The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - findthumb requested by eric3579.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

Your video, Moby & The Void Pacific Choir - Are You Lost In The World Li, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - findthumb requested by Zifnab.

The short answer is "It depends!"

I know it's a crappy answer, but there are way too many parameters at play. There are many games today that have scripted scenes in them that are pretty cinematic. Think of GTA III, from 2001. The cut scenes in that game still outshine the actual gameplay of GTA V today.

If the scene is scripted, then all the animation, and camera movement can be fine tuned and all compute resources are pooled into the viewport of the camera. This allows the artists to focus all of the trickery on the shot itself, but not the rest of the world. From a PVS or scene-graph stand point, you have pretty much reduced the complexity to just what you are seeing.

I do not know how they made this demo and cannot comment on it with any authoritative capital. I've written 3D engines before (not for videogames though) and can comment on the technology I think I'm seeing here. My comments are just an opinion based on what I know. I do not have access to Unity and have never used it before. But here it goes:

For a scene like this, there should be reduced/canned computation in:

• Collision detection and response
  
• AI
  
• Animation / IK
  
• PVS
  
• Texture Atlasing
  

The shaders, unless they are geometry (the ripping of the skin/flesh in the Adam scene) could or could not be reduced in scope and complexity. I am not sure if they are scripted or dynamic. By scripted, I mean a geometry shader that reads vertex data from a VBO stream or some memory buffer instead of computing the vertices on the fly. It's still real-time, just not dynamic.

Most of the graphics you see here are standard applications of technology that's been around for a while:

• PBR shader
  
• Motion Blur Shader
  
• Depth of Field Shader
  
• Cascaded Shadow Maps Shader
  

The particle system seems pretty standard as well.

This is a great demo and I am extremely impressed with the art direction, but the engine itself is, after all, Unity with PBR for the characters, and maybe Global Illumation for the indoor scenes, which I believe they licensed from Geomerics.

The senate and house official websites can be confusing, but you can find full voting records there.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_114_2.htm

The links under the vote tally column are what you want, and the votes were on the 20th.

Not 100% by party lines, but pretty close.

The only textual interpretation they should do is to understand the meanings behind the words.
(Like the subject at hand : what was the functional definition of the words "well regulated" in 1791.)

The act of deciding "well, they wrote X, but we think they would have written Y had they thought of these new circumstances, so we're going with what we think" is taking things too far. (eg. concepts like : surreptitious telephone wiretap law applying to overt public video/audio recording)

The legislature exists for a reason. Writing/Updating laws is what they are here for. Let them do their job and legislate new laws that alter the scope/definition of old ones.


The problem with case law is that there is no Federal/State/Country/City LIS system where you can just search for whatever laws apply to whatever activities. You would need access to legal databases, like say LexisNexis. Even lawyers don't read case results directly to know what the decisions mean, they use summarizing services that outline the fallout of court decisions in terms of enforcible concepts. Ironically, these summaries are copyrighted, and the public at large is not allowed to know what those enforcible concepts are without paying.

IMO, I think eminent is easiest confused with emanating. Because the concepts behind them are so similar. One sticks-out-of, the other oozes-out-of. If you said that 'an eminent thing emanates from something', you would be so so close to literally correct.

-scheherazade

It worked for me, random glitch perhaps? The list of regions allowed is fairly extensive, so it's probably not blocked (are there any missing? Canada and the US are both included):

"regionsAllowed" content="AD,AE,AF,AG,AI,AL,AM,AO,AQ,AR,AS,AT,AU,AW,AX,AZ,BA,BB,BD,BE,BF,BG,BH,BI,BJ,BL,BM,BN,BO,BQ,BR,BS,BT,BV,BW,BY,BZ,CA,CC,CD,CF,CG,CH,CI,CK,CL,CM,
CN,CO,CR,CU,CV,CW,CX,CY,CZ,DE,DJ,DK,DM,DO,DZ,EC,EE,EG,EH,ER,ES,ET,FI,FJ,FK,FM,FO,FR,GA,GB,GD,GE,GF,GG,GH,GI,GL,GM,GN,GP,GQ,GR,GS,GT,GU,GW,GY,HK,HM,HN,
HR,HT,HU,ID,IE,IL,IM,IN,IO,IQ,IR,IS,IT,JE,JM,JO,JP,KE,KG,KH,KI,KM,KN,KP,KR,KW,KY,KZ,LA,LB,LC,LI,LK,LR,LS,LT,LU,LV,LY,MA,MC,MD,ME,MF,MG,MH,MK,ML,MM,MN,
MO,MP,MQ,MR,MS,MT,MU,MV,MW,MX,MY,MZ,NA,NC,NE,NF,NG,NI,NL,NO,NP,NR,NU,NZ,OM,PA,PE,PF,PG,PH,PK,PL,PM,PN,PR,PS,PT,PW,PY,QA,RE,RO,RS,RU,RW,SA,SB,SC,SD,SE,
SG,SH,SI,SJ,SK,SL,SM,SN,SO,SR,SS,ST,SV,SX,SY,SZ,TC,TD,TF,TG,TH,TJ,TK,TL,TM,TN,TO,TR,TT,TV,TW,TZ,UA,UG,UM,US,UY,UZ,VA,VC,VE,VG,VI,VN,VU,WF,WS,YE,YT,ZA,
ZM,ZW"

@Gratefulmom

Hey, if parents want to send their kids to a completely unregulated daycare where the "education" is having kids swing sticks around in the rain and -20 degree weather, that's their choice (though it sounds to me more like ancient Sparta than a modern Kindergarten).

As for me, on the other hand, I prefer my daughter get the scientifically proven lifelong benefits of a proper preschool education. See this book for an example of the scientific evidence I'm talking about.

All the science I've seen on kids playing outdoors (including that on outdoor kindergartens: see for example this article) shows that around 1-2 hours a day outside is enough to see significant results. My daughter gets at least that much in the park after kindergarten most days when the weather is nice, so I'm not so worried about her development.

There are BLM activists who make inflammatory comments about white people (oh no whatever shall we do) and there are feminists who make inflammatory comments about men (oh no whatever shall we do). I posit, for your reasoned consideration:

1) We can pretty much take it; we as a group already have most of the money, most of the privilege, and most of the presidents. We don't need a safe space.

2) In neither case are we talking about the 'majority' of either movement, and the instances where people are horrible shits do not invalidate the justice and relevance of their respective movements.

3) My list is doubly convincing because it's got bullet points and numbers.

Also, please don't say that men suffer from most or all of the opression that women suffer, as much or to a greater degree, without sources. I'll give you some examples of what you could have done:

Women suffer from a gender pay gap compared with men. (Example source: a crazy feminist blog called the US department of Labor, "Highlights of women's earnings in 2013")

Women suffer from a political power gap compared with men. (Example source: a scurrilous lesbian twitter account called the World Economic Forum, "Annual Global Gender Gap Report 2015")

Women suffer from sexual violence at much greater rates than men (Example source: some man-hating bull dyke known as the CDC, "Sexual violence facts at a glance, 2012")

See, that's what you could have done.

Given the actual facts I have a hard time seeing how anyone has 'destroyed' feminism.

All right, I'm probably feeding a troll, but since I'm starting an advocacy group I'm inevitably going to have to deal with a lot of them so here goes. Wish me luck.

I've heard this argument so many times. So many times. Almost as many times as I hear "how do vegans get enough protein"? (I'll stop asking you about your fiber intake and cholesterol if you stop asking me about my protein levels). So, in retort, I thought I'd appeal to logic. I went to ol' wikipedia to find all the fallacies that you are using. I thought I'd find 1, 2, or maybe 3. Instead I found 8. And I crossed off the ones that were true, but not necessarily in this specific argument:

1. Straw Man - I don't believe any vegan is proposing to save the whole world. We are trying to make a difference in the lives of animals. Your straw man is that our goal is to save the world. It is not.



2. Tu Quoque/Appeal to Hypocrisy - Regardless of whether we're supposedly hypocritical or not, you have refused to address the moral question at hand. Not the morality of saving the world, but of the moral importance of animals.



3. False Dilemma - Your proposition is that either we save the world or we do nothing. It is not a problem with only 2 solutions.



4. Ignoratio Elenchi/Irrelevant Conclusion - Again, we are not discussing the saving of the world. We are talking about the moral treatment of animals.



5. Nirvana Fallacy - You'll never have heaven on earth. That's not the argument.



6. Red Herring - A favourite argument for many. We are not talking about human suffering.



7. Vacuous Truth - Surprise! There will always be suffering in the world! I know that. We're not talking about that.



8. Moral High Ground Fallacy - I think this one speaks for itself.

If you respond to any of these things, I'll respond. Otherwise, I realize it's a waste of my breath. Thanks!

@oritteropo:

The video definitely answers some questions:

1. She goes to an arts school and was able to do "anything" for her final project. No dig to her, but there's some privileged shit right there.


2. She's not super attractive, but she's cute and obviously very extroverted, friendly, and undoubtedly popular. If I was a shy nerd and was confronted by her (and probably having seen her be this way before in the halls), I'd definitely be skeptical and assume she was being an asshole to me.


3. Regardless, she does seem pretty genuine.


4. God damn, college art kids are annoying with all their "wow, I'm so laid back I fucking curse all the fucking time for no fucking reason or some shit. Fuck."

QUA

LI

TY

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - findthumb requested by eric3579.


The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 4:51 - length declared by eric3579.