Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

Fgner    

Rank #3860 on Subscribers
Fgner Avatar Level 267 Comments: Pure Win
Offline
Send mail to Fgner Block Fgner Invite Fgner to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:11/24/2010
Last Login:8/27/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#9378
Highest Content Rank:#950
Highest Comment Rank:#1726
Content Thumbs: 5390 total,  6124 ,  734
Comment Thumbs: 6830 total,  10275 ,  3445
Content Level Progress: 89% (89/100)
Level 153 Content: Faptastic → Level 154 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 40% (40/100)
Level 267 Comments: Pure Win → Level 268 Comments: Pure Win
Subscribers:20
Content Views:26144
Times Content Favorited:525 times
Total Comments Made:4230
FJ Points:12393
Favorite Tags: a (2)

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny text/links

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

  • Views: 75316
    Thumbs Up 5512 Thumbs Down 431 Total: +5081
    Comments: 1019
    Favorites: 484
    Uploaded: 10/10/11
    Kids These Days Kids These Days
  • Views: 1268
    Thumbs Up 35 Thumbs Down 11 Total: +24
    Comments: 14
    Favorites: 12
    Uploaded: 03/10/12
    Before the Beginning Before the Beginning
  • Views: 2132
    Thumbs Up 31 Thumbs Down 7 Total: +24
    Comments: 13
    Favorites: 7
    Uploaded: 02/03/12
    The Egg theory The Egg theory
  • Views: 1422
    Thumbs Up 23 Thumbs Down 6 Total: +17
    Comments: 12
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 12/14/10
    why we love 4chan why we love 4chan
  • Views: 1073
    Thumbs Up 17 Thumbs Down 4 Total: +13
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 02/16/12
    True Poetry True Poetry
  • Views: 1123
    Thumbs Up 14 Thumbs Down 6 Total: +8
    Comments: 7
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 09/15/12
    Letter to kim jong Letter to kim jong
1 2 > [ 8 Funny Pictures Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

youtube videos

latest user's comments

#96 - God I ******* hate you armchair physists. "R…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/24/2014 on Bill nye the awesome guy -1
#97 - anonymous (08/24/2014) [-]
> one that's incredibly advanced will probably be easy as ****.

This is the whole fucking point asshole. These are theoretical limits, you're never going to magically do better than them. Shit's like saying you're gonna find a free lunch or solve the halting problem. You can argue that it's possible to use self-replication or whatever the fuck science fiction to actually build a telescope that large, but it still has to be ridiculously sized.

> So why the **** would you think we would be looking twice as far as there now instead of in our own neighborhood?

The whole god damned premise was "when aliens in galaxies 70 million light years away" asshole.

> P.S. What did "you said your a computer scientist" even mean?
I asked before using big-O notation, because physicists use something similar when we're more interested in scaling. The fact that this confused you suggests that you're more likely IT than a scientist. Also, don't misquote me with your bitch-ass grammar mistakes.
#69 - I can agree to that. Nice talking, buddy; have some thumbs.  [+] (1 new reply) 08/24/2014 on Bill nye the awesome guy 0
User avatar #70 - jukuku (08/24/2014) [-]
Ditto.
#66 - Why would we need that level of detail? Aren't we just talking…  [+] (3 new replies) 08/24/2014 on Bill nye the awesome guy 0
User avatar #68 - jukuku (08/24/2014) [-]
I'm not saying to abandon the possibility of new imaging technology but saying it will happen is just speculation.
#69 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
I can agree to that. Nice talking, buddy; have some thumbs.
User avatar #70 - jukuku (08/24/2014) [-]
Ditto.
#62 - No, you don't understand. We are building a telescope capable …  [+] (6 new replies) 08/24/2014 on Bill nye the awesome guy 0
User avatar #63 - jukuku (08/24/2014) [-]
Yes but it's capabilities follow the established equations for focusing light. If you want to have a higher magnification you need a bigger telescope. If you want to see something the size of a truck on a planet 20 lights years away the telescope would be absolutely massive, impractical due to it's size and the huge risk of being damaged by orbiting debris.

Again, my point isn't that we cannot identify planets in other solar systems or something like that, I'm saying that you won't see a truck on the surface of a planet because it would have to be a couple kilometers in diameter.

This link explains it in further detail.

www.rocketmime.com/astronomy/Telescope/Magnification.html

And I understand how telescopes work, not a single one of your examples is disproving what I'm saying, those telescopes are no where near accomplishing what we're talking about.
User avatar #66 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
Why would we need that level of detail? Aren't we just talking about identifying if there is any significant life? Seeing organisms themselves would be useless, since like already stated it would be millons of years ago and such. I was arguing for identifying life - not observing individuals.

But still, who knows what the future holds. Why limit our imagination proactively?
User avatar #68 - jukuku (08/24/2014) [-]
I'm not saying to abandon the possibility of new imaging technology but saying it will happen is just speculation.
#69 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
I can agree to that. Nice talking, buddy; have some thumbs.
User avatar #70 - jukuku (08/24/2014) [-]
Ditto.
User avatar #64 - jukuku (08/24/2014) [-]
Equations for a Schmidt Cassegrain telescope: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassegrain_reflector
#60 - **** man, it's cool. 08/24/2014 on Bill nye the awesome guy +1
#58 - Micro satellites are a thing. Look up BRITE, MOST, and various… 08/24/2014 on Bill nye the awesome guy +1
#57 - What the Hell are you talking about? I proved that his one exa…  [+] (11 new replies) 08/24/2014 on Bill nye the awesome guy 0
#79 - anonymous (08/24/2014) [-]
Listen you uneducated faggot, let me try to explain this in terms your tiny brain can understand.

Photons travel in wave packets (you know, the whole quantum thing? No? Ok fine queer, quantum physics is named such because we discovered particles are quantized despite their wave-like properties. ie, a photon is a little tiny sphere and a finite number of them are reflected/emitted off a celestial body like the earth. They radiate and spread apart (you said you're a computer scientists right?) at O(r^2) because fucking sphere.

You can't fucking magic up a technology to generate a picture without a sufficient number of photons (just like you can't magic up extra resolution like the dumb CSI shows). You can't collect a sufficient number of photons without a huge fucking collection area. This isn't even physics, it's fucking geometry.

That telescope you referenced? It's for closer planets, we're talking 70*10^6 ly you piece of shit.

Idiots like you waste the time of real scientists.
#96 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
God I fucking hate you armchair physists. "Real" scientists, holy fucking shit you're head is far up your ass.

The first part is elementary. I get that, everyone gets that.

The second part is just stupid. 7,000,000 light years? Really? You mean twice the fucking distance to the Andromeda Galaxy? Why the fuck would we be looking there first? There are 400 BILLION stars in the Milky Way - a galaxy only 2,000 light years in diameter. There are even more planets. And a good percent are habitable. Even at a lovingly small 50 BILLION habitable planets and a generous 1 observation a week, it would take ~1 billion years to see them all. So why are you going so far out?

No, in reality we'll be looking close; for planets that we may be able to reach or communicate with. It'll takes us decades upon decades to observe all the planets within even 100 light years. You're 5 and a half orders of magnitude off again, but at least that number is going down. It will most likely be countless thousands, perhaps even millions, of years before we even glance at Andromeda Galaxy itself in hopes to find life. By then we'll have more advanced technology than we can even dream to fathom, a giant telescope or one that's incredibly advanced will probably be easy as shit. So why the fuck would you think we would be looking twice as far as there now instead of in our own neighborhood? Oh that's right, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

Just stop trying to sound smart. You're clueless. Admit you're wrong and move on.

P.S. What did "you said your a computer scientist" even mean? It wasn't even in a place to make it offensive. But yeah, since you asked, computer scientist.
#97 - anonymous (08/24/2014) [-]
> one that's incredibly advanced will probably be easy as ****.

This is the whole fucking point asshole. These are theoretical limits, you're never going to magically do better than them. Shit's like saying you're gonna find a free lunch or solve the halting problem. You can argue that it's possible to use self-replication or whatever the fuck science fiction to actually build a telescope that large, but it still has to be ridiculously sized.

> So why the **** would you think we would be looking twice as far as there now instead of in our own neighborhood?

The whole god damned premise was "when aliens in galaxies 70 million light years away" asshole.

> P.S. What did "you said your a computer scientist" even mean?
I asked before using big-O notation, because physicists use something similar when we're more interested in scaling. The fact that this confused you suggests that you're more likely IT than a scientist. Also, don't misquote me with your bitch-ass grammar mistakes.
User avatar #59 - jukuku (08/24/2014) [-]
I never said his measurements were accurate, my point is that the size needed to view objects in that clarity is fucking gigantic.

Unless we find some new way to bend light we're going to have a lot of trouble seeing objects at extreme distance in extreme detail. It will probably happen eventually but I seriously doubt it will happen anytime soon. And by the way the only way around the limit of size of the telescope is interferometry but that only works for infrared light.
User avatar #62 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
No, you don't understand. We are building a telescope capable of clearly observing planets. The European Extremely Large Telescope. It's a thing. No, it isn't at the level of clarity we are discussing, but it's getting incredibly close. And it may very well be able to show if a planet is vegetated or not (AKA the clarity we're discussing). And it's still just one building on a mountain. A trillion times smaller than what his number said it would have to be. We have mini sats with the goal of miniaturizing telescope tech such as BRITE and MOST.

He, and by extension you, are simpy wrong. No armchair physics needed here - the big boys already finished the discussion.

www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/20/spot-alien-life-european-extremely-large-telescope-chilean
User avatar #63 - jukuku (08/24/2014) [-]
Yes but it's capabilities follow the established equations for focusing light. If you want to have a higher magnification you need a bigger telescope. If you want to see something the size of a truck on a planet 20 lights years away the telescope would be absolutely massive, impractical due to it's size and the huge risk of being damaged by orbiting debris.

Again, my point isn't that we cannot identify planets in other solar systems or something like that, I'm saying that you won't see a truck on the surface of a planet because it would have to be a couple kilometers in diameter.

This link explains it in further detail.

www.rocketmime.com/astronomy/Telescope/Magnification.html

And I understand how telescopes work, not a single one of your examples is disproving what I'm saying, those telescopes are no where near accomplishing what we're talking about.
User avatar #66 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
Why would we need that level of detail? Aren't we just talking about identifying if there is any significant life? Seeing organisms themselves would be useless, since like already stated it would be millons of years ago and such. I was arguing for identifying life - not observing individuals.

But still, who knows what the future holds. Why limit our imagination proactively?
User avatar #68 - jukuku (08/24/2014) [-]
I'm not saying to abandon the possibility of new imaging technology but saying it will happen is just speculation.
#69 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
I can agree to that. Nice talking, buddy; have some thumbs.
User avatar #70 - jukuku (08/24/2014) [-]
Ditto.
User avatar #64 - jukuku (08/24/2014) [-]
Equations for a Schmidt Cassegrain telescope: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassegrain_reflector
#50 - Except nobody is making that stupidly impossible claim which i…  [+] (4 new replies) 08/24/2014 on Bill nye the awesome guy +1
User avatar #51 - KazumaKyu (08/24/2014) [-]
Comment #21: "You have abso-fucking-lutely no idea whether or not a telescope of that power would need to be that large, or whether it could be capable with something_ the size of your fucking iPhone_."

This is where I got the thing about the cellphone. I altered the actual insinuation to be slightly more ridiculous to give it more weight, which is probably why there is confusion.

Again, I'm not arguing with you. I am not all that well versed on this subject, nor do I pretend to be. All I was saying was that it helps to stay realistic.
#58 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
Micro satellites are a thing. Look up BRITE, MOST, and various other micro sats. Sure, they aren't fighting to be something like the James Webb, but they almost meet the iPhone size requirement. Truly miniscule. And available today.

Human achievements are pretty amazing, eh? Even the most rediculous claims seem to be possible once you start understanding the universe a bit.
User avatar #52 - KazumaKyu (08/24/2014) [-]
*sigh* It's shit like this that makes me want an edit button. Those failed underscores are driving me bonkers.
#60 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
Shit man, it's cool.
#33 - Except even by today's technology he is vastly wrong. He's abo…  [+] (6 new replies) 08/24/2014 on Bill nye the awesome guy +3
User avatar #34 - KazumaKyu (08/24/2014) [-]
I actually didn't even consider the size of the telescope he was talking about, I was just siding with him on the idea of not going overboard with fantasizing things. Yeah maybe one day we'll be able to hold our cellphones up to the sky and take an ultra- high-definition 3D picture of a moon rock... but it will not be this day, so why bother speculating randomly?
#50 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
Except nobody is making that stupidly impossible claim which is impossible by all known physics. All we're claiming is the ability to see if a planet contained life after fucking millions of years of technological development from where we are, when we are merely years from the facility that can do exactly that being built.
User avatar #51 - KazumaKyu (08/24/2014) [-]
Comment #21: "You have abso-fucking-lutely no idea whether or not a telescope of that power would need to be that large, or whether it could be capable with something_ the size of your fucking iPhone_."

This is where I got the thing about the cellphone. I altered the actual insinuation to be slightly more ridiculous to give it more weight, which is probably why there is confusion.

Again, I'm not arguing with you. I am not all that well versed on this subject, nor do I pretend to be. All I was saying was that it helps to stay realistic.
#58 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
Micro satellites are a thing. Look up BRITE, MOST, and various other micro sats. Sure, they aren't fighting to be something like the James Webb, but they almost meet the iPhone size requirement. Truly miniscule. And available today.

Human achievements are pretty amazing, eh? Even the most rediculous claims seem to be possible once you start understanding the universe a bit.
User avatar #52 - KazumaKyu (08/24/2014) [-]
*sigh* It's shit like this that makes me want an edit button. Those failed underscores are driving me bonkers.
#60 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
Shit man, it's cool.
#32 - In he 40s and 50s we thought we would have flying firefighters…  [+] (13 new replies) 08/23/2014 on Bill nye the awesome guy +11
User avatar #49 - jukuku (08/24/2014) [-]
"Things that were once thought to be impossible are no possible therefore everything is possible."

No. Maybe if you had the slightest concept of how optics worked you wouldn't be saying that.
#57 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
What the Hell are you talking about? I proved that his one example point was entirely wrong, by the damned twelfth order of magnitude even! And he said even hundreds of millions of years of more technological advancement wouldn't change that - except it's already fucking done.

And his point is basically "teach people that science has these set limits and they shouldn't even try to push the bounds", which is nothing but self-destructive. We can't do everything - but we can do so much. Look what we've done so far, with almost no knowledge at all. The perverbial sky is the limit, because we cannot even fathom what we may find. So why tell people that we can never get above a certain altitude? If we hit a limit, let us hit it and push it as hard as we can. But what if we don't? Isn't that something to dream about, even if it never comes?

P.S. Nope, don't know about optics. I'm a computer scientist not a physist. But that doesn't matter, because there are physists out there who do know - and proved you wrong.
#79 - anonymous (08/24/2014) [-]
Listen you uneducated faggot, let me try to explain this in terms your tiny brain can understand.

Photons travel in wave packets (you know, the whole quantum thing? No? Ok fine queer, quantum physics is named such because we discovered particles are quantized despite their wave-like properties. ie, a photon is a little tiny sphere and a finite number of them are reflected/emitted off a celestial body like the earth. They radiate and spread apart (you said you're a computer scientists right?) at O(r^2) because fucking sphere.

You can't fucking magic up a technology to generate a picture without a sufficient number of photons (just like you can't magic up extra resolution like the dumb CSI shows). You can't collect a sufficient number of photons without a huge fucking collection area. This isn't even physics, it's fucking geometry.

That telescope you referenced? It's for closer planets, we're talking 70*10^6 ly you piece of shit.

Idiots like you waste the time of real scientists.
#96 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
God I fucking hate you armchair physists. "Real" scientists, holy fucking shit you're head is far up your ass.

The first part is elementary. I get that, everyone gets that.

The second part is just stupid. 7,000,000 light years? Really? You mean twice the fucking distance to the Andromeda Galaxy? Why the fuck would we be looking there first? There are 400 BILLION stars in the Milky Way - a galaxy only 2,000 light years in diameter. There are even more planets. And a good percent are habitable. Even at a lovingly small 50 BILLION habitable planets and a generous 1 observation a week, it would take ~1 billion years to see them all. So why are you going so far out?

No, in reality we'll be looking close; for planets that we may be able to reach or communicate with. It'll takes us decades upon decades to observe all the planets within even 100 light years. You're 5 and a half orders of magnitude off again, but at least that number is going down. It will most likely be countless thousands, perhaps even millions, of years before we even glance at Andromeda Galaxy itself in hopes to find life. By then we'll have more advanced technology than we can even dream to fathom, a giant telescope or one that's incredibly advanced will probably be easy as shit. So why the fuck would you think we would be looking twice as far as there now instead of in our own neighborhood? Oh that's right, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

Just stop trying to sound smart. You're clueless. Admit you're wrong and move on.

P.S. What did "you said your a computer scientist" even mean? It wasn't even in a place to make it offensive. But yeah, since you asked, computer scientist.
#97 - anonymous (08/24/2014) [-]
> one that's incredibly advanced will probably be easy as ****.

This is the whole fucking point asshole. These are theoretical limits, you're never going to magically do better than them. Shit's like saying you're gonna find a free lunch or solve the halting problem. You can argue that it's possible to use self-replication or whatever the fuck science fiction to actually build a telescope that large, but it still has to be ridiculously sized.

> So why the **** would you think we would be looking twice as far as there now instead of in our own neighborhood?

The whole god damned premise was "when aliens in galaxies 70 million light years away" asshole.

> P.S. What did "you said your a computer scientist" even mean?
I asked before using big-O notation, because physicists use something similar when we're more interested in scaling. The fact that this confused you suggests that you're more likely IT than a scientist. Also, don't misquote me with your bitch-ass grammar mistakes.
User avatar #59 - jukuku (08/24/2014) [-]
I never said his measurements were accurate, my point is that the size needed to view objects in that clarity is fucking gigantic.

Unless we find some new way to bend light we're going to have a lot of trouble seeing objects at extreme distance in extreme detail. It will probably happen eventually but I seriously doubt it will happen anytime soon. And by the way the only way around the limit of size of the telescope is interferometry but that only works for infrared light.
User avatar #62 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
No, you don't understand. We are building a telescope capable of clearly observing planets. The European Extremely Large Telescope. It's a thing. No, it isn't at the level of clarity we are discussing, but it's getting incredibly close. And it may very well be able to show if a planet is vegetated or not (AKA the clarity we're discussing). And it's still just one building on a mountain. A trillion times smaller than what his number said it would have to be. We have mini sats with the goal of miniaturizing telescope tech such as BRITE and MOST.

He, and by extension you, are simpy wrong. No armchair physics needed here - the big boys already finished the discussion.

www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/20/spot-alien-life-european-extremely-large-telescope-chilean
User avatar #63 - jukuku (08/24/2014) [-]
Yes but it's capabilities follow the established equations for focusing light. If you want to have a higher magnification you need a bigger telescope. If you want to see something the size of a truck on a planet 20 lights years away the telescope would be absolutely massive, impractical due to it's size and the huge risk of being damaged by orbiting debris.

Again, my point isn't that we cannot identify planets in other solar systems or something like that, I'm saying that you won't see a truck on the surface of a planet because it would have to be a couple kilometers in diameter.

This link explains it in further detail.

www.rocketmime.com/astronomy/Telescope/Magnification.html

And I understand how telescopes work, not a single one of your examples is disproving what I'm saying, those telescopes are no where near accomplishing what we're talking about.
User avatar #66 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
Why would we need that level of detail? Aren't we just talking about identifying if there is any significant life? Seeing organisms themselves would be useless, since like already stated it would be millons of years ago and such. I was arguing for identifying life - not observing individuals.

But still, who knows what the future holds. Why limit our imagination proactively?
User avatar #68 - jukuku (08/24/2014) [-]
I'm not saying to abandon the possibility of new imaging technology but saying it will happen is just speculation.
#69 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
I can agree to that. Nice talking, buddy; have some thumbs.
User avatar #70 - jukuku (08/24/2014) [-]
Ditto.
User avatar #64 - jukuku (08/24/2014) [-]
Equations for a Schmidt Cassegrain telescope: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassegrain_reflector

user's channels

Join Subscribe morbid-channel
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 800

Comments(65):

[ 65 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #69 - notorc (08/12/2014) [-]
no ur a skrub
#70 to #69 - Fgner (08/12/2014) [-]
Am I a pretty scrub?
User avatar #72 to #70 - notorc (08/12/2014) [-]
also no.
User avatar #74 to #73 - notorc (08/12/2014) [-]
k.
#75 to #74 - Fgner (08/12/2014) [-]
Play with Walrus dick and I.
#76 to #75 - notorc (08/12/2014) [-]
Play what game?
#77 to #76 - Fgner (08/12/2014) [-]
What game makes your dick hardest?
#78 to #77 - notorc (08/12/2014) [-]
rawflucks
leljk
Good Games.
UHF.
Not Alive
Turning Simulator
Unghf
Rocks
Naops
Education
Dawgs
#82 to #79 - notorc (08/12/2014) [-]
wayke up moite.
User avatar #81 to #79 - notorc (08/12/2014) [-]
oi m8
User avatar #71 to #70 - notorc (08/12/2014) [-]
I have gotten info from an outside source that you are indeed, eff jee
#67 - dehumanizer ONLINE (05/28/2014) [-]
I did it man, had to fix a lot of other stuff but you definetly helped me yesterday. I am in debt.
User avatar #68 to #67 - Fgner (05/29/2014) [-]
No problem man.
#58 - dehumanizer ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
so...uh would you help me? :S
User avatar #59 to #58 - Fgner (05/25/2014) [-]
Sorry, I had some work to do and am about to hit the hay. I just looked to see if it was a quick fix, but all the names are like obfuscated code to me due to the "written in Russian" aspect of it. I'll take a look tomorrow with a fresh mind, sorry for keeping you waiting, man!
#61 to #59 - dehumanizer ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
ok this should be it, i've rewriten all of the printfs on english and changed some of the variable names so you'd understand might have created some errors tho but everything SHOULD theoreticly work, too bad it just crashes whenever i try to do any of the operations

it would really mean alot if you helped

pastebin.com/SZY2uNJ6
User avatar #62 to #61 - Fgner (05/25/2014) [-]
And what is the output of debugging/usage?
#63 to #62 - dehumanizer ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
eh what do you mean?
User avatar #64 to #63 - Fgner (05/25/2014) [-]
When you ran the program what was the error, and when you debugged, where was the problem area? If you haven't debugged it, you should probably do (and learn to if necessary) that.
#66 to #64 - dehumanizer ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
also in the output window it says cant find or open the pdb file
#65 to #64 - dehumanizer ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
expression (stream!=NULL)
#60 to #59 - dehumanizer ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
obi one you are my only hope, i have to get it finsihed by wendsday, err I'will try to make it all in english then post new version
User avatar #56 - splendiddust (11/18/2013) [-]
he mad
User avatar #52 - voltkills ONLINE (09/22/2013) [-]
>accuses me of having no idea what im talking about
>thinks only visuals makes it 100% immersive
>thinks a 2d moniter can be real 3d
>doesnt understand how camparisons across console generations work
wow much cool story
User avatar #53 to #52 - Fgner (09/22/2013) [-]
...What?

> You don't. I do. I'm a software/hardware engineer. I make indie games for fun. Games, software, and hardware is my business.

> Yes, the main human sense is sight. Our brain will go out of it's way to make other senses agree with our sight. For instance seeing a word mouthed while hearing another word will often lead to hearing the word being mouthed. It's magical **** . Immersiveness is all about visuals. Even the sense of touch is less important. Also - surround sound headphones/speakesr exist. So we also have sound covered. So we can immerse ourselves almost completely. Sure, we don't actually get hurt by the game - and we can't smell/taste the **** , nor do we have to expend the energy to move. But those are all bonuses. I don't want to ******* feel, smell, or taste anything I do in a video game. That would be Hell.

> It can - because there are 2 monitors. One for each eye. Each one is rendered separately at two different locations. These camera locations simulate where the human (or whatever else) eyes would be in the game. Our brain takes these two different images and combines them. The differences in location of the content in the images causes the brain to interpret depth. Therefore, you have 3D vision. The **** do you think eyes do? Take magical 3D scans of the environment? They take two 2D pictures, and use very cool brain magic to interpret depth. Lrn2Antmy. Lrn2Mth.

> This last one doesn't make sense. The point about Kinect is 100% valid?
User avatar #54 to #53 - covered (09/22/2013) [-]
Good point.
#51 - alZii has deleted their comment [-]
#49 - anonymous (10/02/2012) [-]
thumbed up your novel max times for anons. read whole thing. allmyfeels.jpg. anon cant comment more than once/hour. good luck my friend
#50 to #49 - Fgner (10/02/2012) [-]
Thanks, buddy! Have a great life, I hope I cross paths with you one day and get a chance to tickle your anus in return for those thumbs!
#47 - arthasthegreat (08/26/2012) [-]
subscribed, hope everything works good for you
User avatar #46 - fetuseater (08/26/2012) [-]
I'm subscribing, you should post content about it when you are done with the game you're making, I would love to work with you but I have no experience. Good luck man!
User avatar #48 to #46 - Fgner (08/26/2012) [-]
Games take a while, I'll try and prototype some stuff and have our artists come out with some concept art though. As well, I'll try and make sure to open a blog so you can watch development!
User avatar #42 - hakusprite **User deleted account** (08/26/2012) [-]
I'm expecting great things from you. Do not let me down.
User avatar #43 to #42 - Fgner (08/26/2012) [-]
I'll try my friend. Which one are you referring to so I know which blog to give you a link to when I start it!
User avatar #44 to #43 - hakusprite **User deleted account** (08/26/2012) [-]
The Pokemon clone.
User avatar #45 to #44 - Fgner (08/26/2012) [-]
Yes sir!
#30 - corkscrew (04/30/2012) [-]
I think Fgner is a pretty cool guy. Eh starts ********** and doesn't afraid of anything.

But seriously, you are pretty cool. You seemed very logical in all your arguments and were only brought down by the less intelligent people. In other words, you stooped to their level. The only times you swore were when people were cussing you out.
#31 to #31 - Fgner (04/30/2012) [-]
I liek you too corkscrew! just kidding i love you.

Yeah... That's a problem I have that I should probably fix...
#29 - potbrownies **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#28 - zhooker (03/09/2012) [-]
You are a ****** and I stole your waddymelonz
#25 - TuhRainbowLlama (03/09/2012) [-]
Just reminding you that you're a ****** .
User avatar #24 - semo (03/06/2012) [-]
i love you!
#23 - bellefly (03/06/2012) [-]
I LOVE YOU. :D <3333
#22 - darkjakel (03/06/2012) [-]
SO MUCH LOVE
User avatar #21 - peqit (03/06/2012) [-]
I love you dude! 3> I want buttsecks with you! 3> (sorry I didn't know how to turn "3" around)
#20 - froggoddess (03/06/2012) [-]
Comment Picture

[ 65 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)