Btw, I have always wondered why some people bother with the Mirror's Edge exploit that unlocks the third-person view. Playing from that point of view just sucks big time. The immersion is completely gone, and overall the game looks a hundred times more boring. So what's the point?
However, doubling the resolution will drastically increase the bitrate needed for the video to look good, and with the site's nature of extremely low bitrates at the cost of quality, I don't see it being beneficial.
Define "drastically". In my experience it might require something like 20% of bitrate increase, and in some cases not even that. (In fact, there are types of video which improve in visual quality with a higher resolution while using the exact same bitrate).
Doubling the video resolution certainly does not require doubling the bitrate to retain the same quality. That's just an odd misconception many people have.
IQs started dropping after they started teaching the theory of evolution in schools (students started acting like monkeys and going apeshit), and after the sexual hippie revolution IQ started dropping even more
It really worries me how around the world schooling systems are dumbing down the teaching of math, especially in the US.
It seems that the current trend is to dismiss the old way of calculating eg. additions, multiplications and divisions mechanically by hand as old-fashioned and obsolete. Instead, especially in the US, the modern trend is to try to make pupils learn to do math "intuitively". Some books and even some schools completely skip teaching the accurate mechanical way of calculating those things, and instead resort to what amounts to "if it's too difficult to quickly calculate in your head, just use a calculator".
There's nothing wrong in learning to do math in your head intuitively. However, when this completely replaces the old good accurate way of doing it on paper, that's when things go wrong. People fail to learn the most basic principles of math, even for such simple things as addition and multiplication.
I think the schooling systems are missing the point. All they think is "nowadays you don't need to mechanically calculate things on paper by hand, that's just a waste of time". What they fail to realize is that understanding how simple math works helps understanding how more complicated math works. If you are not fluent using the most basic tools, you can't use them for more complicated tasks.
My mplayer is svn r29040 and x264 from May 2nd 2009. Some day I think in August 2008 they changed something about the codec that makes it scramble on older decoders. You might want to update either of them, probably both.
A suse repository had a pretty recent version of mplayer (and the x264 codec). It works now ok.
Derakon wrote:
I'd say the run doesn't complete all the levels because that would be a very boring run. If level 20 took 60 seconds to complete and level 1 took, say, 10 seconds to complete (so adding 2.5 seconds of additional time per level) then you're looking at a 12-minute-long run, which is pretty long for a simple game like this.
IMO 12 minutes is not long for this type of game. I would most probably enjoy it. I have never played the game, but I don't think all the levels are identical to each other, or are they?
There's something wrong with the video file. It looks like this when I play it with mplayer:
Btw, about the run itself: Why beat only level 20? Why not all the levels?
The classical proof that there are infinitely many primes is a proof by contradiction: Let's assume that there's a largest prime. If we multiply all the primes up to that largest prime and add 1, we get a number which is not divisible by any of the primes, and thus the assumption we made is false: There was a prime which is larger than the one we assumed was the largest.
However, consider this: 2*3*5*7*11*13 + 1 = 30031, which is a composite number.
Isn't this a contradiction to the proof? It clearly doesn't hold that the product of the first n primes plus 1 is a prime.
How to explain this apparent contradiction?
EDIT: Here's a problem for you: Let's assume you have a sequence of numbers satisfying a(k+1) = (5*a(k)+5)mod256, with a(0)=0. As it turns out, if you look at all the numbers a(0), a(1), a(2), ..., a(255), they take every value between 0 and 255 exactly once. Why is this? If you have the sequence a(k+1) = (c*a(k) + b)mod256, a(0)=d, for what values of b,c and d does this property hold? (I don't know the answer to this, but I'd really like to know)
I didn't know the answer myself either, but since you need this information, I made a bit of research to find out. I recognize that formula to be a linear congruential generator, and the wikipedia article kindly tells us exactly when a LCG has maximal period (which is what you are looking for).
Let m be your modulo, ie. in this case 256. The period will be maximal if and only if:
1) b and m are relatively prime,
2) c - 1 is divisible by all prime factors of m,
3) c - 1 is a multiple of 4 if m is a multiple of 4.
Since this thread has been silent for a long time, here's a small problem to warm you up a bit again:
Prove that the factorization of any natural number is unique (except for a possible reordering of the factors).
But wouldn't using many static libraries be more space-consuming than using one dynamic?
Yes, but sometimes you don't want to use a dynamic library eg. because the library is not very widely used (ie. can't be expected to be installed in all linux distros by default, for example) and you want to distribute a binary executable of your program. A static library will be linked to the executable at linking time. The advantage of having it as a (system-wide) static library is that if more than one program uses it, it will only be stored in your hard disk once, rather than once for each such program.
What if I wanted to make an executable without any library (including libc) dependencies? Would that be simple? Would it even be possible?
It is perfectly possible to create an executable which does not depend on any dynamic library whatsoever (and sometimes this is necessary when you are making eg. some very specialized ramdisk apps for a boot disk). I think gcc even has a command-line option for this precise purpose (-static).
Of course your executable will probably become rather large.
If you want to support utf-8 (and utf-16 and a bunch of others) in your C++ program, I have found this library to be unusually well made for that purpose: http://utfcpp.sourceforge.net/
(Of course fluently using it requires that you are fluent with SDL-fu, such as insert iterators, but this should be rather obvious for any self-respecting C++ programmer.)
Warp: you also have to trade off security against the time required to implement that security. There's little sense in devoting a lot of effort to cheat-proofing a system that'll only be used by a small community, for example. In that situation you're better-served by relying on societal pressure to keep people from cheating.
I don't think disabling the cheats in the emulator and obfuscating the data sent to the server requires that much work. (Eg. the obfuscation part should only take a few lines of code.)
Cheating can never be completely prevented, but cheating being too easy should be avoided as well. If cheating is way too easy, it can tempt some people doing it. Even in a honor-based system removing the temptation of cheating by making it hard is a good idea. There should always be a minimum threshold of difficulty in cheating.
Creating a special version of the emulator with all cheating mechanisms completely disabled, distributing the emulator in only binary format, and the server only accepting the data from that version of the emulator is a good idea. If this data is sent eg. as a movie record file, the file should be "non-standard" (ie. specific to this version of the emulator). It could eg. use some kind of light encryption (eg. xorring all bytes with a high-quality RNG, the seed being inside the executable somewhere).
This won't stop a determined person from disassembling the executable and finding out the exact encryption mechanism (which will allow him to create and encrypt the movie files with the normal version of the emulator), but the main idea is that there's a minimum threshold of difficulty in doing so, and thus the temptation of cheating is minimized.
Most players which support softsubs in mkv files certainly have an option to turn them off.
If you happened to be using mplayer, just press v to toggle them.
Suggestion thread. The 14% run has been suggested. I don't think arguing over it here is the best use of this thread.
I think this is the most rational suggestion on this issue.
Let that run be bumped to the submission forums, and let the flamewar be continued in that thread. No need to garbage this thread.
I would have also submitted (at the site) Chrono Cross, if there was a movie file to submit in the first place.
When you first made it, it had novelty: It used clever tricks for tool-assistance at a time where there was no working emulator with rerecording capabilities.
However, by today's standard your run, while cool, is lacking. As you yourself point out in the run's webpage, it has obvious flaws and non-optimal play (much of which cannot be defended as being entertainment/speed tradeoffs). The goals are also a bit vague (your run is not even nearly as fast as the fastest possible would be).
(Keep in mind that all tool-assisted features would probably be turned off for said modified emulators, limiting them to behaving just about like a console.)
How would you make sure nobody cheats? I don't think it's possible.
As for an idea: Complete FF1 with a party of four white mages.
(Ok, it's not an original idea, but sounds cool.)
To that end, I also think relaxing the restrictions on what kind of movies would be publishable is a good idea.
During the years I have proposed at least a half dozen times that the published movies could be divided into radically different categories, depending on what their goals are. To recapitulate:
1) Pure speed: All that matters is the number of frames used to complete the game. (Entertainment is, of course, extremely important, but only as long as it doesn't make the run slower.)
2) Speed, but with alternate goals: Like above, but with some (rational) imposed limitation, aiming for entertainment, such as for example "collects 100% of items", "uses alternative route", "does not use save file corruption", etc.
3) Superplay: The game is completed, but not as fast as possible. Instead, superhuman feats are the goal.
4) Machinima videos: Everything else. Doesn't even have to complete the game, just show something really funny.
For some reason this proposition has never got a huge amount of enthusiasm, which I find rather puzzling, given the amount of people who are constantly whining that there's no "entertainment" anymore, and that it's "all about shaving frames", etc. (For some reason these people never explain exactly what is it that they want. Apparently it's not what I'm proposing above, given the lack of enthusiasm.)
uhh... there is evidence. like videos, photographs
Most of which have been irrefutably proven to be faked or depicting normal natural phenomena.
and eyewitnesses
Hardly evidence. People lie, get deceived and get hallucinations.
and we have evidence from traditions and religious scriptures too.
Which amounts to exactly as much scientific credibility as a sci-fi novel.
For something to have scientific credibility it has to be measurable, and the measurement has to be repeatable by anyone. Someone claiming they saw something is hardly evidence. How do you prove they are not lying, mistaken or hallucinating?
there are several cases where many people have seen a UFO or alien beings. it's unlikely that everybody would have the same hallucination.
And there have been countless cases where even large groups of people have lied to promote a hoax, or simply repeated a delusion after being deceived by a hoax. You wouldn't believe how much the simple power of suggestion can affect what people perceive. Witnesses are very unreliable.
i wouldn't say that evidence is the same as proof, because evidence (observations) has to be interpreted, and the interpretation could be wrong. for example, there is evidence for the big bang theory, but it doesn't prove that big bang happened. it's ONLY a theory. likewise, the astral realm is also just a theory, at least for us non-clairvoyant people.
The difference is that the big bang theory is based on measurements which anyone can perform and repeat, the "astral realm" theory is based only on what people claim they have seen or experienced, nothing which can be measured or observed. In other words, the former has basis on measurements, the latter doesn't. Even if the former is not true, at least it's based on something scientifically credible. You don't have to rely solely on dubious eyewitness accounts in order to believe in the big bang theory.
UFOs and alien beings often manifest from invisibility and vice versa, kinda like ghosts, because they are a closely related phenomenon.
This is based on absolutely no verifiable, measurable evidence.
except the observational evidence, i also believe it because traditions (ie. ancient science) say so, and i believe in traditions because there is evidence that they are right.
So you do believe something only based on what you have been told, even though there's no way you can measure nor observe it yourself.
for example, traditions say that there used to be giant humans on earth and we have found skeletons of giants.
Those "skeletons" were a rather cheap hoax which even the authors themselves took seriously. It's yet another phenomenon which is not repeatable.
Can an invisible being see us?
they're not really invisible, they're just invisible from our point of view. when you die and become a spirit, this world becomes invisible and the spirit world becomes visible. no, they can't see us, just as we can't see them, unless we are clairvoyant or if they temporarily leak into our world.
And you base this on what? How do you know they don't see us? Have you talked to them?
Clearly not by interaction with light, ie. electromagnetic waves (because if they interacted with light, they would not be invisible and unmeasurable).
all the worlds consists of light ("let there be light"), waves. we are only able to see a small part of this electromagnetic spectrum though, even if we use technology.
And exactly which part would that be? Any references?
And exactly what do you base the existence of this exotic, unmeasurable energy on?
myths, logic
Oh, that interests me: Logic? Exactly what kind of logic?
observational and experimental evidence.
Which nobody can repeat? Where are the publications on this?
there's no reason to think that the electromagnetic spectrum ends at radio waves and gamma rays
You don't even know what you are talking about, do you?
Angels, demons and UFOs are enough evidence for me! I don't know if you've noticed or not but... they even live on the same planet that we do. Too bad that they're usually invisible for us.
Something for which there's not a single piece of verifiable and repeatable evidence is enough evidence for you? That's contradictory.
Something becomes evidence when it can be measured, and that measurement can be repeated by independent parties. Can you provide me any means by which I could measure or observe those things? Can you provide me any phenomenon which cannot be attributed to simple hoaxes, lies or hallucinations? Anything that cannot be measured and is trivially explainable by a hallucination is not evidence.
On what exactly do you base the claim "they are invisible for us"? Exactly which measurable and observable physical phenomenon would explain this invisibility? Or do you believe these things exist (and are "usually invisible for us") simply because other people have told you so? Do you believe everything you are told?
Can an invisible being see us? Exactly how does this happen? Clearly not by interaction with light, ie. electromagnetic waves (because if they interacted with light, they would not be invisible and unmeasurable). If not light, then what? Some kind of exotic energy science has been unable to measure? And exactly what do you base the existence of this exotic, unmeasurable energy on? Not on measurements, by definition.
If you take things like radiation into account, it seems you assume for no particular reason that every intelligent life has to be similar to that on Earth.
As long as there's no tangible evidence of any other type of life, I have to assume that it's highly unlikely to exist. (If it were likely to exist, we would have noticed by now.)
I'm open to possibilities, but I don't base my views on what might be possible, without any kind of supporting evidence.
There are calculated to be at least 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the observable universe.
Now calculate how many of them might have planets capable of supporting life (the vast majority of stars are located very close to galaxy cores, where radiation is so immense that it would destroy anything even resembling life), and then calculate the probability of life forming during the current estimated timespan of the universe. If you do the math you will probably come up with a surprisingly small probability.
Even from a completely atheist point of view life in the universe (besides us, of course) is highly unlikely.
By the way, I also wonder how you can believe in both Darwinian evolution and Christianity at the same time.
I don't see the problem. Darwin never claimed that life began from one unicellular organism which formed by random chance (that theory came much later and is called neodarwinism). The core of Darwinian evolution is that species adapt over time to their surrounding by natural selection: Individuals which are less adapted for their environment die off without passing their genes, while individuals which are better adapted survive, passing their genes to their offspring. Differences between individuals thus get selected to best adapt to the environment, which is much like selective breeding.
For example, how would spiritual beings like angels, demons and souls evolve?
What do spiritual beings have anything to do with animals?
The extra empty space could be used to show button states. It could even use some graphics resembling the button pads of the real device for that.
Is that even possible? mind to give a bit details how its done? (graphic buttons for input from movie)
In the same way as button states (and other things, such as subtitles nowadays) have been shown in other previous movies? Support for drawing them into the AVI is programmed into the emulator.
Btw, about the run itself: Why beat only level 20? Why not all the levels?