So this ethical system is above God, and he can't do anything to change it?
In any case, that system is utterly terrible. There's something called rehabilitation, which is a way to give someone another chance to change their ways and improve themself (ignoring it'd be cruel to send someone to hell even if they were 'wicked', or just simply didn't 'believe'). Would not such a 'perfect' system allow that mechanism? Instead Christianity turns "rehabilitation" into something you're more likely to find from the Idiocracy film.
Additionally, if a ticket into heaven is based on whether you believe in Jesus or not (or how good you are), well that's flawed, because there are different shades of grey, both in probability of believing something, and of someone's 'goodness'. So there's this black and white reward/punishment dichotomy for a person who is very complex and has feelings between definitely false or definitely true.
You still didn't answer whether you'd be fully happy in heaven knowing tons of people are roasting in hell. Would you sweep that thought under the carpet whilst you're up there? I'm not sure I could, or anyone with a degree of compassion.
Perhaps you're not bothered, but many Christians really go OTT on that crucifixion thing. Calling it the "ultimate sacrifice" etc.
Moreover, hell is something I think relatively few really think about. I think getting Christians to think about their "wonderful time" in heaven whilst others roast in hell is a good thought exercise which can help them to be a bit more humble, and (shock), even question their beliefs, and the inconsistencies therein.
If you really believe what you believe, why are you posting as anon? And would you be kind enough to give up your place in heaven to five people from hell? Would you protest in heaven and tell God that what he's doing is unfair, or would you cower to our almighty cruel creator instead?
And finally, would you ever happy in heaven knowing many or most people didn't make it and are suffering the equivalent of a billion cluster headaches, nervous breakdowns, or acid baths for a million years? That, times a million^100000^1000000000000^Graham's number.
And that number !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!100000000000000000000000000000000000, where ! is equivalent to Knuth's up-arrow notation. And by that point you'll have just got started. It's not a walk in the park you know - do you have any idea what you are even saying?
Erm, Christians apparently don't have to do much more than believe to get into Heaven, but I'd bet not many would few would give up their place, even if it would mean saving five from hell.
You're the only other person apart from myself I've known to state that it wasn't such a big sacrifice after all. Congrats and thankyou.
It'd be a far bigger sacrifice to give up for one's place in heaven to go to hell eternally. And that's something even I'd consider if I could save say 5 people, and consign myself for torture forever.
And that, if nothing else, is why I consider Christianity as pure garbage unfortunately.
The 85kWh Model S can already do a range of 300 miles. And some have taken it to over 400
Battery performance over time is reportedly 70% of full capacity after 7 years. That's not 100%, but it's certainly not bad either, and ignoring the advances in Lithium Ion, Lithium Air tech is fast approaching too.
Do you remember what happened with LCDs and SSDs? They were extortionately priced at first, but you can now get a 256GB Samsung SSD for £180, and dropping. I think most importantly, in the public's eye, the electric car and the Model S in particular has defeated practically most or all of its shortcomings (other than price). And we all know what happens when the rich start to buy expensive things...
And once again, this is why I think the electric car's time has come or nearly come. Ignoring everything else good (and there is a lot), we get zero fumes (at least in the areas that matter, since the electricity has to come from somewhere). And for someone like me who lives next to a busy road, we get much lower sound.
For those who don't know, the Tesla Model S has received countless "car of the year" 2012/2013 awards, up against all the usual gas guzzlers. And it's been pretty unanimous. I didn't take an interest in cars before at all, but that one car has changed all that.
Maybe I misunderstand you, but the stroboscopic effect can only really be seen rarely with things like 'wagon wheels' or elements in the picture which repeat at a set rate like a gate with spokes at n inches apart.
I think a big part of the 24fps 'film' experience that critics talk about is because of the motion blur, not the stroboscopic effect that you speak of.
Cool. Just to say though that it can be set to 60fps in the options, but can run much slower than that if the resolution is set too high, which is why I suggested running at 800*600.
I can pretty much guarantee that seeing 400fps would be very much a natural sensation and noone would get sick. The further up from 25fps you get, the better it becomes. Some people claim even 60fps makes them a little queasy, but by the time you get up to 120 or 200fps, they're fine too.
Thanks for following up - I hope you enjoy the game as much as me. My main question is are you sure you were playing at 60fps? I ask because the higher resolutions often slow it down to about 10-30fps which would make it quite eye watering to me as well.
To set the frame rate, boot up the game and click Options (from the main title screen). At the top left, set the 'Resolution' to the lowest available (I set it to 800x600). Also make sure the refresh rate just below is at 60.
Try again, and let me know what you think, with and without motion blur (also available from the Options screen).
Yes I knew all that. My main point which I think you missed is that the artsy blurred look can be carried over to 60fps through the use of some kind of motion blur, and by doing that you get the best of worlds, a smooth frame rate, and the 'artsy' look. It doesn't have to be a 100% exposure time either. There are a few options:
1: Capture 1/120th of a second of reality every 1/60th of a second (50% exposure time)
2: Capture the whole 1/60th of a second every 1/60th of a second (100% exposure time)
3: Emulate a 150% or 200% exposure time as if the light was captured for longer than each frame was recorded (possible digitally, or a special video camera which is essentially two video cameras in one, where each lens opens and closes alternately)
Latency can be a pain for far shorter times than that. It makes one feel disconnected with a device, and interrupts one's train of thought. Experimentation becomes a painful ordeal rather than what should be fun. Imagine if every time you clicked a tab in your browser, you had to wait 1 second before it became active. Yeah, didn't think you'd enjoy that.
I agree, but it's good to have the option. Monitors with a framerate around say 120fps can support any amount of motion blur or none at all. Apparently, even 60fps isn't 'good enough' (even with a perfect display with no extra motion blur artifacts), because they have no black frames inserted between normal frames (unlike CRTs which sort of have just that).
To sum up:
* Perfect monitor at 60 fps (still forces motion blur)
* LCD-style monitor at a hypothetical true 120fps (motion blur is optional, because it can be inserted directly into the pixels of the frame at the producer stage).
I'm all for video and motion being at 48fps, and maybe even 100fps+ for super smoothness which will also help cure motion blur (without the use of black flickery interspersed sub-frames). Heck why stop there, 240 or 300fps will help for compatibility, and allow us even smoother motion.
HOWEVER..., critics argue that the Hobbit feels less 'dream-like' and 'too real'. Even though I disagree with them to an extent, I recently played a game called Nitronic Rush (fast free Wipeout clone, with tron-esque graphics, great fun btw). I set it to 60fps, but the graphics are 'enhanced' by motion blur, which 60fps normally doesn't 'need'. We're talking at least a couple of frames worth, and maybe up to 5 frames worth of artificial motion blur. However, I find this actually gets the best of both worlds. You get the smoother motion so that your eyes don't ache, and any fast panning looks convincing. But you also get the cinematic 'blurry' look that 24fps films provide (24fps film techniques employ motion blur naturally, or at least something similar to motion blur).
I think 60fps with this kind of motion blur may have a big future for it.
Not everyone wants to be a work slave and toil in a box all day. Even if it does mean extra pay, they're lacking the time to use it. On their deathbed, I bet not one person thinks "I wish I'd have spent time working even longer than 8 hours a day for another 10-15% pay - what a waste of time my free leisure time was".
Fixing that traffic problem would benefit you, but I bet not everyone in your state has the same traffic issue. To cut 3 hours off the working day for *everyone* would be a momentous occasion. Even for you personally, I'm guessing it would overtake the time you waste traveling from work every day.
I've said before, it would be a great experiment to force a state or two in the US to switch to 5 work hours a day (or 3 days a week instead of 5). I bet the overall happiness of the people in that state would multiply, without much detriment if any to their economy.
We don't need even more disproportionate aspect ratios. It's pointless. Even if we consider the field of vision the eye can see is closer to 2:1 rather than 1:1, consider the following:
s - b - c - d - h
e - 1 - 3 - 2 - y
g - 7 - 5 - 9 - a
o - 8 - 4 - 6 - k
r - n - z - u - w
Look at the central digit - 5, and try to determine the outer digits whilst staying focused on the "5". It gets progressively harder the further out you go.
Now consider a widescreen monitor, and apply what we've learnt to that. Detail will resolve horizontally just fine, but vertically, there's a jarring loss of relative 'resolvable detail' (square foot for square foot relative to a more square-like monitor). The mind subconsciously notices the 'missing' stuff at the top and bottom, even if the eye is looking directly in the center of the screen.
In this perspective, the perfect monitor shape is a circle, and a square monitor comes a close second.
Does it mean we can beat the 3-4Ghz CPU limit?
Or does it mean we can treat DRAM as if it were more like next-to-the-metal L2 cache?
Or does it mean we can have faster internet download speeds or quicker latency?
Slashdot Mirror
So this ethical system is above God, and he can't do anything to change it?
In any case, that system is utterly terrible. There's something called rehabilitation, which is a way to give someone another chance to change their ways and improve themself (ignoring it'd be cruel to send someone to hell even if they were 'wicked', or just simply didn't 'believe'). Would not such a 'perfect' system allow that mechanism? Instead Christianity turns "rehabilitation" into something you're more likely to find from the Idiocracy film.
Additionally, if a ticket into heaven is based on whether you believe in Jesus or not (or how good you are), well that's flawed, because there are different shades of grey, both in probability of believing something, and of someone's 'goodness'. So there's this black and white reward/punishment dichotomy for a person who is very complex and has feelings between definitely false or definitely true.
You still didn't answer whether you'd be fully happy in heaven knowing tons of people are roasting in hell. Would you sweep that thought under the carpet whilst you're up there? I'm not sure I could, or anyone with a degree of compassion.
Perhaps you're not bothered, but many Christians really go OTT on that crucifixion thing. Calling it the "ultimate sacrifice" etc.
Moreover, hell is something I think relatively few really think about. I think getting Christians to think about their "wonderful time" in heaven whilst others roast in hell is a good thought exercise which can help them to be a bit more humble, and (shock), even question their beliefs, and the inconsistencies therein.
If you really believe what you believe, why are you posting as anon? And would you be kind enough to give up your place in heaven to five people from hell? Would you protest in heaven and tell God that what he's doing is unfair, or would you cower to our almighty cruel creator instead?
And finally, would you ever happy in heaven knowing many or most people didn't make it and are suffering the equivalent of a billion cluster headaches, nervous breakdowns, or acid baths for a million years? That, times a million^100000^1000000000000^Graham's number.
And that number !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!100000000000000000000000000000000000, where ! is equivalent to Knuth's up-arrow notation. And by that point you'll have just got started. It's not a walk in the park you know - do you have any idea what you are even saying?
Erm, Christians apparently don't have to do much more than believe to get into Heaven, but I'd bet not many would few would give up their place, even if it would mean saving five from hell.
Well said - I'm sure there are FAR more painful ways of dying.
You're the only other person apart from myself I've known to state that it wasn't such a big sacrifice after all. Congrats and thankyou.
It'd be a far bigger sacrifice to give up for one's place in heaven to go to hell eternally. And that's something even I'd consider if I could save say 5 people, and consign myself for torture forever.
And that, if nothing else, is why I consider Christianity as pure garbage unfortunately.
The 85kWh Model S can already do a range of 300 miles. And some have taken it to over 400
Battery performance over time is reportedly 70% of full capacity after 7 years. That's not 100%, but it's certainly not bad either, and ignoring the advances in Lithium Ion, Lithium Air tech is fast approaching too.
Do you remember what happened with LCDs and SSDs? They were extortionately priced at first, but you can now get a 256GB Samsung SSD for £180, and dropping. I think most importantly, in the public's eye, the electric car and the Model S in particular has defeated practically most or all of its shortcomings (other than price). And we all know what happens when the rich start to buy expensive things...
And once again, this is why I think the electric car's time has come or nearly come. Ignoring everything else good (and there is a lot), we get zero fumes (at least in the areas that matter, since the electricity has to come from somewhere). And for someone like me who lives next to a busy road, we get much lower sound.
For those who don't know, the Tesla Model S has received countless "car of the year" 2012/2013 awards, up against all the usual gas guzzlers. And it's been pretty unanimous. I didn't take an interest in cars before at all, but that one car has changed all that.
Hmmm... maybe price/300% = price/3 = 66% reduction in our terminology.
Maybe I misunderstand you, but the stroboscopic effect can only really be seen rarely with things like 'wagon wheels' or elements in the picture which repeat at a set rate like a gate with spokes at n inches apart.
I think a big part of the 24fps 'film' experience that critics talk about is because of the motion blur, not the stroboscopic effect that you speak of.
Cool. Just to say though that it can be set to 60fps in the options, but can run much slower than that if the resolution is set too high, which is why I suggested running at 800*600.
I can pretty much guarantee that seeing 400fps would be very much a natural sensation and noone would get sick. The further up from 25fps you get, the better it becomes. Some people claim even 60fps makes them a little queasy, but by the time you get up to 120 or 200fps, they're fine too.
Thanks for following up - I hope you enjoy the game as much as me. My main question is are you sure you were playing at 60fps? I ask because the higher resolutions often slow it down to about 10-30fps which would make it quite eye watering to me as well.
To set the frame rate, boot up the game and click Options (from the main title screen). At the top left, set the 'Resolution' to the lowest available (I set it to 800x600). Also make sure the refresh rate just below is at 60.
Try again, and let me know what you think, with and without motion blur (also available from the Options screen).
Yes I knew all that. My main point which I think you missed is that the artsy blurred look can be carried over to 60fps through the use of some kind of motion blur, and by doing that you get the best of worlds, a smooth frame rate, and the 'artsy' look. It doesn't have to be a 100% exposure time either. There are a few options:
1: Capture 1/120th of a second of reality every 1/60th of a second (50% exposure time)
2: Capture the whole 1/60th of a second every 1/60th of a second (100% exposure time)
3: Emulate a 150% or 200% exposure time as if the light was captured for longer than each frame was recorded (possible digitally, or a special video camera which is essentially two video cameras in one, where each lens opens and closes alternately)
Latency can be a pain for far shorter times than that. It makes one feel disconnected with a device, and interrupts one's train of thought. Experimentation becomes a painful ordeal rather than what should be fun. Imagine if every time you clicked a tab in your browser, you had to wait 1 second before it became active. Yeah, didn't think you'd enjoy that.
I agree, but it's good to have the option. Monitors with a framerate around say 120fps can support any amount of motion blur or none at all. Apparently, even 60fps isn't 'good enough' (even with a perfect display with no extra motion blur artifacts), because they have no black frames inserted between normal frames (unlike CRTs which sort of have just that).
To sum up:
* Perfect monitor at 60 fps (still forces motion blur)
* LCD-style monitor at a hypothetical true 120fps (motion blur is optional, because it can be inserted directly into the pixels of the frame at the producer stage).
I said my idea was to combine 60fps with motion blur, like Nitronic Rush does. Play that, and tell me what you think.
I'm all for video and motion being at 48fps, and maybe even 100fps+ for super smoothness which will also help cure motion blur (without the use of black flickery interspersed sub-frames). Heck why stop there, 240 or 300fps will help for compatibility, and allow us even smoother motion.
HOWEVER..., critics argue that the Hobbit feels less 'dream-like' and 'too real'. Even though I disagree with them to an extent, I recently played a game called Nitronic Rush (fast free Wipeout clone, with tron-esque graphics, great fun btw). I set it to 60fps, but the graphics are 'enhanced' by motion blur, which 60fps normally doesn't 'need'. We're talking at least a couple of frames worth, and maybe up to 5 frames worth of artificial motion blur. However, I find this actually gets the best of both worlds. You get the smoother motion so that your eyes don't ache, and any fast panning looks convincing. But you also get the cinematic 'blurry' look that 24fps films provide (24fps film techniques employ motion blur naturally, or at least something similar to motion blur).
I think 60fps with this kind of motion blur may have a big future for it.
Far from screwing happiness, that looks to multiply it even further - good thinking.
Not everyone wants to be a work slave and toil in a box all day. Even if it does mean extra pay, they're lacking the time to use it. On their deathbed, I bet not one person thinks "I wish I'd have spent time working even longer than 8 hours a day for another 10-15% pay - what a waste of time my free leisure time was".
Fixing that traffic problem would benefit you, but I bet not everyone in your state has the same traffic issue. To cut 3 hours off the working day for *everyone* would be a momentous occasion. Even for you personally, I'm guessing it would overtake the time you waste traveling from work every day.
I've said before, it would be a great experiment to force a state or two in the US to switch to 5 work hours a day (or 3 days a week instead of 5). I bet the overall happiness of the people in that state would multiply, without much detriment if any to their economy.
Vid for those in the dark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab8GtuPdrUQ
s - b - c - d - h
e - 1 - 3 - 2 - y
g - 7 - 5 - 9 - a
o - 8 - 4 - 6 - k
r - n - z - u - w
Look at the central digit - 5, and try to determine the outer digits whilst staying focused on the "5". It gets progressively harder the further out you go.
Now consider a widescreen monitor, and apply what we've learnt to that. Detail will resolve horizontally just fine, but vertically, there's a jarring loss of relative 'resolvable detail' (square foot for square foot relative to a more square-like monitor). The mind subconsciously notices the 'missing' stuff at the top and bottom, even if the eye is looking directly in the center of the screen.
In this perspective, the perfect monitor shape is a circle, and a square monitor comes a close second.
So in practice, what does this mean exactly?
Does it mean we can beat the 3-4Ghz CPU limit?
Or does it mean we can treat DRAM as if it were more like next-to-the-metal L2 cache?
Or does it mean we can have faster internet download speeds or quicker latency?