While this may get modded redundant, you need to check your facts; check above: Inspired air contains very little H2O, whereas expired air contains much more since what you're respiring (Glucose and fatty acids, for the most part) contain what we in the business know as hydrogen. When you burn a hydrocarbon, such as all foods are, you get CO2 and H2O.
There is actually no evidence from the time Jesus was purported to have existed of his life. Nazareth probably didn't even exist, and there are no records of any synagogues in Galilee at the time. Funny, too, that Jesus wouldn't actually be of the line of David, since Joseph didn't have any input.
Experiments simply have to be constructed that are capable of falsifying the hypothesis, even if the intent is to back it up. This lack of understanding of science is perhaps what the article is referring to.
Experiments that can falsify evolution are looking for fossils in early strata (you don't find modern animals in early strata.) Or investigations into the method of evolution - if mutations cannot accumulate, or something like that, evolution would also be falsified.
Precisely: the question rests simply on what you take as your egg. Of course, if it's any old egg, then eggs came before chickens. If it's specifically a chicken egg, then you need to decide whether a chicken egg is an egg from a chicken, or an egg with a chicken inside.
My thoughts exactly. This is goddamn ridiculous - all the techies would quickly work out how to circumvent the system, leaving all the Grannies paying for their email.
For goodness sake, all anyone needs to do is set up a large server that gives people accounts with addresses (they could even be similar to email addresses in syntax) and then people can use HTTP to send 'emails.' This plan shows a complete and utter ineptitude and lack of any technological thinking capacity.
This would work great if you wanted to cloak a sphere. If, however, you view anything else, then as the viewing angle changes, so does what you expect to see behind it. Imagine (as a simple example) a cube with a large camera on one end and a screen on the other. You will only see what you expect to see when you view the screen straight on. Otherwise, the camera will have rotated with respect to you and will be transmitting diagonally to the screen.
Further, if you then deform the screen or the surface with the cameras on, this breaks completely, too.
Personally, I found it very interesting. That's what compelled me to watch a few more times to properly understand it. The concept is an interesting one, and I do think that, were there the time, ED should have been a story driven movie, exploring the idea it does. That would have been more successful.
"Let me guess. The concept is: "unwatchable mess that makes no sense". Brilliant."
Translation: I didn't understand it, therefore it must be crap. Many people have understood it, including myself. It's not that difficult.
"Look, the movie could have had the worst animation and been rendered in wireframe; good writing, direction and editing would make up for that many times over."
How wrong. You should view ED as, first and foremost, a tech demo. The main point was to improve blender. Second to that comes making a movie. Since it's not a movie that tells a story, you shouldn't criticise it for not telling a story. It's there to do something else - be pretty and tell a concept.
I do wonder how much of these problems can be at least partly solved by having actors to help the animators. If you can watch what real people do as they move and talk, it would help alleviate problems of unrealistic movement, if not prevent jerkiness and the like.
That said, the lipsyncing was really poor, and I don't think there was any excuse for that. In some places it was painfully obvious.
Blender's interface is unintuitive to the same extent as any 3D application. None are particularly intuitive. It has a very different interface, and one that is very fast once it is learnt. Added to that, UI elements and UI standardisation are coming in thick and fast that should make blender more palatable to someone stuck in their ways. The fact is, any 3D application is going to be "extra hard to get into."
Bad storytelling? What story. The premise is not a story, per se, more of a concept. There is a 'story' that unfolds in order to convey the concept, but that's not what the focus is on. As he says, if their prime intent was a story, then it's quite easy to make a funny film with cute animals in it. It's not that difficult to work out the idea behind it, especially if you watch more than once (as it is intended to be viewed) and double-especially if you talk to other people about it.
Good point. I've not read TFA, and I don't know the variation in focal length you'd get out of those small lenses... It's possible though, especially with technology refinement.
Mobile phone cameras suck due to more than their auto-focus. The tiny CCD means they're susceptible to noise, and the lack of decent optics means they won't work well in low light or be able to zoom well - regardless of an autofocussing lens. Furthermore, because an expensive camera has an automatic user filter and learning curve, pictures taken with mobile phones are always likely to be, on average, crap, due to the lack of skill of the photographer.
That's monopoly abuse, which is quite different. Abusing a monopoly in order to undercut the competition by a large margin [i]is[/i] unfair, but simply undercutting on a level playing field is what the free market is supposed to be used for.
So long as they keep the population on digital TV and 5meg broadband, they'll probably be happy. After all, "it won't affect me." It won't be affecting them even when the the government has 24hr video surveillance inside houses - people adapt. Reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon about velcro strips...
Selection only dictates whether a feature is selected, not what the feature is. So it is quite random what animal you end up with - starting with the same genetic data, in the same environment, if each gene pool is subjected to different mutations, then the organism will be different because the features evolved will be different.
But what is the bigger cock-up: Deliberately ignoring the advice of your engineers, or not knowing that they themselves have cocked up? Surely the former - in the latter case, they have an excuse for not knowing.
Evolution is inherently random, unless you're defining random as non-deterministic. Which nucleotide is botched in the replication process, or thumped by a cosmic ray is pretty random.
Nice pipe-dream there. Consider competition, NDA, and a general inability of anyone today to release anything in case people steal it and you might turn up more realistic expectations. Until a change occurs, I'm sure we'll all be able to survive on binary drivers.
And stepping onto the "real world" side of the fantasy line, we should be damn pleased we don't have to make do with amateur efforts. The guys on the linux wing of ATi, at least, work real hard at what they do. They listen to the community, fix bugs and generally get a tight budget and a tight staffing arrangement. If you think you can convince department managers of ATi to give funding to the linux side of operations, go for it, but I think that is somehow unlikely.
Because that would require more power and cause interference. More to the point, individual areas of low signal are not really under the control of the providors - they control the network, not the geography and town planning.
Perhaps the point is that keycard/maze puzzles are old-hat, and that blowing your way through the building is far better. A lack of intuitivity plagues games in this way. Like on 007 Nightfire, I think, where you had the laser watch that could cut through STEEL, but an enemy wouldn't even blink if you laz0red his eyes.
If you give the player rockets, then a simple way to encourage them to use them properly is to ensure that they don't have enough to waste taking out scenery. If you make sure resources are limited enough to force the player to use them only where necessary, then you can still have your godawful keycard puzzles.
Slashdot Mirror
The quote above, "no-one writes jokes in base 13" is a quote from DNA himself, upon hearing this theory about the question on a newsgroup, I believe.
While this may get modded redundant, you need to check your facts; check above: Inspired air contains very little H2O, whereas expired air contains much more since what you're respiring (Glucose and fatty acids, for the most part) contain what we in the business know as hydrogen. When you burn a hydrocarbon, such as all foods are, you get CO2 and H2O.
There is actually no evidence from the time Jesus was purported to have existed of his life. Nazareth probably didn't even exist, and there are no records of any synagogues in Galilee at the time. Funny, too, that Jesus wouldn't actually be of the line of David, since Joseph didn't have any input.
Experiments simply have to be constructed that are capable of falsifying the hypothesis, even if the intent is to back it up. This lack of understanding of science is perhaps what the article is referring to.
Experiments that can falsify evolution are looking for fossils in early strata (you don't find modern animals in early strata.) Or investigations into the method of evolution - if mutations cannot accumulate, or something like that, evolution would also be falsified.
It will probably bring a tear to their eyes, anyway.
Precisely: the question rests simply on what you take as your egg. Of course, if it's any old egg, then eggs came before chickens. If it's specifically a chicken egg, then you need to decide whether a chicken egg is an egg from a chicken, or an egg with a chicken inside.
If you put a tank in a ball then it's great until you want to see out and/or shoot anyone.
My thoughts exactly. This is goddamn ridiculous - all the techies would quickly work out how to circumvent the system, leaving all the Grannies paying for their email.
For goodness sake, all anyone needs to do is set up a large server that gives people accounts with addresses (they could even be similar to email addresses in syntax) and then people can use HTTP to send 'emails.' This plan shows a complete and utter ineptitude and lack of any technological thinking capacity.
As others have pointed out, it is compiled with winelib. I.E. it's not using wine, it's just compiled with a windows API implementation.
This would work great if you wanted to cloak a sphere. If, however, you view anything else, then as the viewing angle changes, so does what you expect to see behind it. Imagine (as a simple example) a cube with a large camera on one end and a screen on the other. You will only see what you expect to see when you view the screen straight on. Otherwise, the camera will have rotated with respect to you and will be transmitting diagonally to the screen.
Further, if you then deform the screen or the surface with the cameras on, this breaks completely, too.
Personally, I found it very interesting. That's what compelled me to watch a few more times to properly understand it. The concept is an interesting one, and I do think that, were there the time, ED should have been a story driven movie, exploring the idea it does. That would have been more successful.
Translation: I didn't understand it, therefore it must be crap. Many people have understood it, including myself. It's not that difficult.
"Look, the movie could have had the worst animation and been rendered in wireframe; good writing, direction and editing would make up for that many times over." How wrong. You should view ED as, first and foremost, a tech demo. The main point was to improve blender. Second to that comes making a movie. Since it's not a movie that tells a story, you shouldn't criticise it for not telling a story. It's there to do something else - be pretty and tell a concept.I do wonder how much of these problems can be at least partly solved by having actors to help the animators. If you can watch what real people do as they move and talk, it would help alleviate problems of unrealistic movement, if not prevent jerkiness and the like.
That said, the lipsyncing was really poor, and I don't think there was any excuse for that. In some places it was painfully obvious.
Bad storytelling? What story. The premise is not a story, per se, more of a concept. There is a 'story' that unfolds in order to convey the concept, but that's not what the focus is on. As he says, if their prime intent was a story, then it's quite easy to make a funny film with cute animals in it. It's not that difficult to work out the idea behind it, especially if you watch more than once (as it is intended to be viewed) and double-especially if you talk to other people about it.
Good point. I've not read TFA, and I don't know the variation in focal length you'd get out of those small lenses... It's possible though, especially with technology refinement.
Mobile phone cameras suck due to more than their auto-focus. The tiny CCD means they're susceptible to noise, and the lack of decent optics means they won't work well in low light or be able to zoom well - regardless of an autofocussing lens. Furthermore, because an expensive camera has an automatic user filter and learning curve, pictures taken with mobile phones are always likely to be, on average, crap, due to the lack of skill of the photographer.
That's monopoly abuse, which is quite different. Abusing a monopoly in order to undercut the competition by a large margin [i]is[/i] unfair, but simply undercutting on a level playing field is what the free market is supposed to be used for.
So long as they keep the population on digital TV and 5meg broadband, they'll probably be happy. After all, "it won't affect me." It won't be affecting them even when the the government has 24hr video surveillance inside houses - people adapt. Reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon about velcro strips...
Selection only dictates whether a feature is selected, not what the feature is. So it is quite random what animal you end up with - starting with the same genetic data, in the same environment, if each gene pool is subjected to different mutations, then the organism will be different because the features evolved will be different.
But what is the bigger cock-up: Deliberately ignoring the advice of your engineers, or not knowing that they themselves have cocked up? Surely the former - in the latter case, they have an excuse for not knowing.
Evolution is inherently random, unless you're defining random as non-deterministic. Which nucleotide is botched in the replication process, or thumped by a cosmic ray is pretty random.
Nice pipe-dream there. Consider competition, NDA, and a general inability of anyone today to release anything in case people steal it and you might turn up more realistic expectations. Until a change occurs, I'm sure we'll all be able to survive on binary drivers.
And stepping onto the "real world" side of the fantasy line, we should be damn pleased we don't have to make do with amateur efforts. The guys on the linux wing of ATi, at least, work real hard at what they do. They listen to the community, fix bugs and generally get a tight budget and a tight staffing arrangement. If you think you can convince department managers of ATi to give funding to the linux side of operations, go for it, but I think that is somehow unlikely.
Because that would require more power and cause interference. More to the point, individual areas of low signal are not really under the control of the providors - they control the network, not the geography and town planning.
If you give the player rockets, then a simple way to encourage them to use them properly is to ensure that they don't have enough to waste taking out scenery. If you make sure resources are limited enough to force the player to use them only where necessary, then you can still have your godawful keycard puzzles.