Ross Scott

Download 640x480 MKV (11MB) Hey everyone, I have not one, but TWO new Civil Protection episodes! For those just tuning in, the last Civil Protection episode left me so frustrated with the Source engine that I said I wasn't going to make another episode on it. Well I meant it! I looked at the Unreal 3 Engine, Crytech 3 engine, Unigine, iClone, but finally decided on the Smackdown Engine by Funkdoobiest Software. All future videos here will be made using it. The Smackdown engine has been nothing short of incredible, as I'm sure you'll see in the videos. I've been able to do work on it that may not have even been possible on the Source engine due to how it handles lighting and object manipulation. With this engine, episodes have been produced in days that would have taken me months in the past. Because of my switch to it, I'm so far ahead of schedule on my movie project that I had time to make some shorter CP episodes. Enjoy!

The only two ways I know of to make oil are either to convert it from coal (which is already the #1 source for electricity) or else use bio-fuels as a substitute the probably uses of oil (fuel, some chemical properties). I'm generally not so keen on biofuels just because that's land that's not being used to grow food instead. Yes, though we DON'T have decades left of oil at our current production rate. Almost all research I've read on that predicts we have less than a decade of that, my bet is on 2-3 years.

Well the hard copy comes with some swag and a soundtrack CD, though my favorite tracks weren't on that, I had to extract it from the game. The in-game is at a very high bitrate though, so won't lose much by going digital.

I had a chance to play this game as I can be a fan of the graphic adventure genre. It may be destined for the "obscure" section, but it has appeared on store shelves for now. I'd say this game is a cross between the show Captain Planet and the movie 12 Monkeys, leaning more towards Captain Planet. The target audience kind of confused me, I'd guess it's maybe teens. On one hand it addressed serious adult subjects, like a man undergoing psychological therapy and trying to cope in his retirement for regrets he's had regarding his family, but on the other hand the dialogue would often be presented in a very cliched way, like something out of a Saturday morning cartoon. The game is also extremely preachy and is likely to alienate people because of that. Graphics: Generally excellent, going with a hand-animated style. Only a 4x3 aspect ratio, but it looks good. Sound: Good, I even ripped some of the music from the game that wasn't on the official soundtrack. Gameplay: Pretty good (if you like graphic adventure games). I only had one part I needed to use a hint on. Ending: (small spoiler) Pretty bad. While the length of it is good, the ending is about the most unsatisfying one I could imagine coming up with. Very anti-climatic and should piss off both people wanting a happy ending and those wanting a tragic one. Anyway, I'd say this is a niche game with great production value, but appealing to a very small audience. I think it has a lot of avoidable flaws, but I am a little biased in its favor that they had the guts to release something this niche, and I'm generally interested in stuff related to the world going to hell.

Yes, I can blame them. Partially for reasons you wouldn't agree with, but some I think you might. They're not just making outlandish claims, but taking outlandish action with bills like these. Paying congress millions to make a bill that will give censoring power over the internet is overstepping authority. If this had passed, I could have users (or worse yet, coordinated spambots) posting illegal software links, then my site automatically gets cut off and I don't have the kind of resources to fight it legally in court. This may sound implausible, but given the RIAA's history, I don't think it is. I think they would automate many takedowns based on crawlers looking for specific terminology and shut down sites en masse. Again, this is the same organization that has filed charges against a grandmother with no computer for downloading gangsta rap, and against a 12 year old girl for downloading "If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands." I think they're trying to fight reality. I've seen many record and video stores go out of business in the town I grew up in. Some of them I liked and wish were still around, but at the same time, I don't think Congress should pass laws banning digital distribution of media so they can stay in business. Just like how using email now will result in SOME spam, putting out any sort of popular digital content inevitably results in SOME piracy. It's an unfortunately reality of digital distribution and legislation like this certainly won't curtail it much at all. You've mentioned before that you're a big believer in personal freedom and are against force. Why should the freedom of everyone who is running a legitimate site be put at risk or taken away by force because of an attempt to curtail piracy? Furthermore, what would your attitude be if this bill magically worked, but came at the cost of many legitimate sites suffering collateral damage? I'm wondering where the dividing line is for you, since I think attempts like this may create conflicting values for you. If someone steals my bike, I don't have the right to search everyone's house on my block looking for it, or evict them from my neighborhood on suspicion. So where is the dividing line for you between protecting intellectual property v. infringing individual privacy and/or carrying a risk of suppressing legitimate sites?

Well it sounds like you're making a case more for not subcontracting it, which I would agree with. If you kept it as a nonprofit government organization this would be less of an issue. I mean how many cases of widespread embezzling and corruption do you hear about from public waterworks companies or sewage treatment facilities? Not saying it's impossible, but it's hardly a gold mine. As for teaching people practical skills, I would consider that another good thing for society to provide to its citizens. On the flipside though, I wouldn't expect an 80 year old or quadriplegic to necessarily be fixing their own plumbing.

I never saw that happen, besides I'm sure it would be easy to code into the map for them not to follow you into specific areas. It really was incredible though. I remember loving to get them up on a balcony, lay down a smoke grenade, then start shooting at the CTs out in the open, using the hostages as human shields. I also remember our team fighting really hard in cs_militia as CT, only to come into the house and find all the hostages gone because the T's moved them all to the bathroom instead and ambushed us at the normal hostage pickup point. You could move the hostages until Beta 9 or 1.0 I believe, it's too bad they took that out.

I was a fan of CS beta and actually I was disappointed that CS 1.0 took away features. In CS beta 7.1, you could move the hostages as a terrorist, some maps, like cs_siege had drivable vehicles, and you had official assassination gameplay maps. Also I don't know if it was ever something officially planned, but I would have loved the idea of using human shields as implied in the menus screen: I was hoping a new CS might add some more dimensions and features to the game that existed back in beta, but it's not looking that way. I guess the question is what does CS:GO offer over older versions? Even if you didn't like the gameplay as much, CS:S clearly had better graphics than CS, though with the art direction of CS:GO that's more debatable.

I checked the definition of wealth in the dictionary: "abundance of valuable material possessions or resources" Having two kidneys is not an abundance, it's normal. Same for two lungs and two eyes. Having less than two is considered a deficiency, even if you can survive with that. Moreover, I would argue that they're your own being rather than a possession you acquired through your efforts or given to you by others. I think you're wrong here and are also sidestepping the point: don't ALL those people in those scenarios NEED FOOD AND WATER? Is making sure they can have FOOD AND WATER a desirable goal despite their other issues? I picked those because I think those needs in particular are pretty objective. People need that to survive, period. Something like telephone access is much more subjective and is debatable as to whether it's an actual need in modern society. You can absolutely draw a line. You draw the line between needs and wants. Needs are things you require to survive. Wants are things you would like to have, but are not essential to your survival. I would extend the bracket further to include things that you may not literally NEED, but the vast majority of society agrees everyone should have. An example of this would be clothes. You don't NEED clothes in the summer, but almost everyone would like other people to HAVE them (whether they wear them or not). We can leave that out of the conversation and focus strictly on needs if you want, for the sake of simplicity. It's all a spectrum to me. What you're describing in some of the scenarios aren't needs, but wants or desires. The first two I think are wants, not needs. That's too bad for the civil war guy and the teenager. They'll have to find another way to fulfill their wants, like getting a job or support from friends and family, or else learn to live with less. Now the lady with broken plumbing, that's a problem. Water is a need to survive and having basic hygiene is important for health. But does she really need money for this? Wouldn't having a service that's already funded and paid for by taxes that will repair her plumbing for her be as effective AND ensure the money isn't spent for other purposes? For the guy who goes to work with his car, strictly speaking, if he had a social safety net, he wouldn't NEED his job to survive. However, public transportation is general considered a societal good for societies that can afford it. But rather than fix his car (which is arguably a luxury), society could invest in trams that could take him to his job instead, benefiting everyone instead of just him. Anyway, I don't think MONEY should be given to any of the people in your scenarios. I think they should be provided with what they NEED and the people who do the actual providing for them (plumbers, construction workers, etc.) should get the tax money instead. I don't understand what you're saying either. A person who was working would not only receive their income, but would also have the benefits of the social system if they wanted them. So even if you're earning 500k a year, you could still receive government MREs for dinner instead of having your own food from a grocery or restaurant, though I would guess most wouldn't want to. In the system I'm describing, people who worked would always be better off financially than people who didn't (unless they had inherited wealth or retired or something). By "property threatened" I'll interpret that as a "tax" in which case, yes, they would still be obligated to pay that whether they participated in the services or not. This comes down to the effects rather than the ideology again. If it was optional for everyone, then the vast majority of people would stop paying for the services once they hit middle class or above. The poor would be too poor to contribute to the system, so they only people left would be only the most benevolent people at a certain income level or higher. Relying purely on charity would leave a lot more people starving or homeless than making this mandatory. As for the difference between this and the Mafia, there are two practical differences and one ideological one. The practical difference would be that this would provide MANY more services than the Mafia would, and there would be no threats of violence or death for anyone refusing to pay. The ideological difference is the Mafia's end goal is to acquire wealth for their organization and pretty much keep it or spend it whatever they want. The goal is selfish and benefits a very small number of people at the cost of many. The goal of this would be to acquire wealth and then use it in order to provide a better infrastructure to all its citizens. It would also be at the cost of many, but it would benefit everyone to varying degrees. I can't defend the guy's logic in the cracked.com article, you're absolutely right in some areas, though I will point out a couple things: No, it implies that others do not work hard or are less deserving for their work because they get paid less. This is basically a form of arrogance, which is generally an undesirable trait. Yes, but it's also implying that people who aren't rich aren't producing as much value or aren't working as hard, which is nuts. The amount of money you earn is not necessarily a reflection of your value to society or other people. Of course you can work hard at something that is meaningless, but you can also work hard at something that's extremely valuable, but not in direct economic terms. If you're a cop and you bust your ass to keep down violent crime in you region, your value is immeasurable. You could be indirectly raising real estate prices, making the community more attractive for productive people wanting to move in, preventing possible violent attacks, destruction, murders, etc. For your community, you could be incredibly valuable. However, you could easily be paid far less than someone who works as a professional gambler getting tips on horses. If you look at income as the only metric, it really misrepresents who the most overall valuable people are to society functioning well. I think what he's saying is we don't like people who acquire lots of power (political, financial, or otherwise) then act irresponsibly with it. As for businesses, there are good ones and bad ones. I think he's pointing to them in particular because it's often more profitable to run a business in a way that accomplishes less good for the workers (paying lower wages, outsourcing to regions with laxer labor laws, etc.). If you're large enough to be part of a cartel or monopoly, it can be at less good for the consumers as well by successfully limiting competition. Well going back to the room cleaning example, he's saying cleaning the room wasn't a punishment, it was because mom wanted an orderly house and your room was part of it. The government (in theory at least) wants a functioning society and you are part of it. The taxes aren't a punishment, but a duty. Now I can understand if you object to how the tax money is being used because you the government isn't doing its job properly, but to be opposed to taxes entirely means the safety net is ENTIRELY dependent on charity, which from our earlier posts I tried to make a case that it isn't as effective by itself as it is in combination with government support. Also how does the accumulation of wealth of someone translate to society working? You mentioned Argentina, that has some very wealthy people in it, though I wouldn't consider its society to be in the best shape.

Yeah, sounds like I'm going to live an eventful life. And I'm not leaving my fate to democracy, I just wanted to see if there was an obvious preference about what I should be focusing on besides the videos. If 70% of the results came back voting for subtitles, that would take the next priority. I still plan to get everything on the list done, it's just a matter of when.

You're right about that: http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/03/06/counter-strike-global-offensive-to-arrive-this-summer-cross-platform-play-dropped/

No, someone's money is not EQUALLY their property as their kidney. You were born with your kidneys, you were not born with your money. Your money is paper or numbers on a computer that society has deemed to have worth that you've managed to acquire in your life somehow. Removing someone's kidney forcibly is pretty much universally seen as barbaric. I can't really explain it much better than that. It's in the same field as cannibalism for the vast majority of people. Removing of someone's money is highly situational. If removal of this money means a person won't be able to provide for themselves or their family and will die, most people will see that as barbaric also. If it means I won't be able to buy a new car this year, then most will see that as more of a limitation rather than barbarism. I think a lot of our disagreement comes down to you not distinguishing the loss of property for someone who has almost nothing, and someone who has plenty. To me this makes a tremendous difference. It's actually not about money in my eyes, it's about what your money REPRESENTS. For the low income person, the money represents everything they need to survive, and meager accommodations at that. Taking away some of that can be absolutely devastating for the individual. For a wealthy person, it can represent a lavish lifestyle, indulgences, enterprise opportunities to become more wealthy. I can't envision many scenarios where taking away some of that is as devastating as it is to the low income. Really, I see any system that marginalizes the number of people being able to survive at the same time it rewards people who already have more property than the vast majority of people in history as either immoral and / or flawed, regardless of the ideology behind it. Well you say "period", but that's not what I'm advocating. This is why I said "within limits." Yes, the majority would agree that losing 30% of your taxes when you earn 20k is more devastating than losing 30% of your taxes when you earn 20 million, even if the individual disagrees. However, the individual still gets to decide what to do with his remaining 70%, not the majority. So this isn't a "period" situation. I thought we addressed this? Needs have SOME objective standards. Food and water are the easiest objective ones. Those are objective needs. Everyone needs them to survive, period. While we can say things like health care are less objective, let's not complicate this. How are food and water not an objective standard for someone's needs? I mean what are you saying, that "needs" are less objective than "greatness"? Who's the greater person, a teacher living at borderline poverty who has helped thousands of students, or a hedge funds manager who hoards his money and doesn't contribute to any cause? Or who's greater, a star football player who makes millions, or someone making 5 figures who cures a disease? As for incompetence being rewarded, in a utilitarian good, EVERYONE is rewarded with having a social safety net that ALLOWS a person the potential to be great. Incompetent people who don't contribute anything would actually be worse off than anyone else, since they would receive the bare minimum of necessities. However, they WOULD receive the BARE MINIMUM, not less than that, putting them at risk to die or suffer. Well I typed a lot more than I meant to. While some of his logic isn't completely consistent, I recommend this article: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/ He argues for both sides and it's a more humorous take on the whole situation. His explanation of parts #5, #3, and #2 apply to this discussion especially.

I got around to watching this, it sounds like a nightmare there. It makes American corruption look almost tame by comparison, though I think we may be heading towards the same destination but at a slower pace.

I can't really pinpoint what's going wrong from your description. You might want to consider making a fraps video of you going through the process and I could probably identify it then.

This dialogue is really similar to part of a future CP episode. Most of the dialogue is recorded, but I never got around to animating it, since that's always about 95% of the work in an episode. Before you despair about having no free will, atoms don't work that way. If you try to measure their exact positions, their speeds change. If you try to measure their speeds, their positions change. It's not even a matter of being able to plot it all out conceptually, it changes just by even trying to plot it all out.

This looks more like it's for identifying the composition of a media file. It doesn't seem support stuff I would expect from tagging software like batch processing or being able to search through the files. As for the registry, it's not so much that it can't be in the registry, it's that I need a method of backing up the info so I can transfer it to a clean install if I need to.

I'd say not directly. It's more that the RIAA or some other similar organizations is all but writing the legislation for this, then trying to get it through congress. I mean while piracy is a big problem for various industries, last time I checked, the music, movie, and game industry isn't in danger of collapsing and disappearing. I mean let's not forget the kind of people who are behind this: http://www.pcworld.com/article/223431/riaa_thinks_limewire_owes_75_trillion_in_damages.html These are not demands from reasonable people. Even if piracy magically dropped 90%, we might still see similar efforts trying to be passed. I'm not saying pirates are in the right and piracy isn't a problem, but the RIAA alone has spent over 90 million on lobbyists over the past 10 years. That kind of money is kind of insane and lends towards congress being a mix of plutocracy along with the democratic process. My guess is if that kind of money wasn't being spent on representatives, this bill wouldn't even exist. An analogy to what this bill is like would be the Postal Service wanting the power to shut down any email address that they deem related to spam, even if there is zero evidence. I think piracy is a lot like spam mail. Yes, it is an ongoing problem, yes you can fight it, but you're never going to eliminate it and trying to do so by killing people's email addresses would do almost nothing to stop it and hurt legitimate email users more than spammers. If you want to look at the root of it, I'd say this legislation is ultimately the result of the entertainment industry wanting business practices to return to how they were before the internet or even cassette / VHS tapes. Congress is only overreacting because they're largely being paid to do so.

Does anyone know of good software to use metadata to tag different files? I'm fine for audio files, but I don't know what to use for video files (like WMV, FLV, etc.) or archive files (ZIP, RAR, etc.). I don't have a preference as to whether it changes the source file or not, however I would like something that could: 1. Be able to identify a moved or relocated file (MD5 information maybe?). 2. Still be functional if I did a clean format of windows and backed up any files relevant to the tagging software (in other words, nothing stored in the registry) Does anyone know of software like this?

I don't think grittiness even comes into it. For example, I think you could say Silent Hill 2 is a gritty game: Yet it does that through textures and lighting, not by eliminating all color from a scene and smearing a tint all over it. If it was up to some art directors, this image wouldn't be "gritty" enough and would give the entire thing an extra grey tint and desaturate the textures more to really bring the grey out.

I'd say it's different for a couple reasons. Quake can and does have some color, it's more the choice of environment that keeps things brown and grey. In other words, you can have a gritty environment without mucking up the vision. Here's a screenshot as an example: Looks like vibrant color to me, just not the most colorful environment. Same for Doom. Quake 2 I'll give you, that did some weird stuff with blowing out the gamma so the colors definitely got drowned out. Regardless, to me there's a big difference between having an environment that doesn't have a lot of color, and going out of your way to purposefully desaturate / tint the player's view, desaturate / tint all your texture images, and have most of your lighting use similar shades as everything you're already tinting. To me the new CS is a step backwards in this regard. I mean take a look: Maybe you could let de_dust slide since parts of the middle east do look like they're completely blasted by sand. But the inside of a warehouse? Compare that to CS 1.6: That's why I was wondering if anyone actually prefers the new kind of lighting / desaturating / tinting. If not, I don't have an explanation as to why they're doing it.

Out of curiousity, who actually LIKES the desaturated color look in lots of games and now apparently CS:GO? I'm not criticizing since it's purely a taste thing, but from my perspective I feel like the new graphics are actually worse than CS:S for some of the footage I've seen due to some of the art design choices. Also I haven't played CS in a long time, but I am kind of disappointed the new one doesn't seem to sport any vehicles for maps the way beta CS did.

Two things: 1. Eliminate having all the subtitles in one place since that's less intuitive and will result in a gigantic page given long enough. Instead they'll all get moved to the episode pages of the relevant episode. 2. This will probably take longer to implement, but have a system where community made subtitles that have been reviewed by enough viewers or trusted ones can be moved to the episode pages automatically or by moderators or someone with more time than me. So if you created a new subtitles, then a few people reviewed it for spelling or timing errors, etc., it could then get automatically linked to the according episode page by a moderator or admin and be a more visible download than just in the forum. This would get more community made subtitles up faster. The number one reason I haven't reviewed more subtitles is many of them that I've looked at before (I haven't checked any in a while though) will have enough minor errors for me to correct, that by the time I'm done fixing all the minor things (especially any timing or format problems), I've spent 45 minutes on it for a 5 minute episode. Still, I'd rather have subtitles up and available that are 90-99% correct than for everyone to have to wait on me to get it 100%.

Back before Machinima.com nuked their forums, it used to be any thread requesting voice actors got responses immediately. I'm wondering where the best forum for that sort of thing now is.

Gigabyte made the motherboard I had where the heatsink fell off on me several months back and caused me no shortage of problems until I figured out what happened. This is just anecdotal evidence of course, but I haven't had any problems since I switched to an Asus board.