LadyCrimson

Parts of that video remind me of season 3 of Slayers. My mind is suddenly filled with the vision of a humorous mashup of both. Not that I'm going to make one...which is probably a good thing. I dunno, I like the story aspect, but it's too brief and most of the animation/drawing feels really uninspired.

There's a only 2 or 3 that go up to Ultra, everything else just has "high" I think. Anyway, that's not it either since I've turned down everything at one point or another. Maybe it doesn't like my 590/dual GPU or something, even tho it's not 2 separate SLI'd cards, who knows. Oh, awesome. Maybe that'll help my jello-movement issues. Plus only 10 autosave files created, I like it.

That's definitely dubbed. Too clean. Splicing bits of close up video to match certain runs in the song and such (don't always quite match either). They probably played somewhere else in the Metro to record a "good" version w/high end mics - "recorded in Metro" doesn't have to mean on the train during actual "flash mob" bit.

Well, since I'm lazy and like mods I can just click on, I tried that. It's nice for the trees, but then the constant pop-in for objects and cliff textures becomes more eye-catching since you aren't staring at the growing/expanding leaves anymore. Anyway...if I turn water reflections off and keep shadows to medium it helps the most. Tried turning shadows off but ack, that looked bloody awful. AA/AF didn't seem to change the slow/lag sensation at all. But I still feel like I'm running in jello fairly often - even in 80-100fps areas - the jello's just not quite as thick. Still...not sure I can stand it. I mind poor graphics a lot less than this weird slo-mo sensation.

I have my doubts that the girl's vibrant and intense blue eyes are natural. Perhaps she vacationed on Arrakis and ate too much Spice.

So....did anyone else experience the game becoming "chunky" in terms of running? Where it feels like there's lag as you're exploring? It's not microstutter, it's like swimming through jello. The fps goes up and down but it's still plenty high enough (doesn't drop below 40). When I first started it seemed nice and smooth, but the longer I play (which hasn't been all that long really) the "chunkier" running around feels. It's becoming aggravating. (edit: I've tried turning some settings down a bit, which increases fps but doesn't help)

Now there's something I can generally agree with. Not completely related to that, but I read an interesting article from Stephen King (the author) re: the rich, taxes, and how the rich give to charity. He made some good points/comments about the distribution of wealth, imo (and it wasn't for the rich).

Cutting up vinyl covered garden-type fencing to tack up/lean up against the fences to discourage the 20 neighbor's cats (seriously....) from using our backyard as a highway. Can't keep them out entirely, I know that...just trying to make it feel less "safe" to easily escape from so they won't want to use it as a pass-thru/consider it part of their own yard so much. Wouldn't normally bother, but they're pestering my new outdoor cat too much lately. :/

@Delfosse - er....yeah, ok. That seemed really unnecessary. @213374U - Hm. I can understand that argument perhaps, but I don't agree with it. Even if it doesn't cost anything to copy, what it does do is decrease the potential value for something. Like if someone "steals" my photograph and plasters it all over the web, the value that I might have been able to sell it for may become less because now the image is so common/well known. I will agree that hard value/harm is/would be incredibly hard to define or even prove, since who knows if I would have ever made money off that one photo in the 1st place.....and that in terms of big publishers it often seems unfair/pointless (no one likes over-inflated monopoly like prices), but in order to protect the "little man" the laws also (I think) have to protect the "big man" as well, or it's unfair. Anyway, agree to disagree. But thank you for explaining it a bit more clearly for me. Sigh. The real issue (imo) is that humanity has yet to find a good economic model that works on a consistent, long-term level for "everyone". Maybe one day we'll be like Star Trek and work just because we all find it fun & rewarding to do so. "You don't get paid?"--ST:8

I think that's subject to interpretation and how one perceives the meaning behind words. I saw what he said in a different light (and he then emphasized it in his later post). But that's another topic like you said, so moving on... I still don't understand this notion that because something is intellectual property it's somehow not a real product and thus not subject to the idea of thievery. I've seen that mentioned in other threads here and other places quite a lot. Money itself could be seen as an intellectual concept - it's just a substitute for bartering actual things, because carrying around 3 chickens just in case you want to trade them for 1 pig isn't very convenient. And now many of us don't even carry around real money anymore, it's all digital on our debit and credit cards, because it's easier than carrying around coins and fat wads of paper. Is digital money not real money because there's no tangible thing to hold? I know that's not a direct analogy....but if someone takes the time to compose a unique song, then records it onto/as some media that can be played by another, and asks for compensation, how is that different than someone designing a unique chair, building a roomful of copies of that chair, then asking for compensation for each chair? (edit: they both took some time/effort to do, to create the finished "thing" that someone wants - music that plays in a player or a chair to sit on) I'm not trying to be obtuse....I really don't get how one is a "real" product and the other is somehow not a "real" product and thus it's ok to freeload/not pay for. Edit: afterthought - and I don't mean the issue of whether or not you think a company is horrible/a rip off....and, perhaps, I might think it's at least kind of ok/understandable if one did buy the actual product (support the company) but then used a pirated copy to bypass DRM. I just mean...this definition thing.

So much hate for Twitter .... wait, I'll save you the time: But yeah, that'd definitely not be what you're looking for. That Pidgin looks kinda interesting, I might check it out myself. I don't "do" chat anymore but eh, it might come in handy occasionally.

I'm not sure that someone lacking respect for the some of the governmental or banking polices/habits of a country necessarily = racist. If that's the case, everyone in every political thread I've ever read has been a racist at some point. Unrelated to that...this thread has certainly been an interesting read over the past couple days. It's done nothing to change my mind or personal opinions(or anyone else's, from what I gather) - if anything it's just strengthened what I believe about certain things , but it has been interesting.

Theaters don't have the film in 2D where you are? There's no need to see it in 3D if you don't want to. I've read it's one of the few 3D films that might (depending on the theater....) be worth the extra price, with the brightness not being dimmed overmuch, being more subtle, and stuff like that, but also that it's still perfectly awesome in 2D. (edit - since I was still unimpressed with 3D in Avatar I've refused to pay more for 3D since).

Trying to convince hubby we need to see Jeremy Renner in that black suit Avengers on the big screen. I've seen so many "comic hero film game changer" and such glowing comments/reviews that I've been trying to convince myself it'll suck just so I won't be disappointed by over-inflated expectations. I'm looking for a good popcorn flick along the "it's good" level of the first IronMan. I'd be quite happy/content with that.

Watching the Red Sox implode some more. Which makes me cry a little and reach for the beef jerky. Oh well. I had a feeling it wouldn't go well with all those changes and DL's and everything at once. Maybe it's the Orioles time to shine, now. Could be interesting!

Elder Scrolls MMO "sounds like just another fantasy MMO" http://kotaku.com/59...her-fantasy-mmo Not that this surprises me. I wouldn't be very interested anyway, since I'm not an MMO person these days, but if true, it's a shame they seemingly couldn't figure out a way to do something more interesting with this instead of same ol' same ol'. (edit)Still, just a preview. Could sound better later.

I think the circumstances of what constitutes piracy (vs fair use) has definitely become too large, and yes that's largely because of sue-happy, profit-mongering companies. Avatars, or screen captures on a forum/blog etc., in my mind, should be "fair use." If anything, that's like free advertising. "What's that screenshot from?" "Diablo3." "Cool, looks interesting, might check it out." But illegally (not paying for it) DL'ing Photoshop so you can use it to edit photos ... you're using that program to benefit you, your life, your hobby, even if you're not making a monetary profit. You're using the service, so to speak, of Photoshop's capabilities, without paying for it. To me that's like needing a screwdriver for your carpentry, not knowing how/not having the facilities to make one yourself, and then being outraged that you may have to pay (a reasonable amount) to get one ready-made. Gaming, same thing. The difference there is the service/use benefit is harder to define, because "fun" is so subjective. Agreed. If piracy became a situation where - in regards to digital piracy - it was easily discovered that "you" were doing it and/or the punishment for it was very affecting in some way, then I think you'd find the incidence of such would drop dramatically. It wouldn't go away...never does imo...but it would be less rampant. The relative anonymity of the internet/file sharing is one reason (imo) that it has exploded into such an issue now. Again...it's not like walking into a store, taking the gamebox off the shelf, and trying to walk out again. Digital piracy has removed a lot of the consequence risk from pirating, so if you brought it back, I think the results would end up implying the latter (wanting stuff can't afford).

Guess I'd need a bigger PSU then. More power, yaaarrrr. I wonder if they ran Metro2033 with all the DX11 stuff on. Not seeing a huge improvement (or any improvement really) vs. my 590 in that game. I'd still want it if I could justify the price at the moment, tho. Which I can't. Heh

I miss Arnold the "actor." I'd even go see him play a wrinkled, aged Terminator. The action hero actors of today are not nearly as much fun.

@MacMichael Oh yeah, when I was a kid, we'd all (adults and kids alike) make copies of our records on audio tape and hand them out to friends. Or lend books. As tech advanced I'd scan yearbook photos to post on a blog about my highschool years or whatever without making an attempt to contact the photographer. Or other minor and/or youth related infractions. Interpretation of law is often a flexible thing, in the minds of us humans. Especially since laws are often rather arbitrary, since you have to pick a line in the sand to "enforce" and what gets picked at any given time...well, of course not everyone is going to agree/believe it's the correct line.

I figured the biggest problem with Stallone's Dredd was the terrible over acting. But yeah, not much time was spent on knowing what went on in Dredd's head. I watched a Korean action film called War of Arrows. I'm not quite sure what to think....on the one hand, good action and cinematography, once those elements started to take off. But the story felt typical (family threatened, revenge), not to mention sparse, so I didn't feel much emotion re: the ending. Still, I enjoyed it, particularly for the idea that most of the combat action was based around the bow and arrow, rather than mystical, floating martial arts or swordsmanship. They even showed the hero retrieving his arrows a lot of the time - not that that prevented the arrow-supply from being a bit magical at times..but I appreciated the effort anyway. Heh

The issue/problem is that in terms of intellectual property rights, people never owned those things in the first place. We (usually) didn't own the music, or the TV show, or the game, regardless of whether we had a physical product. The "ownership" was/is an illusion. We owned the plastic the music was pressed into and we purchased the right to play it on a record player. We purchased the right to break the plastic disc in disgust if we hated the music or flush a book down a toilet if the words on the paper offended us. Taking away the physical doesn't alter the fact we (didn't always) own the rights to do whatever we pleased (copy/redistribute) with the conceptual product that was on that piece of plastic. One could always pirate stuff, of course. On a street corner in certain parts of town for example. I don't view piracy on the internet as being any different...it's just a much grander/huger scale, and instead of having to walk around seedy parts of town trying to find an illegal seller, without getting arrested, and paying even $5 to the pirate per item, you sit in your living room and pay nothing but internet access fees. Easier and more tempting all the time, which breeds more and more emotional justifications for doing it. Edit: please note I'm not arguing whether the legal notion of intellectual copyright is "right" or "wrong" in the first place....

Felt terrible again, slept most of the day. I think my Spring/summer allergies are starting to kick in, especially from the maples. Feels like I have a stuffy head cold/flu half the time.

Roman era, Alexander, Greece....basically any of those older "empire" periods. Medieval, mostly for their castle tactics and designs. US Civil War. Other civil wars are interesting too. Feudal Japan. ...largely, military history here as well. The reasons, the tactics, structures, weapons and sometimes the social culture/psychology that developed because of them. Artistic culture can be intriguing as well, but as a whole doesn't tend to interest me much.

Sylvestor Stallone week. I watched Judge Dredd, just to remind myself of how terrible it is. One complaint about the film (re: differing from comic) is about how he takes off his helmet for most of the movie. I've read enough to know in the comic Dredd, you never (?) got to see his face or something like that. And I can see that working in a comic. But in a movie....is he going to shower with it on? Talk to people over the vid-phone while he's at home with it on? Sure, they could and perhaps should have made Stallone keep the helmet on a lot more, but it just starts to feel a little silly and distancing in a film if the chr. never takes it off. I think I've heard the upcoming remake will have him not take it off.....I"ll be curious how that works out. I'm guessing he'll always be on-duty when the story focuses on him. No love scenes. Or keep his face in shadow I suppose.