My opinion isn't relevant to what I was pointing out, namely that the parent post had a weak argument.
Changes of subject like that are what makes arguments like abortion into the cesspool that they are.
My understanding/experience is it has been near impossible to find a copy of the game anyway. Sounds to me like they're maintaining the status quo.
From what I've heard from people who are playing though, most seem content enough with how Blizzard is trying to handle it. Sure, it's annoying, but Blizzard is trying.
I think you misunderstand the point of mesh simplification. Many of the vertices and triangles they're removing are unnecessary in the first place - if you have a perfectly flat plane, you only need two triangles to represent it. A good mesh simplification algorithm will give you that from the tens to hundreds you may have originally had. Many of these simplifications will have little to no effect on shading, unless the model is dramatically changed.
There are simplification algorithms like what you mention about automatic interpolation between meshes depending on the scene size. In Progressive Meshes, you store all of your edge collapses, so you can dynamically add or remove detail to the model. Hugues Hoppe has done some research on this, and I think he has a demo app on his website.
Polygon count is one of the biggest bottlenecks in the graphics pipeline we have. Anything that lets us reduce the amount of stuff we're sending through is a big help, especially if it isn't necessary.
Shaders exist so that you can do whatever you like for shading if what's built in isn't good enough. In fact, I heard rumors that some people actually wrote Phong shaders that were faster than the GL Gouraud shading.
Consider what you get for your $15. An hour of digitally-mastered music, which you can listen to in any order, whenever you want, for as long as you want, forever. And when you finally get bored of it, you can sell it and recoup some of your money. We're talking THOUSANDS of hours of entertainment for your $15. What other form of entertainment even comes close to offering this much bang-for-the-buck?
A book. And it's cheaper too (typically, not newer hardcovers), and probably better for you.
I'd also aruge you're wrong about some of the comparisons. You use them in relationship settings, I'd say strengthening the relationship might make it worth that much more money.
Not everyone has time to waste learning the newest (or oldest) tool. The dvorak layout is just that - a tool.
If someone has a tool that works fine, why should they take time away from doing something useless or something they enjoy for a minimal gain? It reminds me of someone I worked with in some college classes that was obsessed with ViM. He'd sit there tweaking it all day and clamor "Why don't you use vim! Can't you see it's superior?"
The reason I don't? Because I want to get work done. I want to do the things I like to do and not have people tell me "You have to do it my way because it's a little better." If dvorak was twice as fast as qwerty, then sure, I'd consider it. But the gain just doesn't seem worth the time I'd waste getting used to the new layout.
On top of that, for people who use multiple computers, dvorak is pretty worthless. The time you spend switching the settings on EVERY SINGLE computer you probably takes up the time you saved using the faster layout.
And finally, I (and a lot of other qwerty typists I know), type at roughly the speed we talk. A little slower, but close enough. I tend to think along when I type as if I'm reading/talking, so if I could hypothetically type faster than what I do now, I could see it causing a lot of issues with finishing a word before I've really read it and making tons more typos.
So to answer your question, I stick with qwerty because I just plain don't care enough to spend my life learning a tool that just isn't important enough to make a difference. Understand that people tend to find ways of doing things they like, even if they're a little less efficient. Qwerty is easy enough for me, while I still have issues when I try using dvorak (usually I think some of the vowels should be switched).
I have a sort of question for the keyboard layout gurus around here though - Do the keyboard layouts have any right-handed preference? Has anyone tried designing a left-handed keyboard layout? I think that could be really interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you could say they're Peta-philes.
Actually, look up Game Theory, some things looked at there address the be good to your fellow man, etc.
My opinion isn't relevant to what I was pointing out, namely that the parent post had a weak argument. Changes of subject like that are what makes arguments like abortion into the cesspool that they are.
Actually, your massive election recounts had already begun to chip away at it. We Californians will drag you down yet.
Actually, I lived in Puyallup for a while, so it's pretty crazy hearing that the high school I almost went to was where this was going to happen.
While I try to stay out of these kinds of arguments, your argument seems to be along the lines:
"Because most fertilized eggs die without intervention, it is okay to kill them with intervention."
So if I substitute "living people over the age of 2," is it suddenly moral for me to kill whoever I want? They'd probably die eventually.
My understanding/experience is it has been near impossible to find a copy of the game anyway. Sounds to me like they're maintaining the status quo.
From what I've heard from people who are playing though, most seem content enough with how Blizzard is trying to handle it. Sure, it's annoying, but Blizzard is trying.
I think you misunderstand the point of mesh simplification. Many of the vertices and triangles they're removing are unnecessary in the first place - if you have a perfectly flat plane, you only need two triangles to represent it. A good mesh simplification algorithm will give you that from the tens to hundreds you may have originally had. Many of these simplifications will have little to no effect on shading, unless the model is dramatically changed.
There are simplification algorithms like what you mention about automatic interpolation between meshes depending on the scene size. In Progressive Meshes, you store all of your edge collapses, so you can dynamically add or remove detail to the model. Hugues Hoppe has done some research on this, and I think he has a demo app on his website.
Polygon count is one of the biggest bottlenecks in the graphics pipeline we have. Anything that lets us reduce the amount of stuff we're sending through is a big help, especially if it isn't necessary.
Shaders exist so that you can do whatever you like for shading if what's built in isn't good enough. In fact, I heard rumors that some people actually wrote Phong shaders that were faster than the GL Gouraud shading.
C++: The power, elegance, and simplicity of a hand grendade
Oops. It's too early. I meant member vs. local.
Even Hungarian Notation would do
for (i = 0; i less-than whatever; i++);
Unless of course, you have a professor who doesn't let you do one letter variables, even in your short for loops.
A book. And it's cheaper too (typically, not newer hardcovers), and probably better for you.
I'd also aruge you're wrong about some of the comparisons. You use them in relationship settings, I'd say strengthening the relationship might make it worth that much more money.
Bart: Isn't that the wrong way?
Homer(Max): Yeah, but faster!
Malbolge, Programming From Hell
I say we take a page from the Israelis and build an orbital wall that will prevent any further such incursions in the future!
We have one, it's call the atmosphere.
If someone has a tool that works fine, why should they take time away from doing something useless or something they enjoy for a minimal gain? It reminds me of someone I worked with in some college classes that was obsessed with ViM. He'd sit there tweaking it all day and clamor "Why don't you use vim! Can't you see it's superior?"
The reason I don't? Because I want to get work done. I want to do the things I like to do and not have people tell me "You have to do it my way because it's a little better." If dvorak was twice as fast as qwerty, then sure, I'd consider it. But the gain just doesn't seem worth the time I'd waste getting used to the new layout.
On top of that, for people who use multiple computers, dvorak is pretty worthless. The time you spend switching the settings on EVERY SINGLE computer you probably takes up the time you saved using the faster layout.
And finally, I (and a lot of other qwerty typists I know), type at roughly the speed we talk. A little slower, but close enough. I tend to think along when I type as if I'm reading/talking, so if I could hypothetically type faster than what I do now, I could see it causing a lot of issues with finishing a word before I've really read it and making tons more typos.
So to answer your question, I stick with qwerty because I just plain don't care enough to spend my life learning a tool that just isn't important enough to make a difference. Understand that people tend to find ways of doing things they like, even if they're a little less efficient. Qwerty is easy enough for me, while I still have issues when I try using dvorak (usually I think some of the vowels should be switched).
I have a sort of question for the keyboard layout gurus around here though - Do the keyboard layouts have any right-handed preference? Has anyone tried designing a left-handed keyboard layout? I think that could be really interesting.