Coal dust can be carcinogenic in sufficient doses; a few hours with it probably won't damage you. Transuranic waste is highly radioactive, however, and you're sure to suffer from it.
Good lord, this again. Let me explain it to you simply; the radiation is more dangerous from reactor waste because it is CONCENTRATED. What's so hard to understand? Would you rather sleep in a room with say a bucket of transuranic waste or with the equivalent mass of coal particles? Hmm?
With the internet now readily available in Beijing, it's very difficult for the ChiComs to keep news like this from the general public
You're forgetting that they don't even need the internet to get this public. I mean, the hack was broadcasted to the public already, which was its entire point.
Let me say it again. The analogy was wrong. I'm not just nitpicking here; claiming that the presence of water on Mars means that we'll be able to refuel spacecraft there easily is also wrong. We also need launch facilities, energy to run the splitting process (solar panels? then factor in the cost of importing the large amount needed to Mars), the other chemicals needed for the rocket (like helium for repressuring propellant lines during entry), etc. You can't just put water in the tank and expect it to go.
Also to those who will inevitably say that "Africa doesn't need IT, it needs food," that is a remarkably short sighted position.
It's also profoundly ignorant, but what can you expect of people who dismiss the entirety of college education because it doesn't necessarily equate to higher paychecks in the IT field.
That's why UT2 will most likely be a much better game. Id hasn't had a fun game since the original Doom; every release is just a slightly better engine with the same tired old bad heavy metal album cover graphics.
And nobody start in on how Id does the engine, and leaves the games for other people. They DO release games, and if they're willing to put them on store shelves they (and you) damn well better be prepared to accept criticism.
I think you're missing the point; I'm talking purely on a technical level, as in how skilled the artists are illustrating the characters and making them move.
Let me put it this way; in a Disney movie, the characters move as if they're physical objects. If a lion turns its head, it looks like it turns its head--the proportion doesn't change, the hairs aren't static, the movement is fluid and believable. In anime, this isn't always true. Proportion changes slightly with movement, occasionally. Faces are sometimes "off" when they turn. Fluidity, it goes without saying, is quite often not there. Jerkiness is not necessarily common, but it's visible.
Disney animation 40-50 years ago was incredible. Disney animation now is assembly line crap.
I have to disagree with you there. Disney 40-50 years ago was just as bad as it is today; bland storylines, pasty white characters, and endless moralizing.
Disney needs to hire and fund some creative people and leave them alone long enough (about 15 years for a start) to come up with something truly new and innovative, otherwise anime is going to eat their lunch.
Disney should just roll over and die. What they've done to popular culture is disgusting.
Oh, well I was just saying that artistic considerations aside, Disney animators have a tremendous amount of technical skill. Now I'm not sure who we can blame for the overall movies themselves; are the animators being given bland characters to draw, or are they coming up with them themselves?
Seriously, I've already begun to have problems identifying insane people here, with all the hands-free phones. Since I live in New York there's actually a good chance that the guy you see talking to himself doesn't have a hands-free phone...
That the drawings faithfully mimic nature? That the motions are smooth and natural?
Yes. You CAN separate technical skill from artistry. A character in a Disney film will look the same no matter how it moves and what perspective it's viewed from. The proportions stay the same. The characters move realistically.
Which is all good and well. But then to ask "which other movie maker makes better Disney movies than Disney" is I think a bit disingenuous.
I never asked anything like that. I simply said that Miyazaki makes better movies, not better "Disney movies". Character design, story, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Coal dust can be carcinogenic in sufficient doses; a few hours with it probably won't damage you. Transuranic waste is highly radioactive, however, and you're sure to suffer from it.
Good lord, this again. Let me explain it to you simply; the radiation is more dangerous from reactor waste because it is CONCENTRATED. What's so hard to understand? Would you rather sleep in a room with say a bucket of transuranic waste or with the equivalent mass of coal particles? Hmm?
And? Nothing in the story posting is factually inaccurate.
The headline stated that a new alloy was stronger than iron and titanium. This is true.
In the story body it was pointed out that the new alloy is stronger than steel and titanium. Also true.
So what's the problem?
With the internet now readily available in Beijing, it's very difficult for the ChiComs to keep news like this from the general public
You're forgetting that they don't even need the internet to get this public. I mean, the hack was broadcasted to the public already, which was its entire point.
what authority does he have now to suggest the change?
Over here we call it the "First Amendment".
Hey, you try posting a short paragraph a few times a day; it takes too much time to worry about spelling...
Probably because it's just not as good as a lot of people seem to think it is.
All civilized people use EST.
Barbarians.
I was trying to think up something suitably acerbic to say, but I can't. That's a damn slick idea, and I salute him.
Let me say it again. The analogy was wrong. I'm not just nitpicking here; claiming that the presence of water on Mars means that we'll be able to refuel spacecraft there easily is also wrong. We also need launch facilities, energy to run the splitting process (solar panels? then factor in the cost of importing the large amount needed to Mars), the other chemicals needed for the rocket (like helium for repressuring propellant lines during entry), etc. You can't just put water in the tank and expect it to go.
Yes, I have heard of hydrogen. They use it in rockets. Know what they don't use? WATER.
I don't understand your lack of understanding. I'll try to put it into simple terms:
B: Water is to rockets what petroleum is to cars.
And you're insulting his lack of understanding. Petroleum provides energy to cars. Find me an extraplanetary rocket that runs on water.
Maybe they changed it for the Russian audience.
A game company released a patch. That's front page news.
Also to those who will inevitably say that "Africa doesn't need IT, it needs food," that is a remarkably short sighted position.
It's also profoundly ignorant, but what can you expect of people who dismiss the entirety of college education because it doesn't necessarily equate to higher paychecks in the IT field.
You're forgetting the one that most people here seem to have forgotten:
Closed source software ! necessarily = Windows.
Simple concept, but going by the answers here many people don't quite get it.
That's why UT2 will most likely be a much better game. Id hasn't had a fun game since the original Doom; every release is just a slightly better engine with the same tired old bad heavy metal album cover graphics.
And nobody start in on how Id does the engine, and leaves the games for other people. They DO release games, and if they're willing to put them on store shelves they (and you) damn well better be prepared to accept criticism.
I think you're missing the point; I'm talking purely on a technical level, as in how skilled the artists are illustrating the characters and making them move.
Let me put it this way; in a Disney movie, the characters move as if they're physical objects. If a lion turns its head, it looks like it turns its head--the proportion doesn't change, the hairs aren't static, the movement is fluid and believable. In anime, this isn't always true. Proportion changes slightly with movement, occasionally. Faces are sometimes "off" when they turn. Fluidity, it goes without saying, is quite often not there. Jerkiness is not necessarily common, but it's visible.
Disney animation 40-50 years ago was incredible. Disney animation now is assembly line crap.
I have to disagree with you there. Disney 40-50 years ago was just as bad as it is today; bland storylines, pasty white characters, and endless moralizing.
Disney needs to hire and fund some creative people and leave them alone long enough (about 15 years for a start) to come up with something truly new and innovative, otherwise anime is going to eat their lunch.
Disney should just roll over and die. What they've done to popular culture is disgusting.
We're part of slashdot?
Man, Andover owes me some back pay big time...
Oh, well I was just saying that artistic considerations aside, Disney animators have a tremendous amount of technical skill. Now I'm not sure who we can blame for the overall movies themselves; are the animators being given bland characters to draw, or are they coming up with them themselves?
Seriously, I've already begun to have problems identifying insane people here, with all the hands-free phones. Since I live in New York there's actually a good chance that the guy you see talking to himself doesn't have a hands-free phone...
That the drawings faithfully mimic nature? That the motions are smooth and natural?
Yes. You CAN separate technical skill from artistry. A character in a Disney film will look the same no matter how it moves and what perspective it's viewed from. The proportions stay the same. The characters move realistically.
Which is all good and well. But then to ask "which other movie maker makes better Disney movies than Disney" is I think a bit disingenuous.
I never asked anything like that. I simply said that Miyazaki makes better movies, not better "Disney movies". Character design, story, etc.
Ohhhh, you're crazy. Ok, that explains some things...
Care to elucidate? In terms of pure technical skill, they are.
Yes, I like anime better. Yes, I think Miyazaki makes better overall movies. But in terms of pure technical skill I think Disney is still the best.
Who'd want to break into your case anyway?