 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/05/2014 22:00, Doctor John wrote:
> On 17/05/14 15:48, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> I bow to your wisdom, my Ancient (Pistol).
>>
>
> Shakespeare? Henry V?
Easy.
>
>> "Wepyng and waylyng, care and oother sorwe I knowe ynogh, on even and
>> a-morwe."
>
> Chaucer. Merchant's Tale - Did it for O-levels :-)
>
Lier you learned it at your mother's knee.
We never got the miller's tale.
(Interesting-ish fact: I met this guy in Nigeria, from the Kingdom
(Fife), who could recite great chunks of Chaucer in a broad Scots.
Strangely enough it was more intelligible than out English teacher's.
>>
>> FOURTH CITIZEN. Tear him for his bad verses, tear him for his bad
>> verses. (Or images.)
>>
>
> Shookspoke again. I guess Julius Caesar
Yup!
>
>>> BTW If these people are sincere in their belief that they have a
>>> radically new system, where's the patent? ... or if they wish to go the
>>> FOSS route, where's the algorithm?
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>
> Our cynicism is based on experience.
>
Too bloody right.
>>> John (a cynical old !fool)
>>>
>>
>> A factorial fool? ^_^
>>
> That's a logical NOT, <sotto voce> idiot
>
'Snot. Ba'bag :-P
--
Regards
Stephen
I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/05/2014 22:34, Doctor John wrote:
> On 17/05/14 22:00, Doctor John wrote:
>>
>> Our cynicism is based on experience.
>>
>
> Which is why we are consultants - we think a little more deeply.
>
> John
>
> BTW Your phone number went missing when my phone hit the ground. Text me
> and I'll call back to confirm (still the same number)
>
--
Regards
Stephen
I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:16:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 16/05/2014 23:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2014 12:32:22 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Call me a cynical old fool (not you Dr. John) but this smells of
>>> rotten fish.
>>
>> [checks - no, I'm not Dr. John]
>>
>> You cynical old fool. ;)
>>
>>
> Boom! boom!
Fireworks? Aw, you shouldn't have! ;)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/05/14 22:57, Stephen wrote:
>> Shakespeare? Henry V?
>
> Easy.
>
Could have been Henry IV Part 2
>
> Lier you learned it at your mother's knee.
>
> We never got the miller's tale.
>
I wonder why. :-D
Would it be that the fair youths of Glasgow were too innocent to
understand the story?
> (Interesting-ish fact: I met this guy in Nigeria, from the Kingdom
> (Fife), who could recite great chunks of Chaucer in a broad Scots.
> Strangely enough it was more intelligible than out English teacher's.
>
My English teacher also used a Scottish lilt to read the verses. As you
say, it made the words more intelligible.
>>>> John (a cynical old !fool)
>>>>
>>>
>>> A factorial fool? ^_^
>>>
>> That's a logical NOT, <sotto voce> idiot
>>
>
> 'Snot. Ba'bag :-P
>
>
If I'd meant factorial, I would have written 'fool!'. ya wally eejit ;-)
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/05/2014 13:55, Doctor John wrote:
> On 17/05/14 22:57, Stephen wrote:
>>> Shakespeare? Henry V?
>>
>> Easy.
>>
>
> Could have been Henry IV Part 2
>
It was part II IMSMW. But since you are a stalwart of the game. I gave
you the benefit of the doubt.
>>
>> Lier you learned it at your mother's knee.
>>
>> We never got the miller's tale.
>>
>
> I wonder why. :-D
> Would it be that the fair youths of Glasgow were too innocent to
> understand the story?
>
That must be the reason. Our Twelfth Night had no mention of the buttery
bar, either.
>> (Interesting-ish fact: I met this guy in Nigeria, from the Kingdom
>> (Fife), who could recite great chunks of Chaucer in a broad Scots.
>> Strangely enough it was more intelligible than out English teacher's.
>>
>
> My English teacher also used a Scottish lilt to read the verses. As you
> say, it made the words more intelligible.
>
I think a Yorkshire accent would work as well. In some parts they still
"thee and thou".
>>>>> John (a cynical old !fool)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A factorial fool? ^_^
>>>>
>>> That's a logical NOT, <sotto voce> idiot
>>>
>>
>> 'Snot. Ba'bag :-P
>>
>>
>
> If I'd meant factorial, I would have written 'fool!'. ya wally eejit ;-)
>
Bugger! Put this date in your diary. I was wrong about something. :-D
--
Regards
Stephen
I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/05/2014 22:34, Doctor John wrote:
> Which is why we are consultants - we think a little more deeply.
Speak for yourself.
I do it to piss off my Brother in law. The "sue the *rse off them"
solicitor one. Not the good one. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/13/2014 10:20 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 13/05/2014 23:06, Tim Cook a écrit :
>> What's interesting about it, from what I understand, is that it's
>> basically raytracing the point-cloud's data, without loading the entire
>> dataset into memory first. It's only reading the pieces of information
>> that correspond to the pixels being rendered.
>
> And compared to mesh, it's only cloud of points without the myriad of
> links (in a mesh, a point can be part of many links / faces). The point
> is just a bit more complex that just coordinates. But only a single set
> of data to scan, nice.
>
I think the fatal flaw is, from the standpoint of, say.. if you wanted
to produce immersion, like in a game, is actually that their method of
generating the data set (i.e. getting the real world data) produces
holes, so no matter how good it is, from some points, or with specific
objects, it falls apart. Now, I would love to see what you could do if
you took CG, then, instead of the normal trace system, kind of "swept
through", layer by layer, recording all possible points, so that *if*
you ever found yourself looking at the scene from "any" position, you
would get no holes at all. Forget mesh, just use that for your
"physics", then this thing to generate the "world". But, imagine what
you would end up with if you "did" produce that level of detail on a
single pass through, like you where making movie level CG effects, then
you just dropped the dataset for it on the disk, to be pulled in "as
needed"... Yikes!
--
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I think the fatal flaw is, from the standpoint of, say.. if you wanted
> to produce immersion, like in a game, is actually that their method of
> generating the data set (i.e. getting the real world data) produces
> holes, so no matter how good it is, from some points, or with specific
> objects, it falls apart. Now, I would love to see what you could do if
> you took CG, then, instead of the normal trace system, kind of "swept
> through", layer by layer, recording all possible points, so that *if*
> you ever found yourself looking at the scene from "any" position, you
> would get no holes at all. Forget mesh, just use that for your
> "physics", then this thing to generate the "world".
FWIW this is exactly what the car racing sim iRacing does, they laser
scan in the tracks and use this data for the physics. They then build up
a traditional triangle-based mesh and textures for the graphics. Of
course there is the risk the two are disjointed, and it sometimes
happens that you get release notes like "fixed issue where a car appears
to hover above the track at XXX".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/19/2014 1:28 AM, scott wrote:
>> I think the fatal flaw is, from the standpoint of, say.. if you wanted
>> to produce immersion, like in a game, is actually that their method of
>> generating the data set (i.e. getting the real world data) produces
>> holes, so no matter how good it is, from some points, or with specific
>> objects, it falls apart. Now, I would love to see what you could do if
>> you took CG, then, instead of the normal trace system, kind of "swept
>> through", layer by layer, recording all possible points, so that *if*
>> you ever found yourself looking at the scene from "any" position, you
>> would get no holes at all. Forget mesh, just use that for your
>> "physics", then this thing to generate the "world".
>
> FWIW this is exactly what the car racing sim iRacing does, they laser
> scan in the tracks and use this data for the physics. They then build up
> a traditional triangle-based mesh and textures for the graphics. Of
> course there is the risk the two are disjointed, and it sometimes
> happens that you get release notes like "fixed issue where a car appears
> to hover above the track at XXX".
>
Well, I was thinking of the exact opposite, actually. You could build
clean physics, without gaps, then use the point data to generate the
actual scene, which, since it was derived by mapping even "hidden"
points, which a laser scan can't see, wouldn't care what angle you
actually viewed it from, once "on world".
--
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Pure SSD.
>>
>> For the external ones, the USB interface is obviously the bottleneck.
>> But for the internal SATA ones... If there *is* a performance
>> difference, it's not dramatic enough to notice in a typical office
>> environment. There may be some other workload for which it's noticeable.
>
> I am aware that the plural of anecdote is not data, and I have to rely
> on what my coworkers say, but they speak of 15-25 sec boot times.*
Actually, to be fair, all the machines *do* seem to boot up quite fast.
It's one of those things you quickly stop noticing when it isn't
annoying you. Actual day to day operations don't seem observably faster
though.
(Then again, I copy around multi-GB single files, which is all about
sequential access speed, so...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
