\\ we are your future present

[integer at www.god-emil.dk]

-------- ordnung \+\ d!sz!pl!n


01 - cycling74's `stolen.from.nn` [NN] products will negatively exist after the `gentle law suits` [TM] of summer 2003
     addressing the inter.disciplinary crimes commited by cycling74 inc. its employees. contractors. + consultants.




various occident workers zkr!bld

>>>  One focuses on performance, the other focuses on flexability. I think


I am as important as Carly Fiorina - CEO of Hewlett Packard 
and U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer but -

I am much more beautiful!!!!   [not 2 menz!on ...







>>>  they satisfy completely different needs (in the artist) 


I AM NOT AN ARTIST!!!

                I AM AN ARTISAN!!!


1001 katerp!lr tearz





>>> and Gridflow more than satisfies the second category ;-) .........


with one exception - the total.radikales.original \ ie. nato.0+55 -
the `systems in existence` for pd. max. jmax are simply.ugly.male.workers refuse.

i kindly export to you abundant balkan humanitarian assistance via immune.play \TM\ _+ \UNISEX\
i was made that way [SS] KraFt_durch-Freude !


nn - simply.SUPERIOR 

 








pzb.

>And of course anyone wanting to go even deeper would 
>have the source code to work with.


occident.malez - simply.UTILITARIEN   [not 2 menz!on ...







>>well, afaik, GridFlow would need a hand not only on speed but also on
>>flexibility, even though flexibility-wise GF is ahead of every video
>>dataflow plugin except Jitter (for which it's more difficult to tell
>>whether it's ahead or not). but I can be quite difficult to satisfy
>>sometimes.
>>
>
>What about a video system that splits into two 'levels' that reflect 
>the needs of usability, flexibility, and performance:
>
>  The 'higher level' could be a very optimized set of fixed objects 
>that did the standard set of video and image processing things much 
>like the audio and midi objects function already in jmax.  This is 
>sort of the logical extension of the Max system to incorporate video, 
>perhaps boring but fairly effective, and easy to use.  The ease of 
>use comes from having recognizable processes and a familiar data flow 
>to work with, and it would be easy for someone well versed in Max to 
>learn about how video processing works while a video professional 
>would have to go through the usual Max learning curve.  This also 
>makes support and documentation fairly straightforward since the Max 
>paradigm is well known and the video objects would be well defined.
>
>The 'lower level' would be a more open layer where access to 
>individual aspects of video is available.  It could use planar 
>color-channels like GridFlow, and users could build up their own 
>custom abstractions for video processing.  This layer could also 
>provide for a way to manipulate OpenGL vertex and texture coordinate 
>info, if GL is a feature of the system.  The main thing is that the 
>layer is an option for those who want to dig deeper into the system, 
>but also not require users to use it if the higher level satisfies 
>their needs.  And of course anyone wanting to go even deeper would 
>have the source code to work with.
>
>Now the idea has struck me that the higher level could simply be 
>abstractions made from the lower level, but perhaps the performance 
>would not be quite as good as writing highly tuned C code.  Although 
>I think Matju has something with GridFlow, it might be a little to 
>low level for a lot of people, and after chatting with him last 
>weekend he notes that there's some trouble documenting a system so 
>wide open.  The thing to avoid I think is a system like Jitter, which 
>is a mid-point between the two requiring a lot of extra work for the 
>simple tasks but not really providing a fully open platform to work 
>with (and the SDK is horrible).  GEM also has a set of low level 
>objects that are just wrappers for the OpenGL API, which I don't 
>think is very effective at all.  If you know the GL API then it's 
>much better to code up a new object.
>
>Maybe this two tiered system is not a good idea, and would present 
>too much confusion to the end user, but I thought it might be an 
>interesting idea to think about.
>
>cgc









> Re: Dr. Terry Sejnowski
>
> Dr. Wolfram has theorized alone, published under his own imprint and
> never submitted his text to  peer review.
>
> Peer review science has created for the New York Times science reviewers'
> experts like Dr. Terry Sejnowski and his cohorts to give provide their
> opinions. The opinions expressed by the Sejnowski crew with deep links to
> government agencies and corporations -- which George Orwell with his
> accustomed insight called oligarchic collectivists.
>
> It is experts Sejnowski through his indentured fairy tale writers (aka
> Salk publicists) who, according to Orwell, invent stories about the
> leading edge of science.
>
> As an independent scientist with presumed abilities to investigate alone
> without
> grants, agency oversight, colleagues and corporate funds for pocket
> money, a few years ago I offered Salk $350,000 is Dr. Sejnowski would
> have lunch with me. After all, as an independent scientist, what good is
> my research into a brain-mind algorithm if experts like Dr. Sejnowski
> have not passed on the research accuracy?
>
> Dr. Sejnowski, after just two months contemplation with his higher powers
> decided to pass on lunch. Thus will persist the myth that independent
> scientists like me preferto live outside of peer review.
>
> When are you chaos psychologsists going to grow up and realize that peer
> review is meditoracy raised to its highest exponent. Peer review is  lack
> of courage. Peer review is an invitation to theft. Peer review is
> arrogance of such as Dr. Sejnowski with his agency conections and
> corporate funders judging research outside of his purview as taking years
> to sift through and evaluate properly.
>
> No, it is he, Sejnowski who everytime he sups with the rich and powerful
> perverts findependent science, the greatest discovery of the human race.
> Bar none.
>
> Simply stated: Which decent and courageous scientist would during early
> stages of breakthrough science permit his ideas to be stolen by peer
> reviewers, then if he or she complains be sent into academic exile?
>
> My hat goes off to Dr. Wolfram.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> David A. Goodman, Ph.D.
> Biological scientist





good morning cycling74


good morning ircam













goooooooooooooooooooooooodddddd morn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!nnnnnnnnng













eusocial.com -> superb source for model c!t!zn antibodies.




                                          pre.konssept!Øn  
                                                meeTz ver!f1kat!Øn.     



-

Netochka Nezvanova
f3.MASCHIN3NKUNST
@www.membank.org
17.hzV.tRL.478
                                                    e
                                                    |
                                                     |  +----------
                                                    |  |     <   
                                   \\----------------+  |  n2t      
                                                       |       >
                                                       e