There are many, many parents with many, many children who have almost no imagination. This lets those crippled minds have their play, even if it limits those whose imagination is a vast expanse. You can have a highly successful, happy, functional life entirely without the aid of an imagination. I think it might actually be beneficial; I think a lot of people that I know think I'm wierd because I bring up strange ideas "out of nowhere." If I didn't think quite so creatively, I'd probably fit in better.
The same comments can be applied to video games versus pen-and-paper RPGs, or even for books versus radio shows, or radio shows versus TV.
Which do you think people want more? Are there more dreamers looking for an outlet, or more who hunger for the dreams of others?
...on whose back is the Discworld. Great A'Tuin's sex is unknown, but is the subject of much speculation by some of the Disc's finest scientific minds - in an analogy to astrophysicists, specialists in this field are called astrochelonians. The sex of the World Turtle is pivotal in proving or disproving a number of conflicting theories about the destination of Great A'Tuin's journey through the cosmos. If (as one popular theory states) Great A'Tuin is moving to his (or her) mating grounds, (this is known as the "big bang" theory) then at the point of mating might the civilisations of the Disc be crushed or simply slide off? Attempts by telepaths to learn more about Great A'Tuin's intents have not met with much success, mainly because they did not realise that its brain functions on such a slow timescale. All they've been able to discern is that the Great A'Tuin is looking forward to something.
Yes, but haven't you seen a bunch of this before, too?
I liked the giant robot teens in Voltron.
It wasn't particularly well-drawn or anything, but it was different. And there were a lot of shows like that.
Now, though, anime kids with giant robots has become a genre. And the differences are smaller even than the differences between sitcoms! Dexter's lab actually spent a whole episode making fun of it. At this point, that's what it's good for.
Right now, I see three genres of anime that are on TV: 1) actual new stories 2) giant robots - same old shows, but now designed to get kids to buy giant robot action figures to play with. 3) cards/animals/toys that help people fight or fight themselves. Designed to get kids to buy cards/animals/toys because those things make the kid better at the things the characters on the show do, and therefore better people.
I can't stomach the last kind at all. The second kind is just annoying. The only ones I even consider are the first kind.
ORM, RPC, IoC, and many other TLAs are only supported by third party stuff.
And that stuff gets installed using Ant or Maven...which are very difficult to get working right with a package management system.
Finally, the fact that Java packages are a lot more willing to change their APIs in minor versions than non-java packages are, and you have a portability crisis If you want to use two different java programs that use different versions of the same library, then you have to play monkey business with the classpath, as libraries don't link to specific jars.
If there had been a good language package management system from the beginning (or had they gone with something standard like autoconf) then this wouldn't be an issue.
Pornography and online gaming at hundreds of times the speed of your normal advertising service provider. It's so easy to use, and the surgery to implant it in the base of your skull is so painless, that Microsoft is sure to be number one.
These things are always worth getting cheap (IMHO, ones about as good as another):
-ethernet card
-sound card (unless you're keen on recording, like me)
-memory readers
-bluetooth cards
These things are easily commodity (cheaper but not lower quality if shipped/manufactured in bulk):
-memory
-CPU fans
-power supplies
-cases
And CPUs are generally each their own little niche market, so people will get them at Walmart at the same quality as anywhere else. But it could be *slightly* cheaper because Walmart's shipping model is about the best there is.
I'm sure that there are others that people can think of, but these are the reasons I'd go to Wal-mart for my parts. I think they'd have stuff that I'd like in those categories because they fit into those categories. I should also mention that fans and power supplies wear out on their own. It'd be nice to be able to pick up new ones there.
No they don't. If I wrote a small, simple XML reader, then it wouldn't. A lot of the ones for small scripting languages don't. The initial *point* of XML was to make something that was easy to write a parser for and easy to read.
If your point is that it works with all current XML readers that you use then the obvious answer to that for another language is make it work with all current wire protocol readers. XML hasn't been around that long; codebase arguments are rather weak. We can change the codebase if it'll give us great gains in other areas, and since most of the codebase has to do with *structure* rather than with *parsing*, pretty much anything in an XML parser can be ported to work with another format. So rather than arguing things on the basis of what a particular reader that you know can do, think about what you get from using things that are unique to xml - how it opens and closes sections, the existence of attributes, and the way you write singletons. That's all that XML has all to itself.
Everything else are things that are in XML not because its XML, but because they're good things to have as part of a plaintext wire protocol.
They have nothing to do with the fact that they're XML.
If you picked something that was smaller, easier to parse, and easier to read than XML you could easily apply the same standards.
Namespaces are their own spec that was added onto XML afterwards. There's nothing keeping that from working anywhere else.
Character set is something that is specified in the document. How would that change?
It seems you're still using "codebase" arguments, rather than "actual features of the format."
You cannot solve any of those problems in JSON or YAML in such a way that any other JSON or YAML app can understand without making changes to those apps. XML can do all of those things and more, and it's useful: e.g., embedding SVG into an XHTML document.
The same can be said for any XML readers that don't support those formats. So?
XHTML is an XML technology, and humans can read it easily.
No. For example, I have problems reading this bit from an XHTML document:/* Compares I,J, and K and returns the greatest. */ function comparisonFunction(i,j,k) { if(i<j)
if(j<k)
return k;
else
return j
else
if(i<k)
return i
else return k }
XML doesn't allow any of its nodes to NOT contain valid XML, so you end up using the stupid < > instead of . Either that or you have to use a CDATA tag, which really has no reason being there.
You're not getting the point, really. XSLT is an XML tech because XML is a wire protocol - a way to serialize data.
With the exception of attributes (which, as I mentioned, are a wierdism of XML), XPath would be about the same if you used it with any other serialization language, and the only difference in XSLT is that it would look like the data serialization language rather than XML.
Which means no extremely noticable differences.
What features of XML are you talking about that aren't in JSON or YAML besides attributes? Not requiring well-formedness? Fine. When I mean "JSON" or "YAML" I really mean "well-formed JSON or YAML." That should make it at least as easy to write parsers for.
DTDs? Work as well with non-xml.
I think by "feature" you actually mean "codebase." That's about all XML has over those other things. And even then you'd get to keep most of it, because a lot of that code is about structure, not formatting. Of course, I'm willing to be enlightened. What can you do with XML that you can't with another wire protocol at least as well?
I hate XML. It's not easy for humans to read as a wire protocol. It's not easier for computers to read than binaries. So I don't see the point, since that's what it's used for almost exclusively. Adding to that is the fact that attributes and nodes are two different things that are, in general treated the same (and the functionality can be achieved without attributes by making an "attribute" node and putting all the attributes under it). We should be using something like JSON or YAML.
However, DOM and XSLT are both awesome ideas - especially for parsing documents.
Maybe this will lead them to adopt an XML-equivalent technology that is easier to read and parse.
Personally I'm worried about the idea because the majority of people who will need a lot of medical attention are the old.
The largest segment of the US population is the baby boomers (who are now pushing 60). So what will health care be like if most people are old and it's universal?
Horribly, horribly bad. The money will be stretched so thin that they can't afford: 1) Decent doctors. There will no longer be enough profit-motive to become a doctor, and the ones who can afford to will quit being doctors. 2) Medications. Already very, very expensive, these will be prohibitively so for the very old.
We already won't be able to pay for Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid when the current batch retires. How can we expect to pay for this as well?
I'm pretty sure it's going to happen when the boomers decide that they need it. I'm just worried that they're going to pay for their retirement lives entirely by using others. Its predicted that in twenty years, there will be two people working in the US to every one retired.
Do you think that two people can afford to pay a couple thousand dollars a month in medical and food for the elderly? Somethings gotta give.
So to summarize the point you seem to have missed: what you are saying isn't the fault of the protocol (SMTP), any mail server (postfix, sendmail), or any of the free clients (pine, mutt, Evolution).
In any of these, this doesn't happen. The *protocol* is not connectionless. When one mail server contacts another, the conversation is something like this: Server 1: Are you a mail server? Server 2: Yes. Server 1: I have a message for userX@yoursystem.com. Take it and deliver it. (One of these three, usually): Server 2: I have no userX@yoursystem.com. Server 2: I can't deliver it because "X". (Presumably X is to be reported back to the client). Server 2: I've delivered the message
If *at any point* either of these exchanges fail, then both of the servers should know about it. Server #1 is responsible for reporting this information so that you know that the message was delivered. The only way these can fail is that one of them isn't doing it's job, and saying that it does.
Do you blame the internet itself if your cable modem stops working? Why should you blame the e-mail system if your server isn't doing what it's supposed to do to obey the protocol?
SMTP offers guaranteed delivery. It's a connection oriented protocol. If it fails, it lets you know, and it only fails if the other server isn't there. So the only problem beyond that is that local delivery is misconfigured...not really a problem in software design, is it? I guess that solves the first problem.
Now to make it secure...Kerberos! That's about as secure as you can get. But how to do kerberos+smtp? What about POP3 or IMAP? Can we kerberize those, too? Maybe we can let MIT take care of it...
Oh, wait, they have! MIT makes it and uses it on their own servers and clients! Did we win? Yay!
Turns out that secure+guaranteed aren't actually hard requirements to meet - that they have already been met before. What people really want is the stuff that exchange provides - which is neither of those things.
However, if that's what YOU want, then may I suggest that you look for it a little?
No, it's not. I've seen rants at the Mandrake forums and the Gentoo forums that people left Debian because of the community. Attempts to get their questions answered were resulting in that abrasiveness that's so well known in free software arenas.
Debian's community is the archtypical model of how to not have a community.
I've had good luck at both of the places I've mentioned. I especially like the Gentoo's. If you have a piece of software that isn't very well supported by its author, or which is hard to use because it's new and not often configured, you can probably find a guide or something in the Gentoo How-To-wiki.
If you find a quirk in a piece of software that is resulting in unintended behaviour, you can search the forums or bug reports, and probably someone else has encountered the same problem (and if the problem is at least two weeks old, then there's probably a fix).
And if you're not keen for any reading at all to find newbie answers, you can often find help on the Gentoo IRC group (keeping in mind that almost nobody with a job actually hangs out on IRC). If you're willing to wait long enough for a quality answer, you can also get one from the forums. They're known for that, actually.
I've got Debian running at work. Whenever I have a problem with it, I go to one of those places to get it fixed. While the fact that Debian has some community support is laudable, the difference between those communities I mentioned and Debian's is like the difference between a public library and an elementary school's, IMHO.
Re:Nintendo's Wii akin to Chevrolet's Nova?
on
Both Sides of Wii
·
· Score: 1
You would think that the fact that the Nova's actually sold better than predicted would have been an indication that people should stop putting it in Economics textbooks and using it as examples of bad names.
That restaurant is there every time I drive through that spot, so I'm not sure that it necessarily matters what you call yourself for small-time business.
Minor to you, maybe. Any show that gives me requires that I have a headache the whole time I'm watching isn't worth watching. This isn't even close to the same as having a prejudice against blonde teenagers.
A better analogy would be that it's about the same as not riding a roller-coaster because there's a chance you'll get decapitated while riding. It's a risk you have to take, but it's worth it to have fun, right? And you can have lots of fun when things whiz by so close to your head that they almost hit you, right? Not totally distracting you and ruining the moment?
Maybe that gives you a better clue of what it's like for those of us who pay attention to visuals more than you do (which, by the way, is something that you learn in early development, and not something that you "just stop doing").
Right. I don't mind seeing a shakey camera while Serenity is crash-landing in Firefly. But I don't want to see it EVER when the characters are having a dialog where the only important thing is the characters.
It's not just the shakey camera, btw. That happens far less than the constant "zoom-focus-rezoom-refocus" crap. I can't think of any times that I ever want to see that.
That's someone who's suffering from paranoid-delusions. Paranoid delusions isn't severe depression.
People with incredibly severe depression -Hate their life. Suffer all the time because of it. To me, this speaks as reason #1 to do everything possible to treat them. -May harm themselves or others. As a result of #1, they generally don't care about anything. The more severe, the less they care. -Make incredibly bad decisions (recall that they don't care about anything)
Milder levels of depression - such as those experienced by Stephen King, for instance, can often be coped with, and can be used as a source of strength. But you have to be very careful here. Because of the harm that can be done, I think it is much worse to leave a dangerously depressed person undiagnosed than it is to diagnose someone as dangerously depressed who isn't.
But he can't keep himself from being influenced by the filth that is reality television.
I watched three minutes of Battlestar Galactica before they started making random camera readjustments, and doing the "its shakey because its real" effect. And then they kept doing it. This isn't reality TV. We don't need bad camera work. It's a story that we're supposed to be drawn into - not into believing we're watching something that really happens on TV.
70s Kung-Fu shows had better camera work than this.
So I can't stand it. I'll watch the new show and if by some miracle they don't hire any pill-popping reality TV cameramen. Why am I the only one who can't stand this? Do you guys actually like it?
Because we're to the passive-dynamic-walking-robot-has-been-built stage. It can be done in labratory conditions; search google for "dynamic stability". It's just not as stable as the other kind, so can't do things that are nearly as impressive - like manage stairs - without further development.
Wait. The statically stable robots make money to fund the development of workable dynamically stable ones.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many, many parents with many, many children who have almost no imagination. This lets those crippled minds have their play, even if it limits those whose imagination is a vast expanse. You can have a highly successful, happy, functional life entirely without the aid of an imagination. I think it might actually be beneficial; I think a lot of people that I know think I'm wierd because I bring up strange ideas "out of nowhere." If I didn't think quite so creatively, I'd probably fit in better.
The same comments can be applied to video games versus pen-and-paper RPGs, or even for books versus radio shows, or radio shows versus TV.
Which do you think people want more? Are there more dreamers looking for an outlet, or more who hunger for the dreams of others?
...on whose back is the Discworld.
Great A'Tuin's sex is unknown, but is the subject of much speculation by some of the Disc's finest scientific minds - in an analogy to astrophysicists, specialists in this field are called astrochelonians. The sex of the World Turtle is pivotal in proving or disproving a number of conflicting theories about the destination of Great A'Tuin's journey through the cosmos. If (as one popular theory states) Great A'Tuin is moving to his (or her) mating grounds, (this is known as the "big bang" theory) then at the point of mating might the civilisations of the Disc be crushed or simply slide off? Attempts by telepaths to learn more about Great A'Tuin's intents have not met with much success, mainly because they did not realise that its brain functions on such a slow timescale. All they've been able to discern is that the Great A'Tuin is looking forward to something.
Yes, but haven't you seen a bunch of this before, too?
I liked the giant robot teens in Voltron.
It wasn't particularly well-drawn or anything, but it was different. And there were a lot of shows like that.
Now, though, anime kids with giant robots has become a genre. And the differences are smaller even than the differences between sitcoms! Dexter's lab actually spent a whole episode making fun of it. At this point, that's what it's good for.
Right now, I see three genres of anime that are on TV:
1) actual new stories
2) giant robots - same old shows, but now designed to get kids to buy giant robot action figures to play with.
3) cards/animals/toys that help people fight or fight themselves. Designed to get kids to buy cards/animals/toys because those things make the kid better at the things the characters on the show do, and therefore better people.
I can't stomach the last kind at all. The second kind is just annoying. The only ones I even consider are the first kind.
But...that's not true.
ORM, RPC, IoC, and many other TLAs are only supported by third party stuff.
And that stuff gets installed using Ant or Maven...which are very difficult to get working right with a package management system.
Finally, the fact that Java packages are a lot more willing to change their APIs in minor versions than non-java packages are, and you have a portability crisis If you want to use two different java programs that use different versions of the same library, then you have to play monkey business with the classpath, as libraries don't link to specific jars.
If there had been a good language package management system from the beginning (or had they gone with something standard like autoconf) then this wouldn't be an issue.
They will. Imagine the future:
Pornography and online gaming at hundreds of times the speed of your normal advertising service provider. It's so easy to use, and the surgery to implant it in the base of your skull is so painless, that Microsoft is sure to be number one.
Microsoft's new spokesman.
...until I read this:
An additional $529 million in losses came from consumers making copies of legitimate films they bought on DVD or VHS.
Losses? You have to buy another one when you want to make a copy? Pay-per-disc?
They're counting every time any kind of copy is made as a loss of sale. They're not even trying to be realistic here.
These things are always worth getting cheap (IMHO, ones about as good as another):
-ethernet card
-sound card (unless you're keen on recording, like me)
-memory readers
-bluetooth cards
These things are easily commodity (cheaper but not lower quality if shipped/manufactured in bulk):
-memory
-CPU fans
-power supplies
-cases
And CPUs are generally each their own little niche market, so people will get them at Walmart at the same quality as anywhere else. But it could be *slightly* cheaper because Walmart's shipping model is about the best there is.
I'm sure that there are others that people can think of, but these are the reasons I'd go to Wal-mart for my parts. I think they'd have stuff that I'd like in those categories because they fit into those categories. I should also mention that fans and power supplies wear out on their own. It'd be nice to be able to pick up new ones there.
No they don't. If I wrote a small, simple XML reader, then it wouldn't. A lot of the ones for small scripting languages don't. The initial *point* of XML was to make something that was easy to write a parser for and easy to read.
If your point is that it works with all current XML readers that you use then the obvious answer to that for another language is make it work with all current wire protocol readers. XML hasn't been around that long; codebase arguments are rather weak. We can change the codebase if it'll give us great gains in other areas, and since most of the codebase has to do with *structure* rather than with *parsing*, pretty much anything in an XML parser can be ported to work with another format. So rather than arguing things on the basis of what a particular reader that you know can do, think about what you get from using things that are unique to xml - how it opens and closes sections, the existence of attributes, and the way you write singletons. That's all that XML has all to itself.
Everything else are things that are in XML not because its XML, but because they're good things to have as part of a plaintext wire protocol.
They have nothing to do with the fact that they're XML.
If you picked something that was smaller, easier to parse, and easier to read than XML you could easily apply the same standards.
Namespaces are their own spec that was added onto XML afterwards. There's nothing keeping that from working anywhere else.
Character set is something that is specified in the document. How would that change?
It seems you're still using "codebase" arguments, rather than "actual features of the format."
You cannot solve any of those problems in JSON or YAML in such a way that any other JSON or YAML app can understand without making changes to those apps. XML can do all of those things and more, and it's useful: e.g., embedding SVG into an XHTML document.
The same can be said for any XML readers that don't support those formats. So?
XHTML is an XML technology, and humans can read it easily.
/* Compares I,J, and K and returns the greatest.
No. For example, I have problems reading this bit from an XHTML document:
*/
function comparisonFunction(i,j,k)
{ if(i<j)
if(j<k)
return k;
else
return j
else
if(i<k)
return i
else return k
}
XML doesn't allow any of its nodes to NOT contain valid XML, so you end up using the stupid < > instead of . Either that or you have to use a CDATA tag, which really has no reason being there.
You're not getting the point, really. XSLT is an XML tech because XML is a wire protocol - a way to serialize data.
With the exception of attributes (which, as I mentioned, are a wierdism of XML), XPath would be about the same if you used it with any other serialization language, and the only difference in XSLT is that it would look like the data serialization language rather than XML.
Which means no extremely noticable differences.
What features of XML are you talking about that aren't in JSON or YAML besides attributes? Not requiring well-formedness? Fine. When I mean "JSON" or "YAML" I really mean "well-formed JSON or YAML." That should make it at least as easy to write parsers for.
DTDs? Work as well with non-xml.
I think by "feature" you actually mean "codebase." That's about all XML has over those other things. And even then you'd get to keep most of it, because a lot of that code is about structure, not formatting. Of course, I'm willing to be enlightened. What can you do with XML that you can't with another wire protocol at least as well?
I hate XML. It's not easy for humans to read as a wire protocol. It's not easier for computers to read than binaries. So I don't see the point, since that's what it's used for almost exclusively. Adding to that is the fact that attributes and nodes are two different things that are, in general treated the same (and the functionality can be achieved without attributes by making an "attribute" node and putting all the attributes under it).
We should be using something like JSON or YAML.
However, DOM and XSLT are both awesome ideas - especially for parsing documents.
Maybe this will lead them to adopt an XML-equivalent technology that is easier to read and parse.
Personally I'm worried about the idea because the majority of people who will need a lot of medical attention are the old.
The largest segment of the US population is the baby boomers (who are now pushing 60). So what will health care be like if most people are old and it's universal?
Horribly, horribly bad. The money will be stretched so thin that they can't afford:
1) Decent doctors. There will no longer be enough profit-motive to become a doctor, and the ones who can afford to will quit being doctors.
2) Medications. Already very, very expensive, these will be prohibitively so for the very old.
We already won't be able to pay for Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid when the current batch retires. How can we expect to pay for this as well?
I'm pretty sure it's going to happen when the boomers decide that they need it. I'm just worried that they're going to pay for their retirement lives entirely by using others. Its predicted that in twenty years, there will be two people working in the US to every one retired.
Do you think that two people can afford to pay a couple thousand dollars a month in medical and food for the elderly? Somethings gotta give.
Not each year. More like once every four years. Also that's how it's generally done, not a requirement.
The hormone that causes a mammal to give milk is well known and available. If you wanted to lactate, you could take it.
And I'm assuming you're probably a guy.
Is this off-topic yet? I can never tell.
So to summarize the point you seem to have missed: what you are saying isn't the fault of the protocol (SMTP), any mail server (postfix, sendmail), or any of the free clients (pine, mutt, Evolution).
In any of these, this doesn't happen. The *protocol* is not connectionless. When one mail server contacts another, the conversation is something like this:
Server 1: Are you a mail server?
Server 2: Yes.
Server 1: I have a message for userX@yoursystem.com. Take it and deliver it.
(One of these three, usually):
Server 2: I have no userX@yoursystem.com.
Server 2: I can't deliver it because "X". (Presumably X is to be reported back to the client).
Server 2: I've delivered the message
If *at any point* either of these exchanges fail, then both of the servers should know about it. Server #1 is responsible for reporting this information so that you know that the message was delivered. The only way these can fail is that one of them isn't doing it's job, and saying that it does.
Do you blame the internet itself if your cable modem stops working? Why should you blame the e-mail system if your server isn't doing what it's supposed to do to obey the protocol?
Yes, fine, true, but that's the important bit. You can send *anything* over ssl without even hardly trying. You need auth first.
Doing ssl is easy. I suppose it was too much to assume that the previous poster already knew about that...
Hey! I know!
SMTP offers guaranteed delivery. It's a connection oriented protocol. If it fails, it lets you know, and it only fails if the other server isn't there. So the only problem beyond that is that local delivery is misconfigured...not really a problem in software design, is it?
I guess that solves the first problem.
Now to make it secure...Kerberos! That's about as secure as you can get. But how to do kerberos+smtp? What about POP3 or IMAP? Can we kerberize those, too? Maybe we can let MIT take care of it...
Oh, wait, they have! MIT makes it and uses it on their own servers and clients! Did we win? Yay!
Turns out that secure+guaranteed aren't actually hard requirements to meet - that they have already been met before. What people really want is the stuff that exchange provides - which is neither of those things.
However, if that's what YOU want, then may I suggest that you look for it a little?
No, it's not. I've seen rants at the Mandrake forums and the Gentoo forums that people left Debian because of the community. Attempts to get their questions answered were resulting in that abrasiveness that's so well known in free software arenas.
Debian's community is the archtypical model of how to not have a community.
I've had good luck at both of the places I've mentioned. I especially like the Gentoo's. If you have a piece of software that isn't very well supported by its author, or which is hard to use because it's new and not often configured, you can probably find a guide or something in the Gentoo How-To-wiki.
If you find a quirk in a piece of software that is resulting in unintended behaviour, you can search the forums or bug reports, and probably someone else has encountered the same problem (and if the problem is at least two weeks old, then there's probably a fix).
And if you're not keen for any reading at all to find newbie answers, you can often find help on the Gentoo IRC group (keeping in mind that almost nobody with a job actually hangs out on IRC). If you're willing to wait long enough for a quality answer, you can also get one from the forums. They're known for that, actually.
I've got Debian running at work. Whenever I have a problem with it, I go to one of those places to get it fixed. While the fact that Debian has some community support is laudable, the difference between those communities I mentioned and Debian's is like the difference between a public library and an elementary school's, IMHO.
You would think that the fact that the Nova's actually sold better than predicted would have been an indication that people should stop putting it in Economics textbooks and using it as examples of bad names.
Personally, I'm partial to things that end up like they shouldn't in English. Like this chinese restaurant that I saw in Lake City, Florida (sorta looks like profanity, so possibly NSFW).
That restaurant is there every time I drive through that spot, so I'm not sure that it necessarily matters what you call yourself for small-time business.
Minor to you, maybe. Any show that gives me requires that I have a headache the whole time I'm watching isn't worth watching. This isn't even close to the same as having a prejudice against blonde teenagers.
A better analogy would be that it's about the same as not riding a roller-coaster because there's a chance you'll get decapitated while riding. It's a risk you have to take, but it's worth it to have fun, right? And you can have lots of fun when things whiz by so close to your head that they almost hit you, right? Not totally distracting you and ruining the moment?
Maybe that gives you a better clue of what it's like for those of us who pay attention to visuals more than you do (which, by the way, is something that you learn in early development, and not something that you "just stop doing").
Right. I don't mind seeing a shakey camera while Serenity is crash-landing in Firefly. But I don't want to see it EVER when the characters are having a dialog where the only important thing is the characters.
It's not just the shakey camera, btw. That happens far less than the constant "zoom-focus-rezoom-refocus" crap. I can't think of any times that I ever want to see that.
That's someone who's suffering from paranoid-delusions. Paranoid delusions isn't severe depression.
People with incredibly severe depression
-Hate their life. Suffer all the time because of it. To me, this speaks as reason #1 to do everything possible to treat them.
-May harm themselves or others. As a result of #1, they generally don't care about anything. The more severe, the less they care.
-Make incredibly bad decisions (recall that they don't care about anything)
Milder levels of depression - such as those experienced by Stephen King, for instance, can often be coped with, and can be used as a source of strength. But you have to be very careful here. Because of the harm that can be done, I think it is much worse to leave a dangerously depressed person undiagnosed than it is to diagnose someone as dangerously depressed who isn't.
Anyway, Ron can tell a story. I'll be there.
But he can't keep himself from being influenced by the filth that is reality television.
I watched three minutes of Battlestar Galactica before they started making random camera readjustments, and doing the "its shakey because its real" effect. And then they kept doing it. This isn't reality TV. We don't need bad camera work. It's a story that we're supposed to be drawn into - not into believing we're watching something that really happens on TV.
70s Kung-Fu shows had better camera work than this.
So I can't stand it. I'll watch the new show and if by some miracle they don't hire any pill-popping reality TV cameramen. Why am I the only one who can't stand this? Do you guys actually like it?
Did you try Sephiroth? He was hard.
Play on hard so that you can get the secret ending without doing spending hours on stupid quests like "push the garbage up the hill."
Because we're to the passive-dynamic-walking-robot-has-been-built stage. It can be done in labratory conditions; search google for "dynamic stability". It's just not as stable as the other kind, so can't do things that are nearly as impressive - like manage stairs - without further development.
Wait. The statically stable robots make money to fund the development of workable dynamically stable ones.