My first vote is on Tiny Toon, where you move 5 pixels per frame when holding down left+right.
That would be an invalid vote because:
EDIT: It should be pointed out that zipping through walls does not count as "top speed" here, since that is not a "programmed" top speed.
I consider abusing a left+right glitch to increase speed to fall into the same category as zipping, because it, too, is something which was not deliberately programmed and intended to be used.
Let others do the dirty jobs while we sit here doing nothing? If that was everybody's mentality, then nobody would eg. join the police or firemen forces either.
(No, I'm not saying we should join the NATO. I'm just wondering if you are seeing *both* sides of the coin. I have always hated it when people seem to see things too unilaterally.)
While it was interesting to watch, I'm not completely sure it's innovative enough compared to the any% run that it deserves its own category alongside it (and the no-death run). I would have preferred if you had improved the any% run instead (and much more if you improve the no-death run, which you are apparently going to, which is cool).
Since I'm completely undecided about this, I interpreted "meh" as meaning "I'm not sure, I'm undecided".
1) If you were forced to use some other OS than linux to do everything, which OS would you choose?
1: Windows XP, running Cygwin.
I find that surprising. You would prefer WinXP over, for example, Solaris or NetBSD, even though the latters can be made to work almost identically to Linux? If you couldn't use linux you would change the OS type so radically? I'm a bit puzzled.
(I suppose that the basic meaning of my original question was "which other unix-like OS would you like to use if Linux was removed as an option?")
1) If you were forced to use some other OS than linux to do everything, which OS would you choose?
2) If you were forced to use an OS which is *not* unix-based, which one would you choose?
The QdQ speedruns are indeed so amazing because there are many people competing with each other. When they start, they simply start with competing who gets the first level done fastest. They compete about this for some time, and when they are content that the current record is very good, they lock it and move to the second level (from where the best first-level run left off) and compete with that to see who gets the fastest time, and so on. The end result will be composed of individual levels from several authors (while still being a (segmented) full run of the game).
"Open source" and "done quick" are not very descriptive for this, though. Something better should be used. :)
I knew you didn't give the first answer to the superpowers thing completely seriously, but I just wanted to see what you would answer to an ethical confrontation.
You didn't really answer the questions, either... :P
If I had magical powers, I would use those powers to make very hot women have sex with me, a lot.
Are women sex objects which would be best with no free choice or free will? What about respecting other people (regardless of gender and external appearance) as equals, with their own opinions, emotions and right to choose? Are women just tools to be used with the first opportunity to do so, without any regard of how they, as persons, feel or want?
I'd also try to change around the distribution of wealth in society, so people in third world countries would no longer starve to death etc
Do you think wealth is some kind of natural resource which just happens to be located inside the richest countries and which these countries exploit without sharing? Or is it so that wealth is something these countries work for?
While it sounds "fair" that "wealth is distributed more evenly", how is it fair that some countries have to work hard to earn their wealth while others get the wealth for free? Wouldn't it be fairer if those poorer countries are given the knowledge and opportunity to earn their own wealth instead of leeching it from the richer, hard-working countries?
And if a significant amount of wealth is removed from the richer countries, how can they support that wealth in the future? Wealth is not something which pours from a magical fountain. Wealth is something which is built through hard work, and this hard work requires a certain infrastructure to function, and this infrastructure is not free. It requires a certain amount of existing capital. If you remove a significant portion of this capital, you are at the same time removing a significant portion of this infrastructure which is necessary to maintain the wealth in the first place. In the worst case scenario it will cause a global economical crash, and everybody loses (the rich countries get into depression and the poor countries loose their source of wealth to leech from).
It's easy to think in a "wouldn't it be nice if" way, but the world is not that simple.
and I'd erase religion from people's minds
Again you would go against people's free will and free choice? If someone wants to believe in God, who gives you the right to stop that?
It's one thing to say "erase religious intolerance and bigotry" and a completely different thing to say "erase religion from people's minds".
I bought a cheap microphone (I don't really understand why I haven't done that years ago), so I started playing with my guitar and my ocarina. What I did was to first play the guitar into one track, and then play the ocarina on another. Then I added some stereo reverb to alleviate the dryness of the sound and mixed. Here are some short samples:
http://iki.fi/warp/ocarina.mp3http://iki.fi/warp/ocarina2.mp3http://iki.fi/warp/ocarina3.mp3http://iki.fi/warp/ocarina4.mp3
This one I made by putting a midi in one track and playing the ocarina in the other:
http://iki.fi/warp/susanna-ocarina.mp3
Sorry, no zelda tunes. Those are surprisingly difficult.
When very young brats are told to stop doing something annoying, they instead do it with twice the effort, to be especially annoying. This is because a small brat has the IQ of a monkey and doesn't understand.
I suppose it's the same with people overly abusing an abusing-warning feature. They are told to stop, but instead they do it ten times worse. Well, I suppose there's no way of rationalizing with someone with the IQ of a monkey.
electric current propagates at the fastest at the speed of light, but in any real situation, slightly slower then that
Electrons can't travel at the speed of light.
The speed of electrons in the wire has nothing to do with the speed of electric current in the wire. IIRC in copper electric current travels at something like 0.7c, while the electrons travel at something like 1 cm per minute or something similar.
It's the same effect as with sound: Even though sound travels at something like 330 m/s through air, the air molecules don't.
I think that if text formatting abuse is automatically replaced with something else, that something else should a) be short, and b) make it more or less clear that it's not what the original poster wrote.
Storage space is limited to the number and density of solid state memory chips they could fit on the board in the cartridge. One could assume that they physically couldn't assemble a cart with more than 64MB of memory, at least not for what they were charging for games.
My guess is that the limit has something to do with the bandwidth between the cartridge and the CPU. In other words, the controller chip in the console used to access the cartridge only supports accessing 64MB. This would mean that the controller chip probably uses 32-bit registers to access the cartridge, 26 of which are used to index the memory and the 6 remaining bits for something else. (This isn't anything odd, as it happens all the time, eg with PC motherboards. Even if you have a 64-bit CPU the memory controller chip in the motherboard most probably cannot access 2^64 bytes of memory, but probably something much smaller, such as 2^48 bytes or whatever. Makes the motherboard cheaper because less wires and simpler controller chips are needed.)
Of course I could be completely wrong. It's just a wild guess.
How about these categories:
- "any%" TASes: The only goal here is minimizing the number of frames needed to complete the game. "Entertainment" (however you want to define it) is irrelevant. No voting needed: Whenever someone submits a run which uses less frames than the currently published one (and someone verifies that the run is valid) it automatically obsoletes the existing one. This is just the *absolute minimum* needed from game reset to see the end of the game, without any regard to anything else.
.
This is correct in 95% of cases but what if the new run just uses a new strategy or trick(s) to improve the current one and doesn't have a good overall playing standard compared to the previous run, say for example the recent OoT run. We still need to have a quality assurance in this case.
My idea was that this category would be a purely technical category, with no quality nor entertainment goals (other than what automatically is generated because of completing the game as fast as possible). With this I don't mean the videos couldn't be entertaining or of high quality. I just mean that entertainment or quality are not qualifying factors. It would be a pure "world record" category.
It would make many things easier. No voting needed, no discussion needed whether it's ok to publish it or not. Just pure frame count and nothing else.
(Of course there may be still room for rejection, for example if it's known that the submission is clearly suboptimal and not eligible for the "world record" category.)
Then the second category I suggested would be much more concerned about the quality and entertainment of the run.
It's just an idea to think about. I'm not saying it *must* be exactly like this.
Btw, does the game even try to explain the paradox of Link preserving all if his inventory when the day is reset, and it seems that quite inconsistently some stuff is removed from the timeline and given to Link (such as the ocarina) while other stuff isn't (like the rupees in that chest)?
