Messages

[Why is it PREFERABLE to make a remake. You arent being mandated by anyone to do so. You arent going to sell it and capitalise on its IP.]

Think of it in terms of a book. Someone has written a story but you feel it doesnt fit in with modern sensibilities or it was poorly written. Do you rewrite the story? the same narrative just with different language? No ofcourse not, that would be absurd.

Well this would be an example of a crappy remake.
I think a better example is reading a book and enjoying the concept behind it, but saying to yourself "I think I could tell that story better" and releasing, say, a graphic novel.

Yes, it's the same storyline, but it's a completely different take on it. Things like this happens all the time in the film industry, with the release of director's cuts and the like.

This is my point. Why is it PREFERABLE to make a remake. You arent being mandated by anyone to do so. You arent going to sell it and capitalise on its IP. So why not just make a high quality original game (almost all the remakes are of a very high quality)? If you cant handle writing your own story, form a team with someone who can.

No money is changing hands, but seeing as you're an independent game maker your self, I'm sure you can understand that the thought of people playing and enjoying your game is more than enough of a pull for many, and now the player's perspective comes into play, because this means you are almost guarantee some kind of audience from the get go. In this sense, would'nt you agree, that the maker is capitalising on the IP?

... the value of the original gets diluted.

This is also a good point, however, whenever you bring anything into the mainstream market, much of what made it popular amongst its cult following is lost.
This is just one of the unfortunate things about it, but you have to remember that the original was not accessible or relatable by the mainstream anyway, so at least this could now be experienced by them in some form.

***DING!DING!DING!DING!***
We have a winner. The answer is really -0.457, because dθ/dt = -59/1800 pi, but all the working was there.

Peace
Scarab

Does your game shoot bullets only or can you shoot a lazer like in your sig and in RaidenX?

I tried to download your demo/game, but my screen resolution could not handle the resolution 

peace
scar

a)
2*pi
(1/6)*pi

c)
The speeds are constant and at 7:20 the distance decreaces:

(1/6)*pi - 2*pi = ((1 - 12)/6)*pi = (-11/6)*pi
pi ~ 3.14
-11/6 ~ -1.83
(-1.83)*3.14 = -5.66142
.... I think, I don't have a calculator on me so that could be seriously wrong but my money's on:
Ans: -5.66
Wait.. crap.. I read wrong

10*(1/6)*pi - 8*2*pi = ((5 - 8*6)/3)*pi = (-43/3)*pi
I just remembered that the computer has a calculator so I cheated , sue me
Ans: -45.03

Not quite,
Still open!
Focus on the units people!

when I did this question, it needed 14 lines of working, so I think it needs about 10 minimum.

peace
scarab

Aw what the hell, I'm going for it!

(the irony is I'm postponing a game about breaking in to make another game about breaking in.)

a)

as_m =  120π
as_s = 7200π

b)

x² = 8² + 10² - 2*8*10 cosθ

x² = 164 - 160 cosθ

c)

x = (164-160cosθ)^0.5
dx = 0.5*(164-160*1)^-0.5
dx = 0.5*4^-0.5
dx = 1/2 * 1/(4^0.5)
dx = 1/(2*2)

dx = 0.25

(a) incorrect
(b) correct
(c) incorrect

This one's still open guys!

peace
Scarab

p.s. @ Khris, I sent you a p.m.

I am officially finished exams (and school, wohoo!) so whenever you're ready Calin, just drop me a PM.

Peace
Scarab

Is there a difference between "on" and "about", as in "on writing" and "about writing"?

Could you give an example sentence? I'm not sure I understand without any context.

If you mean 'writing on' and 'writing about' then the only difference I can think of is the subject matter that is referred to. Writing on usually refers to a blanket issue or topic.
e.g. "Jim is writing a self-help book on marriage"
Note: 'about' can be used  interchangeably here, although 'on' is, I believe, the convention when referring to books and reports.

'Writing about' refers to the content.
e.g. "In it he will be writing about confidence, communication and rekindling the romance"
In this example, 'on' isn't really interchangeable. 'Writing about' is the one you'd use 9 times out if 10.

Hope this helps
Scar

It would be cool to have a dedicated thread for solving physics/maths/chemistry problems. Although I do not think that's in too much demand really.

Have at ye!


A watch has a minute hand that is 8mm long and a second hand 10 mm long.



(a) Determine the angular speeds of rotation of the minute and seconds hands in radians per hour.

[2]

(b) If the angle between the minute and seconds hands is θ, and the distance in millimetres between the tips of these hands is x, show using the cosine rule that x² = 164 - 160 cosθ.

[2]

(c) At exactly 7.20pm, how fast is the distance between the tips of the hands chcnging? Give your answer in mm/s correct to 2 decimal places.

[6]

Have fun!
Peace
Scarab

[,]

Well fine but am really 15 1/2, ok? I will be sixteen.

It doesn't matter how old you are, it's how old you act that is important.

but case you didn't see what I did I said thing like sh(!)t and (f*ck) not how they are really said

You do realise that it's still swearing right? No-one here sees the word 'sh!t' and says to themselves "Oh, there appears to be an exclamation mark nestled within that word, but that's not a letter! What a curious predicament I find myself in! Oh well, I assume it must have been a new-fangled typing error of some kind."

It's not the spelling of the word which is the issue here, it's the fact that you're mouthing off at other members of the forum when you're the one in the wrong.

... it seems I like I read the rules ...

I'm afraid that's not what it seems like at all...

Okay,

PV=nRT

therefore
P= (nRT)/V

as T and V are constant, P α nR (α meaning "is proportionate to")

as R is a constant (8.315 J K^-1 Mol^-1)

P α n.


Now we have to work out n.


n(CO₂)= mass/(Molar Mass) = 15/(12.01+2(16.00))** = 0.2830 mol.

n(N₂)= m/M = 10/(2(14.01))** = 0.5549 mol.

as n(N₂) > n(CO₂)

    P(N₂) > P(CO₂)


** Molar mass values taken from chemistry data sheet

So ok, N² has more moles (more particles)... But 12 grams is more then 10 grams, and mass also influes the pressure... What should I do now?

The only thing that mass influences is the number of moles. (as m= nM)
As the mass of each particle is constant, more particle means more mass, and vice-versa.

Hope this helps
Peace
Scarab

*Leaves Magic House*

Yeah, I'm up for it, so long as you don't need anything from me in the next few days. (Beta testing and Tertiary Entrance Exams don't mix too well  )

Scarab, follow that through now, what is the reaction time reduction from being in a room while someone is smoking a joint? Any research on that? I personally wouldn't jump to conclusions about getting high off of second hand smoke from potential research into getting high from main stream smoke.

Well no, I can't back that up, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that if you were in the presence of smokers, you could become intoxicated, regardless of other factors that would come into play, such as the size of the room you're in, the air circulation, the quantity of smoke in the air, the exposure time and the potency of the marijuana. If I were driving, I personally wouldn't want to be taking any chances such on this.

I don't think this is reason enough in itself to not legalise the drug, but I think it is definitely something a government would have to look into before changing the law.

p.s. looking back at my other post now, it does sound a little matter-of-fact-ly. I was only trying to raise the point that this could become an issue.

Well the main difference I see between this and alcohol is that you can't "second hand drink" in the same way that you can with smoking. If this comparison is being made, isn't the whole Designated Driver concept thrown out the window. According to the GDCADA, "Reaction time for motor skills, such as driving, is reduced by 41% after smoking one joint and is reduced 63% after smoking two joints". Therefore simply being in a place where pot is smoked can intoxicate you.

I'm fairly anti-drugs myself, but I guess I'd have no problem with legalisation of marijuana if it didn't really affect me. Although being able to be intoxicated without actively trying to whilst being in a public place is something that worries me.

Well if you created a hollow rectangle GUI which makes the screen smaller, then the viewport would be able to load behind it, which would stop the background from showing you its pink bits.

I think the sleeves go too far up his arms, making the pose look awkward

I do truly believe the world would be a better place without religion

I'm not sure I agree. If people just keep to themselves and want to believe in a god then who the hell am I to tell them they can't. It's what people use religion to justify which is the real problem. i.e. wars, terrorism, sexism, homophobia, and racism.
This being said, there is rarely the former without the latter following close behind, so I can easily see your argument.

I've just got nothing against religion in general, I mean, I would be a happy man if someone were to convince me that their religion is based on fact; but I'm afraid I just haven't seen enough evidence.

Peace
Scarab

The existence of the universe is NOT evidence of god. It is evidence of the universe. We should distance ourself from that assertion as much as possible.

True, it's not evidence, although in the universe that we live in, where everything that is made has a maker, you eventually have to get to something which didn't have a maker. Taking this as a given (for argument's sake) one can arrive at two conclusions;
1. An all powerful God, who exists in eternity, made the universe and everything in it.
2. The universe itself is infinite, or it created itself.

Each of these interpretations has pros and cons, both rational and irrational components.
1. Pros:
   It wraps everything up neatly, and leaves no more direct questions
   Cons:
   It defies all laws of physics and science, which it justifies only by defining God as an external figure to these laws.

2. Pros: It is the more rational of the two, taking things that science has observed about the universe and extrapolated it.
   Cons: It is hard to comprehend and raises further questions, as it is bound by the laws of science, as the universe does exist within them.

From what I've seen, this is the strongest argument used by Christians on youtube who intend to prove the existence of God.

Ray Comfort: It annoys me that this guy belittles the oppposing side's argument in order to make it seem incredulous, (like portraying evolution as an instantaneous event which happens after millions of years, instead of many small events which happen over millions of years). This is somthing I really despise, which is why I don't like your unicorn analogy.

Before any decisions are made on a topic such as this, I think it's important to look at both arguments objectively, with an open mind, and not make ridiculous analogies and such which make your view look more credible in comparison. (this is an example of a bad debate, where there is a lot of this going on from both sides.)

peace
scarab

Firstly Calin, I'd like to state that I'm an Atheist, however some of the grounds for your arguments are a bit flaky, and make your argument seem weaker.

You wouldn't believe in unicorns without proof or in the face of all available evidence to the contrary so why does God get a free pass?

Comparing God to a unicorn doesn't get you anywhere because there's nothing on this earth to suggest that they do. With god however, there's the bible, and the fact that the universe exists (which is not enough for me, but more than enough for many).

Also what about the idea of heaven?
heaven is supposed to be a perfect place free of sin.. so did god take away our free will? are we essentially robots in heaven?

As far as I understand, heaven is not supposed to be a place where we are transported and just exist as we are, but it is a place where you will always be happy. So I'm not sure if the concept of free will applies in the same way. Could be wrong though.

Your other points, however, seem quite sound, although some of the facts you stated I hadn't heard of before, so if you have a link or something that would be good 

As I said, I'm an Atheist through and through, but I feel that we should never stretch examples or manipulate words in order to prove our point, because there's enough hard evidence out there to get us across the line.

Peace 8)
Scarab