I likes my Fieros like I likes my women: with a soft-front fascia that resists minor impacts and a smooth, flush-fitting front-end for a streamlined appearance.

>> ^Zyrxil:

I hope they put some of the RPG back in. In many ways, ME2 being good was almost a fluke. The characters were good enough to carry gameplay that was too simplistic and storytelling that didn't flow very well.


Unfortunately that's unlikely, considering they are also 'streamlining' Dragon Age 2. i.e. ripping out RPG elements and making it actioney.

So, the problem with medical costs rising is because it is a private industry? So, unlike nearly ever single other industry on the planet dealing with services, costs will rise with medicine because it is in private hands. That makes no since, and begs the actual answer to the question, why is does it behave that why...if in fact it is behaving that way at all.

Building a house is a very complex thing. Wiring, insulation, foundation, structure, are just a few of the numerous components that specialists install. But, house building in the USA is a completely streamlined, relatively inexpensive thing. Houses, like medical care, are at the very base of the Maslow's Hierarchy. So this isn't a case of a dear good being horded to the loss of all. IMO, the problem remains with the intractable slowness of government and an inability to act in a disinterested way. Meaning, they are ALWAYS going to write laws in a way that there is a winner and a loser, and always be so cumbersome in adapting to the rapid changing medical situation at hand. The same can't be said for normal economic activities. When I buy a house that I like for the price I wanted I feel as much a winner as all those who got paid to make it.

Not to say that the situation of insurance and hospitals even work right now. But legislating this form of care only provides incentive to this system, which may not be the best system to use. Legislation in this critical area of life will only slowdown, derail, hijack, make more costly, overlook, overshadow, real solutions. It is the same reason you don't want the government regulating (and by regulation in this since I mean overseeing the business process) how cars are made, or steal is poured, or food is eaten, or marriage is conducted.

As an aside, I really do wonder why there are no non-profit health insurance companies, like credit unions of health care. Seems like a good idea, has it been done, or does it already exist?

Edit: In reading this back to myself, it sounds overly negative. I like a lot of what this lady had to say, but I just disagree with her diagnosis of the MAIN problem. She seems smart, and non-dogmatic, and I like that; just think she is a bit off the mark.

I didn't have enough information when I initially commented on this video (because the video didn't provide it), and I jumped to conclusions - my bad!! In any event, it would definitely have been helpful if the video had indicated if the otter was a sea otter, river otter, or ...

Here's some fun and interesting information about otters from the World Famous San Diego Zoo web site:
Class: Mammalia (Mammals)
Order: Carnivora
Family: Mustelidae
Genera: 6
Species: 13
Length: largest—giant otter Pteronura brasiliensis, up to 7.8 feet (2.4 meters); smallest—Asian small-clawed otter Amblonyx cinereus, up to 3 feet (0.9 meters)
Weight: largest—sea otter Enhydra lutris, males up to 95 pounds (43 kilograms); smallest—Asian small-clawed otter, up to 11 pounds (5 kilograms)
Life span: 15 to 20 years
Gestation: from 2 months for smaller species to 5 months for sea otters
Number of young at birth: 1 to 5, usually 2
Size at birth: 4.5 ounces (128 grams) for smaller species to 5 pounds (2.3 kilograms) for sea otters
Age of maturity: 2 to 5 years
Conservation status: four species, including the sea otter, are endangered; three otter species are vulnerable.
Fun facts
• You can tell otter species apart by the shape and amount of fur on their noses.
• Unlike other marine mammals, sea otters do not have a layer of blubber to keep them warm; they rely on warm air trapped in their fur. Sea otters have the densest fur of any mammal, with about 100,000 hairs in a space about the size of a postage stamp!
• Most otter species capture prey with their mouths, but Asian small-clawed otters and sea otters have flexible fingers and grab with their hands.
• North American and European river otters have been known to share dens with beavers—but the beavers do all the building!

Mammals: Otter
Range: Africa, Asia, and parts of North America, Central America, and South America
Habitat: sea otters are found in the Pacific Ocean and along the coastline, but most otter species live in rivers, lakes, and marshes

Champion swimmers
Otters are the only serious swimmers in the weasel family. They spend most of their lives in the water, and they are made for it! Their sleek, streamlined bodies are perfect for diving and swimming. Otters also have long, slightly flattened tails that move sideways to propel them through the water while their back feet act like rudders to steer.

Almost all otters have webbed feet, some more webbed than others, and they can close off their ears and noses as they swim underwater. They can stay submerged for about five minutes, because their heart rate slows and they use less oxygen. They’re also good at floating on the water’s surface, because air trapped in their fur makes them more buoyant. Have you ever noticed that when an otter comes out of the water, its outer fur sticks together in wet spikes, while the underneath still seems dry? That’s because they have two layers of fur: a dense undercoat that traps air; and a topcoat of long, waterproof guard hairs. Keeping their fur in good condition is important, so otters spend a lot of time grooming. In fact, if their fur becomes matted with something like oil, it can damage their ability to hunt for food and stay warm.

Party animals
Otters are very energetic and playful. You might say they love to party! They are intelligent and curious, and they are usually busy hunting, investigating, or playing with something. They like to throw and bounce things, wrestle, twirl, and chase their tails. They also play games of "tag" and chase each other, both in the water and on the ground. River otters seem to like sliding down mud banks or in the snow—they’ll do it over and over again! Otters also make lots of different sounds, from whistles, growls, and screams to barks, chirps, and coos. All this activity is part of the otters’ courtship, social bonding, and communication, and since otter pups need practice, they tend to be even more playful than the adults.

Life as a pup
Most otters are born in a den, helpless and with their eyes closed. The mother takes care of them, often chasing the father away after their birth, although in some species the dad may come back after a couple of weeks to help raise them. The babies, called pups, open their eyes and start exploring the den at about one month, start swimming at two months, and stay with their mother and siblings until they are about one year old, when they head off on their own.

For sea otters in their ocean habitat it’s a little different—the pups are born with their eyes open, and they have a special coat of hair so they can float, even though they can’t swim yet. They are carried on their mother’s stomach until they are about two months old, when they start swimming and diving on their own.

For most otters, social groups are made up of a mother, her older offspring, and her newest pups; the males spend most of their time alone or with a few other males. During breeding time or where there’s lots of food, though, larger groups of otters may gather, especially among sea otters in kelp beds.

The seafood diet
Otter food may not all come from the ocean, but it is definitely fishy! River otters eat mostly fish, frogs, crayfish, crabs, and mollusks, with an occasional small mammal or bird. Sea otters eat many of the same things, but mostly sea urchins, abalone, crabs, mussels, and clams, which they crack open against rocks they hold on their stomachs. Otters have long, sensitive whiskers that help them find prey, even in murky water. Some species, like the Asian small-clawed otter Amblonyx cinereus, also use their hands to probe into mud or under rocks to find a tasty meal that might be hiding there. River otters use lots of energy and digest their food very fast, so they eat several times a day. Sea otters need to eat 20 to 25 percent of their body weight each day. That’s a lot of abalone!
The otters at the San Diego Zoo are fed carnivore diet, carrots, and either squid or trout. They also get small amounts of "treats" for enrichment, like crayfish, worms, potatoes, or yams.

>> ^Zyrxil:

The creation process for males: http://videosift.com/video/Eve-Incursion
Also, did anyone else feel like the head to body proportion was off, just a little?


I searched for other vids here but couldn't find them .
The customisation looks more streamlined in the male vid, and I like the musculature overlay. I really hope these ideas are implemented in more RPGs in future releases.

>> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^Yogi:
Like I said in the preview of this Documentary, what has Scientology done that we should care about? I see here some people not seeing their relatives through...choices of their own. And a woman committing suicide...again a choice of her own. Really I can't find any proof that Scientology is responsible for any deaths whatsoever. So why should I care? Let them worship whatever they want with their stupid "All psychiatrists are evil" nonsense, it doesn't matter. Now back to my Sammich.

Right, it doesn't matter. Unless you happen to take issue with the overt corporatism and incredible wealth of the church, as gained through exploitation; leading people through a breadcrumb trail of supposed self-development, with soaring costs the further up you go. Unless you happen to take issue with their opposition to freedom of information and of media whererever such things allow for criticism of the church. Unless you happen to take issue with the fact that Scientologists are impregnating themselves into every area of bureaucracy and, in some cases, law enforcement, and will do whatever the CoS tells them to do. Unless you happen to take issue with the outright and blatant propagandism, lies, obfuscation, intimidation, shit-slinging tactics of the CoS. Unless you happen to take issue with the fact that the CoS is an exceptionally streamlined brainwashing engine - a cult in the most obvious sense - who will destroy lives relentlessly just to maintain the cohesion of the church.
They have unimaginable wealth. They can afford any lawyer and they can afford any lawsuit. They can buy their way into whichever parts of society and establishment that they want to. They employ extremely potent indoctrination techniques and they'll keep on growing and spreading, all under the cushy facade of being a "religion". I think that's a problem. You don't have to agree, but at least be honest; when you say "what has Scientology done that we should care about", you really mean I . Well, I can't speak for you and nor would I presume to, but this cult bothers the fuck out of me, and I'm not going to stop protesting the CoS any time soon.
Enjoy your sammich.


If you want to fight Corporatism that matters start with Monsanto. Start with Newscorp...start with something that has a very large and easily studied effect on every Americans lives. Not just the people who join the Church of Scientology or investigate the church of scientology. If this was such a big block of power in the United States you actually think this documentary would get made? This isn't something that should even concern us, compared to so many other things in our government and corporate entities right now...this is the least of our worries.

>> ^Yogi:

Like I said in the preview of this Documentary, what has Scientology done that we should care about? I see here some people not seeing their relatives through...choices of their own. And a woman committing suicide...again a choice of her own. Really I can't find any proof that Scientology is responsible for any deaths whatsoever. So why should I care? Let them worship whatever they want with their stupid "All psychiatrists are evil" nonsense, it doesn't matter. Now back to my Sammich.


Right, it doesn't matter. Unless you happen to take issue with the overt corporatism and incredible wealth of the church, as gained through exploitation; leading people through a breadcrumb trail of supposed self-development, with soaring costs the further up you go. Unless you happen to take issue with their opposition to freedom of information and of media whererever such things allow for criticism of the church. Unless you happen to take issue with the fact that Scientologists are impregnating themselves into every area of bureaucracy and, in some cases, law enforcement, and will do whatever the CoS tells them to do. Unless you happen to take issue with the outright and blatant propagandism, lies, obfuscation, intimidation, shit-slinging tactics of the CoS. Unless you happen to take issue with the fact that the CoS is an exceptionally streamlined brainwashing engine - a cult in the most obvious sense - who will destroy lives relentlessly just to maintain the cohesion of the church.

They have unimaginable wealth. They can afford any lawyer and they can afford any lawsuit. They can buy their way into whichever parts of society and establishment that they want to. They employ extremely potent indoctrination techniques and they'll keep on growing and spreading, all under the cushy facade of being a "religion". I think that's a problem. You don't have to agree, but at least be honest; when you say "what has Scientology done that *we* should care about", you really mean *I*. Well, I can't speak for you and nor would I presume to, but this cult bothers the fuck out of me, and I'm not going to stop protesting the CoS any time soon.

Enjoy your sammich.

^Yeah, the wall of channels can be pretty intimidating, especially for a new user. There must be a better / more streamlined way of presenting them.

I really like the "styled" look of quoted text, I just have a lot of complaints about the implementation.

First, I don't like that it forces quoted text to the bottom of a comment. Quoted text should appear where it is in the submit window, and if the commenter wants to move it around, they should be able to.

Second, people need to be able to quote multiple snippets of text from someone else's post, which is impossible with the current method.

Third, we need to deprecate the original quote code, otherwise we're just painting ourselves into a corner. Make a special parser for backwards compatibility for the old style (that defaults text to the location within the post it's found in!), and then create a more streamlined way of tagging quotes going forward.

Something like this would be pure awesome:

<quote user="gwiz665" src="http://videosift.com/poll/Regarding-the-comment-quoting-system-that-debuted-in-VS4?loadcomm=1#comment-966227">Too many bugs with it right now. It's annoying as hell.</quote>

Especially if you made src and user optional attributes, with a naked <quote> just putting a box around the text inside.

Fourth, we probably should alter the current style of nested quotes, and literally put the quote boxes inside one another to make it easier to work out who said what to whom. Aesthetically it'd be less attractive, but the current style is pretty much unusable past 1 level of nesting.

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^Raaagh:
You're points seem a bit wishy wash, and I don't find that they refute this presentation. But it does sound like bullshit.
It could be argued that polygons are the biggest limiting factor, especially if you are talking in the context of computation (which the presentation is). If there was infinite polygons, workflow would be much simpler.
I don't get why you say point clouds dont scale as you zoom in, I'm sure you could do pretty awesome pruning, searching, grouping at different point-resolutions. It does seem like each acndidate point/group of points's would have to be in volatile memory, with some groups/branches streamed off the HDD many times per frame. I just really need some numbers to believe the CPU-HDD bridge can handle that.
I would of been convinced by some indication of the processing required to find a single pixel.

I don't see how what I said was "wishy washy"...it was either right or wrong. But 3D graphics is a rather complex field, and I'm not sure I'm being as clear as I should, so let's see if I can make it simpler.
Forget zoom altogether...I'm apparently not expressing my view clearly there.
1) A point cloud requires vastly more memory than polygons. This is a simple fact, and not really subject for debate...3 points define a triangle while 1 triangle defines an infinite number of points. That's an infinite compression rate.
2) With today's video cards, converting polygons to pixels (points) is -not- the limiting factor. The bottleneck (what's slowing the process down) is moving the data to the video card in the first place, not processing.
3) So, a solution that trades increased memory requirements for reduced processing (like this video suggests) is exactly backwards, and provides no benefit in the real world. It would be like streamlining a car to reduce wind resistance when the engine can only reach speeds of 5mph...pointless.
And then there are other more complex problems, polygons offer many other conveniences that points do not. Consider collision detection. Polygons are perfect for that, if something cuts through a polygon, you have a collision. Points are useless for such operations. If you have points A, B, and C, where's the surface you're supposed to collide with? In fact, that question is not even answerable, because a raw collection of points doesn't -have- that information.




Wishy washy comment was made about your arguments, as they are opinion & mainly because you injected your own context into the debate.

1) Crucially, a line is a an infinite number of points.
Possibly when they talk of a "point-cloud" they are meaning an effective "point cloud" once you do the calculations.
You dont need to keep "infinite" points in memory you just need the functions to access them. It might be a series of functions defining a 2/3d map, already been doing this for years in software and hundreds if not thousands of years on paper (nurbs/splines, (beziel curves)

2-a) Converting polygons to pixels is a big computation step, specifically rendering the polygons.

2-b) Too many polygons would saturate the PCI bridge...if they didn't first invent PCI-express, crossfire and the next gen standards for PCIe. Its a roadmap coupling of processing unit and bridge which we have been seeing for the last 20 years. The new PCIe will have 8gb per second, which is EXPECTED to HANDLE the next gen cards.

3) This is where we agree there could be a problem, but I am far less zealous about the impossibility of it (I still think its bullshit).



RE: Collision detection
You seem to be straw-manning the issue, who mentioned that you would need to do away with polygon math in games? Collision detection in games does not occur with the rendered polygons (expect in rare examples) - it occurs with proxy objects (ie invisible, simple 3d shapes)

But just as for the sake of shits n giggles, IF these guys have a magic algorithm for rendering, then it would be academic to create a low res concave or convex proxy object. You could have points defining centres of clusters etc - like it would be doable...IF there is a magic algorithm...

You invoke the "impossible" clause to much - if you are a software developer (like I) I hope you start channelling more Kevin Garnett.


HOWEVER...I happen to agree that this is all too good to be true, and there doesn't seem to be anyway around doing MASSIVE amounts of calculations. I hope to be proved wrong.

Also if its been languishing for years, its almost certainly bullshit: games developers appropriate new technology with gusto from what I have seen.

>> ^Raaagh:
You're points seem a bit wishy wash, and I don't find that they refute this presentation. But it does sound like bullshit.
It could be argued that polygons are the biggest limiting factor, especially if you are talking in the context of computation (which the presentation is). If there was infinite polygons, workflow would be much simpler.
I don't get why you say point clouds dont scale as you zoom in, I'm sure you could do pretty awesome pruning, searching, grouping at different point-resolutions. It does seem like each acndidate point/group of points's would have to be in volatile memory, with some groups/branches streamed off the HDD many times per frame. I just really need some numbers to believe the CPU-HDD bridge can handle that.
I would of been convinced by some indication of the processing required to find a single pixel.


I don't see how what I said was "wishy washy"...it was either right or wrong. But 3D graphics is a rather complex field, and I'm not sure I'm being as clear as I should, so let's see if I can make it simpler.

Forget zoom altogether...I'm apparently not expressing my view clearly there.

1) A point cloud requires vastly more memory than polygons. This is a simple fact, and not really subject for debate...3 points define a triangle while 1 triangle defines an infinite number of points. That's an infinite compression rate.
2) With today's video cards, converting polygons to pixels (points) is -not- the limiting factor. The bottleneck (what's slowing the process down) is moving the data to the video card in the first place, not processing.
3) So, a solution that trades increased memory requirements for reduced processing (like this video suggests) is exactly backwards, and provides no benefit in the real world. It would be like streamlining a car to reduce wind resistance when the engine can only reach speeds of 5mph...pointless.

And then there are other more complex problems, polygons offer many other conveniences that points do not. Consider collision detection. Polygons are perfect for that, if something cuts through a polygon, you have a collision. Points are useless for such operations. If you have points A, B, and C, where's the surface you're supposed to collide with? In fact, that question is not even answerable, because a raw collection of points doesn't -have- that information.

>> ^Abel_Prisc:
Wow, I didn't realize I'd be of a minority on the sift who absolutely loved Mass Effect 2. I have a love affair with Bioware, and think that the Mass Effect universe is so refreshingly original and creative (not to say it's not influenced by other sci-fi brands in some ways, but what sci-fi DOESN'T borrow from other properties?), and I was fine with the fact that they stripped down the RPG mechanics of the first one.
Mainly because ME1 was already a fairly stripped down RPG anyways, so why not streamline it a bit more? Before ME2 came out, a huge number of people complained that ME1 teetered between being a shooter and being an RPG, without enough elements of either to make it flow without feeling a bit awkward. Bioware heard these cries, and decided to streamline it, which in my opinion makes the game a more enjoyable experience ultimately. If they decided to make it a more heavy RPG, like Dragonage, then not only would they alienate a good number of their fans, but it'd be too similar to their other properties. Mass Effect stands on it's own ground, and I can only hope that the trilogy will be held as one of the great storylines in video game history. That's what it is to me.
I was so bummed when I finished the game. Right now I'm working through ME1 again so I can use an imported character.
And Netrunner, I agree. But that's generally how part two's go in trilogies these days. Part one is always a standalone nemesis, then part two sets up the storyline for the real big problem and focuses more on the intricate side-stories, while part three focuses entirely on the huge main-plot finale.
(Not much of a spoiler, but still...) SPOILERS I really wish that I could find more out about the Illusive Man, though. I'm looking forward to what they plan with that character. I still get that feeling that although he hasn't really done anything totally questionable, I still shouldn't trust him. Plus, those eyes creep me out! END SPOILERS


I completely loved ME2, with few exceptions. As I said before, HATED the mako, so I'm quite glad it wasn't in. My one biggest complaint was the storyline. I actually at one point in the story thought to myself "I hope this isn't just a "get all the characters and do the final mission" kind of game" And.. well, that's what it turned out to be. I just really wished there'd be more missions to do with them. I love the different reactions your crew brings to whatever you're doing, and wanted to see more of it. Unfortunately after a while you run out of things you can do with the second tier of people you can get. (And since they're second tier, you get even less with them, I really wanted to do more missions and whatnot with thane & Legion)
I just wish gathering characters was a secondary objective, rather then prettymuch primary story.

Ahh well, where's crashbug? He works for bioware right? Lets all go give him praise and bitch him out at the same time

Wow, I didn't realize I'd be of a minority on the sift who absolutely loved Mass Effect 2. I have a love affair with Bioware, and think that the Mass Effect universe is so refreshingly original and creative (not to say it's not influenced by other sci-fi brands in some ways, but what sci-fi DOESN'T borrow from other properties?), and I was fine with the fact that they stripped down the RPG mechanics of the first one.

Mainly because ME1 was already a fairly stripped down RPG anyways, so why not streamline it a bit more? Before ME2 came out, a huge number of people complained that ME1 teetered between being a shooter and being an RPG, without enough elements of either to make it flow without feeling a bit awkward. Bioware heard these cries, and decided to streamline it, which in my opinion makes the game a more enjoyable experience ultimately. If they decided to make it a more heavy RPG, like Dragonage, then not only would they alienate a good number of their fans, but it'd be too similar to their other properties. Mass Effect stands on it's own ground, and I can only hope that the trilogy will be held as one of the great storylines in video game history. That's what it is to me.

I was so bummed when I finished the game. Right now I'm working through ME1 again so I can use an imported character.

And Netrunner, I agree. But that's generally how part two's go in trilogies these days. Part one is always a standalone nemesis, then part two sets up the storyline for the real big problem and focuses more on the intricate side-stories, while part three focuses entirely on the huge main-plot finale.

(Not much of a spoiler, but still...)***SPOILERS*** I really wish that I could find more out about the Illusive Man, though. I'm looking forward to what they plan with that character. I still get that feeling that although he hasn't really done anything totally questionable, I still shouldn't trust him. Plus, those eyes creep me out! *END SPOILERS*

1. Townspeople standing around over a mining shaft to Armageddon? Check.
2. Three superficial character classes, that could essentially do the same thing with minor class difference super powers? Check.
3. Big titties. Check.
4. May have to purchase a new mouse from wearing out your old one clicking on everything because there are no options for auto-loot or WASD to move. Check.
5. "Easy" is meant for those who are still fully entertained by LOLzCATS and should, by all accounts, be wearing a helmet when taking a shower. Check.
6. Why has your pet returned to the balcony above you, being chewed on by ten dragons? Or stuck in the other room behind you...being chewed upon by ten dragons? Check.
7. Eight identify scrolls and twenty unidentified items. Check.
8. Forty-nine health and mana potions of various sizes? Check.

I paid $10 for it off Steam. Played it for a week, got my money's worth, but it was around level 64 on my Vanquisher, using my explosive shot melty facey thingy that I was wondering what it was that I should be aiming for. Upon researching the game's "plot", I was saddened to find that I completed the main storyline back in my thirties.

I had no idea.

Sure, jack up the difficulty setting to very hard or nightmare to make it more challenging, but walking around town on your hands doesn't make all the rest of your life's inadequacies that much more bearable because it's now "more challenging".

Frankly, I think the review is spot on. The game is fun, but it is also streamlined, unoriginal, overuses the mouse clicking and is quite boring.

But if you got it cheap...well, there you go.

"Make sure that every highschool graduate is college-ready and career-ready."

That's a point I do not share entirely. Preparing them only for college or a career leads to a streamlining effect that might turn them into efficient workers, but pathetic persons. Schools should prepare you for life first and foremost. Some classes might be completely unneccessary for your job/college qualification, but paramount to shaping your personality.

I'm only mentioning this, because our universities used to offer a decent humanistic education until they were streamlined to produce "a capable workforce" instead. Schools are transformed this way as well, spitting out assembly-line robots incapable of forming their own opinion.