I see art and science as the complete opposites, but then I have this quote:
"It is said that the meaning of school is to make kids stop asking questions to those that this fails they become scientists" {?}
But the last word could just as well be "artists".
Offline I've had some really nice discussions with a science mind, it's funny because he's like a human searchengine, and Google wouldn't be able to replace him. "You know that a-bit-fat guy, blonde hair, comedian?" And he would know that name, which I obviously don't remember now, and that was a bad example. I could link a guy who says he's a scientist, or something (he's, uhm, thurough) and he happens to write some good poetry (that's a lie, his just opinions are better writings).
I see Darwinism in our age as being able to change people. There is no chance if I get a child that it will be like me, but if I inspire someone to think different, to think more, to question things, to enjoy life? *Add in advertising about Nietzchse here*
A note though is the only thing they do at these chat places, is cyber and talk in acronyms. I managed to stay chatroom/icq free years for 5 years, the "communication" that happens in this environment is so pathetic.
It's called a "Forbush decrease," after American physicist Scott E. Forbush
You know in Sweden everyone's called Johansson, so it would really be a bummer if too many Swedes were scientists, I mean, it might cause an epidemic making people actually name things based on what they fucking are.
In fact, Western civilization stands for man at his best. It stands for the values that make human life possible: reason, science, self-reliance, individualism, ambition, productive achievement
That sounds like the Ayn Rand quote troller, which is also known to replace something with "slashdot" in the writing:
3) But it's all mathematical calculations. ( Vectors, rays, fractals,... )
Raster based = you use brushes. Unless it's a bitmap you're drawing with, the brush has to come from somewhere. Where you draw could easily be stored.
(Now we go off-topic and PS-bashing)
As it is I have PSCS2, and I happened to want to blend some screenshots together. So, we have an example.
132 screenshots, 24bit 800x600.
That would make it a moderate 181mb. (800*600*3*132)
If my commands were just saved, not much more memory would be needed.
This is not what happens, winXP says the memory usage is 360mb, but then a 1x1 image only opened it gives 65mb. 295mb then.
If I click on a layer, there's a half a second wait. When I click on "normal" to bring up the blending mode selection, then click "darken" there's a half a second wait.
The lag is seemingly... harddrive access time. But I have 1.7gb memory, with 1gb free? This is the reason <5.0 doesn't work with XP, reports "not enough memory", because you don't have a sickly huge swap drive. PS needs to use your hdd no matter what. Dated technology, just piled on crap since 1.0.
How is this related? Some people might like watching paint dry, but the reason I've heard of professional (payed) painters going digital, is simply because it was faster. But there could be load of improvements on that subject.
Of note is the psd (from Imageready, with its "import folder as frames(=layers)" option) is only 14mb. It's of N, some really undetailed graphics. Hypothetically, in the preview mode, in a 2d program that works like a 3d renderer, we could store the images as 8bit, even 6bit (64 colours) without much quality loss, but with 1/4 memory usage (45mb).
Example #2: Let's take something really simple, we want to fuck around with the hue.
In Gimp, I have to let go of the slider to see any change.
In PS, it updates in stages, takes a second or so. (Gimp has this too, which it has copied badly from PS, like 90% of the program)
Then I have an image database program (Thumbs+), which isn't made for editing images. Its capabilities there are basically the same since the windows 3.11 version. It updates in 1/10th of a sec.
I'll be trying out how Xara to see how it works with this now.
For example, when you click and drag an object, you see the entire object being dragged, not just an outline. Of course, other programs support a similar feature in which you click and hold the mouse button down for a couple of seconds before dragging. But in Xara X1, you just click and drag straight away: live dragging and editing is the default. And unlike other programs, this works instantly whether you're editing a single object or a group of 300.
That does really sound incredible.
One thing which I remember being in Illustrator for too long, is what you had selected, was inverted. Even an outline is annoying since I want to know how it effects the surroundings when I change the object.
The most important thing though, is that all graphic programs should be vector based. Basically everything is created that way already - text, filters, brushes, adjustment layers... The only thing not included? 1 pixel brush. But since Adobe wants to sell us multiple programs, you won't see that happening (even if they add tiny functionality like "text on a path" to PS).
The most important thing for me in this relation, is if you use a low opacity brush, or lots of adjustment layers, you'll get horrible banding. But if you have it all vectorized, you'd just have to render it at a higher bit depth then downscale - and even better - you'd be able to work much faster since there wouldn't be a need to show the highest quality all the time.
There are a lot of powerful tools that are not "user-friendly", but they are exactly the sort of thing that professionals use for their work (e.g., "Photoshop")
Something easy Adobe could add, but what I've seen commercial software doesn't want to add is costumizability. Although I have many bad things to say about Gimp, there you can costumize the toolbar. Might seem like a small thing, but I only need 8 tools, in PS I have to hunt around and also click and hold to show the other tool hidden (it's basically the same since PS1 - compatible with 640x480).
if the game is more than 2 years old, you can't buy a machine it won't play well on
Q2 (for the mod gloom) is a little more than 2 years, yeah. My 7000kr (divide by 7 for about $£) comp bought 6 months ago had an intel sempron-g. I have to use gl_flashblend, but there's still parts of levels with dynamic lightning, in which case the framerate goes below 10.
At least something that's improved is the noise, but maybe this has just to do with no swapping going on (I asked tech support at a place for the cheapest comp with 2gb ram, with dell it would of been like 13000kr). It's quiter than the laptop, even quieter than the ceiling fan on lowest setting.
We'll offer 2 lessons today. The first would be, and I quote
computer programming
It's called "hacking", "hackers" are very sensitive about this issue. And if you use linux you should be able to "hack" it to do your bidding. It's after all it's "easy if you know how to do it".
Another valuable lesson is that the word "hacking" has a long range of applicable definitions, another very popular is "to modify", except the original "to hack code".
Yeah, that would be the largest difference between professionals and amateurs. Real writers would only care about making a high quality encyclopedia, the "every man" cares more about power, having fun.
It's problems with the (dated) compression algorithm indeed. With divx movies I never notice the slaughtering of the colour part of the image - except when it shows police lights. They contain only colour - and only the red/blue channel at that, so the logical thing would be to compress that in a different way. But from what I can tell, all video codecs always just convert to a luminance channel and 2 colour channels, and use plain jpg with 2:2 subsampling or more.
A note on Subsampling: it's another word for for dividing the colour channel detail, with a single-tone (sepia, or things like stones) image you can have 4:4 without any noticable errors. (It could be a few bytes actually, if it was possible to save it as greyscale together with an overlaying colour)
With nature photos which I figure the algorithm was calibrated from, you almost never see high saturation. In the beginning of jpg there was no option for 1:1 subsampling, remember those pics where people have put some red text which are all blocky/fuzzy?
Uhm, I'm not very coherent. And as for those green fields, they get converted to too low quality, the squares don't fit together with shades at all - jpg2k tries to solve this by blending the blocks together (giving some 10 times higher processing time too), but it still doesn't solve the other problems. It can actually look worse than jpg - I tried to compress a 20mb (3000x2000) image to 1mb, and even rezising it down 33% there were the new "blending errors" visible at darker/undetailed parts (it did look better at 100% size with detailed/bright areas - but the overall was worse). Same thing goes for grainy images - the blending feature just blurs up the picture.
Maybe we want image examples: 1. Colour heavy pic. All are 62kb. Colour quality high (80% quality, 1:1 subsampling) Low (90%, 4:2. quarter on horizontal, half of vertical. so 1/8 colour detail) None (92%. With this you could have a gradient that wouldn't take up much storage)
2. Low colour. Both at 90%, only colour quality differing, 150kb vs 180kb. What you should do is switch view between them, not that stupid side-by-side thing. High Low Colour errors get noticable at contrast areas. This is the rule even for mono-toned pics. Here I see errors at the middle upper. Checker-like, going from brown to grey.
That's all for "ways in which compression fucks up weird musicvids" for today.
So what if there's 1000 facts on a subject, will just presenting them, say, in alphabetical order, be "the truth"? Well, to a researcher maybe, but will the common man get anything out of it? Want to read it? To make it for people to intake you have to weave it into a story of somekind. Thus I could say inspiration = truth. Art = truth.
Aww. I kinda like not having the anon option. Well, I'd rather that not show, as I've turned off showing scores (and modding ability). I could check out your posts though, as you say interesting stuff. (I wish I could say the same about myself, but there's that karma-whoring binge I go on too much)
When I think authoritive internet sources, I think of passionate people who have a terribly designed website, but gives you lots and really good information. WPs only goal is to be as boring as possible. I trust the rotten library, e2, and slashdot.
The problem with "easy to revert to the correct version" is people get comfortable with using their power. It should just be professionals, not ones seeking power / ego / attention, not ones seeking sociality - just wanting to... well, professionals.
Maybe I just got unlucky, as 1) the first one that said something on my talk page was the worst stereotype you could imagine, I didn't just get the ordinary welcome message - no, it was just that, but "welcome from (asshole)" added, and he had to add his obnoxious sig to it. I go to his talkpage and see ugly oversized message stating "don't be a dick, and plz sign message with ~~~--~". So I don't sign my message and tell him to stop spamming, and he comes back with the canned "don't be a dick, and plz sign ur msg thx" - he was there for the power.
2) I go to Jimbo's talk page, and a) see "removed some stuff" - that's not allowed, you make an archive. b) There was mention of NPOV from 2 people (which he casually dismissed) - the "I'm looking humourous into the camera" picture, the mention of being "god king", that he "doesn't own a (expensive car), it's (an even more expensive car)" - and that all these undermines both his and WPs credability.
Slashdot Mirror
I see art and science as the complete opposites, but then I have this quote:
"It is said that the meaning of school
is to make kids stop asking questions
to those that this fails
they become scientists"
{?}
But the last word could just as well be "artists".
Offline I've had some really nice discussions with a science mind, it's funny because he's like a human searchengine, and Google wouldn't be able to replace him.
"You know that a-bit-fat guy, blonde hair, comedian?"
And he would know that name, which I obviously don't remember now, and that was a bad example. I could link a guy who says he's a scientist, or something (he's, uhm, thurough) and he happens to write some good poetry (that's a lie, his just opinions are better writings).
I see Darwinism in our age as being able to change people. There is no chance if I get a child that it will be like me, but if I inspire someone to think different, to think more, to question things, to enjoy life? *Add in advertising about Nietzchse here*
(see also: Video Games, Television etc.)
PA says it best
A note though is the only thing they do at these chat places, is cyber and talk in acronyms. I managed to stay chatroom/icq free years for 5 years, the "communication" that happens in this environment is so pathetic.
All technology is getting removed to protect us from paedophiles, terrorists and hackers.
It's called a "Forbush decrease," after American physicist Scott E. Forbush
You know in Sweden everyone's called Johansson, so it would really be a bummer if too many Swedes were scientists, I mean, it might cause an epidemic making people actually name things based on what they fucking are.
In fact, Western civilization stands for man at his best. It stands for the values that make human life possible: reason, science, self-reliance, individualism, ambition, productive achievement
That sounds like the Ayn Rand quote troller, which is also known to replace something with "slashdot" in the writing:
and most Slashdot readers with an ID below 10000
3) But it's all mathematical calculations. ( Vectors, rays, fractals, ... )
Raster based = you use brushes. Unless it's a bitmap you're drawing with, the brush has to come from somewhere. Where you draw could easily be stored.
(Now we go off-topic and PS-bashing)
As it is I have PSCS2, and I happened to want to blend some screenshots together. So, we have an example.
132 screenshots, 24bit 800x600.
That would make it a moderate 181mb. (800*600*3*132)
If my commands were just saved, not much more memory would be needed.
This is not what happens, winXP says the memory usage is 360mb, but then a 1x1 image only opened it gives 65mb. 295mb then.
If I click on a layer, there's a half a second wait. When I click on "normal" to bring up the blending mode selection, then click "darken" there's a half a second wait.
The lag is seemingly... harddrive access time. But I have 1.7gb memory, with 1gb free? This is the reason <5.0 doesn't work with XP, reports "not enough memory", because you don't have a sickly huge swap drive. PS needs to use your hdd no matter what. Dated technology, just piled on crap since 1.0.
How is this related? Some people might like watching paint dry, but the reason I've heard of professional (payed) painters going digital, is simply because it was faster. But there could be load of improvements on that subject.
Of note is the psd (from Imageready, with its "import folder as frames(=layers)" option) is only 14mb. It's of N, some really undetailed graphics. Hypothetically, in the preview mode, in a 2d program that works like a 3d renderer, we could store the images as 8bit, even 6bit (64 colours) without much quality loss, but with 1/4 memory usage (45mb).
Example #2: Let's take something really simple, we want to fuck around with the hue.
In Gimp, I have to let go of the slider to see any change.
In PS, it updates in stages, takes a second or so. (Gimp has this too, which it has copied badly from PS, like 90% of the program)
Then I have an image database program (Thumbs+), which isn't made for editing images. Its capabilities there are basically the same since the windows 3.11 version. It updates in 1/10th of a sec.
I'll be trying out how Xara to see how it works with this now.
For example, when you click and drag an object, you see the entire object being dragged, not just an outline. Of course, other programs support a similar feature in which you click and hold the mouse button down for a couple of seconds before dragging. But in Xara X1, you just click and drag straight away: live dragging and editing is the default. And unlike other programs, this works instantly whether you're editing a single object or a group of 300.
That does really sound incredible.
One thing which I remember being in Illustrator for too long, is what you had selected, was inverted. Even an outline is annoying since I want to know how it effects the surroundings when I change the object.
The most important thing though, is that all graphic programs should be vector based. Basically everything is created that way already - text, filters, brushes, adjustment layers... The only thing not included? 1 pixel brush. But since Adobe wants to sell us multiple programs, you won't see that happening (even if they add tiny functionality like "text on a path" to PS).
The most important thing for me in this relation, is if you use a low opacity brush, or lots of adjustment layers, you'll get horrible banding. But if you have it all vectorized, you'd just have to render it at a higher bit depth then downscale - and even better - you'd be able to work much faster since there wouldn't be a need to show the highest quality all the time.
There are a lot of powerful tools that are not "user-friendly", but they are exactly the sort of thing that professionals use for their work (e.g., "Photoshop")
Something easy Adobe could add, but what I've seen commercial software doesn't want to add is costumizability. Although I have many bad things to say about Gimp, there you can costumize the toolbar. Might seem like a small thing, but I only need 8 tools, in PS I have to hunt around and also click and hold to show the other tool hidden (it's basically the same since PS1 - compatible with 640x480).
King Kong will most likely be candy for the eyes when it is done. ... and (the terrible acting) torture to the ears.
if the game is more than 2 years old, you can't buy a machine it won't play well on
Q2 (for the mod gloom) is a little more than 2 years, yeah. My 7000kr (divide by 7 for about $£) comp bought 6 months ago had an intel sempron-g. I have to use gl_flashblend, but there's still parts of levels with dynamic lightning, in which case the framerate goes below 10.
At least something that's improved is the noise, but maybe this has just to do with no swapping going on (I asked tech support at a place for the cheapest comp with 2gb ram, with dell it would of been like 13000kr). It's quiter than the laptop, even quieter than the ceiling fan on lowest setting.
Hello and welcome to the linux mentality.
We'll offer 2 lessons today. The first would be, and I quote
computer programming
It's called "hacking", "hackers" are very sensitive about this issue. And if you use linux you should be able to "hack" it to do your bidding. It's after all it's "easy if you know how to do it".
Another valuable lesson is that the word "hacking" has a long range of applicable definitions, another very popular is "to modify", except the original "to hack code".
Common sense is the set of prejudices aquired until age 18
{Einstein}
No sense makes sense
{Charles Manson}
Yeah, that would be the largest difference between professionals and amateurs. Real writers would only care about making a high quality encyclopedia, the "every man" cares more about power, having fun.
Unless you're a vegan.
Or environmentalist. Killing the earth, you know.
"Thou shalt not be greedy" would be the only good one. It's responsible for most killings, after all.
Oh, what about "Thou shalt learn to control thy anger"
If you don't have anything nice to say
you're probably surrounded by assholes
{Men in Hats}
It's problems with the (dated) compression algorithm indeed. With divx movies I never notice the slaughtering of the colour part of the image - except when it shows police lights. They contain only colour - and only the red/blue channel at that, so the logical thing would be to compress that in a different way. But from what I can tell, all video codecs always just convert to a luminance channel and 2 colour channels, and use plain jpg with 2:2 subsampling or more.
A note on Subsampling: it's another word for for dividing the colour channel detail, with a single-tone (sepia, or things like stones) image you can have 4:4 without any noticable errors. (It could be a few bytes actually, if it was possible to save it as greyscale together with an overlaying colour)
With nature photos which I figure the algorithm was calibrated from, you almost never see high saturation. In the beginning of jpg there was no option for 1:1 subsampling, remember those pics where people have put some red text which are all blocky/fuzzy?
Uhm, I'm not very coherent. And as for those green fields, they get converted to too low quality, the squares don't fit together with shades at all - jpg2k tries to solve this by blending the blocks together (giving some 10 times higher processing time too), but it still doesn't solve the other problems. It can actually look worse than jpg - I tried to compress a 20mb (3000x2000) image to 1mb, and even rezising it down 33% there were the new "blending errors" visible at darker/undetailed parts (it did look better at 100% size with detailed/bright areas - but the overall was worse). Same thing goes for grainy images - the blending feature just blurs up the picture.
Maybe we want image examples:
1. Colour heavy pic. All are 62kb.
Colour quality high (80% quality, 1:1 subsampling)
Low (90%, 4:2. quarter on horizontal, half of vertical. so 1/8 colour detail)
None (92%. With this you could have a gradient that wouldn't take up much storage)
2. Low colour. Both at 90%, only colour quality differing, 150kb vs 180kb. What you should do is switch view between them, not that stupid side-by-side thing.
High
Low
Colour errors get noticable at contrast areas. This is the rule even for mono-toned pics. Here I see errors at the middle upper. Checker-like, going from brown to grey.
That's all for "ways in which compression fucks up weird musicvids" for today.
Well, many consider facts = truth.
So what if there's 1000 facts on a subject, will just presenting them, say, in alphabetical order, be "the truth"? Well, to a researcher maybe, but will the common man get anything out of it? Want to read it? To make it for people to intake you have to weave it into a story of somekind. Thus I could say inspiration = truth. Art = truth.
Aww. I kinda like not having the anon option. Well, I'd rather that not show, as I've turned off showing scores (and modding ability). I could check out your posts though, as you say interesting stuff. (I wish I could say the same about myself, but there's that karma-whoring binge I go on too much)
When I think authoritive internet sources, I think of passionate people who have a terribly designed website, but gives you lots and really good information. WPs only goal is to be as boring as possible. I trust the rotten library, e2, and slashdot.
The problem with "easy to revert to the correct version" is people get comfortable with using their power. It should just be professionals, not ones seeking power / ego / attention, not ones seeking sociality - just wanting to... well, professionals.
Maybe I just got unlucky, as
1) the first one that said something on my talk page was the worst stereotype you could imagine, I didn't just get the ordinary welcome message - no, it was just that, but "welcome from (asshole)" added, and he had to add his obnoxious sig to it. I go to his talkpage and see ugly oversized message stating "don't be a dick, and plz sign message with ~~~--~". So I don't sign my message and tell him to stop spamming, and he comes back with the canned "don't be a dick, and plz sign ur msg thx" - he was there for the power.
2) I go to Jimbo's talk page, and
a) see "removed some stuff" - that's not allowed, you make an archive.
b) There was mention of NPOV from 2 people (which he casually dismissed) - the "I'm looking humourous into the camera" picture, the mention of being "god king", that he "doesn't own a (expensive car), it's (an even more expensive car)" - and that all these undermines both his and WPs credability.
Thank you, that's the only non-positive freedom definition I've ever seen on slashdot.
There is no left or right anymore, there is just blind-faith media-machine corporatism-supporting consumers, and those who see past that.
The kingdom of heaven
is a condition of the heart
not something that comes upon the earth
or after death
{Nietzchse}
Actually, it's just labelled upwards pointing hollow thick arrow.