bu de bu ai instrumental - SupahhKiD
Monday, January 12, 2009
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Are you a Right Clicka or an iBook Flippa?
I am a Right Clicka for sure.
I believe that the PC is much better than a Mac, in several ways.
Hardware - Sure, Mac has everything built in, so you don't need to buy any parts seperate. With the PC, you have to buy every piece seperate if you build it. However, the Mac would seem quite overpriced. If you compare the specifications of the Mac and to the equivalent of all the seperate peices, the seperate hardware would be cheaper. PC wins the hardware costs. Also, PC's can be upgraded, while Mac's can not.
Software - Of course, Mac has so much software already included when it is purchased, unlike PC, where you need to install every single peice manually. Mac even has exclusive software. The only downside to Mac is that most software sold today supports only PC. I think that Mac is better if you want the exclusive software, other than that, PC wins in the software department.
Overall Performance - Most of the time, Mac's will run for long times without a problem. PC is filled with virus' and spyware, which no one wants. I believe that Mac has better security, and if a PC is infected, it most likely would need a hard drive reformat. In other categories, PC can do things that the Mac can not.
In the end, I would choose the PC. For sure, the Mac has some great features I would like to have on my PC, but the problem with Mac's are that most games aren't supported on the Mac OS. If they did, I would consider buying a Mac for myself.
I believe that the PC is much better than a Mac, in several ways.
Hardware - Sure, Mac has everything built in, so you don't need to buy any parts seperate. With the PC, you have to buy every piece seperate if you build it. However, the Mac would seem quite overpriced. If you compare the specifications of the Mac and to the equivalent of all the seperate peices, the seperate hardware would be cheaper. PC wins the hardware costs. Also, PC's can be upgraded, while Mac's can not.
Software - Of course, Mac has so much software already included when it is purchased, unlike PC, where you need to install every single peice manually. Mac even has exclusive software. The only downside to Mac is that most software sold today supports only PC. I think that Mac is better if you want the exclusive software, other than that, PC wins in the software department.
Overall Performance - Most of the time, Mac's will run for long times without a problem. PC is filled with virus' and spyware, which no one wants. I believe that Mac has better security, and if a PC is infected, it most likely would need a hard drive reformat. In other categories, PC can do things that the Mac can not.
In the end, I would choose the PC. For sure, the Mac has some great features I would like to have on my PC, but the problem with Mac's are that most games aren't supported on the Mac OS. If they did, I would consider buying a Mac for myself.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Bigthink.com: Conversations about the BIG questions
http://www.bigthink.com/science-technology/the-internet/7941
I believe what he says is the truth. The internet is already very popular, and is already changing the way people get information, teach, and communicate. Instead of going to the library and looking for a book, we now use the internet to find whatever information we need without leaving our seat. Some schools teach through the internet; lessons, assignments, and materials, all through the internet. Of course, the internet is becoming a very, very popular tool for communication. You can send somebody a message a thousand kilometres away at the click of the button, and at a cheaper cost as well. The internet has influenced the world because of it's accessibility to anyone around the world. People will eventually see that using the internet will be somewhat more of an efficient way to make their life even a little bit easier.
The only problem with the internet is that anyone can access whatever is on it. Unless each piece of information is encrypted and password protected, personal information will never be safe online. This is probably the only reason why the world hasn't replaced old methods of information and daily life living with the internet.
I think the site is quite... plain. I'm not one of those people who are good for discussion, so I would personally try to avoid this site... The concept is good, however, there is too little room for open ideas.
I believe what he says is the truth. The internet is already very popular, and is already changing the way people get information, teach, and communicate. Instead of going to the library and looking for a book, we now use the internet to find whatever information we need without leaving our seat. Some schools teach through the internet; lessons, assignments, and materials, all through the internet. Of course, the internet is becoming a very, very popular tool for communication. You can send somebody a message a thousand kilometres away at the click of the button, and at a cheaper cost as well. The internet has influenced the world because of it's accessibility to anyone around the world. People will eventually see that using the internet will be somewhat more of an efficient way to make their life even a little bit easier.
The only problem with the internet is that anyone can access whatever is on it. Unless each piece of information is encrypted and password protected, personal information will never be safe online. This is probably the only reason why the world hasn't replaced old methods of information and daily life living with the internet.
I think the site is quite... plain. I'm not one of those people who are good for discussion, so I would personally try to avoid this site... The concept is good, however, there is too little room for open ideas.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Prepare to be Amazed: When Graphic Artists Get Bored
I think that the image of the four pandas would be my favourite. If you know your music, the four pandas are supposed to represent the rock band "Kiss." If you notice their pattern on their faces, they are the same as the members of Kiss' face makeup. I find it quite funny to represent a rock band by panda's.
I think that the artist started with a normal picture of four pandas, then decided what they should do with them. They removed the original patterns of the panda's, probably using a clone stamp of some sort, and created images outlines using the pencil tool with black. Afterwards, they created a brush which would give the "texture" of the panda's fur, and changed it's colour to black. After getting it finished, the artist added the cigarette into one of the panda's mouths. There seems to be alot of blurring at the edges of the eye designs, so the blur or smudge tool was most likely used.
If I had as much experience as these graphic artists, I would love to merge a light bulb with a firefly, so it would look like a flying light bulb. I find that funny for some reason.
I think that the artist started with a normal picture of four pandas, then decided what they should do with them. They removed the original patterns of the panda's, probably using a clone stamp of some sort, and created images outlines using the pencil tool with black. Afterwards, they created a brush which would give the "texture" of the panda's fur, and changed it's colour to black. After getting it finished, the artist added the cigarette into one of the panda's mouths. There seems to be alot of blurring at the edges of the eye designs, so the blur or smudge tool was most likely used.
If I had as much experience as these graphic artists, I would love to merge a light bulb with a firefly, so it would look like a flying light bulb. I find that funny for some reason.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Pirating, Me Maties!
The intent of file sharing was good. The outcome, bad. It has become producer's worst nightmare, and client's best friend. File sharing is legal, if the file isn't copyrighted. So, anything is allowed to be sent from one computer to another legally, as long as it isn't copyrighted. However, people are sharing files that are copyrighted can be sued by the original owner if caught, which is bad.
I think that this has become a huge issue in today's media, and should be stopped. It isn't fair for the creators to have sold one copy of their work, but to find it on everybody's computer. Although it is very convenient for us clients, it hurts the creator's pocket. I am pretty sure that each person with an internet connection has heard of file sharing, and has or plans on using it, especially to get those expensive programs such as Photoshop and Illustrator. It's a fact that file sharing is much better than buying the product. Why pay for something if you can get it for free?
Downloading software or music is something probably everyone does if they own a MP3 player and computer. Many people might not like a full album, so they can download songs individually.
Expensive software, such as Photoshop, is used in schools, making it impossible to do homework. File sharing has made it possible for the poor man to be able to do homework with expensive software. I don't believe that file sharing is really that bad, unless it's abused (such as selling bootleg copies).
For me, I use file sharing for strictly discontinued products (such as Super Nintendo™ games) and use them for private use, as well as freeware. For music, I just listen to the radio. If I use file sharing for those very expensive programs needed for school, I use them until I am certain I don't need them anymore and delete them.
I think that this has become a huge issue in today's media, and should be stopped. It isn't fair for the creators to have sold one copy of their work, but to find it on everybody's computer. Although it is very convenient for us clients, it hurts the creator's pocket. I am pretty sure that each person with an internet connection has heard of file sharing, and has or plans on using it, especially to get those expensive programs such as Photoshop and Illustrator. It's a fact that file sharing is much better than buying the product. Why pay for something if you can get it for free?
Downloading software or music is something probably everyone does if they own a MP3 player and computer. Many people might not like a full album, so they can download songs individually.
Expensive software, such as Photoshop, is used in schools, making it impossible to do homework. File sharing has made it possible for the poor man to be able to do homework with expensive software. I don't believe that file sharing is really that bad, unless it's abused (such as selling bootleg copies).
For me, I use file sharing for strictly discontinued products (such as Super Nintendo™ games) and use them for private use, as well as freeware. For music, I just listen to the radio. If I use file sharing for those very expensive programs needed for school, I use them until I am certain I don't need them anymore and delete them.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Walking The Talk
I leave a footprint of 6.5 global hectares. If everyone lived like me, 3.6 planets would be needed appearantly.
As long as I'm under Canada's average footprint, I don't feel bad about how I contribute to the Earth's destruction. Maybe if everyone started to live like me, I would try to lower my footprint, but until then, I think it's fine.
I am aware that the Earth is slowly dying because of the way each person lives. The most surprising was on how we eat, and what we eat. That affects our ecological footprint by the most. For all of my life, I've been told to eat healthy, which would be according to the food pyramid and suggested servings. If the food pyramid was followed by everyone who wants to live a healthy life, each one of those person's footprint would be about as large as mine, maybe some differences due to housing and transportation. So, the choice given to me is save the Earth, or live healthy. I would choose the latter.
If I were to save the Earth, there isn't much I could do to lessen the impact of my ecological footprint. Sure, I could eat less, but that would not be healthy. I could walk more and be late for school everyday, but that would get me suspended. I already recycle what I can, and walk to local stores, which should lessen the impact on Earth. The only thing that I could do that I don't already do to help the Earth, is probably spend less time using electronics. Maybe cutting the use from video games
from almost sixteen hours a day to four would be most helpful.
The interactive website is not really helpful, as it doesn't think of the people's situations and variables. To me, it's showing how much North America is greedy to the rest of the world, especially Aftrica, where the footprint is less than one. Theirs are less than one because many live on the edge of starvation, and get very little income to purchase anything they want. I take it as the site wants us to live like the starving African's to help the world. In final, the site is not practical to change your daily living, but it does tell you what effect you have on the Earth.
As long as I'm under Canada's average footprint, I don't feel bad about how I contribute to the Earth's destruction. Maybe if everyone started to live like me, I would try to lower my footprint, but until then, I think it's fine.
I am aware that the Earth is slowly dying because of the way each person lives. The most surprising was on how we eat, and what we eat. That affects our ecological footprint by the most. For all of my life, I've been told to eat healthy, which would be according to the food pyramid and suggested servings. If the food pyramid was followed by everyone who wants to live a healthy life, each one of those person's footprint would be about as large as mine, maybe some differences due to housing and transportation. So, the choice given to me is save the Earth, or live healthy. I would choose the latter.
If I were to save the Earth, there isn't much I could do to lessen the impact of my ecological footprint. Sure, I could eat less, but that would not be healthy. I could walk more and be late for school everyday, but that would get me suspended. I already recycle what I can, and walk to local stores, which should lessen the impact on Earth. The only thing that I could do that I don't already do to help the Earth, is probably spend less time using electronics. Maybe cutting the use from video games
from almost sixteen hours a day to four would be most helpful.
The interactive website is not really helpful, as it doesn't think of the people's situations and variables. To me, it's showing how much North America is greedy to the rest of the world, especially Aftrica, where the footprint is less than one. Theirs are less than one because many live on the edge of starvation, and get very little income to purchase anything they want. I take it as the site wants us to live like the starving African's to help the world. In final, the site is not practical to change your daily living, but it does tell you what effect you have on the Earth.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
"Halo 3" Be Thy Name
Video games or movies? That's a hard question.
I think that movies are still much more popular than video games, but that may change, as studies show that video games are as addictive as heroin (Source: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Video-Game-Addiction-Classified-as-Mental-Illness-58164.shtml). As many people know, heroin is one of the most addictive drugs. So, once you get lured into video games, it'd be hard to get out of it.
Movies are not like this. Movies are usually watched only once, meaning they are not as addictive.
Both video games and movies have different genres inside of each, however sometimes they are related. Lets take a look at horror, which is a genre for movies. Many games can be combined with one of it's own genres and horror, making a horror game. A great example would be the game Resident Evil. It originated from video game systems, and went on to the movie business. This would mean that games can become the basis of movies.
Due to my experience with video games, I really think that video games are becoming more and more popular. Newer games are being introduced that are appealing to everyone. Video games tend to get boring to play by yourself, so you would ask a friend to come and play with you. If they haven't played a video game, they will most likely start playing once they had played once. Video games are much more entertaining than movies in my opinion, because they are interactive, unlike movies. Sure, both movies and video games get you thinking, but video games make you do a certain task to advance, where the movie does it all for you. Games can make you want to play them over and over again, where you can follow different paths, do different things, making video games re-playable. Movies will always show the same thing over and over again, so it would get quite boring after a while.
In conclusion, I think movies are still quite popular, but video games will soon surpass movies in the field of popularity.
I think that movies are still much more popular than video games, but that may change, as studies show that video games are as addictive as heroin (Source: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Video-Game-Addiction-Classified-as-Mental-Illness-58164.shtml). As many people know, heroin is one of the most addictive drugs. So, once you get lured into video games, it'd be hard to get out of it.
Movies are not like this. Movies are usually watched only once, meaning they are not as addictive.
Both video games and movies have different genres inside of each, however sometimes they are related. Lets take a look at horror, which is a genre for movies. Many games can be combined with one of it's own genres and horror, making a horror game. A great example would be the game Resident Evil. It originated from video game systems, and went on to the movie business. This would mean that games can become the basis of movies.
Due to my experience with video games, I really think that video games are becoming more and more popular. Newer games are being introduced that are appealing to everyone. Video games tend to get boring to play by yourself, so you would ask a friend to come and play with you. If they haven't played a video game, they will most likely start playing once they had played once. Video games are much more entertaining than movies in my opinion, because they are interactive, unlike movies. Sure, both movies and video games get you thinking, but video games make you do a certain task to advance, where the movie does it all for you. Games can make you want to play them over and over again, where you can follow different paths, do different things, making video games re-playable. Movies will always show the same thing over and over again, so it would get quite boring after a while.
In conclusion, I think movies are still quite popular, but video games will soon surpass movies in the field of popularity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)