I'm not creating videos, just watching them. And I've never seen one that big before. For comparision, playing other high quality (640x272) Quicktime videos, like the Animatrix shorts only uses about 30% of the CPU time, and DVD playing (720x480) is similar. DVD quality is good enough for me, since I only have a 17" monitor and cheap stereo sound.
I'm not planning on building a home theater any time soon, so I think I'll stick with my Duron, despite other Slashdotters looking down their noses at me. This machine also does just fine for the (admittedly somewhat venerable) 3D games I play. I'm sure we all wish we had Mac hardware (actually, I would probably get a PowerPC based machine if I had money to burn), but that doesn't warrant the typical Mac snobbishness.
I certainly agree MPlayer is superior. I don't know if it's an indication of the deep crapulence of Win98, or the Windows Quicktime player, or what, but it can't play the huge (1000x540) Matrix trailer without dropping approximately 70% of the frames on my Duron 800 machine. MPlayer on GNU/Linux, on the other hand, can play the same movie while only dropping some frames at the certain spots, even though it uses exactly the same video decoder (Sorensen Video 3 from the Windows Quicktime library). It's very strange. I have to assume it's a problem with Quicktime on Windows, since other video and game applications run fine on Win98.
Well, actually, MPlayer still uses the Windows Quicktime libraries for recent codecs, like Sorensen3. So, yes, you still rely on Apple's proprietary (though free beer) software, as well as an x86 machine. Maybe MPlayer on PPC will be able to use the Mac OS libraries, but I haven't heard of that.
Half-Life wasn't as much about innovation as it was about optimization. It was a nearly ideal mix between shooting enemies, following a story, and pretty graphics. Nothing was entirely new, but it was all put together exceptionally well. Often the bleeding edge is not the place to look for the best quality or most useful, but a little back from the edge.
Yeah, I think you're right. It just seems odd to me that Gordon can use any weapon with ease, while the other scientists are afraid to be in the same room as a weapon and never try to face enemies, but it is just a (an?) FPS.
ESR model? You mean Eric the Gun Nut? Like I said, none of those things by itself means Gordon (oops, my bad: Morgan sounds like Gordon) isn't a scientist; it just seems a little stretched, especially since all of the other scientists are pure stereotypes and cower in fear if they even hear a loud sound. In fact, all of the characters are stereotypes--unthinkingly hostile Marine grunts; quiet, invisible, agile black ops; pansy (timid, not homosexual), white-lab-coated scientists; and bizarre, hostile aliens--except Gordon. A few less stereotypical NPC's would make it more interesting. Note that I'm not knocking the game; I wouldn't care enough to comment if I didn't love the game.
Also, if he's a PhD and fully part of the research, why do the other scientists have to hold his hand during the experiment? I guess he's probably the most junior member, so he does the grunt work. Having a PhD in a project of all PhD's wouldn't give you any status.
Yeah, HL has become more a FPS game platform than just a game. As people have pointed out, Quake did that as well, but to a lesser extent. The amount of game development on the HL platform is mind blowing. It has the Free Beerness of the Free Software community, though it lacks the Free Speechness. Just imagine how great it would be if Valve added transparent multi-platformness to the platform. Support for GNU/Linux and MacOS in many games could be added as an afterthought, instead of requiring deep engineering or a great porting effort.
I know Freeman was supposed to be a "physics nerd" according to the story, but was he really? He could wield any weapon thrown at him with ease, was very athletic, and didn't have access to areas where other scientists did. Of course, none of these by itself would mean he wasn't a scientist, but to me, it always seemed a thin part of the story.
Consider that at the beginning of the game, Morgan goes into the hazardous area of the "tank" to do some grunt work--push a sample into the beam. Maybe he was more a high-level technician than a scientist.
Of course, the story didn't have to be immaculate to make for good game play. I spent $50 for Half-Life and Opposing Force and it was the best value I ever got on software. I still play free mods like Counter Strike, Day of Defeat, and FireArms. Since HL runs quite well on Wine and my cheap 16MB Vanta card, I won't be buying many new games. Of course, since there are so many people running HL servers on GNU/Linux, maybe Sierra/Valve will finally decide it's worth it to make a real port of the entire game, at which time I'll need a new GPU.
It hasn't really been that secret. I heard Burt Rutan himself announce that he would be working on a manned spacecraft at the EAA Oshkosh flyin in 1996. I guess I should really read the article before commenting, the Slashdot post is definitely misleading.
OK, I guess that makes a little more sense. It does seem to me that the marketing of "Tomb Raider" is somewhat insulting to the intelligence of any potential player.
You're right about the point of the article, but I don't understand why the author was so disappointed with "Tomb Raider," but didn't see anything wrong with "DOA: Extreme Volleyball." She said that the latter was clearly only for males, and there was nothing wrong with that. So, why doesn't the same logic apply to "Tomb Raider?"
By the way, as a normal man who appreciates feminine beauty, I prefer games that focus on gameplay or story, rather than unrealistically proportioned heroines. I have played "Tomb Raider" a little, but when I did, I was thinking about how to solve the puzzles most of the time.
There are no GNU/Linux infidels on the Desktop. Never! Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves! The Free Software zealots, they always depend on a method what I call... stupid, silly. All I ask is check yourself. Do not in fact repeat their lies.
Well, you've gotten me interested in Heinlein again; I'll definitely have to check out at least one of those you mentioned. And try "Fellowship of the Ring" again; you won't be disappointed. As good as the movies have been, the originals are much better. The first time I tried to read "The Lord of the Rings," I didn't make it all the way through. Of course, I was probably about 12 or 13. I'm reading through it again, now that the movies have reminded me.
Maybe I will read it, though I got bogged down in the last "new" Heinlein book I tried to read. I would agree that his older stuff is generally better and the newer stuff is sometimes weird to the point that I lose interest.
No, I haven't, though I've read several other Heinlein stories, like "The Door into Summer," "Starship Troopers" (the movie was an abomination), the one about the survival course (I can't remember the title), and others I can't think of off the top of my head.
Well, this discussion probably isn't going to get us much farther, so additional replies aren't necessary, though I'm not against additional discussion. I do now see why you were labeled as a Satanist, but I'll try not to hold that against you. As you pointed out, we often do hold prejudices that we may not know about; I am not innocent of that.
One important point is that believing Jesus Christ is the only one who can save us does not remove responsibility for our actions. It is simply acknowledging that His power enables us to follow His example of a perfect life (though we're still imperfect people) and be saved from the consequences of our sin (which is eternal death).
By the way, I enjoyed "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," especially the AI with MPD (maybe it's not a disorder for AI's), though I doubt Heinlein intended it as an authentic history (unless he was/will be there).:)
One other thing: I certainly wouldn't call you a Satanist, and its unfortunate that some people have called you that. It sounds to me like your position is an agnostic one, but I won't presume to label you, as I wouldn't want to be labeled by someone with different beliefs than my own.
First of all, if I came off as self-righteous, I'm sorry. Secondly, it sounds like we agree on the usefulness of both faith and reason. Third, it seems that some of my comments about LDS were biased, as pointed out by an actual Mormon, so I won't put my foot in my mouth about that any more.
One thing I am sure about is that Evangelical Christianity (that is, following Jesus Christ, not necessarily a particular religious sect) is very different from most religions. Most religions tell us certain steps or attitudes or actions we need to have or do to be saved. Jesus Christ came to tell us that we cannot save ourselves, but that he can and will if we let him.
What would you define as "religion?" Are you rejecting any belief in any kind of god? Does it seem to you that it's more reasonable to believe in all the weirdness and inexplicability of the physical universe than in God? As you've mentioned, it requires faith to believe in the usefulness of Science (I believe in that) and the trustworthiness of other people. I'm not trying to convince you of the existence in God, so please don't be offended. Maybe we can agree that belief in God is no more unreasonable than a lack of belief.
I have thought a great deal about these very questions. It does bother me that I can't understand the reasons God does everything. However, at some point I have to realize that his mind and will are much bigger than mine (He's eternal, all-seeing, and all-knowing), so I can't dismiss something he does just because it doesn't make sense to me.
The article talks about the points of view of the bird and the frog. We're frogs. God has the bird's eye view. That doesn't mean I accept just anything without thinking about it, but it does mean that human logic can't always figure everything out. We all rely on many things we can't see or entirely understand (gravity, the human body).
I'll admit I don't know that much about the book of Mormon, but I think the things I did say were correct, weren't they? I didn't say that Mormons worship many gods, I just said that they believe in many gods.
I'll admit that it wasn't a valid criticism to speak of problems in human logic, since I believe things that cannot be explained by human logic as well.
In any organized religion, there are many people that just follow without thinking for themselves. If you're not in that category, good for you. I was wrong to imply that all Mormons are just unthinking followers. I'm sorry. There are also many Evangelical Christians that are content to avoid thinking for themselves as well, which has always bothered me.
I'm sorry if I offended you. Perhaps I am not as open minded about LDS as I should be. I hope there are no hard feelings.
Do read it sometime. I found it very interesting, if a little long. I knew about the level III multiverse, but the I, II, and IV were completely new to me. I love thinking about physics because it proves the old adage "truth is stranger than fiction." No one could ever dream up something as fundamentally weird as quantum physics.
Come to think of it, someone did dream it up; it just happened to be true (it fits the data). Of course, quantum physics actually explains itself, since some interpretations of quantum physics say that reality is created by someone observing it. Weirder still, if that's true, then maybe nothing's false, since if it is thought of, it exists. Never mind that this conflicts with scientific method (something is true only if it survives experiments). I think my head is about to explode.
Good, I'm glad you've put some thought into it. I would agree that faith without reason and reason without faith are both useless extremes. I would also agree that a large part of human religion is brainless following of a misleading leader. I think we agree on most points.
I believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, personal God. I believe he has always existed and will always exist. I've also been interested in Science and Science Fiction from a very young age, so I've been thinking about questions like this for a long time. I don't see any inherent contradiction between the Christian God and the theories discussed in the article.
Both faith and reason are very important in being human. Science wouldn't advance if the Scientists didn't have faith in theories that haven't been proven yet. Faith in God wouldn't be possible without being able to observe evidence and understand His relationship to us.
I think that the Mormons believe in many gods, each ruling over a different planet or world. They associate the Father with one of those gods and the Son (Jesus) with the literal offspring of the first god. I haven't studied Mormonism in depth, but it seems to be full of logical problems. As with many false, human religions (really, all religions based on human logic are false) the interpretation of all truth most come from leaders near the top. Individuals don't seem to think much for themselves.
Don't make the mistake of looking at one group of religious people that have turned their brains off and think that all belief in God is brainless. There's much about God that I don't know and there are some things I know to be true that seem contradictory. No one on Earth can claim to have it all figured out. If you've decided not to believe in God, make sure you know why you decided it. If you still have an open mind, I urge you to keep it open.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not creating videos, just watching them. And I've never seen one that big before. For comparision, playing other high quality (640x272) Quicktime videos, like the Animatrix shorts only uses about 30% of the CPU time, and DVD playing (720x480) is similar. DVD quality is good enough for me, since I only have a 17" monitor and cheap stereo sound.
I'm not planning on building a home theater any time soon, so I think I'll stick with my Duron, despite other Slashdotters looking down their noses at me. This machine also does just fine for the (admittedly somewhat venerable) 3D games I play. I'm sure we all wish we had Mac hardware (actually, I would probably get a PowerPC based machine if I had money to burn), but that doesn't warrant the typical Mac snobbishness.
I certainly agree MPlayer is superior. I don't know if it's an indication of the deep crapulence of Win98, or the Windows Quicktime player, or what, but it can't play the huge (1000x540) Matrix trailer without dropping approximately 70% of the frames on my Duron 800 machine. MPlayer on GNU/Linux, on the other hand, can play the same movie while only dropping some frames at the certain spots, even though it uses exactly the same video decoder (Sorensen Video 3 from the Windows Quicktime library). It's very strange. I have to assume it's a problem with Quicktime on Windows, since other video and game applications run fine on Win98.
Well, actually, MPlayer still uses the Windows Quicktime libraries for recent codecs, like Sorensen3. So, yes, you still rely on Apple's proprietary (though free beer) software, as well as an x86 machine. Maybe MPlayer on PPC will be able to use the Mac OS libraries, but I haven't heard of that.
Half-Life wasn't as much about innovation as it was about optimization. It was a nearly ideal mix between shooting enemies, following a story, and pretty graphics. Nothing was entirely new, but it was all put together exceptionally well. Often the bleeding edge is not the place to look for the best quality or most useful, but a little back from the edge.
Yeah, I think you're right. It just seems odd to me that Gordon can use any weapon with ease, while the other scientists are afraid to be in the same room as a weapon and never try to face enemies, but it is just a (an?) FPS.
ESR model? You mean Eric the Gun Nut? Like I said, none of those things by itself means Gordon (oops, my bad: Morgan sounds like Gordon) isn't a scientist; it just seems a little stretched, especially since all of the other scientists are pure stereotypes and cower in fear if they even hear a loud sound. In fact, all of the characters are stereotypes--unthinkingly hostile Marine grunts; quiet, invisible, agile black ops; pansy (timid, not homosexual), white-lab-coated scientists; and bizarre, hostile aliens--except Gordon. A few less stereotypical NPC's would make it more interesting. Note that I'm not knocking the game; I wouldn't care enough to comment if I didn't love the game.
Also, if he's a PhD and fully part of the research, why do the other scientists have to hold his hand during the experiment? I guess he's probably the most junior member, so he does the grunt work. Having a PhD in a project of all PhD's wouldn't give you any status.
Yeah, HL has become more a FPS game platform than just a game. As people have pointed out, Quake did that as well, but to a lesser extent. The amount of game development on the HL platform is mind blowing. It has the Free Beerness of the Free Software community, though it lacks the Free Speechness. Just imagine how great it would be if Valve added transparent multi-platformness to the platform. Support for GNU/Linux and MacOS in many games could be added as an afterthought, instead of requiring deep engineering or a great porting effort.
I know Freeman was supposed to be a "physics nerd" according to the story, but was he really? He could wield any weapon thrown at him with ease, was very athletic, and didn't have access to areas where other scientists did. Of course, none of these by itself would mean he wasn't a scientist, but to me, it always seemed a thin part of the story.
Consider that at the beginning of the game, Morgan goes into the hazardous area of the "tank" to do some grunt work--push a sample into the beam. Maybe he was more a high-level technician than a scientist.
Of course, the story didn't have to be immaculate to make for good game play. I spent $50 for Half-Life and Opposing Force and it was the best value I ever got on software. I still play free mods like Counter Strike, Day of Defeat, and FireArms. Since HL runs quite well on Wine and my cheap 16MB Vanta card, I won't be buying many new games. Of course, since there are so many people running HL servers on GNU/Linux, maybe Sierra/Valve will finally decide it's worth it to make a real port of the entire game, at which time I'll need a new GPU.
It hasn't really been that secret. I heard Burt Rutan himself announce that he would be working on a manned spacecraft at the EAA Oshkosh flyin in 1996. I guess I should really read the article before commenting, the Slashdot post is definitely misleading.
OK, I guess that makes a little more sense. It does seem to me that the marketing of "Tomb Raider" is somewhat insulting to the intelligence of any potential player.
You're right about the point of the article, but I don't understand why the author was so disappointed with "Tomb Raider," but didn't see anything wrong with "DOA: Extreme Volleyball." She said that the latter was clearly only for males, and there was nothing wrong with that. So, why doesn't the same logic apply to "Tomb Raider?"
By the way, as a normal man who appreciates feminine beauty, I prefer games that focus on gameplay or story, rather than unrealistically proportioned heroines. I have played "Tomb Raider" a little, but when I did, I was thinking about how to solve the puzzles most of the time.
There are no GNU/Linux infidels on the Desktop. Never! Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves! The Free Software zealots, they always depend on a method what I call ... stupid, silly. All I ask is check yourself. Do not in fact repeat their lies.
We love the Iraqi Information MinisterWell, you've gotten me interested in Heinlein again; I'll definitely have to check out at least one of those you mentioned. And try "Fellowship of the Ring" again; you won't be disappointed. As good as the movies have been, the originals are much better. The first time I tried to read "The Lord of the Rings," I didn't make it all the way through. Of course, I was probably about 12 or 13. I'm reading through it again, now that the movies have reminded me.
Maybe I will read it, though I got bogged down in the last "new" Heinlein book I tried to read. I would agree that his older stuff is generally better and the newer stuff is sometimes weird to the point that I lose interest.
No, I haven't, though I've read several other Heinlein stories, like "The Door into Summer," "Starship Troopers" (the movie was an abomination), the one about the survival course (I can't remember the title), and others I can't think of off the top of my head.
Well, this discussion probably isn't going to get us much farther, so additional replies aren't necessary, though I'm not against additional discussion. I do now see why you were labeled as a Satanist, but I'll try not to hold that against you. As you pointed out, we often do hold prejudices that we may not know about; I am not innocent of that.
:)
One important point is that believing Jesus Christ is the only one who can save us does not remove responsibility for our actions. It is simply acknowledging that His power enables us to follow His example of a perfect life (though we're still imperfect people) and be saved from the consequences of our sin (which is eternal death).
By the way, I enjoyed "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," especially the AI with MPD (maybe it's not a disorder for AI's), though I doubt Heinlein intended it as an authentic history (unless he was/will be there).
One other thing: I certainly wouldn't call you a Satanist, and its unfortunate that some people have called you that. It sounds to me like your position is an agnostic one, but I won't presume to label you, as I wouldn't want to be labeled by someone with different beliefs than my own.
First of all, if I came off as self-righteous, I'm sorry. Secondly, it sounds like we agree on the usefulness of both faith and reason. Third, it seems that some of my comments about LDS were biased, as pointed out by an actual Mormon, so I won't put my foot in my mouth about that any more.
One thing I am sure about is that Evangelical Christianity (that is, following Jesus Christ, not necessarily a particular religious sect) is very different from most religions. Most religions tell us certain steps or attitudes or actions we need to have or do to be saved. Jesus Christ came to tell us that we cannot save ourselves, but that he can and will if we let him.
What would you define as "religion?" Are you rejecting any belief in any kind of god? Does it seem to you that it's more reasonable to believe in all the weirdness and inexplicability of the physical universe than in God? As you've mentioned, it requires faith to believe in the usefulness of Science (I believe in that) and the trustworthiness of other people. I'm not trying to convince you of the existence in God, so please don't be offended. Maybe we can agree that belief in God is no more unreasonable than a lack of belief.
I have thought a great deal about these very questions. It does bother me that I can't understand the reasons God does everything. However, at some point I have to realize that his mind and will are much bigger than mine (He's eternal, all-seeing, and all-knowing), so I can't dismiss something he does just because it doesn't make sense to me.
The article talks about the points of view of the bird and the frog. We're frogs. God has the bird's eye view. That doesn't mean I accept just anything without thinking about it, but it does mean that human logic can't always figure everything out. We all rely on many things we can't see or entirely understand (gravity, the human body).
I'll admit I don't know that much about the book of Mormon, but I think the things I did say were correct, weren't they? I didn't say that Mormons worship many gods, I just said that they believe in many gods.
I'll admit that it wasn't a valid criticism to speak of problems in human logic, since I believe things that cannot be explained by human logic as well.
In any organized religion, there are many people that just follow without thinking for themselves. If you're not in that category, good for you. I was wrong to imply that all Mormons are just unthinking followers. I'm sorry. There are also many Evangelical Christians that are content to avoid thinking for themselves as well, which has always bothered me.
I'm sorry if I offended you. Perhaps I am not as open minded about LDS as I should be. I hope there are no hard feelings.
Do read it sometime. I found it very interesting, if a little long. I knew about the level III multiverse, but the I, II, and IV were completely new to me. I love thinking about physics because it proves the old adage "truth is stranger than fiction." No one could ever dream up something as fundamentally weird as quantum physics.
Come to think of it, someone did dream it up; it just happened to be true (it fits the data). Of course, quantum physics actually explains itself, since some interpretations of quantum physics say that reality is created by someone observing it. Weirder still, if that's true, then maybe nothing's false, since if it is thought of, it exists. Never mind that this conflicts with scientific method (something is true only if it survives experiments). I think my head is about to explode.
Good, I'm glad you've put some thought into it. I would agree that faith without reason and reason without faith are both useless extremes. I would also agree that a large part of human religion is brainless following of a misleading leader. I think we agree on most points.
I think you're restating one of the points of the article more concisely (not that there's anything wrong with it).
I believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, personal God. I believe he has always existed and will always exist. I've also been interested in Science and Science Fiction from a very young age, so I've been thinking about questions like this for a long time. I don't see any inherent contradiction between the Christian God and the theories discussed in the article.
Both faith and reason are very important in being human. Science wouldn't advance if the Scientists didn't have faith in theories that haven't been proven yet. Faith in God wouldn't be possible without being able to observe evidence and understand His relationship to us.
I think that the Mormons believe in many gods, each ruling over a different planet or world. They associate the Father with one of those gods and the Son (Jesus) with the literal offspring of the first god. I haven't studied Mormonism in depth, but it seems to be full of logical problems. As with many false, human religions (really, all religions based on human logic are false) the interpretation of all truth most come from leaders near the top. Individuals don't seem to think much for themselves.
Don't make the mistake of looking at one group of religious people that have turned their brains off and think that all belief in God is brainless. There's much about God that I don't know and there are some things I know to be true that seem contradictory. No one on Earth can claim to have it all figured out. If you've decided not to believe in God, make sure you know why you decided it. If you still have an open mind, I urge you to keep it open.