Search Results

Search found 6619 results on 265 pages for 'digital logic'.

Page 1/265 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Relational Clausal Logic question: what is a Herbrand interpretation

    - by anotherstat
    I'm having a hard time coming to grips with relational clausal logic, and I'm not sure if this is the place to ask but it would be help me so much with revision if anyone could provide guidance with the following questions. Let P be the program: academic(X); student(X); other_staff(X):- works_in(X, university). :-student(john). :-other_staff(john). works_in(john, university) Question: Which are the Herbrand interpreations of P? AS

    Read the article

  • Digital Blue Digital Movie Creator 3.0 driver

    - by hjdx
    I'm having a complete 'mare of a time trying to use my schools Digital Blue cameras. We've got the model 3 ones, but can't find the driver disc and using the Windows Hardware Installation Wizard gets me no where! Can you help me to find the driver? When I've used it at my old school it had a piece of software called the Digital Movie Creator, which I've heard you can use to make stop-motion films, which is what I want to do! This is what it looks like http://www.amazon.co.uk/Digital-Movie-Creator-1GB-Card/dp/B000LP30LA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1265928833&sr=1-2

    Read the article

  • Separating physics and game logic from UI code

    - by futlib
    I'm working on a simple block-based puzzle game. The game play consists pretty much of moving blocks around in the game area, so it's a trivial physics simulation. My implementation, however, is in my opinion far from ideal and I'm wondering if you can give me any pointers on how to do it better. I've split the code up into two areas: Game logic and UI, as I did with a lot of puzzle games: The game logic is responsible for the general rules of the game (e.g. the formal rule system in chess) The UI displays the game area and pieces (e.g. chess board and pieces) and is responsible for animations (e.g. animated movement of chess pieces) The game logic represents the game state as a logical grid, where each unit is one cell's width/height on the grid. So for a grid of width 6, you can move a block of width 2 four times until it collides with the boundary. The UI takes this grid, and draws it by converting logical sizes into pixel sizes (that is, multiplies it by a constant). However, since the game has hardly any game logic, my game logic layer [1] doesn't have much to do except collision detection. Here's how it works: Player starts to drag a piece UI asks game logic for the legal movement area of that piece and lets the player drag it within that area Player lets go of a piece UI snaps the piece to the grid (so that it is at a valid logical position) UI tells game logic the new logical position (via mutator methods, which I'd rather avoid) I'm not quite happy with that: I'm writing unit tests for my game logic layer, but not the UI, and it turned out all the tricky code is in the UI: Stopping the piece from colliding with others or the boundary and snapping it to the grid. I don't like the fact that the UI tells the game logic about the new state, I would rather have it call a movePieceLeft() method or something like that, as in my other games, but I didn't get far with that approach, because the game logic knows nothing about the dragging and snapping that's possible in the UI. I think the best thing to do would be to get rid of my game logic layer and implement a physics layer instead. I've got a few questions regarding that: Is such a physics layer common, or is it more typical to have the game logic layer do this? Would the snapping to grid and piece dragging code belong to the UI or the physics layer? Would such a physics layer typically work with pixel sizes or with some kind of logical unit, like my game logic layer? I've seen event-based collision detection in a game's code base once, that is, the player would just drag the piece, the UI would render that obediently and notify the physics system, and the physics system would call a onCollision() method on the piece once a collision is detected. What is more common? This approach or asking for the legal movement area first? [1] layer is probably not the right word for what I mean, but subsystem sounds overblown and class is misguiding, because each layer can consist of several classes.

    Read the article

  • Project structure: where to put business logic

    - by Mister Smith
    First of all, I'm not asking where does business logic belong. This has been asked before and most answers I've read agree in that it belongs in the model: Where to put business logic in MVC design? How much business logic should be allowed to exist in the controller layer? How accurate is "Business logic should be in a service, not in a model"? Why put the business logic in the model? What happens when I have multiple types of storage? However people disagree in the way this logic should be distributed across classes. There seem to exist three major currents of thought: Fat model with business logic inside entity classes. Anemic model and business logic in "Service" classes. It depends. I find all of them problematic. The first option is what most Fowlerites stick to. The problem with a fat model is that sometimes a business logic funtion is not only related to a class, and instead uses a bunch of other classes. If, for example, we are developing a web store, there should be a function that calcs an order's total. We could think of putting this function inside the Order class, but what actually happens is that the logic needs to use different classes, not only data contained in the Order class, but also in the User class, the Session class, and maybe the Tax class, Country class, or Giftcard, Payment, etc. Some of these classes could be composed inside the Order class, but some others not. Sorry if the example is not very good, but I hope you understand what I mean. Putting such a function inside the Order class would break the single responsibility principle, adding unnecesary dependences. The business logic would be scattered across entity classes, making it hard to find. The second option is the one I usually follow, but after many projects I'm still in doubt about how to name the class or classes holding the business logic. In my company we usually develop apps with offline capabilities. The user is able to perform entire transactions offline, so all validation and business rules should be implemented in the client, and then there's usually a background thread that syncs with the server. So we usually have the following classes/packages in every project: Data model (DTOs) Data Access Layer (Persistence) Web Services layer (Usually one class per WS, and one method per WS method). Now for the business logic, what is the standard approach? A single class holding all the logic? Multiple classes? (if so, what criteria is used to distribute the logic across them?). And how should we name them? FooManager? FooService? (I know the last one is common, but in our case it is bad naming because the WS layer usually has classes named FooWebService). The third option is probably the right one, but it is also devoid of any useful info. To sum up: I don't like the first approach, but I accept that I might have been unable to fully understand the Zen of it. So if you advocate for fat models as the only and universal solution you are welcome to post links explaining how to do it the right way. I'd like to know what is the standard design and naming conventions for the second approach in OO languages. Class names and package structure, in particular. It would also be helpful too if you could include links to Open Source projects showing how it is done. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • EU Digital Agenda scores 85/100

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    If the Digital Agenda was a bottle of wine and I were wine critic Robert Parker, I would say the Digital Agenda has "a great bouquet, many good elements, with astringent, dry and puckering mouth feel that will not please everyone, but still displaying some finesse. A somewhat controlled effort with no surprises and a few noticeable flaws in the delivery. Noticeably shorter aftertaste than advertised by the producers. Score: 85/100. Enjoy now". The EU Digital Agenda states that "standards are vital for interoperability" and has a whole chapter on interoperability and standards. With this strong emphasis, there is hope the EU's outdated standardization system finally is headed for reform. It has been 23 years since the legal framework of standardisation was completed by Council Decision 87/95/EEC8 in the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector. Standardization is market driven. For several decades the IT industry has been developing standards and specifications in global open standards development organisations (fora/consortia), many of which have transparency procedures and practices far superior to the European Standards Organizations. The Digital Agenda rightly states: "reflecting the rise and growing importance of ICT standards developed by certain global fora and consortia". Some fora/consortia, of course, are distorted, influenced by single vendors, have poor track record, and need constant vigilance, but they are the minority. Therefore, the recognition needs to be accompanied by eligibility criteria focused on openness. Will the EU reform its ICT standardization by the end of 2010? Possibly, and only if DG Enterprise takes on board that Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) have driven half of the productivity growth in Europe over the past 15 years, a prominent fact in the EU's excellent Digital Competitiveness report 2010 published on Monday 17 May. It is ok to single out the ICT sector. It simply is the most important sector right now as it fuels growth in all other sectors. Let's not wait for the entire standardization package which may take another few years. Europe does not have time. The Digital Agenda is an umbrella strategy with deliveries from a host of actors across the Commission. For instance, the EU promises to issue "guidance on transparent ex-ante disclosure rules for essential intellectual property rights and licensing terms and conditions in the context of standard setting", by 2011 in the Horisontal Guidelines now out for public consultation by DG COMP and to some extent by DG ENTR's standardization policy reform. This is important. The EU will issue procurement guidance as interoperability frameworks are put into practice. This is a joint responsibility of several DGs, and is likely to suffer coordination problems, controversy and delays. We have seen plenty of the latter already and I have commented on the Commission's own interoperability elsewhere, with mixed luck. :( Yesterday, I watched the cartoonesque Korean western film The Good, the Bad and the Weird. In the movie (and I meant in the movie only), a bandit, a thief, and a bounty hunter, all excellent at whatever they do, fight for a treasure map. Whether that is a good analogy for the situation within the Commission, others are better judges of than I. However, as a movie fanatic, I still await the final shoot-out, and, as in the film, the only certainty is that "life is about chasing and being chased". The missed opportunity (in this case not following up the push from Member States to better define open standards based interoperability) is a casualty of the chaos ensued in the European Wild West (and I mean that in the most endearing sense, and my excuses beforehand to actors who possibly justifiably cannot bear being compared to fictional movie characters). Instead of exposing the ongoing fight, the EU opted for the legalistic use of the term "standards" throughout the document. This is a term that--to the EU-- excludes most standards used by the IT industry world wide. So, while it, for a moment, meant "weapon down", it will not lead to lasting peace. The Digital Agenda calls for the Member States to "Implement commitments on interoperability and standards in the Malmö and Granada Declarations by 2013". This is a far cry from the actual Ministerial Declarations which called upon the Commission to help them with this implementation by recognizing and further defining open standards based interoperability. Unless there is more forthcoming from the Commission, the market's judgement will be: you simply fall short. Generally, I think the EU focus now should be "from policy to practice" and the Digital Agenda does indeed stop short of tackling some highly practical issues. There is need for progress beyond the Digital Agenda. Here are some suggestions that would help Europe re-take global leadership on openness, public sector reform, and economic growth: A strong European software strategy centred around open standards based interoperability by 2011. An ambitious new eCommission strategy for 2011-15 focused on migration to open standards by 2015. Aligning the IT portfolio across the Commission into one Digital Agenda DG by 2012. Focusing all best practice exchange in eGovernment on one social networking site, epractice.eu (full disclosure: I had a role in getting that site up and running) Prioritizing public sector needs in global standardization over European standardization by 2014.

    Read the article

  • Revolutionizing Digital Commerce

    - by bwalstra
    The confluence of the Internet, the pace of change in technology, and the demands of the value-conscious consumer are accelerating the evolution of the global digital marketplace at an unprecedented rate. Success in the new digital economy has become inextricably linked with the agility to launch innovative products, services, and new business models efficiently with minimal risk. A major obstacle to agility, and by extension to success in digital commerce, is the fact that by and large information technology (IT) infrastructure is tightly coupled with particular business models. Enterprises, through well intentioned but misconstrued costsaving belief, continue to customize existing infrastructure and create now silos to support new business models. In reality, this approach results in rigid, inflexible business processes and exposes the enterprise to unnecessary risks, higher opportunity costs, and lower profit margins. Oracle, a leading supplier of business solutions to the enterprise, is enabling the business strategies necessary to succeed in the digital economy by offering a modern, open, modular, and functionally comprehensive revenue management solution that decouples IT infrastructure from business models. Enterprises using the Oracle solution are able to focus on core competencies and innovate unimpeded, assuring that business and IT systems will seamlessly adapt to changing conditions of the digital economy. Revolutionizing Digital Commerce:  An Oracle Revenue Management Solution

    Read the article

  • Synchronization between game logic thread and rendering thread

    - by user782220
    How does one separate game logic and rendering? I know there seem to already be questions on here asking exactly that but the answers are not satisfactory to me. From what I understand so far the point of separating them into different threads is so that game logic can start running for the next tick immediately instead of waiting for the next vsync where rendering finally returns from the swapbuffer call its been blocking on. But specifically what data structures are used to prevent race conditions between the game logic thread and the rendering thread. Presumably the rendering thread needs access to various variables to figure out what to draw, but game logic could be updating these same variables. Is there a de facto standard technique for handling this problem. Maybe like copy the data needed by the rendering thread after every execution of the game logic. Whatever the solution is will the overhead of synchronization or whatever be less than just running everything single threaded?

    Read the article

  • Entity/Component based engine rendering separation from logic

    - by Denis Narushevich
    I noticed in Unity3D that each gameObject(entity) have its own renderer component, as far I understand, such component handle rendering logic. I wonder if it is a common practice in entity/component based engines, when single entity have renderer components and logic components such as position, behavior altogether in one box? Such approach sound odd to me, in my understanding entity itself belongs to logic part and shouldn't contain any render specific things inside. With such approach it is impossible to swap renderers, it would require to rewrite all that customized renderers. The way I would do it is, that entity would contain only logic specific components, like AI,transform,scripts plus reference to mesh, or sprite. Then some entity with Camera component would store all references to object that is visible to the camera. And in order to render all that stuff I would have to pass Camera reference to Renderer class and render all sprites,meshes of visible entities. Is such approach somehow wrong?

    Read the article

  • Authenticating a Server with Digital Signatures

    - by TomS
    I understand how Non-repudiation and Integrity are achieved with Digital Signatures, but it's the Authentication that I don't grasp yet. I'm developing a Client-Server application in C#, that should be capable of Authentication with Digital Certificates and Digital Signatures. I know how to check the validity and integrity of a Signature (with SignedCms.CheckSignature()), but how does this authenticates any of the parts involved? For example: The client asks the Server for a Digital Signature, The client receives the signature and validates it, If the validation succeeds, continue. The client could be a victim of a man-in-the middle attack and receive a valid signature in step 2. The validation would succeed, but the client wouldn't be talking to the right server. What am I missing?

    Read the article

  • Digital Agenda in the EU means open standards after all

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    European Commission Vice President Neelie Kroes speech on Openness at the heart of the EU Digital Agenda at Open Forum Europe 2010 Summit in Brussels refocuses the EU Digital Agenda on open standards. I say the speech scores a 90/100, smooth, smart, a little vicious at the fringes, maybe? Anyway, it shows the strategy might age and implement well. This is Dutch pragmatism at its best. The EU Digital Agenda (I give it an 85/100 score), while laudable, stops short of using the term. The next step for the European Commission is defining the term open standards. If they do that, and do it right, Vice President Kroes will go into history as having made a significant contribution towards global progress in e-government by possibly eradicating lock-in forever. Moreover, she will put Europe's SMEs in a better position to succeed in a global IT market filled with barriers to entry from players not fully understanding, using, or unpacking standards. Kroes' interesting suggestion that she will now explore a "legal proposal" on interoperability that will have an impact on all IT companies operating in the European market is more up for debate. An interoperability directive? One run by DG COMP or one run by DG INFSO, telecom style? Would something like that work? Would the industry like it? Would it help European governments? Possibly, if done right. The good thing was, Kroes pointed out that she will look for input from the industry. Kroes' track record is one of not being scared of taking on the Titans. She also wants to enact real, positive, lasting change. "I will not go anywhere", she said. All of that is good. And she does understand the importance of open standards. Let's now start discussing the details. Implementing the Digital Agenda is not simple. It requires collaboration across the various Directorates in the European Commission. Mounting a new Interoperability directive is also never attempted before. Getting it right is important. Even possibly finding out it cannot be done right and choosing a more light weight approach that is equally effective would be bold. Go Kroes!

    Read the article

  • Logic / Render phases with a single thread

    - by DevilWithin
    The question I have may generate different opinions from different developers, but I'd still like to have an answer on this. Its all about the updating and rendering steps of the game loop, and their use under multi and single threaded environments. Currently, there is one thread running, which takes care of sequentially executing events , logic and rendering. Sometimes, the logic part may wish to change the game state to something else, and in between do some loading of files. The result is that the game hangs completely while loading, and then proceeds to normal rendering of the new state. To go around this, i could make another thread, do the loading there while the main thread renders a smooth loading animation, and then proceed normally. The real question is about if i don't create another thread. I could refresh the screen from the logic thread, and provide some basic loading screen, which could be not so smoothly updated while the files load. In fact, this approach is not loved by a lot of developers, as it scrambles render code in the logic step, which may cause problems of different sorts.. Hope its clear!

    Read the article

  • Describe business logic with diagrams

    - by Nikos M.
    I am currently developing a web application for my thesis.I was asked by my professor to make diagrams to describe the business logic. Since I don't have a prior experience, I am pretty confused with all the terminology. I managed to clarify,I think, what business rules and business logic are, but I can't find out how you describe the business logic. Is it something particular or is it something more general? Do I need to learn UML? Does the fact that I use MVC affects the way I'll describe it?

    Read the article

  • How to Identify Stuck Pixels and Remove Them from Your Digital Photos

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    If you’ve noticed hotspots in your digital photos, areas where a stuck pixel in the camera’s sensor has rendered very bright spots of color that don’t belong in the image, you’re not alone. It’s an incredibly common phenomenon, but that doesn’t mean you have to put up with it. Read on as we discuss what distinguishes stuck pixels from other sensor defects and problems, how to identify it, and how to fix it both in-camera and out.Click Here to Continue Reading

    Read the article

  • Adding dynamic business logic/business process checks to a system

    - by Jordan Reiter
    I'm wondering if there is a good extant pattern (language here is Python/Django but also interested on the more abstract level) for creating a business logic layer that can be created without coding. For example, suppose that a house rental should only be available during a specific time. A coder might create the following class: from bizlogic import rules, LogicRule from orders.models import Order class BeachHouseAvailable(LogicRule): def check(self, reservation): house = reservation.house_reserved if not (house.earliest_available < reservation.starts < house.latest_available ) raise RuleViolationWhen("Beach house is available only between %s and %s" % (house.earliest_available, house.latest_available)) return True rules.add(Order, BeachHouseAvailable, name="BeachHouse Available") This is fine, but I don't want to have to code something like this each time a new rule is needed. I'd like to create something dynamic, ideally something that can be stored in a database. The thing is, it would have to be flexible enough to encompass a wide variety of rules: avoiding duplicates/overlaps (to continue the example "You already have a reservation for this time/location") logic rules ("You can't rent a house to yourself", "This house is in a different place from your chosen destination") sanity tests ("You've set a rental price that's 10x the normal rate. Are you sure this is the right price?" Things like that. Before I recreate the wheel, I'm wondering if there are already methods out there for doing something like this.

    Read the article

  • Dynamically evaluating simple boolean logic in Python

    - by a paid nerd
    I've got some dynamically-generated boolean logic expressions, like: (A or B) and (C or D) A or (A and B) A empty - evaluates to True The placeholders get replaced with booleans. Should I, Convert this information to a Python expression like True or (True or False) and eval it? Create a binary tree where a node is either a bool or Conjunction/Disjunction object and recursively evaluate it? Convert it into nested S-expressions and use a Lisp parser? Something else? Suggestions welcome.

    Read the article

  • Digital Certificate Parsing Library in C++?

    - by Sherwood Hu
    I used Crypto++ for my application. However it lacks a digital certificate parser. I know that openSSL has one, but I have to learn the whole library again. Is there some parsing library existing for C++? All I want is to read the certificate and extract some fields, including the public key.

    Read the article

  • Why (not) logic programming?

    - by Anto
    I have not yet heard about any uses of a logical programming language (such as Prolog) in the software industry, nor do I know of usage of it in hobby programming or open source projects. It (Prolog) is used as an academic language to some extent, though (why is it used in academia?). This makes me wonder, why should you use logic programming, and why not? Why is it not getting any detectable industry usage?

    Read the article

  • Digital Blue Digital Movie Creator 3.0 driver

    - by user27977
    I'm having a complete 'mare of a time trying to use my schools Digital Blue cameras. We've got the model 3 ones, but can't find the driver disc and using the Windows Hardware Installation Wizard gets me no where! Can you help me to find the driver? When I've used it at my old school it had a piece of software called the Digital Movie Creator, which I've heard you can use to make stop-motion films, which is what I want to do! This is what it looks like http://www.amazon.co.uk/Digital-Movie-Creator-1GB-Card/dp/B000LP30LA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1265928833&sr=1-2

    Read the article

  • Implementing a "state-machine" logic for methods required by an object in C++

    - by user827992
    What I have: 1 hypothetical object/class + other classes and related methods that gives me functionality. What I want: linking this object to 0 to N methods in realtime on request when an event is triggered Each event is related to a single method or a class, so a single event does not necessarily mean "connect this 1 method only" but can also mean "connect all the methods from that class or a group of methods" Avoiding linked lists because I have to browse the entire list to know what methods are linked, because this does not ensure me that the linked methods are kept in a particular order (let's say an alphabetic order by their names or classes), and also because this involve a massive amount of pointers usage. Example: I have an object Employee Jon, Jon acquires knowledge and forgets things pretty easily, so his skills may vary during a period of time, I'm responsible for what Jon can add or remove from his CV, how can I implement this logic?

    Read the article

  • MVC - Business Logic

    - by BriskLabs Pakistan
    I have created a MVC based simple java application. its helps the user to add records through data forms to database..... i want that the data that i put into the database as a record is worked upon i.e by performing calculations on it. the original data should remain unaffected. while the new data after calculations performed must be stored as a new entity record into database. Where should i write the code for this background calculation .. as it is the rules and business logic... in a new java beans file... Please guide. regards

    Read the article

  • Where to put business logic in MVC design?

    - by BriskLabs Pakistan
    I have created a simple MVC java application that adds records through data forms to a database. my app collects data, it also validates it and stores it. This is because the data is being sourced online from different users. the data is mostly numeric in nature. now on the numeric data being stored into database (SQL server) , i wish that my app should be able to perform computations... and display it. the user is not interested in how computations are done so they must be encapsulated. the user must only be able to view the simple computed data which for example A column data - B Column data / C column data etc... and just display it to the user... i know how to write stored procedures for same but i want a 3 tier app I want the data, that I put into the database as a record, worked upon by performing calculations on it. However, the original data should remain unaffected, while the new data, post-calculations, must be stored as a new entity record into the database. Where should I write the code for this background calculation? As it is the rules and business logic... in a new java beans files ?

    Read the article

  • Logic Circuits & Shift Registers?

    - by Thomas Covenant
    Hey all, Could anyone point me to a logical diagram of, or show me how to create, a Parrallel In/Serial Out shift register that uses J-K Flip flops? I've found diagrams that use D types, but no J-K's. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Question on First Order Logic formula

    - by none
    Hi, Can someone validate the following. I am supposed to 'write a formula asserting that for every number there's a unique next number...true for integers for instance' L(x,y) means x is smaller than y the intended Domain is the Integer numbers Can I give ∀x ∀y [ x<y ⇒ ( ∃z : z<x ∨ y<z ) ] Thanks

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >