Dang, moderators give you +2 Funny now just for posting a link to an XKCD?
Yeah, it does seem a bit... I don't know... unfair? imbalanced? After all, it's not my "funny". I guess I could have posted it anonymously or something...
Would you be willing to tutor a male student at the same rates?
No, male students already have so many advantages over their female counterparts - I extend this offer to the female body as a way for them to put themselves on a level playing field.
If women want to display equality, they need to compete on equal ground.
By which you mean; accept the multitude of barriers and prejudices I and others put against them.
Well, maybe "accept" isn't the right word - but there's no reason they couldn't work within the system. Instead of free tutoring, for instance, they could offer sexual favors for tutoring......I could be a tutor...
In every field which was once exclusively male, but is now no longer, it's been claimed first, that no woman can perform alongside men; second, when the first claim is disproven, that hardly any woman can; and third, when the second claim is disproven, that maybe a few women can, but a majority lack the ability or the inclination.
. . . so which one applies to pissing contests?
Third one, I'd say. Majority lack the inclination.
No no no... you got it all wrong. It's "Women be different than men!"
Now personally, I was pretty strong in math when I was in high school - but the best math students were girls... So I never really thought of math as a guy thing.
Now, with a better sensor system, you have another problem - it's still just a game, the players don't really know how to sword-fight.
I thought that increased realism was part of the point, though.
In PC gaming, around 15 years ago, maybe... Back then you'd have games like Mechwarrior or X-Wing - not true simulators but they incorporated simulator-like elements - plus all the real flight simulators and so on.
That facet of gaming hasn't entirely gone away - there's still flight sims to be had, and there's the occasional console game like Steel Battalion which will be unafraid to present the user with an elaborate control system... But mostly these days game designers prefer simplicity - a game people can learn to play with relative ease, as opposed to something they'll be able to handle only after extensive study and practice.
The point of the current round of motion-based games, for the most part, isn't to provide increased realism at all - but rather to provide an experience gamers can more easily relate to. Instead of remembering a button layout and pressing a button to do an action, you might use motion control to do something vaguely analogous to what you're trying to do in-game - or you might point at something on-screen and press a button... Unfortunately one of the big problems with this on the Wii, IMO, is that it replaces gaming challenges with control challenges. Wii Sports Golf is a good example - when putting for instance - the gaming challenge is to put enough force on the ball, but not too much, and aim it in the right direction... The controller challenge is to get the software to recognize the "putt" gesture without swinging the remote so hard that you overshoot the target. The gaming challenge is pretty simple - mostly you're just fighting the recognition software.
Getting the kind of input you'd need to simply map player actions onto game characters is still a bit of a problem. And additionally, remember the gamer's still using a 2-D display, so even if they could play an accurate sword-fighting game they wouldn't necessarily be able to pick up on the kind of detail in opponent movement that would make that extra level of control worthwhile. The basis of games like Street Fighter is that it presents the fight and the arena in easy-to-process format: without the various special attacks, for instance, the whole fight would be close-quarters hitting, blocking, and throwing. That's not an especially player-friendly challenge - but if you spread the fight out in space and time, give people room to maneuver and attacks that are effective at range in certain situations, the intransitive relations that form the basis of the game become a lot easier for the players to interact with.
(As a side note - did you know that the early Street Fighter machines had a more immersive interface? Instead of six attack buttons, there were two big ones - and you could get the three different levels of force out of the punch or kick by hitting the buttons harder... I guess they decided it wasn't such a hot idea, though, encouraging players to direct more physical force at their machines...)
I've waited for years for a decent swordfighting game. That doesn't have to use a keyboard or controller that's obviously not suited for actually controlling the sword movements themselves.
Here's the thing about that...
You can sort of get that now on the Wii (we finally got our lightsaber game...), but - because of limitations in the Wii remote, it's not good at picking up subtle movements - and it can't really read position at all unless the camera in the remote can see the beacons - and even then it still needs a decent reading from the accelerometer to get its orientation in order to know whether it's upside-down and pointed above the screen, or right-side-up and pointed at it... So the accuracy necessarily drops while the remote is moving... This seriously limits the extent to which the game can simply mirror your movements as a viable means of game control.
Now, with a better sensor system, you have another problem - it's still just a game, the players don't really know how to sword-fight. That means the full range of motions one might pursue are simplified down to a few recognized gestures which are used to activate common and useful commands. When you factor in the limitations in the input technology, plus the fact that players aren't getting any kind of force feedback, it's hard to imagine a game based on a more direct mapping of input to action being successful...
You can run Hulu on Xbox 360, PS3 or any other dlna client with the PlayOn server for Windows.
Or you can just play Hulu via the PS3 web browser...
The Hulu site will give you a fake "video not available" message if your browser's client ID string tells them you're on a PS3, though... A little web proxy fixes the problem nicely.
Now Hulu just has to dump Flash and pick an HD format that can get some hardware accelerating love, and this will make every owner of a Netbook extremely happy.
...Except the folks who own Netbooks that don't have any hardware for accelerating video playback......Which is pretty much all of them at the moment...
You may be on to something there. Much TOO on, in fact. Please stay where you are and some entertainment industry representatives will arrive shortly to assist you...
I would think that it has more to do with the markets that the advertisers are paying to reach...
Not exactly. TV shows have been traditionally licensed out by region, sometimes with exclusive licenses granted for particular regions... So if Hulu wants to license a show to play on its web service, they either need to restrict access to the regions for which they've obtained licenses, or else pay more to get a worldwide license - any other solution would make the other licensees very unhappy (as in, "why am I paying $X for this 'exclusive license' to this show in the European market when Hulu pays approximately $X and gets to show the show in my market?" Or "Why if we're paying about the same does Hulu get to show the show worldwide?") and thus possibly disrupt the licensor's business...
'Course, I too, am an "outsider" and to some extent "guessing"...:D
"Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise," still one of the funniest lines in that movie--in light of the fact that we spend the rest of the movie observing that stormtroopers couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if they were right in front of it.
See also "They let us go. It's the only explanation for the ease of our escape."
Poloroid film has a similar quality to it and can be quite effective in the right hands. It tends to shift to red and yellow casts which endow the subject with an instant retro look and feel.
The thing about this argument is: if that's what you want, you can get the same effect instantly in photoshop. Or you could colour shift in the opposite direction, perhaps giving a futuristic look and feel. Or you could do billions of other things.
If you lack the discipline to be effective with a whole paintbox, you're not going to be a good artist with just one colour either.
What I've heard from folks who know photography, and know Photoshop, is that the end result isn't the same. Not being much of a photographer myself I'm not inclined to tell 'em they're wrong.:) At the very least, to simulate an effect you first need to quantify it. You could put all kinds of effort into simulating marginally defective film or an old analog synthesizer - but if those old methods get you exactly the result you want, why bother with simulating them?
I think there's something to be said for the way you get to a certain effect. The process you go through to get your end result. This is why, for instance, I'm interested in stop-motion animation despite the fact that my PC is probably powerful enough to render 3-D animated shorts... (It's not as though I'm not interested in 3-D animation, either - I used to hate CG in films but now I'm more appreciative of it - I just happen to have a love of physical craftsmanship, too.)
Or they are remembering one of the uses Poloroids had back in their heyday was taking pics in the bedroom.
Many a kid in the 70-80's was introduced to a world of nightmares and a desire to bleach their eyes by discovering their folks' "hidden" shoebox of memories...
Your fantasy world of film and chemicals and inferior picture quality is long gone.
It's all about the CCDs and the LCDs now, baby.
Now, are you trolling, or are you serious?
If you're serious, you should know that Polaroid film wasn't limited to [i]just[/i] their instant cameras. For instance, there was Polaroid film for 4x5 cameras. With decent optics, 20 square inches of film gives you a level of detail only the best digital cameras can approach.
If I can get my hands on one of these things I can automate the process of rolling all the ones out of my collection of D20's... While an ordinary elimination process might use an average of 400 dice to yield a single die with a 1:8000 chance of rolling another "one" on the next roll, this kind of automation could process thousands of dice in a reasonable amount of time - yielding either a higher volume of dice with a small chance of rolling another one, or producing dice with an even smaller probability of rolling a one...
Slashdot Mirror
How is this any different from Matrix Part 1 or Star Wars Part 1?
What do you mean "Matrix Part 1"...? They only ever made one Matrix film.
Dang, moderators give you +2 Funny now just for posting a link to an XKCD?
Yeah, it does seem a bit... I don't know... unfair? imbalanced? After all, it's not my "funny". I guess I could have posted it anonymously or something...
Would you be willing to tutor a male student at the same rates?
No, male students already have so many advantages over their female counterparts - I extend this offer to the female body as a way for them to put themselves on a level playing field.
"(The controller can be measured) to sub-millimeter accuracy."
Big deal. Get a good enough caliper and you can measure any old NES controller to sub-millimeter accuracy, too.
You're really a dude, admit it.
There was never any claim to the contrary, was there?
By which you mean; accept the multitude of barriers and prejudices I and others put against them.
Well, maybe "accept" isn't the right word - but there's no reason they couldn't work within the system. Instead of free tutoring, for instance, they could offer sexual favors for tutoring... ...I could be a tutor...
In every field which was once exclusively male, but is now no longer, it's been claimed first, that no woman can perform alongside men; second, when the first claim is disproven, that hardly any woman can; and third, when the second claim is disproven, that maybe a few women can, but a majority lack the ability or the inclination.
. . . so which one applies to pissing contests?
Third one, I'd say. Majority lack the inclination.
Men and women are different
No no no... you got it all wrong. It's "Women be different than men!"
Now personally, I was pretty strong in math when I was in high school - but the best math students were girls... So I never really thought of math as a guy thing.
You want to date a programmer? Are you nuts?
Obligatory XKCD...
Now, with a better sensor system, you have another problem - it's still just a game, the players don't really know how to sword-fight.
I thought that increased realism was part of the point, though.
In PC gaming, around 15 years ago, maybe... Back then you'd have games like Mechwarrior or X-Wing - not true simulators but they incorporated simulator-like elements - plus all the real flight simulators and so on.
That facet of gaming hasn't entirely gone away - there's still flight sims to be had, and there's the occasional console game like Steel Battalion which will be unafraid to present the user with an elaborate control system... But mostly these days game designers prefer simplicity - a game people can learn to play with relative ease, as opposed to something they'll be able to handle only after extensive study and practice.
The point of the current round of motion-based games, for the most part, isn't to provide increased realism at all - but rather to provide an experience gamers can more easily relate to. Instead of remembering a button layout and pressing a button to do an action, you might use motion control to do something vaguely analogous to what you're trying to do in-game - or you might point at something on-screen and press a button... Unfortunately one of the big problems with this on the Wii, IMO, is that it replaces gaming challenges with control challenges. Wii Sports Golf is a good example - when putting for instance - the gaming challenge is to put enough force on the ball, but not too much, and aim it in the right direction... The controller challenge is to get the software to recognize the "putt" gesture without swinging the remote so hard that you overshoot the target. The gaming challenge is pretty simple - mostly you're just fighting the recognition software.
Getting the kind of input you'd need to simply map player actions onto game characters is still a bit of a problem. And additionally, remember the gamer's still using a 2-D display, so even if they could play an accurate sword-fighting game they wouldn't necessarily be able to pick up on the kind of detail in opponent movement that would make that extra level of control worthwhile. The basis of games like Street Fighter is that it presents the fight and the arena in easy-to-process format: without the various special attacks, for instance, the whole fight would be close-quarters hitting, blocking, and throwing. That's not an especially player-friendly challenge - but if you spread the fight out in space and time, give people room to maneuver and attacks that are effective at range in certain situations, the intransitive relations that form the basis of the game become a lot easier for the players to interact with.
(As a side note - did you know that the early Street Fighter machines had a more immersive interface? Instead of six attack buttons, there were two big ones - and you could get the three different levels of force out of the punch or kick by hitting the buttons harder... I guess they decided it wasn't such a hot idea, though, encouraging players to direct more physical force at their machines...)
I've waited for years for a decent swordfighting game. That doesn't have to use a keyboard or controller that's obviously not suited for actually controlling the sword movements themselves.
Here's the thing about that...
You can sort of get that now on the Wii (we finally got our lightsaber game...), but - because of limitations in the Wii remote, it's not good at picking up subtle movements - and it can't really read position at all unless the camera in the remote can see the beacons - and even then it still needs a decent reading from the accelerometer to get its orientation in order to know whether it's upside-down and pointed above the screen, or right-side-up and pointed at it... So the accuracy necessarily drops while the remote is moving... This seriously limits the extent to which the game can simply mirror your movements as a viable means of game control.
Now, with a better sensor system, you have another problem - it's still just a game, the players don't really know how to sword-fight. That means the full range of motions one might pursue are simplified down to a few recognized gestures which are used to activate common and useful commands. When you factor in the limitations in the input technology, plus the fact that players aren't getting any kind of force feedback, it's hard to imagine a game based on a more direct mapping of input to action being successful...
You can run Hulu on Xbox 360, PS3 or any other dlna client with the PlayOn server for Windows.
Or you can just play Hulu via the PS3 web browser...
The Hulu site will give you a fake "video not available" message if your browser's client ID string tells them you're on a PS3, though... A little web proxy fixes the problem nicely.
Now Hulu just has to dump Flash and pick an HD format that can get some hardware accelerating love, and this will make every owner of a Netbook extremely happy.
...Except the folks who own Netbooks that don't have any hardware for accelerating video playback... ...Which is pretty much all of them at the moment...
You may be on to something there. Much TOO on, in fact. Please stay where you are and some entertainment industry representatives will arrive shortly to assist you...
(wait, that doesn't really make any sense...)
I would think that it has more to do with the markets that the advertisers are paying to reach...
Not exactly. TV shows have been traditionally licensed out by region, sometimes with exclusive licenses granted for particular regions... So if Hulu wants to license a show to play on its web service, they either need to restrict access to the regions for which they've obtained licenses, or else pay more to get a worldwide license - any other solution would make the other licensees very unhappy (as in, "why am I paying $X for this 'exclusive license' to this show in the European market when Hulu pays approximately $X and gets to show the show in my market?" Or "Why if we're paying about the same does Hulu get to show the show worldwide?") and thus possibly disrupt the licensor's business...
'Course, I too, am an "outsider" and to some extent "guessing"... :D
"Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise," still one of the funniest lines in that movie--in light of the fact that we spend the rest of the movie observing that stormtroopers couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if they were right in front of it.
See also "They let us go. It's the only explanation for the ease of our escape."
Value is always relative. To me, every second of my life is priceless.
And so you just spent, what, 15 of those writing this comment? :D
Poloroid film has a similar quality to it and can be quite effective in the right hands. It tends to shift to red and yellow casts which endow the subject with an instant retro look and feel.
The thing about this argument is: if that's what you want, you can get the same effect instantly in photoshop. Or you could colour shift in the opposite direction, perhaps giving a futuristic look and feel. Or you could do billions of other things.
If you lack the discipline to be effective with a whole paintbox, you're not going to be a good artist with just one colour either.
What I've heard from folks who know photography, and know Photoshop, is that the end result isn't the same. Not being much of a photographer myself I'm not inclined to tell 'em they're wrong. :) At the very least, to simulate an effect you first need to quantify it. You could put all kinds of effort into simulating marginally defective film or an old analog synthesizer - but if those old methods get you exactly the result you want, why bother with simulating them?
I think there's something to be said for the way you get to a certain effect. The process you go through to get your end result. This is why, for instance, I'm interested in stop-motion animation despite the fact that my PC is probably powerful enough to render 3-D animated shorts... (It's not as though I'm not interested in 3-D animation, either - I used to hate CG in films but now I'm more appreciative of it - I just happen to have a love of physical craftsmanship, too.)
And you can keep your food pills, too! XD
And I am sure there was a niche market created for horse buggy makers after the rise of the automobile.
Yeah, it's called "Pennsylvania".
Or they are remembering one of the uses Poloroids had back in their heyday was taking pics in the bedroom.
Many a kid in the 70-80's was introduced to a world of nightmares and a desire to bleach their eyes by discovering their folks' "hidden" shoebox of memories...
Oedipus? Is that you?
Holy fuck man, get with the times.
Your fantasy world of film and chemicals and inferior picture quality is long gone.
It's all about the CCDs and the LCDs now, baby.
Now, are you trolling, or are you serious?
If you're serious, you should know that Polaroid film wasn't limited to [i]just[/i] their instant cameras. For instance, there was Polaroid film for 4x5 cameras. With decent optics, 20 square inches of film gives you a level of detail only the best digital cameras can approach.
If I can get my hands on one of these things I can automate the process of rolling all the ones out of my collection of D20's... While an ordinary elimination process might use an average of 400 dice to yield a single die with a 1:8000 chance of rolling another "one" on the next roll, this kind of automation could process thousands of dice in a reasonable amount of time - yielding either a higher volume of dice with a small chance of rolling another one, or producing dice with an even smaller probability of rolling a one...
and Rob Schneider?
Can he play...The Stapler? ...Rated PG-13
Clearly Rob Schneider has demonstrated that he can play anyone or anything. It's all a part of his comic genius.
Aren't you leaving out Chris Kattan?
Well, since we are going for a younger set of Ghostbusters, maybe he can take Steve Martin's place?
A brand new sequel to a movie whose last installment came out twenty years ago. This is great news! What could possibly go wrong?