I'm actually not trying to be mean here, but I am illustrating what it's like for the rest of us (sounds exclusive, eh?) to talk to a person who isn't so good at putting their thoughts in order and communicating them. I think we all kind of know what it's like -- everyone has moments when they try to articulate what they were thinking but get bogged down because there's just so much of it -- but for those of us who can summarize well it's exhausting trying to extract the point from all your thoughts. I think from your other post that you understand that, but I wanted to explain my post.
So yes, we think more but why would the thinking want to associate with the brain-dead? We don't. We fall back into our shells and think about why the world is as it is.
Or, from the other angle, why would people who can communicate their thoughts want to associate with those who can only run circles in their heads?
I think you're over-generalizing a little. Actually, a lot. Isn't it possible for a person to enjoy being social without being attached to everyone? Sure, an extroverted person needs to have someone to be extroverted to -- but that's a far cry from needing to be loved and accpeted by everyone, and from getting attached to everyone.
Introversion and extroversion are about what your focus is, not what you need. Some people have all the fun and energy in the world when they're with other people. Some people have a great time just thinking and doing things alone. That doesn't mean that an introverted person doesn't want or need love, or that extroverted people are some sort of incomplete half-humans when they're alone.
I'm guessing that you consider yourself an introvert (or you're a very bitter extreme extrovert) from your comments. That's fine but you seem to have some huge resentment towards more social people. Enjoying socializing is not the same as dependance on others or "play[ing] social mind games". Some people just like to hang out. Others like to amuse themselves.
It lets me think of my desktops spatially when I select them, which I find helpful. A 3x3 grid of keys corresponding to a 3x3 grid of virtual desktops. That may not be an advantage to everyone, but I like to be able to think of "that desktop over there", rather than remembering names or numbers. Also, it makes them feel more concrete to me when they're arranged as I have them.
Virtual desktops are pretty awesome. I've moved from minimizing programs to just leaving them where they are and switching to another virtual desktop. I've also got a 3x3 setup, but I find that using ctrl+alt+numonthenumpad is the quickest way to work with them, since the numpad positions correspond to the layout of my desktops.
I also used the Ratpoison window manager for a while. I think that, depending on your computing habits, a tiled window manager could really be productive. If I were writing more code and switching between fewer windows I would definitely consider switching back to one.
They weren't, and that was his point. If photorealism was innovation then they should be getting credit, but it's not and they aren't (although it is cool that they implemented it).
I called you (I'm talking to the same guy, right?) a troll because you went out of your way to post a long winded explanation of how your typo was as correct as anything is. What is that but an invitation to argue?
You're sneaky for a troll. You almost seem to be worth arguing with. And you should probably spend less time writing long posts, becuase your fingers might get tired.
It's large enough when we don't hit its limits. When we can represent the brightest light we need to deal with. That's not really all that large, but it is hard to make harware that can deal with numbers that size in huge volumes.
Most films get more monochromatic as they get darker, and is it really necessary to model the lower resolution of the rods? After all, the image really is darker, and we are viewing it with those cones. It would be cool to see games get greyscale in the dark though.
Because at some point a number is just too big to store. Even sooner than that numbers get to big to store in large quantities. It's possible (or will be) to make them practically unbounded, but until we can store infinitely large numbers and move them around and crunch them we won't have truly unbounded brightnesses.
I'm going to agree that they never should have been bounded. Of course, it wasn't possible at one time, but I think it's high time that we move towards effectively unbounded brightnesses.
I don't think you understand what Valve's HDR does (which isn't a shock considering the quality of the linked article). Take a look at Anandtech's article for a decent explanation: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2545.
I sort of agree with you. The mouse does seem to be stupidly shaped, but once I put my ring finger on top of the mouse with my middle finger (rather than trying to shove it down on the side with my pinky) and kept my palm off the mouse I've had no trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
Same here. Maybe some people have less spare brainpower than us so their brains run out of it before they pass out.
I'm actually not trying to be mean here, but I am illustrating what it's like for the rest of us (sounds exclusive, eh?) to talk to a person who isn't so good at putting their thoughts in order and communicating them. I think we all kind of know what it's like -- everyone has moments when they try to articulate what they were thinking but get bogged down because there's just so much of it -- but for those of us who can summarize well it's exhausting trying to extract the point from all your thoughts. I think from your other post that you understand that, but I wanted to explain my post.
So yes, we think more but why would the thinking want to associate with the brain-dead? We don't. We fall back into our shells and think about why the world is as it is.
Or, from the other angle, why would people who can communicate their thoughts want to associate with those who can only run circles in their heads?
I think you're over-generalizing a little. Actually, a lot. Isn't it possible for a person to enjoy being social without being attached to everyone? Sure, an extroverted person needs to have someone to be extroverted to -- but that's a far cry from needing to be loved and accpeted by everyone, and from getting attached to everyone.
Introversion and extroversion are about what your focus is, not what you need. Some people have all the fun and energy in the world when they're with other people. Some people have a great time just thinking and doing things alone. That doesn't mean that an introverted person doesn't want or need love, or that extroverted people are some sort of incomplete half-humans when they're alone.
I'm guessing that you consider yourself an introvert (or you're a very bitter extreme extrovert) from your comments. That's fine but you seem to have some huge resentment towards more social people. Enjoying socializing is not the same as dependance on others or "play[ing] social mind games". Some people just like to hang out. Others like to amuse themselves.
That was probably a joke, you know. At least you took the time to kill it.
How about using a FAT32 partition for your home directory?
It lets me think of my desktops spatially when I select them, which I find helpful. A 3x3 grid of keys corresponding to a 3x3 grid of virtual desktops. That may not be an advantage to everyone, but I like to be able to think of "that desktop over there", rather than remembering names or numbers. Also, it makes them feel more concrete to me when they're arranged as I have them.
Virtual desktops are pretty awesome. I've moved from minimizing programs to just leaving them where they are and switching to another virtual desktop. I've also got a 3x3 setup, but I find that using ctrl+alt+numonthenumpad is the quickest way to work with them, since the numpad positions correspond to the layout of my desktops.
I also used the Ratpoison window manager for a while. I think that, depending on your computing habits, a tiled window manager could really be productive. If I were writing more code and switching between fewer windows I would definitely consider switching back to one.
I believe that's:
1. Get modified Xbox with Linux installed
2. Suspend on a piece of string
3. Spin 360 degrees on piece of string
4. ???
5. Profit!
Wait a second, did he even make any points besides that one?
They weren't, and that was his point. If photorealism was innovation then they should be getting credit, but it's not and they aren't (although it is cool that they implemented it).
What happens when you do feel the need to commit a crime? You're not going to be too happy then are you?
? I'm not telling you you're wrong, I'm just commenting on your motivation.
And who wants to bet the engineer didn't cut out everything below 30 Hz anyway?
I called you (I'm talking to the same guy, right?) a troll because you went out of your way to post a long winded explanation of how your typo was as correct as anything is. What is that but an invitation to argue?
You're sneaky for a troll. You almost seem to be worth arguing with. And you should probably spend less time writing long posts, becuase your fingers might get tired.
It's large enough when we don't hit its limits. When we can represent the brightest light we need to deal with. That's not really all that large, but it is hard to make harware that can deal with numbers that size in huge volumes.
Most films get more monochromatic as they get darker, and is it really necessary to model the lower resolution of the rods? After all, the image really is darker, and we are viewing it with those cones. It would be cool to see games get greyscale in the dark though.
Because at some point a number is just too big to store. Even sooner than that numbers get to big to store in large quantities. It's possible (or will be) to make them practically unbounded, but until we can store infinitely large numbers and move them around and crunch them we won't have truly unbounded brightnesses.
I'm going to agree that they never should have been bounded. Of course, it wasn't possible at one time, but I think it's high time that we move towards effectively unbounded brightnesses.
I caught that radiosity thing too. Good grief.
I don't think you understand what Valve's HDR does (which isn't a shock considering the quality of the linked article). Take a look at Anandtech's article for a decent explanation: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2545 .
+1 for AnandTech and decent journalism.
I don't know about that. I think zombies with claws are pretty scary.
I sort of agree with you. The mouse does seem to be stupidly shaped, but once I put my ring finger on top of the mouse with my middle finger (rather than trying to shove it down on the side with my pinky) and kept my palm off the mouse I've had no trouble.
I liked the way you can wear the Perific on your hand and keep it where its needed.