bascule

I don't know about that. I think the future of realtime 3D rendering will just be an evolution of existing approaches (and I could see realtime Reyes) Raytracing offers few advantages other than the implementation is comparatively simple. I already answered that...

I don't know if I'd call any of those "game engines" so much as "tech demos"

The New York Times just published an article arguing that biofuel produced from algae would cost $1/gallon And just for the record, I am not Johnny-come-lately to this idea

It is if there isn't a causal relationship between the events. The only relationship I'm seeing is crap that consumes the public consciousness. Why not throw in MLB players on steroids, OJ, the Jacko trial, and Jon and Kate Plus 8 while you're at it?

Yes, your country in particular seems to suck at reporting violent crime The US is also a widely varied country. The murder rate in my hometown is 0.5:100,000. London in comparison has a murder rate of 2.4:100,000 or in other words you're almost 5 times as likely to get murdered in London as you are here. Crime is virtually nonexistent here, especially violent crime, and I feel no compulsion to carry any sort of weapon to protect myself.

That slope seems rather slippery

Can you name a mainstream game which uses a ray tracing engine? Ray tracing is typically used for ahead-of-time rendering of 3D scenes such as in software like RenderMan, although even RenderMan doesn't use ray tracing as its primary 3D rendering algorithm (but instead uses Reyes) Ray tracing is not, to my knowledge, used in any mainstream realtime 3D rendering applications, simply because it's too slow to be used effectively. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You might look at quadtrees and octrees, although they're really just variations on the same theme.

What about the Defense of Marriage Act, a Republican-sponsored bill which was opposed exclusively by Senate Democrats and got only 1 of its 67 nay votes in the House from a Republican. Although to be fair, it was supported by a large number of Democrats and signed into law by a Democratic president. As far as I'm concerned it's unconstitutional as it violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause. A marriage in one state should be recognized by all other states.

Why codify a ban on homosexual marriage into law, but not one on adultery, or eating shellfish, or wearing clothing of mixed fibers, or working on the Sabbath? Why are their suggestions for codifying Bible verses as laws inconsistent with the Bible? I can only guess, and you would not like my guess. My guess is that banning gay marriage is no skin off their nose, but they want the option to be adulterers, they want to eat shellfix, they want to wear clothing of mixed fibers.

No, you disputed a statement of mine (given the context) then went on to make another statement which contradicted the first statement immediately thereafter. I just put the statements in the proper order to expose this. Just admit that there are other easily concealed lethal weapons which work at a distance and we can move on. Ad hominem... are you saying their figures are wrong, or are you just insulting them without actually disputing their information?

Ray tracing is conceptually simple but devilishly difficult to optimize

If you think software-based remote display protocols are inadequate, I suggest you try out a Sun Ray

Game development bores me, although I enjoy playing them

I'll just admit Americans speak English really weird, especially me. Other Americans can understand me but if I talk to someone from outside the United States they typically have a terrible time with my accent.

Short answer: empathy

I'm a total Twitter whore now, lol

I looked again, you're still wrong, sorry: I'm not misinterpreting that statement. You're wrong, sorry. Yes blah blah blah correlation vs causation. The difference is in New York you can carry mace or pepper spray (among other nonlethal weapons). In London that's classified as an offensive weapon, and there you're seven times as likely to be attacked as you are in New York. Or you could carry a knife or a gun...

The real problem with the whole "sanctity of marriage" argument is it is one entirely based on moral superiority. There's no other logical reasoning behind it. The Bible says both homosexuality and adultery are wrong. Yet we don't see any Republicans out there passing laws making adultery illegal. However they're happy to sit around rambling on about the "sanctity of marriage" and how gay marriage is wrong, immoral, a sin etc. If you're dictating legislation based on your religious beliefs, could you please not pick and choose which Bible verses you wish to codify as law ktks?

Ever heard of happy slapping? I live in a nice, upper class, crime free area, however if I lived in a REAL city with millions of people (and I'm considering moving to one) I could see myself carrying a knife regularly.

I think the UK has pretty clearly demonstrated that banning offensive weapons causes increases in violent crime.

It's not about sex, it's about basic civil rights. The argument coming from the Republicans is that allowing gay marriage would somehow undermine the "sanctity of marriage". This is their rationale for denying gays basic civil rights. Then they go and commit adultery, and in Sanford's case, stick adamantly by the party line. What sanctity does marriage have that the Republicans aren't already destroying themselves?

When it really comes down to it the human model (and the mammalian model in general) is proven workable, and any other models are just speculation. I attribute failures in AI advancement to trying to reinvent consciousness from the ground up rather than trying to copy the human model and then tweak it.

Agreed, although while Off the Wall was good and Thriller was solid gold (or should I just say multi-platinum) only about half of Bad was worth listening to and Dangerous had one listenable song. The rest of his material is not worth mentioning. That said... If they say... Why, why... Tell 'em that it's human nature Why, why... does he do me that way

Hmm, you missed the point somewhere. Let me rearrange the conversation so it makes sense:

What's to keep someone from using a taser and following it up with something lethal? Stabbing them in the chest? Poisoning them? Hell, just suffocate them while they're lying on the ground in shock. See above. What about flamethrowers? You can build one using parts obtained from a hardware store. And again, crossbows. What about crossbows? The point is making guns illegal isn't going to get rid of murder. Even if you could get rid of every single gun in the entire world there will still be murder. People will find alternative means. However, you aren't ever going to get rid of every gun in the world. Criminals already have lots of guns. Buying automatic weapons is generally illegal in the US, but that doesn't stop people from getting them. Arms smugglers will still bring them in from other countries.