I love my beard...I see it as a survival adaptation. It keeps my face warm during the cold winter months. Since 2004, I have never once completely shaved my beard, and it has never let me down in all that time.
Be kind to your beards, gentlemen...they deserve it. []
Showing posts with label random thoughts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label random thoughts. Show all posts
15 February 2012
01 June 2011
May get a citation for this...[]
Wait, what? Posting again? Weird...
I had a sudden and disturbing thought today and used it as an excuse to breathe some life back into this blog: in this exciting new era of the e-book, how does citation work?
My thought process began as I pondered my Kindle collection and the books I've been reading of late on that wondrous device. As I was at the time strolling across a college campus, my thoughts then turned to textbooks. I recalled my days as an undergraduate, when I made sure to hit the campus bookstore early on the first day of class to ensure the purchase of my required textbooks. The realization struck me that, with my Kindle, I would need merely to check the titles of the necessary books and search for them in the Kindle Store. Theoretically, nearly all of my required literature for the semester could then be downloaded to one small device, likely for much less expense than the purchase of the hard-copy books (even at used-book prices). I imagined myself explaining to a professor that indeed I did have my textbook out in front of me, that it was on my Kindle. A new age of convenience...
...except when the time would come for paper writing. How exactly does one cite an eBook source? Granted, Kindle is gradually phasing in page numbers instead of "locations," but even that is dependent on the specified text size and column width.
Granted, I've seen plenty of works that cite merely the source work, not the specific page number. For their own purposes, that may be fine, but the typical college (to say nothing of high school) course requires "(Smith 23)"-style citations.
...they'll have to update the stylebooks. As far as the bibliography/works cited page goes, publication information should be easy, although "Kindle edition" will have to be specified. For in-text references, perhaps something like "(Smith Loc. 123) will suffice. Just has to be clear and unambiguous. Being that locations in Kindle books are very much specific, this shouldn't be too much of a problem. Just have to wait until a standard is decided, I suppose...
Peace,
JT
I had a sudden and disturbing thought today and used it as an excuse to breathe some life back into this blog: in this exciting new era of the e-book, how does citation work?
My thought process began as I pondered my Kindle collection and the books I've been reading of late on that wondrous device. As I was at the time strolling across a college campus, my thoughts then turned to textbooks. I recalled my days as an undergraduate, when I made sure to hit the campus bookstore early on the first day of class to ensure the purchase of my required textbooks. The realization struck me that, with my Kindle, I would need merely to check the titles of the necessary books and search for them in the Kindle Store. Theoretically, nearly all of my required literature for the semester could then be downloaded to one small device, likely for much less expense than the purchase of the hard-copy books (even at used-book prices). I imagined myself explaining to a professor that indeed I did have my textbook out in front of me, that it was on my Kindle. A new age of convenience...
...except when the time would come for paper writing. How exactly does one cite an eBook source? Granted, Kindle is gradually phasing in page numbers instead of "locations," but even that is dependent on the specified text size and column width.
Granted, I've seen plenty of works that cite merely the source work, not the specific page number. For their own purposes, that may be fine, but the typical college (to say nothing of high school) course requires "(Smith 23)"-style citations.
...they'll have to update the stylebooks. As far as the bibliography/works cited page goes, publication information should be easy, although "Kindle edition" will have to be specified. For in-text references, perhaps something like "(Smith Loc. 123) will suffice. Just has to be clear and unambiguous. Being that locations in Kindle books are very much specific, this shouldn't be too much of a problem. Just have to wait until a standard is decided, I suppose...
Peace,
JT
09 March 2011
2D vs 3D...[]
So I'm the type of fighting gamer who splits the 2D-3D divide. I'll play Street Fighter or King of Fighters as soon as Tekken or Soul Calibur. There are those who only play one or the other, and I respect their opinions. However, I find enough depth in either style to satisfy me (pun severely intended).
My friends who play solely 3D fighters are of the viewpoint that the extra dimension allows for a more in-depth, realistic experience. To a point, this is true; most people can't jump twice their body height, and linear footwork almost never happens in a real fight. However, anyone who's played Soul Calibur, for instance, knows that there can't really be any claim to realism, as characters who are hit by swords, axes, etc. don't even bleed, much less lose limbs. Even Tekken has its glaring moments of hypo-realism, as gameplay often revolves around juggling the opponent's body in mid-air, which can be accomplished with something as simple as a jab.
Come to think of it, that brings up another weakness of the 3D genre, which isn't so much a genre weakness but a market weakness. While the 2D fighting scene has several Capcom series (including the Vs. series with Marvel, SNK, and Tatsunoko), at least one currently-running SNK series (King of Fighters XIII will hopefully make it to console soon), and now even several Arcsys series running (Guilty Gear, BlazBlue), along with any number of other companies entering into the fray (I don't care what anyone says, Battle Fantasia was fun), the 3D fighting scene, at least here in the States, is Tekken, Soul Calibur, Virtua Fighter, and Dead or Alive. Half of that is from a single company, and the other two have only made lackluster appearances of late (DoA's Xbox exclusivity is a real drag, since the Xbox controller is just not made for fighting games, and Virtua Fighter 5 made the "bold" move of going to the then-new generation of consoles without an online multiplayer mode). Even Mortal Kombat has jumped the 3D ship and is returning to its 2D roots. Street Fighter 4's popularity has opened the door for 2D fighters with 3D character models to return (Street Fighter EX3 tried, but couldn't quite make it, and King of Fighters Maximum Impact/2006 didn't go far either) with a vengeance. So really, there's just a dearth of variety, compared to the 2D scene.
I also counter the argument that 2D fighters are lacking a dimension compared to 3D fighters, since they do have a "third" dimension which isn't used much by 3D fighters: height. In 3D fighters, characters move forward, backward, and to the side. In 2D fighters, characters move forward, backward...and upward. Jumping is vastly more important in 2D fighters than in 3D fighters, whose characters hardly ever jump more than a few feet from the ground (again, realism).
I guess my overall point is that I'm a fighting game fan, pure and simple. If it's a quality fighter, 2D or 3D, I'll play it.
Peace,
JT
My friends who play solely 3D fighters are of the viewpoint that the extra dimension allows for a more in-depth, realistic experience. To a point, this is true; most people can't jump twice their body height, and linear footwork almost never happens in a real fight. However, anyone who's played Soul Calibur, for instance, knows that there can't really be any claim to realism, as characters who are hit by swords, axes, etc. don't even bleed, much less lose limbs. Even Tekken has its glaring moments of hypo-realism, as gameplay often revolves around juggling the opponent's body in mid-air, which can be accomplished with something as simple as a jab.
Come to think of it, that brings up another weakness of the 3D genre, which isn't so much a genre weakness but a market weakness. While the 2D fighting scene has several Capcom series (including the Vs. series with Marvel, SNK, and Tatsunoko), at least one currently-running SNK series (King of Fighters XIII will hopefully make it to console soon), and now even several Arcsys series running (Guilty Gear, BlazBlue), along with any number of other companies entering into the fray (I don't care what anyone says, Battle Fantasia was fun), the 3D fighting scene, at least here in the States, is Tekken, Soul Calibur, Virtua Fighter, and Dead or Alive. Half of that is from a single company, and the other two have only made lackluster appearances of late (DoA's Xbox exclusivity is a real drag, since the Xbox controller is just not made for fighting games, and Virtua Fighter 5 made the "bold" move of going to the then-new generation of consoles without an online multiplayer mode). Even Mortal Kombat has jumped the 3D ship and is returning to its 2D roots. Street Fighter 4's popularity has opened the door for 2D fighters with 3D character models to return (Street Fighter EX3 tried, but couldn't quite make it, and King of Fighters Maximum Impact/2006 didn't go far either) with a vengeance. So really, there's just a dearth of variety, compared to the 2D scene.
I also counter the argument that 2D fighters are lacking a dimension compared to 3D fighters, since they do have a "third" dimension which isn't used much by 3D fighters: height. In 3D fighters, characters move forward, backward, and to the side. In 2D fighters, characters move forward, backward...and upward. Jumping is vastly more important in 2D fighters than in 3D fighters, whose characters hardly ever jump more than a few feet from the ground (again, realism).
I guess my overall point is that I'm a fighting game fan, pure and simple. If it's a quality fighter, 2D or 3D, I'll play it.
Peace,
JT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)