Tiptup

lordjedi said:

Your first comment is totally inaccurate.  Read what I wrote again.  DX9 gives access to the same effects, the difference is that DX10 makes those effects easier to do.

I've been researching parts for a new computer the last few months and one of the reasons I was planning on getting Vista was because I've read that DirectX 10 would be supporting newer, hardware-based effects that XP won't have access to without updates to DirectX 9. Here's one of the effects that I was led to believe this about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry_shader

Now, maybe you're just a lot smarter than all of the news and information sources I've been looking at, and if that's the case then I'm obviously misinformed, but last I checked you won't be getting support for that effect XP. If all of the sources I looked at are correct, then considering how Microsoft was actually still selling XP when they released their support for "geometry" shading, I don't see why XP couldn't have been given support for that effect too.

lordjedi said:

 

You may think backporting DX10 to XP isn't that hard, but you also don't know the code.  I've seen whitepapers from MS that show the difference between the driver models in XP and Vista.

lordjedi said:

Your comment about newer effects not needing to rely on a driver model to work is laughable.

Okay. :)

DirectX 10 gives access to hardware-based effects that the latest version of DirectX 9 won't allow gamers to access. (DirectX 9 is the highest Microsoft will allow XP to go.) For Microsoft to claim that they can't support those effects in DirectX 9 is laughable. For you to claim it wouldn't be possible for them to "easilly" support those effects in DirectX 9 is also laughable to me. :)

Edit: Your other points are worthless to me. If you like the amount of money you have to pay to Microsoft to get your new hardware and software to work every three years or so, you can do that and I won't care. I expect a bit more support for a piece of software that costs me over a hundred dollars to purchase.

Best Star trek movies:

1. Wrath of Khan.
2. Insurrection.
3. Generations.

There are other Star Trek movies that are good, but not in the Star Trek way. Star trek is about a cooperative team working to solve socially realistic problems in a science fiction setting. Having every movie be about epic confrontations and the few epic characters (like Kirk & Spock, Kirk & Spock, Data and Picard, Kirk & Spock) just plain sucks. It's boring as hell.

About special effects, those look better than what the prequels gave us, but even the prequels were nice in a way (as far as special effects go). The problem with modern movies is the way that special effects don't serve to heighten emotional and conceptual reactions.

Jay said:

Vinyl doesn't rely upon "steps" at all. It's an analog waveform.

Hehe, every physical medium in the macro world is composed of limited numbers of molecules and particles. You can't argue for perfect sound waves that continuously (without steps) translate energy to our ears in a way that is perfectly accurate. Our real hearing is based upon an air medium that functions in a mix of both continuous and limited ways at the same time. In that sense, vinyl has real molecular steps it takes or else it wouldn't be physical. That's all I'm trying to say. :)

Of course the number of molecules that sits in the depth of a vinyl record is huge and so I'm mostly just dicking around with my point. If the mechanical accuracy of both the writing needle and reading needle are fine enough, I'm sure it could easily beat CD audio (particularly insofar as samples over time is concerned). Otherwise, a purely continuous, analog medium that is also mechanically made is currently impossible. As such, there's nothing wrong with using digital steps to communicate sound so long as our sense of hearing can't tell the difference. I just want some of the people in this thread to cool their statements. :)

I guess those special effects look like they'll be fun to watch.

Jay said:

That's where the sample rate comes in and that's why many audiophiles weren't happy about the introduction of CDs; they didn't think the sample rate was high enough.

Yeah, I've looked into the default CD audio quality in the past and I remember thinking how it could have a better sample rate. However, while I don't know much about the old vinyl format (which could be very detailed for all I know), I just have some trouble imagining a little piece of metal twanging against little mechanically-formed grooves on a disc is really all that much more exact than what we get on CDs. In the end, all physical media rely upon limited numbers of molecular "steps" and limited levels of mechanical precision; when I see people saying big things like how "analog is better than digital," it sounds funny to me. :)

lordjedi said:

First, those timelines aren't changed each year.  MS releases an OS and each OS gets the exact same type of support.  Vista's support will probably end sometime in 2012, but I haven't looked at the timeline for it, so don't quote me on that.

Second, Windows 2000, XP, and Vista are not very similar in their source codes.  Windows 2000 is close to XP, but neither are close to Vista.  Vista isn't even close to Windows 2003.  The biggest change in Vista was with the driver model.  The video drivers were completely rewritten.  Those changes could not be backported without completely rewriting the driver model in XP.  That would end up making XP just like Vista, which would be pointless from Microsoft's perspective (it was nearing it's end of life as it was).

I wasn't really speaking in terms of planned OS time lines or what Microsoft defines as support. I'm talking about the kind of reasonable functionality support we'd get if Microsoft had a competitor or two that were able to earn some of their business. As it is, there aren't really any practical ways for me to run my software or programs on a different operating system made by another company and, as such, Microsoft has less incentive to make me happy. My programs work in 2000, XP, and Vista yet Microsoft limits me to go with the last one or else pay a price.

It's interesting how you mention Vista's re-written driver model since that's a perfect example of what I'm saying here. I'm sure the brand new driver model for Vista is really cool (and stuff) and I don't begrudge Microsoft wanting to make money for their work there. However, newer hardware effects don't ultimately rely upon a "driver model" to work. There's no reason XP's driver system couldn't have given gamers access to the latest, 3D-hardware driven, graphical effects. Even if it didn't work as well as what Vista offers, it wouldn't be hard for Microsoft to expand functionality in this tiny way.

If a particular format has the same or greater sensitivity to the electrical signals (that our audio devices translate from and into sound), then it's absurd to say that the format doesn't sound as good. It's plain and simple.

Rather generic and very "epic." The exact opposite of what I would have wanted. ::yawn::

Mid 2009 release date? Guess I will hold off on building a new PC after all . . . though my current machine really needs to be reworked (I think the video card is buggy).

TheBoost said:

But Luke didn't save anyone. He only got away with his life because Leia was wiling to put herself in greater danger after already escaping to rescue him.

I've always seen his actions as saving them by simply coming to Cloud City. Vader and the Empire were so focused on him (when he actually arrived) that Lando was able to sneak everyone out.

C3PX said:

I would have much rather this thing be a full out reboot, forgetting all that has happened up until now, instead of using time travel as a way to make it a sequel and a reboot at once. If they wanted Nimoy in the film, a cameo as Spock's dad or an older Vulcan teacher at the academy would have been cool.

Agreed. Star Trek could use a completely fresh start.

TheBoost said:

Yoda was right. Anakin needed to be willing to let go. Yoda is so right that Anakin is even the one who caused her to die. Yoda was right when he told Luke not to go to Cloud City, but Luke did it because he was afraid to lose the people he loved.

First, Anakin did not commit all of his heinous crimes because he was unwilling to "let go." Anakin was a self-centered, psychopathic jerk who killed little children over absolutely nothing that could even be slightly construed as good. The life of his wife and mother were just selfish lies that made the little bastard feel good about himself as he killed babies.

Second, attachment and possession is what happens whenever people fall in love. It's impossible to not have attachment and possession and still have anything close to real love. Just because any action can be done in an evil way doesn't mean that you throw out the baby with the bathwater as Yoda does in his teachings.

Thirdly, to the degree you can argue about who was right in Empire's plot line. Luke was the hero and more portrayed as "right" by the movie than Yoda was. In the end helped his friends and got away with his life. Yoda was only portrayed as right to the degree that Luke may have been taking too big of a risk.

For me, Star Trek isn't that big of a deal. It's already riddled with holes and crap. If the movie is fun and recreates what I actually like about Star Trek (the non-epic, intelligent plots and discovery aspect) then I'll be happy.

Why does Kirk look like a girl though?

TheBoost said:

Do you turn on "Cops" and see some wife-beater and say "Love leads to wifebeating, what a screwed up message."

Cops doesn't have a clear authority figure like Yoda telling kids that loving attachment is bad. If George had Yoda teach that because he wanted to show that the Jedi were corrupt, then that's okay, but it confuses his moral message to have the top good guy saying something like that.

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

TheBoost said:

Well, Anakin WAS willing to kill a bunch of little kids if it offered him a chance to keep the love he felt he needed.

 

 Which is the bad message of the film -a message of "Love is bad, it makes you kill kiddies."

Or perhaps "If you're willing to kill a bunch of kids rather that let totally natural things like death happen, you really need to work on letting go."

Love didn't drive Anakin to kill those kids. Possessivness, greed, fear, and anger did. You know... the Dark Side.

The fact that either of those messages can be taken from the film shows how George Lucas has changed. Either he's a lot sloppier than he used to be or he doesn't care about clear moral messages for Star Wars anymore. In the latter case, an argument about an intentional message is rather worthless.

C3PX said:

LordVader said:

And if you please I've never seen the footage of Bail and Jar Jar dieing on Alderaan, if anyone could point me to it I'd love to see it!

 

Here you go LordVader.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REcPHFWOB8Q

Youtube link to Adywan's clip.

Wow. Adywan is pretty good special effects.

A friend emailed this to me today and I thought it was brilliant. That guy must be crazy. I wonder how much practice it took to perform it so well.

skyjedi2005 said:

I still stick by my statement though Despite the very personal Connection Tolkien had to the Silmarillion the real meat of the story come into play in Lord of the Rings.  Similar to the Meat of the Story in Star wars Being the films now known as IV-V-VI.

Hmm, well, the "meat" of a story can be a very subjective thing. While most fans of Tolkien's work would consider the Lord of the Rings his best stuff, I personally think the Hobbit was a better work (and the best that I've read). In Tolkien's mind, however, I'm convinced he thought his most meaty portion was the Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings was more of a return to the world he created in it.

skyjedi2005 said:

Now all Lucas had to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision. LOL!

Hahaha. Wow, I finally have a reason for a signature and it's a quote sig too. :)

(Though, I made a slight change with the word "had" into "has," which I'm guessing would better fit your "original vision" which is a slightly ironical thing . . . but not enough to ruin the quote.)

Arnie.d said:

Well, this is capitalism, the big company creating a product people have to keep buying. Microsoft has a monopoly position and it is using it. This is how the rich get filthy rich, by playing it dirty.

Capitalism simply means that the means of production and wealth in society are controlled and owned by private individuals. Nowhere does it require anyone playing dirty. In fact, it would be impossible to have any kind of "market" under capitalism without at least some kind of honesty and fairness.

That said, I don't think that what Microsoft does is terribly dirty or anything, I just think there might be a better way for the government to define what is protected under patents. (And even that assumes that the main reason for a lack of any competing OS is due to our patent system [which seems correct to me but I'm no expert].)

see you auntie said:

Umm that's twice you've said 1979. Are you getting the confused with the fact Star Wars was released in 1977 and Episode 1 was released in 1999?

Come on Tiptup you know better than that ;)

Oh, terribly sorry, I wasn't looking closely enough. 1979 was when i was born and I must not have been thinking. :)

Janskeet said:

If you people are so hell bent on telling me off on how little I know, why don’t you tell me why . . . .

Well, quite frankly, Janskreet, I am convinced there is a lot you don't know. That's not a crime since every human being is ignorant of a lot of things. But, the arrogant attitude and strong attacks you've aimed at people who try to correct you (who might even be wrong themselves for all they know) is really offensive and I, for one, get "sick" of it (just as you get sick of things). Is that somehow wrong of me?

The main reason I "told you off" in my last reply was because I was at the end of caring to read any of your posts ever again. I saw no point in following someone that continually and completely avoided all give-and-take discussion of the issues with me and certain others (while still totally saying our comments were complete bullshit). Thankfully in this last post you've actually responded to my thoughts in substantial ways and I appreciate that.

I'll try to address your issues point by point later (I really, really should have gone to sleep hours ago), but I'll say for now that I don't believe your concerns are wrong. What's wrong is when you take your concerns and allow them to be more important than other concerns which are actually more fundamental (if you'd think about them). Also, I'm sure you'll find that I completely agree with many of your concerns but that I believe I have better solutions based on Liberal ideals (the kind that work with liberty to achieve better things [and not more government control]).

MeBeJedi said:

And Tiptup.....dude...... You're going to give yourself an aneurysm.

And what's up with the myriad of manufactured memories of me? They are as interesting to read as they are self-serving for you.  You're pretty good at playing the shame game.

Hehe, I'm in no danger of getting an aneurysm (as far as I can tell), but I do use up a lot of time talking to you guys. Any aggression I express is usually a technique I use to combat people who I perceive of as being overly hostile in some way.

Other than that, shame is something I'm very concerned about in life. I'm convinced people should generally allow shame to affect them; the world would be a better place. However, I don't play "games" with it.

I honestly did like reading your posts in the past. You have a good degree of knowledge in many areas, your sense of humor is good, and you argue your positions well. I was shocked, however, by how much a simplisticly-mocking, know-it-all prick you seemed to become in this thread, particularly when I saw the very weak knowledge you were expressing along with your criticism for others. Clearly you've calmed down with this new post of yours, so I feel no need to discuss this further. :-\

MeBeJedi said:
Yes, I know "trickle-down" economics isn't the official name, but it's the name that was used to sell it to the public, and the description of the intent is apt, even if it doesn't work. I know a great deal more than I'm putting in my posts, but I'm not going to write an eff'ing essay on this stuff for a Star Wars board.

MeBeJedi said:
I did want to address this, though, because I thought it was very funny.

 

I seriously can't believe that you're such a brainless drone that you'd actually believe Democrats have done nothing dirty to help them win any recent elections or win current debates. What a skewed, upside-down world you must live in. :)

 

See, the problem is, I didn't say that! What I DID do was contrast your little offhand remark to an actual event.


Allow me to break it down for you:

"Yes, a few, rare, low-level Republicans"

Elizabeth Dole is not "low-level".

"do shitty things when nobody's looking."

She aired 3 state-wide TV ads that were blasted by everyone nationwide. She later publicly stated that she stood by her ads.

"But, does MeBeJedi believe that every last low-level Democrat is a perfect little Sunday school student by comparison?"

The opponent against whom she created these ads for was a Sunday School teacher.

Now, whether you honestly didn't get it, or chose not to get it for the sake of your argument, I couldn't help but find humor in the old line that "Truth can be stranger than fiction". At no time whatsoever, however, did I use this one event to draw a sweeping conclusion about Republicans or Democrats in general.

MeBeJedi said:
Furthermore, it really doesn't matter much anymore, because:

Bad news: The nation's in a shambles (Which apparently Bush had nothing to do with. I guess the only thing worse than a complicit president is an ignorant one, like when he claimed to he hadn't heard anything about $4-a-gallon gas just before gas mysteriously hit $4.) Still, whether by accident or design, the cumulative effect of his administration has led to....

Good news: Obama won. I can sleep well at night, knowing that a very intelligent and driven man will be taking the reins pretty soon. If this gives you nightmares, then that's just too bad. I'm pleased as punch.

And with that, I'm out.

Bush had a lot to do with our bad economy. If you actually read my earlier post, you'd know that I don't deny that at all. What I do deny is that Bush used any conservative policies to bring us here. I defy you, or anybody else to point out a single conservative principle he used to supposedly "ruin" our economy (he was actually a careless fool who ignored what both Reagan did and accomplished). I also defy any of you to mention a single "deregulation" that lead to the housing crisis (there isn't even ONE).

As for your other point, Obama doesn't scare me in the least. Did you get that impression from my last post? :)

I just hope Obama does the right things (for the sake of the country) and doesn't repeat the same mistakes Bush, the Republicans, and his fellow Democrats made the last few years. Therefore, I suppose you could say I fear government mistakes hurting our economy, but, even then, this country will survive in the long run and i sleep just fine.

Oh, and I'll be the first person to admit that Obama is definitely intelligent in many ways. However, facts are still facts and wisdom is wisdom, and no amount of intelligence can change that. If people refuse to look into truth and logic on their own, and simply rely upon what political parties tell them, they have stopped doing their duty as human beings.

FanFiltration said:

Oh, and while I’m on the subject. Did you know that according to the right-wing talking heads today "This is still a center right country"?

This is how these dirt bag republican sore loser talking heads play their propaganda game.  If you can handle it, watch this video segment, and see how these masters of deception do it. It’s sure to entertain. At least it may educate some of the smarter people out there.

Watch if you dare>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj9iIPTrn1I

Hmm, first, I want to say that I don't like the term "center-right" country; it's stupid. What is the "center" and what is the "right"? If the principles of right and wrong which these people defend are contained within what they call the "right," then what's the "center," exactly? Is it an entirely other grouping of things that are like their starting principles that then "moderate" them somehow?! Well, as far as I can tell, moderating any principle is simply nothing more than WRONG and there are no "center-anything" people or nations in the entire world (it's not logically posible to me). In other words, nobody can hold the moderation of ideals as an ideal because that kind of an ideal would have to moderate itself (and would therefore be a principle that is compromised by default).

I know that, in practice, they're meaning that this nation is comprised of people who take "right-wing" principles (whatever they are . . . I'm not even going to go into that) but not as completely unbreakable or immutable principles. As such, they will disregard them whenver they think certain, other principles (like "left-wing" principles) are rising in importance enough to overide them. However, that's still stupid because the way a spectrum of different situations will "moderate principles" is on the basis of how principles relate and not on the basis of the idea of "moderation" in and of itself. (In other words, nobody is "center-right, but "left-right-and-center" to the degree that they value truths on each side of a spectrum.) Therefore, in my opinion, they should be discussing each principle according to why, when, and how they should be followed in relation to other principles. When we, instead, give a value system a definition (and a name) that has no valuable meaning (internally or externally), that's then self-defeating if you ask me.


Anyhow, to you, FF, you're being rather hypocritical in your extreme criticism of people who desire certain ideas to be popularly accepted more than others. In the case of ideas that are true and useful to society's discussions, that kind of behavior is actually a good thing. As such, conservatives promote particular words, phrases, and their attending ideas within society just as much as you do. While doing that sort of thing might be stupid in some situations, even that is incredibly common to all human beings (not just the conservatives you want to condemn with such absolute fury, hehe). The fact that you aren't honest enough to see this behavior in yourself, and act like you never do it is highly laughable. Human beings can't even get through life without behaving in this way (it's necessary for common communication). While this free exchange of ideas often involves pushing bad ideas, we can't dismiss certain ideas simply on the basis that we don't automatically like them on some simple basis; everyone has the right to express their ideas and those ideas should compete.

The problem with promoting ideas through the repetition of words is when people go beyond a place where they are simply trying to increase awareness for their ideas by going into a place where they are trying to get their ideas automatically accepted. They'll repeat their phrases in ways where they try to shout down dissent with emotional appeals ("we need to care about the children!"), in ways that cleverly use rhetoric to ignore arguments that deny their ideas ("deregulation is bad because people will use that freedom to abuse others!"), and in ways that try to intimidate people into silence ("we're in the center and you're an extremist!"). This is how I would define the origin of "group-think." When people put themselves into a group purely on the basis of common words, phrases, and ideas (as apposed to using real reasons), those people are collectively working to cripple each other's ability to think.

Now, no matter how much you (and the guy in the video you linked) would try to deny the use of pushing ideas on people without thinking, we all do it. In fact, you reveal yourself as doing that very EXACT thing in the way you're accusing other people of doing it. Instead of devoting your time to peacefully discussing why you would be apposed to the words and ideas of people in a group that you're apposed to, you just express a common-ized idea from your group that says people in the other group are trying to supress thought by common-izing ideas. Why devote so much concern to automatically immunizing yourself to a phrase when you could be thoughtfully analyzing it instead? The one rational objection the guy in the video you linked used (people always vote for the values of the people they vote for) is incredibly weak and simple.


Oh, and I think you and MeBeJedi should really get together and compare notes, FF. You both seem extremely skilled when it comes to divining the intents and desires of Republicans. Unlike most people who spread groupthink in mostly unthinking ways, you seem very certain that Republicans only spread their ideas because they knowingly and thoughtfully want to deceive and control others with their diabolical lies! Your ability to sense these "masters of deception" right through their masterful facades without the aid of any facts or logic amazes me. ;)

Hmm, though I just had a thought, FF: it occurs to me that you're really lucky that other people don't accuse you of thoughtfully intending to mislead and lie to people with your own expressions. Since you don't need proof when accusing others, they might also think they don't need any proof when accusing you. Hmm, they could then use their mystic power of judgement to actually begin sensoring your views on the basis that you're intentionally lying. That would be scary, wouldn't it? ;)

Jay said:

This place is starting to look like Hannity's forums.

Hmm, no offense, but I feel as if you're saying this because you basically want to outright dismiss many of us who happen to disagree with your views. I may be wrong in this regard, but I think my emotions are being pretty accurate here. If that's the case, why would you want to do that?

Sure, conservatives and people with other viewpoints like my own will tend to go too far in attacking yours and, as a result, say things that you'd rather not deal with (cause they make you angry), but, at the same, are you then saying there's nothing that we present which honestly challenges your thoughts or is worth exploring? Are your ideas and is your perception of the truth so solid and so unquestionable that you can absolutely say your thoughts need no reassessment? Are our thoughts so reprehensible and so devoid of reality that you can't even take time to at least respect them? I doubt you actually think any of that fully, but it definitely seems like your actions reflect such sentiments to a degree.

Again, this makes me think about the small difference I've noticed between "informed" conservatives and "informed" socialists. I generally see that conservatives tend to have a slightly greater willingness to consider, discuss, and expose themselves to points of view they disagree with (it's slight difference but it is generally there). I feel if people were truly concerned with what's most true in a given situation, that they'd be glad to challenge even their own ideas. It's sad when people react with a sour or mockingly dismissive attitude.


It's this issue that makes me ashamed of parts in my last reply to MeBeJedi. To be truthful, I generally try not to be as dismissive with people's beliefs as I sometimes come across. However, just like all people, I tend to value 'winning" in an argument as something more important than treating it as honestly as I can. Also, like all people, I don't react well when people treat my beliefs in that fashion and almost always find myself responding in kind. To that unfortunate end, I'll often explore the truth of an issue just so I can use it to get the high ground and then shit on their heads with insults ("fucking stupid" and the like). While I can't guarantee I won't do that in the future, I generally force myself to try and avoid it and I hope others do that too. (Just because I try to get as much highground as I can before shitting on people doesn't make it okay for me to shit on people.) I just wish people would prefer being accurate with reality because they actually like knowing reality (not because they want to pound people into the ground with it). (By default, I believe no human being likes reality in this way perfectly (or even mostly), but I'm going to be hopeful anyways.)