retina will also move some distance, which may cross several cones in the retina in this short period of time.

About the FPS vs screen refresh rate question I suspect that the monitor will on each pass display whatever the screen card says in on the screen, and that there is no real synchronization. Hence a single image frozen in time, such as you would get by taking a picture of the screen with the camera, might contain parts from several "frames" in the game ... I have not yet found anything on the net to answer these questions.

Hmmmm ... Microsoft is making money because their Windows operating systems are popular. While it is not the subject of this Journal entry, I do want to briefly touch on why I think this is so:

1) Microsoft "allowed" us to copy and play with Windows and, as a result grow used to and become familiar with it when we were young!

2) As a result, people expect to use Windows in the workplace, be it corporate or otherwise.

3) In similar vein, Microsoft encourages games development with their free DirectX driver. This gains new followers and the cycle continues.

But: I do not think Microsoft will forever be able to continue this road. In particular, I think the strength of Linux's underlying kernel is hurting Microsoft.

But (on the above but) Nothing stops Microsoft from building their own Linux derivative product (except maybe pride). Imagine running Linux with the full true MSFC built in, and the full MS Windows APIs available to programmers. Essentially a "windows wrapper" arround the Linux kernel, sold by Microsoft.

Every game, productivity application, back-office program and specialist application runs on this powerfull operating system unmodified, and so does Linux and X-Windows applications (due to the built-in X-server and MS-style windowing manager).

Microsoft will be able to boast online kernel upgrades, device-driver upgrades, kernel parameter tuning, and have all the Open source application in the world running on their OS instantaneously... Also all the benefits of the open source community's support carries over to this new version of MS Windows

So, I see a day, not too far away, when this will be reality. In fact, sign me up as the first user of MS-Linux!

P.S. Before I get any flames - I am not expert on how an MSFC call is different from an API call, or how many layers of emulation would be required to make this Windows-on-linux-kernel product a reality, but this is probably in any case a moving target.

Today I decided to not use Windows on my new PC (which I will hopfully order tomorrow). At least, after reading the Linux gaming thread, I am positive ... Windows is for gaming. Solaris is for work, and Linux is for browsing the web. But if I can eliminate having Windows because i can play my favourite games under Linux, then why not.