A couple weeks ago I happened to be at a certain computer store. I happened to notice that they had a sale on a GeForce 9400 GT 512 meg video card for $40 (normally $70). While I already have a sufficiently powerful video card, I'd been thinking for a while about picking up a cheap GeForce, in case I ever felt inclined to play with CUDA (my video card is an ATI). So, I grabbed one.
After a sufficient amount of procrastination (specifically, two weeks, bringing it to the last day to return it), I figured I should see about opening it and installing it, to make sure it works. But first I decided to do a bit of research: namely, whether you can have both an ATI and nVidia card in the computer at a time. Obviously this should work, but with the ATI and nVidia war, driver idiocy, etc., you never know.
Well, it turns out that you can't - at least, not in Vista (I'm using 2008, which is based on Vista). Specifically, Vista only allows one WDDM display driver to be loaded at a time; this means that if you have multiple video cards, they all need to use the same video driver. While Vista still supports older XP XPDM display drivers (and allows multiple XPDM drivers to be loaded at once), it'll cost you - WDDM drivers are required for things such as Aero and DirectX 10; worse, you can't have one driver that's XPDM and one that's WDDM. Windows 7 is rumored to support multiple WDDM display drivers at once.
And that's why I tried it while it was still returnable, and didn't open it before doing some basic research.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Die, .NET. Thanks.
So, just encountered an (extremely) evil quirk of the .NET platform in a bug.
Everyone who programs .NET knows that one key difference between the two is that structs are (without ref specified) always passed by value, while classes are passed by reference. Apparently that rule is not limited to actual passing of structs, themselves; passing a "pointer" to a callback function for an instance of a struct causes a copy of the entire struct to be passed, and the callback is then called on that copy, not your original instance.
Example:
system.FindCollisions(collisionSet.OnPossibleCollision, workingSet);
In this line, FindCollisions receives a local copy of collisionSet. When it then calls that callback function, that callback operates on the local copy, not on collisionSet itself.
I'm not sure whether this is by design or whether it's a bug. While it's consistent with the policy of always passing structs by value, the fact that it's so counter-intuitive makes me wonder if it might not be a bug.
Everyone who programs .NET knows that one key difference between the two is that structs are (without ref specified) always passed by value, while classes are passed by reference. Apparently that rule is not limited to actual passing of structs, themselves; passing a "pointer" to a callback function for an instance of a struct causes a copy of the entire struct to be passed, and the callback is then called on that copy, not your original instance.
Example:
system.FindCollisions(collisionSet.OnPossibleCollision, workingSet);
In this line, FindCollisions receives a local copy of collisionSet. When it then calls that callback function, that callback operates on the local copy, not on collisionSet itself.
I'm not sure whether this is by design or whether it's a bug. While it's consistent with the policy of always passing structs by value, the fact that it's so counter-intuitive makes me wonder if it might not be a bug.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
& More Piracy
I haven't written about it as much on this blog as other places (instant messages, IRC, various forums, etc.), but I'm a huge opponent of both Digital Rights Management (also known as Content Restriction, Annulment and Protection) and draconian anti-piracy efforts like the RIAA's law suit campaign. This was based on the belief that regardless of the raw numbers (e.g. total P2P downloads of something vs. actual sales), the total number of lost sales due to piracy was low enough that it was better to just eat the losses as part of the cost of doing business than to expend the effort, cost, and public good will to try and fight piracy (which wouldn't work anyway). Specifically, I was guessing that the actual losses were in the 5-15% range - that is, if there were 0 piracy, producers could sell 5-15% more of whatever they make.
However, just now I came across some rather shocking statistics, complements of the makers of World of Goo (a game that shipped without DRM). According to their data collection, 82% of copies of the game played were pirated. That's higher than I expected, but that wasn't the shocking part: that the ratio of pirated copies to lost sales is about 1000:1. Crunching the numbers and rounding up a bit to err on the side of caution, this means that the actual losses of piracy are less than 0.6% of the revenue they make from legitimate sales. This is between 8 and 25 times lower than I thought it would be.
These numbers absolutely demolish the claims that
However, just now I came across some rather shocking statistics, complements of the makers of World of Goo (a game that shipped without DRM). According to their data collection, 82% of copies of the game played were pirated. That's higher than I expected, but that wasn't the shocking part: that the ratio of pirated copies to lost sales is about 1000:1. Crunching the numbers and rounding up a bit to err on the side of caution, this means that the actual losses of piracy are less than 0.6% of the revenue they make from legitimate sales. This is between 8 and 25 times lower than I thought it would be.
These numbers absolutely demolish the claims that
- Internet piracy seriously hurts publishers (the actual damage is negligibly small)
- That DRM does more help than harm by reducing piracy (with levels of losses that low, there isn't any room for DRM to help, yet it's clear that it does a substantial amount of harm)
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Random Linguistic Fact of the Day
Technically English (and I think all Germanic languages) doesn't have a future tense. The future is rendered as a mood in English, using a modal (mood auxiliary) verb, in the same class as (and mutually exclusive with) "can", "may", "must", "would", etc. The past and present tenses, on the other hand, are true tenses, and both in the indicative mood (no modal verb or the "do" dummy modal verb).
The logical basis for this distinction has to do with the concept of realis. Essentially that means what it looks like: realis moods have to do with 'real' things - things which are considered certain to have already happened; while irrealis moods are not certain for one reason or another. There's a general tendency in language to regard the future as inherantly uncertain, and thus place it in an irrealis mood.
Whether this is a peculiarity of Germanic languages or is universal among Indo-European languages is unclear. In Latin there is a future tense for the imperative mood (commands - an irealis mood) as well as indicative (events that are certain - a realis mood), but not for subjunctive or supine, two other irealis moods.
For trivia value: Caia does not have tense; aspect and mood are used to imply tense, and if tense must be made absolutely certain, it can be indicated with adverbs. It has three basic moods (more complex moods are specified with helper verbs or particles): indicative, potential, and hypothetical. As in English, the indicative is used for events considered certain, and is used primarily for past and present tense. Potential mood indicates that an event is possible, but not certain; it is used for the future, among other things (although the preferred method of referring to the future is to reduce it to a certain, indicative present expression such as "I intend to go" or "I want to go", which is more precise). The hypothetical refers to events that are known to be false (hence talking about a hypothetical, counter-factual "what if" situation).
The logical basis for this distinction has to do with the concept of realis. Essentially that means what it looks like: realis moods have to do with 'real' things - things which are considered certain to have already happened; while irrealis moods are not certain for one reason or another. There's a general tendency in language to regard the future as inherantly uncertain, and thus place it in an irrealis mood.
Whether this is a peculiarity of Germanic languages or is universal among Indo-European languages is unclear. In Latin there is a future tense for the imperative mood (commands - an irealis mood) as well as indicative (events that are certain - a realis mood), but not for subjunctive or supine, two other irealis moods.
For trivia value: Caia does not have tense; aspect and mood are used to imply tense, and if tense must be made absolutely certain, it can be indicated with adverbs. It has three basic moods (more complex moods are specified with helper verbs or particles): indicative, potential, and hypothetical. As in English, the indicative is used for events considered certain, and is used primarily for past and present tense. Potential mood indicates that an event is possible, but not certain; it is used for the future, among other things (although the preferred method of referring to the future is to reduce it to a certain, indicative present expression such as "I intend to go" or "I want to go", which is more precise). The hypothetical refers to events that are known to be false (hence talking about a hypothetical, counter-factual "what if" situation).
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Random Linguistic Fact of the Day
Ever wonder why it's fairly common to create compound nouns from phrases (e.g. bird-watching, card-carrying), but in all these cases the object comes before the verb participle? Based on English word order it should be watching-bird, etc., yet it never is.
This is probably due to the fact that word order in Proto-Indo-European was very different than the word order used in English and most other Indo-European languages today. In particular, instead of the subject-verb-object order typically used today, PIE (along with more recent ones, like Latin) preferred the subject-object-verb word order. So you might say things like "Avem [bird] spectabam [I watched]" in Latin, which is exactly the order seen in the compounds.
This is probably due to the fact that word order in Proto-Indo-European was very different than the word order used in English and most other Indo-European languages today. In particular, instead of the subject-verb-object order typically used today, PIE (along with more recent ones, like Latin) preferred the subject-object-verb word order. So you might say things like "Avem [bird] spectabam [I watched]" in Latin, which is exactly the order seen in the compounds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
