Processing

I really am beginning to appreciate the power of multi-threaded processing.

Recently obtained a Quad Core 2.4GHz Intel CPU, and I must say I'm really enjoying the benefits.

Rendering an image takes a fraction of the time. Right now I'm running a batch video conversion job and a DVD conversion job in parallel, with a copy file operation from my hard disk to my SD card, with my antivirus running a scan, whilst opening up a crapload of Youtube videos, and my processor is handling them all without a sweat. No stuttering, no freezes, nothing.

Wonder what would happen if I threw a 3D render with maximum antialiasing, unoptimized volumetric lights and fog with the option of recomputing subrays enabled, into the mess of processes.

I get the feeling my computer wouldn't find it too much of a challenge.

:/

I don't know why, but it's kind of painful when I see them. The feeling is really strange. You'd understand why, right? :/

Tired out of my mind.

Personality Test

Scientifically proven personality test here:
Personality Test


According to the test, I am an INTJ (Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Judging) type. o.0

To outsiders, INTJs may appear to project an aura of "definiteness", of self-confidence. This self-confidence, sometimes mistaken for simple arrogance by the less decisive, is actually of a very specific rather than a general nature; its source lies in the specialized knowledge systems that most INTJs start building at an early age. When it comes to their own areas of expertise -- and INTJs can have several -- they will be able to tell you almost immediately whether or not they can help you, and if so, how. INTJs know what they know, and perhaps still more importantly, they know what they don't know.

INTJs are perfectionists, with a seemingly endless capacity for improving upon anything that takes their interest. What prevents them from becoming chronically bogged down in this pursuit of perfection is the pragmatism so characteristic of the type: INTJs apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion "Does it work?" to everything from their own research efforts to the prevailing social norms. This in turn produces an unusual independence of mind, freeing the INTJ from the constraints of authority, convention, or sentiment for its own sake.

INTJs are known as the "Systems Builders" of the types, perhaps in part because they possess the unusual trait combination of imagination and reliability. Whatever system an INTJ happens to be working on is for them the equivalent of a moral cause to an INFJ; both perfectionism and disregard for authority may come into play, as INTJs can be unsparing of both themselves and the others on the project. Anyone considered to be "slacking," including superiors, will lose their respect -- and will generally be made aware of this; INTJs have also been known to take it upon themselves to implement critical decisions without consulting their supervisors or co-workers. On the other hand, they do tend to be scrupulous and even-handed about recognizing the individual contributions that have gone into a project, and have a gift for seizing opportunities which others might not even notice.

In the broadest terms, what INTJs "do" tends to be what they "know". Typical INTJ career choices are in the sciences and engineering, but they can be found wherever a combination of intellect and incisiveness are required (e.g., law, some areas of academia). INTJs can rise to management positions when they are willing to invest time in marketing their abilities as well as enhancing them, and (whether for the sake of ambition or the desire for privacy) many also find it useful to learn to simulate some degree of surface conformism in order to mask their inherent unconventionality.

(section omitted, to be mentioned below)

Probably the strongest INTJ assets in the interpersonal area are their intuitive abilities and their willingness to "work at" a relationship. Although as Ts they do not always have the kind of natural empathy that many Fs do, the Intuitive function can often act as a good substitute by synthesizing the probable meanings behind such things as tone of voice, turn of phrase, and facial expression. This ability can then be honed and directed by consistent, repeated efforts to understand and support those they care about, and those relationships which ultimately do become established with an INTJ tend to be characterized by their robustness, stability, and good communications.

Points of interest:

Personal relationships, particularly romantic ones, can be the INTJ's Achilles heel. While they are capable of caring deeply for others (usually a select few), and are willing to spend a great deal of time and effort on a relationship, the knowledge and self-confidence that make them so successful in other areas can suddenly abandon or mislead them in interpersonal situations.

This happens in part because many INTJs do not readily grasp the social rituals; for instance, they tend to have little patience and less understanding of such things as small talk and flirtation (which most types consider half the fun of a relationship). To complicate matters, INTJs are usually extremely private people, and can often be naturally impassive as well, which makes them easy to misread and misunderstand. Perhaps the most fundamental problem, however, is that INTJs really want people to make sense. :-) This sometimes results in a peculiar naivete', paralleling that of many Fs -- only instead of expecting inexhaustible affection and empathy from a romantic relationship, the INTJ will expect inexhaustible reasonability and directness.

That is... unfortunately true. Far more accurate than I'm comfortable with. Also:

Rationals are the least likely types to remember important days, such as anniversaries, birthdays, and holidays. However, they do tend to be steadfast, being among the most committed. Their partners can expect intellectual stimulation, debating from multiple perspectives, and a lot of autonomy. Rationals are the most likely types to treat their partners as equal in adult status.

I hate the first sentence. That part always gets me in deep shit.

People also of INTJ type:
Isaac Newton
Niels Bohr
C. G. Jung
Michel de Montaigne
Michel Nostradamus
Ada Lovelace
Jane Austen (what the bloody hell, I'm doing her book Pride and Prejudice for Literature class)

Vista

No, not the Microsoft operating system.

The name of my newly done terrain piece, in dedication to the one who has supported me all the while. Thank you.



Render time: 18 minutes.

Rendered Resolution: 2400x1800
Hardware used:
Intel Core 2 Quad @ 2.4GHZ
NVidia 6600GT

Full view on my dA account. If you don't know what it is, too bad.

Nuggets

Hm. Nuggets.

I recall a theory about MacDonalds' nuggets. I believe I heard it from my cousin.

The Theory of the Typical McNugget Shape

Firstly, we postulate that McNuggets come in 3 distinguished shapes: the Foot (also known as the Boot), the Diamond and the Circle.

The Foot-shaped nugget looks precisely the way it is described, but is sometimes affectionately known as Italy (to be honest, wtf?). The Diamond-shaped nugget comes in the form of women's best friend, except it is shaped similar only in 2 planes (X and Y), with a relatively uniform thickness, and is generally considered to be infinitely more tasty, and infinitely less likely to break your teeth (this is a mere hypothesis; you are free to try your teeth on a real diamond if you wish). The Circle-shaped nugget approaches the shape of a circle, hence the very obvious name.

Statistical observation of this phenomenon may be executed by examining the contents of Chicken McNuggets boxes. 3 differently-sized boxes exist for this purpose: boxes designed for 6 nuggets, 9 nuggets and 20 nuggets. Using a pseudorandom number generator passed through a hashing function that will eventually hash any real number to either the integers 6, 9 or 20 (a modulus 3 function for example), one will find that as the number of randomly chosen boxes 'n' increases, the probability of any single nugget shaped like the above appearing will approach 33.3%, with a negligible number of anomalous shapes.

--

That marks the end of a basic postulation of the thesis.

Oh and, Wikipedia has something to say on the subject too.


WIKIPEDIA
--
A McNugget number is the total number of McDonald's chicken McNuggets in any number of boxes. The original boxes (prior to the introduction of the Happy Meal-sized nugget boxes) were of 6, 9, and 20 nuggets.

According to Schur's theorem, since 6, 9, and 20 are relatively prime, any sufficiently large number can be expressed as a linear combination of these numbers. They are relatively prime because 6=2*3, 9=3*3, and 20=2*2*5, making 1 the greatest common divisor. Therefore, there exists a largest non-McNugget number, and all numbers larger than it are McNugget numbers.
--

You are free to verify this on the webpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_problem