I'm sorry but that's utter bullshite[sic]. I've never had to recompile applications because I upgraded the kernel...... have you?
Heh! I frequently have two different kernels installed, and choose between the two at boot time. Currently it's kernels 2.4.26 and 2.6.8. I don't recompile anything, I just reboot, and things run fine either way (save for mouse issues that have kept me from sticking with 2.6.8), no recompile required.
The author of said article is just stupid...
Success has been had with a lack of permanent death.
You do come off sounding like you didn't really read the article very carefully, since you make statements like his above and in your original post, which say more or less what the author of the article is saying, while acting like it contradicts what he said.
The real problem is, he's trying to define what makes a game "better" as something other than what makes it "successful", indeed his point is that what usually makes a game more successful tends to make it "worse". And rather than criticize his lack of providing a way to measure "better" (until this latest reply), you're making an (unsupported) assertion that "successful" is the way to measure it. That does make you sound like you're (possibly deliberately) missing the point.
and therefore we must fall back on the guidelines that *are* available to us
Agreed, but in my own experience, "successful" and "better" are quite certainly two different things, so your implication that "successful" is the only measure available to us here is absurd. Surely you can think of some better guideline than that. "Enjoyable" seems a much better standard to me, and although there may be other aspects to "better" as well -- I think "enjoyable over the long-term" comes close to capturing what he meant by "better".
How do you measure that? Beats me. But reverting to "successful" because it's easier to measure is a cop-out.
I don't know why so many posters are latching onto this one section of the article and acting like it somehow undermines the whole argument.
They're just doing the same thing the author is doing. The author claims there are numerous features that are like this, and uses this one thing as an example. The critics think the author is full of crap, and use this example to demonstrate.
Really, if this is the best example he could come up with, it doesn't speak well for his overall point. If it isn't the best example he could come up with, then why did he pick that one?
It's perfectly valid to criticize his examples, even if they're only examples of the points he's trying to make. His inability to find good examples is telling.
It's a perfect illustration of his "short-term-bad, long-term-good" feature argument.
And that's the point you seem to be missing. If this is his "perfect illustration", and it's so laughably flawed, his point doesn't hold much water now, does it? If it's both short-term and long-term bad, that's a much more understandable and probably explanation why games don't incorporate it.
Or, to put it another way, Kerry doesn't personally believe in some things, but he doesn't necessarily think that his beliefs should be made the basis of the law of the land because other people should be allowed to believe differently from him. Bush wants his personal belief system to become the law of the land.
Indeed, it's no coincidence that the words "liberal" and "liberty" both start with "liber", Latin for "free". I'm personally against many things that I would nevertheless oppose passing laws against. It's not the government's job to tell people how to believe when it isn't hurting anyone else. Unless you have some solid proof that more people are harmed by gay marraige than a lack of it, or by abortion than by abortion bans, or any such proof on any such issue, any true liberal is going to oppose any government regulation on the subject. Allow, unless you have proof that it really is harmful. Allow, allow, allow.
Seeing as he voted for the Patriot Act, not likely.
Weren't paying attention to the news at the time? Like most of the people who voted for it, he said it was flawed, but it was more important to get something in place first, then they could backfix. According to publicly stated positions of the people at the time, the majority of people who voted for the Patriot Act would like to revise it.
Reminds me of the Highlander series. One of my friends had to point out that we never see any decapitations in it, unlike the movie. I basically watched an entire season of episodes without noticing they never show the actual decapitations...
Re:May not be that simple...
on
Saving Huygens
·
· Score: 1
One of the biggest reasons why global warmning proponents... Why then, do global warmning advocates...
Global warming proponent? Global warming advocates? Are these the people Louie Anderson used to joke about, who stand outside in the middle of the Minnesota, winter spraying aerosol cans? "Come on, global warming!"
Our morality may set us apart, but morality is subjective...
Or at least there appears to be a subjective component to how it cashes out into different cultures.
...and ultimately arbitrary.
This, on the other hand, flys in the face of the evidence. It's an interesting article of faith for many, but it's not the kind of belief that can be considered rational.
It seems to me this may be good for the short-term, but it's bad for the long term. Things become cheap (a stable cheap, not a short term cheap) because they're produced in massive quantities. If LCD TV's actually took off, you're see dramatically lower prices in LCD monitors over the long term. If LCD screens stay confined to the computer market, and don't become mainstream there, they'll remain relatively expensive over the long term.
So this looks like bad news to me...
BUT the distance between A and B is supposed to be 960km
According to whom? Remember that distance is relative. In C's frame of reference, the distance between A and B is 1500 km, but in A's frame of reference, the distance to B is only 960 km. If your question at this point is, "But which is it, really?", you truly don't understand relativity. Distance, like motion, is relative. Both answers are correct in their respective frames of reference.
Reread the post you're replying too. There's no problem with people making money. The question was, what does this add beyond that? If the answer is nothing, which it apparently is, then it's wasted money -- the $25 is NOT worth the benefit if there is none.
The idea is if sommeone is REALLY bothered by that little spam that gets past their Spam Assassin or whatever you use, they can pay 25 bucks a year and get rid of that 1% or so that goes past the filters.
Sorry, at my company that figure is about 5%, even with SpamAssassin's flagging threshold lowered to 4.0, and 5% of the spam we receive comes to hundreds of messages per day. I'd happily, joyously pay $25/year to ANY company, even Microsoft, if they could do something about that last 5%...
the nondiscrete nature of film doesn't intrinsically give it a larger gamut, it just allows finer gradation within each color plane
I'd say that's it in a nutshell. That's also what was said in the sentence quoted by the person I was responding to, who then said that was false, hence my disagreement.
It's not the only issue, but it is part of it.
If you want a more intense (255,41,0), increase the contrast on your monitor.
Two questions: (A) how do I do that from the OpenGL or DirectX API, and (B) how do I do it without have any effect on any other pixels on the screen but the one I'm attempting to modify?
We can certainly reproduce RGB color in (literally) blinding brightness and with better intensity resolution than the human eye can differentiate, all within the confines of simple RGB.
Not on today's computers and monitors. I'm sure it could be done, but would it be practical, and for that matter would we even want to, given the other problems involved?
Not really. The thing is, everyone's eyes are different.
Oh indeed, I don't disagree. This only amplifies the point I was making. In theory, an RGB model could successfully reproduce any color you can see. But not only would pixels have to be able to vary infinitely from zero to the maximum intensity you can see, which isn't practical with today's technology, the specific R, G, and B chosen would have to be calibrated to the viewer's cones, which is also not practical. Thus, a more practical solution for simulating colors is to throw more colors into the mix, as the article suggests with it's RYGCBM color model.
This is sort of but not really true. Yes, we see colors based on firings of nerve cells, and each firing is a discrete event. However, we see intensity based on the frequency of the firings, and because the firings aren't tied to a timing crystal like the cycles in a computer, the firing frequency isn't discrete -- it can vary infinitely over a range.
RGB are Additive Colours. (You add them together to create White)
CMY(K) are Subtractive Colours. (You add them together to get black)
...
RGB + CMYK negate each other.
...
while LCD's naturally use a CMYk approach
Hehe! No, this is quite false, quite a number of ways.
First of all, colors of light are additive, colors of pigment are subtractive. This is true regardless of which colors you choose. If you had a monitor using the CYM model, you could not produce red, because monitors, being light emitting devices, are always additive, never subtractive, mixing C and Y would add their lights, not subtract leaving just the G. Because of this, you cannot get a lot of colors. However, you can get white, by adding C, M, and Y together. Since monitors are additive, adding CYM makes white, not black.
The LCDs we use today are light emitting, not light reflecting. Thus, they naturally use an RGB color model. If they did not emit light on their own but only reflected like, like a sheet of paper, then their natural color model would be CYM(K). But that's just not how things work.
Slashdot Mirror
Kinda like calling an ICBM a "Peacekeeper missile".
I'm sorry but that's utter bullshite[sic]. I've never had to recompile applications because I upgraded the kernel...... have you? Heh! I frequently have two different kernels installed, and choose between the two at boot time. Currently it's kernels 2.4.26 and 2.6.8. I don't recompile anything, I just reboot, and things run fine either way (save for mouse issues that have kept me from sticking with 2.6.8), no recompile required. The author of said article is just stupid...
Hehehe! Funniest thing I've read all day...
You were being sarcastic, right?
I guess it's possible Apple has finally started to learn from their mistakes. There's a first time for everything...
"A lot" is two words. You wouldn't WRITE "alittle", would you? Whadayamean? Wouldn'tcha?
You do come off sounding like you didn't really read the article very carefully, since you make statements like his above and in your original post, which say more or less what the author of the article is saying, while acting like it contradicts what he said.
The real problem is, he's trying to define what makes a game "better" as something other than what makes it "successful", indeed his point is that what usually makes a game more successful tends to make it "worse". And rather than criticize his lack of providing a way to measure "better" (until this latest reply), you're making an (unsupported) assertion that "successful" is the way to measure it. That does make you sound like you're (possibly deliberately) missing the point.
and therefore we must fall back on the guidelines that *are* available to us
Agreed, but in my own experience, "successful" and "better" are quite certainly two different things, so your implication that "successful" is the only measure available to us here is absurd. Surely you can think of some better guideline than that. "Enjoyable" seems a much better standard to me, and although there may be other aspects to "better" as well -- I think "enjoyable over the long-term" comes close to capturing what he meant by "better".
How do you measure that? Beats me. But reverting to "successful" because it's easier to measure is a cop-out.
They're just doing the same thing the author is doing. The author claims there are numerous features that are like this, and uses this one thing as an example. The critics think the author is full of crap, and use this example to demonstrate.
Really, if this is the best example he could come up with, it doesn't speak well for his overall point. If it isn't the best example he could come up with, then why did he pick that one?
It's perfectly valid to criticize his examples, even if they're only examples of the points he's trying to make. His inability to find good examples is telling.
It's a perfect illustration of his "short-term-bad, long-term-good" feature argument.
And that's the point you seem to be missing. If this is his "perfect illustration", and it's so laughably flawed, his point doesn't hold much water now, does it? If it's both short-term and long-term bad, that's a much more understandable and probably explanation why games don't incorporate it.
Indeed, it's no coincidence that the words "liberal" and "liberty" both start with "liber", Latin for "free". I'm personally against many things that I would nevertheless oppose passing laws against. It's not the government's job to tell people how to believe when it isn't hurting anyone else. Unless you have some solid proof that more people are harmed by gay marraige than a lack of it, or by abortion than by abortion bans, or any such proof on any such issue, any true liberal is going to oppose any government regulation on the subject. Allow, unless you have proof that it really is harmful. Allow, allow, allow.
Weren't paying attention to the news at the time? Like most of the people who voted for it, he said it was flawed, but it was more important to get something in place first, then they could backfix. According to publicly stated positions of the people at the time, the majority of people who voted for the Patriot Act would like to revise it.
(Someone hand me the cluestick, I need to beat someone...)
I believe he's already stated his intentions to revise that particular travesty...
That's not too bad, though. It means neither side has gotten to him yet. We have an opportunity to make a case.
You're thinking of Street Fighter, not Mortal Kombat...
Reminds me of the Highlander series. One of my friends had to point out that we never see any decapitations in it, unlike the movie. I basically watched an entire season of episodes without noticing they never show the actual decapitations...
Don't we explore to exploit?
Yes, exactly. Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate.
Why then, do global warmning advocates...
Global warming proponent? Global warming advocates? Are these the people Louie Anderson used to joke about, who stand outside in the middle of the Minnesota, winter spraying aerosol cans? "Come on, global warming!"
Or at least there appears to be a subjective component to how it cashes out into different cultures.
This, on the other hand, flys in the face of the evidence. It's an interesting article of faith for many, but it's not the kind of belief that can be considered rational.
It seems to me this may be good for the short-term, but it's bad for the long term. Things become cheap (a stable cheap, not a short term cheap) because they're produced in massive quantities. If LCD TV's actually took off, you're see dramatically lower prices in LCD monitors over the long term. If LCD screens stay confined to the computer market, and don't become mainstream there, they'll remain relatively expensive over the long term. So this looks like bad news to me...
BUT the distance between A and B is supposed to be 960km According to whom? Remember that distance is relative. In C's frame of reference, the distance between A and B is 1500 km, but in A's frame of reference, the distance to B is only 960 km. If your question at this point is, "But which is it, really?", you truly don't understand relativity. Distance, like motion, is relative. Both answers are correct in their respective frames of reference.
Reread the post you're replying too. There's no problem with people making money. The question was, what does this add beyond that? If the answer is nothing, which it apparently is, then it's wasted money -- the $25 is NOT worth the benefit if there is none.
The idea is if sommeone is REALLY bothered by that little spam that gets past their Spam Assassin or whatever you use, they can pay 25 bucks a year and get rid of that 1% or so that goes past the filters.
Sorry, at my company that figure is about 5%, even with SpamAssassin's flagging threshold lowered to 4.0, and 5% of the spam we receive comes to hundreds of messages per day. I'd happily, joyously pay $25/year to ANY company, even Microsoft, if they could do something about that last 5%...
I'd say that's it in a nutshell. That's also what was said in the sentence quoted by the person I was responding to, who then said that was false, hence my disagreement.
It's not the only issue, but it is part of it. If you want a more intense (255,41,0), increase the contrast on your monitor.
Two questions: (A) how do I do that from the OpenGL or DirectX API, and (B) how do I do it without have any effect on any other pixels on the screen but the one I'm attempting to modify?
We can certainly reproduce RGB color in (literally) blinding brightness and with better intensity resolution than the human eye can differentiate, all within the confines of simple RGB.
Not on today's computers and monitors. I'm sure it could be done, but would it be practical, and for that matter would we even want to, given the other problems involved?
Oh indeed, I don't disagree. This only amplifies the point I was making. In theory, an RGB model could successfully reproduce any color you can see. But not only would pixels have to be able to vary infinitely from zero to the maximum intensity you can see, which isn't practical with today's technology, the specific R, G, and B chosen would have to be calibrated to the viewer's cones, which is also not practical. Thus, a more practical solution for simulating colors is to throw more colors into the mix, as the article suggests with it's RYGCBM color model.
Now, see, that's the reverse of what I was told: the ocean is blue because the sky is blue. I don't know if that's any closer to the truth or not...
This is sort of but not really true. Yes, we see colors based on firings of nerve cells, and each firing is a discrete event. However, we see intensity based on the frequency of the firings, and because the firings aren't tied to a timing crystal like the cycles in a computer, the firing frequency isn't discrete -- it can vary infinitely over a range.
CMY(K) are Subtractive Colours. (You add them together to get black)
... RGB + CMYK negate each other.
... while LCD's naturally use a CMYk approach
Hehe! No, this is quite false, quite a number of ways.
First of all, colors of light are additive, colors of pigment are subtractive. This is true regardless of which colors you choose. If you had a monitor using the CYM model, you could not produce red, because monitors, being light emitting devices, are always additive, never subtractive, mixing C and Y would add their lights, not subtract leaving just the G. Because of this, you cannot get a lot of colors. However, you can get white, by adding C, M, and Y together. Since monitors are additive, adding CYM makes white, not black.
The LCDs we use today are light emitting, not light reflecting. Thus, they naturally use an RGB color model. If they did not emit light on their own but only reflected like, like a sheet of paper, then their natural color model would be CYM(K). But that's just not how things work.