Invisible wrote:
>>> Well for a start I'd need the hated .NET runtime first... :-P
>>
>> Whats the difference between .NET and, say, JRE?
> 
> About 400MB. *rimshot*
> 
>> Why so against the .NET framework?
> 
> Java I just about put up with because it allows you to write software 
> that will (easily) work on more than one platform. And because it has 
> libraries which (just about) allow mere mortals to do things like 
> multithreading, database access, graphics and sound, which would 
> otherwise be impossible.
> 
> The .NET framework, on the other hand, it a vast sprawling mass of 
> inefficiency which is more or less Windows-only. It has all the 
> downsides of Java, without the advantages. And, obviously, it's made by 
> M$, which everybody hates. ;-)
> 

.NET is big, but it's hardly inefficient. I'm the opposite. I don't care 
for Java. every Java-based application I've come across feels like its 
on the verge of total collapse. .NET apps on the other hand feel rather 
stable.... and mono allows cross-platform development.

.NET has similar libraries. I'd hazard a guess and say that its easier 
to do such things as graphics and sound under .NET

The 2.0 framework is 22M, Granted, 3.5 is a whopping 200MB o_0

But I could easily retarget to 2.0...

>>> Er, no... Actually it's a basic consequence of physics, and that's 
>>> why the human auditory system is turned to detect it. ;-)
>>
>> What amazes me is how the ear detects sounds. It literally works in 
>> the frequency domain. :)
> 
> Millions of years of evolution, my friend. ;-)
> 
> Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if the ear itself doesn't do a very 
> good frequency analysis, but the brain post-processes it. Do you have 

Hmm, each hair is at a length that resonates with a certain frequency. 
I'd imagine there would be a lot of crosstalk, hairs tuned for harmonic 
frequencies may also vibrate. Yep. a ton of post processing work to be 
done. :)

> *any idea* how crap the image data from your retinas is?? It's amazing 
> humans can see at all...

Well, a very tiny spot in the middle of the field of view is quite 
sharp, but other than that ... For fun. Look at a JPG file that appears 
"perfect" separate the chromiance from the luminance. Luma will always 
be nice and sharp. Chroma is likely extremely blocky. We don't notice 
because we don't see color as well as we would like to believe we do. :)



-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message