Slashdot Mirror
Donkey Kong Recreated Using 6,400 Post-it Notes
NickFitz writes "Students at UCSC have recreated the first level of Donkey Kong using 6,400 Post-it notes stuck to the windows of the E2 building. It took a team of about 10 people five hours to complete the work, which will remain in place until May 1. There's a time-lapse video of the construction process."
It would be playable.
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
Nice to see students remembering the past. :)
Stop messing with my head!
... the IPO would be done. :P
So paper cuts don't count as bleeding edge?
How can you tell the first one apart from any of the other levels of Donkey Kong? That sure looks like the sixth level to me.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Hooray for geeks with way too much time on their hands.
Technoli
If they're going to make it so big the least those billy goats could do is use 2xSaI. *sigh*
Quit messing with our minds!
NNNNNeeeeerrrrrrrrddddddsssssssssssss!!!!!!
You mean this?
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
...it would be playable, but only if you had the side of a hotel to play on...
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
6,400 post-it notes ought to be enough to re-create any level.
AFAIK, the paper industry actually plants new forest for the purpose of cutting it down 20 years later, rather than cutting any more old forest. So, because of the paper industry, we actually have more forest than we would otherwise. I know hating paper waste is "eco-aware", but really, it is more like "eco-sheeple"... FYI, recycling produces a lot of very nasty pollutants, too. Not that those necessarily outweigh the benefits of not just filling up landfills, but you've got to be aware of these things or you'll end up harming your cause rather than helping it.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
Do you actually have any idea what an old-growth forest looks like and how an an old-growth forest ecosystem works? Because if you did, you'd know that old growth forests have ecosystems that are far more diverse than monocultures. Also, monocultures require far more energy to keep healthy(gasoline + foresters time + spraying) than mixed vegitation(none).
Today's lucky number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
[sigh] I'm saddened that I even bothered to think about this...
i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
There is a huge difference between an old-growth forest and the ones that the forest industry plants to replace them. Basically, the forest industry removes almost all of the plants and wildlife that are not the single tree species that they are trying to harvest, not to mention the many species that rely on living in or around dead and rotting trees (which are, of course, unprofitable to keep around since they make logging more difficult). What they forest industry leaves behind when it clearcuts an area is more like a park -- as close to antiseptic as a forest can be, with uniform trees of the same species, relatively evenly spaced, and with nearly all of the underbrush cleared out. The "normal" ecosystem of most of these areas has been effectively destroyed and replaced with a monoculture.
As a result, one disease, predator species or parasite that targets that single species of tree can wreak amazing amount of havoc. I vividly remember the Pine Bark Beetle infestation of lodgepole pines in central Oregon about twenty years ago -- there were dead and dying trees as far as the eye could see, and in many areas, about one tree in ten survived. You can imagine how much of a fire risk all of those dead pines were, in the middle of a high, dry desert that was somewhat known for frequent thunderstorms. Even today, there are still huge areas that were formerly heavily forested where there is now approximately one tree left standing every hundred feet as a result of this massive infestation.
The grandparent post seems to be implying that the forests maintained by the forest industry are in some way an equivalent replacement for the ones that grow naturally. This is very much not the case.
Years ago, people predicted that computer technology would result in the "paperless office". Now, people are using paper to create the "computerless video game".
They used a few dozen packets of post-its. A single copy of the Sunday New York Times probably has five times as much paper in it.
And it's art. Your opinion of how much material they used for their art project, compared with your recollections of how much paper you used to get your oh-so-valuable degree, means precisely bubkis. Are you livid with rage that Shakespeare messed up all of that parchment? Carrying a grudge against van Gogh for wasting all of that canvas? Does the thought of those cavemen in France destroying their environment by blackening the roofs of their cave fill you with rage?
That actually wasn't the point. The point is that the paper industry is planting new forest for the purpose of later cutting them down to make paper, instead of cutting more old forest. The secondary point is that not only do we keep the remaining old forest this way, but we also have a larger number of living trees on the earth at any given time than we would otherwise. True, the excess trees are not in a wonderful diverse ecosystem (I love forests), but at least they are trees.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.