In '94 I made a Doom conversion based on a movie. It was very popular, and opened up a lot of opportunities for me. I imagine that its success was not inconsiderably aided by the movie being a part of the culture shared by the gamers.
Despite this, I found it not only artistically unsatisfying (to be chained to existing ideas), but that the legal limits imposed on what I could do with my own work (due to my work being based on IP that I didn't own) were more annoying than I anticipated. I wouldn't even dream of doing it again.
So what do you do?
You can either be original, drawing from all your favorite things (which is awesome fun and my recommendation), or you can decide to match the "feel" in your game without infringing on any IP, and simply let the gamers imagine themselves to be in the world that you're technically not allowed to portray. This isn't as difficult or dodgy as it sounds, and at the end of you, it could be you ending up with valuable IP. Don't try to make an imitation that's just far-off enough to not infringe, try to make 'em some competition - something that is appeals for the same reasons, but is even better...
(And if you suceed, you could end up being paid to do that stuff:-)
Not that it matters, but Aliens TC for Doom didn't meet the same fate - I think you're thinking of an attempted Aliens conversion for Quake.
When A-TC for Doom was brought to the attention of someone at Fox (can't remember if it was the legal team though), their reply was something like "Doom? Never heard of it. Your thing is probably OK so long as it's not distributed too widely".
Shortly after that, first person computer games were making too much money to not come to the attention of such companies, and as soon as thoughts turned to licensing the rights, protecting those rights became an issue...
Aliens-TC for Doom bascially snuck through just before the wave of Doom's popularity changed things.
the leaders in video games are British and French, etc...
I think you're mistaken here - I suspect it's more the case that there is significant difference in tastes in the EU and USA, and naturally, the locally produced product caters for those tastes best. Were you in the USA, I think you'd find that the leaders in games were American, likewise EU companies probably lead the European market. I suspect sports games (soccer games for example) might be a good example - I get the impression that they're huge in Europe, and of no interest in the USA (I live in neither area).
Re: Cheap cars and gas
The only better value an American will find is in pre-industrial products: food and apparel, primarily.
(cynic mode engaged) It only appears that way because you haven't factored in all the hidden costs of the car in the USA, such as the enormous gas-price subsidy laughably known as "defense spending" which comes out of your taxes.
(cynic mode off)
Of course, it's more difficult when 99 percent of the people you communicate with do not
I had that problem. And even bigger problem though was that all the cryptography programs and sites I found were aimed at advanced users who were already familiar with crypto. It was an inpenetrable wall.
Perhaps I was looking in the wrong places, but someone needs to make an ultra-dumbed down installer that could let your grandmother start using crypto. Then we'll be getting somewhere.
Again, you're being paranoid. If you haven't done anything illegal, you have nothing to hide.
Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work like that. It took the WTO protests to make it clear that vocal oppostion to globalisation was not sufficent grounds to label you a probable terrorist and have your home invaded.
Protesters aren't a good example in that a lot of people hate them with a vengence and think they deserve to have their rights violated, but protesters are good example in that they so clearly do have something to fear while often clearly having nothing to hide.
So ask yourself, which is more important to you, seeing mob bosses, terrorists, and child pornographers get caught before they can hurt
anybody, or protecting yourself from having some FBI bureaucrat reading over your shopping list?
I think that's kind of naive. Have you ever actually spoken to an innocent person who got f*cked over by people abusing their powers? A lot of the people doing this surveillence live in a twisted little paranoid world where they see guns in every shadow of innocent activity, and they sometimes act on these innocent things in ways that level headed people wouldn't. And if the law doesn't protect you from such violation of rights, (which it often doesn't) you can kiss your way of life goodbye.
Sure, there are more criminals having their rights abused than there are innocent parties, and we all know that criminals are, like terrorists, 2d cardboard cutouts whose sole motivation in life is to hurt us and so we should hurt them back, but every erosion of privacy is individually justifiable. The problem is that the next thing you know, you'll have bad cops raking in the $$$ selling your business secrets to your competitors, your unlisted phone number to tele-marketers, your spending details to advertising consultants, and if you try to raise a fuss, they'll deny everything, stop you dead in your tracks with National Security, and you'll be a laughing stock in your community forever for making such paranoid wacko claims.
It's an exotic threat next to having a car drive into you on your way home from work tommorow, and perhaps not as deserving of as much worry, but that doesn't mean we should just lie back and let it happen.
Abuse of power is real. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Yep, but more by accident than an active search. No it wasn't activist or political crap. Check out the guy who was awarded a Nobel prize for his ozone layer research, and read up on why it earned a Nobel prize. Can't remember his name, but that's a good enough start with today's IT at your fingertips, (though I get the impression there might be another prominent ozone scientist who won a Nobel but for a different field (not ozone related) of his work).
What is sad about arguments for a better enviroment is that no one has stated exactly what is a "healthy" hole.
If, like me, you are currently living under it, a "healthy" hole, much like a "healthy" dose of gamma radiation, is one that is "as small as bloody possible!".
Or is there some other, secret evidence that this is a new phenomenon? I wonder...
This is depressing. No, the evidence isn't secret, and it's extremely compelling. Just because someone doesn't hand it to you on a silver platter doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means that if you want an educated opinion, you've got to do your homework.
Admittedly, it doesn't seem easy to find (I stumbled across most of my info by accident), but armchair skepticism is no better than armchair blind faith. Get your hands dirty.
:-)
If there are serious environmental problems, there will become an economic incentive to gix them, and someone will rise to the challenge.
Market forces are worse than useless here. The west is hugely insulated from the effects of environmental damage. It's the third world that takes the heat. By the time there is a significant economic incentive, it's be either far, far too late, or far far too expensive, to stop the kind of loss of quality of life that is already occuring in some parts of the third world.
Still, I plan to have enough money to be well and truly insulated:-)
There are lots of people in China, India, and
Africa that haven't effectively gone through an industrial revolution and don't have that luxury. I'm not going to get high and mighty when they
start burning billions of tonnes of coal to do what we did at the end of the 18th century.
There are also poor third world nations which will be wiped off the face of the earth by predicted sea level rises. Understandably, they would like someone who is able to be all high and mighty about it, to get high and mighty:-)
This is meant to be an observation rather than a flame: your post gives the impression of being a rationalisation aimed primarily at relieving of you of a need to do anything, by providing a (somewhat flimsy IMHO) justification no to.
Why does it show a HUGE concentration of ozone just to one Side of the South Pole? It looks to me like the
Ozone for some reason just isn't GETTING to the South Pole.
The bottom line is that while CFC's may be bad, and they may harm Ozone in general, our use of them most likely contributed little to nothing of the decline or proposed recovery of the ozone.
The bottom line is that you haven't read up on ozone research:-)
That the hole is in the south pole rather than above developed areas precisely confirms that it is man made, because (this summary is oversimplified almost to the point of falsehood) it coincides exactly with the atmospheric conditions required for non-naturally occuring ozone depleting chemicals to shift into top gear and really get stuck into the ozone. And when those conditions change, the ozone hole changes with them, which poses something of a problem for the head-in-the-sand idea that non-manmade forces are the big players.
Most Enviromental causes are thinly disguised anti-American, anti-technolgy plots that are almost terrorist organizations,
Correction: The industrial lobby in the USA is so powerful that it can portray even things like Kyoto as anti-American when they are so blatently not.
Can you believe it - Europe says "We want cuts of 12% for all developed nations" (eg including Europe), the USA says "F*ck off - that's enough that we'd have to convince people that efficient engines were Good and SUV's were Bad. Screw that, we'll just tell them that Europe was being anti-American! - you can't be much more anti-American than opposing gas-guzzling cars".
Seriously though, these causes are not anti-American - they require everyone to make changes, and the USA is copping a lot of flak for being so unwilling to do anything. While this does make it easier for interest groups to portray things as anit-American, the reality is that there is nothing of the sort - the only thing anti-American is the ill will that the USA generates by its own actions with it's repeated refusal to change even half as much as everyone else is already prepared to do.
See http://www.junkscience.com/news/iccp.html
for more information
Wake up man. "Junk Science" is a corporate front, mainly for disseminating propaganda. Its backers and funding reads like a "who's who" of the worst polluting and environmentally distructive industries. And its history gets a hell of a lot more sordid than that.
Don't be a sucker - always check your sources.
(It's not like Junk Science is even subtle propaganda - it's so flimsy and unbalanced that it only works on people who really want to believe it.)
And if it didn't instantly set your warning bells ringing, checking out the so-called citizens "group" that runs the site should have confirmed that you were dealing with something very dodgy.
I'm not putting forward an opinion on your patent conspiracy theory, I'm just saying that citing Junk Science to support your theory is like citing White Supremacy literature as supporting evidence for a theory that the Holocaust never happened:-)
Ozone science is less theoretical than you seem to think. It's not just a case of "well, CFC's can cause it, so we'll stop using them and see it corresponds to a change in the hole" or any such useless garbage. (though a lot of people prefer to think that this is exactly what scientists do when they're studying environmental problems that said people don't want to take responsibility for:-)
I've long had a problem with understanding how northern hemisphere emmissions
could cause anything but a northern hemisphere problem.
The CFC's on their own don't do anywhere near as much damage as they do when they set up their reactive camp on the surface of an ice crystal. The atmosphere above Antartica has a lot more ice crystals high up in the atmosphere, and so the global pollution hits there first and hardest.
(Allready you can start to see that there are many seperately measurable elements, such that theoretical predictions can be made, reliably tested, and confirmed well beyond the vague guesses that the industrial lobby likes to pretend is the case).
>And we survived those changes with... well, with Stone Age technology.
Actually, we didn't survive. We died in droves. We were massacred. That a pitiful few lived to populate the world doesn't mean that change is dandy and that we're up to it, No sweat - "She'll be right, mate".
We will better insure our future if we accept the inevitablity of change and adapt to it
rather than try to stop it.
Stop and think for a moment. Taking the example of global warming, just because the climate can and does change naturally, doesn't mean that changes made by us cease to exist, it means that our changes get added to the natural change, with the possible result of something far worse than can occur by nature alone.
If natural global warming can raise our climate by a few degrees, we are insane to exacerbate that change - because then we could be talking about some extremely serious shit.
The earth doesn't need us. It can change (or be changed) to it's hearts content, an asteroid could wipe us out in an instant, it matters not - it's just change. But for our quality of life, or even survival, minimising change matters a great deal.
On a related note, I'm currently living in the south island of New Zealand, and the sun here (on the outskirts of the ozone hole) is Not Fun to be in.
the physical pigments and fibres that we mix for everything else to make hues as well, and wherever you acheive a hue by mixing
colours, you risk it looking different to a tetrachromat
Why? We, trichromats, look at a CRT and see green as green, but the addition of green and red as yellow. Why should the addition of an extra primary color make any difference? Tetrachromats are still limited to the same basic model as us: seeing a continuous range of colors from a combination of a discrete number of primary colors.
A colour blind person also uses the same basic model, but more (or fewer) points of reference certainly makes a difference.
When we see yellow, obviously it means that there is a response from both the R and G cones (as both can see yellow). However, we can get the _same_ response from the right mix of red and green, thus an RGB monitor produces yellow. But a tetrachromat has a cone for yellow, and that cone is saying "there is nothing here" (it will pick up a little bit of red and a little bit of green at the extremes of its senstitivity, but nothing in its peak area), thus the tetrachromat can distinguish faked yellow created by mixed fibres or RGB, from true yellow as emitted, by say, an LED.
The point is that while we can all see yellow, some of the colours that our brain assumes are yellow actually contain no light in the wavelength of yellow, and the tetrachromat could distinguish the difference.
Or to put it another way, while we all use the same method as you say, many products of our 3-primary colour techniques won't withstand 4-primary scrutiney.
Cool - we could look like those guys in City of Lost Children:-)
I would love to play with those things. If you ever do go into production, you've made one sale here:-)
Wow - and with a bit of work and study, you could probably learn to use these to colour-coordinate in tetrachromatic space, then you could be the only guy in the world who looks stylish to tetrachromats, who are all female...
(Hey - it's just a thought!:-)
The main advantage is in distinguishing between slightly different levels of saturation, not hues,
Not entirely. I'd say the big advantage would be from compound coloured objects. Eg an orange shirt (that is actually woven from red and green fibres) will look orange to us and something completely different to a tetrachromat. It's not just RGB monitors that are geared to trichromats, but the physical pigments and fibres that we mix for everything else to make hues as well, and wherever you acheive a hue by mixing colours, you risk it looking different to a tetrachromat from a pigment or fibre that is genuinely that colour.
but does this mean she's losing resolution to gain color, or does the resoltion stay the same?
No, the resolution is really the department of the rods - that's where you get most of the image defintiion, the extra cones just means the colours are painted into that image with a cruder brush, which, if you've mess around with image channels, you'll find makes virtually no perceptual difference. (It's quite weird actually - we can't define by colour to save our lives:)
An example that is probably due to the same phenomina - put green text on a red background, and adjust the tone such that there is no tone-difference between the colours (ie your rods see a flat grey - no text at all) then try to read the text using just your cones. You can do it, but your eyes will totally bug out:-)
We kicked your ass once, please don't make us do it again.
No you didn't. And not only did you not kick anyone's ass, you weren't even there at the time!
And not only where you not there, you weren't even close to being there!
And not only were you not even close, you didn't even exist!
That beats even Al Gore's exagerations...
:-)
(I thought I should put that smiley in bold, as some people have no sense of humor/humour regarding such matters:)
I live in New Zealand, where the law considers DVD zones to be an illegal trade barrier. But in a few weeks I'll be moving to the USA.
How difficult is it to get zoneless DVD players in the USA? How easy (and cheap) is it to get the model of your choice "chipped" to become zoneless?
Would it be easier to mail myself a DVD player from New Zealand, and worry instead about replacing it's power supply? (NZ runs at 240V)
You've missed most of the picture. Intelligence powers are beloved by governments across the spectrum. Leftist ones don't like surveillance powers, but like those on the right, quickly discover how useful it is to keep the dirty laundry under "national security" and away from the public.
You should also note that many of these laws you claim come from the left actually came from the right. New Zealand for example, is acting on laws drafted by the previous, right-wing government.
I think you're making a mistake in twisting and interpreting the events to support your ideology.
Slashdot Mirror
In '94 I made a Doom conversion based on a movie. It was very popular, and opened up a lot of opportunities for me. I imagine that its success was not inconsiderably aided by the movie being a part of the culture shared by the gamers.
:-)
Despite this, I found it not only artistically unsatisfying (to be chained to existing ideas), but that the legal limits imposed on what I could do with my own work (due to my work being based on IP that I didn't own) were more annoying than I anticipated. I wouldn't even dream of doing it again.
So what do you do?
You can either be original, drawing from all your favorite things (which is awesome fun and my recommendation), or you can decide to match the "feel" in your game without infringing on any IP, and simply let the gamers imagine themselves to be in the world that you're technically not allowed to portray. This isn't as difficult or dodgy as it sounds, and at the end of you, it could be you ending up with valuable IP. Don't try to make an imitation that's just far-off enough to not infringe, try to make 'em some competition - something that is appeals for the same reasons, but is even better...
(And if you suceed, you could end up being paid to do that stuff
IIRC, the Aliens TC for Doom met the same fate.
Not that it matters, but Aliens TC for Doom didn't meet the same fate - I think you're thinking of an attempted Aliens conversion for Quake.
When A-TC for Doom was brought to the attention of someone at Fox (can't remember if it was the legal team though), their reply was something like "Doom? Never heard of it. Your thing is probably OK so long as it's not distributed too widely".
Shortly after that, first person computer games were making too much money to not come to the attention of such companies, and as soon as thoughts turned to licensing the rights, protecting those rights became an issue...
Aliens-TC for Doom bascially snuck through just before the wave of Doom's popularity changed things.
the leaders in video games are British and French, etc...
I think you're mistaken here - I suspect it's more the case that there is significant difference in tastes in the EU and USA, and naturally, the locally produced product caters for those tastes best. Were you in the USA, I think you'd find that the leaders in games were American, likewise EU companies probably lead the European market. I suspect sports games (soccer games for example) might be a good example - I get the impression that they're huge in Europe, and of no interest in the USA (I live in neither area).
Re: Cheap cars and gas
The only better value an American will find is in pre-industrial products: food and apparel, primarily.
(cynic mode engaged) It only appears that way because you haven't factored in all the hidden costs of the car in the USA, such as the enormous gas-price subsidy laughably known as "defense spending" which comes out of your taxes.
(cynic mode off)
:-)
The _possibility_ of a secret key being released can actually be quite devastating.
:-)
"And finally Your Honour, we present as evidence the defendant's key, obtained from his home by the FBI" and now on public record.
If the MPAA's elite pack of lawyers can f*ck this one up (deCSS), I'm sure the FBI can manage it routinely
Of course, it's more difficult when 99 percent of the people you communicate with do not
I had that problem. And even bigger problem though was that all the cryptography programs and sites I found were aimed at advanced users who were already familiar with crypto. It was an inpenetrable wall.
Perhaps I was looking in the wrong places, but someone needs to make an ultra-dumbed down installer that could let your grandmother start using crypto. Then we'll be getting somewhere.
Again, you're being paranoid. If you haven't done anything illegal, you have nothing to hide.
Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work like that. It took the WTO protests to make it clear that vocal oppostion to globalisation was not sufficent grounds to label you a probable terrorist and have your home invaded.
Protesters aren't a good example in that a lot of people hate them with a vengence and think they deserve to have their rights violated, but protesters are good example in that they so clearly do have something to fear while often clearly having nothing to hide.
So ask yourself, which is more important to you, seeing mob bosses, terrorists, and child pornographers get caught before they can hurt
anybody, or protecting yourself from having some FBI bureaucrat reading over your shopping list?
I think that's kind of naive. Have you ever actually spoken to an innocent person who got f*cked over by people abusing their powers? A lot of the people doing this surveillence live in a twisted little paranoid world where they see guns in every shadow of innocent activity, and they sometimes act on these innocent things in ways that level headed people wouldn't. And if the law doesn't protect you from such violation of rights, (which it often doesn't) you can kiss your way of life goodbye.
Sure, there are more criminals having their rights abused than there are innocent parties, and we all know that criminals are, like terrorists, 2d cardboard cutouts whose sole motivation in life is to hurt us and so we should hurt them back, but every erosion of privacy is individually justifiable. The problem is that the next thing you know, you'll have bad cops raking in the $$$ selling your business secrets to your competitors, your unlisted phone number to tele-marketers, your spending details to advertising consultants, and if you try to raise a fuss, they'll deny everything, stop you dead in your tracks with National Security, and you'll be a laughing stock in your community forever for making such paranoid wacko claims.
It's an exotic threat next to having a car drive into you on your way home from work tommorow, and perhaps not as deserving of as much worry, but that doesn't mean we should just lie back and let it happen.
Abuse of power is real. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
>No, I haven't done my research. Have you?
Yep, but more by accident than an active search. No it wasn't activist or political crap. Check out the guy who was awarded a Nobel prize for his ozone layer research, and read up on why it earned a Nobel prize. Can't remember his name, but that's a good enough start with today's IT at your fingertips, (though I get the impression there might be another prominent ozone scientist who won a Nobel but for a different field (not ozone related) of his work).
What is sad about arguments for a better enviroment is that no one has stated exactly what is a "healthy" hole.
If, like me, you are currently living under it, a "healthy" hole, much like a "healthy" dose of gamma radiation, is one that is "as small as bloody possible!".
The sun is nasty here...
Or is there some other, secret evidence that this is a new phenomenon? I wonder...
This is depressing. No, the evidence isn't secret, and it's extremely compelling. Just because someone doesn't hand it to you on a silver platter doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means that if you want an educated opinion, you've got to do your homework.
Admittedly, it doesn't seem easy to find (I stumbled across most of my info by accident), but armchair skepticism is no better than armchair blind faith. Get your hands dirty.
:-)
If there are serious environmental problems, there will become an economic incentive to gix them, and someone will rise to the challenge.
:-)
Market forces are worse than useless here. The west is hugely insulated from the effects of environmental damage. It's the third world that takes the heat. By the time there is a significant economic incentive, it's be either far, far too late, or far far too expensive, to stop the kind of loss of quality of life that is already occuring in some parts of the third world.
Still, I plan to have enough money to be well and truly insulated
There are lots of people in China, India, and
:-)
Africa that haven't effectively gone through an industrial revolution and don't have that luxury. I'm not going to get high and mighty when they
start burning billions of tonnes of coal to do what we did at the end of the 18th century.
There are also poor third world nations which will be wiped off the face of the earth by predicted sea level rises. Understandably, they would like someone who is able to be all high and mighty about it, to get high and mighty
This is meant to be an observation rather than a flame: your post gives the impression of being a rationalisation aimed primarily at relieving of you of a need to do anything, by providing a (somewhat flimsy IMHO) justification no to.
Why does it show a HUGE concentration of ozone just to one Side of the South Pole? It looks to me like the
:-)
Ozone for some reason just isn't GETTING to the South Pole.
The bottom line is that while CFC's may be bad, and they may harm Ozone in general, our use of them most likely contributed little to nothing of the decline or proposed recovery of the ozone.
The bottom line is that you haven't read up on ozone research
That the hole is in the south pole rather than above developed areas precisely confirms that it is man made, because (this summary is oversimplified almost to the point of falsehood) it coincides exactly with the atmospheric conditions required for non-naturally occuring ozone depleting chemicals to shift into top gear and really get stuck into the ozone. And when those conditions change, the ozone hole changes with them, which poses something of a problem for the head-in-the-sand idea that non-manmade forces are the big players.
Most Enviromental causes are thinly disguised anti-American, anti-technolgy plots that are almost terrorist organizations,
Correction: The industrial lobby in the USA is so powerful that it can portray even things like Kyoto as anti-American when they are so blatently not.
Can you believe it - Europe says "We want cuts of 12% for all developed nations" (eg including Europe), the USA says "F*ck off - that's enough that we'd have to convince people that efficient engines were Good and SUV's were Bad. Screw that, we'll just tell them that Europe was being anti-American! - you can't be much more anti-American than opposing gas-guzzling cars".
Seriously though, these causes are not anti-American - they require everyone to make changes, and the USA is copping a lot of flak for being so unwilling to do anything. While this does make it easier for interest groups to portray things as anit-American, the reality is that there is nothing of the sort - the only thing anti-American is the ill will that the USA generates by its own actions with it's repeated refusal to change even half as much as everyone else is already prepared to do.
See http://www.junkscience.com/news/iccp.html
:-)
for more information
Wake up man. "Junk Science" is a corporate front, mainly for disseminating propaganda. Its backers and funding reads like a "who's who" of the worst polluting and environmentally distructive industries. And its history gets a hell of a lot more sordid than that.
Don't be a sucker - always check your sources.
(It's not like Junk Science is even subtle propaganda - it's so flimsy and unbalanced that it only works on people who really want to believe it.)
And if it didn't instantly set your warning bells ringing, checking out the so-called citizens "group" that runs the site should have confirmed that you were dealing with something very dodgy.
I'm not putting forward an opinion on your patent conspiracy theory, I'm just saying that citing Junk Science to support your theory is like citing White Supremacy literature as supporting evidence for a theory that the Holocaust never happened
Ozone science is less theoretical than you seem to think. It's not just a case of "well, CFC's can cause it, so we'll stop using them and see it corresponds to a change in the hole" or any such useless garbage. (though a lot of people prefer to think that this is exactly what scientists do when they're studying environmental problems that said people don't want to take responsibility for :-)
I've long had a problem with understanding how northern hemisphere emmissions
could cause anything but a northern hemisphere problem.
The CFC's on their own don't do anywhere near as much damage as they do when they set up their reactive camp on the surface of an ice crystal. The atmosphere above Antartica has a lot more ice crystals high up in the atmosphere, and so the global pollution hits there first and hardest.
(Allready you can start to see that there are many seperately measurable elements, such that theoretical predictions can be made, reliably tested, and confirmed well beyond the vague guesses that the industrial lobby likes to pretend is the case).
>And we survived those changes with... well, with Stone Age technology.
Actually, we didn't survive. We died in droves. We were massacred. That a pitiful few lived to populate the world doesn't mean that change is dandy and that we're up to it, No sweat - "She'll be right, mate".
We will better insure our future if we accept the inevitablity of change and adapt to it
rather than try to stop it.
Stop and think for a moment. Taking the example of global warming, just because the climate can and does change naturally, doesn't mean that changes made by us cease to exist, it means that our changes get added to the natural change, with the possible result of something far worse than can occur by nature alone.
If natural global warming can raise our climate by a few degrees, we are insane to exacerbate that change - because then we could be talking about some extremely serious shit.
The earth doesn't need us. It can change (or be changed) to it's hearts content, an asteroid could wipe us out in an instant, it matters not - it's just change. But for our quality of life, or even survival, minimising change matters a great deal.
On a related note, I'm currently living in the south island of New Zealand, and the sun here (on the outskirts of the ozone hole) is Not Fun to be in.
the physical pigments and fibres that we mix for everything else to make hues as well, and wherever you acheive a hue by mixing
colours, you risk it looking different to a tetrachromat
Why? We, trichromats, look at a CRT and see green as green, but the addition of green and red as yellow. Why should the addition of an extra primary color make any difference? Tetrachromats are still limited to the same basic model as us: seeing a continuous range of colors from a combination of a discrete number of primary colors.
A colour blind person also uses the same basic model, but more (or fewer) points of reference certainly makes a difference.
When we see yellow, obviously it means that there is a response from both the R and G cones (as both can see yellow). However, we can get the _same_ response from the right mix of red and green, thus an RGB monitor produces yellow. But a tetrachromat has a cone for yellow, and that cone is saying "there is nothing here" (it will pick up a little bit of red and a little bit of green at the extremes of its senstitivity, but nothing in its peak area), thus the tetrachromat can distinguish faked yellow created by mixed fibres or RGB, from true yellow as emitted, by say, an LED.
The point is that while we can all see yellow, some of the colours that our brain assumes are yellow actually contain no light in the wavelength of yellow, and the tetrachromat could distinguish the difference.
Or to put it another way, while we all use the same method as you say, many products of our 3-primary colour techniques won't withstand 4-primary scrutiney.
Cool - we could look like those guys in City of Lost Children :-)
:-)
:-)
I would love to play with those things. If you ever do go into production, you've made one sale here
Wow - and with a bit of work and study, you could probably learn to use these to colour-coordinate in tetrachromatic space, then you could be the only guy in the world who looks stylish to tetrachromats, who are all female...
(Hey - it's just a thought!
The main advantage is in distinguishing between slightly different levels of saturation, not hues,
Not entirely. I'd say the big advantage would be from compound coloured objects. Eg an orange shirt (that is actually woven from red and green fibres) will look orange to us and something completely different to a tetrachromat. It's not just RGB monitors that are geared to trichromats, but the physical pigments and fibres that we mix for everything else to make hues as well, and wherever you acheive a hue by mixing colours, you risk it looking different to a tetrachromat from a pigment or fibre that is genuinely that colour.
but does this mean she's losing resolution to gain color, or does the resoltion stay the same?
:)
:-)
No, the resolution is really the department of the rods - that's where you get most of the image defintiion, the extra cones just means the colours are painted into that image with a cruder brush, which, if you've mess around with image channels, you'll find makes virtually no perceptual difference. (It's quite weird actually - we can't define by colour to save our lives
An example that is probably due to the same phenomina - put green text on a red background, and adjust the tone such that there is no tone-difference between the colours (ie your rods see a flat grey - no text at all) then try to read the text using just your cones. You can do it, but your eyes will totally bug out
We kicked your ass once, please don't make us do it again.
:-)
:)
No you didn't. And not only did you not kick anyone's ass, you weren't even there at the time!
And not only where you not there, you weren't even close to being there!
And not only were you not even close, you didn't even exist!
That beats even Al Gore's exagerations...
(I thought I should put that smiley in bold, as some people have no sense of humor/humour regarding such matters
I live in New Zealand, where the law considers DVD zones to be an illegal trade barrier. But in a few weeks I'll be moving to the USA.
How difficult is it to get zoneless DVD players in the USA? How easy (and cheap) is it to get the model of your choice "chipped" to become zoneless?
Would it be easier to mail myself a DVD player from New Zealand, and worry instead about replacing it's power supply? (NZ runs at 240V)
The leftist attitude is we are all...
You've missed most of the picture. Intelligence powers are beloved by governments across the spectrum. Leftist ones don't like surveillance powers, but like those on the right, quickly discover how useful it is to keep the dirty laundry under "national security" and away from the public.
You should also note that many of these laws you claim come from the left actually came from the right. New Zealand for example, is acting on laws drafted by the previous, right-wing government.
I think you're making a mistake in twisting and interpreting the events to support your ideology.