Got 138. But as others have said, this is not a very valid IQ test. It relies too much on knowledge instead of reasoning. For example, it relies on the test subject knowing what a peach/grape/cherry/etc looks like (or what they are in the first place) before he can make the reasoning step to tell the one which is different.
It's also invalid because it relies too much on the previous mathematical experience of the test subject. Someone can be a true genius, but not have any mathematical experience whatsoever, and thus he would score poorly. Also some of the numerical tests are easier for people who do lots of things with computers: For example, such a person sees *immediately* the pattern in a series of numbers which are multiples of 4. Seeing that pattern does not measure IQ, just knowledge and experience.
(Btw, what is it with these kinds of sites and cookies? I normally have cookies disabled (except for a whitelist) but this site required them to be enabled. I enabled them temporarily and got at least 10 different cookies from there. Nowadays you can hardly go to *any* site without getting *at least* a half dozen cookies. What's this compulsion about cookies the world seems to have?)
Rydia from Final Fantasy IV.
At least was, until I ran across off-game art of her.
What's wrong with that? Doesn't look so bad to me...
http://www.icybrian.com/fanart/doc/rydia.jpg
As for my preferred character... I don't know. Perhaps Lara Croft (and, seriously, not because of *that*, you pervs).
May I note that there are *already* quite some published movies which are very long and boring. Personally I would say that the Bubble Bobble movie is a prime example of this (sorry Mattias).
Bubble Bobble was, IIRC, the first published movie I started skipping forward because it was so numbingly boring.
I've never seen more awful looking and extremely compressed jpegs in my life.
If anybody has seen jpegs that are uglier, please show them to me so I can slap my head in disbelief.
If the browser window is big enough (at least 1000 pixels wide) it looks ok. If the browser window is too narrow, it's cluttered.
Purists have always said about web design that all webpages should be designed so that they work ok in very small screens. Although that sounds like nitpicking, it's actually quite relevant nowadays, and becoming more and more relevant as we speak. This is because cellphones are starting to have very good web browsing support, as well as many other handheld devices (such as the PSP), and people *do* surf the net with them in increasing numbers.
Of course this doesn't mean we should make pages that look perfect on a 128-pixels wide screen. However, it's a good idea to check that the webpage is still decent and usable with small browser sizes (although it doesn't have to look perfect).
Of course it's not like it's not possible to browse pages which require a certain width (like so many do) in a handheld device. However, it just makes it difficult to browse the page in a handheld device because you have to scroll sidewise to see the contents of the page. (Many handheld device browsers have a zooming option, but the problem with that is, naturally, that zooming out is only useful for navigating the page; you can't *read* the page when zoomed out.)
<extreme_nitpicking>
Saying "a video in AVI format" doesn't actually say anything about the video format. This is because AVI is just a video/audio container file and it doesn't tell anything about how the video/audio is encoded inside it. In theory it would be possible to put a FCM/whatever movie data file inside an AVI and, as long as some codec (which would in practice be the emulator converted to a codec) would be developed which could interpret it, it would be just OK and a valid AVI. Of course you wouldn't be able to play it without the codec.
</extreme_nitpicking>
But yes, when people say "in AVI format" they usually just mean "in some MPEG4 implementation inside an AVI file".
Is it normal that some movies are labeled (JPN) while others are (Japan)? Shouldn't the notation be consistent?
Also another notation inconsistency is that there's (USA PRG1), (USA,PRG0) and (PRG0). Also sometimes a "/" is used to separate multiple countries, sometimes ",".
Aren't (NTSC) and (USA) actually the same thing? Shouldn't the latter be used?
Then there's at least one odd (USA v1.1, USA) and a (any%) which should probably be in the branch name and not this.
(OTOH, I have no idea how those markings are generated, ie. if they are written by hand or automatically extracted from the rom. In the latter case I suppose you can scrap all the above.)
Btw, what's (FDS)?
Quake speedruns are also all published in Quake's own movie format. The same is true for Quake2 and Quake3 movies. I haven't followed other projects too closely.
Of course there's a kind of difference between Quake and (old) console games, and you are probably looking for the latter, but anyways.
Is waiting really the only way to luck-manipulate the bosses? Did you make every possible effort to stop them from jumping?
Other than that, looks cool
I think this is the most entertaining and enjoyable Sonic TAS so far. There's more variety than in the others, and the run is much clearer and easier to follow than some of the others. The submission text was also well written (great English!) and interesting to read.
You are probably referring to the latest publication (Sonic Advance 3), which was published by Nach, who has 1 kB/s upload speed.
So on, sorry, there's nothing we can do about it, unless you want to sponsor a faster cable for Nach :)
Which ISP provides a 1 kB/s upload stream?-o
That's slower than a 56kbps modem. Is he using some analog modem from 1982?
This is definitely one of those runs where by simply watching the video it is impossible to see the amount of work that has been put into making it. This is in contrast to movies where it is rather obvious that a lot of work has been done (such as the megaman1 run or the runs of maze games such as solstice).
I often have a rather peculiar movie taste. I often like "big movies", those which are often loathed by many, but I also often like a bit stranger movies and also classics, not often understood by many. This list is in no particular order (nor complete):
- The Shining (1980)
While the overall script isn't very good (even though an improvement on King's original book; it's not that I don't like King's books, I do like them, but honestly this one was not one of his best ideas; perhaps without all the unneeded supernatural things it would have been great) the acting in this movie is simply superb. Many people don't see anything special in it, but for some reason the acting in this movie just thrills me.
This is the *only* movie I have ever rented on DVD where I have watched one scene about 30 times because it was just way cool, where the acting is just something I cannot describe. Many people may not see it the same way, but for some reason it thrilled me completely. It's the scene where Wendy (Shelley Duvall) discovers that Jack's (Jack Nicholson) writing is nothing but "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" repeated all over and the "talk" that follows. I think that both actors make a *superb* job in this particular scene. I'm actually seriously thinking about renting the DVD again just because of this scene.
And of course the axing-through-the-door is one of the most classic scenes in the entire history of movies, which is also superb. (The fact that Nicholson worked as a volunteer fire marshal in his past probably added a lot to this scene.)
- Psycho (1960)
The shower scene (and its following "cleanup"). Do I have to say anything else?
- The Matrix trilogy
Deeper than it looks at first sight. Many people didn't like the two sequels. I did. All the three movies were different, which I think was a good thing (I do think that repeating the first Matrix movie two more times would have been a bad idea). Many didn't like how the story followed in the sequels. I think this is because they didn't understand it. Once you understand it, it makes sense.
(The trilogy even leaves some unanswered questions, some of which people don't think about. For example, Morpheus says that the machines took control 100 years before, and that some people escaped from it and built the city of Sion. However, the Architect says that there were 6 Neos before the current one, 6 "reboots" of the system, 6 startovers. If each one lasted for about 100 years, wouldn't that mean that the machines actually took control about 600-700 years earlier? This would be quite plausible.)
- The (newer) Star Wars trilogy.
Many people diss this trilogy. I don't agree with them. While the story is a bit simple, it's still excellent entertainment.
Curiously, even though I'm old enough so that I *should* be a fan of the original trilogy, I don't really like it. It's childish, as awful special effects (even for the time; compare eg. the first SW movie, made in 1977 to the movie Alien, made in 1979) and mostly boring.
- The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Nothing to say really. It's just superb.
- 12 monkeys
Not many movies are still entertaining and deep the third time I watch them.
- Fight club
Another deep movie with Brad Pitt in it. (I suppose Snatch qualifies for this category too, even though it lost something the second time I watched it.)
- Rambo: First blood
I think this movie is a lot darker than many people remember. I think that Rambo summarized this movie the best in the second movie: "I want, what they want, and every other guy who came over here and spilled his guts and gave everything he had, wants! For our country to love us as much as we love it! That's what I want!" May sound cheesy, but it actually has some deep meaning to it.
- Predator
I think this is the movie (the only movie) which defines Arnold Schwarzenegger. This was my favorite movie as a teenager.
- The silence of the lambs
Anthony Hopkins got the oscar for a good reason in this one.
There are more, but I'll stop now in order to not to make this post too long... And it's a complete list of 10 anyways. :P
Seriously, I have no idea what everyone keeps talking about when they say C is better, and they always refuse to elaborate when asked.
Back in the 80's everything (especially in the Unix world) was made in C and C was the pet of most programmers. Every respectable unix hacker/guru/wannabe knew how to do fancy things in C, how to kludge it to do whatever they wanted to do, and things like making obfuscated C code was fun.
Because C was very limited and didn't have OOP capabilities (except for some *really* dirty and ugly hacks which barely provided some minimal OOP) C++ was developed. At first these old C hackers approached this new language with reserved enthusiasm.
However, the major problem with many of these C hackers was that they weren't able to comprehend that C++ is actually a completely different language than C, in which things should be done differently. While it supports (almost) everything C supports, it's still a different language and programming with it should be approached in a completely different way. The problem was that these C hackers still coded C++ in the exact same way as C, just using a few of the enhanchements of C++.
Thus they started to feel that most of the new features of C++ were useless overhead. Many didn't even bother to study OOP nor these new features. Another major factor was the prejudice about the conceived speed of C++: Most of these C hackers had the misconception that C++ produced much slower code than C. (This might actually have been true 20 years ago, but any such problems have been long ago solved in C++ compilers.)
They felt alienated from their beloved C. They started to feel like C++ was C with tons of useless overhead added just because of all the OOP hype. Thus a counter-reaction to the C++ hype started arising, a counter-reaction which can be seen in many even today: They started claiming that "C is much better than C++". Of course none of the excuses they give for this claim are valid, but that doesn't stop them from defending their pet.
Personally I like to think that C++ is a completely different language from C, and that thinking that "C++ is just an enhanced C" is very wrong. Also, IMO, C sucks and C++ rules, to put it bluntly.
When you code something in C++ your basic approach is completely different from C. This is very especially true as the size of the program grows. C might be ok for very small programs (less than 1000 lines of code), but I wouldn't like to code anything bigger with it.
The advantage of C++ over C is that the former gives you the tools to make safe code (at least when obeying some basic coding pratices). It is possible to make huge programs which use lots of dynamically allocated memory, which simply don't have any danger of memory leaks nor accessing freed memory nor out-of-bounds accesses (as long as some simple coding guidelines are followed). In C it is very difficult to do that, and you are constantly in danger of those things (unless you resort to really awkward coding style which is hard to write and read).
The cool thing is that this safe code doesn't necessarily have to be any slower than the equivalent C code. In fact, sometimes you can perform behind-the-scene optimizations which make the code faster (something which would be much harder and awkward in C).
Of course it *is* possible to make unsafe code with C++, and sometimes it isn't even obvious that something is unsafe. However, experience and good programming practices usually avoid these pretty effectively. For example, I worked in a rather C++ project (as may payjob) for about 7 years as one of the two lead programmers. The entire project consisted of about 50000 lines of code, and it used dynamically allocated memory *a lot* (for manipulating directional graphs). We didn't suffer from even one single memory leak in the entire duraction of the project, ever. All thanks to good OOD, OOP and C++ programming practices.
But of course reaching this level of C++ knowledge is not easy. It requires years of experience and studying. C++ is *not* good as the first programming language. (And C is *definitely* not a good first language. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.)
As for Java, as Triumph would say: I think that Java is a really excellent programming language... for me to poop on.
Not really. Brainfuck may be turing complete (IOW it can implement everyting that a turing machine can) but that doesn't mean it *is* a turing machine. A pure turing machine needs only 2 instructions while Brainfuck has 8.
I think the last comment is the funniest:
"Every speed run that anyone posts is accused of being fake. How does one make a fake video? Call me dense, but whether you use a VCR, some kind of camera, a webcam, hell even if you use the "record to AVI" function on an emulator... one thing is always constant. ONCE YOU PRESS RECORD, THERE'S NO TURNING BACK! It records your every move. So you have to go through the whole game unscathed. How is it possible to fake a video? I'm sure all of you can enlighten me on this one."
Seemingly this guy has never even heard of tool-assisted speedrunning and cannot even begin to comprehend how a run could be done in some other way than in real-time in one contiguous take and get an AVI out of that.
Not very relevant to this topic, but I found it slightly amusing.
Instead of making a commentary-version of the video which is completely separate from the original, wouldn't the right solution be to make an ogm or a mkv with the original video (direct stream copy, no re-encodings please) and two audio tracks: The original and the commentary.
(Granted, it will require for people to have a player which supports ogms/mkvs with multiple audio tracks, but we all have that, don't we?)
