rob86

I have some funny memories from High school physics class. One time I brought a picnic lunch. I set up a checkered picnic blanket and a basket of food on my desk and pretended I was at a picnic. The teacher was pretty lenient with me so I could get away with wacky things like that. Yeah, I was known for my love of eating even then. That physics class was actually the most fun class I ever had. The teacher was a cool guy and my favourite teacher.

I'm getting really annoyed with all the Captcha's on the web. They never used to bother me when they were actual words, but now they aren't even real words (as far as I can tell) and the font is hard to read. I'm an experienced computer user and I have problems reading some, I feel sorry for newbies...For example, here are the last 3(+1, I added an extra) captcha's I had:(Par) Daymoutfar sanfiarlyb moootionloorier Good.Getting kind of ridiculous if you ask me. I've been trying to type these things in and they never work. I don't know if the period is important or if it's just an irrelevant blob. Annoying!And what's with this attached Captcha? I can't even begin to read that.attached captcha I forgot it.

I can play pretty much any game, but Prototype was probably the worst game I've ever played. Once you get past the admittedly cool gimmick of smashing, slicing, and throwing innocent people into buildings until they explode in a gory mess, the game has absolutely no redeeming quality. The most boring story I've ever seen, stupid mini-games, and awful controls. I just ran around mashing buttons and killing everything and everything, it was nearly impossible to do anything else. People shooting at you from all angles, you're practically invincible. Stupid, stupid game. It's fun for a few minutes while you enjoy the novelty of being super human and super violent, but you'd have to really like having super-hero powers to play this dull thing to completion. It's really the only game I can remember that I would describe it as "This REALLY sucks". Borrow it, mutilate a few people, and move on. I suppose it's worth a few minutes of your time to get some pent up anger out of your system.

Hey, interesting! Let's see an example...

I used Guitar Pro (well the free Linux clone) for learning guitar scales, songs, and piano pieces. I also use it's chord dictionary. It's a great tool for learning or writing down song ideas you intend to play on guitar or piano, but... FL Studio (previously known as Fruity Loops) blows Guitar Pro away for making music. It sounds excellent, it looks professional, it's fun to work with because of the streamlined colourful design. Composing songs in Guitar Pro is tedious, composing in FL Studio is relaxing. You might get the impression it it has a focus on electronic music like Techno or Hip hop, but don't let that fool you as it is very useful for someone interested in rock music as well. It has realistic guitar and bass sounds and a realistic acoustic drum machine plugin, plus all the normal effects like Delay, Flange, Reverb etc.. It's really good, you should try it. You can import your MIDI songs directly into it.

Hey this is a nice poem. I liked it. It makes me feel a little sad though

I can't answer your question, but I'm curious. What is role playing anyway? I don't know anything about it. What are the rules?

The LBT-ZX66 looks cool. It depends what you want I suppose. What are you going to use your stereo system for? Does surround sound matter? I don't think it does true surround sound, and you'll probably be limited to two speakers, and since you were looking at a whole bunch of speakers I assumed you wanted something that did surround sound. Having a bunch of speakers side by side is probably too extreme unless you're having a rock concert. You could get a similarly priced A/V receiver that does more and offers more customizability and flexibility, but it won't have the flashy appearance, and I have to admit it's a pretty sweet looking self stereo system.. and would look pretty cool as room decor, but would I trade cool looks for surround sound for games and movies (and Surround Sound Pink floyd albums)? I don't know.. I don't think so. Surround sound is pretty awesome. I'd rather put a bunch of speakers and a bassy subwoofer around my room and enjoy awesome surround sound effects. It's pretty cool when a sub woofer shakes the room during explosions.. Oh, when you look at A/V receivers they sometimes say like "110W" which in comparison to the LBT-ZX66 at 560W seems pitiful, but that really means 110W per channel/speaker not 110W in total.I guess you can't go wrong asking the experts either.

Wouldn't it be better to have a dedicated Subwoofer instead of two speakers with a Woofer built in? If you get a good stereo amp, it's going to have connection just for a dedicated subwoofer. I don't think it really makes sense to have so many speakers side by side. Why not have a surround sound setup instead? I imagine two speakers + center speaker would be just fine in front. That's what most set ups look like. I can't imagine more (of different speaker models) than that improving the sound, it might make it worse. There are lots of pictures on the internet of how to set up a 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1 setup depending on how much you want. I think the 7.1 amplifiers cost a lot more than 5.1 ones too so you have to ask whether it's worth the money for you. You could buy something cool instead of two extra speakers and an extra costly 7.1 stereo amp, like, I don't know, some gadget to control your system from the computer or a fancy universal remote. Some amplifiers don't even come with CD players (they are sometimes seperate). A CD Player might not even be necessary. You could rip your cds and turn your computer into a media center that can play all your music, your games or movies.. that'd be cool and modern. Make sure you find one that has all the options you need too. Stuff like, an AUX/MP3 input in comes in really handy. And an optical input. I wouldn't be surprised if most/all have these options now anyway. I'm not really an expert on sound, but I think it does make more sense to have a real surround sound set up instead of a single row of speakers. I think there's a real live sound engineer here on this site somewhere...... Anyway, have fun with it. I love setting these things up (not that I'm good at it, but I like it)

Should a game be extremely difficult and unforgiving, or relaxing and not challenging? I imagine this is a much debated subject for gamers and game designers and I'm not sure how I feel about it. On one hand, there is no doubt that an unforgiving game with few save points makes the game more intense and enjoyable. A fun test of intelligence even. In difficult shooters (such as the old Rainbow Six games, SWAT 4, or Full Spectrum Warrior) I take my time and check my corners and treat my character or team like real people, who's lives are fragile. Fun experience. In strategy games, it makes a game much more interesting if there are consequences to actions. I have to contemplate whether to attack or not. Attacking too early could be a fatal mistake that I should consider carefully. While the lack of saving does make a game more intense and exciting, that is only when things are going well. I don't know about anyone else, but I am not flawless in my gaming skill. Suffering a stupid, meaningless death seconds from a checkpoint or an accidental death to a game bug (ever throw a grenade to have it bounce off your cover and into your face instead of over? What kind of moron would throw a grenade like that?) or a wrong mouse click. and having to redo 15-20 minutes of a level over and over begins to get extremely frustrating and becomes a complete waste of time. I often find myself so angry I could throw my computer / controller out the window and just keep playing it over and over trying to succeed so I won't be ticked off anymore. When I play strategy games, like Civilization, it is so much more enjoyable to play realistically, accepting the consequences of a not so successful war, or to live with an unexpected enemy attack. However, I find it nearly impossible to live with a set back after an hour or more of planning, my cities being razed or my army being wiped out, when I can just load up a save and change the situation with God-like powers. Thus, I end up playing a completely boring and easy game because the option to "Cheat" is so easy. So I really can't decide. Is it better to have a game that's very challenging and unforgiving, or a game that is so easy you could play in your sleep? Sure, getting stressed because of a game sucks, but isn't a game that's too easy kind of boring? I'm kind of pleased at the switching trend from manual/quick saves to checkpoints. They seem to work pretty well in most cases, and it relieves me from the task of obsessive saving around every turn. Sometimes it kind of sucks not being able to manually save before a part you have trouble with, but I guess nothing is perfect...

I think that theme is from the NES Nintendo Entertainment System. I never owned a SNES, but I had a NES and that theme reminded me of the entire game. Going down a pipe, swimming with the fishies.. lol. Tardus Whatevercus was pretty cool. I thought the melody was a great start it just needs filled out with more instruments and/or chords.

It just looks different, like you said. No big deal. I saw NOOOOO talking about taking a physics class a while ago, so I thought I'd give an example of how this 'longhand' method can be used outside of the classroom.

Maybe this link from Microsoft will help you: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/935448

The math I did is common way to solve physics problems which you will probably learn if you haven't already. Here's a simple math example. You travel for 8 hours at a speed of 50Km/h. How far did you go? For something this simple you could use d=vt (d = 50*8 = 400km). You could also do this: 8 Hours x 50 Kilometers = 400Kilometers ----------- Hours It's hard to explain on a computer, but the Hours crosses out (put a line through it) and you're left with Kilometers. You multiply going across and divide the numbers on the bottom. It makes solving long physics or math problems a lot easier and it made calculating the measures easy. Tempo is beats per minute 90BPM = 90 Beats per minute, 90 beats IN a minute. There are four beats in one measure (normally) Say you want a song to be 1563 minutes long at a tempo of insanely slow 30bpm. 1563 Minutes x 30 Beats x 1 Measure = 11722.5 Measures. -------- --------- 1 Minutes 4 Beats You multiply the things on the top, and divide by the things on the bottom, going from left to right. 1563 Minutes (x) 30 Beats (DIVIDE) 1 Minute (x) 1 Measure (DIVIDE) 4 Beats But you really don't have to calculate the 1 because that's obvious. 1563 x 30 divided by 4. It's pretty easy, but kind of hard to explain over the computer. If you're taking any physics or chemistry classes, you will probably learn it. For simple calculations, Bikerman's 90x4/4 would work, but it's not so clearly understandable when you get into more complicated stuff.

4 Minutes x 90 Beats x 1 Measure -------- ------- = 90 Measures Minute 4 Beats 3 Minutes x 90 Beats x 1 Measure -------- ------- = 67.5 Measures Minute 4 Beats I don't know what you mean by type of music that uses only sharps and flats. You mean music using a scale that contains only sharps and flat notes? Sorry I don't understand.