So let me see here. Fencing, musketry, paintball, boxing, combat training, karate, kendo, sparring, stuntwork, etc, should all be out of the question for anyone younger than adults. These activities are far more real than their Wii-gaming counterparts. Houston, we have a problem.
Simple. We send his daughter either to battle insectoid extra-terrestrials, or to an earthbound asteroid. There will be no time for RPGs in these scenarios, although Hollywood execs would be smiling at the prospects.
If there's one thing I've learned from working in the mobile telephone industry for the past year, it's that mobile service providers and indeed, mobile handset manufacturers, have their heads so far up their asses so as to be completely out of touch with the rest of the world.
They understand their customers fairly well, but they show complete contempt for third party software developers and existing Internet and communications infrastructures. They lobomotise almost every new useful feature in the face of the demand for said features, and the pump steroids into the features which really aren't important (5 megapixel camera on my mobile phone, when the f**king thing won't even let me send the high quality snaps over anything but infrared?! Get out!)
Now, what's this I keep hearing about a Linux phone?
Having spent a decade writing 3D engines and artist tools for games, let me just point out that what you describe is *exactly* what the artist has to do anyway. In any game engine - even to some extent the procedurally generated content. Every 3D object that is modelled has to be textured and have materials mapped to it, and those materials already contain all the properties required for a full blown raytracing engine. Not to mention that every game has its own renderer meaning every object and scene has to be extensively tested within the game anyway.
This explains how the developer from TFA was able to singlehandedly port Q3 and Q4 to a raytracing engine - the game's visual resources already contained everything needed. Apart from a higher polygon count, maybe.
Oh, probably the most important reason for having gears will be evident if you look at the power/torque curves of a dynamometer run for your average combustion engine.
Thanks, I forgot to specify the type of combustion engine. However Wankel/rotary style engines still only operate up to 2 or 3 times the RPM of a reciprocating piston engine, whereas an electric motor in the same context spins an order of magnitude faster quite easily.
Point being, you *still* need gears using a rotary engine in a car, so both points still stand 100%.
Internal combustion engines need a clutch for two major reasons.
1. If you had direct gearing from the shaft to the wheel, the engine would need to be able to accelerate from 0 RPM. Combustion engines cannot turn at less than certain speeds while still maintaining ignition. In English this means you need a clutch to pull of from standing.
2. Combustion engines have relatively low ceilings on maximum RPM. So you need to change gears to go faster. This is why manual drive cars have that third pedal - you have to disengage the drive in order to slot in the new gear.
Electric motors are pretty much free of the above two limitations, so they require therefore only a throttle control.
Did you even bother to read the rest of that page? Or cross reference with a publication reputable in the area of word definitions, such as a dictionary? It's really not complicated. "Misnomer" is the wrong word to use.
In actuality, although the word might be nice, its usage above is rather malapropistic, for the denotation of "misnomer" is along the lines of "using the wrong name for a person, place or event" as opposed to "perpetuating untruthiness".
Yessir. I've just spent the last few days making stupid geeky Star Control icons and trying to remember the locations of all the rainbow worlds. Thank $deity for UQM. Anyway, go sign the petition for a real SCIII if you haven't already.
Another greatly desired sequel would be Full Throttle II. It keeps getting brought back to life, then canned again. LucasArts made some awesome, fantastic games. Great to see a Sam & Max comeback, but there's plenty more juice to milk out of their old titles.
Damn straight. Star Control II didn't even get an honourable mention!
There was nothing else like it in its time. The story was complex, deep, interwoven, and entirely surprising and shocking at times. It blew my mind many times over. The story was much cleverer than, say, Grim Fandango, which placed 5th in that list.
Interesting. Surely it only requires 1 wavelength per type of cone receptor in the eye? I am aware that the cones really respond to all visible wavelengths, but with different ranges of sensitivies for each of the 3 types. I remember what the sensitivity / response graphs look like for each type of cone, and how they overlap - but it still seems like as long as you're using any small number of discrete frequencies to reproduce an image, it will still be a rough approximation. You need a whole bunch of wavelengths adaptively tuned to approximate the sensitivity curves of the cones in the eye before you really get close to 100% of the visible gamut.
That is, if you're building the image from component wavelengths. Of course, if they are actually using a tunable laser as the grandparent poster says, then we have the reproduction of the image down to near perfection. But of course, what video source actually has light frequencies as data? Pretty much everything is transmitted in one of the multiple component colourspaces (RGB, YCrBr, etc). Come to think of it, the grandparent could not possibly be correct about this new laser TV using a tunable laser. They simply lack the video input source for it.
The new laser tv display is different because each pixel is created by light from a tunable laser
I was wondering about that! It didn't seem feasible to me (given my limited knowledge on the technology) that they would've been able to "tune" a laser's frequency rapidly enough to scan the entire display. That's many millions of different "frequencies" per second! That's exactly what I was hoping for until I read TFA, which didn't seem to mentioned that at all.
Yeah, I think it's to do with purity of the component colour frequencies. Maybe current technologies produce, for example, a red which would look like a bell curve on a frequency graph instead of a sharp peak, meaning less faithful representations of those component colours. Maybe the grass really is greener on the other screen:P
Good link. The main bit of relevant information in there is that lasers are able to produce more saturated (read: pure) colours.
Would it seem rather that the near 3-fold increase they are are talking about is the ratio of the areas of the two shapes in this graph? So it's not all about brightness then...
I'd expect that many people, like me, are so used to subconsciously compensating for the inadequacies of normal displays that they hardly see the deficiencies compared to real life. I'm looking forward to seeing one of these now:)
Slashdot Mirror
So let me see here. Fencing, musketry, paintball, boxing, combat training, karate, kendo, sparring, stuntwork, etc, should all be out of the question for anyone younger than adults. These activities are far more real than their Wii-gaming counterparts. Houston, we have a problem.
I must be oldschool. What you described is the only thing I've ever used chroot for.
Simple. We send his daughter either to battle insectoid extra-terrestrials, or to an earthbound asteroid. There will be no time for RPGs in these scenarios, although Hollywood execs would be smiling at the prospects.
Erm, what about transgendered individuals, such as your mother?
If there's one thing I've learned from working in the mobile telephone industry for the past year, it's that mobile service providers and indeed, mobile handset manufacturers, have their heads so far up their asses so as to be completely out of touch with the rest of the world.
They understand their customers fairly well, but they show complete contempt for third party software developers and existing Internet and communications infrastructures. They lobomotise almost every new useful feature in the face of the demand for said features, and the pump steroids into the features which really aren't important (5 megapixel camera on my mobile phone, when the f**king thing won't even let me send the high quality snaps over anything but infrared?! Get out!)
Now, what's this I keep hearing about a Linux phone?
Sounds to me like the 'n' is "look behind you! it's superman!" :)
Yeah, that is totally the right question :)
Having spent a decade writing 3D engines and artist tools for games, let me just point out that what you describe is *exactly* what the artist has to do anyway. In any game engine - even to some extent the procedurally generated content. Every 3D object that is modelled has to be textured and have materials mapped to it, and those materials already contain all the properties required for a full blown raytracing engine. Not to mention that every game has its own renderer meaning every object and scene has to be extensively tested within the game anyway.
This explains how the developer from TFA was able to singlehandedly port Q3 and Q4 to a raytracing engine - the game's visual resources already contained everything needed. Apart from a higher polygon count, maybe.
I'm guessing this will help?
Not sure why this is in the Hardware section, unless they mean Facebook will actually be sending flash drives and the like to their lucky users.
Actually, that would be a nice way to go one-up the current horde of online storage providers.
Oh, probably the most important reason for having gears will be evident if you look at the power/torque curves of a dynamometer run for your average combustion engine.
Thanks, I forgot to specify the type of combustion engine. However Wankel/rotary style engines still only operate up to 2 or 3 times the RPM of a reciprocating piston engine, whereas an electric motor in the same context spins an order of magnitude faster quite easily.
Point being, you *still* need gears using a rotary engine in a car, so both points still stand 100%.
Internal combustion engines need a clutch for two major reasons.
1. If you had direct gearing from the shaft to the wheel, the engine would need to be able to accelerate from 0 RPM. Combustion engines cannot turn at less than certain speeds while still maintaining ignition. In English this means you need a clutch to pull of from standing.
2. Combustion engines have relatively low ceilings on maximum RPM. So you need to change gears to go faster. This is why manual drive cars have that third pedal - you have to disengage the drive in order to slot in the new gear.
Electric motors are pretty much free of the above two limitations, so they require therefore only a throttle control.
Bruce Springsteen, was it?
They appear to be Pkunk. I wonder where their re-incarnations will respawn?
Did you even bother to read the rest of that page? Or cross reference with a publication reputable in the area of word definitions, such as a dictionary? It's really not complicated. "Misnomer" is the wrong word to use.
In actuality, although the word might be nice, its usage above is rather malapropistic, for the denotation of "misnomer" is along the lines of "using the wrong name for a person, place or event" as opposed to "perpetuating untruthiness".
Looked up the definition of "misnomer" recently?
Yessir. I've just spent the last few days making stupid geeky Star Control icons and trying to remember the locations of all the rainbow worlds. Thank $deity for UQM. Anyway, go sign the petition for a real SCIII if you haven't already.
Another greatly desired sequel would be Full Throttle II. It keeps getting brought back to life, then canned again. LucasArts made some awesome, fantastic games. Great to see a Sam & Max comeback, but there's plenty more juice to milk out of their old titles.
Damn straight. Star Control II didn't even get an honourable mention!
There was nothing else like it in its time. The story was complex, deep, interwoven, and entirely surprising and shocking at times. It blew my mind many times over. The story was much cleverer than, say, Grim Fandango, which placed 5th in that list.
Interesting. Surely it only requires 1 wavelength per type of cone receptor in the eye? I am aware that the cones really respond to all visible wavelengths, but with different ranges of sensitivies for each of the 3 types. I remember what the sensitivity / response graphs look like for each type of cone, and how they overlap - but it still seems like as long as you're using any small number of discrete frequencies to reproduce an image, it will still be a rough approximation. You need a whole bunch of wavelengths adaptively tuned to approximate the sensitivity curves of the cones in the eye before you really get close to 100% of the visible gamut.
That is, if you're building the image from component wavelengths. Of course, if they are actually using a tunable laser as the grandparent poster says, then we have the reproduction of the image down to near perfection. But of course, what video source actually has light frequencies as data? Pretty much everything is transmitted in one of the multiple component colourspaces (RGB, YCrBr, etc). Come to think of it, the grandparent could not possibly be correct about this new laser TV using a tunable laser. They simply lack the video input source for it.
The new laser tv display is different because each pixel is created by light from a tunable laser
I was wondering about that! It didn't seem feasible to me (given my limited knowledge on the technology) that they would've been able to "tune" a laser's frequency rapidly enough to scan the entire display. That's many millions of different "frequencies" per second! That's exactly what I was hoping for until I read TFA, which didn't seem to mentioned that at all.
Yeah, I think it's to do with purity of the component colour frequencies. Maybe current technologies produce, for example, a red which would look like a bell curve on a frequency graph instead of a sharp peak, meaning less faithful representations of those component colours. Maybe the grass really is greener on the other screen :P
I think I get it now...
Good link. The main bit of relevant information in there is that lasers are able to produce more saturated (read: pure) colours.
:)
Would it seem rather that the near 3-fold increase they are are talking about is the ratio of the areas of the two shapes in this graph? So it's not all about brightness then...
I'd expect that many people, like me, are so used to subconsciously compensating for the inadequacies of normal displays that they hardly see the deficiencies compared to real life. I'm looking forward to seeing one of these now