Offline
Late to the party, just my .02 worth:
The Big Bang is a theory. And like any other theory, it is conjectural, has no solid basis in fact, and can not be proven conclusively.
From that point of view, so is argument for the existence of God ...
You pays your money and you takes your point of view.
Cheers
Mike, I think your idea for an international body to police the 'net and provide anti-piracy monitoring is a grand one. And, even though I'm a US citizen, I'd be as happy as corn flakes if the central headquarters for this organization were anywhere else but the US. I know how our political system is viewed at times, and I agree there is some substance to those views as well. Also, having locations in various countries is wise as it allows for legal prosecution (when needed) to proceed under local sovereign law and not some "mandate of the Americans".
[CAUTION: ANECDOTE AHEAD]
I was traveling down a major US highway a few months ago over in the eastern US and along side the road there was a billboard with a sign on it that said simply; "Pornography hurts everyone." Erected by a co-operative group of local congregations, it was no doubt in response to a business that was selling pornographic materials a bit further up the highway.
I think of piracy like that. It hurts everyone, at all levels, from the guy burning the midnight oil writing software to the folks selling it legitimately on the 'net. Sure, we can point to Big Business and the evils thereof, but businesses are owned by stock and shareholders. Just regular folks and we expect a profit from our investments.
The online piracy problem is complex, and while I'd be the last person on earth to suggest that we need more legislation (I'm staunchly libertarian) or more laws to deal with the situation, it seems necessary. We had to establish laws to deal with pornography to protect citizens, we'll have to do the same with IP piracy too it seems ...
Cheers.
@unknownuser said:
Jeff, I take your point but cannot agree with the proposed action. No, I have not read the Bill in its entirety only sections. I simply do not trust Governments, which are under the influence of the Big Corps, to act in a fair manner.
We've lived with Big Business and Government as bed partners for years and the consuming public reaped the rewards. It's hasn't been until recently, when the world's economy turned a fiscal somersault, that anyone got their ire up and made "Big Business is Evil" noises.
@unknownuser said:
The way this thing is being set up, I still feel the onus will be on the accused to prove their innocence rather than the accuser to prove their guilt. Also money talks! Particularly when it come to the hire of the Legal Eagles. Now if they inserted a clause that the accused defense legal fee would be paid by the accuser and the accused would only have to pay this fee when actually convicted, that would be a different matter. But you can be sure that won't happen because it will probably fall outside of the criminal range.
I don't see why you think would happen. This bill is intended to provided the legal groundwork for protection of copyright and IP infringement cases. What I do see is a lot of paranoia and fear-mongering about how evil business interests and corrupt government politicians will turn it to some (undefined) kind of personal gain.
@unknownuser said:
On the copyright issue infringements, it looks to me that its mostly the big name record and movie companies that are behind this. Let's just go back in time a little. Prior to the Net, if I wanted a particular song, I went to my local record shop and bought the record. This stated changing when the tape came into common use.
It was the same case with a movie. If I wanted to see the movie, I went to the cinema. This started to change when the video machines came into the picture.
What I'm getting at here is, prior to music and movies going into tape they were hardly ever pirated. Once these industries made the decision to move / sell their product in this fashion they left themselves open, little by little, until what we have now.
Well, from a historical perspective, while piracy was happening back then (a certain Far Eastern nation has been making illegal copies of media for decades) it was not as easy as it is today. But "excusing" piracy due to lack of effective anti-piracy safeguards isn't right either. We could talk about DRM then and the furor it raised when software companies and media companies tried to implement it as a strategy to deter piracy. The consuming public was livid!
@unknownuser said:
From what I see, they have invested next to nothing from their vast profits into technology that would prohibit copyright infringement. So far the extra VAST profit far outweighs the loss to pirates. But now they want to do things the political way and create a system that, will most likely be abuse left, right and center for things other than copyright protection. Let's be realistic! the politicians care little or nothing about copyright protection. They see this as something that will suit their aims / ambitions, censorship! Its been achieved on most TV and Newspapers and all that remains is the Net.
Realistic! Mike, the reality is that piracy is already rampant! It's already abusive and it show little to no signs of slowing down. What would you prefer in place of a sustainable law? Anarchic responses like Wikileaks, Denial of Service attacks against servers by hacker groups who think they have the "higher road" for Internet moral codes?
@unknownuser said:
In the case of software there are ways that companies can further protect their product. The dongle is crude way to do this but again, I imagine if resources were put into protection, we would see fairly fool-proof systems coming on the scene. These companies are smart enough to create brilliant software, surely can could produce brilliant protection!
I worked in computers systems, network and software for over 20 years. I can tell you, there is no software solution that cannot be reversed engineered and compromised. The most effective form of protection is a physical device such as a dongle, or encoded SD card. BUT, the public, for the most part, doesn't care for those kinds of solutions ... it adds cost and that, my friend, isn't what the public wants to see.
@unknownuser said:
As far as I'm concerned the onus should be on the digital product producers to protect their property in the first place and not try to place restrictions on the marketplace, that will be open to abuse, to protect their property for them.
They are. They are asking the government to produce a law that gives them the resources and legal position to protect their, and their clients interests. They are not asking to place "restrictions" except those that would insure the legal protection of their property through due process of law. Does anyone think for a minute that Pepsi would want to see their logo on anything besides their products or a contracted second party item, such as a banner, poster, etc. Not on your life.
@unknownuser said:
If I had a shop I would be sure to lock it up good and tight every evening! I would like to see the local police having any extra powers other than investigation, arrest and prosecution. This proposed law could be compared IMO to allowing the police 'shut down' whoever they had suspicions about and only release them when they prove their innocence!
Read the bill in it's entirety.
@unknownuser said:
Its the same old story! Money talks! And Big Money Talks Big!, particularly when its talking to politicians! The Net was designed to do what it does, we have to accept the good and the bad, otherwise it will be a crippled duck! If things keep going the way they are heading.
Well, if OWS (for instance) is any measure of how the common person intends to change government, I won't lose any sleep and won't expect to see any INTELLIGENT changes made.
@unknownuser said:
This place could be shut down for having the discussion we are currently having
If it weren't for the eye roll at the end, I'd say that is a fairly paranoid statement to make. The last time I looked, Orwell's 1984 wasn't a reality, the Thought Police could never read my wife's mind, and I still don't have to "show my papers" when I cross state lines in the US. 
Cheers.
So, perhaps people should actually read a draft of the bill BEFORE running off to sign an online petition. Here's a direct link to the .pdf: http://leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/BillText-PROTECTIPAct.pdf It's only 30 pages long, very short for a Congressional Bill.
Then, consider what the bill is trying to do. That's right, apply your own brainpower to the issue and think it through. The whole ballyhoo about "socialism" and "communism" and comparing the "censorship" to countries like Iran and China is ludicrous and designed to appeal more the visceral than the cerebral ...
From the Avaaz site:
@unknownuser said:
Let’s urgently raise our voices from every corner of the world and build an unprecedented global petition calling on US decision makers to reject the bill and stop Internet censorship.
I think people are generally confusing "piracy protection" and "censorship". As with most petitions, I find the Avaaz site contents to be half-truths and simply reactionary. There is nothing in the bill that stifles free speech as the Avaaz site warns ...
What the bill does seek to reinforce are those copyright and Intellectual Property (IP) laws that are currently in effect for "real" copyright and IP infringements, and apply them to the Internet. There is little or no way to enforce laws, either domestically or internationally, for the protection of copyright or IP on the Internet.
@unknownuser said:
Under the new law, the US could force Internet providers to block any website on suspicion of violating copyright or trademark legislation, or even failing to sufficiently police their users' activities.
If one reads the bill, one finds that it is through the Attorney General's Office and the court system that actions can take place. Before a site or operator can be "blacklisted", sufficient evidence must be found and the courts must rule on it. There are several steps, including warnings, that must happen first. I think you will find sections (b) and (c) to be very explicit about this.
Frankly, I find the bill will help protect an individuals or entity's rights from arbitrary shutdown or blacklisting. It makes the issue a point of law, not subject to an indiscriminate action by Internet provider or other party.
@unknownuser said:
And, because so much of the Internet's hosts and hardware are located in the US, their blacklist would clamp down on the free web for all of us.
A vacuous statement. True, while most of the root DNS servers do reside in the US, why would blacklisting a violator of copyright and IP infringement as found through due process of law "clamp down" on "the free web"? Sounds more to me like Avaaz considers "the free web" to include unlawful IP piracy ...
@unknownuser said:
Well we all know who behind this move! Its the '1%' that control oil / cash / power! Now they want to control the Net.
In my own opinion, I can't imagine why anyone would not think something like this would happen eventually. People have stolen copyrighted and IP material in the "real world" for years and years. It was only a matter of time that those same scumbags would make it an issue on the 'net. In the real world, I can fight in the courts here in my own country to gain back what is rightfully mine. Overseas, it's a whole different matter ...
Cheers.
The wisdom of God's Word becomes evident when a person genuinely and diligently studies them.
Interestingly enough, OWS isn't even getting media coverage anymore ... I read from 4 different news sources on the 'net on a daily basis and not a single one of them reported an OWS event.
However, Jennifer Lopez did have a breakdown on stage: http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/24/showbiz/celebrity-news-gossip/jennifer-lopez-stage-break-down/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 
Cheers.
I thought I'd just share this with you. Einstein, of course, is mostly remembered for his work in physics. But, he also had a very interesting take on politics as well ... Einstein was not a "socialist", but supported socialist economic policies tempered by a strong instinct for individual freedom, personal autonomy, democratic institutions and protection of liberties.
In 1949, Albert Einstein wrote an influential article for the inaugural edition of the Monthly Review titled "Why Socialism?" Walter Isaacson, in his wonderful biography of Albert Einstein: "Einstein, His Life and Universe", wrote a synopsis of that article on page 504:
"In it, he argued that unrestrained capitalism produced great disparities of wealth, cycles of boom and depression, and festering levels of unemployment. The system encouraged selfishness instead of cooperation, and acquiring wealth rather than serving others. People were educated for careers rather than for the love of work and creativity. And political parties became corrupted by political contributions from owners of great capital."
Food for thought ... Cheers.
@tfdesign said:
It would be interesting to see what people here think of international corporations such as Greenpeace and the WWF?
From my readings, it appears the OWS protests are pretty much focused on companies within sovereign borders. If you wanted to discuss "international corporations" then perhaps Union Carbide and BP would be more suitable examples ... It seems to me that you picked 2 corporations that would probably spark more visceral responses ...
Cheers.
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." ~ Henry Ford
"Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves." - A. Einstein
A couple of fitting quotes for the times ...
Cheers
It was only a matter of time before things started to get out of hand: http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/15/world/occupy-goes-global/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Khai hit it on the head. I too ran networks for years and was in a constant running battle to screen, filter and block not only porn, but a lot of other junk off the 'net. Same for email. No sooner would I get filters in place, then the scammers, spammers and script kiddies would find new ways of getting around them.
The best offense to this kind of junk is to make a personal stance to just stay away from it. That, and keep a good virus and malware scanner running in the background ...
Cheers.
Another "election year" spleen-venting session ... Sure, there needs to be change. But that change comes from electing people who will represent the will of the electorate. It takes legislation to change the situation in this country, not protest marches.
The OWS situation also typical of Americans (of which I am one). We enjoy the good times when they happen (the '80's were incredible) and we don't pay much attention to the downside. Then, when the crunch comes, we blame the very system that provided us with the stuff we enjoyed before.
Cheers.
Solo is correct. Unless an application is compiled and configured for SLI, it's a waste. Dual cards won't benefit you in this case ...
Any of the new cards will work fine. My rule of thumb is to buy as much VRAM on the card as I can afford. No substitute for memory space either in the PC or the video card. As you're going to run a fairly large monitor at higher resolutions I would guess, you're going to need the VRAM ...
That being said, I'd bump up your system RAM to at least 8Gb if your handling large poly sets too. The OS has to handle moving the data to and from the video card and usually copies of the meshes are kept in system RAM, not just video card RAM.
Cheers.
Hi Jack,
You would require as many floating licenses as you need for the number of computers you want to render from at any one time. Ie; if you have 5 workstations and you would want all 5 to be able to render at the same time, you'd need 5 floating licenses. However, if only two of the five needed concurrent rendering access at any one time, then only two floating licenses are needed. The beauty is, any of the workstations can send rendering jobs to the server, as long as only two of the five are doing it in this example. The licenses are controlled at the server so it's a simple setup. No muss, no fuss.
If you need more workstations to render concurrently, then you can incrementally add floating licenses as needed. This scales nicely and can help match your growth without overspending on licensing costs.
Here's a reference: http://www.indigorenderer.com/features/floatinglicences
As for SU Pro, I don't believe so. I checked the Indigo site and a few others but didn't find anything requiring SU Pro. The Skindigo exporter plugin works with both free and Pro versions. SU 8 IS required however.
The reason I was suggesting just getting a dedicated server is because I have experience in building a rendering farm. Some years ago I built a farm that used POVray over a network using Erlang. At the time I was learning the Erlang language and I had always wanted to build a rendering farm. While the project was successful, it required a lot of tweaking and such to get working decently.
Personally, I think Indigo's network rendering solution is robust, efficient and would give you a very good ROI.
Cheers.
Hi Chris ...
Ah, the source code is available, great! My explanation is a bit of programmer-speak, but I think you'll get it ...
The standard way to have Ruby access C/C++ functions is to have Ruby-callable modules and function names. That is, the .dll C/C++ code needs to be able to export module(s) with callable Ruby function(s) in them. Here is a very simple example of what I mean: http://www.flipcode.com/archives/Calling_C_Functions_From_Ruby.shtml
/*
Copyright?
We don't need no stinkin copyright!
*/
#if defined (WIN32)
# include "windows.h"
#define EXPORT_FUNC _declspec (dllexport)
#endif
#include "ruby.h"
#ifdef _NO_NUM2DBL_
extern double num2double(val)
VALUE val;
{
struct RFloat* flt;
if (NIL_P(val)) return 0;
flt = RFLOAT(f_float(0, val));
return flt-value;
}
#endif
static VALUE Sum(obj,arg1,arg2)
VALUE obj,arg1;
{
double val1 = NUM2DBL(arg1);
double val2 = NUM2DBL(arg2);
return rb_float_new(val1+val2);
}
static VALUE mRUBBER;
void InitializeRubber()
{
mRUBBER = rb_define_module("Rubber");
rb_define_module_function(mRUBBER, "Sum", Sum, 2);
rb_define_const(mRUBBER, "TestConst", INT2NUM(38));
}
EXPORT_FUNC void Init_rubber()
{
InitializeRubber();
}
A few things to notice: They've included the windows.h and ruby.h header files. These files contain the C "templates" for accessing necessary Windows and Ruby functions. You must also have linkable windows and ruby libraries in the compiler path as well.
Then they defined a couple of internal native C functions, num2double and Sum. A module to be called by Ruby, "Rubber" is contained in the InitializeRubber function. num2double and Sum will be called internally by InitializeRubber to do it's calculations for "Rubber".
The EXPORT_FUNC directive makes sure the "Rubber" module is exported externally so Ruby can "require" it.
#Simple ruby script to test ruby-C binding
require "rubber"
print "Testing\n"
print "---------------------------------------------------\n"
print "C Constant test ; "+Rubber;;TestConst.to_s()+"\n"
print "C Function test ; "+Rubber.Sum(100.75,50).to_s()+"\n"
Here, Ruby has required the "rubber" module in an .rb script and passed some input parameters to Rubber.Sum. Rubber.Sum will then call the internal num2double and Sum functions in the .dll and return the correct answer for further formatting using the .to_s Ruby built-in ...
In a nutshell, you'll need to change the source code so that the functions you want to access have Ruby-callable names and you'll know what kind of variable types need to be passed to the function, and what will be returned. I think if you point your coder people to the link I provided, they should get the gist of it ...
Hope this is helpful. Cheers
Generall, first thing to do as you don't have the actual source code for the .dll, is you need to know the exact name of the functions you want to access. For that, you need a program like DLL Export Viewer: http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/dll_export_viewer.html or PE Explorer: http://www.heaventools.com/overview.htm Once you have those function names along with their input and return types, you'll need to write code to access them and pass the necessary data to, and from the .dll ...
If you're using a scripting language like Javascript, you may have to code up an intermediate .dll to translate javascript data to a form the target .dll can use. Normally, unless the target .dll has a scripting language interface coded into it, ie; it's been linked to a javascript library so those functions are part of the .dll or can be called by it, the data are passed using standard C/C++ calling conventions.
In a nutshell, it's generally a PITA if you don't have the source code ...
Cheers.
I think SU works very well for engineering and architectural work. If you need to model organic shapes principally, it falls far short in capability IMO. ZBrush, Maya, Rhino, etc have tools that are designed and suited to manipulating the complex meshes that organic shapes tend to have more efficiently.
You could do organics in SU, but the time involved would be orders of magnitude longer than using an application like Maya for example.
Cheers.
Jack, if it were me, I'd just buy a dedicated server. Hardware is cheap these days and you can get a decent multicore box for not a lot of money. Put about 8Gb of decent RAM in it and there you go.
Indigo does have the capability to do distributed renderings via a master/slave network management system. It requires additional "floating licenses" for the slave machines and that extra cost may not work for your company. However, having one or two floating licenses and using Indigo's network management would simplify rendering file transfers without the need for another 3rd party program like UltraVNC: http://www.uvnc.com/ or another like it.
Cheers.
Personally, I'd wait until the chatter and speculation dies down. MS needs to gain traction in the mobile market as they have been running behind there for years. Win CE was never really strong in the early "palm device" days and I think Win 8 was created to address their lack of presence in the mobile device community. They will have to go up against Apple and Google (Android 3 rocks!) and an already entrenched manufacturing and user base. The Motorola Xoom is proving to be a very capable device and I would put money on it doing very well in the future. The old "Wintel" alliance disintegrated a long time ago, and that alliance was key in Microsoft's OS developments.
Intel has other problems and working with Google is a great move IMO. AMD has been gaining market share steadily as well so I don't think we'll see the Intel x86 architecture chips disappear too soon. Developing the ARM architecture is "future proofing" somewhat because mobile devices simply don't need the horsepower of a multicore x86 CPU. The Xoom for example is using a dual core ARM chip from Nvidia. I would think Intel might like a piece of that pie as well ...
However, from a person who still happily runs Win XP 64 Pro, I will wait and see what develops. MS has a "hit and miss" history with their OS releases and I consider both ME and Vista to be disasters while the XP and Win 7 releases have proven pretty decent.
We will see ...
Cheers.