Heh.:)
"I've recently learned how to use Latex,"
Good for you! Didja have to read the instructional packet that came with it?
"Is it better than HTML?"
This one takes some thinking: is Latex better than HTML. Hmm. I say, yes Latex *is* better than HTML, if you know what I mean. HTML is fake man, get it for real! Use Latex!
Always use protection my friends, whether LaTeX or HTML.
I would really like a calender that had attractive girls flung over high-speed super-computers, or licking a high-speed 1.5Ghz processor all in exotic locations like Bell Labs or PARC every month. Make it a *real* geek's calender so the only way to peek at the other months is by hacking it. It'll take away half of your market probebly, but I think the sales will be end up being high enough to justify it. Thanks for your consideration, and I look forward to getting my new calendar.
Are you implying that microsoft employees are SMART?!:p
The only similarity between Microsoft employees and the robots is that they both have artificial intellegence.:)
It's easy when you're on the other end (the consumer end) of development to say "what's the big deal?" But let me just tell you that it's a HUGE deal. Anything that's going to make it easier to tell a story for an animator is another step forward to making great footage. Simulating cloth is a nightmare; there's nothing available that can do it right yet, and that's why you see most characters with very little hanging cloth today in animations. The point is: don't say, "wow! we can simulate cloth with bump maps, we don't need real - cloth simulation!" because that's just stupid. Any step forward in making things *easy* is a good one. Most of you are on the technical end of things, but still...
One other thing - this isn't just relevent for games, it's more relevent for computer animation in film. Anyways, games are about speed and performance, not high poly count, real cloth simulation won't be around in games for a while, I can assure you. Your personal computer probebly isn't a render farm:)
If you actually DO any form of modeling/rendering, you know that a little better antialiasing makes a lot of difference. Most people that are any good working at a company that's worth a damn are going to benifit from a good monitor and a good card. If you're doing anything less than top-quality graphics, then go get yourself a low quality card, and it won't matter. But if you're a company (and an artist) that demands quality, (and some do, believe it or not) then you're going to want the best cards you can buy. Some companies don't have ot worry about the cost/quality aspect, since they realized from the start that increased rendering speed is not more important than good graphics. So I guess if you suck to begin with, you can just worry about more memory, since that's the kind of attitude you have towards your work. I've got a feeling you know what you're talking about, except for the fact that it's not a good idea.
These cards might play games, but they sure would suck doing any kind of decent 3D graphics with 3D Studio or Maya. Just a warning for dumb people, I guess.
It was about time a major computer manufacturer tied the noose for floppies like Apple did. I considered it a feature that it didn't have a floppy drive when I bought my G4. Floppies are old, and that's all there is too it. There's no reason why we should have to be forced to use 10 year+ technology like that. I thank Apple for making a statement such as that.
Mabye it was because they're so freakin' small! A guy drops it while he's trying to put it in the drive - "Oops I just dropped my MiniDisc!" and then everyone's got to get down on the ground like he lost his contact lenses or something.
Wait! I found it! - er that's someone's button. -keep looking!
"According to this article, the current usage of fiber optics lamps is only.5% of the light output fiber lamps offer. The new high-tech lamps are also slowed down by old light bulb that are still being used -- the hesitancy to convert from classic shade lamps to classy high-tech fiber optic lamps is the major slow-down. A certain company, FiberLamps Inc., is offering unshared Super Fiber-Optic lamp, which is $5 less than the price of a standard shade lamp." Interesting to note that FiberLamps bought just two strands of pre-existing inter-city fiber to re-sell the new lamps. I'd easily pay $100 for one of these sexy new lamps! They're promising -- let's hear it for Fiber Optic Lamps!
Fiber optic lamps are on sale at Shopko for $19.95, that's where I got mine. It has a little light thing inside that makes the fibers change colors. It's cool.
I'm 18, and I think Legos are cool. I'm really getting back into them. I especially like to kick over lego structures that kids have spent hours building and laugh at their pile of Lego rubble, then scold them for their lack of structural integrity. Sometimes I pick up the whole thing and throw it against the wall. It breaks a lot cooler that way. Kids have to learn to start building things that don't break or we're all going to be screwed in 20 years when they start building actual houses and airplanes. So whenever you see some stupid kid thinking he's the Master of Engineering, give that thing the kick-test. If it breaks into hundreds of little pieces, laugh at their pathetic little structure, and tell them to build something that damn well better hold up next time. They'll thank you for it.
I'm 18 and I think Legos are cool. I'm really getting back into them. I especially like to kick over lego structures that kids have spent hours building and laugh at their pile of Lego rubble, then scold them for their lack of structural integrity. Sometimes I pick up the whole thing and throw it against the wall. It breaks a lot cooler that way. Kids have to learn to start building things that don't break or we're all going to be screwed in 20 years when they start building actual houses and airplanes. So whenever you see some stupid kid thinking he's the Master of Engineering, give that thing the kick-test. If it breaks into hundreds of little pieces, laugh at their pathetic little structure, and tell them to build something that damn well better hold up next time. They'll thank you for it.
He claims, "at least we know now that one of the canidates is an idiot." Well, Mr. Katz, by hearing this remark, I'd really have to reconsider my view on who's the idiot.
By taking one single statement such as this, taking it completely out of context, and warping it into a pathetically incorrect essay on politics, is just another example of Mr. Katz's ignorant logic. There's just nothing more fun to insult canidates after a debate by writing and saying uninformed remarks like this one.
I would think that a site as respected as Slashdot would keep this political warping to others less mature. Unfortunately you have Mr. Katz writing for you, however, who loves to find any juicy tidbit on these Columbine-esque issues and write meaningless essays on the subject whenever he can. I can tell that Mr. Katz is one of those people who gets his sole political information from the almighty television.
Let's look at what this "issue" is all about. During the debates, A l Gore was talking about the brought-up subject of gun control. He brings up Columbine, our favorite gun control motivator. Gore thinks that a good solution to this problem is to issue licences for gun buyers. Don't have a licence? Don't get a gun. A democratic apporoach to the issue.
Bush counters this, saying that the real problem lies in the people themselves. THAT'S what he is saying. Bush is not a tech-genious. He may not say EXACTLY what he should. He doesn't spend his time online. He's not part of the net-generation. But get over all of the "not exactly correct" statements of the topic and you will see that he's intellegent enough to know that the problem is the low self-esteem of these childern, and that the net was an escape from their cold-reality. He is NOT blaming the problem on the internet. He just gave a real fact that these children spent much of their time on the internet. This simply was another way to feed their lonelyness and thirst for revenge. Let's face it, the internet is good, a great tool. The internet is also full of things that can corrupt a young, untrained mind. To deny this is simply wrong.
Jon Katz's worst mistake is to misunderstand that George W. Bush is more in agreement with Katz's views from his previous essays on this topic than Gore is. Who are we really blaming, and for what? Bush states that these type of childern need caring and love. I would think this is hardly something to criticise. Perhaps Katz just watched the highlights from this debate.
Go ahead and blame the canidates because the dont' and can't know everying there is to know. I look past that and see what they would actually do about it when they are "precisely" informed. I was also intriqued that Katz represented no quotes from Bush. Are we really supposed to believe someone who gives us no evidence of his claim?
I could say that Jon Katz is an idiot. But I'm not going to. We all know that he is not. But for him to call Mr. Bush, a nominated presidential canidate, an idiot, just shows his amatuerish lack of knowlage on this political race in general. Not agreeing with one issue does not make this entire race "exasted and irrational."
There has been a lot of questioning about why this thing has been locked up for over 50 years. I mean, really, it's not really a big deal to let it go, is it?
Is it?
Well, actually, it's not.
You see, everywhere you go, you see "digital camera," "digital phones," "digital PDA's," and the really senseless "digital DNA," ect. ect. ect. You've seen it, I'm sure, and it would seem that the term "digital" is quite new, right? I mean, you're taping some game or something with your "digital" camera, and some guy's got a really nice "analog" camera and asks you what kind saying, "what kind of camera you got?" and you say "digital," - and watch his face sulk. "Digital" is cool. "Digital" is sexy. "Digital" is expensive." and most importantly - "Digital is new!"
At least we seem to think so. And it would almost seem our most technologically advanced society has recently invented "digital."
At least that what it seem's right?
Think they knew this? Think the classifiers relented to release this information because then it would make digital seem OLD! Think about that - our lovely new digital devices are based on a concept that is OLD!
Of course, it's a stupid thought. But it's sort of a funny slap in the face.
We like to think we know it all, and God-forbid that we would ever make something brand-new-state-of-the-art that was taken from what we knew 50 years ago.
You're probebly right - the X-Box wouldn't do anything for you. Probebly because you don't like playing games, and that's what the X-Box is for - games. Don't whine that it doesn't have a command line box, don't whine that it doesn't word-proccess, don't whine that it doesn't have a hard-drive, don't whine that it doesn't have a web browser, don't whine that it's made by m$, and please don't whine that it doesn't have a little Tux stamped on it. That's what makes a PC, not a GAME CONSOLE, because that's what it is. Some people actually enjoy playing games and consider it entertainment. Some don't fiddle toying with program code all day, and "bragging" about being better because they use an OS that has to be tinkered with and toyed with to function well, and that somehow possessing this ability makes you better than everyone. Can someone tell you why you don't need an X-Box? Can someone mabey tell you why you think your better because you don't play games. Can someone tell you why you think yourself to be "above" the gaming industry? Mabey that's a question that you need to ask to yourself.
Screw Microsoft and their X-Box, 'cause all the anti-microsoft macdaddy's know that Apple's coming out with the Mac OS X-Box. It'll be shinier, and won't have a worthless disk drive. In fact, it won't have any drives at all, 'cause then it wouldn't look as nice. All your games'll be under a convenient "dock" and will pop out like a genie when you want 'em.
And all this power - in an 8 inch cube!
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. :)
"I've recently learned how to use Latex,"
Good for you! Didja have to read the instructional packet that came with it?
"Is it better than HTML?"
This one takes some thinking: is Latex better than HTML. Hmm. I say, yes Latex *is* better than HTML, if you know what I mean. HTML is fake man, get it for real! Use Latex!
Always use protection my friends, whether LaTeX or HTML.
Now if they made a full-sized PC like one of those things... - schweet!
I would really like a calender that had attractive girls flung over high-speed super-computers, or licking a high-speed 1.5Ghz processor all in exotic locations like Bell Labs or PARC every month. Make it a *real* geek's calender so the only way to peek at the other months is by hacking it. It'll take away half of your market probebly, but I think the sales will be end up being high enough to justify it. Thanks for your consideration, and I look forward to getting my new calendar.
Are you implying that microsoft employees are SMART?! :p
The only similarity between Microsoft employees and the robots is that they both have artificial intellegence. :)
Well then NO WONDER they can't get the damn things out!
Nah, looking back, it's been historicaly cheaper to use real people instead.
Oh well.
It's easy when you're on the other end (the consumer end) of development to say "what's the big deal?" But let me just tell you that it's a HUGE deal. Anything that's going to make it easier to tell a story for an animator is another step forward to making great footage. Simulating cloth is a nightmare; there's nothing available that can do it right yet, and that's why you see most characters with very little hanging cloth today in animations. The point is: don't say, "wow! we can simulate cloth with bump maps, we don't need real - cloth simulation!" because that's just stupid. Any step forward in making things *easy* is a good one. Most of you are on the technical end of things, but still...
:)
One other thing - this isn't just relevent for games, it's more relevent for computer animation in film. Anyways, games are about speed and performance, not high poly count, real cloth simulation won't be around in games for a while, I can assure you. Your personal computer probebly isn't a render farm
It's real. Who else except Bill Gates can write like Hitler so well?
If you actually DO any form of modeling/rendering, you know that a little better antialiasing makes a lot of difference. Most people that are any good working at a company that's worth a damn are going to benifit from a good monitor and a good card. If you're doing anything less than top-quality graphics, then go get yourself a low quality card, and it won't matter. But if you're a company (and an artist) that demands quality, (and some do, believe it or not) then you're going to want the best cards you can buy. Some companies don't have ot worry about the cost/quality aspect, since they realized from the start that increased rendering speed is not more important than good graphics. So I guess if you suck to begin with, you can just worry about more memory, since that's the kind of attitude you have towards your work. I've got a feeling you know what you're talking about, except for the fact that it's not a good idea.
These cards might play games, but they sure would suck doing any kind of decent 3D graphics with 3D Studio or Maya. Just a warning for dumb people, I guess.
It was about time a major computer manufacturer tied the noose for floppies like Apple did. I considered it a feature that it didn't have a floppy drive when I bought my G4. Floppies are old, and that's all there is too it. There's no reason why we should have to be forced to use 10 year+ technology like that. I thank Apple for making a statement such as that.
Mabye it was because they're so freakin' small! A guy drops it while he's trying to put it in the drive - "Oops I just dropped my MiniDisc!" and then everyone's got to get down on the ground like he lost his contact lenses or something.
Wait! I found it! - er that's someone's button. -keep looking!
Gee, wouldn't THAT solve the problem!
"According to this article, the current usage of fiber optics lamps is only .5% of the light output fiber lamps offer. The new high-tech lamps are also slowed down by old light bulb that are still being used -- the hesitancy to convert from classic shade lamps to classy high-tech fiber optic lamps is the major slow-down. A certain company, FiberLamps Inc., is offering unshared Super Fiber-Optic lamp, which is $5 less than the price of a standard shade lamp." Interesting to note that FiberLamps bought just two strands of pre-existing inter-city fiber to re-sell the new lamps. I'd easily pay $100 for one of these sexy new lamps! They're promising -- let's hear it for Fiber Optic Lamps!
Fiber optic lamps are on sale at Shopko for $19.95, that's where I got mine. It has a little light thing inside that makes the fibers change colors. It's cool.
: |)
Is this sort of like how we only use 5% of our brain power?
: |)
I'm 18, and I think Legos are cool. I'm really getting back into them. I especially like to kick over lego structures that kids have spent hours building and laugh at their pile of Lego rubble, then scold them for their lack of structural integrity. Sometimes I pick up the whole thing and throw it against the wall. It breaks a lot cooler that way. Kids have to learn to start building things that don't break or we're all going to be screwed in 20 years when they start building actual houses and airplanes. So whenever you see some stupid kid thinking he's the Master of Engineering, give that thing the kick-test. If it breaks into hundreds of little pieces, laugh at their pathetic little structure, and tell them to build something that damn well better hold up next time. They'll thank you for it.
I'm 18 and I think Legos are cool. I'm really getting back into them. I especially like to kick over lego structures that kids have spent hours building and laugh at their pile of Lego rubble, then scold them for their lack of structural integrity. Sometimes I pick up the whole thing and throw it against the wall. It breaks a lot cooler that way. Kids have to learn to start building things that don't break or we're all going to be screwed in 20 years when they start building actual houses and airplanes. So whenever you see some stupid kid thinking he's the Master of Engineering, give that thing the kick-test. If it breaks into hundreds of little pieces, laugh at their pathetic little structure, and tell them to build something that damn well better hold up next time. They'll thank you for it.
Jon Katz just can't stop, can he?
He claims, "at least we know now that one of the canidates is an idiot." Well, Mr. Katz, by hearing this remark, I'd really have to reconsider my view on who's the idiot.
By taking one single statement such as this, taking it completely out of context, and warping it into a pathetically incorrect essay on politics, is just another example of Mr. Katz's ignorant logic. There's just nothing more fun to insult canidates after a debate by writing and saying uninformed remarks like this one.
I would think that a site as respected as Slashdot would keep this political warping to others less mature. Unfortunately you have Mr. Katz writing for you, however, who loves to find any juicy tidbit on these Columbine-esque issues and write meaningless essays on the subject whenever he can. I can tell that Mr. Katz is one of those people who gets his sole political information from the almighty television.
Let's look at what this "issue" is all about. During the debates, A l Gore was talking about the brought-up subject of gun control. He brings up Columbine, our favorite gun control motivator. Gore thinks that a good solution to this problem is to issue licences for gun buyers. Don't have a licence? Don't get a gun. A democratic apporoach to the issue.
Bush counters this, saying that the real problem lies in the people themselves. THAT'S what he is saying. Bush is not a tech-genious. He may not say EXACTLY what he should. He doesn't spend his time online. He's not part of the net-generation. But get over all of the "not exactly correct" statements of the topic and you will see that he's intellegent enough to know that the problem is the low self-esteem of these childern, and that the net was an escape from their cold-reality. He is NOT blaming the problem on the internet. He just gave a real fact that these children spent much of their time on the internet. This simply was another way to feed their lonelyness and thirst for revenge. Let's face it, the internet is good, a great tool. The internet is also full of things that can corrupt a young, untrained mind. To deny this is simply wrong.
Jon Katz's worst mistake is to misunderstand that George W. Bush is more in agreement with Katz's views from his previous essays on this topic than Gore is. Who are we really blaming, and for what? Bush states that these type of childern need caring and love. I would think this is hardly something to criticise. Perhaps Katz just watched the highlights from this debate.
Go ahead and blame the canidates because the dont' and can't know everying there is to know. I look past that and see what they would actually do about it when they are "precisely" informed. I was also intriqued that Katz represented no quotes from Bush. Are we really supposed to believe someone who gives us no evidence of his claim?
I could say that Jon Katz is an idiot. But I'm not going to. We all know that he is not. But for him to call Mr. Bush, a nominated presidential canidate, an idiot, just shows his amatuerish lack of knowlage on this political race in general. Not agreeing with one issue does not make this entire race "exasted and irrational."
Unlike Star Wars games, eh?
-Jedi Power Battles
-Star Wars Super Bombad racing
-Star Wars: The Battle for Naboo
-Star Wars Demolition
-Force Commander
-Episode I
Does anyone remember when LucasArts used to made good Star Wars games?
ps: You can also go to lucasarts.com and vote for your favorite screen resolution. No kidding.
A girlfriend - er...did I say that out loud?
Is it?
Well, actually, it's not.
You see, everywhere you go, you see "digital camera," "digital phones," "digital PDA's," and the really senseless "digital DNA," ect. ect. ect. You've seen it, I'm sure, and it would seem that the term "digital" is quite new, right? I mean, you're taping some game or something with your "digital" camera, and some guy's got a really nice "analog" camera and asks you what kind saying, "what kind of camera you got?" and you say "digital," - and watch his face sulk. "Digital" is cool. "Digital" is sexy. "Digital" is expensive." and most importantly - "Digital is new!"
At least we seem to think so. And it would almost seem our most technologically advanced society has recently invented "digital."
At least that what it seem's right?
Think they knew this? Think the classifiers relented to release this information because then it would make digital seem OLD! Think about that - our lovely new digital devices are based on a concept that is OLD!
Of course, it's a stupid thought. But it's sort of a funny slap in the face.
We like to think we know it all, and God-forbid that we would ever make something brand-new-state-of-the-art that was taken from what we knew 50 years ago.
Are we really as "inventive" as we like to think?
You're probebly right - the X-Box wouldn't do anything for you. Probebly because you don't like playing games, and that's what the X-Box is for - games. Don't whine that it doesn't have a command line box, don't whine that it doesn't word-proccess, don't whine that it doesn't have a hard-drive, don't whine that it doesn't have a web browser, don't whine that it's made by m$, and please don't whine that it doesn't have a little Tux stamped on it. That's what makes a PC, not a GAME CONSOLE, because that's what it is. Some people actually enjoy playing games and consider it entertainment. Some don't fiddle toying with program code all day, and "bragging" about being better because they use an OS that has to be tinkered with and toyed with to function well, and that somehow possessing this ability makes you better than everyone. Can someone tell you why you don't need an X-Box? Can someone mabey tell you why you think your better because you don't play games. Can someone tell you why you think yourself to be "above" the gaming industry? Mabey that's a question that you need to ask to yourself.
Screw Microsoft and their X-Box, 'cause all the anti-microsoft macdaddy's know that Apple's coming out with the Mac OS X-Box. It'll be shinier, and won't have a worthless disk drive. In fact, it won't have any drives at all, 'cause then it wouldn't look as nice. All your games'll be under a convenient "dock" and will pop out like a genie when you want 'em. And all this power - in an 8 inch cube!