But I for one hate ebooks because its so goddamn difficult to find a power outlet in the park when I bring my computer, monitor and mouse to do a little reading.
You didn't; Joseph Swan invented the carbon filament light bulb (and sued Edison and won.) Edison deserves credit for improvements that extended the lifespan by eight-fold (from 150 hours to 1200).
But, still, the idea that there are patents on what I can and cannot do online disturbs me. I'm not stealing the idea to a legitimately unique technology here. I'm not claiming I invented the light bulb before Edison.
Clones (We're All)
-Alice Cooper
I'm a clone
I know I'm fine
I'm one of more on the way
I'm two, doctor
Three's on the line
He'll take incubation another day
I'm all alone, so are we all
We're all clones
All are one and one are all
All are one and one are all
Destroy the government
We're destroying time
No more problems on the way
I'm through doctor
We don't need your kind
We are the ones
Ugly ones
Stupid boys
Wrong ones
I'm all alone, so are we all
We're all clones
All are one and one are all
All are one and one are all
Six is having problems
Adjusting to his clone status
Have to put him on a shelf
All day long we hear him crying so loud
I just wanna be myself
I just wanna be myself
I just wanna be myself
Be myself
Be myself
I'm a clone
I know I'm fine
I'm one of more on the way
I'm two, doctor
Three's on the line
He'll take incubation another day
I'm all alone, so are we all
We're all clones
All are one and one are all
All are one and one are all
I'm all alone, so are we all
We're all clones
All are one and one are all
All are one and one are all
I'm all alone, so are we all
We're all clones
All are one and one are all
All are one and one are all
Where I am, the local UPN affiliate shows Star Trek: The NExt Generation every day at 6PM and then again at 10PM.
Not current, but still one of the best damn shows on television. Plus, they're showing the series in order, and the 6PM run recently started from the beginning. The first season is great (and Riker has no beard!)
Why the hell doesn't anyone else seem to know this?!?!
From a review for "101 Great Quickies":
101 Great Quickies by Laura Corn is a novel twist on the standard sex guides that fill bookstore shelves. The pages of this book are actually sealed envelopes, 101 of them, each containing a separate suggestion for a short, spicy commingling. With such curiosity-provoking titles as "Delicious Torture" and "Lickity Splits," the possibilities are obvious.
"But technology wise they don't mention anything that Half Life doesn't already do."
Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but the engine for this game will do a LOT that Half-Life doesn't already do. Half-Life was made using the Quake 2 engine. Since then, iD created the Quake 3 engine which added (most noticably for most gamers) pretty graphic effects like curved surfaces. Now I don't know much at all about this generation of engine (I imagine it must be, what, the 6th generation for iD, starting at Wolf3d and counting up with each game except for Doom 2?) but from looking at those screen shots, the visuals are light years beyond what Half-Life could do.
Now maybe, as far as an interactive environment goes, this offers very little. But isn't half of creating any realistic envoronment whether or not it LOOKS like a realistic environment?
This certainly looks more realistic than a lot of games I've seen.
You mentioned something specific in your post that I just wanted to comment on quick, specifically the reference to what makes something realistic or unrealistic: "physical dynamics and interactions such as collisions, deformations, effectsm natural pheonomena like wind, human locomotion, etc"
This is basically proving your point, but just to throw my own slant on it, having worked on small 3d rendering projects myself, it's never been the graphical hardware that has ever made anything I've worked on more realistic. And very rarely, it's been things implemented in code (deformations, etc) but rather texture detail.
A quick explanation I feel is in order before I leave work. First and foremost, the most important aspect of any 3d environment is it's actual construction, in this case, polygons. However to the end user, a bunch of polygons will look like just that, a bunch of polygons. However with smart texturing (explanation of THAT in another minute) these polygons can actually begin to LOOK like something.
Now, smart texturing. This is the tough part, I think, but also the most rewarding. I define smart texturing to be using textures which simulate real life features. Not just having a brick wall where all the bricks look the same, but a brick wall where some of the bricks are broken, some are off color, some are missing, but NEVER in any repeating pattern. The last part is the most important, but rarely done these days. However repetition of textures is usually the first thing that triggers a message in the brain that says, "ooh, right. this is a videogame"
I first realized this a few years back when I was driving to work one morning. I was looking at the road ahead of me and was more or less studying the blacktop. I was trying to figure out why I had never seen a realistic looking road in a videogame before. I realized that it was because most roads consist of very simple textures: black surface, yellow and white lines. But the road I saw in front of me was drastically different: it wasn't just black, but a multitude of color. It didn't appear flat, but rather bumpy, and "textured". It was covered in skid marks, and there were signs that accidents had take place there before. The surface wasn't just some asphalt, but rather it told a story. Humans had been there, damaged it, and thats what made it interesting to look at that day.
But I think we're still a ways off from being able to do away with the repetitive textures that dominate roads or brick walls in videogames. But sometime while texture mapping, experiment with details in the environment that show humans have been there: wear and tear. It's what makes it cool to see bullet holes in the walls and blood splattered all over the floor when you play Quake 3.
Just some thoughts. Yeah, I rambled. But work is over now. Mission accomplished.
I was specifically talking about being at work, in which case, I should hope your boss doesn't make you pay for your OS, Office software, or anything else essential for your computer.
Although it's certainly not the stipped down web browser that Galeon offers, and it's certainly not lacking in uselss features, Opera is sure as hell better than IE and Netscape combined.
Why it doesn't have more than a million and a half users is beyond me.
I think the notion that certain things are "art" and certain things are not "art" is rediculous.
Let me explain...
To some, gardening is art. Some people are absolutely addicted to the art of gardening and spend their entire lives doing nothing else. But Joe Blow off the street, or really anybody from a city IMHO, doesn't give a flying fsck about gardening as an art form.
But it is. Gardening is an art, no different than sculpture, photography, glassblowing, acting, or mad photoshop skills. All of these require different skills, all require an incredible amount of time to master, and all can, under the right circumstances, evoke emotion in the viewer. But just because photoshop has only been around from the last decade, using it to make great pieces suddenly isn't art?
BULLSHIT.
So maybe the critics are behind the times. I'd certainly believe that. Most artist's work is never truly recognized until they're dead anyways. My history teacher in high school happened to be addicted to collecting art. Every spare penny he had went to increasing his collection. He had to move into a bigger (albeit still one bedroom) apartment just to hold it all. When a good friend of his died he left him his entire body of work, almost 2,000 paintings. At the time, it was worth nothing...
Now the collection is valued at a few million dollars. Needless to say, he no longer needs to rely on his teaching salary.
So (and I'm getting to the point of the anecdote here) maybe it isn't important what critics think right now. Maybe you won't be able to make any money off your wacom tablet inspired doodles over the course of your lifetime. But who knows, 50 or even 100 years from now it might be the "next big thing". Art is fickle, and you can't always count on it for income. But if you're making great art, independent of what its worth or what critics think, you'll always be doing something amazing, and certainly nothing can change that.
Slashdot Mirror
Thinking about it now, I guess my plan to claim that I was a programmer who couldn't type was flawed from the start...
-NeoTomba
1) Die
2) Go into seizures
3) Make a really good comic about this
or 4) All of the above
But, um, GOD DAMN. Is there no hope for GOOD GAME DEVELOPERS in this modern age?!?!
-NeoTomba
-NeoTomba
Whoa.. you learn something new every day :)
-NeoTomba
-NeoTomba
But, still, the idea that there are patents on what I can and cannot do online disturbs me. I'm not stealing the idea to a legitimately unique technology here. I'm not claiming I invented the light bulb before Edison.
-NeoTomba
Awesome
-NeoTomba
Clones (We're All) -Alice Cooper I'm a clone I know I'm fine I'm one of more on the way I'm two, doctor Three's on the line He'll take incubation another day I'm all alone, so are we all We're all clones All are one and one are all All are one and one are all Destroy the government We're destroying time No more problems on the way I'm through doctor We don't need your kind We are the ones Ugly ones Stupid boys Wrong ones I'm all alone, so are we all We're all clones All are one and one are all All are one and one are all Six is having problems Adjusting to his clone status Have to put him on a shelf All day long we hear him crying so loud I just wanna be myself I just wanna be myself I just wanna be myself Be myself Be myself I'm a clone I know I'm fine I'm one of more on the way I'm two, doctor Three's on the line He'll take incubation another day I'm all alone, so are we all We're all clones All are one and one are all All are one and one are all I'm all alone, so are we all We're all clones All are one and one are all All are one and one are all I'm all alone, so are we all We're all clones All are one and one are all All are one and one are all
Not current, but still one of the best damn shows on television. Plus, they're showing the series in order, and the 6PM run recently started from the beginning. The first season is great (and Riker has no beard!)
-NeoTomba
So which is this, a food or a drug?
-Shy
From a review for "101 Great Quickies":
101 Great Quickies by Laura Corn is a novel twist on the standard sex guides that fill bookstore shelves. The pages of this book are actually sealed envelopes, 101 of them, each containing a separate suggestion for a short, spicy commingling. With such curiosity-provoking titles as "Delicious Torture" and "Lickity Splits," the possibilities are obvious.
See? Dammit, commingling is a dirty word!
-NeoTomba likes to commingle with girls
Solution: FF9 for the PSX, Win9x (ugh...) and ePSXe
Looks better than Square/EA ever did with previous PC conversions anyways.
-NeoTomba
Let us go back to the FF7 advertising campaign...
Propaganda
Any questions?
-NeoTomba
Who knows what other oddities we will see in the coming days now that Slashdot has the mystical power to repost stories in alternate formats!
-NeoTomba
Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but the engine for this game will do a LOT that Half-Life doesn't already do. Half-Life was made using the Quake 2 engine. Since then, iD created the Quake 3 engine which added (most noticably for most gamers) pretty graphic effects like curved surfaces. Now I don't know much at all about this generation of engine (I imagine it must be, what, the 6th generation for iD, starting at Wolf3d and counting up with each game except for Doom 2?) but from looking at those screen shots, the visuals are light years beyond what Half-Life could do.
Now maybe, as far as an interactive environment goes, this offers very little. But isn't half of creating any realistic envoronment whether or not it LOOKS like a realistic environment?
This certainly looks more realistic than a lot of games I've seen.
-NeoTomba
This is basically proving your point, but just to throw my own slant on it, having worked on small 3d rendering projects myself, it's never been the graphical hardware that has ever made anything I've worked on more realistic. And very rarely, it's been things implemented in code (deformations, etc) but rather texture detail.
A quick explanation I feel is in order before I leave work. First and foremost, the most important aspect of any 3d environment is it's actual construction, in this case, polygons. However to the end user, a bunch of polygons will look like just that, a bunch of polygons. However with smart texturing (explanation of THAT in another minute) these polygons can actually begin to LOOK like something.
Now, smart texturing. This is the tough part, I think, but also the most rewarding. I define smart texturing to be using textures which simulate real life features. Not just having a brick wall where all the bricks look the same, but a brick wall where some of the bricks are broken, some are off color, some are missing, but NEVER in any repeating pattern. The last part is the most important, but rarely done these days. However repetition of textures is usually the first thing that triggers a message in the brain that says, "ooh, right. this is a videogame"
I first realized this a few years back when I was driving to work one morning. I was looking at the road ahead of me and was more or less studying the blacktop. I was trying to figure out why I had never seen a realistic looking road in a videogame before. I realized that it was because most roads consist of very simple textures: black surface, yellow and white lines. But the road I saw in front of me was drastically different: it wasn't just black, but a multitude of color. It didn't appear flat, but rather bumpy, and "textured". It was covered in skid marks, and there were signs that accidents had take place there before. The surface wasn't just some asphalt, but rather it told a story. Humans had been there, damaged it, and thats what made it interesting to look at that day.
But I think we're still a ways off from being able to do away with the repetitive textures that dominate roads or brick walls in videogames. But sometime while texture mapping, experiment with details in the environment that show humans have been there: wear and tear. It's what makes it cool to see bullet holes in the walls and blood splattered all over the floor when you play Quake 3.
Just some thoughts. Yeah, I rambled. But work is over now. Mission accomplished.
-NeoTomba
I was specifically talking about being at work, in which case, I should hope your boss doesn't make you pay for your OS, Office software, or anything else essential for your computer.
I hope you're happy... =)
-NeoTomba
Why it doesn't have more than a million and a half users is beyond me.
-NeoTomba
I think the notion that certain things are "art" and certain things are not "art" is rediculous. Let me explain... To some, gardening is art. Some people are absolutely addicted to the art of gardening and spend their entire lives doing nothing else. But Joe Blow off the street, or really anybody from a city IMHO, doesn't give a flying fsck about gardening as an art form. But it is. Gardening is an art, no different than sculpture, photography, glassblowing, acting, or mad photoshop skills. All of these require different skills, all require an incredible amount of time to master, and all can, under the right circumstances, evoke emotion in the viewer. But just because photoshop has only been around from the last decade, using it to make great pieces suddenly isn't art? BULLSHIT. So maybe the critics are behind the times. I'd certainly believe that. Most artist's work is never truly recognized until they're dead anyways. My history teacher in high school happened to be addicted to collecting art. Every spare penny he had went to increasing his collection. He had to move into a bigger (albeit still one bedroom) apartment just to hold it all. When a good friend of his died he left him his entire body of work, almost 2,000 paintings. At the time, it was worth nothing... Now the collection is valued at a few million dollars. Needless to say, he no longer needs to rely on his teaching salary. So (and I'm getting to the point of the anecdote here) maybe it isn't important what critics think right now. Maybe you won't be able to make any money off your wacom tablet inspired doodles over the course of your lifetime. But who knows, 50 or even 100 years from now it might be the "next big thing". Art is fickle, and you can't always count on it for income. But if you're making great art, independent of what its worth or what critics think, you'll always be doing something amazing, and certainly nothing can change that.