Perhaps not. But it does take a brain cell or two to look at this and go "Ah neat! So that's how they did that! I wonder what other applications I have for mucking with IR signals?"
"Many IPAQs have a stronger then usual IR transmitter/receiver to be able to control your TV using the NEVO software, which comes with it. So I don't see the point of this!"
You don't think the process they used of converting IR to sound and back again is interesting? I really question the integrity of some of the nerds around here. How can they completely miss the point of something like this?
"Yes However, it is a M$ service, so your watch will become useless unless it is patched and has regular upgrades to keep from catching the newest virus, the NTP clock worm."
In stark contrast to the Linux based watch which requires that you edit a.CONF file to set the time.
"Well, as a Canadian who lives in Toronto (one of the country's largest population centres), I haven't heard ANYONE say 'aboot', EVER, except when quoting South Park."
And as somebody who has visited Prince George Canada, I can tell you I have heard aboot. Interestingly enough, though, it seemed to be the older generation of people saying it. Didn't seem so popular to the teenage peeps I met.
Just so this is understood, the whole point of that South Park movie scene wasn't to make fun of the stereotypical Canadian accent, it was making fun of us US peeps who make fun of people for having differing accents. The funny part of that scene wasn't the guy saying aboot, it was the Americans that thought that was just a little too funny. As an American, I can say "Point taken, amusingly delivered". I think a few Canadians missed the point of it, though.
"the RIAA still gets money from iTunes, Rhapsody, etc."
I'm aware of that. Sadly, I didn't make that too clear in my previous post. I was trying to say "It was hard to switch to a music service because I didn't want any money going towards the RIAA", but in haste, it came out more like "I switched to a music service to avoid paying the RIAA."
"Flood of comments from AC Microsoft astroturfers in 5... 4... 3..."
I generally prefer the PocketPC to the Palms out there, but I have to say, I agree with you on this one. I can work with the QVGA still, but the larger screens like on the Sony Clie are far too tempting. Seeing as how I want to web browse and read ebooks on whatever palm device I end up getting, short of the HP that was mentioned in other posts in this thread, I have no interest in the PocketPC.
So no, despite being accused a couple of times of being an MS shill (for the record, my views on MS are misunderstood), I agree with you completely. I wouldn't think too highly of anybody that tried to bust your chops on this one.
"2D game characters are displayed precisely how the artist chooses to display them to you."
Yes, this is true. It was easier to fill up those pixels when you had low resolution images to fill. Kind of like how it's easier to fill up a lite brite than it is to make a full color painting that will stand close up scrutinizing.
"There is no extraneous frame of animation to be found. "
None of those extraneous weird things like rotating cameras to worry about, etc.
"3D game characters, meanwhile, are yours to control, so you may rotate them and view them from whichever unflattering angle you like"
I'm not sure if he's pointing out that there's only so many polygons you can put in something, or that something doesn't look 'cool' from every angle. If it's the latter, the answer falls neatly under 'duh'. It is VERY hard to design something that looks cool from just about any angle. A lot of times, you just can't reasonably do it. It's not like living in the wonderful very limited world of 2D where you nudge the proportions around until each frame looks decent.
"It's also argued: "2D games handle collision detection (or the interaction between two characters or objects) better than 3D games do..."
Right... that would be because of the limitations of 2D, makes it MUCH simpler to detect what part of the sprite is touching what part of another sprite.
My responses are a little half assed here, so I'll put it together in a nice little summary: 2D graphics make the world simple enough that these challenges are much easier to overcome. 3D graphics need a LOT more work to accomplish the points this person brought up. Why haven't they done it yet? For the simple reason that in some cases you need more talented artists working on it (more in this context means both quantity and higher level of talent. Not a bash against 2D, but a lot more has to be considered...) and you also need hardware capable of it. It's like comparing a comic book to a live action movie.
"[and] I think 2D game characters still have the capacity to display more-lifelike emotions than 3D game characters do."
This is plainly untrue. Play Mario 64 or Wind Waker, then find a 2D game that's just as expressive. I'll concede that 2D games in a lot of cases had more character, but this is strictly a 'talent of the team' sort of thing.
... because the greedier the Music Industry gets, the more demand there'll be for a more repsonsible ogranization to replace them. The more you tighten your grip, and all...
" If you really hate the RIAA so much, you should not only vote with your wallet by not giving them money, you should also refrain from obtaining their products illegally."
For the record, I haven't downloaded music in over a year now. I subscribed to a music service called Rhapsody, and haven't looked back in P2P's direction.
I still have some bitterness here because I was called a thief by the *AA before I downloaded music simply because I had a CD burner. I was called a thief AFTER I did download music even though the main use of it was to find new CDs I wanted. (in my 56k days, downloading albums was damn near impossible.) Despite this, I went ahead and subscribed to the music service. I'm 100% legit now. I did NOT want any of my money going to the RIAA.
Here's the problem, though: There will always be music trading of some sort going on. There is no practical way I can stop other people. The best I've got is to let them see what I'm doing for music these days. There are always going to be people using MP3s legitimately, though the RIAA doesn't see MP3 players as being anything but tools for stolen property. Basically, I am of the belief that no matter how many people stop, the people that don't stop will keep the RIAA in its crummy position.
It's not that I'm trying to shoot your point down, it's just that I don't see it as being all that practical. The music services these days are suitable enough for me that I don't care if P2P music trading lives or dies. However, the RIAA needs a stronger message. It really shocks me that the brilliant success of iTunes hasn't changed the RIAA's tune at all. (Err, that I've found.) That kind of shoots down my idea of spending $100 there. *Sigh*
I think you're right, but I don't think it can happen on a big enough scale. I'm aching for something that sends a bigger message.
"Vote with your wallet. Do not buy their product, that is the only way you can have change."
Yeah, like DMCA2. The RIAA will chalk up any losses to piracy. They won't get your message, instead they'll twist that data and use it to get new really bad laws in place.
Wish I had a strong alternative, but really I don't. This is as good of time as any for somebody to speak up.
"does anyone remember the simpsons episode, where Lisa finds a skeleton of an angel with wings? It turns out that was just a marketing gimick to attract people to the grand opening. This ilovebees.com is just that."
And, just like that Simpsons episode, this is entertaining.
"Seems as though it would be a computationally intensive but a logically easy task."
Probably. Consider this, though: Fingerprints are common knowledge. We ALL know that if we commit a crime, fingerprints will be lifted to try to catch us. There are well known ways to defeat this, but remarkably, LOTS of people are still leaving fingerprints as clues at a crime.
I hope you can forgive me for reading a little more into your post than you actually said. I don't know for sure if you were going the "this could easily be defeated, thus it is ineffective" route. But I thought this would be as good of time as any to mention this.
"Just get rid of ICBMs all together, i mean, is it all that important that we be able to kill someone in 4 hours instead of 8 hours with a nuclear cruise missile?"
I dunno... after little incidents like with Iraq, I feel a bit more comfortable knowing that other countries will have to think long and hard before we get what's coming to us.:P
"With so many people in the world today facing starvation and mass death from lack of nutrition, it literally sickens me to the stomach to see things like this."
A.) Coke != America. It's a company. B.) Can't fight starvation without a strong economy. C.) It's one thing to say that corps making a lot of money should donate more, it's another to say they should stop marketing and put the money into other people's pockets. What happens when they grow dependent on it, then the lack of marketing suffocates the source of income?
My post is off-topic, I accept that. It's worth the karma hit to tell you how short-sighted you're being. I don't want people to starve, either. We agree on that point. I agree that more sharing could happen. But, "What will Americans throw money away on next"? Grow up. I know for a fact you don't come from a country that's dedicating all its resources to the rest of the world. Give the USA a little credit, our economy is benefitting a LOT of people & countries through frivilous commercialism. Just ask anybody who thinks we're importing too much.
Slashdot Mirror
"By the way, where you get those uber slang terms? Oh yeah, the 80's."
Exactly. Now, why would I respond to your joke with over used out dated slang expressions? What could I possibly be saying about your post? hmmm?
"I, for one, welcome our new mass coronal leaders."
Radical! That joke was fresh! You're so hip.
"It takes no cleverness to waste money."
Perhaps not. But it does take a brain cell or two to look at this and go "Ah neat! So that's how they did that! I wonder what other applications I have for mucking with IR signals?"
It takes no cleverness to put something down.
"Many IPAQs have a stronger then usual IR transmitter/receiver to be able to control your TV using the NEVO software, which comes with it. So I don't see the point of this!"
You don't think the process they used of converting IR to sound and back again is interesting? I really question the integrity of some of the nerds around here. How can they completely miss the point of something like this?
"Why bother to use all these devices when you could just use a $10 or less Universal Remote from Walmart with a lot less futzing?"
To learn more about how the technology works?
How can you call yourself a nerd if you don't find the 'convert the IR to sound and back' process interesting?
"A bug that causes old users to pay to upgrade? Doesn't sound like a bug at all, sounds more like a business strategy."
Well that took all the fun out of my stale Microsoft joke.
"If you spend a few extra split seconds looking in the mirror at another car's "expression" then you are spending less time looking ahead of you."
And looking in the rear view mirror at the driver behind you is going to take less time some how?
"Yes However, it is a M$ service, so your watch will become useless unless it is patched and has regular upgrades to keep from catching the newest virus, the NTP clock worm."
.CONF file to set the time.
In stark contrast to the Linux based watch which requires that you edit a
"Well, as a Canadian who lives in Toronto (one of the country's largest population centres), I haven't heard ANYONE say 'aboot', EVER, except when quoting South Park."
And as somebody who has visited Prince George Canada, I can tell you I have heard aboot. Interestingly enough, though, it seemed to be the older generation of people saying it. Didn't seem so popular to the teenage peeps I met.
Just so this is understood, the whole point of that South Park movie scene wasn't to make fun of the stereotypical Canadian accent, it was making fun of us US peeps who make fun of people for having differing accents. The funny part of that scene wasn't the guy saying aboot, it was the Americans that thought that was just a little too funny. As an American, I can say "Point taken, amusingly delivered". I think a few Canadians missed the point of it, though.
"the RIAA still gets money from iTunes, Rhapsody, etc."
:)
I'm aware of that. Sadly, I didn't make that too clear in my previous post. I was trying to say "It was hard to switch to a music service because I didn't want any money going towards the RIAA", but in haste, it came out more like "I switched to a music service to avoid paying the RIAA."
Thanks for the link, though.
"Flood of comments from AC Microsoft astroturfers in 5... 4... 3..."
I generally prefer the PocketPC to the Palms out there, but I have to say, I agree with you on this one. I can work with the QVGA still, but the larger screens like on the Sony Clie are far too tempting. Seeing as how I want to web browse and read ebooks on whatever palm device I end up getting, short of the HP that was mentioned in other posts in this thread, I have no interest in the PocketPC.
So no, despite being accused a couple of times of being an MS shill (for the record, my views on MS are misunderstood), I agree with you completely. I wouldn't think too highly of anybody that tried to bust your chops on this one.
"2D game characters are displayed precisely how the artist chooses to display them to you."
Yes, this is true. It was easier to fill up those pixels when you had low resolution images to fill. Kind of like how it's easier to fill up a lite brite than it is to make a full color painting that will stand close up scrutinizing.
"There is no extraneous frame of animation to be found. "
None of those extraneous weird things like rotating cameras to worry about, etc.
"3D game characters, meanwhile, are yours to control, so you may rotate them and view them from whichever unflattering angle you like"
I'm not sure if he's pointing out that there's only so many polygons you can put in something, or that something doesn't look 'cool' from every angle. If it's the latter, the answer falls neatly under 'duh'. It is VERY hard to design something that looks cool from just about any angle. A lot of times, you just can't reasonably do it. It's not like living in the wonderful very limited world of 2D where you nudge the proportions around until each frame looks decent.
"It's also argued: "2D games handle collision detection (or the interaction between two characters or objects) better than 3D games do..."
Right... that would be because of the limitations of 2D, makes it MUCH simpler to detect what part of the sprite is touching what part of another sprite.
My responses are a little half assed here, so I'll put it together in a nice little summary: 2D graphics make the world simple enough that these challenges are much easier to overcome. 3D graphics need a LOT more work to accomplish the points this person brought up. Why haven't they done it yet? For the simple reason that in some cases you need more talented artists working on it (more in this context means both quantity and higher level of talent. Not a bash against 2D, but a lot more has to be considered...) and you also need hardware capable of it. It's like comparing a comic book to a live action movie.
"[and] I think 2D game characters still have the capacity to display more-lifelike emotions than 3D game characters do."
This is plainly untrue. Play Mario 64 or Wind Waker, then find a 2D game that's just as expressive. I'll concede that 2D games in a lot of cases had more character, but this is strictly a 'talent of the team' sort of thing.
"Doom 3 on nintendo? ... nah too gory."
That's so... 1991.
"Yes, but can it run Doom 3??"
Has Doom3 been announced for the GC?
... because the greedier the Music Industry gets, the more demand there'll be for a more repsonsible ogranization to replace them. The more you tighten your grip, and all...
"Jesus Christ, he didn't say "How can you trust blackies with sensitive information", he said "How can you trust Nigeria with sensitive information".
Lighten up man, I just said how he could have made his post a little less ambiguous. He made the comment that he wasn't sure how it came across.
"Would you trust any sensitive customer data in Nigeria? Im not being racist, just that they dont exactly have a glowing track record."
Just so ya know, you would have sounded less racist if you had mentioned the Nigerian scam (419 I think?) as a point for why anybody'd trust them.
I'll be honest, though, I don't think it's all that fair to generalize. Sadly, though, I share the same fear, too. Hopefully one day I'll evolve.
" If you really hate the RIAA so much, you should not only vote with your wallet by not giving them money, you should also refrain from obtaining their products illegally."
For the record, I haven't downloaded music in over a year now. I subscribed to a music service called Rhapsody, and haven't looked back in P2P's direction.
I still have some bitterness here because I was called a thief by the *AA before I downloaded music simply because I had a CD burner. I was called a thief AFTER I did download music even though the main use of it was to find new CDs I wanted. (in my 56k days, downloading albums was damn near impossible.) Despite this, I went ahead and subscribed to the music service. I'm 100% legit now. I did NOT want any of my money going to the RIAA.
Here's the problem, though: There will always be music trading of some sort going on. There is no practical way I can stop other people. The best I've got is to let them see what I'm doing for music these days. There are always going to be people using MP3s legitimately, though the RIAA doesn't see MP3 players as being anything but tools for stolen property. Basically, I am of the belief that no matter how many people stop, the people that don't stop will keep the RIAA in its crummy position.
It's not that I'm trying to shoot your point down, it's just that I don't see it as being all that practical. The music services these days are suitable enough for me that I don't care if P2P music trading lives or dies. However, the RIAA needs a stronger message. It really shocks me that the brilliant success of iTunes hasn't changed the RIAA's tune at all. (Err, that I've found.) That kind of shoots down my idea of spending $100 there. *Sigh*
I think you're right, but I don't think it can happen on a big enough scale. I'm aching for something that sends a bigger message.
"So, are the artists getting any money from the disbursement of their product?"
Suddenly, for the first time in years, Will Smith gets an unexpected check from the RIAA...
"Vote with your wallet. Do not buy their product, that is the only way you can have change."
Yeah, like DMCA2. The RIAA will chalk up any losses to piracy. They won't get your message, instead they'll twist that data and use it to get new really bad laws in place.
Wish I had a strong alternative, but really I don't. This is as good of time as any for somebody to speak up.
"does anyone remember the simpsons episode, where Lisa finds a skeleton of an angel with wings? It turns out that was just a marketing gimick to attract people to the grand opening. This ilovebees.com is just that."
And, just like that Simpsons episode, this is entertaining.
"Seems as though it would be a computationally intensive but a logically easy task."
Probably. Consider this, though: Fingerprints are common knowledge. We ALL know that if we commit a crime, fingerprints will be lifted to try to catch us. There are well known ways to defeat this, but remarkably, LOTS of people are still leaving fingerprints as clues at a crime.
I hope you can forgive me for reading a little more into your post than you actually said. I don't know for sure if you were going the "this could easily be defeated, thus it is ineffective" route. But I thought this would be as good of time as any to mention this.
"Just get rid of ICBMs all together, i mean, is it all that important that we be able to kill someone in 4 hours instead of 8 hours with a nuclear cruise missile?"
:P
I dunno... after little incidents like with Iraq, I feel a bit more comfortable knowing that other countries will have to think long and hard before we get what's coming to us.
"Because he's my boss. And I'm a total pussy, so I take my gripes to Slashdot where they can be totally ineffective."
"Rest assured I was on the Internet within minutes registering my disgust throughout the world."
I'm the annoying overused Simpsons quote guy!
"With so many people in the world today facing starvation and mass death from lack of nutrition, it literally sickens me to the stomach to see things like this."
A.) Coke != America. It's a company.
B.) Can't fight starvation without a strong economy.
C.) It's one thing to say that corps making a lot of money should donate more, it's another to say they should stop marketing and put the money into other people's pockets. What happens when they grow dependent on it, then the lack of marketing suffocates the source of income?
My post is off-topic, I accept that. It's worth the karma hit to tell you how short-sighted you're being. I don't want people to starve, either. We agree on that point. I agree that more sharing could happen. But, "What will Americans throw money away on next"? Grow up. I know for a fact you don't come from a country that's dedicating all its resources to the rest of the world. Give the USA a little credit, our economy is benefitting a LOT of people & countries through frivilous commercialism. Just ask anybody who thinks we're importing too much.