Well to be fair to the author it's not like he's unaware of the paradox. He makes it clear that "realistic" graphics just aren't realistic enough to cut it. The insight in the article comes from admitting that a certain amount of simplification and stylization enhance the immersion.
Remember the scene in "Reservoir Dogs" when the cop gets his ear sliced off? Tarantino shot that scene two ways. The take that didn't make it into the movie included a direct shot of the ear being sliced with the razor blade. During the shoot he thought, "That's it. That's the one." In the editing room he tried it both ways and found that the shot where the camera pulls away was more powerful by far. It gives you enough to know whats going on and then lets your imagination fill in the blanks.
I can see this notion at work in my own preferences with FPSs. RTCW (and maybe MOHAA, I can't recall off hand) allows the player to render the gun without drawing the hands and I've always chosen this option because the hands look stupid. Compared to hands, guns are easy to render aesthetically. Including an element that can't cut the mustard drags the rest of the frame down.
No they didn't. I am curious as to what they've done to make this a consumer product that will require no maintanace. Perhaps the entire setup is sealed from the start like the heatpipes in a laptop. I've also got to wonder about that series circuit for the coolant.
Whoa there buddy. Ease up with the apologies. It was obvious to me there was some thread confusion, but after my initial "WTF?" I just caried on with a response that should have been tagged to ioslipstream's post.
If you read my earlier post carefully, i'm advocating making it even MORE equal, by stripping any rights from married man+woman unless they are related to raising children.
Yes, I did notice that and read carefully enough to see that you are parsing the matter with some subtlety. That's why I responded with some simple questions instead of an insult. Frankly, I don't see why having children should affect the legal status of a couple.
... And guess what, when it comes to DEFINING marriage, it is logical to propose that only a man and a woman are married, since that is what is required to raise children by human evolution.
In addition to the fact that your evolutionary requirement for procreation can't prevent adoption, your point is neither here nor there. Most people don't get married to have kids. Telling us not to "flame" you with that point doesn't make it untrue and invoking a new standard for legal privileges based on raising children doesn't promote a justice that includes homosexuals. Honest people get married because they love each other and want to begin a unified life that can expire only with mortality (at least in theory). Just today I met a couple who got married last week. If they have any plans on having children I would suppose they should act fast as they appeared to be in their late 40's. I doubt it will happen though as they've already had 18 years of "couple-hood" with which to become parents. I presume they married now because they finally decided that neither of them would ever want to leave the other.
IMO, ALL (100%) of government policy (such as taxes, inheritance, benefits, many others) be defined EXCLUSIVELY in terms of having/raising kids...
That won't do much for my mother who got married in April. I don't expect to have siblings 36 years younger than me, and yet where the state can and does delineate priorities such as the ones you mentioned I'd prefer it treat my step father like her kin. It did after all take her 25 years to find the guy and they didn't buy a retirement home together just to "hang out for while".
We seem to have forgotten that the whole set of family/marriage incentives primarily originated to benefit not the married couple itself but their raising kids.
So what? You seem to have forgotten that this issue was breeched because gay couples -- like the two lesbians in San Francisco who got married recently (Gavin Newsom gave them their first opportunity) after being together 52 years -- want the state to let them treat each other as kin. That kind of legal status affects aspects of life that have nothing to do with offspring.
Leave it to/. to mod left-wing propaganda lie as +5 Insiteful.
What lie? El Presidente does in fact support a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage. Are you high?
Oh, and in case you want to anti-bible-thump again, the Kernel of Judeo-Christian norality (A.K.A. Old Testament) explicitly does NOT condemn gays, only hay sex - and for totally un-discriminatory reason. That prohibition is of the same set as onanism/sodomy/bestiality/any other type of sex where a man's sperm is not used inside a female reproductive organs. In other words, wanting to screw a guy is not a sin. Doing so is.
I don't know if you hold this opinion as your own or you're only answering a question no one asked, but your detailed explanation of the situation makes me wonder: If a guy screws another guy in the ass and he doesn't blow his nut is it unsinful?
We weren't discuessing having USEFUL rights for anyone, only equal.
Your proposition needs to address a marriage like my mothers'. If my step father outlives her, he should get her half of the house they bought together -- not me. Are people who have kids more equal than others? Double-plus ungood citizen!
> How grateful would you be for the right to have sex with a man?
#1: Why are you assuming i'm not a woman? Discriminating, eh?:)
I am, in fact, very discriminating -- in the academic sense of the word. That you are a man is written all over the way you write, though the comic in me wants to tell you I assumed you were a DYKE.
Uhh, what are you talking about? ioslipstream clearly has no sympathy for the circumstances Turing found himself in. His opinion of Turing's death is: "He took his own life, that's not tragic, that's just plain weak."
I can understand feeling contempt for losers. By definition they'd rather drag the world down than accept its assistance (let alone its wonders). But how fucked would a guy would have to be to escape ioslipstream's judgement if he takes matters into his own hands? Turing was gay, a genius, and had a stuttering problem. If going without a love life wasn't bad enough, his contribution to the Allied war effort was repaid with abject humiliation. For God's sake most people fear public speaking more than death. If your job entails giving lectures that begin, "A c-c-c-comm... PUter could..." can't that be taken as a sign of guts and determination? The dude was forced to grow tits under public observation and still managed to crack jokes about it at work. Given his work during the war, I don't think the guy could have chosen "dropping out" even if it meant living on the streets in a foreign nation as alternative to death. At least suicide is a course of action that allowed him to retain his life as his and his alone. I don't see why we can't presume his strength, and then take his death as a measure of how shoddily he was treated.
Last time I checked, homosexuals have exactly the same right as heterosexuals - to join in a government-registered union (a.k.a. marriage) with a member of the opposite sex.
Do you want them to be thankful for that? How grateful would you be for the right to have sex with a man?
I bow to the clever sagacity of your counter perspective. In all fairness though, if you want to take away an author's right to charge what he wants for his work you should also take away the public's right to abstain from buying it.
This reminds me of that LKML discussion about whether or not Linux is "designed". IIRC, Linus firmly proposed that it isn't -- that he takes aim in a certain direction, but the actual result is much more like a product of evolution than the fleshing out of a predetermined structure or goal.
That was a great show. Beyond the educational value it shows off the British knack for expressing abstract ideas in common sense language. Burke deserves some serious credit for precience too. I recall seeing one installment in the early-mid 80's where he advocated the need for continued expansion of modern communications technology -- open interconnectedness -- to offset our modern capacity for apocalypse. Ever the optimist, he ends the episode saying, "We can do it with this" as the camera zooms in on his raised index finger and comes to rest on a microchip.
P.S. I just google'd for DVDs of the show and found out it was made in '78! Check out this description of the final episode (it's probably the one I had in mind when I started to post): "...there is a look ahead to the need for radical change in the availability and use of information in the future..."
I followed ForestGrump's link [see above] to Aeonsfx's page, and from there clicked a link to a vim.org forum entry. One poster there suggested mapping shift+space to escape which sounds very speedy and convenient.
Dude, I don't want my particular installation to end up anything like your vision of a linux desktop. I don't want "uninstall links" embedded in an application launching menu. I don't want programs launched behind my back to "save" 7 seconds. I don't want to fumble with cdroms that contain outdated drivers when I can automagically install them off the net in the first place.
There are some things about GNOME development that strike me as falling short in comparison to the KDE team, but I could never prefer KDE over GNOME on the basis of looks alone. KDE seems to start out taxing on the eyes and then stays that way (for me).
... it's like comparing one project's code base with a totally different one written by someone else. That's what Alexey Toptygin did with MINIX and Linux. His results are here . His commentary on the results are illuminating since he made the comparison specifically for Ken Brown's pamphlet only to find that his conclusion wasn't appreciated.
the more I laugh. Check out http://www.adti.net/samizdat/samizdat.updates.html.
Of four "updates" to the swirl surrounding "Samizdat" two are still "under construction" and one is a report on a DOS attack written in the third person (Crazy Eight doesn't like it when people talk about themselves that way) that can't help inventing an opportunity to use the phrase "hybrid source"!
Why should Linus get to decide the naming of the entire operating system?
He doesn't and he never has. Indeed, IIRC, "Linux" was coined by the admin that was hosting the early code. Surely he embraced the word the way one might appreciate a flattering nickname, but he's never claimed to have written anything more than a kernel. It is the distributions and users who have opted to forgo the ungainly "GNU/Linux" (with the exception of Debian at least). Honestly now, if you heard that spoken without prior knowledge of the subject wouldn't you spell it "New Linucks" and wonder WTF? In any event, you don't hear kernel developers asking Stallman to call it Linux/glibc even though that library is useless without Torvald's kernel.
"The term refers to any product with a license that attempts to mix free and proprietary source code at the same time."
If this "hybrid source" concept weren't a bald attempt at framing any discussion of Linux with the presumption that it is half founded on theft it would be ironic. Brown claims to advocate the BSD licence which can allow for software that exhibits the exact quality he deems a "sin".
Slashdot Mirror
I know you are... but what am I?
It's spelled "genius", genious. :)
No it isn't.
Of course, he could just call himself with another phone... :)
Remember the scene in "Reservoir Dogs" when the cop gets his ear sliced off? Tarantino shot that scene two ways. The take that didn't make it into the movie included a direct shot of the ear being sliced with the razor blade. During the shoot he thought, "That's it. That's the one." In the editing room he tried it both ways and found that the shot where the camera pulls away was more powerful by far. It gives you enough to know whats going on and then lets your imagination fill in the blanks.
I can see this notion at work in my own preferences with FPSs. RTCW (and maybe MOHAA, I can't recall off hand) allows the player to render the gun without drawing the hands and I've always chosen this option because the hands look stupid. Compared to hands, guns are easy to render aesthetically. Including an element that can't cut the mustard drags the rest of the frame down.
No they didn't. I am curious as to what they've done to make this a consumer product that will require no maintanace. Perhaps the entire setup is sealed from the start like the heatpipes in a laptop. I've also got to wonder about that series circuit for the coolant.
Whoa there buddy. Ease up with the apologies. It was obvious to me there was some thread confusion, but after my initial "WTF?" I just caried on with a response that should have been tagged to ioslipstream's post.
Yes, I did notice that and read carefully enough to see that you are parsing the matter with some subtlety. That's why I responded with some simple questions instead of an insult. Frankly, I don't see why having children should affect the legal status of a couple.
In addition to the fact that your evolutionary requirement for procreation can't prevent adoption, your point is neither here nor there. Most people don't get married to have kids. Telling us not to "flame" you with that point doesn't make it untrue and invoking a new standard for legal privileges based on raising children doesn't promote a justice that includes homosexuals. Honest people get married because they love each other and want to begin a unified life that can expire only with mortality (at least in theory). Just today I met a couple who got married last week. If they have any plans on having children I would suppose they should act fast as they appeared to be in their late 40's. I doubt it will happen though as they've already had 18 years of "couple-hood" with which to become parents. I presume they married now because they finally decided that neither of them would ever want to leave the other.
IMO, ALL (100%) of government policy (such as taxes, inheritance, benefits, many others) be defined EXCLUSIVELY in terms of having/raising kids...
That won't do much for my mother who got married in April. I don't expect to have siblings 36 years younger than me, and yet where the state can and does delineate priorities such as the ones you mentioned I'd prefer it treat my step father like her kin. It did after all take her 25 years to find the guy and they didn't buy a retirement home together just to "hang out for while".
We seem to have forgotten that the whole set of family/marriage incentives primarily originated to benefit not the married couple itself but their raising kids.
So what? You seem to have forgotten that this issue was breeched because gay couples -- like the two lesbians in San Francisco who got married recently (Gavin Newsom gave them their first opportunity) after being together 52 years -- want the state to let them treat each other as kin. That kind of legal status affects aspects of life that have nothing to do with offspring.
Leave it to /. to mod left-wing propaganda lie as +5 Insiteful.
What lie? El Presidente does in fact support a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage. Are you high?
Oh, and in case you want to anti-bible-thump again, the Kernel of Judeo-Christian norality (A.K.A. Old Testament) explicitly does NOT condemn gays, only hay sex - and for totally un-discriminatory reason. That prohibition is of the same set as onanism/sodomy/bestiality/any other type of sex where a man's sperm is not used inside a female reproductive organs. In other words, wanting to screw a guy is not a sin. Doing so is.
I don't know if you hold this opinion as your own or you're only answering a question no one asked, but your detailed explanation of the situation makes me wonder: If a guy screws another guy in the ass and he doesn't blow his nut is it unsinful?
We weren't discuessing having USEFUL rights for anyone, only equal.
Your proposition needs to address a marriage like my mothers'. If my step father outlives her, he should get her half of the house they bought together -- not me. Are people who have kids more equal than others? Double-plus ungood citizen!
> How grateful would you be for the right to have sex with a man? :)
#1: Why are you assuming i'm not a woman? Discriminating, eh?
I am, in fact, very discriminating -- in the academic sense of the word. That you are a man is written all over the way you write, though the comic in me wants to tell you I assumed you were a DYKE.
I can understand feeling contempt for losers. By definition they'd rather drag the world down than accept its assistance (let alone its wonders). But how fucked would a guy would have to be to escape ioslipstream's judgement if he takes matters into his own hands? Turing was gay, a genius, and had a stuttering problem. If going without a love life wasn't bad enough, his contribution to the Allied war effort was repaid with abject humiliation. For God's sake most people fear public speaking more than death. If your job entails giving lectures that begin, "A c-c-c-comm... PUter could..." can't that be taken as a sign of guts and determination? The dude was forced to grow tits under public observation and still managed to crack jokes about it at work. Given his work during the war, I don't think the guy could have chosen "dropping out" even if it meant living on the streets in a foreign nation as alternative to death. At least suicide is a course of action that allowed him to retain his life as his and his alone. I don't see why we can't presume his strength, and then take his death as a measure of how shoddily he was treated.
(Whoops. There we go now...)
Do you want them to be thankful for that? How grateful would you be for the right to have sex with a man?
I bow to the clever sagacity of your counter perspective. In all fairness though, if you want to take away an author's right to charge what he wants for his work you should also take away the public's right to abstain from buying it.
This reminds me of that LKML discussion about whether or not Linux is "designed". IIRC, Linus firmly proposed that it isn't -- that he takes aim in a certain direction, but the actual result is much more like a product of evolution than the fleshing out of a predetermined structure or goal.
P.S. I just google'd for DVDs of the show and found out it was made in '78! Check out this description of the final episode (it's probably the one I had in mind when I started to post): "...there is a look ahead to the need for radical change in the availability and use of information in the future..."
I followed ForestGrump's link [see above] to Aeonsfx's page, and from there clicked a link to a vim.org forum entry. One poster there suggested mapping shift+space to escape which sounds very speedy and convenient.
Whoops! My bad. As Ed McMahon used to say, "You are correct sir." It's too bad that makes the whole thing even worse.
Dude, I don't want my particular installation to end up anything like your vision of a linux desktop. I don't want "uninstall links" embedded in an application launching menu. I don't want programs launched behind my back to "save" 7 seconds. I don't want to fumble with cdroms that contain outdated drivers when I can automagically install them off the net in the first place.
There are some things about GNOME development that strike me as falling short in comparison to the KDE team, but I could never prefer KDE over GNOME on the basis of looks alone. KDE seems to start out taxing on the eyes and then stays that way (for me).
... it's like comparing one project's code base with a totally different one written by someone else. That's what Alexey Toptygin did with MINIX and Linux. His results are here . His commentary on the results are illuminating since he made the comparison specifically for Ken Brown's pamphlet only to find that his conclusion wasn't appreciated.
the more I laugh. Check out http://www.adti.net/samizdat/samizdat.updates.html .
Of four "updates" to the swirl surrounding "Samizdat" two are still "under construction" and one is a report on a DOS attack written in the third person (Crazy Eight doesn't like it when people talk about themselves that way) that can't help inventing an opportunity to use the phrase "hybrid source"!
I don't think he sounds like a rabid "true believer" at all. He just sounds like an ignorant propogandist or shill.
He doesn't and he never has. Indeed, IIRC, "Linux" was coined by the admin that was hosting the early code. Surely he embraced the word the way one might appreciate a flattering nickname, but he's never claimed to have written anything more than a kernel. It is the distributions and users who have opted to forgo the ungainly "GNU/Linux" (with the exception of Debian at least). Honestly now, if you heard that spoken without prior knowledge of the subject wouldn't you spell it "New Linucks" and wonder WTF? In any event, you don't hear kernel developers asking Stallman to call it Linux/glibc even though that library is useless without Torvald's kernel.
If this "hybrid source" concept weren't a bald attempt at framing any discussion of Linux with the presumption that it is half founded on theft it would be ironic. Brown claims to advocate the BSD licence which can allow for software that exhibits the exact quality he deems a "sin".
I had thought that 32-bit video modes were used over 24-bit just for the sake of a mod 4 byte alignment.
Leopard, Sigfried, Roy?