00:00:02 Nobody knows shit about Larrabee, so nothing can be predicted. 00:00:12 I doubt it can raytrace in realtime. 00:00:18 ehird, there was some talk from intel about ray trace on it 00:00:29 AnMaster: Even so. 00:00:37 If Intel can do it at 10fps, fine. 00:00:40 But an FPGA does it at 5. 00:00:45 And that's still wicked performance. 00:01:04 ehird, I want it done at 40 FPS or so 00:01:10 then I may be interested 00:01:11 AnMaster: HAHAHAHAHAHA 00:01:13 buy a time machine 00:01:21 AnMaster: it's impossible. This is not for using in games. 00:01:26 This is for people working on e.g. car designs. 00:01:39 ehird, true. But 5 FPS isn't "real time" 00:01:49 AnMaster: It does in 5FPS what normally takes an hour. 00:01:51 That is real time. 00:02:02 ehird, and can't you do it in parallel 00:02:16 Gee, that's lovely and meaningless. Let's throw "parallel" after every word. 00:02:32 ehird, iirc you can. So just throw more FPGAs at it 00:02:40 AnMaster: Yes, with a gigantic render farm, you could match the 5 FPS that a single FPGA handles. 00:02:48 And you say that FPGAs are slow? 00:02:57 ehird, um... I'm not comparing it to CPUs 00:03:10 rather to an array of Nvidia Tesla 00:03:32 AnMaster: Woo, for way more cost you can get way more power-hungry equipment that can match an FPGA. 00:03:34 or whatever is their fastest one currently 00:03:35 FPGAs are so slow. 00:03:49 ehird, FPGAs are slow compared to ASIC 00:03:52 Yes. 00:03:52 says wikipedia 00:03:55 Compared to ASIC. 00:03:56 But they are not slow. 00:04:02 ehird, which is what I was comparing to 00:04:04 anyway 00:04:09 5FPS ray tracing is not slow by any stretch of the imagination. You could do sorting networks in FPGA just fine. 00:04:14 why can't you then use SEVERAL FPGAs to speed it up 00:04:31 Ask them 00:04:35 maybe each rendering part of the frame 00:04:41 or rendering different frames 00:07:19 ehird, is it this http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~fender/pdfs/raytrace_fender.pdf ? 00:07:26 was the first hit I found for ray trace FPGA 00:07:33 AnMaster: http://www.caustic.com/ 00:15:34 fizzie: what res is that lg thing again? 00:18:19 the TV? 00:18:56 no 00:18:59 the monitor he uses 00:19:03 it had a tuner right 00:19:06 thus a tv 00:19:07 no 00:19:12 that one is a different one 00:19:14 which one had a tiner 00:19:16 tuner* 00:19:20 i don't know and I don't care 00:29:34 AnMaster: Yes, mowing. As in "lawn mower". 00:29:50 ah 00:29:57 why is it called mower 00:30:06 looks like a typo for "mover" 00:30:16 (I know it isn't but...) 00:30:23 Erm. context? 00:31:01 ehird, some hours before 00:31:03 Because it's a machine to mow. 00:31:05 ehird: I went out to mow. 00:31:08 ah. 00:31:11 An hour ago. 00:31:14 pikhq, why "mow" 00:31:18 why not "mov" 00:31:29 etymology 00:31:58 AnMaster: Because what Edwin Budding decided to call it. 00:32:02 Erm. 00:32:03 That's what. 00:32:17 who 00:32:19 Why "mov 00:32:20 "? 00:32:26 He invented the mower. 00:32:29 ah 00:32:33 Edwin Beard Budding (1795–1846), an engineer from Stroud, England, was the English inventor of the lawnmower (1830) and adjustable spanner. [1] 00:34:53 Before that, one could maintain maintain a lawn using a scythe... 00:47:09 playing with CUDA will be fun 00:47:16 i'll multiply matrices and stuff. 00:48:26 1920x1200. 00:48:53 Bought it a bit before the unsurprising proliferation of 1920x1080 screens, which seems to have happened recently. 00:49:10 Oh, and 94 dpi if you want actual resolution-resolution. 00:49:11 fizzie: Right. I assume 1080p media just gets two lil' bars? 00:49:23 Yes. I don't mind the bars. 00:49:27 Those probably aren't 1920x1080; most PC monitors are 16:10, not 16:9. 00:49:27 Mind, the gap. 00:49:32 pikhq: Nope. 00:49:37 Real 1080p monitors. 00:49:39 There are many 16:9 PC monitors nowadays. 00:49:45 ehird: Oh, they decided to have 16:9 monitors? 00:49:47 But I don't like screens *that* wide. 00:49:49 It's the latest craze. 00:49:51 pikhq: For the HD craze. 00:49:57 Good; seems dumb to have 16:10 monitors. 00:50:00 But yeah, I want 1920x1200; it's the more monitor-y resolution. Games, etc. 00:50:03 pikhq: No way. 00:50:10 Sure, the ultra-wideness is nice for movies and shit. 00:50:14 But for actual computing? 00:50:21 16:9 is gonna seriously cramp you vertically. 00:50:31 16:10 was chosen because it had little black bars for 16:9 content. 00:50:32 ... That's it. 00:50:45 pikhq: I don't care how it was chosen; it works well. 00:51:08 I don't have a firm opinion on how much the difference actually matters; I rather like the fact that I could put my 1920x1200 screen next to the 1600x1200 4:3 screen, and get a nice not-non-rectangular desktop out of it. 00:51:44 16:9 is very good for movies and stuff. Very realistic and whatnot. But I like the additional vertical headroom— I deserve height, dammit. 00:53:06 I haven't actually tried any 1080 pixels high screens, so can't really comment. But I don't really grok what sort of real disadvantages the 16:10 ratio should have. (I haven't noticed any.) 00:53:36 fizzie: It's just got dumb reasoning is all. 00:53:53 Who cares about reasoning? It's the results that matter 00:54:41 wide screens are good for viewing multiple documents or terminals side-by-side 00:54:49 The ratios are so arbitrary anyway. I guess there's "native" 16:9 content (esp. direct-to-TV stuff), but do they actually squeeze released movie-movies to that ratio? 00:55:05 RodgerTheGreat: they're good for just about anything— but 16:9 is just too wide vs height to be usable IMO. 00:55:11 for computer usage 00:55:14 hm 00:55:22 fizzie: Movies are 16:9, yes. 00:55:25 In general. 00:55:27 On DVD and such that is. 00:55:32 Widescreen TV> 00:55:33 *. 00:55:56 That sounds strange; how do they do it, since the movies-in-a-movie-watching-place are something absurdly wide? 00:56:05 Flagrantly cropping? 00:56:12 Two 136x90 terminals side-by-side is my most common content on the 1920x1200 screen. 00:56:50 For a single full-screen web browser it's a bit disturbingly wide. 00:56:51 On this dinky "1050p" 16:10 20" screen I have three Safari windows with tabs, only one of which is really visible, and an IRC client in the lower-right corner. 00:56:55 They are frolicking. 00:56:59 And I refuse to use full-screen windows. 00:57:22 Well, I'm one of those tiling-wm crazies. 00:57:26 Funny, most movies I see on DVD and Blu-Ray are letter-boxed. 00:57:43 fizzie: There's also native (roughly) 16:9 movies. 00:57:53 00:57 pikhq: Funny, most movies I see on DVD and Blu-Ray are letter-boxed. ← really? 00:57:54 lameo 00:57:58 And also native 4:3 movies. 00:58:01 I don't really buy digital content so I didn't know 00:58:15 * ehird checks a site of pirates to see the kind of resolutions 00:58:26 Original aspect ratio, bitch. ;) 00:58:35 night 00:58:51 pikhq: Here's an odd one: 1824x992. 00:58:59 I own a single movie on DVD: Miyazaki's Totoro, bought for 6 eur from a sales bin, mostly because CAT BUS. 00:59:05 It's a blu-ray rip, cropped since there were black bars on *all 4 sides*. 00:59:12 (4:3 was the original Academy ratio, then they moved to nearly 16:9, then they went wider. 16:9 was chosen by the ATSC group as a compromise). 00:59:13 THE FAILURE, OH THE FAILURE. 00:59:15 ehird: *What*? 00:59:18 pikhq: yep 00:59:18 That is failure. 01:00:05 Hmm. A whole 76 pixels on the sides and 88 pixels on the top and bottom. 01:00:10 Why the hell? 01:00:24 Here's an actual blue-ray rip. 01:00:27 1920x1040. 01:00:30 WTFomatic. 01:00:41 ehird: Original aspect ratio. 01:00:47 Also, why the hell do modern HDTVs have overscanning? 01:00:54 Yes, that's right. Overscanning. 01:00:56 pikhq: Yeah, but, black bars, man. Even on 1080p screens. 01:01:23 pikhq: Ahh, our shitty 21" CRT TV does overscanning badly, I think. The sides get chopped off the image. 01:01:28 Least I think that's it. 01:01:38 An LCD 1080p TV will (in some cases) do minor upscaling so it can chop off a few pixels. 01:01:58 Upscaling a picture it can display *natively*. 01:02:19 pikhq: 16:9 DVDs seem to be 704x480. 01:02:26 That is uncomfortably low. 01:02:44 ehird: Uh... That's completely bizarre, given that that's the resolution of 4:3 DVDs. 01:02:51 16:9 DVDs are supposed to be 720x480. 01:02:54 And yes, it is low. 01:02:55 Oh, hm. 01:03:02 SDTV is low. 01:03:30 "Video: h.264 (4:3)" 01:03:32 Real helpful that 01:03:40 720x576 or something for PAL, one would assume. 01:03:47 fizzie: Yes. 01:03:58 pikhq: These 704x480 widescreens appear to be anamorphic. 01:04:07 Meaning...blackbarred. 01:04:20 ehird: As are 720x480 16:9 DVDs. 01:04:24 Wait, no. Hmm. 01:04:28 And 704x480 4:3 DVDs. 01:04:29 Ahhhhhh. 01:04:33 SDTV is anamorhpic. 01:04:38 pikhq: 704x480 16:9 anamorphic means "stretched". 01:04:46 As in, you have to squish it back to the proper 16:9 to play it. 01:04:54 But it's stored as squashed/stretched 704x480. 01:04:57 Why? No. Fucking. Clue! 01:05:10 You do realise that the same applies for 4:3, right? 01:05:16 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 01:05:18 -!- inurinternet has quit (Success). 01:05:20 I HATE VIDEO FORMATS 01:05:22 SDTV with square pixels would be 640x480. 01:05:25 THEY ARE RETARDED 01:05:51 HDTV is an attempt to make it non-retarded. 01:05:56 Square pixels are so square. 01:05:58 ... And people are still being dumb with it. 01:06:23 We should just have square fucking pixels with unsquashed video in the resolution and aspect ratio it's actually going to be played back on. 01:06:27 GOD. 01:06:35 ehird: Yeah. 01:07:00 I'll give the DVD spec some slack, because it still has to deal with the standards set in the 50s. 01:07:44 But everything that's not SDTV? Come on, just use fucking square pixels and encode it in the right aspect ratio. 01:07:50 There is *no reason* to encode freaking black bars. 01:08:06 pikhq: If I recall correctly, my father was present at the consortium-meeting-things that defined DVD. 01:08:11 Representing some sort of company or another. 01:08:20 So I will take my anger out on him. :-P 01:08:30 ehird: I wouldn't. 01:08:39 He is clearly an agent of the devil. 01:08:43 Evidence: DVD. 01:08:49 The DVD has to deal with legacy formats. 01:08:54 Phooey. 01:09:27 720x480 is the only time I will accept anything but square pixels in the right aspect ratio. 01:10:18 I seem to have a video file that has the resolution 660x362, but I think that's trying to match original 1.82 aspect ratio in the content, scaled down to some rather random number. 01:11:17 fizzie: does mplayer automatically handel anamorphic shit? 01:11:18 it should 01:11:29 As far as I know it does. 01:11:44 Assuming the container format is intelligent enough to encode the aspect ratio that it should be played at. 01:11:45 ehird: It's the first one to handle it properly. 01:11:47 that's nice 01:11:59 It's the only one that handles it right on AVI. 01:12:03 mplayer seems to be very good at "give me a file, I'll play it properly" 01:12:08 Well, other ffmpeg-based player might also do it right. 01:12:15 Yeah, that's what mplayer's great at. 01:12:30 It's also a rather good encoder, if you're willing to mess with the command line. 01:12:54 It seems less good at "five me an URL, I'll play it properly"; at least there's been a couple of strange asf/mms/whatever-streams only VLC could play for me. 01:13:01 s/five/give/ 01:13:34 pikhq: you mean mencoder? 01:13:34 fizzie: You have to add the -playlist argument for those, I think. 01:13:40 ehird: Yuh. 01:13:44 I've always wondered how to rip a DVD without reencoding it. 01:13:52 As in, just gimme the damn data in the standard MPEG2 format! 01:14:11 "-oac copy -ovc copy" could be suitable mencoder magic. 01:14:24 mm 01:14:41 ehird: mplayer -dumpstream -dumpfile foo.vob 01:14:48 Doesn't even remux it. 01:14:49 pikhq: that's a .vob 01:14:52 not an .mpeg thing 01:14:56 Yes. 01:15:00 I want an .mpeg :-P 01:15:05 That's the DVD on-disk format. 01:15:07 But WITHOUT reconverting. 01:15:11 Just stuff-it-into-the-container. 01:15:14 Technically, .mpeg would also be a valid extension. 01:15:18 Oh? 01:15:21 A .vob is a valid .mpeg? 01:15:33 pikhq: is dumpstream fast? 01:15:35 A .vob is a MPEG transport stream. 01:15:36 it would seem like it'd go in realtime 01:15:45 also, I want a regular video-style .mpeg 01:15:48 like downloaded from the interwebs 01:16:02 Dumpstream says "instead of playing it, dump that shit to disk as fast as you can." 01:16:06 Ah. 01:16:15 But what about .mpeggggg 01:16:18 The web says: "Program streams are used on DVD video discs and HD DVD video discs. The file extensions are VOB and EVO respectively. Blu-ray Discs use a transport stream (TS) format with an additional 4 byte time code added to the beginning of each TS packet." 01:16:31 And it claims that a .vob file is actually an MPEG-PS. 01:17:00 Not my area of expertise, though. I do know that the DVB broadcasts we get from digital TV are MPEG transport streams. 01:17:12 "mplayer -dumpstream -dumpfile foo.mpeg dvd://1" might work then. 01:17:51 At least mplayer'll play the result. :p 01:17:55 Seriously have to sleeps now. 01:18:01 Bai. 01:18:06 Baa-baa. 01:19:12 Erm, right. MPEG-PS, not TS. 01:19:26 pikhq: wat 01:19:38 Just aggreing with fizzie. 01:20:09 ah. 01:30:09 -!- kerlo has joined. 01:30:15 Well, I guess I have to find this out at some point. 01:30:19 What do I do with a .cpp file? 01:30:39 g++? 01:33:09 kerlo: You always surprise me with your lack of programming knowledge... 01:33:23 how can you not know how to compile a .cpp file and yet own and administrate a virtual server? 01:34:49 pikhq: gracias. 01:35:00 kerlo: Windows guy? 01:35:03 ehird: by paying $25 a month and yet not having much experience. 01:35:11 pikhq: si. 01:35:25 kerlo: Fix that. 01:35:37 * pikhq tosses kerlo a nickle for the blank media 01:35:38 Uh oh, now we have to listen to a windows guy justify his choice 01:35:44 Take cover! 01:36:19 ehird: Almost as bad and archaic as hearing a SLS guy justify his choice. 01:36:22 :p 01:36:31 pikhq: No, no— Yggdrasil. 01:36:33 SLS? 01:36:40 Sgeo: softlanding linux system 01:36:42 ancient linux distro 01:36:43 1992 01:36:44 Sgeo: The original distro. 01:36:56 "Yggdrasil was the first company to create a Live CD Linux distribution" 01:36:57 It's very fucking old. 01:36:58 Before 1995. 01:37:10 By "old", I mean "Slackware is a *fork* of it". 01:37:11 They charged for it 01:37:14 :-) 01:37:22 linux boot cd in 1992 01:38:03 ehird: I believe that last time, I justified my choice because you asked me to. 01:38:12 So no, you don't have to listen to me justify my choice again. 01:38:13 did you? 01:38:14 I don't recall 01:38:17 I don't have much of a memory 01:38:22 oh 01:38:28 kerlo: It was "Windows does everything I want", right? 01:38:30 kerlo: You still use Windows, so it can't have been a valid justification. 01:38:34 Only the worst argument for using Windows ever. 01:38:47 Actually, you listed... about 2 things Windows can't do that Linux could. 01:38:52 Which makes it an even worse argument. 01:39:11 I think it was that. 01:39:40 pikhq: Let's woe together about Windows users. 01:39:42 Yes, woe is a verb. 01:40:04 ehird: Let's. 01:40:08 * ehird woes. 01:40:19 * pikhq laments 01:40:40 lament: let's woe. 01:41:19 * pikhq woes 01:41:29 Should I find this funny or be sympathetic? 01:41:38 kerlo: You should woe. 01:41:46 * kerlo woes. 01:41:53 kerlo: Woe at yourself. 01:42:04 Then fix cause-of woe-from us. 01:42:53 * kerlo woes, and does not switch to Linux. 01:43:09 * pikhq beats kerlo with a real operating system. 01:43:16 Pick one, they're all more real than Windows. 01:43:25 Yes, including DOS. 01:43:46 * ehird punches kerlo and stomps on him. Drastic measures for (a) coloured people (as long as the colour isn't white), (b) immigrants and (c) Windows users. 01:44:02 The scummery and villanry of modern society! 01:44:30 Also, (d) Muslins. Death to fabric. 01:46:10 Ahem. 01:48:03 * Sgeo switched from Linux to Windows. What does that make me? 01:48:14 Sgeo: Benjamin Button. 01:48:16 Sgeo: Masochist. 01:48:30 pikhq: I prefer mine. 01:48:32 Sigh. I hate web sites where the password you have to use to log in is different from what you set your password to when you register. 01:48:48 what 01:49:08 I picked the password foo\bar. The account activation email told me my password was foo\\\\bar. My actual password ended up being foo\\bar. 01:59:04 -!- Gracenotes has joined. 02:00:46 bye 02:00:48 -!- Corun has quit. 02:16:49 -!- Gracenotes has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 02:18:55 -!- Gracenotes has joined. 02:30:29 -!- coppro has joined. 02:45:59 -!- bsmntbombdood_ has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)). 02:52:26 http://icehot.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/humor-linux.jpg 02:57:17 -!- bsmntbombdood_ has joined. 03:27:02 -!- inurinternet has joined. 03:45:49 -!- GregorR-L has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)). 04:14:12 mplayer will play _anything_ 04:16:34 I thought that was VLC? 04:17:23 -!- GregorR-L has joined. 04:23:45 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit. 04:30:49 meh. mplayer's scaletempo has failed for me 04:31:22 compiling... different flags... repository needs updates... nonfree packages... o_o 04:31:24 why would you want to do that? 04:31:54 so I can listen to audio and watch video at a rate I find more engaging 04:32:09 that sounds awful 04:32:26 better to spend 30-something minutes on a lecture than an hour 04:32:47 unless you are listening to speech manybe 04:32:50 it is wonderful 04:33:18 for books on tape and video or audio lectures for computer science, not movies or anything. 04:33:27 or math 04:43:38 -!- GregorR-L has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)). 04:47:58 but, alas, no such option exists 04:48:14 so I have to listen with the pitches screwed up, like a sixth or seventh up. 04:55:24 how does it work otherwise? 05:35:18 Gracenotes, some MIDI players do what you want >.> 05:35:37 bsmntbombdood_, speeding it up and lowering the pitch in the opposite direction? 05:58:44 Sgeo: how do you lower pitch? 05:59:34 bsmntbombdood_, I'm assuming it's possible. Maybe it isn't without slowing things down 06:16:32 one can lower pitch by transposing one pitch to another 06:16:38 (just got out of shower) 06:17:02 with MIDI files, this is very easy, since the internal representation is notes, not the sounds themselves 06:17:32 for wav/mp3/etc. there are various properties of sound you can exploit to do it... 06:18:03 obviously it's possible, since mplayer has a feature, just not here >:| 06:18:36 i don't get it 06:20:31 -!- kar8nga has joined. 06:26:12 bsmntbombdood_: about the pitch? 06:26:19 yeah 06:27:54 afaik, you can either speedup+raise pitch or slow down+lower it. And you can calculate how much you raised/lowered the pitch mathematically and reverse that amount. 06:28:49 there is possibly an algorithm that combines these steps.. otherwise the quality might be lowered. I am not terribly familiar with sound science >_> 06:29:26 MIDI files are different entirely: instead of storing WAVs, they store discrete notes, noting exactly where they start and end and splitting them up into separate tracks 06:29:34 *waves 06:30:24 for example, a note might have the pitch C4. So to transpose it down an octave, just change it to C3, and likewise for all other notes. 06:31:25 or to speed up, just change the tempos used throughout the song accordingly. 06:31:37 which is an explicit variable, for tempo. 06:32:18 well obviously midi is easy 06:33:45 I know more than a few people who speed up lectures this way 06:34:22 are able to absorb content faster. It works for me too, but without the pitch correction it can get annoying. 06:34:50 well, sure 06:41:36 i just don't understand the mechanics 06:42:44 I can't say I do entirely either. From a musical perspective at least (playing piano), pitch can be modeled nicely mathematically 06:50:18 Should I try M*U*S*H? 06:55:09 http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/wolfram-alpha.php 06:56:47 -!- Sgeo has quit ("Leaving"). 06:59:38 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote closed the connection). 07:38:13 Yes, you can do both the speed-up-without-pitch-changes and alter-pitch-without-tempo-changes operations to generic digital audio, though you're always going to get some artifacts. 07:41:16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_timescale-pitch_modification seems to be a (rather variable-quality) article about it. 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 08:05:22 Speaking of memory cards (though the discussion ended a long ago, I guess), it seems that they've started to make 16 GB MicroSD(HC) cards since the last time I looked (when they went up to 8). That's the crazy. 08:11:27 -!- Slereah has joined. 08:17:05 -!- tombom has joined. 08:43:14 -!- bsmntbombdood has joined. 08:44:02 -!- bsmntbombdood_ has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 08:44:09 ....my computer just crashed 09:03:25 -!- GregorR-L has joined. 09:21:04 -!- oklodok has joined. 09:21:35 -!- oklodok has set topic: international tub http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric/. 09:22:28 The international tub of esoteric language developers. 09:24:29 * bsmntbombdood soaps of oklodok 09:24:48 i wonder what all of his suffixes mean 09:24:55 -!- oklodok has set topic: The international tub of esoteric language developers. Consider feasting on http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric/. 09:25:17 most of my suffices are just english words 09:25:24 this one is a duck. 09:25:37 i also have other birds like kok 09:27:57 fok is a hawk, f and h are the same character in finnish, for some values of lying my ass off 09:35:42 What's oklowob, then? 09:38:07 i'm not nearly as good with birds as my subconscious, no idea. 09:38:24 warbler or something? 09:55:30 -!- oerjan has joined. 09:56:36 hi oerjan 09:56:56 was the food you ate last bitter 09:56:56 hi oklodok 09:57:17 * oerjan just finished a slice with strawberry jam, so no 09:57:24 mmm 09:57:36 ima eat like noodles and meat today. 09:57:47 * oerjan now starts on the liver paté 09:57:57 i don't consider that bitter either 10:00:32 oh noes we're a tub now 10:01:55 well would you rather be in a cub or a rub? perv. 10:02:32 shit, the ai wins me in two rounds. 10:03:02 and here i thought i was special 10:03:21 rub a dub dub 10:20:57 How would you like to rub-a-dub-dub in my tub 11:15:51 oklodok, it wasn't bitter. It was butter (well, mostly bread, but that isn't as funny) 11:37:20 -!- oklodok has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 12:00:36 -!- KingOfKarlsruhe has joined. 12:11:54 -!- oerjan has quit (anthony.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 12:11:54 -!- kerlo has quit (anthony.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 12:12:33 -!- oerjan has joined. 12:12:33 -!- kerlo has joined. 12:16:38 -!- oerjan has quit (anthony.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 12:16:38 -!- kerlo has quit (anthony.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 12:18:36 -!- oerjan has joined. 12:18:36 -!- kerlo has joined. 12:26:10 -!- tombom has quit ("Peace and Protection 4.22.2"). 12:51:18 -!- ais523 has joined. 13:12:35 -!- MizardX has quit ("What are you sinking about?"). 13:31:05 hm 13:31:09 hi ais523 13:31:15 p[-43]=1; 13:31:15 p[-36]=11; 13:31:15 p[1]=6; 13:31:15 -do { 13:31:15 +{int i;for(i=0;i<1;i++){ 13:31:15 p[-43]+=255; 13:31:17 p[-36]+=16; 13:31:19 -} while (p[-43]); 13:31:21 +}} 13:31:29 I wonder why lostking contains a loop around that at all 13:31:30 ... 13:31:48 hmm... isn't that a repeat-once loop? 13:31:57 which is not really a loop at all 13:32:10 it could be an artifact of the way BFBASIC works 13:32:12 ais523, hm an if you mean? 13:32:41 ais523, however see the index cell is set to a constant just above 13:32:49 yes 13:32:52 so in that case it is a "dead if, once" 13:32:55 which is why the loop always iterates exactly once 13:32:57