"There is a switch. Go to about:config and create a new Boolean called config.trim_on_minimize set to True."
That's not a switch, it's an obscure config operation. It should be a switch (i.e. checkbox) in the preferences panel. I'm talking about the visibility of the functionality, not the existence of it. (Yes, I wasn't originally that clear, I apologize.)
"there fucking is you moron. Every time firefox gets mentioned in a/. article, a thousand morons complain about the memory problem. It is something due to be repeated from now until then end of eternity."
If they didn't put a clear UI into FF to change this setting (or pick a better default), then of COURSE it's bound to be repeated from here until eternity. As I said, no excuse.
"Has anyone seen Elephants Dream? It's a horrible movie. Sure the 3d stuff is cool, but that's not what I want advertised everywhere as "the product of open source"."
I bolded the important part of your post. Lots of us were talking about switching to Maya after that horrible Star Wars movie came out.
" It seems older people just don't have the drive to learn something new...and probably the fact that they can afford professional software"
Maybe. Or maybe it's that those using it are gunning for a job in the industry and they have to use the tools the professionals do. This isn't elitism or anything like that. It's about pipeline. One major major major problem with 3D apps is that they do not talk to each other very nicely. Getting a model from Lightwave to Maya, for example, is a huge pain in the ass. These little hiccups can be very disruptive when working with a team on a deadline.
If the goal is to get Blender out to the studios, what they'll have to do is provide some functionality that is unique to them. If they provided some modelling tools that were seriously hard to ignore (like Z-Brush did...), then the time would be spent bringing them into the mix.
".... I suppose. If you like the same ol' crapy EA sports titles. I don't know how the Wii controller will make video game sports any cooler. I'd rather just go play sports outside... in the sunlight. (i'm sick, i know.)"
Ya.. I suppose. I don't know how posting a comment like this on Slashdot would be productive. I'd rather just go paint a picket sign and hover around Gamestop, outside I mean.. in the sunlight. I'm sick, I know.
"I guess its fine for Vista, but frankly if I'm running an OS in virtualization, I'd prefer one that uses fewer resources than Vista. XP is a hog, but a thin one by Vista's standard."
Sure. But what about in 2 years or so? Vista may be a hog, but every year more resources are available.
"Parent post makes the assertion that storyline doesn't belong in games..."
No, he was saying that the crucial element of games isn't the storyline. In other words, if you're looking for a good drama your energy and money are BETTER spent looking in the DVD aisle. That's not the same as saying "It isn't possible to find good drama in a video game."
To continue the pattern of bad metaphors here, it's like saying "I'm really craving a good cherry. Where's an Ice Cream shop?" Yes, you can buy a sundae and get a cherry with it. (You're also paying more to get that cherry...) You might even find a sundae with the perfect cherry for you. Nobody's saying that you can't get a good cherry at an Ice Cream shop, but isn't the right place to go for somebody who's simply craving a cherry.
Again, nobody's saying video game and story don't mix, not even the guy you originally replied to. I think you misunderstood the last line of his post.
"When books were first written, I wonder if anyone said "paper isn't for writing on, if you want a story, listen to your father's." When film first came out, I know many people said "it will never take off, no one wants to watch pictures on a screen," but here we are today, with people on the Internet telling others to turn to film for storyline because it doesn't belong anywhere else than the two established mediums."
Both of these examples are terrible. Heh. In any event, no, the idea isn't that games shouldn't tell stories. The argument has nothing to do with stories not belonging in games. It has everything to do with priorities. The game has to be fun. Focus on the fun. If your DVD player required you to play a round of checkers at every chapter, that would not be fun, no matter WHAT movie it was. That make a little more sense?
I'll tell you what's depressing. I've actually made contact with a lot more of my high-school classmates through a week of searching MySpace than I have through a couple of years of spending $15 at Classmates.com. I suppose there's some sense to it. When I was in hs, the internet was JUST becoming popular to the masses, but it wasn't something a lot of my classmates bothered with. I can imagine the appeal of 'make a web page with a few clicks of the mouse'. Blah. I hate wandering into MySpace. I like re-connecting with friends from years ago, but I don't want to hear their favorite songs playing. At the same time, though, it's nice to see the photo montages of their kids.
"No need. Last time I used WMP (it was v7 on Windows, IIRC) it would go download any codecs you needed (including DivX, this was before XviD) any time you loaded up a file it couldn't decode. "
That's interesting because over the last 3 years I've had to go find DivX and XviD because WMP COULDN'T find them.
"Actually, Microsoft doesn't ship anything but basic mpeg2 and WMV for a reason: They want everyone to use their format. They could easily include video codecs for mpeg4, divx, etc., just like they include hardware drivers for most brands of hardware."
Though you may be right about their motives, it is not as easy as you make it sound. You have to pay royalties to distribute MPEG4 variants. Microsoft has a good excuse, this time.:P
"agreed, I never understood why these guys choose the formats they do. Why not a simple mpg? (Honestly - why?)"
This format is streaming. MPEG1 doesn't do streaming. I can't tell you why they did it, but that answers why not MPEG.
As for why MPEG1 isn't used generally: It takes 150KB (yes, kilo BYTES) per second to get a decent quality 320 by 240 clip. That's too inefficient. Unfortunately, the more efficient you get, the less people will be willing to download it. You and I already have XviD installed. My dad doesn't. He wouldn't bother. Etc. WMV's not a bad choice because the compression is OK (Not great, but acceptable). Nearly every Windows computer out there can instantly view it. The encoder's free. WMV streaming is easy to set up. And so on.
This isn't because everybody's stupid or because Microsoft is putting guns to people's heads and demanding everybody use their format. It's because video over the web is a huge problem with no clear-cut solution. It's a pity, really. If millions of people were more inclined to go download codecs and shit, this wouldn't have been such a headache inducing problem.
"Nice to see our government is looking out for the interests of all and protecting the freedom of all to access govt. publications by putting these in a proprietary format like Windows Media Video."
Yeah! How dare they put public footage into a format that only 100 million computers would be able to instantly watch. Asshats.
"The 'harm' is that, by law, it's the copyright owner's right to be the exclusive provider of such derivative works. Whether or not they actually choose to produce them is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they can prohibit others from doing so. Furthermore, in these cases the 'derivative' works may be remarkly similar to the original..."
I almost argued with you. I almost said that it didn't matter since content creators were getting paid either way. If anything, their content was made more accesible and they'd make more money. But then you had to go and use the word 'exclusive'. Now I get it. If they feel demand is high enough, they'll produce their own version, with the potential of doing far less damage to the work than a 3rd party would. If they decided to do that, but these companies had already provided the works... well then, okay, I finally understand what the fuss was about.
The reason I'm writing this is that I asked earlier what the real 'harm' was. Now I get it. Thank you, sir.
"Wal-Mart sells the censored version of some audio CDs. They don't do that with DVDs or VHS tapes. So your OZ episodes are safe for now."
Ok, that explains some of it now. There are some less-than-insightful people on a forum I frequent that were saying Walmart censors movies. (Movies, specifically, not a generic term that could include music.) I made an error in assuming the post I responded to was claiming the same thing.
"Personally, I applaud the judge's ruling. I don't need these ultra-conservative idiots "cleaning" my movies before I watch 'em, just as I don't need a nanny to supervise everything I do. I'm 34 for chrissakes, let me live my life as I wish, stop trying to "protect" me from all the world's "evils"."
Erm. I'm having trouble with this view. Though I'm strongly against censorship, I'm not seeing it this way. Instead of forcing the movies to be tame, some people are taking the time to provide an alternative form of the entertainment that is more suitable to some at no expense to the producers. Maybe I'm just ignorant or naieve or both, for that reason, I'm totally open to a sensible discussion about it. But where I'm sitting right now, I'm actually surprised this is causing such a ruckus. If a store caters to a customer base that has these values, why not support it? All I'd ask is that it is made clear in the packaging that it's not the 'true' form of the movie.
Slashdot Mirror
Hahah!
"There is a switch. Go to about:config and create a new Boolean called config.trim_on_minimize set to True."
That's not a switch, it's an obscure config operation. It should be a switch (i.e. checkbox) in the preferences panel. I'm talking about the visibility of the functionality, not the existence of it. (Yes, I wasn't originally that clear, I apologize.)
"there fucking is you moron. Every time firefox gets mentioned in a /. article, a thousand morons complain about the memory problem. It is something due to be repeated from now until then end of eternity."
If they didn't put a clear UI into FF to change this setting (or pick a better default), then of COURSE it's bound to be repeated from here until eternity. As I said, no excuse.
"It's not a leak it it's intentional - it's simply huge memory usage."
If it's by design, then there's no excuse for not providing an off switch for it.
"Has anyone seen Elephants Dream? It's a horrible movie. Sure the 3d stuff is cool, but that's not what I want advertised everywhere as "the product of open source"."
I bolded the important part of your post. Lots of us were talking about switching to Maya after that horrible Star Wars movie came out.
" It seems older people just don't have the drive to learn something new...and probably the fact that they can afford professional software"
Maybe. Or maybe it's that those using it are gunning for a job in the industry and they have to use the tools the professionals do. This isn't elitism or anything like that. It's about pipeline. One major major major problem with 3D apps is that they do not talk to each other very nicely. Getting a model from Lightwave to Maya, for example, is a huge pain in the ass. These little hiccups can be very disruptive when working with a team on a deadline.
If the goal is to get Blender out to the studios, what they'll have to do is provide some functionality that is unique to them. If they provided some modelling tools that were seriously hard to ignore (like Z-Brush did...), then the time would be spent bringing them into the mix.
"Sorry, apparently this was branded "not funny" a while back by the joke police."
To quote the immortal Beverly Cleary: "First time's funny, second time's silly, third time's spanking."
" who cares? no one. that's who."
I wish you hadn't posted anonymously so I could tell if you were the guy I voted for to speak for me.
"It's slashdot.. noob flaming is the only result of a comment like this. I enjoy good reading material for the restroom."
So... you say something stupid, print out the replies, and take that to the bathroom? Does having your silliness pointed out work better than ex-lax?
".... I suppose. If you like the same ol' crapy EA sports titles. I don't know how the Wii controller will make video game sports any cooler. I'd rather just go play sports outside... in the sunlight. (i'm sick, i know.)"
Ya.. I suppose. I don't know how posting a comment like this on Slashdot would be productive. I'd rather just go paint a picket sign and hover around Gamestop, outside I mean.. in the sunlight. I'm sick, I know.
"I guess its fine for Vista, but frankly if I'm running an OS in virtualization, I'd prefer one that uses fewer resources than Vista. XP is a hog, but a thin one by Vista's standard."
Sure. But what about in 2 years or so? Vista may be a hog, but every year more resources are available.
"Parent post makes the assertion that storyline doesn't belong in games..."
No, he was saying that the crucial element of games isn't the storyline. In other words, if you're looking for a good drama your energy and money are BETTER spent looking in the DVD aisle. That's not the same as saying "It isn't possible to find good drama in a video game."
To continue the pattern of bad metaphors here, it's like saying "I'm really craving a good cherry. Where's an Ice Cream shop?" Yes, you can buy a sundae and get a cherry with it. (You're also paying more to get that cherry...) You might even find a sundae with the perfect cherry for you. Nobody's saying that you can't get a good cherry at an Ice Cream shop, but isn't the right place to go for somebody who's simply craving a cherry.
Again, nobody's saying video game and story don't mix, not even the guy you originally replied to. I think you misunderstood the last line of his post.
"When books were first written, I wonder if anyone said "paper isn't for writing on, if you want a story, listen to your father's." When film first came out, I know many people said "it will never take off, no one wants to watch pictures on a screen," but here we are today, with people on the Internet telling others to turn to film for storyline because it doesn't belong anywhere else than the two established mediums."
Both of these examples are terrible. Heh. In any event, no, the idea isn't that games shouldn't tell stories. The argument has nothing to do with stories not belonging in games. It has everything to do with priorities. The game has to be fun. Focus on the fun. If your DVD player required you to play a round of checkers at every chapter, that would not be fun, no matter WHAT movie it was. That make a little more sense?
"Maybe some of them will even invest in these silly radical concepts called "storyline" and "plot."
Gameplay, THEN story and plot.
I suppose you didn't read my post.
"And boy is that depressing"
I'll tell you what's depressing. I've actually made contact with a lot more of my high-school classmates through a week of searching MySpace than I have through a couple of years of spending $15 at Classmates.com. I suppose there's some sense to it. When I was in hs, the internet was JUST becoming popular to the masses, but it wasn't something a lot of my classmates bothered with. I can imagine the appeal of 'make a web page with a few clicks of the mouse'. Blah. I hate wandering into MySpace. I like re-connecting with friends from years ago, but I don't want to hear their favorite songs playing. At the same time, though, it's nice to see the photo montages of their kids.
"We wouldn't have this problem! People wouldn't steal, they could just download the code."
Well, I guess you've got a point. I mean, if murder was made legal, crime would go down.
"While Linux may be ready for the desktop, the people that stick to Win98/ME are the most unlikely to switch to Linux."
I think they'll buy a new computer, it'll come with XP, and Linux will never come up.
"No need. Last time I used WMP (it was v7 on Windows, IIRC) it would go download any codecs you needed (including DivX, this was before XviD) any time you loaded up a file it couldn't decode. "
That's interesting because over the last 3 years I've had to go find DivX and XviD because WMP COULDN'T find them.
"Actually, Microsoft doesn't ship anything but basic mpeg2 and WMV for a reason: They want everyone to use their format. They could easily include video codecs for mpeg4, divx, etc., just like they include hardware drivers for most brands of hardware."
:P
Though you may be right about their motives, it is not as easy as you make it sound. You have to pay royalties to distribute MPEG4 variants. Microsoft has a good excuse, this time.
"agreed, I never understood why these guys choose the formats they do. Why not a simple mpg? (Honestly - why?)"
This format is streaming. MPEG1 doesn't do streaming. I can't tell you why they did it, but that answers why not MPEG.
As for why MPEG1 isn't used generally: It takes 150KB (yes, kilo BYTES) per second to get a decent quality 320 by 240 clip. That's too inefficient. Unfortunately, the more efficient you get, the less people will be willing to download it. You and I already have XviD installed. My dad doesn't. He wouldn't bother. Etc. WMV's not a bad choice because the compression is OK (Not great, but acceptable). Nearly every Windows computer out there can instantly view it. The encoder's free. WMV streaming is easy to set up. And so on.
This isn't because everybody's stupid or because Microsoft is putting guns to people's heads and demanding everybody use their format. It's because video over the web is a huge problem with no clear-cut solution. It's a pity, really. If millions of people were more inclined to go download codecs and shit, this wouldn't have been such a headache inducing problem.
"Nice to see our government is looking out for the interests of all and protecting the freedom of all to access govt. publications by putting these in a proprietary format like Windows Media Video."
Yeah! How dare they put public footage into a format that only 100 million computers would be able to instantly watch. Asshats.
"The 'harm' is that, by law, it's the copyright owner's right to be the exclusive provider of such derivative works. Whether or not they actually choose to produce them is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they can prohibit others from doing so. Furthermore, in these cases the 'derivative' works may be remarkly similar to the original..."
I almost argued with you. I almost said that it didn't matter since content creators were getting paid either way. If anything, their content was made more accesible and they'd make more money. But then you had to go and use the word 'exclusive'. Now I get it. If they feel demand is high enough, they'll produce their own version, with the potential of doing far less damage to the work than a 3rd party would. If they decided to do that, but these companies had already provided the works... well then, okay, I finally understand what the fuss was about.
The reason I'm writing this is that I asked earlier what the real 'harm' was. Now I get it. Thank you, sir.
"Wal-Mart sells the censored version of some audio CDs. They don't do that with DVDs or VHS tapes. So your OZ episodes are safe for now."
Ok, that explains some of it now. There are some less-than-insightful people on a forum I frequent that were saying Walmart censors movies. (Movies, specifically, not a generic term that could include music.) I made an error in assuming the post I responded to was claiming the same thing.
"Personally, I applaud the judge's ruling. I don't need these ultra-conservative idiots "cleaning" my movies before I watch 'em, just as I don't need a nanny to supervise everything I do. I'm 34 for chrissakes, let me live my life as I wish, stop trying to "protect" me from all the world's "evils"."
Erm. I'm having trouble with this view. Though I'm strongly against censorship, I'm not seeing it this way. Instead of forcing the movies to be tame, some people are taking the time to provide an alternative form of the entertainment that is more suitable to some at no expense to the producers. Maybe I'm just ignorant or naieve or both, for that reason, I'm totally open to a sensible discussion about it. But where I'm sitting right now, I'm actually surprised this is causing such a ruckus. If a store caters to a customer base that has these values, why not support it? All I'd ask is that it is made clear in the packaging that it's not the 'true' form of the movie.