 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irf-HJ4fBls
I'd seen about this thing a few years back, it's apparently legit.
Sexy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/05/2014 04:06 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irf-HJ4fBls
>
> I'd seen about this thing a few years back, it's apparently legit.
ZOMG! INFINITE POINT-CLOUD DARTA!!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
T. Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Remind me of impressionists' approach: collection of coloured dots gave
lots of nice pictures. The movement eventually turned in
Neo-impressionism or divisionism (or pointillism).
All that happened in 1880's... computers are so slow to adopt something.
--
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/05/2014 6:20 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> All that happened in 1880's... computers are so slow to adopt something.
LOL
How true. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irf-HJ4fBls
> I'd seen about this thing a few years back, it's apparently legit.
If it's legit, they are doing a horrible, horrible job at advertising
it convincingly. If it's legit, it almost feels like they are
*deliberately* trying to make it sound like an inexistent hoax product
that's being marketed with fancy nonsensical marketing words aimed at
fooling laypeople.
Their "explanations" don't actually explain anything, and they use
concepts that seem completely contradictory to facts. Just as a good
example, consider:
"The reason why Euclideon is so quick to load is because we are actually
running it straight from the hard drive instead of from the RAM."
That sentence makes absolutely no sense. Firstly, you can't "run" anything
directly from the hard drive (you could *read* data directly from the hard
drive, but that's not "running"). Secondly, RAM is like a million times
faster than any hard drive, so saying that it's faster because it's reading
data directly from the hard drive rather than the computer's RAM makes no
sense.
They are probably trying to say something else, but as said, it almost
feels like they are *deliberately* trying to make it sound like a hoax
aimed at gullible laypeople who know nothing about computers.
Add to that the fact that comments are disabled, and it only reinforces
the notion.
If it's legit, they are doing a horrible, horrible job at advertising it
properly.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/05/2014 05:45 PM, Warp wrote:
> If it's legit, they are doing a horrible, horrible job at advertising it
> properly.
I concur.
It sounded like BS the first time I saw it, several years ago. This new
video is much longer, but it still sounds like BS.
I can't imagine how you would make low-latency access direct from
low-bandwidth devices like spinning disks or network shares and yet at
the same time take up less space than the original data. The only way I
can think of that you could rapidly access billions of points and render
them in real-time is if you've precomputed stuff like crazy - and that
wouldn't give you any compression at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Add to that the need for ordering the data for sequential access, which
you can't do for *every* viewpoint simultaneously, and... this product
really, really sounds like fairydust.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2014-05-14 11:45, Warp wrote:
> "The reason why Euclideon is so quick to load is because we are actually
> running it straight from the hard drive instead of from the RAM."
>
> That sentence makes absolutely no sense. Firstly, you can't "run" anything
> directly from the hard drive (you could *read* data directly from the hard
> drive, but that's not "running"). Secondly, RAM is like a million times
> faster than any hard drive, so saying that it's faster because it's reading
> data directly from the hard drive rather than the computer's RAM makes no
> sense.
It makes more sense when you realise they're working with data that's a
few orders of magnitude larger than will even fit in RAM. It's like
that large-image library...thing that lets you query a smaller region of
a few-ten-thousand-pixels-on-each-side image that can't possibly be
loaded all at once.
> If it's legit, they are doing a horrible, horrible job at advertising it
> properly.
For now...yeah. Think it's mostly still in proof-of-concept stage.
--
T. Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2014-05-14 15:05, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> I can't imagine how you would make low-latency access direct from
> low-bandwidth devices like spinning disks or network shares and yet at
> the same time [...]
The present day left a memo for you: they have solid-state hard drives
now that are a bit faster than traditional spinning media.
True, they're still kind of pricey, but they're out there in the wild
and can be had for only about twice as much as a regular drive for the
cheap ones.
--
T. Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/05/14 22:12, Tim Cook wrote:
>
> For now...yeah. Think it's mostly still in proof-of-concept stage.
>
I hate to disillusion you, but unless they've solved the 'Travelling
Salesman' problem this is a non-starter - not a hoax, but certainly a
misconception on the principals' part.
Incidentally, where are the algorithms?
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 2014-05-14 18:35, Doctor John wrote:
> Incidentally, where are the algorithms?
Well, if that's their selling point that's letting them accomplish
things, I'd expect it's probably proprietary/industrial secret kind of
thing. Heh.
--
T. Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/05/2014 10:15 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
> On 2014-05-14 15:05, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> I can't imagine how you would make low-latency access direct from
>> low-bandwidth devices like spinning disks or network shares and yet at
>> the same time [...]
>
> The present day left a memo for you: they have solid-state hard drives
> now that are a bit faster than traditional spinning media.
>
> True, they're still kind of pricey, but they're out there in the wild
> and can be had for only about twice as much as a regular drive for the
> cheap ones.
All the PCs at work actually *have* these.
It turns out that while the seek times are drastically superior, most of
the cheap ones have write times far inferior to a spinning disk.
Bizarre, but true. Also, they seem to break much more frequently.
OTOH, if anybody tells you they can only withstand so many write cycles,
you can just ignore them. The laptop on my desk gets the entire drive
zero-wiped multiple times *per day*, every single day of the year (even
when I'm not in the building), and after over a year of this abuse, it's
still working just fine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irf-HJ4fBls
>
> I'd seen about this thing a few years back, it's apparently legit.
I saw it a few years back too (maybe posted in here?) and was sceptical.
It certainly looks impressive and I'm still trying to figure out if this
really could be possible or not. Something like a tile-based LOD system
could work, games do this already with polygon and texture data (game
world size only limited by the storage media), no reason why it couldn't
work with point data.
As for the compression I was thinking along the lines of something
similar to the way mp3/jpeg drops information that probably won't be
noticed. You don't need to store every point at every detail level with
the full precision, and the point data could make use of the coarser
data (position and colour) from the next level up.
That just leaves how to get the million or so points that are in RAM on
the screen in the right place in the right order in a fraction of a
second. Are CPUs fast enough today to just simply draw every one with a
z-buffer? Seems like it could be made multi-threaded very easily, on the
rare occasion two threads try to write to the same pixel at the same
time it probably won't even be noticed if the pixel is the wrong colour.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> True, they're still kind of pricey, but they're out there in the wild
>> and can be had for only about twice as much as a regular drive for the
>> cheap ones.
>
> All the PCs at work actually *have* these.
I have this in my work PC:
http://www.misco.co.uk/product/199853/Seagate-2TB-Desktop-3-5inch-SATA-SSHD
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2014-05-14 17:15, Tim Cook a écrit :
> On 2014-05-14 15:05, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> I can't imagine how you would make low-latency access direct from
>> low-bandwidth devices like spinning disks or network shares and yet at
>> the same time [...]
>
> The present day left a memo for you: they have solid-state hard drives
> now that are a bit faster than traditional spinning media.
True, but in the video, they use a 3£ USB key as an example. Not
exactly the fastest thing around.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Are CPUs fast enough today to just simply draw every one with a
> z-buffer? Seems like it could be made multi-threaded very easily, on the
> rare occasion two threads try to write to the same pixel at the same
> time it probably won't even be noticed if the pixel is the wrong colour.
CPU's don't draw anything anymore nowadays. The only thing they do is to
transfer data to the GPU and tell it what to do with it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> CPU's don't draw anything anymore nowadays. The only thing they do is to
> transfer data to the GPU and tell it what to do with it.
If by "draw" you mean "convert a value at a memory address to a signal
to be sent to a monitor", then no, CPUs don't draw anything, and AFAIK
never have.
However if you mean "calculate pixel values that will be displayed",
then the CPU "draws" in programs like POV and (apparently) in this demo.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 May 2014 08:21:51 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> All the PCs at work actually *have* these.
Nonsense. SSD drives are incomprehensibly expensive, and only the most
well-off geeks have them because they're incredibly rare "in the wild".
They must cost billions of dollars to purchase, most certainly. ;)
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 15/05/2014 05:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2014 08:21:51 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>> All the PCs at work actually *have* these.
>
> Nonsense. SSD drives are incomprehensibly expensive, and only the most
> well-off geeks have them because they're incredibly rare "in the wild".
> They must cost billions of dollars to purchase, most certainly. ;)
Well *I* certainly couldn't afford one. But then, I'm not the one
paying, so... ;-)
As I say, there's not much real-world observable performance difference,
to be honest.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 May 2014 03:58:50 +0200, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 2014-05-14 18:35, Doctor John wrote:
>> Incidentally, where are the algorithms?
>
> Well, if that's their selling point that's letting them accomplish
> things, I'd expect it's probably proprietary/industrial secret kind of
> thing. Heh.
>
> --
> T. Cook
> http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Like Minecraft with pixel-sized blocks?
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2014-05-15 12:43, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> Like Minecraft with pixel-sized blocks?
Do want.
(Seriously; the only thing that turns me off of Minecraft is the
absurdly large voxels. Well, and that it's not free. Even EverQuest
Landmark is too chunky for my taste...though it does let you put things
at angles.)
--
T. Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 May 2014 19:48:27 +0200, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 2014-05-15 12:43, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> Like Minecraft with pixel-sized blocks?
>
Maybe I should rephrase (my wording tends to be on the sparse side):
I meant that maybe their algorithm is similar to Minecrafts algorithm.
Apparently Minecraft worlds are massive. So if you take a tiny Minecraft
block and only give each side a single colour and code it in C++ instead
of Java, maybe it is possible. Maybe even add a few CryEngine tricks?
> Do want.
>
> (Seriously; the only thing that turns me off of Minecraft is the
> absurdly large voxels. Well, and that it's not free. Even EverQuest
> Landmark is too chunky for my taste...though it does let you put things
> at angles.)
>
I feel the same way. It also seems like only a select few would be able to
build stuff with Landmark if I understood it correctly. It an awesome
concept but it's not my kind of game. I would want more realism. Minecraft
+ Google Earth + physics + CryEngine + GTA + Play as a good guy - that
would be more my thing.
> --
> T. Cook
> http://empyrean.sjcook.com
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 May 2014 18:25:58 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 15/05/2014 05:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 May 2014 08:21:51 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>> All the PCs at work actually *have* these.
>>
>> Nonsense. SSD drives are incomprehensibly expensive, and only the most
>> well-off geeks have them because they're incredibly rare "in the wild".
>> They must cost billions of dollars to purchase, most certainly. ;)
>
> Well *I* certainly couldn't afford one. But then, I'm not the one
> paying, so... ;-)
Only the top 1% could possibly afford them. Even then, it's little more
than a curiosity, the only ones who really benefit from them surely are
the top 0.1%.
> As I say, there's not much real-world observable performance difference,
> to be honest.
You obviously aren't using the ones that I'm talking about. ;)
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16/05/2014 02:35, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Thu, 15 May 2014 18:25:58 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>> On 15/05/2014 05:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 May 2014 08:21:51 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> All the PCs at work actually *have* these.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. SSD drives are incomprehensibly expensive, and only the most
>>> well-off geeks have them because they're incredibly rare "in the wild".
>>> They must cost billions of dollars to purchase, most certainly. ;)
>>
>> Well *I* certainly couldn't afford one. But then, I'm not the one
>> paying, so... ;-)
>
> Only the top 1% could possibly afford them. Even then, it's little more
> than a curiosity, the only ones who really benefit from them surely are
> the top 0.1%.
>
>> As I say, there's not much real-world observable performance difference,
>> to be honest.
>
> You obviously aren't using the ones that I'm talking about. ;)
SSD or HDD or SSHD ? (solid state drive, hard drive (traditional), solid
state hybrid hard drive).
There is also in SSD two categories: SLC and MLC (single bit in a cell,
vs multiple bits in a cell) (as well as some other exotic ones). (in
fact, M of MLC now means 2, and the emerging TLC is with T for 3): the
more bits per cells, the less number of warranted write per cell. (but
when you change a sector's content, the SSD does not write it at the
same cells, the firmware uses some fresh cells for the new value, so the
number of actual erasure is spreads on all the available cells).
TLC has a 1000 write warrant, when MLC has between 3000 and 5000 and SLC
above 20000.
(and the market trend is to go to TLC !)
SSD vs HDD: the cost for capacity is about ten to twentyfold so far.
The top-available capacity is also lower for SSD ( current value is
about a quarter of terabyte, when three terabytes on HDD, both going for
the psychological price of 100€ )
The read performance is also about x10 in the opposite direction (SSD
has far less seek time, and faster data pump). Yet real write is subject
to caution: HDD has seek time but write 4k easily, whereas SSD has a
bigger chunk to copy even if you modify only a few bytes. If you
consider the whole chunk, the write speed is similar. but if you write
many small files, it sucks.
And if we go on the road of luxury, there is the EFD (enterprise flash
drive), a kind of SSD made for high I/O performance and more.
The SSHD (ssd within a traditional hard drive) might have a card to
play: the system can be copied/cached on the ssd, but all the
event-logger and dynamic files stay on the rotating media. And it should
be transparent to the OS, as the firmware is going to select sectors
which are read often and nearly never written... if they do it right.
--
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I feel the same way. It also seems like only a select few would be able
> to build stuff with Landmark if I understood it correctly. It an awesome
> concept but it's not my kind of game. I would want more realism.
> Minecraft + Google Earth + physics + CryEngine + GTA + Play as a good
> guy - that would be more my thing.
Wait until Google buys Euclideon and laser scans the planet :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/05/2014 07:48 AM, scott wrote:
> Wait until Google buys Euclideon and laser scans the planet :-)
Hack the planet! Hack the planet!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> As I say, there's not much real-world observable performance difference,
>>> to be honest.
>>
>> You obviously aren't using the ones that I'm talking about. ;)
>
> SSD or HDD or SSHD ? (solid state drive, hard drive (traditional), solid
> state hybrid hard drive).
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/05/2014 17:45, Warp wrote:
> Add to that the fact that comments are disabled, and it only reinforces
> the notion.
No one has mentioned the old maxim. "If it looks too good to be true
then it probably isn't."
And the accent! Cut glass but pronounces data as da-ta not day-ta.
Call me a cynical old fool (not you Dr. John) but this smells of rotten
fish.
--
Regards
Stephen
I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2014-05-16 03:17, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> 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.*
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16/05/2014 14:44, Francois Labreque a écrit :
> Le 2014-05-16 03:17, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>> 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.*
>
>
Depends on what you call "boot time".
At work, I can get the login prompt in 25 sec or so. But access to the
email will take at least 3 minutes (including 2 minutes of "no-click").
And it's a classical hdd on XP.
--
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/05/14 12:32, Stephen wrote:
>
> No one has mentioned the old maxim. "If it looks too good to be true
> then it probably isn't."
> And the accent! Cut glass but pronounces data as da-ta not day-ta.
Hmm. didn't notice that but I've got used to people using less than
Oxbridge pronunciation :-)
> Call me a cynical old fool (not you Dr. John) but this smells of rotten
> fish.
>
Old? - Never. You're younger than me.
Fool? - Hardly. You know your limitations and you don't boast of your
strengths.
Cynical? - How about a slightly pessimistic and realistic view of human
behaviour?
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?
John (a cynical old !fool)
--
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 Fri, 16 May 2014 07:58:53 +0200, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> SSD or HDD or SSHD ? (solid state drive, hard drive (traditional), solid
> state hybrid hard drive).
[aside to Le Forgerson - I'm teasing Andy about this.... ;) ]
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 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. ;)
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 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!
--
Regards
Stephen
I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/05/2014 22:19, Doctor John wrote:
> On 16/05/14 12:32, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> No one has mentioned the old maxim. "If it looks too good to be true
>> then it probably isn't."
>> And the accent! Cut glass but pronounces data as da-ta not day-ta.
>
> Hmm. didn't notice that but I've got used to people using less than
> Oxbridge pronunciation :-)
>
>> Call me a cynical old fool (not you Dr. John) but this smells of rotten
>> fish.
>>
>
> Old? - Never. You're younger than me.
I bow to your wisdom, my Ancient (Pistol).
> Fool? - Hardly. You know your limitations and you don't boast of your
> strengths.
"Wepyng and waylyng, care and oother sorwe I knowe ynogh, on even and
a-morwe."
> Cynical? - How about a slightly pessimistic and realistic view of human
> behaviour?
>
FOURTH CITIZEN. Tear him for his bad verses, tear him for his bad
verses. (Or images.)
> 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
> John (a cynical old !fool)
>
A factorial fool? ^_^
--
Regards
Stephen
I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You cynical old fool. ;)
>>
>
> Boom! boom!
Let me hear you say wayoh!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/05/14 15:48, Stephen wrote:
>
> I bow to your wisdom, my Ancient (Pistol).
>
Shakespeare? Henry V?
> "Wepyng and waylyng, care and oother sorwe I knowe ynogh, on even and
> a-morwe."
Chaucer. Merchant's Tale - Did it for O-levels :-)
>
> FOURTH CITIZEN. Tear him for his bad verses, tear him for his bad
> verses. (Or images.)
>
Shookspoke again. I guess Julius Caesar
>> 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.
>> John (a cynical old !fool)
>>
>
> A factorial fool? ^_^
>
That's a logical NOT, <sotto voce> idiot
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 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)
--
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 17/05/2014 21:23, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> You cynical old fool. ;)
>>>
>>
>> Boom! boom!
>
> Let me hear you say wayoh!
Wae'aye pet.
WAYOH!
--
Regards
Stephen
I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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)
>
Mañana.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
