I didn't mean to imply Blender was as good as Maya. I don't think there are too many people that would make that claim. I more meant hobbyists/amateurs thinking they need Maya even though they cannot really afford it.
Except simply saying everyone is a sock-puppet account doesn't make it so.
I could just as easily say you are a sock-puppet trying to create a grass roots movement to discredit anybody criticizing the involved blogs/websites/publications/whatever. But that would be an asinine statement. You are merely trying to attack the messenger to discredit the message.
The conversion tools aren't quite a polished/full-featured. You actually import assets into the engine using an Adobe format. It is definitely doable though and I think it is gaining traction.
But to actually answer your question: people think they need Maya because that's what they heard was the best.
Your evidence is totally shakey. Check out my irrefutable IRC text logs...
If you really don't want to take other people's evidence seriously why don't you explain why they shouldn't be taken at face value? (Other than simply claiming it is shakey that is.) Because anybody can just say the same thing to you. Doesn't really get anyone anywhere now does it? It really doesn't matter if you can find some people behaving badly (a totally asinine way to try to discredit somebody). The quality of that evidence is irrelevant. Some of those journalists have been behaving poorly and have been doing so in public.
So when you dox people it is totally for a legit and righteous reasons? And IPs are now directly tied to one individual? Can't have multiple people using the same IP- never happens.
m: estimate!
d: one week.
m: okay. (2 days later) we're starting to panic so we've decided to dump some other people into the project that don't know anything about it or the technology involved. This means it should be done by tomorrow.
Two very simple sentences that a lot of people think can be tacked on very easily but take a lot of work. Especially, as you said, if you are swapping a "not" out.
What exactly do you think the solution is? Are you advocating for opening the border to free and uncontrolled migration? The consequences of something like that would be catastrophic.
You'd probably reject the ideas of overpopulation, crime, famine, squalor and disease too. But it would still kill you if not for those pesky "borders".
What is that even supposed to mean? Of course not everyone can come in- resources are finite. Unbounded and uncontrollable population growth is devastating for countries.
Well, assuming you know a thing or two about what you're doing you look for "art assets" as indicated by the parent. Art assets such as 3d object models and textures tend to follow fairly standard formats.
"Ok, let's assume you've managed to get the hood open on your car. Now what?" probably has a different answer to a mechanic and some one that knows nothing about cars.
Nobody finding anything yet doesn't bode well for there being anything in there. Although it is actually possible to prove something in a game doesn't exist (mostly but still technically impossible) it is still a harder job than proving it exists.
I had heard that Americans were glued to their televisions but I had no idea it was a literal statement. Turn it off if you don't want to see it. You're a god damn adult.
There are all kinds of things that people might not want to read/see in the news. Obituaries of loved ones. Accounts of people that die in auto accidents or fires or other tragedies. I suppose we should simply get rid off all those as well?
Who gives a damn what the terrorists want? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. "Well the terrorists expected us to behave as a free and open society so I guess we better not do that". Come to think of it- that sounds pretty much exactly what the US is doing.
Better not let the people see caskets of dead soldiers coming home either. It's totally about respecting the feelings of loved ones and not about making sure Americans don't see the consequences of fighting in pointless wars.
The fact that you think you are qualified to deem what is and isn't "trash" pretty firmly puts you in the "Orwellian" camp. The fact that you have already made the jump from people being burned alive on camera to "online harassment" is proof enough that you won't see fit to stop censoring at graphic violent content.
I'm not the one trying to define "truth". You are saying "it is truth that this content is ungood and must be removed". I'm just saying that's not anyone's decision to make. And anyone that claims they are capable of judging what should and should not be censored should not be allowed anywhere near the "censor" button.
And bringing children up might make sense if people were saying we should interrupt the cartoon network with breaking news of somebody being burned alive.
If you start advocating censoring adult spaces because you don't want children to see content you are simply being disingenuous about your reasons. We cannot be expected to bring adult spaces and adult knowledge down to a level you deem acceptable for children. And if you don't think you can handle that content then you, presumably, have the maturity to avoid it.
If truth "damages your freedom" then you've got bigger problems. Graphic content can be disturbing to people but it certainly doesn't damage their freedom (whatever that means). There's a reason there is such a thing as a "graphic content warning".
You then go on to explain that, yes, you do think you are qualified to judge what truth the public can handle. That line of thinking is how every dictatorship gets its hold.
Do you have kids? I do. I trust them and teach them right and wrong etc but don't watch them 24/7 and am not keen on young kids coming across ___ online
Fill in for your favourite pet problem. "Porn", "gay porn", "dissident material".
Is it just me or is it becoming terrifyingly common for people to be recommending basic fascist style totalitarianism to deal with anything that causes them slight discomfort?
An introvert will likely spend more time doing it though. I love computer science but enough of my time is spent in it that most of my spare time is dedicated to sports, partying, etc. Because of that I don't spend much time on personal projects that would normally be learning experiences.
So girls aren't good at computers is what you're saying?
You are saying that girls don't like computers because media tells them not to. But it's a red herring to state that the media tells boys not to like computers too because some boys are good at computers?
99.9% of programmers today aren't working under the hood. Knowing simple electronics and simple assembly languages doesn't get you far today. Great, you know MIPS but what exactly does that get you? Great, you can solder a capacitor but you're still not allowed to touch the electronics- we have EEs for that.
Different time. Would Woz be able to do the same thing and be successful in today's climate? No. But in today's climate he probably would have been using a personal computer since infancy.
(General disclaimer - these are my own thoughts/opinions and are a generalization. They're not a scientific study, and of course you'll be able to find exceptions and outliers. "At my school" and "but my cousin" don't count unless you think they're something that is generalized to a majority of cases.)
So you think your anecdotes and screeds are different than those of others why?
If you want to talk about the expectations of capital S society (seriously society isn't a proper noun; capitalizing it makes you seem unhinged) on geeky men it is that the only way for a geeky man to redeem himself is through saving the damsel. If they don't do that they usually turn into villains (every super villain ever). Which is interesting considering this new influx of dweeby guys that think media has a huge effect on people trying desperately to save women that really aren't in danger.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't mean to imply Blender was as good as Maya. I don't think there are too many people that would make that claim. I more meant hobbyists/amateurs thinking they need Maya even though they cannot really afford it.
Except simply saying everyone is a sock-puppet account doesn't make it so.
I could just as easily say you are a sock-puppet trying to create a grass roots movement to discredit anybody criticizing the involved blogs/websites/publications/whatever. But that would be an asinine statement. You are merely trying to attack the messenger to discredit the message.
I'm glad I wasn't the only person to be confused about this.
The conversion tools aren't quite a polished/full-featured. You actually import assets into the engine using an Adobe format. It is definitely doable though and I think it is gaining traction.
But to actually answer your question: people think they need Maya because that's what they heard was the best.
Your evidence is totally shakey. Check out my irrefutable IRC text logs...
If you really don't want to take other people's evidence seriously why don't you explain why they shouldn't be taken at face value? (Other than simply claiming it is shakey that is.) Because anybody can just say the same thing to you. Doesn't really get anyone anywhere now does it? It really doesn't matter if you can find some people behaving badly (a totally asinine way to try to discredit somebody). The quality of that evidence is irrelevant. Some of those journalists have been behaving poorly and have been doing so in public.
So when you dox people it is totally for a legit and righteous reasons? And IPs are now directly tied to one individual? Can't have multiple people using the same IP- never happens.
You are truly doing God's work.
I've experienced another:
m: estimate!
d: one week.
m: okay. (2 days later) we're starting to panic so we've decided to dump some other people into the project that don't know anything about it or the technology involved. This means it should be done by tomorrow.
Next, that one line can be HUGE sometimes
This system will be multilingual.
This system will properly respect all time zones.
Two very simple sentences that a lot of people think can be tacked on very easily but take a lot of work. Especially, as you said, if you are swapping a "not" out.
What exactly do you think the solution is? Are you advocating for opening the border to free and uncontrolled migration? The consequences of something like that would be catastrophic.
You'd probably reject the ideas of overpopulation, crime, famine, squalor and disease too. But it would still kill you if not for those pesky "borders".
What is that even supposed to mean? Of course not everyone can come in- resources are finite. Unbounded and uncontrollable population growth is devastating for countries.
Well, assuming you know a thing or two about what you're doing you look for "art assets" as indicated by the parent. Art assets such as 3d object models and textures tend to follow fairly standard formats.
"Ok, let's assume you've managed to get the hood open on your car. Now what?" probably has a different answer to a mechanic and some one that knows nothing about cars.
Nobody finding anything yet doesn't bode well for there being anything in there. Although it is actually possible to prove something in a game doesn't exist (mostly but still technically impossible) it is still a harder job than proving it exists.
You have an interesting definition of "carefree".
Which is why we are shutting down HBO and replacing it with Teletoon.
The fact that children may be able to come across something you don't want them to see is not a reason that thing needs to be erased from existence.
I had heard that Americans were glued to their televisions but I had no idea it was a literal statement. Turn it off if you don't want to see it. You're a god damn adult.
There are all kinds of things that people might not want to read/see in the news. Obituaries of loved ones. Accounts of people that die in auto accidents or fires or other tragedies. I suppose we should simply get rid off all those as well?
Who gives a damn what the terrorists want? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. "Well the terrorists expected us to behave as a free and open society so I guess we better not do that". Come to think of it- that sounds pretty much exactly what the US is doing.
Better not let the people see caskets of dead soldiers coming home either. It's totally about respecting the feelings of loved ones and not about making sure Americans don't see the consequences of fighting in pointless wars.
The fact that you think you are qualified to deem what is and isn't "trash" pretty firmly puts you in the "Orwellian" camp. The fact that you have already made the jump from people being burned alive on camera to "online harassment" is proof enough that you won't see fit to stop censoring at graphic violent content.
I'm not the one trying to define "truth". You are saying "it is truth that this content is ungood and must be removed". I'm just saying that's not anyone's decision to make. And anyone that claims they are capable of judging what should and should not be censored should not be allowed anywhere near the "censor" button.
And bringing children up might make sense if people were saying we should interrupt the cartoon network with breaking news of somebody being burned alive.
If you start advocating censoring adult spaces because you don't want children to see content you are simply being disingenuous about your reasons. We cannot be expected to bring adult spaces and adult knowledge down to a level you deem acceptable for children. And if you don't think you can handle that content then you, presumably, have the maturity to avoid it.
If truth "damages your freedom" then you've got bigger problems. Graphic content can be disturbing to people but it certainly doesn't damage their freedom (whatever that means). There's a reason there is such a thing as a "graphic content warning".
You then go on to explain that, yes, you do think you are qualified to judge what truth the public can handle. That line of thinking is how every dictatorship gets its hold.
Do you have kids? I do. I trust them and teach them right and wrong etc but don't watch them 24/7 and am not keen on young kids coming across ___ online
Fill in for your favourite pet problem. "Porn", "gay porn", "dissident material".
Is it just me or is it becoming terrifyingly common for people to be recommending basic fascist style totalitarianism to deal with anything that causes them slight discomfort?
In the end the truth actually hurts the public self interests more
Said every corrupt dictator ever. You somehow think you're qualified to judge what "truth" the public can handle?
An introvert will likely spend more time doing it though. I love computer science but enough of my time is spent in it that most of my spare time is dedicated to sports, partying, etc. Because of that I don't spend much time on personal projects that would normally be learning experiences.
So girls aren't good at computers is what you're saying?
You are saying that girls don't like computers because media tells them not to. But it's a red herring to state that the media tells boys not to like computers too because some boys are good at computers?
99.9% of programmers today aren't working under the hood. Knowing simple electronics and simple assembly languages doesn't get you far today. Great, you know MIPS but what exactly does that get you? Great, you can solder a capacitor but you're still not allowed to touch the electronics- we have EEs for that.
Different time. Would Woz be able to do the same thing and be successful in today's climate? No. But in today's climate he probably would have been using a personal computer since infancy.
(General disclaimer - these are my own thoughts/opinions and are a generalization. They're not a scientific study, and of course you'll be able to find exceptions and outliers. "At my school" and "but my cousin" don't count unless you think they're something that is generalized to a majority of cases.)
So you think your anecdotes and screeds are different than those of others why?
If you want to talk about the expectations of capital S society (seriously society isn't a proper noun; capitalizing it makes you seem unhinged) on geeky men it is that the only way for a geeky man to redeem himself is through saving the damsel. If they don't do that they usually turn into villains (every super villain ever). Which is interesting considering this new influx of dweeby guys that think media has a huge effect on people trying desperately to save women that really aren't in danger.