But the hard drive can easily be moved to another computer.
Also, I tried figuring out what the system properties dialog said, but the only thing I could make out was "Con***** Intel*** CPU". Way to go with a blurry, badly interlaced, highly compressed video.
we're just another species of animal in this world, fighting for survival.
Ah, but ultimately, shouldn't we strive to get away from that kind of jungle law? Isn't that what civilization is all about? Ultimately, at least, I mean.
While I'm not out to keep anyone down, I certainly am not responsible for propping them up at my expense.
Certainly, if you feel that way. It's a rather cynical way to look at society and fellow man, though. Moreover, some people want to "win" even at the expense of, and severe detriment to many others.
You can do it with your two hands next to each other as well, to get a view of the whole year. Starting from one end again, ridge=31 days, valley=30, except for February.
Well, my comment was badly written, but the point I was trying to make was a more of a ranting general one, as in "what is music". These particular pieces can easily be considered music, as they have made aesthetic choices (as you say). However, just using data that is interesting from a numerical or historical point of view without further modification, doesn't give any guarantees of interesting sounds, much less music. The thing that makes this kind of composing difficult, is that the more aesthetic choices you make, the further you are removed from the original source material, which is why it's interesting in the first place. (at least as an article on slashdot)
Anyway, this music isn't random, and not even particularly far-out-there, compared to some of the modern "classical" music I've encountered, which are really more like experimental noise, rather than experimental music.
Now, as to whether it's good music or not, I predict this will have a rather low popularity, which is at least some kind of measure, if a wildly unscientific and inaccurate one. Personally I liked the idea of the ticker though.
Music should contain patterns recognisable by the auditory sense and brain, and most people prefer these patterns to cause pleasant sensations. If there are no patterns, it's noise, i.e. not music.
Add to this, that few patterns produce pleasant sensations in more than a just few oddball people. In other words, most sound is noise, and the rest can for the most part be considered music, although most is really bad music for most people.
Someone said in another comment, that the intent creates music. These compositions do have the intention of being music, and they succeed (in being music), because the composer has consciously selected those patterns that work, as opposed to the myriad that would sound like total crap. Moreover, the patterns are processed, there are background noises to go with them, they aren't "pure". There are very few patterns that generally work well, and they are mostly (but not all) about harmonies and regular rythms. Sometimes known as musical theory.
To wrap it up, anyone can claim anything to be music, but that will in no way make it accepted as good music. Thus, ultimately: anyone can make bad music (though it can be interesting-sounding (at least from a geek perspective)).
I think there's more things that contribute to violence, not just the amount of blood and death. Just the atmosphere of a game can be "violent" already (horror games), and adding only a small bit of blood here and a few bodies there easily then makes it 16+, or even 18+.
Unless the voice acting ruins the mood, which happens too often...
Don't use such cop-out phrases, they just annoy people. As for me, <anecdote>
I've been playing video/computer games since I was a kid, and many of them shooting games, involving other people. Granted, the level of realism in the early ones was rather pixellated, but the later ones got better (Doom, GTA 1, etc.), while I was still relatively young. Now, I do think those games have changed me, I think I could be a fearsome foe if I ever turned into a violent gunman, but those games have hardly made me more violent as a person. And, on the whole, I think violent movies have affected me much more than video games (think: a kid sees, in a movie, a guy slap a woman. Priming effect, no?).
</anecdote>
I can readily imagine someone with a generally abusive and violent behaviour turning out more violent after playing/seeing violence, not as a person, but in the violent actions the person does anyway. I also think violent parents are the root problem.
But I don't really know, I don't have children, I'm no psychologist, and I'm about as violent as a bucket of milk myself.
[...] does not imply that carrying an umbrella causes rain, any more than it implies that a higher probibility of rain occuring causes people to carry umbrellas.
It's actually somewhat the opposite: Carrying an umbrella causes it not to rain, but a high likelihood of rain does cause people to carry an umbrella. In vain, because the rain then changes its mind.
Why don't we build our planes out of blackboxium instead?
While building the passengers out of, what.. unobtainium?
Even if we could get a potential increase in the strength of the airplane body by, say, 50%, it'll still only work when the inside contains stuff that will only be extracted in case of an accident. Thus you need to crash the plane and extract the passengers every time at the destination in order to reap the benefits of blackboxium. No advertising will save that idea.
This seems rather primitive, actually. It just shoots two lasers into the scene to be photographed. More cool would be illuminating a whole grid of dots in the scene to give much better perception of depth and distance from the box. And there is a yet cooler way, with an aiming laser range finder, that aims a laser around the scene and scans a 2D "image" of the depths in it. One shot takes less than 10 seconds, and if you shoot from a few different angles, you can even reconstruct a virtual 3D scene of the real scene later.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, actually it's great! I feel so good now!
Also, I tried figuring out what the system properties dialog said, but the only thing I could make out was "Con***** Intel*** CPU". Way to go with a blurry, badly interlaced, highly compressed video.
Interestingly, it's censored on google.cn as well.
...escapes out, but in a garbled form, you forgot to mention.
A government that writes their secrets directly on the ganja, is a government I like.
I don't think the entertainment industry is a broken window fallacy, it exists because there's a market for it.
You can do it with your two hands next to each other as well, to get a view of the whole year. Starting from one end again, ridge=31 days, valley=30, except for February.
Anyway, this music isn't random, and not even particularly far-out-there, compared to some of the modern "classical" music I've encountered, which are really more like experimental noise, rather than experimental music.
Now, as to whether it's good music or not, I predict this will have a rather low popularity, which is at least some kind of measure, if a wildly unscientific and inaccurate one. Personally I liked the idea of the ticker though.
Btw, my sig is actually a pun. :)
Add to this, that few patterns produce pleasant sensations in more than a just few oddball people. In other words, most sound is noise, and the rest can for the most part be considered music, although most is really bad music for most people.
Someone said in another comment, that the intent creates music. These compositions do have the intention of being music, and they succeed (in being music), because the composer has consciously selected those patterns that work, as opposed to the myriad that would sound like total crap. Moreover, the patterns are processed, there are background noises to go with them, they aren't "pure". There are very few patterns that generally work well, and they are mostly (but not all) about harmonies and regular rythms. Sometimes known as musical theory.
To wrap it up, anyone can claim anything to be music, but that will in no way make it accepted as good music. Thus, ultimately: anyone can make bad music (though it can be interesting-sounding (at least from a geek perspective)).
Real Men play vodka pong.
Unless the voice acting ruins the mood, which happens too often...
But what happens when some geek takes down the Master Control program?
It was probably on the phone. I remember having some trouble figuring out which signals came over the air, and which from the phone.
<anecdote>
I've been playing video/computer games since I was a kid, and many of them shooting games, involving other people. Granted, the level of realism in the early ones was rather pixellated, but the later ones got better (Doom, GTA 1, etc.), while I was still relatively young. Now, I do think those games have changed me, I think I could be a fearsome foe if I ever turned into a violent gunman, but those games have hardly made me more violent as a person. And, on the whole, I think violent movies have affected me much more than video games (think: a kid sees, in a movie, a guy slap a woman. Priming effect, no?).
</anecdote>
I can readily imagine someone with a generally abusive and violent behaviour turning out more violent after playing/seeing violence, not as a person, but in the violent actions the person does anyway. I also think violent parents are the root problem.
But I don't really know, I don't have children, I'm no psychologist, and I'm about as violent as a bucket of milk myself.
Even if we could get a potential increase in the strength of the airplane body by, say, 50%, it'll still only work when the inside contains stuff that will only be extracted in case of an accident. Thus you need to crash the plane and extract the passengers every time at the destination in order to reap the benefits of blackboxium. No advertising will save that idea.
I guess Lara Croft is the first real&virtual female model/porn star in a computer game.
This seems rather primitive, actually. It just shoots two lasers into the scene to be photographed. More cool would be illuminating a whole grid of dots in the scene to give much better perception of depth and distance from the box. And there is a yet cooler way, with an aiming laser range finder, that aims a laser around the scene and scans a 2D "image" of the depths in it. One shot takes less than 10 seconds, and if you shoot from a few different angles, you can even reconstruct a virtual 3D scene of the real scene later.
Well, I swear by optical image stabilisation. It simply makes life much easier, even if it causes some extra degradation because of added optics.
And who outside of Hollywood's inner sanctums of fame and magazines cares about this?