Sorry, I was referring to the latency papers that @ChaosEngine posted. He mentions that their head-tracking sensor is capable of 2ms samples. That is indeed impressive for consumer level tracking. However he goes on to say that they use this "density of samples" to integrate a more accurate measure of position. In other words, they average over multiple temporal samples in order to achieve a more accurate spatial measure. However, if you do that, the samples you are using to produce a head position instantaneously is at least partially influenced by spatial information collected more than 2ms ago. When you do this too much you'll get sluggish head tracking which lags the head, and can often make people sick. However so can the alternative of low-latency though spatially noisy head tracking. That will just look jerky and spastic instead of sluggish. It's a balance, but his suggestion that they chose to average suggests that they needed to due to noise in their custom sensor. I have no doubt these guys have done a better job than previous attempts at low cost HMD systems. I just don't think they've done anything ground breaking, and even the cutting-edge technology I find unsatisfying.

@shinyblurry

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve … to maintain order in His kingdom.

I can't tell if you're disagreeing or off topic. I'll state again what I think I have heard you say or suggest: God gave us humans free will. He loves us, and knew what would be the best way for us to live, so, out of love, he gave us a set of laws to follow for our own good. In order to encourage us to follow those laws, he established hell as punishment for choosing to violate those laws: the worst possible eternal torture.

Have I made any mistakes in there?

[me:]What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

[you:]God created not out of need, but out of the abundance of His love.

I said and I meant "want" (not "need"). You've said many times that God wanted/desired us to exist and behave in certain ways, and you used words like "(un)satisfactory" to describe God's opinion of us/robots, and so forth. Any understanding of those words necessarily implies a lack of something. You cannot want/desire/be unsatisfied unless that thing addresses your lack of something that would make you better off in some way. Every single human action can be attributed to a lack or want (or need). But a perfect all-powerful God would have none of these. He would be at Nirvana, a persistent state of satisfaction with nothing but the self. So "want" and "perfect" make a contradiction. Can you address either my founding statements or my logic?

[me:]You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

[you:]Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Again, you didn't answer. Why did it have to be Jesus? God is all-powerful, so he could have sent a puppy or a bamboo plant or a paramecium to bear our sins and be killed. Or he could have decided it required 40 children of his to be sacrificed. Why just one man?

Before the world began, God knew that He would need to send His Son.

Because being in the image of God isn't about what God looks like, it is about being imbued with His personal attributes. We resemble Him in our better nature, not our appearance.

Cool. Is there Biblical reason to assert that this is the correct interpretation of "in his image"?

[me:]What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences … forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin?

[you:]I understand what you're saying. You're not going to see the picture before you connect all of the dots. I'll keep supplying you the dots as I am able. I think I explained this particular question to you in more specific detail this time around, as to why the separation occurred.

I'm asking you all this to see if there's ever going to be an end or a logic to the trail of dots without having to presuppose the conclusion that gave rise to the dots in the first place. Every dot seems to give rise to another dot. Like you say about secular morality, it's a recursive chain of dots off to infinity, each dot raising more questions than it answers. Such a system would, by literal definition, not be rational: if it goes on to infinity, then it can never be rationalized.

He knew before He created that His creation would rebel at some point, and He took the necessary steps to reconcile it back to Himself at the end of time. He didn't screw up, but He did create beings capable of screwing up. To allow for the real possibility of good, He also had to allow for the real possibility of evil.

Are humans satisfying to God in whatever capacity we were created?

When scripture says "the law" what it is reffering to is the Mosaic law that was given at Mt Sinai … What we had in the beginning was not a law, but simply a choice.

So humanity had no laws from God for all that time (hundreds or thousands of years) until Mt. Sinai? We were allowed to do anything at all we wanted without fear of any punishment from God?

Honestly, I never understood the ending until I learned how others interpreted it.

http://www.kubrick2001.com/

>> ^spoco2:

And in the end. I am one of those people that finds 2001 to be an unsatisfying movie. It has some awesome moments, some iconic shots and scenes, but overall it is a bit rubbish in it's conclusion.
From listening to Arthur C Clark, it would seem that's because they didn't have a good story to begin with, and I think it shows. It seemed to be a case of 'we've got these ideas that'd be good to make a movie out of'... and they just went ahead with making that movie before actually creating a workable narrative from those ideas.

And in the end. I am one of those people that finds 2001 to be an unsatisfying movie. It has some awesome moments, some iconic shots and scenes, but overall it is a bit rubbish in it's conclusion.

From listening to Arthur C Clark, it would seem that's because they didn't have a good story to begin with, and I think it shows. It seemed to be a case of 'we've got these ideas that'd be good to make a movie out of'... and they just went ahead with making that movie before actually creating a workable narrative from those ideas.

>> ^kymbos:

I was looking forward to finding out about 'Tax Athiests'. I am unsatisfied.


Here ya go!

http://jonathanrobinson.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/jimmycarr.jpg

>> ^kymbos:

I was looking forward to finding out about 'Tax Athiests'. I am unsatisfied.


....Similarly, I expected to find out about tax-dodging atheists who use their disbelief in God to include ALL, God-like institutions.

@Quboid ~ Hell yeah!!?? Tax the unhealthy and those who have caused their health problems. Television, Monsanto, manufacturers of the shit, advertisers, etc. AND, a point of sale tax for any food that is not organic, kind, or kosher!!

Churches should have 10 per-cent of their tithes received as well, go straight into the healthcare system...which incidentally is cranking along in the black now that diabetes and heart disease are virtually non-existent AGAIN ~

I was looking forward to finding out about 'Tax Athiests'. I am unsatisfied.

Saying normla mode is easy is because it is normal mode.


Many people will only ever play it once. Those people have to play normal, and for many of those players normal sucks and they knew it was going to.

For someone like me, it meant that the first time I saw the content it was in fast forward mode (trying to escape the mindless, challenge-free boredom of normal mode), which ruined what might have been some more enjoyable content.

And it's ridiculous that I can't start a new character on Nightmare (just make him level 30 with no gear... whatever). This means I can't reasonably play with a friend who's behind me in levels (he's 30, I'm around 50) without doing another 10 hour slog. And I can't try another character without a 10 hour slog.

I don't want to do any slogs. Just let me play the fun parts of a game, please.

Also, they should have made "elective mode" either default or a little more noticeable (because the game is much worse without it).

The skill system means gear is the only way your character is actually different than others. It works, but it takes something away from the game. The way difficulty scales is really unsatisfying. It doesn't feel like your skills are tested; it feels more like your gear and stamina are being tested. Skills and item balance were not well tested before launch. I don't know how this was done so poorly by a company with so much experience.

It's a good game.. but not nearly as good as I expected, with very little innovation, and with a few really questionable decisions. I'm pretty much done with it.

By the time the ending rolled up for me, I was just glad to finally get there. I'd been avoiding all the whiny rants and articles spoiling the ending but eventually just pushed myself to sit down and finish it and was relieved to have finally done it. The game itself, i found a chore to get through. Now the more I think about it, the more unsatisfying it was but simply because of lack of info, not because of the events, there's lots of "why did that..."s and "then what happened?"s leaving you feeling unfulfilled.

There is one criticism that has little merit... to keep it spoiler free... um; they CAN actually still do it, I mean that bit wasn't the only way, it's just not as... good. Maybe we should have like hidden spoiler text options or something, because that made no sense.

As for the game itself, in my opinion while it's not dreadful, it is very average. It's certainly not fantastic. The combat's pretty average, the visuals are fugly, animations are awful, cinematics were sometimes laughable, was super buggy, dialogue wasn't great, dialogue choices were be a dick or be Jesus with what you select and what you say sometimes being exactly NOT what you wanted, and the RPG mechanics were non-existent. It does have a great universe and great over arcing story, which is why people love it and love Bioware. But makes me want to finally try Dragon Age Origins to see how a proper RPG is done

I find the show uneven. Sometimes it's very compelling; sometimes its just boring. I like the characters, but I don't always find the writing believable, which takes away from my connection to the characters. I dislike that so much of the show is devoted to characters arguing about what to do next. It just feels to me like they are wasting time with cheap dialog so they don't have to spend a lot of money on more elaborate zombie scenes. I also hate how they so often introduce an arbitrary problem to solve that has little or nothing to do with the overall plot.

I'm not sure if the narrative is tighter in the graphic novel or not, since I haven't read it.

I wouldn't have saved Randall in the first place. Why risk your brains trying to save someone who was trying to kill you in the face of a huge swarm of zombies? If they went through all the trouble of saving him, they should probably not execute him. Had they not tortured him, they might have been able to let him go without worry or even let him become part of the group, but now that he has been brutalized, he is likely to seek revenge when given the opportunity. It's probably an allegory for Abu Grabe. I say they drive him back to the school bus and give him a fighting chance. All alone, he'd probably not survive anyway, but he'd be left in far better shape than he was when they found him.

As for Dale, it seemed like a terribly unsatisfying way to kill off a major character. He's just randomly walking in the woods at night by himself and gets killed by a zombie. Weak. Dale was the voice of humanity and reason, so why not let him die doing something selfless. Take a lesson from Game of Thrones: when you are going to unexpectedly kill off major characters, milk it! I guess the point is that if the kid had not antagonized the zombie, or alternately shot the zombie, that Dale would still be alive - which is analogous to the Randall situation.

I'd love to see the characters abandon the farm. The story would be a lot more interesting if they were on the move, exploring the ruins of society, encountering different people and different conflicts along the way.

I predict that Daryl's handless brother will be a member of Randall's group.

I foresee unsatisfied girlfriends in his future.

The thing that put me off was suddenly being a floating head in front of the sun, all i could guess is that it was a bit like hallucinations hence mania. The rest of it works for depression i think - if you imagine that the "happy" bits are non-depressed and the "unhappy" bits are depressed. The artist perhaps had to over exaggerate both sides a touch because it's hard to describe feelings in words. In the non-depressed bit, life looks like it should; birds sing, leaves fall, you don't feel at odds with the world (1st bit), things seem alive for a change, the world spins and there are things to enjoy (the town scene). In the depressed bits everything feels uncomfortable and unsatisfying and generally grim (1st bit), constant reminder of there being no real purpose, no reason to do anything before you die, the world spins on, your life and death were irrelevant (grave surrounded by planet earth bit).

Look, i am ALL up for a revolution, but what are they achieving? Are average non-protesting people like you or me going to go and camp out in wall street?

We're primed and ready for an inspiring figure to crop up as a spokesperson for this .. generation unsatisfied. Before that happens, there's no good aim or good goal, no centre of instruction/information/advice.

We're just a lot of people that are unhappy, and we probably can't explain clearly WHY we are unhappy. Everyone's unhappy about something, and everyone thinks it leads back to the government, but until someone links all of our unhappiness together towards a common goal, it's going to be quantity not quality when it comes to protests.

hey look..you are poorly informed here..you said my response was very unsatisfying and also inaccurate to boot? you stated that zoroasterism is older than judiasm as if it were an undisputed fact; well sorry but that is not the prevailing viewpoint. there is a lot of misinformation out there on this subject. if you just want to look at the merits of the case the Zoroaster belief is primitive by comparison, if one could be identified as a crude copy, that would be it.

The Christ Conspiracy is the main source of information in Zeitgeist].
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-acharya-s/a-refutation-of-archary-ss-book-the-christ-conspiracy-pt-1.html

Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/12/zeitgeist-of-zeitgeist-movie.html

The Death of the Mystery Gods and the Death of Jesus

The best way to evaluate the alleged dependence of early Christian beliefs about Christ's death and resurrection on the pagan myths of a dying and rising savior-god is to examine carefully the supposed parallels. The death of Jesus differs from the deaths of the pagan gods in at least six ways:

(1) None of the so-called savior-gods died for someone else. The notion of the Son of God dying in place of His creatures is unique to Christianity.[13]

(2) Only Jesus died for sin. As Gunter Wagner observes, to none of the pagan gods "has the intention of helping men been attributed. The sort of death that they died is quite different (hunting accident, self-emasculation, etc.)."[14]

(3) Jesus died once and for all (Heb. 7:27; 9:25-28; 10:10-14). In contrast, the mystery gods were vegetation deities whose repeated deaths and resuscitations depict the annual cycle of nature.

(4) Jesus' death was an actual event in history. The death of the mystery god appears in a mythical drama with no historical ties; its continued rehearsal celebrates the recurring death and rebirth of nature. The incontestable fact that the early church believed that its proclamation of Jesus' death and resurrection was grounded in an actual historical event makes absurd any attempt to derive this belief from the mythical, nonhistorical stories of the pagan cults.[15]

(5) Unlike the mystery gods, Jesus died voluntarily. Nothing like this appears even implicitly in the mysteries.

(6) And finally, Jesus' death was not a defeat but a triumph. Christianity stands entirely apart from the pagan mysteries in that its report of Jesus' death is a message of triumph. Even as Jesus was experiencing the pain and humiliation of the cross, He was the victor. The New Testament's mood of exultation contrasts sharply with that of the mystery religions, whose followers wept and mourned for the terrible fate that overtook their gods.[16]


>> ^enoch:
a whole page concerning zarathustra?
didnt you already answer this question?
and how does this page you link conflict with zoroastrian influence in the bible?
it confirms the influence on early biblical scribes.
/confused
and i notice still no answer on my other queries.
if you are unable to i understand.
again.i thank you for your prompt reply.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORtusl7P_0E

>> ^shinyblurry:
The only question is "Is Jesus Christ who He said He is?" Is He risen? This is personally verifiable by every man women and child on the face of the planet. So even if zoroastrianism was older, which I don't believe it is, it is a dead religion which offers nothing ultimately. If you put it to the test it will fail, but Jesus will pass the test...He already did for you..
>> ^enoch:
so satan did it.
thats your answer.
would it make a difference if i pointed out that zoroastrianism is pre-judaism?
and therefore could NEVER be a carbon copy since it predates judaism.
you never qualified if you were a preterist nor which theologogical school of thought you subscribed to.
my guess is that you read the KJV and are evidently evangelical.
based on just those factors i would guess calvinism.(see? i even answered one for you bud).
well,
i have to say that was a very unsatisfying answer.
but i do thank you for your prompt reply.