Oh yeah as for the man-years thing, I only figured it out after I posted hehe. Well, hey, people need entertainment!
Lol, how would you go about redirecting PotC's momentum towards a Mars mission? PotC's momentum is what it is because of how badly people want to pay to see PotC. No one wants to pay to see a machine send pictures of a Martian desert. That's why PotC makes a billion, it wouldn't make a billion if it wasn't what it is.
Wow, you mean, you need two hands for that? *humbly bows* I bet those e-mails about "self-improvement over elongation" give you a good chuckle, don't they?
This whole thing falls in the "it's challenging, but we think we can get to it, with difficulty, even if once we get there no-one will actually want to use that when the novelty effect will have (quickly) worn off" category.
Who wants to use voice recognition, and for what? Who wants to see the person they're talking to on the phone on a screen? Who wants to turn the lights on by clapping their hands? And so on..
If you look through the wrong end of a telescope sufficiently big, eventually everything through it looks insignificantly tiny. And what's that extinction of humanity you're talking about? A million man-years? You realise it means one million people working for a year, right? For a movie, really?
The point is, you're missing it, PotC, or any comparable venture for that matter, creates wealth, because people see value in paying to see it, and that money goes to paying a bunch of people, which themselves buy stuff, pay services, hire people, to do what they've gotta do to do what they're paid for in the making of this PotC thing. The viewer wants to see a good pirate movie, the movie studio wants to make that movie, for which they contract a visual effects studio, which hires people and buy computer hardware, hardware which they buy from a computer dealer, which computer dealer hired people and bought components for, from a manufacturer, which itself hired people and bought materials or something, which they bought from a mining company, and so on and so on... this is how economy works.
Such ventures as making PotC participates to the good health of the economy just as much as any other successful venture, to see the entertainment industry or the sports industry as some sort of monetary black hole is just another fallacy from people who received a poor economics education.
Wow, you find that hilarious? In the same era I'd say the pinnacle of humour was P.G. Wodehouse, but other than that I find that there's little humour that has travelled intact through the ages. I feel the same about music, in popular music that is (classical music has travelled intact).
More stimulation in the hour of mass media over-stimulation! I seriously hope we'll be able to use this technology. I like to watch porn, but it quickly gets boring and even repetitive (I know, that kind of is the point, to a certain extent), but it'd be more entertaining if I could project my favourite comedy show on the lady's stomach or buttocks. Also I like to watch the news but I don't have the time for all of these, so if we could project the porn-comedy combo in the screens in the background on CNN that would be great.
So I could at last laugh while playing with myself while at the same time wondering what this world is coming to!
If you don't think that PotC creates wealth then you need to go back to Economics 101. "Added value" is the key word, and you can contrast it with the broken window fallacy which is all about "subtracted" value which highlights the same mechanisms.
What? They had humour prior to the 1960s? Seriously, deep inside me I believe that people hardly made or said anything funny back then. I'm sure lots of people feel the same way.
Right, because people only want careers that profoundly excited them when they were children. Must explain why there's so many accountants and lawyers.
They "happen" in the aforementioned "spectralist" music. And you can hear them. They're only a few tens of Hz apart, that's why you can hear them (and lots of them at that).
I absolutely agree. See when I was born the mid-wife pulled too hard on my head and it came off. Fortunately part of my brain remained attached to the rest of my body so I was able to survive.
Over the years people kept asking me how difficult it is to live without a head and just enough of a brain to breath and swallow food. To which I would reply, "I don't know, I've never gave it much of a thought."
They can move out, but they attract a lot of tourists, so it would be a shame to let the whole thing sink.
What they should do instead would be to build a huge dome of glass on top of the most important islands! The islands would now be bubbles of paradise, how cool is that? Oh boy I can't wait till the ocean levels increase by tens of meters! On top of that they could have tunnels connecting islands with a shallow depth of water inside of them so you could still travel by boat.
Most importantly, why snub the megashitload of other interesting conflicts? Why not a game that involves going after Pancho Villa? What's wrong with the Cowboys vs. Indians war (whatever it's called)? The Civil War? Something that involves pirates? Being a Zulu warrior and repelling the British?
I mean fuck, you won't tell me that conflicts in the whole history of mankind wouldn't make good video games except for WWI, WWII, American's Vietnam war and the 2003 Iraq war? I believe it's just ignorance from game studios, who were themselves overly influenced by war movies rather than anything else, and even then it doesn't excuse the lack of pre-WWI cowboy war games.
I knew that, thanks a lot, mind you, I have a bit of an idea what the MP3 codec does, thank you. The whole damn point was not how that codec is designed to only get rid of what you can't hear, the point is that it's also designed for specific amounts of "sound information density", i.e. nothing more dense than your average pop song, and that when you take that "density" much higher than it should be then you get very obvious effects.
That's what I was trying to tell you guys, listen and be happy you learn something new, and stop giving me that "but an audio codec isn't mean to compress images well!" bullshit, it wasn't about image compression, you thickies, it was about bloody overtones.
By the way, it boggles my mind this knee-jerk reaction (i.e. "omg MP3 isn't meant to compress images!") should be modded all the way up. There goes my misconception that moderators didn't miss points (the fact that my example was about image transmission was irrelevant, what was relevant was the sheer number of overtones) as much as posters do.
No, look, I just get that kind of bullshit all the time. I claim something based on years of research, and then someone who misses the point goes "it's a lot of hot air" and calls my claims unsubstantiated.
What I was talking about was the effects of compression at different bitrates on the time-frequency plan of sounds with a lot of "overtones", so I could care less how it sounds like, the effect seen on the spectrogram is enough to realise what happens. Yet then some guy with a narrow mind has to come up and go "blind listening tests or it didn't happen". What do you want to reply to that? If you dismiss my well-founded claims because it doesn't meet your irrelevant little requirements and that you insist, then I have nothing left to tell you.
This being said I actually respond quite well to criticism that is not stubborn dismissal of my claims.
Slashdot Mirror
I RTFA, and I still don't get it, why is it better than outside air in, exhaust air out?
Oh yeah as for the man-years thing, I only figured it out after I posted hehe. Well, hey, people need entertainment!
Lol, how would you go about redirecting PotC's momentum towards a Mars mission? PotC's momentum is what it is because of how badly people want to pay to see PotC. No one wants to pay to see a machine send pictures of a Martian desert. That's why PotC makes a billion, it wouldn't make a billion if it wasn't what it is.
FIRESTRIKEâs can be linked together to get a more powerful beam
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of sharks with laser beams attached to their heads!
Wow, you mean, you need two hands for that? *humbly bows* I bet those e-mails about "self-improvement over elongation" give you a good chuckle, don't they?
This whole thing falls in the "it's challenging, but we think we can get to it, with difficulty, even if once we get there no-one will actually want to use that when the novelty effect will have (quickly) worn off" category.
Who wants to use voice recognition, and for what? Who wants to see the person they're talking to on the phone on a screen? Who wants to turn the lights on by clapping their hands? And so on..
If you look through the wrong end of a telescope sufficiently big, eventually everything through it looks insignificantly tiny. And what's that extinction of humanity you're talking about? A million man-years? You realise it means one million people working for a year, right? For a movie, really?
The point is, you're missing it, PotC, or any comparable venture for that matter, creates wealth, because people see value in paying to see it, and that money goes to paying a bunch of people, which themselves buy stuff, pay services, hire people, to do what they've gotta do to do what they're paid for in the making of this PotC thing. The viewer wants to see a good pirate movie, the movie studio wants to make that movie, for which they contract a visual effects studio, which hires people and buy computer hardware, hardware which they buy from a computer dealer, which computer dealer hired people and bought components for, from a manufacturer, which itself hired people and bought materials or something, which they bought from a mining company, and so on and so on... this is how economy works.
Such ventures as making PotC participates to the good health of the economy just as much as any other successful venture, to see the entertainment industry or the sports industry as some sort of monetary black hole is just another fallacy from people who received a poor economics education.
Wow, you find that hilarious? In the same era I'd say the pinnacle of humour was P.G. Wodehouse, but other than that I find that there's little humour that has travelled intact through the ages. I feel the same about music, in popular music that is (classical music has travelled intact).
More stimulation in the hour of mass media over-stimulation! I seriously hope we'll be able to use this technology. I like to watch porn, but it quickly gets boring and even repetitive (I know, that kind of is the point, to a certain extent), but it'd be more entertaining if I could project my favourite comedy show on the lady's stomach or buttocks. Also I like to watch the news but I don't have the time for all of these, so if we could project the porn-comedy combo in the screens in the background on CNN that would be great.
So I could at last laugh while playing with myself while at the same time wondering what this world is coming to!
If you don't think that PotC creates wealth then you need to go back to Economics 101. "Added value" is the key word, and you can contrast it with the broken window fallacy which is all about "subtracted" value which highlights the same mechanisms.
What? They had humour prior to the 1960s? Seriously, deep inside me I believe that people hardly made or said anything funny back then. I'm sure lots of people feel the same way.
Right, because people only want careers that profoundly excited them when they were children. Must explain why there's so many accountants and lawyers.
Did you miss the part where an episode of Pirates of the Caribbean engrosses one billion dollars? When you create value, you create riches.
Crap, I mean "that be how". Seriously though, it's a trend that dates back to the middle ages or something.
Irregular verbs are binded to slowly disappear, that's how it haved always beed.
God, STFU.
But wait, don't cymbals make a noisy percussioney sound?
They "happen" in the aforementioned "spectralist" music. And you can hear them. They're only a few tens of Hz apart, that's why you can hear them (and lots of them at that).
I absolutely agree. See when I was born the mid-wife pulled too hard on my head and it came off. Fortunately part of my brain remained attached to the rest of my body so I was able to survive.
Over the years people kept asking me how difficult it is to live without a head and just enough of a brain to breath and swallow food. To which I would reply, "I don't know, I've never gave it much of a thought."
They can move out, but they attract a lot of tourists, so it would be a shame to let the whole thing sink.
What they should do instead would be to build a huge dome of glass on top of the most important islands! The islands would now be bubbles of paradise, how cool is that? Oh boy I can't wait till the ocean levels increase by tens of meters! On top of that they could have tunnels connecting islands with a shallow depth of water inside of them so you could still travel by boat.
Most importantly, why snub the megashitload of other interesting conflicts? Why not a game that involves going after Pancho Villa? What's wrong with the Cowboys vs. Indians war (whatever it's called)? The Civil War? Something that involves pirates? Being a Zulu warrior and repelling the British?
I mean fuck, you won't tell me that conflicts in the whole history of mankind wouldn't make good video games except for WWI, WWII, American's Vietnam war and the 2003 Iraq war? I believe it's just ignorance from game studios, who were themselves overly influenced by war movies rather than anything else, and even then it doesn't excuse the lack of pre-WWI cowboy war games.
Yeah but on the other hand the spectrogram of the sound in question can tell you what went wrong with the sound better than listening to it can.
Oops, meant to post that here.
I knew that, thanks a lot, mind you, I have a bit of an idea what the MP3 codec does, thank you. The whole damn point was not how that codec is designed to only get rid of what you can't hear, the point is that it's also designed for specific amounts of "sound information density", i.e. nothing more dense than your average pop song, and that when you take that "density" much higher than it should be then you get very obvious effects.
That's what I was trying to tell you guys, listen and be happy you learn something new, and stop giving me that "but an audio codec isn't mean to compress images well!" bullshit, it wasn't about image compression, you thickies, it was about bloody overtones.
By the way, it boggles my mind this knee-jerk reaction (i.e. "omg MP3 isn't meant to compress images!") should be modded all the way up. There goes my misconception that moderators didn't miss points (the fact that my example was about image transmission was irrelevant, what was relevant was the sheer number of overtones) as much as posters do.
No, look, I just get that kind of bullshit all the time. I claim something based on years of research, and then someone who misses the point goes "it's a lot of hot air" and calls my claims unsubstantiated.
What I was talking about was the effects of compression at different bitrates on the time-frequency plan of sounds with a lot of "overtones", so I could care less how it sounds like, the effect seen on the spectrogram is enough to realise what happens. Yet then some guy with a narrow mind has to come up and go "blind listening tests or it didn't happen". What do you want to reply to that? If you dismiss my well-founded claims because it doesn't meet your irrelevant little requirements and that you insist, then I have nothing left to tell you.
This being said I actually respond quite well to criticism that is not stubborn dismissal of my claims.