Messages

stuh: "Theoretical barrier" doesn't necessarily mean "IMPOSSIBLE! IMPOSSIBLE! IMPOSSIBLE!". It does, however, mean "IMPOSSIBLE! IMPOSSIBLE! At least without insane advances in AI, for example!", in this case. There are, as DarkStalkey mentioned, pitch shifters that can alter the pitch of a sound and its formants independently, so we have something a little better than just speeding things up or slowing them down. They're still not all that useful for your purposes if you don't do your own acting, though, and their range is limited (not even talking about quality - that's a whole different issue).

if the distinction between male and female can be determined, then the change can also be made...

The difference is harder to tell than you think, though I wouldn't necessarily call it impossible with today's technology - and making the change doesn't magically follow from it. It's all the more impossible with emotional content - there are so many things to consider. Little sounds on the edge of speech. Short transitions to, oh, shouting or growling or whispering or wailing or almost doing one of these at fitting points of the text. And there are too many different ways to do each of these, all kinds of little details that make up an individual's voice.

This means that even if we had the technology for all that, you'd most likely still have to keep track of a large amount of parameter and do much of the work yourself by sequencing this or that, adjusting transitions... and on top of that it's a lot harder to do that to a recording than to synthesise it outright. Maybe we'll start seeing software for that in a few years, and perhaps it'll sound almost acceptable after a while.

I don't recommend holding your breath.

More Lois Lane covers:

http://www.comics.org/graphics/covers/1296/400/1296_4_075.jpg

Replace the 075 with anything from 001 to 137. They're all silly, as are the actual comics - in a momentary fit of madness I read all 137 issues (admittedly, it took me weeks).

Some outtakes here. Some of them aren't as funny without the additional information I gave the people in another community I originally showed these to, but most are.

Example: in the comic advertised by the cover I linked to, a criminal has accidentally given Superman amnesia, and has kidnapped Lois' family to pressure her into acting as some fictitious country's dictator in an absurd scheme to get Superman to look through some giant jewel with his x-ray vision in order to destroy the rebel army so he can keep control of the country and sell it to a foreign superpower for a nuclear attack on the USA. This is by far not the silliest plot I've come across.

I don't see what's particularly self-righteous about the idea of webcomics. There probably are a lot of unfunny ones, admittedly, but I don't read those.

A few not mentioned in this thread yet: (though I think several of these are probably on Yahtzee's list)

Sluggy Freelance. I wondered whether I should bother including it here, since everybody's probably heard of it, but there you are...

Wigu... ish. Formerly Wigu, which was great. Then for a few weeks TV Network Channel, which was also great but apparently unpopular. It's Magical Adventures in Space now, which is, well, great. Seems he'll stick with it, too.

Scary Go Round. Like the previous two, obvious popular choice. But rightly so.

Ozy and Millie.

Okay Pants.

Skinny Panda recently started existing again, happily.

A Lesson Is Learned But the Damage is Irreversible.

Slow Wave. Collective dream diary. Best thing ever.

I agree that book to film adaptations often fail, but I'm glad that the Lord of the Rings Trilogy has proven that books aren't necessarily better than films.

I believe trilogy is an excellent series of films, but I find Tolkien's writing is impenetrably dull.

All that proves is that you have no taste.

But seriously, no, books aren't necessarily better than films, but in my view this is because there is no reasonable general definition of "better". When is a work of narrative art better than another? Is it if a greater portion of the people acquainted with it enjoy it? If it more clearly conveys the creator's ideas? If the Pope prefers it?

I must add, though, that so far whenever I saw a movie based on a book and knew the book, whether I read it before or after watching the movie, I found the book superior (subjectively, of course).

Nope. Théoden (King of Rohan and Éowyn's uncle) dies, though.

Maybe later. But concerning Éowyn: in the book, as in the movie, she survives and ends up getting together with Faramir (definitely not Éomer, who is her brother).

Farlander, omissions aren't the only problem with the LotR films. I like them a lot, but if I were to get into all the things large and small that bothered me, I'd still be typing tomorrow.

(Bombadil isn't one of them. I like that part of the book, but it's not crucial and there's no way it could have possibly worked in a movie.)

Hmm...

Psst, Pelican, don't tell anybody but criminals have rights too. I know nothing about the case Darth is talking about, so I won't use that as an example, but if, to make up an extreme example that should demonstrate what I mean, you're caught shoplifting candy, run away from a policeman who happens to be nearby, and are life-threateningly injured - a bullet to the lung, say - then you or are very much in the right if you sue (or should be, I don't know about the legal situation everywhere in the world), even if this was necessary to stop you from getting away.

To clarify, if needed: Police are obviously entitled to the use of an appropriate level of force. It is appropriate to shoot somebody if it's the only way to keep them from shooting you, cutting the throats of four people at once, triggering the orbital death ray that will destroy Tokyo, or saying something mean to a kitten. It is not appropriate when they're rolling their eyes at you or grumbling while you fine them for speeding.

Well, it is possible to discuss whether it's a good thing or not overall, without ties to any one particular police force, which I suppose is the point here. I really can't remember anyone sane arguing against it, though. It would be an interesting/fun topic for a debate competition with predetermined sides, but I really can't see anyone seriously taking a stand for the police's right to shoot indiscriminately and unaccountably.

Fan games are a substantial copyright question if and only if actual material from the original games is used - ripped sprites, music etc. Also, you're thinking of trademarks. Copyright law doesn't work that way - if you let A get away with using your material, that only means you're letting A use your material, nothing more and nothing less. You may lose your right to sue A over it (laches and all that), but if B then uses your material without your permission, you still have every right to go after them.

When fan projects are stopped, it's usually because the owner's lawyers see them as a potential dilution of their trademarks (that's what you were referring to, I assume). I'm not sure how justified that position is, but it's very common.

Actually, under US law copyrights last 70 years after the author's death, or up to 95 for copyrights owned by corporations. In the EU, it's also 70 years after the author's death, or 50 for performances. Don't know about elsewhere.

Code: ags

      cribbage
      r_ r_
GERRYmanDeR
      b  a
         d

(and numerous variants)

Whoops!

I haven't played Scrabble for a while, but isn't that illegal anyway? IIRC the letters laid down in one turn have to be contiguous.

My impression from reading this and another article that was posted on Slashdot earlier today is that they don't shed very much light on anything; rather, they shed a lot of "whuh?". It's nice. I'd be amused if people started finding these guys all over the world now, perhaps explaining a lot of all those myths involving dwarves and whatnot, but that wouldn't make a lot of sense and is probably too much to hope. (Why "hope"? Because for some reason it would be awesome if there was another sentient species, even if it's a fairly close relative of ours.)

Unfortunately, the numbers in those will depend on the order in which players download the files, and will probably not always be the same. I'm afraid your best choices are using shorter names or bothering CJ about extending this apparent limit. (or just using a music.vox, for that matter, though I understand why you might want not to)

shbaz:

You can tax Mr. Giant Pile Of Burlap Sacks With Dollar Signs On Them more than Mr. About To Be Evicted Because He Can't Pay The Rent and still leave Mr. Giant Pile Of Burlap Sacks With Dollar Signs On Them more money than Mr. About To Be Evicted Because He Can't Pay The Rent. And you should, because he can afford to pay a larger proportion of his income than poorer folk. It doesn't have to be so much larger that he ends up having about the same amount of money as them.

If they'd cheated, I don't think they would have done it quite so badly and obviously. No. It's the suit bunching up, perhaps.

As for the second debate - another clear Kerry win to my mind, though not, perhaps, as obviously as last week. For example, I was a tad disappointed that he didn't throw Bush's threat to veto those 87 billion dollars he loves talking about so much back at him, since the next debate will be about domestic issues - but then we'll see for how long they'll be able to stick to that.

W00t four generals support him, big deal, I personaly know more then four myself, thats why its humorous.

And how many of them have told you and/or the public that they think you're currently the best possible choice for president?

How can you say that a few countries support bush. Countries dont support individuals, they support nations.

No. No. No. "Countries" or "nations" don't support each other or individuals or anybody. They're not monolithic entities. To some extent, you might say: governments support governments. The invasion of Iraq wasn't a decision of "America", it was a decision of the Bush administration. Any support for it or the occupation was likewise a decision of each participating country's government, not somehow the country itself, or its people. Whether the people even supported this decision is irrelevant - the final decision was not theirs to make.

I'm not American, so I don't get to decide, but: while there are several points on which I disagree with the views represented by Kerry, but it's clear to me he's a damn sight better than Bush. He actually pays attention to what goes on in the world, he's not an idiot, and he's not a total bastard; nor will his administration be composed of a majority of such.

And you still haven't pointed out the slightest bit of hypocrisy.

It's down because nobody's broadcasting, though I was until perhaps half an hour before you posted.

(edit: and now it's up.)

Certainly does. If the broadcaster only has dialup, this won't make a difference at all, but surely not all of them do...