Thursday, January 3, 2008

Cursor*10

Flash game. Very awesome.

That's my high-score. It might be possible to beat it, but it also might not be. Try it.

Posted by MA17 at 9:21 PM

17 comments:

MA17 said...

Figures a screenshot would be too wide and clip the important info.

High score: 188

January 3, 2008 at 9:24 PM
_J_ said...

I showed this to Mikey and he said, "YES!" and pointed.

January 3, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Mike Lewis said...

better than shitting myself - i am looking at you jay

January 3, 2008 at 9:29 PM
_J_ said...

My God. I'm being looked at.

January 3, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Kylebrown said...

I made 100 even and was very happy with that. The 99 click box kills me, I don't rapid click very fast.

January 4, 2008 at 12:36 PM
_J_ said...

Which is to say that you do not rapid click.

January 4, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Kylebrown said...

Meant to say 'I don't rapid click well', mind was wandering and fingers typing without first checking with mind as to what they should have been typing. I do rapid click. But my rapid clicking is nowhere near as rapid as others would rapidly click.

January 4, 2008 at 2:42 PM
_J_ said...

"I do rapid click. But my rapid clicking is nowhere near as rapid as others would rapidly click."

Which is to say that you do not rapid click.

"Rapid" is not relative. It is not the case that all people rapidly click and some rapidly click more rapidly than others. That is insanity.

Rather, "rapid" clicking occurs at X clicks per second. An individual who cannot click at X clicks per second is not, in fact, "rapid" clicking.

Certainly all individuals (excluding quadriplegics) can click. But not all individuals can rapidly click since not all individuals are capable of achieving and maintaining "rapid" speeds.

January 4, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Kylebrown said...

Rapid is absolutely a relative term. It does not define a distinct number of clicks over a given period of time. If I am clicking the mouse 3 or 4 times a second that would be considered rapid, but someone with a more proficient index finger could easily click the mouse more rapidly than me. Also, when rapidly clicking a mouse I tend to slow down over time as I lose focus. This is not to say that I am no longer rapidly clicking the mouse, but instead just clicking it at a less rapid pace than I was previously.

Any adjective/adverb that differentiates based on a degree in one direction or another is used in a relative manner, i.e. 'rapid'

January 4, 2008 at 4:48 PM
_J_ said...

So...

Player A clicks at 12 clicks per second.
Player B clicks at 8 clicks per second.

We have no means of determining who is clicking rapidly as "rapid" is a term defined relative to one's normal clicking speed.

Though, we could define "rapid" relative to one another, so 12 clicks would be more rapid than 8 clicks, but it would not necessarily be the case that 12 clicks is, in fact, rapid as 14 clicks would be more rapid.

We could say that everyone is always only ever clicking rapidly. Unless as a whole humanity clicked less rapidly, which could only be defined relative to the prior rapid clicking.

But if everyone was always clicking rapidly then they would not be clicking rapidly, as rapid speed would be more swift than a normal speed. So once our previously rapid speed became our normal speed it would not longer be rapid but rather normal provided that swifter speeds were possible.

January 4, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Roscoe said...

The interesting thing here?

J's initial fault with Kyle is not one of definition, but of grammar.

He just gets himself lost in attempting to justify it.

Rapidity is utterly relative, as it only measures one measurement in relation to another. Pretty definitory there.

that said, the argument that Kyle does not rapid click is valid, if it's made on the grounds that the two words represent a single composite noun. If rapid clicking is an action, then it becomes absolute. You can't complete the required action, therefore you do not rapid click.

See... J's correct up until he shifts terminology and uses the adverbial. It is absolutely the case that all people rapidly click (assuming for the moment that the set we are talking about are those who click at all), and some more rapidly click than others. At this point, he breaks up the composite noun at the center of his argument, and begins using rapidly to describe the clicking. No longer do the two function as a single concept.

January 4, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Roscoe said...

What you're missing, J, is the comparison of not of My clicks per X vs. His clicks per X, but the comparison between Clicks and X.

That is where the case for rapidity is made. Thus it's relative nature.

January 4, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Kylebrown said...

The problem is that you have a preconceived notion of what an average click speed is and then go on to decide that rapid clicking is explicitly faster than this defined speed.

I think Ros is correct that at some point an ambiguous action called 'rapid clicking' was created in this conversation because of my poor grammar.

I should have stated, 'I don't rapidly click well' and that would have solved everything.

January 4, 2008 at 5:22 PM
_J_ said...

The structure of "rapid click" was the foundation for my idea of a certain speed of clicking being "rapid clicking" wereas all other clicking would be non-rapid.

But I also was making the argument that "rapid" is not relative. If "rapid click" can be an absolute then "rapid" can be an absolute as well.

Like how "running quickly" does not depend on the normal speeds of the individual. Certain groups of people can run quickly and Mikey cannot run quickly. Mikey can run but Mikey cannot run quickly. It is not the case that Mikey can run quickly but not as quickly as others.

In the same sense there is no "darker shade of black". There is black and shades of grey.

That's my thought on the matter.

January 4, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Roscoe said...

Then by that argument, Rapidity is a finite limit.

But clearly, there can be levels of rapidity, just as there can be differing sets of infinity, with one set including more than another set.

Proprotionally, the infinite set of whole numbers is twice as large as the infinite set of even numbers.

And yet, both are infinite. One is relatively larger than the other.

The only other way your argument can work is if rapidity represents an absolute limit, absolute speed, if you will. the movement over time equivalent to absolute zero.. or.... actually.. it would represent the opposite of absolute zero, total entropy. Absolute zero is the hypothetical temperature where movement stops on the molecular level.. and rapidity would be the opposite, the finite upper limit of movement over time...

January 5, 2008 at 1:33 AM
Kylebrown said...

Are you saying that a person can in this example click at a specific setting of speeds, or in the other example run at one single speed?

Of course not, one can run slowly, aka jogging, or one can run quickly aka sprinting. To take it one step further one can jog slowly or quickly (quickly obviously being a synonym for rapidly in these examples, I hate when you force me to be this explicit). Sprinting, in my opinion is not a relative term and therefore can not be done quickly or slowly, as sprinting, to my knowledge means to run as fast as a person possibly can. Important to note here is that everyone can sprint (that has legs obviously), but not everyone sprints at the same speed.

As I stated earlier, any adjective or adverb that describes a degree of something, outside of edge cases, which rapid is obviously not, is by definition a relative term.

January 5, 2008 at 2:01 AM
Roscoe said...

not at all. a Slow Sprint beats a brisk pace, but pales in comparison to an all out run for your life.


This is the beauty of the English language. All of our words are mutable, and we can model oxymoronic concpets.

January 5, 2008 at 3:38 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)