I used Abiword for a while, but it seemed very buggy. Several times, I had to import a file I started in AbiWord and fix it in someone else's copy of Word. I haven't used it in a little while now, so it may have improved.
It is a decent replacement for Word, if you don't need lots of fancy features, but I personally have been a lot happier with OpenOffice and its word processor (even though that's all I've used so far). The export as PDF function in OO is very cool, IMO.
I find that if it's too low, it's harder to make quick turns and the like. I am one of the few people that still uses the keyboard to help turn (when it's available in game), so it's not as critical for turning around. But I don't want to have to move my whole forearm around, as it's less precise than wrist and finger movement. I set my sensitivity about in the middle, maybe a little less (depending on the game). Getting used to higher sensitivities just takes a little practice using smaller movements. Maybe try using your fingers to move the mouse rather than your wrist or forearm, if you're not already.
I don't like mine too high, though, as it's hard to aim.
Well, I admitted that I have no kids, but I have been around some (pretty bratty ones at that), and I haven't seen any getting CD cases off of shelves, opening the cases and destroying the contents. Like I said, if a CD is sitting out (out of the case), I can understand if a kid plays with it, since it looks like a pretty fun thing (ooh, pretty colors and round shape!). I know that mistakes happen as well.
The parent to my post seemed to have or be familiar with kids, that given you being in the bathroom for 30 seconds, will run and open every CD case you own and destroy all the CDs in them. If this is the case, then there is a severe problem with discipline. Every time I see kids that are atrociously behaved (and I mean really bad), the parents are never doing anything to discipline them. Now, maybe the kids are demonically possessed hell-spawn and the parents have just given up even trying, but I bet lack of discipline is more often the cause.
I just meant in the statement that you quoted that since I keep my CDs and DVDs in their cases on shelves, kids opening and damaging them would not be tolerated, period. Kids would have to go well out of their way to break them. That is not an accident, it's malicious destructiveness. And before I let my (hypothetical) kids use CDs or DVDs, I would have a big talk about how to take care of such things and I would supervise them until I'm sure they know how to take care of them. I'm sure I broke my share of stuff as a kid, but after my parents explained that that was bad and that I needed to take care of stuff, I didn't do it anymore.
Well, that's not an issue for me, since I have no kids or anyone except my cats, who don't mess with CDs (bottle caps and q-tips are another matter entirely).
Although if I ever have kids, I'll be damn sure that they're well behaved enough to not go seeking out and destroying my CDs.
I can see a kid playing frisbee with a CD if it's lying around, but what kind of kid opens a CD case, takes out the CD and breaks it or scratches it on purpose? If you have a problem with kids destroying your stuff during bathroom breaks, then you might want to try some discipline.
And yes, I know, I shouldn't say anything, since I don't have kids, but I've never seen these single-mindedly destructive kids that you speak of, and I've been around quite a few (kids in general).
How do you know your CD and Key will be around next year? If Steam is still running you're covered for as long as Steam is running.
Uh, I don't know about you, but my CDs don't go disappearing too terribly often. Things like networks, servers, companies, etc do. You answered your own question: "as long as Steam is running". I'd rather go with "as long as a CD exists", which is probably a lot longer, barring my house burning down, being subjected to a nuclear blast, or being broken into by a particularly thorough burlar.
And frankly, I trust Steam to be running much longer than I could keep a CD in good shape and not lose the key.
Sorry, but that sounds like your problem. Keep it in the case and don't use it as a frisbee or coaster (AOL CDs excepted), and you should be fine. I have CDs (both audio and data) that are over 10 years old that are in very good if not mint condition. It's not hard.
It's silliness to trust whatever this Steam thing is to continue rather than trust physical media. If it does, great, if not, you have a CD.
The interesting thing about your Cyberpunk comment (and I agree) is that it's independantly cyberpunk. Cyberpunk didn't really become well-known until a few years after BR. I think the genre started at about the same time. So, while BR is cyberpunk in theme, atmosphere, etc, it was not influenced by cyberpunk (the literary genre).
I agree that it doesn't look very dated at all. Most movies make it obvious when they were made. Look at Star Wars and the extra big collars and shaggy haircuts. Blade Runner has aged very well, IMO. It was made in the early 80s, but looks like it could have been made in the 90s or even later. Maybe the 40s influence removes any typical 80s style elements from creeping in, I dunno. The effects were ahead of their time too.
Yes, it was a financial failure and got very bad reviews from critics. It was only later that it was accepted as a classic.
If you are a fan of the movie and want to know everything you could possibly know about it, check out the book Future Noir. It covers the making of Blade Runner and it's quite interesting.
Well, if you don't like the story, then I can explain you into liking it, but I'll let you know that if you watch it more than once, you'll probably pick up on a lot more than you did the first time. I'd recommend seeing it again before passing judgement, and be sure to watch the director's cut, not the theatrical release.
It was very ahead of its time in both atmosphere and mood and effects. A sign that shows how different and ahead of its time it was is that a lot of the masses didn't like it. It was a financial failure. People were expecting another Star Wars. Also, keep in mind that it was made in the very early 80s. Also note that despite its being considered by many *the* cyberpunk film, cyberpunk as a literary genre (where it originated) didn't achieve prominence until the time it was released or after. In other words, it was an independant conception by Ridley Scott that happened to coincide closely with Cyberpunk.
This is a good point, but most did not have false memories. The only two in the film that had false memories and didn't know that they were replicants were Rachael and Deckard(well, depending on your interpretation). In Tyrell's office, Deckard expresses surprise at the new experimental technique of implanting false memories in replicants, so it's pretty obviously not a common thing.
I'm not disagreeing with your point, just pointing something out.
Well, I know--you have morons everywhere. But I see probably at least 5 to 10 idiotic drivers doing unsafe, illegal, or just inconsiderate things a day. I just said you have fewer morons flying than driving.
I assume the "moron" was directed at the idiot pilot and not me?
For many reasons, including the ones you listed, I doubt that flying cars will become practical and common any time soon if ever. If they are used, it will most likely be like in Minority Report where they automatically fly along specified "sky-ways" (I think that was in Minority Report, anyway). Similar systems are already being worked on for ground vehicles on highways. It might be like in Blade Runner, where the flying cars ("spinners" in BR parlance) are only used by police and other specially licensed organizations.
Flying cars sound cool, but don't have huge advantages over ground-based cars. You can have multiple levels of traffic without having to build tons of complicated freeways, but that's about the only benefit I can think of. Helicopters have functions similar to what a flying car would have (except they're pretty hard to fly whereas aircars would presumably be user-friendly), but you don't see skies full of helicopters, do you?
Well, that's what a licensed pilot I know who's working on his teaching (or whatever it's called) license told me--maybe not in such words, but that's how I took it.
Yes, but pilot liscences are quite a bit more difficult to get than driving licenses. They also cost about 5-6 thousand and can be revoked at the drop of a hat if you do anything wrong. Thus you have alot fewer morons flying than driving.
This is just my opinion, but I think that holy sites become targets the moment that we know that they are inhabited by armed terrorists. If they realize that we'll bomb them no matter where they hide, then if they value their holy buildings, they'll stay out of them.
As someone else pointed out, in WWII, if Germans were thought to be hiding in churches or the like, those churches got blown to hell. And they were buildings of "our own" religion (meaning the majority of the West).
It would be a shame to lose historic and sacred sites, but once it's made clear that they're not off-limits if aggressors are in them, it's up to the terrorists whether the buildings will be intact or not.
Whether you agree or not, this is not flamebait, as it has been modded--by someone probably seeking to silence any point of view that doesn't agree with his/hers.
How many refrigerators, cars, and restaurants are there in the world? None stand out enough to have a proper name. The Internet does. There's only one global internet and it certainly stands out amongst other networks. Thus the Internet.
The only way I can really think of to *transfer* one's conciousness to a machine is through very complex nanotech. The neurons of the brain would have to be replaced one by one with nanotech (or possibly software) equivalents while the brain is active. Thus the process of conciousness would be undisturbed and would maintain continuity. If you simply copied one's memories, personality, brain wiring, etc, it would just be an exact copy of you, not you.
This was talked about in a book, but I forget which one...I'm thinking Robot, by Hans Moravec, but it might be Engines of Creation by K. Eric Drexler.
And no, I don't believe in a *soul* as such, though I agree that "copying" you mind wouldn't let you be aware of being both copies or anything of the sort.
Why do you think people buy faster CPUs and video cards? So they can see better graphics with good performance. Have you wondered why graphics in games don't ever seem to get better? Try turning the detail up. It's amazing what games programmers have been up to in the last 10 years or so.
"A week" doesn't mean anything. It only took me about 3 days to finish Doom 3, but I was playing 6-10 hours a day (I took a few days off work).
It's supposed to take about 20 hours, which is not bad for a FPS. I wouldn't call it a short game by any means. Then again, I played pretty slowly, since I was afraid of what might jump out at me.
That guy's nephew in his email clearly says that Quake 43 is a lot better than Super Turbo Turkey Puncher.:) Not having played Quake 43, I'll take his word for it.
Did you know you can actually play STTP in the kitchen before The Shit Hits The Fan(TM)?
I'm glad someone paid enough attention to get what I'm talking about, though.
...kinda, anyway. I have no idea how actually practical this would be, but it might be neat to have some game music actually synthesized in realtime. A lot of game music now is dynamic, but it's basically (as far as I know) just mixing between different prerecorded songs. Keep in mind before reading further that this is purely speculative and probably not very practical.
It would be neat to have things synthesized on the fly and the parameters could be adjusted in various ways depending on what's going on in the game. Old video game music was obviously synthesized in realtime, but not dynamic as far as I know.
As a simple and retarded example off the top of my head, a main bass line or whatever could become more distorted and harsh the more damaged the player gets. The drum part could change and become faster or something. The only kind of game I can think of where this might be vaguely useful would be in a horror game or other game where atmosphere is very important. I could see--er, hear--a Silent Hill type game using a technique like this to possibly cool effect.
Of course, this would be a lot more processor-intensive than just playing MP3 files or whatever. Modern softsynths can use up lots of CPU power. But there could be options for quality of sound, like there is now.
So it probably wouldn't really be practical at all, but it's a neat idea, I think. I like dynamic music in games, as it can greatly facilitate a mood and a movielike feel, but most I've heard is just fading from one background music to another depending on whether you're in combat or exploring or whatnot. It begins to sound kind of silly if you get close to a monster, then move away, then back close, so forth. "Doo de doooo.... DUM DA DUM DA...doo de...DUM DA DUM...doo..." What I was thinking about would allow for much more gradual and subtle changes in the music.
For the record, I'm an electronic musician that uses all kinds of software and hardware, so I know what this would entail on the music end.
As for whether or not realistic or electronic sounds are better for games, it depends entirely on the game. Some need one kind, some the other, some both. The technique I'm thinking about could be used with either.
Slashdot Mirror
I think games which respect and tribute the subject matter are fine. Call of Duty was a good example, IMO.
War games are *not* always about the US beating somebody up. Trying playing a few more.
Yay, let's take another chance to bash America, right?
I used Abiword for a while, but it seemed very buggy. Several times, I had to import a file I started in AbiWord and fix it in someone else's copy of Word. I haven't used it in a little while now, so it may have improved.
It is a decent replacement for Word, if you don't need lots of fancy features, but I personally have been a lot happier with OpenOffice and its word processor (even though that's all I've used so far). The export as PDF function in OO is very cool, IMO.
I find that if it's too low, it's harder to make quick turns and the like. I am one of the few people that still uses the keyboard to help turn (when it's available in game), so it's not as critical for turning around. But I don't want to have to move my whole forearm around, as it's less precise than wrist and finger movement. I set my sensitivity about in the middle, maybe a little less (depending on the game). Getting used to higher sensitivities just takes a little practice using smaller movements. Maybe try using your fingers to move the mouse rather than your wrist or forearm, if you're not already.
I don't like mine too high, though, as it's hard to aim.
Well, I admitted that I have no kids, but I have been around some (pretty bratty ones at that), and I haven't seen any getting CD cases off of shelves, opening the cases and destroying the contents. Like I said, if a CD is sitting out (out of the case), I can understand if a kid plays with it, since it looks like a pretty fun thing (ooh, pretty colors and round shape!). I know that mistakes happen as well.
The parent to my post seemed to have or be familiar with kids, that given you being in the bathroom for 30 seconds, will run and open every CD case you own and destroy all the CDs in them. If this is the case, then there is a severe problem with discipline. Every time I see kids that are atrociously behaved (and I mean really bad), the parents are never doing anything to discipline them. Now, maybe the kids are demonically possessed hell-spawn and the parents have just given up even trying, but I bet lack of discipline is more often the cause.
I just meant in the statement that you quoted that since I keep my CDs and DVDs in their cases on shelves, kids opening and damaging them would not be tolerated, period. Kids would have to go well out of their way to break them. That is not an accident, it's malicious destructiveness. And before I let my (hypothetical) kids use CDs or DVDs, I would have a big talk about how to take care of such things and I would supervise them until I'm sure they know how to take care of them. I'm sure I broke my share of stuff as a kid, but after my parents explained that that was bad and that I needed to take care of stuff, I didn't do it anymore.
Well, that's not an issue for me, since I have no kids or anyone except my cats, who don't mess with CDs (bottle caps and q-tips are another matter entirely).
Although if I ever have kids, I'll be damn sure that they're well behaved enough to not go seeking out and destroying my CDs.
I can see a kid playing frisbee with a CD if it's lying around, but what kind of kid opens a CD case, takes out the CD and breaks it or scratches it on purpose? If you have a problem with kids destroying your stuff during bathroom breaks, then you might want to try some discipline.
And yes, I know, I shouldn't say anything, since I don't have kids, but I've never seen these single-mindedly destructive kids that you speak of, and I've been around quite a few (kids in general).
How do you know your CD and Key will be around next year? If Steam is still running you're covered for as long as Steam is running.
Uh, I don't know about you, but my CDs don't go disappearing too terribly often. Things like networks, servers, companies, etc do. You answered your own question: "as long as Steam is running". I'd rather go with "as long as a CD exists", which is probably a lot longer, barring my house burning down, being subjected to a nuclear blast, or being broken into by a particularly thorough burlar.
And frankly, I trust Steam to be running much longer than I could keep a CD in good shape and not lose the key.
Sorry, but that sounds like your problem. Keep it in the case and don't use it as a frisbee or coaster (AOL CDs excepted), and you should be fine. I have CDs (both audio and data) that are over 10 years old that are in very good if not mint condition. It's not hard.
It's silliness to trust whatever this Steam thing is to continue rather than trust physical media. If it does, great, if not, you have a CD.
Last I heard (not too long ago) Neuromancer is supposed to be in production.
The interesting thing about your Cyberpunk comment (and I agree) is that it's independantly cyberpunk. Cyberpunk didn't really become well-known until a few years after BR. I think the genre started at about the same time. So, while BR is cyberpunk in theme, atmosphere, etc, it was not influenced by cyberpunk (the literary genre).
To me, the Matrix wasn't really cyberpunk at all.
I agree that it doesn't look very dated at all. Most movies make it obvious when they were made. Look at Star Wars and the extra big collars and shaggy haircuts. Blade Runner has aged very well, IMO. It was made in the early 80s, but looks like it could have been made in the 90s or even later. Maybe the 40s influence removes any typical 80s style elements from creeping in, I dunno. The effects were ahead of their time too.
He hated working with Ridley Scott and Sean Young. They didn't get along at all. Ever wonder why the "love scene" looks so violent?
I don't think he hated the film itself. He just didn't like the process of making it. It was a pretty conflict-ridden production in general.
Yes, it was a financial failure and got very bad reviews from critics. It was only later that it was accepted as a classic.
If you are a fan of the movie and want to know everything you could possibly know about it, check out the book Future Noir. It covers the making of Blade Runner and it's quite interesting.
Well, if you don't like the story, then I can explain you into liking it, but I'll let you know that if you watch it more than once, you'll probably pick up on a lot more than you did the first time. I'd recommend seeing it again before passing judgement, and be sure to watch the director's cut, not the theatrical release.
It was very ahead of its time in both atmosphere and mood and effects. A sign that shows how different and ahead of its time it was is that a lot of the masses didn't like it. It was a financial failure. People were expecting another Star Wars. Also, keep in mind that it was made in the very early 80s. Also note that despite its being considered by many *the* cyberpunk film, cyberpunk as a literary genre (where it originated) didn't achieve prominence until the time it was released or after. In other words, it was an independant conception by Ridley Scott that happened to coincide closely with Cyberpunk.
This is a good point, but most did not have false memories. The only two in the film that had false memories and didn't know that they were replicants were Rachael and Deckard(well, depending on your interpretation). In Tyrell's office, Deckard expresses surprise at the new experimental technique of implanting false memories in replicants, so it's pretty obviously not a common thing.
I'm not disagreeing with your point, just pointing something out.
Well, I know--you have morons everywhere. But I see probably at least 5 to 10 idiotic drivers doing unsafe, illegal, or just inconsiderate things a day. I just said you have fewer morons flying than driving.
I assume the "moron" was directed at the idiot pilot and not me?
For many reasons, including the ones you listed, I doubt that flying cars will become practical and common any time soon if ever. If they are used, it will most likely be like in Minority Report where they automatically fly along specified "sky-ways" (I think that was in Minority Report, anyway). Similar systems are already being worked on for ground vehicles on highways. It might be like in Blade Runner, where the flying cars ("spinners" in BR parlance) are only used by police and other specially licensed organizations.
Flying cars sound cool, but don't have huge advantages over ground-based cars. You can have multiple levels of traffic without having to build tons of complicated freeways, but that's about the only benefit I can think of. Helicopters have functions similar to what a flying car would have (except they're pretty hard to fly whereas aircars would presumably be user-friendly), but you don't see skies full of helicopters, do you?
Well, that's what a licensed pilot I know who's working on his teaching (or whatever it's called) license told me--maybe not in such words, but that's how I took it.
Yes, but pilot liscences are quite a bit more difficult to get than driving licenses. They also cost about 5-6 thousand and can be revoked at the drop of a hat if you do anything wrong. Thus you have alot fewer morons flying than driving.
Great post...unfortunately, I have no mod ponits.
This is just my opinion, but I think that holy sites become targets the moment that we know that they are inhabited by armed terrorists. If they realize that we'll bomb them no matter where they hide, then if they value their holy buildings, they'll stay out of them.
As someone else pointed out, in WWII, if Germans were thought to be hiding in churches or the like, those churches got blown to hell. And they were buildings of "our own" religion (meaning the majority of the West).
It would be a shame to lose historic and sacred sites, but once it's made clear that they're not off-limits if aggressors are in them, it's up to the terrorists whether the buildings will be intact or not.
I wish I had mod points; excellent post.
Whether you agree or not, this is not flamebait, as it has been modded--by someone probably seeking to silence any point of view that doesn't agree with his/hers.
How many refrigerators, cars, and restaurants are there in the world? None stand out enough to have a proper name. The Internet does. There's only one global internet and it certainly stands out amongst other networks. Thus the Internet.
The only way I can really think of to *transfer* one's conciousness to a machine is through very complex nanotech. The neurons of the brain would have to be replaced one by one with nanotech (or possibly software) equivalents while the brain is active. Thus the process of conciousness would be undisturbed and would maintain continuity. If you simply copied one's memories, personality, brain wiring, etc, it would just be an exact copy of you, not you.
This was talked about in a book, but I forget which one...I'm thinking Robot, by Hans Moravec, but it might be Engines of Creation by K. Eric Drexler.
And no, I don't believe in a *soul* as such, though I agree that "copying" you mind wouldn't let you be aware of being both copies or anything of the sort.
Why do you think people buy faster CPUs and video cards? So they can see better graphics with good performance. Have you wondered why graphics in games don't ever seem to get better? Try turning the detail up. It's amazing what games programmers have been up to in the last 10 years or so.
"A week" doesn't mean anything. It only took me about 3 days to finish Doom 3, but I was playing 6-10 hours a day (I took a few days off work).
It's supposed to take about 20 hours, which is not bad for a FPS. I wouldn't call it a short game by any means. Then again, I played pretty slowly, since I was afraid of what might jump out at me.
That guy's nephew in his email clearly says that Quake 43 is a lot better than Super Turbo Turkey Puncher. :) Not having played Quake 43, I'll take his word for it.
Did you know you can actually play STTP in the kitchen before The Shit Hits The Fan(TM)?
I'm glad someone paid enough attention to get what I'm talking about, though.
It'll be awesome for Quake 43 when it comes out. :)
If that went over your head, it's an inside joke for those who've gotten that far in Doom 3.
...kinda, anyway. I have no idea how actually practical this would be, but it might be neat to have some game music actually synthesized in realtime. A lot of game music now is dynamic, but it's basically (as far as I know) just mixing between different prerecorded songs. Keep in mind before reading further that this is purely speculative and probably not very practical.
It would be neat to have things synthesized on the fly and the parameters could be adjusted in various ways depending on what's going on in the game. Old video game music was obviously synthesized in realtime, but not dynamic as far as I know.
As a simple and retarded example off the top of my head, a main bass line or whatever could become more distorted and harsh the more damaged the player gets. The drum part could change and become faster or something. The only kind of game I can think of where this might be vaguely useful would be in a horror game or other game where atmosphere is very important. I could see--er, hear--a Silent Hill type game using a technique like this to possibly cool effect.
Of course, this would be a lot more processor-intensive than just playing MP3 files or whatever. Modern softsynths can use up lots of CPU power. But there could be options for quality of sound, like there is now.
So it probably wouldn't really be practical at all, but it's a neat idea, I think. I like dynamic music in games, as it can greatly facilitate a mood and a movielike feel, but most I've heard is just fading from one background music to another depending on whether you're in combat or exploring or whatnot. It begins to sound kind of silly if you get close to a monster, then move away, then back close, so forth. "Doo de doooo.... DUM DA DUM DA...doo de...DUM DA DUM...doo..." What I was thinking about would allow for much more gradual and subtle changes in the music.
For the record, I'm an electronic musician that uses all kinds of software and hardware, so I know what this would entail on the music end.
As for whether or not realistic or electronic sounds are better for games, it depends entirely on the game. Some need one kind, some the other, some both. The technique I'm thinking about could be used with either.