|
Post by Hook on Feb 23, 2010 19:37:16 GMT -8
Today, on Reddit, I learned the meaning of this code and I hold this post in honor of id Software. Thank you so much for years and years of pretty gaming: float InvSqrt(float x) { float xhalf = 0.5f * x; int i = *(int*)&x; // store floating-point bits in integer i = 0x5f3759d5 - (i >> 1); // initial guess for Newton's method x = *(float*)&i; // convert new bits into float x = x*(1.5f - xhalf*x*x); // One round of Newton's method return x;
}
[/size]
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Mar 31, 2010 1:30:50 GMT -8
I know this is kind of a bummer and might be confused for a cry for attention, but I have this strange feeling that 2010 is going to be my last year alive. I really don't know how to follow that. My only hope is I get a good travel agent.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Apr 4, 2010 7:23:02 GMT -8
So, here's a picture of Brendan holding me when I was about 4 years old: Look, you gotta ask him how he does it. Meanwhile, to our younger members out there, those things in the bottom we used to call "videocassettes". They were used as a means to collect mold and piss off v∙i∙d∙e∙o∙c∙a∙s∙s∙e∙t∙t∙e renting aficionados if you didn't rewind them.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Apr 15, 2010 16:49:05 GMT -8
Awesome! Obama's giving $6 billion to NASA and is aiming at advancing Bush's 2020 deadline (to come up with a plan and just go to the moon and beyond) to a 2015 deadline. Bush was already awesome for encouraging space exploration and Obama seemed like a total twat for calling quits on the plan (though, in retrospect, he may have done so just to draw me in and then look cooler and all heroic with this news, in which case: don't play with my feelings, Kenyan boy). Now, that's ok and all, but 2015 is much, much closer (5 years to be precise... oh, aren't I the math whiz ) and with the budgetary certainty and no shuttles (shuttles were always Plan B, from their inception, anyway, they always were too cumbersome and expensive for what they did in return), NASA has to choose its new method of transportation, including, obviously, how it's going to run. So what's with all the fuss? Well, our biggest nerd and only popular example I can come up with of a person that I can look up to and wish even more people did as well (a lot do, don't get me wrong, but many won't follow in his footsteps because they might think he's a "freak of nature" type of exception) happens to be a pretty nice guy and, ironically, someone who has managed to keep his feet on the ground and not let his awesomeness get over his head... is also a record-holding astronaut, a record he has for clocking more spaceflights (along with another dude) than any other astronaut, and, as a physicist and engineer, has been putting his doctoral thesis to use by working on a plasma engine. How cool is that? www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/The company is based in the U.S., but the work on the engine is being done over here, supervised by Dr. Chang. Now, if NASA uses this in one way or another, I'd be stoked. A small, but important, contribution to spaceflight? Why not? *crosses fingers*
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Apr 15, 2010 16:49:49 GMT -8
Also, is it just me, or is it really just me and I'm the only one posting on this thread?
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Apr 24, 2010 1:30:41 GMT -8
You probably wouldn't know it from watching the news, but the United States has a very pretty and tidy way of assembling laws. Browsing U.S. legislation (this mostly applies at the Federal level, though most states follow suit, if not so nice) is a breeze and you always know what's going on at any point in its writing. For reasons not worth mentioning, I've been given the task of looking up legislation concerning Municipal Solid Waste Disposal, specifically that of landfills, from all over the world. The EU has a Landfill Directive, which basically says: write up laws concerning waste disposal, any laws, that meet the minimum requirements in this document and, dammit, Italy, you're already doing it wrong! In contrast, Finland's is scary in its efficiency. The U.S. has the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, it calls upon other laws (such as the Clean Air Act) from within, establishes the EPA's role, and leaves the rest to the individual States, with amendments here and there. This was back in 1976. Pretty clean. Before the EU directive, a few members had some kind of regulatory control. The UK's is titled: Environmental Protection Act 1990. That's the short title. This is the (real) entire title: An Act to make provision for the improved control of pollution arising from certain industrial and other processes; to re-enact the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 relating to waste on land with modifications as respects the functions of the regulatory and other authorities concerned in the collection and disposal of waste and to make further provision in relation to such waste; to restate the law defining statutory nuisances and improve the summary procedures for dealing with them, to provide for the termination of the existing controls over offensive trades or businesses and to provide for the extension of the Clean Air Acts to prescribed gases; to amend the law relating to litter and make further provision imposing or conferring powers to impose duties to keep public places clear of litter and clean; to make provision conferring powers in relation to trolleys abandoned on land in the open air; to amend the Radioactive Substances Act 1960; to make provision for the control of genetically modified organisms; to make provision for the abolition of the Nature Conservancy Council and for the creation of councils to replace it and discharge the functions of that Council and, as respects Wales, of the Countryside Commission; to make further provision for the control of the importation, exportation, use, supply or storage of prescribed substances and articles and the importation or exportation of prescribed descriptions of waste; to confer powers to obtain information about potentially hazardous substances; to amend the law relating to the control of hazardous substances on, over or under land; to amend section 107(6) of the Water Act 1989 and sections 31(7)(a), 31A(2)(c)(i) and 32(7)(a) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974; to amend the provisions of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 as regards the dumping of waste at sea; to make further provision as respects the prevention of oil pollution from ships; to make provision for and in connection with the identification and control of dogs; to confer powers to control the burning of crop residues; to make provision in relation to financial or other assistance for purposes connected with the environment; to make provision as respects superannuation of employees of the Groundwork Foundation and for remunerating the chairman of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council; and for purposes connected with those purposes.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Apr 25, 2010 22:53:59 GMT -8
Fascinating. Those ungrateful bastards. You don't try to force choke the man responsible for turning you into an iconic, pop culture figure nor do you emphasize the guy's bald spot for kicks. C'mon. Show a little respect, guys.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Tilton on Apr 26, 2010 7:49:27 GMT -8
Fascinating. SHOCKING!
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Jun 2, 2010 16:30:09 GMT -8
Shocking? How about another shocker?! Keep it up.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Sept 23, 2010 13:30:42 GMT -8
I can't find that post where Brendan asks what The Grimace is and I'm too lazy to keep trying to so I'll write down my thoughts here.
I was having this exact conversation on TF2 chat about 2 months ago and just recently watched a bit from the Daily Show archives with Steve Carrell and the two versions seem to match. Grimace is a shake. Dunno what kind of shake, maybe not your average milkshake, perhaps a frappe of sorts, but he's a shake (or this version is wrong and people are just confused because Grimace is, are you prepared for this?, also obsessed with milkshakes).
In any case, I don't believe we should let Grimace in the military.
edit: Upon further research, I'm getting competing versions of this... thing's life story. He might be a tastebud.
(yes, those are four arms and yes, McDonald's Land is what I believe to be every pedo's fantasy)
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Sept 28, 2010 22:22:11 GMT -8
Being I browse itunes all the time I thought I'd bring up one of my annoyances with the comment section they have under all CD titles. Someone writes under almost every single soundtrack a comment something like, "This is an awesome score! I can now group the composer with the greats such as Kerry Muzzey and Tyler Bates" (I'm paraphrasing here). I can't figure out if these people are joking (not bashing Kerry Muzzey or anything) but why compare every score and composer to Kerry Muzzey and Tyler Bates. Looke under McNeely's "Ghosts of the Abyss" for example. Anyone else notice this?
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Oct 15, 2010 19:46:41 GMT -8
I can now group the composer with the greats such as Kerry Muzzey and Tyler Bates" (I'm paraphrasing here). I can't figure out if these people are joking (not bashing Kerry Muzzey or anything) but why compare every score and composer to Kerry Muzzey and Tyler Bates. Looke under McNeely's "Ghosts of the Abyss" for example. After googling and YouTubing Kerry Muzzey, I think these people are serious! Um, Tyler Bates is missing from my Itunes library. What scores did he do? -CG PS: Is Brett Farve still the man?
|
|