Points are scored as a two "level meters". One for "Hair Raising Suspense" - which is based on how close you cut the rescue,...and the other is for "Darring Do" - which is how complex/outlandish the rescue is. As you accumulate points, you earn "Technical Difficulties". A "Technical Difficulty" can be played if you see that your attempt to rescue the damsel will fail. When you use it, the projector has a problem causing the film to be reset and you get to try again. The audience will get a little annoyed, but they generally won't leave.
The audience should do random things during the movie that will play out based upon how interested they are in the movie. For example, a lady with a large hat can sit down in one of the front rows, little kid starts kicking the seat in front of him, etc.
Each level (episode) ends with a "cliffhanger" that provides clues as to what the next level will be. Of course, you have to finish with something like "IS THIS THE END!?", "WHAT WILL OUR HERO DO NOW!?", "TUNE IN FOR NEXT WEEKS EXCITING ADVENTURE!!!".
and yes, there is even more to this concept, I have an idea for the sequel game (the genre would be early B SciFi/Horror - complete with monsters that look like guys in rubber suits and cheesy dialog).
I don't suppose this could be written in Python huh?
The setting is in a movie theater during the days of silent films. The film itself is, of course, black and white but everything else is normal. There is a piano player on stage in the corner and a movie audience. The movie playing is a serialized "Perils of Pauline" kind of thing. You control what happens on the movie screen and how well you do effects how the audience reacts. The tempo of the piano player's music will warn you when things are about to get hairy and the text-screens during the movie (It's not a "talkie" remember) will provide clues as to what to do.
You get points for not only rescuing the "damsel in distress" but doing so in the "nick of time" using the most outlandish means possible. Your audience responds by remaining focused on the screen and coming back next week to see what adventures our hero gets into next.
On the other hand if say, she's tied to a railroad track and you rescue her before the train is even on camera, the audience will be bored and start throwing peanuts at each other and some will even get up and leave.
Also, if you fail and the damsel dies, then the audience is horrified and storms out the the theater in mass never to return.
anyway, that's the basic jist, I just wish I knew how to code it.
pencil drawings back when I was in college. I spent a lot of time trying to get body proportions right and figuring out how to best do faces. Over time, and with the advice of some real artist, I learned a few tricks. One thing in particular about female faces was that they were easier to draw because they tended to have less fine detail - especially if you draw them assuming they are wearing make-up. (another advantage of drawing female faces is that I tended to give them earrings with reflective geometric shapes so I could practice drawing those as well).
Anyway, I would imagine that if you got down to that level of rendering detail, it's probably easier to make an attractive female face than an attractive male face.
But I could be wrong, your post just reminded me of a process I went through about 20 or so years ago.
The Lara Croft's I've seen (I've not seen the early versions of the game) are a bit of an exagerration while the protagonist for Resident Evil: Code Veronica seems to be well potrayed.
On the other hand, the Id Software protagonist from Wolfenstein 3D through Quake II all seem to be hyper-male types while Gordon Freeman is just a scientist in an extrodinary situation.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm sure this is a great topic to spur discussion but my opinion is that we are painting it with too wide a brush.
As an Earthlink customer with a couple of small kids it would be nice to at least block the porn (and BTW - my penis size is just fine thank you very much). I see this challenge-response approach as a minor inconvenience that clears up a major one. The only problem I can see is with spammers that put someone elses e-mail address in the "from" column. Even so, this should mitigate a lot of it.
I watched the Kasparov Vs. Deep Blue match. I kinda had the impression that Kasparov was sort of a whiner when he lost but I also think that IBM owed him a rematch. I mean, Kasparov was playing that machine year after year and then, when Deep Blue finally won, IBM immediately dismantles the machine. It didn't make IBM look good in my eyes.
I also got the impression that Kasprov didn't really prepare as much for that match. Perhaps he had taken victory as a given after years of win after win.
Also, whiner though he may have been, he did make some legit points about access to the game logs, etc.
I don't know if this necessarily applies but...
on
Unreal Security Hole
·
· Score: 1
The one reason I was hesitant to play Unreal Tournament on the web was because there seems to be no way to stop it from automatically downloading new maps.
I routinely scan all my downloads if I'm not familiar with the server.
"It's nice stuff," DeBusk says of his jellyfish, which he mixed with several secret ingredients and then pureed.
If the tornado in a can can transform the glop properly, he believes it could be worth millions as an ingredient of wound-healing bandages, arthritis drugs, *sports drinks* and other products. "
I've just gotten past the idea of eating hot-dogs, not sure if I'm ready for Jellyfish flavored Gatorade.
To make this truly useful they need to do 2 things
on
Segway HT Starts Selling
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
1) Bring the price down about an order of magnitude. | 2) Design it so that it can be collapsed down to where a commuter can easily take it with them on a bus/ train. | | |...until then, all they have is an expensive toy.
Speaking as one of those people you would have to approach to get that STC, I would have to agree. It will be a difficult process. However, this is only because I can think of several issues that would have to be addressed just off the top of my head. For example, fuel sensing systems, fuel delivery systems, engine modifications, weight and balance, flammability, static strength, dynamic structural stability (especially if we are talking wing tanks), sutablilty of the seals, bladders, etc. I could go on.
The safety requirements for any aircraft must be high. As a result, modifications to original type design must not be taken lightly. I know it's a pain, but I also know that the first time one of these falls out of the sky the public will be all over the FAA and the engineers that approved the mod.
Such an STC would not be required for an experimental aircraft. However, there are a lot of issues associated with making that switch so make sure that your friend has researched this thoroughly.
Regarding automotive engine conversions, generally speaking. An automotive engine makes power at a higher RPM than an equivalent aircraft engine. This requires a reduction drive on the automotive engine. Generally speaking, auto engines make better power per displacement and aircraft engines make better power per weight. Also, the vapor pressure of automotive gasolene tends to be more than 100LL, which could require more robust fuel pumps and extra care in routing the fuel lines (at least). Remember, auto-gas is designed for use at more-or-less sea level.
That all being said, auto-gas and automotive engine conversions have been successfully done.
There are a couple of issues. For example, alcohol is more dense than gasolene and has less thermal energy per unit volume. Simply put, cars and especially aircraft won't be able to go as far or carry as much fuel. On the other hand, the "octane" rating for alcohol is pretty good as compared to gasolene (which is particularly good for aircraft). A few years back, during the gas crisis, some of us were tinkering with this. Now, this was before the days of computer controlled damn-near-everything in cars so it's probably a little dated. Basically, the mod was relatively simple. Adjust the timing, re-jet and shorten the float arm on the carb to adjust for the density of the alcohol, and plan on at least replacing the piston rings when the alcohol cleaned all the built up carbon off the engine cylinders.
Alcohol does burn pretty clean and you can get good power from it, but it's not a totally free ride. It's not pollution free either. I believe formaldahyde is a by-product of methanol combustion. Maybe some of you chemist out there can confirm. However, production of methanol fuel can be more environmentally friendly. For cars, I think I would be more in favor of a methanol fuel cell, but even that is not pollution free.
This sounds like what I had read as "Catastrophe Theory" some years ago. It was the point where I had decided that "the emperor was naked" and started to consider other options. - - Maybe this gene hiding thing is it, we'll just have to wait and see.
I think if you read my post, you will find that I am not discarding evolution, I'm simply question the notion that natural selection is both necessary and sufficient to explain observed data. See other responses on this thread. - -
Wish I knew what that "tidbit" was. I'm not dumping natural selection. I believe it is a necessary part of evolution, I'm just not sure that it is sufficient to describe all observed data. For the record, they lost me at something called "catastrophe theory". This was the notion that evolution would accelerate given sudden cataclismic (sp?) changes to the environment (I oversimplify, but I have limited time). Since natural selection is just that, a selection process, an explanation should be provided as to how exactly that works. Maybe this stored gene thing is the answer but I'll reserve opinion until the data has been better evaluated. - - OTOH, I think there are four flavors of creationist theory out there right now (literal, day-age, gap, and I forget the other one). Therefore, there is no reason to think they have any special handle on what's going on either. - - My suggestion is as follows; Look beyond natural selection, maybe there is something there. - -
These are just some fairly common arguments made against the notion that natural selection alone is sufficient to explain observations regarding evolution. I fully expected them to be challenged. - My opinion is as follows; I agree with the premise of natural selection, I even see it as a necessary factor. However, I do not believe that it is sufficient to explain all observed data. - I wish I had time to go into greater detail but, such as life.
Few people would challenge Darwin's theory of natural selection. It's simple, observable, and repeatable in a lab. The thing is, natural selection is a pretty tight criteria. The question becomes, can natural selection alone explain all observations? These are the "details we haven't worked out yet".
A couple of classic examples: _ 1) Lizards to Birds: _ How do you reduce the bone density of a lizard and transitions scales to feathers while strictly following the criteria of "most fit to survive"? Also, should we expect to see a creature with "scaley feathers" or "feathery scales" somewhere is the fossil record? - 2) Compensating abilities: - Given that we evolved from primates, why would we lose all of their attributes simply because our brains developed? For example, a primate's feet is very much like their hands. On us, the toes don't do very much. In the context of "survival of the fittest" wouldn't superior intellegence and primate like feet be better than just superior intellegence? The apparant loss of an ability is often difficult to explain in the context of "survival of the fittest". - _ I'm not suggesting that the explanation does not exist, I'm mearly suggesting that perhaps there are mechanisms other than natural selection at play. Although, to automatically assume that the only possible alternative is creationism would be an equally narrow view.
-....we need more data.
Please forgive the following rant
on
Ready, Steady, Evolve
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I've always wanted to believe that a true scientist does not care what the truth is just so long as he knows that he's got it. Find the answer, deal with the ramifications later. I've also liked to believe that any intellegent person will evaluate an idea on its own merits rather than pick from whatever popular ideas are currently available.
Enter evolutionary theory. It seems that to show any skeptisism is to be labled a creationist. Who decided that those were the only options? Regardless of the validity of any other ideas out there, modern evolutionary theory does have trouble neatly explaining some observations. As a result, the theory is continually becoing more complex (There is really not sufficient room to go into detail so I apologize). At some point, skeptisism is appropriate.
Years ago, people widely believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and anyone who didn't think so was automatically labled a heretic. Rather than concede that the Earth was moving, planets were plotted as moving in epicyclic patterns. This was a real mess to explain in the context of known physics. As far as I know, Gallileo was not an atheist yet I believe he was excommunicated for suggesting that the Earth moved.
Now it's the opposite problem. To challenge evolutionary theory is to be labled a creationist, even though evolutionary theory is looking more and more like planets moving in epicycles everyday.
Just tried to get to the earlier /. article
on
Is This Moon Three?
·
· Score: 1
Wasn't able to log on........does this mean that Slashdot has been Slashdotted?
I've read IBM's articls and here is how I imagine a conversation between myself and IBM would go:
me: So, what does a quantum computer do?
IBM: Someday, we will be able to solve problems that are so complex that even the most powerful supercomputers working for millions of years can't calculate the answers.
me: Wow, what can you do so far?
IBM: We can show that 15 = 3 X 5
me: uh, I think you boys need to calm down a little.....
Wow, I had heard that he passed on...perhaps bad info.
Yes, I know about the talk box, back when I was in high school (in a town where every other male played guitar), a friend of mind had both of those items, I guess I tend to think of them together.
Although, I can't help but think about that old Les Paul synthesizer guitar that had the ribbon cable coming out of it and the box that modulated the sound by blowing through a flexible tube.
Slashdot Mirror
Points are scored as a two "level meters". One for "Hair Raising Suspense" - which is based on how close you cut the rescue,...and the other is for "Darring Do" - which is how complex/outlandish the rescue is. As you accumulate points, you earn "Technical Difficulties". A "Technical Difficulty" can be played if you see that your attempt to rescue the damsel will fail. When you use it, the projector has a problem causing the film to be reset and you get to try again. The audience will get a little annoyed, but they generally won't leave.
The audience should do random things during the movie that will play out based upon how interested they are in the movie. For example, a lady with a large hat can sit down in one of the front rows, little kid starts kicking the seat in front of him, etc.
Each level (episode) ends with a "cliffhanger" that provides clues as to what the next level will be. Of course, you have to finish with something like "IS THIS THE END!?", "WHAT WILL OUR HERO DO NOW!?", "TUNE IN FOR NEXT WEEKS EXCITING ADVENTURE!!!".
and yes, there is even more to this concept, I have an idea for the sequel game (the genre would be early B SciFi/Horror - complete with monsters that look like guys in rubber suits and cheesy dialog).
I don't suppose this could be written in Python huh?
The setting is in a movie theater during the days of silent films. The film itself is, of course, black and white but everything else is normal. There is a piano player on stage in the corner and a movie audience. The movie playing is a serialized "Perils of Pauline" kind of thing. You control what happens on the movie screen and how well you do effects how the audience reacts. The tempo of the piano player's music will warn you when things are about to get hairy and the text-screens during the movie (It's not a "talkie" remember) will provide clues as to what to do.
You get points for not only rescuing the "damsel in distress" but doing so in the "nick of time" using the most outlandish means possible. Your audience responds by remaining focused on the screen and coming back next week to see what adventures our hero gets into next.
On the other hand if say, she's tied to a railroad track and you rescue her before the train is even on camera, the audience will be bored and start throwing peanuts at each other and some will even get up and leave.
Also, if you fail and the damsel dies, then the audience is horrified and storms out the the theater in mass never to return.
anyway, that's the basic jist, I just wish I knew how to code it.
pencil drawings back when I was in college. I spent a lot of time trying to get body proportions right and figuring out how to best do faces. Over time, and with the advice of some real artist, I learned a few tricks. One thing in particular about female faces was that they were easier to draw because they tended to have less fine detail - especially if you draw them assuming they are wearing make-up. (another advantage of drawing female faces is that I tended to give them earrings with reflective geometric shapes so I could practice drawing those as well).
Anyway, I would imagine that if you got down to that level of rendering detail, it's probably easier to make an attractive female face than an attractive male face.
But I could be wrong, your post just reminded me of a process I went through about 20 or so years ago.
The Lara Croft's I've seen (I've not seen the early versions of the game) are a bit of an exagerration while the protagonist for Resident Evil: Code Veronica seems to be well potrayed.
On the other hand, the Id Software protagonist from Wolfenstein 3D through Quake II all seem to be hyper-male types while Gordon Freeman is just a scientist in an extrodinary situation.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm sure this is a great topic to spur discussion but my opinion is that we are painting it with too wide a brush.
As an Earthlink customer with a couple of small kids it would be nice to at least block the porn (and BTW - my penis size is just fine thank you very much). I see this challenge-response approach as a minor inconvenience that clears up a major one. The only problem I can see is with spammers that put someone elses e-mail address in the "from" column. Even so, this should mitigate a lot of it.
I watched the Kasparov Vs. Deep Blue match. I kinda had the impression that Kasparov was sort of a whiner when he lost but I also think that IBM owed him a rematch. I mean, Kasparov was playing that machine year after year and then, when Deep Blue finally won, IBM immediately dismantles the machine. It didn't make IBM look good in my eyes.
I also got the impression that Kasprov didn't really prepare as much for that match. Perhaps he had taken victory as a given after years of win after win.
Also, whiner though he may have been, he did make some legit points about access to the game logs, etc.
The one reason I was hesitant to play Unreal Tournament on the web was because there seems to be no way to stop it from automatically downloading new maps.
I routinely scan all my downloads if I'm not familiar with the server.
From the article...
"It's nice stuff," DeBusk says of his jellyfish, which he mixed with several secret ingredients and then pureed.
If the tornado in a can can transform the glop properly, he believes it could be worth millions as an ingredient of wound-healing bandages, arthritis drugs, *sports drinks* and other products. "
I've just gotten past the idea of eating hot-dogs, not sure if I'm ready for Jellyfish flavored Gatorade.
Sounds like an awful waste of paper.....
1) Bring the price down about an order of magnitude. ...until then, all they have is an expensive toy.
|
2) Design it so that it can be collapsed down to
where a commuter can easily take it with them on a bus/ train.
|
|
|
Speaking as one of those people you would have to approach to get that STC, I would have to agree. It will be a difficult process. However, this is only because I can think of several issues that would have to be addressed just off the top of my head. For example, fuel sensing systems, fuel delivery systems, engine modifications, weight and balance, flammability, static strength, dynamic structural stability (especially if we are talking wing tanks), sutablilty of the seals, bladders, etc. I could go on.
The safety requirements for any aircraft must be high. As a result, modifications to original type design must not be taken lightly. I know it's a pain, but I also know that the first time one of these falls out of the sky the public will be all over the FAA and the engineers that approved the mod.
Such an STC would not be required for an experimental aircraft. However, there are a lot of issues associated with making that switch so make sure that your friend has researched this thoroughly.
Regarding automotive engine conversions, generally speaking. An automotive engine makes power at a higher RPM than an equivalent aircraft engine. This requires a reduction drive on the automotive engine. Generally speaking, auto engines make better power per displacement and aircraft engines make better power per weight. Also, the vapor pressure of automotive gasolene tends to be more than 100LL, which could require more robust fuel pumps and extra care in routing the fuel lines (at least). Remember, auto-gas is designed for use at more-or-less sea level.
That all being said, auto-gas and automotive engine conversions have been successfully done.
There are a couple of issues. For example, alcohol is more dense than gasolene and has less thermal energy per unit volume. Simply put, cars and especially aircraft won't be able to go as far or carry as much fuel. On the other hand, the "octane" rating for alcohol is pretty good as compared to gasolene (which is particularly good for aircraft). A few years back, during the gas crisis, some of us were tinkering with this. Now, this was before the days of computer controlled damn-near-everything in cars so it's probably a little dated. Basically, the mod was relatively simple. Adjust the timing, re-jet and shorten the float arm on the carb to adjust for the density of the alcohol, and plan on at least replacing the piston rings when the alcohol cleaned all the built up carbon off the engine cylinders.
Alcohol does burn pretty clean and you can get good power from it, but it's not a totally free ride. It's not pollution free either. I believe formaldahyde is a by-product of methanol combustion. Maybe some of you chemist out there can confirm. However, production of methanol fuel can be more environmentally friendly. For cars, I think I would be more in favor of a methanol fuel cell, but even that is not pollution free.
This sounds like what I had read as "Catastrophe Theory" some years ago. It was the point where I had decided that "the emperor was naked" and started to consider other options.
-
-
Maybe this gene hiding thing is it, we'll just have to wait and see.
I think if you read my post, you will find that I am not discarding evolution, I'm simply question the notion that natural selection is both necessary and sufficient to explain observed data. See other responses on this thread.
-
-
Wish I knew what that "tidbit" was. I'm not dumping natural selection. I believe it is a necessary part of evolution, I'm just not sure that it is sufficient to describe all observed data. For the record, they lost me at something called "catastrophe theory". This was the notion that evolution would accelerate given sudden cataclismic (sp?) changes to the environment (I oversimplify, but I have limited time). Since natural selection is just that, a selection process, an explanation should be provided as to how exactly that works. Maybe this stored gene thing is the answer but I'll reserve opinion until the data has been better evaluated.
-
-
OTOH, I think there are four flavors of creationist theory out there right now (literal, day-age, gap, and I forget the other one). Therefore, there is no reason to think they have any special handle on what's going on either.
-
-
My suggestion is as follows; Look beyond natural selection, maybe there is something there.
-
-
These are just some fairly common arguments made against the notion that natural selection alone is sufficient to explain observations regarding evolution. I fully expected them to be challenged.
-
My opinion is as follows; I agree with the premise of natural selection, I even see it as a necessary factor. However, I do not believe that it is sufficient to explain all observed data.
-
I wish I had time to go into greater detail but, such as life.
Few people would challenge Darwin's theory of natural selection. It's simple, observable, and repeatable in a lab. The thing is, natural selection is a pretty tight criteria. The question becomes, can natural selection alone explain all observations? These are the "details we haven't worked out yet".
....we need more data.
A couple of classic examples:
_
1) Lizards to Birds:
_
How do you reduce the bone density of a lizard and transitions scales to feathers while strictly following the criteria of "most fit to survive"? Also, should we expect to see a creature with "scaley feathers" or "feathery scales" somewhere is the fossil record?
-
2) Compensating abilities:
-
Given that we evolved from primates, why would we lose all of their attributes simply because our brains developed? For example, a primate's feet is very much like their hands. On us, the toes don't do very much. In the context of "survival of the fittest" wouldn't superior intellegence and primate like feet be better than just superior intellegence? The apparant loss of an ability is often difficult to explain in the context of "survival of the fittest".
-
_
I'm not suggesting that the explanation does not exist, I'm mearly suggesting that perhaps there are mechanisms other than natural selection at play. Although, to automatically assume that the only possible alternative is creationism would be an equally narrow view.
-
I've always wanted to believe that a true scientist does not care what the truth is just so long as he knows that he's got it. Find the answer, deal with the ramifications later. I've also liked to believe that any intellegent person will evaluate an idea on its own merits rather than pick from whatever popular ideas are currently available.
Enter evolutionary theory. It seems that to show any skeptisism is to be labled a creationist. Who decided that those were the only options? Regardless of the validity of any other ideas out there, modern evolutionary theory does have trouble neatly explaining some observations. As a result, the theory is continually becoing more complex (There is really not sufficient room to go into detail so I apologize). At some point, skeptisism is appropriate.
Years ago, people widely believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and anyone who didn't think so was automatically labled a heretic. Rather than concede that the Earth was moving, planets were plotted as moving in epicyclic patterns. This was a real mess to explain in the context of known physics. As far as I know, Gallileo was not an atheist yet I believe he was excommunicated for suggesting that the Earth moved.
Now it's the opposite problem. To challenge evolutionary theory is to be labled a creationist, even though evolutionary theory is looking more and more like planets moving in epicycles everyday.
Wasn't able to log on.....
1)__Will it play Quake III?
2)__I'm waiting for them to intergrate it with a
__cell phone.
3)__I've already budgeted that money for the
__Indrema console when it comes out.
.
(I'm sure you all can think of more
.
I've read IBM's articls and here is how I imagine a conversation between myself and IBM would go:
me: So, what does a quantum computer do?
IBM: Someday, we will be able to solve problems that are so complex that even the most powerful supercomputers working for millions of years can't calculate the answers.
me: Wow, what can you do so far?
IBM: We can show that 15 = 3 X 5
me: uh, I think you boys need to calm down a little.....
Wow, I had heard that he passed on...perhaps bad info.
Yes, I know about the talk box, back when I was in high school (in a town where every other male played guitar), a friend of mind had both of those items, I guess I tend to think of them together.
Although, I can't help but think about that old Les Paul synthesizer guitar that had the ribbon cable coming out of it and the box that modulated the sound by blowing through a flexible tube.
So I went to the web site for this poetry contest and had to close a pop up add for the damn mini camera which is showing up more and more.
I know there's a joke in there somewhere but it's Monday morning and I'm too tired to find it myself.