While it is true you have to use the qt codecs you are not bound by the horrible QuickTime player application. I mean is Full-screen viewing really that much to ask for?
I guess people in the future are genetically engineered to be a lot more flexible, in order to better fight the machines. In fact 95% of their skeletal structure is now converted to cartilage.
This explains why when they die and decompose, all that's left are their frikin' skulls.
PEOPLE, generally, don't want to play games on PC when they could rather do it on a console. PC gaming has for years been doing a great job committing suicide all by itself. Only the most casual games (Zoo Tycoon, Sims) or the most hardcore games (UT2K3, etc.) have any place right now, and even that is disappearing. MS' 'help' isn't needed.
Really?
I wasn't aware that any console had an input interface as well-suited for FPS games as a keyboard/mouse, or that they could make my television set deliver the 100 fps required for real-time gaming. At a decent (>1280x1024) resolution.
Where are these magical consoles?
You haven't played any PC games recently, have you?
The only reason MS is putting effort into the PC for gaming is as a test bed for the next generation XBox (think of it as a hardware implementation of DX9). You can bet that their PC efforts will be refined in the XBox version, then phased out on the PC.
And iD is being harassed to sit on the PC version of DooM 3. And yes, Bungie did have a release date for PC/Mac Halo shortly after when they were bought out.
It won't be much of a barrier for long. Microsoft is trying to kill off gaming on the PC.
- Halo nearly ready for release to PC, bought by MS, and shelved in favour of an XBox port. - iD Software approached by MS, offered a stack of cash to sit on Doom3 for PC in favour of an XBox port.
Microsoft don't want people playing games on 'their' PCs, that much is clear. That's what the XBox is for (well, that and a test bed for DRM content). They're trying to permanently separate PCs and games consoles.
If Microsoft really goes for it, and stops supporting DirectX on windows, then we'll have them. The only way people will be able to play games on PCs will be with Linux, which will (hopefully) result in PC game houses looking at the platform more seriously.
I completely agree with you. There is nothing in itself wrong with saying CG evolved, if it is taken in the context of change over time, not of darwinian principles.
However, many people do try to apply a darwinian model to conscious development processes, and this is where I take issue.
I don't mean to belittle the engineers (like myself), but I am not so certain that an engineer's thought process is that functionally different from natural selection. And from that precept, I have come to this disagreement with your assertion.
I disagree:) A CG programmer (engineer, artist?) already has a preconceived idea of what looks 'realistic' or aesthetically pleasing. Visuals that do not look 'right' get discarded.
Biological evolution has no such luxury, the sole selection criteria being "will this change increase my chances of survival given my environment?".
If a CG programmer's efforts do not 'work', then the usual course of action is to find out what went wrong, and try to make it better. Programmers code with a specfic purpose in mind, even before culling the 'unfit' code. Unlike biological evolution which relies on random mutations.
If one irreducibly complex new trait requiring four mutations would be very beneficial to the organism but we only have three mutations, then those mutations are of no benefit to the organism and it's basically back to the drawing board. Those mutations are no more or less likely to appear again. I see this as being very different from the selection process of programmers, engineers, etc.
Of course large complex systems don't just happen. They are developed by *groups* of minds working on strings of smaller, intermediate ideas. One says "let's make it automatic". Another designs a circuit to allow for telephone calls to be connected by sending an electronic pulse to a coil, and so on.
Just because no one engineer conceived of every single facet of an entire complex system does not make that system the product of any natural process. It is a system developed by many hours of collaborative, conscious thought.
Because many new technologies are created through an iterative process of throwing failed prototypes away in no way implies any kind of natural selection. The inventor already has a criteria for what they want the product to do, and therefore has a picture (information) of how it shouldbehave.
But of course, technologies couldn't possibly be created, could they, no they just inexplicably evolve, just like humans. Excuse me I need to go find a ratchet tree now.
Slashdot Mirror
I trust when you say it has DirectX 9 support you mean it implements OpenGL 2.0?
There are those of us who are legit.
I have an extensive ogg collection, consisting entirely of music ripped from CDs that I OWN, and do not distribute any further.
Please don't put all us music rippers into the same basket.
*Sigh*, this is just semantics.
We all know that ogg is a container format.
However due to Vorbis being by *far* the most popular codec for it, ogg implies vorbis. Get over it.
Just like these days Quicktime implies Sorenson.
Erm, hypercard?
Tabbed browsing.
I feel severely limited when forced to use a browser without it.
The letter 'm' is inserted before the number indicating the resolution.
For example:
480 becomes m480 or
240 becomes m240
While it is true you have to use the qt codecs you are not bound by the horrible QuickTime player application. I mean is Full-screen viewing really that much to ask for?
See this message
And yet it still doesn't work.
You need to stick an 'm' before the '480'.
I can confirm that this trick works :)
I guess people in the future are genetically engineered to be a lot more flexible, in order to better fight the machines. In fact 95% of their skeletal structure is now converted to cartilage.
This explains why when they die and decompose, all that's left are their frikin' skulls.
... or mplayer
... that's 28/6/2003 and 18/11/2003, or 2003-06-28 and 2003-11-18
*shudder*
:)
Don't ever call that abomination a command-line.
A quasi-command-line perhaps
Thank you, I was racking my brains trying to remember where I'd heard those lines...
PUSA!
PEOPLE, generally, don't want to play games on PC when they could rather do it on a console. PC gaming has for years been doing a great job committing suicide all by itself. Only the most casual games (Zoo Tycoon, Sims) or the most hardcore games (UT2K3, etc.) have any place right now, and even that is disappearing. MS' 'help' isn't needed.
Really?
I wasn't aware that any console had an input interface as well-suited for FPS games as a keyboard/mouse, or that they could make my television set deliver the 100 fps required for real-time gaming. At a decent (>1280x1024) resolution.
Where are these magical consoles?
You haven't played any PC games recently, have you?
The only reason MS is putting effort into the PC for gaming is as a test bed for the next generation XBox (think of it as a hardware implementation of DX9). You can bet that their PC efforts will be refined in the XBox version, then phased out on the PC.
And iD is being harassed to sit on the PC version of DooM 3.
And yes, Bungie did have a release date for PC/Mac Halo shortly after when they were bought out.
Yes they do, with one mission objective:
"To increase the wealth of Microsoft".
That's it. That's all they do.
It won't be much of a barrier for long.
Microsoft is trying to kill off gaming on the PC.
- Halo nearly ready for release to PC, bought by MS, and shelved in favour of an XBox port.
- iD Software approached by MS, offered a stack of cash to sit on Doom3 for PC in favour of an XBox port.
Microsoft don't want people playing games on 'their' PCs, that much is clear. That's what the XBox is for (well, that and a test bed for DRM content). They're trying to permanently separate PCs and games consoles.
If Microsoft really goes for it, and stops supporting DirectX on windows, then we'll have them. The only way people will be able to play games on PCs will be with Linux, which will (hopefully) result in PC game houses looking at the platform more seriously.
I couldn't agree more.
That is the other side of what I was getting at.
Thank you, Isaac.
I completely agree with you. There is nothing in itself wrong with saying CG evolved, if it is taken in the context of change over time, not of darwinian principles.
However, many people do try to apply a darwinian model to conscious development processes, and this is where I take issue.
I don't mean to belittle the engineers (like myself), but I am not so certain that an engineer's thought process is that functionally different from natural selection. And from that precept, I have come to this disagreement with your assertion.
:)
I disagree
A CG programmer (engineer, artist?) already has a preconceived idea of what looks 'realistic' or aesthetically pleasing. Visuals that do not look 'right' get discarded.
Biological evolution has no such luxury, the sole selection criteria being "will this change increase my chances of survival given my environment?".
If a CG programmer's efforts do not 'work', then the usual course of action is to find out what went wrong, and try to make it better. Programmers code with a specfic purpose in mind, even before culling the 'unfit' code. Unlike biological evolution which relies on random mutations.
If one irreducibly complex new trait requiring four mutations would be very beneficial to the organism but we only have three mutations, then those mutations are of no benefit to the organism and it's basically back to the drawing board. Those mutations are no more or less likely to appear again. I see this as being very different from the selection process of programmers, engineers, etc.
ergo the summary "change over time", but it makes no difference if nobody actually uses the term in that context.
Oh come on now.
Of course large complex systems don't just happen. They are developed by *groups* of minds working on strings of smaller, intermediate ideas. One says "let's make it automatic". Another designs a circuit to allow for telephone calls to be connected by sending an electronic pulse to a coil, and so on.
Just because no one engineer conceived of every single facet of an entire complex system does not make that system the product of any natural process. It is a system developed by many hours of collaborative, conscious thought.
Because many new technologies are created through an iterative process of throwing failed prototypes away in no way implies any kind of natural selection. The inventor already has a criteria for what they want the product to do, and therefore has a picture (information) of how it shouldbehave.
But of course, technologies couldn't possibly be created, could they, no they just inexplicably evolve, just like humans. Excuse me I need to go find a ratchet tree now.
FYI:
Firebird is the new name for the browser.
Thunderbird is the new name for the mail client.