This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

30fps is superior to 60fps

#21GM_Posted 7/16/2014 10:57:37 AM
Goldninja posted...
If you can't tell the difference between them, you have bigger problems. Get those eyes checked.

Yet another example of someone thinking their personal experience matters more than actual scientific fact.


He copied something I said in another topic and twisted it around to make this one. Look at my post above yours.
---
CooperRC: "The 360 and PS3 are just fighting in the special olympics, the PC version is king."
#22GoldninjaPosted 7/16/2014 10:59:01 AM
GM_ posted...
Goldninja posted...
If you can't tell the difference between them, you have bigger problems. Get those eyes checked.

Yet another example of someone thinking their personal experience matters more than actual scientific fact.


He copied something I said in another topic and twisted it around to make this one. Look at my post above yours.


Ah. "Cinematic experience" should have been the first clue. lol K.
---
You guys just took a dump on my soul - mastahjebus
#23jokujokujokuPosted 7/16/2014 11:01:03 AM
wildog2006 posted...
This topic is now about how many hamsters would need to be stacked on top of each other in order to reach the moon.


It depends. It depends on what kind of hamster, and where in the orbit the moon is. I'll assume the moon is at its average distance (238,857 miles). And I'll guess at an approximate height of the average hamster at about 1.5 inches (some sources say 6 inches, but that's clearly length, not height). That being the case, it would take 10089319680 hamsters (approximately) stacked one on top of the other in order to reach the moon.

Now clearly such a stack would not be stable. A more stable formation would one hamster standing on the backs of four hamsters beneath it. So the top layer would have one hamster, the next would have 4, the next 9, etc. If we use this model, the number of hamsters required would be 3.42X10^29.

This number can vary drastically depending on the specific distance the moon is at, and the specific height of the hamsters. And obviously this doesn't take into account the troubles of weightlessness so far up, or just how you're going to get so many hamsters to stand still, or how the weight would positively crush the hamsters on the bottom. And at that point, it's probably better to just pile up a bunch of dead hamsters, but that's rather an unpleasant thought.

So, yeah. My estimate is 3.42X10^29 hamsters.
#24LOLIAmAnAltPosted 7/16/2014 11:02:00 AM(edited)
Nex-Gen63759 posted...
-Back in my day people didn't care about graphics

Uhh, when was this ever a thing? This really was never a thing.

BUT!
But...more importantly, why did wildog2006's post get moderated.
Like seriously, ???????
---
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
#25Arcadia__personPosted 7/16/2014 11:04:49 AM
People in here are aware the TC isn't being serious, right?
---
3DS F.C = 0387 - 9320 - 6533. Eric from Hawkeye
#26ChickenAndJuicePosted 7/16/2014 11:06:38 AM
jokujokujoku
Continuously trying to derail a topic, even after that post got deleted, is against the rules.
#27wildog2006Posted 7/16/2014 11:48:39 AM
Arcadia__person posted...
People in here are aware the TC isn't being serious, right?


sssshhhhh, We're talking about hamsters now.
---
London-SV on Throttle Control in Gran Turismo 6 ~ ''Unless you're flooring it at every opportunity... Try to be a little more genital on the accelerator''
#28Puckswack12Posted 7/16/2014 11:55:17 AM
This topic is much better now that hamsters are involved.

Now if we only had some gerbles..
---
Yup
#29SirkPosted 7/16/2014 12:05:06 PM(edited)
Nex-Gen63759 posted...
-60 FPS doesn't matter because gameplay matters more


Which has nothing to do with 30 fps being better.

A little too obviously trolling.

EDIT:
Arcadia__person posted...
People in here are aware the TC isn't being serious, right?


I tell people this too, because so many people do fall for troll topics (ESPECIALLY on social media sites, people will believe the whole world is stupid before looking in the mirror), but I'd be lying if I said I didn't derive any fun from participating in them.
---
It takes both rain and shine to make a rainbow.
#30phoxxentPosted 7/16/2014 12:08:06 PM
jokujokujoku posted...
wildog2006 posted...
This topic is now about how many hamsters would need to be stacked on top of each other in order to reach the moon.


It depends. It depends on what kind of hamster, and where in the orbit the moon is. I'll assume the moon is at its average distance (238,857 miles). And I'll guess at an approximate height of the average hamster at about 1.5 inches (some sources say 6 inches, but that's clearly length, not height). That being the case, it would take 10089319680 hamsters (approximately) stacked one on top of the other in order to reach the moon.

Now clearly such a stack would not be stable. A more stable formation would one hamster standing on the backs of four hamsters beneath it. So the top layer would have one hamster, the next would have 4, the next 9, etc. If we use this model, the number of hamsters required would be 3.42X10^29.

This number can vary drastically depending on the specific distance the moon is at, and the specific height of the hamsters. And obviously this doesn't take into account the troubles of weightlessness so far up, or just how you're going to get so many hamsters to stand still, or how the weight would positively crush the hamsters on the bottom. And at that point, it's probably better to just pile up a bunch of dead hamsters, but that's rather an unpleasant thought.

So, yeah. My estimate is 3.42X10^29 hamsters.


What about their position on the earth and elevation relative to sea level? are they just in the middle of a desert that is somehow exactly at sea level? Did they start on Ayers Rock? Come on, this is very important and must be brought into the equation!