The Giant Napkin

Yay for the new foreign languages thread! Now we will soon be able to converse in any language known to the western world! I'm Dutch myself, and the fun thing about Holland is that it's probably more useful to speak English than Dutch. Other than that, I'm also learning French (recently took a test at B1 level, if anyone is familiar with that) and German. Also, since my highschool is a 'gymnasion' I have also followed Latin for three years and am still learning ancient Greek, though for both languages we only learn to translate ancient texts using a dictionary, not to actually speak them. Now the Dutch language has some similarities to German, especially the vocabulary. For German there are a lot of rules to learn the grammar (different forms of nouns etc.). Dutch, however, is absolutely terrible, it's all in the syntax. And I don't believe there's any logic behind it... fortunately you can just learn English instead and be done with it. Oh, and we are also the only country in the world where 'ij' is a ... diphthong? Bloody online dictionaries. It's pronounced as one sound, anyway. Man kann viel besser Deutsch lernen, weil die Niederländer fast alle Englisch sprechen. Und dazu finde ich Deutsch eine schönere Sprache.

Now you are just trolling me... >: ( Especially considering I'm used to look down on Google translate. I really should learn Polish. (Last off-topic post in this topic I PROMISE : P

I'm not cursing yet, oddly enough. What I know I've got from a Polish video game that has awful English VA (The Witcher 1), so I just decided to play it in Polish with English subtitles. Because of the subtitles, however, I have to go on hearing and I don't know how words are spelled. I can only very rarely make out what is being said and which English word corresponds. I've gotten no further than 'vitaj' and 'tak' yet, though I think 'thank you' is pronounced somewhat like 'dzjinki' (that would be the Dutch way of pronouncing it) and 'bye' seems to be something close to 'buvaj'. I figure the next thing I should learn is 'I don't understand' or 'I don't speak Polish'. That's generally the first thing I try to learn in a foreign language : D. My video game character doesn't say that, however... (If we're going to turn this in a complete internet course on Polish we should maybe start a new thread to avoid even more off-topicness/off-topicity/whatever the correct English term would be : )

Damn it... I wish I could speak Polish... I really like the way your language sounds. But I'm also fairly lazy and to learn the language would probably take a lot of effort, considering it's pretty different from English, German or French. Still, I may yet try to learn it. I already know three or four words! Admittedly, I only know how to spell two of them, and I'm not 100% sure as to what they mean exactly, but it's a start... right?

Thanks for the update, enjoyed your videos and hope you're doing well. And by that I mean that I hope you're not starving because of a lacking income, or suffering from stress because you're working too hard. I'm looking forward to seeing whatever it is you'll release next and I hope you and the new engine will get along. Also, since you've moved again, does that mean you're no longer living in Poland ? : P

I second that. Also, Ross, if you don't mind me saying so, I think these episodes showed that what's really important is your voice-acting and sense of humour, not the graphical fidelity of the engine. So I really hope you'll find a way to make episodes where you're not forced into an agonising battle with the engine where your only weapon consists of buttons. Stuff like this makes me regret that there's only one April 1st a year... Looking forward to whatever comes next!

He should get a third half to compensate for all the time and effort he puts in his video projects.

I'm not, but I think I'm the one who gives Ross that idea so that he realizes that perfecting the cloning process is the "something else" he should be working on. uhhh... Damn it. I never did will do paid attention to future history in class... this is confuzzling me.

If you're not one of the Ross' future selves I won't believe that theory. There are so many of them, one of them should be able to explain to us what's going on. Or what's going to go on. Or what's going to have gone on. Or whichever grammatical construction Douglas Adams devised is appropriate here.

I shall refuse to join democratically in the poll and instead just thank you for all the great videos you have made so far and I hope you will continue to make in the future. /offtopicbutnotarant?

"Everyone who believes in a God or any other supernatural being that is looking over us, is deranged." "Christians should stop telling easily debunkable lies." (yes, there was some more context... I'm not very good at nuances : P) I wonder whether this discussion will actually lead somewhere. It's not exactly new that the existence of God can neither be proved nor be debunked; that's why it's called faith. I don't think (as someone who is not religious) that someone who believes in a god is more or less stupid/deranged/mentally ill or whatever than someone who does not. I think that all of us know only so much; for most of what we 'know' we have to depend on faith as much as anyone. A friend of an opinion closer to the ones cited above once told me, very upset, about the view of some religious people that science is just another religion. Though I am fully aware that there are many arguments against that, and a much more nuanced explanation is necessary, I like that way of looking at the world. In the end, we have to decide for ourselves in what way we should look at and understand the world. I would say God exists - depending on your definition of God. Or, for you really stubborn atheists out there, God does NOT exist, depending on your definition of him.

That means your Frapps capture is already compressed using another codec. What type of file is produced? AVI? Fraps saves videos using its own codec, FPS1 according to GSpot. It saves files in an .avi format. Does this mean the current filesize is as good as it gets without using 'normal' compressin (rendering them out at a high bit rate)? In that case, can you suggest a good codec to use (and the format that's best used with it)? I have tried DivX, but the free codec doesn't let me render at bitrates higher than 20k, which is still a bit too low for my liking.

This sounds interesting, but I seem to have some problems getting it to work. First of all, 1:35 (2.18GB) of Fraps footage is 'compressed' into 5-8GB, regardless of using RGB->YUY2, fastest or best YUY2 compression. Is this normal? The footage was recorded full-size at 1920x1080 and 50FPS. I'm using the 64-bit versions of both VirtualDub and HuffYUV because I couldn't get the 32-bit version of HuffYUV to work with the 32-bit version of vdub. Secondly, I can't play the compressed footage with Windows Media Player; when I try to do so I get only audio. Whereas I absolutely don't mind finally switching to a good freeware media player, I could use some advice on that as well. Or is HuffYUV compressed footage meant to be decompressed before being used again? Thanks a lot for your help : ). I used to compress my videos at a high bit rate using the free Windows Live Movie maker, but when I noticed the damn program couldn't even use the footage it compressed itself (it tells me - honestly - that it can't read .wmv videos it compressed itself minutes ago. Incidentally, it doesn't allow you to render videos in another format). So I'm kind of pissed enough with Microsoft to want to switch to something else...

So, here's the problem: I occasionally record stuff with Fraps, but as you know Fraps outputs really large .avi files. After roughly half an hour of recording, I'm stuck with over 100 gigs of footage, but I still want to record much longer before using it in a video project. Since I'm terribly old-fashioned and only have a 500 GB HDD for storage, I need to compress this footage. However, because I'll be rendering it out again later (in a video project), I want as little quality loss as possible. (Because if I compress it now, then use the compressed footage in a video project and render that out, it will be effectively compressed twice and therefore there is some 'unnecessary' quality loss, right?) Now, I'm a complete noob on this: I read some of Ross' and your forum posts on the new format for his videos, but unfortunately both that and internet sources such as Wikipedia do little more than confuzzle me. So I was hoping some of you might have some advice for me: which codec I should be using, which format and which video compressing software. Of course, since I'm Dutch, I don't really want to spend money on this : P. Any advice?

I know, that's why I mentioned it was a purely hypothetical situation. There are more than enough people and reasons to believe more gun control is bad (I'm not entirely sure, but that's another thing), but I was just wondering IF we were able to choose between guns or no guns at all in a country, aside from the military risks, would the country be safer if there were no guns at all?

There are many peaceful and legitimate reasons for owning a gun. To name a few: marksmanship (sports), hunting, self-defense. What's the purpose of a baseball bat? It's used for killing other people; it's easy to obtain, deadly, and a child could literally use it with great effect. It's mostly used to play baseball, but I'm conveniently ignoring this fact. I'm sorry, perhaps I did slightly misuse that to seem more convincing. I only meant to say guns are solely meant for shooting, not murdering. Cars, however, are used for driving. Now both can have negative consequences (such as death), but guns seem to me to be more closely related to these. Anyway, I have heard repeatedly the argument that criminals would get guns anyway, because they don't obey the law. But I think prohibiting civilian ownage of guns will lead to less guns among criminals, too, because they'll be harder to get. Now in Holland, some people have guns (because it's not altogether prohibited, either). Now what if not only victims, but also the criminals didn't have guns. Would that be safer? I am inclined to think that, because guns are used for shooting, the removal of all guns would mean less shooting and therefore less homicides. Of course, this is a hypothetical situation, because there'll always be some criminals that will get their hands on a gun, but in the imaginary case that guns didn't exist at all, would the world be safer?

Quoting and responding to all 3 of you would result in a large wall of text, I'll do this twitter style: @Husker: When I wrote that, I knew there was a risk I was offending you: this was never my intention, but simply a consequence of my bad english, just as I DO think education is the way to go, both in Eastern and western countries. Lastly, I personally don't think Islam is a 'bad' religion, I was talking about the fact that so many are prejudiced against it nowadays, though they often don't know anything about it. @Doom Shepherd: You are a good debater, and you get a +rep for quoting Monty Python. I was not trying to implicate that terrorists are representative for those countries or should be seen as such; I was just trying to explain why they act the way they do. Terrorist organisations such as AQ take issue with the power and economic influences of western countries in the countries that they live in. If you say our 'almost colonial influences' have been only for their good, I disagree. It's shameful how much of the oil and money that is or could be made there is in Western hands: even in Libya, in the middle of a war, western countries are lobbying for oil contracts. I think our countries could do more to help countries in the Middle-East to be less dependent on them, but economical and political power is still an important factor in western politics concerning this. @Michael Archer: I am dissapointed that you so easily dismiss the suggestion of a peaceful, two-sided solution to the conflict, and you are quick to condemn all of the people there. I would be interested to hear some of your arguments for this, because I hope you have some: you shouldn't suggest to kill so many people so easily. I also hope you are willing to try to understand terrorism, because they actually do have reasons for this, just as I hope you have your reasons for wanting to bomb thousands of civilians. I still find it hard to see the difference, so I'll do my best to understand that as well. Lastly, my remark was not 'guilt by association', and the fact that you didn't grasp my meaning is probably due to the fact that you have put so remarkably little effort into understanding terrorism and the culture in the Middle-East (which, once again, I think are not as related and in the same way as you suggest). Then again, it may also be due to my poor english, so I'll try to clarify a bit: Western countries have not always been very nice to the Middle-East, and because terrorists wanted to fight back, but knew that they couldn't win an ordinary war, they rightified (that doesn't sound as if it's a real word...) their killing civilians (which the Quran prohibits) by saying that American civilians had the power to stop the actions of their government, but didn't, and were therefore also responsible.

And that is EXACTLY why I think we should try to understand terrorism and not start wars. This is not a 'war' you can win, because of the way it is fought (remember Vietnam?). It will only lead to civilian casualties and an increasingly bad relationship between East and West. Your rightification for civilian casualties is remarkable, especially since it is the exact rightification terrorists use for 9/11 and other terroristic attacks. The US (but also other western countries) have invaded their countries, have been militarily active on their territory, have influences that could be considered colonial. 9/11 was their way of fighting a war they were losing. They believe that it is not possible to solve the conflict through diplomacy or classic warfare: therefore, they have decided to wage a 'war of attrition' by attacking the US' economy (the war in Iraq is an excellent example) and terrorism. Your comments on this forum seem to me typical of the western response: we should either fight a war against them (which, as I have said before, will lead to a lot of unnecessary deaths and probably not to a real victory), or, as I have seen other people mention, we should try to educate them on the West (which I don't think is a bad idea - it's just a very one-sided idea for a two-sided conflict, and therefore seems slightly naive or arrogant). And don't even get me started on why Islam would be a 'bad' religion...

And I still think that the logic behind more guns > less shooting/crimes is slightly odd. Most statistics seem to suggest the opposite. (Of course, if everyone had a gun, I'd definitely rob someone who doesn't have one... but that's simply solving the gun problem by introducing MORE guns) Also, You're damned right it isn't : P (Ok, sorry, I'm a foreigner and if you were to point out my every mistake, this forum would be about grammatical errors only... but you really misspelled the wrong word in your post.)

Thanks for the update. My 'Freeman's Mind'-map has an empty spot which is bothering me : )

Then your assumption is that guns are necessary in order to live. I know a mightily large amount of people (in Holland) who have never possesed guns, but are still doing quite well at living. It's (here, anyway) generally not necessary to defend your own life with a gun. Perhaps in the US that's still quite common? I know that in the US owning a gun is considered a right. Here, it's just considered a danger. I'm not 'blaming guns in a shooting', but what is the sole purpose of guns? And what is the purpose of cars? Therefore, owning a gun means that you are going to use that gun. Which is why owning guns in most European countries is limited to police, army and people who go to hunting/shooting clubs etc.

Alright, you make a solid point, and that without outright telling me that I'm an arrogant prick (funny how soon after I wrote that it already annoys me when I read it again... I should keep that in mind next time I post, and I apologise). So perhaps I can learn from my mistakes, and join the debate instead of trying to start a forum war. I can understand your first two points; though I still doubt the Iraq war was a good idea retrospectively, I won't deny Hussein was a tyrant. And the traffic to terrorism comparison was perhaps useful to show a numerical comparison, but I can't see how any conclusions were supposed to be drawn from it. I hope you are willing, however, to clarify your last point for a stupid foreigner, because whereas the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not meant to instill terror, I found many definitions (in my dictionary and on the internet) to be 'the use of (threats of) violence (against civilians) for political or ideological purposes'. I still think that terrorism is too easily condemned without trying to understand why it took place, or what western countries did that may not have been entirely ethical either. But I want to once again apologise for my previous post, which I find looking back at it now to be in bad taste. I would remove (most of) it, but I have seen people get angry about other people changing their previous posts in the middle of a discussion, so for now I won't.

Well... where to start? Let's start in a positive way. Fighting for peace is a paradox. Peace means an end to the fighting, which can be achieved in two ways: either kill everyone who is prepared to fight against you, or convince everyone to stop fighting. Since there are many cells and it is very hard to identify all terrorists, the first alternative would require a lot of people to die, including many civilians. For the second alternative, we must try to understand each other, because, to quote Dumbledore: understanding is the key to acceptance. (Yes, I just quoted Dumbledore...). I'm not saying I approve or anyone should approve of terrorist acts, just saying we should understand why this happens. Because, yes, there is a reason. As anyone who is prepared to look into it for more than 5 minutes should know. It's not just 'their culture commands them to massacre us'. This is the serious topic discussion. Whereas there is more to it than just the following link, this should at least help you understand why terrorism happens. Again, I do not approve of terrorism, nor do I think anyone should. http://www.freearabvoice.org/articles/ConfessionsOfAHumanBombFromPalestine.htm War will not win peace. We will not end the fighting by fighting. And that was the positive response. As for your suggestion (the nuke) and , I hope I can mention a few facts, without trying to euphemise 9/11 in any way. Which do you think caused the most civilian casualties? The US occupation of Iraq, or all of the terroristic acts by arab/muslim extremists(most of which were a direct response to the presence of foreign armies in the own country) together? (A hint: the difference is quite big) Which do you think causes more casualties? The traffic, or terrorist attacks, in Israel (which is probably the country that suffers the most casualties by terrorism per inhabitant)? Which do you think is the more terroristic act? Destroying the twin towers (2977 civilian casualties, according to wikipedia), or the nuking of Hiroshima (90 000-166 000) and Nagasaki (60 000-80 000)? Keep in mind that according to the logic of the extremists, they too were in war with the US. Please, if you want to nuke some people, because they do something that you disagree with, AT LEAST take the time to try to understand why they did it. Need I repeat once more that I DO NOT APPROVE OF TERRORISM, or any form of killing. But please don't pretend it's a one-sided argument, that the US or Europe never did anything wrong.

I just have to comment on this... CONDOMS DO NOT PROTECT AGAINST STDS!!! They have a 99% success rate of preventing a pregnancy ONLY. 99% of the time that they are used, a pregnancy does not occur. (this does not tell us anything about whether a pregnancy would have occurred had a condom not been used) There is a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance of getting an STD from your sex partner (if they have one) whether you use a condom or not. Regardless of how reliable the 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% statistic is (really BTG? You got this from a doctor? I really wonder what doctor that was... : P), he is right that the over 99% statistic I used was related to pregnancy and not STD's. So that was really just a stupid mistake on my behalf. So you are probably right that the risk of STD's is a good reason not to have sex with everyone.

Well, we went in the direction "sex =/= wrong", then "sex = good", then "more and easier = better", and now it's just MOAR SEX PLEASE. It's just a problem with internet discussions, they tend to go on long after they have been solved.